It is currently Thu Sep 18, 2014 6:45 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 401 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Your opinion on US gun laws under Obama.
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2012 7:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:12 am
Posts: 2831
Location: USA
Nicias wrote:
I've been following this thread for a while, and wow. That is just crazy-talk. The difference between the Holocaust and the treatment of the American Indians by the United States is a matter of degree, speed, mobilization, and industrialization. It is actually a reasonable topic of discussion. What would Andrew Jackson and others have done if they had had the power of an industrialized state? Does the fact that it took hundreds of years make it any less worse of a crime? These are actually reasonable questions.

Take hundreds of years to do what? The European settlers (and later USA) clashed with some (but not all) Indians in warfare for many years. IMO, that was not a one-sided series of events. The Indians inflicted as many atrocities (for no legitimate reason) against Europeans and Americans as was inflicted on them. IMO, the root of the problem was that many of the Indians were nomadic and not prepared to get along with anyone they encountered, and that often included other Indian tribes who they also fought against. As I mentioned before, American Indians were great warriors long before Europeans arrived in America.

By the time President Jackson came along, he personally hated the Indians so much that he wanted them relocated, but he did not exterminate them. He did not hate them just because of their race, etc, he hated them because he fought wars with them for many years (often started by the Indians), and some of his relatives (civilians) were killed by Indians. That's not an excuse, but it is not the same as Adolf Hitler.

Some of the Cherokee voluntarily signed agreements to be relocated to Oklahoma where they were given land and money. Many of them chose not to relocate and are still in the Southeast US. So I do not at all think it is just a matter of degree between what happened in Nazi Germany and what happened in America with the Indians. I think it is obscene to make that comparison. The violation of some Indian treaties does not come anywhere near the level of what happened in WWII and Nazi Germany. If Jackson wanted to exterminate the Indians in the Southeast US (mostly Cherokee) he would have had no problem in doing so without the industrialization you are talking about.

I am not sure why there is so much focus on the American Indians and the suggestion that it was the same as Nazi Germany. but just a matter of degree. Certainly the US did many worse things in its history, such as slavery. The American Indians are not gone from the US. They are still in the US and have significant land holdings.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Your opinion on US gun laws under Obama.
PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 2:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 2:55 am
Posts: 257
Location: Naples, Italy
Nicias wrote:
I've been following this thread for a while, and wow. That is just crazy-talk. The difference between the Holocaust and the treatment of the American Indians by the United States is a matter of degree, speed, mobilization, and industrialization. It is actually a reasonable topic of discussion. What would Andrew Jackson and others have done if they had had the power of an industrialized state? Does the fact that it took hundreds of years make it any less worse of a crime? These are actually reasonable questions.


Actually, I think we've gone far beyond off-topic in the last month.
What about opening a new thread on legislation in the US?

_________________
Visit my site www.flapane.com - MY GALLERY - MY Linux/OSX REPOSITORY
PC Intel i3-2120 - Ibook 12'' 1,33ghz 1.5GB PC333 160GB- MBP 15'' i7 2,2ghz 4GB - T-Mobile Vibrant - YamahaP90 - Nikon D80/18-105


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Your opinion on US gun laws under Obama.
PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 3:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:12 am
Posts: 2831
Location: USA
flapane wrote:
Actually, I think we've gone far beyond off-topic in the last month.
What about opening a new thread on legislation in the US?

I agree we are getting off topic (even in an off-topic thread). But it is somewhat useful to understand why:

The discussion about gun legislation came up, and that led to a discussion of the US Constitution and the 2nd amendment, which provides the right to bear arms. Any gun legislation in the US must pass a constitutionality test, ultimately decided by the US Supreme Court.

This led to a discussion of why the 2nd amendment (right to bear arms) exists in the Bill of Rights to the Constitution in the first place. The main reason for the 2nd amendment was to prevent an overbearing government from being able to infringe on the rights of the people. The framers of the Constitution knew that the American Revolution would not have been possible if citizens were disarmed by the British colonial government.

That led to a discussion of how difficult it is to change the US Constitution, and how hard it would be for a despot to get elected and change the other constitutional laws, and to eliminate truly free elections, etc, and for the Federal government to usurp powers and rights granted to the states and to the people. Then some people claimed that if the US had been in the same situation as Germany following WWI, the US Constitution would not have been able to stop Adolf Hitler from taking power. I disagreed, saying it would be much less likely for what happened in Germany in the early 1930’s to happen in the US, due to the US Constitution, its difficult amendment process, its separation of powers, its provision for states rights (10th amendment), etc. The same Constitutional difficulty would be encountered if someone tried to completely ban guns in the US.

Then some claimed that what happened to American Indians in the US was in fact the same as what Hitler did during WWII, but just a matter of degree, and spread out over a longer period of time. They tried to argue that the US Constitution did not protect the US from the kinds of things that happened in Nazi Germany from happening in the US, because basically the same kinds of things as happened in Nazi Germany did happen in the US, as evidenced by the American Indians. Those are pretty serious charges, which I personally believe are made solely to try and diminish the relative severity of horrors of Nazi Germany prior to and during WWII, by attempting to say that the US is no better.

But clearly, if one is talking about gun legislation in the US, one has to consider the US Constitution, specifically the 2nd amendment, which provides for the right to bear arms. Many Europeans who live in countries where their parliament can overturn any previous law by a majority vote, don’t quite understand the role of the US Constitution, the US Supreme Court, etc if one wants to change something in the US Constitution. Certainly, some level of gun control probably would pass a constitution test (since some level of gun control does already exist in all states and at the federal level), but a total banning of guns probably would not pass the Constitutional test as the 2nd amendment now exists.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Your opinion on US gun laws under Obama.
PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 5:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 11:14 am
Posts: 75
m0002a wrote:
Take hundreds of years to do what? .....

I really don't want to get into this with you, but here is the basic facts. Before 1492, there were no Europeans in North America, and millions of Native Americans.

By 1900, there were millions of Europeans and almost no Native Americans. The Europeans had almost all the good land all of the power. That is what happened.

I'm not trying to demonize the United States, some of my family has been here for almost 400 years. I'm also not claiming that this was novel in history. Almost every scrap of land has been fought over and the current inhabitants probably exterminated or drove off the previous ones, who probably did the same to the people who were there before them and so forth.

If say, the Chinese (picked totally at random) landed a boat in California, and 90% of the population in the US died from some new diseases that we hadn't seen before (even if that infection was not intentional) we would call total BS on them just setting up shop in San Fransisco because it was "unoccupied." Then they keep building more settlements, and out breeding us and look they "need" more space, and our lifestyle just takes too much so we should move? We would definitely start shooting at them.

