Your Right to Bear Arms is Bullsh*t

[Exa Inova]

Americans as a general rule are very nice. We all know however, that there are a lot of us that are (for lack of a better term) "bad"... And when we go bad, sometimes we go Presidential material bad, and sometimes we go dress up like a clown and stack half eaten bodies in the basement bad. Not saying that it doesn't happen elsewhere, but something about our society as a whole leads to some pretty severely messed up people roaming our streets.

Ours is a very repressed society; Not just sexually, but emotionally, intellectually, (often) physically, and spiritually repressed.

Wow.

based on this, is it ok to call y'all a backwards, reactionary, intellectual sinkhole of a nation?

[Joanna vander Poele]

Im a Canadian Gun owner. Does that make me a fat lazy coward too?

No. Just weird.

I have always looked at the Second Amendment bemusedly; I do think citizens should be allowed to own guns but with heavy regulations in place. Then again, I've lived in Vancouver for nine years without a gun and felt perfectly safe for all that time, even during that wacky bout of gang killings a month or two ago.

But UHC should most definitely be universal. And you are a meany if you disagree, and probably lack a soul :P

[Silverstar]

Is it nitpicky to ask that if we are banning the inaptly named "assault weapons" (is there another kind? what do you use in an assault other than a weapon? harsh language?)

A tiny point to make from way back in the thread, just to prove that I was actually paying some slight attention in my Criminal Law module from many years back. 'Assault' is actually the threat of violence. Battery is the actual violence. Therefore, yes, harsh words constitute assault. Using a weapon is more likely to constitute battery.*

/end threadjack

Here's a question I've been wondering. Do many Americans believe that the only universal 'rights' that anyone deserves are the ones that are laid down in the US Constitution, and that if they weren't considered three hundred years ago, then they're not valid? Is that where the attitude of gun ownership being a right, and universal healthcare not being a right comes from? Surely there are rights that in a human sense, everyone should have, that simply weren't considered back then? Or is there honest belief that that document laid down what is a right and what isn't for all time?

* ETA: In the UK, that is. Maybe it's different in the US.

[Guest Raidne]

Here's a question I've been wondering. Do many Americans believe that the only universal 'rights' that anyone deserves are the ones that are laid down in the US Constitution, and that if they weren't considered three hundred years ago, then they're not valid? Is that where the attitude of gun ownership being a right, and universal healthcare not being a right comes from? Surely there are rights that in a human sense, everyone should have, that simply weren't considered back then? Or is there honest belief that that document laid down what is a right and what isn't for all time?

No. It's descriptive and positivist. There should be a right to universal health care, but right now there isn't the United States.

FYI, a lot of the important rights enshrined in the Constitution didn't come about until the 1940s-60s.

Also, I'm not sure we all understand "rights" the same way. Rights, here, are generally something your government is prevented from taking away from you, not something your government promises to provide you. We don't have a federal right to safety, for instance.

I, for one, think everyone should have healthcare, but I can't decide whether or not I think it's stupid to call it a right.

[Alty]

If they feel they have to allow guns in America, why don't they have it you leagally have to have all your bullets etched with some kind of serial number that is unique to you. So if they do find some bullets in a dead person it would be easy to track the shooter down.

[Silverstar]

Also, I'm not sure we all understand "rights" the same way. Rights, here, are generally something your government is prevented from taking away from you, not something your government promises to provide you. We don't have a federal right to safety, for instance.

Yeah, maybe that's the case. When I talk about 'rights', what I mean is more along the lines of human rights - the basic standard that everyone should be able to expect in order to live a decent and dignified life. As such, I'd say healthcare is a right, and gun ownership isn't.

On the other hand, if you view 'rights' as things that cannot be taken away from you, then I understand more where the attitude of it not being a right comes from. It is simply a disconnect as to what the word 'rights' implies, perhaps.

[Happy Ent]

We don't have a federal right to safety, for instance.

Ah, cool, I never though to that! (Germany has, in a constitution that was largely drafted by Americans, as far as I know.)

Do you know of an accessible comparison between countries, where the potential rights are enumerated and checked? Like a two-dimensional table with country names for columns, and rights (“Bear armsâ€, “Safetyâ€, “Wear furry costumeâ€) for rows.

[Galactus]

Ah, cool, I never though to that! (Germany has, in a constitution that was largely drafted by Americans, as far as I know.)

Sweden is somewhat odd. We don't have healthcare as en explicit right, but it is listed among the purposes of government in the preamble. "...It shall especially be the duty of the Public to ensure the right to health, work, housing and education, as well as work for social safety and care."

