Today's shooting in America thread

JASR said:
@SWP's back made the point that US citizens aren't allowed to keep tank's that fire rounds... or grenades, or artillery, or armed planes, or warships, or missile systems, or torpedo/missile submarines, or NCB weapons... so if none of those are allowed under the wording of 2A's 'right to bear arms', then 2A's 'right to bear arms' is very selective and has been subjectively changed to literally mean 'pistols and rifles (and anything below - bow and arrows, blades etc).
Which makes no sense. The continuing existense of 2A is only acknowledging that it was fine and fit for purpose when it was drafted, but weapons have progressed, and each progression hasn't been allowed to be used by a 'the well regulated militia'... leaving 2A nonsensical - you can't bear any of the arms that have been developed since 2A came into existence.
So 2A is illogical, unenforced/trampled on - because the militia isn't allowed by other laws to have any other types of weapons.

If it is neccesary to have a 'well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State', then they aren't going to be doing a hill of beans against anyone with weapons bigger than rifles. So 2A falls down yet again, by not being fit for purpose - the militia can't defend the security of a free state with the weapons they have.

If 2A advocates campaigned (and got) for the general sale of , and free use of all weapons, then 2A makes sense. They'd have access to all weapons, and could defend the state against all-comers. But they don't. They just talk about "their guns", effectively advocating for limiting the "freedom" they generally proclaim.

2A is just not viable or logical (at any interpretation), for either those who advocate it (but miss the nuances), or those who want it repealed.

But as (almost) @ChicagoBlue says, it's just pissing in the wind, and is just another US hill to choose to die on, despite it making no sense in humanity terms.
Click to expand...
The main reason for passing the 2nd amendment was to prevent the need for the United States to have a professional standing army. At the time it was passed, it seems it was not intended to grant a right for private individuals to keep weapons for self-defense: https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2.html

Which, IMO, is irrelevant.

The point being, people in the USA are dying needlessly due to the proliferation of guns designed to kill. Who really gives a fuck what the 2nd amendment may or may not have intended some 200 years ago? Common sense dictates that society should outlaw automatic weapons and any such device designed to discharge projectiles at a high rate. I think it's OK to own guns designed for sport hunting; that said, improvements to gun safety should be encouraged.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) in the USA is a corrupt organization designed simply to thwart all gun control measures, however reasonable. Mandatory background checks to ensure that the guy you're selling a gun too isn't a convicted mass murderer - no way! Too expensive! Yada, yada.

There's only one thing you can count on when it comes to the NRA - following a mass gun casualty event, they'll be sure to quickly post their "thoughts and prayers are with you" faux condolences... suggesting that God supports machine guns and that you're going to hell if you don't too.
 
ChicagoBlue said:
You can choose to ignore reality, but out here in the real world I think you’ll find many of your personal freedoms come from a document from about 807 years ago!

For example:

The Magna Carta, was signed on 15 June 1215, over 800 years ago. Many of its 63 clauses have disappeared, but some remain and it established the rule of law.

Clause 39 stated:

‘No free man shall be seized or imprisoned , or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.’

Clause 40 stated:

‘To no-one will we sell, to no-one will we deny or delay, right or justice.’

Clauses 39 and 40 remain on the statute book. The fundamental principle that nobody, not even the King, is above the law, underpins English law today.

Must be wrong! Too old to be relevant or have meaning in modern society, right?!
Click to expand...
Magna Carta certainly was a founding document but it is not in operation now: you cannot cite it in court.
 
KS55 said:
Magna Carta certainly was a founding document but it is not in operation now: you cannot cite it in court.
Click to expand...
In another 600 years, maybe America will catch up?

Meanwhile, some of the Charter’s foundation concepts still do exist. In fact, the Magna Carta, or at least the understanding of it in the 18th Century, had a strong influence on the United States Constitution and on the constitutions of the various states.

Several guarantees that were understood at the time of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution descended from Magna Carta, including freedom from unlawful searches and seizures, the right to a speedy trial, the right to a jury trial, the writ of habeas corpus, and protection against loss of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, were included in the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
 
FogBlueInSanFran said:
Trying to figure out how the "if we criminalize gun ownership, criminals will only get guns anyway" argument squares with "we must criminalize abortion."

Won't these new "criminals" just get abortions anyway?
Click to expand...
Yup. Back street abortion was common here before abortion was legalised.
 
domalino said:
It also doesn’t respond at all to my comment.

“Every country that bans guns sees gun violence decimated”

“You’re wrong, here are some Canadian police saying they don’t want to ban guns”
Click to expand...
Only 17 countries in the world ban private gun ownership....

Brunei
Cambodia
Comoros
Eritrea
Fiji
Guinea-Bisseau
Maldives
Marshall Islands
Myanmar (except for Chin people)
Nauru
North Korea
Palau
Seychelles
Solomon Islands
Somalia
Timor-Leste
Vatican City

Countries imposing gun control have seen decreases in gun deaths and I'm all for gun control.

Here we have restrictions on the types of weapons that can be bought, so no assault rifles etc.

To own a gun or buy ammunition, you need to obtain a Possession and Acquisition Licence (PAL). This consists of a day course on all aspects of guns and ownership, which concludes with an extensive test.
The application is then vetted by the police who conduct the necessary background checks. If that is acceptable to them, then they issue a PAL for 5 years, which is then renewed. We are restricted as to what and when we can shoot, especially the hunting aspect and that's how it should be.

Generally we have guns for sport or hunting, the argument often used south of the border 'for self defence' doesn't really apply here, because we don't live in that gun culture environment.

Gun control is good, but judgements for all gun owners should not be based on what is seen in the US or that somebody may perhaps go off the rails, because that would apply to vehicle ownership as well.........or owning a knife.
 
ChicagoBlue said:
In another 600 years, maybe America will catch up?

Meanwhile, some of the Charter’s foundation concepts still do exist. In fact, the Magna Carta, or at least the understanding of it in the 18th Century, had a strong influence on the United States Constitution and on the constitutions of the various states.

Several guarantees that were understood at the time of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution descended from Magna Carta, including freedom from unlawful searches and seizures, the right to a speedy trial, the right to a jury trial, the writ of habeas corpus, and protection against loss of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, were included in the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...
Yup, but the point some people were making was about the original (and old) wording of 2A still being extant. You responded with Magna Carta, but it is not extant.
 
twosips said:
The difference is knives and cars are not internalised for the vast majority of people as weapons. Hence why they're not used that way by the vast vast majority. Guns have one purpose for basically everyone. To kill things. I don't think I've ever looked at a car and thought 'mate that's a cool killing machine you've got there!'. Knives of course have that side too, but most of us get the big knife out in the kitchen just to cut up some chicken or sumat during food prep and then it goes back in a drawer. It isn't associated with murder and killing for the vast majority of people, for very obvious reasons. Even then, I'm fucking relieved I live in a country where knives are the main weapon as opposed to guns. Damn sight harder for people to go on a spree with a knife isn't it!
Click to expand...
I don't look at my guns as objects to kill people, it's not something that crosses my mind. I'd also say it's not a thought carried by anybody else I know who are gun owners, much like your big knife.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.