ADL Gets Involved In Gun Control

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

It would appear that the Anti Defamation League are keen to get involved in gun control in the US something I thought they would stay away from at the risk of annoying the conservatives that support their broader aims.

ADL Urges Supreme Court to Ensure States' Right to Keep Firearms Out of Hands of Extremists

New York, NY, January 6, 2010 … In a brief detailing the "serious threat" of armed violence by extremists and extremist groups, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today urged the U.S. Supreme Court to ensure that states retain the right to reasonably regulate the possession of firearms by those who practice and preach racial and ethnic violence.


"We have placed the problem of armed extremism squarely before the high court," said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director. "Racist and anti-government extremists often have an obsessive fascination with firearms and have shown a willingness to engage in acts of shocking and often deadly violence. We urge the Supreme Court to ensure that cities and states retain the latitude they need to keep guns out of the hands of extremists, terrorists, and violent bigots."


ADL's "friend of the court" brief in McDonald v. City of Chicago points to the long history of gun violence by anti-government and racist extremists. The brief describes three such examples in detail: the June 2009 shooting at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, DC, by avowed anti-Semite and white supremacist James Von Brunn (an incident which left a security guard dead); the April 2000 shooting spree in Pittsburgh by white supremacist Richard Baumhammers (which left five dead); and the deadly standoffs in Waco, Texas in 1993 and Ruby Ridge, Idaho in 1992.

http://www.adl.org/PresRele/SupremeCourt_33/5684_33.htm

[commanding]

Racist and anti-government extremists often have an obsessive fascination with firearms....

Kind of an odd statement. I think the 2nd amendment was put in place to make sure that some of the anti govt people do have firearms. Not that I am endorsing anti govt or overthrow..but the founders here believed that governments can and do get too controling sometimes and have to be kept in check by the "governed". Just my opinion. Racism is a different ball of wax.

[GB_FXST]

It would appear that the Anti Defamation League are keen to get involved in gun control in the US something I thought they would stay away from at the risk of annoying the conservatives that support their broader aims.


http://www.adl.org/PresRele/SupremeCourt_33/5684_33.htm


In general, I agree.

Foxman has a tendency to speak on issues that are beyond the core mission of the ADL.

At any rate, I believe that the Bill of Rights (including the Second Amendment) should apply to local governments. The NRA will hopefully prevail in its suit against Chicago.

I am in a bit of quandry as I contribute to both the NRA and the ADL. Nevertheless, I do endorse the NRA on this issue.

[Marshall_Nord]

...reasonably regulate the possession of firearms by those who practice and preach racial and ethnic violence...

And who is going to decide what constitutes the practice and preaching of this violence? Does the mere utterance of a racial/ethnic slur red flag an individual?

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

I think they are sticking their neck out a little too far on this issue and at the risk of attracting the wrong kind of attention and being further demonised. Despite the fact that there may be a few more Von Brunn’s out there I don’t think the ADL adding their weight to the gun control lobby is going to stop them carrying out such acts.

[Yehuda]

Kind of an odd statement. I think the 2nd amendment was put in place to make sure that some of the anti govt people do have firearms. Not that I am endorsing anti govt or overthrow..but the founders here believed that governments can and do get too controling sometimes and have to be kept in check by the "governed". Just my opinion. Racism is a different ball of wax.

well,to be fair,both the founding fathers,lived in another different time,and the second amendment was written in another age

Probably the best is something in the middle way,not totally free but not totally regulated also

[homegrowncat]

Kind of an odd statement. I think the 2nd amendment was put in place to make sure that some of the anti govt people do have firearms. Not that I am endorsing anti govt or overthrow..but the founders here believed that governments can and do get too controling sometimes and have to be kept in check by the "governed". Just my opinion. Racism is a different ball of wax.


Toss the word "racist" into any argument and people tend to shy away from it and not engage. If the ADL would have just said "anti-government" then many people would have echoed your words...but once the word "racist" gets tossed in, well no one wants to be seen as "racist" or "supporting racism".

[Chulo]

well,to be fair,both the founding fathers,lived in another different time,and the second amendment was written in another age

Probably the best is something in the middle way,not totally free but not totally regulated also
The 2nd was not put in place to address a issue at that era, but to address the issue of human nature and political truth. Government will always seek to gain more power and people will be forced to give up liberty at the cost of freedom. In any era of human existence when the citizens are unable to control the government there is tyranny, and the 2nd was a measure put into place to be one of the final lines of control for the citizens.

[Geezah]

well,to be fair,both the founding fathers,lived in another different time,and the second amendment was written in another age

Probably the best is something in the middle way,not totally free but not totally regulated also

To add to what Chulo wrote, the Founding Fathers(all of them) as not just one person penned the Bill of Rights, understood that the nature of man does not change over time. Technology does, but mans intent will always be the same now, as it was 1,000yrs ago.
In my mind, the Bill of Rights is perfect......

As to the mentuion of Waco, why exactly was this added?

The shootings and deaths at Waco was escalated by the Federal Government, the same as Ruby Ridge IMHO.

[Hilbert]

well,to be fair,both the founding fathers,lived in another different time,and the second amendment was written in another age

Probably the best is something in the middle way,not totally free but not totally regulated also

If your going to say that just because our Constitution was written by men who lived in a different time and because of that the Second Amendment shouldn't apply as much as it was supposed to, then you might as well say that same logic to the 1st, 3rd, 4th and rest of the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights is non-negotiable. It is what it is; it is a list of right's acknowledged by the United States Constitution. An attack on one part is the same is attacking the whole thing.

[Yehuda]

never say anithyng about waco andim not against guns at all,i just say that a minimum of regulations its necesarry,dont you get regulations to drive?yes,you get

[Hilbert]

never say anithyng about waco andim not against guns at all,i just say that a minimum of regulations its necesarry,dont you get regulations to drive?yes,you get

Last time I checked driving wasn't one of the rights acknowledged by the United States Constitution. Driving isn't a right; it's a privelege.

[Yehuda]

Driving isn't a right acknowledged by the United States Constitution, now is it? Driving isn't a right; it's a privelege.

but a car can be a killing machine,the same as a weapon

[Hilbert]

but a car can be a killing machine,the same as a weapon

Many things can be used to kill a person, what's your point?

[Geezah]

but a car can be a killing machine,the same as a weapon

Hilbert hit the nail on the head. Driving is a priviliege, not a Right.

Don't try and compare the two, as far as a killing machine, that could also be applied to a shoe.

[GB_FXST]

never say anithyng about waco andim not against guns at all,i just say that a minimum of regulations its necesarry,dont you get regulations to drive?yes,you get

Please stop.

[Yehuda]

Hilbert hit the nail on the head. Driving is a priviliege, not a Right.

Don't try and compare the two, as far as a killing machine, that could also be applied to a shoe.
Im being rational here,don't put irrational examples

in fact you have regulations already,owning a gun,its not completely free
maybe an uniform code for the whole country??

[Hilbert]

Im being rational here,don't put irrational examples

Pointing out that anything can be used to kill a person is not irrational. What is irrational is suggesting that a right should be restricted in the same way as a privilege.

I have a question for you Yehuda. Your location lists Israel and Argentina. Were your born in the United States? Are you an American Citizen? If the answer to these questions is no, then why are you concerned about OUR Constitution?

