[Boxcar]

I with Caroline agree about stricter gun control and I certainly would not want them banned

If you're up for stricter gun control why don't you want guns to be banned? As you said, it's the person who was allowed to hold the gun who's doing the shooting. Is there a good reason to have guns like? If someone says hunting I don't like them.

[another_someone]

"Hunting which involves killing for food I have nothing against"
Maybe lost in the woods or something, we all need to survive. I think humans have come a looonng way since the time when hunting an animal was a necessity for survival but since then that necessity has definitely been eradicated. At least in the western societies with a super market with yummy veggie alternatives on nearly every corner. If you're going out killing animals only to satisfy your pallet I've no sympathy for you. There's almost definitely no more need for it.

Apart from the fact that I, and many others, will not thank you at all for forcing us all to become vegetarians (it may suite you, but many others not so); but I would also argue that often hunting can benefit the species being hunted (so long as it is managed hunting).

Many domestic animals have only survived because they had economic value to humans (often as food value), and their wild cousins have in the meantime perished.

Many animals, such as pheasants, partridges, dear, are semi domesticated, insofar as there are people spending significant amounts of time and money to maintain the populations of these animals in order to keep them available to hunters.  If we lose the hunters, then we will also lose the game keepers that manage the species (or else we shall have to pay for those game keepers out of our taxes).

Clearly, that situation is very different in the US, where there is more open land, and game is more readily available without all the management of scarce resources we have to undertake in north-west Europe.

[kdlynn]

hmmm... that's an interesting reason not to like someone...

[another_someone]

If you're up for stricter gun control why don't you want guns to be banned? As you said, it's the person who was allowed to hold the gun who's doing the shooting. Is there a good reason to have guns like? If someone says hunting I don't like them.

Are you talking about all guns, or only hand guns.

Hand guns, aside from their use by police forces, is only really valuable as a sporting tool, for target practice (for which there are Olympic events).

Rifles and shotguns have not been prohibited in this country because they are still used, aside from hunting for food, also for hunting as a means of vermin control.

[Karen W.]

I with Caroline agree about stricter gun control and I certainly would not want them banned

If you're up for stricter gun control why don't you want guns to be banned? As you said, it's the person who was allowed to hold the gun who's doing the shooting. Is there a good reason to have guns like? If someone says hunting I don't like them.

I believe that people need to be able to defend themselves as well as hunt if need be..We are not all vegetarians.I also know what it is like not to have money to go to those markets for even vegetables so I know we are not all in the same boat money wise a lot of people here rely on hunting and meager income to be able to eat and feed their families.

I think tighter control would help along with requirements for holding a gun..permits training background checks and periodical checks or renewals for permits based on new background checks etc. I am not sure how to do it but I think it is important to be able to maintain one also for safety of yourself and your family if a need ever arose!

[Carolyn]

I with Caroline agree about stricter gun control and I certainly would not want them banned

If you're up for stricter gun control why don't you want guns to be banned? As you said, it's the person who was allowed to hold the gun who's doing the shooting. Is there a good reason to have guns like? If someone says hunting I don't like them.

Stricter gun control doesn't mean get rid of guns. It means the laws should tougher when it comes to who's allowed to own them. 

Yes there are excellent reasons to own guns!  My husband and son & daughter love going shooting....at targets.  We also use them for protection...not just from people, but wild animals as well.  We live in the country.  We've had bears, coyotes, rattlesnakes, moccasins, rabid dogs and even alligators in our yard.

And last but not least, hunting.  I grew up in a hunting family, married a hunter, and my children love to hunt.  Yes, we can buy meat in the grocery store, but not venison.

Sorry if this means you don't like me. []

[Boxcar]

I typed out a massive reply to this and accidently lost it all earlier today so this is going to seem kind of half hearted

I, and many others, will not thank you at all for forcing us all to become vegetarians (it may suite you, but many others not so)

Did I force anyone to be a veg? I've read my post twice now and I don't see it.

Many domestic animals have only survived because they had economic value to humans (often as food value), and their wild cousins have in the meantime perished

What animals are these and why would they have perished had they not been hunted?

If we lose the hunters, then we will also lose the game keepers that manage the species (or else we shall have to pay for those game keepers out of our taxes).

What kind of argument is that? Lets keep hunting for the sake of the gamekeepers? There's other jobs out there you know. For example, many dairy farmers are switching to oil seed rape for the fuel industry whcih I've heard is pretty profitable. There's worse things for your tax to go to like. I'd gladly pay more if I thought it would cripple the meat industry.

..We are not all vegetarians

Is that supposed to surprise me?

..I also know what it is like not to have money to go to those markets for even vegetables so I know we are not all in the same boat money wise a lot of people here rely on hunting and meager income to be able to eat and feed their families.

Yeah, what your saying is some people have to eat meat. I'd be really surprised if many here were in that sort of poverty to be honest. A veggie diet hardly breaks the bank. Look at all the drop outs and crusty punks living in squats who live on vegan diets. I agree that eating meat out of necessity is fine, how could it not be, but nowdays that necessity hardly exists

And last but not least, hunting.  I grew up in a hunting family, married a hunter, and my children love to hunt.

So? What's your point? I grew up in a catholic family and my sister loves to kick a football. I have a mild interest in kicking a football but otherwise these things say nothign about me.

 

Yes, we can buy meat in the grocery store, but not venison. .

You can kill an animal yourself or you can pay greedy corporations to do it for you? You're going for the lesser of two evils and totally missed my point. Why do you kill animals when there's a grocery store selling everything you need for a veggie diet.

Sorry if this means you don't like me.

I wasn't being serious


Sorry guys if I'm coming off in a kind of holier than thou attitude. Vegitarianism is something I feel very strong about and the means of nutrition alot of people really makes me sick.
I was going to type more but I've to catch a train. I'm going to a party tonight whoooo

[Karen W.]

I like meat I like veges I do not want to be a vegetarian.. I choose the food I eat because I like it sometimes I choose it because of the cost .. There is nothing wrong with eating meat! You certainly can choose for your self without criticism. It is a healthy choice if you balance things right!

[another_someone]

I typed out a massive reply to this and accidently lost it all earlier today so this is going to seem kind of half hearted

It happens – which is why I tend to compose the big replies in a word processor, and then cut and paste to post to the site.

Did I force anyone to be a veg? I've read my post twice now and I don't see it.

Sorry guys if I'm coming off in a kind of holier than thou attitude. Vegitarianism is something I feel very strong about and the means of nutrition alot of people really makes me sick.

You previously wrote:

If you're going out killing animals only to satisfy your pallet I've no sympathy for you. There's almost definitely no more need for it.

I read that to mean that you object to anybody who eats dead animals (OK, you did allow the option of people scavenging – e.g. Taking a road kill home to eat, but since the kill was not intentional, therefore would fall outside of your area of distaste).

It seems you had not intended to give that impression, so I shall let it go.

Many domestic animals have only survived because they had economic value to humans (often as food value), and their wild cousins have in the meantime perished

What animals are these and why would they have perished had they not been hunted?

Now you have not read what I wrote.  I did not say they survived because they were hunted, I said they survived (and thrived) because they were eaten by humans – i.e. they were farmed – e.g. cattle and sheep – even pigs within the confines of this country only exist in any numbers on farms.

It is open to judgement whether keeping a pig captive on a farm all its life, and then sending it to slaughter, is really a more humane option than letting a dear wonder freely until you come to shoot it.

If we lose the hunters, then we will also lose the game keepers that manage the species (or else we shall have to pay for those game keepers out of our taxes).

What kind of argument is that? Lets keep hunting for the sake of the gamekeepers? There's other jobs out there you know. For example, many dairy farmers are switching to oil seed rape for the fuel industry whcih I've heard is pretty profitable. There's worse things for your tax to go to like. I'd gladly pay more if I thought it would cripple the meat industry.

Again, you have not read properly what I had written (or at least, you have taken it out of context).

What I wrote, in its totality is:

Many animals, such as pheasants, partridges, dear, are semi domesticated, insofar as there are people spending significant amounts of time and money to maintain the populations of these animals in order to keep them available to hunters.  If we lose the hunters, then we will also lose the game keepers that manage the species (or else we shall have to pay for those game keepers out of our taxes).

I was not saying that we should keep hunting alive in order to pay the gamekeepers salaries; I was saying that the animals are protected and nurtured by the gamekeepers, and in if we lose the gamekeepers, then these animals would suffer (the gamekeepers are in effect farmers).

..I also know what it is like not to have money to go to those markets for even vegetables so I know we are not all in the same boat money wise a lot of people here rely on hunting and meager income to be able to eat and feed their families.

Yeah, what your saying is some people have to eat meat. I'd be really surprised if many here were in that sort of poverty to be honest. A veggie diet hardly breaks the bank. Look at all the drop outs and crusty punks living in squats who live on vegan diets. I agree that eating meat out of necessity is fine, how could it not be, but nowdays that necessity hardly exists

Fresh fruit and vegetables can be extremely expensive these days, but you also have to bear in mind that the whole structure of the welfare state is very different in the US to what we are used to over here, so it is very possible that the situation Karen describes is very different to what we might have here.

It has been said that in the richest country in the world, the USA, there are pockets where the poverty level is comparable to the third world.  This is something we are less used to in Europe.

I was going to type more but I've to catch a train. I'm going to a party tonight whoooo

Have fun!

[Simulated]

I don't really use guns. Why do people need guns to destroy people and get food? Thanks!

[kdlynn]

let's not all attack each other. big group hug!

[Simulated]

Sounds like a good idea. LoL. {{{hugs}}}

[Boxcar]

I choose the food I eat because I like it

Good for you. Are you totally apathetic about everything or is it just animal's lives you don't care about?

There is nothing wrong with eating meat!

Do you know how meat is processed? Look it up. If you already knew and you still think there's nothing wrong, then is it that you think animals are inferior to you or something? Are you aware that animals go through great anxiety and suffering to make it to your plate? I would like to avoid moralising as much as I can so I'll just say that it's pretty important to look at your life and how you live it. Like what causes are due to your actions. Where do your responsibilities come from you know. For example, someone might decide not to buy coca cola, McDonalds or Starbucks products because they find the actions of those corporation to be un ethical. I honestly don't see how the actions of any of the meat corporations are even slightly ethical.

