Tuesday, July 24, 2012

Some Thoughts on The Second Amendment From Italy (I Couldn't Have Put it Better) "My two cents from Italy, a country with LOTS of problems but, luckily, not that of millions of gun-toting men and women convinced that owning a firearm will make them any safer. I'll mention just three points that should be self-evident to anyone who wants to see: First point: in 1790 the world was a bit different from now. The things that make sense 220 years ago should be at least reconsidered, don't you think so? Two centuries ago It took one minute to load a gun; today in one minute you can unload several magazines - hundreds of bullets. Second point: there is an overwhelming evidence that owning a gun doesn't make you safer. By any measurable standard, American cities are more dangerous than European ones - yes, even more dangerous than mafia-infested Italian cities. Crime rates are higher (despite a huge number of inmates in American prisons), murder rates are just not comparable...doesn't this ring a bell in your heads? Third point: in any advanced society, there is something called a "social contract": you give up some of your personal freedom and as a return you get safety for you and your family, you get healtcare, you get education and so on. Of course, the trade-off has to be well-crafted, but in a complex society of hundreds of millions of people, do you really think that you can behave like the lone pioneer in 1790's America?" The article that inspired the remarks is linked below: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/american-gunseptionalism_b_1696604.html?utm_hp_ref=politics


  1. Doug I believe the leaders of the 2nd amendment cause are only using the 2nd amendment as a wedge issue to divide the country and cause many "low info voters" racists, haters as well as responsible gun lovers to vote against their own best economic interests in favor of an imagined possibility of losing their right to bear arms.Just as with health care this issue was addressed and solved by all modern industrialized nations long ago...in this country the "for profit conservatives" are steadfastly opposed to any such settlement.

  2. But there are so many that I wouldnt even think of calling "the advanced society" Some are so ignorant you have to show them a picture to understand anything, they cant read for crap and to understand what they read is another problem. Show them a picture of a "gun" and they smile and jump up and down like a little kid...but show them the constitution or the bill of rights, and their eyes cross and they look like dumb asses with a beany on their heads. And they would rather be back in those 1790's as far as their rights go for guns, they think they need them to defend their livelihood and be the provider for their family's needs. Ignorant immoral imbecils!!!!

  3. I suspect you'll be asked by certain people to come over here and become a European after this Doug! Of course, we'd welcome you if that was your choice as you well know. And, of course, you'd fit right along with all of us left wing commies that infest the land on the right of the .....

    Oh what's the point, irony only works for some folk!


  4. I believe that we are within a time where if we don't progress we shall regress and this certainly does make sense - progressive not regressive. Tremendous notation Doug!

  5. Gunceptionalism is about right Doug.

    The 2nd Amendment is a con, never in this world will Americans form themselves into 'well regulated militias' for the purpose of 'deterring tyrannical government' it never will happen.

    The right to own and bear arms is actually a right bequeathed to America by England and its own Bill of Rights of 1689. It was a predecessor of the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, the United States Bill of Rights, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights. For example, as with the Bill of Rights, the US constitution prohibits excessive bail and "cruel and unusual punishments." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689

    The 1689 Bill reestablished the liberty of Protestants to have arms for their defence within the rule of law, and condemned James II of England for "causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law".

    England gave up those rights, America never did and therefore has as one of its fundamental documents what amounts to17th century solutions to Christian sectarianism and in the aftermath of the English Revolution it sought to clarify the rights of the monarch, parliament and the citizenry.

    The 2nd Amendment is somebody else's old long abandoned idea. As I understand it there seems some doubt amongst constitutionalists whether it ever was intended to apply to individuals anyway and is only there to reinforce individual states right to raise militias.

    An interesting link there Doug, thanks for posting the quote that kicked the discussion off here.

  6. "imagined possibility"!---I think that's exactly the key phrase, Mike.

    As long as people are wedged into thinking its the government that is their biggest enemy, they will believe any negative scenario the far Right can dream up. Even when something can be made more fair, reformed and affordable like health care all som people hear are "bureaucrats " and "death panels." Sad...really sad.

    Well said Mike.

  7. Yes, Marty, I think the whole of the Congress should be made to spend some time in some of the cities that have high death rates from gun homicide...let them leave their gated communities and their "metal detector" secured offices in Washington and come down for a week to New Orleans, Chicago, Oakland and Stockton, California, Youngstown, Ohio, etc.

    Then they could see how the other half lives and how an far from an "advanced society" many places in America truly are...and then let's see how they feel about literally allowing any fool to come of the street and get an assault weapon.

    I'm betting they wouldn't stand for ignorance if they had to live among the urban victims of lax gun laws...or if all those supported by the NRA--Republican and Democrat-- had to tour the site of massacre casusedin large part by someone being able to fire hundreds of rounds.

  8. I really wouldn't mind spending some more time in Europe, Jim. A few good Americans I know have visited spots like England, Ireland, Portugal, etc, and felt much welcomed.

    Even the Republican "super patriot" Mitt Romney will be over in Londontown to watch his dressage horse in the Olympics. Then it's off to troll for votes in the states via Poland and Israel.

  9. Yes, the NRA oves to excise the "well-regulated militia" clause in that Second Amendment. Truth be told most Americans of wealth especially would never go near a militia other then by threat of prison for violation of a conscription.

    Most people I know who have gone into the military do it out of a need to improve their educational opportunities or get out of a comunity that is infested by a culture of things like drugs and poverty. Yes, some Amercans go in for primarily patriotic motives I'm sure--and Godspeed that they do.

    If only our leaders would use the men and women currently in the Armed Forces, whatever their motivation, ONLY to defend America and its closest allies in exceptional times, and not international oil barons as in Iraq and other places.

  10. Thanks for "setting the clock back" in this discussion, AA, so I can approach this subject with a better grip on the key points.

    Sadly, early American History is not taught (until the university level) the importance of the precedent of the English Bill of Rights of 1688. If this was more generally known and accepted as the true origin of the amendment--and the reason for the "militia clause"---then gun control advocates woulds be better equipped to make an argument that gun rights have to be temporized by a social contract and the changes in ballistics that we have in the modern world.

    Here is a great example of a temporary dispute over sectarian or temporal issues (in another nation) that has morphed into a modern creed that justifies theright of any deranged loony not yet in the health care or police records to go out and buy weapons far and above what might be needed for home protection or hunting or target shooting.

    Well put, AA. Thanks for expanding my historical view of all this.

  11. I don't think think we "get" safety, health care, or education in our country.

  12. Nothing like what we should be to manage for average citizens to access and utilize, Mary Ellen.

  13. and of course to bribe them in a secret quiet room for money for his campaign.

  14. I would not be surprised at that Marty.

  15. Thats what I heard Doug, he is trying to raise money for his campaign while overseas....always looking for that next mighty buck! Will he ever have enough? How much money does one man need to live and be happy?