Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum should BMW's be banned

I have recently watched a video of a mass slaying
where a BMW was used as a transport mechanism of
the weapons that were used in the slayings.

the above is an attempt to reason with those who still
believe that gun control is a good thing.

gun control : Chicago , Illinois



mandatory gun ownership : Kennesaw Georgia




mandatory gun ownership : Nelson Georgia



woman defends her home and her children.



Govenor Nathan Deal Georgia: carry everywhere bill.



not all of us in the US know the real reason why gun control
is being pushed on the public , but those who do know aren't
being fooled by the globalist united nations agendas.

Serious question for a change Paul there is no trap in this one because only you as a USA citizen can decide and I am actually interested in views on it as I am here at the moment.

Assume that there was to be a vote on gun control and both side run whatever smear campaign they will inevitably do. It appears you are for the right to bear guns so lets assume the no gun lobby gets up and people say no to guns do you accept the verdict?

So constitution vs democracy which do you side with and why?

The Pledge of Allegiance was written in August 1892 by the socialist minister Francis Bellamy (1855-1931). It was originally published in The Youth's Companion on September 8, 1892. Bellamy had hoped that the pledge would be used by citizens in any country.

In its original form it read:

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

The Pledge of allegiance reflected the Republic that the United States was founded as under the Constitution of the United States..
Many people are under the false impression our form of government is a democracy, or representative democracy. This is of course completely untrue. The Founders were extremely knowledgeable about the issue of democracy and feared a democracy as much as a monarchy. They understood that the only entity that can take away the people's freedom is their own government, either by being too weak to protect them from external threats or by becoming too powerful and taking over every aspect of life.

They knew very well the meaning of the word "democracy", and the history of democracies; and they were deliberately doing everything in their power to prevent having a democracy.

In a Republic, the sovereignty resides with the people themselves. In a Republic, one may act on his own or through his representatives when he chooses to solve a problem. The people have no obligation to the government; instead, the government is a servant of the people, and obliged to its owner, We the People. Many politicians have lost sight of that fact.

A Constitutional Republic has some similarities to democracy in that it uses democratic processes to elect representatives and pass new laws, etc. The critical difference lies in the fact that a Constitutional Republic has a Constitution that limits the powers of the government. It also spells out how the government is structured, creating checks on its power and balancing power between the different branches.

The goal of a Constitutional Republic was to avoid the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy but what exists in America today is a far cry from the Constitutional Republic our forefathers brought forth.

Gun control is part of the same smoke and mirror magic that influences within Government use to keep the mind of America occupied, so it can undermine the Constitution, thru the rule of people control.

You do have actual opinions TT !!!

I am sort of half and half between you and Paul in that I lived in a country that only the government had guns and I wasn't exactly safe. In Egypt at the moment they are sentencing and presumably will execute people 800 at a time because all you do is declare someone a terrorist. However I also spent time in Australia and UK which have strict gun controls and it does appear to work better there, so I am a bit undecided. I don't know the figures from China but I am guessing that will be frightening.

Having recently watched the movie about George Washington and the things that went on to get the constitution changed was interesting. The movie sort of kept Washington as a clean skin with gumshoes from the party doing all the dirty work which one really has to wonder about.

I guess that would be my question to you TT is our view of past people and ideals really what we think it is. What makes you so sure that democracy was so much better in the past, the Washington movie certainly painted a different story.

It was also interesting that in a recent series of "Who do you think you are" that it came up about Washington owning slaves a bit they sort of left out in the movie or skirted around by sort of making his personal staff look like employees. I thought Washington was against slavery but was that just a political stance?

So I guess what interests me is why you think the founders were extremely knowledgeable about democracy what drives your conviction?

Not having a go at you TT I have certain views on historic scientists as well how accurate those views are is always a bit tricky and I wonder if I have it right.

