Guns, Guns Guns

Zakharra wrote:As far as I know, the US is one of the only nations in the world to guarantee the freedom of speech as a right, most European nations, as far as I know -don't- have that as a right.

That just underlines how exceptionally ignorant you are about the rest of the world.
Or possibly how well indoctrinated you are by the propaganda machine of the US right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of ... by_country
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

Better yet, how about you take a look here at the very least:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Free ... by_country

USAs BEST ranking in 12 years is as #17. Currently at a pathetic #46.

With most European nations up ahead. Lol, you´re currently in between Romania and Italy! 2 of the most corrupt nations you can find in Europe.

My own nation in the same timeperiod ranks between #1 and #12. With Finland taking most of the #1 spots.

And if you look at freedom of speech in general, as noted in the links, ALL nations have limits imposed, without exceptions, and USA has more limits than my country.

You see in Europe there are two levels of "freedom of speech", most European nations(all that are part of the European council which is most of the nations) have bound themselves to the EHCR, "European Convention on Human Rights" that was signed in 1950, guess those who told you that rubbish hasn´t realised it yet since it´s just 64 years ago, where Article 10 is freedom of expression...

And then of course, AFAIK, most nations ALSO have their own laws on that matter.
Sweden added a specific "Freedom of speech" section to our basic law as late as 1991, because it had been found that previous laws were not up to date enough.

Before the EHCR, the primary law was the freedom of the press act which together with other basic laws covered freedom of speech(freedom of the press covered nonpersonal freedom, while individual freedom was covered elsewhere).

And the first freedom of the press act in Sweden came 1766. Before USA even existed.

Which from the start included laws against censorship as well as a freedom of information law that extends far beyond anything USA ever had.

Sweden was even as far as i can find, first to abolish censorship by law and guarantee freedom of speech for the written word.


There was a backlash in the form of the coup and subsequent autocracy of Gustav III, 1772 to 1792 when he was assassinated, during which much progressive laws were removed or invalidated. And if he hadn´t been as talented as he was, his rejection of anything resembling democracy would likely have been nothing but a footnote. He was the kind that was very serious about the idea of "enlightened despotism".

Even as it is, matters were soon improved again and the "theaterking" mostly forgotten except for his death.

And by the way, 1718 to 1772 in Swedish history is commonly labelled as Frihetstiden, translated as Age of Liberty. Mostly due to becoming a realistic democratic state with greatly increased civil rights.

Zakharra wrote:We also have the US Supreme Court backing the notion that the 2nd Amendment is for -everyone- and not a state regulated militia.

The amendment doesn´t say that it is for a STATE regulated militia. It is for a WELL regulated militia. This again traces back to the breaking away from mainly the UK, as a functional state was not guaranteed, defense could not be allowed to rely on the state.

And of course, there´s also that part about how USA isn´t supposed to have ANY state military at all. Funny how noone tries to uphold that text any longer.

The "well regulated militia" is supposed to replace a national military. And was meant to prevent USA from becoming an imperial power. *whoops* Didn´t work either it seems.

Zakharra wrote:We also have a very different culture than that of Europe or Asia and for us, as a part of the history of the country, access to firearms is a deep part of it.

That´s a very arrogant and ignorant excuse.

Sweden in comparison has a history of "home defense" and militia-based warfare for twice as long as USA has existed at all.

Starting before the viking era.

It took until 16th century to realise that something better was needed to counter hostile armies.

Seriously, you folks need to realise that people with guns does not an army make.

Heck, before the gutting its taken in the last decade, the Swedish homeguard could conquer USA by itself if all that defended it was all those "people with guns".

And more importantly in some ways, all the talk about how the guns are to prevent the government from going evil and that bullshit?
Do you even understand that what you´re saying is that you WANT mobrule?
That you DESIRE small looneytunes groups of extremeists to be able to force regime change?

And you don´t even get it, that 9 out of 10 of those groups are NOT going to be people you agree with, at all.

