 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Backwoodsman Date: 22 Sep 14 - 01:59 PM They characterised themselves as uneducated redneck hillbillies by the language and content of their posts, Stim. If it walks like a duck.....etc., etc. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: GUEST,Rahere Date: 22 Sep 14 - 03:30 PM That's half the trouble, Bill, you don't see how the US behaves internationally. Self-righteous beyond belief, to the point where it drives anyone else who happens to believe in themselves, like most of the Arabic world, utterly potty. How can you be believed when the immediate consequence of this is that you're far more dangerous to yourselves than your worst enemies are? Answer: you can't, which encourages the Islamic fundamentalists of every ilk no end. Which has much the same effect. Most of us know we can get it wrong and allow accordingly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: GUEST,Stim Date: 22 Sep 14 - 04:35 PM And what then are we to think of you, based on the language of your posts, Backwoodsman? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Backwoodsman Date: 22 Sep 14 - 04:42 PM Think whatever you like, it's of absolutely no consequence to me what you, or anyone else, thinks of me on an Internet forum such as this. I don't know you,you don't know me, so what does it matter what we think of each other? Other people's' opinions of me matter not one jot. And, of course,changing the subject is a clear indication that the subject-changer has lost the argument. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Bill D Date: 22 Sep 14 - 05:33 PM Rahere... " Self-righteous beyond belief, " That is a really broad brush you paint with, and is one of my peeves about how US policy is described in simple terms... What we do is very much a "damned if you do and damned if you don't' situation. We get just as much criticism for not interfering more as we do for getting involved. "It all depends on whose ox is being gored". I'd hate to be the one who decides whether to directly confront ISIS or to even arm & train rebels at all... anywhere. I'll grant that some of our loudmouth hawks..(such as John McCain) have never seen an issue they couldn't 'solve' by throwing troops at it... and after the Iraq debacle, it took a lot of careful 'backing out'. In the same way, there are many who feel that 'now that guns are everywhere, I'd better get MY share of them'.... making the stupid assumption like the %$#^*& NRA says, that "the best way to deal with a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun". I can cite 27 examples that disprove that... but.......... (You know, it is pretty wearing arguing with those I basically agree with as well as countering those I firmly disagree with. 7 years of Philosophy in college have made me suspicious of all overly-generalized positions) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Greg F. Date: 22 Sep 14 - 05:47 PM Self-righteous beyond belief, " That is a really broad brush you paint with, and is one of my peeves about how US policy is described So how would YOU describe the imperialistic, self-righteous, gunboat diplomacy foreign policy of the U.S. down to the present day, Bill? Like below? ----------------- COPS OF THE WORLD by Phil Ochs, (c)1966, 1968 Barricade Music, Inc. Come, get out of the way, boys, quick, get out of the way You'd better watch what you say, boys, better watch what you say We've rammed in your harbor and tied to your port And our pistols are hungry and our tempers are short So bring your daughters around to the fort 'Cause we're the cops of the world, boys, we're the cops of the world We pick and choose as we please, boys Pick and choose as we please You'd better get down on your knees, boys You'd best get down on your knees We're hairy and horny and ready to shack And we don't care if you're yellow or black Just take off your clothes and lay down on your back 'Cause we're the cops of the world, boys, we're the cops of the world Our boots are needing a shine, boy, boots are needing a shine But our Coca-Cola is fine, boys, Coca-Cola is fine We've got to protect all our citizens fair So we'll send a battalion for everyone there And maybe we'll leave in a couple of years 'Cause we're the cops of the world, boys, we're the cops of the world And dump the REds in a pile, boys, dump the Reds in a pile You'd better wipe off that smile, boys, better wipe off that smile We'll spit through the streets of the cities we wreck And we'll find you a leader that you can elect Those treaties we signed were a pain in the neck 'Cause we're the cops of the world, boys, we're the cops of the world And clean the johns with a rag, boys, clean the johns with a rag If you like, you can use your flag, boys, if you like, you can use your flag We've got too much money; we're looking for toys Guns will be guns, and boys will be boys But we'll gladly pay for all we've destroyed 'Cause we're the cops of the world, boys, we're the cops of the world And please stay off of the grass, boys, please stay off of the grass Here's a kick in the ass, boys, here's a kick in the ass We'll smash down your doors; we don't bother to knock We've done it before, so why all the shock We're the biggest and toughest kids on the block And we're the cops of the world, boys, we're the cops of the world And when we've butchered your sons, boys, when we've butchered your sons Have a stick of our gum, boys, have a stick of our bubblegum We own half the world, oh say can you see And the name for our profits is democracy So like it or not you will have to be free 'Cause we're the cops of the world, boys, we're the cops of the world. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: GUEST,Stim Date: 23 Sep 14 - 01:17 AM The thing is, Backwoodsman, this is not exactly a group of strangers who pass in the night. A, lot of us have been here for a while, and know each other fairly well. And it's a small world. Just sayin'. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Backwoodsman Date: 23 Sep 14 - 02:50 AM And.........?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Musket Date: 23 Sep 14 - 03:11 AM Is this the bit where I say Backwoodsman is just a pussy cat and his bark is worse than his bite? (Payback time yer bugger) Mind you, some of us, in fact every single one of us has been here since, ooh let's see now, our last post. No such thing as long term medals and if somebody stumbled upon Mudcat for the very first time, their post would hold as much weight as anybody else's. Don't forget. Those who think guns are cool are the ones having to defend stupidity here. Those who wash their hands of a situation they don't like are the roll over and get shafted and be grateful brigade. The rest of us are just enjoying our trip to the zoo. 🙈🙉🙊 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Backwoodsman Date: 23 Sep 14 - 04:17 AM LOL! I knew I'd live to regret calling you a pussycat! :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: GUEST,Rahere Date: 23 Sep 14 - 06:50 AM BUT, I do have to declare that I spent 9 years as a senior civilian officer of WEU, the European defence diplomatic clearing centre which also hosted the European defence HQ, as a sharp and permanent reminder of what happens if we got it wrong. We did a huge chunk of the work in creating the Paece Agenda, before anyone starts in, which won the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize for Europe. It means I far prefer jaw-jaw to the alternative. When that function disappeared off the the Council of the European Commission, I was kept on as part of the cadre guaranteeing the self-defence legal right of Europe. That means I have a very clear and immediate view of the problems of US military policy, and the autonomous behaviour of that structure, for instance in the way Homeland Security has fulfilled the worst nightmares of those who warned of its omnipotence at the start, has more than worried the rest of the World: it raises exactly the question I put in microcosm, whether the US is fit to be a superpower. Objectively, having taken you to a position which you find uncomfortable with, I must lead you on to the corollary, reminding you that in fact it is the presumption that you can do nothing which is wrong. One of the new dynamics in lobbying is the appearance of groups like change.org and the UK's 38 degrees, which are very good at bringing the disenfranchised back into the political system, very much from a socialist angle, giving the people a voice. Their UK membership, for instance, each far outweighs the total activist membership of the established political parties put together, and the political system is frightened: they can neither deny them nor ignore them. They would love to get them to sign up, but that's spurned. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Rapparee Date: 23 Sep 14 - 10:39 AM Ain't nothing quite so peaceful as a dead man. --Mad Magazine, about 1960, in a of "The Rifleman" TV show. God Save The King Henry Carey? First performed 1745 1. God save our gracious King, Long live our noble King, God save the King! Send him victorious, Happy and glorious, Long to reign o'er us; God save the King! 2. O Lord our God arise, Scatter his enemies And make them fall; Confound their politics, Frustrate their knavish tricks, On Thee our hopes we fix, God save us all! 3. Thy choicest gifts in store On him be pleased to pour; Long may he reign; May he defend our laws, And ever give us cause To sing with heart and voice, God save the King! 4. Not in this land alone, But be God's mercies known, From shore to shore! Lord make the nations see, That men should brothers be, And form one family, The wide world o'er. 5. From every latent foe, From the assassins blow, God save the King! O'er his thine arm extend, For Britain's sake defend, Our father, prince, and friend, God save the King! 6. Lord grant that Marshal Wade May by thy mighty aid Victory bring. May he sedition hush, And like a torrent rush, Rebellious Scots to crush. God save the King! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Backwoodsman Date: 23 Sep 14 - 11:08 AM The king died 62 years ago Rap. Do try to keep up lad. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Bill D Date: 23 Sep 14 - 12:31 PM "So how would YOU describe the imperialistic, self-righteous, gunboat diplomacy foreign policy of the U.S. down to the present day, Bill? " Well gee, Greg... short answer is, I don't.... because I don't accept your premise. (You didn't ask me if I've stopped beating my wife yet.) ------------------------------------ Rahere: "Objectively, having taken you to a position which you find uncomfortable with, I must lead you on to the corollary, reminding you that in fact it is the presumption that you can do nothing which is wrong. " Far from ever even considering the idea that 'we can do nothing which is wrong', I am frustrated that it is hard to even define what would be involved in 'doing something everyone agrees is right'. What I am really uncomfortable with is a situation in which there seems to be NO solution that addresses the root causes of the current chaos. But I disagree that you have accurately defined a corollary...especially to a situation that is not itself clearly defined. I admire, respect and approve of the goals & policy of the WEU as you have described them, but setting out a political & moral agenda barely touches the pragmatic issues of how best to approach it. I have never, as you have, been directly involved in negotiation about policy.... and I also " far prefer jaw-jaw to the alternative." I just am personally not privy to the information that a government or security agency needs to decide when "the alternative" is required. G.W Bush got it very wrong a few years ago... whether thru stupidity or being lied to by his sources (I suspect some of both.) Many of our Senators were told that we had convincing evidence of Saddam's weapons & intentions, and they gave those assessments the benefit of the doubt.... and were wrong! After such a blunder, there is no simple way to back out gracefully! And no matter what the next administration did, it got lumped in as "failed US policies". If the US had stayed out of WWII, that would have been "failed policy". But the original topic here was US gun laws... and I submit that the basic problem internally is pragmatically similar to the international one: there is an untenable situation, and no one can define a solution that will both **work** and not cause as many problems as it cures. After 600+ posts here, I still see remarks that are little more than finger pointing and suggesting that " we just straighten up & fly right!" --------------------------------- ""The objective of all dedicated employees is to thoroughly analyze all situations, anticipate all problems prior to their occurrence, have answers for these problems, and move swiftly to solve these problems when called upon. However, when you are up to your ass in alligators, it is difficult to remember that your initial objective was to drain the swamp." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: olddude Date: 23 Sep 14 - 12:56 PM geeze shouldn't you guys be trying to knock each other off a horse with a big pole instead of picking fights. nobody will change the gun laws. no politican will support it even though all say they will. it is political sucide. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: MGM·Lion Date: 23 Sep 14 - 01:04 PM No politician, maybe, Dan. But a statesman might. And that's the difference. A statesman is one who can commit what looks like political suicide in the interests of principle and the commonweal; and then come back from the dead when the time is right. Prime example: Churchill. Trouble is, I daresay statesmen might be a but thin on the ground over there, just about now... ≈M≈ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: GUEST,Rahere Date: 23 Sep 14 - 01:10 PM So you're up to your balls in alligators! The past is past, the question is, what are you going to do about it? Spout platitudes to justify continued inaction? Them thar gators are gonna have some mighty fine eatin', fer sure! Gun crime is just the tip of an iceberg of irresponsability, add to it the death penalty, Homeland Insecurity, the medical system, the list is long. And it's irresponsibility from your entire political system, both sides, and the presumption you only need two political parties. Just don't expect the rest of the world to rush to your help once them gators stack snackin' on your knackers. If you could have helped yourselves - and you could, and can - but didn't, then it's your fault. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Musket Date: 23 Sep 14 - 01:19 PM What's all that about, quoting the national anthem? It was written in another age and any bang bangs referred to would be soldiers not civilians with toys to make them look cool. Mind you, we don't make children sing it. We don't stand to it before every sports game (apart from internationals where Johnny Foreigner likes the idea) and the vast majority of us don't even know the first verse, let alone the others, which don't form part of the official anthem anyway. Not even the spot on accurate impression of the Scots. Michael. First they have to find a statesman. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Greg F. Date: 23 Sep 14 - 01:30 PM Greg... short answer is, I don't.... because I don't accept your premise. Guess you haven't read or studied much U.S. history, then, Bill. But that's OK - you're certainly not alone. Right up there with the Tea Party folks & war hawks in Congress. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: olddude Date: 23 Sep 14 - 01:37 PM It is sad Mike we have no balls when it comes to politicans. They fear the nra and take political contributions from them it is all terribly sad because the only laws that get passed are meaningless ones. We have over 20000 laws on firearms and all negated by intentional loopholes. We have all screamed about them include our police but to no avail |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: olddude Date: 23 Sep 14 - 01:40 PM Another great example background checking isrrequired for the purchase of a firearm at all dealers. But private transfer from civilian to civilian nope nothing |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: MGM·Lion Date: 23 Sep 14 - 01:42 PM Don't think I don't sympathise. But this air of helpless resignation, now... Well, let's hope that statesman might just happen along some day soon. Betcha Abe Lincoln woulda fixed it if he'd still been around! ≈M≈ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: olddude Date: 23 Sep 14 - 01:54 PM The supreme court made it worse when they just ruled corporations can make political contributions. All the firearms companies then funded their candates to obscene levels to make sure it doesn't change. I get crazy frustrated. I have a carry permit because I am ex government ex every thing. I have a just reason but many states let crazies conceal carry. More scary is assault weapons. Yes I enjoy shoot at a range with the swat teams But I would not ever consider one. It is not a good hunting rifle it is all nuts. Some times I think we all lost our minds |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Bill D Date: 23 Sep 14 - 02:23 PM working backwards: "Guess you haven't read or studied much U.S. history, then, Bill." Oh, but I have... and still do... and I see as many interpretations of the nuances of history as there are interpretations of Genesis. Tell me, if you can, why yours is to be chiseled in stone? "First they have to find a statesman." I don't think that really deserves comment. It could be discussed only if you referred to individual cases. As is, it is merely sarcasm.... "..., the question is, what are you going to do about it? Spout platitudes to justify continued inaction? " 'Justify' is YOUR false take on my metaphorical description of a situation. Inaction is not the problem.... there are plenty of actions going on as we "And it's irresponsibility from your entire political system, both sides, and the presumption you only need two political parties." "Irresponsibility" happens in every system...even yours. You just don't care to even look for 'responsible' actions and individuals when you don't see your definition of progress & solutions! I could (given a few hours and better typing speed) show dozens of quite reasonable, sane and responsible examples of both. As to political parties... we have many, but I DO agree that the system makes it difficult for a 3rd party to do much beyond splitting the vote and allowing insanity to prevail..(witness Ralph Nader in 2000 taking Florida away from Gore and giving us Bush). We NEED to abolish the outmoded Electoral College and allow national majority vote, which would automatically help minor parties help each other rather than interfere with each other. Why don't we? You realize which current party the current system favors? You realize that they will truck in alligators from neighboring swamps if anyone tries to initiate the constitutional changes necessary? You have any idea who owns most of the trucks?... and do you see why I get livid at supercilious finger pointing when someone publishes data on alligator bites and says "you're just not trying!"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Musket Date: 23 Sep 14 - 02:52 PM Try thinking first Bill before criticising. Nobody is a prophet in his own land. Statesmen tend to be fawned abroad, but never at home. You dont need someone who has the statesman look about them. You need someone with domestic balls. Statesmen cut their teeth abroad. A bit of a bugger when Bill Gates can prevent deaths measured in millions by privately funding health programmes in third world countries but a country stuffed with politicians can't even stop unhinged disturbed people from polishing their guns that politicians allow them to own. Which USA are you most proud of? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: GUEST Date: 23 Sep 14 - 02:56 PM "Inaction is not the problem.... there are plenty of actions going on as we speak type. Some are kicking alligators in the snout; some are banding together to identify the weakest pile of alligators; some are yelling for the swamp to be refilled; some are running like hell; some are frozen in fear (is that an action?)...." Bill D Bill is right. It just occurred to me that we are already doing what you in the UK are saying that we should do. It just hasn't worked yet. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: olddude Date: 23 Sep 14 - 03:07 PM The only thing that is even remotely good is we put our sins in the windows for everyone to se. NNow if we could stop the talking heads on capital hill and get something done it may stop but in the 61 years I been alive nothing has changed except ineffective laws that only give the political guys some talking points on how they made the public safer and declare victory over the violence. They never at any time listened to law enforcement or sportsmen who know what they are talking about. For 40 year'sppeople have been screaming about gun shows nothing changed but the body count |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: olddude Date: 23 Sep 14 - 03:11 PM Even people I know like myself that support the 2nd admendment scream give us laws that make sense we will support you. But we only get smoke up our ass |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Lighter Date: 23 Sep 14 - 03:16 PM > some talking points on how they made the public safer Both sides say this. So they agree on something. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Bill D Date: 23 Sep 14 - 03:20 PM "Which USA are you most proud of?" They're not separate. If I had Gates' billions, I'd divide my spending a bit differently. What he has done is commendable.... but that is his choice out of many needy projects. "politicians can't even stop unhinged disturbed people from polishing their guns that politicians allow them to own." Of course they can't stop them after the fact! *I* have said in many posts that there is and will be an endless supply of crazies, most of whom can't be identified until they "go off". *I* have said that laws need to reduce the 'opportunity' for crazies to get NEAR guns... which can ONLY be done is a significant way by limiting access to guns for everyone who cannot show...directly... that they need access. So? I agree... now what? Once again, you describe the problem.. as if the very form should cause all voters and the politicians they vote for to "see the light". Too many do-not-care what shows up in the light. "No skin off MY nose, and besides, if I vote against guns, I don't get re-elected!" Have I mentioned that none of this means that I, or many others, are giving up? ANY progress is better than NO progress.. and maybe the horse will learn to sing... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Greg F. Date: 23 Sep 14 - 05:33 PM Tell me, if you can, why yours is to be chiseled in stone? It ain't MINE, Bill. You've just proved despite your protestations of erudition that you HAVEN'T studied or read widely in U.S. history. Also, pick up your dictionary and look up "consensus". And RE: "interpretations", there's also such a thing as historical fact, which seems to have eluded you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Bill D Date: 23 Sep 14 - 07:05 PM Your premise was "... imperialistic, self-righteous, gunboat diplomacy foreign policy of the U.S. down to the present day.." That is an opinion about history, not a fact in and of itself. And 'consensus' needs to define its referents. And 'many' is not 'consensus'. If it ain't yours, why state it as if it were? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Greg F. Date: 23 Sep 14 - 08:09 PM If it ain't yours, why state it as if it were? 'Cause its the consensus, Bill. Do go and read some more - this time for comprehension. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Bill D Date: 23 Sep 14 - 09:06 PM LOLOL.. and if we can find a consensus saying you are full of it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Musket Date: 24 Sep 14 - 02:43 AM Unhinged people can get guns here too if they are really driven to find them. It's just that they aren't sold in the aisle next to breakfast cereals. Making them harder to own, restricting the types and uses.. We have guns. Quite legitimately. A friend has an impressive collection of small bore rifles and takes them to Bisley and other ranges, came close to getting in the Olympic team a few years ago. I have a man keep the rabbit population in check in some fields I have for that matter. But a few lines in the sand seem to make our situation comfortable for me. They are not for self defence. No pistols or any other small arms that can be concealed. Evidence of one of three broad categories; hunting / land control, organised sport and collecting antiques. The latter still precludes working models of banned categories. Kept in certified locked containers, subject to police registration and inspection and applications to own include searches, character references and interview by police officers. I genuinely think many US firearm owners would easily fit in that definition, or at the very least something just as sensible. I reckon the self defence idea is at best a statement of failure of community safety and at worst a dangerous illogical concept. There are many things The USA do better than here, but guns don't fit in the list. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Greg F. Date: 24 Sep 14 - 09:16 AM LOLOL.. and if we can find a consensus saying you are full of it? Now, there ya go again, Bill - "I'M" not saying it. What would you like to discuss? The Mexican-American "War"? Nicaragua? The Phillipines & Cuba? Santo Domingo? Vietnam & the Khmer Rouge? Salvador Allende & Chile? Grenada? El Salvador? The Shah of Iran? The Mujahideen? Or any of the other thousand examples? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Rapparee Date: 24 Sep 14 - 09:23 AM A statesman is a dead politician, and God knows we need more statesmen. As for Abe Lincoln, he was a pretty good shot. He tested fired several rifles right outside the White House during the Civil War. Nearly got himself arrested, too, for discharging firearms inside the city. Today the name of the town [Dodge City] that flourished as a Texas cattle market from 1876 to 1885 is widely employed as a cultural metaphor for homicide, anarchy, and depravity. Yet only fifteen adults died violently in Dodge during its cowboy years. In two livestock seasons and probably a third, no adults died violently, and only once did the annual number reach as high as five. But before becoming a cattle town Dodge had served as a center for the buffalo-hide trade. During its first year its governmental organization was tied up in court. Lacking formal law enforcement, Dodge suffered sixteen to nineteen violent deaths. By mid-1873, however, its county had been organized and a sheriff elected. Not until 1878 is another adult homicide known to have occurred. By then lawmen headquartered there consisted of a deputy U.S. marshal, a sheriff, an undersheriff, as many deputy sheriffs as needed, a city marshal, an assistant marshal, as many policemen as needed, and two town constables. This formidable deployment and the enforcement of gun control largely explain the low body count. --Encyclopedia of the Great Plain (online) Then there's this. Like olddude, I fully support well-considered, equally applied, and well-enforced legal control of firearms ownership. Always have. It's safer for everyone. If half the money spent on scare tactics, not only in the US but around the world, were put into mental health we'd all be better off. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: GUEST,Rahere Date: 24 Sep 14 - 09:40 AM Now, I agree our politicians in the UK are a useless bunch of oojits, from the Leader of the Opposition who just forgot we've got the debt problem his mates bequeathed us last time round, to a PM who considers ostriches are a close-run thing. We can do something about them, and may well do so. But htis ain't what the meme is about, it's about people who say they are doing something when nothing changes. In the UK, we got rid of the guns after Dunblane, simply by deciding to do so. That is all it needs, for a Nation to make up its mind, and to do that, it needs to be led by the influencers of the mores. Folk and country is at the cutting edge of that in the States, the talking heads on the box will follow if someone leads. If you got together with people like Bill Hare, in a Folk Against Dead Kids, then you could lead the way and force the Government to act. Now is the time to prepare, and the next massacre - and there will be one, sure as God made little children - the trigger for it. You have a week's window of opportunity after it, contact people like Dolly Parton and Oprah, they'd not dare to be seen not to help. And JFDI. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Bill D Date: 24 Sep 14 - 11:46 AM "What would you like to discuss?" Any of those are fair game individually, Greg, as possible candidates for stupidity, political expediency, or just bad guessing about whether an honest attempt at doing a good would go terribly wrong. (You left out the Bay of Pigs) But you miss the point.... making a list of bad choices, sometimes by flawed leaders, does not demonstrate a 'policy', and only a much longer list comprised of relevant people who agree with you, could define a 'consensus'. I could compile a list of those who heartily approved of some of our excursions..... but it proves nothing except that it ain't easy to know ahead of time what the best path is. I repeat "... imperialistic, self-righteous, gunboat diplomacy foreign policy of the U.S. .." is an OPINION about events. Right now it is YOUR opinion. That it is a consensus is also only your opinion. You made the claim that it is a fact. Write a book... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rahere: " That is all it needs, for a Nation to make up its mind, and to do that, it needs to be led by the influencers of the mores. " Sounds very high minded and inspirational.... and some well-known people are working at it. But what the UK did after Dunblane was possible because the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997, (and others) could BE passed as a restriction on the country as a whole. Many people petitioned, the legislation was introduced, and a law was passed...voila! Lovely! I do not understand why it is so hard to see that we do not have that luxury. I would LOVE to see a march..like the Civil Rights era... and resulting consensus in Congress followed by a similar wide ranging restriction on guns. I approve of the idea! I would march, I would vote, I would applaud when done. It-just-don't-work-that-way! But you don't have a system where Sussex, Lincolnshire, Rutland, etc. can resist sweeping reform.... or where attempts at legislation can be amended, held in committee, debated into oblivion, and not even allowed to come to a vote by House or Senate leaders! You make clear, sensible proposals.... for a different legislative system. Our system, which worked fine in 1795, or 1853, and pretty well in 1945, has awkward details which are studied and thoroughly exploited by the NRA and highly paid lawyers & lobbyists. And the sad fact is.... all those millions (hundreds of millions some say) of guns are out there! The UK didn't have THAT problem when it passed those sane laws. We probably have only a small % of firearms registered and in any easily available database. Too many are sold 'privately' or are flatly bought illegally. And those who hold the most weapons...legal & illegal... USE the very idea to defend their own guns as a protective measure against OTHERS with guns...and against any attempt by the government to pass laws restricting them! And many of them vow to USE their guns to defend their supposed 'right' to keep them! (We have had census takers shot by rural folk who didn't even want to answer questions about who they are! Who would take the job of going about collecting recently banned weapons?) Yes... it is an untenable situation. No, that doesn't mean I or millions of sane people have given up. There are small steps being made. Your country is a thousand or so years old, and relatively 'compact'. Ours is big, diverse and barely adolescent, and was created partly as a rejection of being ruled by yours. Our Constitution & law reflect that. It will take awhile to unravel the tangles. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Lighter Date: 24 Sep 14 - 01:47 PM > all those millions (hundreds of millions some say) of guns are out there! The UK didn't have THAT problem when it passed those sane laws That's a key observation, since the UK didn't have to require the turning in of something like 300,000,000 guns that already in private hands. (In our politics, the phrase used would undoubtedly be "seize unconstitutionally and without due process.") Since few Britons (presumably including criminals, though I wouldn't be too sure about that) had the guns, they didn't feel so great a need to protect themselves from all those others who also owned guns. Why should I turn in mine if I have no reason to expect "Knuckles" and "Beast" down the street to do the same? And, of course, British criminals too are unlikely to have turned in their own firearms. Or do you have a better class of criminal as well in your more civilized and happier land? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: GUEST,Rahere Date: 24 Sep 14 - 01:55 PM You have a petitioning system, get using it. Change.org can show you how. Stop copping out, if the NRA can lobby, so can you. We did it. It's not just guns, we go after anything which kills. As I type, there's complaints into a cover-up of a midwife who didn't give a damn, it came out after two mothers and babies died. Another case, a police firearms officer with two minority elements to her background, won her case for discrimination against the Met, and is now back for more after they then released data of a case they were preparing against her in substantiation for the discrimination, which therefore collapsed. We've stopped taking it, the UK is changing, and the Machine has to too. The difference is we DO hold our representatives to account. Not just by petitions, but we actually vote some of the buggers out - and that has included Ministers, too. And stop being so bloody negative about it, you've defeated yourselves before you start. The UK has had huge numbers of weapons after WW1, we handed them in after Dunkirk because they were needed for the wellbeing of the country. And still you miss the other point, a gun without ammunition is just a lump of metal. Leave them their blasted dick compensation symbols, go for the ammo. No rounds, no problem. You have a new Presidential Campaign starting soon, get onto the candidates who might and start asking for commitments. Get onto your Convention delegates and start telling them to. You have a voice, stop being mice and start kicking arse. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Musket Date: 24 Sep 14 - 03:52 PM Britons? C'est ce c'est? Somewhere to put the guns? Sell 'em to a right wing guerrilla militia in Latin America. That's what you usually do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Bill D Date: 24 Sep 14 - 05:09 PM "And stop being so bloody negative about it.." *sigh* What I do is positive... You are reading in 'negative' as a knee-jerk response to my explaining my pragmatic understanding of what we are facing. It is necessary to understand both history and culture in order to deal with it! I SAID I am working at it when I can... and I have lobbied every human I know when the topic comes up... including many on Mudcat. My own state's legislators are already on the side of sanity, and I can't afford to go stumping in Texas and Montana. I watch & recommend to other the media that make the most sense. I read Change.org... and Huffington Post and Rachael Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell and keep up with what billionaire ex-NY mayor Bloomberg is doing (now THERE's a campaign!) (and yes... making bullets harder to get would be a help in the long term, but the same basic legislative issues are involved. Didn't I recently post about the obvious constitutional question involved..IF our citizens are allowed guns, denying bullets would invalidate that right.) Now... off on Friday to a music weekend. I may not have time to reiterate it till I get home... ☺ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: MGM·Lion Date: 24 Sep 14 - 05:21 PM In semantic & conceptual fairness: it doesn't mention 'guns' -- it sez "keep & bear arms": "arms" must subsume the ammunition as well as the actual firearms. Bugger it! ≈M≈ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Bill D Date: 24 Sep 14 - 06:18 PM Ersatz buggering in process.... but we hafta get 'em to hold still. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Greg F. Date: 24 Sep 14 - 07:35 PM Right now it is YOUR opinion. No, Bill it is hardly MY opinion. It is the opinion of the vast majority of sentient beings that have been paying attention for the last century. That, of course, leaves you out. QUERY: do you also "believe" that there's no such thing as global warming/global climate change?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Bill D Date: 24 Sep 14 - 08:01 PM ",,the opinion of the vast majority of sentient beings that have been paying attention for the last century" My ...you have access to databases I never imagined! Or did you conduct the polls? Of course I am aware of global warming/global climate change. And the over-population issue... and the renewable energy issue... and the high price of tea in China. Fortunately, those are about 63.982 times more quantifiable and scientifically verifiable than your sweeping generalization about global world opinion on already subjective concerns. (look up 'subjective') |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: GUEST Date: 25 Sep 14 - 02:23 AM How many times do I have to repeat it, MGM, the founding legislation the Amendment was based on excludes ammunition, and so you are word-twisting! A bullet on its own cannot hurt anyone. A bullet is NOT a firearm, you cannot kill someone just by carrying a bullet around. You need to have a gun, ammunition and an idiot to come together to make these things happen. Keep them apart and the problem disappears. I don't give a flying fuck what the idiots of the NRA, which evidently include you, surmise what your nonsense Law says, you have a biased agenda. Law has to deal with real people, and people change. What was suitable while there were Sioux taking scalps is no longer necessary once the problem's resolved. But no, it doesn't suit you to speak plain English and to apply English to the Law, does it? Sure, you need ammunition to make your firearm fire, but the Amendment doesn't provide for firing it, all it provides for is the right to carry a weapon around like an umbrella. Why not extend the logic further and say the right logically allows you to shoot anyone you like? After all, if you can't shoot someone, there's no point in carying it around, is there? Oh yes, the little question of premeditation in murder conspiracy. Loading your weapon is usually considered sufficient proof of intent, as the most an unloaded weapon can be is a menace or club. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Backwoodsman Date: 25 Sep 14 - 02:51 AM MGM is British and lives in England, AFAIK. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: GUEST,Rahere Date: 25 Sep 14 - 03:00 AM Last one in this whack-a-mole was me. Oh, what the heck Martha Washington's Recipe for Apple Pie Ingredients 1 firearm 200 bullets 1 idiot 100 victims Method Mix and wait. After all, what can be more American? And yes, I am being rather offensive, because these defenders of the indefensible are indistinguishable from any other members of the candidates for the Den Haag Prize for Crimes Against Humanity, such as Islamic Fundamentalists, the Roman Catholic Church, the SchutzStaffel and America's own home-brewed Militias. After all, you have an entire community in Pennsylvania under lock-down last week after some militia member turned Rambo using the weapons you defend, didn't you? |
