OverlandSailor had this to say in another thread. Quite often during arguments over gun control and the 2nd Amendment sentiments such as this are brought up.

I believe very strongly that the Right to Self Defense is one of the cornerstones of any true and just Free Society. To restrict it in anyway is to in essense remove that right from a person and leave them vulnerable to the whim of another or the tryanny of a State.

Question for debate:

Should the 2nd Amendment be preserved and honored to allow all Free Citizens the right to bear arms to protect themselves?

Would infringment of this right be consistent with the foundations of Liberty and Freedom?

as a final extra credit kind of answer--If I have never broken any laws why should I be retricted from owning a firearm?

Should the 2nd Amendment be preserved and honored to allow all Free Citizens the right to bear arms to protect themselves?

Absolutely! If citizens are unable to protect themselves in a manner comparable to the threat posed, then they cannot be free. They would be subject to protection by the state, which by any measure of reality simply cannot protect most citizens most of the time.

There has never been, IMO, a cogent argument that addressed rescinding or restricting the 2nd Amendment AND addressed the fact that criminals will always have access to guns.

Would infringment of this right be consistent with the foundations of Liberty and Freedom?
No, see above.

Should the 2nd Amendment be preserved and honored to allow all Free Citizens the right to bear arms to protect themselves?

I think there should be absolutely no, none, nada restrictions to bear arms. I think you should have one in the back window of your pickup if you want and one strapped on your hip like the Wild West. The bad guys do so why can’t the good guys? The only way the second amendment will work properly is if offenders of gun related crimes are jailed until compensation and proper punishment is fulfilled. The same folks who would take away arms from the good guys don’t want the bad guys punished too harshly.

I have heard every argument why people need to wait for months for background checks and so on but none stand the PR test. In PR only good guys can have guns and San Juan is the gun murder capitol per capita of America every year. There is no liberal or conservative state on a border with strict or lax laws, just water.

Mentally ill should be in hospitals. Felons should be in jail. If you believe in rehabilitation the former felon should be able to vote and carry arms with the rest of us. If you think a former felon shouldn’t have a gun then the rehabilitation period is way too short and way too easy

My second wife married a convicted armed robbery get away driver after we divorced. A man was killed in the robbery he assisted in and was returned to society “fixed”, rehabilitated after 15 years. He didn’t compensate the family of the dead guy they robbed but he was a repaired citizen. He stabbed my X 27 times and she spent several months in ICU on your tax dollar and survived at a cost of 1 1 /2 million dollars. He’s back in jail and not paying child support, you are and he isn’t paying the doctor bill, you are.

The country needs to go back to self-protection with infractions to be judged by a jury of peers. And, if a shooters trial has a liberal jury to let the guy who shot them out prior to paying his cost for confinement and compensation for injury he caused the gun bearer that shot you should be able to get another gun because you deserve being shot too.

Would infringment of this right be consistent with the foundations of Liberty and Freedom?
It already is with rehabilitation in lieu of punishment and absence of compensation for injury.

Heres a few more from that topic since you quoted me :





Should the 2nd Amendment be preserved and honored to allow all Free Citizens the right to bear arms to protect themselves?

Yes, however we do need to be realistic about this.

One: I think people should be required to take a gun safety class to own a weapon

Want to own it, you have to know how to handle it, so that we know we can handle you having it.

Two: I think people should be required to qualify in marksmanship for a concealed carry permit

You want to carry it among the public, we want to know if you use it, you will hit what you're aiming at and not the rest of us.

Three: I think anyone convicted of a violent crime should not be allowed ownership

You violated the rights of others, so your rights in this regard are forfeit period.

Four: Anyone who does not properly secure a firearm, and a child gets their hands on it, and property damage, injury and/or death result, should be charged with Criminal Negligence

Do what you want with your guns around adults, but if kids are around it is your responsiblity as the adult to protect them.

Five: ANY crime committed with the use of a firearm should receive an automatic 10 year addition in the sentence without parole.

Guns are tools. They should be accessible to anyone you would trust with a chainsaw. However, if you misuse the tool you should be punished, and if that misuse results in harm or death that punishment should be severe.

Would infringment of this right be consistent with the foundations of Liberty and Freedom?

"Here's one of them there lines again Martha, should we cross it?"

The debate always centers around: what is infringement? To some, the items I listed above are infringements. Would those I detailed above be consistent with liberty and freedom? I think so. You have to work for the right to have these tools in order to ensure that you do not infringe on the rights of others with them.

I think, as most people do, that the government does have the right to restrict what type of arms we have. Can I own nay weapon that our military owns... if I could afford it?

I never even understood this debate, the government has always restricted the use of arms, and most people agree with it. They just see arms to mean guns. But the constitution does not make this distinction. Arms can be any weaponry. So who here is for the neighbor being able to own a tank?? F-16?? Nuclear Arms??

Who gave the government the right to limit me to only fire arms?? I don't know but they do, and to be honest I guess I am pretty happy. Though a missile launcher would be cool. Anybody got a TOW system??

Should the 2nd Amendment be preserved and honored to allow all Free Citizens the right to bear arms to protect themselves?

Would infringement of this right be consistent with the foundations of Liberty and Freedom

Not sure I truly understand the first question. To the second one, yes, as most people think we are the "most free nation" and our right to bear arms has already been infringed on.

Except that the threat posed, at least according to our government of late are WMD's from Iraq, and nuclear weapons from Iran and Korea. Are you really advocating that every American be allowed to build his own missle silo in the back yard? Realistically speaking, we have been subject to the protection of the state for a long time now, with little alternative. Even at the state and local levels, the state generally has a lot more firepower at it's disposal than the citizenry could ever hope to match.

Recinding? No absolutely not. But I would need to find out what your definition of restricting is.

I agree with OverlandSailor, that some kind of licensing of gun owners, that proves your ability to safely and accurately handle the weapon in question is needed.

Once you have passed a gun safety course, and can prove proficiency with the weapon of your choice, you should be free to purchase said weapon on the spot, with no waiting, subject to the federal background check, which is nearly instantaneous these days. So, all in all, you could go to a gun shop at 10am, and be taking your weapon home by 2pm. I don't consider that an undue restriction.

At that point, I also don't see the need for a separate concealed-carry permit, as you have already proven your competance with the gun in question, and should be able to produce the license that shows you have completed the necessary courses and tests.

I think the other restrictions OS lists are reasonable, as well. Come down hard on anyone who violates the licensing rules. Come down even harder on those without the license, or who allows a gun into the hands of children, resulting in injury or death.

I used to shoot competitively, and still own a number of firearms. I wouldn't have a problem with anything that OS or I have proposed.

Actually I separated ownership and carry permits for a reason. For one, most gu owners do not seek carry permits. And I would prefer that only those that have a strong enough desire for it to be willing to work to meet higher standards, and fees would have them because I believe those willing to work for it and earn it would be more careful about the how they handle the weapon for fear of loosing the permit.

Secondly, I separated it because proficiency with a firearm takes practice. You should be able to take a safety course, allowing ownership and then under existing laws, transport the weapon to and from the range to practice so that you can gain the proficiency in its use that is required for the concealed carry permit if you choose to seek it.



I knew I missed something. Thank you NiteGuy, yes, we should come down hard on those that violate the licencing. For example: If you own a weapon legally, but choose to carry it concealed without a permit, your permit to own the weapon as well as the weapon itself should be forfeit IMHO.

And of course those found in possession of a weapon without a legal permit to own one should be subject to severe penalties.

Something else to consider. There are those that frequently travel on the roads. Be they retired RVers, Truck Drivers, salesman, whatever. Those people should have the right to protect themselves as well. However, due to the drastic differences in the various gun laws of the various states it becomes difficult, if not outright impossible to do.

I suggest that the states continue with handling their gun laws as they see fit. However, we should consider VOLUNTARY federal gun registrations, licenses, permits to carry for those who have a need/desire to keep a gun with them when traveling in their personal vehicles. for them to work they would need to be recognized by all the states. However, the restrictions for federal versions like this would need to be strong, as to deter people form trying to get around their own states gun laws by getting them. And to be fair, the attempt should be made to make requirements and restrictions for the federal version AT LEAST as tough as the toughest states that actually allow these various permits and licences.

I am not sure if this could work. But I think it deserves further review.

Should the 2nd Amendment be preserved and honored to allow all Free Citizens the right to bear arms to protect themselves?

I am very conflicted on this subject. I think there are so many assumptions and misrepresentations of reality by BOTH sides of this debate, that some common sense can't seem to be extracted from the debate!

I think this entire amendment is a flaw in our constitution, by not spelling out better what was intended by the founding fathers, and not flexible enough to keep up with the realities of a population/society of over 300 million souls.

The founding fathers were not omnicient, and had no idea of what size and complexity of society we would become, and this amendment is flawed.

It is silly to think that we should be able to own a "rocket launcher" in order to protect oneself against the goverment or other criminals.

First off, I have worked in hospitals and the correctional side of law enforcement for over 20 years. Almost never does the good guy win, even when armed. It is so rare, each incident usually makes news stories, at least locally, whereas bad guys doing things to others is almost normal to us.

For instance, I have a survivalist type friend, who USED to have about 40K in guns. 10 am one morning while getting his paper in his robe, someone stuck a gun in his face and stole all his armament and self defense stuff- and the moral of the story is?- the bad guys always have the element of suprise, and it is just lucky that so many bad guys are stupid and get their comeuppance with some regularity by thier own mistakes, more than any other reason.

Everyone that I have known that is really crazy about this amendment are precisely the ones we should keep away from guns LOL

That being said, I have quite a small arsenal myself, all for hunting though. I have a dog for self defense- and that brings it back to the main point for me-

everyone has the inalienable right to defend oneself from violence, however, that doesn't translate to owning a gun




Would infringment of this right be consistent with the foundations of Liberty and Freedom?

I am not sure if not being able to own guns is an inalienable right- it is an inamimate object, and I don't think any person has an inalienable right to own some inanimate object.

I think there should be some regulations and responsibilites, at least as stringent as a drivers license!

The threat you speak of is a threat against the state, not the individual.....so it's not really germane to bring WMD's and missile silo's into a reply to my post.
I agree that the 2nd Amendment was poorly worded, but to the founding fathers credit, I don't believe they could have foreseen the issues and problems of modern America. I can't picture Madison or Hamilton mulling over how the rap/thug culture or Hollywood action thrillers would glorify gun violence for violence sake.

I don't so much have a problem with weapon competency tests and background checks, it certainly doesn't restrict my purchase of a gun, other than a waiting period. What I fear is what is already the case in many localities: a universal national right being declared null in communities where coincidentally, the murder rate is through the roof. I pray that I never get stationed somewhere within the 50 states where I cannot legally protect myself or my family.
If a granite, foolproof rewrite of the 2nd Amendment could take into account the issues of criminal backgrounds and basic weapon safety training, but not restrict the citizenry in any other aspect, I would surely take a look at supporting it. But it would most likely still be overturned by the courts in the more 'tolerant, liberal' areas of the country that already prohibit firearms, and pay the price through skyrocketing murder rates.

Should the 2nd Amendment be preserved and honored to allow all Free Citizens the right to bear arms to protect themselves?You had better believe it! I do not believe that the founding fathers poorly worded the Amendment either. Nobody in those days could possibly foresaw the technological advances that we have experienced. They felt the only way to secure all the rest of the Bill of Rights was through and armed citizenry.

Would infringement of this right be consistent with the foundations of Liberty and Freedom?Absolutely not!!!! Droop I have a friend with a couple of SCUDS and another with several operational artillery pieces given to him by the Federal government, but no TOW systems.

I feel that if you have the proper training and want and can afford the weapon and or system and it does not endanger your neighbors you should be able to have that weapon. Since WMD do endanger your neighbors they would not be acceptable since they would violate their rights. Otherwise honest citizens should be able to have the same weapons as the government. Why the heck not?

I'm staying out of the debate on the questions posed due to having debated this ad nauseum on other sites.

Just want to add a little observation from history, regarding the intent of the Constitution drafters.

Seems that in the War of 1812, the US had a very tiny military. The rest of the fighting forces were made up of militia conscripted into the fights. That explains very much to me about what the original intent of the 2nd Amendment was.

That intention amounted to saving the new nation from getting conquered by the British and taken back as colonies. This is plainly an intention to defend the nation, not the individual.

The Bill of Rights was added 22 years prior to the War of 1812. I find it very difficult if not impossible to believe that they foresaw a war with a European power over 2 decades prior to the event. The reason that the military was so small was in part because the Founding Fathers did not trust the Federal government with a large standing Army.

The writings of the Founding Fathers available clearly state the intension was to promote an individual right to insure that the government never became too powerful and unresponsive to the rights of the citizens. Protection of the nation from foreign invasion was not one of the reasons for this right.

Oh, one other historical fact:

James Madison, Father of the Constitution, was President during the war of 1812.

How convenient that miltias saved the nation from a conquering force that once owned the countryside. Intent or accident?

I'll go with intent, and the accident was that protection of the individual happens to go along with owning a firearm.

as a final extra credit kind of answer--If I have never broken any laws why should I be retricted from owning a firearm?

Well, you could be a very successfull criminal who has just never been caught.

... or, you could be a decent citizen who is about to suffer a mental breakdown and go on a killing rampage

... or your son/ daughter/some other child could figure out how to get a hold of your gun, maybe you forgot to lock it or they figured out where you keep the keep to your gun locker (providing you even have one)

... or a criminal might break into your house and steal your gun

... or you may end up shooting an intruder only to discover that you've just killed your drunken child/ neighbour by accident

... or one day whilst cleaning your gun, you might accidently blow the top of your head off leaving all to wonder if you killed yourself

... or you might just kill yourself (which is illegal I believe)

... or one day on the firing range, your gun might explode in your hand, possibly mutilating or even killing you

... or one day on the firing range you might turn at some sound or other and accidently shoot some one.

... or one day whilst drunk, you might starting waving your gun around and firing it blindly into the air

All of these are examples from life I've heard or read about.

Moif, If you're going to use those examples as reasons why a law abiding citizen shouldn't be allowed to own a firearm.........you must also be advocating the banning of multitudes of other legal devices that kill or maim people on a daily basis. Your reasons don't pass the common sense test to me, you would have to child-proof lock the nation in order to stop the above from happening.

In a nation that has a plethora of weapons, it is clearly impossible to disarm everybody, Pandora's box has been open for a long time now. Why do so many people wish to take away the right to defend ones self or family? To me, that right represents the ultimate individual sovereignty. Attempts to prevent private ownership to capable law abiding citizens, only punishes those same law abiding citizens, it does nothing to the criminals.

The perhaps we ought to hear from the man in question from his own words.

The Federalist No. 46, at 310, 311 (James Madison) (Modern Library ed., 1937).

or maybe

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)

As for moif comments. The number of deaths from preventable non-weapon sources such as overeating, drunken driving, smoking, etc. exceed the number of deaths from firearms by several magnitudes. So which would be better to ban?

Drunk driving is banned, smoking is heavily restricted and taxed; eating is essential to one's existense (while target shooting is not). I think you contradict yourself here - all behavior that is potentially dangerous to the society (such as drunk driving, smoking, or public intoxication) is either banned or heavely restricted and shunned by society.



While I've never seen a reliable statistic on the subject, as Cruising Ram pointed out, "good guys" almost never win - because of the surprise element. I have no doubt that you personally, being a member of the military, have sufficient training and quick reaction to overcome the surprise element; however the majority of the population probably doesn't. So owning a gun provides nothing else but a peace of mind for the owner, and the expense of the danger of having a firearm in the house.

Loreng59,

Yep, old Madison sure put up good arguments for individual ownership of firearms. However, isn't it ironic that the US government has never been controlled via citizen militias, but during Madison's term, the nation was saved via citizen militias (conscripted)?

So when we discuss the intentions of the FFs, better take into account their entire lifetimes.

I do think Madison's arguments changed, at least in his own head, after winning the War of 1812. Logically and logistically, that war should have been lost. It defined the US as a nation. Eh, that's beside the point -- just interesting.

I believe that the Bill of Rights were written in such a fashion that each is necessary for the next one in line. The freedom of worship, of speech, of the press, of assembly, and of petition to the government for redress of grievances are essential for any individual rights. The 2nd Amendment guarantees the rights of the citizens to keep the rest of their rights.

To claim that it is either no longer needed or a collective right is just plane old incorrect. The founding fathers all stated that it was intended to make sure that the government had another check and balance system in place. From Washington to Madison, they wrote that this was an individual right, not a collective right.

Since I keep my firearms arm secure in my home when I am not present I feel that the chance of any problems is very close to zero.

If it is no longer needed or wanted, then repeal it, legally! Though I will oppose any effort to repeal the law, if it changes then I will obey the law. The Constitution has provided the means to change any part as required. In the mean time I want the government to obey the law as it was written.

It is an interesting topic..

In the UK, we are allowed to act in self defence, so long as we act in a way commensurate with the threat posed.

It is a criminal offence to carry any form of weapon (including knives, swords etc unless correctly wrapped or packaged) in public, however in your own home, we are allowed to have any sort of weapon, with the exception of guns etc, which are illegal to own.

I do not believe that the tyranny of the state will ever be a problem in a democracy with a professional army, composed of citizens, as the army would act in the interests of retaining democratic freedoms rather than blindly following orders. Although the US has a different constitutional form to the UK, I believe that this principle would be broadly true of any modern democracy.

So really IMO it is about the level of threat that society poses to the individual.

Should the 2nd Amendment be preserved and honored to allow all Free Citizens the right to bear arms to protect themselves?

Yes, but not 'any' arms regardless. The 'level' of arms allowed should be commensurate with the threat that people are likely to face.

Would infringement of this right be consistent with the foundations of Liberty and Freedom?

Ah, good 'ol Liberty and Freedom eh? Depends on your definition (there was an interesting thread on Freedom elsewhere).

In a country where firearms, I can be free to live without fear of being shot, either accidentally or by design. (Or there is a greatly reduced likelihood.) I quite like that..whether my fundamental liberties are reduced - I am unsure...

I wouldn't go so far as to paint the majority of the population as inept or ignorant (training wise) when it comes to guns. I also don't have statistics, but I would venture that most people who actually take it upon themselves to purchase a firearm, have either grown up around them, have previous experience with them, or seek basic fundamental training or practice with them. In the cases above, I don't agree that the danger of a gun in the house outweighs the 'piece of mind' as you put it.
If someone, however, isn't completely comfortable around firearms, then I certainly don't advise them getting one.

What other legal devices do you have in mind?

Its a bit hard to answer this unless you explain your reasoning... but I'll give it a try. I'm assuming your refereing to common household tools or farming implements? If so, then I don't accept the comparison. An axe (for example) can be a very dangerous weapon if so used. But the likelihood of a child decapitating himself with an axe is rather remote.

And, an axe has a legitimate use. Its a tool for cutting wood. A 'fire arm' on the other hand (no pun intended) is a tool for killing people, and as such has no legitimate (civilian) use in a society founded on freedom.

This argument can be extended to almost any tool you care to mention. All tools have a primary function. Yes, they can be misused. But a gun, a weapon, cannot be 'misused'. Its primary function is to kill.

Indeed it is true that a skilled marksman can put a round through an opponents knee and incapacitate him/ her (if the circumstances warrant this) but few gun owning people will have the nerve, opportunity and skill to perform this cool headed action. Everything I have ever seen regarding the civilian use of 'fire arms' in an escalation of violence indicates that the majority of people fire in a blind panic (in fact I have seen this behaviour even amongst military professionals)


I refer you to Englishhorn's excellent answer.

Okay how about gasoline? I seem to recall the highest number of victims in a single crime in New York City was 50 dead and I don't remember the number injured. This happened 10-15 years ago. The weapon of choice, one gallon of gas at a nightclub entrance. Add in the people killed in hit and runs, and I am willing to bet that it would make the number of deaths due to firearms pale in comparison.

Their is a flaw in your argument, however there is a partial out for it.

Drunk Driving is banned. Well, in a sense yet. However, to make this easier Let's call it a criminal offense.

Speeding is also a criminal offense (or banned if you prefer), so in killing someone intentionally with a vehicle (vehicular homicide).

Smoking is in fact restricted, and it is banned in some specific places, or a criminal offense to engage in smoking in some places.

"All Behavior that is potentially dangerous to our society is either banned or heavily restricted"

True. And this is true of guns as well consider this:

brandishing a gun in public is illegal (or banned if you prefer)
Shooting someone, outside of self-defense, is illegal
Armed robbery is illegal.

The list could go on and on.

The difference here, is that there are those that would ban private gun ownership, simply because of the potential risk of a gun being used in the wrong way.

However, these same people would not ban cars, knives, baseball bats, high heel shoes, etc, though they too pose a potential risk to society if used the wrong way.

A Gun, like a car, a hammer, or a cleaver is a tool. Nothing more. Improper use of that tool is criminal, just as similar improper use of any other tool is criminal.

Now, back to the out. Like a car, a gun posses a greater risk when handled by those with no training of how to use it. Like a car, we should require training in it's use be completed before someone could legally use a gun. To legally use a car, you are required to have a driver's license. So, to legally carry a weapon, you should be required to have a carry license (or permit as it is frequently referred too).

However, it is not illegal to own a car, even if you are not licensed to use it. If you use it without a license, you risk criminal penalties.

Now, a gun could be treated similarly, however I do feel a bit more protection is required. So, to simply own a gun, I see no reason for a permit process of any kind. This would allow collectors to decorate their rec rooms however the wish. However, to purchase ammunition of any firearm, you should have to produce a legal license / permit for firearms. Just a thought. For the record I see no reason to make such a change. I am perfectly satisfied with requiring background checks, legal ID, and added requirements for safety training and passing a safety test, for owning a weapon, and a minimum marksmanship score for carrying concealed.

The bottom line here, is that a gun is a tool, a gun in not capable of killing someone unless someone puts bullets in it, loads a round into the chamber, takes off the safety and pulls the trigger.

Now, if someone had a weapon that was loaded, left out where kids could mess with it, and this results in property damage, injury or death then it is negligence and should be actionable.

If someone owned a gun with a faulty safety, or no safety at all, and left it loaded with a round in the chamber and it fires do to the result of a hard fall, children accessing it, or whatever, resulting in property damage, injury or death then it is negligence and should be actionable.

I see no reason to ban or even restrict firearm ownership beyond my suggestions in my earlier post.

If you do not want a gun, you need not buy one. If you do not want a gun in you home you need not allow one, or anyone carrying concealed to enter.

If you find yourself on the receiving end of a gun do to criminal actions, it is HIGHLY unlikely that the gun you are now faced with is owned legally. That gun, more then likely did not even come to the hands of the criminal through a series of transactions that started with a unscrupulous guns shop owner, it more then likely came to the country though a series of transactions that began with a smuggler who brought it into America from another country illegally.

Gun regulation has zero effect on criminals as they have a multitude of criminal avenues to procure one. All gun regulation does is reduce the number of legally owned guns in the hands of law abiding citizens, and in essence gives more power to a criminal who is in possession of a gun that they more then likely acquired legally.

Unless you believe we have a real chance of stemming the tide of illegal drugs into America, then IMHO I can't see how you could possibly believe that we have a real chance to stem the tide of illegal guns coming into America. This is because smuggled guns enter this country almost a frequently as smuggled drugs, and frequently with those drugs (at least, according to my friend in the FBI in NYC).

Overland sailor

At the risk of being spanked for writing a one liner, all of your arguments are equally valid for flame throwers.

Do you think flame throwers ought to be available to the public?

Overlandsailor answered the first part of your post quite effectively (Anchors Aweigh OLS )

I think a fundamental difference in our positions, Moif, is that Denmark is not flooded by firearms, nor has a comparable crime rate (correct me if I'm wrong). You see a handgun as unnecessary and are willing to put your individual or home defense solely in the hands of the state. I on the other hand live in a nation, that for better or worse has far more of a gun culture than yours. The U.S. also has such a population of firearms, as to make confiscation or banning them only affect law abiding citizens who would comply with such a law. (for the record....I would not.) You see a weapons primary function as 'to kill'. I see an equal function of 'to protect'.
I respect your opinion, but certainly you can also understand position like mine, where I believe that a citizen has a basic right to defend his person, home or family from a threat with a commensurate means to do so?
That's why bazookas, WMD's and tanks never realistically factor into a debate on gun rights for me. Unless criminals start using the above to commit crimes against persons or homes, then there is obviously no reason nor need to own one for defense.
Place yourself theoretically in the U.S., with the vast expanse, the crime, and the typical police response time...........do you not value your family enough to at least desire the right to own a weapon for defense, even if you choose not to? I would venture that you do, and on the flipside, I may have a different stance were I to live in Denmark.

moif the answer according to the 2nd Amendment I would have to answer yes. I do not see why they would be accorded a separate category. If they are not used to injure others or commit a crime why not?

