BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment

Subject: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Nov 21 - 12:09 AM

"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." Second Amendment of the USA Constitution

I have never understood the Supreme Court's ruling that grants individuals the right to 'bear arms' and that the right shall not be infringed upon, meaning it shall not be curtailed or truncated or probably, regulated.

I understand its reasoning IF the qualifying phrase is disregarded. By why would anyone disregard it?

If I say: "My sister, being happily married, is the sibling I designate to raise my child in the event of...." What if my sister is no longer married, happily or not?

??

Subject: RE: BS: The original Second Amendment
From: Donuel
Date: 04 Nov 21 - 06:51 AM

A well regulated militia should imo only apply to the National Guard.
After the Boston Massacre in 1770, when British soldiers opened fire on a crowd that had been pelting them with rocks and ice, John Adams defended the soldiers during their murder trial, worried that a guilty verdict could lead to mob rule. Imo 'Rome' is the mob. It is a dangerous wild animal. Common sense is overuled by the Supream Court and their shifting opinions are here. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Mr Red
Date: 04 Nov 21 - 06:52 AM

Ya know.......

It is often said that laws are made by lawyers. It was once predominantly true in the UK and there are a lot of US lawmakers who studied law at "college". The right wording can net fortunes for lawyers!

Mat Gaetz & Ted Cruz studied law. (pointed out just to scare you Donuel)

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Nov 21 - 08:01 AM

Almost all of your "founding fathers" were slave owners who would each be immediately cast as villains if they could magically be transported unaltered to the 21st century. On top of that, we are over 200 years remote from them, and, well, to coin a new cliche, times have changed.

I've never been much of a one for accepting the "they were of their time" excuse for people who did bad things that didn't seem so bad in their days, but if that excuse IS proffered I'd say that the same should apply to the second amendment. It's of its time, which means it's outdated and outmoded and seriously needs a rethink (or a ditching). Unfortunately, one of the most powerful lobby groups in your country has, to all intents and purposes, usurped what is a extremely unclear 200-year-old document to their own ends and forced the country to consent to allowing people who have got nothing to do with "militias" to stroll around the streets with a gun in the pocket.

A good, strong democracy should be able to see where its constitution is no longer a good fit and fix it, by consent. But that lobby group of yours is not in any way an integral part your democracy...

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Mrrzy
Date: 04 Nov 21 - 10:27 AM

The trick is not to keep guns away. The trick is not to think you get to just shoot people with'm for reducing your happiness. You don't have a right to happiness. And your right to pursue happiness does not include the right to shoot people for getting in your way.

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: meself
Date: 04 Nov 21 - 11:20 AM

What was it the guy said - "When do we get to use our guns?"

No doubt the Founding Fathers knew what they meant by the 2nd A., and maybe everybody else did at the time - but damned if I've ever been able to figure out what it's supposed to mean ..... I can't help suspecting that the ambiguous wording is intentional; that it actually meant something like, "Okay, your slave patrols can be armed to the teeth, and we won't interfere."

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 04 Nov 21 - 11:46 AM

The problem is exacibated by guns becoming sacred objects of worship..

Europe long ago kicked out so many extreme christian nutjobs,
who ended up in the New World forging their insane entrenched power base
at the centre of American society..

Now you lot have far right evangelists preaching 'guns 'n' god' holy patriotism - threatening the entire world...!!!

Yeah.. onward christian soldiers ferfucksake...

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Donuel
Date: 04 Nov 21 - 12:39 PM

Magic aside, the question remains did the John Adams family own slaves?
Ten of the first twelve American presidents were slave owners, the only exceptions being John Adams and his son John Quincy Adams, neither of whom owned slaves and hired people of any race.
You used to get away with murder by shooting an intruder INSIDE your house. Now Florida started the stand your; Ground, pavement, car, church and bar&grill law. You can murder anywhere now. Gun owners are instructed to say "I was in fear of my life" as a get out of jail free card under the new self defense laws. Gun laws in the last few decades have become truley absurd.
Just look at the upcoming John Rittenhouse multiple murder case.
I imagine it would be devestating to anyone here who happened to be a lawyer but let me remind you, lawyers have feet of clay too. I remember when members here could be District Attorneys but Martin Gibson types wrecked that. Ideas are not the disruptors but Martin Gibson types are.

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Nov 21 - 12:40 PM

"The trick is not to keep guns away."

I absolutely think that you couldn't be more wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 04 Nov 21 - 01:24 PM

Very well financed and organised American fundamentalist alt-right internet influencers,
are mounting a quite successful pernicious campaign to brainwash us Brits into accepting that the NHS is a very bad evil Marxist thing,
and guns are a very good Christian patriots thing.

