Elementary school shooting

Agreed. However the population never resists this. Do you really believe the US would be different somehow? And if the US military was enforcing this and 20% of the population was actively supporting, 60% indifferent and 20% actively opposed would stand a chance of resisting? Even if you flip the number to 20/20/60 whoever's side the military falls on would win.

In Nazi Germany from 1939 it fair to say the whole of the fighting age population had access to military grade weapons and equipment but no opposition occurred then either. I believe that there was some morale problems on the Western fronts in 1943 onwards but sporadic. In the East less so.

 

It's not fair to say or historically accurate. The NAZI party began forms of gun control in 1933. Bear in mind, Hitler also had a bit of a communist (real or perceived) problem early on. His final and complete control on domestic gun ownership was in 1938.

In 1939 there was a significant number of fighting age men certainly had military weapons issued to them and trained to use by the German military, SA and SS, only most of them were using them in Poland and the rest were lined up along France.

 

In regards the Ghandi quote.

I don't believe that small arms are going to have any effect if the military is supporting the current government. If a civil war does succeed it doesn't lead to a stable country afterwards.

For personal protection I'd rather the assailant was unarmed and so was I rather than guns being involved. The police are also more effective than historically. I like feeling perfectly safe without the need for a gun.

 

That's certainly your own personal disposition and I genuinely respect that. I have stated it before in this discussion and I'll say it again (and I had to say it elsewhere during a family gathering over Christmas when I was challenged on this topic) - I don't think anyone who is not comfortable around guns should have anything to do with them. I don't believe in compulsory ownership of anything.

Where we depart is where you are not just satisfied with your own self-preservation stance and must interfere with mine when I have never hurt anyone and harbour no malice toward anyone else.

 

If I was to go to the US I wouldn't mind going to a range. Shooting guns is fun. One in the house I wouldn't like.

But fun is of much less importance than the deaths which could be prevented by them not being available.

 

I agree, they are fun to practice shoot. But I don't own mine for fun, it's getting too expensive quite honestly. I do everything in my power to make sure that they won't hurt any innocent people, if anything, the people I most care about.

That said, If you are ever over here, you're welcome to perforate some cans with me.

 

I see another Bit-Tech gathering coming on. Geeks with guns...

 

Trust me to jump in to this topic just as it succumbs to Godwin's law...Admittedly I've only read back to page 20 or so, but some of the arguments presented perplex me.

One thing I've noticed is that the US Constitution is seen as a sacred document to American citizens and it's signatories canonized in the American collective consciousness.

I can not help but wonder what these very same signatories would make of modern American society. If they had drafted the constitution today, would it be markedly different? Would there, for example, be a 28th amendment stating that the right to bear arms does not supersede a child's right to education without fear of slaughter?

I imagine it would be a very different document. The world is a very different place. They could not have possibly anticipated the exponential inflation of lethality and effectiveness of arms. The document is simply a set of checks and balances which attempts to mitigate the possibility of tyranny. It is, however, defined by the time in which it is written, and the 2nd amendment would undoubtedly be different if not removed altogether. I honestly can not picture Washington looking at chobham armour on modern tanks, unmanned combat aerial vehicles, or even the antiquated tactical ballistic surface-to-surface missile and thinking "Guns will be super-effective against these weapons."

I look at the US Constitution and I see an aspirational document; An attempt to lay the groundwork for the fairest, and most just society the world has yet seen. Then I look at modern America and see one of the most unequal, socially immobile and violent societies on Earth. Bottom in it's class of developed countries for all things the constitution aspired to. It seems to me that, despite all that noble aspiration, its attempt to constrain the ruling class and subsequent laws have been ineffectual. It simply hasn't worked...And, if it hasn't worked, does it deserve its sacred and incontrovertible status?

 

Unlike the catastrophic last one, new rule: First we shoot THEN we drink.

 

Wise words, indeed. My wife's uncle has been shot twice - both times by family members white shooting debris in a dirt pit. One of the times he took a partial shotgun shot to the face, and to this day his facial hair grows in black on one side and white on the other. It's a neat trick.

 

Sorry took a while to reply....

No that's not what I meant.
You don't have to attack anyone, just have the means to stand your ground and defend your rights.
Do you believe that US Army would start shooting their own people for defending the very constitution they themselves swore to defend? More chance of them shouldering up.
Maybe some soldiers/law enforcement who are incapable of critical thinking would do the dirty , But it would take a lie of monumental epic-ness to get them to do so (ok maybe not if they are thick twats), But I wouldn't want to be them if they fail.
Apparently 'posse comitatus' prevents the use of the military against US civilians on US soil (not sure if that still stands).
Bombers and tanks!!!!....That takes pilots and crewmen, who are usually of higher calibre than your average govt stooge and swear to defend the very same constitution.
Although drones would remove the human element since any thick money hungry sh1ts can operate a joypad ;-)

Some folks are politically (sadly, by the TV for many) informed between 2 choices for two parties, who after year after year have made things inherently worse for almost everyone.
Lots of lies and power grabbing, killing, removal of rights etc, The type of stuff you would expect to see going on under a tyrannical dictatorship.
Votes have never succeeded in toppling a dictatorship, Which can be better understood as a person/party that will not play by the rules and will not listen, Votes or no votes.
I sense your optimism and trust in govt/system appears to be higher than mine, correct?
Feudalism IMO is the two party political pantomime system or better yet the system that provides nothing of true value for an electorate but everything to maintain the one way system.
Would sir like the red **** or the blue ****, I hear all **** tastes the same these days, It's rather sh1tty ;-)

I agree it's not a viable life philosophy as much as an ignorant self serving authority.
But I would still rather have the means to legally defend myself and my family.
It's not about approaching life's problems all gung-ho, It's about defending yourself and your family when Life's complex problems come gung-ho on you, i.e come across the threshold of your door.
A foot-up-the-arse postured little person with insecurities is exactly what someone would feel like after trying to infringe themselves on my family and home, or oaths I may still be sworn to.

America has been strong before and and I have no doubt they will get through this one without a drama.




PS -
Dear America,
We are truly sorry for the unfortunate situation involving a certain Piers Morgan, stirring **** via your airwaves when you really don't need it.
He is really popular here in London and he has many fans who wish to have a 'quiet' word with him.
Just stick a Hershey bar in his mouth (the candy type) and tape it shut, wrap him in plastic Make sure you poke a hole where his arse should be so he can breath and send him via sea freight (I hear round both cape's is the quickest):

FAO: Operation Varek
New Scotland Yard
Broadway
London
SW1H 0BG
United Kingdom

Sincere apologies,

The UK taxpayer

 

You were talking about the second amendment, not home defence.

No, I just think that (the threat of) armed violence to achieve political change is incompatible with the principles of a democracy.

Feudalism, by the way, is the rule of might makes right.

Seriously, how many Americans are in mortal danger every time someone knocks on the door? Here in the UK not even the beat police have guns. It has not proved to be a problem yet.

 

I know I'm on dangerous grounds here by nit-picking history with you - particularly WWII era history - but I'm not sure it's entirely fair or historically accurate to state to state that the Nazi party began gun control in 1933. The Nazi/Hitler/gun control link comes up in any gun control debate, and on the surface it does make a bit of sense. However, Bernard Harcourt addressed the topic in a 2004 paper from the University of Chicago Law School.

In the paper, Harcourt specifically addresses the argument that Hitler's expansion of gun control laws, and the subsequent disarming of the populace, is what enabled the oppressive Nazi regime. Harcourt points out that the earlier Weimar Republic had passed strict gun control laws shortly after 1919 - partly in response to crime, and partly due to stipulations in Article 169 of the Treaty of Versailles (which also imposed gun control measures on Germany). The gun laws enacted during Hitler's Nazi Germany were more relaxed than the prior laws - the exception being stricter laws concerning gun ownership by Jews. The paper points to overall declining gun laws.

If anything, Hitler's ideology and the Nazi gun laws are sometimes contradictory and confusing if one tries to draw a direct line between the laws themselves and the ultimate outcome. For example, the Jews for the Peservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) and the National Alliance & National Vanguard (a white supremacist organization), both argue for less gun control. The JPFO argues that Hitler banned guns to prevent Jewish uprising, and the NA&NV argue that Hitler facilitated the private ownership of firearms by relaxing gun control laws.

Hitler can't seem to win here - he's either a pro-gun maniac or an anti-gun despot.

 

I don't claim to be a history expert. All the history I have consumed has always been a side dish to feed my economic appetite but I have had to read up on a good bit of it - more than I expected.

Any cursory look at Hitler quickly tells you the man was a paranoid sociopath who constantly contradicted himself for a variety of seemingly unrelated reasons.

No doubt that a lot happened between 1933 and 1938. Hitler had a lot of challenges to solve politically along that period of time (as I mentioned the Communist problem). 1919, Versailles is very fresh in the history of Germany. But that is also what Hitler used as an excuse to rally Germans claiming that was what was crippling Germany's economy (and in many counts he was right). It was the rampant inflation in Weimar that made Germans so desperate for something else, anything else.

But when you fast forward to the era of the late 30's, it's hard to hang your hat on anything Hitler may be doing as motivated to comply with Versailles when you consider things like: His occupation of the Rhineland, Sudetenland, eventually Poland, building battleships like the famous Bismark, ramping up what would become the Luftwaffe and his armor divisions. All these things that enabled him to run through Europe were also violations of the treaty. He may have made symbolic and public gestures to satisfy outside observers but look at what he actually did.

I don't want to get into a whole historical detail debate but it does serve the point that Hitler did feel the need to manipulate the amount of domestic guns to serve his political purposes which does serve my argument. If people were allowed to make their own decisions instead of comply what what served one man and his agenda, much may have been avoided or at least happened differently. Ask the jews subject to Kristallnacht or the ones living in the ghettos of Warsaw if they would have preferred to have some form of defense, I think we know the answer, even if the outcome would've been the same.

I'll read your reference when I get a chance and I may be proven wrong.

 

The historical treatment of blacks in America despite the presence of the second amendment seems to provide a solid counter point to your views expressed in the third paragraph.

Blacks were basically denied constitutional rights till the civil war and there were efforts to limit there ability to get arms for much of the past 100 years so maybe this just reinforce your belief that the second amendment has to be held to absolutely and with no compromise in order to prevent that kind of unfairness.

 

An Aside...

Someone just shared this picture, from the Libertarian Party, on my facebook timeline...



I couldn't resist trolling with the comment - "I'm sick of all this TALK of 2nd Amendment rights. Exercise them! I don't just mean OWN a gun - They are trying to limit rights afforded to you by the Constitution itself!!! "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" That's TYRANNY enough in my book. Form a militia! KILL THEM ALL!!!"

I guess I'm never emigrating to the US now

EDIT: Holy crap...It got 2 likes in the time it took to post this. Now I'm nervous

 

When I think of the idea of gun control in the US, I think of this picture:

 

I wonder how Oscar Pistorius is feeling about gun ownership at the moment...

 

Not great I should imagine, from what I can see he doesn't have a leg to stand on.

 

............. oh lol.