Fascist Britain

[Spentastic]

I know how there are a few here that enjoy deriding Britain for it's pansy laws about killing intruders and stuff.

Here's some more panty bunching info for you.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3581547.stm

[Pert_UK]

1. OH MY GOD NO! Security cameras! AAArrrghhh!

Most certainly CCTV represents a huge infringement of personal liberty and the fact that crime is hugely reduced when cameras are placed in an area is merely a coincidence!

Don't you realise that we'd be both more free and safer if we were simply allowed to own and carry guns?

Sorry, couldn't resist the sarcasm.....

I do find it odd though that some people have a huge fear of CCTV cameras....I mean, removing crime has surely got to be better than having to arm yourself for protection, hasn't it?

[demsrule4life]

2. Can you imagine how boring the forums would

be they installed CCTV in all the work places and people would actually have to do their jobs? :)

[texasdem99]

3. Actually, Pert, you would be freer and safer

if you were allowed to carry guns. Nice straw man, there.

Now, getting back to CCTV, as it relates to monitoring of felons, I haven't formed an opinion either way.

But Britain is overflowing with CCTV cameras now, from what I've heard, many used in "law enforcement". I remember seeing a show on A&E about the "big brotherfication" of Britain.

It showed an CCTV at intersections, in stores, on sidewalks, in elevators, in restaurants, in public buildings, everywhere.

In the US, they are used primarily in stores and for general security of premises.

They are not used to give tickets to pedestrians who were caught on camera jaywalking. (sarcasm)

Crime is reduced where cameras are placed.

So is individual freedom.

People are assumed guilty until proven innocent.

The USA is a fascist state, clamping down on individual liberty.

Pot-Kettle....

[MrBenchley]

4. Yeah, Pete, just like Somalia

where everyone has guns....

[el_gato]

5. yeah, wouldn't you rather be a slave of the government, than carry a gun

NOT ME!!!


oh but would somebody please think of the children!!!!


fuck orwellian fascism and all the weaklings who think it's a good thing

[MrBenchley]

6. Too frigging funny....

[el_gato]

19. you are about the only person I know who thinks fascism is funny

but hey I guess it goes with your overall worldview

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[el_gato]

33. Your attempting to mischaracterize my statements

I did not say "not owning a gun=slave to the government"

the government taking away your right to own a gun
is a step towards fascism and this is just one aspect of
the assault on freedom. NO freedom = slavery PERIOD!

If you want to be dishonest and try to isolate points
without understanding the big picture I can understand that.
The anti-gun crowd does that all the time.

I'm not here to "win you over" rather I just want to express
my total disgust at the loss of liberty that we are experiencing.

If you don't see the implications of CCTV's everywhere you go
and how that works to squelch freedom there's not much point in
trying to convince you of anything. As well, if you can't see
how terrorism is being used to usher in this assault of freedom
again there's not much I can tell you.

[MrBenchley]

37. Which gato is which?

"el_gato 
Response to Reply #29
33. Your attempting to mischaracterize my statements
I did not say "not owning a gun=slave to the government"

or

"el_gato 
Response to Reply #11
20. Yep there it is right there the gun grabber agenda
and yes pert not being allowed to own a gun does mean your a slave"

[el_gato]

47. maybe you should learn how to read benchy

pert said "not owning a gun" I said not being allowed to own a gun

DO YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE? or is it too complicated for you?

[MrBenchley]

58. Too TOO funny...

Pert was clearly referring to your incorrect claim that he was not allowed to own a gun (could you possibly learn SOMETHING about Britain before you begin posturing about it, by the way?).

[MrBenchley]

38. Which gato is which?

"el_gato 
Response to Reply #29
33. Your attempting to mischaracterize my statements
I did not say "not owning a gun=slave to the government"

or

"el_gato 
Response to Reply #11
20. Yep there it is right there the gun grabber agenda
and yes pert not being allowed to own a gun does mean your a slave"

[el_gato]

50. again benchy please learn how to read

[Pert_UK]

39. And again....

you end with a really nice point that bears discussion (terrorism being used as a cloak to usher in restrictions on personal liberty).

I'd go along with that and would enjoy the debate.

The problem we have here is that neither I nor the vast majority of my countrymen believe that owning a gun is necessary part of being free. I'm sorry you can't accept that. I personally cannot accept that a country where you have to arm yourself out of fear of government repression is in some way more free that a country where its people volunteer to ban weapons for the good of the majority.

Guns have never (in recent times) been used as weapons of self-defense in the UK and there has never been a US-style gun-culture. All we gave up was the privilege to own pistols and semi-automatic weapons that only a small number exercised, and believe me, they weren't generally the "left-wing, political libertarian" types.

[el_gato]

48. well history is against you pert

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759

[Pert_UK]

54. Excuse me if I don't surrender....

I'm sorry, but this metaphor really doesn't work for me.

The thing about Democracy is that essentially people have chosen that this is how they want things to run.

I would rather have a government that made the wrong decisions honestly and openly and then got voted out than a government that made decisions distorted by their fear of an armed electorate.

You are assuming that the population are necessarily repressed in any democratic state, and that all democratic governments secretly wish to repress and control the populace.

To counter-attack, Democracy is a bunch of lambs freely voting for the lambs they want to run the paddock, and then voting them out if the paddock is run badly.

Liberty, according to you, appears to be being able to shoot the government if you don't like what it's doing.

[iverglas]

66. and LIBERAL democracy

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have
for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

... is the wolves and lambs all agreeing that nobody gets to eat anybody, no matter how many wolves vote for it -- and implementing effective methods of preventing rogue wolves from breaking the agreement.

Of course, old Ben Franklin hadn't heard of that concept. But wait -- what's that US Constitution stuff all about, anyhow? Looks like rules against wolves eating lambs, and an expression of agreement with those rules, to me.

Of course, it might better be characterized as rules against wolves eating other wolves, since the lambs in question -- say, African-Americans and women -- got, er, thrown to the wolves at the time.

The US constitution was the beginnings of a liberal democracy: democracy for the wolves, which was better for the wolves than wolf oligarchy. It has improved somewhat over time, and the lambs have got more protection against being eaten, and been thrown a few table scraps.

But the general sentiment is still not what you'd call one of "trust"; the wolves don't trust the lambs not to try to steal their stuff and take over, and the lambs still get eaten by wolves.

In a real liberal democracy, people agree that the rules apply to everybody, for everybody's benefit, not just their own. And that does have to be based on some mutual trust. Unless people trust one another, to a reasonable degree, not to try to eat one another for lunch, they're just going to see anyone else's efforts to get their own lunch as an attempt to eat them.

There's a huge lack of that trust in the US. There's a fundamental belief that lambs are hungry because they're unworthy, and wolves are fat because they're deserving, and that the lambs are not to be trusted not to do everything they can to get what the wolves have by hook or by crook (if you'll forgive the shepherding metaphor), rather than by honest (or permissibly crooked) effort.

Now, social democracy, that's another step up the evolutionary ladder. That's where people actually get to share in the benefits of their society, and not just to stop other people from taking away what they manage to scrounge together. But that requires the kind of trust we're not likely to see in the US in the near future.

.

[iverglas]

64. but what has happened in recent times in the UK

... is terrorism.

Maybe next time somebody in Atlanta is delayed on a trip from point A to point B by subway, because there's been a bomb scare or threat at one of the subway stations, s/he will be a little less horrified at the idea of video cameras in public places.

I rode the Tube in London for only a few days about 10 years ago, and this kind of delay happened to us more than once.

The video cameras in question are all in public places. Anybody sitting on a park bench could observe exactly what anybody else is seeing via video camera. No one has yet started installing them in those Englishers' homes that are their castles.

(Wonder whether the Maryland racists we were discussing the other day know where they got that "a 'man's' home is his castle" stuff ...)

The British have lived with terrorism, and violent terrorist acts against people in public places, for decades, and still not descended into the kind of repression that happened in the US virtually overnight, or become the passive subjects of repressive government that all the USAmericans herded into their "free speech zones" and suffering all the other indignities of "patriotism" tolerate.

I must say I missed the "freedom" of being able to check baggage at a train station to pick up later, when I was in the UK. But I was perfectly happy knowing that if someone decided to leave a suitcase with a bomb on it in the subway station I was passing through, there was a good chance that the video surveillance would result in the train I was on being saved from getting blown up.

.

[Pert_UK]

11. Not being allowed gun=slave to government

Exactly how does this work?

As far as I can tell, it would be far easier to argue that you are a slave to fear of your government and society if you can't live comfortably without being armed.

The people of the UK opted for freedom from guns, rather than freedom to own them. We're very happy about it.

P.

[el_gato]

20. Yep there it is right there the gun grabber agenda

and yes pert not being allowed to own a gun does mean your a slave

It is naive to think that those who control our government (U.S. and U.K.) have anything but total disdain for freedom and they will go as
far as they can in destroying it.

How far will that be? It depends on how much people love their liberty.
But for those who advocate total government control of all citizen activity that love of liberty does not even exist.

[Pert_UK]

35. Your logic astounds me.......

"and yes pert not being allowed to own a gun does mean your (sic) a slave".

No it doesn't. If gun ownership had been put to a referendum in the UK it would have been banned by popular vote. I'm sorry that you view a democratically elected government implementing a popular law to be slavery, but then to you "freedom" seems to involve pointing a gun at the government and warning them not to try anything funny.

For your information, incidentally, one can still own shotguns and rifles in the UK, because it was recognised that they were necessary for farmers, hunters and sportsmen, but did not represent the same risk of a massacre as handguns or semi-automatics.

Now go on, tell me that the UK government only allows us to have ineffective weapons in the upcoming civil war......

There is no such thing as total liberty in society - there have to be some constraints in order to make living as a group possible and practical. The UK citizens decided that the freedom to own a gun was one liberty that should be constrained, in the wake of several massacres where innocent men, women and children were deprived of their right to life by men exercising their freedom to own arms.

Have you ever been to the UK? Or read anything about it and its firearms laws? Or any of its other laws? Or a book at all?

[FeebMaster]

40. So if, for example, they had a referendum

If gun ownership had been put to a referendum in the UK it would have been banned by popular vote. I'm sorry that you view a democratically elected government implementing a popular law to be slavery, but then to you "freedom" seems to involve pointing a gun at the government and warning them not to try anything funny.

on making slavery legal. If it passed, by popular vote, that would be alright? After all, a democratically elected government would be implementing a popular law.

[Pert_UK]

42. Oh for fuck's sake...

How else are we supposed to get any laws on the books, if not through government, accepted legal process and popular assent?

I agree that this doesn't NECESSARILY lead to fair and just laws, but it's the best way we have until God comes down and gives us a nice list of objective rights and wrongs.

Unfortunately (as far as I can see) the "pro gun" people seem to start from the assumption that gun ownership is a freedom and a right that ought to be available to all, and then criticise anyone and any law that doesn't back their view up. It's as if they believe they have special access to some objective morality that the rest of us are just too stupid to see.

It would be nice if, just for once, somebody would argue with the evidence, rather than just assert the right and then make rude comments. Does it make any difference to anybody that other countries and human rights bodies don't encode "GUNS FOR ALL!" in their legal foundations???

[el_gato]

49. Freedom is not something the government GIVES you

it is inherent as far as I am concerned

Remember the government exists to serve people not the other way around

Just accept that we see things in a fundamentally different light.

[Pert_UK]

57. Nobody has the freedom to do whatever they want....

I am not free to tweak the nipples of the shop assistant, no matter how much I would like to. I am not free to drive an overly-polluting car. I am not free to own a hand-grenade.

Are my freedoms constrained? Well sort of, but not in any meaningful way.

I accept that we see things differently, but here's my point (again).

You and I each believe that there are a set of freedoms to which each human being is entitled, without qualification.

Your list includes being able to own a gun, mine doesn't.

I favour mine (which probably includes freedom of speech, assembly, religion, from persecution) because mine is timeless and locationless. Those freedoms are good in themselves regardless of where or when you're living.

Your list of freedoms includes one which only makes sense after the invention of firearms, which seems bizarre.

[TX-RAT]

59. No nipple tweaking

Those bastards

[FeebMaster]

62. Unfortunately (as far as I can see)

the "anti-slavery" people seem to start from the assumption that the right not to be a slave is a freedom and a right that ought to be available to all, and then criticize anyone and any law that doesn't back their view up. It's as if they believe they have special access to some objective morality that the rest of us are just too stupid to see.

[Pert_UK]

67. A fair point, but....

there are lots and lots of constitutions and laws around the world, including, for example, the UN Charter of Human Rights. Whilst lots of countries allow their citizens to own some firearms (including the UK), nobody else (as far as I am aware) thinks that this is some God-given right, whereas freedom of speech and freedom from slavery/abuse seem to be regarded as universally good.

I think that there is common consensus on freedom from slavery being a right, whereas the freedom to own a gun would be hotly debated and rejected by many people.

There's a big difference between claiming something as an inalienable right, and having it allowed by law in certain circumstances. Nobody has ever offered me any compelling evidence for regarding gun ownership as a right.

[FeebMaster]

68. So then,

"there are lots and lots of constitutions and laws around the world, including, for example, the UN Charter of Human Rights. Whilst lots of countries allow their citizens to own some firearms (including the UK), nobody else (as far as I am aware) thinks that this is some God-given right, whereas freedom of speech and freedom from slavery/abuse seem to be regarded as universally good.

I think that there is common consensus on freedom from slavery being a right, whereas the freedom to own a gun would be hotly debated and rejected by many people."

you're alright with violating the rights of the minority as long as the majority is OK with it?

There's a big difference between claiming something as an inalienable right, and having it allowed by law in certain circumstances. Nobody has ever offered me any compelling evidence for regarding gun ownership as a right.

Don't hold your breath. I'm certainly not interested in convincing you.

[Pert_UK]

69. I know it's not worth my effort, but.....

you're suffering from a circular argument.

You are ASSUMING that owning a gun is an inalienable right, then criticising me for suggesting that this right be removed or constrained.

My point is that I don't accept that owning a gun is a right. The majority of people and lawmakers in the world don't believe that it is a right. It's certainly allowed in some places, but not in others, and with a varying degree of restriction in between.

"you're alright with violating the rights of the minority as long as the majority is OK with it?"

Of course I'm not OK with rights violations. My point is that neither I, my government, the VAST majority of people in the UK, the UN Commission on Human Rights and the VAST MAJORITY of the world's population (OK, I'm assuming this) believe that gun ownership is a RIGHT.

Just because some guys "Held these truths to be self-evident", I'm afraid it doesn't mean that they are either truths or self-evident.

Amongst all the campaigning for human rights that goes on around the world, have you ever heard of an occasion where somebody said, "Oh those poor repressed Chinese/Tibetans/Zimbabweans/etc/....deprived of their right to vote/worship/assemble/speak freely......and also, they've been deprived of their right to guns! Can you believe it!".

The US stands practically alone as a country that sees weapons of self-defense as a "right". Other countries permit it as a privilege or not at all.

[MrBenchley]

70. An excellent point

lost on "enthusiasts," I'm afraid...

[FatSlob]

71. Those other countries have an authoritarian policy.

Simple as that.

[Pert_UK]

72. I assume that you think you're making some sort of point....

Although I can't really see what it is.

Would I be right in assuming that you see any government that doesn't see gun ownership as a right to be "authoritarian"?

As far as I can tell, you are essentially saying, "Everyone who doesn't agree with me is wrong", without providing any evidence to support your own view.

What makes you think you have some infallible access to the full, objective list of human rights? The very fact that a HUGE number of people and governments don't see weaponry as a "right" should make you at least think that there is room for debate here.

But no, you trot out the same circular argument as if through repetition you'll eventually convince me.....

You: "Bearing arms is a right, if you don't agree then you're authoritarian and repressive because you're denying people their rights."

Me: "I don't think that bearing arms is a right because of A,B,C,D and E."

You:"Well it is. If you don't agree you're oppressive and authoritarian."

ad infinitum.....

I could spend all day giving sensible reasons why IMHO bearing arms should be regarded as a privilege allowed in law, or even a "legal right", but how it can never be a universal right like the "right to free speech" or the "right to freedom from slavery".

All you seem able to do is repeat, "But it is a right, and I know it is because some guys said it was and wrote it down."

[FatSlob]

73. Wrong, bucko

I said that the POLICY is authoritarian. You have to look at the government as a whole. Gun banning is, by definition, authoritarian. Try not to read into my posts too much, they are pretty straight forward.

[Pert_UK]

75. Errrr.....I'm still not with you.

I suppose you could argue that it's tautologically true.....Enacting a law and trying to enforce it is kind of authoritarian.

But no country in the world allows total freedom to do whatever you want. I'm not allowed to drive over 70mph on the motorway or smoke weed, but I fail to see how these are any less authoritarian than removing the privilege of gun ownership.

[MrBenchley]

76. In other words, fat slob wants to

declare that any government that doesn't let a childish and irresponsible idiot run through its streets with an assault weapon and a pocket full of pistols is "authoritarian"...and that his verdict, which is based on nothing but his own dubious authority, makes that government somehow e-e-e-evil.

[FatSlob]

78. Did you pass reading comprehension?

Remedial training would surely help. POLICY...POLICY...POLICY

[MrBenchley]

80. Gee fat slob...

it sure seems like the problem's with the message, rather than the recipient...

[Pert_UK]

74. And as I've got the bit between my teeth.......

you have the audacity to suggest that any country (whether a democracy or not) that doesn't operate exactly in accordance with your views on guns is "authoritarian"???

I would tentatively suggest that this is over the top....The level of political suppression in the US at the moment far exceeds anything we have in the UK, where you are at least allowed to harangue your leader for being a twat.

Seriously - politicians enacting popular laws=authoritarian when it doesn't agree with your views.

Perhaps if you ruled the world every day would be the first day of Spring, but I suspect not.......I'll take my chances with democracy any day, thanks.

ON EDIT: Apologies to FatSlob, this may be my OTT response to misreading his comment. He did say that the policy, not the countries were "authoritarian", so I'm not doing his post or his point justice in this rant. However, I still fail to see why removing the privilege of gun ownership is any more authoritarian than many other laws, such as a speed limit on the motorway, the compulsory wearing of crash helmets on motorbikes, or the ban on smoking weed.

[FatSlob]

77. Look,

I consider a weed ban to be authoritarian. As far as gun ownership goes, it is authoritarian to ban them. The only compelling state interest in banning guns is so the state can exercise complete control over the people within its jurisdiction. It prevents the people from fighting back. In your case, it prevents the subjects from armed revolt against the Crown. In the United States, the reasons mentioned supra are not considered compelling. The 2nd Amendment of the CONUS was put in place shortly after a revolution against what was viewed to be a tyrannical Crown. The framers wished the CITIZENS to be able to have armed revolution if they ever again became subjects of a tyrannical government. An armed citizenry does have its good points and bad points. Japan decided not to invade the West Coast because of the armed citizenry, for example. However, there are bad points to, as in the fact that a criminal could find it easier to obtain a firearm. Another good point is that the average citizen has the choice. He is not compelled to be armed, or compelled to be disarmed. That is surely a freedom, the ability to choose. Gun banning is certainly authoritarian, in that it takes away the choice. In the United States, we tend to be freer than most anybody else, and we are the world's most durable democracy, I believe. I think there is a correlation, although I doubt one could ever be proven. Basically, I believe that a generally armed citizenry prevents tyranny. I believe that self-defense is a natural right. I believe that right is self-evident. I believe the United States is still the last, best hope for the world. I believe that the rights of the individual supercede all others. Maybe the United States is different because we've always had this thing about individual rights being sancrosanct. I'm not sure. In closing, the United States is, without a doubt, the greatest nation on Earth. I believe this is due to the 1st Ten Amendments to the Constitution. I believe that these rights are guaranteed by the armed citizenry who's rights are guaranteed under the 2nd.

[Pert_UK]

81. Thank you for this response....of course, I disagree.....

"The only compelling state interest in banning guns is so the state can exercise complete control over the people within its jurisdiction. " - that could, arguably, be true. However, governments don't generally (and certainly shouldn't) make laws for the benefit of the "state", if by "state" you mean, "the established rulers".

I would counter-argue that the most compelling reason for banning guns is to make the population more safe in general. Now, whether you believe that gun bans do actually have that effect is another argument, but I happen to believe that society in general is safer when there is no "casual" gun ownership.

"it prevents the subjects from armed revolt against the Crown." - well, firstly nobody is going to revolt against the Monarchy, simply because the Monarchy in the UK wields no meaningful power. Now, as for revolting against the government.......to be frank, I cannot imagine any instance when we'd need armed rebellion, and if we did then I'm totally sure that the government would have found other ways to render potential rebels harmless before their guns could come into play. Gun control has always been tightly controlled in the UK - all legal owners had to jump through hoops to get a licence and guns - and owners were a tiny minority. Nobody else wanted guns, nobody really wanted other people to have guns, and any repressive regime would be able to disarm the owners easily anyway.

"I believe that self-defense is a natural right. I believe that right is self-evident. " - I might agree with this, but that still doesn't entail that gun ownership is a right..it's a means to an end, not a right in itself.

"I believe the United States is still the last, best hope for the world." - I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this. If you see rolling out Americanism across the globe as a positive thing, them I'm going to question your sanity. I love the States, but I'm not keen on its unfettered domination of global business, or its neo-Imperialism.

"I believe that the rights of the individual supercede all others." - the problem with this is that individuals don't exist in isolation, they exist in society. Giving an individual the ability to arm himself may, in isolation, appear to create better safety for that individual. But when you role out the "right" to armament across the whole society, the overall level of safety decreases. Maybe that individual can shoot if attacked, but what about other individuals' right to bring up their children in an area free from weapons?

"In closing, the United States is, without a doubt, the greatest nation on Earth." - well, it is nice to see someone having pride in their country, but I feel obliged to remind you that it's just your opinion, and that although the US can be hugely great, it is currently posing a massive threat to global peace through its mismanagent and opportunism in the "war on terror". One should not love one's country without qualification, one should love one's country like a brother - you'll always love him, but will work hard to point out and help him overcome his faults, precisely because you love him so much.

P.

[MrBenchley]

83. Worth noting

that while in this thread we have transformed into the free-est nation on earth, in another one the RKBA crowd is howling for armed revolution to overthrow this government.

[FatSlob]

84. Here is more.

Well, in your first paragraph, you said that the state (ruling folks) shouldn't make laws for their benefit. But, they do. BCRA is an example here. But, that is a small point.

Your second paragraph:

"I would counter-argue that the most compelling reason for banning guns is to make the population more safe in general. Now, whether you believe that gun bans do actually have that effect is another argument, but I happen to believe that society in general is safer when there is no "casual" gun ownership."

I counter your counter :) with my opinion that I believe that trading freedom for safety will eventually result in the loss of both.

When I wrote about the Crown, that was reference to the Government of the United Kingdom. I opine that the lack of meaningful firearms ownership in the Kingdom would make it easier for tyranny to reign.

You also wrote:

""I believe that the rights of the individual supercede all others." - the problem with this is that individuals don't exist in isolation, they exist in society. Giving an individual the ability to arm himself may, in isolation, appear to create better safety for that individual. But when you role out the "right" to armament across the whole society, the overall level of safety decreases. Maybe that individual can shoot if attacked, but what about other individuals' right to bring up their children in an area free from weapons?"

See, that is the difference between the thought process of the "individualistic American" and you. We think the individual reigns supreme. You think the group is supreme. The laws reflect that.

[MrBenchley]

85. Actually, what IS the difference....

...between the thought process of the "individualistic American" and Pert (or me). One of the three of us is impervious to reason or fact and has nothing but jingoism to fall back on.

"We think the individual reigns supreme. You think the group is supreme. The laws reflect that."
And THAT is why the Constitution, the foundation of American law, begins "We the people"...Oops!

[FatSlob]

86. Nice try

Why are the Bill of Rights about the individuals. Damn, you're predictable.

[MrBenchley]

87. Gee, fat slob...

The first amendment is about what Congress is limited from doing.
The second amendment is about the right of the states to have well regulated militias for their collective defense.
The third amendment refers only to soldiers and is a limit to the military.
The fourth amendment is a limit on civil law enforcement.
The seventh amendment is about lawsuits, which are not limited to individuals.
The eighth amendment is a limit on civil law enforcement.
The ninth is a limit on the Federal government.
And the tenth is a limit on state governments.

Guess what word does not appear anywhere in the bill of rights? Individual.

Damn, you're poorly informed.

[FatSlob]

88. OK, I'm amused now.

I've never seen anything more ludicrous on the web.

[MrBenchley]

90. Yeah, and you're also informed...

and we've all seen that your claim about "the individual" and the Bill of Rights was wrong.

By the way, the source of the "the Bill of Rights only concerns the individual" is the NRA. Absurdly, if that were true, the Seventh Amendment would make all the NRA lawsuits impossible...but they're quick to run to court, though never on Second Amendment grounds.

Even funnier, their recent lawsuit to overturn the Campaign Finance Reform law was entirely based on the proposition that their COLLECTIVE freedom of speech was being infringed. (And when it was tossed, the reason wasn't that only individuals can sue.)

Amazingly, such jarring contradictions never seem to bother RKBA "enthusiasts" in the slightest.

[FatSlob]

92. I've never seen anything so grossly untrue.

You actually think that the CONUS does not protect individual rights! I'm not even going to bother arguing with you, as your assertations are false on their face.

[MrBenchley]

97. In other words...

You can't think of any way to explain why any lawsuit by a collective group could possibly be allowed if, as you inaccurately want to claim, the Bill of Rights covers only individuals, and you've decided to try to huff your way out of it.

[iverglas]

93. oh, duh

I counter your counter :) with my opinion that I believe that trading freedom for safety will eventually result in the loss of both.

Well gee, let me raise you one.

Trading safety for freedom will eventually result in the loss of both.

How fucking obvious is that?

If you don't know, try asking somebody in Somalia how free s/he is. Try asking any USAmerican who has been unable to obtain medical care how free s/he is.

Oops, hard to answer when you're dead.


See, that is the difference between the thought process of the "individualistic American" and you. We think the individual reigns supreme. You think the group is supreme. The laws reflect that.

Nah, that's not it at all, see.

Other people think that the individuals of which the group is composed are both safer *and* freer when some individual liberties are limited to some extent.

You need to try that political compass thing again, and see whether you can distinguish between Stalin and Gandhi yet.

If you stand enough of a chance of getting shot while strolling the streets at night to keep you off the streets, you just aren't too damned free. If you stand a chance of never recovering if you get sick, you just aren't too damned free. The freedom to die; everybody's supreme value.

You do know that if you persist in making statements like "you think the group is supreme", you just remove yourself from the realm of making sense.

.

[MrBenchley]

82. Not so, fat slob...

The framers wanted to protect the people from tyranny and saw "well regulated militias" as the cure for that. They had just made an eloquent and well-reasoned argument for independence and expected that any future revolution would demand the same.

"Japan decided not to invade the West Coast because of the armed citizenry, for example."
More of that fabulous RKBA revisionist history. The logistics of hauling a vast fleet of landing craft, warships and support ships undetected across the entire Pacific didn't deter the Japanese empire, but the fear of some yokel in the hills of Covina with a .22 DID deter them...in a pig's eye.

"In the United States, we tend to be freer than most anybody else, and we are the world's most durable democracy...I believe the United States is still the last, best hope for the world....In closing, the United States is, without a doubt, the greatest nation on Earth."
And that's why the RKBA crowd wants to grab their assault rifles and overthrow it....hokay. Shows that RKBA logic is as laughable as RKBA history.

[iverglas]

91. it's head-spinning, isn't it?

As far as gun ownership goes, it is authoritarian to ban them.

I, of course, would agree. In Canada, large numbers of people, in particular First Nations people, use firearms for subsistence. Firearms are used for other economic activities. It would be "autoritarian" (not that I think we are necessarily using the right word here) to deprive them of the ability to engage in those activities. Just as it would be "authoritarian" to deny me the use of a computer.

I'm just wondering why we're talking about this. Who (of any relevance to this discussion) is proposing to ban firearms possession?

The only compelling state interest in banning guns is so the state can exercise complete control over the people within its jurisdiction.

What's the point in making such ridiculous statements?

First off, it's just flailing at straw. Not even in the UK are firearms "banned". People who need firearms for hunting or pest control are entitled to have firearms.

The only state interest that YOU apparently find compelling is the one you assert. Of course, YOU don't find it "compelling" at all, and I don't know of anyone else who claims that it is, so I don't know why you call it that.