[Martial]

Who says the regulations are constitutional and a good idea, anyway? I can see you're for more gov't but that doesn't make it right. Laws only work for law-abiding citizens.

Don't forget that murder is still illegal, too.

[Yehuda]

Pointing out that anything can be used to kill a person is not irrational. What is irrational is suggesting that a right should be restricted in the same way as a privilege.

I have a question for you Yehuda. Your location lists Israel and Argentina. Were your born in the United States? Are you an American Citizen? If the answer to these questions is no, then why are you concerned about OUR Constitution?
Im just debating,this is supposed to be a forum for debating ideas,rigth??
born in Argentina,came to Israel years ago

[Hilbert]

Im just debating,this is supposed to be a forum for debating ideas,rigth??
born in Argentina,came to Israel years ago

Indeed it is. And I do enjoy a good debate. It just fascinates me when foreigners get involved on the U.S. Constitution and the 2nd Amendment.

[seraosha]

Im just debating,this is supposed to be a forum for debating ideas,rigth??
born in Argentina,came to Israel years ago

For debating ideas, yes...but a common foundation of knowledge will make any exchange of ideas more fruitful. Get some knowledge, come back and address the topic from wisdom and not ignorance.

[Yehuda]

Indeed it is. And I do enjoy a good debate. It just fascinates me when foreigners get involved on the U.S. Constitution and the 2nd Amendment.
well,you can see a lot of foreigners in the middle eastern debates also p-)

why not?i studied political science,i know a bit or two about the american constitution :)

[Geezah]

well,you can see a lot of foreigners in the middle eastern debates also p-)

why not?i studied political science,i think I know a bit or two about the american constitution :)

There.....fixed it for you.......

[MaDuce]

There are some who teach constitutional law that don't really understand the spirit of the constitution.

[Chulo]

There are some who teach constitutional law that don't really understand the spirit of the constitution.
now dont bring Obama into this ... :P

[Geezah]

Lets not forget the ACLU who do not consider the 2nd Amendment an Individual Right worth defending......

[California Joe]

Why is there always one dink in every gun thread talking about car registrations? Christ.

As for Waco? F*ck em.

[Jobu]

maybe an uniform code for the whole country??

That would be irrational.

We are not a uniform country.

[Yehuda]

well,but you have certain laws that are common

[vryhpyammoadded]

but a car can be a killing machine,the same as a weapon
Sure, but please explain how to use my Chevy as a weapon in my kitchen at night against some punk intruder or to kill soldiers and police equipped with military weapons, serving a hypothetical corrupt and tyrannical government myself and others might want to make war against?

The 2nd was intended to allow States a defense from any threat they might decide to shoot at, but most especially an oppressive, tyrannical federal government. The same goes for the citizens.

But, on a deeper philosophic level, fire arm possession as a right was intended to ensure individuals had the ability to defend themselves and their property dispensing justice in a pinch letting the courts sort things out after the smoke cleared.

Personally I believe the gun laws and regulations are already too strict and should all be erased leaving only the 2nd. Everyone should be armed if they so choose and carry anywhere they please within the confines of this nation.

[Yehuda]

Sure, but please explain how to use my Chevy as a weapon in my kitchen at night against some punk intruder or to kill soldiers and police equipped with military weapons, serving a hypothetical corrupt and tyrannical government myself and others might want to make war against?

The 2nd was intended to allow States a defense from any threat they might decide to shoot at, but most especially an oppressive, tyrannical federal government. The same goes for the citizens.

But, on a deeper philosophic level, fire arm possession as a right was intended to ensure individuals had the ability to defend themselves and their property dispensing justice in a pinch letting the courts sort things out after the smoke cleared.

Personally I believe the gun laws and regulations are already too strict and should all be erased leaving only the 2nd. Everyone should be armed if they so choose and carry anywhere they please within the confines of this nation.

in your kitchen,of course not,but i remember like 15 years ago,in central amercia,a guy who was angry at some kinds playing and making noise,and run over them with his truck

i dont agree with the control guns freaks,but i dont agree with the ones like you who want everything free,i think it has to be something in the middle its not black or white

[Hollis]

I do not know anyone who supports the 2nd Amendment and also supports criminals owning firearms. I think there is a common agreement on keeping the hands of criminals from holding firearms. There are already laws on the books to try to do just that.

2nd Amendment supporters support the legal ownership and use of firearms. The difference is who the laws go about doing this, where law abiding citizens can legally own firearms and criminal can not.

[HellToupee]

To limit weapons going to crimals you would need registration background checks assements of mental health etc.

But why all the fuss over the bear arms part and not the well regulated militia part.

[Geezah]

in your kitchen,of course not,but i remember like 15 years ago,in central amercia,a guy who was angry at some kinds playing and making noise,and run over them with his truck

Mate, this has been done to death on here, so many times and we(the Gun Nuts) always come out of top.

There is a search funtion, use it or I may have to release the hounds of every possible link I have saved as a favorite to prove you so wrong!



i dont agree with the control guns freaks,but i dont agree with the ones like you who want everything free,i think it has to be something in the middle its not black or white

You really are clueless then.

DO you have any idea what the gun control freaks want, do you understand that those that respect the 2nd have already given up too much ground to the likes of you? How much more do you want?


To limit weapons going to crimals you would need registration background checks assements of mental health etc.

Please shwo where it has been proven that registration restricts a criminals ability to source hot weapons?



But why all the fuss over the bear arms part and not the well regulated militia part.


Amendment II
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.

[Hilbert]

But why all the fuss over the bear arms part and not the well regulated militia part.

There's fuss because despite the fact the Constitution acknowledges the right of law abiding citizens to possess weapons, many politicians and supporting interest groups seek to and actively try to usurp and deny us this.

What is there to discuss about the first part stating "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..."?

[budgie]

And who is going to decide what constitutes the practice and preaching of this violence? Does the mere utterance of a racial/ethnic slur red flag an individual?


Oh I'm sure anyone who wants to use the 'N' word to demonstrate their freedom of the evil strictures of Political Correctness may still do so. After all the rappers would all be out of a job if swear words were illegal. Forming an armed group or a lynch mob might be a different story.

However surely most states and the federal govt also have laws that keep guns out of the hands of felons? So someone is a member of a bigoted 'militia'. If the guys are just fantasizing up in the woods let 'em. But surel;y there will be those whoare already violating parole and so on by owning a gun?

[HellToupee]

There's fuss because despite the fact the Constitution acknowledges the right of law abiding citizens to possess weapons, many politicians and supporting interest groups seek to and actively try to usurp and deny us this.

Of course they do, and if enough people agree it happens thats democracy, constitutions change they are not some fixed religious document.



What is there to discuss about the first part stating "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..."?

Do you think of tyour national guard as a force of the people or the military?

[vryhpyammoadded]

in your kitchen,of course not,but i remember like 15 years ago,in central amercia,a guy who was angry at some kinds playing and making noise,and run over them with his truck


i dont agree with the control guns freaks,but i dont agree with the ones like you who want everything free,i think it has to be something in the middle its not black or white
LOL, actually I was picturing a scene from “Take the Money and Run” when Woody Allen decides to run over his wife. If none of you have ever seen it, it’s a fun little movie. Oh yes, been the victim of a vehicular homicide attempt long time back. I’ll tell you the corner bumper of a 1969 Mercury Cougar will tear your ass up.