Like I said, this isn't unique to America, it was SOP for everyone. However now we say that this kind of behavior is unacceptable. So, just like slavery, we say some things this country did in the past we hold with some shame now. Mostly what we don't say is "it could never happen here" because that makes us complacent. We say "we won't ever let it happen here again."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Your opinion on US gun laws under Obama.
PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 5:40 am 
Offline
Patron of SPCR

Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 3302
Location: Essex, England
Quote:
Anyway, you never responded to the case where Columbia (I believe that was the country) has 0 gold, 3 silver, and 4 bronze, and a couple of other countries have one gold and no other medals. Do you think (if you are so obsessed with scoring) that that the country with only one gold medal should be ranked higher than Columbia? I suppose your answer might be skewed by the current results for GB, but speaking objectively, do you really think that?


A.) I am not "obsessed" with scoring, just the way some idiots lay the table out, which directly contradicts the way that the people who run the Olympics say that the medals should be counted.

B.) I expect the Colombians to feel that they almost had 7-Gold medals and that the position that they are is on the table reflects that, gold is the target for everyone, not Silver or Bronze.

C.) I did respond to your point about Colombia, you chose to ignore it, so I will repeat it. As I have already said, the only other sensible way to count the medals is to give them points, 3 for Gold, 2 for Silver and 1 for Bronze, this scoring system would would reflect well on the countries outside of the top 5, but wouldn't make much difference to the top of the table.

As for the sense of humour, I laugh at some people quite often.


Andy

_________________
Main PC, P180, CM Silent Pro 500M, i5 3570k @ 4.2Ghz, 8-GB @ 2,000MHz, 256 GB Samsung 830, 500-GB 7K500, MSI 660Ti Twin Frozr, PC is super quiet :o
Server, 6-TB RAID-5 array, + 2 x 2-TB backup drives, 380W Enermax Pro82+, 4x very quiet fans, positive pressure only, no exhaust fans
Living Room PC, 3500+, 2-GB RAM, HD501LJ


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Your opinion on US gun laws under Obama.
PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 6:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 2:55 am
Posts: 257
Location: Naples, Italy
@m0002a
I agree, and it's interesting for us to understand how things work in the US (that's why I proposed to open a new thread), but I feel that the thread is just loosing its original purpose.
It would be interesting to read new opinions from gun supporters (and why this is a right thing in 2012) and from their opponents (and why the "right to bear arms" is not up-to-date nowadays)... I even posted an interesting article.
If we end up writing about Nazis and native Americans, I'm afraid that we're preventing new users to contribute to the gun/no_gun matter (when a thread usually goes OT, it's difficult new users to post new in-topic posts).

_________________
Visit my site www.flapane.com - MY GALLERY - MY Linux/OSX REPOSITORY
PC Intel i3-2120 - Ibook 12'' 1,33ghz 1.5GB PC333 160GB- MBP 15'' i7 2,2ghz 4GB - T-Mobile Vibrant - YamahaP90 - Nikon D80/18-105


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Your opinion on US gun laws under Obama.
PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 6:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 4:27 am
Posts: 1728
Location: Switzerland
m0002a wrote:
I disagreed, saying it would be much less likely for what happened in Germany in the early 1930’s to happen in the US, due to the US Constitution, its difficult amendment process, its separation of powers, its provision for states rights (10th amendment), etc.

In your last post, you didn't say that. You said liberals, conservatives and other non-Marxists in the US wouldn't have voted for a dictatorship whereas they voted for Hitler's dictatorship in Germany, hinting at some kind of essential differences between yanks and Germans but certainly not at institutional differences!
If you can't fathom yanks voting for a dictatorship, transpose instead US institutios to Germany. What would have stopped the dictatorship? Which German states do you think would have resisted Hitler for instance?

The US Constitution is no obstacle to change, as history has shown. It's been abused, suspended and changed many times, and not always democratically.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Your opinion on US gun laws under Obama.
PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 6:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 4:27 am
Posts: 1728
Location: Switzerland
flapane wrote:
It would be interesting to read new opinions from gun supporters (and why this is a right thing in 2012)

Where guns are illegal, only the cops, the military and other criminals have guns.
Guns and especially weapons like the AR-15 are great for self-defense and are more effective than any constitution at keeping the likes of Hitler at bay.

International comparisons have shown that violence is very poorly correlated with legal gun ownership.
The USA has a violence problem, not a gun problem.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Your opinion on US gun laws under Obama.
PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 7:43 am 
Offline
Patron of SPCR

Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 3302
Location: Essex, England
Quote:
The USA has a violence problem, not a gun problem.


I pretty much said that a few pages back, the subject then moved onto groups who commit far more crime as a percentage of their population.

That as I said at the time is "part" of the problem, being able to get guns legally or illegally is so damned easy in America is another problem, neither one of these is a issue on its own, but add them together and you have a seriously high murder rate and regular massacre's.

The thing that seems to be a sticking point is the fact that American politicians are unable to pass laws to reduce the gun ownership because of the lack of power to do so because of a lack of political majority, and the fear that they will loose the next election or the current one if they push for a change in law because the American people value human life less than gun ownership (or as some like to call it, freedom and liberty blah blah blah).

Reducing violent crime in any country is a very difficult thing to do, reducing the number of guns is much easier that changing the mind set of 300 Million people. And before anyone points out the obvious points, they have been done before and I don't want to hear it again because it is tedious and boring, especially the bits about how wonderful America is, and how this or that could never happen because of the way the political system is set up, and how I should keep my nose out of this because I am not American and all of that dull bullshit.


Andy

_________________
Main PC, P180, CM Silent Pro 500M, i5 3570k @ 4.2Ghz, 8-GB @ 2,000MHz, 256 GB Samsung 830, 500-GB 7K500, MSI 660Ti Twin Frozr, PC is super quiet :o
Server, 6-TB RAID-5 array, + 2 x 2-TB backup drives, 380W Enermax Pro82+, 4x very quiet fans, positive pressure only, no exhaust fans
Living Room PC, 3500+, 2-GB RAM, HD501LJ


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Your opinion on US gun laws under Obama.
PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 7:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 2:55 am
Posts: 257
Location: Naples, Italy
HFat wrote:
International comparisons have shown that violence is very poorly correlated with legal gun ownership.


As I remember having heard such thing elsewhere some time ago (it was a sort of GOP association who defended the Constitution values, so it's a sort of biased POV... unfortunately I don't remember its name), can you find any trustworthy and neutral source?

Apart from this, as andyb already noted, we can't deny that widespread gun ownership is a part of a problem.
I guess there should be a reason (please note that I feel comfortable and safe walking in most part of the US even at night. However if you want to get in troubles or if you don't know exactly where to go, it is far easier than in Italy, and sketchy 'hoods in the US are far more dangerous) for this violence problem and higer murder rates compared to other countries. We can't always reduce such matter to a Nazi/Fascist/dictatorship prevention thing.

_________________
Visit my site www.flapane.com - MY GALLERY - MY Linux/OSX REPOSITORY
PC Intel i3-2120 - Ibook 12'' 1,33ghz 1.5GB PC333 160GB- MBP 15'' i7 2,2ghz 4GB - T-Mobile Vibrant - YamahaP90 - Nikon D80/18-105


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Your opinion on US gun laws under Obama.
PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 8:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:12 am
Posts: 2831
Location: USA
andyb wrote:
(A.) I am not "obsessed" with scoring, just the way some idiots lay the table out, which directly contradicts the way that the people who run the Olympics say that the medals should be counted.

