Gun Control politics on both sides of the pond

[JoseDominguez]

No, because it's all true, the majority of paintball marker users are responsible and careful, correct?
An awful lot of air-gun users in the UK are not, this is due to the ease of purchase and the fact that many kids get them bought for them, you can pick up a semi-auto co2 powered air-pistol for £20. When I refer to air-guns, I mean the thousands of casual owners who've only got them for breaking bottles and shooting cats, not the target-shooting minority, who are taking part in a sport as real as ours. But how can you justify a realistic desert eagle with 15 shot mag and carried by a fifteen year old who got it for christmas? that's not particularly responsible is it?
And again, I never mentioned a ban. Please don't call me a liar again.

 

[Mark]

Originally posted by Mark/Static
.
There was a reaction, Brady II was proposed, and defeated. As with airguns in the UK it proposed legislation that would have done nothing to prevent Columbine. But would have denied second amendment rights to citizens, without benefit of due process. That's just on the national level.
On the state level it varies. New Jersey & New York (curious that they're named after cities in the UK ) passed further gun legislation that will have no effect on school shootings.

But it's hardly the fundamental definition of democracy. Maybe yours, but not ours.

Sure, there is talk of all kinds, but it's the overreaction that's key. There's talk about legalizing drugs in the US, but that doesn't mean it'll ever happen, even in the wake of a Cheech & Chong reunion.

Ok first point....I didn't know that it was tried to be put through whatever hoops it needed to be...but as you say defeated...why? Gun Lobbys too powerful?

Your constitution amendment for the "right" to bear arms stems from a war time amendment to protect your shores as Militia not for individuals to arm themselves to go shopping...but then as your amendments are written in a way that leaves them open to interpretation you could argue for years on constitutional law.


Point 2 ..At least the political party in power in this country got there by gaining the most votes in a free and properly counted election and to further expand upon my quote, you vote for the people you wish to make laws and look out for your welfare...that means after you have voted the Goverment will now tell you what to do....that sounds pretty democratic to me.
Remember your goverment is "based" upon the english model (2 houses of control etc)..though we do actually have more than two partys taking part in elections.

But to put this to bed so to speak, you and I won't agree on this so maybe best left alone?

 

[Mark/Static]

Originally posted by Mark
Ok first point....I didn't know that it was tried to be put through whatever hoops it needed to be...but as you say defeated...why? Gun Lobbys too powerful?

When they're representing 83 million registered voters, any lobby would be very powerful, but they weren't too powerful when Brady 1 was passed, except when 19 pro-Brady reps were ousted in the next election.

Originally posted by Mark
Your constitution amendment for the "right" to bear arms stems from a war time amendment to protect your shores as Militia not for individuals to arm themselves to go shopping...but then as your amendments are written in a way that leaves them open to interpretation you could argue for years on constitutional law.

That's one of the many incorrect arguements those opposed to our second amendment use. But the passage, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," seems pretty clear to me. Or as Thomas Jefferson put it, "No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

 

[JoseDominguez]

Waco

 

[Hotpoint]

Originally posted by Mark/Static
That's one of the many incorrect arguements those opposed to our second amendment use. But the passage, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," seems pretty clear to me

Your selective quotation does you no favours in establishing your case. The 2nd Amendment actually reads in full:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

This clearly means that the reasoning behind the right to keep and bear arms is intended for the purposes of a militia to defend the state. Any other interpretation is reading between the lines and assumes your founding fathers were too dim to say what they meant. If it had a full stop instead of a comma between "State" and "the" your interpretation might hold more water Sir

As for the quote from Jefferson just because many of the founding fathers were pro-gun doesn't meant your Constitution necessarily is. How about I quote George Washington "The United States is in no way founded on the Christian Religion" Planning to uphold your first Presidents ideals and support the idea that the oath of allegiance should have the reference to God removed are we?

Damn. I'm in another Political Threadjack... please lets take this elsewhere and reserve this for UK Airgun Law

 

[Mark/Static]

Originally posted by Hotpoint
Your selective quotation does you no favours in establishing your case. The 2nd Amendment actually reads in full:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

It's funny how those who criticize of our 2nd amendment always seem to find a copy with 2 extra comas in it. There is in fact only one on the original of the US constitution. "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" This may seem insignificant, but it's not.

Originally posted by Hotpoint
This clearly means that the reasoning behind the right to keep and bear arms is intended for the purposes of a militia to defend the state. Any other interpretation is reading between the lines and assumes your founding fathers were too dim to say what they meant. If it had a full stop instead of a comma between "State" and "the" your interpretation might hold more water Sir

In every reference to "the people" in our Constitution, refers to the individual, as in "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, the right of the people to be secure in their homes, the enumeration herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people, The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people," but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers only to state militias or the National Guard.

Originally posted by Hotpoint
As for the quote from Jefferson just because many of the founding fathers were pro-gun doesn't meant your Constitution necessarily is. How about I quote George Washington "The United States is in no way founded on the Christian Religion" Planning to uphold your first Presidents ideals and support the idea that the oath of allegiance should have the reference to God removed are we?
Damn. I'm in another Political Threadjack... please lets take this elsewhere and reserve this for UK Airgun Law

Last I checked, God is the foundation of 99% of the worlds religions. I see nothing in the pledge of allegiance that refers only to Christianity. Personally I'd rather we pledge allegiance to our constitution rather than our flag.
When you all stop, I'll stop!

 

[Baca Loco]

Kidz,
Did what I could to separate the two threads (originally UK Gun Control) but I only see a portion of each post's content so some might be out of place.

 

[Hotpoint]

Originally posted by Baca Loco
Kidz,
Did what I could to separate the two threads (originally UK Gun Control) but I only see a portion of each post's content so some might be out of place.

Baca you have my thanks. Your efforts are much appreciated

 

[JoseDominguez]

Hellooooooooooo, just like to point out that I never dissed the US constitution, or America. (wouldn't dare, they've got too many guns).

 

[Hotpoint]

Originally posted by Mark/Static
It's funny how those who criticize of our 2nd amendment always seem to find a copy with 2 extra comas in it. There is in fact only one on the original of the US constitution

Ah but it's the important one where your interpretation requires a full-stop! Still reads like the right to bear arms is linked to the idea of a militia not private ownership for the sake of it. Also I'm not criticising the US Constitution just some peoples interpretation of it

Originally posted by Mark/Static

In every reference to "the people" in our Constitution, refers to the individual

17th/18th Century Liberalism at its atomistic best. Doesn't alter the fact you are interpreting the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution not reading it as it stands. That's your perogative but under English Law we would apply the "Literal Rule" and assume the framers meant what they wrote

Maybe I'm wrong but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt

Originally posted by Mark/Static
Last I checked, God is the foundation of 99% of the worlds religions. I see nothing in the pledge of allegiance that refers only to Christianity. Personally I'd rather we pledge allegiance to our constitution rather than our flag.

Well this is taking an O/T thread O/T but quite a few of the Founding fathers were Atheists too. As for Washington he was a Deist which means he believed that a force (God) created the universe but left man to his own devices afterwards. In those terms "In God we Trust" is inappropriate for a start

But lets leave religion alone. Politics is bad enough

Originally posted by Mark/Static
When you all stop, I'll stop!

Thanks to Baca our path is clear