Idiots maximise crime [Archive] - Kung Fu Magazine Forums

Helicopter

08-03-2002, 04:30 AM

That is a particularly jaundiced article:
As I remember Tony Martin shot an unarmed 15 year old in the back as he ran away from a burglary and left him to die in his garden. (The other teenager was shot trying to prise a window.)

Armed assaults are in the main robberies with knives (and often by kids stealing mobile phones) there is still very little gun crime in this country.

As for not carrying a defensive weapon I'm not sure about whether I agree with the current Law or not, but you're allowed to use an improvised 'weapon' that could be reasonably expected to carry about your person (but nothing that has been converted to be used as a weapon.) Same goes in your house you can grab a knife if you're in the kitchen, but can't run to the kitchen to grab one.

Mainly it's down to 'reasonable force'. The 'truth' of the instances named has not been reveiled and the 'evidence' counts for nothing, I don't think what Tony Martin did was in anyway reasonable. If you're worried about protecting your home get a BFD (a Big ****ing Dog! (call it Rosie if you like.)

Former castleva

08-03-2002, 05:33 AM

I´ll add some heat to the already hot water.

It is being noticed that most of the victims who get mugged etc. do not fight back.Not directly related,but thought provoking.

Then more about dogs as a protection-
There are two kinds of dogs that might come in handy,but are different.
A tiny race like a chihuahua or a miniature poodle is a great guard,they cannot do much to harm the attacker,but may make a lot of noise and WILL let you know if there´s something suspicious going on.
Protecting dogs are another case (my spelling may not be correct,but gives the direction) they will also be cabable of damaging the attacker.
Then again,many big dogs which look scary as death itself may not be worth a hamster when it comes to protecting.

Take care.

Mr Punch

08-03-2002, 05:54 AM

Although I agree with the general precept that the British public are largely de-toothed by over-prohibitive laws, and that it is ridiculous to not be able to defend yourself, the tone of this article is alarmist and sensationalist.

I remember the details of the Martin case. As I've posted here before, he is a strange, sad, mentally ill recluse. This is as proven a fact as any of those in the article. As Helicopter has said, there's no way anyone should condone what he did and to include such misrepresentation of the events in an article like this is to belittle the argument as a whole.

Washington Times___In 1999 Tony Martin, a farmer, turned his shotgun on two professional thieves when they broke into his home at night to rob him a seventh time. He was unemployed. He hadn't tended anything in years. The 15 yr-old was not a professional thief. He was a boy who had a string of petty crime offences, none of them including violence or offensive weapons. THEY hadn't robbed Martin six times.

OK: the facts that Martin was unemployed and didn't farm should not make a difference to the argument per se but it does contribute to the state he lived in, not being able to look after himself. Neither should the fact that the boy was not a professional anything: Martin didn't know who the hell he was... but again, it helps us to see that these facts are being taken in isolation and are, in effect, non-sequiturs.

Mr. Martin received a life sentence for killing one criminal, 10 years for wounding the second, and 12 months for having an illegal shotgun. OK, so IMO the sentencing was wrong. He should be in a secure mental facility, if he isn't already. He is a danger to society, and more so than ever the boy was. He wanted to be left alone, so he should be left alone in hospital. The 12 months for having an illegal shotgun should be upped. It is very easy for farmers to get shotgun licences in the UK still, and failure to do so does not show adequate respect for a reasonable law.
The wounded burglar is already released from prison.This is wrong. But the other one is still DEAD.

This is just one in depth example of how this article is full of ****.

Unsupported 'arguments' and assertions abound:

The assault on England's version of the Second Amendment was conducted by unsavory characters in the British Home Office. Who is unsavory? Says the venerable Paul Craig Roberts, a 'nationaly (sic) syndicated columnist'... There was never a version of the Second Amendment: there is no written constitution... which admittedly is bloody silly in itself in this climate, but is a different argument altogether.

_In the British welfare state, crimes against property are not taken seriously. So, what, now having a welfare system is bad, and to blame for criminals? Knee-jerk BS. And crimes against property like burglary still typically carry sentences which exceed five years, when rape frequently only gets the *******s three or so... Rapists should get life, but most burglars should get strictly enforced community service with no priveleges or chances of early release (just IMO).

I agree with the sentiment behind the article: sentencing is arse-frontwards, and self-defence should be allowed, permitted and encouraged by law, and licensed weapons should be allowed after the strictest screening... but this article is just sentiment, and doesn't help the cause of legal self-defence.

Mr Punch

08-03-2002, 05:58 AM

Richie.

You are living in a fantasy world. A nice one, I'd like to live there too, but unfortunately I am on Earth.

I had quoted some of your posts for 'analysis', but frankly, all it boils down to is

WAKE UP.

Royal Dragon

08-03-2002, 07:05 AM

"OK, so IMO the sentencing was wrong. He should be in a secure mental facility, if he isn't already. He is a danger to society, and more so than ever the boy was. He wanted to be left alone, so he should be left alone in hospital. The 12 months for having an illegal shotgun should be upped. It is very easy for farmers to get shotgun licences in the UK still, and failure to do so does not show adequate respect for a reasonable law. "

reply]
Why should he be in a mental facility? because he defended himself against intruders? The man was robbed SEVEN TIMES!! He's got to assume that one of them would hurt him eventually, and acted in normal selfdefense. What's so insane about that?

Why is he a danger to society? He's an old man minding his own buisness. Did we see him breaking into homes and robbing people, NO we didn't. He saw a threat to himself and his home and he neutralised it efficiently. If he had done that the first time, he probually would have only been robbed once.

His mistake was calling the authorites. He shoud have buired the bodies and kept his mouth shut.

Mr Punch

08-03-2002, 07:38 AM

Not because he killed someone to 'defend his property'... (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4288212,00.html)

but because, although it is sad... (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4278036,00.html)

he IS really potty... (http://www.guardian.co.uk/martin/article/0,2763,214336,00.html)

In retrospect, maybe I have been a little harsh: now he's a mess, and I don't agree with what the legal system did... but it's still a freak case, and not representative of the general argument. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4279708,00.html)

Even in his own words, he seems to have a problem with responsibility. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/martin/article/0,2763,214417,00.html)

There you go mate: if you're going to read things into my posts that aren't there, please enjoy the story!

Ryu

08-03-2002, 07:44 AM

LMAO@Spiderman..... Rogue, where do you find this stuff??

Ryu

Black Jack

08-03-2002, 07:47 AM

Royal,

Because what were once free citizens are now turning into serfs.

Its often hard to get a grasp of the picture on how anti-self defense it is in the U.K., it is beyond the point of insane, children who play cops and robbers are arrested and there dna samples are put on file for life, due to the gun ban you can not hunt anymore as one did before, you can not own antique firearms anymore, a lady who put up barb wire around her house to protect her from crime got arrested for even that, you can not protect yourself with any instrument or the bad guy becomes a victim, like Mat said you can defend yourself with a knife if you are in the kitchen-though I would not bet on the fact that you would not be arrested and charged- but you can not go to the kitchen and get a knife, it's bloody nuts.

I believe he had every right to shoot both the men in this case, the burglar who lived, Brendan Fearon was/is a convicted felon with more than 30 arrests on his record, including crimes of violence, plus that is just ONE case in many, others were listed on the small article.

Here is a article on how bad gun crime is in the U.K.

http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeld+64387&comman]

Richie

08-03-2002, 08:14 AM

Please explain my fantasy. Look at the country you are in now.

Guns are out of control. So many guns are made in the US and a lot of them get into the hands of the bad guys. I would rather have more cops than more guns.

Richie

08-03-2002, 08:19 AM

There should be VERY stricted laws for guns point, andif you have an illegal firearms, u should be arrested and rot in jail for a long time.

Black Jack

08-03-2002, 08:19 AM

Ritchie I have always wondered,

What is it like when one has there head up there ass.

Richie

08-03-2002, 08:27 AM

Ok morons, I have my head up my ass because i want less guns and stronger gun restrictions. Also, for feeling that you don't really need a gun for selfdefense.

Ok, I'm wrong for thinking that.

Black Jack

08-03-2002, 08:29 AM

Yes you are.

It's nice to know we agree.

Richie

08-03-2002, 08:29 AM

Ok, Ass

Black Jack

08-03-2002, 08:33 AM

Your welcome.

Ryu

08-03-2002, 09:03 AM

Mr Punch

08-03-2002, 09:05 AM

Originally posted by RichboyWe don't need guns. Hunting riffles are ok(to be fair), but we don't need them. The right to bare arms? That means roll up your sleeves and fight.

We don't need guns, but hunting 'riffles' (sic) are OK, but then we don't need those either. Why? Unsubstantiated and thus in this case, illogical statement. Rolling up your sleeves and fighting... LOL :D... this was a joke, right?

Sounding an alarm system would scare a bad guy away.
Yeha, that's right, cos bad guys aren't cool, even in the movies you're watching... they ALWAYS run at the sound of an alarm...

You dont have the right to kill. ... agreed with reservations...

You have the right to protect yourself and loved ones.

However, if deadly force is the ONLY way, then sadly, so be it, thats for the police to decide.

So if the only way you feel you can protect your loved ones is by killing, whaddyagonnado? Stand there deliberating the finer points of ethics till your loved ones are killed?

Sometimes use of guns is overkill, but I'd rather act first... and I would rather trust my judgement, as I would be the one who was there, than delegating my responsibility to some Judge Dredd-a-like, so leaving it for the police to decide is nonsense...

Home alarms are not like car alarms. They are connected to the police and fire stations. This will still mean nothing to many criminals who are dangerous enough to attempt a break-in in the first place without first being good and sure that no-one is in the house.

My home in America has an alarm. Sometime we trip it by mistake, and when that happens, the police are all over my house.
Well, boooooolly for you. Live in a nice part of town do you? Emergency response time has been shown in the UK (and I'm pretty sure in the States, Canada, and Australia too) to be directly related to the average income demographic in the area. OK, so stats show jack, but where I come from, alarms can go off for literally two days before some concerned citizen throws bricks at it.

I have guns in my house too. My mother was more likely to blow my brothers head off sneaking in late than a bad guy.
So that would be another goldfish jellybean fweep non-sequitur, then?:p! Are you trying to tell us that your brother is more likely to be sneaking in late than a 'bad guy'...? In that case, for once, I believe you... Or what the hell are you trying to say?

Please explain my fantasy.
I'm afraid I couldn't do that even if I'd graduated in psychology.

Look at the country you are in now.
Werner schnitzel. Now what the **** are you talking about?! What has Japan got to do with the price of fish... oh hang on, small country limited resources, polite people, living in the past, gun prohibition, rising armed crime rate... oh I see!

Guns are out of control. So many guns are made in the US and a lot of them get into the hands of the bad guys. I would rather have more cops than more guns.
I would too. But then I'd rather have even you as president of the USA than George Bush (one primate's as good as another!), and I'd certainly rather have ****loads of money than a crappy job, but then I'm not in charge either... :rolleyes:

There should be VERY stricted laws for guns point, andif you have an illegal firearms, u should be arrested and rot in jail for a long time.

There should be sensible and thorough screening for firearm use, and finally, we agree on: a harsh sentence for transgressors...

phew... please, never make me do that again...!

ewallace

08-03-2002, 11:35 AM

I'd rather have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it.

dnc101

08-03-2002, 12:01 PM

Strip away the emotions about owning or using guns and what we have left is a debate about basic human dignity. Do we have the right to defend ourselves, our loved ones, or our property! Repressive laws take away that right. Look at even the facts that both sides agree on- if you get a knife out of your kitchen and confront someone who'se broken into your home you go to jail. Where's the dignity in that? So you just beg him to not hurt you, take what he wants but please leave us alone? How would you feel in that case, dignified? I think not. What if what he wants is your wife, daughter, or maybe even your butt? There's dignity, for sure!

Next, let's say the Bobbies do respond to your alarm in time. I recall seing pictures of them covering the Libyan Embassy from across the square (looked like a corner of a square, but not sure- any way, a long distance) with snub nose revolvers. The Libians could be seen in plain view with assault rifles. Idiocy in it's finest flower. Sorry, I'll take my chances with a kitchen knife and a shovel. Or a boat. Or better yet, drop the rotter on the constables doorstep and let him dispose of the filth after he gets back from interrogating your family about the sods who broke in and robed and raped them. Since you have an alarm they came just after you finaly decided to defend yourself, so you'll have to step over the corpse when they take you to your cell!

dnc101

08-03-2002, 12:47 PM

Originally posted by Richie
We dont NEED guns . Sounding an alarm system would scare a bad guy away. You dont have the right to kill. You have the right to protect yourself and loved ones.
However, if deadly force is the ONLY way, then sadly, so be it, thats for the police to decide.

Richie, you say we don't have the right to kill, then if deadly force is the only way so be it. This is a contradiction, so I'm going to have to assume you meant we don't have the right to use unwarranted force to take a life, even in self defense. That I could agree with. It's the point at which that force is warrented, and the type of force allowable, that we are likely to disagree on. If you reasonably fear for your life or someone elses due to the aggressive actions of another- and if deadly force is the only sure option to stop that aggressive action- then you should be able to kill the aggressor without fear of legal reprisal. Multiple assailants, armed assailants, or someone larger or stronger threatening your life and attacking you are good examples of situations where deadly force should be allowable (in my opinion, in that of the courts, and in English Common Law).

As for the weapon used to defend yourself, he's just as dead if killed by a knife or a lamp as he is if killed by a gun. Why the extreme paranoia over firearms? The fact is, and I've experienced this personally, a firearm in your hands may save his life by dissuadeing him.

As for alarm systems, they are usually stolen and sold to some other misguided chap.

The most disturbing thing in your post is the comment that it is for the police to decide whether your use of force was justifiable. You've just turned over your rights to self defense, your responsibility for your own safety and protection, and your moral self determination to the police! 1. Even in the UK guilt or innocence is still decided in the courts. 2. Can you say Gestapo, NKVD, Stassi, FBI? Sure, I knew you could. Now, let's play a game. Bend over, grab your ankles, and let them put the pretty bracelets on you in that position. Now let Mr. Rogers show what those night sticks are really for! Seriously, when you give up your rights to the state, you give yourself to them- body, mind and spirit. You have no recourse against them. And the more you give up, the more they control you. To the point that you are no longer human, you are just property- a toy that exists at the pleasure of and for the pleasure of the state and those in positions of privilage. That people would willingly put themselves in this position is incomprehensable to me.

{i^(

08-03-2002, 04:40 PM

Godwin's Law prov. [Usenet] "As a discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. However there is also a widely- recognized codicil that any intentional triggering of Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful.

There's always using a CLOSE-reading of the second amendment to control guns. Totally legal, TOTALLY Constitutional: A WELL-regulated Militia, being necessary to secure a free state, the right of the people to own AND BEAR arms shall not be denied.

So, anyone with a gun, not in a militia, goes to a court-martial. cool with me! Just do what the Constitution requires and take it literally- thats what we do with the first amendment.

dnc101

08-03-2002, 05:29 PM

This is not one of those groups, and that law does not apply here. Laws cannot be introduced to retroactively void previous arguments. In polite society they are agreed to at the outset, or at least when agreed to or invoked they do not apply to previous arguments. In fact, this forum has dang few laws or rules, and those we do have are never inforced. Come to think of it, this ain't polite society neither- bunch hicks, mostly!

As to the Constitution, the militia is defined as any citizen of age to serve. This is how the authors of the Constitution defined it. That is the kind of army that fought for the existence of this country at that time- regular Army side by side with militia. And the militia is called up as volunteers who provide their own guns. That is why it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

dnc101

08-03-2002, 05:59 PM

"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms." Richard Henry Lee.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." George Maddison.

"Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they allways attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." Rep Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, Anals of Congress, August 17, 1789.

Royal Dragon

08-03-2002, 06:45 PM

I think your on the wrong forum, Cyberkwoon is two blocks over, to the left.:rolleyes:

dnc101

08-03-2002, 06:52 PM

Let the libs have their say. After all, how better to show the fallacies inherent in their views than to let them expose those views to our insightful critique?

{i^(

08-03-2002, 07:09 PM

I'm not a liberal at all. I'm a constitutional libertarian: more deeply conservative than thou, I'd say.

FWIW: only observing, with humor, the action of Godwin's Law, which is taken to be a natural law of the internet, not a legal fiction.

FWIW2: I disagree with nothing re: militias, but point, instead, to the words "well-regulated". I firmly believe that the Founding Fathers knew how to write an amendment, and that they had the faith that we could read them correctly. The dependent clause, so often ignored, is the key. The solution has been available for over 200 years.

FWIW3: If I am to believe that you'd disagree with a close-reading and enforcement of the Constitution, then I am forced to conclude that the NRA is a haven for sluggards and unpatriotic sorts. Unless you'd like to re-write the 2nd amendment, hmm?

Le nOObi

08-03-2002, 07:53 PM

You all are big doody heads.

Mr Punch

08-03-2002, 08:00 PM

dnc, you are talking almost as much crap as Richie.

Originally posted by dnc101

...we don't have the right to use unwarranted force to take a life, even in self defense.That I could agree with.

Given what situation could you agree with force not being justifiable in a self-defence situation? You are disagreeing in the next sentence.

It's the point at which that force is warrented, and the type of force allowable, that we are likely to disagree on.

Look up the meaning of 'warranted'. It means 'justifiable' or 'authorised'. So, exactly the same as allowable in this case, and this is why you are disagreeing with Richie.

If you reasonably ... without fear of legal reprisal.

Agreed. 'reasonably' could cause problems: you have different 'reasoning' to mine... but generally: agreed.

... (in my opinion, in that of the courts, and in English Common Law).
You're joining hatstand boy in his quest for irrelevancy here... what does 'English Common Law' have to do with it?

As for the weapon used to defend yourself, he's just as dead if killed by a knife or a lamp as he is if killed by a gun. Why the extreme paranoia over firearms? The fact is, and I've experienced this personally, a firearm in your hands may save his life by dissuadeing him.

Lamps are designed to illuminate things. Guns are designed to kill.
Knives are often designed to cut vegetables. Guns are designed to kill.

OK, again, I agree with your point that anything can be used to kill... but this is a continuation of the very point that people in England are being sued for putting barbed-wire fences up... you have to make a distinction in law. If you do this, you have to regulate the use of implements which are designed to kill.

As for alarm systems, they are usually stolen and sold to some other misguided chap.

If you say so... what this has to do with their efficiency, or the right to defend yourself, I'm not sure.

The most disturbing thing in your post is the comment that it is for the police to decide whether your use of force was justifiable. You've just turned over your rights to self defense, your responsibility for your own safety and protection, and your moral self determination to the police!
That was pretty disturbing...!

1. Even in the UK guilt or innocence is still decided in the courts. 2. Can you say Gestapo, NKVD, Stassi, FBI? Sure, I knew you could.
Can you say... why did you use 'even'? The UK is not that bad: more knee-jerk response to alarmist sensationalist press. Sure you can read stats about the overall rise in the number of violent crimes in the UK, but if you take out a couple of hotspots like Lambeth, Moss Side, The Swan, you'll find that it's still not that bad. so why take them out? That's not statistically accurate! Well, since we're bandying cliches around: Can you say lies, **** lies and statistics... sure I knew you could.

To the point that you are no longer human, you are just property- a toy that exists at the pleasure of and for the pleasure of the state and those in positions of privilage...

:eek: NOW wtf are you talking about... pleasure... I'd lay off the SM sites if I were you... :p

Richie's argument was that he wants fewer guns (sounds reasonable) and more gun restrictions (wait a moment). And that he doesn't believe you need a gun for self defence (I've never needed one in the UK up til now. If I lived in the States I may be happier with one, in some areas). It was a badly stated argument which you are welcome to disagree with.

So what exactly is your argument?

Mr Punch

08-03-2002, 08:23 PM

dnc: the word 'bobbies' is seldom used by anyone under the age of 60, and only then to describe one or two of them on the beat in a fondly nostalgic manner. If they come to your house, they are pigs, or filth, or just the police.

Which Libyan Embassy affair are you talking about? Would this be the unhappy event of 1984... 18 years ago... so about the same time you analysed anything and formulated an original opinion? Or which...?

So that may be more relevant than Richard Henry Lee, George Maddison, and Rep Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, Anals (sic, LOL, is that a historical spelling too! or was he a 'buttwipe'?!:p) of Congress, August 17, 1789. More knee-jerk bs, unless you want to tell me how it's fitting for today's society...?

Oh and thank you sir, for letting the 'libs' have their say. Am I a 'lib'? Oh ****, you can't quite put me in a hole can you? So it's just another knee-jerk response: if it doesn't fit with your beliefs, it's 'liberal'... meaning bad, meaning weak, meaning leftist... etc etc... American 'politics' at it's finest from the conservatives as usual...

Big, fat :rolleyes:

Mr Punch

08-03-2002, 08:31 PM

So here's my opinion on the line.

Everyone should have the right to bear arms if at least:

they agree to show a medical record, including mental history to an appropriate authority for scrutiny;

they take a certified, regulated training course in that weapon, involving use, ethics, and 'animal day' style pressure, safety and maintenance;

they take a psychological assessment.

Now you can say 'Who decides what's sane?' etc... 'Who decides the ethics?' etc, but let's wake up and smell the coffee: none of us live in a democracy, we live in a selective dictatorship. And at some point down the line you have to trade in some measure of your rights to gain others.

Would there be mistakes, misjudgements, fallibility? Sure.

But I believe it would still be safer overall.

Helicopter

08-04-2002, 01:45 AM

NB This is my personal opinion (liberal or otherwise), and therefore not subject to change.

My test for gun ownership:

"Do you wish to own a gun?"

Answer : "yes"

Response: "I'm sorry we don't think you're suitable for gun ownership."

Mr Punch

08-04-2002, 02:00 AM

LOL at Helicopter! I know you're serious and I respect your opinion... even if I don't agree! It would be the ideal...

{i^(

08-04-2002, 06:41 AM

"Everyone should have the right to bear arms if at least:

they agree to show a medical record, including mental history to an appropriate authority for scrutiny;

they take a certified, regulated training course in that weapon, involving use, ethics, and 'animal day' style pressure, safety and maintenance;

they take a psychological assessment.

none of us live in a democracy, we live in a selective dictatorship. And at some point down the line you have to trade in some measure of your rights to gain others. "
-------------------------------------------------------

Are precisely my arguments. (Altho, I'd like my Republic BACK) I merely point out that weapons (and you may have anything, as much as you want) fall under the jurisdiction of the military and were always intended to be. The military conducts screenings, training, etc. etc. and administers justice as well. The word 'militia' means 'standing armed force'- a well-chosen word, yet again.

Note, I'd never said anything regarding how I imagined such regulation should be acted on, but I note the NRA is incapable of it and no ongoing regulation of militias has occurred since the time of the minutemen. It should be brought and argued seriously before Congress- there are no worries for either 'side' if either is 'right'. C ya.

Kope

08-04-2002, 10:10 AM

Originally posted by {i^(
There's always using a CLOSE-reading of the second amendment to control guns. Totally legal, TOTALLY Constitutional: A WELL-regulated Militia, being necessary to secure a free state, the right of the people to own AND BEAR arms shall not be denied.

So, anyone with a gun, not in a militia, goes to a court-martial. cool with me! Just do what the Constitution requires and take it literally- thats what we do with the first amendment.

Quickly followed up with:

Originally posted by {i^(

I'm not a liberal at all. I'm a constitutional libertarian: more deeply conservative than thou, I'd say.

Ummmm, look, there is no intellectually honest textual redaction of that clause that will allow for the reading you are suggesting.

The words "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," are a present participle (which is immediately clear to anyone with a good grounding in Latin and 18th century grammar). It is an adjective being used to modify the word "militia." It makes a positive claim about the rights of the people and in no way modifies or limits "rights of the people."

There is no expressed or implied condition of the rights of the people to be dependent upon the militia being well regulated. Rather, the rights of the people are there unmodified, for the expressed purpose of a well-regulated militia.

Any appeal to textual evidence that the so-called "pre-amble" of the second amendment modifies the rights of the people needs to argue that the authors of that amendment where, by the standards of the day, gramatically illiterate.

That the average person today reading this passage is gramatically illiterate, does not, btw, change the meaning of the text. It only changes the probability that the reader will comprehend it.

So, while you may be "more conservative" than anyone I know, you are demonstrably not a "constitutional" libertarian, if that adjective is taken to mean a libertarian whose political philosophy is grounded in an arguably licit reading of the text of the Constitution, as you have demonstrated quite clearly that you are not particularly capable of making a licit reading of the text.

The grammatical construction of the second ammendment is identical to the following:

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed"

Yet no one would read that sentence to mean "only books that deal with issues pertaining to the electorate and who are using them in their role as a member of the electorate may own books."

The equivocation on the second amendment with regards to it's sentence structure is an interesting, but pointless, display of ignorance of grammer.

Mr Punch

08-04-2002, 11:03 AM

Fantastic...

and all that with the old 'grammer' typo at the end...!:rolleyes: :D

braden, my friend, i think you have someone who can take you on here...:eek: :D :p :cool: somebody work out some subject that braden and kope will disagree on and we have entertainment!!!

so, kope: do you agree with the second amendment? do you think that there is a reasonable reason to allow reasonable people to use reasonable force to defend themselves (i know this is stacked question but it's rather difficult to phrase neutrally...! and it's late and i can't be bothered right now!)? or are you just picking #%$"!&} up on his intellectual misconception?

just out of interest also, especially as someone who comes from a written constitutionless (grammar that ya ****! :D) country; do you think the constituion needs any revision for clarity, or even relevance to today?

dnc101

08-04-2002, 05:35 PM

And you guys call me a reactionary!
Well, let's deal with all the ad homeninums at once. Do you really believe I care what your personal opinion of me is? You're delusional if that is the case. I suppose there are those who might be swayed by such "arguments" as personal attacks. You own that group, and are welcome to them. I've tried to dig out a few substantive remarks in your replies so that I can answer them, but as for the vitriol- love and flowers people. Good things to ya! (Who-ahh, I'm on the high road now!)

First, Kope- good job dealing with the analysis and the issue of civil libertarianism. Wish I was that smart! (Did I just set myself up for some more nasty comments?)

Soylent Green/Symbol Soup (not being petty here but that's how you identified yourself- if you prefer another name let me know and I'll be happy to accomodate you, within reason): You state your firm belief that the founders believed we could read correctly. A correct reading of any historical document includes research on common useage of terms as well as any definitions of terms laid down by those who authored and who sponsored or ratified that document. I gave you some examples, and I have pages more, of quotes indicating that those who wrote the Second Ammendment, and those who debated it in the Congress and in the state legislatures defined the militia as the ordinary citizen. If you truly wish to be a Constitutional Libertarian I suggest you spend some time in research at your library. The truth is there for anyone interested. Relying on your own 'close' interpretation is a little self serving, especially when the truth is so easily found.

Mat:

A few examples of situations could I agree with excessive force not being justifiable when I'm attacked. If the assailant is subdued, I no longer have reason to fear him, so I can no longer attack him. A 97 year old man in poor condition and with Alzheimers goes ballistic and attacks me- I can restrain him but an all out counter offensive would be morally and legally wrong. A woman gets angry with me and slaps me- an upward elbow to her jaw would be excessive.

Warranted means justifiable or allowable- I'll pick justifiable. In the context used I'd think that was obvious.

You ask what English Common Law has to do with this- it is part of the foundation for our laws here and in England.

You say lamps and knives are designed for other purposes but may be used to kill, while guns are designed to kill. FYI, guns may be a functional work of art, a sporting accessory, a tool, or a weapon for self defense or for offense. And I will restate my argument that guns often save lives, even those of the intruder/assailant. Showing a firearm usually incites him to reconsideration rather than to violence. If he closes with you and your lamp or kitchen knife, someone's probably going to get hurt.

And last, your statement that at some point we have to give up some rights to gain others- now you're scareing me! How can you gain rights by giving up rights? Doesn't sound logical, but I'm willing to listen if you have some specifics.

Serpent

08-04-2002, 05:40 PM

Well, it's been a while since we had this debate, I guess.

You know that it'll go twenty pages and resolve absolutely nothing, right?

dnc101

08-04-2002, 05:44 PM

But August is shaping up to be a busy month for me. I'll be gone a lot, so I may not be able to fill my share of those pages. Maybe it'll only go 18 or 19.

Mr Punch

08-05-2002, 11:45 PM

Originally posted by dnc101
And you guys call me a reactionary!
Well, let's deal with all the ad homeninums at once... but as for the vitriol...

Yup, I did suggest you were a reactionary. As for the 'vitriol' I am genuinely sorry that you did take it so personally... I appreciate that I went a bit overboard, and I admit I have edited out the one piece of really offensive nonsense in my post... but that's all... Didn't know you were so sensitive... so for now, big fat :D! Seriously also, I wasn't attacking you personally, just some commonly cherished and IMO quite erroneous views.

- love and flowers people. Good things to ya! (Who-ahh, I'm on the high road now!)

Hmm. Definitely something about 'high'...! Love and flowers to you too.

A few examples ... A 97 year old man in poor condition and with Alzheimers goes ballistic and attacks me- I can restrain him but an all out counter offensive would be morally and legally wrong. A woman gets angry with me and slaps me- an upward elbow to her jaw would be excessive.

I don't think think you should let alzheimers get in the way... FINISH HIM! :D ! Agreed with all of this (I was agreeing with some of your last posts too you know...!).

I was actually picking you up on the way you were attacking Richie's POV. I thought his POV was wrong, but so was your logical argument. It seemed that you were lumping him in with me, as just not your POV, whereas, to me, you two are opposite extremes of the argument, and both therefore, unrealistic.

Warranted means justifiable or allowable- I'll pick justifiable. In the context used I'd think that was obvious.

Actually, it means both. I was arguing with your logic again, but I haven't got time to go back and explain in any more detail, so once again: sorry if I offended you, and that was not my intention. Let's drop that one shall we.

You ask what English Common Law has to do with this- it is part of the foundation for our laws here and in England.

The point here is: Common Law is no longer the law of the land in most cases. As a foundation for the law in itself it has progressively weakened since the first modern legal system was drawn up after William the Conqueror. It's like saying that duelling is relevant to gun laws nowadays. Now, maybe you believe, in some kind of relation to self defence, duelling should be brought back, but that would still be a different argument.

... FYI, guns may be a functional work of art, a sporting accessory, a tool, or a weapon for self defense or for offense. And I will restate my argument that guns often save lives, even those of the intruder/assailant...

I've seen some very pretty guns. But they are still designed to kill. A tool? Tools have a function... in this case: to kill (unless you're using it to hammer in nails :rolleyes: !). I have no argument with your next statement.

And last, your statement that at some point we have to give up some rights to gain others- now you're scareing me! How can you gain rights by giving up rights? Doesn't sound logical, but I'm willing to listen if you have some specifics.

We don't live in a democracy. None of the voting systems in our countries correctly allow for a representative elected balance of power. Your very rights are infringed by your voting system. The only way you have of regaining some of what you believe to be the most important rights to you (if I lived in the US, I suspect that gun laws would be fairly important to me) is by campaigning for/with/to certain (sympathetic) people in office.

It is scary isn't it!? It isn't logical, but it's the closest we'll ever get to a democratic system.

I would be prepared to give up some of my rights to privacy (ie. in medical records) and my rights not to be judged when I haven't done anything wrong (ie. in front of a psych assessment), if it meant I (the good guy!) had a good chance to get a gun if I wanted one, and the bad guys had a very low chance.

Of course the bad guys will get guns anyway. But by tightening up the laws (NOT prohibiting, restricting) you should be able to cut this down, and increase sentences for those who have something to hide (illegal weapons). If you have nothing to hide in your past (like a violent criminal record) I don't see what your argument is to this!!

And of course: the big problem would be the psych assessments... who is really a whacko?! Personally, I wouldn't let Bush have a gun, but then I wouldn't have let him become my president either! :D

So what do you disagree with in my posts?

Shadow Dragon

08-06-2002, 12:05 AM

At this point I would like to add 2 favorite sayings:

"In a sane world, only the insane are strong enough
to prosper. Only those that prosper judge what is truly sane."

"Genius is a form of insanity".

Peace.

Royal Dragon

08-06-2002, 06:42 AM

"Of course the bad guys will get guns anyway. But by tightening up the laws (NOT prohibiting, restricting) you should be able to cut this down,"

Reply]
The above quote shows a total lack of understanding the criminal mind. Tighteneing the Laws will not effect the criminals ability to get a gun at all. Infact, it will increase his desire to get one simply because there is more difficulty in doing so.

The criminal has weakness, especially psycologically, and the ability to brandish a weapon makes him feel stronger. That is one reason why they desire guns more than normal people.

The second is the gun gives them the power to do as they please.

"If you can't be respected, at least be feared" is the way those types think.

Another thing, Guns last pretty much forever. My father has one that has been handed down in the family for several generations, and can be dated back to the late 1800's. It can still be fired with deadly accuracy today (Well, as accurate as they made them then anyway).

There are hundreds of millions of guns out there in the world to day (Or some other psycotically huge number...you get the point)

With the two statements above being said, guns are NOT going anywhere. Even if you had a massive collection and destruction of them, the criminals would never participate in it and thearfore, THEY would have all the guns, and we would not.

All gun laws do is disarm the good guys so it's not possible to protect ourselves because we are badly out gunned.

If you want a law that is fair, make one that forbids anyone with a felony charge from owning a weapon. Surely a law like that would keep all but the beginner criminals from having one, right????

But pasing laws that bind the hands of the good guys is going to cause MORE gun crime as the bad guys will not have any fear for their own lives and their weapons will give them the power to do what they want.

Liokault

08-06-2002, 09:33 AM

This is a stupid thread about how americans like to have guns and how they will use weak half truths to keep hold of them.

Also the article was all wrong.

The most important inacuracy in it was:

"In 1999 Tony Martin, a farmer, turned his shotgun on two professional thieves when they broke into his home at night to rob him a seventh time. Mr. Martin received a life sentence for killing one criminal, 10 years for wounding the second, and 12 months for having an illegal shotgun. The wounded burglar is already released from prison."

Ok its true as it is writen but what it missed is that he shot the robbers in the BACK as they were running from his property!! Now go on and tell me thats all right. They were no longer a threat to him but he killed one and maimed another.

He is also a total weirdo who I would not be happy owening a weapon of any type.

Also:

"A British Petroleum executive was wounded in an assault on his life in a London Underground train carriage. In desperation, he fought off his attackers by using an ornamental sword blade in his walking stick. He was tried and convicted of carrying an offensive weapon."

This guy took a sword with him onto a train? He needs to go to prison in my opinion.

British law says that you can defend your self with apropriate force. This means that if someone is going to try to steal your hub caps you can not shoot them (weather they are black or not. And we all know how your law treat minorities differantly).

It also means that when the threat is over you stop. You do not go on to punish your attacker....this is the job of the court.

Now from similar threads i know how much you americans love your guns (come on its not normal is it?) but if you only read twisted evidance that supports what you want to hear then you will never get the whole picture and will continue to have a much higher chance of death by gun shot wound than us Brits.

ewallace

08-06-2002, 09:40 AM

but if you only read twisted evidance that supports what you want to hear then you will never get the whole picture and will continue to have a much higher chance of death by gun shot wound than us Brits.

A sawed-off shot gun pointed at myself and a friend from occupants in a car parrellel to us while at a stoplight is hardly twisted evidence. And sawed-off shotguns are ILLEGAL. I guess my car alarm should have scared them away. Or maybe I should take out my slingshot or grab the bow and arrow. Or better yet I will use my kung fu skills. The only thing that saved my ass that night was praying to every god that may exist that the crazy mutherfu.cker next to us wouldn't pull the trigger. I'll be dam.nned if some idealist will tell me that I can't or shouldn't own a gun to protect myslef in another situation like that.

This is a stupid thread about how americans like to have guns and how they will use weak half truths to keep hold of them. :rolleyes:

Liokault

08-06-2002, 09:46 AM

Ok some guy pulls a gun on you? What are you a fast draw cowboy?

How would you haveing a gun help?

All that would happen is that the crim would take your gun and youe wallet!!! IJUT

ewallace

08-06-2002, 09:52 AM

Gang bangers are not exactly known for their accuracy. Now, if you actually read and payed attention to my post, you would have noticed that I was not at point blank range. If for some reason said gangbanger did fire, and missed, or I was not killed from the first shot, I would have blown his ass away had I been properly equipped.

And the personal name calling doesn't do much for your "Being stupid isn't the easy way, it's the American way" argument.

Liokault

08-06-2002, 09:57 AM

Oh come on read back to your self what you just wrote.

And i was trying to name call in a nice way being British and stuff

Liokault

08-06-2002, 09:59 AM

Also can you miss with a sawn off? I thought that they just put shot every where and your only hope is to be out of range.

ewallace

08-06-2002, 10:02 AM

You'd most likely be ****ed if you were within range. You would definitely not walk away without a scratch. But seeing as I was on the driver's side (remember it's on the left here), I probably would not have taken the brunt of the blast.

ewallace

08-06-2002, 10:05 AM

And in the above incident, it was totally unprovoked. We had no idea who they were, and it was around midnight on a moderately busy road.

Mr Punch

08-06-2002, 10:05 AM

time to change the name to 'Idiots Maximise Threads'! :rolleyes: !

Liokault

08-06-2002, 10:07 AM

I have seen video of sawn off shot gun blasts and the worst thing that can happen is that they shoot though glass to hit you.....very messy.

Also you say that having a sawn off is illegal. Well where do you think they got it from? I bet they got it from the baqck window of some red necks truck that they stole and cut it down. Now the red neck would have been well within his rights to not only but a shot guy but to keep it safe in the back window of his truck.

Quick poll here

How many of you guys think that Easy Rider had a happy ending?

ewallace

08-06-2002, 10:08 AM

There really aren't many rednecks in the chicago area. This didn't happen in Texas.

I always thought rednecks and country music were something they made up on TNN before I moved here.

ewallace

08-06-2002, 10:12 AM

And people think Americans watch too many movies. Rednecks are a large minority in urban areas in Texas. I don't recall having seen any trucks with rifles in the windows here either.