B.) I expect the Colombians to feel that they almost had 7-Gold medals and that the position that they are is on the table reflects that, gold is the target for everyone, not Silver or Bronze.

C.) I did respond to your point about Colombia, you chose to ignore it, so I will repeat it. As I have already said, the only other sensible way to count the medals is to give them points, 3 for Gold, 2 for Silver and 1 for Bronze, this scoring system would would reflect well on the countries outside of the top 5, but wouldn't make much difference to the top of the table.

As for the sense of humour, I laugh at some people quite often.


Andy

I think your proposed scoring is good (3 for gold, 2 for silver, 1 for bronze). I would even be OK with 5,3,1. If the OC adopts such as method, I am quite sure the media in the US would comply, although there is freedom of the press in the US and we can't force them to do anything.

Your statement "way that the people who run the Olympics say that the medals should be counted" is not correct since the OC specifically say there is no officially approved method. BTW, I notice that Google lists them in order by Gold.


Last edited by m0002a on Sat Aug 11, 2012 10:21 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Your opinion on US gun laws under Obama.
PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 8:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 4:27 am
Posts: 1728
Location: Switzerland
flapane wrote:
can you find any trustworthy and neutral source?

How about doing it yourself? Nothing will convince you better. It's not terribly hard, you know. Compare Italy and Switzerland for instance...
If you don't trust yourself, try the Wikipedia's sources. They used the 2007 numbers of http://www.smallarmssurvey.org (from a reputed international graduate studies program) and "EG Krug, KE Powell and LL Dahlberg, Firearm-related deaths in the United States and 35 other high- and upper-middle-income countries, International Journal of Epidemiology, 1998". Result: gun ownership is 4 times higher in Switzerland and firearm-related homicides are 3 times higher in Italy. And Switzerland is by no means an exception. The comparison between Italy and Germany is even more striking (maybe because there are fewer Italians living in Germany :-).

flapane wrote:
I guess there should be a reason ... for this violence problem and higer murder rates compared to other countries.

Obviously there are reasons. There shouldn't be only one however.
If you want to know the reasons, try a fact-based approach. Look at the locales and groups which have more violence. Violence is far from well-distributed in the US!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Your opinion on US gun laws under Obama.
PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 8:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:12 am
Posts: 2831
Location: USA
HFat wrote:
Guns and especially weapons like the AR-15 are great for self-defense and are more effective than any constitution at keeping the likes of Hitler at bay.

It is the US Constitution which allows people to have guns. That part you mention about "keeping the likes of Hitler at bay" is why the framers of the Constitution included the right to bear arms in the Bill of Rights (first ten ammendments to the Constitution).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Your opinion on US gun laws under Obama.
PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 9:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:12 am
Posts: 2831
Location: USA
Nicias wrote:
I really don't want to get into this with you, but here is the basic facts. Before 1492, there were no Europeans in North America, and millions of Native Americans.

By 1900, there were millions of Europeans and almost no Native Americans. The Europeans had almost all the good land all of the power. That is what happened.

I'm not trying to demonize the United States, some of my family has been here for almost 400 years. I'm also not claiming that this was novel in history. Almost every scrap of land has been fought over and the current inhabitants probably exterminated or drove off the previous ones, who probably did the same to the people who were there before them and so forth.

If say, the Chinese (picked totally at random) landed a boat in California, and 90% of the population in the US died from some new diseases that we hadn't seen before (even if that infection was not intentional) we would call total BS on them just setting up shop in San Fransisco because it was "unoccupied." Then they keep building more settlements, and out breeding us and look they "need" more space, and our lifestyle just takes too much so we should move? We would definitely start shooting at them.

Like I said, this isn't unique to America, it was SOP for everyone. However now we say that this kind of behavior is unacceptable. So, just like slavery, we say some things this country did in the past we hold with some shame now. Mostly what we don't say is "it could never happen here" because that makes us complacent. We say "we won't ever let it happen here again."


I do not want to diminish whatever injustices were done to American Indians, but I believe you overall perspective is not correct, and your facts are wrong. But the main point is that comparing accidental deaths caused by European diseases, or accidental deaths during in the Trial of Tears, should not be compared to what Nazi Germany did in attacking other countries and conducting the holocaust. There was more than enough land to support both the Indians and settlers, but being a nomadic society the Indians were unable to live in peace with others, including other Indians (which is why they were great warriors before the Europeans arrived). The cultural conflicts were too great.

Here is a quote from Wikipedia with a more balanced view:
“On the 2010 census 0.9 percent of the U.S. population identified themselves as being Native American (or Alaskan Native). [that would be about 3 million people.] No conclusive evidence exists to determine how many native people lived in North America before the arrival of Columbus. The Library of Congress uses 900,000 as the total number in its educational article "Destroying the Native American Cultures". By 1800, the native population of the present-day United States had declined to approximately 600,000, and only 250,000 Native Americans remained in the 1890s. As the direct result of written and broken treaties, warfare, and of forced assimilation, the Indians were virtually destroyed by the European immigration that created the United States. Scholars believe that among the causes of the overwhelming population decline of the American natives were new infectious diseases carried by Europeans. Native Americans had no acquired immunity to such diseases, which had been chronic in Eurasian populations for centuries. For instance, some estimates indicate case fatality rates of 80–90% in Native American populations during smallpox epidemics.”

Here is a statement about how many were killed as a result of direct combat between Indians and the US government:
“According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census (1894), "The Indian wars under the government of the United States have been more than 40 in number. They have cost the lives of about 19,000 white men, women and children, including those killed in individual combats, and the lives of about 30,000 Indians."

I don't object to saying that Indians were treated very unfairly, and that many of them died in wars against the settlers, or by disease, etc. But this is not the same as what happened in Nazi Germany and it is obscene to make such suggestions IMO.

Here are some little known facts about American Indians in the Civil War:
28,693 Native Americans served in the Union and Confederate armies during the Civil War, participating in battles such as Pea Ridge, Second Manassas, Antietam, Spotsylvania, Cold Harbor, and in Federal assaults on Petersburg. A few Native American tribes, such as the Creek and the Choctaw, were slaveholders and found a political and economic commonality with the Confederacy. The Choctaw owned nearly 6000 slaves.

Lincoln and the American Indians:
As a result of Indian massacres of white settlers, Lincoln authorized the execution of 39 Sioux in December of 1861, and ordered that the others be held pending further orders, "taking care that they neither escape nor are subjected to any unlawful violence." From January to May 1863, there were almost continuous fights in the New Mexico territory, as part of a concerted effort by the Federal government to contain and control the Apache; in the midst of all this, President Abraham Lincoln peacefully met with representatives from several major tribes, and informed them he felt concerned they would never attain the prosperity of the white race unless they turned to farming as a way of life, instead of being a nomadic society.

