A foreign view of America

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Quote

As an example, gun rights were confirmed, not granted by the Bill of Rights.

Nonsense. Utter nonsense.

Actually, according to the founders, he's right. The constitution, and specifically the bill of rights, was written as a limitation on the federal government. They were specifically meant to recognize individual rights and prevent the government from infringing on them. Nowhere does it say "the right to XYZ is granted." Instead it says "shall make no law abridging XYZ" or "the right to XYZ shall not be infringed."

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[quade 3]

Yet, I can absolutely say without a doubt in my mind that without the Rights being enumerated, they would not exist. There is no such thing as a "natural" right no matter what anyone says. None. There are only the "rights" people as a society agree to recognize.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[SivaGanesha 2]

You might want to read an interesting book that I read recently, "Waking up to War", by Falkland Islander Lisa Watson. The book describes Ms. Watson's experiences as a 12-year-old girl during the Falklands War. The Falkland Islanders were illegally invaded by the junta that then controlled Argentina--and you folks from the UK certainly took your sweet time in responding. It is clear that, in the interim, the presence of guns--a well regulated militia--on the Falkland Islands was a big factor in empowering the Falkland Islanders to stand up to the junta while waiting for the UK troops taking their time rolling in to town on their cruise ships. Make no mistake--ultimately I support the long standing claim of a democratic Argentina to Las Malvinas. But I also like the kick ass attitude of the Falkland Islanders especially Ms. Watson.

"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

[Kennedy 0]

So to your mind, Jews had no rights in the 1930s because the elected leader said so? Women have no rights in many countries today because their law doesn't recognize them? I would disagree. I believe in human rights, and don't believe that just because a government fails to recognize them they cease to exist.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[quade 3]

Quote

So to your mind, Jews had no rights in the 1930s because the elected leader said so? Women have no rights in many countries today because their law doesn't recognize them?

Functionally, yes.

If you believe you have the right to practice religion any way you want, go visit Saudi Arabia and send me a report from Mecca.

Again, unless the society agrees, you don't have the right.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Kennedy 0]

We'll have to agree to disagree. It's late for me. Maybe I'll have a better answer tomorrow.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[RMK 3]

In reference to the Rudyard Kipling quote “"What do they know of England, who only England know?” your picture is not complete unless you have looked at a country as both an insider and outsider.

I lived in the US through my early school years and went to university there. In the southern town I grew up in, a majority of families (mine included) owned guns. After graduating I lived in Chicago and kept a .45 semi-auto handgun with clips of bullet points in my flat. So yes, I’ve experienced the American gun culture firsthand.

However after being back in the UK for the last 20 years and travelling quite extensively, I fully agree with the majority of the rest of the planet – it is not conducive for a modern society to have its populace running around kitted up like Rambo. Dogmatic and narrow mindedness should be avoided not applauded.

You can argue how you do it, but fewer guns in America would be a distinctly good thing.

You have an odd mix of collective viewpoints; it’s a country where a 20yr old can’t buy a beer, but the 16yr old kid working at the Wal-Mart counter can have a Glock in the back of his waistband. TV shows where everyone is getting their heads chopped off are OK, but don’t dare show a woman’s bare breast on television or print ads (like Europe); it will corrupt the children and be the downfall of society.

The American public would be better served if they listened more to the most intelligent members of their population, not just the loudest and most unrelenting.

"Pain is the best instructor, but no one wants to attend his classes"

[ibx 2]

Quote

We'll have to agree to disagree. It's late for me. Maybe I'll have a better answer tomorrow.

Please name one right that has naturally been given to you...

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Anyone who thinks passing laws will make criminals more likely to obey them is living on another Planet. Or in this case, another country.

Right about the country, wrong (yet AGAIN) about my point. This is about making it harder for those who shouldn't have guns to buy them. It doesn't affect "Law abiding" gun owners any more than buying from a store does now. At the moment, there is no real point having background checks AT ALL because those they would catch will just go private. Making it that little bit harder for those that shouldn't have guns is what more than 90% of the country understand is a good thing. Its a shame that its too difficult for the remaining <10% to understand.

More of the usual blather from down under. Now tell us specifically
how that can be done.

[mistercwood 287]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Anyone who thinks passing laws will make criminals more likely to obey them is living on another Planet. Or in this case, another country.

Right about the country, wrong (yet AGAIN) about my point. This is about making it harder for those who shouldn't have guns to buy them. It doesn't affect "Law abiding" gun owners any more than buying from a store does now. At the moment, there is no real point having background checks AT ALL because those they would catch will just go private. Making it that little bit harder for those that shouldn't have guns is what more than 90% of the country understand is a good thing. Its a shame that its too difficult for the remaining <10% to understand.

