Uechi-Ryu.com

So, it's not the most reputable source in the world, but the Boston Metro reports hate crimes against muslims up 1600% in the last year. They jumped 500-some percent against gays and lesbians during the amendment 2 and ballot measure 9 debates in colorado and utah, and we all know what happened in the south during the civil rights struggles, and the occasional killing of an abortion provider isn't much different. Is there anyway around this, or is every campaign of rhetoric accompanied by violence against the (perceived) targets?

Howdy,

I happen to be a Muslim and as such this article is of significant interest to me. My prayers are for the victims and their families as well as that the perpetrators will have a change of heart and come to greater understanding of how much we all have in common.

The civial rights movement, a historically relevant period of history, was a struggle in which hate crimes were prominent aspects of life for African Americans as well as anyone else participating in the struggle for the rights of African Americans.

More recently, the rash of Church burnings in the South of a few years back, being a series of acts probably designed to terrorize that population, had the opposite effect as very strong support came from numerous directions to decry the bombings as not representing who we are as Americans.

These statistics do have the potential to scare if we let them. But the statistics may signal something more important, the willingness of Muslims to come forward to report the crimes that they may have been silent about in the past. The outpouring of support from non-Muslims at the time when we needed it most has gone a long way toward healing the wounds created by the hatred that some folks are trying to spread (as if that is what America stands for).

Personally, I am hopeful that, despite the terrible acts of a minority of extremists, that greater understanding of Muslims and non-muslims will be the long term result of the present conflict.

Many Muslims in this country were content for a long time to not be especially involved in the political life of this country, preferring to live in isolated communities, or isolating themselves as much as possible from the rest of society. Recent history is forcing the Muslims to recognize that they must participate in the public life of the country if they ever want to be understood and not be stereotyped or typecast. Their direct participation in the political arena will hopefully have both positive effects in this country as well as fostering more representative regimes in their countries of origins. This is especially important as moderate voices will only be heard if they have avenues available supporting peaceful expression, otherwise, only the extremists (those screaming loudest) will have their voice heard.

Is every campaign of rhetoric accompanied by violence against the (perceived) targets?

That is a very good question.

I would say yes. Slavery was not exactly eradicated by mere rhetoric. But quite interesting is how many folks who supported slavery, even with their lives, even though they did not own slaves.

Akil,

Thanks for posting. Welcome to the "Tough Issues" forum. I look forward to more insights from your unique American-Moslem background...

Take care...

Thanks for the welcome Panther,

Have been lurking for years and finally got the courage and the patience to become a participating member. With so few people posting here I was starting to think I had got lost down some lonely cyber-alley and might have to put my Uechi to use and out of the shadows comes panther.

nice logo...grinning face with an assault weapon...one picture IS worth a thousand words

Yeah, well, panther is into guns as long as they are handled safely, not pointed at anyinnocent persons, and are properly cleaned and stored where no one can make any use of them (tongue in cheek)..........

Akil Todd Harvey wrote:Yeah, well, panther is into guns as long as they are handled safely, not pointed at any innocent persons, and are properly cleaned and stored where no one can make any use of them (tongue in cheek)..........

Close... I was with you right up to the "where no one can make any use of them" part. (OK, so you planted you tongue firmly in your cheek... ) I'm not sure how Drona took your emoticon, but I like it! There are far to many intolerant people in the world and even in the USA, that it unfortunately means that those additional 1600% muslims that have been victimized should take every means necessary to insure the safety of themselves and their loved ones... same goes for the 500% extra who are vicitmized for having different sexual preferences. It is a very simple equation IMNSHO: No one has the right to initiate force against someone else.

Panther,

I am not quite pro gun all the time, but there is certainly a time and a place for them. Most of the gun owners that I have met, those having concealed weapons permits for handguns were fairly discreet about it. The constitution, or what's left of it (it's been shredded a few times, a lot lately), guarentees the right to bear arms.

Amendment II: 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.

What a convoluted way of saying what? The national guard is not what the framers had in mind, they meant that individual citizen's would have the right to own firearm's for personal protection, recreation (I am not an enthusiast, but some are likely), and for food gathering. The right comes with some responsibility, that it be an organized militia. It might only be very loosely organized, but organized nonetheless. That is where gun registration IMHO, seems reasonable.

Canadian gun owners, before you flame, I sympathize with your situation, which is notably different since they are not simply requiring registration of firearms (some blades & swords, too?), but also banning whole categories of personal weaponry. On one hand there is the societal need to reduce percieved threats of violence to the populace. On the other hand, the popularity of martial arts or the necesity of firearms for some, may make outlaws out of some of us.

I dont know where the line should be drawn about how many guns is too many per person. Some folks are collectors, others are dealers, others are just ordinary folks who may have a small collection (10-15) guns. That might seem like a lot to some, but it is by no means fanatical. Ten or fifteen guns in the wrong persons hands is also a very bad thing as witnessed recently in the nations capital and other states.

http://www.post-gazette.com/nation/2002 ... nt_2p9.asp

SECOND AMENDMENT (1791)

The original debate over the Second Amendment in 1789 did not focus on whether people should have the right to keep guns for themselves. In a nation abutting an unexplored frontier, guns were no more unusual a sight in a home than was a broom. Several states -- Pennsylvania was among the least ambiguous in its language -- proposed words explicitly granting the right to possess weapons for self-defense, defense of the state and hunting game. What the Congress debated, though, was whether citizens could be forced to carry a gun in military service. The amendment as first written contained language exempting religious objectors from bearing arms, language that was dropped after lengthy debate. Elbridge Gerry, a congressman from Massachusetts, worried in 1789 "that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the Constitution itself" by making state militias impossible. As finally adopted, the amendment seemed to predicate the right to bear arms on the need for a militia. It was not until 1803 that scholars expounded on the question of the Second Amendment as an individual right.

When she took up arms herself a few years back, Catherine Montest of Coraopolis "was scared to death" at the idea of carrying a gun. Her job in industrial sales sometimes took her to places she found worrisome. Her husband encouraged her to get training and now, on some travels, she takes along a handgun. "I've got these two really neat kids that I would like to come home to," she explains today. Like many in the midst of the debate over handguns, Montest believes the founders intended the Second Amendment as a guarantor of individual liberties. "You look at these amendments and they all speak to individual rights. It's not second by mistake. They put it up there right behind the First Amendment because it was that important. I don't think they randomly numbered them."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Home >  Nation & World >  U.S. News
2: The right to bear arms
Wednesday, November 27, 2002

What say you?

ATH

Akil Todd Harvey wrote:I am not quite pro gun all the time, but there is certainly a time and a place for them. Most of the gun owners that I have met, those having concealed weapons permits for handguns were fairly discreet about it. The constitution, or what's left of it (it's been shredded a few times, a lot lately), guarentees the right to bear arms.

Stick around... You'll understand the need for being pro-gun all the time. Walking around with a concealed weapon of any type carries with it an enormous responsibility... and discretion is part of that responsibility. Totally agree that the Constitution is being and has been shredded for a long time... that's one of the biggest reasons for being pro-gun all the time.

Amendment II: 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.

What a convoluted way of saying what? The national guard is not what the framers had in mind, they meant that individual citizen's would have the right to own firearm's for personal protection, recreation (I am not an enthusiast, but some are likely), and for food gathering. The right comes with some responsibility, that it be an organized militia. It might only be very loosely organized, but organized nonetheless. That is where gun registration IMHO, seems reasonable.

Actually as the language was commonly used at the time, it isn't convoluted at all. In fact, there are many noted scholars (some who are self-admitted anti-gunners) who have dissected the Second Amendment thoroughly and found it very explicit in its meaning. Not only was the national guard not what the framers had in mind, they were opposed to a "standing army"! There is absolutely no requirement anywhere that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is incumbent on an "organized" militia. In fact, the writings of the time specifically discuss the "unorganized militia" and state explicitly that "the unorganized militia is comprised of the whole body of the people". Gun controls are as reasonable as literacy, income and property ownership controls in order to vote. Gun controls are as reasonable as idealogical tests in order to speak, write, read, publish (newspapers, magazines, leaflets, internet or otherwise) or broadcast (TV, radio, internet or otherwise) whatever one wants.

Canadian gun owners, before you flame, I sympathize with your situation, which is notably different since they are not simply requiring registration of firearms (some blades & swords, too?), but also banning whole categories of personal weaponry. On one hand there is the societal need to reduce percieved threats of violence to the populace. On the other hand, the popularity of martial arts or the necesity of firearms for some, may make outlaws out of some of us.

Don't forget Austrailia and Great Britain... where crime rates have soared to unbelievable levels since their bans on private gun ownership (preceded by gun registration "to reduce everyone's percieved threat of violence")!

I dont know where the line should be drawn about how many guns is too many per person. Some folks are collectors, others are dealers, others are just ordinary folks who may have a small collection (10-15) guns. That might seem like a lot to some, but it is by no means fanatical. Ten or fifteen guns in the wrong persons hands is also a very bad thing as witnessed recently in the nations capital and other states.

Different guns have different purposes. You can't shoot but one at a time... the illegal attacks of innocent people by two cowardly, vicious murders were commited using a single firearm. Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer both murdered more people without ever owning a gun... perhaps if their victims had been armed...

Simply because someone owns something does not mean that they will misuse it. There are plenty of documented cases of homicide by automobile, but those deaths usually show up as automobile "accidents". If they succeed in passing a "one gun a month" rule where I live (which they're trying to do), I will be upset... not because of the limitation, but because it will cost me so much to keep up! (IF it is passed, I whole-heartedly plan on following the letter of the law... every damn month! And that's gonna get expensive...) With knowledge and understanding, I have seen "lotus eaters" change from believing that no one should have a gun ever to wondering why everyone doesn't have at least a ahlf-dozen for various purposes!

What say you?

Anyone can join in... it's considered a "tough issue" by some.

Just be aware that this is an emotional tough issue and I am one of the more passionate people in this regard. If this "debate/discussion" is reopened, then I will be calling on other moderators to help moderate the thread if I decide to get heavily involved.

Take care...

Panther,

If I see anyone hanging on your back, I should feel free to thrash em for ya?

ATH