| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| "Without your space helmet Dave, you're going to find that rather difficult" -- HAL. |
|
|
|
 |
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Exactly. We can talk about the loss of community, growth of social isolation, culture of gun fetishisation and whatever else (these are all important factors), but all that is happening here, too. Where are the monthly gun massacres in Australia? Disaffected suburban kids have virtually no access to them.
So, yeah, guns are not necessarily the root of the social problem—though they could well be one of the causes—but they facilitate its violent consequences.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Wokko 
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | Exactly. We can talk about the loss of community, growth of social isolation, culture of gun fetishisation and whatever else (these are all important factors), but all that is happening here, too. Where are the monthly gun massacres in Australia? Disaffected suburban kids have virtually no access to them.
So, yeah, guns are not necessarily the root of the social problem—though they could well be one of the causes—but they facilitate its violent consequences. |
In Switzerland every male undergoes military training and many keep their firearm in the home upon completion of training. Ammunition for these weapons is readily available and 29% of households in Switzerland contain a firearm. The annual rate of homicide by any means per 100,000 population was 0.70, which is one of the lowest in the world (wiki).
Guns are NOT the problem, and looking at defensive uses of firearms in the USA this becomes even more apparent. You or I could own a firearm in our house for self defence (legally we couldn't) and in all likelihood would never, ever need to use it. This isn't the case in the USA, there are thousands of defensive uses of firearms every year. It is not areas with high gun control that live peacefully, in fact the areas with the tightest gun laws in the USA overwhelmingly have the highest murder rates.
Tens of millions of people in the USA own firearms and do not murder anyone in the course of their lifetime. It's all well to wet yourself over guns and demand big daddy government takes them all away, but how exactly are you going to deal with getting racial gangs to hand in their illegally obtained firearms? How are people in their homes going to defend themselves? How do you deal with the people who will refuse to give up their weapons?
As an aside to that, the ignorance of people concerning the Second Amendment here is astounding. Here's an explanation from one of those 'crazy right wing' websites. I'll even drop a link.
1. Ignorance of what the term “militia” meant at the time. (Hint: It meant ordinary citizens with the capability to band together to fight back threats to their liberty, whether from an external threat or a threat from within, like an over-reaching government.)
2. Ignorance of the stated views the framers had regarding a well-armed citizenry.
3.An ability to completely ignore the second part of the statement; i.e. “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.“
4. Ignorance of the history of tyranny. Any student of history knows the first right that is abolished on the way to tyranny is the right of free citizens to bear arms. When the tyranny fully take root, any guns left in the hands of the citizens are quickly rounded up. Why do you think they do that?
http://www.promiseofamerica.com/constitutional/second-amendment-explained/ |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw 
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| All of those years of study of comparative constitutional law were obviously wasted - I could just have read a loony-fringe web-site. I wish I'd thought of that earlier. |
|
|
|
|
Wokko
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Pies4shaw wrote: | | All of those years of study of comparative constitutional law were obviously wasted - I could just have read a loony-fringe web-site. I wish I'd thought of that earlier. |
Or you could, you know read the Supreme Court's many rulings that back up the bite sized information that's needed on a forum like this. The website I posted it from summed it up quite well and I'm lazy. |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Sorry, I'm in Michael Kirby's camp on this one - I view these "original intent" interpretations as a form of pathetic ancestor worship.
The web-site you posted the link from doesn't sum up anything well - it puts one (highly polemicized and rather simplistic) view of a hotly-contested area of constitutional interpretation. You can agree with it, if you want - but that doesn't make it accurate, or even a useful contribution to the debate. |
|
|
|
|
Wokko
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Then I direct you to District of Columbia v. Heller.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
"...a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to federal enclaves and protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."
and subsequently McDonald v. Chicago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago
"The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states." |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| How is that a meaningful response? I know what the jurisprudence is - the question is a normative one, not an empirical one. |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| It doesn't defy the laws of physics. |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| You think? |
|
|
|
|
Wokko
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Tannin wrote: | | (2) The constitutional argument is nonsense. (a) The constitutional right to bear arms is explicitly aimed at having a "well-regulated militia". In law, any arms not required for and used as part of a "well-regulated militia" (i.e., a part-time army) are not protected by the constitution. |
The argument regarding the law, while settled in the USA, still apparently confuses some people. Whether you or I agree or disagree with the laws of another country on ethical or moral grounds really isn't important. In the US context, the law is settled, and it's settled on the side of private citizens having the right to own firearms for their own and their nation's defence.
The intent of the law was to state that people already have the right to bear arms and the State shall not have the ability to take that right away from citizens. |
|
|
|
|
nomadjack
Joined: 27 Apr 2006
Location: Essendon
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Sorry, but a 5/4 Constitutional decision is far from a settled understanding of a constitutional provision. |
|
|
|
|
Jezza 
2023 PREMIERS!
Joined: 06 Sep 2010
Location: Ponsford End
|
| Post subject: | |
|
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/08/26/us/virginia-shooting-wdbj/index.html
A Virginia TV news reporter and a crew member are shot dead during an interview at the hands of a disgruntled employee.
Very sad news.
_________________
| 1902 | 1903 | 1910 | 1917 | 1919 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1935 | 1936 | 1953 | 1958 | 1990 | 2010 | 2023 |
Last edited by Jezza on Thu Aug 27, 2015 12:10 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
Culprit 
Joined: 06 Feb 2003
Location: Port Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
If bystanders were armed they would have stopped this.  |
|
|
|
|
Lazza
Joined: 04 Feb 2003
Location: Bendigo, Victoria, Australia
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Culprit wrote: | | If bystanders were armed they would have stopped this. |
Might have had far more fatalities I reckon......
_________________
Don't confuse your current path with your final destination. Just because it's dark and stormy now doesn't meant that you aren't headed for glorious sunshine! |
|
|
|
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
