Gun ownership is MAD?

On my "selfish philosophical attitude"- It isn't so much about being selfish as be self-reliant.

Sort of a "If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime."

Who does the teaching? Once the person has been taught to fish and where do they get the fish from? Most rivers are privately owned and people need to pay for the privilege of fishing and to fish in the sea involves having a boat and another type of licence. There are often caps on how much fish can be taken, what size, type etc, over fishing is a problem in many places.
Does the person just live off the fish alone, how does he pay for the other things in life, like clean water, electricity, transport, cloths, shoes, other food staples etc. If he is going to sell the fish he will need other licences and as I’ve commented fishing is a difficult business these days with depleted stocks and cut-throat competition.

The point being that the proverb like many proverbs is just simplistic waffle.

The point is that humans cannot return to a hunter gatherer lifestyle, so some people need to learn other skills so that they can make a living and others don’t. What choices are open to people are dictated to a very large extent by their birth. Where, into what socio-economic group, up bringing, environment etc.

**

Quote:
Originally Posted by Balbus
Why can’t you try and change it?

Would you have just accepted slaves as just being people born into misfortune and slavery as something that couldn’t be changed?


You can't change where or into what circumstances they were born.

Why not if you help the parents the kid’s circumstances improve, do nothing and the child’s circumstances don’t improve.

**

After that, you might be able to help them. (As I've said, I'd prefer that they help themselves, but whatever.)

As I say why not before and why not as an on going affair?

**

Let's talk about freeing slaves. Just recently, my country invaded a fascist nation, displaced a ruthless dictator, and offered fifty million people an opportunity for liberty of a nature they'd never known possible. And the world continues to bitch. (help is the sunny side of control.)

Depends on your point of view

In my view a US political faction invaded a country to obtain what they saw as a strategic advantage for the US and opportunities for political patronage. The wishes of the people they had invaded were secondary (it that). Many people around the world tried to explain this was dangerous and the worse possible way of treating the situation and they have turned out to be right.
(This was all to do with control and little with help)

**

Quote:
Originally Posted by Balbus
What ‘natural human rights’?


Specificly, in keeping with the topic of this thread, the right to keep and bear arms, if that is your choice.

Why is that a ‘natural’ right?

**


If I may be so bold, what does all this have to do with the price of spice on Nal Hutta? Last time I looked, I was talking about the limitations of choice (and therefor limitations on freedom,) imposed by unjust legislation. Somehow, we've gotten into limitations of choice by the nature of the human condition.

Or would you argue that unjust legislation is an inextricable facet of the human condition?

This one is depended on accepting that you were talking about “limitations of choice.. imposed by unjust legislation” which as I said I didn’t accept.

It is also a bit fatuous – “unjust legislation is an inextricable facet of the human condition” – come on, man?

**

Clarice won't be able to own guns because she was born into a state/country/world that has banned them, and Jacen won't ever be an Olympic sprinter because he was born with a club foot.

Would you argue that the two are the same?

I’m not, my point is that if choice is your definition of freedom and the exercise of those choices is the expression of that freedom, then a persons freedom is limited by their birth because that is something that they have no choice over even if their potential were the same.

So two people of the same abilities would have vastly differing levels of freedom according to your philosophy, which doesn’t seem very just.

So why does Clarice want to own guns?

**

Jacen won't ever be an Olympic sprinter because he was born with a club foot

Both Olympic gold medalist figure skater Kristi Yamaguchi and Super Bowl Champion quarterback Troy Aikman were born club footed. But the point is that someone born with a clubfoot into one family will have greater choices and opportunities than one born with the same condition into a poorer family.

**

Let's turn that into a question. What are your motivations towards gun control? Could they possibly be considered somewhat, if not entirely, selfish?

Why?

I have no motives toward US gun control, I don’t live in the US and I don’t want to move there, I’m here learning and trying to understand American attitudes and viewpoints. I do believe however that the US would be a lot more at peace with itself and a better place to be if Americans dismantled their gun culture. I think it has breed a paranoid, fearful, stressful, right wing, often dishonest and hypocritical ideology that often manifests itself in the belief that violence or its threat is the best way to solve problems.

**

 

Proud

Well Oh dear this is sad -

Here's what I'm hearing from you;

Quote:
Originally Posted by Balbus
Hi. My name is Balbus. I support gun control, even if it would strip a disproportionate number of people of their rights. I don't need a gun, and I don't think you do either. I don't think private ownership of guns would avert tyranny, but even if it would it wouldn't be right. Guns can't be used to prevent crime, ever. The only available recourse of a 110 pound woman against a 210 pound rapist should be a fist fight, or running away.

Sounds a little bit selfish, doesn't it? Ban the guns, no matter what the cost?

**

But this is not ‘Originally Posted by Balbus’, and you have never ‘heard’ me say this.

