There's a Lot Wrong with Britain

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
261

[quote]NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Sloth wrote:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the State to allow pre-approved members of the government licensed militia to be allowed to take home arms and bear them in accordance with the discretion of the State, until voluntary or involuntary termination of said individual’s membership in the militia.

Now you’re just adding your own stuff in. The amendment doesn’t say that.

To imply that the amendment is clear and straightforward is a misrepresentation. Just look at the Heller case that’s been referred to a couple of times in this thread. The Supreme court voted 5-4 in favor of Heller’s right to own a handgun, but it was not unanimously agreed upon by all the Justices because the 2nd amendment is ambiguous.[/quote]

But, that’s how you read it, no? You believe only members of a state’s milita can keep and bear arms. Naturally, it only follows that if one is no longer a member of the state’s milita, one must give up any arms. Which sort of contradicts the right to keep and bear. Wouldn’t it be “The state has a right to issue arms?”

Or, that a state could say, “meh, the Federal government has a great big standing army that will always be used for just purposes. So, let’s just disband the state milita.” Which of course means noone is allowed to keep and bear arms any longer.

Edit: Of course, this begs the question, why didn’t they say that? Why not say, “the right of the state to arm members of it’s milita.” Instead of, “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

262

I think it is a actually pretty clear that at the time the intention was that people could have some sort of weapon that they would keep on their property and get out if the need came to form a militia. This is certainly how it used to work in the UK, people would have their weapons kept nice and safe and clean in their house, and would get them out at times of invasion etc.

What the amendment says nothing about though is the right to carry a gun for self defence purposes or to use the gun to defend your property.

Now I am sure that if you asked the founding fathers they would say that of course you should be able to use your weapon to defend your property however they were living in very different times that is why there should be healthy debate about gun control.

263

[quote]Sloth wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Sloth wrote:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the State to allow pre-approved members of the government licensed militia to be allowed to take home arms and bear them in accordance with the discretion of the State, until voluntary or involuntary termination of said individual’s membership in the militia.

Now you’re just adding your own stuff in. The amendment doesn’t say that.

To imply that the amendment is clear and straightforward is a misrepresentation. Just look at the Heller case that’s been referred to a couple of times in this thread. The Supreme court voted 5-4 in favor of Heller’s right to own a handgun, but it was not unanimously agreed upon by all the Justices because the 2nd amendment is ambiguous.

But, that’s how you read it, no? You believe only members of a state’s milita can keep and bear arms. Naturally, it only follows that if one is no longer a member of the state’s milita, one must give up any arms. Which sort of contradicts the right to keep and bear. Wouldn’t it be “The state has a right to issue arms?”

Or, that a state could say, “meh, the Federal government has a great big standing army that will always be used for just purposes. So, let’s just disband the state milita.” Which of course means noone is allowed to keep and bear arms any longer.

Edit: Of course, this begs the question, why didn’t they say that? Why not say, “the right of the state to arm members of it’s milita.” Instead of, “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”[/quote]

Good point. But what do you make of the term “Regulated”? Can you just dismiss that as preamble?

264

[quote]NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Sloth wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Sloth wrote:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the State to allow pre-approved members of the government licensed militia to be allowed to take home arms and bear them in accordance with the discretion of the State, until voluntary or involuntary termination of said individual’s membership in the militia.

Now you’re just adding your own stuff in. The amendment doesn’t say that.

To imply that the amendment is clear and straightforward is a misrepresentation. Just look at the Heller case that’s been referred to a couple of times in this thread. The Supreme court voted 5-4 in favor of Heller’s right to own a handgun, but it was not unanimously agreed upon by all the Justices because the 2nd amendment is ambiguous.

But, that’s how you read it, no? You believe only members of a state’s milita can keep and bear arms. Naturally, it only follows that if one is no longer a member of the state’s milita, one must give up any arms. Which sort of contradicts the right to keep and bear. Wouldn’t it be “The state has a right to issue arms?”

Or, that a state could say, “meh, the Federal government has a great big standing army that will always be used for just purposes. So, let’s just disband the state milita.” Which of course means noone is allowed to keep and bear arms any longer.

