Do I think violently oppressed people should be armed? In a lot of cases, I do. Do I think that the threat of possible future oppression justifies 200 million guns in a country? I'm not so sure.

With regards Zimbabwe, I definitely think that more needs to be done to help. I'm not so sure about military intervention, especially involving British troops, considering the history there.

Arming the Zimbabwean people? Again I'm not so sure. It's just I don't know enough about the situation (tribal & religious links etc) to go one way or another.

Just to re-emphasise I'm not 100% anti-gun but I'm sure as shit happy I live in a country where the majority of the people aren't armed and doubly so that the police aren't armed.

I've been robbed, attacked blah blah blah. Not once did I think to myself 'Boy I wish I had a pistol/shotgun/fully automatic weapon'.

Heeby Jeeby wrote:I find it fucked up that in the 21st century people keep looking back to the founding fathers for guidance.

There were about two to three million people in the US at that time.

There were no large cities in the 1790's.

There were no automatic weapons in the 18th century.

Even more to the point, there was no US MILITARY BUDGET in the 1790s. That's why the 2nd Amendment was there to begin with, "in order to form a well-regulated Militia." We paid our Revolutionary War soldiers in land grants because we were flat-out broke. Our maritime presence was a joke and would continue to be so until the Civil War. In short, we needed militias back then to continue to exist as a country.

I find it cute to see people talking about what a group of people did 200+ years ago as WE.

Yeah, WE sure need some slaves around 'cause WE sure can't do all the work. Also, WE need to tell those engiines to move west 'cause god sent us here.

I wonder if the founding father would shop at Wal Mart?. For guns, you know.

jcamanei wrote:I find it cute to see people talking about what a group of people did 200+ years ago as WE.

Yeah, WE sure need some slaves around 'cause WE sure can't do all the work. Also, WE need to tell those engiines to move west 'cause god sent us here.

I wonder if the founding father would shop at Wal Mart?. For guns, you know.

If only those native Americans had been armed better.

I also live in England, and I'd like to offer a slightly different perspective with regards to the gun situation here, some of you 'gun-toting americans' may find this interesting.
My Grandfather owned a gun, as did my Father, and my Brother currently has two shotguns. My Grandad was a farmer, but this does not automatically give you a legal right to a gun here. All 3 obtained shotgun licenses. This meant going through a system of checks by the police which gets more and more stringent as each year goes by.
In order to obtain a license, they check first how you store the gun, it must be in a metal cabinet, fixed to a wall, police will inspect your home to see where the cabinet is kept, and where you keep the key and the ammunition, and if they are satisfied that it would not be too easy for someone to break into your house to get the gun. They perform a criminal record check too. You need to present this license in order to buy ammunition. Once this is done, there is no need for them to visit your home again until it comes around to renewing the license a few years later.
My brother does not live in the country, although he does have written permission from a farmer he knows to shoot vermin on that farm. This did help him to get the license, but there are many more in this land who got their licenses because they belong to a gun club. Whilst i know that most gun crime is committed with illegal firearms, there have also been terrible massacres committed with licensed firearms in the UK too (Dunblane and Hungerford are just two that spring immediately to mind).

[quote="Rotten Tanx"]To Americans it might seem just a normal part of life but if you could view it as an outsider. Imagine if I told you everyone in England were allowed to have their own working tank. It's pretty insane that a regular person can have a device designed to end peoples lives.

What I'm saying here is that a regular person can get a gun in England through legal means. Yes it takes a bit more effort than in the US, but thats not to stop that person later going insane and shooting a classroom full of kids.
If you believe the British media, it is supposedly very easy to obtain an unlicensed firearm if you live in an inner city area these days, the number of shootings (and fatal stabbings) among inner city youths seems to be spiralling out of control, and there are now more guns knocking around our country than there ever were before.

Speaking as an outsider myself, i think the higher incidence of gun crime in the USA has little to do with the right to bear arms. The criminals take a gun to work because the cops have guns and vice-versa. If you murder someone then you will possibly get the death sentence, so theres all the more incentive to make sure that you wipe out any witnesses too.
I don't own a gun myself, I personally don't like killing things for fun (even those that eat what they kill must get a certain thrill out of it, otherwise they would surely just go to the butchers? Skinning and gutting a carcass is not most people's idea of a good time).

Apologies for length of this post, but I just wanted to add my two pence to this one.

JohnnyDoglands wrote: If you murder someone then you will possibly get the death sentence, so theres all the more incentive to make sure that you wipe out any witnesses too.
.

I enjoyed reading your take on US gun laws. Until recently, I was unaware of the recent huge uptick in gun violence in your country. However, you should know that the death penalty does not function as an effective deterrent. You can find (usually politically, 'morally' motivated) arguments to the contrary, sure, but most of the evidence refutes the argument that the death penalty prevents any kind of violent crime. The point you make about 'taking out witnesses' seems to be based on sensationalism, as well as being contradictory to your point re: deterrence (Kill more to avoid the chair for murder?)

Dr. O' Nothing wrote:

JohnnyDoglands wrote: If you murder someone then you will possibly get the death sentence, so theres all the more incentive to make sure that you wipe out any witnesses too.
.

I enjoyed reading your take on US gun laws. Until recently, I was unaware of the recent huge uptick in gun violence in your country. However, you should know that the death penalty does not function as an effective deterrent. You can find (usually politically, 'morally' motivated) arguments to the contrary, sure, but most of the evidence refutes the argument that the death penalty prevents any kind of violent crime. The point you make about 'taking out witnesses' seems to be based on sensationalism, as well as being contradictory to your point re: deterrence (Kill more to avoid the chair for murder?)

Thanks. I wholly agree with you actually. I wasn't trying to start a debate on the effectiveness of the death penalty. Nor am I not one of the 'bring back hanging' brigade. As you say there is still murder in countries which have the death penalty, and there isn't more murder in the UK simply because of the absence of it. All i meant was that hypothetically, if the shooter already killed someone, they may as well dispose of the witnesses too. Less chance of getting identified. You can only execute someone once after all. A bit sick, but If you go around shooting people then thats pretty wreckless in itself.

Heeby Jeeby wrote:With regards Zimbabwe, I definitely think that more needs to be done to help. I'm not so sure about military intervention, especially involving British troops, considering the history there.

I'm not sure about this myself either given the (assumed) complexities I am unaware of. However for me that also goes for the presentation of the scenario itself having read about how numerous poor countries are driven into economic misery so that globalists can then swoop in and sweep up once the revolution has come.
I don't know if that is what is happening there but I am personally suspicious of the way our media presents it to us.
I haven't looked into it much but writing that I feel a little ashamed and so will set off to find out.

If, however, it is as simple as a leader has decided to keep power through violence because of his inability to give it up then I say give the people guns - and lots of em.

Heeby Jeeby wrote:Do I think that the threat of possible future oppression justifies 200 million guns in a country? I'm not so sure.

There are two ways to look at this as far as I can see it (and obviously America, Britain and Ireland differ).

First of all - some would say that possible future is here now. America had its government stolen and there and here our civil liberties are being robbed from us all under exactly the same kind of fear mongering that totalitarian regimes have used. But enough, at the moment, are comfortable enough to not give a shit.

The second view is about the future.
Its all well and good us giving up our right to arms and our civil liberties under the guise of security but doing so relies on everyone being blind optimists. We have to assume that everything will stay as stable as it is forever. All future governments will be benign to their own populations. It requires an assumption that we have reached some kind of utopia that can't be improved upon and can never regress.

I am certainly not so optimistic. Doubly so given Rick's point that any oppressive government precedes the worst of the oppression with disarming the country.

There are countries with the same amount of gun ownership as America with an awful lot less killing. The argument about the right to bear arms seems a side show to me. Americans kill each other with more regularity for far more significant treasons than that they own a lot of guns.

Those things should be looked at first.

As far as I am aware they are hardly even considered.

That was fast:

chicago tribune 6-28-08 wrote:A day after the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision striking down a gun ban in Washington, the National Rifle Association on Friday sued Chicago and three suburbs to have their firearm bans repealed.

The separate federal suits by the NRA target gun bans in Evanston, Morton Grove and Oak Park in addition to Chicago.

On Thursday, the Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association also sued Chicago to overturn its 26-year gun ban.

Earwicker wrote:If, however, it is as simple as a leader has decided to keep power through violence because of his inability to give it up then I say give the people guns - and lots of em.

Who could possibly arbitrate this?