And So It Begins: the Begining of the End for the Second Amendment.

[Strike For The South]

There is no good logical reason for banning guns nearly all the people i know have muiltiple firearms and guees what none have been convicterd of murder Guns are useful in nearly everykind of situiation and EA no offense but what if multiple guys break in or you cant beat up the first guy. Im sorry but if men in black siuts come and try to take our guns they be hardpressed to get anyone here to hand them over peacefully

[Kaiser of Arabia]

They want my weapons? They can pry them from my cold, dead hands. That's all I have to say on the matter.

[Strike For The South]

They want my weapons? They can pry them from my cold, dead hands. That's all I have to say on the matter.

HereHere

[AntiochusIII]

They want my weapons? They can pry them from my cold, dead hands. That's all I have to say on the matter.

And cold, dead hands they shall be.

I agree that it's the culture that makes the guns so dangerous. The "cowboy" culture, if you must. People are more carefree and less concerned to pull the trigger. Switzerland, it seems, has a completely different form of culture, which I've heard from various people who visited there. Everybody abided by the law, it seems, and not surprisingly: Swiss tradition such as the infamous Swiss bank is long considered to be rigid and effective in their "business."

That's why people who asks for guns to be removed from USA's citizens' hands have more legitimate reasons to do so than those who demand simillar things in Switzerland.

[ichi]

No disrespect, because I am not arguing with your motives, but right now in the UK the balance of advantage is in my favour. I don't really want some loser teenager to be able to cancel that out just because he bought a saturday night special.

Nor would I. But the balance of advantage is not in your favor in the UK or in the US. All the karate and pointy Prussian sticks wont help you against an attacker armed with gun. Since prohibiting responsible citizens from owning guns does little to nothing to prevent a criminal from obtaining one, you are at risk.

From the Times

A gun crime every five hours since shooting of Danielle
By Sophie Kirkham and Richard Ford
As a man faces court charged with murdering Danielle Beccan, a Times survey finds that shootings are becoming commonplace
THE scale of gun crime in Britain since the shooting of 14-year-old Danielle Beccan in Nottingham last weekend is revealed today in a survey by The Times.

It found that a firearms offence was committed once every five hours in the six days after Danielle’s death, with at least 31 gun crimes in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland between Saturday and Thursday.

The survey results prompted a call for more armed police on the streets. Jan Berry, chair of the Police Federation of England and Wales said that the number of armed response officers had declined in recent years despite gun crime being on the increase.

“We have expressed concern about this as the pressure on those officers trained to deal with these incidents is getting greater,” she said. “In some areas — predominantly the urban areas — there should be far more police officers carrying guns than there are at the moment, for the safety of both the public and the police.”

Her call came after Paul Evans, David Blunkett’s American police adviser, said that Britain’s gun crime problem had to be nipped in the bud. “The one thing you want to make sure of is that it does not get out of control. You want to make sure that there are consequences for individuals who carry guns,” he said.

He said that a co-ordinated approach to police intelligence on who was using and selling guns was needed, together with tougher penalties for those who supplied weapons to juveniles.

Mr Evans told a Commons select committee on Tuesday that special laws had been adopted in Boston, making it a specific crime to traffic or supply firearms to young people.

Rather than stopping every young person in high-crime areas in the search for weapons, police should use a targeted approach. “It becomes critical to have a national intelligence model to identify those individuals that you believe are carrying firearms,” he said.

But police had to have a “very, very good handle and intelligence on the drug situation. Drugs and handguns go hand in hand. Many people in the drugs business will use firearms to help them continue their business.”

Sir Keith Povey, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary, said that gun crime had a huge impact and that the police did not underestimate its effect. But he admitted: “It is very, very difficult to overcome the random shooting that took place in Nottingham.”

The Government toughened gun laws last year, introducing a minimum jail term of five years for possessing an illegal firearm.

The Times survey found that only 24 of the 52 police forces in the UK had reported no firearms incidents in the past week, while nine were unable to provide any statistics. The rest had recorded between one and six incidents, the most being in London, where there were six shootings resulting in injury. They included a shooting in Hackney in which an 18-month-old girl was injured. The girl was in the car with her father when she was caught in a crossfire of up to 15 bullets. Two men were also seriously injured.

There were 13 reported armed robberies and attempted armed robberies, although a gun was fired in only one case: when a security guard at a north London bank was shot in the stomach on Thursday. The only shooting incident outside London was in Manchester.

The total figure is likely to be much higher, given the missing statistics. Many incidents are not classified as involving firearms unless a weapon is recovered or positively identified by a witness.

# A 20-year-old Nottingham man will appear before magistrate this morning charged with the murder of Danielle as she walked home from a fairground.

He was detained by police during routine stopchecks in Westminster on Monday and charged last night. Two other men remain in custody.

So, back to your argument. I dont want some goon with a pistol to have any advantage over me (or you, for that matter). We (you and I) as responsible citizens have the basic human right to protect ourselves, and for me and Mrs ichi that means firepower.

Our advantage comes from the fact that we are trained and practiced. Personally, I mind my P & Qs around the old girl cause she is a pretty good shot.

I'm not claiming that gun ownership is a sign of good breeding or an advanced civilization. You can make whatever subjective judgements you want, as well as any decisions about whether or not to support gun control. Every man has a right to protect what is his, and until he crosses over the line into criminality, that includes the right to keep and bear arms. The right is guaranteed under teh US Constitution, and the articles linked in this thread indicate that our government is not honoring that guarantee.

The guarantees in our Constitution are very important tous, and we tend to get upset when the guv tramples them. Imagine if Blair closed all the pubs after 6 pm each day, or if 10 Downing Street ordered a major change to the rules of soccer. Now soccer and beer aren't the most important things to Brits, nor are they indicators of intelligence and taste, but my guess is that most of you would go on a bit.

Same thing here, right or wrong its our way and we are concerned.

ichi

[Xiahou]

On the other hand her attacker won't be carrying a gun.

Right, it couldn't happen.

Possession of a firearm becomes an offence.

People are then arrested for possessing illegal firearms.

Therefore the ban was a failure because "gun crime" is rising.

Sure it's that simple?

Violent crime in the U.K. rose 6 percent in the three months through September, led by an increase in alcohol-fueled offenses and gun crime, police figures show.

link

The murder rate in London has doubled in 12 months to reach one of its highest levels ever, according to the most recent Home Office statistics, which have been leaked to the Telegraph.
....
Senior officers fear that a dramatic increase in the use of guns, particularly in battles between gangs competing over the trade in drugs, is the prime cause of the sharp rise in the number of deaths.

link

[Redleg]

I find it hard to get over concerned on this particlur issue - especially where it concerns New Orleans and weapons. Now the Illinois portion gives me a little concerned - but its in the legislative session it seems still.

http://gov.louisiana.gov/Press_Relea...ail.asp?id=973

GOVERNOR BLANCO DECLARES STATE OF EMERGENCY

BATON ROUGE, LA--Governor Kathleen Babineaux Blanco today issued Proclamation No. 48 KBB 2005, declaring a state of emergency for the state Louisiana as Hurricane Katrina poses an imminent threat, carrying severe storms, high winds, and torrential rain that may cause flooding and damage to private property and public facilities, and threaten the safety and security of the citizens of the state of Louisiana The state of emergency extends from Friday, August 26, 2005, through Sunday, September 25, 2005, unless terminated sooner.

The full text of Proclamation No. 48 KBB 2005 is as follows:

WHEREAS, the Louisiana Homeland Security and Emergency Assistance and Disaster Act, R.S. 29:721, et seq., confers upon the governor of the state of Louisiana emergency powers to deal with emergencies and disasters, including those caused by fire, flood, earthquake or other natural or man-made causes, in order to ensure that preparations of this state will be adequate to deal with such emergencies or disasters and to preserve the lives and property of the citizens of the state of Louisiana;

WHEREAS, when the governor finds a disaster or emergency has occurred, or the threat thereof is imminent, R.S. 29:724(B)(1) empowers her to declare the state of disaster or emergency by executive order or proclamation, or both; and

WHEREAS, On August 26, 2005, Hurricane Katrina poses an imminent threat to the state of Louisiana, carrying severe storms, high winds, and torrential rain that may cause flooding and damage to private property and public facilities, and threaten the safety and security of the citizens of Louisiana;

NOW THEREFORE I, KATHLEEN BABINEAUX BLANCO,
Governor of the state of Louisiana, by virtue of the authority vested by the Constitution and laws of the state of Louisiana, do hereby order and direct as follows:

SECTION 1: Pursuant to the Louisiana Homeland Security and Emergency Assistance and Disaster Act, R.S. 29:721, et seq., a state of emergency is declared to exist in the state of Louisiana as Hurricane Katrina poses an imminent threat, carrying severe storms, high winds, and torrential rain that may cause flooding and damage to private property and public facilities, and threaten the safety and security of the citizens of the state of Louisiana;

SECTION 2: The state of Louisiana's emergency response and recovery program is activated under the command of the director of the state office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness to prepare for and provide emergency support services and/or to minimize the effects of the storm's damage.

SECTION 3: The state of emergency extends from Friday, August 26, 2005, through Sunday, September 25, 2005, unless terminated sooner.

[/quote]

And from this site an update - based upon their understanding of the Louisana State Constitution.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchas...artial-law.php

[JURIST] The Louisiana Attorney General's office late Tuesday issued a number of clarifications concerning the "martial law" assertions made earlier in the day by local officials and law enforcement agents [JURIST report] in the wake of devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina. According to the AG's office, no such term exists in Louisiana state law. The declaration of a state of emergency [text] issued by Gov. Kathleen Blanco on Friday and set to continue for at least a month does, however, give officials power to suspend civil liberties in the process of restoring order, and the Louisiana Homeland Security and Emergency Assistance and Disaster Act of 1993 gives the governor and heads of parishes power to commandeer property. The New Orleans Times-Picayune has more.

What did people expect would happen when you tell the military (even if its the National Guard - they are still the military once called) to restore order?

Its a rough business being a soldier.

[lars573]

All I really have to say on this is what Cicero said "In time of war the law falls silent". With 1 addemdum, that it also does during famine, flood, plague, and pestilence too.

[Don Corleone]

Actually, I do quite like guns. I think I should be allowed to own a decent bolt action hunting rifle at least. (I've enjoyed machine guns, but I couldn't really justify owning one. Niot really a gentlemans's weapon ;-) ) I just don't like other people, and I don't think THEY should be allowed to own guns.

No offense EA, but I'm going to have to call you out on this one. This is the gun control argument in a nutshell. Speaking as a Brady Bill guy for a second, I am sane and rational. I know what I am doing. I will keep a firearm. But the rest of the populus, well, screw them. If they get a firearm, then my ownership doesn't mean as much. What's the sense of being elite if you're not? We must pass laws so the subhuman majority cannot hurt themselves, but we must allow exemptions for the smart people, such as myself. After all, I have a law degree.

If YOU have a right to self-defense and security, why don't I? What makes you better than me?

[Samurai Waki]

And cold, dead hands they shall be.

Hopefully he'll take a couple people who try to pry it out his cold, dead hands down with him...hehehe... DEATH TO THE PACIFISTS!

[Don Corleone]

Not you, Crazed Rabbit.

Hmm, must have been me. Geez, where did I ever imply I trust a Republican administration to look to my rights more than a Democratic one? Either will happily yank them. The reasons they give will be wildly different, but the end result will be the same.

Was that what you were looking for from me? Funny, I would have thought when I traced the decay of individual freedoms back to the mid-20's, I would have assumed you would have understood I was including the Reagen and both Bush administrations in there....

[Samurai Waki]

we need a nuclear war.... seriously.

[Strike For The South]

we need a nuclear war.... seriously.

And that would solve what

[Don Corleone]

It just dawned on me. I now know why Europeans are so obsessed with talking America into doing away with the 2nd ammendment....

They can't go reclaim their former colonies with all of us running about armed, now can they? If you want a weak enemy, what's the first step? Tell them you're their friend and talk him into weakening himself. Hmmm.... I meant this as satire, but sadly, it's ringing true...

[Samurai Waki]

And that would solve what

Everything... sorry I'm slightly anebriated... but at this point I could care less if everything was destroyed in a fiery nuclear holocaust... it's just stupid at this point.

[Aenlic]

And cold, dead hands they shall be.

I agree that it's the culture that makes the guns so dangerous. The "cowboy" culture, if you must. People are more carefree and less concerned to pull the trigger. Switzerland, it seems, has a completely different form of culture, which I've heard from various people who visited there. Everybody abided by the law, it seems, and not surprisingly: Swiss tradition such as the infamous Swiss bank is long considered to be rigid and effective in their "business."

That's why people who asks for guns to be removed from USA's citizens' hands have more legitimate reasons to do so than those who demand simillar things in Switzerland.

Well said. But, in my view, taking the guns away because of the tendency to use them for the wrong reasons is only addressing the symptom not the cause. It's a bandaid, a feel better slogan, in essence a red herring. After decades, even one might say a couple of centuries, of debate on the issue; the argument has become nothing more than a political tool - for both sides.

There is no reason that sane law-abiding citizens shouldn't have guns. The reasons against gun ownership all assume the opposite of sane and law abiding. You can't have the guns because you might do something insane or illegal. That doesn't seem sufficient reason to me to take away someone's right. How can society assume that someone is guilty before the fact? That is itself insane and a symptom of the problem as well.

If someone uses a gun illegally, then take the gun away and that person's right to ever own a gun again. Then they've proven they shouldn't have the right. Along with rights come responsibilities. Rights without responsibilities is just as insane as the other side assuming illegal acts that haven't yet occured.

Calling for banning guns without addressing the problems which form the cause of the illegal use of guns is just as much of an error as calling for an end to welfare without addressing the underlying causes of poverty. Won't work. Taking guns away from law-abiding citizens is just as bad as telling someone on welfare in a depressed community with no transportation to where the jobs are located to just "go get a job!" Doesn't solve the problem at all and just puts a bandaid on the symptoms.

[GodsPetMonkey]

That's great for you.

What about the rest of us non-Ninjas out here? Should a women just get raped if a sexual predator breaks into her house because they couldn't karate chop him?

I guess in England the muscle bound ogres are free to self-defense while the meek get targeted.

Welcome to the Cambrian Period!

I think you will find full quadriplegics would have difficulty using a gun anyway...

Or, if you can use a gun, you can cause harm to someone even without one, it doesn't take to much effort to knee someone in the groin (and that does hurt, a lot), or poke them in the eyes, or bite them (if they are really close, don't charge in to do this), or the best one yet, just run away if you can... fists and knives are not ranged weapons, and as they are incredibly unlikely to have a firearm, they are pretty much thwarted. Of course, this won't work in the US, where they ARE likely to have a gun, so don't try this at home.

Nor would I. But the balance of advantage is not in your favor in the UK or in the US. All the karate and pointy Prussian sticks wont help you against an attacker armed with gun. Since prohibiting responsible citizens from owning guns does little to nothing to prevent a criminal from obtaining one, you are at risk.

You are right, against someone with a gun, that shiny knife is pretty much useless... of course, the number of times I have had a crime committed against me with the bad guy being aimed with a gun is zero. The number of people I know who have been the victim of a gun crime is zero. I know quite a few people who own firearms (having grown up in the country), but they are all rifles, typically bolt-action, none of them assault weapons. That's right, no pistols, assault rifles, machine guns, sub-machine guns, machine pistols, flame throwers, rocket launchers, AA batteries, coastal defence guns... you get the idea. They just aren’t needed... an M16 isn't THAT good if you need to kill a sheep dying of starvation.
In fact, the only time I have seen a pistol is when it's safely holstered on a policeman.

Then again, I do live in a country where when an armed robbery is committed on the other side of the continent, it's major national news. I guess guns, and gun crime, is something that happens elsewhere.
Is it cultural? Or will removing all those pretty pea-shooters really make a difference? Probably both, most illegal guns started out as legal weapons, those legal weapons had to come from somewhere, and not even the biggest organised crime groups would raid the Springfield armoury, so I guess they were stolen from civilians. In theory, take away the guns from the civilians and you take away the source for the guns for the criminals, but this will only really work if there were not that many illegal guns to begin with, they will slowly be picked up over time and become prized, horded possessions (as they have here, the majority of pistols are in the control of the proper crime syndicates... you will find they like to shoot each other much more then rape little old ladies and do house breaks).

I guess ultimately the US patrons don't know what it is like to live in a gunless society, and I don't know what it's like to live in a gunfull society.

What makes you better than me?

I have a law degree.
Sorry, couldn't resist, you are a good person Don, I'd give you a honouree law degree to make you better then everyone else too.

*Please note: The above statement includes trace amounts of sarcasm, if congested in a serious manner, induce vomiting and consult a head doctor*

[Samurai Waki]

I don't think taking away guns is the answer... taking away a persons firearm... pistol, rifle, etc. that wants to use it for personal protection and then it gets stolen from them, all they have to do is cross the border into mexico (or have someone cross the border for them) and bring back a load of AKs fresh from Russia, I would bet any one of you 500$ USD that such a transaction is happening as we speak. Whats the use of taking away someone's registed .38 Special, so that they can illegally obtain an unregistered illegal AK-74? I think this is the dumbest thing a politician has done since going into Iraq blind. Personally I would be the first person to get an AK.

[Duke of Gloucester]

What saddens me about this debate is the number of US citizens who seem to think they need a gun to protect themselves. Here in the UK far fewer people live in fear, it seems.

Having said that I understand the historical significance of the 2nd ammendment in protecting citizens from the state. If I was american, I would want to see it maintained. I do think the ISRA are overstating the case. The 2nd ammendment is not the freedom that protects all others. If that were true, then I am not free. Confiscating firearms in a state of emergency is a violation of the 2nd ammendment, but not the beginning of its end. If that were true, anyone could end a freedom by violating it once.

[Duke of Gloucester]

Quite frankly, the UK can't be compared to the USA as far as crime is concerned. That said, it's more about the very fact that we have the right to own them.

I agree, and when you know the history of the 2nd ammendment, peoples determination to protect the right to bear arms makes more sense.

I feel much more outrage at the attack on freedom of speech in confiscating cameras. Free speech may be the freedom that all the others depend on.

[Del Arroyo]

You guys are a bunch of pansies and morons.

Thing were out of control in NO. Now the reaction has come. Stop wringing your hands and squirming around in your white cotton lacey panties! The situation sucked before. It sucks now. It will get better with time. Such is war.

And quite frankly, there are tens of thousands of military personnel with automatic weapons in the city, there is no current need for anyone else to keep a gun for self defense.

Drastic times call from drastic measures. Anyone, left or right, who can't understand that, is a pussycat.

DA

[English assassin]

No offense EA, but I'm going to have to call you out on this one. This is the gun control argument in a nutshell. Speaking as a Brady Bill guy for a second, I am sane and rational. I know what I am doing. I will keep a firearm. But the rest of the populus, well, screw them. If they get a firearm, then my ownership doesn't mean as much. What's the sense of being elite if you're not? We must pass laws so the subhuman majority cannot hurt themselves, but we must allow exemptions for the smart people, such as myself. After all, I have a law degree.

If YOU have a right to self-defense and security, why don't I? What makes you better than me?

None taken. I didn't make my point as clear as I should. What I was saying is that, personally I have enjoyed shooting, (and hence don't have an irrational prejudice against guns) and I know I am a safe person to trust with a gun. But because I can't say the same of the population at large I am happy not to have the right to own a gun myself as the price for ensuring "they" don't get them either.

I wasn't saying I should have a gun and "you" shouldn't.

[Samurai Waki]

You guys are a bunch of pansies and morons.

Thing were out of control in NO. Now the reaction has come. Stop wringing your hands and squirming around in your white cotton lacey panties! The situation sucked before. It sucks now. It will get better with time. Such is war.

And quite frankly, there are tens of thousands of military personnel with automatic weapons in the city, there is no current need for anyone else to keep a gun for self defense.

Drastic times call from drastic measures. Anyone, left or right, who can't understand that, is a pussycat.

DA

Yeah their safely securing a city where hardly anyone lives now. The reason NG guys are their right now isn't to secure the city from crime or militants but to secure the city from letting people in. makes sense of course. I just noticed from my past couple of comments I jump the fence to much.

[Spetulhu]

If I get called up for military duty I won't hesitate to collect guns from civilians in a disaster area. All armies I ever heard of reserve the right to confiscate whatever they need or want as long as there's a situation of emergency or martial law going. So does the one I'm part of.

Your house, your car, your guns, it doesn't matter. You can cry about your rights later. Maybe you'll even get compensation.

[Geoffrey S]

I doubt most people have the same physical means as you have to defend themselves. And what if a yob attacks you on the street with a knife?

Just out of curiosity, what is the position on carrying firearms in public in the US? I thought it was illegal, or is that only concealed firearms?

[Adrian II]

Why do you think Switzerland, land of a assualt rifle (in the real sense of the word) in every home, has the lowest crime in the world?

There are just as many private firearms in the U.S. as there are in Switzerland. However, practically no one uses a firearm in anger in Switzerland (only 66 gun-related deaths a year, last time I checked). In the U.S. firearms are used to kill on a daily basis by just about every category of citizen.

The reason is in the nature of your society, not in the ownership of guns. The difference between American and Swiss society is not in the judicial regime; the U.S. punishes offenders more severely and has the death penalty on top of that. The difference is also not in some sort of welfare-induced criminal mentality of the American 'underclass' since the Swiss have ten times more and better welfare than Americans have and yet they do not have the same sort of underclass.

I believe the difference has to do with the fear and distrust that appear to reign supreme in your society. This whole thread for instance oozes fear and anger; fear of the U.S. government, fear of strangers, fear of terrorists, fear of your own police, fear of the world at large. That is not a healthy, let alone a constructive attitude. To put it succinctly, as the risk of sounding mildly offensive: ladies and gentlemen of the American persuasion, the world is not a jungle; your country is a jungle precisely because you have that outlook on the world.

[Redleg]

I believe the difference has to do with the fear and distrust that appear to reign supreme in your society. This whole thread for instance oozes fear and anger; fear of the U.S. government, fear of strangers, fear of terrorists, fear of your own police, fear of the world at large. That is not a healthy, let alone a constructive attitude. To put it succinctly, as the risk of sounding mildly offensive: ladies and gentlemen of the American persuasion, the world is not a jungle; your country is a jungle precisely because you have that outlook on the world.

A generalization AdrianII.

By the way I don't think the world is a Jungle - is something completely different.

[Adrian II]

A generalization AdrianII.

What else do you expect if we discuss entire societies, Redleg? For instance, from you I would expect a balanced view on the different numbers of gun-related deaths in the U.S. and in countries such as Canada or Switzerland where gun ownership is just as widespread.

[Don Corleone]

None taken. I didn't make my point as clear as I should. What I was saying is that, personally I have enjoyed shooting, (and hence don't have an irrational prejudice against guns) and I know I am a safe person to trust with a gun. But because I can't say the same of the population at large I am happy not to have the right to own a gun myself as the price for ensuring "they" don't get them either.

I wasn't saying I should have a gun and "you" shouldn't.

I didn't mean 'me' necessarily. But can't the same arguments be applied to being a parent? I know I'm good at it, but I'm not too sure about everyone else? Or managing my own finances? Or any of a bunch of choices we wake for ourselves?

Rights aren't doled out. They're not something that you earn after you prove competence or join the right group. They're either universal, or they're not a right. This applies to any right, including the right to self-defense.

[Don Corleone]

I have a law degree.
Sorry, couldn't resist, you are a good person Don, I'd give you a honouree law degree to make you better then everyone else too.

*Please note: The above statement includes trace amounts of sarcasm, if congested in a serious manner, induce vomiting and consult a head doctor*

Aaha! The truth comes out!!