Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban (PPR Version)

Post Reply New Topic

The absolute power of the state is limited by the courts and the law, not by weapons in private hands.



Historically this is an exception - we can't rely on the long term that this will work all the time.



There is no generally accepted Human Right of bearing a weapon. The US-Constitution is internationally an exception from the standard of western democracies.

There is exist an generally accepted Human Right that the law does protect you from a state abusing its powers and of resistance as a very last resort, but you hardly will find outside the US the idea that this may include for the individual to own a weapon.

I only do two years in the military, along with every other male citizen in this country. It's a shared universal experience here, and having known the responsibilities and power that comes along with bearing a weapon, it's least wise to be entrusted to the masses (including you).



It's amusing and curious how individuals like you could claim to support the Supreme Courts as long as a decision in your favor is made. You're not being a true law-abiding citizen in this case. You're just being intellectually honest. What if the justices come together again and decide that the Heller Decision was a misinterpretation? You'd shun the law right away. It's only your personal, selfish preference that you're in favor of. Nothing else.



The disorganized masses of American gun owners will never be able to stand up to the established military, even if the disorganized masses outnumber the military overwhelmingly. Your US military doctrine has had emphasis on a swift light force that could overwhelm an outnumbering but inferior force swiftly and decisively. Your argument for "boo hoo we can resist a suddenly oppressive regime" is utter nonsense, for all the checks and balances on power that your Constitution that people like you worship so much provides. A real mechanism for resisting oppressive regimes, let alone let them start is the Courts and the law. If your courts fail to uphold the law, then your country is a basket case like Pakistan anyway and there's no point in hugging your weapons and praying for some kind of valid, credible resistance.



I'm pro-American. Except that it can't get through your head that defines the world in black and white. Unlike your fellow American, Limbaugh, who hopes for your President and in turn, your country to fail, I hope that Obama succeeds. Heck, if I really am anti-American, I'd be chanting "Death to America" three times a day and not even bother to apply for a US college and start a semester with it come June '09. I just hate stupid people.

Not so much of "bigotry" that people like you love to throw out the moment you feel your logic is being attack, but my frequent and regular expression of disgust for the selfish hubris that Americans like you display. But when the comparison comes down to Mexican policemen being gunned down (Cliffe Notes version: lives are lost), vs Americans losing their metal and wood penises (Cliffe Notes version: lives are not lost), let's see who the real bigot is.



Easy. By your agitated response, it can already be proven that you don't care for the loss of lives in another country because of your actions ("they're brown people anyway"). But then again, I cannot expect someone whose reasoning behind owning weapons to carry out justice by himself to even give the police (who are just doing their jobs) any shred of respect.

Last edited by NEWater on 25 Mar 2009, 6:10 am, edited 2 times in total.

What's more "fair"? For a nation of gun-owners to lose their hobby of expending several thousand rounds of ammunition at the range for recreation and hunting despite having a full belly, or to lose your life while outgunned and trying to uphold the law because a druggie used a vastly superior weapon that was cheaply and easily imported from a much more prosperous and fortunate country?

This is no more different than your troops down in Iraq and A-Stan trying to clear out the country of insurgents and AQ and being impeded by Iran that sends over IEDs, weapons and safe havens.

Those machine guns are not coming from the US. If they were that easy to obtain here, I'd have one. The machine guns and RPGs are coming from Central America and the international black market. As soon as the site will let me post links I will post a newspaper article about it.

According to sec. 22a of "Warfare Weapon Control Law" of Germany owning without permission of the minister such a weapon or making a contract regarding such a weapon is a crime to be sentenced between one and five years. If this happened in a organized form up to 10 years imprisonment.

http://bundesrecht.juris.de/krwaffkontrg/index.html

It think it is a sensible rule.

Hello? WTF does that have to do with the proposed assault weapon ban in AMERICA?

Not in "America", only in the USA. But is always a normal way in assessing new legislation to see what other countries do. An automatic, semi automatic or machine gun is in the most countries of "rich club of the west" seen as a weapon for warfare and for such weapons have much tougher restrictions are common than for weapons which may be used for hunting.

With attitudes like that, do you really wonder why people like me don't trust the government to be the sole armed entity in the country? Serving in a conscript army for 2 years makes you an expert on civilian arms policy too huh? Considering the number of civilian gun owners in this country that are former members of our volunteer military, I would say that your view is not universal for military people, and that your military "service" does not qualify you for any expertise on American gun law.



You're making unfounded assumptions about me based on no evidence, who's the one being intellectually dishonest here? What I support is the Constitution, and though I'm happy that in this particular case the Supreme Court made the right decision, there have been times when they've made a Constitutionally correct decision that I may personally dislike but still abide by, or when they've made a Constitutionally incorrect decision that I agree with politically but would like to see the decision corrected. A good example would be Roe vs Wade, where I support abortion rights but I'm not in favor of the way that the court created a Constitutional precedent that wasn't in the original document.



We've got the courts and the law too, but just in case those are subverted we can always fall back on the guns. It's the principle of the thing as much as anything, though US experience in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan would suggest that even against the full power of the US military that the man with the rifle should not be discounted. Further, as I mentioned earlier we have an all volunteer military that is not used for suppressing our own people, and has not been indoctrinated to do so even if ordered. When people like me talk about civilian gun ownership as a check against the government, we are talking about the more insidious threat of oppressive police type agencies, and making sure that they have to think real hard before kicking in someone's door because there is always the threat that THEY could get hurt. The KGB or the Gestapo or the Stasi could kick down doors in the night with complete impunity because they were guaranteed no resistance by their respective country's lack of civilian gun ownership, they had nothing to fear. Oh wait, you're one of the guys kicking down the doors, so never mind...



