BS: Anyone defend US gun law?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 21 Sep 14 - 08:56 PM

It is a mere assertion that the vast bulk of the Us would rise up in rebellion if such a ban were proposed. I don't believe it. Why not try it?

On the other side of the story, it remains the case that all it needs for evil to triumph is for the peacable folk of the US to do nothing. And while you do, your children will continue to die at a far greater rate than here in the UK, and the parents will weep, but only have themselves to thank for their inaction. And we will continue to call your country as a whole barbaric, uncivilised and unfitted to lead the rest of the world, because you have barbaric and uncivilised laws applicable to all.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 21 Sep 14 - 04:27 PM

I don't carry a gun in a bank. I said the law allows it but not in a post office. That is the kind of stupid shit with the laws that I talked about

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Sep 14 - 04:03 PM

:) Greg F.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Sep 14 - 03:51 PM

But why on earth would you want to carry a gun into a bank?

Jaysus, Musket, get with the program. How ya gonna rob a bank without a gun?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Sep 14 - 02:59 PM

I just lost a long post. I shall compose in another program next time. I may try to re-do it later.

But..."your refusal to give up dangerous weapons in the hands of the public" is phrased as if "your" were a single entity... like the Supreme Court recently granted to corporations when giving money.

*WE* do not refuse anything! I wonder if the UK habit of using collective nouns...(Arsenal 'are' doing such & such) clouds minds about exactly who is being so intransigent about guns. Whatever the reason that many of you in the UK just don't 'get' the nature of the problem, the fact remains... you just don't.

'We' have not given up.... we struggle with it everyday. 'I' have not given up... I vote and debate and write my congressman. The only thing I will NOT do, is buy a gun myself and take 'em on. I'd last about 30 seconds, and then there'd be one fewer trying to make sense.

(Kinda like beating your head on the wall, isn't it, Ebbie? Trying to get the point across, I mean)

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 21 Sep 14 - 01:59 PM

Two dangerous people doubles the risk not halves it.

Why not let them keep anti tank missiles? It's only the number of body bags that's different.

The only people with hand guns here are criminals. Makes it easier for police to distinguish and puts the whole of our 70 million population on a par with your average US city.

It isn't a few Mudcat members who find your refusal to give up dangerous weapons in the hands of the public abhorrent, it's the rest of the western world and from comments when addressing our Parliament, your own President.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 21 Sep 14 - 01:43 PM

No

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Sep 14 - 01:20 PM

Would you agree that in the current climate of the US certain people- whether out of fear, or the mindset of a hero - might feel justified in possessing or flourishing guns?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 21 Sep 14 - 03:59 AM

We didn't have a referendum over rape and murder either.

There is no reason whatsoever for members of the public to need to carry guns. None.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Sep 14 - 03:27 AM

You may understand it more than we think, Musket, but in my opinion you don't understand enough. Nothing personal - and I do appreciate your efforts to understand - but you don't appreciate the differences between our nations.

When your country banned and appropriated the guns how did your government at the time go about it? Was there a referendum? A vote? An agreement or compromise? Was there an outcry?   

Or did everyone willingly say, "Well, if that's the way it is, that's the way it's going to be"?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 21 Sep 14 - 03:06 AM

But why on earth would you want to carry a gun into a bank? Or anywhere public for that matter?

Bill. A federal law can be made binding on all states in certain conditions. Don't just keep saying it's complicated and we wouldn't understand. I probably understand it more than you think.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 21 Sep 14 - 01:32 AM

Yes, Bill & Ebbie. That's the way it is. So of course it can never change. States have their independent legislative powers. God said so, so that's the way it is; so nobody will ever be able to do anything about it. If the President or Congress or anybody else tried to change it, people would make a fuss, so fugged-it...

& all this from philosophically trained intelligent members of the community in the nation that claims to rule the Earth.

Wonder what Abe Lincoln would have thought of such arguments.

You asked me a question. I answered it. I can scarcely believe the feeble peeps I got in reply.

So go on killing each other in the home & in the mall & in the school and in the subway and in the bus in vast #s.

Have a ☯.

Bang bang. You're dead...

