[quote]JD430 wrote:
Second, please read(you dont even need to read the article and trifle yourself with details)…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4700575.stm[/quote]
Ah, yes. Jolly old England. And here, friends, is the corollary to Heinlein’s statement.
A disarmed society is a hooligan society.
[quote]rawda wrote:
people need to realize that the reason democracy came about was because of the militia in ancient Greece. in a nut-shell, all of the adult males were armed as part-time citizen-soldiers in order to defend their state. [/quote]
Funny. The reason this thread started in the first place is because some nitwit took issue with me making almost the exact same point over in the Handgun thread.
Exactly. It is both a right and a duty of a free citizen, as it was in the days of the Greek city-states.
No? My dictionary defines “anarchy” as “the absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual.”
Sounds pretty good to me.
“That government is best which governs least”
&mdash Thomas Jefferson
...or was it Thomas Paine?
I don’t know who said it first, but they were both right.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
And where there are no guns except in the hands of the police and the government…well, I don’t think that’s a very good thing at all.
[/quote]
No indeed. We call places like that “Police States”.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
And where there are no guns except in the hands of the police and the government…well, I don’t think that’s a very good thing at all.
No indeed. We call places like that “Police States”.
[/quote]
Intresting. Ever look up the japanese rates of armed type of crimes? Murders? Armed robbery? bet these are all lower. You live in japan right ? they don’t allow guns over there that should destroy your " armed society is a peaceful " society theory. Sorry just don’t like guns.
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950)
“…to disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them…” -George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380.
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms..." -Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Member of the First U.S. Senate.
"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..." -Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Peirce & Hale,
eds., Boston, 1850.
"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good." -George Washington
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walk." -Encyclopedia of Thomas Jefferson, 318 (Foley, Ed., reissued 1967)
"That the Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent "the people" of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..." -Samuel Adams in arguing for a Bill of Rights, from the book "Massachusetts," published by Pierce & Hale, Boston, 1850, pg.
86-87.
"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all the world would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside...Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived the use of them..." - Thomas Paine, I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 (1894).
"A free people ought...to be armed..." -George Washington, speech of January 7, 1790 in the Boston Independent Chronicle, January 14, 1790.
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" -Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d Ed. Philadelphia, 1836.
"Arms in the hands of citizens [may] be used at individual discretion...in private self-defense..." -John Adams, A defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the USA, 471 (1788).
"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it."
-Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861 –
Beautiful, absolutely beautiful!
[quote]thabigdon24 wrote:
Intresting. Ever look up the japanese rates of armed type of crimes? Murders? Armed robbery? bet these are all lower. You live in japan right ? they don’t allow guns over there that should destroy your " armed society is a peaceful " society theory. [/quote]
You know, I think there should be a rule that states that one should read more than one or two posts in a thread, or at least have half a clue about what he is talking about, before posting himself.
Hello? Bigdon? Allow me to repeat what I said just seven (7) posts above:
Even here in Japan (a very nice, polite society, by the way), a place famous for its restrictive gun laws, there are guns everywhere. Most of my neighbors own guns, as do I. Not because we want to blow each others’ heads off, but because we really, really like the flavor of venison and wild boar.
It is not easy to own firearms in Japan, but people want them, so they get them. Paradoxically, it is far easier for the Yakuza (Japanese Mafia) to get handguns and submachineguns than for the average person to get a .22 rifle. They just smuggle them in from Korea or the Philippines. So gun control laws are entirely ineffective in controlling guns.
Now, you were saying?
Apology accepted.
You just don’t hear people speak that eloquently anymore.
In National Treasure (I know - a Nick Cage flick) I am brought to tears almost everytime I see the part where he recites the Declaration of Independence. Words used to mean something. And it stirs me very deeply when I read the conviction with which they wrote.
[quote]buffballswell wrote:
Beautiful, absolutely beautiful! [/quote]
Yeah, the Fathers knew what they were talking about.
But then there was that one guy…
[quote] “This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it.”
-Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861 --[/quote]
He sure changed his mind in a hurry about that “revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it” bit, when somebody actually tried it.
But that’s another, equally controversial topic, best discussed on another thread.
I wonder if these people had a similar crime problem with guns as we do today. One thing though, japan has low levels of crime compared to the US. And yes, if handguns are banned then only criminals would have them, but we could also make it to where they would be scared to use them - give stiff penalties - 20-40 years - for a crime commited with one.
Im sure that we won’t ban them for a while but to our detriment. Crime and the bloated criminal justice system is a tax on society that places like Japan just don’t have. They can spend their money on other things to the betterment of their society.
