crime in england

[brad]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=524&u=/ap/20020903/ap_wo_en_po/britain_london_mayor_1&printer=1

'Tue Sep 3, 2:24 PM ET

LONDON - In a surprising vote of no-confidence in his own city, Mayor Ken Livingstone said Tuesday that he feels safer in New York than in London. '

[HDPM]

Why do these people equate police presence with safety? How many violent crimes crimes were prevented by cops in these cities? Maybe if there were a cop every 10 feet or so, but come on. Complicated problem being reduced to moron levels by these people.

[brad]

well you have to realize that self defense is basically illegal there, so what other choice do they have?

brad

[MMMMMM]

Wow--England has banned Brits from carrying ANY weapons to defend themselves!!?? Check out this link. Apparently, more moronicism by those who believe more in the government than in the individual. And the Brits are limp enough to swallow it.

excerpt:
"Friday, Sept. 6, 2002
Guns Banned in Britain; Crime Soars

In 1997, Britain banned the possession of all handguns, providing for 10-year prison terms for any Englishman rash enough to get nabbed owning one. The British Government has even prohibited Brits from carrying anything they might use to defend themselves if set upon. "

http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2002/9/6/152858

[brad]

you realize this is the exact plan very powerful groups have for this country?

brad

[HDPM]

Obvious choice is to simply reinstate the right to self defense. There's something very wrong with a country that has done what the UK has with regard to self-defense, so it probably won't happen. It is happening here too, but even in places with gun control you can still defend yourself, at least under the law. A lot of places you'll probably be prosecuted anyway I guess. As I've posted before, any laws banning self defense are completely immoral and destroy human life. I also believe that the police only have the power any citizen has and are simply delegated certain duties which they are willing to undertake.

[MMMMMM]

What groups? Can you also be specific regarding "plan"--I'm a bit leery of vague one-world conspiracy theories and the like--but any specific and credible movement to prohibit Americans from carrying even, say, pocketknives to defend themselves should be cause for concern.

Also, how did England get so screwed up anyway?

[HDPM]

"Also, how did England get so screwed up anyway?"

The same way we are going bad, but they did it much faster and go to greater extremes. The same ideas that brought the ban on self defense brought socialized medicine, welfare, etc... It is a basic hatred and fear of the individual. Just a different manifestation of collectivism.

[andyfox]

"what other choice do they have?"

Well, taking criminal justice advice from Elizabeth Hurley seems to make about as much sense as taking foreign policy advice from Tony Blair.

[brad]

yeah but what about madonna?

[patrick dicaprio]

it is amazing to me that we can take an explicit right in the constitution, namely the right to bear arms, and say it doesnt really exist (since the main argument legally against it is that it is an anachronism that was only meant for self defense against invasion) and on theother hand completely make up a right such as the right to privacy and say that it legitimately exists in the constitution when it doesnt.

as a lawyer it galls me that people who support these positions can be called "constitutional scholars." and they are unfortunately.

Pat

[brad]

im pretty sure that the 'medical records privacy act' which just passed into law now makes all medical records pretty much public domain. i think there might be a reason needed, such as the police asking for them. oh well.

brad

[andyfox]

The prelimanary clause referring to a militia, the right to bear arms would certainly seem subject to the meaning of that clause.

I am surprised there has been no movement to modify the 2nd amendment to eliminate the militia clause.

[brad]

2nd amendment is pretty clear if you read federalist papers and stuff. but of course that really doesnt matter now as government just does whatever it wants.

brad

[andyfox]

Well, 2nd amendment is pretty clear if you read the 2nd amendment. The Federalist papers, while interesting reading, are not part of the law of the country and irrelevant to what the amendment says. The idea that we should make or interpret law based on what Alexander Hamilton intended the law to be doesn't make much sense to me.

The government has always done pretty much what it wanted to do regardless of the constitution. Some of our most hallowed heroesz, Jefferson and Lincoln to name two, trampled on the constitution when president.