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Sep 14 - 01:08 AM

As I noted the other day, Dan, it seems ironic to me that the one place that Congress did not specify was open to the gun was their own halls. Maybe like the infamous 'going postal' they figure there are places more inherently high-risk than others?

I don't know. For me, guns are not an essential thing - except for the .22s that we had at home, I've never shot a gun. And I know that the various massacres we have experienced of late are viscerally disgusting, in addition to all else one can say about them.

On the other hand, we have to work with what we have. And what we have at the moment is millions of guns.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 20 Sep 14 - 11:20 PM

Oh and I can legally carry a loaded gun into any bank. But not a post office.. See what I mean about laws that make no sense

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 20 Sep 14 - 11:17 PM

What bothers me most Ebbie is a state like Florida where it is as easy as spitting to get a permit. 12 other states say we'll accept Florida permits so go ahead and carry. New York almost impossible to get a conceal carry and it is complex.. Yes I have one of the few given. But new york doesn't recognize other states may be now there are some I don't know but darn few because other states are not as rigorous at issue and application. Until the fed makes a standard it goes on

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Ebbie
Date: 20 Sep 14 - 09:37 PM

"Declare gun possession illegal except in the sort of highly restricted circumstances that we permit here. Set a deadline date by which all weapons must be surrendered, after which possession will become a serious offence. Enact searches and checks for any unauthorised weapons after that date. Further enact the severest penalties, both custodial & financial [hit the buggers in the pocket] for being found in unauthorised possession."MGM Lion

Bill D has said just about everything that I could say, but let me pile on:

"Declare gun possession illegal except..."

Who should declare it?   As has been said, we have states' rights here- one state can make rules that other states needn't honor. That being so, it would have to be the Federal government that would have to declare such a thing. BUT if President Obama were to dictate such a thing, there would be a mass uprising that you would not believe. Don't forget: our Supreme Court has decided that plain old citizens have the right to bear arms; the gun totin' citizenry has taken that to mean that guns may be carried 'most everywhere. We are farther behind than we were 10 years ago!

One other factoid you might enter into the equation is this: The Eastern Time Zone in the USA has more people than double the entire population of the UK. And that's just one time zone out of six- although granted that some zones have far fewer in population.

In addition to the greater population, consider the far greater land mass in the US and the far different conditions and expectations and histories of one state from another. It is a wonder that my country gets along as well as it does with its disparate parts.

That being said, US states are jealous states. No state will allow another state to make rules and laws that impact -against their will- that state.

We have states that allow gambling, we have states that do not. We have states that are dry, do not allow alcohol sales within its borders, we have states that barely regulate the alcohol industry. Incidentally, in Alaska we have many communities that are dry, and some that are semi-dry by the vote of their people. They have lawbreakers that go to jail on that account alone.

The glue that holds this together is the government in Washington DC. Washington can and does make rules and laws that states are duty bound to follow and that some states flout for a period of time. Take for instance the pot legalization that several states have recently decreed. At this point Washington has not changed its stance on pot use, sales and distribution- it's agin it, and it could -and still may - lower the boom and whack the states' rules out of existence.

All this to say that the issue of guns is complex.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 20 Sep 14 - 08:21 PM

You are correct musket try smoking in some states near a public place. Immediately fined go to a gun show get an ak47 legal. Law abiding gun owners hate It to

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Sep 14 - 08:02 PM

"Declare gun possession illegal except .." That is beautiful... with one tiny awkward part. Who would you suggest do this sensible declaring? I can *asser*t it is stupid to have so many guns, and have done so for years. I make sure to vote for only candidates who seem to be 'reasonable'. You surely don't believe Obama...or any president ...can make such a declaration? He'd be laughed off the stage.

I add in Rahere's discssion...with trepidation, as I am NOT a constitutional scholar. But Barack Obama is... he actually taught constitutional law for awhile.
   I submit that the constitutions of the UK, Belgium & Albania do have significant differences from ours... and different rules & standards for both interpretation and revision. It is technically possible that the right combination of Supreme Court justices could 'interpret' that ambiguous phrase about "the right of citizens to keep and bear arms" as being ONLY applicable to 'militias'... but we are nowhere near any such set of justices. The entire phrase needs to be stricken and/or amended to reflect the changes in culture, technology and geography.
Perhaps you, with your background, could pop over here and debate our legal wizards about how such amending could proceed?