However, it is us Brits who have a far more effective balance on reality;
and it is America that should be be aspiring to emulate our health provision and gun laws.

I've said this before, but if I were rich enough I would collect and enjoy safe target shooting with historic guns..

Come on, a Tommy gun, who wouldn't want to have a go on one,
no matter how much they might deny it in public...!!!???

Existing UK law might even permit this to some extent under very controlled circumstances...

If only youthful revolutionary America had retained some of our more mature sane civilised values...

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Mrrzy
Date: 04 Nov 21 - 01:34 PM

Steve, lots of other countries have lots of people with guns, and guns are not a problem. But many Americans think they can just shoot people for things like playing the wrong music, jogging, and so on. The problem is not the gun. The problem is thinking you can shoot people for [playing the wrong music. Or whatever reason you think you have to shoot people] pretty much nothing. It is the reasoning, not the guns, that is the problem.

But yeah, without guns, even the non-nutjobs won't shoot anyone...

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Nov 21 - 01:52 PM

Yes, the problem is the gun. You appear to be defending mass gun ownership.

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Nov 21 - 03:25 PM

Myrrzy, your argument might wash IF the United States had only mature, well-wishing, clear-thinking and level-headed citizens. Sadly, we know that is not the case.

I, personally, like(d) guns, the discipline of aiming, the stillness required... but I am speaking of light rifles, the .22, target shooting. I don't play golf but I imagine that there is somewhat of a sameness.

In the best of worlds, to my mind - and DOABLE- is to keep guns in a central registry and storage where one checks out one's gun to go hunting or target shooting and then checks it back in.

For those who are afraid in their homes, let them keep a shotgun filled with birdshot -NOT buckshot-. Very few people are able to hit their target with a single bullet in stressful situations anyway - and that single round should be illegal in the home.

And, Donuel, I know that there is many a 'John' but Rittenhouse is not one of them. His first name is 'Kyle'.

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Rapparee
Date: 04 Nov 21 - 03:58 PM

I owe several firearms, both rifles, shotguns, and pistols, historic (muzzleloaders) and modern (self reloading, break action, and bolt action). I use them for TARGET shooting. Only. I no longer hunt, and when I did it was for food ("you shoot it, you eat it" was the LAW).

I would not use a firearm inside my house -- bullets can go through the walls of most houses today. I WOULD use a piece of oak closet rod, about 24 inches long, but then I've been trained in the use of such things.

I also have swords, both fencing and "real." And knives, one of which I made myself and others my brothers made for me.

But frankly, ANYTHING can be used as a weapon, from a rag doll to 20 kg of plutonium.

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 04 Nov 21 - 04:10 PM

I had a close older relative who owned shotguns legally for rabbit hunting
[..and probably a bit of old fashioned country man poaching...???]

He kept them at home in an approved gun safe..

Unfortunately in a state of grief and whatever else was going on in his mind,
he took one gun, went out into a public place, made a bit of a shouty 'sorry for himself' scene, then comitted suicide with it..

In the UK that is still an exception, and possible justification for even stricter gun control...???

But sad as that famuily loss is, that would not deter me
if I was seriously determined to collect vintage guns as a responsible hobby
[in the same way that I collected cameras and guitars].

My relative could just as easily have gone out on a suicidal rampage in his car...

On balance, despite obvious problems, It's relatively safer and saner on our side of the Atlantic...

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Donuel
Date: 04 Nov 21 - 04:16 PM

As a sport, target shooting is athletic as poker.
Toddlers also find guns are fun except when they are not.
I thought someone wanted to pose the Constitutional questions posed by the second ammendment.
The interpretors of the Constitution can do so in a variety of ways.
They can call themselves originalists, litteralists or modern day but that does not mean they are any of those things except tools of their party. The few who decide law with the spirit of the law in mind is claimed by many but decided by few. The great ones are mavericks.
Thank you for the edit Ellie

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Rapparee
Date: 04 Nov 21 - 06:56 PM

Donuel, have you ever done actual target shooting? I don't mean popping cans off a fence post, but shooting a target at, say 50 meters, using a 13.5 pound single shot rifle such as this one (sights extra). But you need sights, so perhaps you get one of these. Then the front and rear sights have to be correctly installed, more cost. You'll need a shooting jacket, a good sling, and a shooting mat for prone. Oh, yeah! Ammunition, you'll probably want Tenex (made in the UK) as it's probably the best competition ammo out there -- about USD 20.00 for 50 rounds. Add a coach, a spotter (and the spotting scope) And a range to shoot on.

Stand up, bring the rifle up, place a cartridge in the chamber, close the bolt, obtain a good sight picture, carefully fire, and do it all over again and again and again. Your spotter is calling the shots so you can make immediate corrections by eye. Do this for 4 or 5 hours and you'll find that you'd better be FIT.

I know -- been there, done that.

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Rapparee
Date: 04 Nov 21 - 07:00 PM

And when you get good at that, try biatholon and/or Stang shooting.

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Nov 21 - 07:02 PM

And this hubris about your shooting skills has precisely what to do with the ambiguous Second Amendment?

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Nov 21 - 07:04 PM

NAMING OF PARTS (Henry Reed)

To-day we have naming of parts. Yesterday,
We had daily cleaning. And to-morrow morning,
We shall have what to do after firing. But to-day,
To-day we have naming of parts. Japonica
Glistens like coral in all of the neighboring gardens,
          And to-day we have naming of parts.

This is the lower sling swivel. And this
Is the upper sling swivel, whose use you will see,
When you are given your slings. And this is the piling swivel,
Which in your case you have not got. The branches
Hold in the gardens their silent, eloquent gestures,
          Which in our case we have not got.

This is the safety-catch, which is always released
With an easy flick of the thumb. And please do not let me
See anyone using his finger. You can do it quite easy
If you have any strength in your thumb. The blossoms
Are fragile and motionless, never letting anyone see
          Any of them using their finger.

And this you can see is the bolt. The purpose of this
Is to open the breech, as you see. We can slide it
Rapidly backwards and forwards: we call this
Easing the spring. And rapidly backwards and forwards
The early bees are assaulting and fumbling the flowers:
          They call it easing the Spring.

They call it easing the Spring: it is perfectly easy
If you have any strength in your thumb: like the bolt,
And the breech, and the cocking-piece, and the point of balance,
Which in our case we have not got; and the almond-blossom
Silent in all of the gardens and the bees going backwards and forwards,
          For to-day we have naming of parts.

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Rapparee
Date: 04 Nov 21 - 07:12 PM

Norway. Iceland. Canada. Russia Now do your own research! I'm retired.

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Rapparee
Date: 04 Nov 21 - 07:15 PM

Yes, I've known that poems since I first ran across it in about 1962. It's one of my favorites.

And before we start throwing things at me, I am VERY much in favor of gun control laws.

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Nov 21 - 07:19 PM

"Miss, it's absolutely right that I can chew gum in this classroom of yours, even with my mouth open if I like, because I know that three kids in the other classes are also chewing gum..."

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Nov 21 - 07:24 PM

My English prof., many years ago, read us "Naming of Parts"
He was a excellent teacher and read that poem with feeling.

He also gave us
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/43746/the-bishop-orders-his-tomb-at-saint-praxeds-church

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 04 Nov 21 - 07:35 PM

Bit of a crap poem that...???

The gun bits are far more interesting than the soppy flowers..

But the Bee livened it up for a moment...


That poem is basically "The Thin Red Line" Terrence Malick's very long epic poetic war movie,
which many viewers found too pretentious and boring...

I'd watch it again...

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Nov 21 - 08:18 PM

I'm no professor of poetry and generally avoid the stuff, but I'd say that that poem is far from crap... It's a WW2 poem, by the way. A weapon of death, its mechanics described in desultory tones yet without explicit demurral, set alongside a tender description of springtime whilst mingling the same words for both... Come on, that is some achievement, and it chimes with me...

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Nov 21 - 08:22 PM

"and the point of balance,
Which in our case we have not got"

And how about that for a perfect characterisation of where we are, in some countries, concerning gun laws...

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 04 Nov 21 - 08:33 PM

Like I said [tongue still in cheek] a bit crap then...

you might like "Thin Red Line"...

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Nov 21 - 08:58 PM

I'm no bigger on films than I am on poetry, though today I did buy the box set of all the Pink Panther films in frustration caused by the fact that they never put any of 'em on the box at Christmas any more...

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Rapparee
Date: 04 Nov 21 - 09:56 PM

Another one I've liked every since I tripped over it:

Channel Firing
By Thomas Hardy

That night your great guns, unawares,
Shook all our coffins as we lay,
And broke the chancel window-squares,
We thought it was the Judgment-day

And sat upright. While drearisome
Arose the howl of wakened hounds:
The mouse let fall the altar-crumb,
The worms drew back into the mounds,

The glebe cow drooled. Till God called, “No;
It’s gunnery practice out at sea
Just as before you went below;
The world is as it used to be:

“All nations striving strong to make
Red war yet redder. Mad as hatters
They do no more for Christés sake
Than you who are helpless in such matters.

“That this is not the judgment-hour
For some of them’s a blessed thing,
For if it were they’d have to scour
Hell’s floor for so much threatening....

“Ha, ha. It will be warmer when
I blow the trumpet (if indeed
I ever do; for you are men,
And rest eternal sorely need).”

So down we lay again. “I wonder,
Will the world ever saner be,”
Said one, “than when He sent us under
In our indifferent century!”

And many a skeleton shook his head.
“Instead of preaching forty year,”
My neighbour Parson Thirdly said,
“I wish I had stuck to pipes and beer.”

Again the guns disturbed the hour,
Roaring their readiness to avenge,
As far inland as Stourton Tower,
And Camelot, and starlit Stonehenge.

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Mrrzy
Date: 05 Nov 21 - 01:01 AM

The men behind the guns. Phil Ochs.

My argument is that the gun problem in America is Americans, not guns.

I am not saying guns should be available. I am only saying that having guns is not making Americans shoot people. It is Americans believing that shooting is a reasonable response to not being happy.

Thus, all the places that have rampant gun ownership and no gun violence problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 05 Nov 21 - 01:23 AM

This problem extends to those kind of terminally toxic Americans beliving themselves to be the god chosen master race...!!!

Let's hope they keep up the good work refusing masks and vaccines within their festering fukwitted communities...

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: BobL
Date: 05 Nov 21 - 04:32 AM

Perhaps gun control should be modelled on the Swiss system.

Following the spirit and the letter of the Second Amendment's opening words, all gun owners are regarded as voluntary military reserves, and under military discipline as far as their weapons are concerned. Attendance at periodic training camps is compulsory. Any misuse of weapons, including unauthorised carrying in public, to be dealt with by court martial.

Won't happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Donuel
Date: 05 Nov 21 - 03:29 PM

Our veterans have a special attachment to guns no other part of the gun culture can have. I would grant a special dispensation to the veterans who naturally have a different relationship with weapons. Few non veterans know how difficult it is for veterans to feel normal without weapons. And why not after life and death dependancy?

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 05 Nov 21 - 03:41 PM

My next door neighbour is a retired army Tank driver..
There's not much parking space outside the front of our terraced houses
for if he'd been unable to give up his dependancy..

Fortunately he seems happy enough with his bicycle and camper van...

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Nov 21 - 04:41 PM

"grant a special dispensation to the veterans"
Except that special relationships aren't always positive. There are more like these.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Unruh

https://www.britannica.com/event/Texas-Tower-shooting-of-1966

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Nov 21 - 04:58 PM

The real gun culture began with the US being one of the youngest major countries.... whose history included not only uncharted wilderness, but the awkward situation of various tribes of natives who were not properly deferential to these interlopers who were **obviously** superior and more 'advanced'. So... 'we' had to struggle to conqueror this great land... "made for you & me" says Woodie Guthrie.

   Guns were a major part of it all, and for many years, no one even questioned the idea of serious restrictions on them. THEN came several wars and 'better' guns were developed. Is there any doubt many 'patriots' would adopt guns as a hobby.... and with that vague 2nd amendment to support them, how in %#@@$& are we to start restricting them now?

It's a vicious circle... and a deadly one for us.

Those countries whose maturity was old before we existed, mostly treat guns as something ONLY for soldiers, and the need for standing armies has waned in the last 50-60 years.

If I had a magic button, I'd fix it pretty fast.

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Nov 21 - 04:58 PM

Give a special dispensation? Sorry, mate, that's just tosh!

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Nov 21 - 04:58 PM

Give a special dispensation? Sorry, mate, that's just tosh!

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: meself
Date: 05 Nov 21 - 04:59 PM

PTSD + guns .......

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: gnu
Date: 05 Nov 21 - 06:34 PM

"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."

You Yanks threw the Brits out with violence. That's the essence of the clause. The argument BEGINS with "A well regulated Militia... " If the Brits had decided to quash the revolution, they would have done so. Instead, they decided to use USA economically, as they subsequently did. Yanks conquered the USA on their behalf, using mostly Irish immigrants to do it... violently.

Some Yanks think they're high and mighty, but when it comes down to it, they can't defeat tyranny any more than the rest of us. So, as long as we don't don't shoot up the place, leave us the fuck alone. Employ good gun laws, and leave legal gun owners alone.

I am a Canuck. I have owned guns all my life. I wouldn't think of using them against any other human... unless they tried to take them from me against my will.

BTW, how many "gun threads" to date? I say far too many.

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 05 Nov 21 - 07:01 PM

Doesn't sound like the most reasonable last resort for shooting someone...??????

