A shooting in South

"Hatunen" kirjoitti
om...

Last November in the Finnish town of Rauma a teenager killed
eight students and himself. Finland has a population of about 6m,

Such an incident has never occured in Rauma. Rauma is a very nice town with
a district of old wooden houses (Vanha Rauma). In last summer festival
"Raumanmeren juhannusjuhlat" witnessed a rape and a death in which the
instant cause of death was similar to the death of Jimi Hendrix.
Kanaali-Koskinen also got his pet-name after the canal (kanaali) flowing
through the city along which he murdered a man and tossed him to the canal.
About on the same date he murdered another chap in a house in town and to
conceal his tracks he set the house on fire. He has murder other people too.
He is actually from the neighbouring town of Pori.

However, this has little to do with the problem of accessing firearms in the
USA which is a webb of insanity.

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 07:56:44 -0600, Zane
wrote:

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 09:01:40 +1100, Alan S wrote:

(snip)

The "right to bear arms" goes back to the days of the wars
of independence. So what or who are you all worried about
now? The Canadians? The Mexicans? The Cubans? Your
government? Your own citizens seem to be shooting many more
of you than a mythical invading army is ever likely to.

Many historians agree that the reason for the US Constitutional
Amendment that keeps the federal government from banning firearms was
to make sure that the populace would be able to overthrow the
Government in the future, if need be.

And many historians don't agree. Butmost agree that the intend
was to maintain a well-armed militia.

There are a lot of writings by
the people involved at the time to support this.

For instance?

Given that, the weasel wording about militias makes sense -- kind of
hard to make it a crime to overthrow the government by force and then
explicitly say you need to stay ready to rebel.

Most colonial defense was done local militias, sometimes under
the command of British officers. I saee no reason to question the
same intent for the new nation (save for the British officers),
which had no standing army.

At the time, there wasn't, and never had been, a government anywhere
in the world that didn't need overthrowing.

Switzerland?

A lot of the "founders"
were scared to death of the power they were giving a central
government.

That's certaianly true for some of the Founders, and the
Constitution is certainly a compromise. But as written, they
hadn't given the constitution all that much power.

How this viewpoint plays into the current debate is complicated.

Even more so now.

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

"Markku Grönroos" wrote in message
ti.fi...

However, this has little to do with the problem of accessing firearms in
the USA which is a webb of insanity.

I'll ask again. Why do you care? Why are you so obsessed with the way *we*
live?

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 23:30:29 GMT, Zane
wrote:

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 14:57:24 -0700, Hatunen wrote:

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 07:56:44 -0600, Zane
wrote:

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 09:01:40 +1100, Alan S wrote:

(snip)

The "right to bear arms" goes back to the days of the wars
of independence. So what or who are you all worried about
now? The Canadians? The Mexicans? The Cubans? Your
government? Your own citizens seem to be shooting many more
of you than a mythical invading army is ever likely to.

Many historians agree that the reason for the US Constitutional
Amendment that keeps the federal government from banning firearms was
to make sure that the populace would be able to overthrow the
Government in the future, if need be.

And many historians don't agree.

No kidding?

Butmost agree that the intend
was to maintain a well-armed militia.

I don't know whether that's accurate or not. I don't know how you
could know either.

There are a lot of writings by
the people involved at the time to support this.

For instance?

For just one --
"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

(snip)

I don't intend to debate gun control -- I was intending to offer an
Aussie a factor on "goes back to the days of the wars of independence"
that he might not have been aware of -- that fending off an invading
army was (probably) not considered by everyone involved in the
Constitutional process as the only reason for letting people decide to
arm themselves. In the opinion of some it wasn't the main reason.

Zane

I did include "your government" in the list.

Lets get real. In the modern world the possibility of an
armed revolt against your government is unlikely in the
extreme; the possibility of one succeeding is even more
remote. The same applies to the possibility of invasion by
any current world nation.

The annual average of deaths by firearms in the USA is about
30,000. That means that in just two years you exceed your
losses in the entire period of the Vietnam War. In three
years you reach the same level as Vietnam and Korea
combined. It took five years to lose 405,000 in WWII, but it
will only take a little over 13 years to do the same in
peace at home.

Your present gun-control (or lack of it) system is insane.

Cheers, Alan, Australia
--
http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/
latest: Slovenia

"Alan S" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 23:30:29 GMT, Zane
wrote:

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 14:57:24 -0700, Hatunen wrote:

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 07:56:44 -0600, Zane
wrote:

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 09:01:40 +1100, Alan S wrote:

(snip)

The "right to bear arms" goes back to the days of the wars
of independence. So what or who are you all worried about
now? The Canadians? The Mexicans? The Cubans? Your
government? Your own citizens seem to be shooting many more
of you than a mythical invading army is ever likely to.

Many historians agree that the reason for the US Constitutional
Amendment that keeps the federal government from banning firearms was
to make sure that the populace would be able to overthrow the
Government in the future, if need be.

And many historians don't agree.

No kidding?

Butmost agree that the intend
was to maintain a well-armed militia.

I don't know whether that's accurate or not. I don't know how you
could know either.

There are a lot of writings by
the people involved at the time to support this.

For instance?

For just one --
"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

(snip)

I don't intend to debate gun control -- I was intending to offer an
Aussie a factor on "goes back to the days of the wars of independence"
that he might not have been aware of -- that fending off an invading
army was (probably) not considered by everyone involved in the
Constitutional process as the only reason for letting people decide to
arm themselves. In the opinion of some it wasn't the main reason.

Zane

I did include "your government" in the list.

Lets get real. In the modern world the possibility of an
armed revolt against your government is unlikely in the
extreme; the possibility of one succeeding is even more
remote. The same applies to the possibility of invasion by
any current world nation.

The annual average of deaths by firearms in the USA is about
30,000. That means that in just two years you exceed your
losses in the entire period of the Vietnam War. In three
years you reach the same level as Vietnam and Korea
combined. It took five years to lose 405,000 in WWII, but it
will only take a little over 13 years to do the same in
peace at home.

Your present gun-control (or lack of it) system is insane.

Cheers, Alan, Australia
--
http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/
latest: Slovenia

You do not have to have a lot of people to stop tyrants. One person with a
weapon can change history. An armed populace will make the pols think twice
about being tyrants.

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 21:31:27 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


You do not have to have a lot of people to stop tyrants. One person with a
weapon can change history. An armed populace will make the pols think twice
about being tyrants.


*sigh*

If you say so. Sure didn't stop Saddam. Nor has it stopped
dubya, although his tyranny tends to be external for most.

Anyway, I'll call it quits there. You guys are still going
to demand that your guns must be taken from your "cold dead
hands". The way things are going, they probably will be.


Cheers, Alan, Australia
--
http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/
latest: Slovenia

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 23:30:29 GMT, Zane
wrote:

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 14:57:24 -0700, Hatunen wrote:

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 07:56:44 -0600, Zane
wrote:

Many historians agree that the reason for the US Constitutional
Amendment that keeps the federal government from banning firearms was
to make sure that the populace would be able to overthrow the
Government in the future, if need be.

And many historians don't agree.

No kidding?

Butmost agree that the intend
was to maintain a well-armed militia.

I don't know whether that's accurate or not. I don't know how you
could know either.

Well, duh. Maybe because the Constitution says, "A well regulated
militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the
right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed."

See also http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf2002/020.pdf
page 1274 for a Supreme Court decision, United States v. Miller,
regarding the milita aspect.

The entire case can be read at
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...7_0174_ZO.html


--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *