Printable View
In being 'unique', your country is — how do I put this? — hardly unique. And while I agree that there can be no 'one size fits all' solution, it is always unwise for any country to ignore lessons found elsewhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by keysersoze
Is that really the root cause, though? I would argue that it's not, and that the root cause is to be found rather deeper in society, more specifically in the culture of widespread gun ownership. It follows, surely, that as well as there being more legal owners of firearms there are also going to be more illegal owners?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior
Is there any other country that values gun ownership, and the right to protect one's self, like the U.S.A.?Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
And your second comment, though perhaps true, isn't true based on the logic you used. Maybe being the most populous western nation helps as well.
I'm not saying that we are unique because we are unique. We are unique because we have a culture, and laws, and a psychology, and a society, an ecomony, and an ethic, and politics, that make us different from any other country. There is no one way to approach a hot-button topic. Doing so is such an incomplete way to deal with an issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
I'll give you just four angles, because my wife is nagging me to go shopping.
Society: the U.S., unlike many other nations, is a confluence of so many cultures, particularly in and near large metros, that we are less trusting of each other within our own borders.
Psychologically: We are more narcissistic than other nations.
Ethics: gun ownership is deeply entrenched in our sense of justice.
Economy: we sell lots of guns. Taking that away, or limiting it, hurts small business owners and their families.
Since this thread started, I have taken a good look at the Second Amendment and its background. Clearly it was originally intended to lay down the right of a state or even a city to have an armed militia, a [British] Territorial Army or [US] National Guard type of organisation, ie the right of the People (the citizens of the USA) to bear arms as members of the militia. It does not appear that the writers of the amendment intended that it should give individual citizens to carry pistols either openly or concealed. In their wisdom, the US courts have extended (or interpreted) the meaning of the amendment to also include individuals owning and wearing side arms, and owning a personal arsenal.
If the will is there, the courts could rule for some curbs and controls on gun ownership without contravening the original intent of the amendment.
The reality is that with the huge number of guns in circulation it is very difficult for any attempt at regulation to do more than scratch on the surface of the problem. I don't live in the USA and don't know what controls there are, whether they work or whether they are enforced, but I am sure that something can be done to reduce gun ownership and the risk to the populace as a whole - if there is the will to do so.
I'm not a gun owner either but I would simply like to add one thing to this barbecue:Quote:
Originally Posted by keysersoze
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8i5PEhtWzY
As has been vociferously explains by Starter when I mentioned this, the Second Amendment basically is only the second half:Quote:
Originally Posted by D-Type
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Not once in any discussion and especially anything by the NRA is the first half of the clause ever admitted. Also, the right to "self-defence" which is also put forward as the excuse is not only not mentioned in the constitution at all but the right itself or so-called "Castle Doctrine" which is supposed to come from English Common Law, never exists in any case law pre-1776 or after it in the UK at all. It is a pure invention of people who wish to intrepret the Second Amendment as an absolute.
As an aside, the Second Amendment refers to "the right of the people" as a collective whereas the Fifth Amendment specifically relates to a "person" in the singular. Again, I've never heard any sensible argument which adequately explains why the Second Amendment should have even ever been applied to an individual and certainly not in the absolute sense.
I personally fail to see how any semi-automatic or automatic weapons in the hands of individuals either fulfils the requirement of being "well regulated" nor "being necessary to the security of a free State". If anything it is not well regulated and endangers the security of a free State and forms a less perfect Union.Quote:
Originally Posted by D-Type
You're a cool cat, Doc. Not only do you live in my favorite city (my brother lives north of you, in Vista) but you are a fan of the greatest college football program ever. I'm very much looking forward to kicking some Irish @$$ next week.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Giacomo Rappaccini
Due to my Father being an alumni of The University of Miami, which had as you know a rivalry of biblical proportions in the 90's with Notre Dame, I developed a tremendous dislike for, as my father would put it "The Crying Irish” :DQuote:
Originally Posted by keysersoze
Myself being a fan of “The Red Elephants” since the 60’s I remember that rivalry with Notre Dame all too well, and believe we owe them another thorough a$$whippin’ :s mash:
Yea' Vista That is still S.D. as far as we are concerned!!! :up:
I don't know, but I would certainly say that valuing the right to protect oneself can be taken to extremes. Firearms, to me, represent that extreme.Quote:
Originally Posted by keysersoze
As for other countries, weaponry of all types seems quite highly valued by the populaces of Iraq and Afghanistan.