Liokault

08-06-2002, 10:12 AM

It only takes one red neck guy.

ewallace

08-06-2002, 10:16 AM

You know what? You're absolutely right. From this point on I will point the finger at Cletus Billy-Jean for the car load of amigos y brothas pointing that gun our way. Heaven forbid sir redneck might use that gun for huntin. Hell, I'd much rather see my friend killed then a deer.

Liokault

08-06-2002, 10:19 AM

Yeah the gun he was useing for hunting one week was stolen cut down and pointed at you the next week......hey its your ass guy.

Kope

08-06-2002, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by Mat
Fantastic...

and all that with the old 'grammer' typo at the end...!:rolleyes: :D

I don't claim to know how to spell or type :)

Originally posted by Mat

braden, my friend, i think you have someone who can take you on here...:eek: :D :p :cool: somebody work out some subject that braden and kope will disagree on and we have entertainment!!!

so, kope: do you agree with the second amendment?

The second amendment isn't something one agrees with or not. It just is. One can agree with various interpretations of that bit of wording, but the wording is just there. Do I agree it is? Ummm, yeah ... but I'm not sure where that gets us :)

Originally posted by Mat

do you think that there is a reasonable reason to allow reasonable people to use reasonable force to defend themselves (i know this is stacked question but it's rather difficult to phrase neutrally...! and it's late and i can't be bothered right now!)? or are you just picking #%$"!&} up on his intellectual misconception?

I'm just being a pain in the ass to someone who is making a claim (that the textual redaction of the 2nd ammendment allows for the reading that the pre-amble modifies one noun and not another). That the structure doesn't allow for the previous reading suggested is the only point I'm making.

There are plenty of historical and legal arguments for reading the 2nd amendment as meaning various things. The grammatical argument is, however, not open to such machinations. It is a straight-forward task to diagram that sentence properly.

Originally posted by Mat

just out of interest also, especially as someone who comes from a written constitutionless (grammar that ya ****! :D) country; do you think the constituion needs any revision for clarity, or even relevance to today?

I don't think basically illiterate people care if their written constitution is written in 18th century english that they can't understand or 21st century english that they can't understand. All the masses care about is what's happening on the latest episode of "Survivor" and when they're going to get the next raise at work.

What's sad is that the difference between the masses and their leadership is not one of education or intellectual capacity. Replace "Survivor" with "CNN" and "raise" with "Campaign contribution" and you have the perfect picture of the average elected official.

Liokault

08-06-2002, 10:26 AM

Hey lets all get together to hunt and kill Billy Ray Cyrus.

(ok so i heard that on the radio yesterday i still think its funny and relevant to the red neck thing)

ewallace

08-06-2002, 10:26 AM

hey its your ass guy
Exactly. Which leads me back to my original point of rather having a gun and not needing it than to need a gun and not have it.

Liokault

08-06-2002, 10:32 AM

Ok so the worst senario here is the guy shoots you and takes your gun.

The best senario here is that some sort of public gun fight starts....how will that help?

Also i see no senario where by you will ever get a chance to bring your gun to bear on your assailant unless he is real stoopid.

Come on you just like haveing a gun dont ya? Do the chicks dig it?

(assumeing you are into chcks)

ewallace

08-06-2002, 10:41 AM

Come on you just like haveing a gun dont ya? Do the chicks dig it? It may surprise you but I don't own a gun...yet. I am waiting until we buy a house. I have a two year old child. I cannot install this (http://www.gunlocker.com/specs.htm) in our apartment. Now that I am older I do not generally drive into places where I feel that I need to have a gun in my car. That event only happened one time. I have gone places in my car hundreds if not thousands of times with no such incident. If I do go somewhere where I feel I might need a gun, I appreciate the fact that I could have one if need be.

ewallace

08-06-2002, 10:42 AM

And yes I like chicks you limey wanker!

ewallace

08-06-2002, 10:45 AM

Also i see no senario where by you will ever get a chance to bring your gun to bear on your assailant unless he is real stoopid.
How about in the middle of the night when an intruder is opening the door of my daughter's room?

KC Elbows

08-06-2002, 10:47 AM

Three topics not to argue with texans:

1) Guns

2) Beef

3) Texas

Three topics not to argue with Chicagoans:

1) Pizza

2) The mafia

3) Traffic

Three Topics not to argue with New Yorkers:

1) New York

2) Street violence

3) Housing costs

Three topics not to argue with LA folk:

1) The brilliance of Kevin Spacey

2) Tanning

3) Police and how helpful they can be

Hopefully the above sweeping generalizations can help others from falling into the traps you see above.

Remember, 90% of shootings begin with someone telling a Texan to give up their gun. In fact, a strong 63% of people just suggesting anything that would make it harder for texans to get guns quickly end up dead of a gunshot wound.

Had JFK been driving through Indiana on that fateful day in November, at worst he would have ended up the victim of a vicious corning. But instead, he went to Texas.

The best way to handle the situation is through military force, sweeping through texas and relieving them of all firearms.

But don't tell the Texans I said that.

ewallace

08-06-2002, 10:56 AM

The best way to handle the situation is through military force, sweeping through texas and relieving them of all firearms. Nope. Hell there are 4 Air Force bases and one army base just here in San Antonio. We'll just hide on the bases.

What a great idea KC. Give a bunch of drunk texans a valid reason to upgrade from shotguns to F-16s and replace their pickups with hum-v's.

KC Elbows

08-06-2002, 11:06 AM

I don't think those bases are supposed to belong to Texas. They're like the bases we keep in other countries, they're there just in case we need to pacify the locals.

Badger

08-06-2002, 11:11 AM

Don't mess with Texas.:D

ewallace

08-06-2002, 11:12 AM

Nah, that's the cover story. They are really there because a lot of senators from new mexico were really worried about an alien invasion which would start in roswell. Since texas is right next to new mexico it would be the ideal place to cut off the aliens as they attempt to spread across the nation.

ewallace

08-06-2002, 11:13 AM

Up to $1000 fine for littering.

Royal Dragon

08-06-2002, 11:25 AM

Does a $1000 stop people from littering? Or only the good guys?

ewallace

08-06-2002, 11:31 AM

It really isn't for punishment. Someone has to pay for the movers to pick up all of the discarded couches and recliners that are deposited in fields as kind gestures to the homeless folk.

Royal Dragon

08-06-2002, 11:34 AM

So if threat of a $1000 fine does not deter litter bugs, how is making more gun laws going to lessen violent crime??

