Post office shooting

[Chimpy]

We interupt this argument with this late breaking news... take it away Hillslam.

Thanks, Tina. Its old news really. But not one "the man" wants you to hear. Folks, you have to love it when you get a chance to quote yourself:

Another longstanding *albatross*umption shot (pardon the pun) to hell. A core assumption in this thread: "The USA is more violent than [us]." Is ...Bzzzt... Wrong. (Unless you're Singapore, thumbs up Singapore for such a low crime rate)

 

Thanks for the stats, U.N. Back to you, Tina.

We now return you to your misinformed debate.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Correlation does not equal causation.

 

We may be relatively more violent 'statistically' but what does that show? How did the study define a violent crime? How was this measured on a per country, per city basis?

 

Gun crime increased by 60% in the UK but that was mostly due to a change in the way statistics were recorded...

[Sledge]

Comparisons from one country to another are pretty much useless, given each country is likely to have its own criteria to measure by. Also, comparing UK gun laws (which are generally the same across the nation) to America (where there are massive differences from one state to the next) strikes me as being a little daft.

 

[ReturnUnwanted]

From Rizzo:

 

Does the US government have the power to take away a persons 'right to bear arms'?

 

I think it does.

 

 

 

 

It is precisely for that reason that we are guaranteed the right to bear arms. So that no government can forcibly remove the rights of the citizens. Kind of hard to run a dictatorship if all the people you are attempting to control shoot back at you.

[Chimpy]

From Rizzo:

 

Does the US government have the power to take away a persons 'right to bear arms'?

 

I think it does.

It is precisely for that reason that we are guaranteed the right to bear arms. So that no government can forcibly remove the rights of the citizens. Kind of hard to run a dictatorship if all the people you are attempting to control shoot back at you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The reason why it was originally concieved.

 

Like I said before time change, legislation should move with the times.

 

I doubt how effective a militia is going to be against a modern army anyway.

[ReturnUnwanted]

The reason why it was originally concieved.

 

Like I said before time change, legislation should move with the times.

 

I doubt how effective a militia is going to be against a modern army anyway.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Better to have some chance than none at all.

 

Britain possessed by all accounts the most modern army of all during the Revolutionary War.

 

Sorry comparison to today and automatic weapons, close air support, and the like, but the fact remains that the ability to fight back violently in order to defend one's rights is something to be happy about. That it will ever come to that is extraordinarily doubtful, but history shows us that it isn't out of the question.

 

Just look at the Patriot and other related acts currently in play...

But that is an entirely separate issue that I'd rather not get into.

 

 

As it stands, I agree that the event was certainly tragic, and that measures should be taken in an attempt to prevent such a thing from repeating. But I would suggest identification and treatment as opposed to stricter gun control. (Though I have NO problem with stricter gun control. Frankly, I think that everyone who owns a gun should be CCW qualified and certified.)

 

I love being able to own automatic weapons and being able to carry around a handgun with me wherever I go, if I so choose.

[Sledge]

We've partly had the debate on effectiveness of militia before. First off, the insurgents in Iraq and other wars have shown how effective civilians with basic weapons can be. Second, how likely is it that the US military would accept orders to attack it's own citizens?

 

Anyhoo, given religion shows no sign of updating with the times (people are still living by rules intended for a different culture, 2000 years ago), I can't see a law made 200 years ago being more susceptible to change.

 

[SmashJoehanson]

Now, what other everyday uses does a gun have?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Changing tv channel when you cant find the remote?

 

I cant think of a plausable reason either. Unless you shoot targets everyday, then you dont really need a semi-automatic weapon.

 

Cheers,

Smash Joehanson

[doc_newstead]

I mean, I'm not even being arguementative when I say that. I like guns, more of 'em I reckon. But you'd have to be dillusional to say that they aren't made for killing things, that's all.

[ReturnUnwanted]

I mean, I'm not even being arguementative when I say that. I like guns, more of 'em I reckon. But you'd have to be dillusional to say that they aren't made for killing things, that's all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

True. Anybody who says that guns are not designed for the efficient exercise of bringing death upon something is, indeed, out of their minds.

 

It is simply how you choose to use them in that capacity, or in any other capacity.

Including changing the channel.

[squarepusher]

It's our right.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Firearm fundamentalism, anyone? It's a right, it is your right, but a right can be wrong. Are you suggesting that, as a constitutional right, it should remain in perpetual stasis whilst the whole world around it changes?

 

Times change. Is the current use of the amendment the intention of the times or a crutch to hold onto by a scared pro-gun lobby?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Like I said before time change, legislation should move with the times.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

...exactly.

[Chimpy]

Religion has always changed with the times.

 

Women priests, gay priests etc. and thats just one branch of one religion.

 

In a simlar vein politics moves with the times its just the way some people cling to an outdated piece of legislation as a means to defend their chosen lifestyle.

 

If you consider fighting back against a well trained modern Army as being ineffectual with small-arms then whats the justification for having them in case of that eventuality? You might as well be armed with a knife, or nothing.

 

Sledge - The success of a militia against a modern army is very subjective if you only consider one conflict! I could pick Borneo or Sierra Leone as examples where a well trained modern force has decimated a militia. Or Vietnam where the Americans effectively destroyed the Vietcong.

 

Would American troops fire on their own citizens? In todays America probably not but in one where they actually did have a tyranical leader or similar making the place go tits up?

[ReturnUnwanted]

If you consider fighting back against a well trained modern Army as being ineffectual with small-arms then whats the justification for having them in case of that eventuality? You might as well be armed with a knife, or nothing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

There is simple reasoning behind this.

 

I would rather die fighting subjugation than live under it.

