Today's shooting in America thread

Constantine said:
Yeah, tell that to the NRA and gun-loving patriots to help clean the southern side of the border.
Click to expand...
A meaningless statement, but............

I don't wish to tell the 'NRA and gun-loving patriots' anything and I doubt the weapons smugglers would take too much notice of me either.

It's up to the police to stop the smuggling of weapons and as with drugs, it's a fruitless job for them.
 
Trevor Morley's Tache said:
2A is just 27 words, arranged into a massively ambiguous statement that can be read multiple ways. In fact, some state ratified versions of 2A had missing commas or different capitalisation.

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."

It's almost like a line from instruction manual for a washing machine that has been badly translated from Chinese.
Click to expand...
Thing is, if individual citizens can’t lawfully possess (for example) surface to air missiles then their right to keep and bear arms is infringed. Given assault rifles weren’t invented by the 18th century then the argument around SAMs not constituting weapons when this legislative provision was devised carries no water, unless assault rifles are prohibited.

Furthermore, anything legal requirement limiting the right to walk around a school brandishing a gun could be said to be such an infringement

As could any cooling off period or background checks.

These are all infringements.

So by any objective measure, the amendment isn’t interpreted literally. A line of infringement is drawn somewhere.

Which (inter alia) shows the whole slavish adherence to this ridiculous constitutional provision to be utterly absurd.

It is actually insane.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Thing is, if individual citizens can’t lawfully possess (for example) surface to air missiles then their right to keep and bear arms is infringed. Given assault rifles weren’t invented by the 18th century then the argument around SAMs not constituting weapons when this legislative provision was devised carries no water, unless assault rifles are prohibited.

Furthermore, anything legal requirement limiting the right to walk around a school brandishing a gun could be said to be such an infringement

As could any cooling off period or background checks.

These are all infringements.

So by any objective measure, the amendment isn’t interpreted literally. A line of infringement is drawn somewhere.

Which (inter alia) shows the whole slavish adherence to this ridiculous constitutional provision to be utterly absurd.

It is actually insane.
Click to expand...
Nothing wrong with surface to air missiles, great for hunting pigeons.
 
aguero93:20 said:
Nothing wrong with surface to air missiles, great for hunting pigeons.
Click to expand...
If only they weren't prohibited by Prince Trudeau, I could use them for those bloody crows!!!

I fancy some of those Javelin's against them murderous Coyotes as well, they'd do the job!!

It's all about being effective and efficient.
 
Blue and true said:
I reiterate the point I made the other day, no civilian should be able to carry a firearm. They should be reserved for the military, police, and any other relevant security forces.
Click to expand...
You don't understand America if you think that's ever going to happen. The threat of legislation is often used to power gun purchases. This is why I think Fogs solution of people voluntarily giving them up is the only workable solution but also one that is unrealistic.

The problem we have in the UK is that we approach gun ownership from a hugely different starting point. Our country isn't huge and full of dangerous animals like coyotes and poor people. We also are a lot less individualistic and self reliant and culturally display our masculinity by drinking too much and beating our wives. We also don't have armed government forces - if the TV licence guys were armed we'd feel the need to protect ourselves with something other than legal advice on bluemoon.

The problem won't be solved by using British reasoning but by understanding America where owning a gun is often times considered being a good American. In the UK a gun is essentially a signal that you're not right in the head but in the US it can be seen as a virtuous thing. @ChicagoBlue has articulated some of this in his posts. Ironically @FogBlueInSanFran has argued the most American solution - stop buying them and then capitalism takes care of the rest.
 
mrbelfry said:
You don't understand America if you think that's ever going to happen. The threat of legislation is often used to power gun purchases. This is why I think Fogs solution of people voluntarily giving them up is the only workable solution but also one that is unrealistic.

The problem we have in the UK is that we approach gun ownership from a hugely different starting point. Our country isn't huge and full of dangerous animals like coyotes and poor people. We also are a lot less individualistic and self reliant and culturally display our masculinity by drinking too much and beating our wives. We also don't have armed government forces - if the TV licence guys were armed we'd feel the need to protect ourselves with something other than legal advice on bluemoon.

The problem won't be solved by using British reasoning but by understanding America where owning a gun is often times considered being a good American. In the UK a gun is essentially a signal that you're not right in the head but in the US it can be seen as a virtuous thing. @ChicagoBlue has articulated some of this in his posts. Ironically @FogBlueInSanFran has argued the most American solution - stop buying them and then capitalism takes care of the rest.
Click to expand...
Very well considered post there mate.
 
mrbelfry said:
We also don't have armed government forces - if the TV licence guys were armed we'd feel the need to protect ourselves with something other than legal advice on bluemoon.
Click to expand...
You still don't need guns though, a couple of concealed badger pits would do the job.
 
From what I have read or heard, the whole second amendment shtick is BS and a perversion of its original intention. At the time of independence it was to allow citizens to take up arms to protect the newly formed country against foreign backed militias. It wasn’t to allow lunatics two hundred years later to amass a small arsenal and then use those weapons to murder school children.

once again, it’s the GOP who use the gun lobby and evangelical Christians as a convenient demographic to keep power and make the people who vote for them much worse off whilst stripping away their services and funnelling money to the rich and super rich.

fuck Trump lock the criminal up!
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Thing is, if individual citizens can’t lawfully possess (for example) surface to air missiles then their right to keep and bear arms is infringed. Given assault rifles weren’t invented by the 18th century then the argument around SAMs not constituting weapons when this legislative provision was devised carries no water, unless assault rifles are prohibited.

Furthermore, anything legal requirement limiting the right to walk around a school brandishing a gun could be said to be such an infringement

As could any cooling off period or background checks.

These are all infringements.

So by any objective measure, the amendment isn’t interpreted literally. A line of infringement is drawn somewhere.

Which (inter alia) shows the whole slavish adherence to this ridiculous constitutional provision to be utterly absurd.

It is actually insane.
Click to expand...

It doesn't say the individual, it says "the people".

It has only been interpreted as an individual right since Reagan, at the dawn of the loony right in the US.

For most of the history of America it has been interpreted as the individual States being free from restriction by the Federal Gov't, to prevent a dictatorship in Washington, and the arms could only be legally used for that purpose. It was exressed thus in the Articles of Confederation, which was the first constitution, written before independence. It did not extend, for example, to self defence and only covered military grade equipment. A sawn-off shotgun was declared as outside the realm of the amendment, iir.

It has been interpreted twice in modern times by the Supreme Court, in 2008 and 2010, both with 5-4 majority rulings. One of those exteded the right to self defence based on the 14th amendment. It does only apply to citizens of the US though, thanks to Clarence Thomas.
 
blueish swede said:
It doesn't say the individual, it says "the people".

It has only been interpreted as an individual right since Reagan, at the dawn of the loony right in the US.

For most of the history of America it has been interpreted as the individual States being free from restriction by the Federal Gov't, to prevent a dictatorship in Washington, and the arms could only be legally used for that purpose. It was exressed thus in the Articles of Confederation, which was the first constitution, written before independence. It did not extend, for example, to self defence and only covered military grade equipment. A sawn-off shotgun was declared as outside the realm of the amendment, iir.

It has been interpreted twice in modern times by the Supreme Court, in 2008 and 2010, both with 5-4 majority rulings. One of those exteded the right to self defence based on the 14th amendment. It does only apply to citizens of the US though, thanks to Clarence Thomas.
Click to expand...
Thanks :-)

Every day’s a school day.
 
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