Is'nt gun crime already illegal?

Liokault

08-06-2002, 02:49 PM

ewallace

"How about in the middle of the night when an intruder is opening the door of my daughter's room?"

So give your girl the gun....then she can shoot intruders that are going into your room in the middle of the night.

Royal Dragon

08-06-2002, 03:31 PM

That's just stupid. Little Kids might wake up from a nightmare and shoot thier teddy bears for god sake!!

I do know a few girls who slept with Guns in their beds at night though. Infact the one I live with used to do this. The neighborhood where she grew up was real bad, and it was nessasary to protecterself from breakins and rapes. And yes, she has fired it against home invaders. First shot was into the celing as a warning, the second never happened as the ass holes were tripping over their dam pants runnng out the window they came into.

Yes, she had a big hole in her ceiling, but was she gang raped that night?? NO she wasn't, and the only thing standing between her safety and a criminal/sexual assault was a sawed off shot gun with the shells loaded with buck shot and a huge slug in the last round (Her "Rino killer").

Another time (VERY reacently) she was a victem of a road rage, and brandishing a realistic .45 she uses on gun training night at her club scared the ******* away and probually saved her ass again.

SHE had the gun in both incednts, and she was protected. Had she NOT had them, the one time would have been a multiple gang rape at the best, and the other could have been just as bad.

By the way, we have laws in this country that outlaw the very criminal behavior she had to defend herself against, and those laws did NOTHING to protect her. Only a gun had results.

If those laws can't stop the above, why would gun laws stop a gun related crime?

HOWEVER, we have living proof right here in my house that even when the law fails to protect the citezens, the gun still does an efficent job of it.

When the government is sucessful in making crime illegal and thus stopping it, I will consider gun controll laws. Of course, we won't need them anymore so why bother at that point, right?

Liokault

08-06-2002, 03:52 PM

Ok i do not know about what happens in america but in the uk people who force their way into houses leave very quickely as soon as they realise they have been spotted even though we dont blow holes out of the ceiling with shot guns. Also how do you know she was going to be rapped and not just robbed? I accept that the gun may have made a differance if rape was the intention but not if it was robbery.

Also i would be much happier with any woman spending the money for a gun on making their homes safe from unwanted guests. Next time she may wake up and reach for her gun to late.

Also what if the intruders had a gun and decided that they were in danger and so shot back?

Liokault

08-06-2002, 03:56 PM

AND she pulled a gun in a road rage attack!!!!

Hell you guys are trying to make out that the UK has worse crime than the US!!!!

When I used to drive a lot for work I was a very stressfull driver, always cutting guys up and so i got into lots and lots of road rage incidents....the worst that ever happend to me was a guy who threw an apple at my car.

GOD I LOVE THE UK....no one pulls guns on you EVER.

{i^(

08-06-2002, 06:50 PM

I don't know. With those little cars you guys have, that apple could have killed you!

+yawn+ you guys still here?

Royal Dragon

08-06-2002, 06:56 PM

the leader had his pants around his ankles?

How do you totally safe guard a building built in like 1909??
The more scarry part is her brother is in jail on murde one.

If his victem had a gun, he'd be alive right now

dnc101

08-07-2002, 05:48 PM

Originally posted by Mat
time to change the name to 'Idiots Maximise Threads'! :rolleyes: !

Yes, we'll all either end up in hell or as the subject of one of Serpies polls for keeping this going!:p

KC, you missed politics, religion, and red headed women.

Mat, I didn't take it personally. That's why the levity in my reply, while I still did address the issue (even if just to dismiss it). And I don't judge your character by your response to an issue that tends to bring out a lot of emotions, on both sides. Especially when I posted scenario based arguments designed to bring out emotions (as well as logical arguments). Unfortunately, a lot of people only consider emotion these days, so I throw it in. (I gotta admit, it's sort of fun!)

As to the issues you raised:

In the US, we are not, and were never intended to be, a democracy. We are a representative republic. And our original plan of government was to hold the rights of the individual above the rights of the whole. That is the hallmark of a free society. In a democracy, a simple majority, voting their own interest, can trample the rights of others as cruely as any dictator. Our constitution limits the rights of goverrnment, and therefore the majority as well, and guarantees the rights of each citizen. The first ten ammendments to the Constitution are called the Bill of Rights, and were added because several states would not ratify it unless these guarantees were included. That the Second Ammendment guarantees our right as citizens to own firearms has been dealt with here already, and proven by grammatical annalysis and by quotes from the founders themselves. Whether you agree with it or not, it is a fact. We can and do own firearms. It has been debated in Congress and tried in the Supreme Court, and the interpretation is the same- if you want to legally take our guns, you'll have to ammend the Constitution.

As a seperate issue, you state you'd be willing to give up some rights to insure you could get a gun but make it harder for the bad guy to do so. You also state that if I have nothing to hide you don't see my objection to this. My objection is that those rights were hard won and paid for in blood and sacrifice. Historically, once gone, that is the only way to get them back. Do you really trust any government to allways be fair and just in granting you your privilages once they cease to be rights? As you yourself pointed out, the psychological assement alone would be a big problem. You wonder who would set the standard, and what would it be. But consider also that someone has to pay for it, and it isn't generally cheap. So if you can't afford the psych eval, no gun. And if you listen to the rhetoric of the anti gun politicians and beaurocrats, you already know the standard- if you want a gun, you're crazy and shouldn't be allowed to have one. Our last administration was a shining example of that point of view. And if you think electing a more conservative president would get your rights back, look at the present administration. At best it is cowardly and has allowed the liberal anti freedom crowd to run roughshod over us. At worst, it is treasonous. When George signed Campaign Finance Reform into law he knowingly trashed th First Ammendment, and said as much. Would anyone like to bet he'd treat the Second Ammendment any better?

As for guns being primarily designed to kill, we're arguing semantics. You state it that way to evoke negative emotions, so I'll respond to that viewpoint. Yes, they are designed primarily to be able to be used to kill. And there are often good reasons to kill: national defense, self defense, protect others, survival, dispatching injured livestock, pest control- these are some of the things I've personally used a firearm for. The point of my analogy was, whether it is a knife or a firearm, the person holding it has the will, not the item. A gun can be used for many good purposes, but it accomplishes niether good nor bad by itself. But having one can, in certain circumstances, help to insure our ability to enjoy our rights to life (self defense), liberty (defense of our country and our constitution), and even the pursuit of happiness (I own a muzzle loader, and enjoy shooting it).

Enough for now. :D to ya'll!