Easier to Kill w/ a Gun Than W/out a Gun

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
When people wonder why the UK has no written constitution, this is the point that they are missing. If you write down a constitution you risk it being taken totally out of context by people either with an agenda or a basic lack of understanding a number of years later. This is exactly what has happened.
[/quote]

When our founders spoke of their frustration with Parliament and the Crown they often referred to how the British Constitution was being violated as were their rights as Englishmen. The problem was that no one could exactly put their finger on exactly what those rights were. Why? BECAUSE NO ONE WROTE IT DOWN!

Consider Germany. They do not have a first amendment. In the same country holocaust denial is a crime. Many on the left here have spoken out to make global warming denial a crime in America. But so long as we have our first amendment written down you can always put your finger on exactly what that right is (although even that is often flaunted).

Rights are not malleable. You cannot redefine them at will to meet with evolving norms. Yet without it put to stone you can always justify an infringement.

Our rights are under attack now as strongly as ever before. The right to bear arms sees to it that you respect my rights or else I will fucking kill you. To fail to support a vigorous defense of individual rights is to deny the existence of any rights altogether.

mike

82

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
When people wonder why the UK has no written constitution, this is the point that they are missing. If you write down a constitution you risk it being taken totally out of context by people either with an agenda or a basic lack of understanding a number of years later. This is exactly what has happened.

When our founders spoke of their frustration with Parliament and the Crown they often referred to how the British Constitution was being violated as were their rights as Englishmen. The problem was that no one could exactly put their finger on exactly what those rights were. Why? BECAUSE NO ONE WROTE IT DOWN!

Consider Germany. They do not have a first amendment. In the same country holocaust denial is a crime. Many on the left here have spoken out to make global warming denial a crime in America. But so long as we have our first amendment written down you can always put your finger on exactly what that right is (although even that is often flaunted).

Rights are not malleable. You cannot redefine them at will to meet with evolving norms. Yet without it put to stone you can always justify an infringement.

Our rights are under attack now as strongly as ever before. The right to bear arms sees to it that you respect my rights or else I will fucking kill you. To fail to support a vigorous defense of individual rights is to deny the existence of any rights altogether.

mike[/quote]

Artikel 5

(1) Jeder hat das Recht, seine Meinung in Wort, Schrift und Bild frei zu äußern und zu verbreiten und sich aus allgemein zugänglichen Quellen ungehindert zu unterrichten. Die Pressefreiheit und die Freiheit der Berichterstattung durch Rundfunk und Film werden gewährleistet. Eine Zensur findet nicht statt.

(2) Diese Rechte finden ihre Schranken in den Vorschriften der allgemeinen Gesetze, den gesetzlichen Bestimmungen zum Schutze der Jugend und in dem Recht der persönlichen Ehre.

(3) Kunst und Wissenschaft, Forschung und Lehre sind frei. Die Freiheit der Lehre entbindet nicht von der Treue zur Verfassung.

Article 5, German constitution.

Artikel 10.
Recht der freien Meinungsäußerung

(1) Jeder hat Anspruch auf freie Meinungsäußerung. Dieses Recht schließt die Freiheit der Meinung und die Freiheit zum Empfang und zur Mitteilung von Nachrichten oder Ideen ohne Eingriff öffentlicher Behörden und ohne Rücksicht auf Landesgrenzen ein. Dieser Artikel schließt nicht aus, daß die Staaten Rundfunk-, Lichtspiel- oder Fernsehunternehmen einem Genehmigungsverfahren unterwerfen.

(2) Da die Ausübung dieser Freiheiten Pflichten und Verantwortung mit sich bringt, kann sie bestimmten, vom Gesetz vorgesehenen Formvorschriften, Bedingungen, Einschränkungen oder Strafdrohungen unterworfen werden, wie sie im Gesetz vorgeschrieben und in einer demokratischen Gesellschaft im Interesse der nationalen Sicherheit, der Aufrechterhaltung der Ordnung und der Verbrechensverhütung, des Schutzes der Gesundheit und der Moral, des Schutzes des guten Rufes oder der Rechte anderer, um die Verbreitung von vertraulichen Nachrichten zu verhindern oder das Ansehen und die Unparteilichkeit der Rechtsprechung zu gewährleisten, unentbehrlich sind.

