FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Gun control USA
Gun control USA
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Another shooting which will create a lot of spin but nothing will change. So who actually runs government's around the world? Mr T will do nothing because the gun lobby is too powerful. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Mr T. Will never change the stance......to be fair Murdoch, face and hannibal all liked their guns (not all will get this) yes flippant but bored getting annoyed at americas stance on guns. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The guy in Vegas was mentally ill....the guy in Texas was mentally ill....the guy in Charlotesville was a lone wolf...the truck driver in New York was a....TERRORIST  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"This is a price America is willing to pay for it's gun culture. "
This is pretty much all there is to say. 
Although...did anyone notice that it was pretty easy to tell the race of the shooter based only on Trump's first tweeted response? Made quite a different read from the terrorist incident in NYC. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"This is a price America is willing to pay for it's gun culture.
This is pretty much all there is to say.
Although...did anyone notice that it was pretty easy to tell the race of the shooter based only on Trump's first tweeted response? Made quite a different read from the terrorist incident in NYC. "
Yeah he was white and a christian supposedly.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Trumps main focus will be on the fact that the perpetrator was shot by a local guy who grabbed his gun and went after him.
The mantra of the NRA is the best cure for a “bad man” with a gun ...is a “good man” with a gun.
This event will be used to reinforce the views of the NRA! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Trumps main focus will be on the fact that the perpetrator was shot by a local guy who grabbed his gun and went after him.
The mantra of the NRA is the best cure for a “bad man” with a gun ...is a “good man” with a gun.
This event will be used to reinforce the views of the NRA!"
Unfortunatly I think your right ! They will say the more people who have guns the more they can defend themselves 
Maybe if thier was a Masacre at the White House they would start to see the bleeding obvious !!!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Trumps main focus will be on the fact that the perpetrator was shot by a local guy who grabbed his gun and went after him.
The mantra of the NRA is the best cure for a “bad man” with a gun ...is a “good man” with a gun.
This event will be used to reinforce the views of the NRA! Unfortunatly I think your right ! They will say the more people who have guns the more they can defend themselves
Maybe if thier was a Masacre at the White House they would start to see the bleeding obvious !!!! "
JFK and Ronald Reagan were both shot, did gun laws change? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Trumps main focus will be on the fact that the perpetrator was shot by a local guy who grabbed his gun and went after him.
The mantra of the NRA is the best cure for a “bad man” with a gun ...is a “good man” with a gun.
This event will be used to reinforce the views of the NRA! Unfortunatly I think your right ! They will say the more people who have guns the more they can defend themselves
Maybe if thier was a Masacre at the White House they would start to see the bleeding obvious !!!!
JFK and Ronald Reagan were both shot, did gun laws change? "
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Trumps main focus will be on the fact that the perpetrator was shot by a local guy who grabbed his gun and went after him.
The mantra of the NRA is the best cure for a “bad man” with a gun ...is a “good man” with a gun.
This event will be used to reinforce the views of the NRA! Unfortunatly I think your right ! They will say the more people who have guns the more they can defend themselves
Maybe if thier was a Masacre at the White House they would start to see the bleeding obvious !!!!
JFK and Ronald Reagan were both shot, did gun laws change? "
.
Actually four Presidents have been killed in office Kennedy Lincoln Garfield and McKinley and if I remember correctly Reagan was attempted while in office and teddy was while out of office.
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Trumps main focus will be on the fact that the perpetrator was shot by a local guy who grabbed his gun and went after him.
The mantra of the NRA is the best cure for a “bad man” with a gun ...is a “good man” with a gun.
This event will be used to reinforce the views of the NRA! Unfortunatly I think your right ! They will say the more people who have guns the more they can defend themselves
Maybe if thier was a Masacre at the White House they would start to see the bleeding obvious !!!!
JFK and Ronald Reagan were both shot, did gun laws change? "
To be fair, he did stipulate a massacre, and at the Whitehouse itself.
Now, there was one in October '73 but not, I assume, of the variety he meant. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Trumps main focus will be on the fact that the perpetrator was shot by a local guy who grabbed his gun and went after him.
The mantra of the NRA is the best cure for a “bad man” with a gun ...is a “good man” with a gun.
This event will be used to reinforce the views of the NRA! Unfortunatly I think your right ! They will say the more people who have guns the more they can defend themselves
Maybe if thier was a Masacre at the White House they would start to see the bleeding obvious !!!!
JFK and Ronald Reagan were both shot, did gun laws change?
To be fair, he did stipulate a massacre, and at the Whitehouse itself.
Now, there was one in October '73 but not, I assume, of the variety he meant."
True, but there was a recent mass shooting at a congressional baseball game and no change in laws. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I think the most pertinent lesson to come out if this and the recent Last Vegas shootings is that the police mugshot is a thing of the past. You used to get an iconic Charles Manson or Jim Jones or even a David Koresh, nowadays it's a shitty Facebook selfie |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The Second Amendment provides U.S. citizens the right to bear arms. Ratified in December 1791, the amendment says: 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 part of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution do you all not understand?
.
Its fairly clear to Americans and live by it, but then interfering Europeans all think they know better |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"The Second Amendment provides U.S. citizens the right to bear arms. Ratified in December 1791, the amendment says: 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 part of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution do you all not understand?
.
Its fairly clear to Americans and live by it, but then interfering Europeans all think they know better"
Was this guy in a militia? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The Second Amendment provides U.S. citizens the right to bear arms. Ratified in December 1791, the amendment says: 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 part of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution do you all not understand?
.
"
The bit were it says it okay to get a bit shooty in a church or concert or school?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The Second Amendment provides U.S. citizens the right to bear arms. Ratified in December 1791, the amendment says: 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 part of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution do you all not understand?
.
Its fairly clear to Americans and live by it, but then interfering Europeans all think they know better"
I think everyone is aware of what the constitution says. Most people just think it's ridiculous to rigidly insist on a 200+ year old law rather than try to save lives.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The Second Amendment provides U.S. citizens the right to bear arms. Ratified in December 1791, the amendment says: 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 part of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution do you all not understand?
.
Its fairly clear to Americans and live by it, but then interfering Europeans all think they know better"
The interpretation of the 2nd amendment you're giving a sloppy blowjob to is a relatively recent thing.
Traditional, judges interpreted the 2nd amendment as protecting the rights of militias, not people.
It's the 2008 Heller case that said individuals have the right to bear arms.
So, I'm guessing that punchy question about not understanding the 2nd amendment would be better asked in self-reflection. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Trumps main focus will be on the fact that the perpetrator was shot by a local guy who grabbed his gun and went after him.
The mantra of the NRA is the best cure for a “bad man” with a gun ...is a “good man” with a gun.
This event will be used to reinforce the views of the NRA! Unfortunatly I think your right ! They will say the more people who have guns the more they can defend themselves
Maybe if thier was a Masacre at the White House they would start to see the bleeding obvious !!!!
JFK and Ronald Reagan were both shot, did gun laws change? "
No ! But you know what I mean , they were targeted assainations and attempted one . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The Second Amendment provides U.S. citizens the right to bear arms. Ratified in December 1791, the amendment says: 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 part of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution do you all not understand?
.
Its fairly clear to Americans and live by it, but then interfering Europeans all think they know better"
I don't really think it is all that clear to Americans. In fact the specifics of the second amendment have been debated by the supreme court more than once.
The entire 2010 case, which was the last major gun control case at the Supreme Court level, hinged almost entirely on the placement of a comma offsetting the dependent clause in that sentence. Such inane debates based on textualism were exactly what Justice Scalia excelled at. But it's pretty opaque reasoning and is definitely highly debated in the U.S. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The Second Amendment provides U.S. citizens the right to bear arms. Ratified in December 1791, the amendment says: 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 part of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution do you all not understand?
.
Its fairly clear to Americans and live by it, but then interfering Europeans all think they know better
I don't really think it is all that clear to Americans. In fact the specifics of the second amendment have been debated by the supreme court more than once.
The entire 2010 case, which was the last major gun control case at the Supreme Court level, hinged almost entirely on the placement of a comma offsetting the dependent clause in that sentence. Such inane debates based on textualism were exactly what Justice Scalia excelled at. But it's pretty opaque reasoning and is definitely highly debated in the U.S. "
Sorry, the case was the 2008 case. The 2010 case was the incorporation decision through the 14th amendment (I always get the two mixed up!). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Gun control wouldn't have made much difference in this case as the guy was holding his guns illegally"
It's probably rather easier to get a gun illegally when everyone and his dog just has them lying around... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The Second Amendment provides U.S. citizens the right to bear arms. Ratified in December 1791, the amendment says: 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 part of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution do you all not understand?
.
Its fairly clear to Americans and live by it, but then interfering Europeans all think they know better"
What a load of codswallop. The second amendment is not fit for purpose and needs to be changed.
The idea that US constitutional rights can not be amended in order to reflect changing circumstances is clearly bunkum and there are many (27) clear precedents to prove this. They are called amendments!
The biggest laugh of all is according to the NRA it has 5,000,000 members so effectively just 2.2% of the US population is dictating firearms policy in direct conflict with the majority of the US population. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The Second Amendment provides U.S. citizens the right to bear arms. Ratified in December 1791, the amendment says: 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 part of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution do you all not understand?
.
Its fairly clear to Americans and live by it, but then interfering Europeans all think they know better"
Yes but it doesn't state what sort of arms - it was written when muskets were state-of-the-art. I don't see that limiting assault weapons for example would necessarily be an infringement unless one uses the argument that the populace would then be at a disadvantage in a fight with the military/federal forces. Furthermore it talks about a well-regulated militia which most US citizens are not now in so is talking about all citizens, or those in well-regulated militia? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oggoneMan
over a year ago
Derry |
"The Second Amendment provides U.S. citizens the right to bear arms. Ratified in December 1791, the amendment says: 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 part of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution do you all not understand?
.
Its fairly clear to Americans and live by it, but then interfering Europeans all think they know better
What a load of codswallop. The second amendment is not fit for purpose and needs to be changed.
The idea that US constitutional rights can not be amended in order to reflect changing circumstances is clearly bunkum and there are many (27) clear precedents to prove this. They are called amendments!
The biggest laugh of all is according to the NRA it has 5,000,000 members so effectively just 2.2% of the US population is dictating firearms policy in direct conflict with the majority of the US population."
The Civil Rights Act in 1965 cost the Democrats the southern states. A constitutional amendment restricting gun ownership would see the NRA destroy the political party that attempted this.
Also Wayne LaPierre is another good friend to the Putin regime. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Gun control wouldn't have made much difference in this case as the guy was holding his guns illegally
The vast majority of illegal firearms start life as legal firearms."
I would presume it's 100% of them to be honest but gun control wouldn't have stopped this guy as he was already holding them illegally.
Now if you want to ban weapons all together and start confiscating them then that probably would have stopped this guy as he'd have found it very hard indeed to come across them.... However I wouldn't imagine that might end with alot of bloodshed between the police and citizens who are armed to the teeth |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The Second Amendment provides U.S. citizens the right to bear arms. Ratified in December 1791, the amendment says: 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 part of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution do you all not understand?
.
Its fairly clear to Americans and live by it, but then interfering Europeans all think they know better
What a load of codswallop. The second amendment is not fit for purpose and needs to be changed.
The idea that US constitutional rights can not be amended in order to reflect changing circumstances is clearly bunkum and there are many (27) clear precedents to prove this. They are called amendments!
The biggest laugh of all is according to the NRA it has 5,000,000 members so effectively just 2.2% of the US population is dictating firearms policy in direct conflict with the majority of the US population.
The Civil Rights Act in 1965 cost the Democrats the southern states. A constitutional amendment restricting gun ownership would see the NRA destroy the political party that attempted this.
Also Wayne LaPierre is another good friend to the Putin regime. "
.
Gun control is quite easily carried out at state level, hence why some states and cities have much tighter gun control than others! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The Second Amendment provides U.S. citizens the right to bear arms. Ratified in December 1791, the amendment says: 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 part of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution do you all not understand?
.
Its fairly clear to Americans and live by it, but then interfering Europeans all think they know better
What a load of codswallop. The second amendment is not fit for purpose and needs to be changed.
The idea that US constitutional rights can not be amended in order to reflect changing circumstances is clearly bunkum and there are many (27) clear precedents to prove this. They are called amendments!
The biggest laugh of all is according to the NRA it has 5,000,000 members so effectively just 2.2% of the US population is dictating firearms policy in direct conflict with the majority of the US population.
The Civil Rights Act in 1965 cost the Democrats the southern states. A constitutional amendment restricting gun ownership would see the NRA destroy the political party that attempted this.
Also Wayne LaPierre is another good friend to the Putin regime. .
Gun control is quite easily carried out at state level, hence why some states and cities have much tighter gun control than others!"
But you know it's not that easy! The Supreme Court decision in 2010 (the case about incorporation of the second amendment by the 14th amendment), for example, made a number of state regulations unconstitutional. It's funny because it's one of the few issues Republicans don't support states' rights for. Funny how that works out |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
So it doesn't matter if it's trump or Obama or democrats or republicans and the 2nd amendment is irrelevant as a few states already have tight gun control and seen as most polls for quite some years indicate that the majority of Americans favour tighter gun control...(yes despite that European overly used "yanks just love their guns")
Then you really have to wonder what sort of democracy America really has |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The Second Amendment provides U.S. citizens the right to bear arms. Ratified in December 1791, the amendment says: 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 part of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution do you all not understand?
.
Its fairly clear to Americans and live by it, but then interfering Europeans all think they know better
What a load of codswallop. The second amendment is not fit for purpose and needs to be changed.
The idea that US constitutional rights can not be amended in order to reflect changing circumstances is clearly bunkum and there are many (27) clear precedents to prove this. They are called amendments!
The biggest laugh of all is according to the NRA it has 5,000,000 members so effectively just 2.2% of the US population is dictating firearms policy in direct conflict with the majority of the US population.
The Civil Rights Act in 1965 cost the Democrats the southern states. A constitutional amendment restricting gun ownership would see the NRA destroy the political party that attempted this.
Also Wayne LaPierre is another good friend to the Putin regime. .
Gun control is quite easily carried out at state level, hence why some states and cities have much tighter gun control than others!
But you know it's not that easy! The Supreme Court decision in 2010 (the case about incorporation of the second amendment by the 14th amendment), for example, made a number of state regulations unconstitutional. It's funny because it's one of the few issues Republicans don't support states' rights for. Funny how that works out "
.
I didn't know that!
How come new York has tighter gun laws than Texas and how does that apply to it if it's been overturned at the supreme court |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The Second Amendment provides U.S. citizens the right to bear arms. Ratified in December 1791, the amendment says: 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 part of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution do you all not understand?
.
Its fairly clear to Americans and live by it, but then interfering Europeans all think they know better
What a load of codswallop. The second amendment is not fit for purpose and needs to be changed.
The idea that US constitutional rights can not be amended in order to reflect changing circumstances is clearly bunkum and there are many (27) clear precedents to prove this. They are called amendments!
The biggest laugh of all is according to the NRA it has 5,000,000 members so effectively just 2.2% of the US population is dictating firearms policy in direct conflict with the majority of the US population.
The Civil Rights Act in 1965 cost the Democrats the southern states. A constitutional amendment restricting gun ownership would see the NRA destroy the political party that attempted this.
Also Wayne LaPierre is another good friend to the Putin regime. .
Gun control is quite easily carried out at state level, hence why some states and cities have much tighter gun control than others!
But you know it's not that easy! The Supreme Court decision in 2010 (the case about incorporation of the second amendment by the 14th amendment), for example, made a number of state regulations unconstitutional. It's funny because it's one of the few issues Republicans don't support states' rights for. Funny how that works out .
I didn't know that!
How come new York has tighter gun laws than Texas and how does that apply to it if it's been overturned at the supreme court"
New York wasn't one of the places that had gun control laws ruled unconstitutional. Those places that had gun control laws that were deemed too tight had to loosen them - off the top of my head I seem to remember Chicago (Illinois) and Washington, DC - but that's just from memory. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I'm not quite sure about gun laws being the main problem to be honest,I think the biggest problem is gun culture and why Americans feel the "need" to own one.
I mean there's nothing stopping the average UK person owning several shotguns we just don't feel the need to in the main.
I guess some states in the USA have a bigger gun culture than others due to geography and habitat |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"
I didn't know that!
How come new York has tighter gun laws than Texas and how does that apply to it if it's been overturned at the supreme court"
I can actually answer this in a sensible-ish manner and goes back to the 2008 heller case that was mentioned earler...
the case made it the law of the land that people have the right to bare arms for protection "in their own home" but anything other than that is at the domain of the individual states....
so in new york, you can have a gun at home, but the state deem it must be locked, the city state you are not allowed to carry it outside full stop, the state deem that you are allowed to use rifle for the purposes of hunting if you have a permit!
in texas for example, texas is a complete open carry state, where you carry whatever you want, wherever you want, and publically show it!
the problem isn't if one person wants a handgun at home to protect themselves.... its the type of guns....
for example, in what civilan situation does anyone need an assault type semi automatic weapon...... I hate guns! my best bro in the states likes to hunt and he maintains that "if you need an assault weapon to hunt, stick to fishing!!!"
there are simple things that can be done... for example... extended magazine rounds! in what situation do you need 30 bullets when 10 bullets won't do the job?
do civilians really need the more military types assult rifles?
how much ammo does one person really need?
if you really only need guns for house protection and for hunting.... how many guns to people really need?
the pushback is that the NRA are still trying to get some rules relaxed, for example there was a vote due relaxing the ban on the sale of silencers.... that was due to come up but las vegas happened 2 days before....
now... the police knew whereto go and people knew to flee because they heard the sounds of bullets! how much worst of that have been if the bloke had silencers..... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'm not quite sure about gun laws being the main problem to be honest,I think the biggest problem is gun culture and why Americans feel the "need" to own one.
I mean there's nothing stopping the average UK person owning several shotguns we just don't feel the need to in the main.
I guess some states in the USA have a bigger gun culture than others due to geography and habitat"
Harks back to the wild west doesn't it?, especially in the more rural states. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"
I didn't know that!
How come new York has tighter gun laws than Texas and how does that apply to it if it's been overturned at the supreme court
I can actually answer this in a sensible-ish manner and goes back to the 2008 heller case that was mentioned earler...
the case made it the law of the land that people have the right to bare arms for protection "in their own home" but anything other than that is at the domain of the individual states....
so in new york, you can have a gun at home, but the state deem it must be locked, the city state you are not allowed to carry it outside full stop, the state deem that you are allowed to use rifle for the purposes of hunting if you have a permit!
in texas for example, texas is a complete open carry state, where you carry whatever you want, wherever you want, and publically show it!
the problem isn't if one person wants a handgun at home to protect themselves.... its the type of guns....
for example, in what civilan situation does anyone need an assault type semi automatic weapon...... I hate guns! my best bro in the states likes to hunt and he maintains that "if you need an assault weapon to hunt, stick to fishing!!!"
there are simple things that can be done... for example... extended magazine rounds! in what situation do you need 30 bullets when 10 bullets won't do the job?
do civilians really need the more military types assult rifles?
how much ammo does one person really need?
if you really only need guns for house protection and for hunting.... how many guns to people really need?
the pushback is that the NRA are still trying to get some rules relaxed, for example there was a vote due relaxing the ban on the sale of silencers.... that was due to come up but las vegas happened 2 days before....
now... the police knew whereto go and people knew to flee because they heard the sounds of bullets! how much worst of that have been if the bloke had silencers....."
However, the opposite to that is that the guy wanted to buy tracer rounds, but couldn’t. If he had used tracer rounds, then it would have been much much easier to find him. Tracers work both ways. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
I didn't know that!
How come new York has tighter gun laws than Texas and how does that apply to it if it's been overturned at the supreme court
I can actually answer this in a sensible-ish manner and goes back to the 2008 heller case that was mentioned earler...
the case made it the law of the land that people have the right to bare arms for protection "in their own home" but anything other than that is at the domain of the individual states....
so in new york, you can have a gun at home, but the state deem it must be locked, the city state you are not allowed to carry it outside full stop, the state deem that you are allowed to use rifle for the purposes of hunting if you have a permit!
in texas for example, texas is a complete open carry state, where you carry whatever you want, wherever you want, and publically show it!
the problem isn't if one person wants a handgun at home to protect themselves.... its the type of guns....
for example, in what civilan situation does anyone need an assault type semi automatic weapon...... I hate guns! my best bro in the states likes to hunt and he maintains that "if you need an assault weapon to hunt, stick to fishing!!!"
there are simple things that can be done... for example... extended magazine rounds! in what situation do you need 30 bullets when 10 bullets won't do the job?
do civilians really need the more military types assult rifles?
how much ammo does one person really need?
if you really only need guns for house protection and for hunting.... how many guns to people really need?
the pushback is that the NRA are still trying to get some rules relaxed, for example there was a vote due relaxing the ban on the sale of silencers.... that was due to come up but las vegas happened 2 days before....
now... the police knew whereto go and people knew to flee because they heard the sounds of bullets! how much worst of that have been if the bloke had silencers....."
But it's more than that, Fabio. In the Heller decision the court didn't just rule on the issue of self defense or gubs in the home. The court reinfored the Miller decision where they said that Washington DC could not ban handguns because they are "in common use at the time." Scalia was an originalist in legislative interpretation, therefore his Heller decision strongly reinforced the idea that no class of guns can be banned if it is in common use at the time a regulation is implemented.
The reason why this part of the decision is so important is because it means that it changes with practice....that means that the more people who use assault rifles, for example, the more prevalent they become, the better the argument they can make that they are now "in common use at the time." So that based on the Heller decision (and the incorporation by the states of that decision by the 2010 decision), there can be a time in the future that it can be argued that states can no longer regulate assault rifles. It's all interconnected and it means that individual states don't have the power lots of conservatives like to pretend they have. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'm not quite sure about gun laws being the main problem to be honest,I think the biggest problem is gun culture and why Americans feel the "need" to own one.
I mean there's nothing stopping the average UK person owning several shotguns we just don't feel the need to in the main.
I guess some states in the USA have a bigger gun culture than others due to geography and habitat"
Really?
If that is the case please explain the following to me:
After the Hungerford mass shooting where Micheal Ryan murdered 16 with semiautomatic rifles and pistols we banned semiautomatic full-bore (centre-fire) weapons. Then after the Dunblane massacre where 17 were killed by Thomas Hamilton we banned all handguns and virtually all cartridge loading weapons over .22. As a result of the 2 above when we had our next mass shooting in Cumbria Derrick Bird was only able to kill 12 and it took him hours involving a manhunt across the north of England.
Do you think that just maybe Bird did not kill more because all he had was a 12 bore? Do you think if he had access to semiautomatic weapons he would have used them?
Too many people look for reasons to justify keeping access to deadly weapons and too many people come out with the 'its only Johnny Foreigners' do things like that, we would never do that 'Were British'...
Controlling firearms saves lives, the tighter the controls the more lives saved. It really is that simple. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"However, the opposite to that is that the guy wanted to buy tracer rounds, but couldn’t. If he had used tracer rounds, then it would have been much much easier to find him. Tracers work both ways."
That is not quite so. Tracer is made by placing red or white phosphorus in a cavity in the tail of a bullet that ignites on contact with the air after firing. It can only be seen by those in the cone of visibility behind the round as it travels through the air.
You only see tracer after it passes you. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I'm not quite sure about gun laws being the main problem to be honest,I think the biggest problem is gun culture and why Americans feel the "need" to own one.
I mean there's nothing stopping the average UK person owning several shotguns we just don't feel the need to in the main.
I guess some states in the USA have a bigger gun culture than others due to geography and habitat
Really?
If that is the case please explain the following to me:
After the Hungerford mass shooting where Micheal Ryan murdered 16 with semiautomatic rifles and pistols we banned semiautomatic full-bore (centre-fire) weapons. Then after the Dunblane massacre where 17 were killed by Thomas Hamilton we banned all handguns and virtually all cartridge loading weapons over .22. As a result of the 2 above when we had our next mass shooting in Cumbria Derrick Bird was only able to kill 12 and it took him hours involving a manhunt across the north of England.
Do you think that just maybe Bird did not kill more because all he had was a 12 bore? Do you think if he had access to semiautomatic weapons he would have used them?
Too many people look for reasons to justify keeping access to deadly weapons and too many people come out with the 'its only Johnny Foreigners' do things like that, we would never do that 'Were British'...
Controlling firearms saves lives, the tighter the controls the more lives saved. It really is that simple."
.
No that statement was about gun culture and the fact that as British people we just don't arm ourselves despite being legally able to at the same rate Americans do. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"No that statement was about gun culture and the fact that as British people we just don't arm ourselves despite being legally able to at the same rate Americans do. "
My point is that the reason we do not have the same gun culture as the USA is because guns are very tightly regulated here. The fact is there are more gun shops in the USA than there are walmarts! In most states gun control is nothing more than lip-service to the limited laws they have. It is harder to get a driving licence or get married in most of the States than it is to get an assault rifle! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I'm not quite sure about gun laws being the main problem to be honest,I think the biggest problem is gun culture and why Americans feel the "need" to own one.
I mean there's nothing stopping the average UK person owning several shotguns we just don't feel the need to in the main.
I guess some states in the USA have a bigger gun culture than others due to geography and habitat
Really?
If that is the case please explain the following to me:
After the Hungerford mass shooting where Micheal Ryan murdered 16 with semiautomatic rifles and pistols we banned semiautomatic full-bore (centre-fire) weapons. Then after the Dunblane massacre where 17 were killed by Thomas Hamilton we banned all handguns and virtually all cartridge loading weapons over .22. As a result of the 2 above when we had our next mass shooting in Cumbria Derrick Bird was only able to kill 12 and it took him hours involving a manhunt across the north of England.
Do you think that just maybe Bird did not kill more because all he had was a 12 bore? Do you think if he had access to semiautomatic weapons he would have used them?
Too many people look for reasons to justify keeping access to deadly weapons and too many people come out with the 'its only Johnny Foreigners' do things like that, we would never do that 'Were British'...
Controlling firearms saves lives, the tighter the controls the more lives saved. It really is that simple."
.
Will, you are aware that you can still legally own hand guns in UK, such as .357 Magnum and .44 (only 2 examples of many)
You can also own 12 bore 10 shot semi automatic shotguns which fire "single slug", all are legal in the UK
.
A 12 bore semi-auto firing single slug will do much more damage than a .308 bolt action at close range and will fire off 10 rounds as quick as you can pull the trigger 10 times
.
a .357 marlin may not be a semi auto but it will fire of 10 rounds very quickly using lever action |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Some should check out the lovely LR.223
Southern Gun Co Lever Release 223
.
type in "LR.223 Southern Gun Co Lever Release 223"
.
You will find it is as close as you can get to the AR15 in U.K. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I'm not quite sure about gun laws being the main problem to be honest,I think the biggest problem is gun culture and why Americans feel the "need" to own one.
I mean there's nothing stopping the average UK person owning several shotguns we just don't feel the need to in the main.
I guess some states in the USA have a bigger gun culture than others due to geography and habitat
Really?
If that is the case please explain the following to me:
After the Hungerford mass shooting where Micheal Ryan murdered 16 with semiautomatic rifles and pistols we banned semiautomatic full-bore (centre-fire) weapons. Then after the Dunblane massacre where 17 were killed by Thomas Hamilton we banned all handguns and virtually all cartridge loading weapons over .22. As a result of the 2 above when we had our next mass shooting in Cumbria Derrick Bird was only able to kill 12 and it took him hours involving a manhunt across the north of England.
Do you think that just maybe Bird did not kill more because all he had was a 12 bore? Do you think if he had access to semiautomatic weapons he would have used them?
Too many people look for reasons to justify keeping access to deadly weapons and too many people come out with the 'its only Johnny Foreigners' do things like that, we would never do that 'Were British'...
Controlling firearms saves lives, the tighter the controls the more lives saved. It really is that simple."
Spot on !
I was living in the Hungerford area at the time and can deffinatly say if Ryan had the guns the Yanks have many more would have died as his gun jammed and people edcaped in several instances !
It's like Prince Philips Crazy Cricket Bat Comment !!!
How many of our soldiers go to war just with a Bat !
Yes it's the person but it's also the tools at thier disposal !
F 1 racing is another good example  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Some should check out the lovely LR.223
Southern Gun Co Lever Release 223
.
type in "LR.223 Southern Gun Co Lever Release 223"
.
You will find it is as close as you can get to the AR15 in U.K."
And they are what, £5,500 each? That in itself is a barrier to widescale ownership.
The "hand guns" that we have in the UK, would not be recognised as such in the US due to overall length of 60cm.
Shotguns with a 10 round magazine and slugs would require a firearm certificate and a reason for ownership, rather than just a shotgun certificate. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Some should check out the lovely LR.223
Southern Gun Co Lever Release 223
.
type in "LR.223 Southern Gun Co Lever Release 223"
.
You will find it is as close as you can get to the AR15 in U.K.
And they are what, £5,500 each? That in itself is a barrier to widescale ownership.
The "hand guns" that we have in the UK, would not be recognised as such in the US due to overall length of 60cm.
Shotguns with a 10 round magazine and slugs would require a firearm certificate and a reason for ownership, rather than just a shotgun certificate. "
lol, I was the one that told you that, many moons back, (remember)
you do realise an M2, M3 or M4 does not need a magazine, they are held in the lower barrel,
Psst, any firearm requires reason for ownership
nice to see you are showing off your wisdom |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"Some should check out the lovely LR.223
Southern Gun Co Lever Release 223
.
type in "LR.223 Southern Gun Co Lever Release 223"
.
You will find it is as close as you can get to the AR15 in U.K.
And they are what, £5,500 each? That in itself is a barrier to widescale ownership.
The "hand guns" that we have in the UK, would not be recognised as such in the US due to overall length of 60cm.
Shotguns with a 10 round magazine and slugs would require a firearm certificate and a reason for ownership, rather than just a shotgun certificate.
lol, I was the one that told you that, many moons back, (remember)
you do realise an M2, M3 or M4 does not need a magazine, they are held in the lower barrel,
Psst, any firearm requires reason for ownership
nice to see you are showing off your wisdom"
No, you didn't tell me anything. I dont why you think you are the only one who knows about firearms.
An over/under or a side by side has 2 barrels, a pump action or a semi auto has 1 barrel and a magazine. These are usually integral, and can't be removed. However you can also get shotguns with detachable magazines such as the saiga. The tubular device you referred to as the "lower barrel" is in fact the magazine.
Firearms require a reason, shotguns generally do not, however the shotgun you described with a 10 round magazine would. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
What I find strange is that always we hear the same thing from the same person:
There are loopholes and there are exceptions to UK firearms laws therefore there can be no coloration between the low levels of gun crime in the UK and our gun laws or the ease of access to firearms in the USA and the high levels of gun crime there.
A true straw-man argument. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"No, you didn't tell me anything. I dont why you think you are the only one who knows about firearms.
An over/under or a side by side has 2 barrels, a pump action or a semi auto has 1 barrel and a magazine. These are usually integral, and can't be removed. However you can also get shotguns with detachable magazines such as the saiga. The tubular device you referred to as the "lower barrel" is in fact the magazine.
Firearms require a reason, shotguns generally do not, however the shotgun you described with a 10 round magazine would."
Lady, you have a short memory |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"No, you didn't tell me anything. I dont why you think you are the only one who knows about firearms.
An over/under or a side by side has 2 barrels, a pump action or a semi auto has 1 barrel and a magazine. These are usually integral, and can't be removed. However you can also get shotguns with detachable magazines such as the saiga. The tubular device you referred to as the "lower barrel" is in fact the magazine.
Firearms require a reason, shotguns generally do not, however the shotgun you described with a 10 round magazine would.
Lady, you have a short memory"
I remember you were ignorant of the relevant vernacular, namely the meaning of long barrelled pistol and long barrelled revolver. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Another shooting which will create a lot of spin but nothing will change. So who actually runs government's around the world? Mr T will do nothing because the gun lobby is too powerful. "
Past events;
all forgotten today. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Normally, gun people like to dress up their power fantasy with something about "only for self defense".
They usually don't go off message to the degree that they admit they're just real happy to have the means to kill "wrong dudes", should they get the opportunity. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Americans have such a different culture to ours in the UK. But the "fear factor" is always trotted out to scare the populace that they are defenceless in the big bad world without a gun.
So the cycle repeats itself , good guys have guns , bad guys have guns , instead of a punch up in a bar or workplace it is a massacre and the body count in the Land of the Free rises daily  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Looks like yet another mass shooting, this time involving a primary school in California. Very sad."
Yup but if im right the Americans dont class it as a mass shooting as there was only 5 killed  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Another shooting which will create a lot of spin but nothing will change. So who actually runs government's around the world? Mr T will do nothing because the gun lobby is too powerful. "
International bankers run the world! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"the only way to stop bad guys with guns is to ban guns altogether "
like ban alcoholic drinks?
How did that work out it created rhe likes of al capone ! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Americans have such a different culture to ours in the UK. But the "fear factor" is always trotted out to scare the populace that they are defenceless in the big bad world without a gun.
So the cycle repeats itself , good guys have guns , bad guys have guns , instead of a punch up in a bar or workplace it is a massacre and the body count in the Land of the Free rises daily "
ahh the land of the free where everything is truey free because it was confiscated of the Indians who were un aware of the wicked nature.Born out of mass murder and torture and slavery.
Karma demands justice even if its blind in reality. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"i love my guns. i have gun permits. the wrong dude knocks on my door my shotgun is in his face. used my shotgun before. #americangirl "
Any thing can be weaponised |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I'm not quite sure about gun laws being the main problem to be honest,I think the biggest problem is gun culture and why Americans feel the "need" to own one.
I mean there's nothing stopping the average UK person owning several shotguns we just don't feel the need to in the main.
I guess some states in the USA have a bigger gun culture than others due to geography and habitat
Really?
If that is the case please explain the following to me:
After the Hungerford mass shooting where Micheal Ryan murdered 16 with semiautomatic rifles and pistols we banned semiautomatic full-bore (centre-fire) weapons. Then after the Dunblane massacre where 17 were killed by Thomas Hamilton we banned all handguns and virtually all cartridge loading weapons over .22. As a result of the 2 above when we had our next mass shooting in Cumbria Derrick Bird was only able to kill 12 and it took him hours involving a manhunt across the north of England.
Do you think that just maybe Bird did not kill more because all he had was a 12 bore? Do you think if he had access to semiautomatic weapons he would have used them?
Too many people look for reasons to justify keeping access to deadly weapons and too many people come out with the 'its only Johnny Foreigners' do things like that, we would never do that 'Were British'...
Controlling firearms saves lives, the tighter the controls the more lives saved. It really is that simple."
guns don't kill people do! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" It really is that simple.guns don't kill people do! "
You really have not got a clue what you are talking about...
Let me spell it out to you...
A fit, powerful, health male in the prime of life can kill maybe 6 people a minute for a maximum of about 10 minutes if no one resists them...
Anyone with a machine-gun can kill between 450 (standard gas operated reloaded system) and 6000 a minute (electric mini-gun) for as long as the ammunition lasts!
People may kill people but guns enable people to kill people that they wold not be able to kill under any other circumstances!
With all due respect you and everyone else who believes the 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' shit need to remove your head from your respective arses and wake up to the truth. Guns are killing machines! Nothing more or nothing less! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" It really is that simple.guns don't kill people do!
You really have not got a clue what you are talking about...
Let me spell it out to you...
A fit, powerful, health male in the prime of life can kill maybe 6 people a minute for a maximum of about 10 minutes if no one resists them...
Anyone with a machine-gun can kill between 450 (standard gas operated reloaded system) and 6000 a minute (electric mini-gun) for as long as the ammunition lasts!
People may kill people but guns enable people to kill people that they wold not be able to kill under any other circumstances!
With all due respect you and everyone else who believes the 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' shit need to remove your head from your respective arses and wake up to the truth. Guns are killing machines! Nothing more or nothing less!"
am clueless cars and trucks lorries can kill people faster.  so can toxic pollutants global warming water shortages sanitation issues and so on. People kill not guns! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" It really is that simple.guns don't kill people do!
You really have not got a clue what you are talking about...
Let me spell it out to you...
A fit, powerful, health male in the prime of life can kill maybe 6 people a minute for a maximum of about 10 minutes if no one resists them...
Anyone with a machine-gun can kill between 450 (standard gas operated reloaded system) and 6000 a minute (electric mini-gun) for as long as the ammunition lasts!
People may kill people but guns enable people to kill people that they wold not be able to kill under any other circumstances!
With all due respect you and everyone else who believes the 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' shit need to remove your head from your respective arses and wake up to the truth. Guns are killing machines! Nothing more or nothing less! am clueless cars and trucks lorries can kill people faster. so can toxic pollutants global warming water shortages sanitation issues and so on. People kill not guns! "
As you said anything can be weaponized, however firearms are weapons! They are mad to kill, they have no other function!
But on a point of pure possibility please tell me how anyone can kill more than 6000 am minute with a lorry or truck for as long as there is fuel in the vehicle? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
" It really is that simple.guns don't kill people do!
You really have not got a clue what you are talking about...
Let me spell it out to you...
A fit, powerful, health male in the prime of life can kill maybe 6 people a minute for a maximum of about 10 minutes if no one resists them...
Anyone with a machine-gun can kill between 450 (standard gas operated reloaded system) and 6000 a minute (electric mini-gun) for as long as the ammunition lasts!
People may kill people but guns enable people to kill people that they wold not be able to kill under any other circumstances!
With all due respect you and everyone else who believes the 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' shit need to remove your head from your respective arses and wake up to the truth. Guns are killing machines! Nothing more or nothing less! am clueless cars and trucks lorries can kill people faster. so can toxic pollutants global warming water shortages sanitation issues and so on. People kill not guns!
As you said anything can be weaponized, however firearms are weapons! They are mad to kill, they have no other function!
But on a point of pure possibility please tell me how anyone can kill more than 6000 am minute with a lorry or truck for as long as there is fuel in the vehicle? "
.firearms are weapons! They are mad to kill, """they have no other function!"""
.
Shooting sports have been included at every Summer Olympic Games since the birth of the modern Olympic movement at the 1896 Summer Olympics except at the 1904 & 1928 editions
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Shooting sports have been included at every Summer Olympic Games since the birth of the modern Olympic movement at the 1896 Summer Olympics except at the 1904 & 1928 editions
"
Really, your proof that firearms are not weapons made for the single purpose of killing is that the skills required to use the efficiently are tested in competitive events that have been adopted by the Olympics.
And just to be clear, in the Olympics we have the Biathlon which is derived from the skills required by Alpine Ski Troops and the 2 Pentathlons one which is derived from the skills required of an Ancient Greek warrior and the modern version which showcases the skills of a subaltern dispatch rider. Then there are the 3 fencing disciplines, the javelin, the hammer, discus and shot which are all derived from ancient combat skills, and lets not forget the marathon which is named after the legendary march of the Greek army after their victory over the Persians at the battle of Marathon back to Athens arriving before the city surrendered to the already defeated Persians.
Now we all know you have a real 'hardon' for firearms and love the feelings of superiority emptying your massive weapon gives you, and we all also know you like everyone to know your weapons can shoot multiple times without the need for you to take a break to reload. We all get it...
...
...
But I wonder is there just a little too much compensation going on here? I think maybe you need to seek professional guidance and help. Maybe you should even consider voluntarily surrendering your weapons before someone gets hurt... ...
...
Maybe Trump is onto something with the...
...
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I know this might come as a shock to some the way the media spoon feeds us US news on a daily basis but we aren't part of America therefore there laws are none of our business if the people in America don't like their laws then they have presidential elections every few years were they could vote someone in to change it, since they haven't done so in the last 200 years or so I think it's same to assume that the majority of them like the law as it is. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I know this might come as a shock to some the way the media spoon feeds us US news on a daily basis but we aren't part of America therefore there laws are none of our business if the people in America don't like their laws then they have presidential elections every few years were they could vote someone in to change it, since they haven't done so in the last 200 years or so I think it's same to assume that the majority of them like the law as it is."
That's the whole point! Every study done says the vast majority of the population of the USA is in favour of gun control but the NRA is so powerful that the political establishment refuse to change the 2nd amendment because of the amount of money they get from the gun lobby. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I know this might come as a shock to some the way the media spoon feeds us US news on a daily basis but we aren't part of America therefore there laws are none of our business if the people in America don't like their laws then they have presidential elections every few years were they could vote someone in to change it, since they haven't done so in the last 200 years or so I think it's same to assume that the majority of them like the law as it is."
What a boring and reductive take on the world, to only have opinions about our own countries.
As for voting in someone to change laws - kinda hard when the NRA owns so many Republicans via donations. A poll after the Las Vegas shooting had 61% in favour of stricter gun control - but good luck seeing 61% of candidates representing this opinion anytime soon. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"I know this might come as a shock to some the way the media spoon feeds us US news on a daily basis but we aren't part of America therefore there laws are none of our business if the people in America don't like their laws then they have presidential elections every few years were they could vote someone in to change it, since they haven't done so in the last 200 years or so I think it's same to assume that the majority of them like the law as it is."
I think the majority of the politics forum posters have a more global interest than you. I for one will continue to post on political issues of interest from around the world. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I know this might come as a shock to some the way the media spoon feeds us US news on a daily basis but we aren't part of America therefore there laws are none of our business if the people in America don't like their laws then they have presidential elections every few years were they could vote someone in to change it, since they haven't done so in the last 200 years or so I think it's same to assume that the majority of them like the law as it is.
I think the majority of the politics forum posters have a more global interest than you. I for one will continue to post on political issues of interest from around the world."
Then why aren't you discussing Swiss,Czech or Italian gun laws as they are more lax than America's? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"I know this might come as a shock to some the way the media spoon feeds us US news on a daily basis but we aren't part of America therefore there laws are none of our business if the people in America don't like their laws then they have presidential elections every few years were they could vote someone in to change it, since they haven't done so in the last 200 years or so I think it's same to assume that the majority of them like the law as it is.
I think the majority of the politics forum posters have a more global interest than you. I for one will continue to post on political issues of interest from around the world.
Then why aren't you discussing Swiss,Czech or Italian gun laws as they are more lax than America's?"
I wouldn't say that they are, but happy to discuss it. Those countries do not have the same problems with mass shootings that the US seems to, but also happy to discuss this too. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Shooting sports have been included at every Summer Olympic Games since the birth of the modern Olympic movement at the 1896 Summer Olympics except at the 1904 & 1928 editions
Really, your proof that firearms are not weapons made for the single purpose of killing is that the skills required to use the efficiently are tested in competitive events that have been adopted by the Olympics.
And just to be clear, in the Olympics we have the Biathlon which is derived from the skills required by Alpine Ski Troops and the 2 Pentathlons one which is derived from the skills required of an Ancient Greek warrior and the modern version which showcases the skills of a subaltern dispatch rider. Then there are the 3 fencing disciplines, the javelin, the hammer, discus and shot which are all derived from ancient combat skills, and lets not forget the marathon which is named after the legendary march of the Greek army after their victory over the Persians at the battle of Marathon back to Athens arriving before the city surrendered to the already defeated Persians.
Now we all know you have a real 'hardon' for firearms and love the feelings of superiority emptying your massive weapon gives you, and we all also know you like everyone to know your weapons can shoot multiple times without the need for you to take a break to reload. We all get it...
...
...