You certainly can choose for your self without criticism

Can you ellaborate?

Also, mods, is it ok to continue the veggie discussion in this thread?

[paul.fr]

Also, mods, is it ok to continue the veggie discussion in this thread?

Boxcar:

I think it best if you start a new topic, if it is a scientific question about a vegetarian diet then post in a science section that best suits your question. If it is about general pro's and con's, more of a personal issue, then i would suggest the chat section would be best.

Side note: Are you sure that vegetables do not feel pain? or undergro stress when they are force grown? Anyway, post your new topic and it can all be discussed there.

[another_someone]

I choose the food I eat because I like it

Good for you. Are you totally apathetic about everything or is it just animal's lives you don't care about?

There is nothing wrong with eating meat!

Do you know how meat is processed? Look it up. If you already knew and you still think there's nothing wrong, then is it that you think animals are inferior to you or something? Are you aware that animals go through great anxiety and suffering to make it to your plate? I would like to avoid moralising as much as I can so I'll just say that it's pretty important to look at your life and how you live it. Like what causes are due to your actions. Where do your responsibilities come from you know. For example, someone might decide not to buy coca cola, McDonalds or Starbucks products because they find the actions of those corporation to be un ethical. I honestly don't see how the actions of any of the meat corporations are even slightly ethical.

Ethics are a highly personal thing, and that you don't see something as ethical does not mean others see it as unethical.

As for how meat is processed – how is that of ethical significance to you (and anyway, if we are talking about people who are hunting for their own table, they know exactly how the meat is processed, because they are doing the processing).

If you are talking about how meat is farmed, that is another matter, but it applies as much to dairy farming, or egg production, as it does to farming for meat.

Also, mods, is it ok to continue the veggie discussion in this thread?

We tend to get less fussy about what happens in threads on the Chat section of the forum than we do elsewhere, but if you wish to start a new thread on the matter, that is fine by me, or if you want us to split the posts that pertain to the veggie discussion into a new thread (so you don't lose the existing posts), we can do that too.

[Killerhobbes117]

well america has a right to bear arms in the constitution
and you try taking americas guns away i wouldnt!!! []

[dentstudent]

Americans have the right to the following, which is slightly different to having a right to own a gun.

US Constitution; 2nd Amendment:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

[syhprum]

I have often wondered if the Apollo 11 crew took guns with them to the Moon, I find it hard to imagine Americans going anywhere without guns.

[borrego]

Don't forget your history Britain:

[CGNFOREVER]

[]I'll give up my guns when hell freezes over.
 [ Invalid Attachment ]
 [ Invalid Attachment ]

[Geezer]

Well good for you. But you might not want to advertise that you have guns on your premises too much.

Guns are one of the most popular things that people like to steal.

[graham.d]

I'm sure all you gun-toting advocates contributing here are very responsible people. However the statistical data suggest that many people are not. I don't hold with the idea that Americans are naturally more violent than people in other countries, though I would note that the very high spread in wealth distribution may be a factor in the high crime rate and, maybe as a result, the high homicide rate.

I think that the most common reason given for gun ownership is personal protection. The justification for having a gun for hunting or protection against wild animals has some justification, but this does not correlate well with the types of gun most popularly sold. The protection justification is usually based on the slightly circular argument that there are a lot of guns out there and the bad guys have them; the circular part being that we therefore should allow more guns to be available to everyone. A handgun ban with a heavy penalty for unlawful possession would remove this justification within around a decade I would suggest.

There is also the effect of the powerful gun lobby supported strongly by arms manufacturers. Those who are not affected by the power of the media, which reflects, to some extent, both the status quo and also the desires of political and business lobbies, are in a small minority of unusual recluses. We are all affected by this combination of ignoble influence, political dogma and positive feedback. The degree to which this affects people's views is a hard thing to accept for many.

The other argument used in favour of retaining guns is the idea that it is the person that kills and not the weapon by itself. Whilst this is indeed unquestionably true, the ease with such an action can be taken with a gun compared with a big stick or even a knife means the types of weapon available is an importent consideration. Human nature is such that people, especially young men, can be raised to anger and this can lead to loss of control. Whilst this may lead to a fight it will rarely result in a homicide. Guns are a too easy response and can kill from a remote position. The effect is usually immediate and final. Even fatal accidents with guns can be a problem despite sensible advice on taking suitable precautions.

[yor_on]

Yeah, it's a hard question. Considering that the 'Gun allowance' was thought to be one of the things defending the right of every individual to be able to defend himself and the constitution (namely USA) once when it was decided, it indeed is a 'right'.

But considering that the same Government today can drop a real good fuel bomb on you as you wave your Kalashnikov defending your constitutional rights, I'm not that impressed over that argument. 

When it comes to food I tend to side with them pointing out that we have super markets taking care of that. Hunting is assuredly a 'kick' for those doing it, making them able to do one of the most sublime thing known, Snuffing someones life out. In a world where we all find ourselves increasingly marginalized, made into cogs in a machine, it's understandable that we want to keep those few things proving ourselves so much better than something else. and what better proof than to kill it?