I do not know he details of how a law in the UK applies to all local jurisdictions... but the [once useful] concept of 'states rights' makes it very hard to even design a National law that can supersede certain state's provisions. States can... and a few have... write local ordinances about various weapon restrictions. But other states, often right next door, can NOT do that.. and even be LESS restrictive! Yep... that sure does mean that illegal guns can often be obtained by just driving a few miles... and yes THAT is stupid, and that situation is being chipped away at by some jurisdictions. And IF such loopholes were plugged, there are all those millions of guns both legal AND illegal hidden away, with self-defined militias sworn to resist any attempt to ban or confiscate them. You think the FIRST Civil War was bad?

You say."In plain text, an interpretation is case law, and bounded by and must be coherent with primary law."
Seems sensible... I refer you to my idea of having you pop over and explain to the relevant parties how that applies and how to move from a sensible interpretation to carefully constructed statute. ... and I am only partially joking about that. I have very minor credentials as a graduate in Philosophy who tries to make sense of things. I have no credentials which would even get me in the door to testify to Congressional committee about the nuances of such laws.

And even with the length of some of my posts, I am not a touch typist.. I do this slowly with 2 fingers ...which need rest in order to spend more time in my workshop.....

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 20 Sep 14 - 07:52 PM

Passing laws and relying on law abiding citizens works for most of us. In a democracy you should be able to trust law makers not to abuse that notion.

You may as well decriminalise anything that keeps occurring by that logic. Don't worry, we'll send Stephen Fry out again to do a another documentary about how weird you all are. Interestingly, spending about 1/3 of my time in The USA for many years, I hardly ever saw the attitudes displayed by some of those on here. In fact in California I was more often than not rebuked for our hitherto allowing smoking in restaurants. We got rid of that overnight by the way.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: olddude
Date: 20 Sep 14 - 07:45 PM

The United States Supreme Court cannot decide what the second admendment determines legal ownership. It makes my heart smile that you foreign guys have it all figured out. However the laws remain in the hands of the states. They determine that right some are very lacks indeed some are very restrictive as in my state but to date we have no federal standards except for automatic weapons. Until change are made i will support the constitution as my duty demands and guys like rap will also

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 20 Sep 14 - 06:38 PM

Pursuing the historical foundation of the Second Amendment in the 1776 Pennsylvania Constitution, I note that the current version of the PA Uniform Firearms Act contains a definition of a weapon as "a firearm which is not loaded or lacks a clip or other component to render it immediately operable, and components which can readily be assembled into a weapon."
That points me in the further direction of the rest of the US legislation, which has in the past forbidden sales of ammunition to certain classes of individual. Although these have mostly been repealed, the ground never addressed the Constitutional implication you make, nor does the NRA impute it, because it does not exist. Had it existed, those laws would have been unconstitutional, and indeed such limitations as do exist on the sale of ammunition also have the same impact, the Constitution does not extend as far as is being claimed.
Indeed, an even wider lacuna exists, in that only one State, New Jersey, forbids dum-dum bullets, completely forbidden by the Geneva Conventions. If anything, therefore, the entire US legal position on ammunition might be illegal in superior International Law even as it stands.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Sep 14 - 06:36 PM

Ah, but then, Rahere, you must take into accouint the indisputable fact that the vast majority of U.S. citizens, and particularly the foaming-at-the-mouth, gun-nut, TeaParty types, have never actually READ either the Declaration of Independence OR the Constitution of the United States in whole or in part.

And for the most part, wouldn't understand them if they did.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 20 Sep 14 - 05:50 PM

And addressing the Constitutional precedent, I apologise for the legal mind-bending which follows, but I'm amongst other things a Constitutional Lawyer (I've written entire Laws and interpretations which establish primary axioms for Judgement in three different Jurisdictions - UK, as part of the Beta Tester team for the Legiislation.gov.uk online Statute Law database, Belgium, long-term mental care and financial procedings in charities, Albania, restabilising the economy after the pyramid banking collapse). If you need, skip the next paragraph, I only left it in for the formality of the argument.

