Enemies of the 2nd amendment, enemies to freedom.

[Sak01]

I still don't get the way you're government thinks.

This might shed some light on it:
Self Defence: Legal Guidance: The Crown Prosecution Service

When reviewing cases involving assertions of self-defence ... prosecutors should be aware of the balance to be struck:

• the public interest in promoting a responsible contribution on the part of citizens in preserving law and order; and
• in discouraging vigilantism and the use of violence generally

imo the laws are well meaning but poorly executed as there is too much room for subjectivity in deciding what is reasonable force. People end up worrying about defending themselves too strongly, for fear of ending up in the wrong side of the court room. I prefer the apparently clearer laws in the US.

Anyway, linking this with the OP, I agree with what you said about every country being different. That's why it's worth noting that there is wide support amongst the general public in the UK for strict gun control laws. Freedom to own guns has never been considered a measure of Freedom in general as alluded to in the OP wrt to the US, and gun ownership is considered an unnecessary privilege rather than a fundamental right.

So, bearing in mind that this differing mindset when it comes to guns is a product of the different cultural and historical backdrop in the UK compared to the US, do you think that 2nd amendment rights should be be part of the fundamental human rights of every person on the planet?

 

[IOWA]

This might shed some light on it:
Self Defence: Legal Guidance: The Crown Prosecution Service

imo the laws are well meaning but poorly executed as there is too much room for subjectivity in deciding what is reasonable force. People end up worrying about defending themselves too strongly, for fear of ending up in the wrong side of the court room. I prefer the apparently clearer laws in the US.

Anyway, linking this with the OP, I agree with what you said about every country being different. That's why it's worth noting that there is wide support amongst the general public in the UK for strict gun control laws. Freedom to own guns has never been considered a measure of Freedom in general as alluded to in the OP wrt to the US, and gun ownership is considered an unnecessary privilege rather than a fundamental right.

So, bearing in mind that this differing mindset when it comes to guns is a product of the different cultural and historical backdrop in the UK compared to the US, do you think that 2nd amendment rights should be be part of the fundamental human rights of every person on the planet?

In fact, yes I do. I think every human being on this planet has a right to defend themselves using any means necessary unless they have shown in some way that they can't handle that responsibility. (Mental illness, criminal tendencies, violent behavior).

Gun Control has very little to do with the safety of the people, but more to do with the safety of the state FROM the people. This is exactly why before every dictators rising one of the first things they did (Hitler, Stalin, etc) was enact "Strict Gun Control Laws for the Children" and take them all away.

I know it sounds like tin foil hat stuff, but history is on my side every time.

 

[Sak01]

Gun Control has very little to do with the safety of the people, but more to do with the safety of the state FROM the people.

But what about modern Western democracies in Europe (or Japan?), for example, where strict gun control is widely backed by the people themselves for safety reasons? Isn't the government simply carrying out the will of the people here? Perhaps you might argue the government has brainwashed them but never in my lifetime in the UK have I seen any government backed campaign to sway people against the right to own guns. It's always been the government following popular opinion rather than dictating it.

Also, this might sound like a stupid question but I'm serious here; how do you guys feel about the right to bear arms extending to heavier weaponry such as tanks, jets, SAMs etc? A well armed militia would definitely need such things these days (see Homs or Benghazi)

 

[IOWA]

But what about modern Western democracies in Europe (or Japan?), for example, where strict gun control is widely backed by the people themselves for safety reasons? Isn't the government simply carrying out the will of the people here? Perhaps you might argue the government has brainwashed them but never in my lifetime in the UK have I seen any government backed campaign to sway people against the right to own guns. It's always been the government following popular opinion rather than dictating it.

Also, this might sound like a stupid question but I'm serious here; how do you guys feel about the right to bear arms extending to heavier weaponry such as tanks, jets, SAMs etc? A well armed militia would definitely need such things these days (see Homs or Benghazi)

Anything that big, I say the State Guard should have. Tanks Jets ETC take beyond extensive training.

Popular opinion in the UK was pretty much manipulated by the mainstream media by taking advantage of a sad situation much like our media here in the states is ramming the Trayvon Martin case down our throats when many more brutal killings happen every day.

 

[Sak01]

Anything that big, I say the State Guard should have. Tanks Jets ETC take beyond extensive training.

Surely, at a cost to the user, it can be ensured that a person has military standard training in all aspects of use and possession of said equipment? People already possess de-commissioned, driving but non-firing tanks as well as helicopters and private jets. They can be trained to safely own weaponised versions of these things.

Popular opinion in the UK was pretty much manipulated by the mainstream media by taking advantage of a sad situation much like our media here in the states is ramming the Trayvon Martin case down our throats when many more brutal killings happen every day.

TheBrit and other Brits can speak for themselves but I remember Dumblane and I remember it didn't take any media manipulation for people to question the allowance of licensed access to guns. Again, take into account the context that a) Brits have never considered gun ownership to be a fundamental right and b) gun owners/hobbyists/enthusiasts have long made up a very small fraction of the population. These 2 factors have persisted for longer and contribute more to the British pro-gun control mindset in the UK than any supposed media/government campaign. That argument would only be valid if we're talking about a subtle government anti-gun conspiracy spanning half a century or so. (We're not are we?)

 

[A.Nonymous]

I still don't get the way you're government thinks. Or perhaps I do. It's a power grab IMO. Getting people ready by forcing them to be non-confrontational.

Honest question. Ready for what?

 

[IOWA]

Honest question. Ready for what?

For a police state. It's already trending that way. Of course, there's a lot that can happen to change everything. But all I've seen in the last decade was tighter and tighter control on citizens by the government.

 

[A.Nonymous]

For a police state. It's already trending that way. Of course, there's a lot that can happen to change everything. But all I've seen in the last decade was tighter and tighter control on citizens by the government.

I can't agree with you on that. Too tin foil hattish for my liking, but we can agree to disagree.

In any case, I'll agree with Sak01. At the end of the day, governments should reflect and enforce the will of the people in the absence of any Constitutional restrictions in doing so. Obviously that doesn't always happen. In this case though, the will of the people of the UK is in favor of stronger and stronger gun restrictions. That is what the people want. Historically, that's what the people have always wanted. Heck, cops there run around unarmed. You'd never see that in the US. The UK government enforcing stricter gun laws is doing exactly what it's populace wants.

 

[SamuraiBigEd]

Can one of our friends from England attest to the validity of this, a professor was speaking in an interview about the 2nd amendment and the correlations to what is going on in England and a comment was made that they are going to take away the right to carry knives now!

If this is true then I believe this is an ongoing government conspiracy to fully disarm the populace. If not then they may be following public opinion on guns, but I find that a bit suspicious still.

 

[Sak01]

Can one of our friends from England attest to the validity of this, a professor was speaking in an interview about the 2nd amendment and the correlations to what is going on in England and a comment was made that they are going to take away the right to carry knives now!

Now? No, that has been the case for a long time.

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]What You Can't Have ...[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]The following items are banned from sale within the UK (although if you already own one you may keep it, but not use it outside of your own property) ... Switchblades, automatics or 'flick-knives', gravity knives, balisongs or 'butterfly knives', push daggers, belt buckle knives, sword canes, disguised knives, or knuckle-duster knives.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Late on in 2004, an amendment to the law was introduced which restricts the sale of any knife which is not readily detectable by the normal methods of detection, ie: either x-ray or metal detection, unless it can be proven that the knife's sole purpose is for the preparation of food. So for instance, the Cold Steel CAT Tanto or Lansky Knife are now prohibited within the UK. These knives are correctly referred to as Airport Knives, but in English law are commonly referred to as Stealth Knives.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]In 2006, so-called Disguised Knives were prohibited. You may not buy any knife designed to look like something else, for instance a knife which appears to be a pen, (and it doesn't matter whether the pen works or not, it's still prohibited here).[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]What You Can Carry ...
[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]The Criminal Justice Act (1988) says that you may carry a knife with a blade length of 3.0" or less so long as it is capable of folding. That means no fixed blade knives.[/FONT]

And even then, a small folding knife may be classified an offensive weapon depending on the circumstances one is carrying it in.
The Official British Knife Collectors Guild ... Hunting Knives, Collectable Knives, Rescue Tools, Folding Pocket Knives and So Much More

In the last 10 years in order to combat rising knife crime, there has been a crackdown on knife possession in public with the introduction of harsher sentencing. However, this is an enforcement of existing laws (CJA 1988) rather than the introduction of newer ones.

And once again, there has long been wide public support for strict knife control. Your conspiracy theory could only be plausible if you're suggesting a government backed scheme going back many decades because public support for the restriction of knife carrying and gun possession goes as far back to the 80s (as far as my memory goes) and probably more.

 

[A.Nonymous]

The cross-cultural thing is fascinating to me. Here in the States guns are some what controversial with nutjobs on one side arguing that you should be able to buy a bazooka at the corner store and nutjobs on the other side arguing that gun ownership should be completely and totally illegal. Then you have the majority of the people who are somewhere in the middle and where in the middle they are swings back and forth depending on what decade it is it seems.

Knife ownership isn't controversial all. At least I don't see it. Knife laws vary from state to state. Here in KS, switchblades are illegal. Knives you can carry concealed are limited to 4" blades, but I see people openly carrying blades longer than that. I live in a state where hunting is a very popular past time so it's not unusual to see people with hunting knives strapped to their waists or belts during hunting season that are way beyond 4". No one seems upset about any of this and it's a non-issue for the most part.

 

[Sak01]

The cross-cultural thing is fascinating to me. Here in the States guns are some what controversial with nutjobs on one side arguing that you should be able to buy a bazooka at the corner store and nutjobs on the other side arguing that gun ownership should be completely and totally illegal. Then you have the majority of the people who are somewhere in the middle and where in the middle they are swings back and forth depending on what decade it is it seems.

Knife ownership isn't controversial all. At least I don't see it. Knife laws vary from state to state. Here in KS, switchblades are illegal. Knives you can carry concealed are limited to 4" blades, but I see people openly carrying blades longer than that. I live in a state where hunting is a very popular past time so it's not unusual to see people with hunting knives strapped to their waists or belts during hunting season that are way beyond 4". No one seems upset about any of this and it's a non-issue for the most part.

I too find the cultural comparisons fascinating. Compare the differences in opinion amongst Americans you mentioned to the almost total agreement amongst Brits across the political spectrum on the prohibition of guns and knives (aside from perhaps the tiny minority of farmers and 'Old Blood' hunting-party types).

It's a non-issue here but a big one in the States. Both nations are supposed to be in the bracket of the freest, most democratic and economically developed countries in the world, similar in many respects, but the difference on this issue could not be greater. I guess much of it comes down to historical factors.

 

[A.Nonymous]

I too find the cultural comparisons fascinating. Compare the differences in opinion amongst Americans you mentioned to the almost total agreement amongst Brits across the political spectrum on the prohibition of guns and knives (aside from perhaps the tiny minority of farmers and 'Old Blood' hunting-party types).

It's a non-issue here but a big one in the States. Both nations are supposed to be in the bracket of the freest, most democratic and economically developed countries in the world, similar in many respects, but the difference on this issue could not be greater. I guess much of it comes down to historical factors.

Historically the UK has been settled and civilized since Roman times. You all have had your share of wars with other countries and amongst yourselves, but it's been basically settled for centuries before the first white man even came to the Americas. Here in the US, a vast portion of the country was tamed at gunpoint. Men went West and had to deal with bears, mountain lions, buffalo and native Americans who did not like them at all. There are parts of the country that are still very much like that today. If you read a book on the history of the US it smells like gunpowder. Guns allowed us to, for better or for worse, force the natives off their land and take it as well as fend off all kinds of wild animals along the way.

 

[Sak01]

Guns allowed us to, for better or for worse, force the natives off their land and take it as well as fend off all kinds of wild animals along the way.

... as well as helping to liberate the country from Great Britain. Having an armed populace was a good doctrine to keep it that way. Kind of like the Swiss method for ensuring their neutrality (compulsory service and gun ownership).

I personally see the 2nd amendment as more of a device to prevent the excesses of foreign powers (in a bygone era) than those of government although there are non-American cases where the latter is true. Take, for example, the Pakistani military's disastrous post-9/11 incursion in the well armed and traditionally highly autonomous regions of the tribal belt. They lost thousands of soldiers in the foray and lost their willpower to continue. Thus, the locals have successfully utilised their right to bear arms to defend against what they see as the excesses of their government.

Not a comfortable comparison for many but it is a good example of one of the arguments for gun rights being put into practice.

 

[SamuraiBigEd]

... as well as helping to liberate the country from Great Britain. Having an armed populace was a good doctrine to keep it that way. Kind of like the Swiss method for ensuring their neutrality (compulsory service and gun ownership).

I personally see the 2nd amendment as more of a device to prevent the excesses of foreign powers (in a bygone era) than those of government although there are non-American cases where the latter is true. Take, for example, the Pakistani military's disastrous post-9/11 incursion in the well armed and traditionally highly autonomous regions of the tribal belt. They lost thousands of soldiers in the foray and lost their willpower to continue. Thus, the locals have successfully utilised their right to bear arms to defend against what they see as the excesses of their government.

Not a comfortable comparison for many but it is a good example of one of the arguments for gun rights being put into practice.

A very good and informative response but I have to disagree with the "bygone era" comment. Yes, an armed populace would not be much use against armor if left to their guns alone but the military in conjunction with a well armed populace is a huge deterrent to an armed incursion on U.S. soil. The armed populace would be an effective measure in close quarter battle and guerrilla war fare scenarios plus another uncomfortable comparison would be Iraq where I.E.D.'s were used effectively against armored vehicles.

The founding fathers very much believed in an armed populace to defend against the government should the need arise but a more appropriate and current scenario would be the U.N. Small Arms Trade Treaty. Obama and Clinton are in full support with this plan which can be used to disarm the American people by force if necessary. I would hope the military personnel would follow Sgt. Gary Stein's example and refuse to follow orders if this comes to pass.

 

[A.Nonymous]

A very good and informative response but I have to disagree with the "bygone era" comment. Yes, an armed populace would not be much use against armor if left to their guns alone but the military in conjunction with a well armed populace is a huge deterrent to an armed incursion on U.S. soil. The armed populace would be an effective measure in close quarter battle and guerrilla war fare scenarios plus another uncomfortable comparison would be Iraq where I.E.D.'s were used effectively against armored vehicles.

The founding fathers very much believed in an armed populace to defend against the government should the need arise but a more appropriate and current scenario would be the U.N. Small Arms Trade Treaty. Obama and Clinton are in full support with this plan which can be used to disarm the American people by force if necessary. I would hope the military personnel would follow Sgt. Gary Stein's example and refuse to follow orders if this comes to pass.

Just to play Devil's advocate for a minute, you could argue the need for an armed populace has passed. The US is at peace with Canada and Mexico. There's no risk for invasion by either of them in the near future. Our main enemies at the moment are countries like China, North Korea or Iran. They're halfway around the world and if any of them succeeded in landing a single soldier on US soil, you can be sure the war would be long over by that time and we would've lost. So the argument that an armed populace is needed in order to supplement a well-armed national army is not relevant today. At least not in the US.

 

[SamuraiBigEd]

Just to play Devil's advocate for a minute, you could argue the need for an armed populace has passed. The US is at peace with Canada and Mexico. There's no risk for invasion by either of them in the near future. Our main enemies at the moment are countries like China, North Korea or Iran. They're halfway around the world and if any of them succeeded in landing a single soldier on US soil, you can be sure the war would be long over by that time and we would've lost. So the argument that an armed populace is needed in order to supplement a well-armed national army is not relevant today. At least not in the US.

I don't quite buy that but can see where the logic comes from. I also don't believe "we would've lost", we are still the dominant military power. If it is over that quickly everybody will have lost, not just us.

Canada was never an issue, Mexico on the other hand is. Not so much the military but the Cartels who are better armed than many small nations. They have already made small incursions inside the U.S., what happens if they decide to try and extend their reach to major U.S. cities, would you want to be unarmed. They already have the people here, it would not have to be an invasion scenario, just a word to start.

The real issue remains protection from our own government, the right to bear arms was intended to keep the government from doing exactly the things they are trying to do now. If they can remove that obstacle we are screwed. The only people with guns will be the government, the corporations and the criminals (often the same individuals, or at least highly interchangeable).

Some may be scratching their heads on the corporations comment so I will explain. An individual can purchase a class III weapon only with the signature of the head of local law enforcement, i.e. the Chief of Police, Sheriff or D.A. (I believe, may be wrong on the D.A.). Option two is to set up a trust which removes the signature requirement but is currently under review and may be eliminated soon. Option three, use a corporation which also removes the signature requirement, less of a background check and no limit as to what or how many you can own. This is how companies like Blackwood became able to have security personnel armed with fully automatic weapons. This ability would not be removed, just civilian ownership of class III and whatever other arms they decide to take away (there is much debate on shotguns and single shot rifles inclusion in the ban), corporations would still be able to purchase whatever they want.

 

[A.Nonymous]

I don't quite buy that but can see where the logic comes from. I also don't believe "we would've lost", we are still the dominant military power. If it is over that quickly everybody will have lost, not just us.

True. If North Korea, Iran, China or some combination of the three can load troops in ships/planes and come all the way over here without being stopped by the US Navy and/or Air Force, then we (the US) are f***ed. As you said, by that point, a whole heck of a lot of the world will be f***ed as well, but we in the US won't care. In any case, if it gets to the point where everyday citizens are having to fight off invading armies you can be sure that the sh*t has thoroughly hit the fan.

Canada was never an issue, Mexico on the other hand is. Not so much the military but the Cartels who are better armed than many small nations. They have already made small incursions inside the U.S., what happens if they decide to try and extend their reach to major U.S. cities, would you want to be unarmed. They already have the people here, it would not have to be an invasion scenario, just a word to start.

The cartels have a good thing going in Mexico. They own many of the local governments and are making a crap ton of money. If they try the same thing in the States, the National Guard and the US Military are well able to deal with them I think. Again, if we get to a scenario where the common citizen is forced to take up arms against an invader then we are already screwed IMO. Our army and national guard is much stronger than it was at the founding of this country.

The real issue remains protection from our own government, the right to bear arms was intended to keep the government from doing exactly the things they are trying to do now. If they can remove that obstacle we are screwed. The only people with guns will be the government, the corporations and the criminals (often the same individuals, or at least highly interchangeable).

Honest question. What is the government trying to do now that may warrant armed resistance?

 

[SamuraiBigEd]

True. If North Korea, Iran, China or some combination of the three can load troops in ships/planes and come all the way over here without being stopped by the US Navy and/or Air Force, then we (the US) are f***ed. As you said, by that point, a whole heck of a lot of the world will be f***ed as well, but we in the US won't care. In any case, if it gets to the point where everyday citizens are having to fight off invading armies you can be sure that the sh*t has thoroughly hit the fan.



The cartels have a good thing going in Mexico. They own many of the local governments and are making a crap ton of money. If they try the same thing in the States, the National Guard and the US Military are well able to deal with them I think. Again, if we get to a scenario where the common citizen is forced to take up arms against an invader then we are already screwed IMO. Our army and national guard is much stronger than it was at the founding of this country.

This situation would be less all out warfare and more of a self defense scenario. Here in San Antonio there was a Sheriff's Deputy executed at a traffic light. More than 150 rounds were fired into his vehicle before the gunmen, in two separate vehicles fled the scene. No clear motive was found (or at least divulged) but the most likely cause was a Mexican Mafia or Cartel hit. With this, Brian Terry, Jaime Zapata, and many other killings that aren't publicized it is becoming a dangerous place in any of the states that border Mexico.

Honest question. What is the government trying to do now that may warrant armed resistance?

The better question would be "what isn't the government doing", but to list a few there are many in our government who wish to take the right of gun ownership away completely and are actively pursuing this agenda.

The UN Small Arms Trade Treaty is another that we should be very worried about as Obama, Hillary and Holder are in full support.

Speaking of Holder, we have someone who should be up on criminal charges or at the very least fired yet he still holds the title of Attorney General.

Anything with the term "Individual Mandate" of which Obamacare is a prime example.

You combine these with many other instances of the government misrepresenting the people it adds up to a great injustice being done to the American people. The government is openly trying to strip our rights and most Americans haven't woken up to it yet.