BS: Anyone defend US gun law?

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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 03:59 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 - 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: MGM·Lion
Date: 21 Sep 14 - 01:43 PM

No

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: 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: 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: Ebbie
Date: 21 Sep 14 - 04:03 PM

:) Greg F.

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: 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: Bill D
Date: 21 Sep 14 - 09:23 PM

strangest thing: My main PC says Mudcat is offline..."service not available" but I have an older XP downstairs... and LO!

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Sep 14 - 09:24 PM

So after trying upstairs for an hour:
---------------------------------

Just had a thought. I was reading about the Scottish independence vote, and that Salmond has just said that 'the no voters were tricked' by false promises about 'devolution'.... and I realized I was not totally sure about what it meant in the context, so I looked it up...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devolution and saw this: "Devolution is the statutory granting of powers from the central government of a sovereign state to government at a subnational level, such as a regional, local, or state level. It is a form of decentralization. Devolved territories have the power to make legislation relevant to the area."

Fine, says I, the Scots were promised some more power over their own interests, and there is debate over whether they will get it as promised...

But then the next sentence said: "Devolution differs from federalism in that the devolved powers of the subnational authority may be temporary and ultimately reside in central government, thus the state remains, de jure unitary. Legislation creating devolved parliaments or assemblies can be repealed or amended by central government in the same way as any statute."

Hmmm...then: "Federal systems, or federations, differ in that state or provincial government is guaranteed in the constitution. Australia, Canada, India, and the United States have federal systems, ..."~

And that could be part of the problem in this discussion. I'm not claiming that educated folk in the UK are not aware of the basic definitions, but it may be that the 'idea' that the central government ultimately controls and grants those privileges is so ingrained there that it is hard to deal with what we in a Federal system contend with.

Scotland doesn't wholly trust Westminster to grant what they promise... we (or certain states) assume correctly that they HAVE various rights, and have for 250 years. Now that the interpretation of those rights has become an issue, we are literally at the mercy of the 'system' itself if we try to change it. Things have been changed.. witness Dred Scott and Brown vs. Board of Education...etc... but those things had widespread momentum and did not have an entire industry dependent on NOT changing anything. Add to that the way attempts to introduce changes are 'amended' to death and linked with ideas that will never be adopted, and we have gridlock.

Of course it is 'possible' for enough people to get angry and support a new Constitutional amendment... but it's hard to say what would do it. People of good will ARE working on it constantly, but the issue doesn't have the same .... emotional force?... cultural power?.. as voting rights or equal pay...etc. It is, sadly, just 'statistics' to many.

(I assert constantly that **climate change** and **over population** are far more pressing problems ultimately, but until food riots and rising sea level hit a large % of folks, there is just apathy. I don't know the answer.)

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 22 Sep 14 - 03:02 AM

The Scottish Nationalist Party promised all sorts of things they couldn't deliver in order to get into power, but even they didn't promise firearms to the general public. Why? You might as well promise to decriminalise rape for what good it would do you.

Yes, federalism is about getting together for common purpose but our forefathers brought together an act of union. The EU is about federalism to a degree but in a union you can only devolve.

In any case, laws mirror for consistency hence we all banned smoking in public buildings but Scotland introduced it before England etc. Just... Don't get confused between aspiration and status quo though. Scotland has devolved powers and has its own parliament. When the independence brigade were moaning about Westminster rule, they were complaining about the failures of their own policies and finding a scape goat.

Bill. If you read what some of us are putting, we are saying we cannot understand the US gun situation on the basis that the vast majority would, according to polls, have them banned. Yet I doubt many would be comfortable with being seen as happy to roll over and be shafted whilst claiming to be, in the words of Lincoln, by the people, for the people.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Carl in VT
Date: 22 Sep 14 - 03:13 AM

Haven't killed myself in the interim, apologies to all, especially the truly civilized people of Britannia who I'm sure must feel it deeply. ;) In fact I shall turn 60 tomorrow and hope to avoid suicide for a few more years.

Don't see much here since last time that I feel calls for another full-scale rant, but I stand by what I wrote. Briefly, like a few others on this thread, I, and most of the NRA for that matter, do not object to reforming and then *enforcing* laws designed and actually calculated to keep guns out of the hands of demonstrated criminals, immature or mentally unstable persons. But when the talk is of getting rid of the 2nd amendment, we do indeed balk, because if that were gone, there would be nothing to stop the government from disarming the general population entirely. For them as thinks that's just fine, great - your country, your way, suit yourself. I do realize it's not 1776, or 1851, or whatever dates were mentioned, but I maintain that today an armed people is more, rather than less, appropriate and necessary.

I don't have Rahere's background in Con Law, but while I can't flatly call him wrong, I think his argument is pretty weak. But what I really can't grasp is Musket's idea that the 2' amendment is a guarantee of the right to be conscripted. I'd bet I can't find any con law authorities who can understand that interpretation either.

BTW Musket, your repeated allegations about dick size are giving the male member an inferiority complex. He's also taken to making snide remarks like "Going 'turkey hunting' with that blued-finish .410 again, huh? I'll just bet you are." You have however put me off burglary in Britain, had I ever contemplated the career. If you consider a firearm a substitute for an inadequate endowment, I shudder to imagine the weapon with which the irate Englishman confronts the housebreaker. :P

Please don't let me scare you away from Killington. I only go there during the 2' week of November for the gamers' convention (I'm not a skier) and it's been years since I shot anybody while I was there. But I'm flattered by your chilled bones, I don't achieve that often. I am a little hurt that you consider my guff to be "cut-&-paste" (hang onto those chilly bones, now), it actually is my own opinions, carefully distilled over the years whilst banging rocks together, and not lifted from any other source.

I'll check back at some point and am happy to carry on discussion with any who want to do so, as time permits (which it often doesn't), but if you're just into expressions of horrified disgust at my repulsiveness & insanity I won't be answering you. I expect it, ain't worried about it, but I ain't debatin' it. Unless irony is irresistable.

Fondly,
Bone-chillingly Brutal Carl

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 22 Sep 14 - 03:29 AM

Perhaps that's the answer. We don't need guns because we all have huge cocks hence no need for substitutes. Answers a lot really. I recall at school many years ago we were told even then that the constitutional right to require conscription (draft) was abused by many to allow them to pretend they are living in a Hollywood western. To be fair, our history teacher that year was rather anti USA. I got to know him in later life socially. Turns out an American ex wife and a first hand understanding of the word alimony.

You might come in handy if you get a good snow year though. Mrs Musket and I love late season skiing but most places your side of the pond, you share the off piste with hungry bears. Came face to face with one in Canada a few years ago (Whistler) but he just sat posing whilst we stood rigid with fear them he wandered off.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 22 Sep 14 - 06:56 AM

The thing about Law is that it does have its roots in the popular mores of what is right and what is wrong. The problem is that the mores change, sometimes rapidly, and Law has to forever adjust to Justice. I differentiate, to be slightly more specific, between mores as a long-term norm and mob rule driven by contemporary issues, such as we saw in McCarthyism in the 1950s, and the Homeland Security paranoid of the last 10 years. To a great extent, the 2nd Amendment was the fruit of something similar, distrust in the British Army 200+ years ago. But in those 200 years, you've grown from the insecure 13 Colonies faced with the then greatest military force in the world to the greatest force itself, and it's time you left such immaturity behind, or you'll become discredited and seen as a paranoid Country.

