The Second Amendment

Your statements are common of folk living in countries with strict gun-control laws who know absolutely nothing about the issue as it pertains to the United States. Did someone say that? Did someone say that? As long as those methods continue to work. Where is your evidence that such a mass of gun nuts even exists? Or that their views on sexuality are tied to their beliefs regarding gun ownership? Spoken like a true outsider who doesn't have a clue in hell what he's talking about.Jon

I do not recall that being anybody's position. Can you provide a source? Was the Branch Davidians "ordinary rabble?" In another decade or two, what would Palestinians say about that question?But no need to answer these questions, Staggler's inciteful response has made them moot.

No, of course not. But again the purpose of the Second Amendment isn't to protect against a despotic government, since a despotic government wouldn't respect any Constitutional right; it's to protect the American people from being disarmed by their legitimate democratic government in the name of "public safety", leaving them defenseless against a future despotic government.The Second Amendment exists precisely to protect us from well-intentioned disarmament of the American people, as has happened in the UK, Australia, and other countries. Whether or not we need to be protected from that is an open question, and I don't believe that I know enough to say one way or the other, but that's what's different about the US - we have the Second Amendment right to own firearms and you don't. Better? Worse? I don't know. But it's why we can't have the kind of gun control that exists in your country.

I don't understand the question, I guess, or it's relevance. Well, ok. What did you mean by "amply demonstrated"? Who knows? Maybe in a decade or two they'll have carved out their own state, because cooler heads than those that now prevail in Israel will realize that the security mechanism needed to pacify the Palestinians will cause more harm than good to Israel itself. And if that's the case, won't the continuing armed rebellion of the Palestinians have gotten them what they wanted?It's really easy to say that the military has nukes, therefore they always win (this was said a few times in the other thread.) But the question has always been what the military is willing to do, and frequently the force the military is willing to bring against its own citizens and cities is a lot less than their full capability. That's why armed rebellions in Chechnya, Syria, Libya, and other places are succeeding. I don't see how the world post-Arab-Spring can deny the capability of people to successfully contend with their own military government.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

i wasn't the one who originally wrote "ordinary rabble" so I cannot help you. Well, if that answer is correct, then that tentatively nullifies the assertion that "pacifying an entirely population of motivated resistance is simply not something a modern military is able to do" This has been demonstrated to be self-evident. Why use a nuclear bomb when rubber bullets or gas can be used? OTOH, the dictator that america had enthusiastically supported for dozens of years, Saddam Hussein, IMO, would have used ANYTHING he had to stay alive and in power. Perhaps. I hate to be a Dora Downer to nit-pick because I would love to read encouraging reports about oppressed people successfully fighting for their liberties and human rights, but your specific examples above are poor because:Libya's armed rebellions had a "little bit" of help. Syria may be spiraling into a civil war. In what parameters do you see the Chechnya rebels 'succeeding?' Although you didn't state Egypt in your Arab-Spring example, its rebellion has not fully succeeded yet, and is still in danger of becoming a military state.Thus, your original binary question: "which is it?," Message 14, doesn't really help to make things clearer.Anyways, besides going off-topic with these complex, yet, unimportant side issues to the thread, I think Straggler's post Message 15 is much more on target to the topic.Edited by dronester, : clarityEdited by dronester, : added "...oppressed people..." and attributed posts

If the government is despotic, whether it follows a non-despotic disarming government or not, what is going to stop it’s despotism? How exactly does arming Joe and his buddies help prevent the despotic government in question in your view? Do you think we in the UK are more at risk from despotic governments than you because we aren’t all armed? Neither you or I are going to change the 2nd amendment. But we can evidentially debate whether the existing interpretation of the 2nd amendment really has any rational basis or whether it is just a cultural hangover of some sort that doesn’t make sense but is just a fact of life.In the UK we have all sorts of antiquated laws regarding hanging people for herding sheep across London bridge and suchlike That these exist as laws isn’t in and of itself the be-all-and-end-all of whether these laws represent a justifiable position or not.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Well you are the one who has made the idiotic link between the right to bear arms and the ability to take on a superpower modern military. Message 263I still don’t know what level of armament you think the US military should have and whether or not you think the US citizenry should match that. Could you enlighten me on this specific point? What exact purpose do you think the citizenry possessing lots of guns achieves? Is democracy in the US most at risk from:1) Economic disparity and the concentration of power that comes with concentration of wealth
2) Those with extreme political views who don’t consider the elected government American enough to be legitimate and who think that forcibly overthrowing said elected government is a legitimate way forwards
3) The government fostering an ever greater climate of fear in which civil liberties are ever diminished in the name of national security (whilst the most right wing of gun advocates avidly cheer them on)
4) The government deciding to forcibly impose it’s military might on the populaceFrankly 4) seems like a rather distant possibility compared to the others. Am I wrong in thinking that there is a common cause and support between such organisations as the NRA, the Tea Party movement and the religious right in America? I can dig out the known links between these organisations in terms of funding and suchlike if you want — But are you actually denying that there is any link? Why Americans think that the question of whether or not prolific gun ownership in society is one that can only be debated as if Americans are somehow unique and evidentially isolated from the experience of the rest of the world baffles me.It’s a debate board. Nothing you or I say here will change the second amendment. But that doesn’t remotely stop either of us considering whether or not modern interpretations of the 2nd amendment makes any actual sense in the modern world.

