 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Ambiguous Second Amendment
|
|
|
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 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. |