Secondly, thanks for the civil discourse, so many are lacking it these days when huge differences of opinion are in discussion.

My reasoning for a reduction of gun controls has more to do with a desire to see said firearms used; not in some stupid revolt but more often as a form of individual vermin population control. My philosophy leans pretty hard away from the accelerated growth of the managerial elite will save us all fad. I say that too many sacrifices in other areas I cherish come with that package and I’m happy to live with the side effects of a world running on the other, individualist side of the pole.

Hollis, I’m completely for gun control of a sort; parental gun control. I’m not so worried about criminals having guns in my preferred social model if you catch my drift.

[Hollis]

Hollis, I’m completely for gun control of a sort; parental gun control. I’m not so worried about criminals having guns in my preferred social model if you catch my drift.


Responsible gun ownership is what it is about for me. Like owning a car, having insurance, driving responsible, etc. Irresponsible ownership and criminal use is just not acceptable. So the problem is; do we punish responsible owners for the negligence or criminal behaviors of others? How do we separate them, where by allowing responsible owners the maximum amount of freedom while stopping criminals and irresponsible owners from having any firearms?

For people who have no use for firearms, the solution is simple ban them all. That, IMHO, is pretty narrow minded, sort of falls into, "Hurray for me, screw you" mentality. There are extremist/fanatics on both sides of this issue, both only serve themselves.

Also, this is like many of our problems in society. Protectionism VS Freedom of choice. I would like to see a safer society too. As long as this is a political football issue, I don't think their will be a good solution.

[Yehuda]

Responsible gun ownership is what it is about for me. Like owning a car, having insurance, driving responsible, etc. Irresponsible ownership and criminal use is just not acceptable. So the problem is; do we punish responsible owners for the negligence or criminal behaviors of others? How do we separate them, where by allowing responsible owners the maximum amount of freedom while stopping criminals and irresponsible owners from having any firearms?

For people who have no use for firearms, the solution is simple ban them all. That, IMHO, is pretty narrow minded, sort of falls into, "Hurray for me, screw you" mentality. There are extremist/fanatics on both sides of this issue, both only serve themselves.

Also, this is like many of our problems in society. Protectionism VS Freedom of choice. I would like to see a safer society too. As long as this is a political football issue, I don't think their will be a good solution.

you are seeing black or white,protectionism vs freedom of choice,i think thee truth lies in the gray,in the middle

also,would be interestingh to know,if your enligthement to freedom of choice,extends also,towards more touchy subjects to american conservatives like abortion,gay rigths ,universal healthcare ,universal education,etc p-)p-)p-);-);-)

[Hilbert]

Of course they do, and if enough people agree it happens thats democracy, constitutions change they are not some fixed religious document.

Several things. First, the United States is not a Democracy, it's a Federal Republic; Federal Constitutional Republic if you want to be even more specific. In it's conception is was specifically designed not to be a democracy rather to be a mixed government incorporating ideas from many different theories of government and political theoriests (Locke, Montesquieu, etc, etc).

Second, the U.S. Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments of our Constitution) are not there to be changed; these are the non-negotiable individual rights of Americans which the government exists to protect. Further, the framers included numerous safe guards on/in the Bill of Rights to ensure that the newly formed Federal Government would do just that, protect the non-negotiable rights, not try to alter or destroy them. From 1st Amendment freedoms of speech and assembly (so we can criticize the government) to the 2nd Amendment which as George Washington himself referred to is the people's "teeth" against Government Tryanny and attempts to usurp the people's rights it exists to protect. The 3rd Amendment, the 4th Amendment, etc, etc. The entire Bill of Rights is designed in such a manner as to work together to both limit the government's power of citizens and act as a safeguard to ensure the government follows through on its obligations to protect our non-negotiable rights (whether it be by pointing out the attempts to do the opposite through speech and press or whether stuff hits the fan and heaven forbid it turns into armed revolution). Because of this intertwining, how it all works together, to alter or destroy one part of our non-negotiable rights is deal a blow to the entire complex, weakening the entire document. If we do not stand behind the founding principles (no, not just the piece of paper their written on but the spririt in which they were written) then what have become?

An attack on one part of the Bill of Rights, is the same as an attack on the whole thing. It's also a full frontal assault on the the spirit of the creation of this country as well as the intents and wishes of our founding fathers and the framers of the Constitution.



Do you think of tyour national guard as a force of the people or the military?

What does the National Guard have to do with anything?

[Hollis]

you are seeing black or white,protectionism vs freedom of choice,i think thee truth lies in the gray,in the middle

also,would be interestingh to know,if your enligthement to freedom of choice,extends also,towards more touchy subjects to american conservatives like abortion,gay rigths ,universal healthcare ,universal education,etc p-)p-)p-);-);-)

You seem to jump to conclusions. IMHO, our societies are not black and white. Black and white merely represent the borders that we operate between trying to seek a balance. Example, Political freedom lies somewhere between anarchy and Totalitarianism. Which is saying, it is in the gray area.

Remember Gray is made up as mixture of black and white. So when we talk about the gray area, we are looking at what is the percentage black and white. As in the firearm issue in the States, how much restriction on gun ownership should there be? Some Americans would say, more restrictions are needed, others would say they are all ready too many restrictions to ownership. I have no problem with responsible ownership of firearms. Firearms are inanimate objects. They become a problem when they are in the hands of irresponsible people or people with criminal intent. So yes some restrictions should apply to ownership.

[Yehuda]

I have no problem with hunting guns for example,but i dont want peopel owning assault rifles,for example

for security,the police has to provide you security,that's why we pay them,if they do not fulfill their duty,you don't have to do it for them,you have to punish them for not doing it

[seraosha]

I have no problem with hunting guns for example,but i dont want peopel owning assault rifles,for example

for security,the police has to provide you security,that's why we pay them,if they do not fulfill their duty,you don't have to do it for them,you have to punish them for not doing it


You must be living a very different kind of existence than I to think that the police are there for your protection. The police are there to pick up the pieces after a crime has been committed, and to investigate, then seek to apprehend the criminal. Unless they just happen to be in your neighborhood and can respond immediately, you are your first and best defense from crime.

[Yehuda]

then your police forces are incompetent
also,to figth crime,you have to adress also social and economical issues
why some countries ,who are really a great example to take like sweden,or norway,have very little crime and the usa has a lot?

[wildcat]

then your police forces are incompetent
also,to figth crime,you have to adress also social and economical issues
why some countries ,who are really a great example to take like sweden,or norway,have very little crime and the usa has a lot?

so you have no crime, guess the police are so great where you live they catch all criminals in the act, everyone is safe.

[Hilbert]

I have no problem with hunting guns for example,but i dont want peopel owning assault rifles,for example

You say assault rifles. Are you referring to the select-fire military weapons or the semi-automatic civilian look-alikes some people have labeled "assault weapons," "evil black rifles," "death rays," and related terms?


for security,the police has to provide you security,that's why we pay them,if they do not fulfill their duty,you don't have to do it for them,you have to punish them for not doing it

Call the police. Excellent idea, you'll have a squad car at your home in anywhere from 5 minutes to an hour (more likely thirty minutes to an hour, in my case). Meanwhile, you still have a criminal/burgler/murder/rapist/otherwise undesirable person in your immediate proximity. I don't know about you but I don't particularly like this situation.

Or to entertain this train of thought a bit further, let's take something all to familiar to me: Hurricane Katrina. Where were the cops then? Some abandoning their duty and evacuating, some partcipating in the crimes and looting themselves, and a huge majority completely missing. There is no law and order, there is no police. Theres hordes of looters, murderers, and rapists roaming the streets doing the whatever the heck they want and the only thing between them and you is a firearm. And guess what, when the police finally come back in many areas they go door to door DISARMING people, then promplty vacate the areas leaving the now disarmed populace in Orelans Parish to the looters.

Survival and security is a person's responsibility, not the government, the police, or anyone elses.

[Yehuda]

here,we don't have a big crime problem,thankfully,and gun control in israel is very tight indeed

But the best example,as usual,is northern europe

[Yehuda]

You say assault rifles. Are you referring to the select-fire military weapons or the semi-automatic civilian look-alikes some people have labeled "assault weapons," "evil black rifles," "death rays," and related terms?



Call the police. Excellent idea, you'll have a squad car at your home in anywhere from 5 minutes to an hour (more likely thirty minutes to an hour, in my case). Meanwhile, you still have a criminal/burgler/murder/rapist/otherwise undesirable person in your immediate proximity. I don't know about you but I don't particularly like this situation.

Or to entertain this train of thought a bit further, let's take something all to familiar to me: Hurricane Katrina. Where were the cops then? Some abandoning their duty and evacuating, some partcipating in the crimes and looting themselves, and a huge majority completely missing. There is no law and order, there is no police. Theres hordes of looters, murderers, and rapists roaming the streets doing the whatever the heck they want and the only thing between them and you is a firearm. And guess what, when the police finally come back in many areas they go door to door DISARMING people, then promplty vacate the areas leaving the now disarmed populace in Orelans Parish to the looters.

Survival and security is a person's responsibility, not the government, the police, or anyone elses.

tell yoy again,if the police is incompetent,giving guns to people will not solve it
first of all,you have to clean the police
second,institute social and economic policies to adress the problem

im not stupoid,i know whats an assault gun,had one in the army
a semi automatic look alike copy,can shoot almost as fast as an automatic weapon,in fact,in the idf,automatic fire is a big no-no

[seraosha]

then your police forces are incompetent
also,to figth crime,you have to adress also social and economical issues
why some countries ,who are really a great example to take like sweden,or norway,have very little crime and the usa has a lot?

Wow.

So your surviving a home invasion scenario has you making coffee and asking the guy raping your kids why he turned to a life of crime due to social and economic issues, as his friend is busy walking out with your TV and duct-taped wife.

Good luck with that man.

[wildcat]

tell yoy again,if the police is incompetent,giving guns to people will not solve it
first of all,you have to clean the police
second,institute social and economic policies to adress the problem

im not stupoid,i know whats an assault gun,had one in the army
a semi automatic look alike copy,can shoot almost as fast as an automatic weapon,in fact,in the idf,automatic fire is a big no-no

most people do not know what an assault weapon is.

[Yehuda]

you asked me,not other people p-)p-)

the job of the police,is also to deter agression,if the police in your town,does not do that,they fail to to their job

[Hilbert]

you asked me,not other people p-)p-)

the job of the police,is also to deter agression,if the police in your town,does not do that,they fail to to their job

Survival, protection, and security are personal responsibilites. The Police force is there to uphold the law, respond to crimes, invesigate, and so on and so forth they have no obligation to be responsible for your individual life.

[Yehuda]

Survival, protection, and security are personal responsibilites. The Police force is there to uphold the law, respond to crimes, invesigate, and so on and so forth they have no obligation to be responsible for your individual life.

don't agree with you
we,the human being, gave up some rights to a government or other authority in order to receive or maintain social order through the rule of law .
we gave the state the monopoly on power,so they can protect us
maybe you should read more rosseau and less weapons magazines,hahaha

yours,is an american way of seeing things,i have an european one,and seeing the crime levels in the average european city and the average american one,i know wich one i preffer

[seraosha]

we gave the state the monopoly on power,so they can protect us

rofl You truely have no concept of what the 2nd amendment and personal responsibility mean.
God bless you and keep you safe.

[Yehuda]

the second amendment was created in a different time and with a different mentality,times change

[Hilbert]

the second amendment was created in a different time and with a different mentality,times change

Yehuda, a few posts up Seraosha posted a home invasion scenario, what would you do in that scenario?

[wildcat]

the second amendment was created in a different time and with a different mentality,times change

you have no idea about the founding fathers, they created the bill of rights (that includes the 2nd amendment), based on what rights they believed all men should have, these are rights given to all men, time has nothing to do with that. The purpose of the second amendment is to allow the people to maintain the power to repress tyranny, if it come from a crook, or comes from a rogue government.

I want to be free, have a government that may or may not protect me, take my ability, and I am at the marcy of the nanny state.

I believe in individual rights, not the right of the state. Your view point seems to be the State has more rights than the people, leaving the people to be subject to the state, not only subject, but at mercy of the state. Yes while the state might work good for the people and though elections people can choose to elect, but in the world we live in, that is not always the case, and some government refuse to give that power up. 100's millions of people last century died at the hands of the state oppression.

[Hilbert]

you have no idea about the founding fathers, they created the bill of rights (that includes the 2nd amendment), based on what rights they believed all men should have, these are rights given to all men, time has nothing to do with that. The purpose of the second amendment is to allow the people to maintain the power to repress tyranny, if it come from a crook, or comes from a rogue government.

I want to be free, have a government that may or may not protect me, take my ability, and I am at the marcy of the nanny state.

I believe in individual rights, not the right of the state. Your view point seems to be the State has more rights than the people, leaving the people to be subject to the state, not only subject, but at mercy of the state. Yes while the state might work good for the people and though elections people can choose to elect, but in the world we live in, that is not always the case, and some government refuse to give that power up. 100's millions of people last century died at the hands of the state oppression.

Too true.

"If men were angels, government would be unnecessary." ~ James Madison

[wildcat]

Too true.

"If men were angels, government would be unnecessary." ~ James Madison

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
-Thomas Jefferson

[brainplay]

here,we don't have a big crime problem,thankfully,and gun control in israel is very tight indeed


http://www.chinasmack.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/girls-carrying-guns-israel-jew-14.jpg


Yes very tight indeed! p-)

Worst place to use an anti-gun control argument considering the open carry status to promote security.


the second amendment was created in a different time and with a different mentality,times change

So then maybe the entire bill of rights should be re-written? Like maybe get rid of that pesky 1st amendment or the 4th? You can't make that kind of reasoning and apply it to the 2nd amendment only.


then your police forces are incompetent

Not really. In order for them to know about the crime it has to be reported. That means the crime is "in progress". That's assuming anyone gets the chance to make the call in the first place. The response time can be anywhere from 2min to 30min depending on the size of the city, which day and the time (nighttime/weekends police are swamped regularly), as well as the size of the police force. In many cases, it turns into an "investigation" (as in it has already happened) instead of an intervention.

[California Joe]

the job of the police,is also to deter agression,if the police in your town,does not do that,they fail to to their job

You know f*ckall about what cops do.