Not that it´s going to work without additional support ( which of course isn´t all -that- farfetched considering some of the loonies you have in politics and how much influence politicians can pull off (vastly more than here)), because those groups have near zero chance to fight even the most incompetent units of soldiers you can find in the US military. And against even half competent units, it´s as much of a slaughter as is allowed.

Zakharra wrote:then only the National Guardsmen (and women) would be the only citizens allowed to have firearms as some on the left have tried to dictate that the Nat. Guards are the militia mentioned in the Constitution.

That is a far more sane interpretation of the amendment than the current, but its also wrong.

Depending on how you read "well regulated", you either need something that can be called well organised, or you need something that is properly established in a legal sense, almost certainly by either congress/senate/president, either should work for that as long as it is not put solely under limited jurisdiction.

It would probably be 100% legal and in accordance to the amendment for a county/town/city/state to set up a militia.

Which of course means that the obvious and simple way of bypassing any gun restrictions would be for local "govts" to set up militias that are pro forma, legally "well regulated" but in reality just a properly sanctioned gunclub.

But no, USAs gunnuts just have to twist the amendment to say what they want it to say.

And in the next moment rant about how they revere the constitution and how sacred it is.

Zakharra wrote:The US Supreme Court disagrees with that and upholds that the 2nd means every citizen (criminals clearly not apply) has the legal right to have and own firearms.

Which is rubbish if you can read.

Zakharra wrote:The 2nd is there to help the citizens protect themselves from the government.

Which is just laughable.

Zakharra wrote:Remember when it was written, not too long after the new nation had broken away from the British, most of the soldiers in it were militiamen who picked up their gun (often just used for hunting) and helped support the Continental Army. Not soldiers, but average ordinary men that believed in a cause to throw off the chains of an oppressive and despotic king (no representation with the British government or parliament, totally ruled from England).

Yes, that is exactly what i do remember. That´s exactly the reason the amendment required "well regulated militia" because all those guns floating around with people that no longer has a specific and limited cause and good reason to have them means an acute danger of chaos.


And about "despotic", lol, your current presidential system can definitely be argued about whether it´s more or less despotic.

And much of the time it seems more like a theocracy than anything else.

The second amendment is meant to maintain a militia for the defence of the nation, and since militias are not formal bodies of the government, they are self funded and equiped. That is why the right to bare arms cannot be infringed, to maintain the militias. What if the worse should happen and our military is defeated? Will you just roll over to the invader?

Tenshinai wrote:

Zakharra wrote:As far as I know, the US is one of the only nations in the world to guarantee the freedom of speech as a right, most European nations, as far as I know -don't- have that as a right.

That just underlines how exceptionally ignorant you are about the rest of the world.
Or possibly how well indoctrinated you are by the propaganda machine of the US right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of ... by_country
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

Better yet, how about you take a look here at the very least:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Free ... by_country

USAs BEST ranking in 12 years is as #17. Currently at a pathetic #46.

With most European nations up ahead. Lol, you´re currently in between Romania and Italy! 2 of the most corrupt nations you can find in Europe.

My own nation in the same timeperiod ranks between #1 and #12. With Finland taking most of the #1 spots.

And if you look at freedom of speech in general, as noted in the links, ALL nations have limits imposed, without exceptions, and USA has more limits than my country.

You see in Europe there are two levels of "freedom of speech", most European nations(all that are part of the European council which is most of the nations) have bound themselves to the EHCR, "European Convention on Human Rights" that was signed in 1950, guess those who told you that rubbish hasn´t realised it yet since it´s just 64 years ago, where Article 10 is freedom of expression...

And then of course, AFAIK, most nations ALSO have their own laws on that matter.
Sweden added a specific "Freedom of speech" section to our basic law as late as 1991, because it had been found that previous laws were not up to date enough.

Before the EHCR, the primary law was the freedom of the press act which together with other basic laws covered freedom of speech(freedom of the press covered nonpersonal freedom, while individual freedom was covered elsewhere).

And the first freedom of the press act in Sweden came 1766. Before USA even existed.

Which from the start included laws against censorship as well as a freedom of information law that extends far beyond anything USA ever had.

