You CAN'T put prior restraints on fundamental rights, like the second amendment. (If you want to repeal it first, then I say go for it). You can't any more license guns, constitutionally, than you can license speech. The second amendment is the FIRST among equals in the bill or rights. Without it, all other rights are meaningless in the face of a despot or tyrant who takes control of the gov't (domestic OR foreign). Your are focusing on PRAGMATIC or prudential arguments. They have no relevance whatsoever to gun rights UNTIL SUCH TIME that you repeal the 2nd amendment. You can't require training for gun ownership any more than you can require training to exercise your free speech rights, your freedom of religion rights, assembly rights, etc. Certainly there are costs associated with any and all rights, just like we have to put up with KKK, you name it, to preserve speech rights. The RKBA is much much bigger than small societal costs. We're talking about keeping our people from becoming slaves, or keeping minorities from becoming exterminated, as Hitler did in Germany. This are the rare, but monumentally adverse tyrannical conditions that we have private ownership of guns to guard against. Small societal costs, (if ANY on a net basis, which is quite arguable), pale in comparison to keeping our nation free. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Moreover, in the Hitler/Paul Pot/Stalin, etc., etc. scenario, what guns do you think will work best against standing armies (mercenaries, foreign or domestic)? Handguns? They're better than nothing, but not nearly as good as automatic military weapons in the hands of citizens (the militia). The second amendment protects military weapons, including fully automatic small arms. Interestingly enough, it probably does NOT protect very small handguns like derringers, as they are marginally useful, if at all, to a military group or citizen's militia. I could go on and on, but you've got to look at a macro scale - the big picture of history - not just small prudential arguments (99% of the time, the prudential arguments weigh heavily in favor of gun ownership anyway - look at Lott's research - on a net basis, the more guns carried by citizens, the less the societal costs due to greatly decreased crime. Also, arms most useful to a citizen's militia - military style repeating rifles - are very rarely used in crimes, anyway).
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
A few questions
- Thread starter HelgeS
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Scott Evans
Staff Alumnus
“ … why long guns for self defense? (paraphrase of question by HelgeS) … )
HelgeS,
The situation always dictates the most appropriate tactics. Availability of employable tactics is limited by the available equipment.
I believe your statement, or question, shows you acknowledging and apparently agree with us on the legitimate right of citizens to defend them selves.
With this fundamental principle now resolved on an intellectual level, what is left is your education in tactical preparation and awareness. Knowledge of such will reveal that you cannot maintain your right to properly defend yourself while eliminating access to all the necessary tools. To eliminate the tools eliminates the ability to freely exercise the right. The two are inseparable.
------------------
“This is my rifle, there many like it but this one is mine …”
[This message has been edited by Scott Evans (edited July 27, 2000).]
HelgeS,
The situation always dictates the most appropriate tactics. Availability of employable tactics is limited by the available equipment.
I believe your statement, or question, shows you acknowledging and apparently agree with us on the legitimate right of citizens to defend them selves.
With this fundamental principle now resolved on an intellectual level, what is left is your education in tactical preparation and awareness. Knowledge of such will reveal that you cannot maintain your right to properly defend yourself while eliminating access to all the necessary tools. To eliminate the tools eliminates the ability to freely exercise the right. The two are inseparable.
------------------
“This is my rifle, there many like it but this one is mine …”
[This message has been edited by Scott Evans (edited July 27, 2000).]
Helges, you're asking big questions and the answers are going to get long and complex. Stick with it. If my answers don't satisfy you (and they won't, and they shouldn't) then ask more questions, by all means.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>a) Why is there all the discussion about non-pistols? I mean, the purpose of having a gun is to be able to defend yourself against a criminal. For that, all you need is a pistol. I mean, you don't need a submachine gun, rifle, bazooka or AT gun to fend of your average criminal, do you? Why not forbid all non-pistol weapons? Is there any reason not to?[/quote]
There are several reasons. A pistol is only good because it is portable and concealable. Those are its ONLY advantages. It is inaccurate, underpowered, short-ranged, and difficult to use by the standards established for other firearms. Those other firearms fill niches the pistol can't, as follows:
Pistol: Small and easy to carry. The "everywhere" weapon you carry when you're not expecting any danger or trouble but want to be prepared anyway.
