Court overturns U.S. capital's handgun ban as unconstitutional

Question - if the second amendment had never been passed what reasons would be given now for the right to bear arms

All < pretty much > the countries in europe and other "western" places
have much sticter gun control than the US ...

... together with less violence, gun crime and lower murder rates


Also, i think other places where there are lots of guns and they are readily
available ( like iraq & afghanistan ) seem to be pretty violent

Is this a coincidence ? :dunno:
I could say just the same thing about the First Amendment.

Want to compare free speech in the US with free speech in most of Europe - or Iraq and Afghanistan? How about freedom of religion?


1. Why do people think it is ok to "cheery pick" from the Bill of Rights?
2. Just because you don't want to exercise your right - why do you want to stop someone else from exercising theirs?


cheers,
 
Question - if the second amendment had never been passed what reasons would be given now for the right to bear arms

All < pretty much > the countries in europe and other "western" places
have much sticter gun control than the US ...

... together with less violence, gun crime and lower murder rates


Also, i think other places where there are lots of guns and they are readily
available ( like iraq & afghanistan ) seem to be pretty violent

Is this a coincidence ? :dunno:

I've heard the exact opposite in statistics.


Iraq and Afghanistan are not the same I don't think. Iraq is now in a civil war and active warfare against the Americans. Afghanistan was outfitted by the US to battle the Russians, and there is currently no form of central government that I am aware of. Otherwise, I think most of the middle eastern countries are virtually quiet. I could be wrong, I am admittedly not an expert on this. :dunno:
 
Same ol', same ol'.

Fox,
.........

So I'm not going to.
My views are the closest you can get to what founded this Republic - the principles and ideals behind it all. I only wanted to respond to your baseless accusation that what I espouse amounts to "Darwinism" - because I honestly think you don't have the faintest idea of what libertarianism (or Constitutional Federal Republic for that matter) is all about if you can compare it to something as absurd as "Darwinism".

Then again - that ain't anything new, is it?

cheers,

Sorry - but just re-reading the above post - you're not calling "Darwinism"
absurd are you ? Come on to fuck - what's that all about :sleep:

If you are a creationist or whatever then what are you doing on a porn
message board - is your pastor ok with that ?


I think fox's ideas are sometimes to the left of my own too - but whatever
his knowledge of US constitutional law is he saying the universe was created in 7 days about 4500 years ago < which i think the quoted post might be -
but i could be wrong ! >
 
I could say just the same thing about the First Amendment.

Want to compare free speech in the US with free speech in most of Europe - or Iraq and Afghanistan? How about freedom of religion?


1. Why do people think it is ok to "cheery pick" from the Bill of Rights?
2. Just because you don't want to exercise your right - why do you want to stop someone else from exercising theirs?


cheers,


Dunno mate - have to say human rights are really, really well protected in
Europe

there's the European Convention on Human Rights

http://www.echr.coe.int/ECHR/

Europe is not perfect but law there prohibits discrimnination on grounds of race, sex, religion, sexuality etc, no death penalty or torture & about everything else you could think of

Don't take me as anti-American by any means - but on this issue I have to
say I think the US is, i'm a little sorry to say, probably at least a couple of decades behind
 
Sorry - but just re-reading the above post - you're not calling "Darwinism"
absurd are you ? Come on to fuck - what's that all about :sleep:

If you are a creationist or whatever then what are you doing on a porn
message board - is your pastor ok with that ?


I think fox's ideas are sometimes to the left of my own too - but whatever
his knowledge of US constitutional law is he saying the universe was created in 7 days about 4500 years ago < which i think the quoted post might be -
but i could be wrong ! >
You need to stop and *read* posts before typing your response.

cheers,
 
Sorry - but just re-reading the above post - you're not calling "Darwinism"
absurd are you ? Come on to fuck - what's that all about :sleep:

If you are a creationist or whatever then what are you doing on a porn
message board - is your pastor ok with that ?


I think fox's ideas are sometimes to the left of my own too - but whatever
his knowledge of US constitutional law is he saying the universe was created in 7 days about 4500 years ago < which i think the quoted post might be -
but i could be wrong ! >


They are referring to Social Darwinism as opposed to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. In its extreme, Social Darwinism is a belief which states that the strongest or fittest should survive and flourish in society, while the weak and unfit should be allowed to die. It’s an ethical theory that "might makes right" and would argue that it was morally incorrect to assist those weaker than oneself, since that would be promoting the survival and possible reproduction of someone who was fundamentally unfit. It’s an error of conflating evolutionary natural selection and social nature selection. Therefore, the rich deserve to be on top and the poor belong on the bottom because it’s natural. It’s more or less a stable of right wing political thinking in one form or another.
 
Ok - cheers for the clarification - sorry for any misunderstanding
RN

i understand "social" and "biological" darwinism, would have to think that Europe provides more help for the less disadvantaged in society
eg free (at the point of consumption) healthcare and more / higher
welfare & social security

however - we're getting off topic again
< which may be partly my fault >
:D
 
Dunno mate - have to say human rights are really, really well protected in
Europe

there's the European Convention on Human Rights

http://www.echr.coe.int/ECHR/

Europe is not perfect but law there prohibits discrimnination on grounds of race, sex, religion, sexuality etc, no death penalty or torture & about everything else you could think of

Don't take me as anti-American by any means - but on this issue I have to
say I think the US is, i'm a little sorry to say, probably at least a couple of decades behind

I am glad the majority of French people voted against this crappy european constitution and glad too that UK didn't approve it. This convenetion is just a joke, because despite it exists not all the states if not none respects it. We have seen the rise of some crimes in France that would need the return of death penalty. Guess who abolished the death penalty in France? A socialist fucker called Mr Badinter in 1981. Torture? I have never heard about torture used in european jails. Guantanamo isn't a bad thing for terrorists and worst shitheads. US decades behind??? You are way out of your mind. USA has a better economic growth than the whole EU of 27. Most of developped countries and founding countries of Europe see their industries delocalized in countries where labor is cheap and not enough qualified. USA has the freedom of speech and the 2nd amendment. In USA any form of racism at work and in general is much strongerly punished than in Europe, so please stop talking about you don't know. Europe of 27 won't last long and so won't the Euro. I have no faith in such utopies, as soon as both will fall, you will see chaos and perhaps war because you have been naive.
 
Fucking hell georges - i can see we're not in absolute agreement
on this one :rolleyes: !
As i said before we're getting off topic here & i don't fancy getting into a "What's better - US or EU ?" arguement
but i think you're an unusual european <which i asume you, like me, are> defending guantanamo bay
also - to clarify - European human rights laws <ECHR> are not the same as those controlling the European Union < Treaties of Rome, Maastrict & proposed new EU constitution > - they are different, apply to different countries and are not inter-dependent
& just to say, i'm not a Europhile and to clarify on economic record - the best growth figures recently for a developed country are for the UK - a European country which doesn't use the euro !
 
I have to say I agree with this post 100%. To add to that, I felt (and was) a hell of a lot more free to say what I wanted, think what I wanted, when I lived in Europe, without getting told to get out of Europe for my controversial views.

Like how you're allowed to deny the holocaust in Germany for example. Or how about in some European countries where you can be charged with slander and libel if you don't prove yourself right first instead of them proving that your lying.
 
You're not allowed to deny the Holocaust in Germany. You can be sent to Jail for that - and rightly so.
 
You're not allowed to deny the Holocaust in Germany. You can be sent to Jail for that - and rightly so.
Turkey's official policy is the denial of the Armenian Genocide - I suppose you support such kind of "free speech" policy as well?

What's the moral difference - if any - between the two policies?
None what so ever.

"Free speech" means, "free speech" - not "State approved free speech". Not that it really matters I suppose - wasn't/isn't Turkey a EU (or soon to be EU) member?

It's easy to defend "free speech" when we agree with what is being said. It is defending what is oft dismissed as "indefensible" that the test of "liberty" and "freedom" come to the fore.


cheers,

PS: Everyone - can we get back to the "Constitutionality of hand gun bans" as related to the "US Constitution" please? There are plenty of "US sucks" threads out there...
 