Nicias wrote:
Mostly what we don't say is "it could never happen here" because that makes us complacent. We say "we won't ever let it happen here again."

I never suggested it can't happen here. I have suggested that important Constitutional safeguards should be in place to make it less likely it can happen here. Often times just saying "we won't ever let it happen here again" is not enough.

This whole discussion about the Indians began with what happens when the Constitution is ignored, or direct orders of the US Supreme Court are ignored, such as what Andrew Jackson did regarding the Trail of Tears. In a similar manner, some today want to ignore what the Constitution says about the right to bear arms. Once exceptions are made to ignore one part of the Constitution, the whole thing is subject to be ignored. IMO, the rule of law is more important than the unfortunate consequences of upholding bad laws.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Your opinion on US gun laws under Obama.
PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 10:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:12 am
Posts: 2831
Location: USA
HFat wrote:
In your last post, you didn't say that. You said liberals, conservatives and other non-Marxists in the US wouldn't have voted for a dictatorship whereas they voted for Hitler's dictatorship in Germany, hinting at some kind of essential differences between yanks and Germans but certainly not at institutional differences!
If you can't fathom yanks voting for a dictatorship, transpose instead US institutios to Germany. What would have stopped the dictatorship? Which German states do you think would have resisted Hitler for instance?

The US Constitution is no obstacle to change, as history has shown. It's been abused, suspended and changed many times, and not always democratically.

Actually I said the opposite of what you said I implied. I have specifically said previously that I don’t think the USA is immune to the pressures of electing potential despots. The American people are human and just as susceptible to succumbing to demagoguery as people from other countries.

What I said was that in the US, although one can vote for a despot who wants to create a dictatorship, one cannot directly create a dictatorship simply by voting for a dictator, or even for voting for a Congress who wants to declare a dictatorship. There are Constitutional safeguards in place to “substantially help” prevent that from happening, which are beyond the direct control of Congress and the President. If changes to the US constitution are desired, then it must be approved by ¾ of the states, and the somewhat difficult Constitutional amendment process helps prevent snap decisions that may be later regretted.

I never said a dictatorship can’t happen in the US, I said it less likely to happen in the US, because of the US Constitution. However, if we start regarding the US Constitution as something that can easily be interpreted into something it clearly does not say, then the whole Constitution may someday become subject to be ignored when some think it is convenient to do so. So far, we are not at that point yet, but some are advocating that we ignore the 2nd amendment, even if a Constitutional Amendment to change it would not be ratified.

However, I did say that because of the de facto two party system in the US, and the Electoral College (which requires an absolute majority of electors in order to become President), it seems to me that extremist parties are less likely to elect a President, but this is not because the American people are any better than any other people.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Your opinion on US gun laws under Obama.
PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 10:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 4:27 am
Posts: 1728
Location: Switzerland
I have corrected you enough times already. Now you're purposely ignoring the facts and just plain lying. Germans didn't elect Hitler.
Germany's former constitutional arrangements allowed for more Marxists to be elected than would have been under the US system. As a result, Germany managed to keep fairly free elections until 1933. Under the US system, the Nazis would have been able to impose a dictatorship earlier since a minority of US voters can control the federal government as well as a majority of states (as was demonstrated historically) whereas it took a super-majority of German voters to effect constitutional changes. The Marxist vote was not sufficiently regionally concentrated for them to have been able to take advantage of the US system. That's a fact. But it won't stop you from lying.

And it's also a fact that parties backed by a minority of the people can get a majority of electors in the US since you don't have PR. The US has backward institutions whose potentially disastrous effects were demonstrated in practice long ago.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Your opinion on US gun laws under Obama.
PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 10:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:12 am
Posts: 2831
Location: USA
HFat wrote:
I have corrected you enough times already. Now you're purposely ignoring the facts and just plain lying. Germans didn't elect Hitler.Germany's former constitutional arrangements allowed for more Marxists to be elected than would have been under the US system. As a result, Germany managed to keep fairly free elections until 1933. Under the US system, the Nazis would have been able to impose a dictatorship earlier since a minority of US voters can control the federal government as well as a majority of states (as was demonstrated historically) whereas it took a super-majority of German voters to effect constitutional changes. The Marxist vote was not sufficiently regionally concentrated for them to have been able to take advantage of the US system. That's a fact. But it won't stop you from lying.

I am not lying. I believe you are materially mis-characterizing what I said. The US President and Congress have very limited powers and do not (even if they act in collusion) have the power to establish a dictatorship in the US. That's not to say it could never happen, but the US Constitution laws regarding democracy and elections cannot be be changed by the President and Congress alone, super-majority or not.

So it doesn't matter how many Marxists are allowed to be elected to the Legislature or Parliament or whatever to prevent a fascist dictatorship in the US. The US Congress does not have the power to approve or create a dictatorship (nor does the President have that power).

I understand you claim about majority vs super-majority, but from a practical standpoint, and from the long history of respect for the Constitution in the US, I don't think it as likely to happen that the US will ever have a dictatorship. Also, as I said before, I don't think the American people are any better than any other people, so it is hard to explain the long history of democracy in the US without some acknowledgment of the role that the US Constitution has played in maintaining the democratic tradition and the rule of law. Otherwise, the only other explanation is that the American people are better than other people, and I don't believe that to be true.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Your opinion on US gun laws under Obama.
PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 11:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 4:27 am
Posts: 1728
Location: Switzerland
Pappnaas wrote:
actually i have read Das Kapital and can tell you first hand that the theory in there isn't something to be feared.

A pedantic point which might be useful to someone someday: the word "Marxist" has come to mean something else than "interested in or following the theories you can find in Marx's writings". The word might occasionally be used differently but it typically to a specific political idelogy which emerged at a later date.

m0002a wrote:
So it doesn't matter how many Marxists are allowed to be elected to the Legislature or Parliament or whatever to prevent a fascist dictatorship in the US.

Yes, and that's one reason why your institutional setup is worse than the one of pre-Nazi Germany. I refuse to believe you're so thick as to fail to understand that you've made this point already and that it was already acknowledged.
As I have explain upteen times since, it was easier for the Nazis and their supporters to control most of the German equivalent of states. I even asked you questions on this matter and you have declined to argue the point.
Yet you keep making the same points as if nothing happend. And you keep ignoring the historical failures of US institutions. What else is new?
Hopefully everyone else interested in the rise to power of the Nazis has got the message. I was willing to induldge you to some extant because it's an important topic. Unless someone else is interested in the other topics raised here, that's my last word on these matters.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Your opinion on US gun laws under Obama.
PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 12:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:12 am
Posts: 2831
Location: USA
HFat wrote:
Yes, and that's one reason why your institutional setup is worse than the one of pre-Nazi Germany. I refuse to believe you're so thick as to fail to understand that you've made this point already and that it was already acknowledged.
As I have explain upteen times since, it was easier for the Nazis and their supporters to control most of the German equivalent of states. I even asked you questions on this matter and you have declined to argue the point.
Yet you keep making the same points as if nothing happend. And you keep ignoring the historical failures of US institutions. What else is new?
Hopefully everyone else interested in the rise to power of the Nazis has got the message. I was willing to induldge you to some extant because it's an important topic. Unless someone else is interested in the other topics raised here, that's my last word on these matters.

I am sorry, but I don't really understand your point, so it is difficult for me to respond when I am just guessing what you mean. I am not intentionly ignoring your points.

I never said it was impossible for a dictatorship to be created in the US. Anything is possible. But I just think it is less likely, and that the Constitution plays a large part in that. Yes, there have been some "failures" in American institutions, but nothing anywhere near the extent of creating a dictatorship in the US.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Your opinion on US gun laws under Obama.
PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 2:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 11:14 am
Posts: 75
m0002a wrote:
I do not want to diminish whatever injustices were done to American Indians, but I believe you overall perspective is not correct, and your facts are wrong. But the main point is that comparing accidental deaths caused by European diseases, or accidental deaths during in the Trial of Tears, should not be compared to what Nazi Germany did in attacking other countries and conducting the holocaust. There was more than enough land to support both the Indians and settlers, but being a nomadic society the Indians were unable to live in peace with others, including other Indians (which is why they were great warriors before the Europeans arrived). The cultural conflicts were too great.

Ok, so since when do the foreigners get to decide if there is enough land? What if Canada said "well, you aren't using this land here" when it is part of a park, or just sitting fallow for a year for rotation or whatever? If they sent in a couple of million settlers, (to make the numbers a little more in line with today's number.) America would get pissed. Why would they get to pick what land is in use? Generally speaking, the people who live in a place get to say who moves there.


Quote:
Here is a quote from Wikipedia with a more balanced view:
“On the 2010 census 0.9 percent of the U.S. population identified themselves as being Native American (or Alaskan Native). [that would be about 3 million people.] No conclusive evidence exists to determine how many native people lived in North America before the arrival of Columbus. The Library of Congress uses 900,000 as the total number in its educational article "Destroying the Native American Cultures". By 1800, the native population of the present-day United States had declined to approximately 600,000, and only 250,000 Native Americans remained in the 1890s. As the direct result of written and broken treaties, warfare, and of forced assimilation, the Indians were virtually destroyed by the European immigration that created the United States. Scholars believe that among the causes of the overwhelming population decline of the American natives were new infectious diseases carried by Europeans. Native Americans had no acquired immunity to such diseases, which had been chronic in Eurasian populations for centuries. For instance, some estimates indicate case fatality rates of 80–90% in Native American populations during smallpox epidemics.”


A lot of current scholarship indicates that by the time much of North America was contacted by Europeans, disease from Central America had already reduced their numbers greatly, and that much of the "virgin forest" that the Europeans encountered was actually tended and controlled with, for example, periodic burning. Some estimates have up to 100 million living in the America's overall.

Quote:
Here is a statement about how many were killed as a result of direct combat between Indians and the US government:
“According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census (1894), "The Indian wars under the government of the United States have been more than 40 in number. They have cost the lives of about 19,000 white men, women and children, including those killed in individual combats, and the lives of about 30,000 Indians."


All I am saying is 1491: 100% Native Americans, 2010: 0.9% Native Americans. Seems like someone got their country taken. Also comparing numbers today to numbers then is silly. Let's use some round numbers. Let's say there were a million Native Americans in what is now the US in 1491. That is about a third of the population of England at that time. (quick google found that out.) So assuming that they could have industrialized in a similar fashion if they had been provided with the knowledge and know how in a modern free-trade, open market way, seems likely they would have the same rate of increase in population that England has had. England currently has about 50 million people. An increase of about 17 fold. So while their are comparable numbers of Native Americans today, if they had truly just being living and growing in concert with their neighbors, their should be something like 17 million Native Americans, which there are not.

The United States was stolen. Almost all countries in the world have stolen their land from someone. It is how the world used to work. It isn't how it works now.
Quote:
I don't object to saying that Indians were treated very unfairly, and that many of them died in wars against the settlers, or by disease, etc. But this is not the same as what happened in Nazi Germany and it is obscene to make such suggestions IMO.

So let me get this right:
  1. The settling of the United States was a continued, multi-generational effort to deprive a people of their land, lively hood, and sometimes lives, so that another group can grow and reach their full potential. It is "obscene" to compare this to the programs and agenda of Nazi Germany.
  2. Someone having an opinion on a bulletin board makes them comparable to Hitler.
Are these really the two positions you are asserting at the same time?


Quote:
Here are some little known facts about American Indians in the Civil War:
28,693 Native Americans served in the Union and Confederate armies during the Civil War, participating in battles such as Pea Ridge, Second Manassas, Antietam, Spotsylvania, Cold Harbor, and in Federal assaults on Petersburg. A few Native American tribes, such as the Creek and the Choctaw, were slaveholders and found a political and economic commonality with the Confederacy. The Choctaw owned nearly 6000 slaves.

Lincoln and the American Indians:
As a result of Indian massacres of white settlers, Lincoln authorized the execution of 39 Sioux in December of 1861, and ordered that the others be held pending further orders, "taking care that they neither escape nor are subjected to any unlawful violence." From January to May 1863, there were almost continuous fights in the New Mexico territory, as part of a concerted effort by the Federal government to contain and control the Apache; in the midst of all this, President Abraham Lincoln peacefully met with representatives from several major tribes, and informed them he felt concerned they would never attain the prosperity of the white race unless they turned to farming as a way of life, instead of being a nomadic society.

I don't see how this helps you. Lincoln is even saying "we will out compete you for your land if you don't start farming."

Quote:
Once exceptions are made to ignore one part of the Constitution, the whole thing is subject to be ignored. IMO, the rule of law is more important than the unfortunate consequences of upholding bad laws.

Ok, so here's the crux. To get back on topic. The actual text is "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

First it isn't clear to me that they mean security from invasion or domestic tyranny, however I will, for the purpose of debate, consider that they mean 'from domestic tyranny.'

Note that it does not say "no person shall be deprived of the right to keep and bear arms" (compare the Fifth "No person shall be held to answer....") 'The people' is a collective noun, like 'the herd'. For instance in the preamble the use of "We the people" means the collective group, not the collection of individuals. Compare the dictionary definition of "people" to "persons."

Also, it does not say "for the defense of their home."

So in particular what it doesn't say is "I can have a gun to shoot someone who comes into my house without asking." It seems concerned with the security of the state not the home.

So one reasonable interpretation might be that this means that it should be lawful to form organized militias, at the state level (like the National Guard before it was nationalized) or even at the local level (like volunteer fire fighters sometimes are.) These groups could then be as heavily armed as they would need to be to defend their region against invasion or tyranny. Probably similar to the armament of the National Guard. However, it would still be illegal to just go firing off those weapons for fun or the like, and maybe also for "stand your ground" or home invasion with non-lethal force.

That isn't what we have at all right now. If you think a handgun would actually stop the government from doing something to you, you need to look twice at the size of your weapons and the size of theirs. If the federal government wanted to say, round up American citizens of Japanese ancestry and put them in camps, they could. Oh, wait, they did. If the president wanted to suspend habeaus corpus, and institute martial law in some states, he could, oh wait, Lincoln did. Personal firearm ownership did not stop these two instances of tyranny.

Personal ownership of small arms does not satisfy the purpose nor the letter of what the 2nd amendment. Looking at the gun law with a non-NRA, non-GOP approved eye isn't the same thing as "expectations being made to the Constitution."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Your opinion on US gun laws under Obama.
PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 4:55 pm 
Offline
Patron of SPCR

Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 3302
Location: Essex, England
Quote:
Ok, so here's the crux. To get back on topic. The actual text is "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

First it isn't clear to me that they mean security from invasion or domestic tyranny, however I will, for the purpose of debate, consider that they mean 'from domestic tyranny.'

Note that it does not say "no person shall be deprived of the right to keep and bear arms" (compare the Fifth "No person shall be held to answer....") 'The people' is a collective noun, like 'the herd'. For instance in the preamble the use of "We the people" means the collective group, not the collection of individuals. Compare the dictionary definition of "people" to "persons."

Also, it does not say "for the defense of their home."

So in particular what it doesn't say is "I can have a gun to shoot someone who comes into my house without asking." It seems concerned with the security of the state not the home.

So one reasonable interpretation might be that this means that it should be lawful to form organized militias, at the state level (like the National Guard before it was nationalized) or even at the local level (like volunteer fire fighters sometimes are.) These groups could then be as heavily armed as they would need to be to defend their region against invasion or tyranny. Probably similar to the armament of the National Guard. However, it would still be illegal to just go firing off those weapons for fun or the like, and maybe also for "stand your ground" or home invasion with non-lethal force.

That isn't what we have at all right now. If you think a handgun would actually stop the government from doing something to you, you need to look twice at the size of your weapons and the size of theirs. If the federal government wanted to say, round up American citizens of Japanese ancestry and put them in camps, they could. Oh, wait, they did. If the president wanted to suspend habeaus corpus, and institute martial law in some states, he could, oh wait, Lincoln did. Personal firearm ownership did not stop these two instances of tyranny.

Personal ownership of small arms does not satisfy the purpose nor the letter of what the 2nd amendment. Looking at the gun law with a non-NRA, non-GOP approved eye isn't the same thing as "expectations being made to the Constitution."


I congratulate you sir on an excellent post, especially the part about what the constitution actually say and backing up my point about "some people" deliberately misinterpreting the meaning, and claim that they have a "right to own machine guns, sniper rifles, pump-action shotguns and multi-shot concealable weapons", and worse still, they argue that "their right" is the law, and that it is almost impossible to change, so difficult that no-one even attempts to change it whilst at the same time claiming that they need guns to hunt deer - of course a MAC-10 is an ideal choice.


Andy

_________________
Main PC, P180, CM Silent Pro 500M, i5 3570k @ 4.2Ghz, 8-GB @ 2,000MHz, 256 GB Samsung 830, 500-GB 7K500, MSI 660Ti Twin Frozr, PC is super quiet :o
Server, 6-TB RAID-5 array, + 2 x 2-TB backup drives, 380W Enermax Pro82+, 4x very quiet fans, positive pressure only, no exhaust fans
Living Room PC, 3500+, 2-GB RAM, HD501LJ


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Your opinion on US gun laws under Obama.
PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 6:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 12:28 am
Posts: 26
Location: Pasadena, CA
Nicias wrote:
...If you think a handgun would actually stop the government from doing something to you, you need to look twice at the size of your weapons and the size of theirs. If the federal government wanted to say, round up American citizens of Japanese ancestry and put them in camps, they could. Oh, wait, they did. If the president wanted to suspend habeaus corpus, and institute martial law in some states, he could, oh wait, Lincoln did. Personal firearm ownership did not stop these two instances of tyranny...
This is an often-heard argument, and on the surface it seems to make sense. Don't bring a knife to a gunfight. Don't bring a handgun to a tank fight. Against an army, the armed citizen loses.

In the big picture, I'd say that argument is wrong. Yes, it's correct as far as it goes. You stand against the army, and you're dead. But the fallacy lies in the assumption that the army, composed of your fellow citizens, is willing to go to war against you, and to kill you. That's a high threshold to overcome in a nation where the democracy has deep roots. That's why an armed citizenry is a curb against tyranny. If the people are disarmed, then armed men can have their way with them in a bloodless operation. Herd them, move them, whatever; it's a thing the conscience can deal with. You can tell yourself the people you subdue will be properly taken care of. But if the people are armed with even the lightest of deadly weapons, then when you move against them, you must be prepared to kill them. And you must be prepared to put your own life on the line, and to see your buddies gunned down. Either that or to simply bomb your own people from a distance, eradicate them, atomize them. This is not a thing we do in America. It's even difficult in the more brutal parts of the world.

With respect to the examples of the Japanese internment and the Civil War...Yes, the Civil War broke down that brother-against-brother threshold, and we were indeed killing each other. Every structure has its breaking point, and once you reach that point, all bets are off. For many years prior to the Civil War, the politicians struggled with compromises, and the peace was kept. What can I say about that, except that you've got to find some way to relieve the pressure before catastrophe strikes. Interning the Japanese went forward, and there isn't anything I can say to justify it, except that there was some confidence that America wasn't going to murder its people like the Nazis did. If they came for me and I had a gun, I'm not saying I'd trust that I'd be treated nicely if only I surrendered and went to the camp. An ugly situation, but it must be judged in the context of a world at war, and tens of millions of dead, with many of the casualties non-combatants.

So I would say that, yes, a handgun will indeed go a long way towards protecting me from a tyrant. Because with a gun in my hand, I can be killed, but I can't be enslaved. And the soldiers in the army that would be told to come against me do not want to kill me. Nor do I want to kill them. That's why the order will not be given for them to do what they will not do.

The people must be armed, not because being armed is glorious or a panacea, but because a disarmed, impotent population will inevitably find themselves controlled to a dehumanizing extent. If the people are disarmed, there is no hope. If the people are armed...well, maybe we can work something out.


Last edited by TalkinHorse on Sat Aug 11, 2012 7:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Your opinion on US gun laws under Obama.
PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 7:11 pm 
Offline
Patron of SPCR

Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 3302
Location: Essex, England
Quote:
This is an often-heard argument, and on the surface it seems to make sense. Don't bring a knife to a gunfight. Don't bring a handgun to a tank fight. Against an army, the armed citizen loses.

In the big picture, I'd say that argument is wrong. Yes, it's correct as far as it goes. You stand against the army, and you're dead. But the fallacy lies in the assumption that the army, composed of your fellow citizens, is willing to go to war against you, and to kill you. That's a high threshold to overcome in a nation where the democracy has deep roots. That's why an armed citizenry is a curb against tyranny. If the people are disarmed, then armed men can have their way with them in a bloodless operation. Herd them, move them, whatever; it's a thing the conscience can deal with. You can tell yourself the people you subdue will be properly taken care of. But if the people are armed with even the lightest of deadly weapons, then when you move against them, you must be prepared to kill them. And you must be prepared to put your own life on the line, and to see your buddies gunned down. Either that or to simply bomb your own people from a distance, eradicate them, atomize them. This is not a thing we do in America. It's even difficult in the more brutal parts of the world.


You are arguing a point that only an American can recognise, the rest of the world simply does not understand how "forming a militia" gets converted over a couple of hundred years into "everyone has the right to own an Uzi".

Quote:
So I would say that, yes, a handgun will indeed go a long way towards protecting me from a tyrant. Because with a gun in my hand, I can be killed, but I can't be enslaved. And the soldiers in the army that would be told to come against me do not want to kill me. Nor do I want to kill them. That's why the order will not be given for them to do what they will not do.


This is a statement, please come up with something more convincing that the first thing that popped into your head with stupid ideological assumptions about how things might turn out in a rather unlikely situation - will everyone with a gun be having the same thoughts...... I doubt it, so that instantly makes it far more likely that you will have a gun-fight with your neighbour because you disagree - next step civil war - with an awful lot of guns.

Quote:
The people must be armed, not because being armed is glorious or a panacea, but because a disarmed, impotent population will inevitably find themselves controlled to a dehumanizing extent. If the people are disarmed, there is no hope. If the people are armed...well, maybe we can work something out.


In a decent and respectful society you only need to be armed with an opinion, a free voice and a vote - there are no need for guns within a single populous of sensible people.

If you want to consider fraction lines within a single country then you have many places to look, and a great deal of violence will usually ensue. You have suggested that there might be fewer States in the United States of America when xxx state decides that it wants to become a separate country, are all of the guns to stop the USA breaking apart or are they there to start the breakup of the USA.? There is a constitutional right for a militia to be created to fight tyranny - so that means that if there is enough popular support xxx state could fight a military battle against the rest of the USA for independence - there is a legal right to do so, and the USA would be the Tyrant, and the state seeking freedom would be the savior..... unless you are in the next state and have a gun, and are in a militia wanting to keep xxx state as part of the USA... then its perfectly acceptable to kill those people because they are from another country.


Andy

_________________
Main PC, P180, CM Silent Pro 500M, i5 3570k @ 4.2Ghz, 8-GB @ 2,000MHz, 256 GB Samsung 830, 500-GB 7K500, MSI 660Ti Twin Frozr, PC is super quiet :o
Server, 6-TB RAID-5 array, + 2 x 2-TB backup drives, 380W Enermax Pro82+, 4x very quiet fans, positive pressure only, no exhaust fans
Living Room PC, 3500+, 2-GB RAM, HD501LJ


Last edited by andyb on Sat Aug 11, 2012 7:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Your opinion on US gun laws under Obama.
PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 7:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:12 am
Posts: 2831
Location: USA
m0002a wrote:
I think your proposed scoring is good (3 for gold, 2 for silver, 1 for bronze). I would even be OK with 5,3,1. If the OC adopts such as method, I am quite sure the media in the US would comply, although there is freedom of the press in the US and we can't force them to do anything.

Your statement "way that the people who run the Olympics say that the medals should be counted" is not correct since the OC specifically say there is no officially approved method. BTW, I notice that Google lists them in order by Gold.

As of the end of today, using either the 3,2,1 scoring, or the 5,3,1 scoring (Gold, Silver, Bronze) Russia is ahead of the GB, even though GB still leads in Gold, but Russia is ahead in total medals.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Your opinion on US gun laws under Obama.
PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 7:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:12 am
Posts: 2831
Location: USA
andyb wrote:
I congratulate you sir on an excellent post, especially the part about what the constitution actually say and backing up my point about "some people" deliberately misinterpreting the meaning, and claim that they have a "right to own machine guns, sniper rifles, pump-action shotguns and multi-shot concealable weapons", and worse still, they argue that "their right" is the law, and that it is almost impossible to change, so difficult that no-one even attempts to change it whilst at the same time claiming that they need guns to hunt deer - of course a MAC-10 is an ideal choice.

Andy

Here is the exact text of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution (part of Bill of Rights):

Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

For those not familiar with the how the term "State" is used in the US Constitution, it distinguishes rights that belong to the 13 States (now 50 States) with the rights of the United States (Federal Government). For example, see the 10th amendment below:

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Here is scholarly book that discusses in detail what the original intent of the 2nd Amendment was in the minds of the Founders when the Constituion was crated and debated:

THE FOUNDERS’ SECOND AMENDMENT
Origins of the Right to Bear Arms
By Stephen P. Halbrook
http://www.independent.org/store/book.asp?id=72&s=ga

Do Americans have a constitutional right to bear arms? Or is this power vested solely in government? Recent years have seen a sea change in scholarship on the Second Amendment. Beginning in the 1960s, a view emerged that individuals had a “right” to bear arms only in militia service—a limited, "collective" right. But in the late 1980s Dr. Stephen Halbrook and a handful of other scholars began producing an altogether persuasive analysis that changed thinking on the matter, so that today, even in canonical textbooks, bearing arms is acknowledged as an individual right.

Stephen Halbrook’s The Founders’ Second Amendment is the first book-length account of the origins of the Second Amendment, based on the Founders’ own statements as found in newspapers, correspondence, debates, and resolutions. Dr. Halbrook investigates the period from 1768 to 1826, from the last years of British rule and the American Revolution through to the adoption of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and the passing of the Founders’ generation. His book offers the most comprehensive analysis of the arguments behind the drafting and adoption of the Second Amendment, and the intentions of the men who created it.

With the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia vs. Heller upholding the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right to bear arms, The Founders’ Second Amendment could scarcely be more timely as the authoritative book on the subject.

Here is a review snippet about the book on the above link:

The Founder’s Second Amendment is an impressive achievement. Halbrook shows conclusively to any honest mind, both in respect to historical evidence and analytical jurisprudence, that the Framers intended the Second Amendment not as the reserved right of a State government to organize a militia, but of the people as individuals to keep and to bear arms. In this meticulously researched and exhaustive study, Halbrook has produced what promises to be the standard work for years to come on the original intent of the Second Amendment. It will be an invaluable resource for scholars of the Constitution.”
—DONALD W. LIVINGSTON, Professor of Philosophy, Emory University


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Your opinion on US gun laws under Obama.
PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 7:39 pm 
Offline
Patron of SPCR

Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 3302
Location: Essex, England
Quote:
As of the end of today, using either the 3,2,1 scoring, or the 5,3,1 scoring (Gold, Silver, Bronze) Russia is ahead of the GB, even though GB still leads in Gold, but Russia is ahead in total medals.


And your point is... petty, all because the American press cant manage to sort a spreadsheet by the correct column, I feel very sorry for your people, not just for being misinformed, or even being American, but being so patriotic and so proud that you simply cant see when you are wrong - which is far more often that you will ever know because your media is constantly lying to you, helping to keep you feeling as though America really is the best when the rest of the world knows otherwise.

The attached image is not just true (from a few years ago), but rather funny, and would be humbling to any other country - bar America. Enjoy.


Andy


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

_________________
Main PC, P180, CM Silent Pro 500M, i5 3570k @ 4.2Ghz, 8-GB @ 2,000MHz, 256 GB Samsung 830, 500-GB 7K500, MSI 660Ti Twin Frozr, PC is super quiet :o
Server, 6-TB RAID-5 array, + 2 x 2-TB backup drives, 380W Enermax Pro82+, 4x very quiet fans, positive pressure only, no exhaust fans
Living Room PC, 3500+, 2-GB RAM, HD501LJ


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Your opinion on US gun laws under Obama.
PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 8:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 12:28 am
Posts: 26
Location: Pasadena, CA
andyb wrote:
...In a decent and respectful society you only need to be armed with an opinion, a free voice and a vote - there are no need for guns within a single populous of sensible people...
The Founders gave us the 2nd Amendment because they understood that we are not that society, nor has such a society ever existed on Earth. Oh, sure, we're trying to edge in that direction, and we've made some progress, and we've also done our share of backsliding. No, we are not there yet, nor do I think we will ever be; not as long as we remain, as is said in Ecclesiastes, "under the sun" (and that's a loaded phrase).

The Constitution was written with an understanding of human corruption. The underlying idea was to preclude a monopoly of power. The government powers were limited and enumerated; the branches of government were intentionally placed in conflict with each other.

This notion of limitations is being lost, tragically and ironically in the pursuit of enlightenment. We have become willing to relinquish our heritage of liberty in exchange for a promise of personal security. This is the road to tyranny.

Do you trust you government to do the right thing? Did you trust the last administration? Will you trust the next administration?

Would you stick your head in the lion's mouth on the theory that a good lion wouldn't decapitate you?

I think I'll keep my arms.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Your opinion on US gun laws under Obama.
PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 8:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 4:27 am
Posts: 1728
Location: Switzerland
Your arms will do you little good without a militia (these days also known as "terrorist group"). Been training lately?

TalkinHorse wrote:
This is an often-heard argument, and on the surface it seems to make sense. Don't bring a knife to a gunfight. Don't bring a handgun to a tank fight. Against an army, the armed citizen loses.

In the big picture, I'd say that argument is wrong. Yes, it's correct as far as it goes. You stand against the army, and you're dead. But the fallacy lies in the assumption that the army, composed of your fellow citizens, is willing to go to war against you, and to kill you. That's a high threshold to overcome in a nation where the democracy has deep roots. That's why an armed citizenry is a curb against tyranny.

Actually the usefulness of light weaponry doesn't depend on the alledged benevolence or democratic leanings of the military. We have historical instances when quite bloodthirsty military units lost or sustained unacceptable causalties against an armed citizenry... or even against an initially unarmed and unprepared citizenry for that matter.
Let's drop the hypocrisy: in this day and age the real point of having light weaponry on hand is terrorism or at best urban guerilla warfare, not a full-on military confrontation with any kind of army. Recally that tyranny usally comes about with the consent of most of the people! And if it's not just a small minority but most everyone who's willing to put up a fight, based on historical experience the availability of light weaponry will not be a major problem.

In any case I'm not sure there's value in allowing weapons as crummy and easily smuggled around as handguns.
Can you come up with a relatively recent historical examples of clashes between civilan and military forces in which handguns were an important weapon? And what about examples in which the civilians were unable to fight effectively for want of handguns? Even weapons as artisanal as petrol bombs seem to have been more popular.


Nicias wrote:
First it isn't clear to me that they mean security from invasion or domestic tyranny

Isn't it obvious they meant both? For one thing, you can't have meaningful federalism if either foreign parties or the federal entity can bully the federated units. Also, "they" were kind of revolutionaries you know.

Nicias wrote:
So one reasonable interpretation might be that this means that it should be lawful to form organized militias, at the state level (like the National Guard before it was nationalized) or even at the local level (like volunteer fire fighters sometimes are.) These groups could then be as heavily armed as they would need to be to defend their region against invasion or tyranny. Probably similar to the armament of the National Guard. However, it would still be illegal to just go firing off those weapons for fun or the like, and maybe also for "stand your ground" or home invasion with non-lethal force.

That isn't what we have at all right now. If you think a handgun would actually stop the government from doing something to you, you need to look twice at the size of your weapons and the size of theirs. If the federal government wanted to say, round up American citizens of Japanese ancestry and put them in camps, they could. Oh, wait, they did. If the president wanted to suspend habeaus corpus, and institute martial law in some states, he could, oh wait, Lincoln did. Personal firearm ownership did not stop these two instances of tyranny.

Exactly.
Though to be fair personal firearm ownership did figure into the whole Lincoln thing at some stage. Even if he prevailed in the end, it could easily have turned out differently. But that was another era when civilian rifles were a lot more effective as combat weaponry!

A fair interpretation of the amendment should primarily cover basic combat weapons such as fully automatic assault rifles, explosives, sniper rifles, mortars, AT and AA weapons instead of murder weapons such as handguns. Handguns are definitely not a feature of a "well-regulated militia".
Incidentally, I used to see a lot more fully automatic assault rifles than handguns in people's homes around here.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Your opinion on US gun laws under Obama.
PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 10:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 2:12 am
Posts: 2831
Location: USA
andyb wrote:
And your point is... petty, all because the American press cant manage to sort a spreadsheet by the correct column

You are the one who suggested the 3,2,1 scoring, so I was just tallying the results for you. I wasn't making any point.

andyb wrote:
I feel very sorry for your people, not just for being misinformed, or even being American, but being so patriotic and so proud that you simply cant see when you are wrong - which is far more often that you will ever know because your media is constantly lying to you, helping to keep you feeling as though America really is the best when the rest of the world knows otherwise.

You should feel sorry for us. in fact, just as example, I only have a 100 MB wired network in my home, and am very embarrassed to admit that I don't have a Gigabit network. Since we are so pathetic, and you feel sorry for us, I wonder if you wouldn't mind donating some funds via PayPay to help us out? Let me know and I will IM you with the details of where to send the money.

BTW, I agree about the US media constantly lying to us. That is why we have a Democrat as President and why he may get re-elected.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Your opinion on US gun laws under Obama.
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2012 12:43 pm 
Offline
Patron of SPCR

Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 3302
Location: Essex, England
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... ampus.html

Fortunately only 2-killed this time.


Andy

_________________
Main PC, P180, CM Silent Pro 500M, i5 3570k @ 4.2Ghz, 8-GB @ 2,000MHz, 256 GB Samsung 830, 500-GB 7K500, MSI 660Ti Twin Frozr, PC is super quiet :o
Server, 6-TB RAID-5 array, + 2 x 2-TB backup drives, 380W Enermax Pro82+, 4x very quiet fans, positive pressure only, no exhaust fans
Living Room PC, 3500+, 2-GB RAM, HD501LJ


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 401 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group