[Marshall_Nord]

Oh I'm sure anyone who wants to use the 'N' word to demonstrate their freedom of the evil strictures of Political Correctness may still do so. After all the rappers would all be out of a job if swear words were illegal.
And, in a free society, they should be able to use whatever word(s) they wish. You, nor I, have the right to determine otherwise. And please, don’t compare this to yelling “fire” in a crowded theater or “bomb” in an airport.


the second amendment was created in a different time and with a different mentality,times change

Times may change, but power-hungry people do not; hence the Second Amendment. Read about political scheming in the Roman Empire. One could merely change the Roman names to contemporary American names and it would be difficult to tell there is 2,000 year gap between events.

[Geezah]

I have no problem with hunting guns for example,but i dont want peopel owning assault rifles,for example

This has been covered pretty much, but to behonest I could give a ****e what you want law abiding people to own.



for security,the police has to provide you security,that's why we pay them,if they do not fulfill their duty,you don't have to do it for them,you have to punish them for not doing it

seraosha touched on this.

There is no requirement for the Police/LE to be at your beck and call 24/7. They are reactive, not proactive, and a Supreme Court case set this in stone.
The responsibility of taking care of yourself and your loved ones is on your shoulders until LE turn up, and that is the way it should be.
I know for a fact that all my friends that are members of different LE Agencies would agree with me on this.

[Yehuda]

http://www.chinasmack.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/girls-carrying-guns-israel-jew-14.jpg


Yes very tight indeed! p-)

Worst place to use an anti-gun control argument considering the open carry status to promote security.



So then maybe the entire bill of rights should be re-written? Like maybe get rid of that pesky 1st amendment or the 4th? You can't make that kind of reasoning and apply it to the 2nd amendment only.



Not really. In order for them to know about the crime it has to be reported. That means the crime is "in progress". That's assuming anyone gets the chance to make the call in the first place. The response time can be anywhere from 2min to 30min depending on the size of the city, which day and the time (nighttime/weekends police are swamped regularly), as well as the size of the police force. In many cases, it turns into an "investigation" (as in it has already happened) instead of an intervention.
that one is a soldier in civilizan clothes,try as a civilizn to buy even a 22 lr....
yes,obsolete laws had to be changed,you didnt changed the laws regarding segregation or slavery??

[Yehuda]

Yehuda, a few posts up Seraosha posted a home invasion scenario, what would you do in that scenario?
you dont seem to understand,in a working society that is not supposed to happen,how many times that happens in sweden,denmark,switzerland,etc,it happens in the american society,because it has deep problems that goes beyond gun control that had to be solved first

[Yehuda]

you have no idea about the founding fathers, they created the bill of rights (that includes the 2nd amendment), based on what rights they believed all men should have, these are rights given to all men, time has nothing to do with that. The purpose of the second amendment is to allow the people to maintain the power to repress tyranny, if it come from a crook, or comes from a rogue government.

I want to be free, have a government that may or may not protect me, take my ability, and I am at the marcy of the nanny state.

I believe in individual rights, not the right of the state. Your view point seems to be the State has more rights than the people, leaving the people to be subject to the state, not only subject, but at mercy of the state. Yes while the state might work good for the people and though elections people can choose to elect, but in the world we live in, that is not always the case, and some government refuse to give that power up. 100's millions of people last century died at the hands of the state oppression.
do you belive that if tomorrow,obama takes the tanks into the street and makes a south american kind of coup,you will stop his tiranny with a shotgun??
no,i vote my representatives to care about me,we dont live in anarchy

the founding fathers,created the constitution,by the ideas the had of what a men should have in the END of the 18 th century

[Yehuda]

And, in a free society, they should be able to use whatever word(s) they wish. You, nor I, have the right to determine otherwise. And please, don’t compare this to yelling “fire” in a crowded theater or “bomb” in an airport.



Times may change, but power-hungry people do not; hence the Second Amendment. Read about political scheming in the Roman Empire. One could merely change the Roman names to contemporary American names and it would be difficult to tell there is 2,000 year gap between events.
and you will stop a tyrant with nuclear weapons and thousands of tanks with a shotgun and a pistol??

[Noons86]

Re the Founding Fathers and the 2nd Amendment, I have a thought that I haven't read here, and for all I know could be a load of crap.

However, I think it is possible that one of the ideas leading to the creation of the 2nd Amendment, was that the founding fathers had a new government, that was to be limited in power, and was at the time not very rich. Therefore, the regular army could not be very large, but the 2nd Amendment, with the "well regulated militia" clause, would allow the new United States to have a large, reliable defense force, but they would not need to pay for it.

That idea would have made sense in the late 18th century, when the most powerful weapon was the cannon. In the event of a land grab by a colonial power or a large-scale Indian incursion, the central government could supply artillery units while infantry and cavalry would come from mostly local militias. In today's fast paced, high-tech and high-firepower atmosphere, such thinking could not possibly produce an effective military force.

None of this, however, changes the fact that the 2nd amenment is on the bill of rights, and there is no argument for removing it that could not also apply to any of the other amendments.

[seraosha]

This guy is comedy gold.

(yehuda)

[Yehuda]

didnt expected much more from a redneck

[LaoSexMachine]

Wouldn't expect a foriegner to know either.

[brainplay]

that one is a soldier in civilizan clothes,try as a civilizn to buy even a 22 lr....
yes,obsolete laws had to be changed,you didnt changed the laws regarding segregation or slavery??

Israeli gun laws have provisions specifically for reservists. What % of Israel is made up of reservists? The gun laws are in place to keep them out of the hands of "foreigners" not because they're afraid someone will go on a shooting rampage. Several Israeli posters on this forum have commented specifically on this subject.

There was never a Constitutional amendment saying you could have slaves. Only one that abolished slavery. Segregation persisted long after that.

Only one amendment has every been repealed which dealt with Prohibition/Alcohol which many agree should never had been an actual amendment but rather a federal health law.

The founding fathers based the Constitution on the nature of man. Not the ideals of the 18th century. I am consistently disturbed more and more on your reliance for someone else to take care of you and your affairs. If anything, that general attitude is what is leading to the fall of the US.

Taken from wiki. Yeah its crap but so is this discussion.

It should be noted that many crimes go unreported. According to studies, only 22% of those affected by violence reported the offence to the authorities, and about 50% of those affected by vandalism. Some increases in the statistics are attributed to a higher level of reporting.

Personally I think the Scandinavian countries are pacified due to the amount of horrible techno they put out which has had an adverse effect on the population. That or Finland is holding you all hostage.

http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs49/f/2009/195/c/c/No_invitation_by_humon.jpg

[wildcat]

do you belive that if tomorrow,obama takes the tanks into the street and makes a south american kind of coup,you will stop his tiranny with a shotgun??
no,i vote my representatives to care about me,we dont live in anarchy


what tanks and what army, sure would not be the US military. Why would Obama need a coup, he is president, he will not be overthrowing himself (unless he has multiple personalities).

[Yehuda]

you told about figthing tiranny in your midst,that means,government tyranny

[wildcat]

Re the Founding Fathers and the 2nd Amendment, I have a thought that I haven't read here, and for all I know could be a load of crap.

However, I think it is possible that one of the ideas leading to the creation of the 2nd Amendment, was that the founding fathers had a new government, that was to be limited in power, and was at the time not very rich. Therefore, the regular army could not be very large, but the 2nd Amendment, with the "well regulated militia" clause, would allow the new United States to have a large, reliable defense force, but they would not need to pay for it.



you negated the part about free state


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.

the version the state ratified is


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.