[quote]thabigdon24 wrote:
Im sure that we won’t ban them for a while but to our detriment. [/quote]
To whose detriment? Crimes will not cease because there are no more guns. People are killing each other everyday, and there are very stiff penalties for murder. Your logic escapes me.
What is so hard to understand about the 2nd Amendment? What is so sinful about an armed public?
[quote]thabigdon24 wrote:
And yes, if handguns are banned then only criminals would have them, but we could also make it to where they would be scared to use them - give stiff penalties - 20-40 years - for a crime commited with one.
Im sure that we won’t ban them for a while but to our detriment.[/quote]
If stiffer penalties will end gun violence, then why would we need to ban guns at all? Is it gun violence you are against or the guns?
[quote]thabigdon24 wrote:
I wonder if these people had a similar crime problem with guns as we do today. [/quote]
It’s difficult to discern which post you’re referencing, but I’ll assume that “these people” refers to the founders of our nation.
They had the biggest problem you can imagine: one of the most powerful empires on earth wanted them to cease to exist. An intimate relationship with firearms, small unit tactics and local topography were essentially all that allowed the ragtag Continental Army to hold their own against crack British Dragoons and musket companies.
If you were ever to opine to George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Sam Adams or any of the other ancestors of this nation that guns should be banned because they’re scary and they hurt people, you would be laughed at and probably bitch-slapped.
At one point in history, Japan was the world’s most productive manufacturer of firearms. Guns were all over the place. Then in 1591, Toyotomi Hideyoshi decided that only the government and the warrior class should be armed. Note that he didn’t give a shit about violent crime, accidental discharges or school shootings:
“The people of the various provinces are strictly forbidden to have in their possession any swords, short swords, bows, spears, firearms, or other types of arms. The possession of unnecessary implements makes difficult the collection of taxes and dues and tends to foment uprisings.”
Translation: weapons are a nuisance because if the people are armed, they can’t be tyrannized.
When you say “we”, just who are you talking about?
You and your fellow hoplophobes? That’ll be the day. The people of the United States? Don’t count on it. The United States Congress? Not if they respect the Constitution. So no, barring a collapse of society into tyranny, “we” will never ban them.
Oh, we have violent crime. Kabuki-cho in Shinjuku is a pretty dodgy area. The shooting deaths are proportionately lower, because gun ownership is proportionately lower. So instead, people use kitchen knives and short swords to kill each other. Schoolchildren stab one another with fruit knives, because that’s all that is available.
One of the things I like about where I’m living now is that the prefectural government is pretty impoverished (hard to collect taxes around here), so they just don’t have the resources to govern very much, or to borrow your phrase, to “better society”.
The result is that the people of my community, mostly fishermen, farmers, hunters and retirees, pretty much take matters into their own hands. The typhoon washed half the mountain down onto the road? Where’s my shovel. Wild boars digging up my potatoes? Where’s my rifle.
This concept is called “independence”. Independence and liberty are interrelated: it’s hard to have one without the other.
Do ya’ll believe in safe storage laws?
Sorry for the double post, but how many of you would consider yourselves libertarians rather than republicans? I’m just curious.
[quote]DemiAjax wrote:
sjoconn wrote:
thabigdon24 wrote:
And yes, if handguns are banned then only criminals would have them, but we could also make it to where they would be scared to use them - give stiff penalties - 20-40 years - for a crime commited with one.
Im sure that we won’t ban them for a while but to our detriment.
If stiffer penalties will end gun violence, then why would we need to ban guns at all? Is it gun violence you are against or the guns?
Sorry for the double post, but the NRA actually supports stiffer punishment for gun-related crime as a deterrant for gun deaths. So I wouldn’t rag on bigdon if i were you.
[/quote]
Not ragging. I support stiffer penalties for most of crime. Just trying to say that if gun violence goes down due to stiffer penalties, and no one is using guns for evil, then why would we need to ban them?
[quote]sjoconn wrote:
DemiAjax wrote:
sjoconn wrote:
thabigdon24 wrote:
And yes, if handguns are banned then only criminals would have them, but we could also make it to where they would be scared to use them - give stiff penalties - 20-40 years - for a crime commited with one.
Im sure that we won’t ban them for a while but to our detriment.
If stiffer penalties will end gun violence, then why would we need to ban guns at all? Is it gun violence you are against or the guns?
Sorry for the double post, but the NRA actually supports stiffer punishment for gun-related crime as a deterrant for gun deaths. So I wouldn’t rag on bigdon if i were you.