The entire Constitution is predicated on the primary foundation of LIFE (liberty and the pursuit of happiness, albeit not happiness itself, in the Declaration of Independence which the Constitution impliments). The Constitution opens "We the People of the United States, in Order to for a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." In other words, the foundation document is the Declaration, and the Constitution an Implimenting Codicil thereto. The two are inseparable and must be read together. If the case were otherwise, then the Constitution would be void, refering to something undefined.
As these cannot subvert themselves, such an implicit interpretation is wrong in Law. If it were explicit, then it might be a legal incoherence, the Law is riddled with them, but an implication is not, it's simply a putative and therefore secondary application of Law and is bound by the primary texts.

In plain text, an interpretation is case law, and bounded by and must be coherent with primary law. The Constitution impliments the Declaration of Independence, which establishes that Americans have a right to life. Any interpretation of the Constitution must therefore defend that, and so your argument falls. A similar provision has recently been built into the European legal structures, more explicitly interdicting any such subversion of the right to life, in the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Sep 14 - 04:58 PM

Big, wild country... Indians... defending against bears... war of independence ... ranchers controlling predators...etc. etc... it goes for several paragraphs. Look it up.

'Cept for the Indians, Bill (and there were the Picts, after all) you could be describing Britain, tho several centuries prior to the U.S. experience. Or any number of countries on the Continent.

Try again.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 20 Sep 14 - 04:00 PM

Facetious rather than constructive, Lighter. You ought to do better than that.

When war was declared in 1941, your great nation responded magnificently -- because you had got the nation onside. Men & women responded to the call-up; obeyed their orders; fought the foe; & won... At home, Rosie riveted... Irving Berlin wrote that great revue...

Declare War on the bloody gun culture. Get the nation on your side. Treat the NRA & the gun lobby as the enemy they are.

YOU CAN DO IT.

Lighter thinks you can't, becoz HE DOESN'T WANT TO. I BET HE LOVES HIS GUNS so he turns defensive-destructive. It's people like him who are part of the problem Maybe not the actual enemy, but their 'useful idiot' 5th Column. Ignore him.

But don't ignore Bill. He's on your side. CONVINCE HIM!

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Lighter
Date: 20 Sep 14 - 03:45 PM

But you couldn't figure out how to treat the Irish fairly in nine hundred years of trying, could you?

Quite pathetic, old boy. Wot? Wot? Did someone say "Injia"? And that messy affair of those other colonies. Disagreeable quite.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 20 Sep 14 - 03:25 PM

Re your beer argument, Bill

WE'VE DONE IT WITH TOBACCO, IN A REMARKABLY SHORT TIME, WHICH WAS FAR MORE EMBEDDED IN OUR CULTURE...

I assert confidently that if we wanted to discourage beer-drinking to the same sort of extent, we'd do it...

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 20 Sep 14 - 03:22 PM

"if you have a serious idea on how to get out of that firearms situation"
.,,.

Stop this pusillanimous can't-be-done handwringing for a start.

Declare gun possession illegal except in the sort of highly restricted circumstances that we permit here. Set a deadline date by which all weapons must be surrendered, after which possession will become a serious offence. Enact searches and checks for any unauthorised weapons after that date. Further enact the severest penalties, both custodial & financial [hit the buggers in the pocket] for being found in unauthorised possession.

Seems the sort of thing that any sort of organised modern nation with the law-abiding majority on which all successful law and its enforcement depends, ought to be able to undertake & achieve.

BUT THE WILL MUST BE THERE. ½·❤·ed despairing handwringing would kill such a project from the off.

Go on, the World's Leading Nation.

Give it a go. You can do it if the will is there!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Sep 14 - 03:11 PM

Fine, Rahere.. I agree those are good ideas.

And you say" Stop selling ammunition and the fixings to roll your own." and " If you want, ban holdings as well,"

It's that "stop" and "if you want" that are the sticking points. I can assert that many Brits drink too much beer.. and you might even agree... but it is so embedded in the culture that just the idea of limiting it is laughable. Would YOU like to design a law seriously limiting ale, and the campaign to get it passed?

Banning ammunition requires... how shall I say it?... BANNING it. It means passing a law almost as complex as banning guns themselves. It would almost certainly be resisted on 2nd Amendment grounds..('the people's right to keep & bear arms' implicitly includes bullets they would say). And there we are again, back at a Constitutional amendment, and good luck getting that introduced, passed and ratified by enough states!

The damned argument is circular... it is a legal version of M.C. Escher! "For want of a horseshoe nail ...the country is lost".

I can design a revision of the entire educational system to include teaching logic and pragmatism from the beginning which, if implemented, would have most everyone agreeing to limit guns... in, oh... 2-3 generations. HA!

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 20 Sep 14 - 02:14 PM

I answered that one earlier, Bill. Stop selling ammunition and the fixings to roll your own. No rounds, no bang: you can keep your psychosis on the risk of invasion, issuing ammunition from State arsenals if and when it ever becomes necessary, but until then, leave the ars'ole boys with what they have and once that's gone, no more.

Ammunition doesn't have an infinite shelf life, it's quite short (usually less than ten years), and if you don't use it in time it becomes more than somewhat problematic, sometimes not going off at all, sometimes becoming dangerous to handle. If you want, ban holdings as well, with a short amnesty to use it or hand it in.

Allow exemptions in particular areas where wildlife is a danger, but make the penalty for abuse in storage and use much tougher, and backed by police audit to double-check it. You had 20 rounds, you now have 10, where are the shell cases?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Sep 14 - 01:58 PM

I'll say it once more: "I hate the gun culture!"

But we HAVE many millions of guns of various types distributed in godawful ways. You can go *tsk-tsk* all day about the stupidity of it, but that says NOTHING about a pragmatic solution. Read again my sarcastic remark above about 'how to solve it'. *I* know the problem... how am I supposed to reply to nothing but continual jeering and finger pointing?

I respect you, Michael, and 99% of your observations on most issues.... but I can't understand this one.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Sep 14 - 01:48 PM

Michael... putting men on the moon and having a legal & cultural problem with firearms is a 'false equivalency'. I could make assertions about some awkward issue in the UK that seems foolish, but I'm sure I'd be shot down over 'not understanding the history'.

Now if you have a serious idea on how to get out of that firearms situation, I am all ears...

---------------

and Greg, I have spelled out the history of the gun culture several times.

Big, wild country... Indians... defending against bears... war of independence ... ranchers controlling predators...etc. etc... it goes for several paragraphs. Look it up.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 20 Sep 14 - 12:09 PM

I'm sorry, Bill. But putting men on the Moon but being unable to control the use of your firearms because you can't enforce laws even if you pass them, is just pathetic in anybody's language.

If you think that smug & condescending -- well I shall just have to live with it, shant I?

Regards

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Sep 14 - 11:59 AM

this big, wild country had remained part of the Empire, I'd bet the opinion & understanding of how 'gun culture' developed naturally would have many Brits analyzing the situation a bit differently.

Or vice versa.

And how do you see how U.S. 'gun culture' DID develope?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Sep 14 - 11:54 AM

Lighter gets the point.... and if King George had treated the colonists better and this big, wild country had remained part of the Empire, I'd bet the opinion & understanding of how 'gun culture' developed naturally would have many Brits analyzing the situation a bit differently.

The 'first world' (is that in the Magna Carta?) is not somehow naturally more intelligent and reasonable. Being smug & condescending about differences in history is not becoming.... no matter from whose perspective.

Those of us who despise and regret the situation regarding guns are also frustrated that the path to controlling it is such a Moebius strip.... and when we are told "just introduce new, sane laws & pass them", the discussion has nowhere to go.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 20 Sep 14 - 11:29 AM

There there, Lighter. All go on playing with your nice toys, and never mind what the grown-ups think.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Lighter
Date: 20 Sep 14 - 08:14 AM

The longer this thread goes on, the lower my opinion of British acuity becomes.

I have to keep telling myself it's just a few nuts, just a few nuts, just a few nuts....

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 20 Sep 14 - 03:34 AM

Or don't have guns around for them to steal in the first place.