The 2nd Amendment was not about maintain an Army.

he gave you the right to organize and be part of "A well regulated militia", this is in the bill of rights, therefore it belongs to the people, not the government.

[seraosha]

didnt expected much more from a redneck

I am part Native American...was that a racial attack on my skin color?
Why are you racist?

Look, it's obvious you don't know what you are talking about in regards to the 2nd amendment, law enforcement, and reality outside of your own immediate experience...thats ok...it's ok to be ignorant. But when it's pointed out, repeatedly, in many different ways, and you steadfastly refuse to educate yourself, as well as try to insult those that are pointing out your ignorance, that's when it starts to be comedy gold.

But by all means, carry on...the deeper you dig this hole, the funnier it gets.

[Marshall_Nord]

and you will stop a tyrant with nuclear weapons and thousands of tanks with a shotgun and a pistol??

Get a clue. You can’t use nukes to stop an insurrection. This only gives you influence against other nation-states.

With hand weapons and proper training, it’s not that difficult to obtain heavy weaponry from bases and/or arms depots. Do you think the current government of Iran would use such a heavy hand against demonstrators if the citizens of Iran were armed like Americans?

[brainplay]

you told about figthing tiranny in your midst,that means,government tyranny

You do realize that by advocating strict gun control that should this "theory" you brought up ever take place then the "evil tyranny" would face nothing more than shotguns?

[chauncy republicans]

So I'm guessing by larger context of Yehuda's posts that he would also be in favor of severely limiting the IDF, and surrendering territorial security over to the UN. I have to say to the best of my knowledge it's a pretty unique philosophy for an Israeli have.

[jimmyboots]

you told about figthing tiranny in your midst,that means,government tyranny

You obviously are having a hard time understanding the 2nd amendment because by your own admission you have a very European outlook. Your inherit narrow mindedness keeps you from seeing that this is also a cultural issue for many Americans. Kindly fvck off.

[Laworkerbee]

I have no problem with hunting guns for example,but i dont want peopel owning assault rifles,for example

for security,the police has to provide you security,that's why we pay them,if they do not fulfill their duty,you don't have to do it for them,you have to punish them for not doing it

Please just stop, your arguments are weak to the point of being pathetic.

[GB_FXST]

So I'm guessing by larger context of Yehuda's posts that he would also be in favor of severely limiting the IDF, and surrendering territorial security over to the UN. I have to say to the best of my knowledge it's a pretty unique philosophy for an Israeli have.

A very astute observation of an inconsistency in political philosophy. :)

Obviously, Yehuda is vehemently oppossed to what you suggest.

[Yehuda]

the idf is an organ of the sate,not a private citizen

[Noons86]

you negated the part about free state



the version the state ratified is

.

The 2nd Amendment was not about maintain an Army.

he gave you the right to organize and be part of "A well regulated militia", this is in the bill of rights, therefore it belongs to the people, not the government.

True, a "well regulated militia" is not an army, but could theoretically be called up to defend the country against an external threat, similar to the way the minutemen militias were able to assemble quickly during the Revolutionary War.

For a new government in the 18th century without very much money, and potential threats along a very long frontier, a network of reliable militias would be a much more cost effective than a large, federally funded and supplied army.

[GB_FXST]

the idf is an organ of the sate,not a private citizen

The IDF is an extension of the people of Israel.

A key philosphical principle of Western Liberalism (the political philosophy that underlies both the US and Israel and other western democracies) is that the government serves the people, at the pleasure of the people; in other words, the government is an extension of the people.

So, the idea that the government enjoys a monopoly of power over the wishes of the people is antithetical to Western Liberalism; such an ideal is at a minimum authoritarian, if not fascist.

IMHO, most citizens of the US and Israel are not particularly fond or tolerant of authoritarian regimes.

[Marshall_Nord]

The IDF is an extension of the people of Israel.

A key philosphical principle of Western Liberalism (the political philosophy that underlies both the US and Israel and other western democracies) is that the government serves the people, at the pleasure of the people; in other words, the government is an extension of the people.

So, the idea that the government enjoys a monopoly of power over the wishes of the people is antithetical to Western Liberalism; such an ideal is at a minimum authoritarian, if not fascist.

IMHO, most citizens of the US and Israel are not particularly fond or tolerant of authoritarian regimes.

Well said.

[Yehuda]

The IDF is an extension of the people of Israel.

A key philosphical principle of Western Liberalism (the political philosophy that underlies both the US and Israel and other western democracies) is that the government serves the people, at the pleasure of the people; in other words, the government is an extension of the people.

So, the idea that the government enjoys a monopoly of power over the wishes of the people is antithetical to Western Liberalism; such an ideal is at a minimum authoritarian, if not fascist.

IMHO, most citizens of the US and Israel are not particularly fond or tolerant of authoritarian regimes.
wrong,the idf is an organ of the state,and thats it,the rest is just pholosophy

maybe you just start to read some political philosphy,start with weber and this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_of_force

the goverment does not enjoy monopoly in wath you think,enjoys monopoly in the exercise of violence,that is,autorithy,if not,you have like in irak,or the palestinian territory,where you have groups or armed peopel roaming the streets

[Yehuda]

btw,in america,beofre the europeans came,tehy used to eat human flesh and make human sacrifizes,should the european let them do it?i mean,is a tradition
until a little bit more than 140,the black peopel used to be slaves in usa,i mea,is tradition slavery,with that line of thinking,.those poor people should never be freed,i mean,its just a tradition

[wildcat]

wrong,the idf is an organ of the state,and thats it,the rest is just pholosophy

maybe you just start to read some political philosphy,start with weber and this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_of_force


based on this, the 2nd Amendment legitimize the people to use force, this falls inline with what Weber was saying.


According to Weber, the state is the source of legitimacy for any use of violence. The police and the military are its main instruments, but this does not mean that only public force can be used: private force (as in private security) can be used too, as long as it has legitimacy derived from the state. Seeing our laws legitimize the use of force to individuals though rights protected by law.

[Yehuda]

based on this, the 2nd Amendment legitimize the people to use force, this falls inline with what Weber was saying.

Seeing our laws legitimize the use of force to individuals though rights protected by law.
the legitimize of the state by citizens,means in a militia,but you mean outside a militia basis,as a normal private citizen

in general,webes is a little heavy but very interesting to read

[Yehuda]

Israeli gun laws have provisions specifically for reservists. What % of Israel is made up of reservists? The gun laws are in place to keep them out of the hands of "foreigners" not because they're afraid someone will go on a shooting rampage. Several Israeli posters on this forum have commented specifically on this subject.

There was never a Constitutional amendment saying you could have slaves. Only one that abolished slavery. Segregation persisted long after that.

Only one amendment has every been repealed which dealt with Prohibition/Alcohol which many agree should never had been an actual amendment but rather a federal health law.

The founding fathers based the Constitution on the nature of man. Not the ideals of the 18th century. I am consistently disturbed more and more on your reliance for someone else to take care of you and your affairs. If anything, that general attitude is what is leading to the fall of the US.

Taken from wiki. Yeah its crap but so is this discussion.

It should be noted that many crimes go unreported. According to studies, only 22% of those affected by violence reported the offence to the authorities, and about 50% of those affected by vandalism. Some increases in the statistics are attributed to a higher level of reporting.