Although my demolition of the ammunition argument is not as strong, say, as a "This clause of this Act says it's illegal", none the less it does hold. You've fallen prey to the Larsen E Pettifoggers of the 19th Century, in the pay of those whose interest was violence. A mature society controls its violence, holds its power as a steel hand in a velvet glove. This is not the solution of the Wild West, the replacement of the John Waynes by the Milquetoast Wouldbedonebys of the Bible Belt, but the realisation of that the French call the "Bon Pere de Famille", the mature man of a State, confident in its authority and yet generous in its responsibility. The Honest Abe of the Nations. We've been teaching your military that these last 20 years, and that is why you shouldn't fear them. Has there been any indication of a military coup these last 50 years? No? Well, perhaps they are happy in their role, encourage it.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 22 Sep 14 - 08:27 AM

I'm hugely amused at the idea of the redneck, hill-billy 'well-organised militia', presumably led by Mudcat's very own pair of Audie Murphys, oldude and rapparee, using their supreme skills to subdue their government, and going into action with their hunting rifles and handguns against the most powerful Armed Forces in the world.

For all the John Wayne Big-Talk, I'd be amazed if they lasted five minutes.

What's the weather like in that la-la-land dream-world you guys inhabit?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Lighter
Date: 22 Sep 14 - 08:33 AM

The interesting thing about Dred Scott in this connection is that it was not a unanimous decision: the Court was divided 6-3.

The racism of the Court (which probably was unanimous) plus the political commitment of the majority of the justices to slavery unquestionably influenced the decision.

However: Justice Taney's reasoning from the U.S. Constitution, while self-serving, was also punctiliously correct: a case of the letter of the law trampling on its spirit.

How is this possible? Because the U.S. Constitution neither sanctioned nor forbade slavery, which was considered a social rather than a political institution. Since legally obtained slaves were commonly recognized as personal "property" like any other, the Constitution had no jurisdiction over how that personal "property" was to be "disposed of."

The point is that it took a Civil War, two Constitutional Amendments (each ratified by 2/3 of the states) and a century (and more) of changing attitudes to rectify the situation.

No quick fix, Brits.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 22 Sep 14 - 08:48 AM

Actually, Audie Murphy was exactly a case in point. On his discharge from the Army, he came within an inch of where Pistorius is now, sleeping with a gun under his pillow and suffering severe PTSD flashbacks, to the point where he once held his wife at gunpoint.

Hero and experienced weapon handler you may be, but it's no guarantee something won't take you where you'd not want to be, when armed with potentially deadly force.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Lighter
Date: 22 Sep 14 - 08:49 AM

At least as controversial at the time, and far exceeding the issue of Dred Scott's freedom, was the Court's additional finding that the Federal government had no authority to ban slavery from any Western territory.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Rapparee
Date: 22 Sep 14 - 09:35 AM

Gee, Backwoodsman, I thought that my BA (English Literature) and MS (Library and Information Science) might possibly have educated me beyond "redneck." As for olddude, he can speak for himself. Of course, the quintessential rednecks, the Duck Dynasty, are quite wealthy and number at least one Master's degree and three baccalaureates in the family (from Wikipedia, I've never watched the show). As for some of the Catters whom you might consider "rednecks", gnu has a graduate degree in civil engineering and ol' Bobert holds two BAs.

Should olddude and I have to "lead" some sort of armed force I think that we'd be rather successful. He has military training in "special warfare" and I spent too many years in the PBI. I could ring in my brother (who also has more than a few firearms) to help -- he's a Vietnam vet. And my cousin Mark, who was in Gulf I. Tom, out here, would probably help -- he made a scenic tour of the South Pacific with the US Marines a few years back.

You assume too much about people you've never met save online.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Sep 14 - 09:42 AM

Of course, the quintessential rednecks, the Duck Dynasty

Bad example - that bunch ignorant, racist, fundagelical, bigoted assholes give 'rednecks' a bad name.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 22 Sep 14 - 09:46 AM

"No quick fix, Brits. "
.,,.,.

We don't imagine there is, Lighter. But, consider,

no fix at all, at any speed,

if you never start.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 22 Sep 14 - 11:16 AM

You really don't have a clue, do you, Michael?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 22 Sep 14 - 12:03 PM

Unfortunately, Rap, you and your buddy post like uneducated redneck hillbillies, so don't be surprised that those of us who have never met you have underestimated you - if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.......! :-)

Come to think of it, you don't know what I've done either, and that's the way I like it. Some things are best kept private.

Now, you didn't say what kind of a chance you think your 'well organised militia' of keyboard-warriors would stand against the combined might of the US Army and Air Force (should it actually come to a real fight involving all those handguns and hunting rifles you guys are running around with).

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Sep 14 - 12:20 PM

"...we are saying we cannot understand the US gun situation on the basis that the vast majority would, according to polls, have them banned..."

I am aware of the exact point you are making...(I'm not sure if it is a "vast" majority, but yes, the majority does favor severe restrictions on the sale, use and ownership of guns).

What *I* cannot understand is why YOU cannot understand that there is simply no way the majority can have a direct, national, binding vote on the issue.

I have gone over the Federal situation and the process for changing the situation several times, and rather than reply to the specific points, I get impassioned moral and psychological rejoinders, with sarcastic overtones, saying we are something like weak, lazy sheep for not just rising up and 'doing something'.

Even Rahere , : GUEST,Rahere - PM
Date: 22 Sep 14 - 06:56 AM.... who began with a very detailed point about constitutional law, has resorted to some sort of psycho-social exhortation, the exact point of which is lost on me.

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

I wonder if any Brits here have read "Opus 21" by Philip Wylie? It goes way back to 1949, but somewhere I have a copy. I wanted to quote one passage exactly, but can't find the book right now, so I will paraphrase:
The author/protagonist is having lunch with a friend in a restaurant, when there is a disturbance at the next table. The waiter is trying to mollify a ruddy-faced Englishman who has asked for a Baked Apple for dessert.
"But sir." says Fred, the waiter, "there are none... they are out of season."

"All I am asking for is a baked apple!," he replies, "I always have a baked apple when I come here... with cream! A baked apple with cream!"

"We really don't have any," replies Fred... trying to be diplomatic,"Perhaps one of the eating type apples could be found and baked..."

"Harrumph! So, I am not to have a baked apple!".....

at this point, the protagonist rises and goes over to the table, plants one shoe on the edge of the table, and spouts some sort of gruff nonsense syllables at the startled diner, then goes back his friend and remarks mildly about how he "has seen this sort of thing before", and how reason seems never to work....
-----------------------------------------------------------------

I sort of doubt that my metaphor will make any more inroads than Fred's explanation about baking apples being out of season... but a feller has to try....

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Sep 14 - 12:24 PM

In reality, I would guess that those of us who envision the eventual need for firepower by homeowners are not visualizing a face-off with Federal troops so much as they fear- and prepare for- the chaos in the event of community breakdown. They fear neighbors rather than government.

What say you?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Sep 14 - 12:34 PM

Well, Ebbie, I would have to query these "homeowners" about when and how they expect this Hobbesian dystopia will descened upon the U.S. and the statistical probability of it coming to pass.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 22 Sep 14 - 12:36 PM

What I say is...

1) that's not what those who raise the spectre of the 2nd Amendment claim it's for - they, almost to a man, and certainly the NRA would, say that the 2/A requires them to be armed in order to subdue any government that gets too big for its boots.

2) if there should be 'chaos in the event of a community breakdown', you have the police, the National Guard, the army and the airforce to take care of it.

You (that's the collective, not you personally) seem absolutely paranoid. That's what you get when any and every dickhead in the country has a stupid 'right' to own a gun.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Sep 14 - 12:44 PM

There are numerous areas in the US that are scary beyond the norm. Idaho has got some, southern Oregon has some, lots of other places, some of them are even on television.

They call themselves 'survivalists'. Some of their most cherished beliefs address the potential neighbors/intruders knocking at one's door, trying too late to survive and bent on taking over one's own carefully supplied refuge.

You have to be prepared to shoot. It is a matter of survival...

Of course, if you're not home when all hell breaks loose, you will be the one pounding on others' doors. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Sep 14 - 12:51 PM

"- they, almost to a man, and certainly the NRA would, say that the 2/A requires them to be armed in order to subdue any government that gets too big for its boots."

Yep... that is a common rationalization that many of them use. We can debate all day what goes on in their heads to bring them to such a stupid position... or why they employ the "slippery slope" fallacy to defend their position. ("If we allow 'X', why, 'Y' & 'Z' will surely follow!") But whatever their warped, emotional rationalization and how well we sane ones see thru the obfuscation, it still does nothing to alter the pragmatic, legal obstacles we have to actually making changes!
My mother made moderately horrible meatloaf, and we gradually saw WHY her meatloaf was flawed, but she had her notion of 'how one goes about doing it', and she was in charge. My brother & I could not figure out how to mount an insurrection against her... so we ate flawed meatloaf.

Inadequate metaphor? *shrug*

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 22 Sep 14 - 12:56 PM

I have millions of clues, Stim. I do at least three crosswords every day so count up the # of clues I have acquired over 80 years -- or say 65 of them doing the crosswords. What, precisely, do you think I haven't a clue about?...

Pray expound...

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Musket
Date: 22 Sep 14 - 01:02 PM

I wouldnt give any of the buggers better odds than ten mins down Doncaster on a Saturday night eh John?

Special forces.. We've got one this side of the pond keeps rattling on about the paras, but doesn't stop him talking bollocks... Come to think of it, the nearer to last orders you get, the more of 'em used to be in The SAS.. Didn't impress them in The Drum in Shirebrook, my old drinking pit. They all seemed to leave Shirebrook with hard luck stories and loose teeth.

I suppose its a good idea our lads don't have guns. Many a work issue was resolved the old fashioned way when I worked down the pit. A different world back then, but we grew up. That seems to be the difference with rednecks, especially the ones in Dumbfuckistan...

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 22 Sep 14 - 01:12 PM

Ebbie, I don't say that absolutely NOBODY should ever be permitted to own/possess a gun. What I do say is that, as in the UK, only those who can show GENUINE NEED should have one - people who live in wild areas and are threatened by wildlife, ranchers/farmers, sport-shooters. But 'self-defence' and 'to shoot home-invaders' are NOT examples of genuine need.

And nobody living in a city has a genuine need, other than sport-shooters.

I understand how different things are in some parts of the US - I've been there enough times - but saying "you don't understand" and 'it's difficult" isn't going to change anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Rahere
Date: 22 Sep 14 - 01:41 PM

Bill D 22 Sep 14 - 12:20 PM "there is simply no way the majority can have a direct, national, binding vote on the issue."

If so, then the US should not be imposing its kind of democracy anywhere, and why are you not using your weapons against the NRA to recover your democracy such as it is?

I fail to follow your analogy. If you cannot answer the legal position I made, then no analogy whatsoever serves. Or does neither your Constitution nor your Independence stand any longer?

At least here in the UK our politicians are in one hell of a tizzy trying to find an answer to the points I and others have made about equity in democracy in Scotland by comparison with England. I don't think they can answer, and that too will be to their cost.

So, we hold our politicians to account. Why don't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 22 Sep 14 - 01:47 PM

This comment "if you never start" reflects a certain cluelessness to the fact that we that started legislating gun sales and such things a number of years ago, and that since this happened, shooting deaths have declined significantly. It also reflects a cluelessness the effort that those efforts required.

Oh, and you seem to be clueless about the fact that the folks that you (and others of your ilk) are attacking here are actually all pretty significant supporters of gun control. Even the one that have been characterized as "uneducated redneck hillbillies".

Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Sep 14 - 01:49 PM

"If so, then the US should not be imposing its kind of democracy anywhere, and why are you not using your weapons against the NRA .."
\
You're changing the point.... imposing? I don't see it.. against the NRA? You're kidding......