There are very certainly other state interests served by limiting the types of firearms that may be possessed and the people who may possess them. Whether YOU find them compelling is a different question altogether. You're simply begging the question by asserting that there are no compelling interests served by such measures.

It prevents the people from fighting back. In your case, it prevents the subjects from armed revolt against the Crown.

It's too bad that anyone, in this day and age and on the internet with all the knowledge it makes available, is so ignorant as to refer to British citizens as "subjects".

Does the plug in your sink prevent the water from flowing up out of the drain? How does something "prevent" something from happening, when the entire notion of it happening is ludicrous?

The 2nd Amendment of the CONUS was put in place shortly after a revolution against what was viewed to be a tyrannical Crown. The framers wished the CITIZENS to be able to have armed revolution if they ever again became subjects of a tyrannical government.

There's just no end to the mythology some people will swallow and spew forth.

"Tyranny" sometimes just has to be broken down into some constituent elements. The tyranny in question at that time, the one against which the revolution was fought, wasn't, for instance, the tyranny under which African-Americans were confined. It wasn't the tyranny of debt under which farmers were yoked (and which they rebelled, unsuccessfully, against not too long after).

That revolution of yours had precious little effect on the lives of a large majority of ordinary people in the colonies. They went right on being ground down by the same tyranny as ever.

Your founders & framers just really, really did not support some general principle of rebellion against tyranny. They claimed and supported their own entitlement to rebel against the kind of "tyranny" that affected rich white guys. How exactly would that Thomas Jefferson have reacted if his slaves and all their comrades had upped arms and rebelled against him and his class? By waving a copy of the US Constitution at them and saying "welcome, brothers and sisters, to freedom from tyranny!"? I think not.

They framed their words finely, but they did NOT adhere to the notion that any old rag-tag band of malcontents were entitled to rebel against what irked them.

Japan decided not to invade the West Coast because of the armed citizenry, for example.

And that has pretty much nothing to do with the point at hand, i.e. rebellion. If it looks like Japan is fixing to invade, I'd suggest maybe issuing firearms to the citizenry. Unless you're expecting me to assume that the gummint of the USA is going to be in cahoots with Japan ...

Another good point is that the average citizen has the choice. He is not compelled to be armed, or compelled to be disarmed. That is surely a freedom, the ability to choose.

Sure enough, eh? Kinda by definition.

If I have the ability to choose between Coca Cola and Pepsi Cola, how much more "free" am I than someone who has access only to a local product ... that I don't have access to?

If I am free to poop in the park, is this a good thing?

Gun banning is certainly authoritarian, in that it takes away the choice.

And ditto the laws that prohibit me from pooping in the park. I don't know how I survive, all tyrannized as I am.

Arguing by definition really is kinda pointless, don't you think?

This fixation on "freedom" is nothing more than that. You are free to eat dirt; would it really matter much to you if you weren't?

In the United States, we tend to be freer than most anybody else, and we are the world's most durable democracy, I believe.

Like I said ... mythology and spewing.

How free are you to picket your President? How free are 40,000,000+ USAmericans to get health care? Why is it not some sort of natural right to get medical care to stay alive, but it is a natural right to shoot somebody else to stay alive?

Did you ever happen to notice that there was a Parliament in the UK at the time of your little revolution, and long before that? How do you suppose its members were selected? Are you perhaps defining "democracy" in a way that automatically produces the result you are looking for?

I think there is a correlation, although I doubt one could ever be proven.

Of course there is a correlation between freedom and democracy. It's just that you're wrong on both counts, when it comes to the US having more of either.

Basically, I believe that a generally armed citizenry prevents tyranny.

How's that going for you?

Of course, one might ask how it's going for people in Somalia, and how it went for people in Iraq, and how it's going for most of the weapons-bloated continent of Africa ... and perhaps conclude that there are a lot better ways of preventing tyranny, and that yours is really very seldom successful.

I believe that self-defense is a natural right. I believe that right is self-evident.

And I believe that there are faeries at the bottom of my garden, and that their existence there is self-evident.

I believe the United States is still the last, best hope for the world.

Oh, cripes, I guess I shouldn't have just skimmed that big block of text before starting, or I would have seen this and just clicked on by. "Last" hope? Are we truly in the end days? Are the rest of us so benighted that we will indeed perish if you do not rescue us?

Do you know ANYTHING about ANYTHING, so that you would have some basis for these superlatives of yours? "Best" calls for something to be worse; do you know what it is that you are calling "worse"? Is there any point in asking, because the mere fact that it is different would make it "worse" in your books?

When you've already said you don't care about anything outside the US (I hope I'm not misremembering), why would you claim that the US is the world's last, best hope? What would this matter to you?

Why would you not think that the rest of the world might be the ones to determine where their hope lies? Whatever became of freedom and democracy?

I believe that the rights of the individual supercede all others. Maybe the United States is different because we've always had this thing about individual rights being sancrosanct.

I'd say I seldom get to see such overweening arrogance ... but unfortunately, I get to see it regularly around here.

It's remediable. Ignorance can be dispelled. Learn something. You'll feel better. The world will be a better place. As if you actually cared.

.

[FatSlob]

79. BTW, thanks for your apology.

With my posts, you'll learn that what you see is what you get. We'll get a feel for each other. With me, reading between the lines is expressly forbidden...as I am very plain spoken, and typically short winded.

[FeebMaster]

89. And you are ASSUMING

"You are ASSUMING that owning a gun is an inalienable right, then criticising me for suggesting that this right be removed or constrained."

that not being a slave is an inalienable right, but I see my point is lost on this one.


"My point is that I don't accept that owning a gun is a right. The majority of people and lawmakers in the world don't believe that it is a right. It's certainly allowed in some places, but not in others, and with a varying degree of restriction in between."

Appeal to popularity.

"Of course I'm not OK with rights violations. My point is that neither I, my government, the VAST majority of people in the UK, the UN Commission on Human Rights and the VAST MAJORITY of the world's population (OK, I'm assuming this) believe that gun ownership is a RIGHT."

Of course you're OK with rights violations, just because as far as you're concerned, someone's rights aren't being violated, doesn't mean they actually aren't being violated.

Also, that's another appeal to popularity.

"Just because some guys "Held these truths to be self-evident", I'm afraid it doesn't mean that they are either truths or self-evident."

Who the hell cares what some guys said?


"Amongst all the campaigning for human rights that goes on around the world, have you ever heard of an occasion where somebody said, "Oh those poor repressed Chinese/Tibetans/Zimbabweans/etc/....deprived of their right to vote/worship/assemble/speak freely......and also, they've been deprived of their right to guns! Can you believe it!"."

And what exactly does that have to do with anything?

The US stands practically alone as a country that sees weapons of self-defense as a "right". Other countries permit it as a privilege or not at all.

So basically you squeezed about a dozen appeals to popularity into your post and you're saying that my argument is circular? I know my point is lost on everyone who seems to think if you can get a majority to vote for it, it's OK, but just because you don't define something as a right doesn't mean everyone else in the world agrees with you. If you vote to curtail that right you don't think is a right then you're violating that right even if you and the rest of the majority don't consider it a right.

Who gets to decide what is a right and what isn't? Obviously it's not me since I apparently have to convince you what is and isn't a right. Is it you? Maybe we should just draw up a really big ballot and hand them out to everyone in the world. If a potential right gets a majority in our world wide referendum, then we can't violate it. If it doesn't get a majority then we can violate it to our heart's content. Sound good?

[Pert_UK]

94. So...I appeal to consensus opinion. What do you appeal to???

I really don't follow...As far as I can tell, you're basing your entire argument on the assumption that bearing arms is a right. At least I'm offering supporting evidence/exPert opinion for the fact that it's not. I'm not saying that majority opinion makes something objectively true, what I'm saying is that if you're going to claim objective truths then you've got to show me where you got them from, otherwise it's just your opinion. IMHO all we have got, to make laws, is the majority opinion of experts and people in general. It's not me that is claiming that we can decide objective rights and wrongs.

My suggestion that not being a slave is an inalienable right was purely to illustrate my point that the RKBA is in a different category to other accepted human rights....but I see my point is lost on that one.

OK, let's go nuts.......I refuse to acknowledge that there is any coherent notion of objective rights. There isn't. Unless you believe in God providing a signed, witnessed list of all human rights then you cannot claim any sort of objective rights. Therefore, all rights are subjective and are codified in law by governments and expert bodies (e.g. the UN).

So....."appeal to popularity". I'm saying, "Most Human Rights experts and governments don't recognise the RKBA as a genuine right". You're criticising me for appealing to popularity. Well OF COURSE popularity is no guarantee of anything, and majority rule does not entail justice or rights. My argument is not 100% conclusive. However, at least it provides support for my position, whereas you simply reject my position without evidence or support. You seem to think that minority opinion should over-rule majority in this instance, but can't say why. Why?

"Of course you're OK with rights violations, just because as far as you're concerned, someone's rights aren't being violated, doesn't mean they actually aren't being violated." - well DUH! Tautologically true. My opinion has no material impact on whether or not someone's rights are being violated. But you've gone all circular again.

I'm providing support for my view that the RKBA is not a right at all and that therefore people's rights (which DON'T INCLUDE THE RKBA) are not being infringed if they're not allowed to keep and bear arms. You're simply saying, "BUT HAH! IT IS A RIGHT, THEREFORE YOU ACCEPT RIGHTS VIOLATIONS!". AGAIN, no fucking evidence or support for your view whatsoever, simply stating the opposite of my position and then criticising me for not following it.

"Who the hell cares what some guys said?" - well HOO-fucking-RAY! I don't care what some guys said, but the RKBA crowd seem to, because as far as I can tell the only justification for claiming the RKBA is because the authors of the constitution/amendments said it was a right.......If you have some other basis for claiming it as a right then I'd like to know, but you don't seem able to do that.

"And what exactly does that have to do with anything? " - what I am trying to demonstrate is that there are a number of human rights that people seem to be able to recognise without problem. There is common consensus on the fact that people have the right to freedom from slavery, for example (but that doesn't make it necessarily the case). What I'm saying is that when it comes to basic human rights, nobody ever stands up and says, "They should have the right to bear arms".

In fact, think about it. If the RKBA is really a right, then everybody on the planet should have it.........I can REALLY see the NRA and the Bush government (and indeed a Democrat government) campaigning to send arms to the people of Iran, Cuba, France, Algeria, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Russia.......do we want mass arming of these populations?

[FeebMaster]

95. When it all comes down to it

all anyone has is their opinion. You have your opinion on what is a right and what isn't and I have mine. Apparently since more people agree with you, you're in the right. Sucks to be me I guess.

The whole point of the bill of rights was to enumerate some rights that all people share to prevent the government from violating those rights. Obviously that worked out real well. I don't base my support for any right on the bill of rights and in fact have repeatedly said that the bill of rights is effectively dead.

As far as I'm concerned, everyone on the planet does have the same rights. What does the NRA or the Bush administration have to do with anything I've said? What does having the government provide arms to anyone have to do with anything I've said?

[Pert_UK]

96. Your opinion does matter, of course....

and we wouldn't be having this discussion if I didn't think so.

I'd just like to know where you got it from and how you support it.

I find it odd that you clearly have such strong and sincere beliefs but aren't really saying where you got them from or what makes you continue to believe them

I'm not saying that I'm right, I'm just giving my opinion and some support for it. I'd like to see your support (NB, NOT your athletic support, even if it is April 1st!).

P.

[FeebMaster]

98. I hate April Fools Day.

Alright, my opinion on rights goes something like this and I'll simplify things a bit because I'm not really interested on writing a book on rights.

I hope you're not interested in having a discussion on where rights come from because I'm not really interested in having a discussion on God or whatever. I operate under the assumption that by being alive I have rights and if I have these rights it's only fair that everyone else has them too.

It all starts off with life, liberty, and property or life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I've always though both of those were sort of redundant. How can you have liberty without the right to own property? How can you pursue happiness without liberty? How do you have the right to life without the liberty to live it? As far as I'm concerned, there is really only one right, the right to liberty and it includes the right to life, property, and the pursuit of happiness. All other rights are derived from these.

To get to the right to bear arms which is what we're really interested in, I guess, we start with the right to life. If I have the right to life it stands to reason that I have the right to defend that life. If anyone can just come along and kill me if they feel like it, how can you say I have the right to life?

If I have the right to defend my life then I have the right to defend it using any means at my disposal. Fists, knife, gun, whatever. Can you kill someone in defense of your life? Yes, but only those who are trying to infringe on your right to life. No killing innocent bystanders and such. Is killing someone in defense of your life violating their right to life? No. If I were to go and try to violate someone's right to life would I have any business being offended if they killed me for it? Of course not. If you attempt to violate someone's rights you've got no business complaining when they do something about it.

Why guns and not just fists, rocks, and knives or whatever? Not everyone is created equal as far as physical prowess is concerned. I'm not a big guy and no matter how dirty I fight I'm going to be at a disadvantage in a physical confrontation. Even using a weapon like a knife or sword or crossbow, a person with less physical prowess is at a disadvantage to the strong in a physical confrontation. A gun levels the playing field. It doesn't matter how small or weak you are, with a gun you can defend yourself against anyone. There's no need for a hand-to-hand physical confrontation because a gun kills at a distance. Guns level the playing field.

Why can't we just ban some guns? Well, that will limit people's choices on how they defend their lives. It would also violate the right to property. As far as I'm concerned the right to property is absolute. You can own whatever you want. Just don't violate the rights of others.

As a quick aside, I've always thought all the crying about assault weapons was sort of funny. I mean, at best, the weapons people are crying about will fire one .30 slug per trigger pull. Only rarely do you hear people crying about shotguns and they can throw a dozen or more .30 slugs per trigger pull. Shotguns are pound for pound some of the deadliest weapons you can own and yet no one seems to care about them.

Of course, all of that is academic. In the real world the government makes the rules. They outnumber me and have more guns and they'll kill me and anyone else who doesn't do what they say. So just because I think the government violates my rights and the rights of lots of other people doesn't mean I'm going to do anything about it. Most people agree with the government, or just don't care enough either way, so I guess I'm stuck with the way things are.

Well, that basically sums up my thoughts on the right to bear arms and rights in general, more or less. I'm sure some people consider it circular or something, but what are you going to do.

[Pert_UK]

13. Actually, thinking about it, I disagree.....

I imagine that pretty much everyone with a brain would rather carry a gun than be a slave to the government.

