What Two Things...

Not really Debs - as I said, if you were to give a soldier what is termed in common press parlance an "assault weapon", he would be none too pleased in trying to perform his job...because it's not.

But your point is not without merit; someone trying to bash my head in with a hammer has an "assault weapon" at that particular moment.  And if I had one while he was trying to do it, it would be a "defense weapon."  All the while for a carpenter it is a "tool."

Then again, it could be down to interpretation in any given circumstance,

and how the press choose to report it.

Or simply deluded

Absolutely.  The US press is no longer an information source - they are a propaganda machine that would have made Goebbels proud.  It's all about manipulating the "sheeple".

Call it what you like but why the hell does anyone even want to own what is, in the most basic terms, a machine gun if they are not in the military?

Could it be the case that the (Warning, generalisation coming) population of the US have still not got over the Wild West mindset?

There is a song by Lynyrd Skynyrd called "God And Guns" that depresses the heck out of me as it appears to sum up everything that is wrong with what is essentially a wonderful place.

steve

steve

Hi Russ,

As a retired advocate its good to see that your hunger for a good honest debate is alive a kicking. I assume from this and previous posts, your issue is with the democrats rather than gun ownership, as you have also stated that you are against legalised gun ownership.

My query is not the current legalities of a "right to bear arms" in modern day America, as to go down that route would take an age and a bit, and we can let the lawyers earn their keep on that one, but I do query the relevance of the Second Amendment today.

"...by depriving law-abiding people of the means to defend themselves".

From what and from whom, I ask?

I don't have the breadth of knowledge of this particularly curious obsession with gunn ownership by the ex colonists. But after doing some homework on the web (I hope you forgive my use of Wikipedia), I found out some contextual information at the time of the Conception of the American Bill of Rights (ABoR).

I think the distinction between the English Bill of Rights and the American Bill of Rights on this matter is the redefining of an existing law, whereas the American Bill of Rights was the creation of a new law.

The English Bill of Rights was clearly an individual right, and that it was a right not to be disarmed by the Crown and was not the granting of a new right to have arms. These 'ancient rights' or so called natural rights ( including the natural right to self defence) were already established but were disregarded by the Catholic King James II to oppress the predominantly Protestant civilian population in England at the time.

"That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law." From wiki.

The English Bill of Rights includes the proviso that arms must be as "allowed by law." Before and after the English Bill of Rights, the government could always disarm any individual or class of individuals it considered dangerous to the peace of the realm.

It is understood that the ABoR Second Amendment 1789, was influenced from the English Bill of Rights of 1689 and that the period of formulation for the ABoR was at a time of great perpetual conflict from both an external enemy and an internal enemy in an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty. Mainly from The tyrannous British Empire, internal inter- colony war, internal territory feuding with native Americans and finally a desire to suppress slaves. In addition, internal colony loyalties between the republicans and the loyalists to the British Crown fuelled an air of suspicion and paranoia. Creating the need for an armed 'militia' that would be ready to defend the people from.....well just about everybody it seems.

"During the 1760s pre-revolutionary period, the established colonial militia was composed of colonists, including many who were loyal to British imperial rule. As defiance and opposition to British rule developed, a distrust of these Loyalists in the militia became widespread among the colonists, known as Patriots, who favored independence from British rule. As a result, these Patriots established independent colonial legislatures to create their own militias that excluded the Loyalists and then sought to stock independent armories for their militias". From Wiki.

"A militia /mɨˈlɪʃə/[1] generally refers to an army or other fighting force that is composed of non-professional fighters; citizens of a nation or subjects of a state or government that can be called upon to enter a combat situation, as opposed to a professional force of regular soldiers or, historically, members of the fighting nobility". Wikipedia def.

The problem with 'militia' today is that it was born from a need to organise a group of persons to take up arms against an internal or external foe, as there were no organised police force or army to do that at the time. In a modern civilised western society today, the role of a militia is commonly accepted to be the organised police and army, or in the US example perhaps Homeland Security defines this role exceptionally well.

So, from whom or from what, do the American people need defending against? The 'external' tyrannous Colonial power has been dead a long time now, internal inter-colony conflicts are no longer, internal territory feuds with natives, they were wiped out a while back and the fear of uprising from slaves has long since receded. So the real purpose of the Second Amendment is no longer contextually relevant in modern day America, in my opinion.

The tragic irony in all this is that the only very 'real threat' to American civilians are themselves. The original driving force for the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms in order to be able to form a 'militia', is now redundant, mainly because those threats considered relevant at the time of framing, no longer exist. Unless there is a real chance of that Socialist Obama coming over all tyrannical.