As for the argument of getting and being close to nature
In a way sure. Like the cavemans huh? Fighting for ya wimma, but with that trusty Kalashnikov instead of a flint-axe.

Still, we are killers, all of us are. And the food we find in the super store is killed too, although not by me personally.

[Geezer]

I'm not a hunter, or a gun owner myself (unless you count a BB rifle as a gun) but it's traditional around here for everybody to go a'hunting. A friend of mine got a moose this year. I tried some of the stew his wife made, and I'm afraid to say it was jolly good.

[CGNFOREVER]

Yeah, it's a hard question. Considering that the 'Gun allowance' was thought to be one of the things defending the right of every individual to be able to defend himself and the constitution (namely USA) once when it was decided, it indeed is a 'right'.

But considering that the same Government today can drop a real good fuel bomb on you as you wave your Kalashnikov defending your constitutional rights, I'm not that impressed over that argument. 

When it comes to food I tend to side with them pointing out that we have super markets taking care of that. Hunting is assuredly a 'kick' for those doing it, making them able to do one of the most sublime thing known, Snuffing someones life out. In a world where we all find ourselves increasingly marginalized, made into cogs in a machine, it's understandable that we want to keep those few things proving ourselves so much better than something else. and what better proof than to kill it?

As for the argument of getting and being close to nature
In a way sure. Like the cavemans huh? Fighting for ya wimma, but with that trusty Kalashnikov instead of a flint-axe.

Still, we are killers, all of us are. And the food we find in the super store is killed too, although not by me personally.

Have you ever Heard of Iraq and Afghanistan.The Taliban is doing a pretty good job without bigger weapons..Now there are well over 600 thousand hunters in the United States, you don't think they would have an impact on an invading army?You're lying to yourself if you disagree.Not every solider is going to be in a tank or an aircraft..

Europeans are a strange bunch,The Europeans that wanted to leave left and came to America the ones that couldn't or wanted to side with monarchies and more controllable governments stayed.This is why I think you all are so anti gun.Your governments told you that guns are bad by banning them or putting stringent gun laws in place and you all seem to be happy with it.Here in the U.S people want less government control and more freedom's to do as they please.American's tend to get pissed when the government over steps its bounds and I contribute that american culture and to the immigrants that left Europe because of governments that were to strict.Also immigrants came here to start over with a better life and part of that was the promise of freedoms they might not otherwise have.

Banning guns doesn't accomplish safety it accomplishes a false sense of safety.We aren't allowed to have guns so we are safe and no one is going to shoot us,WRONG.I believe that proved its self to be true with the shootings in England a few months back.

This video is a must to watch,skip to 2.22 to watch the good stuff.

its long but worth it.
newbielink:http://blogs.redding.com/bross/archives/2010/12/the-worlds-larg.html [nonactive]

[graham.d]

"Banning guns doesn't accomplish safety it accomplishes a false sense of safety.We aren't allowed to have guns so we are safe and no one is going to shoot us,WRONG.I believe that proved its self to be true with the shootings in England a few months back."

I don't think the statistics on fatal killings per capita bear you out on this.

I'm glad that you appreciate the history of what was behind the amendment. Not everyone does so. The reasons for the granting of the right to bear arms was important at the time, but it did not actually mean it quite in the way it has turned out. I believe it was intended to allow the formation of organised militia independent of the state, which could indeed still be a feature of the current situation. I don't think it was thought necessary by the founding fathers as a tool for self protection against crimes by fellow citizens using those same weapons. I actually don't see it as a very likely scenario that Americans are likely to take a weapons' led revolutionary stance against their elected government. And I don't see this to be likely in any democratic state at the present time - and not because the democratic states are necessarily really representative, but mainly that the overall systems that have been developed tend to favour the status quo anyway. Revolutions do not tend to occur in democracies. Do you really think that this is anything close to a prime reason why many people in the US bear arms? If so, there are a lot of dangerous people out there who currently are not regarded as criminals. Is it not more likely that, if you think that you are the last line of defence against an invading army, that this might just be an "invented", if only slightly plausible, excuse. With all the defence power that the US has got, I don't really think anyone would get close. There are countries that can justify this (e.g. Israel), but not the US.

Not all European countries forbid gun ownership by the way. Switzerland is an example and they have a relatively low crime rate, so I would agree gun ownership does not necessarily result in a high homicide rate, but it does in some places. The reasons can be complex. The UK has a rising problem with gun crime but it is still very low and there is general popular agreement about having tight gun laws. I don't see the need in the near future to rise up against the government either and, in any case, asymmetric wars do not tend to involve gun battles against professional, heavily armed, troops; it would be a lousy strategy.

[Geezer]

Futher anecdotal evidence:

Not long after we moved from the UK to the USA, I was chatting with a church minister, and I brought up the subject of guns. I was rabbiting on about how bad I thought it was that so many people in the US felt the need to own hand guns.

After a bit, I realized he wasn't exactly in full agreement with what I was saying, then he mentioned that he always kept a loaded revolver in his bedside table. Put a bit of a damper on the conversation, let me tell you.

[CGNFOREVER]

"Banning guns doesn't accomplish safety it accomplishes a false sense of safety.We aren't allowed to have guns so we are safe and no one is going to shoot us,WRONG.I believe that proved its self to be true with the shootings in England a few months back."