In fact this is a fabricated quote created with the sole purpose to deceive and as such it warrants some time out.

Ten days

On your return if you do such a thing again you will be permanently banned. If you try to get back on the forum under a different username your time out may be extended or you may be permanently banned.

I hope you will treat me and others with more respect on your return.

 

You get a boner every time you do that, don't you?

 

That's got nothing to do with guns, balbus.

The brand of "paranoid, fearful, stressful, right wing, often dishonest and hypocritical" ideology you are speaking of has existed in the world long before guns entered the scene. To state that it is a result of gun culture you would also need to show a lack of this same brand of ideology either before firearms were introduced or in cultures without a prevalance of firearms, and i don't think you can.

You also continue to try and equate the pro-gun advocates in this thread with that "paranoid, fearful, stressful, right wing, often dishonest and hypocritical" ideology despite the fact that the pro-gun advocates in this thread have repeatedly demonstrated that they do not subscribe to that ideology.

Again, you keep refering to "what many pro-gun people say" and to "american attitudes" as if there is some kind of mass consensus on the usefulness and nessecity of a particular technology.

There isn't.

there are pro-gunners and anti-gunners and 2 thousand different reasons to choose one or the other.

to paint all pro-gun advocates with the same broad brush of "paranoid, fearful, stressful, right wing, often dishonest and hypocritical ideology" is itself dishonest.

I know leftist hippy gun owners and i know radical anarchist pacifists.

Are you anti-gun because you have a problem with the private possesion of firearms, or are you anti-gun because of the groups that you associate with being pro-gun?

 

Put a big Sign in front of your house = No Firearms in this House = Good Luck!.

 

Pitt

IE computerized gun owner registration. Look at Canada they have tried this, It has not solved or aided in solving despite its enormous price tag.

So is the system they want exactly the same as Canada’s?

Do you think any central database of gun owners extra would be useful?

Have you ever read anything about the Canadian system? Or are you just repeating unfounded Brady statements?

You brought it up not me and I’ve notice once again you haven’t answered the questions raised.

So is the system they want exactly the same as Canada’s?

Do you think any central database of gun owners extra would be useful?

**

OMG you are questioning the validity of the situation?

I presumed this was another self-serving story you made up, like the one about the suing mugger? Are you saying this is a true story? If so can you tell me if it is recorded anywhere so I can check the details or can you supply them?

The point is that it is very easy to make up stuff that seems to back up what you say, for the simple reason that you have made it up to do just that. I’ve tried to point that out to you several times.

The thing is that life is a lot more complex.

There are many many abused women who would disagree with you.

I’ve met many abused individuals and I don’t think any of their situations would have been best dealt with by getting a gun (it may have even made a bad situation worse). They needed social and economic help. Money for getting away, secure and private housing for them and their kids, counselling, assistance in getting work, changing their name, location etc.

Many of these men and women and children are emotionally distraught, and as you have agreed before such psychologically damaged people might not be the best people to give guns to.

**

That is exactly my point, no matter what laws you place on gun ownership the criminal will not abide by them.

So one moment the problem is that laws are not being enforced and the next it doesn’t matter if they were being enforced because the ‘criminals’ wouldn’t abide by them?

WHAT?

Are the laws not there to try and limit the possibility of criminals getting hold of guns or having them taken off them?

Are you saying those laws shouldn’t be enforced or even made because the ‘criminals’ wouldn’t abide by them?

But that doesn’t make sense?

**

Brady and other antigun pundits screamed about how CCW will cause blood to run in the streets, yet it has NEVER happened, despite the introduction of MORE guns into everyday life. WHY?

I haven’t screamed about CCW, but I have been wondering why people would want it or think it necessary?

**

This is SPIN, what they oppose is OWNER REGISTRATION, which is what this basically is. Again look at the example from Canada.

No comment?

Again look at the example you gave about Canada above and the questions associated with it.

**

From what I can tell there were in 2005 54,902 type 1 FFLs, (much more in 1999) I don’t know how many McDonald franchises there are but that still seems like a lot of people to regulate.

This is a lot, yet it only works out to 150 inspections per day. And with 1,753 agents, it doesnt seem like an impossible task now does it?

150 a day? It seems to me that is pushing it if they are meant to do a thorough job? I think it would mean that one agent would have to do about one dealer every day for a year, That doesn’t sound like they would have much time for an in-depth check? Then presumably these agents then have to follow up leads and bring prosecutions etc.

**

OK but what has been said -

One. Pitt seems to argue that he would block such a system.

Two. Pitt is opposed to waiting periods.

Three. Pit is in favour of CCW (but then I already know that).

Four Pitt seems to argue that he would block such a system.

Five Pit argues there are enough laws in place (but also argues gun laws are not being enforced).