Sadly, what the Second Amendment has created is an all American monster, where people fear for their safety without a gun so feel compelled to have one...obviously fuelled by the outdated militia wannabes (pro gun lobby and countless other organised groups) and the hideous and aggressive propaganda fear machine. The Second Amendment, taken out of context by the American people as 'violent force, is no way to deal with America's homegrown paranoia of itself, even if you think that that's morally legitimate.

"Guns in the hands of American citizens are not going to make the country more
benign. They're going to make it more brutal, ruthless and destructive. So
while one can recognise the motivation that lies behind some of the opposition
to gun control, I think it's sadly misguided".
                                                                               As Chomsky would like to say.

Slightly off topic Russ, but I felt I had to go back to the beginning to remind myself of the birth of this still born child.

Jason.

Sorry, I should add, that my view is that the Second Amendment should be amended to reflect a modern civilised society and embracing the context of America today. And it seems that although, ( I am assuming here), this topic is very much stifled in the American mainstream media, the wind of change is blowing in from the east suggesting a more, dare I say it, European attitude to gun control.

Jason: Very incisive post and I will get to you after answering Dr. Mark.

Dr. Mark: Please don't mix me up with anyone who thinks the Republican Party is either the savior of this country OR a party whose members are free from hypocrisy, greed, corruption, and a tendency to be self-serving in the extreme!  Admittedly, I do find myself in bed with a$$holes like McCain and John Boehner more often than with Pelosi, Reid, or Barry.  (One detects, in the non-responsive ad-hominem attacks of some on this thread that if one is not in lock step with all that is right, just and proper, one is an object of pity.  ) That having been said, I began this thread on the issue of gun ownership and control and on that issue there is no question that I come down had with the Republicans.

I will now address your contention that Texas will, within ten years, be transformed from a blue to a red state: My answer?  You couldn't be more correct, my friend.  Oh, we (Texas) may hold out a bit longer than a decade, but I would not be at all surprised if you are right on the timing.  I don't think it matters in the end, because I believe the country as a whole is well on the way to being a one-party nation.  Why?  Consider:

1.  As you point out, California will NEVER change the profligacy that has led it and other Democrat-controlled states, such as New York, Massachusetts, and Michigan to near-bankruptcy.  Meanwhile, as corporations, seeking to avoid the ruinous taxation of these states move, along with many of their citizens, to states like Texas which have low taxation and as a result, higher job growth, stronger property values, and relative insulation from the ruinous Bush/Obama recession brought about by over-spending, the Democrats in power in Washington will look to punish Texas and its ilk for our prosperity by forcing us to bail out the Blue States.  As Obama says, "We all have to pay our fair share."  Trouble is, only he and his constituency gets to define what is "fair".

2.  Obama, though proving to be incompetent in every respect as a leader, is a brilliant man and a consummate politician.  The Republicans can't even HOPE to defeat him--even if he were to hopelessly collapse.  Consider that he has survived scandals, any one of which could have brought down a Nixon or even a Bush: Fast and Furious, Benghazi, the use of IRS to punish the Tea Party, the GSA scandal (admittedly a Bush fiasco as well), granting over 2,000 waivers to crony supporting organizations who want Obamacare for everyone except themselves, and now incompetence in every respect with regard to Syria.  The man has a Teflon coating on his buttocks!  He now has a 40 percent approval rating.  Yet he is immune--not only because he has assembled a coalition that views him, quite properly, as an unending source of handouts, but because no one dares be labelled as a racist for having the unmitigated temerity (don't you just love that phrase--thank you so much, Harper Lee) to question the policies of the first black president. 

3.  So between blacks, Hispanics, gays and lesbians, unions, and many young people seeking relief from college loans and believing coolness to be more important than sound policy, he has put together a coalition that is almost there when it comes to being unbeatable.

4.  As you point out, the coalition is going to grow apace as the massive influx of Mexican Americans are legalized through amnesty and as our so-called "Justice" Department, under Chicago crony Eric Holder sues any state that dares to require a picture ID to vote.  I have no idea whether Mitt Romney would have been a competent president or not, and he made a real gaffe in being recorded telling supporters that 47 percent of Americans now pay no Federal income tax.  But he was right!  And as that figure grows, the Democratic coalition will strengthen its numbers and strengthen its commitment to the government that promises best to keep the checks rolling in.  But the national debt has grown fro six trillion dollars when Obama was campaigning against Bush (who admittedly spent a great deal himself) to over sixteen trillion today.  So in order to keep writing the payoff checks, the inevitable administration of Hillary Clinton will have only one pathway open to it:  keep printing more money.  The U.S. dollar will continue to decline--and with it the fiscal power of the United States to protect itself or its European allies from he lovingkindness of Russia, China, and the folks who are mowing down the citizenry of Nairobi, right and left. 

(Query: By the way, for those of you who are citizens of the various European nations, does you country require a picture ID to vote?  Other proof of citizenship?

So we are headed for a form of European socialism, even as Europe is beginning to awaken to the unintended consequences of imposing fairness through redistribution.  When the American currency is no longer the reference currency for the world and our debt outweighs our GDP--can you say "Greece"?

Now as to those who point out that Obama is a brilliant statesman for his "negotiations" with Russia that has spared us a meaningless attack on Syria, I would submit that Barry will need more than Teflon on his butt for what Putin is preparing to do!

Best regards,

Russ

Jason:

As I said previously, your post is very incisive—as well as pertinent and well-argued.  I largely agree with your analysis of the British versus the American Constitutions.  Because I know you to be a thoughtful and intelligent person with good intentions, I will not answer your characterization of the beliefs of many Americans with different views from yours, using such terms as  “…monstrous…”, “…propaganda…”, “…fear machine…”, and “…paranoia…” by making such unfair criticism of Brits as hopeless adherents of appeasement who listened to Chamberlain until it was almost too late then ditched Churchill when the memory of war was too painful!  As I say, I could make such negative statements about British culture—but I won’t!

That having been said, it is perfectly acceptable to hold the view that the Second Amendment is either (a) inoperative, (b) irrelevant, or (c) dysfunctional in modern society.  My reading of your argument reveals that you adhere to (a) and (c) above.  Correct me if I have misinterpreted your views.

I will not pretend to understand the manner in which change comes to the British Constitution.  I know a little bit about the process in my own country: First, the U.S. Constitution is cast into stone in a somewhat more explicit manner than are provisions of the British Constitution.  Not that it is beyond interpretation, God knows—the Supreme Court, when it has not actually assumed the non-judicial role of legislating from the bench, has engaged in some pretty creative stretching exercises under the guise of “interpreting” the Constitution.  Still, that process in itself is a part of the Constitution as it actually exists, so one has to consider it.  Both conservatives and liberals have attempted over the years, when the Constitution as written did not serve their respective agendas, to weasel their own interpretation out of the courts.  (More recently, his Obamanesss has chosen to avoid the inconvenience of Article I, Section 8, granting Congress the exclusive power to either formally or informally declare war, by stating he would make that decision himself—then reversing himself and saying he would seek approval, but reserving the right to make war on his own if they disagreed!)  But that’s another story.  Please note that casting aside all that stuffy bull$hit of 200 plus years ago is fine—so long as the casting aside is done by right-thinking people whose end definitely justifies the means.  The problem comes in when wrong-thinking people, worthy only of being pitied by right-thinkers, such as old Russ start doing away with GOOD provisions such as the First, Fourth, or Fifth Amendments?  Or, God forbid, ignoring the 13’th, 14’th, and 15’th in order to reinstate slavery!  Thus the stuffy commitment to what the bloody Constitution actually says can actually be a good thing when it protects those who agree with you.  See what I mean?

Now, let’s divide the debate on the Second Amendment into its historical and its legal aspects.  Part of Constitutional interpretation in the United States (where there is argument about what the actual text means) includes an historical analysis of the “…intent of the framers….”  Without going into detail here, I will merely say that there is insufficient evidence to support either opponents or adherents of gun control.” 

Which brings us to the legal aspects:  The Supreme Court, in its capacity as interpreter of the Constitution, has held that the “prefatory” clause (referencing the need for a well-regulated militia) does not, even in instances where the reasons stated in that clause have become obsolete, invalidate the “operational” clause—the guts, if you will, that validates the right to keep and bear arms.  There are many parallels in British and American Jurisprudence.  For example, if I include a clause in my will stating, “…my daughter being a paragon of female virtue and chastity, dedicated to Sisterhood in the Dominican Order…I hereby give devise, and bequeath to her my entire fortune of one billion dollars,” unless I state otherwise later on, upon my death, she will get the whole billion, proof that she has become a notorious whore and porn queen notwithstanding.  Note that this is in the nature of an analogy, but true, nonetheless.

Now as to the argument (not made by you, I realize, but common in these discussions) of  “…where do we end up?  Why not allow atom bombs and rockets.”  Well, the same justice (Scalia) who wrote the most recent opinion of the Court also held that (1) weapons contemplated by the framers included only hand-held conventional firearms, and (2) that the Second Amendment does NOT limit the right of Congress to require background checks and to limit certain types of weapons such as semi-auto weapons and high capacity magazines.  These have in fact been limited in the past and may be again in the future.  The reason these previous restrictions were repealed was not only the monetary outflow from the five-million NRA members but also the fact that the majority of the American public did not favor them.  The increase of shootings drawing strong media attention has, in fact, modified public opinion somewhat in the other direction—so we shall see.  Obama and probably Billary as well, seem immune from public opinion, but not so, Congressmen. 