Sweden was even as far as i can find, first to abolish censorship by law and guarantee freedom of speech for the written word.


There was a backlash in the form of the coup and subsequent autocracy of Gustav III, 1772 to 1792 when he was assassinated, during which much progressive laws were removed or invalidated. And if he hadn´t been as talented as he was, his rejection of anything resembling democracy would likely have been nothing but a footnote. He was the kind that was very serious about the idea of "enlightened despotism".

Even as it is, matters were soon improved again and the "theaterking" mostly forgotten except for his death.

And by the way, 1718 to 1772 in Swedish history is commonly labelled as Frihetstiden, translated as Age of Liberty. Mostly due to becoming a realistic democratic state with greatly increased civil rights.

Zakharra wrote:We also have the US Supreme Court backing the notion that the 2nd Amendment is for -everyone- and not a state regulated militia.

The amendment doesn´t say that it is for a STATE regulated militia. It is for a WELL regulated militia. This again traces back to the breaking away from mainly the UK, as a functional state was not guaranteed, defense could not be allowed to rely on the state.

And of course, there´s also that part about how USA isn´t supposed to have ANY state military at all. Funny how noone tries to uphold that text any longer.

The "well regulated militia" is supposed to replace a national military. And was meant to prevent USA from becoming an imperial power. *whoops* Didn´t work either it seems.

Zakharra wrote:We also have a very different culture than that of Europe or Asia and for us, as a part of the history of the country, access to firearms is a deep part of it.

That´s a very arrogant and ignorant excuse.

Sweden in comparison has a history of "home defense" and militia-based warfare for twice as long as USA has existed at all.

Starting before the viking era.

It took until 16th century to realise that something better was needed to counter hostile armies.

Seriously, you folks need to realise that people with guns does not an army make.

Heck, before the gutting its taken in the last decade, the Swedish homeguard could conquer USA by itself if all that defended it was all those "people with guns".

And more importantly in some ways, all the talk about how the guns are to prevent the government from going evil and that bullshit?
Do you even understand that what you´re saying is that you WANT mobrule?
That you DESIRE small looneytunes groups of extremeists to be able to force regime change?

And you don´t even get it, that 9 out of 10 of those groups are NOT going to be people you agree with, at all.

Not that it´s going to work without additional support ( which of course isn´t all -that- farfetched considering some of the loonies you have in politics and how much influence politicians can pull off (vastly more than here)), because those groups have near zero chance to fight even the most incompetent units of soldiers you can find in the US military. And against even half competent units, it´s as much of a slaughter as is allowed.

Zakharra wrote:then only the National Guardsmen (and women) would be the only citizens allowed to have firearms as some on the left have tried to dictate that the Nat. Guards are the militia mentioned in the Constitution.

That is a far more sane interpretation of the amendment than the current, but its also wrong.

Depending on how you read "well regulated", you either need something that can be called well organised, or you need something that is properly established in a legal sense, almost certainly by either congress/senate/president, either should work for that as long as it is not put solely under limited jurisdiction.

It would probably be 100% legal and in accordance to the amendment for a county/town/city/state to set up a militia.

Which of course means that the obvious and simple way of bypassing any gun restrictions would be for local "govts" to set up militias that are pro forma, legally "well regulated" but in reality just a properly sanctioned gunclub.

But no, USAs gunnuts just have to twist the amendment to say what they want it to say.

And in the next moment rant about how they revere the constitution and how sacred it is.

Zakharra wrote:The US Supreme Court disagrees with that and upholds that the 2nd means every citizen (criminals clearly not apply) has the legal right to have and own firearms.

Which is rubbish if you can read.

Zakharra wrote:The 2nd is there to help the citizens protect themselves from the government.

Which is just laughable.

Zakharra wrote:Remember when it was written, not too long after the new nation had broken away from the British, most of the soldiers in it were militiamen who picked up their gun (often just used for hunting) and helped support the Continental Army. Not soldiers, but average ordinary men that believed in a cause to throw off the chains of an oppressive and despotic king (no representation with the British government or parliament, totally ruled from England).

