US Supreme Court uphold 2nd Amendment

[Lupin_IV]

Considering DC has the strictest gun laws in the nation, yet also has one of the highest per capita gun related crime rates, banning guns solves nothing.

[Blind_Io]

Followed by California, which has the second most restrictive gun laws in the nation.


Hmmm, are we seeing a pattern here?

[vegasrebel29]

Originally Posted by Blind_Io

Followed by California, which has the second most restrictive gun laws in the nation.


Hmmm, are we seeing a pattern here?

NOPE, NONE AT ALL, EXCEPT THAT GUNS KILL.
/sarcasm

[Peter3hg]

Originally Posted by jetsetter

That explains a few things.

It's worked for us for the last 300 odd years so don't knock it.

[Blind_Io]

Yeah, you have the single most surveiled city in the world and still manage to have kids viciously wielding hoodie sweatshirts that take on the police and groups of adults with startling regularity.

I can see that's working out great for you

[argatoga]

Originally Posted by Peter3hg

It's worked for us for the last 300 odd years so don't knock it.

The current British system of government has shown itself perfectly capable of doing just fine. The thing is that it has evolved into its current state, while the U.S. system was invented from scratch by leading thinkers of The Enlightenment (invented may not be the best word as it is essentially The Roman Republican Government with additional checks and balances).

I prefer the U.S. system due to the clear limitations of the power of the government, however while not as elegant the British system is also quite good.

Originally Posted by Blind_Io

Yeah, you have the single most surveiled city in the world and still manage to have kids viciously wielding hoodie sweatshirts that take on the police and groups of adults with startling regularity.

I can see that's working out great for you

I wouldn't say that is due to the governmental system, more to do with the people running it. Even the best system is worthless if you have the wrong people running it.

[tigger]

Should hand guns be banned? I don't think so. Criminals will get their guns anyway, so limiting what law-abiding citizens can have is a step in the wrong direction.

Originally Posted by Blind_Io

Point of Interest: After the fall of the USSR, the US allowed many Soviet military leaders into the US in exchange for intelligence. Once general revealed that the greatest fear the Soviets faced when planning conventional-warfare scenarios of a ground invasion of the US was that of the armed population.

Isoroku Yamamoto, Japan's Fleet Admiral in WWII, is purported to have said something like, "I would never invade the United States, there would be a gun behind every blade of grass."

[Blind_Io]

The difference between a citizen and a subject is that a citizen owns a gun.

[teeb]

Originally Posted by Blind_Io

The difference between a citizen and a subject is that a citizen owns a gun.

And a subject's four times less likely to be murdered to death. source

We have, predictably, wandered off the topic of the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment. Shall we reconvene there?

[jayhawk]

Originally Posted by tigger

Isoroku Yamamoto, Japan's Fleet Admiral in WWII, is purported to have said something like, "I would never invade the United States, there would be a gun behind every blade of grass."

He is exactly right. If any country would invade the US, all the "gun nuts" would be the ones who would save our bacon. Well, size helps, too.

[phuckingduck]

Originally Posted by tigger

Should hand guns be banned? I don't think so. Criminals will get their guns anyway, so limiting what law-abiding citizens can have is a step in the wrong direction.



Isoroku Yamamoto, Japan's Fleet Admiral in WWII, is purported to have said something like, "I would never invade the United States, there would be a gun behind every blade of grass."

[devils advocate]
It's easy to say that if we disarm our citizens, the criminals will just go buy illegal guns and then we have an imbalance of power. But where do illegal firearms come from? it's not like Smith & Wesson runs two factories, legal and illegal. The prevalence of illegal firearms is drawn directly from the abundance of legally owned firearms. I've never seen statistics on the matter, but for every time a Law Enforcement official starts talking about the use of illegal firearms in a crime consider that that gun probably started as a legally owned and licensed fire arm in the home of a law abiding citizen.

As far as WW2 goes; we said the same thing about Japan's civilian militias and made the decision to use alternative means to end that war. Food for thought.

[/devils advocate]

I'm always torn on the 2nd amendment. I fervently believe in the right of the populous to act as a final check and balance to the derivative power of a representative government. But I can never really wrap my head around the language. I think too many people simplify the amendment and remove the militia context from it's statement. Too ensure proper defense, as well as proper democracy, I do believe in a pluralistic distribution of force.... But is that the intention of the document?

[cvrefugee]

Originally Posted by phuckingduck

As far as WW2 goes; we said the same thing about Japan's civilian militias and made the decision to use alternative means to end that war. Food for thought.

That was more of a justification for killing civilians than a reason for using the atomic bomb.

[Blind_Io]

cvrefugee,

The justification for killing civilians is that it was the lesser of two evils, the reason was to end the war.

Had we invaded Japan the Japanese would have fought to the last man, woman and child - it would have been the total annihilation of the population and the death of a beautiful and rich culture.

[argatoga]

Originally Posted by Blind_Io

cvrefugee,

The justification for killing civilians is that it was the lesser of two evils, the reason was to end the war.

Had we invaded Japan the Japanese would have fought to the last man, woman and child - it would have been the total annihilation of the population and the death of a beautiful and rich culture.

Japan was already willing to surrender before the nukes were dropped, their only condition was that the emperor stay in power. The U.S. demanded an unconditional surrender, Japan said no, a couple nukes were dropped, they surrendered unconditionally and were allowed to keep their emperor anyway.

The nukes were not dropped on Japan to end the war, they were dropped to let the Soviet Union know the U.S. had super-duper destructive weapons (of course they knew this already thanks to spies in the U.S. nuclear program).

In fact MacArthur, who actually had knowledge of Japan, told Truman the Japanese would surrender as long as they could keep their emperor.

[cvrefugee]

Originally Posted by argatoga

Japan was already willing to surrender before the nukes were dropped, their only condition was that the emperor stay in power. The U.S. demanded an unconditional surrender, Japan said no, a couple nukes were dropped, they surrendered unconditionally and were allowed to keep their emperor anyway.

The nukes were not dropped on Japan to end the war, they were dropped to let the Soviet Union know the U.S. had super-duper destructive weapons (of course they knew this already thanks to spies in the U.S. nuclear program).

In fact MacArthur, who actually had knowledge of Japan, told Truman the Japanese would surrender as long as they could keep their emperor.

Yep, I just finished studying this stuff last quarter. My question is why didn't the U.S. just drop one of those suckers off the coast near Japan? If they still didn't surrender, then we should have nuked them.

[Momentum57]

well there are five reason why we dropped the bomb

1. President Truman's promise to end the war as soon as possible
2. The unknown amount of dead in a traditional invasion: estimates were largely overestimated, varied greatly and success was not guaranteed
3. The potential for congress to pursue and vilify Truman for not dropping the bomb as well as the extreme cost for the project.
4. To impress upon the Soviet our strength and ability to hold them back if necessary in Europe
5. Lack of a reason not to drop the bomb: lack of full explanations of its awesome power and lack of any clear repercussions

All lead Truman to give the order to drop the bomb its easy now for us to suggest alternatives but at the time only the military was against its use mostly because they did not believe that the damn thing would work.

[argatoga]

Originally Posted by cvrefugee

Yep, I just finished studying this stuff last quarter. My question is why didn't the U.S. just drop one of those suckers off the coast near Japan? If they still didn't surrender, then we should have nuked them.

I'd say a lot of it was done for impact, it is much more menacing if you take out a city than just making some fireworks off the coast. Also, and this is just my own conjecture, there was still a lot of resentment over Pearl Harbor and this could have been seen as payback by a few of the higher ups.

[Momentum57]

on the topic of the second amendment

there is a middle ground that everyone agrees on, at least thats what I have taken from listening from the sound clips from the case. Apparently both sides are giving in more than what would be expected the people are saying that gun control is ok as long as you can own assembled guns in your house and the District is saying people can own guns as long as they are disassembled unloaded and locked. So its not about owning guns as much as just handguns and how one can store them.

I think that it was written vaguely for the reason that it should be more narrowly noted by the states. Jefferson who wrote not just the national constitution but the Virginia constitution was a strong gun rights supporter for the documents. Although I think that his support must pale in comparison to the guy who brought this case to the supreme court a man who is a libertirian who does not own guns nore wants to own guns.

[klutch]

I have no further comments; all I've seen is people resorting to baseless rhetoric and off-topic rants.

[argatoga]

Originally Posted by Momentum57

well there are five reason why we dropped the bomb

1. President Truman's promise to end the war as soon as possible
2. The unknown amount of dead in a traditional invasion: estimates were largely overestimated, varied greatly and success was not guaranteed
3. The potential for congress to pursue and vilify Truman for not dropping the bomb as well as the extreme cost for the project.
4. To impress upon the Soviet our strength and ability to hold them back if necessary in Europe
5. Lack of a reason not to drop the bomb: lack of full explanations of its awesome power and lack of any clear repercussions

All lead Truman to give the order to drop the bomb its easy now for us to suggest alternatives but at the time only the military was against its use mostly because they did not believe that the damn thing would work.

I have to disagree with point number one. Japan knew they were screwed, their navy was gone and they had no access to oil. At that point they just wanted to keep their emperor in power, and would have given up if they were allowed that. The nuking was done just for Uncle Jo.