You're so pro American that your posts simply drip contempt for us and accuse anyone you disagree with of being "from the South" or a hick or uneducated, right... You claim to hate stupid people, well what I hate is herd behavior, like pissing on the US because it's the popular thing to do. Again with the assumptions too, what makes you so sure that I agree with Limbaugh? I voted Obama last fall, I live in one of the most educated areas of the country, why would I base my political stance on a talk radio host's?



My logic hasn't been attacked yet, but I've been called selfish and had it implied that I'm a racist that doesn't care about "brown people" and had some snide insinuations directed at my probably race (yep, that's me in my avatar), but so far no attacks of logic. Looking at the above quote, it would appear that I shouldn't hold my breath waiting for any either. If it makes you feel any better, I wouldn't care if it were blond blue eyed lady cops being shot down in another country, it still is not valid justification for restricting my freedom to own firearms. Law abiding gun owners, who by the way are the overwhelming majority, are not the ones shooting cops or even smuggling weapons, those people are criminals and should be dealt with as such, not by punishing the law abiding. Like I said before, we already give Mexico enough money and gear, let them patrol their own border, or just let us build that damn fence that they were so opposed to.




My "agitated response" is due to having yet another ignorant foreigner try to lecture me on the laws of my own country, all the while making snide insinuations about me and my lifestyle. It makes no difference to me what your skin color is, but you make a big deal out of what you think mine might be, what do you call that again? You also might want to consider a debate or vocabulary course if you're applying for college in the US, you throw around words like "proven" and "logic" like you know what they mean or something...

Last edited by Dox47 on 26 Mar 2009, 2:33 am, edited 1 time in total.

The US doesn't look to the latest fad of what the other countries are doing for guidance in our legislation, we look to the constitution.

1) You can't even understand the US-Constitution without knowing the legal frame work of other countries and debates of this time. Let start with Art. 1, sec.1: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States ..." what does it mean "legislative power"? This word has been introduced very lately by Montesquieu. Without understanding the adoption of the writings of Montesquieu and their adoption into the Federalist Papers (which are hardly able to understand without knowing the philosophical debates in Europe of this time) you hardly understand what this means.

2) A constitution is not god-given. The authors of the US-Constitution provided in Art. V a proceeding of amending or even replacing the constitution.

3) The US-Constitution is, like the current French Constitution, a quite loose frame work (if you compare those with the constitutions of Germany, Switzerland or Spain you will see the difference directly). It does not give real guidance in the most cases, but leaves the decisions to lawmaker. It would be upper most foolish to repeat other countries mistakes or not to learn from their successes.

4) The legal debate was always an international one. Important ourt decisions do have often wider influence than the formal standing of a court. When here some years ago the Law Lords made a decision in the cases Pinochet, this decsision was formally only binding within the UK, but it is also seen as a guidance for international law; based on the reputation of the Law Lord in this respect. When in 1993 the German Constitutional Court made his judgement regarding the Maastrich Treaty it was seen as "the" attend of bringing the legal nature of the EU into the framework of international law. This far from being a new issue: The writing of authors like Baldus de Ubaldis of the 14th century still trace even in decisions of the US Supreme Court.

---

Law may be written on a national level, but the real authorship is international. It is not an accident that the Civil Code of Taiwan looks as a co-edition of the German BGB and Swizz Code Civil and the Code Napoleon.

Just a question, since most people seem to be favoring new, stricter laws:

Why would a criminal who is violating the existing laws to buy weapons listen to a new law? Wouldn't the new law against "assault weapons" simply be ignored, just like those pesky laws against murder? Just a thought.

If you want the opinion of a responsible gun owner, what have we done to you? There are already laws against felons, people adjudicated mentally defective, drug users, etc.. owning guns, why do you need to restrict my rights? I have never violated a single law other than speeding laws, what gives you the right to take away toys I legally purchased? Yes, I said it. It's a toy to me. I bought my firearms because I enjoy using them, and hope to go hunting this year.

NOT because I want to join a "resistance" movement, or because I want to start whacking meth dealers and child molesters. I pray to God every last time I load them that I never end up in a situation in which I may have to shoot someone.

And why is Mexico so opposed to the US militarizing and locking down our borders if they're so concerned about the influx of illegal weapons? That's a bit hypocritical, you know. "Hey, stop all the guns, but don't even patrol the whole border." WTF??

Putting laws into place presumably would make it more difficult to get a gun to commit crime. Raising the difficult could decrease the likelihood that spontaneous, lazy, or incompetent criminals would have one to use.

Last I checked, Mexico was a wee bit less well off than the USA. There are, I've heard, places where the drug cartels have more power than the state.

Have you considered that gun control has more of a negative impact on the law-abiding tjhan the criminals?

But they would be more difficult aviable: Just think about stealing weapons from legal owners. Here in London the most murder cases are still made "low tech" with a knife. An amok runner with a knife can be easier stopped than with a machine gun. Killing 10 people with a knife is hard and bloody work ...

It's not about how hard it is, it's about rights of law abiding citizens.

This "law abiding citizens" can't lock away weapons as save as the government can do. How many weapons are stolen each year in the USA?

---

The primary right of any citizen is his protection of his live - and therefore we have the genius invention of the state and his monopole of power. This is the well proven way of avoiding a war of each other against each other. Call it the "King's Peace" or the "Rule of Law" or "Gewaltmonopol des Staates" - the function is always the same.