Yes, that is exactly what i do remember. That´s exactly the reason the amendment required "well regulated militia" because all those guns floating around with people that no longer has a specific and limited cause and good reason to have them means an acute danger of chaos.


And about "despotic", lol, your current presidential system can definitely be argued about whether it´s more or less despotic.

And much of the time it seems more like a theocracy than anything else.

The 2nd Amendment is there for the people, the citizens, to be able to protect themselves, especially from the government. The Constitution is a document stating the rights of the citizens and imposing limitations on the federal government. The 2nd amendment is one way of doing that because it's there, among things, to ensure that the government does NOT become a danger to the population or try to overreach its powers. Those are limitations the left here would -love- to remove. Especially the 2nd amendment.

The well regulated militia isn't something that's supposed to be under federal control. There are also no limitations for the states to have their own militias or national/state guards. There's also nothing saying that militias have to be under state control either. Remember when it was written, the firearms people used were used for war as well as hunting and defense. The flintlock musket was the premiere firearm, it was the assault weapon at the time. The idea of the well regulated militia and firearms in citizens hands hasn't been made obsolete or out of date. It still have a purpose (and the government should damned well be wary of armed citizens when it forgets it is there to serve the people, NOT the people who bride them) and as long as the US exists, we will believe in and insist in keeping all of our rights, including the 2nd one.

And the first amendment is there to protect your freedom of expression of your mind, yet it has limitations. That should concern you, no? There are limitations on laws that are so broad as to be abusable, and thats the major point of contention you seem to have: that 21st century, first world levels of societal protection are preventing you from being able to advocate what other countries call insurrection or treason as a normal position to hold. You are protected quite well even under the limitations proposed here by me and others, yet your perception is that these are too limiting, despite still being far less limiting than other first world country laws.

Zakharra wrote: The 2nd Amendment is there for the people, the citizens, to be able to protect themselves, especially from the government. The Constitution is a document stating the rights of the citizens and imposing limitations on the federal government. The 2nd amendment is one way of doing that because it's there, among things, to ensure that the government does NOT become a danger to the population or try to overreach its powers. Those are limitations the left here would -love- to remove. Especially the 2nd amendment.

The well regulated militia isn't something that's supposed to be under federal control. There are also no limitations for the states to have their own militias or national/state guards. There's also nothing saying that militias have to be under state control either. Remember when it was written, the firearms people used were used for war as well as hunting and defense. The flintlock musket was the premiere firearm, it was the assault weapon at the time. The idea of the well regulated militia and firearms in citizens hands hasn't been made obsolete or out of date. It still have a purpose (and the government should damned well be wary of armed citizens when it forgets it is there to serve the people, NOT the people who bride them) and as long as the US exists, we will believe in and insist in keeping all of our rights, including the 2nd one.

The whole concept of individual citizens in a large country like the US being allowed to keep firearms so they can protect themselves from the government is insane.
What issues would press the buttons for what groups? Would the groups form a block that all agreed on what the problem was and when to start killing their government over?
No point in speaking discretely here. If you want high powered guns for this purpose, it is with the intent of using them to kill your current authorities so you can put your own people in there.
There have been many individual issues that over time have enraged various sections of the population, yet no uprising has occurred for the very good reason that it would have failed miserably.
The far right gun lobby people have their guns to make them feel empowered, just as some city dwellers drive large 4X4s that never see gravel. Neither is really practical in their context.

Not insane, Daryl. Governments tend to want a monopoly on the use of force. The Second Amendment of the US Constitution stipulates that the means to resist such monopolies should be available to the citizens that this government's authority is borrowed from. Government doesn't own the authority it exercises. We citizens do. That authority is lent to agents in government in very defined and limited ways.

The right to bear arms is both a symbolic statement that government cannot hold a monopoly on the use of force and a practical means to resist a government that would attempt to create such a monopoly to the detriment of the citizenry. You say it is insane to want to use firearms against our government. Had the US had its own Hitler take over and attempted to implement naziesque policies, we wouldn't be insane to shoot him dead. No we would be defending the Constitution. What makes you think a significant number of Americans would rebel short of such extremes? If you and your wife wouldn't support rebellion to avoid that situation, there is truly no point in discussing this further.