Personally I think the Scandinavian countries are pacified due to the amount of horrible techno they put out which has had an adverse effect on the population. That or Finland is holding you all hostage.

http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs49/f/2009/195/c/c/No_invitation_by_humon.jpg
sorry,i didnt saw your post
no,in israel,if i remember well,only reservist over the rank of captain can have guns,and taht means,only one pistol

the low crimes rates in scandinavia its because they have a different,and much better,social organization and economic one than usa
usa has big differences in both income ,and distribution and difference between rich and poor,and also,of races,we can see that in the event of katrina,crime,is basically a social and economic problem,until you deal with it,nothing with substantially change
unequal societies generate violence and crime,and you can see even a better example in south america,brazilian,argentinian or mexican societies have lots of vilolence and crime,uruguay has almost none

[wildcat]

the legitimize of the state by citizens,means in a militia,but you mean outside a militia basis,as a normal private citizen

in general,webes is a little heavy but very interesting to read

I am my own Militia, as given to me in the 2nd Amendment. So I do not live outside the militia basis, as a normal private citizen.

[Yehuda]

militia,has to be sanctioned by the state,and in times of war,if i remember well
in conclution,it might be legal,but its obsolete

[GB_FXST]

wrong,the idf is an organ of the state,and thats it,the rest is just pholosophy

maybe you just start to read some political philosphy,start with weber and this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_of_force

the goverment does not enjoy monopoly in wath you think,enjoys monopoly in the exercise of violence,that is,autorithy,if not,you have like in irak,or the palestinian territory,where you have groups or armed peopel roaming the streets

Please explain how Weber has any bearing on the interpretation of the US Constitution, in particular the Bill of Rights?

Weber may or may not reject the ideals of Western Liberalism, but his position on the subject has no relevance to the US Constitution.



btw,in america,beofre the europeans came,tehy used to eat human flesh and make human sacrifizes,should the european let them do it?i mean,is a tradition
until a little bit more than 140,the black peopel used to be slaves in usa,i mea,is tradition slavery,with that line of thinking,.those poor people should never be freed,i mean,its just a tradition

I do not believe that Native North American tribes exhibited cannabalism.

The fact that African American were emancipated (Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Ammendment) speaks to trhe vitality and vibrancy of the US Constitution and political process.



sorry,i didnt saw your post
no,in israel,if i remember well,only reservist over the rank of captain can have guns,and taht means,only one pistol

... snip ...



That is incorrect.

http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/israel-firearms.htm

[Yehuda]

Please explain how Weber has any bearing on the interpretation of the US Constitution, in particular the Bill of Rights?

Weber may or may not reject the ideals of Western Liberalism, but his position on the subject has no relevance to the US Constitution.




I do not believe that Native North American tribes exhibited cannabalism.

The fact that African American were emancipated (Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Ammendment) speaks to trhe vitality and vibrancy of the US Constitution and political process.




That is incorrect.

http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/israel-firearms.htm

i didnt say native americans in north america,i sayd native americans,aztecs,where cannibals and did huma sacrifices,inca and maya did huma sacrifizes,also some guarani tribes in what is now paraguay where cannibals

its relevant of what some poster wrote before,about the use of force
part time reservist,volunteer,means somebody in mishmar ezraji,thats it,in the police

if the hebrew part is correct,the english one,has several mistakes,says retired army veterans,where,in hebrew,says only above the rank of segan aluf,that is,leutenant colonel,not regular soldiers,or the equivalent on the police,and the permits are also for one handgun (you can ask the other israeli posters for translation,if you dont believe me)

[SilentType]

Individual right as held by the U.S. Supreme Court in Heller v. D.C. binding and the continued debate about the Second Amendment being a "Collective Right" is near laughable.

The Second Amendment is not obsolete it has served the United States of America very well for the past 218 years. The United States of America has enjoyed a long history as a Democratic Republic anchored by Constitutional Rule of Law. Our stability and length of continued Constitutional Government has been the foundation of our Super Power status.

Pulling threads away from the Constitution by bypassing it through simply majority rule legislation can lead to tyranny, which is why our Founder's created the checks and balances as well as specifically preserved rights starting with the two that created our nation. Without speech and arms there would not have been Independence in 1776.

I think those who presume that they can foresee the future and ramifications of removing Constitutional liberties that they feel are "dated" or "obsolete" hold an incredible ignorance and short sightedness.

Firearms in the hands of civilians may not always make for the safest of environments, but it has made for a free one in this nation for the past 218 years.

Patrick Henry said "Give me Liberty or Give me Death!" He didn't say "Give me Security or Give me Death." Like Patrick Henry I'd rather die a free man than live as a ward of the state. I am not a subject, but a citizen and I'd like to stay that way. Nobody can see 218 more years into the future and those who pretend they know the ramifications that far ahead are pompous morons. Stick with what has worked.

[Yehuda]

Individual right as held by the U.S. Supreme Court in Heller v. D.C. binding and the continued debate about the Second Amendment being a "Collective Right" is near laughable.

The Second Amendment is not obsolete it has served the United States of America very well for the past 218 years. The United States of America has enjoyed a long history as a Democratic Republic anchored by Constitutional Rule of Law. Our stability and length of continued Constitutional Government has been the foundation of our Super Power status.

Pulling threads away from the Constitution by bypassing it through simply majority rule legislation can lead to tyranny, which is why our Founder's created the checks and balances as well as specifically preserved rights starting with the two that created our nation. Without speech and arms there would not have been Independence in 1776.

I think those who presume that they can foresee the future and ramifications of removing Constitutional liberties that they feel are "dated" or "obsolete" hold an incredible ignorance and short sightedness.

Firearms in the hands of civilians may not always make for the safest of environments, but it has made for a free one in this nation for the past 218 years.

Patrick Henry said "Give me Liberty or Give me Death!" He didn't say "Give me Security or Give me Death." Like Patrick Henry I'd rather die a free man than live as a ward of the state. I am not a subject, but a citizen and I'd like to stay that way. Nobody can see 218 more years into the future and those who pretend they know the ramifications that far ahead are pompous morons. Stick with what has worked.

if you read what i put before,you will see that im not againts owning guns,just assault rifles and military arms,not hunting rifles

[Hilbert]

I can't believe I've missed this. Yehuda, whatever "points" or "logic" (or lack thereof) you once had have fallen, have degenerated, into comedy.


militia,has to be sanctioned by the state,and in times of war,if i remember well
in conclution,it might be legal,but its obsolete

This statement right here is a perfect display of your utter ignorance to U.S. History and to the meaning of the word "militia" as it relates to the American Revolution War period and the times in which the Constitution was written and ultimately the context of the Constitution and 2nd Amendment. The militia was not a government (or state) sanctioned/sponsored organization. It was common citizens who using their own legally owned personal firearms and whatever equipment they possessesed or could afford grouping together and providing for the common defense. In onther words the militia is the average able bodied firearms owner (i.e. people like me).

Remember when I asked if you were born in America and/or an American citizen? This is a perfect example of why. Even though you've studied political science and the U.S. Constitution you've made it abundently clear you have absolutely no understanding or appreciation for both the history of the times or spirit in which it was written. Reading the document, great. But to truly understand the Constitution and its meaning you must go beyond the text. You must study and take into account the writers, the spritit of its conception, and the history of the time in which is was written, to which you are utterly ignorant. The problem and ultimately sad comedy lies now in what you are doing, you are presuming to lecture people on the meaning of certain words and parts of the Constitution based on your own ignorance, lack of understanding, and pseudo-interpretations of one of most treasured documents and the basic law of our land. You are trying to lecture us on something you are completely ignorant about.

