If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
A shooting in South
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 * |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
A shooting in South
"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? |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
A shooting in South
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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
A shooting in South
"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. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
A shooting in South
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 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
A shooting in South
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 * |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Shooting at school again | Markku Grönroos | USA & Canada | 18 | December 15th, 2007 07:39 PM |
The Voysey Inheritance The Shooting Party | [email protected] | Cruises | 0 | July 27th, 2007 09:06 PM |
Shooting of Costa Rican man in airport not what it seems | destiny | Latin America | 9 | December 18th, 2005 12:59 AM |
CCTV of Menezes shooting goes missing !! | tarzan | Europe | 191 | August 24th, 2005 10:00 PM |
Shooting range in Beijing? | Revolvr | Asia | 15 | August 26th, 2004 05:41 PM |