Six The reply doesn’t seem to cover the point raised?

HAHA you asked about the validity of the brady statemnent saying the NRA is blocking enforcement of laws. This exactly addresses this, shows the spin they try to put on thier statements.

You don’t really mention the NRA you give us your opinion on these points, which is fair enough but doesn’t refute the claims.
The other thing is that you do seem to wish to block the computer system just as claimed and you do oppose waiting times as claimed and the other points you make seem debatable.

Not exactly addressing the issues is it?

**

You are completely dancing around the fact that this directly addresses your stated belief that because a person possesses a certain iten this means they live in constant fear of X. I know you in fact do understand the point of all this yet you do not want to have to admit your statement is completely based on illogical assumptions

LOL

I’m not dancing around anything mate, I’m just trying to explain clearly and simply that your comparisons with seatbelts or extinguishers don’t seem to stand up to scrutiny.

**

OK I’ll try and explain my viewpoint once again.

I see the possibility of death or injury coming about as a result of a car accident or fire and fearing that death or injury could result I have taken some appropriate precautions. Some of these precautions involve me putting on a seatbelt while in a car and having smoke detectors in the house.

I do not see crime as such a threat so while I make reasonable precautions I don’t feel I need a gun for protection. On the other had you do. You seem to fear crime could result in serious injury or death and therefore you wish for a gun to protect you.

The problem is that a smoke alarm or seatbelt work all the time that there might be a threat, but as I’ve tried to show guns don’t.

In fact to counter a threat that you claim could happen anytime or any place a gun doesn’t seem to be of that much use, being only useful in certain situation and at certain times.

So why are you so much more afraid of crime than I seem to be and why do you think guns are a good way of tackling crime.

**

OMG who ever said extinguishers were the most imporntant or even logical step in fire protection.

You brought up extinguishers not me, I brought up smoke alarms.

IN fact my company does install, certify, inspect fire sprinkler systems, so I am not unfamiliar with fire safety.

So why did extinguishers pop into your head as the best means of domestic fire safety, it just seems odd is all?

**

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Balbus

Yes, and some were.

What does that tell you?


That the difference between action and reaction could mean life or death and to be prepared to fight for my survival with every tool at my disposal at the outset of a tyrannical crachdown on liberties and freedom, the more tools i have the better my chances of survival.

When?

When will you know the “tyrannical crachdown” has begun?

**

That tyranny and fascism come with advanced warning, that the majority can be manipulated, that my peaceful non-violent civil disobedience can be stopped with a hail of bullets from the state and silence from the general populace.

What advance warnings? Again when do you act?

**

"depends on the circumstances" means exactly that.
There are an infinite number of ways ones freedom/life can be threatened.
The appropriate response to those infitie ways varies acordingly.
One of those responses could very well me violent.
If possible prepare to use violence if needed/warrented.

But that is my point at which point is the best time to act, and what form does the action take?

**

That tyranny and fascism come with advanced warning, that the majority can be manipulated, that my peaceful non-violent civil disobedience can be stopped with a hail of bullets from the state and silence from the general populace.
Protesting is a fine example of peaceful non-violent civil disobedience, but there are other ways of resistance that are just as worthy and indispensable.
If the avenues are not there to accomodate non-violent civil disobedience then violent radical resistence might be needed and one should be prepared for that scenario.

Again but when do you act violently?

**

Exactly

So what does that tell us?

That complanency now means death later.

So you think the people attacked by the un-American activity witch-hunts, should have got guns and shot at the police?

**

When it becomes so clear that a tyranny is in place it is often too late for many that would have opposed it to act.

This has been my point, if you put your faith in guns without expressing vigilance at what is happening around you then you may just find that you are lost before you have even started.

The thing is that I remember that many (if not most) of those that were pro-gun were also in favour of the illegal detentions at Guantanamo bay and the ‘disappearing’ of terror suspects into an unconstitutional black hole.

**

i can only defend what i say and what my goals are, and it's clearly not nationalism...

But many people that come here are nationalistic, many are racist, many are right wing etc, are you suggesting otherwise.

Also as is clear from our discussion elsewhere you are not sure about your own ideas, and have seem to imply that you cannot defend them because you don’t know what they are. (please if you wish to come back to those other threads you abandoned we can look into that)

**

Balbus, i'm not sure why you are confused about my position.

As long as there are governments, groups, and individuals who will use force to get what they want, i will strive to retain the means to resist that force.

So are you going to shot at lollipop people (they stop cars to let children get to school) because they don’t want you to mow down children? They stand in the middle of the road with a sign saying ‘STOP’ so ‘forcing’ you to stop.

Sorry but the problem is what do you mean by force and in what way do you oppose it?

Remember we have gone through this before and you seem to say that even in your perfect society people would be ‘forced’ by community based ‘organisations’ to stop some forms of actions.

Talking only leads to a solution to conflict if both sides of that conflict are engaged. If one side refuses to talk and insists on using force it is suicidal for the second party to refuse to use force of their own to defend themselves.

Then might is right or the winner is right. And it follows that to stop all resistance to what is ‘right’ those that oppose it should be completely wiped out.

Again we have been through this and these views are exactly why I have called you a Social Darwinist.

Now while I believe defending yourself might be necessary, it is better to make sure that you don’t need to defend yourself.

(Don’t you see the mentality I’ve been talking about in your outlook, the idea that arms and violence will resolve the situation rather than diplomacy and consensus)

**

If force isn't warrented then fine resolve the conflict peacefully (i'd rather just give a mugger my wallet than to shoot it out with him), but to say that force is never needed as a defensive measure is absurd.

But my point is why is the mugger so in need of the money that he would risk the consequences of the action? To me the situation has already got to the point of confrontation why could it not have been resolved earlier?

**

Originally Posted by Balbus

I have no motives toward US gun control, I don’t live in the US and I don’t want to move there, I’m here learning and trying to understand American attitudes and viewpoints. I do believe however that the US would be a lot more at peace with itself and a better place to be if Americans dismantled their gun culture. I think it has breed a paranoid, fearful, stressful, right wing, often dishonest and hypocritical ideology that often manifests itself in the belief that violence or its threat is the best way to solve problems.

**

That's got nothing to do with guns, balbus.

The brand of "paranoid, fearful, stressful, right wing, often dishonest and hypocritical" ideology you are speaking of has existed in the world long before guns entered the scene. To state that it is a result of gun culture you would also need to show a lack of this same brand of ideology either before firearms were introduced or in cultures without a prevalance of firearms, and i don't think you can.

Many societies have these elements within them but some more than others. It seems from my observations that many Americans seem to display some or all of these elements to one degree or another.
The reason why I have called it a ‘gun culture’ is because many of these people seem to have a belief (to one degree or another) in the idea that guns are the best means of dealing with a problem.

You also continue to try and equate the pro-gun advocates in this thread with that "paranoid, fearful, stressful, right wing, often dishonest and hypocritical" ideology despite the fact that the pro-gun advocates in this thread have repeatedly demonstrated that they do not subscribe to that ideology.

No they claim not to hold such views but many of there comments seem to contradict those claims. But anyway I’m not just limiting my observations to this one thread (as I’ve said before, I cannot unlearn what I’ve learnt from other areas).

Again, you keep refering to "what many pro-gun people say" and to "american attitudes" as if there is some kind of mass consensus on the usefulness and nessecity of a particular technology.

Oh dear Shane, you’re an intelligent man, you must understand the connectiveness of many views that make up a general attitude.

**

there are pro-gunners and anti-gunners and 2 thousand different reasons to choose one or the other.

to paint all pro-gun advocates with the same broad brush of "paranoid, fearful, stressful, right wing, often dishonest and hypocritical ideology" is itself dishonest.

Why? It is my opinion based on what I have learnt about an aspect of US culture.

**

Are you anti-gun because you have a problem with the private possesion of firearms, or are you anti-gun because of the groups that you associate with being pro-gun?

I’m not anti-gun, if you had read the views I’ve expressed here you would know I’m not a pacifist. I believe in an armed defence (while hoping for and working for a time when they would not be needed). I believe that if all other options have been taken that armed resistance is acceptable even necessary, (while hoping for and working for a time when they would not be needed). And if you had checked out my ideas for the ‘first phase’ you will see that I’m ok with people having guns I just think they should be properly regulated and controlled.

But as I’ve said I think that the US would be a better place if there were not so many guns in circulation and that many Americans held the attitude and outlook that seems to be to be most associated with the pro-gun lobby.

**

 

"You get a boner every time you do that, don't you?"

Are you disputing the reason for the suspension?

Actually Shane this seems a strange comment from someone that wanted one person banned because of their views and another because he ‘winked’ too much, I wonder if you got a ‘boner’ when you asked for those people to be permanently banned?

**

The fact is that I do not suspend or ban people frivolously or for fun.

Now if people have a serious and valid reason for thinking someone should be banned or believe someone has been suspended or ban incorrectly they can PM me. Or if they want to go above me they can PM Skip (but really be sure because he does not have time for time-wasters)

**

 

"Put a big Sign in front of your house = No Firearms in this House = Good Luck!."

Why good luck?

No gun has ever entered any of the places I’ve ever lived in.

And at the moment there is nothing to indicate that precedent might change.

 

same could be said about being struck by lightning = but around 200 each year die from being hit by a lightning bolt in the USA alone not world wide.

 

. Fact: The murder rates in many nations (such as England) were ALREADY LOW BEFORE enacting gun control. Thus, their restrictive laws cannot be credited with lowering their crime rates.1
2. Fact: Gun control has done nothing to keep crime rates from rising in many of the nations that have imposed severe firearms restrictions.
* Australia: Readers of the USA Today newspaper discovered in 2002 that, "Since Australia's 1996 laws banning most guns and making it a crime to use a gun defensively, armed robberies rose by 51%, unarmed robberies by 37%, assaults by 24% and kidnappings by 43%. While murders fell by 3%, manslaughter rose by 16%."2
* Canada: After enacting stringent gun control laws in 1991 and 1995, Canada has not made its citizens any safer. "The contrast between the criminal violence rates in the United States and in Canada is dramatic," says Canadian criminologist Gary Mauser in 2003. "Over the past decade, the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased while in the United States the violent crime rate has plummeted." 3
* England: According to the BBC News, handgun crime in the United Kingdom rose by 40% in the two years after it passed its draconian gun ban in 1997.4
* Japan: One newspaper headline says it all: Police say "Crime rising in Japan, while arrests at record low."5
3. Fact: British citizens are now more likely to become a victim of crime than are people in the United States:
* In 1998, a study conducted jointly by statisticians from the U.S. Department of Justice and the University of Cambridge in England found that most crime is now worse in England than in the United States.
* "You are more likely to be mugged in England than in the United States," stated the Reuters news agency in summarizing the study. "The rate of robbery is now 1.4 times higher in England and Wales than in the United States, and the British burglary rate is nearly double America's."6 The murder rate in the United States is reportedly higher than in England, but according to the DOJ study, "the difference between the [murder rates in the] two countries has narrowed over the past 16 years."7
* The United Nations confirmed these results in 2000 when it reported that the crime rate in England is higher than the crime rates of 16 other industrialized nations, including the United States.8
4. Fact: British authorities routinely underreport crime statistics. Comparing statistics between different nations can be quite difficult since foreign officials frequently use different standards in compiling crime statistics.
* The British media has remained quite critical of authorities there for "fiddling" with crime data. Consider some of the headlines in their papers: "Crime figures a sham, say police,"9 "Police are accused of fiddling crime data,"10 and "Police figures under-record offences by 20 percent."11
* British police have also criticized the system because of the "widespread manipulation" of crime data:
a. "Officers said that pressure to convince the public that police were winning the fight against crime had resulted in a long list of ruses to 'massage' statistics."12
b. Sgt. Mike Bennett says officers have become increasingly frustrated with the practice of manipulating statistics. "The crime figures are meaningless," he said. "Police everywhere know exactly what is going on."13
c. According to The Electronic Telegraph, "Officers said the recorded level of crime bore no resemblance to the actual amount of crime being committed."14
* Underreporting crime data: "One former Scotland Yard officer told The Telegraph of a series of tricks that rendered crime figures 'a complete sham.' A classic example, he said, was where a series of homes in a block flats were burgled and were regularly recorded as one crime. Another involved pickpocketing, which was not recorded as a crime unless the victim had actually seen the item being stolen."15
* Underreporting murder data: British crime reporting tactics keep murder rates artificially low. "Suppose that three men kill a woman during an argument outside a bar. They are arrested for murder, but because of problems with identification (the main witness is dead), charges are eventually dropped. In American crime statistics, the event counts as a three-person homicide, but in British statistics it counts as nothing at all. 'With such differences in reporting criteria, comparisons of U.S. homicide rates with British homicide rates is a sham,' [a 2000 report from the Inspectorate of Constabulary] concludes."16
5. Fact: Many nations with stricter gun control laws have violence rates that are equal to, or greater than, that of the United States. Consider the following rates:

 

6. Fact: The United States has experienced far fewer TOTAL MURDERS than Europe does over the last 70 years. In trying to claim that gun-free Europe is more peaceful than America, gun control advocates routinely ignore the overwhelming number of murders that have been committed in Europe.
* Over the last 70 years, Europe has averaged about 400,000 murders per year, when one includes the murders committed by governments against mostly unarmed people.17 That murder rate is about 16 times higher than the murder rate in the U.S.18
* Why hasn't the United States experienced this kind of government oppression? Many reasons could be cited, but the Founding Fathers indicated that an armed populace was the best way of preventing official brutality. Consider the words of James Madison in Federalist 46:
Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger . . . a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands.19

 

So, pretty much what i've stated throughout this thread.

I'm not sure how you reconcile the first part (armed resistance as an acceptable option once all others are exhausted) with the second part (increased control and regulation and decreased amount of personal firearms in circulation).

Do you suppose that we will have the option of politely asking for our guns back if armed resistance is needed?
Do you suppose that it is in a fascists best interest to increase or decrease the amount of control and regulation and the amount of firearms in circulation amongst the public?

