Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

TheCountOfNowhere

Random thoughts on gun control

Recommended Posts

Just now, rollover said:

The Bank told the market that it intended to keep the Bank rate at its current historically low 0.5%, at least until the unemployment rate fell to 7% or below. Sorry that's old news from 2013, things are different now.

The banks told the people what they wanted to hear whilst doing what the f**k they liked.

The people have had enough and they know it.

The US citizens have guns, they have raised IRs.

The UK subjects have no guns.

I might move to the US :lol: 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, TheCountOfNowhere said:

The banks told the people what they wanted to hear whilst doing what the f**k they liked.

The people have had enough and they know it.

The US citizens have guns, they have raised IRs.

The UK subjects have no guns.

I might move to the US :lol: 

 

 

 

Post of the week...so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, dougless said:

Post of the week...so far.

The founding fathers of the US were quite wise, the gave the population the right to bear arms for a reason.

There are plenty US politicians ( aka banker front men ) who would like to remove this right,

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, TheCountOfNowhere said:

The founding fathers of the US were quite wise, the gave the population the right to bear arms for a reason.

There are plenty US politicians ( aka banker front men ) who would like to remove this right,

Bear arms in a well organised militia. The Fifth is often only partially quoted because the current lay of the land is at odds with the intention of the Founding Fathers. 

There are plenty of US citizens that would like this removed too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, TheCountOfNowhere said:

The founding fathers of the US were quite wise, the gave the population the right to bear arms for a reason.

I always thought it was the right to arm bears, could never understand why it was so important to do that, species protection or something? Makes sense now... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, adarmo said:

Bear arms in a well organised militia. The Fifth is often only partially quoted because the current lay of the land is at odds with the intention of the Founding Fathers. 

There are plenty of US citizens that would like this removed too. 

I think opponents of the right to bear arms have already taken this distinction about a well- regulated militia to the US Supreme Court-  and lost. 

I think the majority on SCOTUS said that at the time the Founding Fathers created the right to bear arms, it was common for militias to be raised among the common people, who were expected to own and maintain their own personal arms and use those arms in the militia. 

Hence, the legal right to bear arms persisted to the present day. 

That seems like a stretch to me but I am not American. Most yanks I have discussed this with find the SCOTUS reasoning plausible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, TheCountOfNowhere said:

The founding fathers of the US were quite wise, the gave the population the right to bear arms for a reason.

There are plenty US politicians ( aka banker front men ) who would like to remove this right,

 

 

 

They may have Bear arms, but we've got Tiger feet.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Society of fools said:

I think opponents of the right to bear arms have already taken this distinction about a well- regulated militia to the US Supreme Court-  and lost. 

I think the majority on SCOTUS said that at the time the Founding Fathers created the right to bear arms, it was common for militias to be raised among the common people, who were expected to own and maintain their own personal arms and use those arms in the militia. 

Hence, the legal right to bear arms persisted to the present day. 

That seems like a stretch to me but I am not American. Most yanks I have discussed this with find the SCOTUS reasoning plausible. 

I agree that to me too it seems like a very tenuous stretch. If well organised militias were common then in my mind there would be no need to specifically state it. 

My sister is an American now (born Brit) but her US family are all big Democrat fans and seem keen on tighter restrictions. That said Grandpa still has a 2.2 for shooting anything that moves in his garden (mostly rats and squirrels).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ThoughtCriminal said:

Guns keep your government on its toes.

 

It's only certain sections of American society who get a bit too shooty with their guns.

Those sections include the police, unfortunately.

I'd much rather live in a country where getting stopped by the police didn't carry the risk of summary execution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LC1 said:

I always thought it was the right to arm bears, could never understand why it was so important to do that, species protection or something? Makes sense now... 

The right to bear arms in the USA is not as crazy as the European ruling classes like to pretend...it is check to misuse of power...something the ruling European elite naturally want to avoid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, mat109 said:

Those sections include the police, unfortunately.

I'd much rather live in a country where getting stopped by the police didn't carry the risk of summary execution.

I would rather live in a country where the police are equipped to protect the public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wayward said:

I would rather live in a country where the police are equipped to protect the public.

Shall we compare crime rates?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, adarmo said:

Bear arms in a well organised militia. The Fifth is often only partially quoted because the current lay of the land is at odds with the intention of the Founding Fathers. 

There are plenty of US citizens that would like this removed too. 

Parasites who followed the brave liberty lovers to that continent.

"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."

>A healthy balanced breakfast, being necessary to the start of a good day, the right of the people to keep and cook eggs, shall not be infringed.

What is protected under those sentences? The right to own and use arms/eggs, or a well regulated militia/healthy balanced breakfast?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Locke said:

Parasites who followed the brave liberty lovers to that continent.

"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."

>A healthy balanced breakfast, being necessary to the start of a good day, the right of the people to keep and cook eggs, shall not be infringed.

What is protected under those sentences? The right to own and use arms/eggs, or a well regulated militia/healthy balanced breakfast?

 

Militia = group of regimented people

Breakfast = meal

Yours is a question of verbal reasoning but what really matters is the intention of the Founding Fathers and that is a matter of great debate. 

At the time of writing the Second Amendment I wonder if they had cheap rapid fire assault rifles? Are the challenges facing the United States the same today as they were in 1776?

Of course there could be other reasons for the USAs ridiculous homicide rate (five times higher then the UK) but I should think the ease of availability of guns plays a more than significant part. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wayward said:

The right to bear arms in the USA is not as crazy as the European ruling classes like to pretend...it is check to misuse of power...something the ruling European elite naturally want to avoid.

I agree that it was a sound idea based on honourable principles. And I'm comfortable with the idea that I should be free to own a gun. I'm just not as comfortable with the idea that you should be free to own one too!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, adarmo said:

Militia = group of regimented people

Breakfast = meal

Yours is a question of verbal reasoning but what really matters is the intention of the Founding Fathers and that is a matter of great debate. 

At the time of writing the Second Amendment I wonder if they had cheap rapid fire assault rifles? Are the challenges facing the United States the same today as they were in 1776?

Of course there could be other reasons for the USAs ridiculous homicide rate (five times higher then the UK) but I should think the ease of availability of guns plays a more than significant part. 

Attempting to wiggle your way out via interpreting the "intentions" of the Founding Fathers is slimy at best. I take it that you concede that on an objective language level, the 2nd Amendment means that any regulation whatsoever on weapon ownership and use is Unconstitutional?

The Founding Fathers were concerned about the power of the State. The only check on that is the attitude and ability to defend themselves of the populace. Therefore, they would have wanted citizens to have at least an equivalent military capability to the government.

The US government, by its own definition, is the world's most profligate terrorist, so I think the "2nd Amendment folk" are more than justified in their concern.

 

The vast majority of homicides in the US are committed with illegal pistols.

Gun crime is inversely correlated with legal gun ownership rate in the US

Finally, i suggest you research the demographics of gun crime in the US. You may find some truths which the Grauniad would be unlikely to present.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, LC1 said:

I agree that it was a sound idea based on honourable principles. And I'm comfortable with the idea that I should be free to own a gun. I'm just not as comfortable with the idea that you should be free to own one too!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: 

 

If we all had nuclear weapons, no one would f**k with anyone.

The REAL ultimate deterrent.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Wayward said:

what with Spain?

 

Quote

Summary

The regulation of guns in Spain is highly restrictive. The bearing of arms by civilians is not considered a right but a privilege that may be granted by the government if legal conditions are met. Guns are regulated by the Ministry of the Interior through the General Directorate of the Civil Guard.  Different types of licenses are required according to the type of weapon to be used.  Firearms licenses for personal security are restricted to those who can prove that a real danger to their security exists. Automatic weapons are strictly forbidden to civilians.

https://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/spain.php

Kinda cute the americans have decided to compile a compendium of other countries' gun laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, mat109 said:

Those sections include the police, unfortunately.

I'd much rather live in a country where getting stopped by the police didn't carry the risk of summary execution.

How telling that you do t mention the group that does most of the killing.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Locke said:

Attempting to wiggle your way out via interpreting the "intentions" of the Founding Fathers is slimy at best. I take it that you concede that on an objective language level, the 2nd Amendment means that any regulation whatsoever on weapon ownership and use is Unconstitutional?

The Founding Fathers were concerned about the power of the State. The only check on that is the attitude and ability to defend themselves of the populace. Therefore, they would have wanted citizens to have at least an equivalent military capability to the government.

The US government, by its own definition, is the world's most profligate terrorist, so I think the "2nd Amendment folk" are more than justified in their concern.

 

The vast majority of homicides in the US are committed with illegal pistols.

Gun crime is inversely correlated with legal gun ownership rate in the US

Finally, i suggest you research the demographics of gun crime in the US. You may find some truths which the Grauniad would be unlikely to present.

Really. What were the intentions of the founding fathers then? After you've enlightened me perhaps you could run over to the US (if you ain't there a'ready) and let them know. The fact is books have been written on this arguing for and against. If it's so damn clear why do they need the NRA to lobby the hell out of government each time the words 'gun control' are mentioned. 

I do not concede that on objective language it means every individual has the right to have any lawful gun (some how in this craziness sawed off shots are illegal). If the language was so clear then the courts wouldn't argue over it. The handgun ban in DC that had stood for 12 years was overturned by vote 5-4 in favour of revoking the ban. Hardly a convincing win was it?  But then what do those highly intelligent justices know about English and the law compared to you? 

What makes those pistols illegal?

Gun crime is directly correlated, and caused, with guns

I understand that the majority of gun crime occurs within the black community. That doesn't mean we shouldn't care about it.

I am not a Guardian reader. 

Finally, have a read https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Locke said:

Attempting to wiggle your way out via interpreting the "intentions" of the Founding Fathers is slimy at best. I take it that you concede that on an objective language level, the 2nd Amendment means that any regulation whatsoever on weapon ownership and use is Unconstitutional?

The Founding Fathers were concerned about the power of the State. The only check on that is the attitude and ability to defend themselves of the populace. Therefore, they would have wanted citizens to have at least an equivalent military capability to the government.

The US government, by its own definition, is the world's most profligate terrorist, so I think the "2nd Amendment folk" are more than justified in their concern.

 

The vast majority of homicides in the US are committed with illegal pistols.

Gun crime is inversely correlated with legal gun ownership rate in the US

Finally, i suggest you research the demographics of gun crime in the US. You may find some truths which the Grauniad would be unlikely to present.

Superb post. With some hard to swallow reality for some on here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Members of the public owning small arms is a weak check on tyranny. The best checks against tyranny are strong, effective democratic institutions that the public have faith in. Where democracys have collapsed to be replaced by fascist dictatorships, erosion of these has been the main cause, not the population being without guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   40 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.