But I wonder is there just a little too much compensation going on here? I think maybe you need to seek professional guidance and help. Maybe you should even consider voluntarily surrendering your weapons before someone gets hurt... ...
...
Maybe Trump is onto something with the...
...
"
you need to stop wearing panties, its clear they are all twisted up.
You said its clear that all firearms are made for killing!!!
.
I pulled you up, said your full of shit, there are firearms specifically made for target shooting, designed and scoped specifically for that.
.
But I guess for some with lower IQ their rational can be that a gun is only for killing
.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Well without getting into nuances of the different laws it's fair to say that it is extremely easy to obtain firearms in all these countries but like you said, they don't have anything like the problems of murder/mass killings. The problem in the USA is mental health and more specifically what has happened in the last 25 years as these things were almost unheard of not to long ago. Also I believe the media plays a large role as these people want their 5 minutes of notoriety. Their should be controls put on the way they are reported |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The pickle has well and truly left the sandwich on this one. There are something like 30,000 assault rifles sold PER WEEK in the USA. They will never get a grip on this. Gun control at this point is an impossibility. Not a chance. The only hope they have is for education and getting people to think before acting. In short. They're f*cked. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
And also the latest one was in California which has the strictest gun controls in the whole of the USA and doesn't even uphold the 2nd amendment. And as stated above there are so many guns in circulation you will never remove them and even if you did criminals could still get them as they can here. If someone's going to commit murder then they aren't going to worry about having an illegal firearm. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"just maken possession of firearms illegal .... then anyone left with a firearm just fucking gaol them .... simple"
I also think anyone getting really upset by the loss of their firearms once they are illegal should be sent prayers and know they are in our thoughts in their time of grief. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"just maken possession of firearms illegal .... then anyone left with a firearm just fucking gaol them .... simple
I also think anyone getting really upset by the loss of their firearms once they are illegal should be sent prayers and know they are in our thoughts in their time of grief. "
Or Therapy ! Poor souls my Heart Bleeds ! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"And also the latest one was in California which has the strictest gun controls in the whole of the USA and doesn't even uphold the 2nd amendment. And as stated above there are so many guns in circulation you will never remove them and even if you did criminals could still get them as they can here. If someone's going to commit murder then they aren't going to worry about having an illegal firearm."
The Californian gun laws are constitutional, otherwise they would have been struck down by the supreme court. California does have strict (by US standards) laws, however those laws are of limited effectiveness. For example a standard AR-15 (the civilian version of the military M16/M4) has a 6 position stock, you can make it comfortable for you depending on how big or small you are, shooting preference/need etc. In California you are not allowed an adjustable stock. It has to be pinned in just one postion. This makes absolutely no difference to the performance or capabilities of the rifle. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
There's rumors of a bipartisan bill to toughen-up background checks....and it hasn't yet been bitched about by the NRA. It's a small step, but we'll see.
Any bets on whether it will actually pass and not get a veto? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"There's rumors of a bipartisan bill to toughen-up background checks....and it hasn't yet been bitched about by the NRA. It's a small step, but we'll see.
Any bets on whether it will actually pass and not get a veto? "
Person to person sales don't require a background check as far as I know. So while a step in the right direction, I doubt it will stop this kind of thing happening. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
It's well known the American penis is smaller on average than the rest of humanity.There is obviously a correlation between penis size and gun ownership.We should send our prayers and thoughts to all those tiny cocks to get bigger. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"There's rumors of a bipartisan bill to toughen-up background checks....and it hasn't yet been bitched about by the NRA. It's a small step, but we'll see.
Any bets on whether it will actually pass and not get a veto?
Person to person sales don't require a background check as far as I know. So while a step in the right direction, I doubt it will stop this kind of thing happening."
First off, sometimes symbolism matters. And with gun control having bipartisan support for a bill and (as yet) no opposition from the gun lobby is a big deal. Incremental steps...
Second...it would be helpful if people stopped talking about the U.S. as if it had a single gun law as opposed to each state doing it's own thing. I say this in reference to your comment because as far as I'm aware there are a few states that do require universal background checks already (including person to person sales). Where I'm from, New York, is one of them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"There's rumors of a bipartisan bill to toughen-up background checks....and it hasn't yet been bitched about by the NRA. It's a small step, but we'll see.
Any bets on whether it will actually pass and not get a veto?
Person to person sales don't require a background check as far as I know. So while a step in the right direction, I doubt it will stop this kind of thing happening.
First off, sometimes symbolism matters. And with gun control having bipartisan support for a bill and (as yet) no opposition from the gun lobby is a big deal. Incremental steps...
Second...it would be helpful if people stopped talking about the U.S. as if it had a single gun law as opposed to each state doing it's own thing. I say this in reference to your comment because as far as I'm aware there are a few states that do require universal background checks already (including person to person sales). Where I'm from, New York, is one of them. "
I agree, like I said, it's a step in the right direction.
Yes you are right, US gun laws are confusingly written at all levels of government which creates a wide patchwork of laws. However, on a forum it would be impossible to name each individual law, or add every caveat to each post. In NY, most private sales are now covered by background checks (apart from sales between family members), but in the majority of states in the US this is not the case. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"There's rumors of a bipartisan bill to toughen-up background checks....and it hasn't yet been bitched about by the NRA. It's a small step, but we'll see.
Any bets on whether it will actually pass and not get a veto?
Person to person sales don't require a background check as far as I know. So while a step in the right direction, I doubt it will stop this kind of thing happening.
First off, sometimes symbolism matters. And with gun control having bipartisan support for a bill and (as yet) no opposition from the gun lobby is a big deal. Incremental steps...
Second...it would be helpful if people stopped talking about the U.S. as if it had a single gun law as opposed to each state doing it's own thing. I say this in reference to your comment because as far as I'm aware there are a few states that do require universal background checks already (including person to person sales). Where I'm from, New York, is one of them.
I agree, like I said, it's a step in the right direction.
Yes you are right, US gun laws are confusingly written at all levels of government which creates a wide patchwork of laws. However, on a forum it would be impossible to name each individual law, or add every caveat to each post. In NY, most private sales are now covered by background checks (apart from sales between family members), but in the majority of states in the US this is not the case. "
Yes, but being somewhat precise isn't that difficult. Rather than saying "Person to person sales don't require a background check as far as I know" it would be better to say "according to federal law" or "in most states". Especially on a thread where the U.S is getting ripped a new asshole for not having those types of laws. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
