BS: Anyone defend US gun law?

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: 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 - 01:40 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 02:50 AM

And.........??

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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......

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 08:33 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: 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: 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: 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,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 - 03:02 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: 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: 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!