Article 10, European Convention of Human Rights

83

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Instead of calling the idea stupid, try explaining why. Are you seriously telling me that large numbers of criminals from Texas and Florida are packing up shop and moving to other states because they are worried about being shot? Would they not be more likely to just go and buy a gun and get a concealed carry permit?

Why is the sky blue? It just is. Why is your idea stupid? The Second Amendment guarantees me the right to keep and bear arms. Why would the government criminalize a right expressly granted to me in the Constitution?

That right there is utter stupidity. Sorry if you don’t agree, but that’s all the defense I need to have of my position.

I am saying crime has gone down as a result of the populace regaining the right to carry weapons on their person. Did the criminals go away, or did they just stop their criminal ways? Who gives a fuck? People in FL and TX are safer now because a criminal has to think twice about robbing someone, or breaking into one’s home.

rainjack, there is no strawman in the argument you comment on,

Which one? You have a bout 4 straw men set up. be more specific.

I chose the word cowboy deliberately because I thought it would resonate with you given that you are from Texas, why would my foot be in my mouth? I assumed that you were a redneck rooting tooting cowboy type from your previous comments, and you are now agreeing that it was a correct assumption.

Who I am, or what you think I am has no bearing whatsoever on this argument. You created a person you wanted me to be, and attacked that person - not the original argument. That is a classic straw man.

I am not a “redneck rooting tooting cowboy type”. In fact this is your first mention of ‘redneck’. I AM a cowboy. I worked on ranches for the better part of my 20’s, and have a degree in Animal Science. I also have an MBA. Shove your sterotyping bigotry up your fucking ass.

The second amendment is totally outdated. It’s something that was written down a long time ago for a different set of circumstances.

Says who? You? Are you even a US citizen?

When people wonder why the UK has no written constitution, this is the point that they are missing. If you write down a constitution you risk it being taken totally out of context by people either with an agenda or a basic lack of understanding a number of years later. This is exactly what has happened.

Once again, says who? You? Your opinion on the US Constitution has proven to be quite worthless.

How is me asking you what a word that I don’t know means correcting you? You seriously do come across as very touchy.

What are you all so scared of that you cannot intelligently debate gun control? Why the hysteria?

I would say there is no hysteria. Perhaps you should check on the definition of the word before you use it.

There is no fear here. There is a very low threshold for bullshit. And you have exceed that in spades.

And if you are trying to get a rise out of me by attacking the failings of Mexico then you are aiming at the wrong person. There are a huge number of things to love about Mexico but there is also a shit load wrong with it. I live here out of choice, not because I have to.

I don’t give a shit if I get a rise out of you or not. But since you live there by choice, why are you not working to make Mexico the gun free zone you think the US should be?

I love Mexico too, but I am not about to tell them what what they should or shouldn’t do. Unlike you - I believe people should live free - not under the thumb of an oppressive government that would have you brought up on attempted murder for owning a pistol.

I am through with you. You are about as ignorant a person as I have ever encountered. You should look up AndyG her on T-Nation. You and he would hit it off like two long-lost sisters.

[/quote]

Why even worry about what a clown such as this thinks? He wants to argue, not learn.

84

BTW, I’m 45, own a business and have been a life member of the NRA for 20 years. I’m upper middle class, go deer hunting and I’m very politically conservative.

I’m very well trained and very safe with guns. My kids are well trained and enjoy hunting ( 14 year old twins, boy and girl). I do not seeing how limiting our rights would help people living in an urban area.

The crack dealers didn’t have a 3 day wait or background check before they got their crack. Urban crime has more to do with other factors than with the availability of guns.

85

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
hedo wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

Seriously, the US must be a really dangerous place to live, from the responses that I see on these threads you must each be repelling home invasions and rape attempts on a daily basis.

Perhaps you should think about moving to downtown Baghdad where it is safer.

Someone needs to visit get their ass left overnight in Baltimore, Washington, Philly, Camden, St. Louis, or any of them other badass cities and tell me he doesn’t wish to fucking god he had a gun on him.

What would I do, walk around with a gun in my hand, waving it at anyone who looked scary? Would that decrease my risk of getting hurt?

No that would be considered brandishing. It’s a crime and a poor tactic. You would simply avoid trouble, but if someone tries to kill you then you have the option of using lethal force to defend yourself.

If you are in one of the more free states the criminals don’t know if you have a concealed weapon or not and tend to avoid thos who don’t behave like prey.

Having the option to defend yourself is a basic human right and good common sense. Banning the means to excercise that right is simple fear on the part of those who seek the ban.

Or alternatively the criminal would shoot first and ask questions later because they don’t want to take the risk.[/quote]

Doubtful. Most crimes don’t immediately escalate to lethal force. Why would you think they would?

Your speculations to support your argurments are becoming absurd. Simply choosing to act more sheepishly when attacked being stalked by a wolf doesn’t deter it. Being more wolf like does. Then the agressor needs to make the very real choice of dying or fleeing. The presence of a weapon in the hands of the target helps that decision making process considerably.

Simply because you can’t imagine a situation where you would have the courage to defend yourself with lethal force doesn’t mean those with less fear of confrontation should be penalized.

The world is divided into sheep, wolves and sheepdogs. The sheepdogs don’t generally take fighing advice from the sheep. Back to your flock now.

86

[quote]tom63 wrote:
BTW, I’m 45, own a business and have been a life member of the NRA for 20 years. I’m upper middle class, go deer hunting and I’m very politically conservative.

I’m very well trained and very safe with guns. My kids are well trained and enjoy hunting ( 14 year old twins, boy and girl). I do not seeing how limiting our rights would help people living in an urban area.

The crack dealers didn’t have a 3 day wait or background check before they got their crack. Urban crime has more to do with other factors than with the availability of guns.[/quote]

If you back out the drug shooting in places like philly the violent crime rate is actually much lower. No amount of gun control is going to stop drug disputes or criminal on criminal shootings. It’s already illegal for a felon to own a weapon but it doesn’t seem to limit them too much.

87

[quote]FormerlyTexasGuy wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
FormerlyTexasGuy wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

Seriously, the US must be a really dangerous place to live, from the responses that I see on these threads you must each be repelling home invasions and rape attempts on a daily basis.

Perhaps you should think about moving to downtown Baghdad where it is safer.

Someone needs to visit get their ass left overnight in Baltimore, Washington, Philly, Camden, St. Louis, or any of them other badass cities and tell me he doesn’t wish to fucking god he had a gun on him.

What? Didn’t we just go back and forth in the combat forum over how ineffective you think guns are? And how only uncivilized people defend themselves with guns while the civilized world uses boxing jabs?

You self contradict quite a bit across threads. I think you are the troll.

How’d your date go last night Money Shot?

I hope he didn’t get it in your eye this time.

You would hope I was gay. Sorry charlie, but you can’t have me.

It went well. I fucked her twice and came in her mouth once. The date was fun too.

Troll. [/quote]

LOL. You’re useless.

88

I think most Americans believe the right to self defense is a basic human right. The guys that wrote our constitution did and that included the right to own a gun.

Basic human rights do not change. You may be willing to forgo rights for peace and quite. I am not.

If we gave up our right to free speech and all fell in line, it could forgo a lot of arguments and prevent violence. Maybe we should program our children to never question or speak out.

What rights and freedoms would you be willing to give up to prevent all murder? all violence?

Have you ever seen the movie Equilibrium or read the book Brave New World?

Is that your idea of a perfect society, no rape, war, murder, or violence. But at what cost.

You may find it funny to the idea of the privately armed citizen keeping government in check, but it has happened time and time again. Are you guaranteeing me based on fact that it can never happen again?

Responsibility and freedom go hand in hand in a modern civilization. We allow people to have their freedom until they violate their responsibilities. People can speak out and say what they want until the incite violence or yell fire in a crowded theater, NOT BEFORE! You are essentially allowed to drive until you misuse your car. You can dress as you like, until you start running around naked. You can raise your children as best you see fit, until you abuse or neglect them.

Despite our backwards ways and our silly notions of inalienable rights, lots of people choose to and want to live here. You choose to live in Mexico rather than the US, that’s all well and good as your point, but you need to realize that puts you in the minority.

Maybe America is a bunch of idealist dreamers, but it seems to work pretty well for us.

89

[quote]tom63 wrote:
BTW, I’m 45, own a business and have been a life member of the NRA for 20 years. I’m upper middle class, go deer hunting and I’m very politically conservative.

I’m very well trained and very safe with guns. My kids are well trained and enjoy hunting ( 14 year old twins, boy and girl). I do not seeing how limiting our rights would help people living in an urban area.

The crack dealers didn’t have a 3 day wait or background check before they got their crack. Urban crime has more to do with other factors than with the availability of guns.[/quote]

I live in an urban area, grew up in suburban area and love going out of town during hunting season with my guns. I don’t see how taking my hunting rifles helps criminals who will get guns anyways.

And if people start coming after my fishing poles too, they will have fillet knives thrown right between their eyes.

90

The link is a little extreme, but should something like this happen for whatever reason, natural disaster, war, riot etc, i like knowing I can be my own law until order is restored.

But mostly I just like to hunt and enjoy shooting.

91

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
FormerlyTexasGuy wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
FormerlyTexasGuy wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

Seriously, the US must be a really dangerous place to live, from the responses that I see on these threads you must each be repelling home invasions and rape attempts on a daily basis.

Perhaps you should think about moving to downtown Baghdad where it is safer.

Someone needs to visit get their ass left overnight in Baltimore, Washington, Philly, Camden, St. Louis, or any of them other badass cities and tell me he doesn’t wish to fucking god he had a gun on him.

What? Didn’t we just go back and forth in the combat forum over how ineffective you think guns are? And how only uncivilized people defend themselves with guns while the civilized world uses boxing jabs?

You self contradict quite a bit across threads. I think you are the troll.

How’d your date go last night Money Shot?

I hope he didn’t get it in your eye this time.

You would hope I was gay. Sorry charlie, but you can’t have me.

It went well. I fucked her twice and came in her mouth once. The date was fun too.

Troll.

LOL. You’re useless.[/quote]

She didn’t have thick man legs either. Very feminine, very sexy.

92

It is strange to me that when I try to discuss whether people in the US need guns to the extent that they feel that they do people react as if I am trying to cut their dick off. I am not a US citizen, my opinion is insignificant when it comes to US law and any changes to it, I am just asking questions about why people feel the way that they do and I get a stream of anger and insults.

I have repeatedly stated that I don’t see any problem with people having guns for hunting or for sport shooting if kept in a proven responsible manner. I have even stated that I don’t think that tightening gun control laws would actually make much difference.

What I have tried to understand is why people in the US think they are in such danger that they need to carry a gun for defence (or have one in their house) when people in places with worse crime statistics do not feel this need.

I think it comes down to the conditioning that is received from birth, through school and beyond. People spend so much time jumping up and down about the defence of their rights under the constitution that they don’t ever question the constitution, why it was written or even what is written in it.

This feeling of being American and what it entails seems similar to Mexican Catholicism. There are lots of people here who will scream on about religion but you try to talk to them about the real wording and contents of the Bible and the reason that it was written and they have no idea.

To say that everyone has the right to bear arms because it says so in the second amendment is not an argument, it is an article of faith, the same as saying you shouldn?t work on the Sabbath because it says so in the ten commandments.

93

…people in places with worse crime statistics do not feel this need…

Kinda answered your own question there…

Anyway the I feel the right to self defense is a basic unchanging human right. I think that law abiding citizens have the right to arm themselves to the level of the criminals.

Either you don’t think self defense is a right, that a gun can be necessary to self defense, or that you are willing to sacrifice rights for peace.

Whichever one(s) of these you agree with, I disagree with all of them.

I thought I was explaining my defense of gun rights civilly, you were the one throwing out wild name-calling attacks.

94

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
It is strange to me that when I try to discuss whether people in the US need guns to the extent that they feel that they do people react as if I am trying to cut their dick off. I am not a US citizen, my opinion is insignificant when it comes to US law and any changes to it, I am just asking questions about why people feel the way that they do and I get a stream of anger and insults.

I have repeatedly stated that I don’t see any problem with people having guns for hunting or for sport shooting if kept in a proven responsible manner. I have even stated that I don’t think that tightening gun control laws would actually make much difference.

What I have tried to understand is why people in the US think they are in such danger that they need to carry a gun for defence (or have one in their house) when people in places with worse crime statistics do not feel this need.

I think it comes down to the conditioning that is received from birth, through school and beyond. People spend so much time jumping up and down about the defence of their rights under the constitution that they don’t ever question the constitution, why it was written or even what is written in it.

This feeling of being American and what it entails seems similar to Mexican Catholicism. There are lots of people here who will scream on about religion but you try to talk to them about the real wording and contents of the Bible and the reason that it was written and they have no idea.

To say that everyone has the right to bear arms because it says so in the second amendment is not an argument, it is an article of faith, the same as saying you shouldn?t work on the Sabbath because it says so in the ten commandments.
[/quote]

As the Founding Fathers knew well, a government that does not trust its honest, law-abiding, taxpaying citizens with the means of self-defense is not itself worthy of trust. Laws disarming honest citizens proclaim that the government is the master, not the servant, of the people.

– Jeff Snyder

Probably fewer than 2% of handguns and well under 1% of all guns will ever be involved in a violent crime. Thus, the problem of criminal gun violence is concentrated within a very small subset of gun owners, indicating that gun control aimed at the general population faces a serious needle-in-the-haystack problem.

– Gary Kleck, “Point Blank: Handgun Violence In America”

When only cops have guns, it’s called a “police state”.

– Claire Wolfe, “101 Things To Do Until The Revolution”
[b]
“Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.”

– Mohandas Gandhi, An Autobiography, pg 446
[/b]

“As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives [only] moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. 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 to your walks.”

– Thomas Jefferson, writing to his teenaged nephew.

“Taking my gun away because I might shoot someone is like cutting my tongue out because I might yell `Fire!’ in a crowded theater.”

– Peter Venetoklis

False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.

– Cesare Beccaria, as quoted by Thomas Jefferson’s Commonplace book

95

[quote]Seinix wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

In an ideal world everyone should be allowed to do whatever they like. In theory, Anarchy is the best political system.

Problem is, that doesn’t seem to work in practice.

Anarchy is more of a principal than a political system. Anarchy is all about survival of the fittest, and consequently adaptability. Adaptability is the key here. You see, in fact, government is a manifestation of anarchy. 100,000 years ago, when homo sapiens first emerged, you might consider their primitive society as close to anarchy as humans have ever gotten. Why is it then, that we have complex governments today?

Because, as dictated by darwinism, by constantly rejecting what is useless and keeping what is useful, humans have over time developed the governments that we live under today.

Thus, anarchy is NOT the best political system. The political systems we have now are the best, until something better emerges, due to darwin’s principal. If anarchy truly were the best political system, humans would be living in it now. Conversely, if our modern governments are worse than anarchy, then they would have never emerged.[/quote]

You got it backwards. There is no real “best”. There is only nature and understanding how it works. All animals live in an anarchic state where they are left to their own devises to pick and choose their own means of survival. Anarchy is just the state that exists when people realize there are no real means to bring about a controlled way of organization. It is the antithesis of an all consuming socialist State – i.e, communism. Liberal government is a closer reflection of living in a real anarchist society and this is because individuals are generally free to live to the best of their nature given abilities.

All organisms “organize” – hence they can be called “organisms”. Anarchy is just the way things really organize under naturally, chaotic processes and every other “system” that tries to thwart those processes are just illusions of control.

96

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
It is strange to me that when I try to discuss whether people in the US need guns to the extent that they feel that they do people react as if I am trying to cut their dick off. I am not a US citizen, my opinion is insignificant when it comes to US law and any changes to it, I am just asking questions about why people feel the way that they do and I get a stream of anger and insults.

I have repeatedly stated that I don’t see any problem with people having guns for hunting or for sport shooting if kept in a proven responsible manner. I have even stated that I don’t think that tightening gun control laws would actually make much difference.

What I have tried to understand is why people in the US think they are in such danger that they need to carry a gun for defence (or have one in their house) when people in places with worse crime statistics do not feel this need.

I think it comes down to the conditioning that is received from birth, through school and beyond. People spend so much time jumping up and down about the defence of their rights under the constitution that they don’t ever question the constitution, why it was written or even what is written in it.

This feeling of being American and what it entails seems similar to Mexican Catholicism. There are lots of people here who will scream on about religion but you try to talk to them about the real wording and contents of the Bible and the reason that it was written and they have no idea.

To say that everyone has the right to bear arms because it says so in the second amendment is not an argument, it is an article of faith, the same as saying you shouldn?t work on the Sabbath because it says so in the ten commandments.
[/quote]

If anything, children in this country are being taught by public education that guns are bad and only for the government. This is not a good thing.

Those of us familiar with world history know that when a government disarms the populace, further infringements on rights are not far behind. These infringements range from the nanny-state policies in modern day western europe, to the genocide in WWII era Germany. IT has even happened in the United States, when blacks, Japanese americans in the 40s, and native americans were unjustly denied their 2nd amendment rights. This resulted in them being bullied, lynched, placed in internment camps, and almost exterminated. Could they have successfully defended themselves and changed their fate? No one can answer that for sure, but having a gun is a whole lot better than a pointy stick and colorful language.

Taking away the right for the citizens to defend themselves clearly states that the government does not trust them. Some people claim disarming the people is better for public safety, think about this.

No one can hurt my slave, but me.

97

Ghandi was actually no pacifist.

98

[quote]Doug Adams wrote:
No one can hurt my slave, but me.
[/quote]

QFT.

99

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
It is strange to me that when I try to discuss whether people in the US need guns to the extent that they feel that they do people react as if I am trying to cut their dick off. I am not a US citizen, my opinion is insignificant when it comes to US law and any changes to it, I am just asking questions about why people feel the way that they do and I get a stream of anger and insults.[/quote]

Yet more hypocrisy from you.

I have seen very few question marks associated with any of your postings. I have, however seen you dodge questions. When asked to provide proof of your statements, you ignore them. I have not seen a single link to anything in support of your position. Yet, here you are bemoaning the lie that you have not had your questions answered.

You are just as guilty of insults as anyone else. Yet, here you are crying about how rudely you have been treated.

Elitism must suck donkey balls when no one gives a shit how elite you think you are.

Uh…then what about your idea that anyone caught holding a pistol should be tried for attempted murder?

Pick a position and stick with it. Defend it till its death. Changing what you say so you can be the victim doesn’t work very well around here.

Places such as? You make these statements without any support of them. No one is going to take you at your word. You have not earned that right, yet.

Please show me the fear. You keep using that term, along with words like “hysterical” as if just saying them means something. You need a little something that we call proof.

One only need to read opinions from the 9th circuit in particular - but any of the Circuit Court of Appeals - to know you are absolutely full of shit if you don’t think the Constitution is questioned on a regular basis in this country.

Who is it in this thread that is demonstrating a blind faith in the Constitution? More straw men from you.

[quote]To say that everyone has the right to bear arms because it says so in the second amendment is not an argument, it is an article of faith, the same as saying you shouldn?t work on the Sabbath because it says so in the ten commandments.
[/quote]

Article of faith? No - it is a statement of fact that the COnstitution of The United States guarantees its people hte right to keep and bear arms. It is an article of complete fantasy to ignore the rights expressly enumerated in the Constituion. That goes for the Second as well as the other 26 amendments.

What you are evidently too dense too grasp is that we DO change our constitution. We have 27 times. But you would have to have at least an ounce of intellectual honesty to admit this.

100

[quote]orion wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
When people wonder why the UK has no written constitution, this is the point that they are missing. If you write down a constitution you risk it being taken totally out of context by people either with an agenda or a basic lack of understanding a number of years later. This is exactly what has happened.

When our founders spoke of their frustration with Parliament and the Crown they often referred to how the British Constitution was being violated as were their rights as Englishmen. The problem was that no one could exactly put their finger on exactly what those rights were. Why? BECAUSE NO ONE WROTE IT DOWN!

Consider Germany. They do not have a first amendment. In the same country holocaust denial is a crime. Many on the left here have spoken out to make global warming denial a crime in America. But so long as we have our first amendment written down you can always put your finger on exactly what that right is (although even that is often flaunted).

Rights are not malleable. You cannot redefine them at will to meet with evolving norms. Yet without it put to stone you can always justify an infringement.

Our rights are under attack now as strongly as ever before. The right to bear arms sees to it that you respect my rights or else I will fucking kill you. To fail to support a vigorous defense of individual rights is to deny the existence of any rights altogether.

mike

Artikel 5

(1) Jeder hat das Recht, seine Meinung in Wort, Schrift und Bild frei zu äußern und zu verbreiten und sich aus allgemein zugänglichen Quellen ungehindert zu unterrichten. Die Pressefreiheit und die Freiheit der Berichterstattung durch Rundfunk und Film werden gewährleistet. Eine Zensur findet nicht statt.

(2) Diese Rechte finden ihre Schranken in den Vorschriften der allgemeinen Gesetze, den gesetzlichen Bestimmungen zum Schutze der Jugend und in dem Recht der persönlichen Ehre.

(3) Kunst und Wissenschaft, Forschung und Lehre sind frei. Die Freiheit der Lehre entbindet nicht von der Treue zur Verfassung.

Article 5, German constitution.

Artikel 10.
Recht der freien Meinungsäußerung

(1) Jeder hat Anspruch auf freie Meinungsäußerung. Dieses Recht schließt die Freiheit der Meinung und die Freiheit zum Empfang und zur Mitteilung von Nachrichten oder Ideen ohne Eingriff öffentlicher Behörden und ohne Rücksicht auf Landesgrenzen ein. Dieser Artikel schließt nicht aus, daß die Staaten Rundfunk-, Lichtspiel- oder Fernsehunternehmen einem Genehmigungsverfahren unterwerfen.

(2) Da die Ausübung dieser Freiheiten Pflichten und Verantwortung mit sich bringt, kann sie bestimmten, vom Gesetz vorgesehenen Formvorschriften, Bedingungen, Einschränkungen oder Strafdrohungen unterworfen werden, wie sie im Gesetz vorgeschrieben und in einer demokratischen Gesellschaft im Interesse der nationalen Sicherheit, der Aufrechterhaltung der Ordnung und der Verbrechensverhütung, des Schutzes der Gesundheit und der Moral, des Schutzes des guten Rufes oder der Rechte anderer, um die Verbreitung von vertraulichen Nachrichten zu verhindern oder das Ansehen und die Unparteilichkeit der Rechtsprechung zu gewährleisten, unentbehrlich sind.

Article 10, European Convention of Human Rights

[/quote]

Care to fill me in there Orion?

mike