I don't think the statistics on fatal killings per capita bear you out on this.

I'm glad that you appreciate the history of what was behind the amendment. Not everyone does so. The reasons for the granting of the right to bear arms was important at the time, but it did not actually mean it quite in the way it has turned out. I believe it was intended to allow the formation of organised militia independent of the state, which could indeed still be a feature of the current situation. I don't think it was thought necessary by the founding fathers as a tool for self protection against crimes by fellow citizens using those same weapons. I actually don't see it as a very likely scenario that Americans are likely to take a weapons' led revolutionary stance against their elected government. And I don't see this to be likely in any democratic state at the present time - and not because the democratic states are necessarily really representative, but mainly that the overall systems that have been developed tend to favour the status quo anyway. Revolutions do not tend to occur in democracies. Do you really think that this is anything close to a prime reason why many people in the US bear arms? If so, there are a lot of dangerous people out there who currently are not regarded as criminals. Is it not more likely that, if you think that you are the last line of defence against an invading army, that this might just be an "invented", if only slightly plausible, excuse. With all the defence power that the US has got, I don't really think anyone would get close. There are countries that can justify this (e.g. Israel), but not the US.

Not all European countries forbid gun ownership by the way. Switzerland is an example and they have a relatively low crime rate, so I would agree gun ownership does not necessarily result in a high homicide rate, but it does in some places. The reasons can be complex. The UK has a rising problem with gun crime but it is still very low and there is general popular agreement about having tight gun laws. I don't see the need in the near future to rise up against the government either and, in any case, asymmetric wars do not tend to involve gun battles against professional, heavily armed, troops; it would be a lousy strategy.

So you're a expert on the U.S Constitution??? the Constitution means exactly what it says.Good people with guns don't kill people,bad people with guns do.It all has to do with personal responsibility.If you didn't watch that video that I gave the link to,i'll basically tell you in short what it was about.

It was about personal responsibility, you and you alone are responsible for your actions.If some lunatic goes out and murders someone with a gun don't blame the community blame the person.The only one responsible for your actions is you,not the other millions of gun owners just you.Also the video was about teaching your kids to be safe with dangerous things,teach them how to handle and be safe with them.People that want to ban guns want to make the world a safe place by taking away dangerous things.There are a lot of dangerous things that can kill or injure people and if someone doesn't use that object with precision and care someone may get killed and i'm not talking just about guns.Sports cars,motor cycles,knives,swimming pools are a few things that can be dangerous.Someone gets in a sports car and doesn't know how to handle it and goes off and races with it,he is liable to kill someone including himself.Swimming pools kill thousands of kids world wide because they fell in and drowned.

Should we ban those things because some idiot got behind the wheel and killed someone, should we ban swimming pools because some child died?

Well you could say the only purpose guns serve is to kill.Oh yeah? Well that maybe true but a gun doesn't make a person,I own several firearms and I never wanted to go out and kill someone.

Those that want to kill will do so regardless if guns are banned.If they can't get a gun they'll get a knife, if they can't get a knife they'll get a stick.People has been murdering each other since the dawn of time.Nothing is going to stop that, no law on the books will ever do that.A good example of that is a man in Canada killed another man with a crossbow.Guns aren't completely banned there but they are a lot harder to get so someone determined to kill is going to regardless.

Sorry got a little side tracked back to the videos point and my point as well.Dangerous things shouldn't be feared,governments that seek to ban dangerous things like guns do so in fear.We shouldn't fear dangerous things,instead we should teach our children how to use and respect dangerous things because they are dangerous.We should teach them how to safely use them.

I blame the parents,if a child accidently kills himself,if his parents would teach their children that pointing a gun at someone or themselves could kill them and teach them the proper techniques to use them then maybe things would change.

In todays society people blame the community for someones actions and not the parents.If people would go straight to the parents and ask them why didn't you teach him to handle a dangerous thing.lay the blame on the teacher because the student is only as good as he is tought.But instead we blame gun owners because of what one individual did.


If we ban guns whats next?It wont end until the government has us in a padded cell figuratively speaking.And yet a lot of you people agree with that.

Bring back personal responsibility.

I haven't even scratched the surface of the gun debate. 

I mean then theres the whole self defense, believe it or not there are people out there that want to do you harm and may even want to kill you.A gun may give me a better chance of surviving an encounter.I'd rather have one than not have one if a situation like that ever occurred.I could go on and on.


And on to the whole,U.S has so much defensive power we don't need guns.Well gun owners in themselves are part of the defense.
I'm just glad none of you have any influence or it would be a bloody day in the U.S because me and i'm sure millions of other gun owners would not give up our firearms without a fight.

[yor_on]

You're right in that Europeans come because of the chance of a better life. America still have a lot of resources Europe doesn't. But that is 'land' me man And some went because of repression from society etc. I agree to all those things. But times change, mostly, western Europe works in a democratic fashion today, and we seem to do alright without all those guns.

It may come to a point where every home will need its own, but before that point will be reached a whole society needs to go down in flames, valid for any society I'm saying now, not only USA. And if a democratic society reached that point its f*ed anyway. Former Yugoslavia was a good 'eastern' example of that recently.

A democratic country is not tested by its ability to have guns, but by the way its citizens have a right to make them selves heard, and by the way the government and bureaucracy listen and adapt to their peoples 'voice'. But I can't swear to this, it's how I look at it

==

I can tell you this, due to former Yugoslavia, and other wars in the east, we now see an increasing illegal import of heavy weaponry here in Sweden. People sell them cheap there as they need the cash, and we don't like it. The bobbies in England made do a long time without guns, now they need it too. In Canada they don't lock their front door. In the States they would call you a moron if you did the same. I'm not discussing weapons per se, or sport shooting but the more weapons there is in circulation the more probable that someone will get shot. And mostly those that get so are the victims, not the perpetrators.

[Geezer]

So you're a expert on the U.S Constitution??? the Constitution means exactly what it says.

If the Constitution means exactly what it says, why would Graham, or anyone else come to that, need to be an expert to understand it?

[CGNFOREVER]

So you're a expert on the U.S Constitution??? the Constitution means exactly what it says.

If the Constitution means exactly what it says, why would Graham, or anyone else come to that, need to be an expert to understand it?

What I mean by that is, is he a lawyer schooled in constitutional rights.But my guess is he's not because usually they fight to keep the constitution intact and not misinterpret it.

[yor_on]

Futher anecdotal evidence:

Not long after we moved from the UK to the USA, I was chatting with a church minister, and I brought up the subject of guns. I was rabbiting on about how bad I thought it was that so many people in the US felt the need to own hand guns.

After a bit, I realized he wasn't exactly in full agreement with what I was saying, then he mentioned that he always kept a loaded revolver in his bedside table. Put a bit of a damper on the conversation, let me tell you.

A reverent situation where you suddenly saw the priesthood in a whole new light?
Someone should have tipped Jesus to it, then he might had a chance huh ??
I know, my jokes just went to a new all high low
Heh
==

Can't help it, I keep seeing that reverend talking to his mirror

"You talking to me, huh! You talking to me,  punk.."

[Geezer]

So you're a expert on the U.S Constitution??? the Constitution means exactly what it says.

If the Constitution means exactly what it says, why would Graham, or anyone else come to that, need to be an expert to understand it?

What I mean by that is, is he a lawyer schooled in constitutional rights.But my guess is he's not because usually they fight to keep the constitution intact and not misinterpret it.

I not sure I understand. I think you are saying that my right to bear arms is guaranteed by the US Constitution.

If, as you say, the Constitution means exactly what it says, then there can be no ambiguity about it, so why would we need lawyers to interpret it for us. Or, are you really saying that the US Constitution is a bit vague on the subject, and open to different interpretations by artful lawyers?

[Marnaz]

As Admiral Yamamoto famously said "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a man with a rifle behind every blade of grass."

This is the reason. America will always be a country for itself because the majority of citizens, even in times of difference, would stand and fight together as one people under the Unites States to protect their individual interests. We are "United States" but are still individual States, none the less. The constitution governs over all states and ensures the personal safety of all based on ones own means from the bill of rights for safety. The laws and times may be different, but the constitution is still important because they are baseline laws. The forefathers knew what they were doing. Sometimes there has to be a necessary evil to protect something that is already malleable enough. We're supposed to always be wary of our government as well because sometimes power gets into the wrong hands.

I'm not saying that guns are good and we should just shoot people, all I'm saying is that it is a good threat to anyone who wants to take the power away from the people. A threat and that only, but sometimes people take it too far and use their guns unnecessarily and it is sad to see this happen. But if the times ever get serious, people will at least have some kind of personal defense against tyranny.

[graham.d]

There is quite a good discussion of the meaning on the 2nd amendment in Wikipedia:

...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN

CGNF, I'm all for personal responsibility but I don't think it follows that the collective responsibility, as represented by a constitutionally elected government, should not limit the actions of individuals where there is serious endangerment to other members of the society. To use your analogy with ownership of cars; these are very useful, and today necessary, forms of transport and vital to the national economy. Their use is certainly controlled and people have restricted rights (age limits, use under the influence of drugs/alcohol, speed limits, police supervision to see that rules are obeyed). It would clearly not be sensible to ban driving - at least not while there is no alternative and if there were alternatives the need to ban them may never arise. Going the other way, I don't think an individual is permitted to buy and own (say) Surface to Air Missiles are they? I may be wrong about this so I would be interested to know. The point is that all societies agree on rules which, to some extent, limit individual freedoms in favour of some advantages to the whole society. The statistics show a very high percentage, per capita, of fatalities resulting from the use of firearms in the US. It would seem to be a good idea to think of ways to reduce this. I have heard it argued that the people killed usually deserve it, and it is true that many teenage deaths (which is very high in the US) are often gang and/or drug related. However it does not seem that this problem is being overcome by use of firearms either and it is also not a very civilised approach to law enforcement.

My views on this are somewhat reinforced by the fact that a friend of mine who lived close to San Hose (nr San Francisco) had his 5 year old stepson shot and killed, whilst playing in his own house, by someone driving by and randomly firing a gun out of the window. There are loonies everywhere but in the US they can get and use a gun easily; the consequences can be dire.

[Don_1]

Regardless of the arguments for and against the of bearing arms and the individual's interpretation of the constitution and any evidence from around the world, it would take a very brave and very foolish president to take on the might of the gun lobby.

[graham.d]

You mean... you mean... someone might try to shoot the president???

Surely it would never happen.

[Don_1]

We may never know.

Please stop calling me Shirley.

[Geezer]

Futher anecdotal evidence:

Not long after we moved from the UK to the USA, I was chatting with a church minister, and I brought up the subject of guns. I was rabbiting on about how bad I thought it was that so many people in the US felt the need to own hand guns.

After a bit, I realized he wasn't exactly in full agreement with what I was saying, then he mentioned that he always kept a loaded revolver in his bedside table. Put a bit of a damper on the conversation, let me tell you.

A reverent situation where you suddenly saw the priesthood in a whole new light?
Someone should have tipped Jesus to it, then he might had a chance huh ??
I know, my jokes just went to a new all high low
Heh
==

Can't help it, I keep seeing that reverend talking to his mirror

"You talking to me, huh! You talking to me,  punk.."

At least he'd be able to administer the coup de grâce * and the last rights almost simultaneously.


(* Not normally a French lawnmower)

[imatfaal]

Can't help it, I keep seeing that reverend talking to his mirror

"You talking to me, huh! You talking to me,  punk.."

I am not sure I could trust a supposed man of god who combined his ...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN

[Variola]

I am not sure I could trust a supposed man of god who combined his Clint Eastwood and his Robert de Niro
   

I am not sure I could trust a man who would know a man of god was mixing up his famous lines...  []


On the subject of guns, don't ban guns, just ban ammunition  []

[CliffordK]

The first thing one would expect any conquering government to do is to get the guns out of the hands of the people, and the inability to do so is one of the reasons why the USA is having such a tough time in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Around the world there are many Military Coups, and Dictators taking and holding power by force.  An armed populace, while it does carry a risk of breeding radicals, can also prevent total collapse of the legitimate government.

Having half of the world's military controlled by the USA, I have to question whether there would ever be a fullscale ground assault on the USA.  No doubt if it happened, it would be bloody to the point of making WWI trench warfare look like child's play.

Nor can I imagine a single General having enough power for a military Coup, although it is possible that the military would someday question the orders given by the civilian government.

I do think of handguns as an "offensive" weapon, and don't believe they are necessary in our modern society.  Rifles and shotguns have much more sports&hunting applications, and are far more defensive around the house.

I do have to question whether the USA, China, and Russia should be exporting weapons to other countries.

[imatfaal]

I am not sure I could trust a supposed man of god who combined his Clint Eastwood and his Robert de Niro
  

I am not sure I could trust a man who would know a man of god was mixing up his famous lines...  []

I am absolutely certain you are correct on that point - to my shame...

Around the world there are many Military Coups, and Dictators taking and holding power by force.  An armed populace, while it does carry a risk of breeding radicals, can also prevent total collapse of the legitimate government.

CK
I appreciate the sentiment behind your post and agree with much of it; I have one question - has a legitimate government really ever been defended by a gun holding populace?  My history is pretty lamentable so I ask merely for information rather than in a rhetorical way.  The UK exports a ridiculous amount of weapons and the promised ethical policy to constrain this practice is now 13 years overdue from its manifesto promise

Matthew

[graham.d]

Matthew, I would say the answer is probably yes, at least in part. I mentioned Israel as a case in point where they have a system where a large part of the population are conscripted at periods through their life for military training and retraining. The Kibbutz system was not set up just for picking fruit - they were intended as a first line of defence against attack by ground forces. To what extent they are a deterrent and to what extent they have been effective in the past I am not sure. Of course this does not mean a large number of Israelis carry handguns, though some do.

[CliffordK]

Unfortunately my US History around the Revolutionary War period, Articles of the Confederation, and early constitution period is a bit weak.  I would assume that the British tried to take the guns away from the American Citizens.  But, perhaps you could argue the the British were the legitimate government, and the revolutionaries were just a coup.

I suppose our American Forefathers were a bit radical... 

When in the course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.
[...]
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
[...]
it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.

As far as history...
If you look at WWII, many European countries including France and Italy celebrate a group of individuals called Partisans, Resistance Fighters, or Freedom Fighters.  I suppose one might question whether guns, or military intelligence was their major contribution to the war effort.  Perhaps both.  Perhaps it was just never fully accepting being conquered.

The problem that the USA had with our invasion of Vietnam was the it was impossible to tell the difference between the Vietcong, and the general population. 

When Russia invaded Afghanistan, they ran into the same issue.  An armed population that didn't want them there.  I suppose you may ask whether the arms were held internally, or supplied by an external force.  Does it really matter?  The people who drove the Russians out weren't trained in fancy government training camps.

Iran & Iraq just got out of a bloody 10-year war...  that really resolved nothing.

You would think that the American Politicians would have read their history books, but apparently an "A" in History isn't required to become president of the USA.  Within days of the Iraq invasion, the Iraq army officially fell.  The government has been toppled...  yet 8 years later, and we're still fighting....  that damn stubborn population that just won't give up.  Are they "Insurgents" or "Resistance Fighters", or perhaps a bit of both.

And, no, I never supported the invasion of Iraq, although I had always believed that it would lead to Muslims fighting Christians, rather than Muslims fighting Muslims. 

The only way to truly win the war is to disarm the people.  Although, perhaps that is a bit imperialistic thinking.  One really needs to win their hearts, and one can't do that by marching tanks down the streets.

Having guns out in the population with people who know how to use them makes it that much harder for the population to be conquered.

Single shot & semi-automatic against fully automatic guns?  I don't know, most hunting rifles have very good scopes...  which counts for a lot.  And, one may not have enough ammunition to indiscriminately fire.

[Richard88]

The citizens of the United States of America believe in absolute freedom.  It is guaranteed to the people, by LAW, that you have an INHERENT RIGHT THAT NOBODY CAN TAKE AWAY.

The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to allow the general populace to overthrow the government, should it become tyrannical and oppressive.

I'm all for personal responsibility but I don't think it follows that the collective responsibility

I read all of what you wrote, but this is the part that chilled me to the bone.

I can think of another group that viewed the collective at a higher level than the individual.


[Image resized to 'sensible' - Mod]

As of late, it appears the UK has been using "Nineteen Eighty Four" as an instruction manual.  How's the whole CCTV network thing working out for you?  Has the minitrue been put together yet?  Yes, I do speak at the extreme.

But, the entirety of the UK is disarmed.  Should the government become oppressive, what would you use to stop them?  Harsh language?

The rights of the individual trump that of the collective always.  There is no collective.  Only the many to serve the few.

Throughout history, there is a repeating cycle.  That is that all governments can and will turn oppressive.  It's a matter of whether of not you will have the proper agent to dispatch of those who wish ill upon all that is good.

Hitler, Mao Zedong, Kim Jong-Il, Pol Pott, Mehmed V Reshad, and Stalin all agree : Gun control works.

There will always be the deaths of the innocent.  Whether a gun, knife, car, your hands, or even free speech (loose lips, sink ships).  Whether caused by irresponsibility, or with criminal intent.  They will continue to happen and no amount of legislation will stop that.  People have been killing each other through irresponsibility and murder since the dawn of time.  No words on a piece of paper is going to stop that.

[JP]

The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to allow the general populace to overthrow the government, should it become tyrannical and oppressive.

I suspect that become an impossibility somewhere before or during the cold war.  Military technology is just too far beyond civilian guns for this to be a real possibility anymore. 

Interestingly, this is one of the reasons that the American civil war lasted so long.  The South had a lot more guns and people trained to use them, so they had a big advantage early on.  The North, however, had most of the industry so eventually their production ramped up enough to counter this advantage.

By the way, I'm also curious why this thread is attracting so many first-time posters?  Are people lurking on the forums to post about this, or are people Googling for gun threads and finding this one to post on?

[graham.d]

It depends on what you mean by "oppressive". I can see a situation where a substantial minority can be come oppressed by the majority for example. You make take taxation as an example; the more well off members of society already pay a higher amount in tax. If this became punitive they may say enough is enough and decide to take direct action if they found that their government (elected by a majority) decided not to change things. Not so different from how the American revolution started. This is effectively allowing the power of the gun to attempt to overthrow an elected government. Another example, more recently, would be the demands for equal rights by black people in the southern states. You probably would agree that resorting to armed insurrection today (in either case) would not be a good idea. On the other hand if you are speaking of oppression of the majority then this is decided by the ballot box isn't it? All the examples you gave are totalitarian states. Democracies have their problems, but the constitution permits changing them via the ballot box and that this be tested on a regular basis. The constitutions of most democracies prevent governments from taking absolute power on an indefinite basis.

You may not like the word "collective" because of past associations with Orwell's 1984 or with its use associated with communism, (or maybe you are thinking of the "Borg" in StarTrek) but it is just describing the whole population which agree on a set of rules to live together. All societies do this from primitive tribes to sophisticated democracies - they all have agreed rules of acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. This agreement is best reached "collectively" and generally this is accepted by the majority of law abiding citizens. The alternative is anarchy.

You may think you are "free" but you are conditioned by your upbringing and surrounding influences all the time. And you are rightly controlled by the laws imposed upon you by your government. This is not unreasonable but it is good to be aware of it, especially by how much influence is wielded by the media, your own government and, indirectly, from powerful lobby groups. You have to think why a large number of Americans think differently about gun laws than the vast majority of Brits. I don't think there is so much difference in our cultural heritage to affect this, but there is a huge difference (whoever is right or wrong). Another example is why a majority of Canadians do not believe in human influenced global warming. I would not debate that one way or another here, but would point out that such a view would probably not be expected from the very ecologically minded Canadian culture until you realise that Canada is huge exporter of oil; the US is is its biggest customer and Canada is the USA's largest supplier. I would not expect individual Canadians to be influenced by the net benefit of this to their country, but they are pursuaded that the science behind the idea is flawed by the media they view and/or read. But this is another subject.

[Geezer]

If I did get a gun, I wouldn't have anywhere to keep it. Our house doesn't have a gun lobby.