The wonderful thing is that we don't have to choose between these completely unconnected options.

"You'd rather stick your nose in a pile of shit than paint a horse blue"

Actually, can I do neither? Thanks awfully.

I think I'll just remain an unarmed non-slave please.

Seriously, if you are so worried about your government that you need arms to protect yourself from it then I'd claim political asylum somewhere if I were you, you'll feel a lot better....

P.

[el_gato]

15. You and the rest of us are losing the right to question those who rule

and then you make excuses for the total loss of the right to privacy while at the same time the elite who control everything hide behind a wall of secrecy.

If you can't see the big picture here I don't care but the facts are the facts. When you have no way to hold those at the top accountable and
at the same time they can do anything they want to you for retalliation for your political activities that means YES you are a slave of the government. SO no it is not a false analogy and you so weakly argue.

I suggest you learn from history.

[iverglas]

21. it's sad

When you have no way to hold those at the top accountable and at the same time they can do anything they want to you for retalliation for your political activities that means YES you are a slave of the government.

That big old revolution, and that venerable constitution, and all the money spent on all those elections ... and still you have "no way to hold those at the top accountable" and "they can do anything they want to you".

What a waste of time it all was, eh?

.

typo fixed

[el_gato]

25. they are shredding the constitution

as we speak

I would like to see people stand up and say ENOUGH rather than
make excuses for thier own enslavement.

[Pert_UK]

22. Of course it's false, and it's not even an analogy.........

but who cares.

Some sensible argument about losing the "right to privacy" or even the "freedom to have privacy" would actually have made a lot of sense, and I'm not even sure how I'd argue against it.

I accept that there are lessons to be learned from history, and if I was living in Zimbabwe or Libya or North Korea then maybe I'd feel more comfortable if I was armed and able to fight the government.

The thing is that I live in the UK, and no matter how much I disagree with much of Labour's behaviour, I don't actually believe that Blair et al will be locking the country down and creating a fascist dictatorship if they lost the next election.

We have freedom of press and freedom of speech and although some new legislation goes too far in restricting some freedoms, it's not time just yet to raise a people's army and march on parliament.

Seriously - the police and private businesses put up CCTV cameras to reduce crime and all you can see is government plot and totalitarianism.

I'm getting the feeling that either the US is genuinely closer to widespread government oppression than the UK, or there are some seriously paranoid people on here.

[el_gato]

24. here in the U.S. the cops are waging political war on the opposition

infiltrating peace gatherings, compiling dosiers on those who don't support the bush regime, arresting organizers, etc.

as well they are setting up survellience camera's on every corner

when the police state apparatus has become so thoroughly political
how else do you think these tools will be used?

[Pert_UK]

31. Hey, I'm not saying that the US isn't experiencing worrying times...

but:

a) what's that got to do with the UK, where CCTV has been used for years to prevent crime? I can use a hammer to fix the orphanage window or bludgeon to death a baby seal, but we don't just assume that all use of hammers is bad.

and

b) I still fail to see why people are swallowing fascism if they fail to tool themselves up.

It would be better, IMHO, to try to concentrate efforts on voting in a Government who AREN'T implementing a totalitarian state, rather than arming-up in case this one goes over the top.

[MrBenchley]

34. I wonder who gato wants us to shoot at first....

By the way, it can hardly be stressed enough that gato's "everybody get a gun" philosophy is EXACTLY that expressed by the people he purports to fear. There's hardly a more pro-gun public figure around than John AshKKKroft, a FACT which the gun lobby itself and gun nut groups acknowledge. IN fact, the NRA called the repellant old turd "a breath of fresh air" and put him on the cover of one of their dishonest magazines.

[Pert_UK]

43. I'm wondering whether it would be me & you before or after....

Bush et al.

"Come the revolution, you will be 28th against the wall!"

:evilgrin:

P.

[MrBenchley]

45. He sure does seem anxious to start shooting...

[el_gato]

53. see now you've completely lost the arguement

when you can't even address the issues

[MrBenchley]

61. Jeeze, gato, that IS the issue

You're screaming and waving your arms announcing that your gun is going to make you "free"--so who are you going to shoot?

[el_gato]

44. another attempt to avoid the issue by you bench

[MrBenchley]

46. Nope...that IS the issue, gato

[el_gato]

51. to you since that is all you ever talk about

the rest of us are out here trying to stop the destruction of liberty

buy hey, freedom is just my pet peeve
I guess some people don't care to be free.

[MrBenchley]

55. Too TOO funny...

"the rest of us are out here trying to stop the destruction of liberty"
The rest of WHO? The GOP? Gun nuts like Buford?

"freedom is just my pet peeve"
So it seems...you sure seem to scream like a banshee whenever anybody exercises any.

[MrBenchley]

27. I'd pick "B"

This "we have to have guns because we're going to fight the government" strain is never far from the surface of general gun nut screwiness...and every once in a while one of these charmers does something like this:

"The white supremacist wanted in the shooting of five people at a Los Angeles Jewish community center fled to Las Vegas in taxis, walked into an FBI office and confessed Wednesday, saying he wanted his act to be "a wake-up call to America to kill Jews," authorities said.
Buford O'Neal Furrow Jr., 37, also will be charged in the slaying of a postal worker who was shot Tuesday near the community center, authorities said.
Los Angeles police and federal agents poured into Las Vegas to question Furrow. He has ties to hate groups in the Northwest and had tried to commit himself to a psychiatric hospital last year.
"He certainly had the wherewithal to create a greater tragedy than the one we had," Los Angeles Police Chief Bernard Parks said."

http://www.thehollandsentinel.net/stories/081299/new_daycare.html

Not too long ago we had a couple of threads from gun nuts using left wing rhetoric to try and inspire similar bloodshed.

[el_gato]

28. pathetic red herring benchy

truly pathetic attempt at trying hijack the discussion
but your tactics are all to familiar to everyone here.

try again

[CO Liberal]

7. And Think Of All Those Guns They Had In Iraq

They kept the Iraqis safe from Saddam and his forces, didn't they????

</sarcasm>

[MrBenchley]

8. Afghanistan

is armed to the teeth....and synonymous worldwide with freedom (NOT).

[el_gato]

16. all those guns are being used to fight the occupation

and they look pretty damned effective so far

the fascists can't even control Iraq

so much for your anti-gun tirade.

[CO Liberal]

63. If Your Pro-Gun "Logic" Is To Be Believed....

...the Iraqi people would have risen up against the tyrrany of Saddam Hussein long ago, since they had the guns.

So much for your pro-gun bullshit.

[FeebMaster]

65. Having the guns is obviously not enough.

You have to want to rise up and fight too. Obviously the want wasn't great enough when Saddam was in power. They certainly seem to be rising up now, though.

[Pert_UK]

9. WOOOO! WOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

I appreciate that my comments weren't my clearest or most thorough arguments to date, but I have to take issue with your reply...

"They are not used to give tickets to pedestrians who were caught on camera jaywalking. (sarcasm)" - I'm actually not sure where the sarcasm is in this comment (not being deliberately rude, I'm just not sure what you're being sarcastic about. There is no such crime as jaywalking in the UK - we have the freedom to cross the road whenever and wherever we deem it safe to cross....wow! People are considered responsible enough to cross the road but not to own guns, whereas the opposite is true in the US - go figure?!?!?!).

"Crime is reduced where cameras are placed. So is individual freedom."

Please explain to me how individual freedom is reduced by the placing of cameras? I'm lost, I really am. Cameras are used exclusively to monitor suspicious or illegal activities - I'm afraid that unless you can give me some evidence of their widespread misuse as Orwellian monitoring devices that track the population's every move then I'm going to disagree with you. Given that the UK government can't even conceal that it's bugging the UN, you'd think that news would have leaked out by now....As far as I can tell, I now have the freedom to go to places that I wouldn't have gone to before - my own town centre is now significantly safer since cameras were put at each end of the High Street, and the London Underground would be HUGELY more dangerous if there weren't a network of cameras preventing terrorists from planting bombs.

This is not to say that there isn't the scope for their misuse in the future, or even some small-scale misuse at the moment, but there is no institutionalised programme of tracking the country's people. And anyway, mobile phone and credit card use already provide a record of where individuals are at any given point, so cameras don't increase that loss of liberty by any great deal. Moreoever, unless you are actually afraid of your government it seems unlikely that you'll even suggest that they're watching your every move - I'm not saying I trust the government in every respect, but do I really think that they're monitoring me wherever there is a camera?

"People are assumed guilty until proven innocent. " - Why? Cameras are a deterrant to criminals and a protection for the law-abiding, who (broadly speaking) welcome them. The vast majority of camera footage is never seen or used, but is retrieved to provide evidence in the event that a crime is committed nearby. Some cameras are manned, but that enables criminals to be caught during, rather than after committing a crime.

Tautologically I would be freer if I were allowed to carry a gun, because that would be one more freedom I'd have. I would also be freer if I was allowed to own a grenade, shit in public or marry a horse, but none of the above improve my quality of life (well, maybe the last 2) or the quality of life or general freedoms of society.

Believe it or not, people in the UK prefer to be free of armed neighbours and free of the risk of the misuse of legally held weapons. Freedom FROM guns is valued far more highly than the freedom to own them. Some people lost that freedom, but the society overall became a more free and more fair place. Freedoms are always restricted - sometimes individual freedoms are maintained in the face of public opposition, and sometimes they are not.

As for being safer if I were allowed to carry a gun? Well, maybe if just I was allowed to carry one then I'd be safer, but unfortunately if everybody in the UK was allowed to carry one then I guarantee that society overall would be far more dangerous. Unfortunately there is no way of ensuring that guns only go to those who will not misuse them in a moment of crisis, or leave them in a sock drawer for the children to find etc. etc. etc.

The more guns in society the more people get shot by them. I'm not saying that the US should ban handguns, because they are woven into the fabric of your society and cannot be removed. However, the UK has never had a similar attitude towards guns or atmosphere of casual use, let alone allowed individuals to walk around armed for self-defence (in modern times).

It seems to be (a casual observation) that US citizens are FAR more paranoid about the government spying on them or taking their guns away than the people of the UK. This may have something to do with Bush, or maybe not. UK people generally trust their government not to spy on them or do anything requiring the armed intervention of the population....which is really rather nice.

[el_gato]

17. next you'll be saying we should all get chip implants

after all you are a law abiding citizen aren't you

big brother bullshit is all it is

[Pert_UK]

26. There you go again...

almost making a good point and then losing it in rabid paranoia.

I'd have chosen "random drug testing" myself. Personally, I'm against it but would be hard-pressed to explain why I can be against that but for CCTV - after all, they only catch the guilty?

However, it's not worth the effort of replying. You're clearly not interested in debate, merely of mapping your irrational fears of 1984/A Clockwork Orange/Farenheit 451/The Handmaid's Tale onto British society with no regard for the facts.

It seems to me that you regard freedom as agreeing with everything you say about the government's secret plans to track and control everyone - anyone who DOESN'T believe you is clearly deluding themself......

It's kinda like The Matrix, isn't it? I'm happy living unawares inside, while you've broken out and have seen the real world, eh?

Well it might be worth considering whether there is actually a Matrix, eh? You might be happier.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't fight for personal liberty and against government corruption, but that doesn't mean that there's a camera on every streetcorner tracking your next visit to the supermarket.

Having said all that, the US can't even manage open and honest elections, so maybe you do have a point after all....

[el_gato]

30. as far as 1984 etc.

okay we have propaganda outlets for media
we have total secrecy for those in control of the government
we have a total assault on the constitutional right to privacy
we have a phoney war raging in iraq for the sake of enriching those in control
and we have the cops waging a war on domestic dissent

how is that "irrational fear" as you claim

please explain

[TX-RAT]

10. huge fear of CCTV

Only the criminals.

[DonP]

12. Reduce or move it?

Does the presence of CCTV actually reduce crime overall or do the bad guys head over to the next block without TV and do their dirty work?

Here in Chicago we have regular sessions of "increasing the police presence" in one neighborhood or another. The result is usually crime going up in a nearby neighborhood because their police presence has been diminished to cover the manpower needs.

I just wondered if the cameras had an overall deterrent effect or if they have been in place long enough to tell yet?

[Pert_UK]

14. AHA! A sensible question! What are you doing here?!?!!?

To be honest, I don't know. Probably a bit of both. For example, big crowds of drunken youths don't congregate in my town centre any more, but I presume they've gone somewhere else - if it's somebody's house, then that's great as far as I'm concerned.

Cameras are often used to "protect" areas where people really ought to move around freely - for example, public car parks. These were once no-go areas at night in some places, but with cameras there is far less chance of being attacked in one. Are the attackers "working" somewhere else?

I'm not really sure, but my suspicion is that the overall anti-social crime rate will have been suppressed by cameras, and more criminals will have been caught and brought to justice.

[el_gato]

18. Fear of crime is the excuse

an orwellian police state is the goal

and then they all scream "BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN!"

[el_gato]

23. very interesting that the gun grabbers also love government surveillance

just shows the anti-liberty agenda at work here

[Pert_UK]

32. Woooo! Way to go! Gun-grabbers! Yay! That's me!

Christ, I hate liberty. If only there was some way I could get a little less of it for everybody.

You have the intellectual capacity of a pile of warm sick if you cannot comprehend that one can be simultaneously pro-liberty and pro-gun control (nb, CONTROL, not grabbing).

Still, just keep on chucking out the rubbish, eh?

[el_gato]

36. so now you engage in childish name calling! SAD

okay pert you've lost me now

[Pert_UK]

41. It was a conditional statement....

IF:

you can't comprehend that you can be pro-liberty and pro-gun control

THEN:

you have the intellectual capacity of a pile of warm sick.

The ball is in your court.

[el_gato]

52. again more name calling, you must be out of arguements

pro libery and pro gun control are YES mutually exclusive

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759

[el_gato]

56. Okay, I'm done laying to waste the gun grabber pro surveillance crowd

at this point the only thing I have to respond to is pathetic name calling anyway.

C-YA

[Pert_UK]

60. Democracy....

Democracy is a bunch of lambs voting on which of them should run the paddock, and then voting them out if they don't like the way it's run.

Liberty, according to you, seems to be being able to shoot the government if you don't like what it's doing.

I know which one I'd choose.

I'm not calling you anything, I'm just trying to get you to see that maybe other people's views should be considered, rather than written off with dogmatic statements.

Total liberty within a modern society = anarchy as far as I can tell.