It is time to revise/update the U.S. constitution..... - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-17-2007, 07:53 PM   #46
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 05:05 PM
I bet my wife that this thread would go in this direction seeing the last name who posted.

Actually Itvine, your sense of humor is lost on me. Allow me to put a human face to what happened yesterday and quote statistics about the dead in Bagdhad over the last four years. By the way , Iraq is much safer now that we are there protecting them from Al-Qaeda. Statistically we have them outnumbered by 10 to the nth power.


Christ all mighty, he was not making a statement of FACT....but a statement of EMOTION.
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 04-17-2007, 08:01 PM   #47
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,236
Local Time: 04:05 PM
What is this "emotion" you speak of? I cannot find a statistic for it anwhere.









__________________

__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 04-17-2007, 08:02 PM   #48
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 02:05 PM
Re: Re: It is time to revise/update the U.S. constitution.....

__________________
deep is online now  
Old 04-17-2007, 08:08 PM   #49
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 02:05 PM
Re: Re: It is time to revise/update the U.S. constitution.....

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


As for the 2nd amendment, I agree that it is outdated. It was introduced at a time when the country really did not have a significant standing army or police force which is obviously not the case today. Comparing the number of murders in the UK/Ireland/Canada to the USA shows that the wide availability of guns to civilians in the United States is not effective in reducing the murder rate and is probably a key reason as to why the USA murder rate is so high. Over 12,000 US citizens are murdered by firearms every year. Despite the lower populations of Canada, United Kingdom and Ireland, firearms deaths per year are often only in the dozens, well below the US rate once you adjust for population.

I think only the US military, Police and other members of security organizations should have firearms, not civilians. This is the firearm policy in many countries and the greatly reduced rate of murder in those countries is evidence that suggest very strict gun control or a total gun ban for civilians would help to reduce the overall murder rate substantially. The UK, Ireland and Canada all have plenty of crime, but the big difference is the murder rate. What seems to probably be the biggest reason the murder rate between the USA and these other countries is the availability of guns to civilians.
sting

you make some very good points about the second amendment there

The "so-called founding fathers" never intended this to be applied the way the NRA argues it.
__________________
deep is online now  
Old 04-17-2007, 10:17 PM   #50
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,475
Local Time: 05:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Actually, that is false. Baghdad has a population of over 5,000,000. Blacksberg VA has a population of 39,500. For Baghdad to have an equal death rate as Blacksberg yesterday, it would need a little over 4,000 killed. Baghdad's single worst day in the past 4 years is not even 15% of that.


you are so shameless, it's actually kind of sad at this point.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 04-17-2007, 10:17 PM   #51
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 05:05 PM
Re: Re: Re: It is time to revise/update the U.S. constitution.....

Quote:
Originally posted by deep


sting

you make some very good points about the second amendment there

The "so-called founding fathers" never intended this to be applied the way the NRA argues it.
So if the founding fathers had been disarmed....how do you tihnk they were going to fight the revolution?

I STRONGLY disagree with the intent. If the British empire had succeeded in disarming the colonists, America may very well not have been born. What the hell was Lexington and Corcord about? Disarming.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 04-18-2007, 12:19 AM   #52
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:05 PM
Re: Re: Re: Re: It is time to revise/update the U.S. constitution.....

Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


So if the founding fathers had been disarmed....how do you tihnk they were going to fight the revolution?

I STRONGLY disagree with the intent. If the British empire had succeeded in disarming the colonists, America may very well not have been born. What the hell was Lexington and Corcord about? Disarming.
In 2007, US citizens are not allowed to legally purchase weapons that would be necessary to even have a small chance of overthrowing the government. So in this sense, US civilians were long ago disarmed.

The 2nd amendment was necessary in the late 1700s as there was no real police force or significant standing military to provide for the security of the country.

Prior to the events surrounding the US Revolution, colonist militia's were necessary to defend towns from Indian attacks and were used to help the British military secure the frontier. By 1775 though, the militia's had become rebel forces to the British and the British were a foreign army of occupation to the militia's. With the exception of cannon, colonist militia's were essentially as well armed as the British military. In contrast, there is a massive disparity between what the US military is armed with compared to the weapons citizens are legally allowed to obtain in 2007. US citizens long ago lost the legal weapons capability that colonist in the 1700s, and into the 1800s, had to potentially overthrow some hypothetical tyranical government.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-18-2007, 12:32 AM   #53
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 05:05 PM
So the mini journey the British took to Concord was about what exactly?
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 04-18-2007, 12:56 AM   #54
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Rono's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: the Netherlands
Posts: 6,163
Local Time: 11:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Interesting that these sorts of massacres happen in places where theres nobody to shoot back; Port Arthur, Columbine etc.
Where would be more murders and accidents whit guns ? In places with gun control or in places without guncontrol,....time to find that out.
__________________
Rono is offline  
Old 04-18-2007, 01:07 AM   #55
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 06:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AchtungBono

Really Indra? Would you really prefer to live in a country where your next door neighbour could suddenly decide to harm you just because he CAN???....Wouldn't you rather have laws that protect you from that kind of violence??
Like it or no every single person in this world lives in countries where his or her neighbor can "suddenly decide to harm you just because he CAN???" Do you really believe that if your neighbor suddenly decides to harm you he/she can't? There are already laws in this country against harming other people. All I see the changes you propose doing is to further restrict the people who have no intention of hurting anyone else anyway.