And I'm not going to give up anything that might help me fight said subjugation.

[Chimpy]

There is simple reasoning behind this.

 

I would rather die fighting subjugation than live under it.

And I'm not going to give up anything that might help me fight said subjugation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Certainly but that doesn't make it a right to have that object.

 

I'm not saying guns should be banned. I'm just curious as to why pro-gun Americans cling so tightly to the second amendment when it is arguably outmoded.

[Agent47]

Certainly but that doesn't make it a right to have that object.

 

I'm not saying guns should be banned. I'm just curious as to why pro-gun Americans cling so tightly to the second amendment when it is arguably outmoded.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

because there are those who say that private ownership should be banned?

 

and who says its "arguably outmoded?" (oooh look the scientitians and philosophicians said it!)

 

I wonder if some people here think that responsible people with concealed carry are really just criminals...

 

and weren't militias originally intended to supplement the National Guard in times of invasion? (never know, that COULD happen)

 

and shouldn't we be looking for reasons as to why criminals even try and come after law-abiding citizens anyways?

[Chimpy]

because there are those who say that private ownership should be banned?

 

and who says its "arguably outmoded?"  (oooh look the scientitians and philosophicians said it!)

 

I wonder if some people here think that responsible people with concealed carry are really just criminals...

 

and weren't militias originally intended to supplement the National Guard in times of invasion?  (never know, that COULD happen)

 

and shouldn't we be looking for reasons as to why criminals even try and come after law-abiding citizens anyways?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't mean scrapping the second amendment completely, merely amending it or replacing it with more up to date legislation that reflects the needs of the people today.

 

I said it is arguably outmoded. I even argued why in a previous post.

 

Did the USA even have full-time army when the second amendment was created?

 

Why do criminals exist? Social conditions. Why do they come after the law-abiding? They are easy targets, there is also plenty of criminal on criminal crime.

[ReturnUnwanted]

I don't mean scrapping the second amendment completely, merely amending it or replacing it with more up to date legislation that reflects the needs of the people today.

 

I said it is arguably outmoded. I even argued why in a previous post.

 

Did the USA even have full-time army when the second amendment was created?

 

Why do criminals exist? Social conditions. Why do they come after the law-abiding? They are easy targets, there is also plenty of criminal on criminal crime.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

How would you have it amended? Frankly, I would make it even more general than it is. Citizens have the right to bear arms. However many, whatever kind, for whatever reason.

 

Now, of course, if you do something against the law (i.e. use a firearm with malicious intent without provocation) you will be punished for it. And certainly, I think losing that right to bear arms is a great way to punish such actions, for that individual.

 

We consider it a right, because it has been written and presented to us as Americans that way. It is our right to defend ourselves in the best way we possibly can. And hey, if some guy feels that owning an Abrams tank is the best way to do it, then good for him.

 

The people of today still have the same needs as those of the past. No, we don't have to hunt for our food. No, we are most likely not going to be invaded by a foreign country. However, internal issues still remain. And a citizenry that is well armed is by far the best way to keep a government in check, and working in the best interests of those they represent, the citizenry.

[squarepusher]

and who says its "arguably outmoded?"  (oooh look the scientitians and philosophicians said it!)

 

Scientitians? Philisophicians? Of what relevance is it to them? Don't build an argument on things you've made up. (I assume you mean scientists and philosophers :S)

 

I wonder if some people here think that responsible people with concealed carry are really just criminals...

 

Again, conjecture. Obviously no-one thinks that, that's just ridiculous exaggeration and a display that you have no real grasp of what's being argued.

[Agent47]

Scientitians? Philisophicians? Of what relevance is it to them? Don't build an argument on things you've made up. (I assume you mean scientists and philosophers :S)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

"Being Liberal in your political views is plain wrong. Just ask this scientitian!"

 

Seriously, how can you "prove" that a political standpoint is "wrong"? This isn't maths, for crying out loud. There are no right answers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I aped Robot's tactic.

 

I'm trying not to build an argument, I'm simply asking questions here and not trying to make much statements here, and providing what little information I know.

 

Again, conjecture. Obviously no-one thinks that, that's just ridiculous exaggeration and a display that you have no real grasp of what's being argued.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

"Obviously no-one thinks that"

 

are you sure?

 

Considering the environment I grew up in was rabidly anti-violent and anti-force, this is the impression I have of some people who seem to me to be so.

 

now before anyone neg-reps me over this, I do realize that life is pretty much all shades of grey.

[Agent47]

double post

[hivemind]

I guess people who don't have our freedoms can't grasp them. It's not legislation, it's an inalienable right. Rights don't get outmoded or become unfashionable. That's why they're rights. You should as soon say that freedom of religion is outmoded. I mean, since there's so much strife in the world over religion, people killing each other and hatemongering, perhaps it would be better if everyone was the same religion. Better amend the first amendment then too.

[Agent47]

I guess people who don't have our freedoms can't grasp them. It's not legislation, it's an inalienable right. Rights don't get outmoded or become unfashionable. That's why they're rights. You should as soon say that freedom of religion is outmoded. I mean, since there's so much strife in the world over religion, people killing each other and hatemongering, perhaps it would be better if everyone was the same religion. Better amend the first amendment then too.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

you're forgetting the guy who started this whole row.

[Sledge]

What ARE we talking about?

 

[hivemind]

What ARE we talking about?

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No idea.

[rizzo]

guess people who don't have our freedoms can't grasp them.

 

Rofl. American Quote of the Year

[Sledge]

I've just gone to check, and the original post was about how the UK has less "crim" than America. I think Hillslam refuted that, and I pointed out the futility of comparing the UK to America as a whole.