More of the usual blather from down under. Now tell us specifically
how that can be done.

Let me try a different tack. Maybe the solutions some of us put forward aren't perfect. What do you suggest? Seriously. Give me a path where you feel your rights are protected, but less people die for stupid, often avoidable reasons. Or are those deaths acceptable to you? I would've thought those on both sides of this issue would ultimately be concerned with any consensus that minimises harm....

You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

[kallend 1,625]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Anyone who thinks passing laws will make criminals more likely to obey them is living on another Planet. Or in this case, another country.

Right about the country, wrong (yet AGAIN) about my point. This is about making it harder for those who shouldn't have guns to buy them. It doesn't affect "Law abiding" gun owners any more than buying from a store does now. At the moment, there is no real point having background checks AT ALL because those they would catch will just go private. Making it that little bit harder for those that shouldn't have guns is what more than 90% of the country understand is a good thing. Its a shame that its too difficult for the remaining <10% to understand.

More of the usual blather from down under. Now tell us specifically
how that can be done.

Take your fingers out of your ears and stop saying "lalalala". If you did that you'd know already.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[wmw999 2,123]

Paul, the basic tenet of the Constitution is that the rights are, in fact, inherent. To me, it's like an American postulate. Whether other countries and societies agree is irrelevant, any more than whether 2+2 = 4 or 11.

It's based in part of English common law, and on the English bill of rights of 1689 -- both of these were in the immediate experience set of the founding fathers (as was nearly universal Christianity), and therefore would be likely to be assumed as being pretty universally familiar.

By specifically enumerating some of the rights, in the bill of rights, they were identifying ones that they felt were particularly important, not the ones they were specifically granting -- in my view.

Now, also in my view, we are reaching a combination of crowding and gun availability that's making guns a too-ready resolution for a lot of short-term problems. The proposal to have free instant universal checks for gun purchases is good, but it's also open to abuse, where a neighbor can check up on a guy who's pissed him off and publicize that he doesn't pass a check. I still like the annual can-buy-guns card better.

My thoughts.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

we are reaching a combination of crowding and gun availability that's making guns a too-ready resolution for a lot of short-term problems.

This, right here, is the reason for so much disconnect between many law-abiding urban citizens' attitudes about guns and many law-abiding non-urban citizens' attitudes about guns. The difference becomes a cultural one.

I find that whenever I try to explain this in terms of cultural differences to strongly-feeling members of either group, they tend to respond aggressively as though I'm their ideological opponent. I guess that means I've probably hit the mark.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Anyone who thinks passing laws will make criminals more likely to obey them is living on another Planet. Or in this case, another country.

Right about the country, wrong (yet AGAIN) about my point. This is about making it harder for those who shouldn't have guns to buy them. It doesn't affect "Law abiding" gun owners any more than buying from a store does now. At the moment, there is no real point having background checks AT ALL because those they would catch will just go private. Making it that little bit harder for those that shouldn't have guns is what more than 90% of the country understand is a good thing. Its a shame that its too difficult for the remaining <10% to understand.

More of the usual blather from down under. Now tell us specifically
how that can be done.

Take your fingers out of your ears and stop saying "lalalala". If you did that you'd know already.

I'm sorry, what was that specific plan you have? Oh, that's right, you don't and neither does Stimpy.

[mistercwood 287]

What's your plan then? Or do you consider the current level of gun violence in your country to be acceptable?

You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

[sfzombie 3]

Quote

In reference to the Rudyard Kipling quote “"What do they know of England, who only England know?” your picture is not complete unless you have looked at a country as both an insider and outsider.

I lived in the US through my early school years and went to university there. In the southern town I grew up in, a majority of families (mine included) owned guns. After graduating I lived in Chicago and kept a .45 semi-auto handgun with clips of bullet points in my flat. So yes, I’ve experienced the American gun culture firsthand.

However after being back in the UK for the last 20 years and travelling quite extensively, I fully agree with the majority of the rest of the planet – it is not conducive for a modern society to have its populace running around kitted up like Rambo. Dogmatic and narrow mindedness should be avoided not applauded.

You can argue how you do it, but fewer guns in America would be a distinctly good thing.

You have an odd mix of collective viewpoints; it’s a country where a 20yr old can’t buy a beer, but the 16yr old kid working at the Wal-Mart counter can have a Glock in the back of his waistband. TV shows where everyone is getting their heads chopped off are OK, but don’t dare show a woman’s bare breast on television or print ads (like Europe); it will corrupt the children and be the downfall of society.

The American public would be better served if they listened more to the most intelligent members of their population, not just the loudest and most unrelenting.

i agree with this. fewer guns would be good, but the point you made about tv is the real problem. just because we are allowed to keep, and in some cases carry, guns does not mean we should promote violence. this is the real problem. glorifying violence and bombarding our youth with it in the formative years removes all of the negative consequences.

and to kallend above, read the specific plan i posted. would work and is a good compromise. and as i am sure you are aware of, a compromise is the best that can be achieved in anything which so greatly divides the masses. the goal is reducing violence with guns, but how do you do that when all you see is glorified hollywood violence everywhere. example: when i was in germany, most of the sex crimes were committed by american gi's. because germans were not prudes, they were not repressed, and it fostered more understanding of the opposite sex. when you restrict something, the thing becomes "forbidden fruit" if you will, and only realistic portrayal can have any hope to change that.

and again, how does any of this gun control debate fit into the thread? typical of how divisive the topic is. americans using sound bites to try to show how the original poster was wrong. fucking pathetic, and sad to say, typical.

http://kitswv.com

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

This, right here, is the reason for so much disconnect between many law-abiding urban citizens' attitudes about guns and many law-abiding non-urban citizens' attitudes about guns. The difference becomes a cultural one.

I find that whenever I try to explain this in terms of cultural differences to strongly-feeling members of either group, they tend to respond aggressively as though I'm their ideological opponent. I guess that means I've probably hit the mark.

Now THAT I see all the time.

digression - city people also don't understand the difference between a child and a pet either. Try to explain why their damn dog is NOT really 'just like having a kid' and you get the same type of obtuse lack of understanding also.....

((this particular topic generates some REALLY weird discussions disconnected with reality - more than the gun thing))

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

I'm sorry, what was that specific plan you have? Oh, that's right, you don't and neither does Stimpy.

Stumpy - he's short, not a cat.

[quade 3]

Quote

Paul, the basic tenet of the Constitution is that the rights are, in fact, inherent.

Which is kind of high handed talk coming from a bunch of 18th century slave owners who additionally were committing genocide against indigenous people. Oh, and for the most part you also needed to be a property owner and male.

See, that's where the argument falls down. The ONLY reason it's a "basic tenet of the Constitution" is because a bunch of people agreed to say it was. However, the reality of the situation was completely different.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[TreeRat 0]

when the poorist man has a roof over his head..... when the last hungry child is feed...... when a man wont die for the words he said........ then shall we be free...... untill that day there is no law that will protect any of us

EarthBoundMisfit

[metalslug 31]

Quote

That said, one of the finest trial attorneys I've ever watched in a courtroom has a ponytail.

Indeed. Many good lawyers have a good pony show.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Let me try a different tack. Maybe the solutions some of us put forward aren't perfect. What do you suggest? Seriously. Give me a path where you feel your rights are protected, but less people die for stupid, often avoidable reasons. Or are those deaths acceptable to you? I would've thought those on both sides of this issue would ultimately be concerned with any consensus that minimises harm....

a shitty, ineffective solution is not better than no solution at all. One that is those things and erodes citizens' rights is far worse than the status quo.

That said - you get an easy start with drug legalization, since the bulk of the shootings are related to the drug trade. Take away the rewards of fighting for this high risk trade, and people stop doing it.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

By specifically enumerating some of the rights, in the bill of rights, they were identifying ones that they felt were particularly important, not the ones they were specifically granting -- in my view.

That's not your view, Wendy. That's how it happened. If people want to believe in their hearts other nonsense, all power to them. They're entitled to have faith in any belief they want.

[SkyDekker 1,123]

Quote

That's not your view, Wendy. That's how it happened. If people want to believe in their hearts other nonsense, all power to them. They're entitled to have faith in any belief they want.

So clearly prior to the Bill of Rights coming into effect, slaves and women had an inherrent right to free speech and the bearing of arms?

Was it then the Bill of Rights and the Constitution that took these rights away from them, or did they just not have these rights to begin with?

If they didn't have these rights to begin with, then how are they inherrent rights simply just confirmed in writing?

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

You might want to read an interesting book that I read recently, "Waking up to War", by Falkland Islander Lisa Watson. The book describes Ms. Watson's experiences as a 12-year-old girl during the Falklands War. The Falkland Islanders were illegally invaded by the junta that then controlled Argentina--and you folks from the UK certainly took your sweet time in responding. It is clear that, in the interim, the presence of guns--a well regulated militia--on the Falkland Islands was a big factor in empowering the Falkland Islanders to stand up to the junta while waiting for the UK troops taking their time rolling in to town on their cruise ships. Make no mistake--ultimately I support the long standing claim of a democratic Argentina to Las Malvinas. But I also like the kick ass attitude of the Falkland Islanders especially Ms. Watson.

Theres nothing like revisionist history

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca