[subego]

Originally Posted by finboy 

Yes, but the war on terror isn't evident on my commute to and from in my daily life, and when my wife goes grocery shopping.

Hmm... around here there are signs on the bus and the train reminding you that bag sitting alone could be a bomb.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

There are enforceable legal consequences when violating a law, however "symbolic" or stupid it may be.

This may result in policy, but they are very different things.

Enforcement is an action, a policy. Those "legal consequences" are meaningless without action/policy, I bet you can't even phrase your post without referring to the necessity of action or policy.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

[ ] You know the difference between a prescriptive and descriptive statement.

I don't understand what you're trying to get across here. Especially in relation to the fact that the word 'army' wasn't used in the 2nd amendment.

Originally Posted by finboy 

The European model isn't really valid here because population density and actual diversity is just too different. When seconds count, police are just minutes away. Let's give our friends in Europe a few generations with their expanding ethnic diversity and endemic poverty and see how they feel about personal protection. I certainly don't see it getting any better over time.

What on earth does this mean? Europe isn't diverse? That there are no large cities?

[subego]

Europe is diverse. Individual countries in Europe, not so much.

I shouldn't have to tell you Europeans can't stand each other.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by subego 

Europe is diverse. Individual countries in Europe, not so much.

I shouldn't have to tell you Europeans can't stand each other.

Sorry subego, but you're wrong. You'll find a Spanish lady in front of me, Germans and Algerians beside me, the Irish woman who lives behind me and the New Zealander that's going out with the mayor's daughter in the small village of 2000 that I live in. I work in the office with a Mexican that studied here and stayed, I communicate weekly with a Vietnamese that emigrated to Germany. I live near the fourth largest city in France, it was the same in the second largest.

And no, Europeans don't hate each other. There is tension due to the economic situation, the bail-outs and what is seen as control being taken away. I would compare the attitude of (for example) a German to an Italian as maybe a New-Englander to a Texan. There are divisions in all countries and across borders. Trying to generalize in a population of 500 million (European Union) is impossible.

[subego]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

Sorry subego, but you're wrong. You'll find a Spanish lady in front of me, Germans and Algerians beside me, the Irish woman who lives behind me and the New Zealander that's going out with the mayor's daughter in the small village of 2000 that I live in. I work in the office with a Mexican that studied here and stayed, I communicate weekly with a Vietnamese that emigrated to Germany. I live near the fourth largest city in France, it was the same in the second largest.

If the country the mayor's daughter's boyfriend is from is notable, you're kind of proving my point.

[subego]

Sorry. I'm being trollish.

The diversity dynamics of the US vs. Europe are different. A large aspect of that is the diversity you're talking about is a relatively new phenomenon (excluding the big "international" cities). Not so with the US.

An important distinction is you exported yourself to colonies, we took people and made them slaves.

On top of all this, I know it's a cliche, but America is a nation of immigrants. That's just not the case with European nations. France (for example) is first and foremost, a nation of French people.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

I don't understand what you're trying to get across here. Especially in relation to the fact that the word 'army' wasn't used in the 2nd amendment.

It means the statement about a "well regulated militia" was meant to depict a standard for armies [prescriptive], not explain or judge [descriptive] how they have held up to that standard historically.

-t

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Enforcement is an action, a policy. Those "legal consequences" are meaningless without action/policy, I bet you can't even phrase your post without referring to the necessity of action or policy.

So you're telling me that you're not seeing the difference between legislation and a policy resulting from its implementation?

If this is a general deficit among Americans, it's truly no wonder that your privatized prison industry can thrive the way it does.

[Spheric Harlot]

nm.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

On top of all this, I know it's a cliche, but America is a nation of immigrants. That's just not the case with European nations. France (for example) is first and foremost, a nation of French people.

So are Australia and Canada. And to finboy's point, they are even more rural and necessarily autonomous than the US. They never had to plot an exit strategy from having more guns than citizens though.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

My father-in-law did not go through 5 years of hell in WWII to give some guy in a fancy suit the ability to tell me that I am not to be trusted with a firearm because a very tiny number of incidents perpetrated by whack jobs (but with lots of headline potential) gives them the opportunity to make political points. I did not serve this nation for over 23 years (regularly swearing to protect and defend ALL of the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic) and have myself and even my family exposed to all manner of hazards for that "privilege", to be characterized as an extremist for supporting the entire Constitution... Restricting my rights does not in any way seem like any sort of useful method of protecting me, particularly when those who are attempting to establish those limits have less background and information on the subject than my pet dog (ref: Colorado legislator who did not know that a magazine could be refilled....?!?).

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

Europe is diverse. Individual countries in Europe, not so much.

Most European countries have immigration from particular regions or countries: Germany has Turks, Greeks and Italians (the largest three groups) who came in the 1960s and stayed. In the 1990s, we also took in lots of former Yugoslavians. Until 1990, the biggest concentration of Japanese within Europe was in Düsseldorf (half of them moved to Berlin now). French have people from Maghreb and other, smaller groups (e. g. Vietnam). But there isn't just diversity stemming from immigrants: in several European countries, there is more than one official language (e. g. Italy, Belgium and Switzerland). And even within countries and a single language, there are large differences in culture: Italy's North is very, very different from the South. To claim there is not much diversity within European countries is plain wrong.

Originally Posted by subego 

I shouldn't have to tell you Europeans can't stand each other.

If it is during the European or World Championship in soccer, then you're right.
But at any other time, this is not true. Where do you get your information?

Originally Posted by subego 

On top of all this, I know it's a cliche, but America is a nation of immigrants. That's just not the case with European nations. France (for example) is first and foremost, a nation of French people.

What you forget is that Europe (and Asia) have had a history that spans several thousand years with lots of migration, conquests and long-standing trade relations. The US as a country is not even three hundred years old.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

So you're telling me that you're not seeing the difference between legislation and a policy resulting from its implementation?

If this is a general deficit among Americans, it's truly no wonder that your privatized prison industry can thrive the way it does.

I feel like you're asking whether I can tell the difference between A sharp and A flat. Of course I can tell the difference, I just don't see why that difference is relevant in the given context.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

So are Australia and Canada. And to finboy's point, they are even more rural and necessarily autonomous than the US. They never had to plot an exit strategy from having more guns than citizens though.

Australia is a nation of French people?

Seriously though, what we're talking about is diversity. Immigration doesn't make for diversity, immigration from lots of different places does. We have significant quantities of people who are of European, African, and Hispanic descent.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Where do you get your information?

The thousands of years of history you tell me I've forgotten.

Europe had a single run of tearing itself a new asshole since before the birth of Christ until 75 years ago.

Note the correlation with the end of that stretch of history and the beginning of an as of yet permanent US presence.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

Europe had a single run of tearing itself a new asshole since before the birth of Christ until 75 years ago.

Focussing on wars only is a pretty myopic view of history.

Originally Posted by subego 

Note the correlation with the end of that stretch of history and the beginning of an as of yet permanent US presence.

What made the difference is not the US presence, but the formation of the European Union. Besides, the US has been involved in quite a few little and big wars since WW2 and hasn't won any of them the way it has won WW2 (besides the Cold War which wasn't a war in the military sense, though).

Originally Posted by subego 

Seriously though, what we're talking about is diversity. Immigration doesn't make for diversity, immigration from lots of different places does. We have significant quantities of people who are of European, African, and Hispanic descent.

France has had a lot of immigration from Africa and Northern Africa. The UK has a lot of immigrants from Pakistan and India. Germany has a lot of immigrants from Turkey, former Yugoslavia, Poland* and Russia. The list goes on. How is that any less diverse than the US? Plus, we have quite a few EU citizens working in other countries which probably don't count as immigrants. But by construction of the EU, you don't need to immigrate.

I understand what you're trying to argue (the US is a state founded by immigrants while Europe is not), but you're oversimplifying and misrepresenting the situation. The recent history of European immigration is often tied to former colonies (not so in case of Germany where guest worker programs of the 1960s, repatriation programs of the 1990s and the asylum laws of the 1990s were a big factor), and these colonies were all of the world.

* Poland is part of the EU now, so I don't think they are immigrants in the sense of most countries. They are European citizens who have decided to work and live in Germany.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Focussing on wars only is a pretty myopic view of history.

Not sure where you got the idea my one sentence response was meant to be exhaustive.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

What made the difference is not the US presence, but the formation of the European Union.

If that's what's keeping Europe together, we are in deep shit.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I understand what you're trying to argue (the US is a state founded by immigrants while Europe is not), but you're oversimplifying and misrepresenting the situation.

Bullshit. I explicitly mentioned Europe's colonial history in a post you responded too.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by subego 

If that's what's keeping Europe together, we are in deep shit.

The European Union has been around a LOT longer, and its influence goes a LOT deeper, than the current financial troubles.

[subego]

I've been briefed.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

It means the statement about a "well regulated militia" was meant to depict a standard for armies [prescriptive], not explain or judge [descriptive] how they have held up to that standard historically.

OK, I get your point.

There's still the issue that militia <> army. And (IMHO) those that wrote the 2nd knew very well that they didn't want it to say "well regulated army".

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

Bullshit. I explicitly mentioned Europe's colonial history in a post you responded too.

There is no reason to be rude. I haven't missed your statement, I was saying that you have oversimplified your arguments and given the colonial history as a specific example. In the frame of this discussion, I don't think it matters that 120 years ago, you have had German, Irish and Polish ancestors with a sprinkle of Cherokee on top? Instead, I reckon you mean people who have immigrated or whose parents have immigrated from another country, right?

[Spheric Harlot]

AFAIK, Germany has about 15 million (out of 80) first- and second-generation immigrants.

[OreoCookie]

Also, if you're a 3rd generation immigrant, are you still really an immigrant (provided you have a German passport)? Also, I know quite a few people who are the child of two EU citizens of different countries (e. g. Austrian/German, French/German), so the question is whether they are considered immigrants or not?

[mattyb]

What I think the last few posts show is the lack of European history/news being taught/shown in the US. But then I was never taught about the history of the US either (in the UK). Now, in France anyway, we are very well informed about what happens in the US. In fact there is more US news than UK news.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Also, if you're a 3rd generation immigrant, are you still really an immigrant (provided you have a German passport)? Also, I know quite a few people who are the child of two EU citizens of different countries (e. g. Austrian/German, French/German), so the question is whether they are considered immigrants or not?

Oh hey, my maternal grandfather was Austrian! AFAIK, they married while Austria was part of the Reich, though. Does that make me third-generation immigrant, or not?

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

There is no reason to be rude.

That wasn't rude, it was miffed.

I mentioned European countries had a colonial relationship with non-Europeans, while we had an enslavement relationship.

Your response was "you're oversimplifying, Europe had colonies, colonies all over the world".

That's a false accusation and an undeserved lecture. Unless I'm misunderstanding you somewhere along the line, there is absolutely a reason to register my displeasure.

If I have misunderstood you, I will apologize.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

Your response was "you're oversimplifying, Europe had colonies, colonies all over the world".

No, I was explaining why (in my opinion) you're oversimplifying the relationship between European colonial powers and their colonies as well as the impact that has had on immigration, not that you had forgotten about the existence of colonies. Again, I chose the example, because you mentioned colonies in one of your earlier posts.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by subego 

France (for example) is first and foremost, a nation of French people.

For maybe a little while longer, but it seems to me they're having all kinds of trouble with the new "diversity" they're seeing from North Africa. At least in the case of France, I have first-hand knowledge that the ruling class is scared to death of the newly found "diversity" (in their words). Welcome to the club, slum lords.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

A well-regulated militia is still a disciplined army.

I posit the amendment says you can't have a well-regulated militia without individuals packing heat, therefore the right of individuals to pack heat shall not be infringed. It's not saying the right to pack heat is dependent on the existence of a militia, regulated or otherwise.

Let's replace the components of the amendment. These are my favorites, but choose your own if you think I've stacked the deck here.

subego's second:

Big, white trash hair, being necessary to me getting a boner, the right to bear product shall not be infringed.

In this amendment, I'd say it's 100% clear your right to bear product isn't dependent on your hair, or my turgidity.

I've heard this argument before and all I can ask is: Why would the framers of the constitution, which seemingly took great care in the crafting of every word and phrase, include a qualifier which has absolutely no bearing (according to you)?

[BLAZE_MkIV]

I don't read it as a qualifier, I read it as an explanation.

A militia is important to protect the country. You can't have a militia without armed citizens. Therefore people get to have guns.

The only point to argue about is if you think a militia is needed or not. And since its one of the many checks and balances that are supposed to be in the system I don't see how you're going to argue against it.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

I don't read it as a qualifier, I read it as an explanation.

Are there any other of the original amendments where they felt the need to add an explanation?

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

A militia is important to protect the country. You can't have a militia without armed citizens. Therefore people get to have guns.

You're illustrating my point. It's utterly redundant. Which strikes me as un-framer-like.

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

The only point to argue about is if you think a militia is needed or not. And since its one of the many checks and balances that are supposed to be in the system I don't see how you're going to argue against it.

The militia was already argued against and it lost. We replaced it with a standing army (despite the founder's reservations).

[Phileas]

Interesting conversation, and one that I've got first hand experience with. I've worked in more countries that I can remember, moved to a different country twice, first from Germany to the UK, then on to Canada.

Here's my read on things, based only on my personal experiences.

Europeans and North Americans do indeed look at immigration differently. There is an understanding here that, apart from the native people, we are all immigrants or the children of immigrants. The "grandpa came with nothing from a mountain village in - insert country of your choice -" story is a universal one. It's a unique cultural marker, perhaps to a degree shared with Australia and New Zealand, but not with Europe.

As a result, North American culture looks at immigration as a source of enrichment and rejuvenation, a positive.

European culture looks at immigration as a source of threats to the native culture, a negative that needs managing.

I am generalizing like mad, but even taking all the bigots, the racists, the old WASPs into account, in my personal experience the above still holds true.

Even after living in the UK for close to 17 years, I was still The German, not from here, even to my close British friends.

After living in Canada for just five years, I had to renew my health card. The lady behind the counter looked at me, smiled and said: "Time to think about applying for citizenship, don't you think?" The assumption here is that by living in Canada, you become Canadian.

I've been here now for close to ten years. I define myself as Canadian with a German background, as does pretty much anybody who knows me, or meets me.

That's a huge difference.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by Phileas 

As a result, North American culture looks at immigration as a source of enrichment and rejuvenation, a positive.

European culture looks at immigration as a source of threats to the native culture, a negative that needs managing.

I am generalizing like mad, but even taking all the bigots, the racists, the old WASPs into account, in my personal experience the above still holds true.

I think that you're probably right overall. I find it strange that so many immigrants hear the same line after a few years in country "You're not like most (insert country of choice here)". My mother had it time and time again in the UK (she was American), I hear it a lot in France, and other Brits tell me the same. However I can recall in the melting pot that is Florida, some serious problems between people from different countries as well as from different states in the US.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

You're illustrating my point. It's utterly redundant. Which strikes me as un-framer-like.

Actually it's only redundant in 1 direction. Armed citizens are necessary for militias, but militias are not necessary for armed citizens. Maybe they (or some of them) were afraid that if militias weren't mentioned explicitly, we would end up with guns for only self-defense and not for militias. They may not have worried about the reverse, given the (one-way) redundancy you mentioned.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Phileas 

Europeans and North Americans do indeed look at immigration differently. There is an understanding here that, apart from the native people, we are all immigrants or the children of immigrants. The "grandpa came with nothing from a mountain village in - insert country of your choice -" story is a universal one. It's a unique cultural marker, perhaps to a degree shared with Australia and New Zealand, but not with Europe.

I think you pretty much nailed it. I still am very positively surprised about Canada's immigration laws, and disappointed how bad a job Germany does at opening up. (Although I think whether the population of a country thinks it is a country of immigration has little to do with whether many immigrants live there.)

However, the US has become more and more closed towards immigrations. Last time I needed a J1 VISA (2007), it took me a lot of time and €€€. Talking to other colleagues in my field of science and tech (think Silicon Valley) all tell similar stories: for people like us (well educated and with a job offer in our pockets), this is just a nuisance, but you can tell the difference in attitude and it is one of the reasons why the market in US academia has become less attractive.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

The militia was already argued against and it lost. We replaced it with a standing army (despite the founder's reservations).

You'd like to think that but you're wrong.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

You'd like to think that but you're wrong.

Could you, you know, show me?

Nothing else on the other explanatory amendments?

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

No, I was explaining why (in my opinion) you're oversimplifying the relationship between European colonial powers and their colonies as well as the impact that has had on immigration, not that you had forgotten about the existence of colonies. Again, I chose the example, because you mentioned colonies in one of your earlier posts.

How am I simplifying that relationship? What do you think my point is WRT Europe's colonial past?

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I've heard this argument before and all I can ask is: Why would the framers of the constitution, which seemingly took great care in the crafting of every word and phrase, include a qualifier which has absolutely no bearing (according to you)?

My understanding is this was something of a contentious point, which at some point they just said "**** it" to.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

No, I was explaining why (in my opinion) you're oversimplifying the relationship between European colonial powers and their colonies as well as the impact that has had on immigration, not that you had forgotten about the existence of colonies. Again, I chose the example, because you mentioned colonies in one of your earlier posts.

Also, I'd like to throw out the important distinction between "this is an oversimplification", and "you are oversimplifying". The type of distinction which leads someone to be miffed vs. not miffed.

Attack the argument, not the arguer.

Honestly, you should probably infract yourself.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Could you, you know, show me?

You've heard of the National Guard I'd presume?

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Nothing else on the other explanatory amendments?

There was nothing first to be an else. I'm not a ghost whisperer. And they didn't intend for us to be.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

My understanding is this was something of a contentious point, which at some point they just said "**** it" to.

What? Is there a wiki entry or something on this? Them giving up screwing us now is almost laughable.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

You've heard of the National Guard I'd presume?

Do we need them when we have a standing army? Do they fight our wars for us?

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

There was nothing first to be an else. I'm not a ghost whisperer. And they didn't intend for us to be.

I'm talking actual text. Why is it the second has explanatory text no either amendment does? If your answer is "I don't know" well then you can't fault people for disagreeing over its placement and meaning.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

What? Is there a wiki entry or something on this? Them giving up screwing us now is almost laughable.

According to wiki, here was the progression:


"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."


"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."


"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."


"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."


"A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."


"A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."


"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

According to wiki, here was the progression:


"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."


"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."


"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."


"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."


"A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."


"A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."


"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Thanks, that is perfect.

The initial additions also seem concerned with the militias to me. "no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person" reads as an exception for conscientious objectors on being drafted. Otherwise, its pretty much the same text rearranged several times over. I fail to see the contentiousness of the "well regulated militia" part.

It does seem to stress that militias should be made up of citizens. Was the British army composed differently? I also could interpret " the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" as meaning that militia members could keep their weapons, rather than storing them at a local armory or something.

[subego]

Perusing these, you can see how schizophrenic it is. The first example is clearly focusing more on the RTBM, but there's also the compulsory service angle, and the possibility the amendment would depend on your religious standing.

At the other end of the list, you have this fight over whether a militia is necessary to a free state, or ****ing is the free state.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

At the other end of the list, you have this fight over whether a militia is necessary to a free state, or ****ing is the free state.

Hm? I'm seeing very little difference in wording.

[Chongo]

An interesting info-graphic from AAAAAH


14 day waiting period for all hammers. Transfer fees for all auto and semi auto hammers (jack hammers)

[mattyb]

Some interesting stuff :

Militia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and even more interesting :

Militia (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform...ia_Act_of_1792