So Congress can and definitely will, in my opinion, eventually pass legislation that makes “liberals” feel all warm and fuzzy, thinking that they are approaching a solution to the problem of gun violence.  But can, absent a Constitutional Amendment or (somewhat easier) a reversal of the Supreme Court, the United States confiscate ALL guns or ALL so-called assault rifles—those ugly black metal things that make loud noises and  that look so mean?  Not bloody likely, I would say.  Even strongly liberal or conservative courts usually give great weight to stare decisis and Constitutional principles. But let’s say Congress tried.  I have no idea how many hundreds of millions of guns—even semi-autos there are in the United States (even after Obama illegally shipped several hundred south of the border to the Mexican drug cartels).  I have no idea how many twenty and thirty round magazines there are or how many trillions of rounds of 5.56 or 7.62 NATO ammunition there are in existence.  Can the government even come close to getting them all?  No way on Earth.  So, you say, we should have started earlier.  Well, maybe so, but that train has left the station.  So the old adage “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns” starts to ring true.  I would give mine up, that’s for sure—because I obey the law.  But the Mexican drug cartels, operating just south of my home and moving ever closer, every day damned sure wouldn’t, especially since Obamarama has supplied them with a few hundred himself!    Nor would the gangs in Chicago and Detroit and Houston, just 200 miles to the east of me.

Which brings us to the question you politely and understandably ask, Jason, coming as you do from a more mature, sophisticated, and civilized part of the world:  “Protection from what?”

The answer, and I mean this in a friendly fashion, none of your or my government's goddamn business!  However, since you are a decent chap, you deserve an answer—against burglary, home invasion or attacks against me or my family in any public or private venue whatsoever.  If you think I am paranoid, then so be it.  Admittedly, if I go to any of the pretend-to-be gun free sites such as a military installation, a school, a public health institution, or government building—I cannot carry a weapon—and absolutely will not—just not in order to avoid prosecution, but because I obey the law.  But what is real for me is pretend for non-law abiding people.  And when they go to say, Fort Hood, the Washington Navy Yard, a public school in Connecticut or Colorado, a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, or Virginia Tech University, they may not be so compliant, if you get my drift.  A number of years ago, some time before concealed carry became legal in Texas, a young woman named Hupp entered a cafeteria in Killeen, Texas—the home city of Fort Hood, as a matter of fact.  She normally carried a pistol in her purse (probably for the paranoid reason that she didn't want to be raped, kidnapped, or killed).  She went in to meet her parents for lunch.   A deranged man named Pierre Henard crashed his pickup truck through the glass window, jumped out and began firing at all the unarmed patrons in the cafeteria, hitting, I believe over fifty and killing some 20 or so.  He walked up to Ms. Hupp and she had not put her gun in her purse.  He killed her father when he stepped forward to protect her, then killed her mother as she cradled her dying husband.  Then he shot himself.

But I suppose some on here (again, not you) would call this mere “anecdotal” evidence.  Again, I confess myself guilty of not being a statistician. 

So to those who think the solution is to confiscate all firearms, I say the solution (only partial if there is one at all) is to find a way to confine the mentally unstable or anyone else who threatens or performs violence—even once.  And declaring certain zones to be gun free (even Scalia agrees this is Constitutional) is only make-believe, unless you route every man-jack, woman, and child through a metal detector prior to allowing entry to the zone.  And even then, there are designs for plastic guns.  I saw tonight, on the hated, dreadful, lying, right-wing Fox News channel that some dude has projected the technology of three-dimensional printing to allow people to “print” their own lower unit and 20 round magazine for an AR-15 (mentioned by Dr. Mark, earlier) and produce it in plastic.  (Don’t ask me how, I voted Republican in the last two elections and am not very smart!)  He even posted instructions on how to do it on the internet.  Of course the government shut him down (as it legally could do).  But about a hundred-thousand people downloaded it before it went the way of the blue goose. (No telling how many of them were non-NRA Democrats!

So these remarks are directed at you, Jason, as a civilized answer to a civilized question.  To those of you who think I am deluded or in need of your pity, I offer you a solution of your own—one that involves a hammer and a large amount of sand.

Best regards,

Russ

Russ,

How would you solve the problem we're facing?

Surely, mandatorily - or suggesting that every single citizen carry fire arms all the time cannot be a solution.

I for one have second thoughts on visiting Florida, after the recent 'stand your ground' case..

M

Kevin: My reason for the thread is to promote a discussion of a very problematical question, to expose some of what I legitimately consider to be hypocrisy, and offer my own views and arguments.

Russ

Hillary, Romney, Bush, Obama, et al will always continue to print, and as you point out the reserve currency situation is the only thing that permits them to "get away with it."  But both Republicans and Democrats never change that, and I have news for you - it is already over for this country.  We are bankrupt and will default at some point sooner or later.

But perhaps this is a good thing, because it is the cycle of the world, and always has been, and always will be.  Empires are born, they grow, they crumble.

As for Obama and his bad facial botox experiment of a Secretary of State, they are already maneuvering again to be able to attack Syria.  And mark my words, they will. They are reneging on the agreement they just made, and want the UN resolution to be under Chapter 7, which allows an invasion.  And if they don't get it, then they will not support the entry of Syria into the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). 

But that's because it never was about chemical weapons; it's about American hegemony and regime change.  Our agreements aren't good for even a week.  Russia diplomatically outmaneuvered the US recently, but trust me, within a year or so we will be attacking Syria.  Spreading democracy?  Please.  Augusto Pinochet, the Shah of Iran, etc.  Hell, Obama basically called up Mubarak and fired him.  The CIA essentially started Al-Qaeda for crissakes.

The US government is the biggest terrorist organization in the world, with many thousands of civilian deaths to its credit over the past 12 years...many more than the gun related murders in this country ever could be.  And that is a creation of both parties.  Equally. Gee, do I want to vote for the Red fascist or the Blue fascist?  Decisions, decisions.

"The illegal we do immediately.  The unconstitutional, that takes a little longer." - Henry Kissinger

All those weapons that the US has amassed are getting close to their expiry/use by dates. Might as well use them.

No, Monkey, I most certainly would NOT require all citizens to carry guns.  I'm afraid the liberals would cause too many accidental discharges.  NO, NO, NO--I'm a bad person--I was only joking!  But seriously, I do not think there is a solution that protects everyone's rights to the degree I would like.  Kevin-W stated that the people I mentioned only had one thing in common--access to guns.  He is correct that they did indeed have that, but he forgot one other aspect: they were all suffering from some form of psychosis--with the exception perhaps of the Fort Hood killer who was politically and religiously attempting to kill Americans who were not of his persuasion. 

He was also aided and abetted by an Army administration which was oriented more toward political correctness than toward preserving the lives of the servicemen who trusted them--(no doubt reflecting the attitude of the Civilian Commander in Chief, as borne out by our allowing our ambassador and three others to be slain in Benghazi) and thus, even though they had ample evidence of his beliefs (as the Secretary of State had evidence of the dangers in Benghazi)  and the danger he presented, kept moving him from place to place--much as the Vatican would move pedophile priests to new venues with new victims. 

Beginning with the Warren Court of the 1950's, the judicial system of this country has shown a greater concern for protection of the mentally ill and the criminal accused than for the rights of the victim.  I do not say there is no reason for this--only stating fact.  How we get the seriously deranged and dangerous persons off the street is a real problem.  The liberal progressive approach is, predictably, more money and more programs. 

It has been pointed out correctly earlier that some loss of freedom is necessary in a civilized society.  I suppose, with some hesitancy, I would prefer that more violent criminals and criminally insane persons be put away forever than allowed to remain on the street--thus making me feel safer packing a .357 magnum.  It really is a sad situation.

Best regards,

Russ

Russ,

Neither party wants to do anything about the healthcare situation. The problem is that healthcare is exorbitantly and extortion level expensive. Obama is trying to solve the wrong problem - and is forcing everyone to pay for the excesses of the insurance industry and the healthcare industry. IMHO, healthcare should be accessible enough that I shouldn't need health insurance at all.

I was in New Zealand a few months ago and I managed to break my foot. I went to the ER, where they made me stay overnight because they thought I might need to have an operation the next day. The head surgeon discharged me saying nothing was required. I had a couple more visits. Total expense: $0. All covered by the govt.

Coming back to the USA, I went and saw a doctor, a few visits later, and after a slew of physical therapy visits, my insurance company is paying about $3500. The worst thing though is, that If I didn't have insurance, the medical system would be asking me to pay almost double as much. - I probably have one of the best insurance plans in the USA, thanks to my employer, but it still irks me.

Talking about visits to the ER - A relative had to go in for some 'heart related issues'. Total bill for the ER visit, plus one night stay - close to $5K - and this is after the insurance negotiated rates. The bill for an ambulance ride itself was about $1200. While the insurance co. will cover most of it, what irks me is the fact that they would try to bill him for more than double if he did not have insurance. Now, is that extortion or what?

And Obama tries to solve this by forcing everyone to buy insurance. What an idiot. The insurance co. could care less if the doctors and hospitals kept raising their rates - they'll just increase the premiums.

The reds are doing nothing though - no proposals of their own, just trying to block Obama's proposals.

Oh - and the doctor's aren't to blame - the damn malpractice insurance prices (north of a 100K a year from what I understand) + the fact that they are probably a few hundred thousand dollars in debt by the time they come out of school means that they aren't really making any money either..

The man's got everyone by their XXXX. Land of the free? Not really. You can't be free if you've got a million dollars in loans.

The second paragraph is interesting - but the USA already has the highest rate of incarceration in the world. Being stopped with something like 2gm of Marijuana is enough to get you into prison for life - specially if you're black.

Apparently the prison system is privatized, and has a big lobby too - so can't have vacant beds in prison either...

 Russ: Do you know how we got into this mess in the first place?

Now, you could totally argue how much better we still are compared to some third world country where people don't have access to water and electricity. In that context, everything is nice and rosy. but I believe in truly making this place the best in the world - in all respects -

Dr. Mark: I agree with almost all of what you say, with the exception of most of the last paragraph.  Let's save that until later. 

You do trigger in me the desire to state a change of mind I have had about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, both of which I supported--along with virtually every Democratic leader in Congress, I hasten to add.    At the time, I wasn't sure whether President Bush really believed that we could bring Democracy to the Middle East--or whether he was stating a pretext--one that Presidents sometimes do have to state.  In any case, I did believe in regime change as a possibility.  I now believe that he did think it possible.  I no longer do--and it was a major (stated) reason for our being in both s____T holes for so many years.  I do not oppose American intervention--but I say, where American interests, or those of our allies, are threatened, we go in and kill the bastards, let the regime chips fall where they may, and get the hell out.  As one American general proposed in Viet Nam--we need to declare a great victory and LEAVE!  So I admit to having been wrong in that regard--pretty seriously wrong.  I do confess to finding it a bit ironic that at least some of the WMD which Saddam Hussein had are almost certainly now in Syria.

Best regards,

Russ

Mango: I should have added that we get rid of most of those in prison by doing away with most of the drug-related incarcerations.  I have come to that view only recently and with hesitance, because I have seen what drugs to people--close up.  On the other hand, I am an alcoholic and had I not decided to stop drinking, no law would have prevented me from doing so--as witness the ineffectiveness of prohibition.  So my proposal is to free up most of the jail cells in the United States and lock up any bastard who commits gun or other weapon-related violence--the first time.  Difficult, given the fourth and fifth Amendments, but not just bitching.  The reverse, I would say, is that just because old Russ cannot propose a fool-proof plan to reduce violence, please don't tell me that greater restriction of firearms will go very far in that regard either!

Best regards,

I wasn't planning on suggesting that - however, from what I understand, Australia was as bad as the USA, and by restricting guns they've made great headway...

You didn't take my bait on the medical system..

And I would love to hear something from insurance co. insiders and liars too...

Well, I guess you could tax guns heavily and make them really expensive .....

For one, it's a cultural thing - yes, but you don't need a fully automatic gun with 100s of rounds to hunt deer - so a ban on those guns should be something workable. Grandma won't be toting one of those

and if you have two people with one of those guns shooting each other in a mall ... let's just say the body count's going to be fairly high - so maybe in prison for life for having one of those on you?

Leave the hunters alone, leave small pistols alone, make it clear that's ok - and go after folks who carry those big machine gun thingies ...

Now, just to deal with the lobbyists who'll push for whatever amendment it was ... that says you should be able to carry a Bazooka in to work with you...

Hi Russ,

Thanks for your excellent reply to my query.

I do apologise if you feel I have been disparaging toward American people...I refer those remarks to certain aspects of the 'entity' that the American people live within as apposed to Americans. This may seem a little like camouflage, but it is sincere if a little awkward. In addition, when I say "civilised" (and I know you hear this all the time in reference to the gun issue), that does not exclude America. I was attempting to suggest that at the time of the framing of the ABoR, the Second Amendment was very necessary in providing a method to protect the citizens from oppression and tyranny and it's interests. As I understand it, the method to achieve this protection is by allowing, in law, the states citizens to bear arms so the process of forming a militia is not handicapped. My assertion is, America today is more civilised (in the sense that the drivers in history that allowed the second amendment to come about, I.e, Colonial tyranny, slavery, genocide and oppression) all, I think we can agree, uncivilised traits in a modern state. America today, is modern and civilised, the Second Amendment is a reaction to an uncivilised period in history. 

Therefore, the Second Amendment, in its current form, is IRRELEVANT in todays America.

For me Russ, this is fundamental and once it is accepted that the Second Amendment is conceptually irrelevant as an 'idea', then the next step is to replace it with something that is relevant.

....from whom or from what? I ask again.

"none of your or my government's goddamn business! " you reply.

Well, since the original purpose of the Second Amendment, regardless of interpretation, is no longer relevant, then it certainly is my and the States business because as far as I can see, the Second Amendment is being abused by all those law abiding citizens. To what end the abuse of a fundamentally irrelevant law? As you point out Russ, to protect me from my fellow citizen. This is assuming that each American needs a gun just go to the shops, or to open the door to the postman or to visit a friend. Clearly an abuse of trust, in the state and in thy neighbour. The pro-gun argument is fallacious in my humble opinion.

But, I have heard rumblings that the 'real' entity of fear is the state itself, at least for some right-wing wannebee militia. Yes the state machine, fat, capitalist, selfish, over indulgent, war hungry, oppressive bastard of a government. Or the mamby-pamby European socialist welfare system, ready to suck our souls of any last drop of independent thought....and taxes. Or the up my own arse, liberal state, ready to allow turgid and fested freedom of thought to warp and assimilate the last notion of self-will, identity and the moral straitjacket. Or perhaps the Eco fanatics, slowly infiltrating the corridors of congress like an out of control Japanese knott weed, strangling big business growth and share holder dividends.

In my view, there are two glaring delusions with this whole "right to bear arms issue", one of them I have spoken of above, the other is the 'idea' of freedom as defined or at least argued by the principle of the right to bear arms.

We are born into this world with nothing and we leave it with nothing, our lives between is defined by the state. Our lives are our own up to a point, but we define ourselves by our state culture as the overriding bearer of our moral and ethical torch. We can only be free as far as the state that we have elected allows. Because, if we are honest, we can not be trusted to govern our own lives as we see fit as there are too many of us that would choose to do us harm. I think most of us acknowledge the need for some form of state interference for our own good, how much and how deep this goes is defined by our election choices.

What is delusional, is the idea that the 'right to bear arms' is somehow enabling a free state of being, when in reality it is creating a bondage of fear.

There will always be a reason to justify the right to carry guns, there will always be an enemy to legitimise the justification, whether it's ones own state, or ones own neighbour. The only way to really feel free, is to allow people to be safe and exist without fear...and that means the eradication of the gun, and that means altering the Second Amendment to facilitate this.

After all, without the gun, there would be no Second Amendment, get rid of one conceptually, you get rid of the other.

As far as the train leaving the station, yes your right. The practical issues regarding this proposal are just extraordinary. But what else is there to do, go for a middle ground perhaps....not for me, it has to be all or nothing.

Jason.

P.s. In the UK and Norway no ID card exists, however I know for a fact that by law all German citizens must own/carry an ID card. I think most EU countries do not permit its citizens to carry an official ID card by law. I used to be anti ID cards in my youth, but now I have mellowed somewhat and regard it as a practical means of data collation. Let's face it...FaceBook are doing a pretty good job at storing enough personal information on us to make even the most heinous fraudster bored.

Note: None of the above is intended to be disparaging toward you or our American friends on the Forum. 

Jason: Just a few comments:

(1) I assure you there is not need to apologize.  I was only harassing you with mild irony--not acute sarcasm!  Besides, many of the adjectives you used do apply to various sectors of American civilization in general, and hell yes, even the gun issue in particular--are only too true.  No, while I am proud of my country, I recognize that we are far from perfect, and I can pull up my big-boy pants and take a little of the medicine I am only too happy to dole out to others!

(2) Again, while the amendment may be somewhat outdated with regard to its prefatory clause, it is still the law.  You are absolutely correct that there are some mouth-breathers on my side of the question who still cling to Jefferson's contention that begins "When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands.." etc. etc., maintaining that this creates a right in the American People to overthrow their own government.  This of course is a crock of bullshit, completely worthy of being termed "paranoid".  My own position is that my country, even with an incompetent cynic at the helm, is far more worthy of my support, however critical, than a regime with these kinds of "wannabees" as I think it was you who termed them.  It is my further position that while the Second Amendment still defines the operative law, I intend to avail myself of it for the sake of my ability to protect myself and those around me.  I have no doubt that my country is hell-bound to follow Europe down the shit chute into oblivion--even ironically, as Europe is showing some signs of trying to paddle backward.  But while there is still room to breath free, I intend to breath deeply.

