Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Scotus rules 2nd amendment is an individual right
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 4 of 176 (475296)
07-14-2008 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Artemis Entreri
07-14-2008 4:39 PM


Constitution
What exactly does the US constitution say about the right to bear arms?
As an outside observer the American obsession with gun ownership and the seemingly obvious violent society that this results in is really quite baffling.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Artemis Entreri, posted 07-14-2008 4:39 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by petrophysics1, posted 07-14-2008 9:16 PM Straggler has not replied
 Message 20 by Chiroptera, posted 07-15-2008 7:18 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 58 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-16-2008 7:43 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 9 of 176 (475333)
07-15-2008 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Artemis Entreri
07-15-2008 8:59 AM


Re: Constitution
guns dont make us violent
So what does?
America is actually a very safe place, if you stay out of the cities where all the Democrats live
Travelling through the rural parts of the Southern US states it certainly does not feel very safe!!!!!! I very much had the feeling that one word or gesture out of place or misinterpreted and I would be in really quite serious trouble. Frankly it felt far more dangerous than wandering around Manhatten at 3AM.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Artemis Entreri, posted 07-15-2008 8:59 AM Artemis Entreri has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 11 of 176 (475339)
07-15-2008 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Artemis Entreri
07-15-2008 9:36 AM


depends on where you were
Bars, petrol stations, diners etc. etc. etc........
I was glad to get back to civilisation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Artemis Entreri, posted 07-15-2008 9:36 AM Artemis Entreri has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Artemis Entreri, posted 07-15-2008 12:58 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 13 of 176 (475373)
07-15-2008 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Artemis Entreri
07-15-2008 12:58 PM


Anti Everything
If you speak english funny, we know you aint from around here, and will be more tolerant about social faux pas
I did not get the impression of much tolerance.......
And social faux pas seemed to include expressing any views that were not textbook Christian Conservative (anti gay, anti abortion, anti democrat, anti European, anti Arab, in fact anti almost everything except guns)
Lets put it this way - I would have been scared for my life if I had expressed many of the opinions that I express on this forum.
Is that your definition of a peaceful, friendly and tolerant community?
You may leave your door unlocked all night but I felt I had to keep my opinions tightly locked away at all times. Is that freedom?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Artemis Entreri, posted 07-15-2008 12:58 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Artemis Entreri, posted 07-15-2008 2:33 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 15 by Artemis Entreri, posted 07-15-2008 2:40 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 18 of 176 (475416)
07-15-2008 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Artemis Entreri
07-15-2008 2:33 PM


Re: Anti Everything
i would guess it would be more friendly, people are generally more friendly in rural america than in the city.
Not in my personal, admittedly very subjective, experience.
"an armed society is a polite society"--Robert A. Heinlein (American Writer)
Being too afraid to cause any offence at all is one way to ensure politeness I suppose.
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing."--Robert E. Howard
Yes but part of what makes us civilised is not splitting each others skulls (or indeed blowing each others faces off).
i choose this quote because i didn't want you to think that all i had was american quotes in my arsenal, and since your are from London, i thought i could use one from a guy from London too.
Dude you are making too much of the England/UK/London thing. I have travelled all over the world, lived abroad and whilst London is my home and favorite place in the world I can see that this city, this country (Britain) and this continent (Europe) has all sorts of problems and contradictions. Just like the US and everywhere else. Each has it's unique set of issues. I certainly feel no need to decalre that every policy of my government or every law in place is beyond criticism. Far from it in fact.
I dont think Tolerance is the answer. I dont think people should be forced to tolerate things they dont like. you can be intolerant if you want to.
The only thing I would be intolerant of is intolerance. Intolerance in the form of violence against those whose views you oppose is an absolute recipe for disaster. The biggest barrier to peace and the greatest threat to genuine freedom that there can be.
I dont think Tolerance is the answer
If everyone takes that view then we are all doomed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Artemis Entreri, posted 07-15-2008 2:33 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by ICANT, posted 07-15-2008 8:59 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 21 of 176 (475423)
07-15-2008 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Artemis Entreri
07-15-2008 2:40 PM


"Bush Friendly" Americans
of course its freedom. it was your choice not to say what you wanted to say.
I would very much liked to have expressed my opinions but felt too threatened to do so. Not really a "choice".
unless your opinions where so liberal that, like many on here, cannot be stated without personal attacks and name calling; then you are on your own
I don't think I would have expressed views that would be considered anything other than very very common throughout Western Europe and large parts of North America.
dont be scurrd.
I have travlled in Asia, Africa, South America, Australasia, the Pacific etc. etc. and been to some of the largest and most dangerous cities on the planet. I am from one of the statistically most violent parts of London (Brixton). Yet I have never felt that my opinions alone (rather than my colour or perceived wealth or any of the other more obvious criteria that usually necessitate care when travelling) could be the cause of any potential violence against me as I have done in parts of the US.
This is a shame. I have had great times in America. Love NY, partied my arse off in Florida and have travelled the length and breadth of the West coast.
But the intolerance and whole gun issue seem to be both related and part of a mentality in parts of the US that is really quite threatening.
i feel for you a bit though. you where in a foreign land filled with different people, whom you had some misconceptions about, and you didn't want to get into a negative situation.
Yes but no more so than in Guyana, NY, LA, Tanzania, Brazil, Argentina, Vietnam, Cambodia, Russia, China etc. etc. etc.
Yet it is the Southern US that stands out in my mind with regard to this issue.
have been to the low countries (Benelux) where i caught a tremendous amount of heat for 1. being and american, and 2. being a republican. one time while I was in Germany i pretended i was Canadian to avoid some haters, who where growing violent, and where not peaceful, friendly, or tolerant, so i do understand a bit about being a foreigner in a strange land.
I know a few Americans in London who have, at times, claimed to be Canadian to avoid conflict (verbal rather than physical in the cases I have witnessed or been told of).
Why do you think that there is such strongly felt opposition to Americans (in particular "Bush friendly" Americans) in Western nations that are allies of the US and with which there is fundamentally much culture and belief in common. What is it that inspires these feelings in your view?
I am not looking to make a point or win a debate on this. I am genuinely interested to know what a self avowed Republican American thinks inspires the reaction that you yourself have experienced.
Just to get back sort of on topic - Aren't homicide rates, and gun related homicide rates in particular, higher in the US than in any other Western country? Are not the gun related homicide rates in Southern states amongst the highest in the US?
Does none of this even begin to suggest that guns, and gun friendly policies, are not necessarily a good thing?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Artemis Entreri, posted 07-15-2008 2:40 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 22 of 176 (475424)
07-15-2008 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Chiroptera
07-15-2008 7:18 PM


Re: Is subbie aroung?
Thanks for the answer.
It seems to all come down to what constitutes "arms". Is that correct?
Why, for example, does a handgun count as "arms" but (I am guessing here) a machine gun not?
Please don't tell me that some US citizens have the right to carry machine guns.......!!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Chiroptera, posted 07-15-2008 7:18 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by bluegenes, posted 07-15-2008 8:06 PM Straggler has not replied
 Message 24 by Chiroptera, posted 07-15-2008 8:32 PM Straggler has not replied
 Message 27 by DrJones*, posted 07-15-2008 9:05 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 38 of 176 (475470)
07-16-2008 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by ICANT
07-15-2008 8:59 PM


Re: Anti Everything
Are you seriously suggesting that countries with restrictions on weapons are more dangerous.....?
Aren't the intenational murder and gun crime statistics firmly against you regards this?
Should we all just have the right to own a personal thermonuclear device? By your own warped logic the world would be an incredibly safe place if this were the case!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by ICANT, posted 07-15-2008 8:59 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by ICANT, posted 07-16-2008 10:57 AM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 49 of 176 (475552)
07-16-2008 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by ICANT
07-16-2008 10:57 AM


Re: Anti Everything
You need to quit putting lemon in your tea.
I hate tea and refuse to drink the stuff. Lemoned or otherwise.
Jamaica tops the list.
This would seem to prove that ineffectual gun laws gives rise to the worst of both worlds!!!! I have been to Jamaica and, legal or otherwise, everybody has guns.
If I am not mistaken England disarmed the public for their own protection.
Well if people don't have guns they cannot shoot each other is the very obvious aim here.
That experiment proves gun ownership has nothing to do with violent crime's.
What constitutes a "violent crime"?
Violent crimes with guns are likely to be a whole lot more dangerous than violent crimes without guns.
I would rather be punched than shot any day.
Citing England, for instance, they reveal that "when it had no firearms restrictions [in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries], England had little violent crime." By the late 1990s, however, "England moved from stringent controls to a complete ban on all handguns and many types of long guns." As a result, "by the year 2000, violent crime had so increased that England and Wales had Europe's highest violent crime rate, far surpassing even the United States."
Well define "violent crime".
Like I said, I would gladly increase my chances of being punched at the expense of chances of being shot.
Aren't the intenational murder and gun crime statistics firmly against you regards this?
Depends on whose report's you go by.
Well which stats show the US as having a lower homicide rate than the UK?
Which stats show the US as having a lower rate of gun deaths than the UK?
Should we all just have the right to own a personal thermonuclear device?
What does thermonuclear device's have to do with owning a handgun, a shotgun or a rifle?
If everyone having the right to own a weapon makes a nation safer then logically the right for everyone to own an even more destructive weapon makes a nation even more safe.
No? If not why not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by ICANT, posted 07-16-2008 10:57 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by ICANT, posted 07-16-2008 10:49 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 50 of 176 (475554)
07-16-2008 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by DrJones*
07-15-2008 9:05 PM


Re: Is subbie aroung?
If by "machinee gun" you mean a fully automatic weapon, then yes dependent on the state.
Really? On what rationale?
Are missile launchers and grenades allowed too?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by DrJones*, posted 07-15-2008 9:05 PM DrJones* has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Jazzns, posted 07-16-2008 6:41 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 52 of 176 (475564)
07-16-2008 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Jazzns
07-16-2008 6:41 PM


Re: Is subbie aroung?
Are missile launchers and grenades allowed too?
Missile launchers I highly doubt. Even if they were, they would be quite cost prohibitive.
Grenades are though as are grenade launchers. In NM I think you have to have a gunsmithing licence and be registered with your nearest sheriff office to have weapons of a certain class like those with explosive munition and fully automatic weapons.
Fuck!!
Are there any states where the personal ownership of an armoured tank is allowed?
Where exactly is the defining line in terms of acceptability with regard to personal weaponry in the US?
Does it even exist or is it (at least potentially) a case of anything goes?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Jazzns, posted 07-16-2008 6:41 PM Jazzns has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by subbie, posted 07-16-2008 7:05 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 60 by DrJones*, posted 07-16-2008 7:51 PM Straggler has not replied
 Message 72 by Artemis Entreri, posted 07-17-2008 12:10 PM Straggler has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 55 of 176 (475568)
07-16-2008 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by subbie
07-16-2008 7:05 PM


Re: Is subbie aroung?
Are there any states where the personal ownership of an armoured tank is allowed?
I suspect yes, but without weaponry.
Why without weaponry?
Well, there are federal laws and regulations that would apply everywhere, which would be the outer limit of what anyone can possess in the U.S
In specific practical terms what are these limits? I.e what is banned and what is not at the extreme end of the spectrum?
Is there anywhere where a personal thermonuclear device would be considered acceptable?
If not what is the most detructive weaponry allowed and in what state is this permitted?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by subbie, posted 07-16-2008 7:05 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by subbie, posted 07-16-2008 7:22 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 62 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-16-2008 8:13 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 57 of 176 (475574)
07-16-2008 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by subbie
07-16-2008 7:22 PM


Re: Is subbie aroung?
Why without weaponry?
Because I'm fairly certain that ownership of the armaments that a tank would use would be prohibited by federal law.
Fairly certain?
Fuck!! (Again)
In specific practical terms what are these limits? I.e what is banned and what is not at the extreme end of the spectrum?
Dunno. The answer could probably be found in the U. S. Code, probably in Title 18 Chapter 44.
I looked on these links and could not make head not tail of it in terms of answering my question.
Who decides (or if historical - decided) this code and what or who gives them the authority to do so?
Is there anywhere where a personal thermonuclear device would be considered acceptable?
I'm quite certain not, but cannot give you support.
Double fuck!!!
I was only half meaning to be faecetious. I honestly thought there would be a definite, if seemingly arbitrary, limit to weaponry.
Apparently there is not!!!!!!!!!!!! Triple fuck!!!
If not what is the most detructive weaponry allowed and in what state is this permitted?
No idea. To determine this would require a full 50 state survey.
Surely not?
OK then as a rough approximation can we take that which is perceieved to be the most "gun friendly" state and see what the most detructive weapon they allow might be? Would this give an indication, if not a definitive answer?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by subbie, posted 07-16-2008 7:22 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by subbie, posted 07-16-2008 7:47 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 74 by Jazzns, posted 07-17-2008 2:47 PM Straggler has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 61 of 176 (475581)
07-16-2008 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Hyroglyphx
07-16-2008 7:43 PM


Re: Constitution
Nothing baffling about it. It is a violent society, which is why law abiding Americans want their arms. Of course, this violent obsession doesn't come by the gun, but by Hollywood's glorification of violence.
Hollywood movies are shown all over the world. In fact they are impossible to ecape. My local cinema shows nothing else. I have watched (and frankly enjoyed) Hollywood movies all over the world (South america, Carribean, Europe, Australia, Africa, Asia etc. etc. etc.)
In many cases Brad Pitt or Tom Cruise are more recognisable to the population of a country than the leader of it's own government!!!
My own country has, arguably, one of the most violent, brutal, dictatorial and imperialist pasts of any country in the world. France would fare little better in a historical analysis. Germany's more recent violent indescretions are all too well documented. Russia? Spain? Italy?
On what grounds do you claim America as inherently more violent than anywhere else?
If guns and the attitudes that go with them are not the relatively unique factor then what is?
It sure aint the global phenomenon that is the Hollywood blockbuster!!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-16-2008 7:43 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-16-2008 8:43 PM Straggler has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 63 of 176 (475587)
07-16-2008 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Hyroglyphx
07-16-2008 8:13 PM


Re: Is subbie aroung?
OK
But on what rationale are the limits that are applied actually applied?
What rationale is it that says handguns are obvioulsy fine but the personal ownership of napalm bombs are not?
Please try to look at this from my point of view - Fire-arms to me are not an everyday object. In fact I have never held a gun or even seen one close up. The idea that they are obviously permitted to be carried is almost as bizzarre to me as someone walking around with a bazooka cannon might be to you!!!
I am trying to work out what the limits of acceptability are with regard to weaponry in the US.
Forget legality for one moment(as this is obviously a complex subject, with numerous nuances and multiple interpretations)
In your personal opinion what constitutes the upper limit of acceptability in terms of personal weaponry and on what basis do you make this judgement?
Is an armoured tank acceptable?
Is a bazooka gun?
Is a thermonuclear device?
Is a napalm bomb?
Is a machine gun?
What is the limit and what is the reason/rationale for that limit?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-16-2008 8:13 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-16-2008 9:40 PM Straggler has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024