I would be very interested in knowing when there was crime committed with a flame thrower. Have you any examples?

This is a tool, it does nothing on it's own.

Well, to answer you question, I think DTOM did a great job (keep your head down and your powder dry brother ).



However I would like to expand on it.

Your example is a poor one, though I get your point. The reason I say it is a poor one is because the use of a flame thrower is ONLY in the offensive. A Citizen, would have no reason to burn criminals out of a cave, a trench, or a tenement, as this is an offensive act. It could be reasoned that if you lived in a tenement, and it was over-run by criminals then you could use a flame-thrower to burn them out, but not without burning down the tenement and harming those innocent people in and around it, it's just no possible. So, no. It is not applicable IMHO.

A better example would be a Javelin Anti-Tank missile. This weapon can be used defensively, and with skill and restraint can be used with little collateral damage. However, this weapons purpose is to destroy tanks. Unless criminals start running around with tanks I do not see the need to allow such a weapon to be available. Now it could be argued that criminals could fortify a position in a building to the point that it would take something like a Javelin to get in. However, that is not a defensive act. Citizens seek to defend themselves from crime, they leave the offensive approach to the professionals in law enforcement.

In the case of guns, for one, guns are everywhere. There are likely twice as many (if not more) illegal guns in America then there are legal ones. So, citizens can easily be confronted with a gun and need a gun to defend themselves (assuming they have the opportunity). Futhermore, a gun is an equalizer. A 350lb musclebound man, can be stopped cold by a 87 year old grandma in a wheel chair if she is armed. People should have a right to defend themselves from reasonable threats (tanks and fighter planes not being a reasonable threat an American citizen can expect to face).

So yes, I do think there should be limits on what is available, and those limits should be based on the reasonable threats that could be faced.

Now, if things go so far downhill and criminals do gain regular access to tanks and the like, then I would support civilian ownership of weapons like Javelins so long as they could afford them, were fully trained in them, and passed competency tests with them, as well as the background checks and the like. However, realistically, if criminals reach that level in America, those in government will likely be too busy trying to correct the situation, stop the riots, or protect their jobs to get involved in the severely politically incorrect (as it likely would be in this nightmare scenario) action of trying to disarm the citizens, regardless of what they choose to arm themselves with.

For the record: I would be interested to see someone post the statistic on gun crimes, broken down to crimes committed with illegally possessed weapons vs. crimes committed with legally owned and licensed ones. I'm not sure these statistics are kept, but they should be.

You are wrong, but not with regards to Denmark's crime rate.

You are wrong in assuming I am opposed to Americans owning guns. I am not, as such. I am oposed to the principle of owning guns. With regards to America, I believe it is up to yourselves what you, as a nation, do. It makes no impact on me.

My arguments stem from the fact that this debate is linked to the previous debate regarding freedom and all of you who argue that owning weapons is a sign of freedom.


Indeed. And if you have to protect yourself, then you are not free.


Well yes, but so what? By your argument and the like minded arguments being voiced here, these other weapons are no different from hand guns. They are all just tools.

Whats the difference between a dormant handgun and a dormant flamethrower? As long as no one uses them, they are harmless, right? The problem arises when they are used. Regardless of why or what for, people are going to get hurt and killed. And a lot of those people will be innocent bystanders.

Guns, even hand guns, like flame throwers are not something you can control. Once you've pulled the triger, the bullet follows only the laws of physics and there is nothing you can do to retreive the bullet once it has been sent on its way. You can't bring a dead child back to life, and each year many many children are slain in the USA and all in the name of 'gun culture'.

The truth is, a gun IS a tool, and as such it will lie dormant until the day some one picks it up and uses it. And sooner or later, some one is going to pick up that gun.

Playing with guns is immature and dangerous, and the USA as a nation is not free when its population is trapped in a cycle of gun culture violence that requires you own a gun in order to defend yourself.

That's a freedom where you just aren't free

Another truth is the USA could easily get rid of its gun culture if it so desired. The trouble is, as a nation, you don't want to. Guns are just sooo sexy.

I understand and empathise with the dilemma posed by violent crime, but frankly. You bring it upon yourselves by manufacturing so many weapons and by gloryifying weapons the way you, as a nation, do.


It is because I value my life and my family that I will never live in the USA. If, I did, hypothetically, then I would move to Canada.

Moif, I disagree (big surprise) with the majority of your post, but one part piqued my interest.


Please enlighten me. And not in just the abstract, please tell us how you (as emperor of America) could make guns go away.

I disagree greatly when you say "Playing with guns is immature and dangerous, and the USA as a nation is not free when its population is trapped in a cycle of gun culture violence that requires you own a gun in order to defend yourself.

That's a freedom where you just aren't free"

Firstly, I'm not sure who you're referring to when speaking of immature and playing with guns. Target shooters? Thugs/rappers/gangsters?
I believe segments of mankind are inherently evil and dangerous and must be defended against. It has always been so and will always be so. The right to defend oneself, is the ability to have control over your life. The cycle of gun violence is immaterial to the overall picture. The common citizen who keeps a gun in his home for protection does nothing to further the cycle of gun violence. Law abiding citizens are not part of that cycle.
If you are required by the state to surrender your ability to defend self, home and family.....you can never be free. Ever.

One of the good things about debating with Americans is that I learn a lot of useful concepts. Small things that might not seem so significant when they become apparent, but which delight me nonetheless. I'm an argumentative fellow, and there fore I enjoy it when I discover these interesting new concepts.

I believe you are employing what I have seen as a 'straw man' argument, but I may be wrong since I'm still unsure as to what exactly that means.

The general idea however is that there is no such thing as an 'emperor' of America, and therefore any answer I might attempt upon would be a mistake.

As it is, my claim does not require the people of America to be subjected to any authority. Giving up guns, should be voluntary. What I'm saying, indeed what I wrote was:


I'm refereing to those who will always play with guns. Immature adults, children, criminals.
I suppose sports shooters could be construed as 'playing' with guns, but I didn't have them in mind.


Thats interesting because by that argument there is either a disproportionate amount of evil people in the USA, or else our (Danish) evil people, without access to guns, just aren't very evil at all..
Sure we have criminals, and sometimes we even get them shooting people... but our per capita violent crimes are nothing compared to yours.

It seems that take the guns out of the equation and you actually don't need to defend yourself with guns... and a lot less innocent people get hit by stray and/ or accidental bullets.

Personally I believe the whole concept of evil in this regard is so subjective as to be worthless. A child who shoots some one in a fit of rage is not evil.


Of course he does. He is a consumer who has bought into the gun culture.
Just by buying a gun he has contributed to the existence of the gun culture.


I can assure you, that for as long as I obey the law, I am free.

The same is true for you. The difference between us is I am also free of the fear of being shot by an 'evil man'.

The question must be asked: are you free if you rely on the government (via the police or military) to defend you?

Relying on the government is not freedom. Freedom is very closely related to individualism, rather than collectivism (at least, in my view). Relying on others to provide food, shelter, transportation, or safety is not freedom.

Part of freedom is being raised out of poverty. The poor can never truly be free in fact (although they can be free in theory).

Self defense is the ultimate right. It is the right to control one's own destiny and to defend what is yours from those that would seek to take it from you.

Amlord

Well, if you ask that question, then you ought also to ask this one as well...

Are you free if you need to rely on the government (via the police or military) to defend you?

Or you could also ask, are you free if you need to be defended at all?

I don't doubt that if criminals in Europe/ Denmark had access to the amount of weaponry on offer in the USA, then we would also have guns in our homes.

It seems to me though, (perhaps I am biased) that a good proportion of Americans are, like Overland Sailor, quite happy with the levels of crime that justify their ownership of guns.

I think you are mistaken here. I believe DTOM's intent was to make it as simple as possible to answer the question. By creating a hypothetical "Emperor" we can avoid all problems associated with getting any kind of measure like this through congress and the Supreme Court.



Let me present it a different way. Assuming you had the citizens and the congress behind you 100% and passed a constitutional amendment banning the ownership of firearms by any private citizen, how would you deal with the massive flow of illegal firearms to criminals that already cross our boarders? And how would you deal with the magnification of that problem that a ban such as this would likely create?

Also, what do we say to those American's that supplement their food needs with Hunting? What do we say to those Poor American's that need that supplemental source to survive?



Where do you possibly get the idea that I am "happy" with the level of crime? That's a rather low blow in my opinion.

I am a realist, I have no way to address the crime problem in America beyond my home, my neighborhood and my vote.

Since I am not able to way a magic wand and make all the things that create crime go away, I am forced to deal with it the best I can.

Would it surprize you to know I do not own a gun? I would like to, however I have many other more pressing financial issues to address for me and my family before I can consider purchasing one.

overlandsailor

Really? But how can an Emporer function within the legal coontext of the US constitution?

An Emporer could simply pass a law to disarm the population (in fact thats what most Emperors did)

That would never work in a country like America though. Disarmament in America can only happen on a volunteer basis. It would require mature politicians and a population willing to give up its fire arms in the interests of public safety, and most of all it would require a social balance and a culture which did not glorify and create so much crime.

To argue that this is imossible is to concede defeat to crime.

Basically what the USA is currently doing, is agreeing to live on the terms dictated to it by its criminal elements.


Who manufacture's these guns? The USA is the largest manufacturer of fire arms on the planet. Are you telling me that weapons are imported in far greater numbers than are domestically available?


How many of these are there?

If there are a good many, enough to make a difference, then I would be far more concerned with dealing the root cause of their poverty.

With regards to the debate on freedom, how can the richest, most technologically advanced nation on the planet regard itself as free if members of its society are forced by poverty to hunt for food?

It seems to me that what you are all refering to as freedom is more like anarchy where your free from the lesser 'evil' of governemt, but accept the far greater 'evils' of poverty and crime...

...just as long as you get to keep your guns.


In the 'freedom thread, you wrote:

I understand from this paragraph that you are happy with the status quo since you are free to own a gun...

If I am labouring under a misunderstanding, then please forgive me. I didn't intend it to be a 'low blow'.


I am not surprised that you don't own a gun. You strike me as being a very sensible fellow and that you have to put certain aspects of your family's needs before others seems quite appropriate to your character as I perceive it.

I may as well add that I love firing weapons. I spent four years in the military and there is no greater feeling of invulnerablity than firing an automatic weapon. I know hoever that such a feeling, is an illusion. Having a weapon does not make us invulnerable, it only gives us dutch courage.

Oi vey........Um the 'emperor' part of my post was an attempt at levity, and a means for you to try and answer the question WITHOUT going into the strawman argument. You eventually did answer....kind of.

You would have citizens give up firearms voluntarily. Law abiding citizens, as they would be the only ones to abide by this.
So what of the criminals? Are you implying that if I disarm, then criminals are also going to?
To me this line of debate is as laughable as taking airbags out of cars, and assuming that nobody will drink and drive and T-bone you at an intersection.

Your grand assumptions speak to people who obey the law, yet not to the criminal element. Which is the reason people wish to own guns for protection for!

And we do that how? How do you convince drug dealers with no education that are currently making 10s of thousands of dollars a week that they should stop that and take a job at the local grocery? How do you convince those, generally too lazy to work a regular job that they should do so instead of "make their week" through a few muggings, a couple of burglaries or an armed robbery? I have ALOT of experience dealing with career criminals from my former line of work. The standard answer as to why they do what they do? "I won't slave for the man". My personal favorite was went I had a man in custody for theft and assault, who I knew was living on the streets in our area for the last couple of weeks. I asked him why he didn't try to get a job with our store? It walked through a door with three help wanted signs to come in and try to steal. His answer? "I'm too good to work here". But apparently not to good to sleep in alleys.



The US may be the largest manufacturer, but guns are manufactured all over the world. Some of the most popular weapons made come from Germany and Israel for example.

However, it is not just foreign manufactured guns that are smuggled into the US. It is also guns manufactured in the US and exported to other nations that find their way back here through smuggling.



Depends on where you live. In rural America, the majority of Americans supplement their food supply through hunting. Many of them need that supplement.



How to address this would make a good subject of a new topic.