Hi Straggler, Especially when (1) and (3) are currently working together ....Now it might get interesting if the Tea Poopers ever got in a situation where they were defending their homes from foreclosure by the banks with a little armed resistance to see if their actions fit their mouths ...Enjoy

I didn't make that assertion. Sure. And you can even get to the point where the military is willing to surrender rather than deploy devastating attacks against the cities they see themselves as having the purpose of protecting.That's how a modern popular militia can be effective against a modern military, even one with overwhelming force. Sure. Egypt is the one I didn't include because their uprising was largely a nonviolent one; it was more about demonstrations and the unwillingness of the Egyptian military to deploy overwhelming destructive force against unarmed protestors. Fair enough; let's let it lie.

Whatever it takes, hopefully. If what it takes is an armed popular rebellion, such as during the American Revolutionary War, then I can see why the Founders wished that capability to be preserved. Well, I don't know if you are or not, I guess. I do know that we have the First Amendment; you have one day a week at Speaker's Corner. We have the Second Amendment; you have a greater chance of being mugged in London than in New York. We have a Fourth Amendment right against warrentless search and seizure; you live in a country where every city and town is under 24-hour video surveillance. The government runs most of your channels on broadcast TV. They install missile batteries on your apartment buildings. There aren't a lot of people who look at your country as "the home of the free."Do you live in under despots? I'm sure you don't think so. I've been to the UK - it's nice, I enjoy it when I'm there. But there's a great deal of bullshit you guys put up with from your government - all in the name of "public safety" of course - that you just couldn't do in the US, literally because of what guys like this would do:When I go to London, where you literally can't walk around the corner without being videotapped and facially-recognized, I wonder if that black guy up there has the wrong idea. I'm not so sure he does. Look, it says what it says, and there's no way to interpret what it says as being about the right to hunt and shoot skeet. It's hard to see how when it says "people" it really means "state"; that's not how the language is used in any of the rest of the Constitution. I know legal language isn't always the same as the common tongue, but the Founders weren't all lawyers, they were trying to express the principles behind a system of government, not create a set of statutes.

We have Article 9 (FREEDOM OF THOUGHT, CONSCIENCE AND RELIGION) and 10 (FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION) and 11 FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY AND ASSOCIATION, of the Human Rights Act. And more chance of being murdered in the USA than in the UK. I'm not sure what the relationship you are trying to show hereIncidentally - New York is one of the strictest States when it comes to gun control (And New York City is apparently moreso), and consequently I believe it has low gun ownership. And we have Article 8 (RIGHT TO RESPECT FOR PRIVATE AND FAMILY LIFE ) whereas you have the PATRIOT act and so on. We have BBC 1, 2, 3, 4, cbeebies, cbbc, news and parliament (I think that's all of them).That's not most of our channels. (compare: Sky 1, Sky 2, Sky Atlantic, Sky Poker, Sky Living, Sky Arts1, Sky Arts2 Sky Living it, Sky News, a couple dozen Sky Movies channels, Sky Sports 1-4, Sky Sports News, Sky Sports F1)And the BBC is a corporation, and is not run by the government. It is merely funded by the people via government taxes. And that isn't written in stone - there are movements to altering the manner in which the BBC is funded. Yes they did. And your government has done some pretty shady things, too. We have, as any country, limited freedom. But it's hardly despotic. And if it is, so too is the US. The US government has done plenty of bullshit in the name of 'national security', literally with the full support of plenty of gun wielding folk. I don't that's literally true at all. But we both agree that there are some valid privacy concerns at stake. Let's hope your security services don't perform any intrusive acts of surveillance (I'm sure they'd never cite 'public safety' out of fear of the gun wielding folk of the USA)!Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

WHAT?!?
You forgot Dave??!! And QVC!!And, more seriously, there is Channel 4, Channel 5, ITV1, ITV2, ITV3, ITV4, Yesterday, More 4, Home, E4, 5*, and many more that I CBA to list.I am starting to think that CrashFrog thinks that the UK still has Bobbies and Bowler hats.

Broadcast TV, guys. Slow your roll. I'm sure you get the same 700 channels on satellite/cable that we do.

Only considering terrestrial channels then you are still wrong.BBC 1, BBC 2, ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5.2/5 is still not most.

Yes. Broadcast.All the channels I listed are free to all without satellite or cable.
The terrestrial channels Mod mentions in the post above have been turned off.
All TV channels are now digital - and can be received using any TV aerial.Put simply: you are completely wrong about the channels broadcast in the UK.
There are many that aren't run by the BBC - and the BBC is not run by the government. This is completely and utterly wrong.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.