I'd hazard a guess that "I shot him dead because he was trying to kill me"

would go down better with a British jury

than "I shot him dead because he tried to take my gun off me"...

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Nov 21 - 07:48 PM

"I am a Canuck. I have owned guns all my life. I wouldn't think of using them against any other human... unless they tried to take them from me against my will."

Er....Big deal....

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Nov 21 - 08:08 PM

Besides... not everyone who has guns is as reasonable as you, Gary.
IF everyone was sane, there wouldn't be an issue.
There are plenty of crazy people... even some Canucks.

Now the stresses of life are pushing borderline folk over the line...too many issues people think are worth fighting over.

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: meself
Date: 05 Nov 21 - 08:38 PM

There seems to be an assumption out there that if people use their guns primarily for hunting, they are, ergo, "responsible gun-owners". I've lived in several communities in which hunting is an essential food-harvesting activity, and I shudder to think of the number of gun-related murders and suicides in my time in those places. Not to mention the instances of guys mad at the world and drunk and/or crazy, and getting out the gun and waving it around, yelling threats, and firing off a few shots. And then there was the ten-year-old who accidentally shot another ten-year-old, permanently maiming him, when they were playing with a gun ....

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 05 Nov 21 - 09:43 PM

...How Britain views America...


"I shot him dead because he tried to take my gun off me"

"Why were you carrying a gun in public, in the first place"

"In case anyone tried to take it off me"

"That's fair enough. Case dismissed, you are free to go"...

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Joe Offer
Date: 06 Nov 21 - 02:34 AM

I think if we could pay attention to that word "regulated," we'd be OK.

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 Nov 21 - 04:08 AM

Don't miss WELL regulated. I still think my idea (and of course, I am not alone) is the best solution: Check 'em out and then Check 'em in.

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Nov 21 - 12:19 PM

To repeat what I and others have said many times..
The Founders had no idea what kind of weapons would be developed in a couple of centuries.
   Their idea of weapons people would "keep and bear" were single shot rifles which at the time were not standardized. A militia would be composed of citizens called on to assemble. These would usually bring their own guns... and having a rifle was not unusual, as hunting was fairly common, even for 'city folk'.
   As conquering the country proceeded, guns were almost required.. (ignoring the moral issue of 'conquering the country').

   It wasn't till about the Civil War that multi-shot weapons were common and ammunition began to be standardized.

If the Founders had seen what guns would be common, you KNOW that 2nd amendment would have been more detailed and would have included what a standing army could have and what citizens and police could have.

   Now, the NRA and 'gun nuts' point at that unfortunate vague wording and have the votes to KEEP it vague.

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Nov 21 - 02:20 PM

But nobody voted for them. Nobody voted for oil barons. Nobody voted for the CEOs of multinational corporations. Nobody voted for the pro-Israel lobby. I think we call this problem a democratic deficit.

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Nov 21 - 02:42 PM

Nobody voted for who? The NRA? The Founders? The gun nuts?
There are many "democratic deficits".. and many more in autocracies.

Now what? Too many guns...too many fools and crazies... We KNOW. At least some of us do.

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Donuel
Date: 06 Nov 21 - 07:15 PM

The NRA is currently bleeding out and may not have long to live.
Between lawsuits and criminal campaign finance crimes they are going into agonal breathing. A new incarnation of the NRA will undoubtedly replace them.

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Nov 21 - 08:17 PM

Well you can live in hope, but I wouldn't bother if I were you. Just contemplating that your country is governed by corporations and lobby groups, not by your politicians, who run scared at all times from all such organisations.

I mean, just think of what would happen to any of your politicos who stood up and declared their support for the Palestinians and called for the suspension of military aid to Israel.

Just think of what would happen if any of them stood up and declared that gun ownership by the general public should be illegal.

Just think of what would happen if any of them stood up and declared that, in the interests of tackling global heating, petrol would cost $8 per gallon and that anyone owning a car with an engine bigger than, say, 1500 cc, should be heavily penalised.

What would happen is thst we'd have a stack of toast that we'd never demolish even via the heartiest breakfasts.

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Nov 21 - 09:31 PM

Exactly... any of those things would start a new civil UNcivil war all over the country. Best we can do right now is nibble away at the edges with various restrictions on types of weapons and ammo.
Or maybe if someone shoots up Congress,,,,,, nawww... then many congress people would vote themselves the right to carry a gun on the floor.

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Donuel
Date: 07 Nov 21 - 04:05 AM

There actual are Congress people who bring guns into the chamber.

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Nov 21 - 08:07 AM

This is exactly why the guns are the wrong problem. The problem is the attitude.