Problem solved as per how we do it in the first world.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 08:26 PM

" A man shot his daughter and.." etc.... but he wasn't allowed to have a gun! Why, he just broke the law! Naughty, naughty!

All we have have to do is carefully monitor all felons and keep track of all current & developing psychos... and have everyone register all their guns.... and explain to all the sane people how careful they have to be, lest some felon or psycho steal or buy their guns.

There... problem solved!

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 04:58 PM

Nothing like learning from a mistake, is there? Better not to have to learn the hard way.

The death of his son, for example, is yet again the result of no training and indiscipline. What was a round doing up the spout when it wasn't about to be fired, when he was cleaning the weapon? How come it had got rusty? So having killed one of his children, he'd already crossed that limit, the rest wasn't as hard - on him, the swine.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 02:09 PM

"The parents are coming in with tears in their eyes," said Wendy Pineda, who brought her two sons to the school Friday morning."

Mmmmmm, words like 'crocodile' spring to mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 02:04 PM

HOW MANY MORE?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 09:58 AM

Might be a thought to require anyone wanting a gun licence to do a month in an Emergency Room first, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 09:42 AM

You're correct Rap. And that's the job of the Armed Forces, not a bunch of small-dicks with hunting-rifles that may or may not be stored in locked gun-safes, handguns they keep on the bedside stand, or automatics they picked up with no checks at the County Fair.

I was born in 1947, grew up surrounded by veterans from both World-Wars - they saw plenty of death, and I never heard one of them support the notion of civilians being permitted to own guns. None ever wanted to see a gun again, they were sickened by guns and what can be done to a human being with a gun.

No-one, except the police, the armed forces, farmers and boba-fide sport-shooters needs a gun in a civilised country. Australia and the United Kingdom prove that.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 09:26 AM

Oh its even bettet than that, Musket: The Florida idiot had a prior conviction for - you guessed it - shooting his son to death. Good old Florida...

---

BELL, Fla., Friday, September 19, 2014 (AP) — A man who spent time in prison a decade ago for the shooting death of his young son killed six of his grandchildren, including an infant, his adult daughter and himself in a rampage at a home where authorities in the small Florida town say they had been called to in the past. When a deputy arrived, the shooter, 51-year-old Don Spirit, committed suicide and authorities then found the seven gunshot victims "all over on the property."

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Rapparee
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 09:19 AM

When I posted my last comment I didn't think y'all would understand it. Having been in war does not mean that someone is opposed to ALL war or to all violence. Only to violence for violence's sake, only to the lawless sort. There are times when only violence will serve -- witness the ISIS or ISIL or whatever they are calling themselves. There can be no rational discussion with fanatics -- NRA, Nazi, anarchist, pacifist, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Shintoist, Amish, socialist, or whatever. When true fanaticism takes over only the death of the fanatics will stop it. Why? Because true fanaticism means that the fanatic is willing, even eager, to die for The True Cause.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Lighter
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 09:03 AM

Let me know if they start using them on truants.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 06:05 AM

An article once again underlining the US mindset where it comes to militarisation and the use of force:

School districts given free machine guns and grenade launchers

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 05:49 AM

35000 a year is close enough 100 a day, grosso-modo. That's just one hour's tragedies, move on, nothing to bother you...unless you're a real human being. Next...
In any one month, 3000 Americans die from guns. You get all hot under the collar about Al Qaida attacking the WTC, once, fourteen years back, killing fewer. One might ask who are the greater terrorists then, Al Qaida or the NRA? Because on a simple statistical basis, the latter are your own worst enemy. You're actually more likely to die from a gun than in a road traffic accident (2012:33561), there. You need cars (although a better bus network would help), you don't need so many weapons, except in a few areas.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 19 Sep 14 - 04:56 AM

Wow. Fascinating to get inside the mindset of people who think guns are cute.

A bit like the Jesus freaks on certain other threads.

I suppose there's nothing threatening about a billiard ball in a sock either..


This just in. Eight dead in Florida. A man shot his daughter and his six grandchildren dead before turning the gun on himself.

Still, he had the right to bear arms so freedom is safe. God bless America.*




*somebody has to.