It's the obligation of a free people to keep this country and in no way can we be dependant on a government to secure those freedoms for us.

Some people in our government want to say that wire tapping without a warant is ok but people really under the constituition it is totally illegal.

Some people want to take away our guns. Without guns we have no way to defend our other rights. You can't rely on police or the millitary to defend those rights. If someone tries to rob you at gunpoint putting your life in danger it is your constituitional right to defend yourself with deadly force if nescesary but there are laws in some states that make it pretty hard to defend yourself even in case of fist fight someone goes to jail these days.

It says in several amendments that noone shall be depribed of life liberty and property without due proccess of law but there isn't always ploice or millitary or a judge or lawyer around to help you out. People don't realize when you have a gun pointed at you, you don't get a second chance. It is up to a citicen to defend his or her rights.

Also I can't help but notice that it is ok to show a baby's butt on TV, or a fat plumbers crack but when calvin clien or abercrombie wants to show normal healthy young attractive adult bodies in an a advertisement it is somehow indecent. We are supposed to be gauranteed freedom of speech and freedom of expression. If people want to say it is indecent maybe they shouldn't watch that channel. Why tell people they can't say the F word. The F word is an important word. There are thousands of words in english but only one called "the F word" I should be able to say it when something isn't right.

It's left wing or right wing. It's everybody people are try to make politics into some narrow reality tunnel.

The only reason you would need to defend yourself with a gun is if someone is attacking you with a gun. At that point, you're escalating the level of violence required to deal with a situation.

If no one uses guns, or any other death devices, then there is no need to have the right to protect yourself with deadly force if necessary because those who can attack with deadly force have been taken out of the game (or at least had their power significantly reduced).

This isn't an American problem, either. This is a global problem. People are blowing themselves and others up by running into buildings. People are aiming tank guns at other people and killing them. We've got The Manhattan Project. We've got North Korea harboring weapons. And for what? Last time I checked, Marvin the Martian wasn't planning on blowing up the Earth with his Alludium Q-Phosdex Explosive Space Modulator anytime soon. So we're doing it to blow each other up.

Stupid. Stupid, stupid, S-T-U-P-I-D. Stupid.

Originally Posted by webspace

You can't rely on police or the millitary to defend those rights.

Then what are the police and military for? Based on this analysis, they seem obsolete, like resource hogs that provide nothing. Are you saying we should do away with them - trim the fat?

Originally Posted by webspace

If someone tries to rob you at gunpoint putting your life in danger it is your constituitional right to defend yourself with deadly force if nescesary

What constitution are you reading? Could you tell me where this is spelled out? The closest part I can think of is the 2nd Amendment, which talks about guns as necessary to protect a free state, but is rather unconcerned with the individual.

Originally Posted by webspace

It says in several amendments that noone shall be depribed of life liberty and property without due proccess of law but there isn't always ploice or millitary or a judge or lawyer around to help you out. People don't realize when you have a gun pointed at you, you don't get a second chance. It is up to a citicen to defend his or her rights.

How is this different from a vigilante like Son of Sam who killed bad people engaging in immoral sexual activity? He was protecting his inalienable right (as spelled out in the Declaration of Independence) to the pursuit of happiness, young people were infringing on his happiness, and there was no judge around to legitimize his actions. So he took the law into his own hand, and defended his rights as a citizen.

We need oversight of some type (and courts ain't half bad) to make sure the individual citizen doesn't get it as terribly wrong as Son of Sam did.

Originally Posted by webspace

Also I can't help but notice that it is ok to show a baby's butt on TV

You're right, technically this could be called child pornography.

Originally Posted by webspace

Why tell people they can't say the F word. The F word is an important word. There are thousands of words in english but only one called "the F word" I should be able to say it when something isn't right.

There's a difference from you're right to free speech, and other people's obligation to repeat your speech. Trent Lott can put his hood on and talk about the need for ethnic cleansing, but CBS doesn't have to broadcast his speech. Don Imus can call university students prostitutes, but NBC doesn't have to pay him to do it if they choose not to. (That's paid speech, not free speech.)

Hope I was able to provide a useful answer to that last one, and something to ponder for your other questions and observations.

Originally Posted by ADAM Web Design

The only reason you would need to defend yourself with a gun is if someone is attacking you with a gun. At that point, you're escalating the level of violence required to deal with a situation.

Someone comes at me or my family with a machette, I want a gun. Someone comes at me or my family with a brick, I want a gun. What, you think people who invade homes are entitled to some kind of fair fight? Get real.

Originally Posted by ADAM Web Design

If no one uses guns, or any other death devices, then there is no need to have the right to protect yourself with deadly force if necessary because those who can attack with deadly force have been taken out of the game (or at least had their power significantly reduced).

Click your heels three times and say "I wish I were home, I wish I were home".

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

Quote:
Originally Posted by webspace
If someone tries to rob you at gunpoint putting your life in danger it is your constituitional right to defend yourself with deadly force if nescesary

What constitution are you reading? Could you tell me where this is spelled out?

He did. "noone shall be depribed of life liberty and property without due proccess of law" minus the misspelling. I hope nobody is going to post the ridiculous and say that these words only apply to the government. Secondly, the constitution isn't written in such a way that rights specifically not granted are considered denied. You couple the right of a citizen to life, liberty, and property, couple that with our right to bear arms, and you'll understand why the law supports our right to kill someone in self defense, firearm or otherwise. To argue against that is to argue contrary to the ideals the U.S. was founded on.

The funniest thing about the post starting this thread is that it blasts the left for trying to take our guns, and the right for trying to enforce morality at the cost of free speech. It's funny how liberals and conservatives are willing to omit or interpret parts of the constitution to suits their agenda.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Someone comes at me or my family with a machette, I want a gun. Someone comes at me or my family with a brick, I want a gun. What, you think people who invade homes are entitled to some kind of fair fight? Get real.

I'm a little shocked, but I agree with our arch conservative friend.

Only I'm going to extrapolate this a bit like the bottom of your reply. The US invaded the house of Iraq, and should or even must expect push back from that. Alcriminal Gonzales liked to talk about how the Geneva Conventions were quaint and outdated. Remember those four BlackWater mercs who were killed, then dragged through the streets and set fire to in Fallujah? As mercenaries, the Geneva Conventions don't apply to them. This is spelled out very plainly.

Black Water routinely comitted the war crime of subterfuge as a matter of policy. They took up arms and used them (both against enemy combattants and civilian non-combatants, but that doesn't matter under law) but did not wear a recognizable military uniform to identify themselves as such.

Because they refused to engage in a fair fight, the protections of the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to them. As is the case with all mercenaries. A person breaking into your house is likewise refusing to a fair fight, and doesn't deserve one in return.

Originally Posted by cbwm

He did. "noone shall be depribed of life liberty and property without due proccess of law" minus the misspelling. I hope nobody is going to post the ridiculous and say that these words only apply to the government.

Forget the government, and look up the meaning of no one. I don't see any exceptions or criteria for exclusion there, and "no one" is pretty clear in its regular, ordinary meaning. If no person can be deprived of life without due process of law, and the person you want to kill with your gun is a person, then you can't kill him or her without due process.

I'm not trying to say people don't have a natural right to self defense. The rest of my message, what I already typed, should make it perfectly clear. God helps those that help themselves, He gave us brains, and a mission here on Earth, He tests us regularly. It seems pretty obvious He would want any of us to defend against an attacker. But that's not spelled out in the Constitution.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Secondly, the constitution isn't written in such a way that rights specifically not granted are considered denied.

Very true. The 10th Amendment basically says that just because a right hasn't been listed out specifically in the rest of the Bill of Rights doesn't mean we don't have it.

Originally Posted by cbwm

You couple the right of a citizen to life, liberty, and property, couple that with our right to bear arms, and you'll understand why the law supports our right to kill someone in self defense, firearm or otherwise. To argue against that is to argue contrary to the ideals the U.S. was founded on.

Or, maybe to argue contrary is just to come to the aid of reason and logic. Once you start coupling disparate rights (selectively, I might add) you're making leaps of faith. Z is true, and X = (type)Y, therefore A[c] is true.

Originally Posted by ADAM Web Design

The only reason you would need to defend yourself with a gun is if someone is attacking you with a gun. At that point, you're escalating the level of violence required to deal with a situation.

Actually most violent crimes are committed with blunt objects not guns

Adam & Learning

The only part of the initial post I am going to speak about is the right to bear arms. I don't think either of you are US based and you may not understand the logic of the founding fathers.

No people will ever be forcibly oppresed by their government if the have the ability to fight back. Modern weapons may have made that concept somewhat obosolete.

The concept is that an armed people have a chance aganist an oppressive regime. The sheer task of rounding up all the weapons and amno in the hands of private citizens discourages the action. Those weapons and the will of the people are one additional check or balance built into the system.

I don't believe in violence. I also don't like it. Yet there are situations that might cause me to take up arms in defense of my rights. A government run-a-munk would be one of those times.

Now that I have managed to get my file moved to a different cabinet, I will say goodnight.

edit ignore the spelling. I am not know for getting it correct.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

What constitution are you reading?

I'm thinking more about constituition, bill of rights, and the declaration and really the spirit of those documents. When they wrote the second ammendment Millitia was any man who could bear arms, it was about people standing up for their rights as free men against the oppression of the British colonial government.

The minute men weren't professional soldiers they were citicens and more importantly they were volunteers.

And no I think a standing Army in the US is a nescesity these days. Do they need to be in Iraq, Afganastan, Kosovo, Korea, Ecuadore, Etc? Yes I think so.

I also think the army is a fighting force not a police force to play cops and robbers.

Originally Posted by webspace

And no I think a standing Army in the US is a nescesity these days. Do they need to be in Iraq, Afganastan, Kosovo, Korea, Ecuadore, Etc? Yes I think so.

I also think the army is a fighting force not a police force to play cops and robbers.

The question shouldn't be why is the U.S. in Afghanistan. The question should be why are Russia and China NOT. Per Capita, Canada has a VERY strong presence in these countries, why doesn't Germany? If the rest of the world would do their part in stepping on these cockroaches, the burden of blood and treasure wouldn't lie solely on the U.S.. Maybe after four years of Obama, with an immediate abandonment of Iraq, when the place turns into a giant terrorist training camp, things will change. With the U.S. all hunkered down, and all those new terrorist being turned out, they'll probably go for softer targets, like Sweeden for all their blasphemous art, or the U.K. (again) because they dared support the U.S., or France just because its France. Maybe then the world will throw some extra support behind the next Republican president, and wont leave the U.S. to be the world police.

I doubt it though. Not enough shock to goto war in a train station bombing, even if you had one twice a year.
Hell, everyone sat around and watched Syria assassinate the moderate elements in Lebanons stable government.

I wonder what type of press the ensuing genocide in Iraq will get for Obama. Will they pin it on him, or excuse him. I guess it depends which channel you'll be watching.

Someone comes at me or my family with a machette, I want a gun. Someone comes at me or my family with a brick, I want a gun. What, you think people who invade homes are entitled to some kind of fair fight? Get real.

Don't twist my words. That's not what I said. And quite frankly, no one should care what you want in that situation. Yes, if you're being attacked you have the right to defend yourself. But, as I've said before, people can't handle guns responsibly. You want proof? Look at that statement again objectively.

Besides, what happens if the guy comes in with a gun? Do you want a bazooka? How about a nice rocket launcher? Oh wait...you need a rapid-repeat machine gune. That'll put the odds back in your favor, huh? And that criminal didn't deserve a fair fight anyway.

The criminal's not right here. I never said they were. Personally, I think we're way too weak both in Canada and the US on actual crimes, preferrng instead to prosecute pseudo-crimes such as speeding rather than deal with real issues. But neither are you here.

Again, stupid. S-T-U-P-I-D. Stupid.

A real man can defend himself without a gun. A coward can't. It's that simple. And if the weapons themselves aren't produced, they cannot be used. It's not something I ever expect to happen (we're way too backwards as a society to accept that we only need guns to protect ourselves from each other as a general rule of thumb, Kandi's use notwithstanding), but it's something I'd like to see and it's something I'm going to speak up against. There's nothing wrong with that, either.

The only part of the initial post I am going to speak about is the right to bear arms. I don't think either of you are US based and you may not understand the logic of the founding fathers.

The concept is that an armed people have a chance aganist an oppressive regime. The sheer task of rounding up all the weapons and amno in the hands of private citizens discourages the action. Those weapons and the will of the people are one additional check or balance built into the system.

Then the problem is the system that allows the formation of an oppressive regime, and a collective of the people brandishing weapons is not the solution. Supposedly that's what's been going on in the Middle East and Iraq for years now, and people keep going in with guns and bombs and other weapons. What has really been solved, besides a boon for those in the funeral industry?

I'm not American, but it wouldn't matter if I were...I'd feel the exact same way that I do now. The constitution is a document that's over 200 years old. That renders its basic premises obsolete.

Originally Posted by ADAM Web Design

The constitution is a document that's over 200 years old. That renders its basic premises obsolete.

I want to thank you for putting those particular words into print. They exemplify the underlying belief system, and knowledge of history required to take the positions you are taking. Let me quote you something.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Now which of these premises do you find obsolete?

The constitution is a document that's over 200 years old. That renders its basic premises obsolete.

I must respectly disagree with you on this point.

A failure to follow and strictly interpt is the cause of the most of the misery in this country.

Originally Posted by cbwm

I want to thank you for putting those particular words into print. They exemplify the underlying belief system, and knowledge of history required to take the positions you are taking. Let me quote you something.



Now which of these premises do you find obsolete?

I was talking about the implementation, not the concept. But since we're going to go back and forth quoting the constitution, here's one that I'm talking about:

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Again...the Militia and people would only need to keep and bear arms if they're being attacked by other people. This is the concept that is dinosauric and needs to be changed. We don't need to go around blowing each other's heads off, whether we're defending or attacking.

Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses. Ratified 12/15/1791.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

One thing we have seen over the past few years (e.g. the O.J. Simpson case) is that a "speedy" trial is no longer possible, and therefore renders this concept obsolete.

Amendment 7 - Trial by Jury in Civil Cases. Ratified 12/15/1791.
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

$20? That was written in a time where $20 would be worth about $500 now.

And perhaps the biggest obsolete aspect of all:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

So one man has the ability to control the US Army, US Navy, and State Militias. Look at what a great job the guy in charge is doing now. Thousands of lives lost, and nothing gained.

These are the premises to which I refer. A radical change in thought and behavior is required, but we're too lost as a society to see it. Change the behavior, and eliminate the need for death devices and the oppression that stems from them. And then people will be truly free. It won't ever happen, but it's the only goal to strive for. The longer we leave it, the worse it's going to get.

I will grant you the $20 if still in effect is a bit out of touch with reality.

Speedy trials. The prosecution must be ready within the time frame of the law. It is always the defense that drags it out.

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

You are assuming the security is from outside forces. I and many others believe that it is outside and internal forces that are are being secured from.

Originally Posted by ADAM Web Design

The constitution is a document that's over 200 years old. That renders its basic premises obsolete.

Originally Posted by ADAM Web Design

I was talking about the implementation, not the concept.

Obviously those two quotes don't jive. The basic premises of the constitution are clearly printed in the preamble. They are felt in every word and every amendment. When you use the word "premise" you are referring to the concept, not the implementation. And I'd bet a $100 that when you say implementation, you mean interpretation.

Other than that, your post is pretty clear. You'd prefer they change the constitution(tough to lobby for as a Canadian). So, taking the constitution aside, as the changes you would like are not yet even on the horizon, I'll post a few statistics that speak to the merits of the Gun control you desire.

1) The UK banned handguns in 1997. The number of crimes involving firearms was 13,874 in 1998/99 and went up to 24,070 in 2002/03.
2) New Jersey adopted what sponsors described as "the most stringent gun law" in the nation in 1966; two years later, the murder rate was up 46% and the reported robbery rate had nearly doubled.
3) In 1976, Washington, D.C., enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Since then, the city's murder rate has risen 134% while the national murder rate has dropped 2%.
4) In cases of assault, on the average, a fifth of the victims defending themselves with a firearm suffer an injury, compared to almost half of those who defend themselves with weapons other than a firearm or who have no weapon.

I'm also not a fan of non-lethal means of home defense. There are literally millions of attorneys out there (/cough John Edwards) who love to represent criminals injured while committing their crimes, assuming the person against who the crime was perpetrated has any assets. Dead people have a hard time bringing a case to trial.

To quote a big fan of of gun control,
"Death solves all problems. No Man, No Problem"
Joseph Stalin

Originally Posted by ADAM Web Design

So one man has the ability to control the US Army, US Navy, and State Militias. Look at what a great job the guy in charge is doing now. Thousands of lives lost, and nothing gained.

You need to read up on how the U.S. government works. Pulling the trigger on Iraq required the approval of congress, which he got. Also, If ten years from now Iraq is stable and semi-democratic, I'd say that is something gained (I know, President Obama would never have it).

Originally Posted by ADAM Web Design

These are the premises to which I refer. A radical change in thought and behavior is required, but we're too lost as a society to see it.

Given that the U.S. still adheres fairly strictly to the constitution, I'd say we are a long way from "lost". Radical changes are a good way to get lost in a hurry though.

Originally Posted by ADAM Web Design

eliminate the need for death devices and the oppression that stems from them. And then people will be truly free. It won't ever happen, but it's the only goal to strive for. The longer we leave it, the worse it's going to get.

Oppression stems from mankind, not from any device. Man has committed atrocity against man since the beginning of time. Its hard to say its going to get worse, or better. Its really more of a constant that I think we can rely on. The sooner you realize that simple fact, the sooner you'll find yourself at the local gun shop picking up a nice new Glock 22 with a built in laser sight and suppressor.

Originally Posted by cbwm

I'm also not a fan of non-lethal means of home defense. There are literally millions of attorneys out there (/cough John Edwards) who love to represent criminals injured while committing their crimes, assuming the person against who the crime was perpetrated has any assets. Dead people have a hard time bringing a case to trial.

Killing a person in part so he can't sue you sounds dangerously like obstructing justice. If you think civil liability laws need changing, writing your congress people is probably better for everyone involved than killing a person in cases when hurting them would be enough.

Well, I do think civil liability law should be changed, and you are right in saying that would be a better solution than killing someone. In the meantime, I'm also very serious about my position under the law of the land as it exists today.

Just wanted to clear up a misconception above: the 2d Amendment does not actually give an individual in the US the right to own a gun or any other firearm.

And it seems to me to be a good idea: if you have a gun and you are not a police officer/DNR agent/federal agent, etc. or on active military assignment, you get ten years in jail. Think of all the scum we would get off our streets in a hurry. (Not that there are any scum where I live. People need to learn to relocate.)

Also, if you disagree with my post above, then you must agree that everyone has to be allowed to have a gun, whether he or she is a convicted felon or mentally imbalanced, etc.

Originally Posted by aschwa

Just wanted to clear up a misconception above: the 2d Amendment does not actually give an individual in the US the right to own a gun or any other firearm.

Originally Posted by The Constitution of the United States

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

What people do you think the constitution was referring to?