You state that there are circumstances when an armed populace is necessary, but until that time we should work toward increasing State oversight and regulation over firearms and decreasing the amount of people who are armed.
If armed resistance should ever become necessary, who do suppose we will be resisting?

 

On December 8, 1941, President Franklin Roosevelt addressed the US Congress the day after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. He said that "date....will live in infamy" because of what the naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan did. Two and one-half months later on February 19, 1942, FDR himself committed an infamous act signing into law Executive Order 9066 which authorized the internment of 120,000 Japanese civilians, two-thirds of whom were US citizens. These Americans committed no crimes and were only "guilty" of being of Japanese ancestry and thus by presidential edict were judged potential enemies of the state. Because of FDR's action, these otherwise ordinary peace-loving Americans lost all their sacred constitutional protections including habeas corpus and their rights of trial by jury and to own and keep their property. They also lost all their other freedoms and were treated like criminals. They were sent against their will to concentration camps where they were interned for the duration of the war until 1946.

It should be noted no similar action was taken against white German Americans. It seems the Japanese then were more guilty of their skin color and race than their country of national origin. The US Supreme Court agreed in their 1944 landmark Korematsu v. United States decision in which a Court majority ruled military necessity justified their internment. Justice Frank Murphy and two other Justices disagreed denouncing the decision. In Justice Murphy's dissent, he said this act amounted to the "legalization of racism." It took until 1988 for the US Congress to undue this presidential act of infamy and High Court approval of it. It then passed Public Law 100-383 apologizing to those internees still living and their families, provided reparations for them (too late and far too inadequate), and created a public education fund to "inform the public about the internment of such individuals so as to prevent the recurrence of any similar event (ever again)."

Dare anyone suggest members of the 109th Congress have an immediate and urgent need for an industrial strength dose of its own re-education program. On two late September, 2006 days of infamy, the US House and Senate passed and sent to President Bush for his certain signature the Military Commissions Act of 2006 appropriately called "the torture authorization bill." This clear unconstitutional act gives the administration extraordinary powers to detain, interrogate and prosecute alleged terror suspects and anyone thought to be their supporters. The law grants the executive branch (specifically President Bush) the extraordinary right to label anyone anywhere in the world an "unlawful enemy combatant" and gives him the legal right to arrest and incarcerate them indefinitely in military prisons. Persons liable will include anyone who even innocently contributes financially to a charitable organization thought to be associated with any nation or group the US believes supports terrorist or hostile actions against the US. On September 27 and 28, 2006, freedom and justice effectively died in the US, and no one will be secure anywhere in the world as long as this act is the law of the land. One day it will be repealed - if the republic survives long enough to do it which now is very much in question.

US citizens are not exempted from this law with one important exception - for now at least. Because of the June, 2004 Supreme Court Hamdi v. Rumsfeld decision, citizens of this country legally still retain their legal right to file a writ of habeas corpus if arrested and detained. This means they must be charged with a crime, be tried and allowed the right to appeal any conviction in a US court of law. But even this remaining right now hangs by a weak thread as the case of Jose Padilla shows. He's a US citizen who was seized at Chicago's O'Hare Airport having no weapons, declared an "enemy combatant" and held in military confinement with no ability to challenge his confinement in court. The Supreme Court refused to hear his case effectively giving the president the power to seize other citizens, subject them to the same abuse with no redress and thereby neutralize anyone's habeas rights.

But it may get even worse than that if, or more likely when, another major "terrorist" attack occurs on US soil, which some experts believe is a certainty. Congress could then suspend habeas rights for everyone or the president could do it by executive order in the name of national security. If it happens, democracy will likely give way to martial law, the suspension of the constitution, and echos of Benjamin Franklin's words at the close of the Constitutional Convention in 1787 will be heard. At that time, he reportedly said in answer to whether the nation now had a republic or a monarchy: "A republic, if you can keep it." We hardly need wonder what he'd say today.

 

On September 21, 2001, Amnesty International faxed a letter to George Bush in the aftermath of the 9/11 attack. It urged the president to respect human rights and the rule of law in whatever response was to be undertaken. Specifically it said: "In the wake of a crime of such magnitude, principled leadership becomes crucial....We urge you to lead your government to take every necessary human rights precaution in the pursuit of justice." Five years later, Amnesty concluded "its appeal fell on deaf ears. The past five years have seen the USA engage in systematic violations of international law, with a distressing impact on thousands of detainees and their families." Amnesty cited the following violations:

-- secret detentions

-- enforced disappearances

-- the use of torture and other cruel and degrading treatment

-- outrages of personal dignity including humiliating treatment

-- denial of habeas rights

-- indefinite detentions without charges or trials

-- prolonged detentions incommunicado

-- arbitrary detention

-- unfair trial procedures

Amnesty accused the Bush administration of hypocrisy saying that while claiming the US is a "nation of laws" adhering to the "rule of law," it practices the very policies it condemns. It said this administration's "interpretation of the law has been driven by its policy choices rather than a credible postulation of its legal obligations." It cynically interprets US and international law any way it chooses and as such acts outrageously and in contempt of all legal standards and norms. Amnesty also stated that by having passed the Military Commissions Act, the Congress has allowed thousands of detainees to remain in indefinite detention without charge or trial and to be legally subjected to the worst kinds of abuses. It said "Congress has failed these detainees and their families. Those defending human rights should be prepared for a long struggle."

The Long Struggle to Save the Republic Has Begun

By its legislative action prior to recessing for the November congressional elections, the 109th Congress will forever live in infamy. It shamelessly sunk to its lowest yet depths in pledging its fealty to a morally depraved president who believes no one has the right to challenge his authority, champions the use of torture, defies constitutional and international laws and norms, (law or no law) conducts secret surveillance through warrentless wiretaps or any other means, and believes dissent is an act of terrorism. In brazen defiance of over 200 years of governance under the rule of constitutional law, this Congress and president have made a mockery of every norm and standard the Founders stood for and handed down to us for posterity - if we could keep it.

By their actions, this body has shaken the very foundation of the republic. It gave the president near-unlimited authority to act as he chooses in the name of national security as he defines it. It simply means the rule of law effectively has been abolished and ordinary people no longer have constitutionally protected rights. For now, US citizens still have the right of habeas corpus, but it, too, may be taken from us in the name of national security. How low we've now sunk in coming so far.

In his 1935 novel, It Can't Happen Here, Sinclair Lewis showed it most certainly can happen here. He wrote about a charismatic senator who becomes president, claims to be a reformer and a champion of the common man. It's all cover to hide his alliance with the corporate interests of his day and the support of religious extremists he appeals to. Instead of serving the people he denies them their rights. He then takes full advantage of the Great Depression economic crisis to support a strong military and pass unconstitutional laws during a national emergency. He further convenes military tribunals for civilians and calls dissenters unpatriotic and even traitors. Sound familiar?

Anyone reading this book will be scared wondering if it really can happen here. Anyone living in the surreal age of George Bush and his out-of-control extremist neocon administration knows it already has, and we haven't yet found a way to stop it. This is no time for complacency. We are all now "enemy combatants."

 

My thesis is that the problem with many American attitudes towards guns is that they seem to see them as a way of dealing with and also ignoring many of the social problems within their society. It also seems to me to led to a belief that threat and suppression is the best means of defence.

For example someone said that a gun protected them from such people as crackheads and gangbangers but the problem as I see it is this can lead to the mentality that there is therefore no need to deal with the societal problems that has lead to drug addiction and exclusion.

Just as (I’ve pointed out in another thread) Israel believes it can defend itself against its Muslim neighbours makes them seem to believe that they don’t have to deal with what is causing the hostility to them.

Many people have stopped asking themselves why things are the way they are and have fallen into the trap of believing that this is how things are. As long as you keep out of the bad parts of town and carry a gun ‘that stuff’ doesn’t need to be dealt with.

And the best way of keeping it under control and in its place is by the threat that comes from owning a gun.

And it seems to me that if people believe that the threat of violence works it is not much of a step for many to start thinking that the actual use of violence is acceptable.

**

This was my theory at the beginning of this thread and so far it has not really being challenged.

Although the pro-gun people here have spent a lot of time defending gun ownership they seem unable or unwilling to discuss many of the social problems within their society that some of them claim guns are needed to defend them from.

Guns are seen as a way of deterring crime (suppressing it) but approaches aimed at lessening or removing the crimes seem to be ignored.

**

The false sense of power that guns can give people also seems to appears in the idea that they are a protection against government persecution.

This view is prevalent among many of the pro-gunners but nobody seems able to get beyond rhetoric and into meaningful discussion of the issues.

The uncertainty of when guns should be used to ‘defend’ freedoms that seems to have not happened in the US’s history.

The problem that many pro-gunners seem likely to oppose some social and economic changes while supporting others, which seems to me that they are more likely to ‘defend’ some systems and an ideologies that to me are some of the problems with the US political system.

**

They don’t seem to be asking themselves why things are the way they are, in fact they don’t seem to be asking why to many things and some seem almost contemptuous of that kind of inquiry.

**

Some time ago in another thread about guns, I accepted that this was an American decision. I could try and point things out to people or show how things are viewed from outside the US’s culture and even suggest alternatives, but if they don’t want to accept my viewpoint or my arguments that’s fine, above all my reason for being here are to learn. And it must be said that the way that ideas are accepted or rejected often tells me a lot and so teaches me a great deal.

I have since then revised my view because it seems to me that the attitudes of many of the pro-gunners have an impact on the way they view the world and US foreign policy.