Alas there is probably no point in further discussion as we are very different on this point.
I'll leave out the cheap shot that the first in a political discussion to invoke Hitler loses.
The non US mind set seems to me to be that the citizens do enable a government monopoly on force through our democratic processes, and are happy with the results. Come the postulated Hitlerian type take over, we would passively resist until the next election then vote him out. If this leader tried the "emergency powers gambit" to postpone an election then I would probably quietly take my family away to a decent country. In the vanishingly small probability that Australia did come to resemble 1938 Germany then I, my family, and our guns would disappear into our outback, where we would wait out the eventual collapse.

My concern is that one man's Hitler is possibly another's new broom, and for an individual to decide that shooting a politician is justified may well be more about the shooter's faulty judgment than any failings of the politician. We see Obama as a moderate right, while you seem to see him as a dangerous left wing demagogue.

In our country at present we have a vigorous political discussion in that our right wing party the Liberals (yes even the name is a lie) won the last election and people have had time to see their policies being enacted so their polling is 46/54% down the drain. These policies would still be seen as leftish by many Americans, but many Australians are not happy seeing them as favouring big business over the workers.

PeterZ wrote:Not insane, Daryl. Governments tend to want a monopoly on the use of force. The Second Amendment of the US Constitution stipulates that the means to resist such monopolies should be available to the citizens that this government's authority is borrowed from. Government doesn't own the authority it exercises. We citizens do. That authority is lent to agents in government in very defined and limited ways.

The right to bear arms is both a symbolic statement that government cannot hold a monopoly on the use of force and a practical means to resist a government that would attempt to create such a monopoly to the detriment of the citizenry. You say it is insane to want to use firearms against our government. Had the US had its own Hitler take over and attempted to implement naziesque policies, we wouldn't be insane to shoot him dead. No we would be defending the Constitution. What makes you think a significant number of Americans would rebel short of such extremes? If you and your wife wouldn't support rebellion to avoid that situation, there is truly no point in discussing this further.

Gentlemen it has been interesting to see the different takes of world view, US history lionizes the Revolution, incidentally sparked by a British move to confiscate the militia's powder store. The idea that citizens could leave the Union because they did not like the direction of the other part of the country by resorting to arms was crushed in the south's 'Second American Revolution,' but still the mythology that we armed citizens with our hunting rifles can take on Abrams tanks exists. We cherish the Second Amendment, but the arms a citizen can keep and bare are strictly controlled, "No Virginia there will be no functional Abrams Tank under the Christmas tree, nor an ICBM." So you from other countries will just have to shake your heads at our foolish illusion.

Note in the last two elections the Democrats lost first the congress then the Senate, the democrats retained through re-election the executive branch, now for anything to get done both the democrats and republicans must compromise, a good thing IMHO.

Poker

PS, However I have a nagging feeling that both congress and the executive will stubbornly try to bull their policies ahead to the great sorrow of the nation rather than appear weak through compromise, sigh.

Daryl wrote:Alas there is probably no point in further discussion as we are very different on this point.
I'll leave out the cheap shot that the first in a political discussion to invoke Hitler loses.
The non US mind set seems to me to be that the citizens do enable a government monopoly on force through our democratic processes, and are happy with the results. Come the postulated Hitlerian type take over, we would passively resist until the next election then vote him out. If this leader tried the "emergency powers gambit" to postpone an election then I would probably quietly take my family away to a decent country. In the vanishingly small probability that Australia did come to resemble 1938 Germany then I, my family, and our guns would disappear into our outback, where we would wait out the eventual collapse.

My concern is that one man's Hitler is possibly another's new broom, and for an individual to decide that shooting a politician is justified may well be more about the shooter's faulty judgment than any failings of the politician. We see Obama as a moderate right, while you seem to see him as a dangerous left wing demagogue.

