Challenge/request/whatever.

[mower]

This requires no explanation.

 

So jebus shut up. No one wants to hear anything from you about America. As you told me you hate America.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i hate channel 10, i can't make them shut up with their infernal add's and you can't make jebus keep his opinions to himself. it's just not cricket my friend or does someone have to pull out a voltaire quote and beat you over the head with it a few times?

[Chimpy]

planned correctly, I think the subclause in the law, that allows the shooter to be reasonably convinced that their life is in danger, would enable an awful lot of people to pull this sort of thing off- afterall, what evidence would the police need, precisely? if you're allowing for a "first strike" option in a system that presupposes innocence until proof of guilt, the police essentially then have to prove, either medically or whatever, that the person who got shot WASN'T a threat to the shooter.

 

This is going to be bloody tricky if the law states the person is allowed to shoot first before any violent act takes place...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

We have a first stike option here in the UK. AKA a preemptive strike. This goes up to and includes the use of deadly force if the situation requires it. It also includes the provision for defence of another person.

 

The current implementation of it means you be on shaky ground even if you used against someone who 'out-gunned' you in all aspects.

[snorkelman]

constitutionally protected

 

This requires no explanation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

see thats what Ive never realyl understood

 

the 21st ammendment managed to wipe out the 18th ammendement (prohibition) so what do these ammendments really count for? its not as though the 18th was any less cast in stone than the 2nd..

 

and as the second no longer really applies (on basis you can no longer own weapons likely to be of comparable effectiveness to those of the state, and in some places dont seem to be any better off weapon owning wise than us in the UK) is it really that safe from challenge or another negating amendment coming along later to knock it out?

 

not saying its a good or bad thing (see my prev post) but does seem to make it a lot more of a grey area than 'its in the constitution' implies

[Chimpy]

the 21st ammendment managed to wipe out the 18th ammendement (prohibition) so what do these ammendments really count for? its not as though the 18th was any less cast in stone than the 2nd..

 

and as the second no longer really applies (on basis you can no longer own weapons likely to be of comparable effectiveness to those of the state, and in some places dont seem to be any better off weapon owning wise than us in the UK) is it really that safe from challenge or another negating amendment coming along later to knock it out?

 

not saying its a good or bad thing (see my prev post) but does seem to make it a lot more of a grey area than 'its in the constitution' implies

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Indeed, the constitution can certainly be amended. It hasn't been yet, that's the point.

[nobody]

3: Limiting the Power of Governments.

Governments should fear the people, not the other way around (as it is in the UK). I am of the belief that if the USA had the same idiotic gun laws as Britain, Bush would've signed to to climate control years ago. Think about it. Signing up to Kyoto would mean shutting down eco-unfriendly factories and making many thousands of people unemployed. These unemployed people are armed! I expect that many Senators would be looking at the inside of a coffin instead of inside the Senate chambers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Thats going to keep me happy for the rest of the day. What do you think would happen if a group of people suddenly rose up and tried to storm capitol to kill some of the senators? They'd be slaughtered by the secret service and military. People may like to think they could go and stop a coup d'etat because they have a semi auto M4 but when it comes down to it any take over of the governmet is going to be military led and any of these militias are going to be pounded into the ground by people far more tooled up and whos job it is to kill people.

 

The protection from invasion argument is also idiotic. Again the US has by far the most powerful military in the world. For one whos going to invade you? Canada? Mexico? because otherwise what ever hostile nation that attacks (and im sure i hear the word china floating about) is going to have to reach america first. Im sure your 1911's and M4's are great at killing people but im not sure its going to matter when the invasion force is at the bottom of the ocean after a tactical nuclear strike.

 

As for the "its in the constitution" argument, so's shitloads of other stuff thats been amended. Just because it hasnt yet doesnt mean its a great thing, the US took a few decades later then pretty much every other country to have equal rights for all races. Maybe now its time to have gun laws more in line with the rest of the western world. If gun proliferation meant reduced crime then america would just about be the safest country in the world (after afghanistan maybe).

[snorkelman]

I do wonder wether the service at mcdonalds would be quite as surly and incompetent if everyone in the UK had the right to own a gun though..

[Chimpy]

I do wonder wether the service at mcdonalds would be quite as surly and incompetent if everyone in the UK had the right to own a gun though..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

People actually eat there?!

[snorkelman]

People actually eat there?! 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

yeps though judging by their profits not as many as used to

[Crazy_Harry]

the reason they are surl is because they are doing a lousy job for buggerall money.

 

I'd be surly too, even if someone waved a gun in my face when I asked them if they'd like fries with that.

 

"oh, right, you expect me to respect you cos you're waving a gun at me? Why would I respect you at all- you're paying to shovel faeces into your system. Whatever mate, do your worst."

[ƒoo]

Look up who John Locke is.  His philosophies are what our revolution were based upon and were used to justify the revolution.  The amendment to protect our right to own firearms is there to ensure that citizens have the ability to overthrow its government through violent revolution if needed.

 

Taking guns away from law abiding citizens is not the answer to controling gun crime.  Keeping the guns out of the hands of criminals is the only way to control gun crime.  Keeping criminals off the streets would help, too.

 

Taking away guns from citizens is the first step in establishing a dictatorship, btw.

 

Lord Jebus, please, dear God, please tell me how I could get an M60 to shoot at targets?  I would love it.  Oh wait, I can't.

 

Edit:

I find it odd how it's considered liberal to support gun control.  Since when is taking away rights (ahem bill of RIGHTS) apart of liberty?

 

Furthermore, the overall ban of firearms is an asinine, pseudo-liberal, half-assed attempt by polliticians to show off and pretend that they care.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

In case i'm very much mistaken, isn't john lock the guy who had the emperestist view (theory of knowledge) that we only see what God wants us to see and that objects cannot exist if nobody is percieving them, i.e. If you leave a room, all the objects inside the room dissapear or cease to exist?

 

I really wouldn't trust an entire revolution, or argument for that matter, which is based upon the theories of somebody with, even for his time, extremely out-dated and (IMO) logically insane views.

 

My 2p on gun control in america is pretty much that they should never have let the Assualt Weapons Ban expire, for the simple reason that not one law abiding citizen has the need for an ASSAULT weapon.

 

PS - No offence intended Tripod, just ma 2p's worth

[Chimpy]

Do you actually know what the AWB stopped people from having?

 

I'll give you a clue in that it didn't do much to dent the sale and ownership of a lot of so called 'assault weapons'.

[Crazy_Harry]

but its not a question of "need", though, is it? this is where those outside the US (as explained by me in point 3 or 4, I think) don't "get" the US propensity towards gun ownership of Assault rifles- its built into the culture to see ownerhip of assault rifles as an extension of ownership of guns in general, as a necessary upholding of the concept of "freedom"-

 

if its not against the law, why shouldn't I do it, especially when it says I can do something like it in the constitution, and lets face it, they didn't know about assault rifles back then, and if they had, I'm sure their'd have been decent sports and dropped a subclause in for us...

 

Its never a question of need...

[Chimpy]

Quite, I don't think Maslow ever had 'assault weapons' in his heirarchy.

 

Although they could conceivably fit into several of the base categories as well as some of the more fluffy ones.

[hivemind]

C_H is completely right. It's a constitutional right. The constitution isn't just a law for us, it's the core of our country's identity and beliefs. The fact that the right to keep and bear arms is set at the same level as, say, the right to free speech should help you understand it.

 

The United States is often very libertarian. As long as you're not hurting anyone else, you're often free to do as you wish here. Legal, responsible gun ownership hurts no one, so why restrict it? We don't have to provide a reason why we should be allowed to own guns - it's beholden upon those who would take them away to prove why we should not.

 

That's why, Jebus, this thread is such a load of tripe.

[Sledge]

Piffle. Anything enshrined in law should be challenged as times change. Trying to argue that laws created when firing a weapon required approximately 17 steps, and would probably result in a miss, can be applied without thought or modification to modern .50 calibre machine guns is ludicrous.

 

[Lord Jebus]

Piffle. Anything enshrined in law should be challenged as times change. Trying to argue that laws created when firing a weapon required approximately 17 steps, and would probably result in a miss, can be applied without thought or modification to modern .50 calibre machine guns is ludicrous.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And that, ladies and gentlespoons, is why I love Sledge.

[Chimpy]

C_H is completely right. It's a constitutional right. The constitution isn't just a law for us, it's the core of our country's identity and beliefs. The fact that the right to keep and bear arms is set at the same level as, say, the right to free speech should help you understand it.

 

Someone mentioned prohibition earlier which was drafted in as an amendment and later drafted out in a later amendment. Whilst it was probably a bit of a daft idea to begin with you can surely see that the 'amendments' and indeed the constitution are hardly set in stone.

 

The United States is often very libertarian. As long as you're not hurting anyone else, you're often free to do as you wish here. Legal, responsible gun ownership hurts no one, so why restrict it? We don't have to provide a reason why we should be allowed to own guns - it's beholden upon those who would take them away to prove why we should not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Quite right.

[hivemind]

Indeed the constitution is not set in stone, but the requirements to change it are fearsome:

The Amendment Process

 

There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how it can be amended. One has never been used.

 

The first method is for a bill to pass both halves of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).

 

The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.

 

Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be approved by three-fourths of states. The amendment as passed may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.

 

It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification. This point is clear in Article 5, and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v Virginia (3 USC 378 [1798]):

 

The negative of the President applies only to the ordinary cases of legislation: He has nothing to do with the proposition, or adoption, of amendments to the Constitution.

http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html

 

It's not something done lightly, or easily. Especially now that the US is much larger now than in the past. Some things go through very fast - look at the 26th amendment. It only took 100 days to be ratified, which is probably a record. Then look at the 28th amendment. It took over 200 years to be ratified.

[8thshotgunner]

1. self defense

 

2.hunting

 

3. sport /target shooting

 

4.bring people together (gun education, hunting, ...etc)

 

5. and ....simply the right to bear (is that spelled corectly?) arms...

 

 

guns have saved lives, guns have taken lives,

 

guns will always be misused.... and the will always save lives

 

nothing more than that

 

 

later (see im getting better at not insulting)

 

kevin

[Tunershark]

i think owning and shooting firearms in america has been built into our society and culture so much that taking them away would just simply make it worse.

[Habakure]

Why do we brits care if america has guns anyway is it so when we go on holiday we'll feel safer? Or is it just a question of trying to be moral as in guns can kill if you wish to protect your selves learn martial arts and dodge that bullit.

[deepsix]

My 2p on gun control in america is pretty much that they should never have let the Assualt Weapons Ban expire, for the simple reason that not one law abiding citizen has the need for an ASSAULT weapon.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

The AWB was a social band-aid designed to make people feel better, nothing else. What exactley constituted an assault weapon by our law? A folding stock, a bayonet lug, and a removable flash-hider. Whoopee. Doesn't really make a weapon less-lethal, eh? It just made un-informed voters feel like we couldn't have a "military firearm". It's all still single-shot.

 

BTW, Wheel locks, Muzzle loaders, lever actions and all those collector sporting rifles past and present are all based on the those current-time military firearms. What makes a single-shot version of todays military firearms any worse? Egonomically and material-wise, they are better and cheaper. Better product will always win. I really don't understand the arguement that if something LOOKS bad then it IS bad. It's all association, you wouldn't do it with people (at least openly), now would you?

 

And honestly, there are MANY other countries on this planet that could do without arms in a much worse way... but since THEY don't have the internet, I guess we can't egoistically wave fingers at them.

 

 

EDIT: By the way, there are compelling arguements on both sides here, and this has been a very civil discussion on the subject for once. It's nice to see so many intelligent arguements.

 

... and not that it matters, but I myself don't own any firearms... I actually like airguns better. Always have.

[Lord Jebus]

<snip>

 

kevin

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Some people never bother reading threads, do they?

[Crazy_Harry]

EDIT: habakure: nope, see point three of my award winning answer-

 

Its a cultural thing- we've been indoctrinated into a culture that has pretty much criminalised the ownership of firearms of almost ANY sort (without excellent reason, like I'm a toff and like to have a good blast at the occasional badger out of me window, don'tchaknow...hang on! bloody class system...), largely because of the last two hundred years of british history-

 

We've always had a very top-down apporach to our culture and ruling classes (not saying the US doesn't, it does- look at the financial burden for running for any kind of office- but that ours is more ingrained) has led us, as the ruling elites (and I use the word lightly) have gradually allowed the population more and more control over their own lives, given them more power, and frankly, been rather horrified, each decade to the next, just how spectacularly annoying it is to have a bunch of drunkards who outnumber you a hundred to one threatening to go postal at you every time you do something perfectly reasonable, like up taxes on consumer goods to line your own pocket.

 

Whereas in the states, the government, as a fledgeling nation, encouraged private citizens to bear arms as a means of protecting the government from outside threats, the british government has always done the exact opposite.

 

The fact that, when the British army was demobbed folloing the end of the first world war, many british ports had navy warships training their guns IN-land illustrates how much of a threat the establishment of the time considered a couple of million seasoned veterans returning to a financially ruined country with no job prospects was.

 

Fast forward to 1945, and you have a country limping out, along with the rest of europe, a truly hideous experience, something which, and I mean no disrespect here, the US as a nation cannot even begin to comprehend. Out of that experience, coupled with our prior history of top-down disarmament, developed an institutionalised and cultural tendency to view firearms as something not to be encouraged.

 

even pre-dunblane, if you'd called a plebiscite calling for whether handguns should be allowed in private hands, the results in britain would have been a pretty hefty "nyet". Gun ownership was never what classed the average briton as "free"- technically, we never really WERE until pretty recently, and then it was the legal system and private property ownership that defined our freedoms, because we never really had to worry too much about that bunch of smug posers in the H of C posing any real threat to us in terms of taking over- we'd nut them if they did, and they know it.

 

And that is why we have threads like this. Cultural confusion at both ends of the spectrum.

 

I'll expect a 1000 word essay on the subject of cultural concepts with regards to personal defence re handguns and headbutts on my desk by 5 oclock monday, thank you, class dismissed.

[mtdarkwolf]

how about so we can keep playig with our harmless toy guns