They are free to hunt for food for one thing. America is NOT perfect. However, America has alot of unique issues as well. Dealing with a population of nearly 300 million creates a level of issues many smaller countries never have to deal with.

China for example, as a system of government that supposedly provides for everything the citizens need, and if you believe their statistics crime is lower. Yet, everything I ever saw or read shows that most in China live lives of terrible poverty and have no freedom to change it. Let alone most of the Liberties we in most Western Nations enjoy.



Depends on how you look at it. The vast majority of the most horrible, "evil" acts of all time happened at the hands of governments, not individuals. The holocaust and the Crusades come immediately to mind.




Fair enough, I had hoped that was not the case. Yes you are laboring under a misunderstanding. What I said was I prefer to have a balance of power where the law abiding and the lawless both have guns, to a situation where only the lawless have guns. I don't for a second believe that any gun control measure can get the guns out of the hands of criminals, the history of these sorts of measures in America is proof of that. You seem to have assumed that by banning legal ownership of guns, we would no longer have criminals with guns, or that crime would be reduced as a result. Our history regarding these types of measures suggest otherwise. If you take guns from law abiding citizens, you do nothing to lawless citizens because they can still get guns illegally, as they did before you took them away. All you do is make it far easier to be a successful criminal if that criminal is armed.



Dutch Courage? That's a new one on me, what is the origins of that phrase?

As for the feeling of Invulnerability, When I did own a gun, years ago I never felt invulnerable. I too enjoyed target shooting (all though a 9mm Taurus handgun is FAR from an automatic weapon), but the weapon being in my apartment gave me no great feeling of invincibility, just to comfort to know that if something bad happened, I had the option to defend myself so long as the opportunity presented itself.

dontreadonme

Is it a 'grand assumption' to desire to live in a less crime ridden society?

I don't think so, and I don't think that people just giving up their guns is the solution. It takes more than just a gullible desire to do the right thing. It would require a serious effort to curb the amount of weapons being manufactured by domestic companies, and most especially those hand guns which have no legitimate military or police purpose. It would require domestic politicians who were able to function with a level of autonomy that the current system with its corrupt lobby's prevents

It would also require a complete shift in mentality away from the crime fighting attitude currently at the fore in America towards the crime prevention mentality that exists in most of Europe.. okay, thats condescending, yes, but its also true. Europe does not breed criminals like America does.




overlandsailor

Thats the tough question you face and which frankly, your not even trying to answer when you simply give up and accept the status quo of the gun culture.

I don't think, and I'm not even going to try to claim, that its easy to go from where America is today to where it would be free of its gun culture. The thing is, you'll never get rid of thugs and criminals for as long as you have legitimate companies manufacturing the weapons by which they survive.


Then stop funding Germany and Israel. Put sanctions against them, force them to deal with the problem.

Yes it sounds trite, but in all seriousness, why is the USA pumping billions into Israel if the Israeli's are importing weapons back into the USA?

And yes, I know you can't do it. The political and public will is lacking. Thats my point. As long as you, as a nation don't want to change, then you can't. Then your forced to remain slaves to the gun culture, and your only free as long as you have access to ammunition.


This is off topic, but I understand food is cheap in America. (At least cheap in comparison to the food we buy here) is that a misunderstanding? Is food so expensive that people really have to hunt for food?

I won't start a new topic though. I have enough on my plate with the threads I'm currently engaged in


I agree. The Chinese are a race of slaves.


What I would advocate, if I had the power of suggestion in such an instance, would be far more than just taking away legal fire arms. It would require an entire overhaul of the US system of government. You'd even have to re-write your constitution. You'd have to put serious laws into effect to prohibit the manufacture of most handguns and punish those countries that allowed their hand guns to enter the USA.

I know this is impossible, but my point is that its because you can't do any of this (because, basically, you, as a nation, don't want to) that you are not free.

You are living in an illusion of freedom where by your freedom is determined by a criminal mentality


People say that in Britain. It means to get courage from another source (usually alcohol)


Yes. I was referring to the act of firing an automatic weapon rather than having a gun concealed in my house. Having my rifle in my locker never gave me any feeling of security since A. the weapon belonged to the state, and B. I was never in any situation where I felt I needed it.

Feeling the kick, noise and heat of an LMG against my body though. THAT made me feel invulnerable. Godlike. Perhaps this is a personal weakness of mine, but I suspect a lot of people are addicted to that feeling of power a gun can bestow.

Not much of a gun proponent..but I do recognize them as "tools" I think they do have a purpose other than just for killing people or for defense.
I lived in the Laurel Highlands for 4 mo. outside Farmington PA. I worked at a very exclusive resort there hidden in the mountains. Other than this resort there is not much else in Farmington ..the resort is one of the only forms of wage income. The resort really only does good business in the spring and summer..in fact in the winter most of the roads up the mountain are closed. Everyone I knew that lived there and had lived there all their lives hunted. Deer season was a BIG deal and many many of these families supplemented their income with their hunting.

Moif you claim...
How many of these are there?

If there are a good many, enough to make a difference, then I would be far more concerned with dealing the root cause of their poverty.

With regards to the debate on freedom, how can the richest, most technologically advanced nation on the planet regard itself as free if members of its society are forced by poverty to hunt for food?

Is this really true tho? Are these people poor or are they free to live life how the wish to live it? Farmington is just over an hour from Pittsburgh (a big city) altho. most Farmington natives have never been there and never wish to..they claim is has nothing there they want. They like living in the mountains..they like only working 2 or 3 seasons out of the year and they like collecting their welfare checks in the winter and going out hunting for WEEKS at a time. I don't think the people of Farmington and the many other communities like her in the US are forced to live like this..they choose to.
Are guns in Farmington not tools? Don't they dictate how the people of Farmington can live their lives?

In Europe hunters hunt with guns too.
They have guns in Europe also..would Europeans easily relinquish all guns if asked to?

Gun culture or guns are hardly an American concept and there does exist gun culture outside the US.
In Switzerland and In Germany perhaps even Austria? there are still remnants of the ancient village festivals ..or Schützenfests still practiced today. I lived in Zürich and there they celebrate..
Knabenschiessen...
takes place on the second weekend in September. Four hundred years ago, Zurich was still training its youngsters in the use of defensive weapons. Crossbows were replaced by guns, and the best marksman among the young boys was chosen. Nowadays, army rifles are used and girls also take part in this competitive event. A huge fair accompanies this three-day event at the Albisguetli fairgrounds.
source

I dunno... thats what I was asking Overlandsailor.


I've already said all guns are tools.


Indeed we do, though must guns here are hunting rifles and not hand guns. We don't have the gun culture that America has. Our gun culture is not centered on the hand gun.

At least not yet. Crime figures are rising...


In Britain, ALL hand guns were made illegal after the Dunblane masscre. Even sports guns.

Why should we? Those who legally purchase and own guns RARELY commit gun crimes. Should we stop the manufacture of knives because of stabbings?



This is not state sponsored. Also the German made guns and Israeli made guns do not get smuggled into the US directly from those countries. The US guns, German Guns, Israeli guns, Chinese Guns and a host of other guns get purchased through legitimate front companies throughout central and south America in areas where frequently the only law is the local crime lord, and those guns get smuggled into countries to be sold illegally.

So then if there was a shotgun manufacture in say France, who filled and order to sell 25 shotguns to another company in Argentina and that company then resold those guns to a smuggling operation that transported and sold them illegally to the US we should place economic sanctions on France?

Why would we punish the states of Germany and Israel because someone takes what they manufacture and sell legally and illegally re-distributes them?



As was said earlier, most do so because they choose to. It is there culture to live in rural areas where opportunities are limited. That's the way they use their freedom, the freely choose to live where and how they wish, even though it is a harder life.



You just don't understand Americans. This country has always chosen the harder way when faced with a choice between making things easy by giving up some freedom and liberty or letting it be harder, but retaining all of their rights (at least until recently.....<cough>...<hack>patriot..act<cough>...<hack>... ) That is who we are.




Interesting. I never heard that before. Isn't it rather insulting?

Should the 2nd Amendment be preserved and honored to allow all Free Citizens the right to bear arms to protect themselves?

I will refute the prospect of applying absolute morality to the second amendment in my response the your next question. As for the question of whether legalization should implemented:

Benefits:

-An occasional incident of where Self Defense preserved life or property

Detriments:

-Proportionally more common are incidents of accidents, criminals buying arms without being forced to resort to the black market, and occurrences of civilian abuse.

I think detriments win.

Would infringment of this right be consistent with the foundations of Liberty and Freedom?

Perhaps not. However, what if Bill Gates wanted to buy a nuke (an arm is a weapon, and by such definition, a nuke is a arm)? I think you would oppose that. You cant use absolute morality on the second amendment, and remain consistent.

First off, it should be the right of every person to defend themselves and their family.

If your home is invaded there should be no question over your right to defend yourself with "necessary force" in the "face of threat". That this has been exceeded is ridiculous, just as it is ridiculous for this right not to be properly upheld in too many courts, across too many states.

However, I find it amazing that a discussion on this must start with a comment on the "right to own arms" that you and your NRA stand beside so vehemently. What is most amazing is that the MAJORITY of your country do NOT even realise that the second amendment is made of TWO parts to the sentence, not just the second half of it:

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.

This means, that COUNTRY (theoretically each state, individually) has a right to defend itself. NOT that every hick and violent deviant has the right to own a sub-auto. It is not a PERSONAL right, but a NATIONAL right. Unless you're going to allow a family of homicial retards to be considered a "well regulated militia".

an interesting link on the subject of the second amendment


I accept that this post will be inflamatory to some. However, it is not unreasonable.

Should the 2nd Amendment be preserved and honored to allow all Free Citizens the right to bear arms to protect themselves? Maybe it should be UNDERSTOOD in the first place.

Welcome Genesisblade. I wouldn't worry about inflamatory comments, that's what this is about.

I will have disagree with you - miltia in the 18th Century did not refer to the government at all. The States had troops, the locals had to have a way to defend themselves from an oppressive government. I can find the comments from the Founding Fathers, especially the authors of the 2nd Amendment that clearly state that they did in fact mean an individual instead of collective right.

By the way am not a member of the NRA or any such organization. These are strickly my own opinions

It's arguable that a majority of scholars who have studied the history of the 2nd amendment agree that the right to own and carry weapons refers to individuals, or the people. Opponents to gun ownership still seize upon the Militia reference to maintain that the 2nd Amendment concerns only the rights of individual states to raise militias (now the National Guard) in times of crisis. This right to bear arms has its roots in our right to self-defense, to protect and preserve our life, liberty, and property from those who would seek to deprive us of them.

In United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990), the Court made clear that all law-abiding Americans are protected by the Second Amendment as follows:

"the people" seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution.... The Second Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by (p.133)and reserved to "the people." See also U.S. Const., amend. I, ("Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble"); U.S. Const. art. I, § 2, cl. 1 ("The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second year by the People of the several States")(emphasis added). While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.

The founding fathers could have limited the 2nd Amendment right to state militias, but instead used the terms 'the people' meaning the governed.....meaning the individual. It's no mistake that the Bill of Rights continues to refer to the 'people' meaning the individual. It's quite a stretch that somehow the framers didn't mean the individual in just the 2nd Amendment.

My point exactly. A class of persons who are part of a national community. Thus refering to the national community, rather than individual rights of each person within that community. Thus, the rights of the community to have a well regulated militia to protect it, to represent it.

That there is enough confusion in the amendment is surely a good enough reason to clarify it, to amend it. That the NRA realise that stating the whole thing might undermine their position with many in the more ignorant groups of public, is also interesting.

Clearly, I disagree with free ownership of guns, because only a small number of people can be trusted to use them reasonably, and they probably don't own any.

However, I do completely agree with defence by the use of reasonable force. Like for like. If you break into my house, i don't see why you should have any damn rights.

You base this on what? How many incidents of gun violence / crime have we seen at the hands of those in LEGAL possession of a gun?

The problems we face with gun crimes in America is the possesion of guns by criminals, who got them from criminals. If you banned the manufacture, sales, and legal possession of guns tomorrow you would not see a drop in gun crime, and you might even see an increase in it.

Based on the quote above, how do you explain that in every state that passed the concealed carry law, not one has seen an increase in crime, accidents, etc relating to legally possessed guns?

I think you sell the average American short when you say "only a small number can be trusted to use them reasonably", alot of people in America own guns, and yet there are a relative few cases of crime or accidents relating to legally owned weapons.

We have more people k