In our country at present we have a vigorous political discussion in that our right wing party the Liberals (yes even the name is a lie) won the last election and people have had time to see their policies being enacted so their polling is 46/54% down the drain. These policies would still be seen as leftish by many Americans, but many Australians are not happy seeing them as favouring big business over the workers.

Thank your for not taking the cheap shot.

Seriously, we agree on one obvious extreme in what is unacceptable in government. We agree that there will be difficulty in defining anything short of that extreme. We disagree on the best means to sort out those definitions.

As I understand the more "leftish" approaches, rights are positive obligations the government must ensure its citizens receive. That is if one has a right to healthcare for example, then the government has the obligation to make healthcare available. Since government has that obligation, it follows they must also have the power to make that happen.

The US concept of Liberty views rights as something that government cannot grant. Government and other individuals can, however, take them away. The US was founded on the principle that individuals can take care of most of our own needs. The laws are part of the social contract defining how we must limit our behavior so that we do not infringe on the rights of others. The US and State Constitutions limit the federal and state governments so that they do not infringe on those rights either. President Obama described these as negative rights. I suspect he described them so because be believes in the leftish definition.

The key difference between these two views is that to the left (US definition) a right must be balanced between other rights and interests. Government must apportion the right to free speech for example to balance against the right not to have one's religion defamed. Since both rights are granted by government, the government must balance both rights so that one does not out weigh the other.

The Liberty view is the right to free speech has nothing else to balance against. Yes, our laws state that one cannot use speech to incite imminent violence. The issue is the incitement of imminent violence not the content of the speech. The guiding principle is the imminent threat of violence. Effectively, so long as what is said does not cause immediate violence, the government CANNOT act to limit what is being said. The government has acted to prepare for the threat of violence being incited by having a police presence. The police will not act to curb what is being said, only to quell any violence that manifests.

So because government is merely a mutually agreed upon mechanism to organize what individual citizens cannot, it becomes the personal responsibility of individual citizens to act to correct government failures. If a US Hitler arose and he acted beyond the limited scope of his authority, it is the responsibility of US citizens to remove him from power. Yes, through the existing mechanisms of elections first. If those mechanisms are removed by government, the Second Amendment comes into play. Because any abuser of US authority is using our, the US citizens, authority to perform that abuse, it can be argued that we citizens are complicit in that abuse.

I suspect that's why the US left so hated GWB. They saw his actions as an abuse of their fundamental authority. In many ways I cannot disagree with their arguments. I might disagree with many of their assumptions but not their logic.

Daryl wrote:The whole concept of individual citizens in a large country like the US being allowed to keep firearms so they can protect themselves from the government is insane.
What issues would press the buttons for what groups? Would the groups form a block that all agreed on what the problem was and when to start killing their government over?
No point in speaking discretely here. If you want high powered guns for this purpose, it is with the intent of using them to kill your current authorities so you can put your own people in there.
There have been many individual issues that over time have enraged various sections of the population, yet no uprising has occurred for the very good reason that it would have failed miserably.
The far right gun lobby people have their guns to make them feel empowered, just as some city dwellers drive large 4X4s that never see gravel. Neither is really practical in their context.

I see your point, but at first read your post seems to make the idea that we would kill the leader by asasination. It wold be more of the idea of a Revolution.
We used this exact idea to liberate ourselves from the British.

Daryl wrote:Alas there is probably no point in further discussion as we are very different on this point.
I'll leave out the cheap shot that the first in a political discussion to invoke Hitler loses.
The non US mind set seems to me to be that the citizens do enable a government monopoly on force through our democratic processes, and are happy with the results. Come the postulated Hitlerian type take over, we would passively resist until the next election then vote him out. If this leader tried the "emergency powers gambit" to postpone an election then I would probably quietly take my family away to a decent country. In the vanishingly small probability that Australia did come to resemble 1938 Germany then I, my family, and our guns would disappear into our outback, where we would wait out the eventual collapse.

I am curious, you would not fight to push that collapse forward? To return your contry to its free statehood once again?