As a side note - in England, if you use a gun to defend your home, you are liable to be imprisoned, unless you can prove that the people you've shot at were attacking you, or putting your life in danger. This is obviously highly subjective - unless you can display a wound. Not strictly true. As it was explained to me by an RAF lawyer in a visit to my sxith form a while back you are allowed to use "Reasonable Force" to defend yourself. What "Reasonable Force" is depends basically on the Judge and Jury at your trial, but we were given as a broad benchmark the example that you should not use a weapon to defend yourself more powerful than the one you are attacked with. For example, you suspect an intruder is in your house in the middle of the night, you tip-toe down stairs, pick up a kitchen knife and surprise a burglar, in the fight he is killed, he is subsequently found to be unarmed - you will probably go to jail. Against an unarmed man you clearly used excessive force. Alternative, as above but he is carrying a gun - you will probably be let off... if you survive. Against a man armed with a gun you clearly used "Reasonable Force". :roll: In the case of the English Farmer, Tony Martin's problems were threefold, firstly having seen him interviewed he came over as an obnoxious, biggotted, arrogant idiot. Second, he had an unlicensed firearm, he claimed that the shotgun he used had been left in his car with a note from an anonymous well-wisher for use for his personal defence :roll: , not a good defence in any court. Third, he shot the teenager at range and in the back, at which point he was clearly no immediate threat, and the force he used was clearly excessive. Personally I believe, as annoying it must be to have your house robbed, that no one deserve to be killed for stealing Luckily I have never been burgled, but if stumbling upon a stranger in the dead of night in your house you can never be sure of their motives. Personally even if I faced a prison sentence for attacking a burglar I would rather risk that than the safety of myself or my family. If I knew for certain that all they were after was a DVD player and my wallet, then they could have it and I'd call the Police the moment they were out of the door followed by my insurance company, but despicable crimes are committed against people in their own homes by intruders, and these intruders never make their intentions known in advance.
Skua, you do have some valid points. However, many of the problems that minorities complain about the loudest are often self-inflicted or exaggerated. They complain about unemployment, yet many refuse to even look for jobs. They complain about lack of economic activity and oppurtunity in their neighborhoods, yet every time a store or other business opens in those neighborhoods, they are robbed and burglarized with appalling regularity, and often have trouble remaining open due to lack of patronage, with the exception of liquor stores, which tend to do a thriving business. And over and over again, the minorities, especially the blacks, keep shrieking about racism and how whites are to blame for all of their problems. At no point do these people accept any responsibility for their own actions. Grieg might not be totally correct in some of his statements, Skua, but the sad fact is that many in the minority communities want everything handed to them on a silver platter, without them having to lift a finger to work for or otherwise earn them.
I agree with most of this, because i see it happen here, in Spain, with more regularity each year. The main diference being that we are a crossroad between Europe and Africa and Latin America and the lack of inner borders in the EEC means that when somebody enters one member country is free to roam all of them (which accounts for eastern europeans). So we have many nationalities (and many illegal aliens) set up as minorities, and many don't try, don't even want to, get integrated in the society they arrive to. But this has nothing to do with weapon ownership... unless you take into account many Balkan and East Europe armed gangs, with everything ranging from knives to AK47s.
Here's my solution to the problem. All the gun owners of the world will come to the USA. In exchange, all of our non-gun owners will go to anywhere else. Guns will remain completely legal here and totally illegal everywhere else. Think it'll work? Grieg; you can't talk about race issues. Have you forgotten your political correctness? opportunity; There is plenty of opportunity in the USA for minorities. They get special benefits through the welfare system. They get employment preference through Affirmative Action. They get college benefits. They even get benefits from the small business administration. All of these are not available to whites. Anyway, seems we are digging a hole here. :roll:
Well, this thread doesn't really have a topic, so... Here in the Netherlands there is neither positive nor negative discrimination officially, but in practice research has shown that minorities such as blacks and muslims, as well as women, are still discriminated against when applying for jobs for example. This is why I don't think the law and government policy is the thing to go by when opportunities are judged.
Actually, yes, in a way Parliament chose to import George I as King of Britain rather than the 'rightful' hier James, as they were fed up of Catholic monarchs. Which is as close to choosing your leaders as anybody got back then. Um, well, the main portion of the taxes levied on the American colonies went straight into funding the local defense forces protecting the colonists from the original occupants of the area... Again, not exactly a huge oppression of freedoms, guarenteeing your safety. And, of course, a large number of the colonists did actually support king & country... But we are drifting away from the point with this! You have no homeless people? In comparison to Africa, you (and every other developed nation) has very little poverty, but beggars etc still exist. ... and exactly the same can be said of 'rightist' governments. Nobody ever accused Mussolini of being a Leftist. (Note - the following phrase was a spur-of-the-moment musing, so please do not take offfense. I would never claim that Britain was perfect!) Sometimes it seems that you can be whatever you like in America as long as you are a Capitalist.
Ok, I need to understand this. Tell me where I go wrong... The Constitution is there to set definate, concrete limits on the government. However, Any 'rights' held by the people but not mentioned in the Constitution must also not be infringed by the government. So, essentially, the government is powerless to enact any law if it contravenes a percieved 'right' of a person? (you must excuse me, but I am trying to work out what the framework is) I use ' ' around 'rights' mostly because I wonder who sat down & decided what was a human right and what was not, and whether they are 'updated' or not. For example, the 'right to life' is not one to be argued against, but that brings up the debate on arbortion, which IIRC is legal in the US (please, no debating abortion anyone, I am just highlighting an example!), or Capital Punishment... Somebody, somewhere, has to decide what rights are applied & how. Who does that? I do ask out of a wish to know, rather than to debase your government!
Perhaps a bad example, since Mussolini was originally quite a socialist, in the old meaning. He used to work for and even founded a Socialist newspaper. His switch to rightist extremism (fascism) was greatly a decision of opportunism; it was what he was having success with, repressing socialist movements in Northern Italy.
Ricky wrote: Essentially correct. That is constantly being determined by the three branches of our government and by the people more directly (though referunda, for example at the state level and through amendments to the constitution which must be ratified by the states) As to so-called abortion rights well without getting into the debate what must be understood is that it is an issue that is still unresolved to a large degree. The Judicial branch of our government created a "constitutional right" to privacy that many constitutional scholars consider to be an overreaching and some consider an outright fabrication and subterfuge to push a liberal (in the US..leftist elsewhere)agenda down the throats of unwilling citizens using the power of the courts. How many American colonists were in this Parliament? Balderdash 8) Indeed they did. If unanimous agreement was required before any undertaking then nothing would ever be accomplished. (One of the many reasons why the US was never contemplated to be a democracy, but a Republic.) Agreed..back to the relevant issues. We do have some though the numbers are small. That does not contradict my statement however. A significant portion of those people are mentally ill or chemically dependent. They do not respond to programs designed to help them and live the way they choose to live. Take away that number and there are still some left that are in between employment or made poor decisions and have found themselves without a permanent domicile. Perfection isn't possible in this life. The numbers are quite small and the condition is temporary. There are numerous government programs in place to help them. Well, actually they did, and he was Gross oversimplification. Our academic institutions and our news media are riddled with Leftists of every stripe(as well as Rightists and other misc). In addition we have Socialist/Communists, Anarchists, Libertarians, Objectivists, Satanists, Monarchists and everything else you can think of.
Skua wrote: Kellhound wrote: Exactly. One General with the support of some rogue elements within the Army could conceivably seize power in a coup d 'etat. When one has their hands on the reins of power it can be difficult to dislodge them from within the system.
I would still say that it is of little relevance whether the people is armed or not. If one fraction of the army side with the people and and another fraction support the goverment, then the side with the strongest fraction of the army would win. But to take it one step further; Why should we expect that the people would all be on the same side ?
We don't look at it that way. We think that the side with the strongest support of the people would (and should) win not the side with the strongest support of the army. I understand that you ( and others) think that it is irrelevant whether or not the citizens are capable of defending themselves against any potential oppressor. We disagree.
[ [/quote] That's allright, but you'll have to admit that this view is only based on your's and others opinion.Nothing else. No historical example proves it. On the other hand I can name you lots of examples of armed citizenry living under a despotic regime. I can also name you lots of examples of unarmed citizens overthrowing their despotic leaders. But of course, it's nearly impossible to argue about opinions. This discussion is a bit like the football vs american football discussion, no point can really be made by neither side....
I certainly agree with you in that side with the strongest support of the people should win, I wouldn´t take it for granted that they would though. Now you´re twisting my words. There are other means by which the people can defend themselves against a potential oppressor. I only have the opinion that an armed population is one of the least effective ones. It is, however, probably one of the most dangerous ( to the people themselves ).
Not to be argumentative but name examples and lets examine them. Sometimes peoples impressions paint an incorect picture. For example, because you see armed insurgents or guerillas on the news in a particular country it does not therefore follow that the citizenry as a whole is armed. Sometimes certain factions are armed by external powers that wish to influence the outcome. Hitler's regime is not a good example either way because despotic or not it had lots of support from the German people. Stalin's brutal regime was inflicted on an unarmed citizenry as was Mao's.