[brad]

yes but one of the current bs arguments is that the 2nd amendment was never meant to apply to individuals, just to states (ie, a states right) or state militias or whatever. (this is being taught in schools and i remember being taught this in high school.)

brad

[HDPM]

You can't just read the clause with the militia language and ignore the word "people" later on. This debate is a complex one, but IMO the 2d Amd is clearly an individual right. A lot of recent scholarship agrees, but the debate will hinge on which side gets 5 votes. Which is all you really need to know about constitutional law. /forums/images/icons/tongue.gif

[MMMMMM]

It really seems that if you simply read the sentence--as on say an SAT test--that it is stating that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (for the reason that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free nation). Well just because the "reason" is now arguably largely covered by other means now doesn't necessarily render moot the "people" clause. Indeed it seems a bit presumptuous to hold that it does. And if it doesn't, the gun control advocates have no constitutional legal ground to stand on whatsoever. Further, I don't see how it could be proven that having a standing army renders entirely moot the "people" clause, because the potential threats to a free nation could come from either external or internal sources--and if the threat is internal and from a government gone bad, the "people" would need to have arms in order to stand a chance of securing their free nation.

Well, that's my ignorant opinion since I have not studied law or the Constitution, but I think it makes perfect sense. The gun control advocates should have a very hard time disproving the validity and intent of the "people" clause, and that's what they must do if they wish to show that the 2nd Amendment does not protect the right of the common citizen to keep and bear arms.

Sometimes I think that maybe the whole country should go back to being a purely Constitutional republic--my impression is that we've diverged quite a bit from this road in recent years.

[MMMMMM]

Also, how about these famous words: ."..that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it." Well....that wouldn't be possible with a disarmed populace. Just some background support.

[andyfox]

This is why I'm surprised that the pro-gun people, which is the vast majority of the country, have not attempted to have the 2nd amendment altered to eliminate the militia clause, so that there would be no argument (or less argument) as to what it means.

[CORed]

The phrase "A well regulated milititia..." in the 2nd amendment has IMO been grossly misinterpreted by advocates of gun control. While it is true that what is now called the "National Guard" -- troops under the control of the states but subject to Fedral callup, was formerly called "militia", if you read the Federalist Papers, you will see the term "militia" repeatedly used in a context that makes it clear that it had a much broader meaning to Madison, Hamilton and Jay. Clearly, at the time of the enactment of the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, "militia" meant the armed citizens of the country, whether they were in an organized military body or not.

The Federalist Papers did not directly address the Bill of Rights. They were published before those amendments were proposed. Their purpose was advocacy of ratification of the Constitution. However, if you want to understand the thinking of the authors of the Constitution, they are a "must read".

[Munga30]

The authors of the constitution got exactly what they wanted into the constitution the first time around. It wasn't until several years later that others proposed what became the Bill of Rights, in which the 2nd amendment squarely sits.

[HDPM]

Most states still have militias which are unorganized and made up by a big segment of citizens. They still exist. Check your state law, you probably are in the militia.

[The_Baron]

In the state of Washington, if you're registered to vote, male and not specifically precluded by State Code or Federal Law, you're a member of the militia. In addtion Washington has the, "Washington State Guard", which is supposed to be an organized state defense force under the Governor/Adjutant General and completely separate from the National Guard.
Now, call the Adjutant General's office and ask them about the State Guard and see what sort of answer you get... sigh

The Baron

[HDPM]

Good to see you back posting. I don't remember you posting since your excellent Winter Wonderland Twins post. Yeah, I remember that one. I hope you haven't been too busy this last year.

[CORed]

I haven't checked Colorado law. However, since we're dealing with old laws here, I suspect that in many, if not all states, only males are members of the militia. Does that mean that women don't have the right to keep and bear arms? Mind you, I'm not suggesting that this is a good idea, because I think a hand gun is probably a lot more useful to a woman trying to escape an abusive relationship than a restraining order, but it raises an interesting legal issue.

[HDPM]

It does raise an interesting issue that I don't believe has been litigated. I think women have the right to bear arms regardless of whether they are in the militia or not. The way I read the Second Amd, the right to keep and bear arms belongs to the people, which means all people who have reached majority and have not lost their civil rights pursuant to a felony conviction. The existence of the militia is a reason for the right, but not a limitation on the right. Plus, it might help the militia if women own guns but aren't in the militia. There is a bigger supply then. We'll see if this issue ever reaches the courts. It is a risky strategy to litigate the issue, for both pro and anti gun groups.

[The_Baron]

Ouch... interesting question. As far as I know, it's never been formally addressed by the Courts. However, since Woman's Suffrage was ammended into the Constitution, I honestly can't think of any specifically Constitutional issues that haven't been ruled in favor of, "the People", consisting of every citizen. Makes for some interesting potential conflict with whichever part of the US Code that precludes women from combat positions in the military.
Personally, if I had the choice, I'd just as soon have the women armed as well as the men. While I've never been a rapist, I can't imagine them being overly interested in continuing with the rape after their "victim" puts half a dozen .45 rounds through their chest.
The Baron