Not ragging. I support stiffer penalties for most of crime. Just trying to say that if gun violence goes down due to stiffer penalties, and no one is using guns for evil, then why would we need to ban them?[/quote]
Sorry, I realized that and changed my post to another question I had. My mistake.
The economist John Lott is the person who came up with the “more guns lead to less crime” study that gun-advocates so frequently quote. However, there have been several refutations of his statistical analysis.
I’d be curious to see what you all think about this site. The central thesis is that there is absolutely no statistical evidence that concealed-carry laws reduce crime in any way, shape or form. The author at one point allows Lott to defend his arguments, and then refutes all of the counter-arguments in a fairly systematic fashion.
http://timlambert.org/guns/lott/lott.html
By the way, I read the Cato.org article posted on the first page of this thread, and part of it is based on the arguments refuted in the above site.
[quote]DemiAjax wrote:
I’d be curious to see what you all think about this site. The central thesis is that there is absolutely no statistical evidence that concealed-carry laws reduce crime in any way, shape or form. The author at one point allows Lott to defend his arguments, and then refutes all of the counter-arguments in a fairly systematic fashion.
http://timlambert.org/guns/lott/lott.html
By the way, I read the Cato.org article posted on the first page of this thread, and part of it is based on the arguments refuted in the above site. [/quote]
Well, as Ben Franklin said, “Lies, damned lies, and statistics.”
Let’s go back to the classics, shall we? How about “a Tale of Two Cities”
Our first city is London, England.
In 1988, after a madman shot up a bunch of people in Hungerford, the government banned and confiscated pump action and semiautomatic rifles and shotguns.
Then after another lunatic killed a bunch of other people in Dunblane, Scotland, the Brits first banned large-caliber handguns, then all handguns in 1997. A total of 160,000 registered handguns were turned over to the police by their licensed owners. When the last legal handgun in Britain was turned in on February 27, 1998, the Home Secretary announced: “The government fulfilled its pledge to remove all handguns from the streets of Britain today.”
No guns. No legal guns, anyway. Less crime? HAAHAHAHAHAHA!
Almost immediately, the level of armed violence and the brutal nature of that violence exploded against the disarmed civil population. Headlines from British papers tell the story: “Handgun Crime Soars Despite Dunblane Ban” … “Police Move to Tackle Huge Rise in Crime” … “London Gun Murders Tripled in 2001” … “Steep Rise in Violent Crime” … “Top Gangs Getting More Guns, Warn Police” … “Handgun Crime Up Despite Ban” … “Gun Crime Rise in London” … “Gun Crime Trebles as Weapons and Drugs Flood British Cities.”
Okay. That’s one city. Now for the other.
In Kennesaw, Georgia, a law was passed in 1982 requiring every household to have a firearm and ammunition. (Conscientious objectors were excluded.)
Lots of guns. Lots and lots of guns. More crime? Nope.
There has not been a single reported crime of domestic violence in Kennesaw since the law was passed. There have been no injuries to children involving guns since the law was passed. Furthermore, violence has actually dropped since 1982. Burglaries per thousand inhabitants fell from 11 to less than 3. There hasn’t been a single murder since 1986. All this despite the fact that the population in Kennesaw doubled in that time.
Conclusion?
More guns, in the hands of responsible citizens, less crime.
[quote]DemiAjax wrote:
Do ya’ll believe in safe storage laws?[/quote]
I believe that the safest condition for my guns to be in is loaded and within easy reach. They will not go off by themselves, and anyone who touches them (a) does so only with my permission, and (b) knows and understands the rules. Obviously when nobody is in the house they are hidden and locked away, so they will not be stolen.
No “safe storage” laws required. Just common sense and education.
For anyone who doesn’t know the rules, here they are.
RULE ONE: All guns are always loaded.
RULE TWO: Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.
RULE THREE: Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target.
RULE FOUR: Be sure of your target, and what is behind it.
If having a law is important to you, require that every schoolchild in America (and every adult as well) learn and understand those four rules.
Do that, and I predict that the incidence of accidental shootings will plummet.
Gun laws generally piss me off because they penalize the law abiding. Do something about the criminals dammit!
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Ah, yes. Jolly old England. And here, friends, is the corollary to Heinlein’s statement.
A disarmed society is a hooligan society.[/quote]
Two delurks in one day.
I claim Bullshit on that sweeping generalised statement.
I’m not saying that hooliganism doens’t exist, I’m not saying that violent crime doesn’t exist, but to say that it is because we are unarmed is bull. Just as it would be bull to say that an armed nation is free of violent crime.
Rossi