I think that some people would like to see gun control or even promote it as a single issue, unconnected to other social and political views.

But why is it that so far it seems the most vocal of the gun defenders seem to be right wingers (oh and one Social Darwinist).

**

Any way I’m sorry to say that I’m going to have be away from the forum for a couple of weeks so I hope we can continue this discussion at a later date.

Yours with regards

Balbus

 

Go get him = Dirk . ............good job.

 

Originally Posted by Balbus

My thesis is that the problem with many American attitudes towards guns is that they seem to see them as a way of dealing with and also ignoring many of the social problems within their society. It also seems to me to led to a belief that threat and suppression is the best means of defence.

Americans have a country-city divide in opinion on guns. For the County Party. guns make sense. In The City, they dont.
It amuses me to see that inside city districts suffering from high crime that the people are afraid of farmers with guns. Farmers who would never go anywhere near those cities.

For example someone said that a gun protected them from such people as crackheads and gangbangers but the problem as I see it is this can lead to the mentality that there is therefore no need to deal with the societal problems that has lead to drug addiction and exclusion.

Its a little more detailed than that, are we to build more prisons, more police. more court personel, more social workers? More taxes for a self-serving self dealing goverment? Our public sector unions and thier toadies in goverment wont let us try alternative schools. I think that we are knocking ourselves out dealing with this problem. Taking away guns is the ultimate in not dealing with the underlying agression and hostility of the criminal mind.


Just as (I’ve pointed out in another thread) Israel believes it can defend itself against its Muslim neighbours makes them seem to believe that they don’t have to deal with what is causing the hostility to them.

Balbus your statement implies that there is a form of logic to Muslim hostility
toward it and that a logical solution is out there someplace. I belive that there is a primal-nature blood fued going on.

 

Might has always been right, its nothing new, but a regretable fact of life.

Before guns were invented there was plenty of death from other weapons.

I read about Neolithic graves in Britian which are opened to show violent death.

 

by Tom Luce with AUMOHD investigators
Dredging up fearsome memories of days thought to have gone by forever, eyewitnesses here in Port-Au-Prince have portrayed an unbelievable massacre-by-machete/hatchet rampage by red-shirted killers, backed up by the Haitian National Police (PNH), of up to 50 victims on Aug. 21 at a soccer field in Gran Ravin-Martissant. This summary, extra-legal execution follows similar type massacres in Bel Air and Solino earlier this month. This time the killings were done in plain daylight in front of and involving 5000 soccer fans, an incredibly bold assault by Haitian police and their civilian accomplices in the presence of troops from MINUSTAH. As has been the case this entire past year, the "targets" in Saturday's massacre, were all identified as "bandits", "Lavalas" scum (Rat pa caca).

Eyewitnesses described to a group of human rights agents today this super t.v. drama styled event. As fans were being entertained during one of the breaks in the soccer game--highly attended because national league players had joined the local teams--a group of police and men wearing red tee shirts and head bands entered the playing field and took over the microphone from the announcer. The people in the crowd at first thought that this was a friendly show of security by the police. But that idea was immediately dashed when the red shirt announcer stopped the music being played by the DJ and then demanded everyone to lay on the ground. A shot was fired into the air and people began a panicked response. Some tried to run away, some tried scaling the walls to escape and several of these were shot. Others tried running into the adjoining rooms of the stadium and later were found hacked to death. The red shirts, backed up by the police began demanding specific individuals lying on the ground if they were affiliated with Aristide, asking for confirmation from others whether these people were "bandits". Then without mercy these red shirts either hacked their victims to death or hacked them and then had their victims shot by the police. According to eyewitnesses and the family members of the victims interviewed today, the victims of the executioners were innocent people and were attacked only because they were allegedly Lavalas supporters.

The red shirts were equipped with machetes and hatchets that were distributed, according to witnesses, by the police at the Martissant police station. These same civilians who appeared in red shirts and head bands at the soccer game, armed with machetes were recognized by people in the area as the same people who at least a month previously were thrown out of the area as trouble makers among whom were some prison escapees and thieves. Some of these executioners were named by witnesses: Georges Jean Yves, Gérard, aka, Gwo l'Ombril (Big Belly Button), ...lifet aka TÍte Calé (Shaved Head), Ti Clody, Rudy, JoÎl, Eddy, Apoupann aka Colonel, Ronald Toussaint, Kiki , Rocky Rambo, and Cliska. The chief of police of Martissant was also implicated in the operation by the witnesses and according to the witnesses threatened to come after them and "wipe them out the next day."

On Sunday, Aug. 21 the same red shirts, accompanied by the police, invaded residential areas and burned more than four houses alleged to be inhabited by Lavalas supporters. They also severely damaged an electricity transformer in the area. They also damaged several other houses.
​