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Nov 21 - 01:06 PM

Congress people who brought in guns... or tried to...have been fined and new restrictive checks instituted. Marjorie Taylor Greene has even been fined a LOT for not wearing a mask.
As long as Pelosi in in charge, guns & masks will be regulated.

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Donuel
Date: 08 Nov 21 - 07:13 AM

Missouri has passed a law that bans any federal gun law being enforced in their state. If their police cooperate or communicates with the ATF or the FBI they are subject to a $50,000 fine. Gun nuts and criminals alike rejoice.

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Howard Jones
Date: 08 Nov 21 - 01:03 PM

When the 2nd Amendment was passed the USA was a frontier society which had only recently secured its independence following a war, and the reason for it is entirely understandable. It is more difficult to understand how allowing people to bear arms for the purposes of forming a militia when one was needed extends to letting them do so for their own private purposes.

However times have changed. The US is no longer the country it was in 1791. Most European countries once allowed the carrying of weapons but have since brought in restrictions which most of their citizens agree are necessary and reasonable. We find Americans' reluctance to do so baffling. I can understand the wish to protect yourself, but here in the UK most of us don't feel we need a gun because we can be fairly confident that a robber or burglar won't be carrying one; they usually don't because they don't expect the victim or police to be armed, while the punishment if they are caught will be considerably more severe.

I am surprised by meself's statement that "there are communities in which hunting is an essential food-harvesting activity". Can this really be true in a modern developed country (or many developing ones for that matter)? I have travelled fairly extensively overland around large parts of the US and it seemed to be fairly well supplied with grocery stores. I can see that hunting is both cheaper and more fun than shopping, but essential?

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 08 Nov 21 - 01:57 PM

I occasionally watch edifying documentaries..

There are indigenous USA people who regard hunting and living off nature as a crucial part of their traditional identity.
Some live in remote regions where shops exist, but supplies are expensively priced due to shipping costs, etc..

In these exceptional circumstances guns for hunting can be agreed to be vital tools for subsistence..

Animal right activists may argue that protecting seals may be more important
than the continuation of human traditions..

But that's another issue, for another thread discussion...

Otherwise, in most areas of America where supermarkets cater to all diets,
hunting may be a tad antiquated and redundant..

I live in the SW England where my uncle used to hunt rabbits for sharing with our family.
[I broke a baby tooth on a lead pellet].
These days microwave burgers in buns are less hassle than skinning a bunny....

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Nov 21 - 01:03 PM

"We find Americans' reluctance to do so baffling. "

   SOME Americans. You simply can't generalize that way. There are surveys that show that a large % of us favor reasonable restrictions on types of guns and ownership... but... **states make their own rules!!** This States Rights situation is what makes us so different from you and most of the rest of the world. In England, a law can be passed that automatically applies everywhere. We can only do that in certain situations.... and in a majority of states, the members of Congress owe their jobs to the efforts of lobbyists for the gun interests (as well as the drug companies...etc.)

"I can see that hunting is both cheaper and more fun than shopping, but essential?"
   It is very close to essential in some remote areas..like parts of Montana and especially in Alaska. Russia has similar areas. We are a huge country with extremely varied envirionments.

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Nov 21 - 01:16 PM

Well, you see, Bill, "England" is a good deal smaller than a good few of your states. And we have devolution here. Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales have considerable autonomy. For example, just today the Westminster government has ordered all NHS workers IN ENGLAND to get vaccinated by April. This applies to England only. The other devolved administrations will make up their own minds. And it's the same NHS in all four places.

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Nov 21 - 01:26 PM

Howard Jones: "there are communities in which hunting is an essential food-harvesting activity". Can this really be true in a modern developed country....

Yes, as noted by others, in Alaska there are a number of communities that rely on 'food harvesting'. It is called Subsistence Living. It is an official designation.

In some of the off-shore islands and its communities, I am told by Alaska Natives (another official designation; it does not mean someone who was born in Alaska. Instead, it refers to the indigenous people, people who were here thousands of years before the white man came.) that some villagers are being corrupted to the extent that there are individuals and families who now prefer the junk food that many of us enjoy.

Much like some communities in the Marshall Islands, I am told, who mostly abandoned their fishing and gathering lifestyle, and turned to the stores of the west.

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: meself
Date: 09 Nov 21 - 03:30 PM

'"there are communities in which hunting is an essential food-harvesting activity". Can this really be true in a modern developed country (or many developing ones for that matter)?'

I'm in Canada, and I spent many years living in remote places in this country. If the people who live in those places permanently wanted to rely entirely on the dubious charity of distant urbanites for their sustenance, then I suppose hunting (and fishing) would not be essential. They could sit and wait for the periodic food drops (weather permitting).