[Hilbert]

if you read what i put before,you will see that im not againts owning guns,just assault rifles and military arms,not hunting rifles

In other words, your basically against everything the 2nd Amendment Stands for and are pro-government force monopoly, etc. We understand this. You, however, have made it abudently clear that you do not.

[Yehuda]

I can't believe I've missed this. Yehuda, whatever "points" or "logic" (or lack thereof) you once had have fallen, have degenerated, into comedy.



This statement right here is a perfect display of your utter ignorance to U.S. History and to the meaning of the word "militia" as it relates to the American Revolution War period and the times in which the Constitution was written and ultimately the context of the Constitution and 2nd Amendment. The militia was not a government (or state) sanctioned/sponsored organization. It was common citizens who using their own legally owned personal firearms and whatever equipment they possessesed or could afford grouping together and providing for the common defense. In onther words the militia is the average able bodied firearms owner (i.e. people like me).

Remember when I asked if you were born in America and/or an American citizen? This is a perfect example of why. Even though you've studied political science and the U.S. Constitution you've made it abundently clear you have absolutely no understanding or appreciation for both the history of the times or spirit in which it was written. Reading the document, great. But to truly understand the Constitution and its meaning you must go beyond the text. You must study and take into account the writers, the spritit of its conception, and the history of the time in which is was written, to which you are utterly ignorant. The problem and ultimately sad comedy lies now in what you are doing, you are presuming to lecture people on the meaning of certain words and parts of the Constitution based on your own ignorance, lack of understanding, and pseudo-interpretations of one of most treasured documents and the basic law of our land. You are trying to lecture us on something you are completely ignorant about.

i understand perfectly,what you dont seem to understand,is that we are in 2010 now,no 1776,the revolutionary war is over for a long time

[Yehuda]

In other words, your basically against everything the 2nd Amendment Stands for and are pro-government force monopoly, etc. We understand this. You, however, have made it abudently clear that you do not.

i dont understand your point here,would you be so kind as to explain it to me?

[Hilbert]

i understand perfectly,what you dont seem to understand,is that we are in 2010 now,no 1776,the revolutionary war is over for a long time

No you don't understand, not at all; your post are utter proof of that.
Oh and by the way, who suggested that it was 1776 and not 2010?

[wildcat]

if you read what i put before,you will see that im not againts owning guns,just assault rifles and military arms,not hunting rifles

There are many firearms that do what you might define as assault rifles and military arms, that are hunting rifles.

[Hilbert]

i dont understand your point here,would you be so kind as to explain it to me?

The 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting.

[Yehuda]

There are many firearms that do what you might define as assault rifles and military arms, that are hunting rifles.
you can go on a shooting spread on a school,with a classic bolt action rifle with 2 bullets in the chamber and one in the cannon

[Yehuda]

The 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting.
no,but you guys,sais like i was againts owning guns,im onoy against owning certain types of guns

also,many of the states in the usa,have restrictions in guns,i think

[Hilbert]

you can go on a shooting spread on a school,with a classic bolt action rifle with 2 bullets in the chamber and one in the cannon

In other news, you can also go on a skull bashing spree with a rock. But what does this have to do with anything?

[wildcat]

i understand perfectly,what you dont seem to understand,is that we are in 2010 now,no 1776,the revolutionary war is over for a long time

do do not understand the freedoms that people have in the USA, because of our bill of rights. The people have the power here. Our military are from the people, they swear an oath to uphold the constitution and all legal orders (as does the police). The 2nd Amendment is about keeping government in check. Just look at the 20th century, all the millions murder by governments.

[Hilbert]

no,but you guys,sais like i was againts owning guns,im onoy against owning certain types of guns

also,many of the states in the usa,have restrictions in guns,i think

Your repeating youself, the only difference is your spelling is degenerating.

[Yehuda]

do do not understand the freedoms that people have in the USA, because of our bill of rights. The people have the power here. Our military are from the people, they swear an oath to uphold the constitution and all legal orders (as does the police). The 2nd Amendment is about keeping government in check. Just look at the 20th century, all the millions murder by governments.
please,do you think your country is the only democracy in the world?

[Yehuda]

In other news, you can also go on a skull bashing spree with a rock. But what does this have to do with anything?
yes,but they are certain tools that make it easier

sorry about my writing,i will try to improve it,its very late here

[Hilbert]

please,do you think your country is the only democracy in the world?

I thought I already explained this, we are not a democracy. Please refer to this post:

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showpost.php?p=4681072&postcount=42

I'll also quote it here so you don't have to visit the link.


Several things. First, the United States is not a Democracy, it's a Federal Republic; Federal Constitutional Republic if you want to be even more specific. In it's conception is was specifically designed not to be a democracy rather to be a mixed government incorporating ideas from many different theories of government and political theoriests (Locke, Montesquieu, etc, etc).

Second, the U.S. Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments of our Constitution) are not there to be changed; these are the non-negotiable individual rights of Americans which the government exists to protect. Further, the framers included numerous safe guards on/in the Bill of Rights to ensure that the newly formed Federal Government would do just that, protect the non-negotiable rights, not try to alter or destroy them. From 1st Amendment freedoms of speech and assembly (so we can criticize the government) to the 2nd Amendment which as George Washington himself referred to is the people's "teeth" against Government Tryanny and attempts to usurp the people's rights it exists to protect. The 3rd Amendment, the 4th Amendment, etc, etc. The entire Bill of Rights is designed in such a manner as to work together to both limit the government's power of citizens and act as a safeguard to ensure the government follows through on its obligations to protect our non-negotiable rights (whether it be by pointing out the attempts to do the opposite through speech and press or whether stuff hits the fan and heaven forbid it turns into armed revolution). Because of this intertwining, how it all works together, to alter or destroy one part of our non-negotiable rights is deal a blow to the entire complex, weakening the entire document. If we do not stand behind the founding principles (no, not just the piece of paper their written on but the spririt in which they were written) then what have become?

An attack on one part of the Bill of Rights, is the same as an attack on the whole thing. It's also a full frontal assault on the the spirit of the creation of this country as well as the intents and wishes of our founding fathers and the framers of the Constitution.

Now you don't even have to use the link! (I can't believe I'm repeating myself like this).

[wildcat]

please,do you think your country is the only democracy in the world?

has nothing to do with it, I said
do not understand the freedoms that people have in the USA, because of our bill of rights.

[wildcat]

please,do you think your country is the only democracy in the world?

I think you need to under stand

John Locke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke)
Nature Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Law)

These are the freedoms, it more fundamental, and the forefathers put this as our bill of rights.

[Geezah]

Are we able to nominate Yehuda as Dumnbarse of the week?

The only arguement he has left is an emotional one, but he just won't let it go!

[seraosha]

jesus christ, now he is sending me PMs about how only he understands racism because he is jewish...I swear to god folks, this guy has got to be pulling our collective legs.

[Hilbert]

jesus christ, now he is sending me PMs about how only he understands racism because he is jewish...I swear to god folks, this guy has got to be pulling our collective legs.

If so he managed to get a custom title out of it.