Totally RN - we're well off topic here

Final point on the free speech - in Germany & Austria ( ie formerly Nazi "third reich" countries ) it is illegal to deny the holocaust or to do Nazi things like salute, wear swastikas etc - but to be fair, considering their histories it's not hard to understand why they have these laws - and the Holocaust did happen

Contrast with Turkey < which does want to join EU but prob wont in at least 10 years & never if they keep thieir laws as they currentlly are - very, very long story > - in Turkey it's a crime to say that the Armenian genocide happened - but it DID happen

so the former is a crime to Deny, the latter a crime to say it Did take place

but as we're saying - let's get back to the gun control debate :)
 
People who criticize the 2nd amendment have perhaps not understood that the world in which they live in is more dangerous and that you can't count on the police because it can't be everywhere at every minute. For some people, it is too complicated to understand that. I am in all agreement with the 2nd amendment.
 
People who criticize the 2nd amendment have perhaps not understood that the world in which they live in is more dangerous and that you can't count on the police because it can't be everywhere at every minute. For some people, it is too complicated to understand that. I am in all agreement with the 2nd amendment.

Its got nothing to do with being complicated - some people, like myself, think the world would be a safer place if there were less guns / less people had guns

i guess i come from a different culture

What dangers are they you need to protect yourself from - today in the US i would say it could only be criminals or wild animals

fair enough if you need to protect yourself from a bear, a cougar or an alligator
does it make society safer having people taking the law into their own hands & being a vigilante - i don't think so
but i suppose if you think you should be able to use lethal force on someone entering your property then you'll probably disagree with me -
different cultures / worlds as i say :yinyang:
 
if you think you should be able to use lethal force on someone entering your property then you'll probably disagree with me

I do, and I do.

Infinitely better that than being the defenseless victim of lethal force used against yourself and your family.
 
Its got nothing to do with being complicated - some people, like myself, think the world would be a safer place if there were less guns / less people had guns

i guess i come from a different culture

What dangers are they you need to protect yourself from - today in the US i would say it could only be criminals or wild animals

fair enough if you need to protect yourself from a bear, a cougar or an alligator
does it make society safer having people taking the law into their own hands & being a vigilante - i don't think so
but i suppose if you think you should be able to use lethal force on someone entering your property then you'll probably disagree with me -
different cultures / worlds as i say :yinyang:

Amen
 
Actions speak louder than words, however, people have a tendency to open their big mouths and say things that make it really clear just what their actions are towards.

"The civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world."
-Charles Darwin

But don't judge him too harshly, he was just calling it, accurately so, as he saw it.

To make things a little bit more clear about what exactly the intention is:

"In war, they may kill some of us; we will destroy all of them."
-Thomas Jefferson.

And another one by the same fellow, right out of that sacred text The Declaration of Independence:

"He (King George of England)...has endeavoured (sic) to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions."

That's a two for one. you get to hate not only the british, but the indians as well, and,well, if you have any doubts what to do about it, see the previous qoute, and then keep reading as the same document later tells you that you get to have guns.

What does this have to do with anything? Not much I guess. Or maybe a lot. That depends on how you feel about basing your position on the way society should be conducted on the writings of people that were openly racist and called for genocide and mass murder against non-Europeans.

All I have to say is that while it can't be said that America has the most lax gun laws (many nations have none for or against), to my knowledge it's the only one where armaments are specifically granted in the founding laws of the country. Also, coincidentally or not, it has the highest level of crimes involving the use of guns in the world. You decide.

According to my outdated statistics (1990-1995)--
$ made on the sale of guns per year in the USA: 9,881,000,000
$ made on the sale of guns per day in the USA: 27,071,000
Number of people killed by guns per year in the USA: 37,776
Number of people killed by guns per day in the USA: 103
Number of people killed by guns per hour: 4
One person killed in the USA by a gun every 15 minutes.
 
Good post calpoon :glugglug: !

Thinking about the creation of the US and current gun laws is useful but i think everyone can see that a lot has changed since

I dunno why some americans think it's so essentially to have a gun -
i, nor any of my friends, family or anyone i know has ever owned one
( ok, so i'm talking about hand guns here - not shot guns or hunting / air rifles ) and we've got on ok so far living in a modern western country
 
Top