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Nov 21 - 04:51 PM

OK, Steve.. if Scotland and Wales...etc. can ignore certain laws & orders, you now have a vague idea of what we have to cope with.
   Biden is doing his best to craft virus mandates to apply to all Federal workers and as many businesses as possible that have a certain amount of government contracts.... but he can't do anything about, for example, a moderate sized grocery store in Idaho that refuses to comply.

   Gun laws are much, much worse. And if a change happened tomorrow, the Nuts have enough guns and ammo stockpiled to wage a war... and some would try.

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Nov 21 - 05:00 PM

They don't actually ignore them, Bill. They will take into account what the other does, consider it and act according to the conditions they find themselves in. And that's often a bit different to the condition, say, that England finds itself in.

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Nov 21 - 08:02 PM

People are ordered to ignore law under penalty of law. Missouri has passed a law that bans any federal gun law being enforced in their state. If their police cooperate or communicates with the ATF or the FBI they are subject to a $50,000 fine. Gun nuts and criminals alike rejoice.

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Howard Jones
Date: 10 Nov 21 - 04:15 AM

Bill D: of course I realise that a great many Americans want to see more gun control. That includes most of those I know personally. But for whatever reasons they don't seem to be able to summon sufficient political clout to change the laws. American society as a whole, as evidenced by the laws it passes, still seems to favour widespread gun ownership.

Ebbie: special provisions may apply to indigenous communities. However I doubt those who wrote the 2nd Amendment had their rights in mind. In fact, I suspect it was the indigenous communities who the militia were expected to have to defend against.

The UK has some of the strictest gun controls in the world, but it is still possible to own a gun. Only handguns are completely banned. You have to show a very good reason, and that you are a fit and proper person (although even then a few nutters occasionally slip through). Most people who want a gun for target shooting, hunting or vermin control will be able to own one. However the majority of the population have no need or indeed wish to, least of all for personal protection. Whilst there are a lot of illegal weapons, they are mainly used against other criminals and the ordinary citizen has little to fear, unless they are unfortunate enough to live in a high-crime area where they might get caught in cross-fire.

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Nov 21 - 02:07 PM

Howard Jones: Whilst there are a lot of illegal weapons, they are mainly used against other criminals and the ordinary citizen has little to fear, unless they are unfortunate enough to live in a high-crime area where they might get caught in cross-fire"

Hmmmm. That sounds curiously like the USA.

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Nov 21 - 07:40 PM

Howard Jones..
I have typed LONG explanations of the problem the US has trying to "..summon sufficient political clout to change the laws."
It just isn't possible given the way elections are done and votes are counted... and to change THOSE rules would require a new amendment to the Constitution... which would require all this
https://www.ncsl.org/research/about-state-legislatures/amending-the-u-s-constitution.aspx

It is simply that we have painted ourselves into a corner... we'd have to get most of the states who LIKE guns to agree to a new amendment.
It's a vicious circle, but it is NOT a true picture of how many citizens would LIKE saner gun laws. The conservatives just have more power.... and they are becoming more conservative and stubborn.

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Nov 21 - 08:03 PM

Just so you have an idea, here is a thread I started way back in 2011 or so, it is VERY long, but you can scroll down to my posts.
I doubt I will ever get across to those who say "just change things" why that is so hard.
Shooting tragedies and guns

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Donuel
Date: 10 Nov 21 - 09:10 PM

Since that earlier thread, school shootings like Columbine have broken record numbers of dead many times over. Sandy hook a year after Bill's thread claimed even kindergartners. Today mass school shootings are the new normal and a regular cost/risk of going to school. They no longer get live media coverage as often.
The NRA response was that the only solution to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. This implies everyone in very state should carry a concealed gun. This is a sought after goal by many and is seriously making advances to make their dream come true. You can see how people in that society would percieve every other person as their possible enemy and could lead to needless murders per day despite all the good guys with a gun. Of course there are people willing to fight against my conlusion, possibly with a gun.

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Donuel
Date: 11 Nov 21 - 05:27 AM

There is a local news saying 'if it bleeds it leads'. Local DC NBC news yesterday reported 6 shootings and 3 fatalities. Today only one Landover Mall shooting and a stolen puppy at gunpoint. In passing I heard of a school shooting scare this week but this is just from memory. Covid deaths out number gun death but shootings do get first billing on local TV news.

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Howard Jones
Date: 11 Nov 21 - 11:34 AM

Ebbie, it may look "curiously like the USA" until you look at actual numbers. A BBC report says that in 2019 there were 32 homicides in the UK involving guns (4% of all homicides). The USA had 14,400 (74%). Other figures suggest that was a good year for the US. Even allowing for the larger population, that's a big difference.

