In an effort to find some common ground.

In an effort to find some common ground. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

jlf1961 -> In an effort to find some common ground. (1/30/2013 12:13:57 AM)
I think the problem between Americans, Australians, and the British on guns is the lack of common ground. To try and find that common ground, I am going to break the Firearms question down to a few different aspects, and sense we have threads going on about bans, gun violence, I am going to ignore those aspects. First, the US has the second amendment. 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. I would like to know what the basic guarantee of gun ownership exists in Australia and the UK. Gun regulations. The US has a large number of regulations concerning guns, one problem, past regulation changes, law changes and other political maneuvering has taken the teeth out of the ATF, the agency that enforces those regulations. I would refer the Australians to the Ruby Ridge incident and the Branch Davidian standoff in Waco. And there is no limit to how many guns a person may own. I have no clue how that compares to the UK and Australia. Police Raids to arrest and confiscate illegal guns. Again, the constitution, fourth amendment. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. The particular popularity of a specific weapon type. IN the United States it is the AR15 type weapon due to its versatility and the fact it can be chambered for larger rounds besides the .223. Remington Model 870 Pump-Action Shotgun Smith & Wesson Model 10 Revolver Colt M1911. Various bolt action hunting rifles. In my opinion the longer barrel makes them more accurate for hunting. These are based on personal opinion admittedly, so if anyone would like to add others feel free. And of course I would like the examples of the popular weapons in the UK and Australia. Game animals Deer, dove, duck, geese, bear, elk, moose, quail, rabbit to name a few. I know that the UK has deer, at least in Scotland, but I would be interested in other game in the UK and Australia. Pest animals. Wild pigs, coyotes and various invasive species that are too numerous to list, and usually region specific. Locally, the preferred rifle to deal with wild pigs and coyotes are various versions and configurations of the AR 15. What are the similar problems in the UK and Australia? As I said, there has to be some sort of common ground that we can at least understand, and hopefully go from there. Also, name a particular game animal in your country and what you use to hunt it. Caliber and gun type. And if anyone has any suggestions on dealing with wild hogs, I am open to hearing it. What is being done all over the US is not having much impact.

Nosathro -> RE: In an effort to find some common ground. (1/30/2013 12:44:48 AM)
You should also add the gun culture. In my view, of the three countries United States, British and Australia, it is the strongest in the US http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/breaking-the-american-gun_b_2348282.html

calamitysandra -> RE: In an effort to find some common ground. (1/30/2013 2:58:56 AM)
Now, I am from Germany, not one of your target countries, but here are my 2cent anyway. I truly believe that there is a huge mentality gap. While we often believe that western nations should not be that different from another, in truth there are certain points on which the cultural differences are huge. Guns are one of those points. Even if I have learned to understand a lot of it over the years, thanks to, among others, some posters on here, I am still not, and will most likely never be, able to truly get it. Many of the opinions voiced on the pro gun side of the argument are absolutely, completely alien to me. I can not comprehend that they could be a popular, accepted stand. If I read that there is serious consideration given to having armed guards in schools, it is even difficult for me to form a response, aside from "what the fuck?". It does not compute. USAmerican gun culture is so far removed from my personal frame of reference, and I suspect from that of most Europeans and Australians, that I am simply unable to properly fit it into my cultural horizon. I would guess that the same in reverse is true for many in the US. That makes a discussion about this point extremely difficult, because both sided can not understand the other, which leads to some of the nastiness we have seen ensuring. I believe that we could compare regulations and purposes weapons have in different countries till we are blue in the face, but it will not enable us to close that gap. late edit to add: There is another such point of cultural difference wrapped up in the gun debate. The Constitution, maybe not so much the reverence it is afforded, but the suggestion that it can and should be used as the end-all still today without accounting for societal changes that have come to pass. Yes, it is a very important, historic document. Something to be proud of, to be sure. Even something that still has relevance and can be used as a guide. But also: historic! Something that needs to be seen in the context of its time. The strict adherence to its every letter? The use as a kind of trumps all in discussion? Totally alien.

kiwisub12 -> RE: In an effort to find some common ground. (1/30/2013 4:16:07 AM)
When i came to the US from New Zealand, i hit the States in Los Angeles... in the airport i saw my first hand gun and my first black man. I didn't know what to look at first! [:D] In NZ when i lived there, you could own a hunting rifle, but no-one could own handguns. From my internet perusal of kiwi news over the years i don't think that has changed a whole lot. From my point of view as an alien, i don't quite see how letting every man and his dog access to handguns constitues a "miltita", but then i don't get elected law officials or elected judges either (becaust the average Joe on the street knows so much about how well someone running for a position can do the job[8\|]).

Moonhead -> RE: In an effort to find some common ground. (1/30/2013 4:26:53 AM)
The main game animals that get shot over here tend to be birds rather than deer: this is why most feel that anything besides a shotgun is excessive for hunting. If you were to go shooting grouse with an AK47, there probably wouldn't be much edible left after you'd hit anything...

Rule -> RE: In an effort to find some common ground. (1/30/2013 5:59:39 AM)
Since when is asking questions against the Terms of Service?

DesideriScuri -> RE: In an effort to find some common ground. (1/30/2013 6:09:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: calamitysandra Now, I am from Germany, not one of your target countries, but here are my 2cent anyway. I truly believe that there is a huge mentality gap. While we often believe that western nations should not be that different from another, in truth there are certain points on which the cultural differences are huge. Guns are one of those points. Even if I have learned to understand a lot of it over the years, thanks to, among others, some posters on here, I am still not, and will most likely never be, able to truly get it. I have a friend who is working for an American company in German. He's been there 4 years now, I think. I have learned an awful lot about the German culture from him. But, I know him well and, while we have our political differences, I trust his opinion and have much respect for him. A native German can tell me everything about their culture, but he can relate it to ours in a way that few non-Americans could. It's just a symptom of what you were raised in. Amazingly interesting, though. quote: Many of the opinions voiced on the pro gun side of the argument are absolutely, completely alien to me. I can not comprehend that they could be a popular, accepted stand. If I read that there is serious consideration given to having armed guards in schools, it is even difficult for me to form a response, aside from "what the fuck?". It does not compute. Trust me when I say this: there are Americans that respond, "WTF?!?" when there are people considering armed guards at schools. Then again, when I moved from my hometown (small city) to my current area (10x larger than my hometown), I responded, "WTF?!?" when I found out many of the local high schools had metal detectors at every building entrance. That was foreign to me. I know the city school in my hometown has a metal detector at their entrances, but my suburban school, or the parochial school? No idea. quote: USAmerican gun culture is so far removed from my personal frame of reference, and I suspect from that of most Europeans and Australians, that I am simply unable to properly fit it into my cultural horizon. I would guess that the same in reverse is true for many in the US. That makes a discussion about this point extremely difficult, because both sided can not understand the other, which leads to some of the nastiness we have seen ensuring. I believe that we could compare regulations and purposes weapons have in different countries till we are blue in the face, but it will not enable us to close that gap. late edit to add: There is another such point of cultural difference wrapped up in the gun debate. The Constitution, maybe not so much the reverence it is afforded, but the suggestion that it can and should be used as the end-all still today without accounting for societal changes that have come to pass. Yes, it is a very important, historic document. Something to be proud of, to be sure. Even something that still has relevance and can be used as a guide. But also: historic! Something that needs to be seen in the context of its time. The strict adherence to its every letter? The use as a kind of trumps all in discussion? Totally alien. When you hear about "American Exceptionalism," don't take that to mean that we think we are exceptional simply because of where we happened to be born. There isn't anything exceptional about the part of the continent that inherently makes us any different from anyone else. Do, however, take "exceptionalism" to mean we were the exceptions at our Country's birth. Most areas were monarchies and/or dictatorships, with very few republics. Our Declaration of Independence was a document that set the stage for our split from England at that time. But, it also put forth several "universal truths" that could very easily be applied to everyone, everywhere. The US Constitution is nothing more than a pact among the States and the Citizens, that creates the Federal Government. This pact is, essentially, the basics of what powers the Federal Government is allowed to have, based on what it is being given. It's a "bottom up" sort of structure. In the absence of any government, people have the authority to do whatever they want, as long as they don't infringe on someone else's rights to do whatever they want. Individuals give up some of their authority to the lowest level of Government to more efficiently protect those rights. But, all the authorities at that level originate from the governed. The next governmental level up gets it's authorities from the levels below it. In practice, all authorities any government that has jurisdiction over me has, comes from the people in that jurisdiction. I live in a township, and that is the lowest level of government. They have authorities to govern the township. There is a "County" level of Government which is a more regional level that governs over all that fall within that region, cities, townships, etc. There are 88 Counties in the State of Ohio, so Ohio has some governing authorities over all 88 Counties. The, there is the Federal Government that has some governing authority over the 50 States (+ some Districts and Territories, etc.). In theory, each level of Government governs the level below it and has less and less impact on the further levels as they get further away. Thus, the Ohio State level has less individual impact on me than my County and Township levels. The Townships and Cities deal with their members. The County deals with the Townships and Cities within their boundaries, and less dealings with each individual, as an individual. The State governs mainly the Counties, with less direct impact on the Cities and Townships, and even less impact on the individuals. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Germany#Administrative_divisions quote: Germany comprises sixteen states that are collectively referred to as Länder.[17] Due to differences in size and population the subdivision of these states varies, especially between city states (Stadtstaaten) and states with larger territories (Flächenländer). For regional administrative purposes five states, namely Baden-Württemberg, Bavaria, Hesse, North Rhine-Westphalia and Saxony, consist of a total of 22 Government Districts (Regierungsbezirke). As of 2009 Germany is divided into 403 districts (Kreise) on municipal level, these consist of 301 rural districts and 102 urban districts.[18] Assuming this is accurate, the best way to relate the political structures between America and Germany would be the 403 "Districts" would be the "local" governments here (cities, townships, etc.). The 22 "Government Districts" would be the "County" governments here. The 16 "States" there would be akin to our 50 "States." The Federal Republic of German would be the same level as our United States of America. If our US Constitution were to vanish, we'd not be a massive territory of lawlessness. We'd be 50 distinct nation-states. Edited to fix a formatting mistake.

Yachtie -> RE: In an effort to find some common ground. (1/30/2013 6:51:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: calamitysandra USAmerican gun culture is so far removed from my personal frame of reference, and I suspect from that of most Europeans and Australians, that I am simply unable to properly fit it into my cultural horizon. I would guess that the same in reverse is true for many in the US. That's understandable. Hard to assimilate what one never had, at least as centric as the gun culture is to historic Americanism. The major difference between cultures (here the gun culture), US v EU/Aus, is the aspect of why it's so foundational in the US. That is why you cannot properly fit it into your cultural horizon. You can try to quantify it, qualify it, label it, whatever. You can view it via statistics and the laws the US has. But you cannot understand it. That makes a discussion about this point extremely difficult, because both sided can not understand the other, It's not about understanding what you are unable to properly fit it into my cultural horizon. That's not possible for you to do. The preference therefore is to change what you don't understand into what you do understand. The other direction is not available to you, to change your paradigm to what you do not understand. Cannot be done. That is the battle being fought here. There is an element within the US desiring to root out that foundational aspect; attempting a cultural paradigm shift. That element would say, and argue (you've seen it here in P&R), that such a shift would be quite American. There is an element of the American gun culture that does not agree. edit: Not all foreigners don't get it. Watch the vid.

Yachtie -> RE: In an effort to find some common ground. (1/30/2013 8:30:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Could there be a better rifle for those applications, maybe if someone designed it, but then it would probably fall into the category of Assault Weapon. Citing a General Service Administration (GSA) request for proposal (RFP), Steve McGough of RadioViceOnline.com reports that DHS is asking for the 7,000 “select-fire” firearms because they are “suitable for personal defense use in close quarters.” The term select-fire means the weapon can be both semi-automatic and automatic. Civilians are prohibited from obtaining these kinds of weapons. The RFP describes the firearm as “Personal Defense Weapon (PDW) – 5.56x45mm NATO, select-fire firearm suitable for personal defense use in close quarters and/or when maximum concealment is required.” Additionally, DHS is asking for 30 round magazines that “have a capacity to hold thirty (30) 5.56x45mm NATO rounds.” Why reinvent the wheel?

jlf1961 -> RE: In an effort to find some common ground. (1/30/2013 8:35:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Could there be a better rifle for those applications, maybe if someone designed it, but then it would probably fall into the category of Assault Weapon. Citing a General Service Administration (GSA) request for proposal (RFP), Steve McGough of RadioViceOnline.com reports that DHS is asking for the 7,000 “select-fire” firearms because they are “suitable for personal defense use in close quarters.” The term select-fire means the weapon can be both semi-automatic and automatic. Civilians are prohibited from obtaining these kinds of weapons. The RFP describes the firearm as “Personal Defense Weapon (PDW) – 5.56x45mm NATO, select-fire firearm suitable for personal defense use in close quarters and/or when maximum concealment is required.” Additionally, DHS is asking for 30 round magazines that “have a capacity to hold thirty (30) 5.56x45mm NATO rounds.” Why reinvent the wheel? Who said anything about reinventing the wheel, I was talking about something that could do the job better. Someday someone will design a rifle that is better suited for dealing with problem wild life.

AlittleCrazy098 -> RE: In an effort to find some common ground. (1/30/2013 8:36:16 AM)
nvm

Yachtie -> RE: In an effort to find some common ground. (1/30/2013 8:43:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Who said anything about reinventing the wheel, I was talking about something that could do the job better. Someday someone will design a rifle that is better suited for dealing with problem wild life. Oh, ok. You were as to the second, not the first. That was not clear. Are there legitimate civilian uses for an AR15, yes, but not in the city and not for regular hunting. Could there be a better rifle for those applications, maybe if someone designed it, but then it would probably fall into the category of Assault Weapon.

MrRodgers -> RE: In an effort to find some common ground. (1/30/2013 8:44:35 AM)
Not surprisingly that when issues and policy concern society at large (say Obamacare) a court interpretation results from the debate about what are our collective rights, if any and just what 'our founding fathers were really thinking' in any interpretation of how the constitution really reads. Accordingly, and how the constitution reads, you do not have an individual right to healthcare but when it comes to guns..... ...the courts circumscribe the 2nd amendment to disregard the militia condition and thus we create an individual right to guns in a total disregard of how the constitution really reads.

MrRodgers -> RE: In an effort to find some common ground. (1/30/2013 10:46:51 AM)
Just for a historical perspective...Athens was the world's first democracy, (council of 500) was first continuously occupied by people around 1400 BC and ironically enough...had short term political limits. Rome was formally founded in 900 BC (Palatine Hill) as an escape from Etruscans rule.

Fellow -> RE: In an effort to find some common ground. (1/30/2013 11:26:31 AM)
quote: Are there legitimate civilian uses for an AR15, yes, but not in the city and not for regular hunting. The second amendment of the Constitution is not about hunting. How many people hunt these days? Use of AR 15 is legal everywhere, including in the city under the circumstances that justify its use. I do not prescribe into the ideology that separates the society into to groups: helpless civilian slaves and people with authority [police state apparatus].

DesideriScuri -> RE: In an effort to find some common ground. (1/30/2013 11:30:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro You keep bringing up Socrates and his Moral Obligation. You didn't discuss my comment last time, and I seriously doubt you'll do so now. So, I bring to you a new comment. If you want to apply Socrates' Moral Obligation, why not obey the law the way it stands and not let people change it? Socrates didn't live in the US. I don't know what the political system looked like back then, compared to the system in the US, but his theory relies on the rights of the people being given by government, rather than the rights of the government being given by the people. Huge difference. My most humble apolgizes for not answering you. First off, Greece was one of the first countries to have democraies which we claim to be. Well actually we are an Electoral Repulic. Now if gun owners have (which maybe part of being a gun owner) a sound distrust of government, then should those individuals be allowed to benefit from the Government they distrust? As pointed out they do benefit, does that not make them hypcrites? In Socrates time laws were made like they are here, perhaps not in the exact way but laws were created by people not government. The laws were also changed. Has this helped? Helped? Not at all. We are not a democracy, which is what Greece was. We are a Federal Constitutional Republic. Just because someone benefits from a Government doesn't mean they should trust that Government about everything. By that criterion, if I were to maintain your yard throughout the year, I would get to tell you what car to drive, if I so chose? The idea that a government that provides a benefit will always be beneficial, is ridiculous, and dangerous. The Declaration of Independence includes: quote: That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. We have a right and a duty to make sure government doesn't become destructive to our unalienable rights. I won't say that owning a firearm is an unalienable right, granted by our Creator, but it is a civil right that allows us to exercise our right and perform our duty to maintain a non-destructive form of government to govern over us. The Constitution defines the Federal Government. It wasn't created to give it omnipotence, but to primarily govern the States into one Nation and to deal with the world outside our boundaries, facing the rest of the world as one Nation. The States were to deal with the internal aspects of the Nation.

jlf1961 -> RE: In an effort to find some common ground. (1/30/2013 12:55:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Who said anything about reinventing the wheel, I was talking about something that could do the job better. Someday someone will design a rifle that is better suited for dealing with problem wild life. Oh, ok. You were as to the second, not the first. That was not clear. Are there legitimate civilian uses for an AR15, yes, but not in the city and not for regular hunting. Could there be a better rifle for those applications, maybe if someone designed it, but then it would probably fall into the category of Assault Weapon. Sorry. What makes the AR so popular is that it is available in different configurations.

Rule -> RE: In an effort to find some common ground. (1/30/2013 1:28:55 PM)
FR I state this unequivocally: Most criminals are savages.

PeonForHer -> RE: In an effort to find some common ground. (1/30/2013 1:41:03 PM)
quote: I think the problem between Americans, Australians, and the British on guns is the lack of common ground. [Etc] You seem like you're a sensitive sort of man. That much at least I can relate to.

imdoingitagain -> RE: In an effort to find some common ground. (1/30/2013 1:48:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Not surprisingly that when issues and policy concern society at large (say Obamacare) a court interpretation results from the debate about what are our collective rights, if any and just what 'our founding fathers were really thinking' in any interpretation of how the constitution really reads. Accordingly, and how the constitution reads, you do not have an individual right to healthcare but when it comes to guns..... ...the courts circumscribe the 2nd amendment to disregard the militia condition and thus we create an individual right to guns in a total disregard of how the constitution really reads. It has nothing to do with (as you say) disregarding the militia "condition." The wording is pretty clear. The statement about the militia is not a "condition," but a statement. While the wording of the rest of the Amendment is pretty clear: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." How do you possibly see that as anything else besides outright stating the people have a right to arms and the government shall not infringe on that right?

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875