Why are guns so important to Americans?

[RetiredGySgt]

No Rock, the legislature takes it seriously and imposes a maximum sentence of life. But it's entirely possible (I'm not familiar with English law) that there are other pieces of legislation that impact upon how a court will sentene an individual. The genius of that sort of system is that each case is considered on its merits. That means that justice rather than pure revenge is adminstered.

Wrong, you claimed that because a LIFE sentence was available for rape that meant they took the crime serious. Again if in fact a life sentence is in fact no where near that in reality your entire argument fails.

Just as if I claimed that a sentence of 15 years proved something and it turned out that a sentence of 15 years was really 6 or 7 with good behavior and parole board policies.

The average length of a supposed life sentence is relevant and is important in the argument.

 

[Diuretic]

Wrong, you claimed that because a LIFE sentence was available for rape that meant they took the crime serious. Again if in fact a life sentence is in fact no where near that in reality your entire argument fails.

Just as if I claimed that a sentence of 15 years proved something and it turned out that a sentence of 15 years was really 6 or 7 with good behavior and parole board policies.

The average length of a supposed life sentence is relevant and is important in the argument.

No Rock, the legislature can condemn a crime by making life the maximum term of imprisonment. That's a pretty solid condemnation.

The legislature knows that no two criminal cases are alike. So the legislature allows that the court (the judge) who hears the case (all the details) can, if and when the jury says "guilty" can then administer a fair sentence, taking all competing interests into consideration. The judge is no doubt (in England) constrained by sentencing legislation and by what's called the "tariff" for sentencing (that is, crimes of a similar nature should attract similar sentences).

But that's how it should be. The legislature has stated what the max is, they allow the judge to determine sentence on the facts.

 

[ErikViking]

Guns and America...

I think the issue goes slightly beyond rhyme and reason. Guns (like it or not) has a cultural and historical position within the US.

And people like to use the fact-part of that. There must be a right to carry a gun in order to ensure freedom for the individual. When this was written in to the constitution - what did society look like?

What tools and what resources were there?

I mean... today, government doesn't really need a gun to put a citizen out of action. Also, human resources are available to a higher extent. I am not exactly drawing any conclusions here, but if you think guns are required for your freedom - perhaps it is time to requst some new rights?

The right to full access of government knowledge about oneself?
The right to remain private during communication?
(Good luck trying to really assemble a militia today)

 

[LOki]

I don't think English law uses the classification "violent" crime, they're more likely to call it "aggravated".

They use the term "Violence against the person." In "civilized" fashion, this DOES NOT include rape.

 

[editec]

I am not exactly drawing any conclusions here, but if you think guns are required for your freedom - perhaps it is time to requst some new rights?

Bingo!

There mere possession of guns does not keep us safe from intrusive or repressive government.

That's still no reason to outlaw them, of course.

We don't need any more laws about guns, either, as far as I can tell.

What we need is strict enforcement of the laws already on the books.

 

[LOki]

Bingo!

There mere possession of guns does not keep us safe from intrusive or repressive government.

That's still no reason to outlaw them, of course.

We don't need any more laws about guns, either, as far as I can tell.

What we need is strict enforcement of the laws already on the books.

*fart*

Sorry about your luck, but in this country, we don't "request" rights. We just have them; they're considered "self evident."

At the risk of being accused of being "rights queer": In the U.S., we demand that our governments not infringe upon our rights, and instead protect those rights as they uphold our Constitution.

And yes, the mere possesion of guns certainly doesn't keep us safe from an intrusive or repressive government--we have to be willing to use them. But that certainly can be made impossible by unconstituionally passing and enforcing laws infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms.

Which I'm willing to argue right now, is the actual intention of such legislation.

And you're right editec, we don't need more right-infringing laws, we need those laws abolished--then, of course, strictly enforce the remainder.

 

[Vintij]

*fart*

Sorry about your luck, but in this country, we don't "request" rights. We just have them; they're considered "self evident."

At the risk of being accused of being "rights queer": In the U.S., we demand that our governments not infringe upon our rights, and instead protect those rights as they uphold our Constitution.

And yes, the mere possesion of guns certainly doesn't keep us safe from an intrusive or repressive government--we have to be willing to use them. But that certainly can be made impossible by unconstituionally passing and enforcing laws infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms.

Which I'm willing to argue right now, is the actual intention of such legislation.

