Ultimate Test of Civility ~ 2nd Amendment

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimbo

It is not the exclusive right of a citizen to have a fair trial. The point is that at the moment you only have the government's word that what you say is true. How do you know they are guilty, and guilty of what? A trial presents the evidence, which is weighed and sifted and put out there for all to see. Although I'm no expert, I believe the Geneva convention requires this:

(Protocol I, Art. 85, Sec. 4e)

Anyway, that's not my direct point. The point is that the argument that says you need the second ammendment to keep the government in check needs closer examination. What do you mean by "in check"? How will you all know when the government gets "out of check", and who decides this? What do you do if some people think action needs to be taken, but others don't? If your govt. is prepared to ignore international human rights, what national human rights might it be prepared to ignore, and will you recognise it if/when it happens?

So to me the "keep the governement in check" argument doesn't make sense. It just sounds like a rationalisation. I can't see how it would work in practice.

[Don't get me wrong - I'm not taking a "holier than thou" stance. In Australia our govt. passed anti-sedition laws recently, as a reaction to the terrorist threat. These laws are ostensibly to deal with "Muslim clerics" preaching hate against "us". But they technically apply to the whole population, because some muslim clerics are naturalised Australians. So I can be thrown in gaol for telling my neighbour that I think our Prime Minister is a worthless git with no more skill at running the country than the mould on my shower tiles. In addition, we have a scandalous human rights record, first with our indigenous population and lately with our treatment of refugees. ]

James.

---

Sorry, when they, and those associated with them start slitting our fellow citizens throats on TV, the geneva convention takes a public back seat, with overwelming support. Kindness on our part is not leveling an entire country as retrobution for the acts of a few, however, dont be naive. The geneva convention and the wartime acts are a nice idea, but lets face it, they only work to a point, and if you think any government that wants information stops all of their interrogations because the wartime acts...you would be mistaken. Again, we only know what we hear, and although we think we hear a lot, we really dont. We have a lot of men at ft. Brag with a lot of job security and its not because they were trained to play nice ;) JSOC has the most support within the military and justice departments in a long time...dont let the small public outcry fool you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by urleebird

:hmmm: Pretty much sounds like it to me.

---

Apologies if it came across that way. God knows I'm far, far from perfect, and I never meant to imply I was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JLStorm

Sorry, when they, and those associated with them start slitting our fellow citizens throats on TV, the geneva convention takes a public back seat, with overwelming support. Kindness on our part is not leveling an entire country as retrobution for the acts of a few, however, dont be naive. The geneva convention and the wartime acts are a nice idea, but lets face it, they only work to a point, and if you think any government that wants information stops all of their interrogations because the wartime acts...you would be mistaken. Again, we only know what we hear, and although we think we hear a lot, we really dont. We have a lot of men at ft. Brag with a lot of job security and its not because they were trained to play nice JSOC has the most support within the military and justice departments in a long time...dont let the small public outcry fool you.

---

I'm a realist, I know these things can and do happen. I also know that even if a trial was held, it's never a guarantee that the truth comes out. But it's a dangerous precedent to set, IMHO.

Putting aside Guantanamo, I generally worry that if we let some rights slide (e.g. anti-sedition laws in Australia), how long until the rest go? This argument makes sense to me, with regard your 2nd ammendment. The one that says it's to keep the govt. in check doesn't.

James.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimbo

Putting aside Guantanamo, I generally worry that if we let some rights slide (e.g. anti-sedition laws in Australia), how long until the rest go? This argument makes sense to me, with regard your 2nd ammendment. The one that says it's to keep the govt. in check doesn't.

James.

---

Basicly your worry about the anti-sedition laws are exactly why we have a first and second ammendment. Once in our history we noticed that we were being oppressed, with high taxes, a lack of representation, soldiers billited ramdomly in private homes, people arrested for speaking there minds. Because we had state of the art arms and a lot of citizens trained in their use as well as a well organized underground leadership we were able to do something about it. It sounds to me like we might in the future need the leadership but unlike your fellow citizens and yourself we will have the arms to use. If we felt the need once we can and may feel it again the question only remains as to where the collective mind will draw the line. It sounds like you may have reached your own personal one (don't respond to that last they might be watching:))

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimbo

Apologies if it came across that way. God knows I'm far, far from perfect, and I never meant to imply I was.



I'm a realist, I know these things can and do happen. I also know that even if a trial was held, it's never a guarantee that the truth comes out. But it's a dangerous precedent to set, IMHO.

Putting aside Guantanamo, I generally worry that if we let some rights slide (e.g. anti-sedition laws in Australia), how long until the rest go? This argument makes sense to me, with regard your 2nd ammendment. The one that says it's to keep the govt. in check doesn't.

James.

---

Again, its all about what your willing to give up. Simply put there are 273 million guns in the united states, 235 million of those guns are privately owned by civilians, 42% of households have guns. 28% of americans own guns...these were 1997 figures, guns sales sky rocketted after 9/11.

235 Million guns and over 100 million gun owners in 1997, if you think that we are not following history and we do not understand what happens with mass disarmament you are wrong. A japanese admiral once said that the reason the japanese never considered invading the united states inland was because "every american citizen is armed, a japanese victory was not possible", The american government isnt stupid either, and that is how we keep the government in check. To put things in perspective there are 4 million people employed by our defense department, I believe aroudn 1.4 million are combat trained. Add the national guard to that I am not sure of the size but lets say 6 million (although I doubt its that many). So that means there are 14 times the number of armed citizens as there are military members. As far as guns well, we own 30 times more than the military and law enforcement agencies, and we generally own superior models as we dont have the same low budget as the military.

Its a matter of man power, regardless of technology, armored vehicles, etc etc, there just are not enough to make much of a dent. The goverment knows this and makes absolutely sure they dont go over the edge, however eventually they may, in which case, things will be swift, not to mention all the federal employees that will refuse to take up arms against their neighbors for a government that they most probably will not agree with.

P.S. my numbers may be a bit off due to the ability to recall individuals to active duty in a state of emergency, but they are fairly accurate considering most would refuse in this situation IMO

-JL- don't forget that many of those civilian gun owners are also vetrens with the training to use all of those neet military toy once just one base is overrun by the masses.

The govt. also knows that even if some citizens (a vocal minority) is actually pushed to violence that they (the govt) will have to act with restraint otherwise many more will be pushed into the camp of the few and the govt will fall. Just look at the outcry after Waco despite the leader and his followers being well portrayed (may well have been) as completly insane.

Here is what I see, James. I see that you are stating an opinion, not as an opinion, but, as something that is factual. So, instead of telling us what you think about the issue, it feels like we are being scolded because we are not singing kum bi ya with you.

I don't know where you pulled that quote from regarding the Geneva Convention, but it doesn't seem to be taken word for word from anything. Seems like several sources of info put into one sentence. I find nothing like that when I look at the document itself. I cannot even find the word Protocol in the entire agreement.

I get the impression that a trial only happens if the prisoner is being prosecuted with a mete out punishment at the conclusion. These guys are being held as prisoners of war. No body is trying to give them the death penalty ~ yet. I would guess that these prisoners have it easier than our soldiers in the field. I'd be willing to bet you that they are getting Kosher meals with a lot of lamb as part of it. That's what muslim inmates in our jail got to eat.

I'm sure these poor picked-on little terrorists have, indeed, been interrogated. But I doubt that they, as an entire group, have suffered as much as a single captured person under the angelic care of the other guys. From what I understand, a lot of life-saving information has come out of club Gitmo. And in the end, they aren't even be-headed. Imagine that.

Quote:

---

If your govt. is prepared to ignore international human rights, what national human rights might it be prepared to ignore, and will you recognize it if/when it happens?

---

You have got to be kidding me! You can't possibly be serious making a statement like that. When the United States gets involved on foreign soil, it is usually because some culture is getting their ass kicked all over their own country at the hands of some evil people. I'm being a little sarcastic here, but I'm sure Australia has history books. Or are they written in arabic? :eek:

I think you forget. The U.S. could have expanded its territories ten-fold if she chose to do so. But, what do we do? We bail anyone and everyone's asses out, turn their country over to them after many American deaths, and then give them billions of dollars a year in perpetuity so they can stay afloat. The entire continent of Europe would be speaking German right now were it not for us. That's not a dig on the language... it's a dig on nazi's.

Dylandog made a pretty decent argument regarding the 2nd amendment. And I'm sure much of the original intent was to insure having a government that didn't turn into one like North Korea has. That original intent still has validity in my book.

Too many Americans know the price of freedom and what it takes to keep it that way. With all the guns available in the US, I don't think we have to worry about the government... unless Hillary gets in the White House. :eek: I doubt she could find anyone who would want to put stains on her dress in the Oval Office, however.

The tanks and rockets and stuff? What makes you think there wouldn't be entire military units rolling over to help the good guys instead of hunting down the gun owners? :hmmm:

Of course, times are changing, and there are increasing numbers of youngsters thinking as you do because they haven't had to pay any price for their freedom. These are the same people who think they can negotiate with the bad guys and still come out a winner. After you lose your freedom... AND YOU WILL LOSE IT... because of that type of thought, it will be too late. Who knows, maybe you will be a good specimin for muslim or Korean medical research.

And if you are not willing to fight for your freedom, you pretty much don't deserve to keep it. You guys already lost your guns and some other stuff. What's next?

Protocol I of the Geneva Convention entered into force in 1979. It deals with additional things that signatories are supposed to do to protect victims of armed conflict, including POWs and civilian populations.

The Supreme Court has held that Geneva Convention rights apply to the detainees at Guantanimo, but, as far as I know, none of them have been tried for anything. The military tribunals were determining whether they were unlawful combatants, who would continue being detained, and who could go home.

As far as grave breaches go - you ignore the fact that these people were engaged in armed conflict while not in compliance with the laws of war - for example, the requirement for an indentifying emblem.

But none of that addresses the issue of the second amendment. :)

Oh, and Bill, you give them lamb? Here, in the State Prison system, at least, they have to make due with a vegetarian diet, because of the logistical concerns about many special religious diets (Jews, Muslims, Buddists, etc.) :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by urleebird

OK, X... you say no one should carry guns.

---

No, I say I prefer it when they don't. I understand that they do. AND I understand why. I just like it when we don't have to.

X

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xman

No, I say I prefer it when they don't. I understand that they do. AND I understand why. I just like it when we don't have to.

X

---

Well you never have too...until you have too, but by then its to late. Hence the planning ahead, the same reason I carry a multitool...I dont think I'll eve have to use half those tools, but I want them because its better to have them and not need them than need them and not have them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by urleebird

Here is what I see, James. I see that you are stating an opinion, not as an opinion, but, as something that is factual. So, instead of telling us what you think about the issue, it feels like we are being scolded because we are not singing kum bi ya with you.

...

---

Bill,

It was never my intention to scold anyone, and my apologies again if it came across that way.

You're right, I was stating an opinion. My opinion is that I couldn't see how a "keeping the govt. in check" argument could possibly work in a practical sense. There is, in my mind, too many variables, too many opposing points of view, and perhaps (although this is pure conjecture) too many different agendas to create a unified opposition. I gather the original purpose of the 2nd ammendment was clear cut - to enable the overthrow of a repressive government. However, I think in modern times things aren't so clear cut, and aren't likely to ever develop to that point. My point in raising the GB detainees was to highlight that - although it certainly appears to have been a singularly poor example, and in fact probably proved the point against my argument! :gth

For the record I am neither pro - or anti - guns. I grew up with them, my father taught me how to use them and care for them, and how to be safe with them. I choose not to own any as an adult, but that certainly doesn't mean I oppose those that do.

James.