Edit: Of course, this begs the question, why didn’t they say that? Why not say, “the right of the state to arm members of it’s milita.” Instead of, “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Good point. But what do you make of the term “Regulated”? Can you just dismiss that as preamble?[/quote]

Well, a regulated militia is preferable. It’s trained and disciplined.

265

[quote]NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Sloth wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Sloth wrote:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the State to allow pre-approved members of the government licensed militia to be allowed to take home arms and bear them in accordance with the discretion of the State, until voluntary or involuntary termination of said individual’s membership in the militia.

Now you’re just adding your own stuff in. The amendment doesn’t say that.

To imply that the amendment is clear and straightforward is a misrepresentation. Just look at the Heller case that’s been referred to a couple of times in this thread. The Supreme court voted 5-4 in favor of Heller’s right to own a handgun, but it was not unanimously agreed upon by all the Justices because the 2nd amendment is ambiguous.

But, that’s how you read it, no? You believe only members of a state’s milita can keep and bear arms. Naturally, it only follows that if one is no longer a member of the state’s milita, one must give up any arms. Which sort of contradicts the right to keep and bear. Wouldn’t it be “The state has a right to issue arms?”

Or, that a state could say, “meh, the Federal government has a great big standing army that will always be used for just purposes. So, let’s just disband the state milita.” Which of course means noone is allowed to keep and bear arms any longer.

Edit: Of course, this begs the question, why didn’t they say that? Why not say, “the right of the state to arm members of it’s milita.” Instead of, “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Good point. But what do you make of the term “Regulated”? Can you just dismiss that as preamble?[/quote]

Sifu pointed that out a page ago. Regulated doesn’t just mean “make laws banning certain things”. There are ways besides making laws to ban things to regulate something. There is a positive aspect to it as well ie: “well organized” or “well equipped”. It is only recently that the word “regulated” has become synonymous with gov’t banning things, or making laws against something.

266

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
What the amendment says nothing about though is the right to carry a gun for self defence purposes or to use the gun to defend your property.

[/quote]
That’s where you get nutty. Why would anyone want to give up their natural right to defend themselves or their property? You’ve admitted that you’re not a utopian and you accept that their will always be violence. What would you have to gain by giving up your right to defend yourself from that violence?

267

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
What the amendment says nothing about though is the right to carry a gun for self defence purposes or to use the gun to defend your property.

That’s where you get nutty. Why would anyone want to give up their natural right to defend themselves or their property? You’ve admitted that you’re not a utopian and you accept that their will always be violence. What would you have to gain by giving up your right to defend yourself from that violence?
[/quote]

How is a gun a natural right? I still don’t get that part. Also I wasn’t arguing about the rights or wrongs of gun ownership I was pointing out that the second amendment doesn’t mention anything either way about self defence.

268

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
What the amendment says nothing about though is the right to carry a gun for self defence purposes or to use the gun to defend your property.

That’s where you get nutty. Why would anyone want to give up their natural right to defend themselves or their property? You’ve admitted that you’re not a utopian and you accept that their will always be violence. What would you have to gain by giving up your right to defend yourself from that violence?

How is a gun a natural right? I still don’t get that part. Also I wasn’t arguing about the rights or wrongs of gun ownership I was pointing out that the second amendment doesn’t mention anything either way about self defence.[/quote]

Don’t act stupid. Defending yourself and your property is a natural right. The second amendment doesn’t have to point out the obvious.

269

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
What the amendment says nothing about though is the right to carry a gun for self defence purposes or to use the gun to defend your property.

That’s where you get nutty. Why would anyone want to give up their natural right to defend themselves or their property? You’ve admitted that you’re not a utopian and you accept that their will always be violence. What would you have to gain by giving up your right to defend yourself from that violence?

How is a gun a natural right? I still don’t get that part. Also I wasn’t arguing about the rights or wrongs of gun ownership I was pointing out that the second amendment doesn’t mention anything either way about self defence.

Don’t act stupid. Defending yourself and your property is a natural right. The second amendment doesn’t have to point out the obvious.
[/quote]

Defending yourself and your property is a natural right, I would agree with that for the most part, what has that got to do with guns?

270

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
What the amendment says nothing about though is the right to carry a gun for self defence purposes or to use the gun to defend your property.

That’s where you get nutty. Why would anyone want to give up their natural right to defend themselves or their property? You’ve admitted that you’re not a utopian and you accept that their will always be violence. What would you have to gain by giving up your right to defend yourself from that violence?

How is a gun a natural right? I still don’t get that part. Also I wasn’t arguing about the rights or wrongs of gun ownership I was pointing out that the second amendment doesn’t mention anything either way about self defence.

Don’t act stupid. Defending yourself and your property is a natural right. The second amendment doesn’t have to point out the obvious.

Defending yourself and your property is a natural right, I would agree with that for the most part, what has that got to do with guns?[/quote]

Well if other people have clubs, you need a club, if they have guns you need a gun.

Ever heard of “never bring a knife to a gunfight”?

To exercise a right you need the means to exercise it.

Next you will argue that the right to life hardly includes the right to oxygen.

Oxygen is a privilege, right?

271

[quote]Unaware wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Innocent people die regularly due to guns in the US, they are being sacrificed for your beliefs.

Far more people have died at the hands of oppressive governments than will ever die from private citizen gun crime.[/quote]

this x2

272

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Sloth wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Sloth wrote:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the State to allow pre-approved members of the government licensed militia to be allowed to take home arms and bear them in accordance with the discretion of the State, until voluntary or involuntary termination of said individual’s membership in the militia.

Now you’re just adding your own stuff in. The amendment doesn’t say that.

To imply that the amendment is clear and straightforward is a misrepresentation. Just look at the Heller case that’s been referred to a couple of times in this thread. The Supreme court voted 5-4 in favor of Heller’s right to own a handgun, but it was not unanimously agreed upon by all the Justices because the 2nd amendment is ambiguous.

But, that’s how you read it, no? You believe only members of a state’s milita can keep and bear arms. Naturally, it only follows that if one is no longer a member of the state’s milita, one must give up any arms. Which sort of contradicts the right to keep and bear. Wouldn’t it be “The state has a right to issue arms?”

Or, that a state could say, “meh, the Federal government has a great big standing army that will always be used for just purposes. So, let’s just disband the state milita.” Which of course means noone is allowed to keep and bear arms any longer.

Edit: Of course, this begs the question, why didn’t they say that? Why not say, “the right of the state to arm members of it’s milita.” Instead of, “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Good point. But what do you make of the term “Regulated”? Can you just dismiss that as preamble?

Sifu pointed that out a page ago. Regulated doesn’t just mean “make laws banning certain things”. There are ways besides making laws to ban things to regulate something. There is a positive aspect to it as well ie: “well organized” or “well equipped”. It is only recently that the word “regulated” has become synonymous with gov’t banning things, or making laws against something.[/quote]

Governments use the term regulated to assume control of a thing. Are you suggesting that the Government of the US used the term regulated in this one case differently than any government has ever used it before? You’re just reading what you want in the amendment. No government says it wants a regulated something and means “well equipped” or “well organized”. The fact that the US government used the term in the amendment implies control of the militia by the state. And the term “the people” is directly related to “the state” because that is how the amendment is structured.

273

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
What the amendment says nothing about though is the right to carry a gun for self defence purposes or to use the gun to defend your property.

That’s where you get nutty. Why would anyone want to give up their natural right to defend themselves or their property? You’ve admitted that you’re not a utopian and you accept that their will always be violence. What would you have to gain by giving up your right to defend yourself from that violence?

How is a gun a natural right? I still don’t get that part. Also I wasn’t arguing about the rights or wrongs of gun ownership I was pointing out that the second amendment doesn’t mention anything either way about self defence.

Don’t act stupid. Defending yourself and your property is a natural right. The second amendment doesn’t have to point out the obvious.
[/quote]

If owning a gun is such a natural right, why is that right taken away from convicted felons who have served their sentence? Once a sentence has been served they regain their natural rights to liberty, life and property. Why not the right to defend themselves?

The reason is because guns NEED to be regulated. Ownership of a gun is not a natural right, it is a privilege. If it wasn’t, then convicted criminals who’ve done their time and the harmless but mentally insane could not, in good conscience, be denied the natural right of gun ownership.

274

[quote]NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Governments use the term regulated to assume control of a thing. Are you suggesting that the Government of the US used the term regulated in this one case differently than any government has ever used it before? You’re just reading what you want in the amendment. No government says it wants a regulated something and means “well equipped” or “well organized”. The fact that the US government used the term in the amendment implies control of the militia by the state. And the term “the people” is directly related to “the state” because that is how the amendment is structured.[/quote]

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.

…

[T]he people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely the masters of their own fate. Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress. How wise will it be in them by cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized!

Federalist #28

275

[quote]NinjaTreeFrog wrote:

If owning a gun is such a natural right, why is that right taken away from convicted felons who have served their sentence? Once a sentence has been served they regain their natural rights to liberty, life and property. Why not the right to defend themselves?

The reason is because guns NEED to be regulated. Ownership of a gun is not a natural right, it is a privilege. If it wasn’t, then convicted criminals who’ve done their time and the harmless but mentally insane could not, in good conscience, be denied the natural right of gun ownership.[/quote]

I can see why these discussions get heated and personal. It’s like explaining life to a 2 year old.

A convicted felon, or someone who is insane has proved that he is a danger to society and is likely to misuse a gun, therefore he isn’t allowed to have them. He could still defend himself and his property, but without a gun he is at a severe disadvantage. And you say, guns need to be regulated. Well they are. Law abiding citizens can purchase a gun, felons can’t. What more do you want?

276

[quote]orion wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
What the amendment says nothing about though is the right to carry a gun for self defence purposes or to use the gun to defend your property.

That’s where you get nutty. Why would anyone want to give up their natural right to defend themselves or their property? You’ve admitted that you’re not a utopian and you accept that their will always be violence. What would you have to gain by giving up your right to defend yourself from that violence?

How is a gun a natural right? I still don’t get that part. Also I wasn’t arguing about the rights or wrongs of gun ownership I was pointing out that the second amendment doesn’t mention anything either way about self defence.

Don’t act stupid. Defending yourself and your property is a natural right. The second amendment doesn’t have to point out the obvious.

Defending yourself and your property is a natural right, I would agree with that for the most part, what has that got to do with guns?

Well if other people have clubs, you need a club, if they have guns you need a gun.

Ever heard of “never bring a knife to a gunfight”?

To exercise a right you need the means to exercise it.

Next you will argue that the right to life hardly includes the right to oxygen.

Oxygen is a privilege, right?

[/quote]

OK so if the criminals have hand grenades, rocket launchers and helicopters like they do here in Mexico does that mean I should be able to have them?

The government in the UK has nuclear submarines, where do I sign up for mine?

Your argument is clearly ridiculous unless you are saying that anyone should be able to buy anything. If you argue anything else then you come down to where the line should be drawn and guns are not therefore a natural right.

277

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:

If owning a gun is such a natural right, why is that right taken away from convicted felons who have served their sentence? Once a sentence has been served they regain their natural rights to liberty, life and property. Why not the right to defend themselves?

The reason is because guns NEED to be regulated. Ownership of a gun is not a natural right, it is a privilege. If it wasn’t, then convicted criminals who’ve done their time and the harmless but mentally insane could not, in good conscience, be denied the natural right of gun ownership.

I can see why these discussions get heated and personal. It’s like explaining life to a 2 year old.

A convicted felon, or someone who is insane has proved that he is a danger to society and is likely to misuse a gun, therefore he isn’t allowed to have them. He could still defend himself and his property, but without a gun he is at a severe disadvantage. And you say, guns need to be regulated. Well they are. Law abiding citizens can purchase a gun, felons can’t. What more do you want?[/quote]

So if I commit a non violent felony, go to prison, serve my time, show contrition, turn my life around, why do I lose my natural right to defend myself?

278

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Sloth wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Sloth wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:

It has nothing to do with the Magna Carta, it was first specifically mentioned in the Bill of RIghts of 1689 and the right was not for everyone, only Protestants and it was not all arms, it was arms as befitting their social position.

Actually the concept predates the Magna Carta. Given the circumstances of the time it makes perfect sense that it was limited to Protestants. Also at that time Ones social position was reflective of ones economic status. So wealthy noble men would buy themselves nice swords, armor maybe bring their horse while peasents might only get a pike or a hammer. It was 1688 so what is your point?

Prior to the bill of rights there was only an implied right to bear arms due to the fact that there was no legislation specifically banning it.

The social position was not about money, it was about social position. Only a person of a certain status could have a longbow. Only a person of a certain status could carry a sword etc. It wasn’t because they could afford it, it was because it was seen to be unnatural for people of a lower status to carry certain weapons because they were not worthy.[/quote]

It was 1688 what do you expect? If anything it is a clear display of the arbitrary silliness that the British come up with. You must have some serious issues, because you consistantly display a distinct inability to accept the world as it really is or in this case as it was. To the people at the time it seemed perfectly proper to have a class system.

What is interesting is it is completely going over your head that it’s not any different there today and you see nothing wrong with that. In Britain the wealthy can and do hire body guards. Or if they are a person of priviledge like the Queen,lady Diana or Gordon Brown the state will provide them with soldiers and firearms police guards. While all the lower classes get is a 999 operator who is quite likely to tell them that they can bloody well wait for their salvation from an assailant because they have failed to convince the operator of the urgency of their situation.

279

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:

If owning a gun is such a natural right, why is that right taken away from convicted felons who have served their sentence? Once a sentence has been served they regain their natural rights to liberty, life and property. Why not the right to defend themselves?

The reason is because guns NEED to be regulated. Ownership of a gun is not a natural right, it is a privilege. If it wasn’t, then convicted criminals who’ve done their time and the harmless but mentally insane could not, in good conscience, be denied the natural right of gun ownership.

I can see why these discussions get heated and personal. It’s like explaining life to a 2 year old.

A convicted felon, or someone who is insane has proved that he is a danger to society and is likely to misuse a gun, therefore he isn’t allowed to have them. He could still defend himself and his property, but without a gun he is at a severe disadvantage. And you say, guns need to be regulated. Well they are. Law abiding citizens can purchase a gun, felons can’t. What more do you want?

So if I commit a non violent felony, go to prison, serve my time, show contrition, turn my life around, why do I lose my natural right to defend myself?[/quote]

Again, like talking to a fucking two year old. You do not lose your right to defend yourself or your property. Read before you respond. You may lose your right to do so with a gun, but different states have different laws regarding non violent felons and gun ownership.

280

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
orion wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
What the amendment says nothing about though is the right to carry a gun for self defence purposes or to use the gun to defend your property.

That’s where you get nutty. Why would anyone want to give up their natural right to defend themselves or their property? You’ve admitted that you’re not a utopian and you accept that their will always be violence. What would you have to gain by giving up your right to defend yourself from that violence?

How is a gun a natural right? I still don’t get that part. Also I wasn’t arguing about the rights or wrongs of gun ownership I was pointing out that the second amendment doesn’t mention anything either way about self defence.

Don’t act stupid. Defending yourself and your property is a natural right. The second amendment doesn’t have to point out the obvious.

Defending yourself and your property is a natural right, I would agree with that for the most part, what has that got to do with guns?

Well if other people have clubs, you need a club, if they have guns you need a gun.

Ever heard of “never bring a knife to a gunfight”?

To exercise a right you need the means to exercise it.

Next you will argue that the right to life hardly includes the right to oxygen.

Oxygen is a privilege, right?

OK so if the criminals have hand grenades, rocket launchers and helicopters like they do here in Mexico does that mean I should be able to have them?

The government in the UK has nuclear submarines, where do I sign up for mine?

Your argument is clearly ridiculous unless you are saying that anyone should be able to buy anything. If you argue anything else then you come down to where the line should be drawn and guns are not therefore a natural right.[/quote]

Well at least theoretically I pay for a military that takes care of the big stuff.

If not I would obviously assume it to be my natural right to unite with others to create an organization to protect our life, liberty and property.

Naturally I would keep some guns, just in case this organization, we could call it a “government” gets uppity.