Americans are 25 times more likely to die from gun homicide than people in other wealthy countries.

I take Bill D's point that the US has painted itself into a corner. But to outsiders, it looks crazy. Other countries have managed the transition from a state where people routinely carried weapons to a state of law and order whether they don't. It's not the Wild West any more.

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Nov 21 - 09:52 AM

Other countries don't have anything quite like our 10th amendment reserved-powers-of-the-states

It didn't "look crazy" in 1787, but as things change (newer guns, more abortions, etc.. with only 2 major political parties and a residual smoldering resentment in the South for their loss in the Civil War, it is a modern version of the Wild West.
   Ranchers out West are defying the Federal govt. about where they can graze cattle. Division of church & state is routinely defied by local laws passed to give conservative Christians priority, without admitting that is their goal. School textbooks are highly influenced by conservative states, particularly Texas.
   And now, ultimate rulings are by a conservative Supreme Court.

It's now more than just being painted into a corner, it's a maze where walls are changed just as attempts to navigate it get near an exit.
The psychological element comes in as a majority of conservative Republicans work on very different principals. It used to be that the 2 major parties had basically similar concepts about governing for the benefit of the country as a whole, but only differed about how. Now, the underlying goals of the Conservatives are in large part selfish, and negotiations boil down to "do it our way".
   The horrible "Electoral College" system and blatant Gerrymandering now keep us from voting in enough sane and reasonable congressional members to change things. (You note that in the last 2 national elections, Democrats got WAY more total votes, but still lost House & Senate members. Now states with conservative local majorities are re-districting and passing laws to reduce minority voting.

I am about out of metaphors like 'painting into a corner' to describe it all. About the only things the conservatives still haven't totally co-opted are the news media and the military... and you can bet they are thinking............

Me? Worried?... yeah.. I'm old enough I probably won't the the ultimate power grab, but I worry about what kind of world my son will live in.

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: leeneia
Date: 12 Nov 21 - 02:07 PM

The U.S. has shootings; the UK has knifings. The statistics on knifings in the UK are appalling.

From end of May 2020 to end of September 2021 (16 months), cars have been driven into groups of protesters 129 times.

Guns aren't the problem; knives aren't the problem. Some of the problems are

the breakdown of families,
alcohol and drug abuse,
propaganda of violence and distrust (particularly via Internet), society's desertion of the mentally ill and mentally handicapped.
the rebirth of ethnic hatreds

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Donuel
Date: 12 Nov 21 - 02:47 PM

Tribalism and ethnic hate have never needed a rebirth. The 'get'em' mentality has never left humanlty, childhood innocense aside.
Bill I wish you could use the word slavery. It is the reason for states rights. Hell, South Africa used the USA as their model for Apartheit. Today the Aubrey trial hinges on a civil war era statute that enables whites to arrest/kill blacks.

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Nov 21 - 05:38 PM

I'm totally aware that slavery was the underlying issue behind state's rights. Blacks were counted as 2/3 of a person. But state's rights now are used for many other contentious issues, so I didn't specify slavery in my post. Several Southern prison systems made a lot of $$$$ in the not-too-distant past by arresting poor blacks, sentencing them to inordinate terms, then renting them out to various farmers or businesses. Angola prison was one of the worst.

Don.. I have been involved with the Civil Rights fight for over 50 years. Here's my story from 1964
I was recently interviewed on ZOOM by the museum at the School Book Depository in Dallas to recount my memories of the JFK assassination and how it connected with my civil rights concerns.

Now...we have, as is common in Mudcat, diverged from the 2nd amendment topic. But, since no mod has objected, I have tried to respond.
   I **suggest** we try to stay on the subject of guns and gun laws.

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Ebbie
Date: 13 Nov 21 - 03:21 AM

That's OK, Bill! My initial point was lost from the second post. lol

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Nov 21 - 09:15 AM

Bill, to those most gifted much is expected. As you are a respected authority I merely wanted the record to show 'the rest of the story'. Thanks.
My first civil rights march was for an unjust killing of black man. I remember our Indonesion friend was wearing rags to the funeral which is customary in his culture. I still have a intriclly carved Garuda that he gifted to my father.

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Nov 21 - 07:57 PM

If there were civil rights marches for every unjust killing of black men.. and women... I'd sure wish I had bought stock in shoe manufacturers. If there were equal justice after every killing, we could quit marching.

Subject: RE: BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Nov 21 - 10:11 AM

My marching days began at 11 in Binghamtom and ended at 21 in the DC lock up. Demonstrating means not having to march.