There's a Lot Wrong with Britain

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
201

[quote]Sloth wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Sloth wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:

From what I just looked up, in the 1st “the people” does refer to the right of a collective to peaceful assembly. I don’t see a contradiction.

But individuals don’t have this right?

How does a person have the right to assemble, unless he/she is in pieces?

But now I can say the same of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. How can the people keep and bear arms if the person can’t?[/quote]

This type of reductionist argument is misleading. There are rights that sovereign nation states or collectives are privy to that do not boil down to the individual. My previous argument about nukes, for example. The country as a whole has a right to defend itself with tools of warfare such as these, but it is clearly ridiculous to say that every individual has the right to protect himself with nukes.

202

[quote]Sloth wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
In the 2nd their is clear indication that the People refers to the State collective. It appears to me to refer to the right of the State to have a regulated separate militia from the federal level government.

?

What do you mean, “the state collective?” What is that? Are you saying the Bill of Rights, that’s what we’re talking about here, gives the state the right to keep and bear arms, as opposed to the people themselves? What is this state collective?[/quote]

The United States is a collection of individual States made from a collective of persons living with a geographical area. That is what I mean by State collective.

203

[quote]NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Sloth wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
In the 2nd their is clear indication that the People refers to the State collective. It appears to me to refer to the right of the State to have a regulated separate militia from the federal level government.

?

What do you mean, “the state collective?” What is that? Are you saying the Bill of Rights, that’s what we’re talking about here, gives the state the right to keep and bear arms, as opposed to the people themselves? What is this state collective?

The United States is a collection of individual States made from a collective of persons living with a geographical area. That is what I mean by State collective.[/quote]

So your argument is that the 2nd grants the state government the right to keep and bear arms?

204

[quote]orion wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
orion wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Sloth wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:

In any legal document the exact wording, punctuation, and phrasing are important to determining the intent of statement. It cannot be dismissed as preamble. The fact that the second amendment starts with “A well regulated militia…” and lacks the specificity “person” is important to determining the intent of the statement as a whole.

I don’t pretend to be an expert on the Constitution, I’m just making the argument that the second amendment has been interpreted different ways by people of different political leanings. To be viewed a legal dogma is shortsighted. This makes the discussion about universal gun ownership open to anyone who wishes to demonstrate their position with facts. To simply assert that it’s your second amendment right and case closed only shows that you cannot defend yourself with logic and reason.

There are myriads of studies that gun control does not lead to less gun violence, if anything there is more violence when citizens have no guns.

You seem to forget though that in the US they do not have to prove to you anything. They have the second amendment which is pretty straight forward. This is not “viewed as a legal dogma” this actually is a legal dogma.

There is very little when it comes to facts to dispute this, the US constitution has a certain history, mainly Lockes “Treatise on Government II” and preambles were quite common back then like in the Declaration of Independence.

The Lockean, more or less classical liberal tradition does not give natural “rights” to collectives like militias or the “people”, only to persons and they come together to form governments to protect these rights.

This is why the second amendment simply acknowledges the right instead of granting it.

Which does of course mean that even if governments prevent their citizens from keeping and bearing arms they still have that right.
[/quote]

Also you need to look at the predecessor to the American constitution and the Canadian charter of Rights and Freedoms, the 1688 English bill of rights which guaranteed the right to bear arms.

Freedom for Protestants to bear arms for their own defense, as suitable to their class and as allowed by law.

Additionally the right to keep and bear arms has been part of common law since before the Norman invasion of 1066. Militias were also favored by the Britsh going back at least to the 13th century because the barons feared the power of a large standing army abusing the people. Militias were a protected part the Magna Carta’s right to rebellion.

The American second amendment did not develop out of nothing. It is based upon an Anglo legal tradition that goes back over a thousand years.

205

[quote]NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
orion wrote:
There are myriads of studies that gun control does not lead to less gun violence, if anything there is more violence when citizens have no guns.

Where are these studies? Can you submit a link to one of them? Or are you going to use the “go find it yourself” B.S. that is so prevalent in this thread?

orion wrote:
You seem to forget though that in the US they do not have to prove to you anything. They have the second amendment which is pretty straight forward. This is not “viewed as a legal dogma” this actually is a legal dogma.

I get that they do not have to prove anything to me. That’s fine if you feel that way. Choose not to post then. I have the freedom to write whatever I want and to discuss what I wish, so I take advantage of it.

Do you not see the contradiction in calling an amendment legal dogma?

orion wrote:
There is very little when it comes to facts to dispute this, the US constitution has a certain history, mainly Lockes “Treatise on Government II” and preambles were quite common back then like in the Declaration of Independence.

The preamble for the Constitution precedes the Articles. An article or amendment does not contain preamble.

orion wrote:
The Lockean, more or less classical liberal tradition does not give natural “rights” to collectives like militias or the “people”, only to persons and they come together to form governments to protect these rights.

This is why the second amendment simply acknowledges the right instead of granting it.

Which does of course mean that even if governments prevent their citizens from keeping and bearing arms they still have that right.

I’m not arguing against natural rights. I don’t see owning a handgun as a natural right any more than driving a car is a natural right. These things are privileges and must be regulated by the government to protect the rights of all persons.[/quote]

There was a meta study done by the CDC.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

I do not see a problem with calling an amendment a dogma for what are laws if not arbitrary and dogmatic?

The idea that laws do not contain preambles is wrong if they obviously did in the 18 th century. They might not now, so what? A simple “therefore” might have changed the nature of the preamble in question, as you notice it is not there.

Whether you believe in natural rights or think that the right to self defense is such a right in hardly the question when it comes to the interpretation of the second amendment.

As you will see in the link above this right comes from the Rights of Englishmen in the Anglo Saxon tradition and is regularly understood to include civilian weapons and the use for self defense purposes.

206

[quote]NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Sifu wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Sifu wrote:
phaethon wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
pushharder wrote:

I called you a hypocrite because you rant about the use of histrionics and then use the same shit yourself. You are still a hypocrite.[/quote]

Bullshit. I am not the one making wild exagerations, you are.

I am not the one who said he was all worried that a drunk that you have argued with in a bar would go out to his car get a gun and then come back in and shoot you. Then post a link to DoJ statistics that say murders over arguements has gone down. The reason why that is histrionics is a drunk would be much more likely to not want to waste his time going out to his car and would just improvise a weapon out of what was readily at hand like a bottle which he could bust in your face and then cut your Jugular vein or Carotid artery with the shards.

Or your sexist counter arguement that if it makes sense for a 105 pound woman to have a gun to defend herself from a 250 man with it would make just as much sense to give a gun to a three year old to defend herself from adults.

[quote]
Thank you for posting a link to that thread. I didn’t think it was in response to my request for a link to an earlier thread which discusses this issue because you lead into the link with histrionics about glassing in the UK. I’ll review the posts and get back to you. [/quote]

Knock yourself out. There are more where that came from. But that was about the one where even Cockney had finally shot his wad and ran out of things to come back with.

207

[quote]NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Sloth wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Sloth wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:

In the 2nd their is clear indication that the People refers to the State collective. It appears to me to refer to the right of the State to have a regulated separate militia from the federal level government. [/quote]

You obviously haven’t studied the history. The second amendment is a direct descendent of the Magna carta right of rebellion against the state. Militia have a long tradition in British common law and were seen as a way to prevent the state from abusing the people with a large standing army. So when the second amendment refers to militia it is referring to long history of military power that is not under the control of the state.

[quote]
Again, 18th century “bear arms” refers to tools of warfare. Does the individual have the same right to tools of warfare as the US government? Does any person have a god-given right to a nuclear bomb? [/quote]

Again you are resorting to ridiculous exagerations with nuclear weapons. This is a clear example of your histrionics.

208

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
09’ers. [/quote]

LOL!

210

[quote]NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
He’s also getting frustrated with me because I’m capable of providing a coherent argument in favor of my position
[/quote]

No you aren’t. You still haven’t given a clear and reasonable rebuttal of push’s statement.

Please provide a rebuttal without resorting to absurd claims.

[quote]NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
In a unrelated thread someone had mentioned that Liberty implies that we are all born free, but equality is not guaranteed. However, one of the arguments in favor of gun ownership is that it’s the ultimate equalizer. So what is it, you have the right to equality or you don’t?[/quote]

This is dribble. Is this meant to be a counter to the original statement made by push? Because. Well because it isn’t.

211

[quote]NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
In the 2nd their is clear indication that the People refers to the State collective. It appears to me to refer to the right of the State to have a regulated separate militia from the federal level government.

Again, 18th century “bear arms” refers to tools of warfare. Does the individual have the same right to tools of warfare as the US government? Does any person have a god-given right to a nuclear bomb?[/quote]

Yes because nuclear bombs existed in the 18th century -_-;

You can’t argue using the “old” definitions of the terms and then use a VERY modern example.

Seriously, read up on the debate over the second amendment from back in the day. It is VERY clear that they were refering to regular people having guns to prevent invasion.

Smart nations don’t invade nations where everyone has a gun a la modern Switzerland.

212

[quote]NinjaTreeFrog wrote:

How does a person have the right to assemble, unless he/she is in pieces?[/quote]

…I can call up my friends and tell them to meet me out in front of town hall with picket signs without being arrested for conspiracy.

Seriously, that took me all of ten seconds to answer.

213

[quote]Sifu wrote:
phaethon wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
pushharder wrote:
And just like Senor Blue and I discussed awhile back, why, in your utopia, should my 105 lbs. wife not be allowed to own and carry a weapon of death when a man of my size carrying no weapon other than his bare hands IS a living, breathing weapon of death in her eyes and for all practical purposes (in a violent crime situation)?

You’re right, and by extension a 3 year old child should also be permitted to carry a weapon. They typically weigh much less than your wife.

Is that your idea of a rebuttal? You are comparing an adult woman to a 3 year old child.

I feel like I have to give you an example to show how retarded your argument is: I claim an adult woman should be allowed to have sex. Your reply “You’re right, and by extension a 3 year old child should also be permitted to have sex.”

No wonder push won’t give you the time of day.

This is typical of what people from the commonwealth come up with. Since they can’t support their ideology with logic they resort to histrionics. They come up with ridiculous scenarios and ludicrous exagerations.

What he is demonstrating is brain washing. I can guarantee you that if you were to put him in a room with Cockney Blue some, other Brits and some Australians they they could go back and forth for hours making the most absurd suggestions and it would make complete sense to them to be asking ridiculous questions about scenarios that are completely unrealistic. [/quote]

I know. As an Australian it disgusts me. The other day a group of 5 or 6 of us were talking about gun rights and gun control and one person said that if lots of people had guns and a criminal opened fire then nobody would know who the shooter was as everyone was armed. Instead the law abiding citizens would start shooting other thinking each thinking one of the others was the gunman. And of course it would turn into a huge gunfight.

I was the only person in the group who found that idea to be absurd. Everyone else was circle-jerking about how stupid Americans are. My simple counter: Why aren’t there huge gun fights involving dozens of law abiding people turning on each other in the US then?

Their response: “Wow you are such a brainwashed gun nut” and “I hope one of your family members gets shot. Then you won’t be such a gun nut”. So rather than provide a reasonable argument they wished death upon my family and called me a nut.

Typical of young Australians attitudes on firearms.

214

[quote]phaethon wrote:

an excellent anecdote…

Typical of young Australians attitudes on firearms.[/quote]

I’m beginning to think critical thinking has died the world over and now only exists as a memory. I’d pick someone that can form an intelligent argument against me any day over these people or someone like Ninja. I’d rather argue against Orion any day than deal with such intelligent statements as “wow I hope one of your family members gets shot” in place of argumentation.

216

[quote]phaethon wrote:
Sifu wrote:
phaethon wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
pushharder wrote:
And just like Senor Blue and I discussed awhile back, why, in your utopia, should my 105 lbs. wife not be allowed to own and carry a weapon of death when a man of my size carrying no weapon other than his bare hands IS a living, breathing weapon of death in her eyes and for all practical purposes (in a violent crime situation)?

You’re right, and by extension a 3 year old child should also be permitted to carry a weapon. They typically weigh much less than your wife.

Is that your idea of a rebuttal? You are comparing an adult woman to a 3 year old child.

I feel like I have to give you an example to show how retarded your argument is: I claim an adult woman should be allowed to have sex. Your reply “You’re right, and by extension a 3 year old child should also be permitted to have sex.”

No wonder push won’t give you the time of day.

This is typical of what people from the commonwealth come up with. Since they can’t support their ideology with logic they resort to histrionics. They come up with ridiculous scenarios and ludicrous exagerations.

What he is demonstrating is brain washing. I can guarantee you that if you were to put him in a room with Cockney Blue some, other Brits and some Australians they they could go back and forth for hours making the most absurd suggestions and it would make complete sense to them to be asking ridiculous questions about scenarios that are completely unrealistic.

I know. As an Australian it disgusts me. The other day a group of 5 or 6 of us were talking about gun rights and gun control and one person said that if lots of people had guns and a criminal opened fire then nobody would know who the shooter was as everyone was armed. Instead the law abiding citizens would start shooting other thinking each thinking one of the others was the gunman. And of course it would turn into a huge gunfight.[/quote]

Cockneyblue has posted something very similar here. The reason why they think that way is they have been bombarded for years with the message that guns equal insanity. Since they have been programmed to believe that guns equal insanity it perfectly logical to them that anything that is done with a gun will be insane and over the top.

[quote]

I was the only person in the group who found that idea to be absurd. Everyone else was circle-jerking about how stupid Americans are. My simple counter: Why aren’t there huge gun fights involving dozens of law abiding people turning on each other in the US then?

Their response: “Wow you are such a brainwashed gun nut” and “I hope one of your family members gets shot. Then you won’t be such a gun nut”. So rather than provide a reasonable argument they wished death upon my family and called me a nut.

Typical of young Australians attitudes on firearms.[/quote]

Of course. Because the dogma has been repeatedly drilled into their head that guns equal insanity any questioning of that dogma is treated as an act of insanity. The reason why is it has become a belief system like a religion. For them it is an article of faith that gun control is proper. Any questioning of their faith is herecy. Therefore GOD should punish you by killing your family because you have questioned their belief.

You should ask them. If I am brainwashed and a nutter, why are you the ones saying that my family should die merely because I asked a reasonable question as to why we don’t see your wild exagerations played out in the real world?

If anyone is displaying insanity and brainwashing it is the gun control faithful who see nothing wrong with innocent lives being sacrificed for their beliefs.

217

[quote]pushharder wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:

…You’ve quite the imagination…

I’ll remember to use that quote as you continue to conjure up your B.C. bud stoked fables about the eeeeeevils of handguns and “assault weapons”.

By the way, what is an assault weapon? Do you know, by chance?

And why are handguns and the so called “assault weapons” considered by you to be “weapons of death” (I think that was the term you used), with an obvious implication that shotguns and rifles aren’t? Are not all firearms deadly?

And just like Senor Blue and I discussed awhile back, why, in your utopia, should my 105 lbs. wife not be allowed to own and carry a weapon of death when a man of my size carrying no weapon other than his bare hands IS a living, breathing weapon of death in her eyes and for all practical purposes (in a violent crime situation)?[/quote]

An Assault weapon is a normal weapon that has a few handles and bits added to it to make it easier for gun nuts to hold onto it whilst they masturbate over it, or something like that.

218

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

…but for the rest of the world, it’s pretty normal.

I have never cared about what the rest of the world’s opinions on our domestic policy are. And I never will. We didn’t become the dominant global power by capitulating to other countries opinions about how we should order our domestic affairs. We did our own thing, by our own rules and with our own unique perspectives, and we did it well… and it catapulted us up the food chain in a historically rapid fashion. You want to talk about foreign policy, that’s different. [/quote]

We are not talking about the rest of the worlds opinion on US domestic policy (least I wasn’t.) We are talking about people from the US’s opinion on a misrepresentation of UK domestic policy.

And for what it’s worth, from what I understand the US was built on some really intelligent founding ideas it also had vast amounts of resources which coupled with the influx of people who had the right attitude to get stuff done and the timing of the decline of the UK as a global super power and the collapse of the monarchies in various other European states allowed the US to step into the void.

The US is now on a downswing and other countries are lining up to step into the breech. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

Personally I hope it leads to us evolving past the ideas of competing nation states but that is a slim hope.

219

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
Thats bullshit and you know it. 1) the 80 million gun owners does NOT assume that everyone who is not a gun owner is pro-gun control and anti-NRA. There are literally millions of people who don’t own guns but who also are pro-NRA or are gun advocates, who simply choose not to own one or cannot afford to buy one. I am also one of those currently.

  1. It has been said ad nauseum before, almost always from left leaning liberals, that the democratic process is meant to PROTECT the minority’s values, rights, and opinions from the–and I quote-- “tyranny of the majority”. But now that’s not true?? They can’t have it apply only when it applies to something they agree with. If you want to apply that line somewhere else, then you have to apply it here too. Besides, this particular issue has more explicit provision in both the Constitution and the early Founders’ writings than any of the issues for which the left wants to apply the “protection from tyranny of the majority” rule. You do not simply brush that aside because it is inconvenient.

It’s not bullshit and I don’t know it.

  1. Even if there are millions of non-gun owners that support NRA and gun rights, that still doesn’t make this a majority. By their own estimates, NRA membership is somewhere in the range of 3-4 million. I think it’s fair to assume that most of these members are already gun owners, so what’s the figure you’re supposing?

  2. Is it wrong to protect minority rights? Do you support minority tyranny? I’m missing the point of your argument here. I’m not a left-leaning liberal nor did I mention anything about the Tyranny of the Majority. Keep in mind that I’m a Canadian who’s not well educated in the Constitution or the Founder’s writings.

To be honest I really don’t even feel like responding here. TBT gave a good overview.

  1. I am not supposing a particular number. I am supposing that there are significant numbers of non-gun owners who are in support of “gun rights” in addition to current gun owners. In addition I am attempting to show how this minority you speak of if MUCH larger in terms of sheer numbers than most of the minorities we protect or appease.

  2. Your post makes zero sense here. You post up two opposing sentences to start it off. The answers are No, and NO.

Protecting minority rights (real rights here, btw, not “rights”) is very important. That is precisely my point. I also mentioned an illustration of left-leaning hypocrisy because they simply don’t apply their “protect the minority” consistently when it comes to guns. Further, I oppose the notion that keeping with our founding documents and founders opinions–and furthermore keeping more of our individual freedom to choose-- is allowing “minority tyranny”. That is absurd.

There are many times where a minority issue with tenuous or near zero Constitutional backing are championed by the Left and considered sacrosanct (and indeed by many who are Not left leaning). This particular issue is on firmer Constitutional footing than just about any other one of those issues, since it is explicitly provided for in the Bill of Rights, but somehow is not protected. That is hypocrisy, and unsound reasoning.[/quote]

What about the NRA members who support tighter gun control though? OR the ones that joined just on a whim but haven’t even really thought about it. Or the ones that joined because someone led them to believe it was a slippery slope?

220

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Gregus wrote:

I was in the scouts as a kid and there is no reason that I can see that a boy scout should have a different set of laws to the rest of the country. You can argue wether the law is wrong, fine but don’t try and claim that anything has changed. All that has happened is that the scouting association has sensibly informed their members of the law as it pertains to carrying knives.

The Mail has done what it normally does, misrepresented the facts to get mental midgets’ knickers in a twist. Seems to have worked!

I find it hard to believe that the little pen knives that the Boy Scouts use are an illegal length. If they are illegal wouldn’t it make better sense to just use a size that complies with the law? [/quote]

anything longer than a 3" blade is illegal