(3) What you say about gun ownership creating or abetting an atmosphere of bondage and fear, as opposed to one of freedom is not entirely without merit.  From a philosophical standpoint, it reflects Kant's categorical imperative--the proposition that one should only take those actions which one would will to be the actions of mankind--kind of a squirrelly way of restating the Golden Rule.  That having been said, the author never ventured more than some fifty miles away from Konigsberg, East Prussia during the eighty years of his life.  Had he done so, adhering to your extension of his philosophy, Jason, and had he been attacked by some dastardly Frenchman, he would have been completely unable to defend himself.  In short, a pacifist philosophy is fine--so long as one is willing to die for one's philosophy without putting up a fuss.  You don't need to answer me, but I would ask you to answer this question for yourself: If you were standing on a corner unarmed, and someone ran at you with a gun, firing shots and yelling "I am going to kill you," were I to throw you a pistol--would you use it?  If your answer to yourself is "Yes, I would", then I will gently point out that in the same hypothetical moral situation, no one would have to throw me a gun. 

(4) I can somewhat understand Europeans' hesitation to require identification cards--one pictures the Nazi SS man on the corner, holding out his hand and demanding "Papers?" at the top of his Teutonic lungs.  Still, the requirement for I.D. may be, like surrendering our firearms, a necessary sacrifice of freedom.  In order to enter an auditorium where President Obama is speaking, I can assure you that one must produce a picture I.D.  In order to drive a car, we in the U.S. must have one.  In order to check into a hotel, we must have it.  When I go for medical care, in addition to my insurance card(s) I must show that I am who I claim to be.  Yet when I ask myself why Obama, Clinton, and the other Democrats do not want voters to have to produce identification prior to voting, I can see only eleven million reasons--specifically one for every illegal alien in the United States.

(5) God knows Americans can be hypocritical--so no immunity for us there, but when I think of how many times I have heard someone from your continent carry on about American racism in the face of immigration from Mexico, I chuckle to myself and wonder how long I could get away with, or obtain sanctuary from being in most European countries without a Visa or Passport.  I laugh out loud, thinking how many Euros I would have to prove I own in order to live in most of Europe. 

Best regards,

Russ

Not that anyone will take the time to read it...

http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/article-nazilaw.pdf

This turned in no time from 'What TWO things' into 'The WORLD according to Russ'.

I am really confused so can someone kindly remind me what the original topic was? Was it about gun ownership, NRA membership, the Democratic / Republican parties, Obama, Putin, the states of Texas and California, Kenya, Syria, blacks, Hispanics, gays, lesbians, unions, voters registration cards..? or all of the above?

This surely feels like a giant yellow pages which one can open randomly at any page to put his two cents in.

Perhaps the shorter answer would be what subjects we are not covering..

I guess that's why they're called "threads", because you never know where they will weave!

I think it started as a weak apologetic for the Republicans over the Democrats.  I just thank heavens they are spelled differently...

Haim: it did spread out fairly quickly, didn't it?

Actually, Mark is correct in that it began as an apologtic for the Republican position on gun control versus that of the Democrats.  I have long been interested in what I consider to be (1) the knee-jerk reaction of well-meaning folks and (2) the cynical, opportunistic reaction of politicians on the left, whenever a mass shooting occurs.  Both consider gun control as low-hanging fruit.  Immediately, they begin to poimt fingers ar the Republican Party and the NRA, as though, but for their recalcitrance, the victims would still be alive.  You can just imagine them praying that a right wing Nazi with a Rush Limbaugh tee-shirt was the shooter. 

So, God help me, but I cannot fail to be amused that the great majority of homicides in the United States are committed either by Democrat voters or sympathizers--young males, whether black, Hispanic, or white, all of whom are in demographic groups more heavily favoring Democrat politicians, and virtually none of whom is an NRA member.  And please, before anyone climbs on his high moral horse to point out that homicide is not amusing...consider that the source of my hilarity is not that people die, but because of the hypocrisy of those who rush to blame Republicans for their antipathy to the confiscation of firearms, rather than the Democrats who pulled the triggers! 

As a side note, one had to nearly choke when Obama--the great leader who promised to bring unity to the United States--inserted Himself into the criminal trial of George Zimmerman, accused of murdering a black man--by saying that if he had had a son, he would have looked like the victim.  I waited with bated breath for him to announce, after the mass shooting in the Washington, D.C. Navy Yard that, if he had a brother living in the United States, he would have looked like the shooter.  Ah, alas and alack, but it was not to be.

Best regards,

Russ