[Max the Mostly Mediocre]

Also, I'm not sure we all understand "rights" the same way. Rights, here, are generally something your government is prevented from taking away from you, not something your government promises to provide you. We don't have a federal right to safety, for instance.

The government promises to provide me representation in the event I'm charged with a crime. The government promises a jury trial. A few others I'm forgetting.

ETA: Buuuut you said generally so I should probably shut up now. It's just I've run into people before who offered the argument that health care can't be a right because rights can't be things other people have to do for you. Which is manifestly untrue.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Alty,

If they feel they have to allow guns in America, why don't they have it you leagally have to have all your bullets etched with some kind of serial number that is unique to you. So if they do find some bullets in a dead person it would be easy to track the shooter down.

If someone steals your loaded weapon or your ammunition?

[Lyanna Stark]

Canadians, Europeans etc don't want to be left alone. They line up around the block begging the government to be more involved in their lives. More government in the schools, in the churches, in the hospitals, everywhere. They want everyone to be in this together and create something together. Is this admirable also? Sure.

Well, actually, we don't line up around the block at all. It's totally bizarre to think most Europeans even reflect over Government involvement in schools and hospitals as needing to be more or less. It just...is.

And the Government in churches? Who here cares about churches? Apart from places like Poland, Europe is very secular. Why would the Government care about churches and in what regards? (unless they break laws or something).

[gryphon strike]

Forgive my lack of proper respect, I forgot my place. I believe I am supposed to be a meek little Canadian, whom cows to the demands of the Greater United States of America, yes? I shall endeavour to fufill my correct role in the near future. But first, I'll have to learn to stop being so god damn surly. No easy task, I assure you. Secondly, I will have to find a pair of horse-blinders and ear-muffs, so that I can somehow ignore the rampant hypocrisy that is spouted on a daily basis by a large percentage of the population of this continent. Either that, or I should drug myself into a coma, where my worries will float away like a man on a morphine drip. But I do suspect that this plan will be a spectacular failure, because I find it most difficult to respect positions that I find morally reprehensible. That and I doubt that the drinking will disappear any time soon.

Again, please find it within yourself to forgive me for my rough and simple ways. I am but a lowly and ignorant servant of the working classes, who does strives mightily and at little money, so that his betters can rape and pillage our continent and planet, for the heavenly dream that is capitalism.

Whose nation has succesfully defended itself in the past against armed incursions from the USA.

Don't be so humble, the record of Canadian troops on the battlefeild is equivilant to the best out there, thats considerably better than a nation that tends to lose more troops to friendly fire than enemy fire :P

True maybe you comments were a tad on the hostile side but they were true. Scot I am sorry to say but a president who deliberatly violates treaties and makes torture legal not to mention warrantless wire taps etc to spy on his own people is indeed a tyrant imo.

[Greywolf2375]

With respect to guns, I think Swedes and Americans own guns for vastly different reasons. I'd imagine that most Swedes who own guns have rifles for hunting, compared to Americans who want handguns so they can feel like badasses and shoot imaginary robbers. Ironically I know more people in Sweden who own guns (1) than I know Americans who own guns (0).

So you're saying the majority of gun owners in America do it to feel like they are badasses, and not because maybe they enjoy shooting? Unfortunately, I think it is statements like this that make these discussions go now where. I think you'd probably find that the Noble Swedes that only hunt the elderly deer to thin the herd and feed the family are very, very similar to the majority of gun owners in the US. There's no question there is a population that does want to be Dirty Harry, but to say it is the majority or even a significant portion isn't being honest.

Not that this makes an argument one way or the other, but I prefer to target shoot with a handgun - it is much more challenging, takes more work to be a good shot and is more satisfying to mark well with a pistol than it is a rifle. IMO.

Alty - marking a bullet with a serial number associated to a person wouldn't be practical; could be done the other way though - each bullet is inscribed with a mark/ID and the person it is sold to is ID'd and associated to that box. Course, the same problem Scott pointed out applies to that as well.

[Galactus]

There's no question there is a population that does want to be Dirty Harry, but to say it is the majority or even a significant portion isn't being honest.

I don't have the statistics with me, but IIRC, isn't the most common reason for owning a gun in the US self-defence?

In Sweden hunting and sport are by far the most common reasons given.

[K26dp]

Yeah, maybe that's the case. When I talk about 'rights', what I mean is more along the lines of human rights - the basic standard that everyone should be able to expect in order to live a decent and dignified life. As such, I'd say healthcare is a right, and gun ownership isn't.

On the other hand, if you view 'rights' as things that cannot be taken away from you, then I understand more where the attitude of it not being a right comes from. It is simply a disconnect as to what the word 'rights' implies, perhaps.

The founders of America believed that the act of revolution against a tyranical government was a natural right of man, which is not surprising considering that they were revolutionaries. The right to bear arms was considered a necessary protection to preserve that natural right.

The problem of course is that the framers of the Bill Of Rights didn't necessarily envision the kind of weapondry that's available now.

[K26dp]

I think it's really hard to describe, and I think this is important because while US crime rates are higher than swedish ones they aren't *that* much higher, but there is a sense that americans are genuinely afraid in a sense that swedes are not. For Christ's sake, half the people where I live don't even lock the doors when they leave home. (although people in the cities do tend to do that). Americans seem to assume that they are going to be murdered or raped the moment they turn lower their guard even a little. (swedes never lower our guards, but that's more due to an almost pathological fear of embarrassment) and they seem to spend a disproportionate amount of time and energy preparing for these vanishingly unlikely eventualities.

"Seem" is an interesting word. Where is this conceptualization coming from?

[Swordfish]

Nice way to completely miss my point. I've never advocated for a complete gun ban. What I want is for the rabid pro-gun crowd to acknowledge that being able to own a gun is not the end-all solution to every single problem in the world. That their rhetoric is part of the problem as demonstrated by this couple shooting up a family of four and thinking they were perfectly right to kill people for simple trespassing.

Point me to somewhere where someone has suggested that owning a gun is the solution to all the worlds problems?

If you propose a ridiculous strawman, you are in no way justified ion getting uposet that someone doesn't pat you on the back and tell you how smart you are, and how you've really opened their eyes to the realities of the world.

I think what baffles people in Europe is not that americans own guns: Swedes actually, IIRC, own MORE guns. (or at least roughly on the same level) but the assumptions that gun ownership is, in itself, a positive good, that somehow regenerates the moral character of the american citizen ro what the fuck it is they say nowadays.

People can get a gun here. It's cumbersome, but it's not actually that hard to do. Lots of people hunt. (to the degree that classrooms are empty in autumn when moose-season starts)

I think it's really hard to describe, and I think this is important because while US crime rates are higher than swedish ones they aren't *that* much higher, but there is a sense that americans are genuinely afraid in a sense that swedes are not. For Christ's sake, half the people where I live don't even lock the doors when they leave home. (although people in the cities do tend to do that). Americans seem to assume that they are going to be murdered or raped the moment they turn lower their guard even a little. (swedes never lower our guards, but that's more due to an almost pathological fear of embarrassment) and they seem to spend a disproportionate amount of time and energy preparing for these vanishingly unlikely eventualities.

And these plans are way too easily turned on people who happened to be in the wrong place or the wrong time, or used with lethal consequences during moments of anger.

Again, this is just silly. i know many, many people who own gunes, and none of them spend any of the energy you are attributing to gun owners.

I think it's your perception of americans, and not americans perceptions about danger, that are seriously flawed.

If they feel they have to allow guns in America, why don't they have it you leagally have to have all your bullets etched with some kind of serial number that is unique to you. So if they do find some bullets in a dead person it would be easy to track the shooter down.

That makes no sense in any context.

I don't have the statistics with me, but IIRC, isn't the most common reason for owning a gun in the US self-defence?

Highly unlikely.

[mormont]

Highly unlikely.

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/13/1/15

Reasons for ownership

When respondents were asked, "What is the one most important reason that you own a handgun/long gun?" the most common response among those who owned a handgun was for self-defense (46%), followed by sport shooting (hunting or target shooting) or collecting (25%). Owners of long guns overwhelmingly reported sport shooting as the "most important" reason to own a long gun (77%; data not shown).

[Annelise]

I don't have the statistics with me, but IIRC, isn't the most common reason for owning a gun in the US self-defence?

Highly unlikely.

The most common motivation for owning firearms

was recreation. Forty-six percent possessed a gun

primarily for protection against crime.

http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/165476.txt

[The_BlauerDragon]

Wow.

based on this, is it ok to call y'all a backwards, reactionary, intellectual sinkhole of a nation?

You certainly wouldn't be the first to say it. It's funny. We are a backwards, reactionary, intellectual sinkhole of a nation, and yet we're still the best that this planet's got... the one that everyone else wants to be. (Now, don't go ballistic, I know the truth hurts, but I'm just teasing you) :cheers: