|
Post by banjo on Jan 18, 2016 8:20:03 GMT -5
OK guys, don't round up on me here, rather educate me in the underlying principles of this so-called gun control issue. Coming from "over here, surely I'm allowed to be just a bit blinkered! Doesn't the second amendment bestow the inviolable right to bear arms in defence of the country? (in defence of something but I can't recall what. Can't be the realm!!!) I write this without checking first, which is of course a daft thing to do. It's just that 9-11 seemed to me to be an attack on the USA, but selecting one part of that amendment to justify the proliferation of lethal weapons appears to be a bit cavalier with the sentiment if not the wording. I'm not saying you guys have got it wrong, rather that maybe just a teensy weensy little bit of restriction on the free availability of at least automatic weapons wouldn't go amiss. Does any one go a-huntin' over there with weapons cable of cutting the unsuspecting moose in half at one hundred yards or more? Don't all shoot at once guys!
e&oe...
|
|
|
Guns
Jan 18, 2016 8:33:37 GMT -5
Post by JamesP on Jan 18, 2016 8:33:37 GMT -5
OK guys, don't round up on me here, rather educate me in the underlying principles of this so-called gun control issue. Coming from "over here, surely I'm allowed to be just a bit blinkered! Doesn't the second amendment bestow the inviolable right to bear arms in defence of the country? (in defence of something but I can't recall what. Can't be the realm!!!) I write this without checking first, which is of course a daft thing to do. It's just that 9-11 seemed to me to be an attack on the USA, but selecting one part of that amendment to justify the proliferation of lethal weapons appears to be a bit cavalier with the sentiment if not the wording. I'm not saying you guys have got it wrong, rather that maybe just a teensy weensy little bit of restriction on the free availability of at least automatic weapons wouldn't go amiss. Does any one go a-huntin' over there with weapons cable of cutting the unsuspecting moose in half at one hundred yards or more? Don't all shoot at once guys! e&oe... There is much disagreement in the U. S. on the intent behind the Second Amendment. Some feel it was intended only to protect the early colonies against resurrections such as the "Whiskey Rebellion". Others feel it was intended to protect the individuals against a totalitarian government, such as the German Government under Hitler. I am attaching a link to an article written by a Constitutional Legal individual. It brings into focus the history of gun control in England before the settlement of the States, which had a part in the writing of the Second Amendment. www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/89vand.pdfNow, as far as your argument about automatic weapons - I personally don't believe they are needed, however, when you begin splitting hairs on what is acceptable and what is not - you can make an argument against hand-guns, then perhaps high caliber rifles such as 30 cal. with magazines over 6 bullets, etc. etc. First thing you know, you can't buy or own any gun. I think the argument is more for the retention of personal liberties. If the second amendment is no longer applicable, then we have a method of repealing the amendment. Use the Constitution to put it to a vote, not simply circumvent the Constitution via an Executive Order. That's bordering on a Totalitarian Governmental action.
|
|
|
Guns
Jan 18, 2016 9:21:42 GMT -5
Post by jmuscara on Jan 18, 2016 9:21:42 GMT -5
Does it make any sense that we can say, "you are on the No Fly List, therefore we will not let you on an airplane" but the same person can buy guns? Congress wouldn't even do that much. There have long been restrictions about people like convicted felons not being able to buy guns, so it's not like everyone just can.
James, you brought up mental health, yet it seems like no one has acknowledged that some of the orders are about keeping guns away from those who are mentally ill.
A few years ago, Congress banned research on gun violence. That's just pandering to the gun lobby.
Believe it or not, I own guns and I grew up with them. Dad was a former Marine and collected and traded firearms. But I am sick to my stomach when I see how much gun violence we have in this country and no one is trying to do *anything.* We all know that short of banning and destroying all guns, we're never going to prevent all gun violence. But can't we try to do something?
|
|
|
Guns
Jan 18, 2016 11:39:05 GMT -5
Post by JamesP on Jan 18, 2016 11:39:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by banjo on Jan 18, 2016 14:34:48 GMT -5
Here's another couple of potentially incorrect received impressions: I understand that you guys learn about Thomas Paine at school over there? They certainly didn't teach my generation about such seditious writings over here! Kudos to you then. Similarly, I have from somewhere built the impression that you guys are kind of "educated" at school from an early age in the art of selective voting vis-a-vis casting this way and that with respect to your two houses of government? This maintains a form of bedrock conservatism that precludes any potential for change in your constitution? Well, at least you citizens do have a constitution (we "subjects" are not considered worthy of a constitution.)
By comparison, we have our own somewhat more slender record of firearms associated abuse here in the UK, so "prohibition" is obviously not necessarily the answer. Think of that- as I stated before, you can't even buy a pellet gun by mail order over here, yet there's always going to be some deranged shyster that manages to fool the authorities by being granted a firearms licence and then going berserk. A "sleeper" if you will.
As someone that has no "faith" whatsoever, I have long held the view that we really only need but one commandment: "Do unto others..." (it covers everything if you think about it.) So for as long as you have the kind of brain dead scumbags that do not subscribe to such a basic individual's rights, you will have to endure those that put their own brain-addled twisted agenda(s) before the rights of the vast majority of decent folk, I submit that there has to be at least some restriction on the free availability of arms. To believe that ordinary right-thinking citizens need automatic weapons seems unhinged to me. Why not some grenades while we're at it. A rocket launcher perhaps? It's all a matter of scale and I figure that automatic weapons should be lumped together with those.
OK, I concede that I don't really have a valid argument because my thinking comes from being born into a society that severely restricts arms. "What you never have, you'll never miss" etc. There are things that we too would be "up in arms" (!) about if they tried to restrict or take them away from us Limeys, but they're not "Fire Arms Certificate" rated weapons.
Jayzus, we can't even carry a folding knife with a locking blade over 3" in length here. That's because we can't rely on individuals not taking part in knife crime. As frustrating as it seems to ordinary folk, most would agree that relaxing the knife laws isn't the answer. I can definitely concur with the abject resistance to gun control for you guys, but I can't help feeling that from an outsider's point of view, you don't really need instant access to such creations of potential misery. If you do feel the need to shoot wild animals because you can't get what you want at Walmart and roadkill doesn't appeal, then a small calibre rifle should be all you will ever need. Hey give the critter a sporting chance why dontcha? I for one would feel affronted too if any proposed gun control prevented me from the constitutional right to bear such arms in the defence of something or another, but sometimes you have to grasp the nettle of atrocities and admit that a time must come for a change in attitudes.
That would be a start wouldn't it? Just own something you need to stop and re-load rather than spraying lead into a crowd?
I suspect that the real problem is not the restrictions themselves per-se, it's the fact that the implied amnesty could never work across such a vast population, not to mention the lobbying power of the NRA.
Poor old Obama. He seems like a perfectly reasonable guy to me who is distressed at these regular massacres. He always seems to put forward considered and eloquent reasoning (even if it's pre-written or auto-cued.) Still he cannot beat the embedded democracy. If they want cake etc.
Thank you for tolerating my perhaps misinformed opinions. I'll admit that I find guns to be things of beauty despite what havoc can be caused when in the wrong hands. I'd quite like an underlever air rifle of my own but "her indoors" has other ideas!
e&oe...
|
|
|
Post by traveler on Jan 18, 2016 15:28:58 GMT -5
Hello Banjo,
A couple of comments about your last post.
First off, you talk about us owning automatic weapons. I could be wrong, but I think it's illegal in the States to own a fully automatic weapon. You can own semi automatic weapons, i.e. will shoot as fast as you can pull the trigger, but I don't think you can own fully automatic weapons.
You talk about us having "instant access" to these weapons. I purchased a hand gun last year. Took seven months for the background check to be completed, not seven days as the law dictates. So I would hardly call that "instant access".
I live on the outskirts of Baltimore, Maryland. Approx. one person a day is killed in Baltimore by someone using a gun. As dangerous as that is, I can't legally carry my legal gun to protect myself or my family. Carry permits are extremely hard to get here in Maryland.
I think what most people here are upset about is not that Obama would like to do something to curb the violence, but the way he want's to go about it. He doesn't want to go through the process, he just wants to rule by Executive Degree, and that's not how it works here.
Don
|
|
|
Guns
Jan 18, 2016 15:35:56 GMT -5
Post by JamesP on Jan 18, 2016 15:35:56 GMT -5
And the people said Amen Don.
|
|
|
Post by banjo on Jan 18, 2016 16:56:31 GMT -5
If you can read between the lines of my excessively long post, I sought to be better informed, and I appreciate the considered way in which you have done that. It was all about my impression. +1!
Also, Jim's link was quite some read. I don't claim to have followed any of the links contained therein but I learned some. I think on page 27 that the author wrote "tennant' when he meant "tenet"?
Can you find it in your hearts to appreciate that it appears to be a free for all when compared to the regime existing over this side? We hear the latest attrocity on the news and think "Oh no- not again".
e&oe...
|
|
|
Post by traveler on Jan 18, 2016 17:10:07 GMT -5
Pleasure talking to you , Banjo.
FYI, a lot of people over here would agree that a lot of things appear to be a free for all.
|
|
|
Post by sarge on Jan 18, 2016 21:12:00 GMT -5
Automatic weapons, short barreled shotguns, silencers and smooth bore pistols for shooting shot shells have been severely restricted since the 30's. You can own them, but you have to purchase a tax stamp for $200, pass the background check and have several thousand dollars to spend on one automatic weapon. Very few people over here own automatic weapons and those that do are collectors with lots of money. Japan didn't attack the U.S. via ground forces because they knew that every American would be armed. As one Japanese General said: In the United States there is a gun behind every blade of grass. Great Britain sent out a request for Americans to send firearms to them on loan during WWII because the populace had no firearms to help defend GB. After the war most of those were returned and were marked "not English make" or something similar. I've owned a couple of those. Yes, the main reason for the 2nd Amendment to maintain freedom from an oppresive govt. The 2nd Amendment insures the other 9. It's odd that in GB hunters are encouraged to use silencers on their rifles. Silencers are cheap over there. You can buy a silencer in GB for $25, over here it would cost you $200 or so.
|
|
|
Guns
Jan 19, 2016 11:17:13 GMT -5
Post by jmuscara on Jan 19, 2016 11:17:13 GMT -5
Right, but that NYT article you cited said that limiting access to guns (as well as easy access to something lethal, generally) lowers suicide rates. Mental health should definitely be addressed, and the lowering of the stigmas associated with it as well as the "get over it! It's all in your head" dismissiveness of it need to change for sure. At the same time, we should consider ways to make it less convenient to commit suicide. Getting rid of coal ovens is a good start.
|
|
|
Guns
Jan 19, 2016 15:32:53 GMT -5
JamesP likes this
Post by sarge on Jan 19, 2016 15:32:53 GMT -5
I can tell you this: if someone wants to commit suicide, they are going to be found dead. It doesn't matter if there's not a gun, knife, razor blade, rope etc within 1000 miles. If a person truly wants to commit suicide, they will be found dead. They don't tell anyone, they don't give any indication.
|
|
|
Post by banjo on Jan 20, 2016 10:03:26 GMT -5
We get the odd mass shooting here in the UK, and we have pretty draconian gun laws as I have already mentioned.
e&oe...
|
|
|
Post by sarge on Jan 20, 2016 11:50:26 GMT -5
We just need to enforce the laws we have. Making something illegal doesn't make it unavailable. It certainly hasn't worked with drugs; people can still get any manner of illegal drug they want. Make something illegal and you're going to make someone else a hell of a lot of money.
|
|
|
Post by banjo on Jan 20, 2016 13:15:29 GMT -5
Murder is illegal most everywhere but it still happens, and murder laws are enforced worldwide, but people still commit the crime. It should follow that enforcement alone is not sufficient. It's plain that I cannot have a valid opinion because I am not from or live in the USA. Over here, it frightens me to think of all our own scrotes with guns hidden in their homes. However I can sympathise with the desire to preserve this right to bear arms. The other half of me can't escape the idea that guns should not be so readily available over there, if only on a need basis alone.
With despotic state-owned nuclear weapons, I don't see how a well armed population is going to influence such a threat, and I feel alarm at the prospect of the fact that the worlds greatest democracy could be so insecure about its elected system of government. Where's the democracy in "the people" collectively disagreeing with their own democratically elected representatives down the barrel of a gun? Offered only for consideration and not as dictat.
e&oe...
|
|