And you're right editec, we don't need more right-infringing laws, we need those laws abolished--then, of course, strictly enforce the remainder.

Yes but why are multiple offenders still able to have those rights? Just the other day I heard a story of someone who was arrested 17 times that finally killed 2 people. He had a registered gun, why were his gun rights not taken away after the first arrest? That is the problem in this country. We continue to allow offenders and criminals keep certain rights, until they kill somebody or commit some other felony. Not everyone deserves those rights, they should be taken away just as easy as they are given.

 

[LOki]

Yes but why are multiple offenders still able to have those rights?

You want to now what? I have no fucking idea!

But this one thing I am absolutely sure of: It makes NO FUCKING SENSE WHAT-SO-EVER, to infringe on the rights of everyone else in response to those offenses.

Just the other day I heard a story of someone who was arrested 17 times that finally killed 2 people. He had a registered gun, why were his gun rights not taken away after the first arrest?

I have no fucking idea why.

Let me tell you a story that happens millions of times every day, but it just never makes the news: Millions of people who own guns commit no crimes at all, let alone crimes that involve their guns. MILLIONS OF TIMES...EVERY FUCKING DAY! I know a bunch of guys who own machine guns; actual--and in every real and valid meaning of the term--ASSAULT WEAPONS. These guys have them every day, and never shoot anyone with then--NEVER! Can you fucking believe that crazy shit?!?! And we never hear about them--these crazy fucking crackers ["gun queers"] with machine guns not shooting anyone! And those machine guns; those ASSAULT WEAPONS? This you will just NOT believe: They don't up and shoot anyone either--EVER! Just the craziest bat-fucking-shit in the world, huh?

Yet the very tiniest of a percentage of gun carrying folk wind up being douche-bags, and the FIRST THOUGHT that pops into the authoritarian, nanny statist, retard's mind is: PUNISH THE INNOCENT!!!! CRUSH THE RIGHTS OF EVERYBODY!!!! Poof! There goes the Second Amendment.

That is the problem in this country. We continue to allow offenders and criminals keep certain rights, until they kill somebody or commit some other felony.

The problem is that we tolerate retards.

Not everyone deserves those rights, they should be taken away just as easy as they are given.

You're right that not everyone deserves to have their rights, but you're wrong to presume that rights are given to anyone.

 

[Diuretic]

They use the term "Violence against the person." In "civilized" fashion, this DOES NOT include rape.

Because rape isn't necessarily carried out with violence in English law, that's probably why they don't include the element of violence.

 

[LOki]

because Rape Isn't Necessarily Carried Out With Violence In English Law, That's Probably Why They Don't Include The Element Of Violence.

so?

 

[Vintij]

I thought everyone born in the US are born with rights? Am I mistaken? Well, after you cross the line, obviously you need to take rights away. That is the argument I am making. I don't see why gun owners are upset over that. As long as they follow the rules like they say they are, why does it effect them in a negative way? Please someone explain to me why taking away gun rights to someone who is a repeat offender, would upset anyone. Tell me why taking away free speech rights to someone who infringes on others right to free speech is any different. We are born with inalienable rights, but those rights are not free passes for every American, they are rights to only the law abiding Americans, therefore they should be taken away from repeat criminals.

 

[Diuretic]

so?

You posted:

I find it difficult to consider a society (like England's) to be civililized when it doesn't classify a crime like rape to be a "violent" crime.

I pointed out that rape is a serious offence in English law, the maximum penalty of life imprisonment shows that.

A little later I then pointed out that rape can be committed without violence. That explains why rape isn't considered a "violent" crime. Wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm is a violent crime, armed robbery is a violent crime but rape can be committed using force or by the use of fear or intimidation or by using fraudulent means to obtain consent to sexual intercourse. Hence, it's not innately "violent".

 

[editec]

*fart*

Sorry about your luck, but in this country, we don't "request" rights. We just have them; they're considered "self evident."

My luck? What are you talking about? Luck in waht regard?

At the risk of being accused of being "rights queer":

If you're obsessed with guns you're gun queer.Simply debating the issue of gun laws does not make one a gun queer.

In the U.S., we demand that our governments not infringe upon our rights, and instead protect those rights as they uphold our Constitution.

Yeah...I'm aware of that.

And yes, the mere possesion of guns certainly doesn't keep us safe from an intrusive or repressive government--we have to be willing to use them.

True

But that certainly can be made impossible by unconstituionally passing and enforcing laws infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms.

Are you telling me that criminals have more balls than all the honest gun owners in this nation? I guess you are.

Criminals are willing to risk imprisonment so they can have a gun to threaten you or your family, but, according to you, honest gun owners aren't willing to take that risk if the government takes away their guns, not even to keep their protection from an oppressive government.

Isn't that what you're basically telling me when you say:

If all guns were outlawed only outlaws would have guns?

Which I'm willing to argue right now, is the actual intention of such legislation.

Is there any federal legislation out there right now threatening your right to bear arms? Not that I'm aware of.

And you're right editec, we don't need more right-infringing laws, we need those laws abolished--then, of course, strictly enforce the remainder.

Well, finally you seem to be getting it.

I am not interested in taking away your guns.

I am also not interested in listening to a load of blather from gun queers about how they're the only thing standing between me and a repressive government since they aren't doing a damned thing even as our government becomes increasingly oppressive.

The ire I have awoken in the gun queer community that exists on this board is quite obvious.

And what is my real crime?

Well since I'm NOT calling for collecting their guns, I have to guess its because I'm pointing out how utterly full of shit they really are, eh?

Most of the gun queers I know absolutely LOVE the police state that's developing in this nation.

They can't get enough of the Patriot act, of the war on drugs, of the supression of legal protestor and so forth.

Most of them hate personal freedom so much they're thrilled when police become criminal in support of repressing citizens.

Now, I realize this is a generalization, of course.

But it's one formed by years of watching gun queers cheering on as the police become increasingly repressive of citizens' rights.

Most gun queers are also very supportive of the police state that is forming in this nation.

 

[LOki]

You posted:

I find it difficult to consider a society (like England's) to be civililized when it doesn't classify a crime like rape to be a "violent" crime.

I pointed out that rape is a serious offence in English law, the maximum penalty of life imprisonment shows that.

"Serious" crime, but not violent crime--the point you insist on missing.

A little later I then pointed out that rape can be committed without violence.

Hardly. You know, murder (it can be rather fairly argued) can be committed with out violence too--yet murder is still considered a violent crime. Upon what civilized principle would the English consider rape (which can be committed without violence) not violent, when murder (which also can be committed without violence) is?

That explains why rape isn't considered a "violent" crime.

No. it explains nothing--it illustrates my point.

Wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm is a violent crime, armed robbery is a violent crime but rape can be committed using force or by the use of fear or intimidation or by using fraudulent means to obtain consent to sexual intercourse. Hence, it's not innately "violent".

Robbery and armed robbery can be committed using force or by the use of fear or intimidation or by using fraudulent means to obtain valuable goods--so explain the civilized rationale why robbery is "innately" violent where rape is not.

I doubt you can. The English are not especially civilized--they are subjugated; rather than polite, consider them having been subdued, and you'll understand better the inconsistency in the their insistence that rape is not "innately" violent.

 

[Diuretic]

"Serious" crime, but not violent crime--the point you insist on missing.

Hardly. You know, murder (it can be rather fairly argued) can be committed with out violence too--yet murder is still considered a violent crime. Upon what civilized principle would the English consider rape (which can be committed without violence) not violent, when murder (which also can be committed without violence) is?

No. it explains nothing--it illustrates my point.

Robbery and armed robbery can be committed using force or by the use of fear or intimidation or by using fraudulent means to obtain valuable goods--so explain the civilized rationale why robbery is "innately" violent where rape is not.

I doubt you can. The English are not especially civilized--they are subjugated; rather than polite, consider them having been subdued, and you'll understand better the inconsistency in the their insistence that rape is not "innately" violent.

Nope, you're just ignoring the facts now. I can point you to a string of precedents which explain why rape isn't necessarily a violent crime, but is a crime nonetheless.

 

[Dr Grump]

Oh. Ok, then. But I was comparing societies too...just ones within the U.S.--the ones that my experience is best able to speak to.
.

Exactly. IOW, you are just another typical Yank who thinks the world revolves around you and therefore your experiences must supercede others. Typical..

Less violent than (armed) Sweden? More violent than (disarmed) England?.

How "armed" is Sweden? How "disarmed" is England? Which ever way you look at it, the answer is yes. The US is more violent.

And though I (through Heinlein) brought up being polite, and you might be able to fairly argue that the English are more polite than Americans (but not Southern Americans); technically, you were talking about a civilized society: I find it difficult to consider a society (like England's) to be civililized when it doesn't classify a crime like rape to be a "violent" crime.

What does it consider rape to be? Foreplay? Do you know the sentence for a rapist in England? Is it any worse or better than the US? What does a classifcation mean? Not a lot. What happens after conviction is the only thing that matters. If rape is considered a "violent" crime in the US and the average sentence is 15 years, but in England there is no aspect of "violence" attached to the charge but the average incarceration time is 20 years, who cares whether term "violent" is attached to it or not. Now, I have no idea what the English or US sentences for rape are (I would assume in the US it varies from state to state), my piont is you argument is vacuous. It's like trying to decide the definition of "is"...

Also I like your dishonest caveat: "firearm violence"--societies without baseball bats don't have baseball bat violence, but that doesn't mean they don't have violence. (You don't see your opposition pointing out the low (non-existent) rate of Cricket Wicket violence in the U.S., to make the point that we have virtually no violence what-so-ever.) Disingenuous retards like yourself like to pretend that "firearm violence" is some special class of violence to be set apart from violence committed by other means; so you can ignore the broad spectrum of violent acts that occur in "disarmed" societies, while you mendaciously mis-characterized the violence in the U.S. in your fatuous comparisons.

Not at all. Typical of a dumbfuck like yourself to try and "interpret" what I am saying. Go for it. Classify all the violence in the US vs that in England, Aussie or NZ (where I'm from), at the end of the day the US is more violent than any of the countries I've mentioned. You stated that Heinlein said an armed society is a polite society. I'm just pointing out that if you compare an armed society like the US vs those that are not "armed" like England, Australia and NZ, then your argument is left wanting - whether or not rape is considered violent or not. Hell, count the number of rapes in England, plus all the other violent episodes, as violence and STILL compare it to the US. You will find your numbers do not stack up. I know you love your guns, and your constitution allows you to keep them. Bravo. Just don't tell me you society is better off with the 2nd under its belt with regard to "being" safer. You are not, as the examples of Oz, NZ and England clearly demonstrate. It also proves Heinlein wrong.

Go figure...

 

[editec]

FWIW, Heinlien was a creepy old pederast who advocated race eugenics, and incest.

I probably read nearly everything the man wrote by the time I was 16 and he is, as well as being a strong advocate of the right to bear arms a sexual deviant.

 

[Dr Grump]

FWIW, Heinlien was a creepy old pederast who advocated race eugenics, and incest.

I probably read nearly everything the man wrote by the time I was 16 and he is, as well as being a strong advocate of the right to bear arms a sexual deviant.

Dunno what he was, but he was clearly wrong with regard to an armed society. Hell, most arab and African countries have firearms coming out their arses - are they polite societies??

I would take Heinlein's statement and amend it "An unarmed Western society is a lot more polite than an armed Western society"..Considering the US is the only western society that meets the definition of the latter, I stand by that statement.

At the end of the day, I have to say, unfortunately having read Loki's posts over the past couple of years, he does nothing to disuade me from the argument that people who love guns do so because they see them as an extension of their minute, more intimate, member....

 

[ErikViking]

Sorry about your luck, but in this country, we don't "request" rights. We just have them; they're considered "self evident."

Are you absolutley sure about that?

Lets say the constitution was written in the 12:th century. You would still celebrate the self evident right to have a cross-bow? Guns would be a govenment issue? In your best interest, of course.

Someone should really try to asses this:
What effect on your personal freedom has the right to have a gun today compared to what the effect was back then. Then - if there is a differance - adjust constitution accordingly. Stop staring yourself blind on guns. They are medieval.

 

[KGB]

I thought everyone born in the US are born with rights? Am I mistaken? Well, after you cross the line, obviously you need to take rights away. That is the argument I am making. I don't see why gun owners are upset over that. As long as they follow the rules like they say they are, why does it effect them in a negative way? Please someone explain to me why taking away gun rights to someone who is a repeat offender, would upset anyone. Tell me why taking away free speech rights to someone who infringes on others right to free speech is any different. We are born with inalienable rights, but those rights are not free passes for every American, they are rights to only the law abiding Americans, therefore they should be taken away from repeat criminals.

gun owners (& specifically the NRA) has always had the position that criminals should not have any gun rights.....