And to answer your question more bluntly -- No, I'm not willing to give up my freedom to have cotton batting-like security. In this life shit happens and it happens to good people who don't deserve it. That is just part of life. You can't eliminate all risk and still have a life worth living.
__________________
indra is offline  
Old 04-18-2007, 02:07 AM   #56
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London/Sydney
Posts: 6,608
Local Time: 11:05 PM
I *think* I've got my maths right here? Someone else check. This is using homocide statistics off Wikipedia for the financial year 2003-4, against current population. It roughly does line up with what I've read elsewhere.

AUSTRALIAN POPULATION: 20,804,000
TOTAL HOMOCIDES 2003-4: 405
OF THOSE, WITH A GUN: 53

US POPULATION: 301,529,000
TOTAL HOMOCIDES 2003-4: 16,138
WITH A GUN: 10,654

So, correct me if I'm wrong, that equals:

AUSTRALIA: 1.9 homocides per 100,000 people
US: 5.4 homocides per 100,000 people

AUSTRALIA: 0.3 gun related per 100,000
US: 3.5 gun related per 100,000
__________________
Earnie Shavers is offline  
Old 04-18-2007, 02:54 AM   #57
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 10:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
So the mini journey the British took to Concord was about what exactly?
To try and weaken the Massachusetts Militia's ability to threaten the British army in Boston by seizing or destroying ammo and supplies that had been stored at Concord. Concord was not the only storage area for ammo and supplies and the largest storage area was further west near Worcester I believe, but General Gage did not think he had enough troops to pull off an operation of that distance. The British army in Boston was facing a deteriorating situation and was technically heavily outnumbered if one combines all the town militia's in Massachusetts. General Gage wanted to strike a blow against the militia's without getting into a serious fight, one that would set the militia's back somewhat and at least buy them more time before their situation in Boston became untenable with the size force on hand. General Gage thought he could send up to 1,800 troops all the way to Concord in the middle of the night, destroy the storage area, and have the entire force safely back in Boston by late morning or early afternoon with little or no fighting. It was a tactical move to weaken the strength of the militia's which they now viewed as a hostile military force rather than a supporting force which was often attached to their own in the past. War was essentially a certainty at this point and it was hoped that the mission could at least buy them some time during which Gage could get more specific orders from England as well as reinforcements.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-18-2007, 03:06 AM   #58
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 05:05 PM
My question was rhetorical. Having been a revolutionary war reinactor, and a history major, I am pretty sure I understand what was going on. And I would add to your impressive understanding, that the British did indeed launch a few successful operations seizing the sotred arms in other towns. They also targeted foundries down by the Cape of Cod, where there was quite a cannon ball making facility.

I would again state that it was important to the colonists before, during and after the war, to protect their right to bear arms, for the very reason that they feared a strong central governement.

[Q]"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- Thomas Jefferson[/Q]

Yep, very worried about the Native Americans. I wonder, in the Federalist Papers, does it mention that argument?
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 04-18-2007, 05:40 AM   #59
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
intedomine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 7,947
Local Time: 08:05 AM
Simplistically, the aim for any society is to create a community in which none of it's citizens need or feel the need to "bear arms." And only at such a utopian stage will the overwhleming majority of Americans feel ready to revise the Constitution

The 2nd amendment (right to bear arms) for me, as much as I don't want it to be relevant to American society, is as relevant today as it was in the days of the founding fathers. It's just the reasoning behind embracing the Amendment that has changed.

If anything, the massacre at Virginia Tech will only make more Americans feel insecure, and will trigger many Americans to actually embrace the amendment in the fear that they too might one day be confronted by someone in the same frame of mind as Cho.

A depressing thought if ever there was one, cause it means more guns in circulation and probably easier access to them...
__________________
intedomine is offline  
Old 04-18-2007, 08:39 AM   #60
War Child
 
Ormus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Frontios
Posts: 758
Local Time: 06:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AchtungBono
However you must remember that a war is going on and the enemy is watching everything that is going on. Don't think they don't rub their hands with glee when they see the level of disention(sp?) within the American public. They see this as a sign of weakness on America's part and use it as an excuse to intensify their efforts against America.
They "rub their hands with glee" over everything and anything that they can fabricate, so this doesn't matter all that much. Back when Israel was fighting Hezbollah in Lebanon, Israel's task to declare victory was to permanently eliminate any and all traces of Hezbollah. Hezbollah's task was just to survive. You can see why it doesn't take much for them to generate propaganda for their cause.

Quote:
By all means, criticize George Bush, impeach him and even put him on trial if warranted.....but do it AFTER the war is over. To do so now would play right into the hands of the terrorists and undermine the efforts to defeat the enemy and end the war as soon as possible.
Congress has no reasonable chance of ever impeaching Bush, so whether or not Rosie O'Donnell says what she says, she is not a prosecutor, nor do her views represent Congress' views. This makes her views all the more irrelevant and meaningless.

There's no reason to amend anything over these meaningless comments.
__________________

__________________
Ormus is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com