Haven, The Swiss situation was used to refute your point that a gun in every household results in a more dangerous society. Israel also has its citizens armed to the teeth, and their murder rate is half that of Switzerlands. You did not overcome these facts, and they destroy the bulk of your argument. More guns simply do not equal more violence. Too, fewer guns do not equal less violence. In response to your numbered points to me- 1. I certainly agree, so I changed "God given rights" to "natural rights". 2. The founders beliefs are very relevant, because they formed the government of their time. They were also lawyers and judges, and they were responsible for setting up the initial legal precedents. Since all law is based on past decisions, their ideas are relevant today, unless refuted by modern decisions. Hence, their opinions about the 2nd amendment and the right to bear arms are relevant because the law has not changed. 3. We must use the definition of the late 18th to find meaning in the documents of that time. The militia of our forefathers were the citizenry. To argue that we use today's meaning of militia for an idea espoused 230 years ago is illogical. We are all the militia, and the government can not keep us from bearing arms. 4. There certainly is a link between the rise in crime in Australia, and the vulnerability of law abiding citizens that resulted from the government mandated seizure of firearms. I am not really sure how you can argue this point, unless the rise in crime in Australia is statistically equal to the rise in crime in the rest of the world (I am not going to check on this now). As for your generalization that less murder occurs in countries with no firearms, one only has to look at Rwanda to see you are incorrect. Once again, culture, not guns, determine the amount of violence in a society. 5, Slavery existed in most parts of the world when our country was formed. Our Constitution and Declaration of Independance, formed through a respect of British Common Law, start an irreversible trend away from slavery. 6. Hitler disarmed his people so he could have total control. Please, you can not logically argue that an unarmed populace is less vulnerable to tyranny than an armed populace. Also, your statement that "The fact that guns didn't stand up to them actually indicates that guns don't stop tyranny" is false because the people in those societies did not have guns to fight back in the first place. Another example is the Rape of Nanking before WW2. The first action of the Japanese was to collect the guns from the civilians of Nanking. 500,000 died soon thereafter. 7. The only defense against tyranny is a robust democratic process. Once again, Tyrants don't respect Democratic process, so therefore the Democratic process CAN NOT be use as a defense against tyranny. Tyrants respect one thing- force. 8. Education, or lack of education, is irrelevant to this argument. Your statement, rights are a creation of man, is a direct contradiction of our heritage. 9. Ad hominem arguments- After rereading the posts, I see I am as guilty as anybody else here. Sorry! ------------------ Bob Rainey is my hero!
If the "people did not have guns to fight back in the first place," how then did Hitler disarm the public? Hitler was popular in Germany and did not have to face too much opposition from Germanic people. Also, he actually trained the public in the art of war, starting with his Hitler Youth program. I have seen the leftover little weapons the kids got. Funny. My interpretation of what Haven was saying (without immersing myself within this lovely debate) is that our democratic process is designed to stop the movement towards tyranny BEFORE it happens. Internal checks and balances, voting, etc. It would be very hard, in the gov'ment's present state, for a Hitler type character to come in and force his will over the country. He was able to do it in Germany because the government was in shambles. The most likely way such a dramatic change could take place would be for a domestic force to rise up and overthrow the status quo and implement a tyrannical system. If you have such little faith in this system (suggesting that we must have guns to preserve democracy) then perhaps you do not think the framers to be so smart after all. ------------------ Whitey will pay. [This message has been edited by rimbaud (edited April 09, 2001).]
"The Swiss situation was used to refute your point that a gun in every household results in a more dangerous society. Israel also has its citizens armed to the teeth, and their murder rate is half that of Switzerlands. You did not overcome these facts, and they destroy the bulk of your argument. More guns simply do not equal more violence. Too, fewer guns do not equal less violence." The fact remains that an increase in light arms is the #1 sign of incipient warfare. I believe that the followres of John Galtung, and his school of thought, have articulated tihs point rather well. I can come up with specific names if you want them. It does seem to be a pretty good sign of impending disaster. Some causality seems to exist. In response to your numbered points to me- 1. I certainly agree, so I changed "God given rights" to "natural rights". That's fine. 2. The founders beliefs are very relevant, because they formed the government of their time. They were also lawyers and judges, and they were responsible for setting up the initial legal precedents. Since all law is based on past decisions, their ideas are relevant today, unless refuted by modern decisions. Hence, their opinions about the 2nd amendment and the right to bear arms are relevant because the law has not changed. I'm actually not a big fan of precedent. I believe, like many others, the the Constitution isa malleable document that should be taken more as a declaration of principle than actual law. I think that moral norms and theory have progressed since then, and that this should be taken into account, a la Justice Brennan. 3. We must use the definition of the late 18th to find meaning in the documents of that time. The militia of our forefathers were the citizenry. To argue that we use today's meaning of militia for an idea espoused 230 years ago is illogical. We are all the militia, and the government can not keep us from bearing arms. That's what i meant actually. In Britain, you actually had to apply to become a member of the militia in the 18th and 19th centuries. It was certainly an official position, not that of a common person. 4. There certainly is a link between the rise in crime in Australia, and the vulnerability of law abiding citizens that resulted from the government mandated seizure of firearms. I am not really sure how you can argue this point, unless the rise in crime in Australia is statistically equal to the rise in crime in the rest of the world (I am not going to check on this now). As for your generalization that less murder occurs in countries with no firearms, one only has to look at Rwanda to see you are incorrect. Once again, culture, not guns, determine the amount of violence in a society. I was actually speculating that the international increases in murder might have equaled those in Australia. statistics are often abused on this point (by liberals as much as conservatives). Correllation versus causality is certain difficult to determine here. However, it does seem to be true that when you reduce the # of light-arms, fatalities decrease. That's the logic between all the recent initiatives to reduce the spread of light arms, and there has been some emperical success. SO, yes you're right that it's mostly cultural... but fewer guns helps. 5, Slavery existed in most parts of the world when our country was formed. Our Constitution and Declaration of Independance, formed through a respect of British Common Law, start an irreversible trend away from slavery. I agree here... just meant this to disprove notions of infallibility. Sorry if htis issue offended you. I agree that the ideals were already in place to end slavery. This lends credibility to my argument concerning moral and theoretical progressivism, however. 6. Hitler disarmed his people so he could have total control. Please, you can not logically argue that an unarmed populace is less vulnerable to tyranny than an armed populace. Also, your statement that "The fact that guns didn't stand up to them actually indicates that guns don't stop tyranny" is false because the people in those societies did not have guns to fight back in the first place. I can logically argue this: a populace is never going to possess a significant enough deterrent to forestall a military dictatorship. Hitler would have risen to power if every citizen in Germany had a gun. Germany bought into the political culture of Nazi-dome. BTW, in the above argument, you stated that such violence is cultural, and firearms are irrelevant. "Another example is the Rape of Nanking before WW2. The first action of the Japanese was to collect the guns from the civilians of Nanking. 500,000 died soon thereafter." tragic, but I'm not sure possession of firearms would have helped... certainly didn't in the American frontier wars in the 19th century. 7. The only defense against tyranny is a robust democratic process. Once again, Tyrants don't respect Democratic process, so therefore the Democratic process CAN NOT be use as a defense against tyranny. Tyrants respect one thing- force." Ahh... but the problem is that a tyrant must gain some degree of legitimacy to gain powre in the first place. If a democratic system is robust, this is impossible. So yes, if a tyrant spontaneously appeared in America, it would be advantageous if we had guns. Legitimate democratic structures, however, prevent such events from taking place. "8. Education, or lack of education, is irrelevant to this argument." Education is irrelevant. I just wanted to respond to your intimations that I was somehow ignorant of politics. It's going to my career ! "Your statement, rights are a creation of man, is a direct contradiction of our heritage." See above, first point. I think we hvae a Kantian/Lockean tradition here. "9. Ad hominem arguments- After rereading the posts, I see I am as guilty as anybody else here. Sorry!" Apology is certainly mutual. I now have a high respect for your knowledge of the situation, even if I still vociferously disagree. ------------------ I would believe only in a God who could dance. - Friedrich Nietzsche Boston College - NCAA Hockey National Champions 2001
Rimbaud: exactly ------------------ I would believe only in a God who could dance. - Friedrich Nietzsche Boston College - NCAA Hockey National Champions 2001
The US is the oldest Democracy in the world, I think we're doing okay. I can't believe you're going to say Europe and SE Asia are stable. How many wars have started in Europe and SE Asia over the last 100 years? All these stable countries must be the envy of the world. Let's rattle some names from that list... Germany, Cambodia, Vietnam, England, Poland, Yugoslavia, Italy, Hungary, France, damn... I think every single one of those countries has either had mass genocide or been invaded, occupied, or attacked. I think our silly little "right to keep and bear arms" works just fine in comparison with other "stable" nations around the world. ------------------ The ox is slow but the Earth is patient.
Timing, That is the luxury of our isolation. Of course Europe will have more invasions and the like...there are many countries within close proximity on a very small continent. It is not Poland's fault that whenever someone wants to start a war they get invaded! Besides, how many times has the US been involved in violent conflict within the last 100 years? How many times was it aggresive? ------------------ Whitey will pay.
Personally, I don't really care about guns. I just don't want any government taking away my right to bear candy bars. ------------------ And then, depression set in...
Also, I think you mean "attempted genocide." Semantics, I know...cannot help myself. ------------------ Whitey will pay.
Rimbaud, You are correct in pointing out that I was unclear in my statement. Hitler first took the guns, and then he took control. When his totalitarianism became apparent, it was too late for the unarmed people to fight back. If you have such little faith in this system (suggesting that we must have guns to preserve democracy) then perhaps you do not think the framers to be so smart after all. You have missed my point. The 2nd amendment is EXACTLY the device the founding fathers chose to avoid tyranny. If you refer to the quotes in the first part of this argument, the framer's intentions are crystal clear. ------------------ Bob Rainey is my hero!
Jim: I simply don't think it's necessary. A legitimate, democratic process prevents demagogues from rising to power in the first place. Timing: In the last 100 years, we've been bordered by Canada and Mexico. Before that, we did prosecute our own Holocaust against the Native Americans. The UN has 6 standards for Genocide, and the US's treatment of Native Americans fit every single standard. If you're interested in ths, I can go find the 6 standards. Of course, this is all pretty far afield... By stability, I simply met internal, civil peace. Nations like Great Britain, France, South Korea, and Japan have extremely low murder rates.... and extremely few guns. Generally, people from those countries attribute a great deal of that low murder rate to the absence of guns. That's the sentiment I get from foreign exchange students, at least... and foreign politicians. ------------------ I would believe only in a God who could dance. - Friedrich Nietzsche Boston College - NCAA Hockey National Champions 2001 [This message has been edited by haven (edited April 09, 2001).]
The US has been involved in violent conflict to save countries who could not defend themselves. Your whole stability view is just wrong. What about the civil wars and tyranny in Europe and SE Asia. That certainly has little to do with shared borders. The Khmer Rouge and the few million Cambodians they massacred. The whole Bosnia situation and the thousands massacred there. The US is Disney Land compared historically to Europe and SE Asia. ------------------ The ox is slow but the Earth is patient.
Genocide wasn't made illegal by international law until 1951 and I believe there are five standards which American Indians could also be prosecuted under. In fact you could probably prosecute any nation involved in any war with these standards for genocide. ------------------ The ox is slow but the Earth is patient.
Timing: Most nations very well may have engaged in some form of Genocide at some point. That still doesn't make it right. This is a bit far afield, however. Hmm... I'm really not wrong about the stability issue. Proliferation ofLight arms is and remains a tale-tell sign of coming conflict. You're certainly right about Cambodia. I shouldn't have said South East Asia, but rather just named some countries in East Asia... I just wrote a paper about our foreign policy towards SE Asia, and I guess I used the term improperly negligently. I meant: South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan all have few guns and few murders. There, simplified . ------------------ I would believe only in a God who could dance. - Friedrich Nietzsche Boston College - NCAA Hockey National Champions 2001 [This message has been edited by haven (edited April 09, 2001).] [This message has been edited by haven (edited April 09, 2001).]
Ghost, I hope you did not take my comment about Hitler to be rude...it was just a joke (I obviously knew what you meant) but I later realized it might have come accross poorly. Timing: One point on Cambodia, since you brought it up: Our incessant bombing of Combodia during the Vietnam War was one of the factors that led to instability and the opportunity for the Khmer Rouge to gain power. Don't forget the atrocities in East Timor...facilitated by weapons sales of the US government. Bosnia only gained independence from Yugoslavia in 1992...what they are going through now is typical for newly emerging independent States. Point is...huh, what was my point? Oh yeah, the US is very powerful and has been for the last 100 years...thus, we have faced little external pressure. These types of pressures lead not only to invasion/war, but also to internal instability. no one is going to try to tinker with our government or try to get away with anything within our country...it logistically is too difficult. So, yes, the US is like Disneyland...we are fortunate to be in our position and, because of it, have been stable. ------------------ Whitey will pay.
Haven- A. Your initial argument that EU nations have fewer guns and violence was proven wrong with the Switzerland experience. You can dance around the facts all you want, but you must concede that more guns does not equal more violence, and fewer guns does not equal less violence. 1. ~ 2. LOL . I am sorry you aren't a "big fan of precedent", but our legal system is based on precedent. The reality of the situation is that our founding father's words are relevant to the discussion, whether you agree with the framer's conclusions or not. To disagree with me is to say that laws are not relevant is legal discussions. 3. England's definition of "militia" is not relevant to our discussion. You are playing word games here. The only definition of militia important to our discussion is the American colonists understanding of the word. Please refer to the Battles of Lexington and Concord for our answer. 4. Excerpts from Australian newspapers- "The number of Victorians murdered with firearms has almost trebled since the introduction of tighter gun laws. --Geelong Advertiser, Victoria, Sept. 11, 1997. "Gun crime is on the rise despite tougher laws imposed after the Port Arthur massacre, but gun control lobbyists maintain Australia is a safer place. . . . The number of robberies involving guns jumped 39% last year to 2183, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and assaults involving guns rose 28% to 806. The number of gun murders, excluding the Port Arthur massacre, increased by 19% to 75." --"Gun Crime Rises Despite Controls," Illawarra Mercury Oct. 28, 1998. "Crime involving guns is on the rise despite tougher laws. The number of robberies with guns jumped 39% in 1997, while assaults involving guns rose 28% and murders by 19%." --"Gun crime soars," Morning Herald, Sydney, Oct. 28, 1998. "Murders by firearms have actually increased (in Victoria) since the buyback scheme, which removed 225,000 registered and unregistered firearms from circulation. There were 18 shooting murders in 1996-97, after the buyback scheme had been introduced, compared with only six in 1995-1996 before the scheme started." --"Killings rise in gun hunt," Herald Sun, Melbourne, Dec. 23, 1998. "Victoria is facing one of its worst murder tolls in a decade and its lowest arrest rate ever." --Herald Sun, Melbourne, Dec. 11, 1999. "The environment is more violent and dangerous than it was some time ago." --South Australia Police Commissioner Mal Hyde, reported in The Advertiser, Adelaide, Dec. 23, 1999. 5. ~ 6. I don't know how you can argue that an armed populace would not have stop the Nanking genocide. I think it is common sense, but we will have to agree to disagree. 7. Right are always taken away slowly. A trip to the Holocaust Museum will remind anybody of this fact. Tyrants gain power through lies and deception, and the Democratic process can not overcome the cult of personality. 8. Re- John Locke- "John Locke was also an advocate of the citizen soldier. Locke explained in great detail in his Two Treatises on Civil Government (1689), that government of man must be based on mutual consent, and that each individual remains free due to the natural laws of nature. Because of this, each man has the right to overthrow a despotic government. As each individual maintains their natural rights, they also have the right to defend those rights against any individual or group who threatens them. Locke wrote: ".. it being reasonable and just I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction." (Second Treatise of Civil Government, 14) Locke firmly believed that man had a moral right to use force to overthrow an unjust government. That the right to resist an unjust government with arms was little different than protecting one's self from an individual's aggression. " -Gary A. Shade. I think it is clear that Locke would advocate the right to keep and bear arms. How else could we defend ourselves against despotic government? I am done with this subject, so please feel free to have the last word. I enjoyed the discussion. ------------------ Bob Rainey is my hero!
I understand what you're saying. It's a delicate balance between protection of freedoms and citizenry safety. I just have to go back to some of those quotes that Jim posted. Our framers had faith in the citizens and distrust in government to the point where they felt it an inalienable right to be armed. That's pretty strong language and I don't think we should ignore our nation's history and why we have certain rights. There are millions who would never sacrifice their rights to be armed (an essential freedom to many) so that others could think they live in a safer nation. ------------------ The ox is slow but the Earth is patient.
Jim: I think the discussion has pretty much petered out as well, and will let most of your points stand. Not that I agree, but rather simply that my position has already been articulated. I don't think I'm merely playing word games - I think there are important but subtle distinctions that have to be made in terms of aggregate effect. The issue of the Colonists ... the militia was the citizenry... but they did form formal associations, so I would still say it was a formal structure. About precedent: I think you took me a bit out of context here... or perhaps I just didn't articulate my position fully. Not being a fan of precedent does *not* mean that it's not a valid basis for legal decisions. In fact, I think precedent is the main cause of standardization within the law, and provides a great deal of legitimacy to our system. However, there are many judges who insist that precedent be followed regardless of evolving moral frameworks... and I object to this. After all, key changes have taken place throughout the evolution of our court system... we've reversed ourselves on many positions (incorporation of the 14th, the Interstate Commerce Clause, substantive due process, etc)... and simple adhering to precedent does not allow for this. It seems to me that you're a strict interpretivist. While I believe that the founders intentions were important, I'm more open to... let's say... jettisoning some of the excess baggage. I know I stand open to accusations of merely supporting expediency there. Laurence Tribe of Harvard has a good defense of this position (moderate non-interpretivism). I'm not so radical on that issue as you would believe, despite being a bleeding heart liberal admirer of Justice Brennan . ------------------ I would believe only in a God who could dance. - Friedrich Nietzsche Boston College - NCAA Hockey National Champions 2001 [This message has been edited by haven (edited April 09, 2001).]
http://www.scfirearms.org/myths.txt ------------------ "Of course, thats just my opinion, I could be wrong" -- Dennis Miller
Rocket River: The rest of us just trashed Jim... come on... if you're going to support him, provide some reasons and argue with him! Owning a gun makes it more likely that you will die. It makes it more likely that your children will die. it provides NEGATIVE safety. Who cares what the founding father's said in those quotes? Every judge except one wacko in Texas had decided that the right to bear arms was intended to allow for state militias only. Countries with more guns are less stable. Countries with fewer guns are more stable. Read Geoffrey Canada's book "Fist Stick Gun Knife." This is a fact. All you guys have on your side is some blind assertions that guns are good. Reason and facts are against you. Your quotes are completely inane. They don't make your case, they're just nice sounds bites. BTW, the founding father's owned slaves as well as guns... I think it's time our society bans the latter as well. ------------------ I would believe only in a God who could dance. - Friedrich Nietzsche Boston College - NCAA Hockey National Champions 2001 [This message has been edited by haven (edited April 09, 2001).]
Haven, nobody trashed anyone. If you are here to do that, then perhaps you shouldn't post. He was putting his POV in, just like you. Talk about intolerence .... ------------------ Im too drunk to walk ... Im driving home!