I believe I speak for all of those who understand why the
right to bear arms is written in the bill of rights when I
say.

no , I wouldnt accept any verdict that would remove
my constitutional rights or my ability to defend my country.

notice I did not say to defend my government.

and my country is made up of the citizens of the US.

not the traitors who have all but destroyed my country so
that they can have money to get elected or re-elected with.



the above underlined 4 words does not mean that a vote can be
held that would abolish those rights.

let me break this down for you.



this part describes or is referencing a states right to
have a state militia , I have recently heard that some
mistakenly think that this is referring to a national guard.



this is describing or referring to the right of the citizens
of the country to keep and bear arms.



shall not be infringed , shall not be taken away , and
the ability to use those arms and bear those arms
shall not be lowered through any means.

So I guess that leads to the question so there is no circumstance that things in the constitution could be deleted?

Second question to that in reverse I guess is can you add things into the constitution or should it be left alone and I guess what was you view to Washington's change to the constitution and the later changes?

Again Paul no tricks or insults here it's not my country and I don't like to judge this sort of thing because it was not like my birth homeland was a great place at this sort of stuff. I definitely prefer USA with or without guns and thanks for your answers.

The discussion is sort of interesting in modern context where Syria is tearing itself apart and Egypt is self imploding but I suspect the religious tension adds to what is already a challenging debate on what does freedom and democracy look like and how do you get there.

I don't imagine you would be too familiar with the US constitution. So a quick run down. Basically the constitution defines the structure of the US government. The first version was essentially limited to that part of it. However, they almost immediately came back and modified it by passing the first 10 amendments. These amendments are called "The Bill of Rights" because they define the rights of the citizens under the constitution. They tell what the government cannot do to the citizens. That includes a lot of things, if you should really be interested you can find the constitution on the internet and read it yourself. The Bill of Rights is fairly short. None of the articles is more than a few lines.

Then on to changing the constitution. Within the constitution is a method of amending it (Article V). Actually there are 2 methods, but the second hasn't ever been used. The way it has been done is for congress to propose an amendment. It is then sent to the states for approval. If enough states approve it then it becomes part of the constitution.

The second way is for the states to call for a constitutional convention. If enough states pass bills calling for the convention all states send representatives to the meeting and they agree on the changes, then send them back to the states for final approval. The idea of a constitutional convention causes panic among a lot of politicians.

Any way it would be possible to amend the constitution to remove or significantly change the Second Amendment. Practically it would be a very difficult thing to do. I don't expect that to happen, at least not for a long time in the future.

And then speaking of the Second Amendment one of the big problems with it is the way it is written. Some people look at it and focus on the militia part, saying that the militia are the ones who can keep and carry arms. Others look at it and focus on the right of the people to individually carry arms. Obviously it is the people like Paul who look at people and people who want to ban guns who look at militia.

Personally I'm not sure which side is right. Since both sides can quote studies that show they are right that just makes me even more unsure of what the answer is. The problem being to get any actual unbiased studies conducted.

Bill Gill

Observation allows for the occasional opinion, tho I find you can revisit a topic or even an opinion and find something different to review. NOTHING is static or absolute, other than the absolute itself in its ability to express the potential of something in different ways, and be experienced in different ways.


Like religion, people who watch a movie and say "that is" or "was what it was", rather than watching several movies by different directors and then doing the research above and beyond the movie set, can hardly objectify anything.

What history shows me, is that democracy was not the formula for natural law.
Man did not form the universal law that created man, nor the laws which governs the rights and freedoms within the constitution, but rather, man interprets the objective understandings, or mans observances of the nature of reality.
That was the thinking behind the creation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
These things were not considered democratic but above opinion and deliberation. The intent of the founding fathers was to create a fool proof system to protect the rights and freedoms of man so that special interests could not dilute the nature of reality into belief systems.
Government however has become what religion has become, a Church to the nature of creation. A majority rule by influence.
Laws are created to serve the interests of individual opinion rather than the nature of reality.

The people of the past are no different than the people today, in that they are a diverse group being influenced or influencing those around them according to their understanding of the nature of reality.

Nothing sacred is free from the persecution of the opposing ideal. As long as man is conflicted within himself, so will man bring his affliction into society.



Understanding of Self Awareness and selflessness.

I wonder if you really wonder. So far the most prominent features presented in your opinions are the features of a personal nature, reflecting upon the Socialist background of human torture around your family history.
You seem more inclined to burn the opposition at the stake rather than rally the truth into transforming the opposition.

You are correct what I know of the foundation of USA I could write on a postage stamp so thank you for that. I will read the constitution, I hadn't because I assumed it would be long political language I would never be able to understand.

The subject interests me for obvious reasons, one often ponders how could I turn my homeland into a true democracy. That would no doubt get me killed there as a terrorist but on the bright side make a lot of peoples day


Ok I get the change mechanism now and is each state a simple majority vote and is it just a simple majority of states?

That throws up a really interesting scenario what if say all the smaller and say rural states vote for something but the clear population majority are against it, I take it would still pass?


I guess I am the same I can see the issue with guns but it's hard for me to make any sort of judgement because here exists something that does not exist in my homeland.

Paul's post topic argument about the BMW is sort of frivolous because it's not like the car was used as the murder weapon but his argument about the constitution is not so easy to dismiss and obviously many here agree.

Sorry TT if I gave the impression I thought that because that came across wrong in my English. Lets see if I can rephrase this the film definitely gave the expression that politics back in the day was as dirty as it is today and I have absolutely no data to agree or disagree.


See I find that interesting because then you find out facts like most of these founding fathers had slaves as an example. I have the same problem in trying to view historic scientists for example I don't rate Marosz's hero Mach very high, but am I really being fair bothers me.


As you were born into a democracy you probably can't really understand. Before one can rally to transform something you have to understand what it is you want to transform and what is important for that democracy.

The people of Syria, Egypt and currently Thailand and Ukraine thought they would transform their democracy it didn't work out very well for any of them. The law of nature even you describe prevails any ground swell of change can and may get subverted by outside forces and produce undesirable results.

So lets say I was to become a terrorist in my homeland I would make dam sure that whatever group and ground swell I started had clear agreement on what democracy looked like at the end result before I started it

It takes a 2/3 majority of the states to approve it. So the states with a smaller population would rule, if they voted together.

This also comes into the organization of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Members of the House are parceled out on the basis of the population of the states. So states with large populations have lots of representatives and states with small populations have very few representatives. But each state has 2 Senators. That way the small states have as much power in the Senate as the large states. They did that to protect the smaller states from being dominated by the larger states.


The fact that the country was founded on freedom and still had slavery has been a problem from the very beginning. This was of course absolutely against the stated beliefs of the founders. The best I can say is that people are people and there are always a lot of us that can claim rights for ourselves that we don't want to extend to others.


Here in the United States we were very fortunate. We were originally run by England, which had the most advanced and freest society in the world at the time. We were also fortunate that we had mostly been kind of ignored by England, because we didn't really have much that was of great value to England. Very few people were making fortunes off of the American Colonies. So the colonies were, to a large extent, running themselves. We also didn't have all of the royals and upper classes running around. Mostly we had people who had, one way or another, worked for their living, and understood how to run things. Admittedly they were doing their best to get rich and run things, but we did have working traditions that had the people running things.

This was a huge step up from where people who are trying to start up democracies where that just hasn't been done. The fact is that a democracy takes more than just the right to vote. It takes a tradition of do it yourself.

Once again I have probably gotten far beyond what I really know in the last paragraph, but I hope I haven gotten the idea across.

Bill Gill

No thanks for that Bill it's interesting to sort of at least scratch the surface of this stuff. I often wonder how or if my homeland would ever become free and you sort of think about the hows and why. Then in the news everyday you see the mess happening from a couple of countries that have tried to make changes.

I have sort of derailed Paul's post topic so I will stop now.