Democracy ethymologically means 'the power of the people'... An unrestricted democracy where the mass can decide anything and infringe on fundamental individual rights is just another totalitarism. (example : the nazis deciding some ethnicities did not have the right to be alive) Hopefully, the political systems we experiment are Republics, which means that the governments, elected by the people, have to stay within defined bounds, and cannot infringe the individuals most fundamental rights. Guns will not preserve democracies, and I could care less regarding a lot of democratic totalitarisms still existing worlwide, but guns will certainly preserve Republics. OHLC
Thanks hapaboy, I agree triple 7 is in another world but reading stuff like he posts is more fun than reading the joke threads, especially while I'm at my computer working on a new trading idea. OHLC-I agree pure democracy sucks. Or as A. Taylor said: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage" Oh by the way, he was speaking of the Athenian Democracy. DS
What about Georges RIPERT on legal tyranny "Confronted with such a tight regulation, can man pretend to be free because the tyranny he is subjected to derives from the law? Of course, the legal power is not called "tyranny" since it appears to be established by the general will in the common interest, and since, in any event, occurrences of arbitrary power are infrequent. But a master's equity does not mean that his subjects are not slaves. ... And when their servitude lasts and their thoughts follow their behavior, the state becomes totalitarian and subjection is complete. Since it is legal servitude, the regime is still said to be democratic. Such is the hypocrisy of political language." and "I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country [he said that for having ratified the FED : he realised too late it was his biggest error]. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. ... no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." - Woodrow Wilson US President Ethymomology is great but not enough to garanty democracy for real or you can just believe any politician promise. We are not in mathematics field where true or false can be decided easily so that interpretation can be abused and if not so there wouldn't need to be vigilant about Constitution: http://www.constitution.org/default.htm for who said: <IMG SRC=http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/attachment.php?s=&postid=252774> Kissinger at Bilderberg conference. P.S.: I warn some people daring say that Bilderberg doesn't exist since they have now decided to announce their conference calendar through Reuters since 1997 saying that is it a "semi-private" conference and that it is so as the participants can speak freely without the pressure of the opinions : haha great at least for kissinger ! This is the most recent year about Reuters I found : http://www.freepressinternational.com/bilderberg.html And who is of course at the board : the same Kissinger Bilderberg participants abide by the so-called Chatham House rule, which forbids everyone present from disclosing what anybody else has said. "The <B>secrecy is regarded as very provocative</B>. Men in power talk towards consensus behind closed doors on timely issues on the <B><FONT COLOR=RED>political agenda [What agenda are they talking about ]</FONT></B>," Ulf Bjereld, a political science professor at Gothenburg University, said. Bilderberg members include former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, U.S. Senators Christopher Dodd, John Kerry and Chuck Hagel, World Bank chief James Wolfensohn, France's central bank governor Jean-Claude Trichet and former IMF heads Michel Camdessus and Stanley Fischer.
Every 13 seconds in America a privately owned firearm is used to prevent a violent crime. That's almost 2.5 milllion incidents a year. Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the defender believed that someone "almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been used for protection -- a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone "probably" would have died if the gun hadn't been used in defense.) In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first -- disproving the myth that having a gun available for defense wouldn't make any difference. In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn't be called "newsworthy" by newspaper or TV news editors). In 64.2% of these gun-defense cases, the police learned of the defense, which means that the media could also find out and report on them if they chose to. In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger to the intended victim. (Defenses against a family member or intimate were rare -- well under 10%.) This disproves the myth that a gun kept for defense will most likely be used against a family member or someone you love. In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was facing two or more attackers -- and three or more attackers in over a quarter of these cases. (No means of defense other than a firearm -- martial arts, pepper spray, or stun guns -- gives a potential victim a decent chance of getting away uninjured when facing multiple attackers.) In 79.7% of these gun defenses, the defender used a concealable handgun. A quarter of the gun defenses occured in places away from the defender's home. Source: "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalance and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, in The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995 Marvin Wolfgang, Director of the Sellin Center for Studies in Criminology and Criminal Law at the University of Pennsylvania, considered by many to be the foremost criminologist in the country, wrote in that same issue, "I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of Brave New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police ... What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clearcut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator. ...I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence. The National Crime Victim Survey does not directly contravene this latest survey, nor do the Mauser and Hart Studies. ... the methodological soundness of the current Kleck and Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it. ... The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well." So this data has been peer-reviewed by a top criminologist in this country who was prejudiced in advance against its results, and even he found the scientific evidence overwhelmingly convincing. By Comparison: A fatal accident involving a firearm occurs in the United States only about once every 6 hours. For victims age 14 or under, it's fewer than one a day -- but still enough for the news media to have a case to tell you about in every day's edition. Source: National Safety Council A criminal homicide involving a firearm occurs in the United States about once every half hour -- but two-thirds of the fatalities are not completely innocent victims but themselves have criminal records. Source: FBI Uniform Crime Reports and Murder Analysis by the Chicago Police Department Kids and guns? Here's what a 1995 federal study investigating juvenile crime found after looking at 20,000 randomly selected households: Relationship between type of gun owned and percent committing street, drug and gun crimes. Illegal gun: Street crimes = 74% Drug use = 41% Gun crimes = 21% No gun: Street crimes = 24% Drug use = 15% Gun crimes = 1% Legal Gun: Street crimes = 14% Drug use = 13% Gun crimes = 0% "The socialization into gun ownership is also vastly different for legal and illegal gunowners. Those who own legal guns have fathers who own guns for sport and hunting. On the other hand, those who own illegal guns have friends who own illegal guns and are far more likely to be gang members. For legal gunowners, socialization appears to take place in the family; for illegal gunowners, it appears to take place 'on the street.'" "Boys who own legal firearms have much lower rates of delinquency and drug use and are even slightly less delinquent than nonowners of guns." Source: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, NCJ-143454, "Urban Delinquency and Substance Abuse," August 1995. Making it legally possible for civilians to carry concealed weapons does not make society more violent or result in shootouts at traffic accidents. The rate of criminal misuse of firearms by the hundreds of thousands of persons licensed to carry concealed firearms in Florida is so low as to be statistically zero. In fact, homicide, assault, rape, and robbery are dramatically lower in areas of the United States where the public is allowed easy access to carrying concealed firearms in public. Sources: Florida Department of State, Concealed Weapons/ Firearms License Statistical Report and <http://law.lib.uchicago.edu/faculty/lott/guns.html>"Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns," by John R. Lott, Olin Fellow in Law and Economics at the University of Chicago Law School and David B. Mustard, graduate student, Department of Economics, Journal of Legal Studies, January 1997. Making guns less available does not reduce suicide but merely causes the person seeking death to use another means. While gun-related suicides were reduced by Canada's handgun ban of 1976, the overall suicide rate did not go down at all: the gun-related suicides were replaced 100% by an increase in other types of suicide -- mostly jumping off bridges. Source: Rich, Young, Fowler, Wagner, and Black, The American Journal of Psychiatry March, 1990
Harrytrader. Since you live in France what's the crime rate there. ? Are there lots of mindless killings like in USA. I don't speak French so it's hard to find out. What about southern France, say Nice and vicinity.
A valid point, especially when one considers the reaction to prohibition in the last century. And yet, laws so fervently opposed they are not necessarily forgotten. Instead, it seems the powers that be take a more moderate and drawn out approach to the abolishment of a given right. You may notice that the consumption of alcohol is being ever more limited via laws 'protecting the public health.' It makes sense to nearly everyone that drinking and driving should be illegal, but this precedent allows for more stringent laws. For one, our government makes the blood-alcohol content allowable while driving a car extremely low, and thus the need to have atleast one non-drinking friend in a group is formed - because someone needs to drive. Then, create dissuading punishments like they have in NY - and I would appreciate a verification of this by anyone 'in the know,' In NY, if you are arrested for DWI your car is seized. If you go to court and plead your case and win - thereby being exonerated for driving while intoxicated - you do not get your car back. This, as I believe Giulliani stated, is a civil matter and one must sue the state to retrieve their vehicle. You cannot drink in public, you cannot be drunk in public - disturbing the peace. You must be 21 to drink - where does this come from?? You are responsible enough to elect a public official, but not enough to monitor your own alcoholic intake? To serve alcohol you must have a license, which can be expensive. If someone, in your home, has a drink and it is shown that they were under the influence after they left your home and thereby caused harm to another - you too are responsible. You are also responsible if an individual below the legal age drinks in your home, even if you are not present (although one could argue you took adequate measures to prevent this by say hiding or locking your alcohol in a cabinet not plainly visible and you are thusly not liable). The list continues, but the point is if it is in the best ineterests of government to prevent its citizens from doing something, anything, that governement will eventually - if granted the power by the acceptance of or complacensness of it citizens - prevent those acts. harrytrader, good job - you've begun to post in a coherent fashion. I guess the sun even shines on a dog's ass once in a while
As the data I posted earlier proves, having a gun is the best means to defend oneself bar none. Optional and his unrealistic ilk propose non-lethal weapons like bean bag blunderbusses and sticky foam (hilarious!), and bemoan the supposed hypocrisy of Americans who are religious yet are for the right to bear arms; he has even stated the ridiculous - that he doesn't envision Jesus carrying a firearm. Well, it isn't Jesus you have to worry about breaking into your home, raping your spouse, or killing your kids. I wonder what Optional and his fellow guns-are-bad fanatics would do in a situation where they were threatened by some seriously bad people intend on doing them harm and worse. Other than plead for their lives and preach that violence is bad, probably nothing. There's a word to describe Optional and his brethren: VICTIM.
ARGUMENTS, FACTS, QUOTES "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 Second Amendment to the Constitution "Since the Second Amendment. . . applies only to the right of the State to maintain a militia and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right to possess a firearm." U.S. v. Warin (6th Circuit, 1976) Unless the Constitution protects the individual's right to own all kinds of arms, there is no principled way to oppose reasonable restrictions on handguns, Uzis or semi-automatic rifles. If indeed the Second Amendment provides an absolute, constitutional protection for the right to bear arms in order to preserve the power of the people to resist government tyranny, then it must allow individuals to possess bazookas, torpedoes, SCUD missiles and even nuclear warheads, for they, like handguns, rifles and M-16s, are arms. Moreover, it is hard to imagine any serious resistance to the military without such arms. Yet few, if any, would argue that the Second Amendment gives individuals the unlimited right to own any weapons they please. But as soon as we allow governmental regulation of any weapons, we have broken the dam of Constitutional protection. Once that dam is broken, we are not talking about whether the government can constitutionally restrict arms, but rather what constitutes a reasonable restriction. The 1939 case U.S. v. Miller is the only modern case in which the Supreme Court has addressed this issue. A unanimous Court ruled that the Second Amendment must be interpreted as intending to guarantee the states' rights to maintain and train a militia. "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument," the Court said. In subsequent years, the Court has refused to address the issue. It routinely denies cert. to almost all Second Amendment cases. In 1983, for example, it let stand a 7th Circuit decision upholding an ordinance in Morton Grove, Illinois, which banned possession of handguns within its borders. The case, Quilici v. Morton Grove 695 F.2d 261 (7th Cir. 1982), cert. denied 464 U.S. 863 (1983), is considered by many to be the most important modern gun control case. http://archive.aclu.org/library/aaguns.html
get rid of all the guns. guns are a deadly weapon. and deadly weapons in the hands of morons is a dumb thing. no brainer. get those guns from those idiots ..right now! :eek:
Nice post. If it were socially acceptable or remotelly possible to win that argument, I would make that argument. Of course, if it were socially acceptable, I would drape myself in velvet - but who wouldn't?