Rifle: Accurate to long ranges, powerful. Most rifles are accurate to much longer ranges than pistols, and they are effective against humans and human-sized game animals where pistols generally are not. Thus rifles are the choice for hunting, law enforcement, long-range target competition, and military use. They are rarely used for self-defense, but in rare situations like the L.A. riots they have proven invaluable.
Shotgun: A shotgun offers great knockdown power at close range. If you fire slugs from one, you get the power of a rifle and still longer range than a pistol. If you use pellets, the need for perfect accuracy against small, fast-moving targets like birds or rabbits is diminished. Pellets are also much more effective than either rifles or pistols at very close range, though you must be warned that their effectiveness is the result of great destructive power and the wounds they inflict aren't pretty. The other advantage to shotgun pellets is that, while they destroy the target, they don't penetrate all that well as rifles and pistols do. That makes them a better choice in my opinion for home defense, where range is short, great stopping power badly needed, and rounds that don't penetrate the walls are necessary.
Personally, I have a pistol next to me right now. It's a great gun for what it is, but if I were in grave danger of a gunfight (say a couple of armed robbers entering my home) I'd only use it to get down the hall to my shotgun, which I would then use to defend myself. I don't own a centerfire rifle because right now I don't need or want one enough to justify the cost. Maybe it would help if I list off what all my different guns are for:
.44 magnum revolver: No, I don't think I'm dirty Harry. This is my deer-hunting revolver. As a schoolteacher I have a hard time making more than a day of the shotgun deer season here in Illinois, so the handgun season will be my fall-back. Probably the best common handgun round for bringing down deer reliably and humanely.
.45 acp pistol: This is a semi-automatic .45 holding 8 rounds and is my personal defense handgun. I could probably use the .44 for this role, loaded with light .44 special rounds, but the pistol is easier to control, more accurate, and fits an idiosyncrasy of Illinois law that I won't bore you with here.
.22 caliber pistol: This is my practice and fun pistol. Its recoil is next to nothing and the ammunition is cheap, so I can practice more. Also my wife's favorite. However, I don't trust its weak caliber for defense.
.22 caliber rifle: This is also a practice/fun gun. Also occasionally used for hunting squirrels and rabbits. All the same advantages as the .22 pistol.
20-guage shotgun: This my home defense gun and my main hunting weapon. I love this gun. It has next to no recoil, weighs very little and is much easier to use accurately than my pistol, plus more power. Remember that killing power is irrelevant in a defense gun next to stopping power, which is much greater and much harder to generate and control.
I don't mean to offend you, HelgeS, but I'm curious about your training. You state that you've been trained in the use of arms, but you also imply that your trainers never taught you the uses of anything but a pistol and indeed claimed that the pistol was all anyone should need for all purposes. Who trains his or her students that way? To my ears it sounds like you were the victim of bad, even dangerous training.
Also, if all anyone needs to face armed criminals is a pistol, why do the police use pistols, shotguns and rifles? Are they just being paranoid, or do they perhaps face different criminals than the ones I face?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>a) Why is there all the discussion about non-pistols? I mean, the purpose of having a gun is to be able to defend yourself against a criminal. For that, all you need is a pistol. I mean, you don't need a submachine gun, rifle, bazooka or AT gun to fend of your average criminal, do you? Why not forbid all non-pistol weapons? Is there any reason not to?[/quote]
There are several reasons. A pistol is only good because it is portable and concealable. Those are its ONLY advantages. It is inaccurate, underpowered, short-ranged, and difficult to use by the standards established for other firearms. Those other firearms fill niches the pistol can't, as follows:
Pistol: Small and easy to carry. The "everywhere" weapon you carry when you're not expecting any danger or trouble but want to be prepared anyway.
Rifle: Accurate to long ranges, powerful. Most rifles are accurate to much longer ranges than pistols, and they are effective against humans and human-sized game animals where pistols generally are not. Thus rifles are the choice for hunting, law enforcement, long-range target competition, and military use. They are rarely used for self-defense, but in rare situations like the L.A. riots they have proven invaluable.
Shotgun: A shotgun offers great knockdown power at close range. If you fire slugs from one, you get the power of a rifle and still longer range than a pistol. If you use pellets, the need for perfect accuracy against small, fast-moving targets like birds or rabbits is diminished. Pellets are also much more effective than either rifles or pistols at very close range, though you must be warned that their effectiveness is the result of great destructive power and the wounds they inflict aren't pretty. The other advantage to shotgun pellets is that, while they destroy the target, they don't penetrate all that well as rifles and pistols do. That makes them a better choice in my opinion for home defense, where range is short, great stopping power badly needed, and rounds that don't penetrate the walls are necessary.
Personally, I have a pistol next to me right now. It's a great gun for what it is, but if I were in grave danger of a gunfight (say a couple of armed robbers entering my home) I'd only use it to get down the hall to my shotgun, which I would then use to defend myself. I don't own a centerfire rifle because right now I don't need or want one enough to justify the cost. Maybe it would help if I list off what all my different guns are for:
.44 magnum revolver: No, I don't think I'm dirty Harry. This is my deer-hunting revolver. As a schoolteacher I have a hard time making more than a day of the shotgun deer season here in Illinois, so the handgun season will be my fall-back. Probably the best common handgun round for bringing down deer reliably and humanely.
.45 acp pistol: This is a semi-automatic .45 holding 8 rounds and is my personal defense handgun. I could probably use the .44 for this role, loaded with light .44 special rounds, but the pistol is easier to control, more accurate, and fits an idiosyncrasy of Illinois law that I won't bore you with here.
.22 caliber pistol: This is my practice and fun pistol. Its recoil is next to nothing and the ammunition is cheap, so I can practice more. Also my wife's favorite. However, I don't trust its weak caliber for defense.
.22 caliber rifle: This is also a practice/fun gun. Also occasionally used for hunting squirrels and rabbits. All the same advantages as the .22 pistol.
20-guage shotgun: This my home defense gun and my main hunting weapon. I love this gun. It has next to no recoil, weighs very little and is much easier to use accurately than my pistol, plus more power. Remember that killing power is irrelevant in a defense gun next to stopping power, which is much greater and much harder to generate and control.
I don't mean to offend you, HelgeS, but I'm curious about your training. You state that you've been trained in the use of arms, but you also imply that your trainers never taught you the uses of anything but a pistol and indeed claimed that the pistol was all anyone should need for all purposes. Who trains his or her students that way? To my ears it sounds like you were the victim of bad, even dangerous training.
Also, if all anyone needs to face armed criminals is a pistol, why do the police use pistols, shotguns and rifles? Are they just being paranoid, or do they perhaps face different criminals than the ones I face?
A:
"I mean, the purpose of having a gun is to be able to defend yourself against a criminal. For that, all you need is a pistol".
Really?!
Sez who?
Why should my personal defense be restricted by what you or some other self proclaimed expert determines to be a sufficient level of armament?
Are you or my government willing to assume personal and financial responsibility to my surviving family if I die as a result of these restrictions?
Pistols are fine in certain applications, but if I was confronted by multiple assailants or attackers wearing body armor (unfortunately, scenarios that are all too possible), I would prefer to have access to weaponry that gives me a better chance of survival in such an encounter.
One source of annoyance that I have to contend with is the fact that I have a handgun that was designed to accomodate a 15 round magazine. Because some all-knowing idiots are convinced that all I need is a 10 round magazine, I have to make do with a weapon that has had its capability legally crippled. I pray that my life or that of a loved one is never lost because I needed an 11th round!
B:
"Why is training such a big issue"?
Training is not the issue. Using it as a means to restrict ownership is the issue. Telling me that I have to demonstrate an arbitrary degree of competence in order to get some bureaucrat's permission to acquire the means to protect myself or my family is nonsense.
Personally, I believe we should have universal firearms training in our schools. I think we should start in the early grades teaching basic safety along the lines of the NRA's Eddie Eagle program. Then as the kids get older, actual firearms handling should be taught in a safe and responsible manner. By the time they graduate from high school, every boy and girl should be well trained in the proper and safe handling of firearms.
Right now, the only firearms training that most people receive in this country is courtesy of Hollywood. If you want to know where most of the irresponsible and dangerous attitudes towards gun handling comes from, you need look no farther than your TV or local movie theater.
Yet, simply mention the idea of teaching school age children the fundamentals of firearms safety and watch the reaction you'll get! Then tell me who's making an issue out of it!
I find it interesting that the many of the same people that assure us that sex education won't make our children sexually promiscuous or that drug awareness training won't lead them into a life of substance abuse are somehow convinced that teaching our children how to safely handle firearms will turn them into remorseless serial killers.
"I mean, the purpose of having a gun is to be able to defend yourself against a criminal. For that, all you need is a pistol".
Really?!
Sez who?
Why should my personal defense be restricted by what you or some other self proclaimed expert determines to be a sufficient level of armament?
Are you or my government willing to assume personal and financial responsibility to my surviving family if I die as a result of these restrictions?
Pistols are fine in certain applications, but if I was confronted by multiple assailants or attackers wearing body armor (unfortunately, scenarios that are all too possible), I would prefer to have access to weaponry that gives me a better chance of survival in such an encounter.
One source of annoyance that I have to contend with is the fact that I have a handgun that was designed to accomodate a 15 round magazine. Because some all-knowing idiots are convinced that all I need is a 10 round magazine, I have to make do with a weapon that has had its capability legally crippled. I pray that my life or that of a loved one is never lost because I needed an 11th round!
B:
"Why is training such a big issue"?
Training is not the issue. Using it as a means to restrict ownership is the issue. Telling me that I have to demonstrate an arbitrary degree of competence in order to get some bureaucrat's permission to acquire the means to protect myself or my family is nonsense.
Personally, I believe we should have universal firearms training in our schools. I think we should start in the early grades teaching basic safety along the lines of the NRA's Eddie Eagle program. Then as the kids get older, actual firearms handling should be taught in a safe and responsible manner. By the time they graduate from high school, every boy and girl should be well trained in the proper and safe handling of firearms.
Right now, the only firearms training that most people receive in this country is courtesy of Hollywood. If you want to know where most of the irresponsible and dangerous attitudes towards gun handling comes from, you need look no farther than your TV or local movie theater.
Yet, simply mention the idea of teaching school age children the fundamentals of firearms safety and watch the reaction you'll get! Then tell me who's making an issue out of it!
I find it interesting that the many of the same people that assure us that sex education won't make our children sexually promiscuous or that drug awareness training won't lead them into a life of substance abuse are somehow convinced that teaching our children how to safely handle firearms will turn them into remorseless serial killers.
Use of guns:
- sport
- hunting
- self defence
I can see those 3. I can't see:
- protection against the government
The government is a small group of unarmed old men. Who can they attack??? The only way for them to attack anybody would be if the military sides with them. Yet, all the military people here have vigerously assured me that the military would never side with the government, in fact cannot side with the government.
Please explain how the government can attack you in a way that you could prevent by having guns... thanks
2nd:
To all the folks who do the following derivation:
Premise: There is the 2nd
Conclusion: We are allowed to have guns
shouldn't it rather be:
Premise: There is a need for guns
Conclusion: So we write down that need in the 2nd and thus allow everybody to have a gun
That sounds much more realistic to me. It is not like the 2nd was handed down to earth by some divine being. It was written by folks based on the need for guns at that time. Consequently, it should be completely easy to revise it should that need cease to exist. That is what all these "rules" are subject to. In every field the rules are changed the very moment the need is different. Even the bible has undergone countless revisions to adapt it to the need.
I don't think that it is any good to derive a conclusion from a piece of paper. Derive the conclusion from a need, then make the piece of paper to proclaim the need.
Function of the Government:
Well, first of all, the government is elected by the people in a democratic way. Thus, if the majority of the people wants it to get rid of a law that "oppresses" them too much, they can easily do that. Why is it that so many people here talk of the government as if it is some kind of powerful institution? It is merely the representation of the people. Everything the government does is what the people want, what the MAJORITY of the people wants. I have done a fair share of politics and I can tell you one thing: A politician is ENTIRELY at the whim of the people. You don't make a single step without considering the desires of the people.
But that aside, yes, I believe that the government has a primary function to serve the people. The ENTIRE people. That is, it has to attempt to grant every citizen the means to lead a good life. And such means are:
- money
- residence
- food
- holidays
- human rights
- safety
- education
without having to:
- work excessively much if not desired
- violating any of the human rights
If a country manages that then its government is doing a very good job in my opinion.
If achieving that requires certain restrictions, well, as long as these restrictions make sure that the real needs are met, they are just fine. Case in hand:
In germany if you have a company and one of your employees gets pregnant, then she has the right to go home and stay with the kid for 2 years, paid half by the company and half by the government (ie, by society). I think in the US you get 2-6 weeks, depending on the place you work at. Yes, that restricts the company, some companies don't like it, they tend to leave to third world labour places, but most stay. And the result is that every mother can spend the most important years with her child, severely reducing the risk of producing a "screwed up child". There are countless such restrictions that benefit the people more than restricting them.
The result of all these restrictions is a society where those basic needs are met, and more important, the result is a solid middle class, vastly bigger then the lower or upper class.
On the other hand, there is the US where social control is taken from the government and handed over to the industry (don't tell me that you have absolute freedom here. You are just controlled by the industry instead of the government.. the only difference is that you can't democratically influence the industry). And the result is the absolute lack of a middle class. The system has a very good scientific, financial and social upper class and then a huge lower class (I guess the lower class calls itself "middle class" here, but compared to other societies it isn't. Most members of the european "lower class" receive more money, better education, more holidays, etc than the US "middle class".
Is that a bad system? Well, that depends where you are. When I came here I was lucky to be surrounded by the upper class, people that provided and enormous intellectual challenge. I am the first to admit that due to the lack of equalising force from the government the upper class group here is able to do things that wouldn't be possible for them to do in europe (ie: make much more money since they don't have to pay for the poor). That part is really neat.
On the other hand, if you are in the lower class... well... down there it sucks. Back form my time in the US I have a bunch of friends who live in the lower class. They work like crazy, two jobs most of the time, doing 60-80 hours a week. They have no social benefits whatsoever, a ridiculous 2 weeks of holidays per year, they spend 12 years in school getting the equivalent education of 10 years in a european education system (when I came here they gave me the first 2 years of the bachelor degree right away simply because I had done all the stuff in highschool already way back when). And for all that effort they get less money then a welfare receiver in europe. Hey ho... way to go.
Obviously, this results in the overall industrial power of europe being smaller than the one in the US (they generate about the same, but give vastly different amounts back to the people). And that does of course generate the rather common: "Hah, but we are richer!!" attitude... Well... I have said it before... I would rather have my government provide the best for every single member of society than have my people forced to work like slaves with no benefits just to get less money than anybody who doesn't work at all in the other place. I mean, if you are one of the millions that lives like a slave (enslaved by the industry), what does it help you that your country is rich? But this is a very common pattern. The worse the situation is for the individual, the more do they focus on the power of the system (or social group). All throughout human history this has been the case, we as humans seem to be very easily pleased with stuff like that.
cheers
Helge
- sport
- hunting
- self defence
I can see those 3. I can't see:
- protection against the government
The government is a small group of unarmed old men. Who can they attack??? The only way for them to attack anybody would be if the military sides with them. Yet, all the military people here have vigerously assured me that the military would never side with the government, in fact cannot side with the government.
Please explain how the government can attack you in a way that you could prevent by having guns... thanks
2nd:
To all the folks who do the following derivation:
Premise: There is the 2nd
Conclusion: We are allowed to have guns
shouldn't it rather be:
Premise: There is a need for guns
Conclusion: So we write down that need in the 2nd and thus allow everybody to have a gun
That sounds much more realistic to me. It is not like the 2nd was handed down to earth by some divine being. It was written by folks based on the need for guns at that time. Consequently, it should be completely easy to revise it should that need cease to exist. That is what all these "rules" are subject to. In every field the rules are changed the very moment the need is different. Even the bible has undergone countless revisions to adapt it to the need.
I don't think that it is any good to derive a conclusion from a piece of paper. Derive the conclusion from a need, then make the piece of paper to proclaim the need.
Function of the Government:
Well, first of all, the government is elected by the people in a democratic way. Thus, if the majority of the people wants it to get rid of a law that "oppresses" them too much, they can easily do that. Why is it that so many people here talk of the government as if it is some kind of powerful institution? It is merely the representation of the people. Everything the government does is what the people want, what the MAJORITY of the people wants. I have done a fair share of politics and I can tell you one thing: A politician is ENTIRELY at the whim of the people. You don't make a single step without considering the desires of the people.
But that aside, yes, I believe that the government has a primary function to serve the people. The ENTIRE people. That is, it has to attempt to grant every citizen the means to lead a good life. And such means are:
- money
- residence
- food
- holidays
- human rights
- safety
- education
without having to:
- work excessively much if not desired
- violating any of the human rights
If a country manages that then its government is doing a very good job in my opinion.
If achieving that requires certain restrictions, well, as long as these restrictions make sure that the real needs are met, they are just fine. Case in hand:
In germany if you have a company and one of your employees gets pregnant, then she has the right to go home and stay with the kid for 2 years, paid half by the company and half by the government (ie, by society). I think in the US you get 2-6 weeks, depending on the place you work at. Yes, that restricts the company, some companies don't like it, they tend to leave to third world labour places, but most stay. And the result is that every mother can spend the most important years with her child, severely reducing the risk of producing a "screwed up child". There are countless such restrictions that benefit the people more than restricting them.
The result of all these restrictions is a society where those basic needs are met, and more important, the result is a solid middle class, vastly bigger then the lower or upper class.
On the other hand, there is the US where social control is taken from the government and handed over to the industry (don't tell me that you have absolute freedom here. You are just controlled by the industry instead of the government.. the only difference is that you can't democratically influence the industry). And the result is the absolute lack of a middle class. The system has a very good scientific, financial and social upper class and then a huge lower class (I guess the lower class calls itself "middle class" here, but compared to other societies it isn't. Most members of the european "lower class" receive more money, better education, more holidays, etc than the US "middle class".
Is that a bad system? Well, that depends where you are. When I came here I was lucky to be surrounded by the upper class, people that provided and enormous intellectual challenge. I am the first to admit that due to the lack of equalising force from the government the upper class group here is able to do things that wouldn't be possible for them to do in europe (ie: make much more money since they don't have to pay for the poor). That part is really neat.
On the other hand, if you are in the lower class... well... down there it sucks. Back form my time in the US I have a bunch of friends who live in the lower class. They work like crazy, two jobs most of the time, doing 60-80 hours a week. They have no social benefits whatsoever, a ridiculous 2 weeks of holidays per year, they spend 12 years in school getting the equivalent education of 10 years in a european education system (when I came here they gave me the first 2 years of the bachelor degree right away simply because I had done all the stuff in highschool already way back when). And for all that effort they get less money then a welfare receiver in europe. Hey ho... way to go.
Obviously, this results in the overall industrial power of europe being smaller than the one in the US (they generate about the same, but give vastly different amounts back to the people). And that does of course generate the rather common: "Hah, but we are richer!!" attitude... Well... I have said it before... I would rather have my government provide the best for every single member of society than have my people forced to work like slaves with no benefits just to get less money than anybody who doesn't work at all in the other place. I mean, if you are one of the millions that lives like a slave (enslaved by the industry), what does it help you that your country is rich? But this is a very common pattern. The worse the situation is for the individual, the more do they focus on the power of the system (or social group). All throughout human history this has been the case, we as humans seem to be very easily pleased with stuff like that.
cheers
Helge
Use of guns for self defence:
Ok, so you might need a shotgun to defend your home... Well, ok. Since nobody mentioned it, I guess submachine guns, machine guns, bazookas, etc could already be forbidden completely. Good stuff.
Leaves the shotgun. You will agree that for any kind of crime out of your house the pistol will have to do (not because it is the best tool, but because it is pretty much the only tool you can carry around with you. Or do you folks go to the grocery shop with a loaded rifle???
You can then issue a law that shotguns and rifles are only allowed inside the house or in a locked special box if you drive to the shooting range to test them.
right?
Helge
Ok, so you might need a shotgun to defend your home... Well, ok. Since nobody mentioned it, I guess submachine guns, machine guns, bazookas, etc could already be forbidden completely. Good stuff.
Leaves the shotgun. You will agree that for any kind of crime out of your house the pistol will have to do (not because it is the best tool, but because it is pretty much the only tool you can carry around with you. Or do you folks go to the grocery shop with a loaded rifle???
You can then issue a law that shotguns and rifles are only allowed inside the house or in a locked special box if you drive to the shooting range to test them.
right?
Helge
Helge, you need to get off of your musty armchair and get around a bit.
Your arguments are starting to sound too much like the intellectual, narcissistic, self-absorbed masturbation of one who only sees "reality" on paper.
[This message has been edited by 416Rigby (edited July 27, 2000).]
Your arguments are starting to sound too much like the intellectual, narcissistic, self-absorbed masturbation of one who only sees "reality" on paper.
[This message has been edited by 416Rigby (edited July 27, 2000).]
Wrong.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>You will agree that for any kind of crime out of your house the pistol will have to do (not because it is the best tool, but because it is pretty much the only tool you can carry around with you. Or do you folks go to the grocery shop with a loaded rifle???[/quote]
I donot agree that a pistol will have to do outside of the house. I do have a loaded rifle and a shotgun behind the seat of my pickup.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The government is a small group of unarmed old men. Who can they attack???[/quote]
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms is neither unarmed, nor old. Neither is the United States Marshall's Service nor the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
All three Government entities have been slapped down severely in the past decade for wrongful deaths of civilians during what can best be described as attacks.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>That sounds much more realistic to me. It is not like the 2nd was handed down to earth by some divine being. It was written by folks based on the need for guns at that time.
Consequently, it should be completely easy to revise it should that need cease to exist.
That is what all these "rules" are subject to. In every field the rules are changed the very moment the need is different. Even the bible has undergone countless revisions to adapt it to the need.[/quote]
And the ability to 'revise' the Constituition has been written into the Constituition. If you wish to amend it, you ask the People of the United States if they would allow it. If they don't wish that particular amendment, they don't pass it. Simplicity in itself. The Government knows that the People of the United States would not allow such an amendment, so they don't bother asking.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I don't think that it is any good to derive a conclusion from a piece of paper. Derive the conclusion from a need, then make the piece of paper to proclaim the need.[/quote]
And we did. We wrote the Constituition. Now that we have 'the piece of paper to proclaim the need', are we so wrong to ask that it be followed?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I have done a fair share of politics and I can tell you one thing: A politician is ENTIRELY at the whim of the people. You don't make a single step without considering the desires of the people. [/quote]
Riiight. You obviously haven't done a whole lot of time with American politicians. Politicians get voted into office on campaign promises all the time, then ignore the promises that got them into office. It happens so much, that it isn't even news anymore.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Back form my time in the US I have a bunch of friends who live in the lower class. They work like crazy, two jobs most of the time, doing 60-80 hours a week. They have no social benefits whatsoever, a ridiculous 2 weeks of holidays per year, they spend 12 years in school getting the equivalent education of 10 years in a european education system (when I came here they gave me the first 2 years of the bachelor degree right away simply because I had done all the stuff in highschool already way back when). And for all that effort they get less money then a welfare receiver in europe. Hey ho... way to go.[/quote]
Then why are they still here???
If it's so great in Europe, why aren't we seeing a mass migration to Europe?
Tell you what: someone look up the immigration rate from the United States to all of the European nations combined versus the immigration rate from Europe to the States.
LawDog
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>You will agree that for any kind of crime out of your house the pistol will have to do (not because it is the best tool, but because it is pretty much the only tool you can carry around with you. Or do you folks go to the grocery shop with a loaded rifle???[/quote]
I donot agree that a pistol will have to do outside of the house. I do have a loaded rifle and a shotgun behind the seat of my pickup.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The government is a small group of unarmed old men. Who can they attack???[/quote]
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms is neither unarmed, nor old. Neither is the United States Marshall's Service nor the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
All three Government entities have been slapped down severely in the past decade for wrongful deaths of civilians during what can best be described as attacks.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>That sounds much more realistic to me. It is not like the 2nd was handed down to earth by some divine being. It was written by folks based on the need for guns at that time.
Consequently, it should be completely easy to revise it should that need cease to exist.
That is what all these "rules" are subject to. In every field the rules are changed the very moment the need is different. Even the bible has undergone countless revisions to adapt it to the need.[/quote]
And the ability to 'revise' the Constituition has been written into the Constituition. If you wish to amend it, you ask the People of the United States if they would allow it. If they don't wish that particular amendment, they don't pass it. Simplicity in itself. The Government knows that the People of the United States would not allow such an amendment, so they don't bother asking.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I don't think that it is any good to derive a conclusion from a piece of paper. Derive the conclusion from a need, then make the piece of paper to proclaim the need.[/quote]
And we did. We wrote the Constituition. Now that we have 'the piece of paper to proclaim the need', are we so wrong to ask that it be followed?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I have done a fair share of politics and I can tell you one thing: A politician is ENTIRELY at the whim of the people. You don't make a single step without considering the desires of the people. [/quote]
Riiight. You obviously haven't done a whole lot of time with American politicians. Politicians get voted into office on campaign promises all the time, then ignore the promises that got them into office. It happens so much, that it isn't even news anymore.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Back form my time in the US I have a bunch of friends who live in the lower class. They work like crazy, two jobs most of the time, doing 60-80 hours a week. They have no social benefits whatsoever, a ridiculous 2 weeks of holidays per year, they spend 12 years in school getting the equivalent education of 10 years in a european education system (when I came here they gave me the first 2 years of the bachelor degree right away simply because I had done all the stuff in highschool already way back when). And for all that effort they get less money then a welfare receiver in europe. Hey ho... way to go.[/quote]
Then why are they still here???
If it's so great in Europe, why aren't we seeing a mass migration to Europe?
Tell you what: someone look up the immigration rate from the United States to all of the European nations combined versus the immigration rate from Europe to the States.
LawDog
- Status
- Not open for further replies.