Gun Control politics on both sides of the pond

[Mark/Static]

Originally posted by Hotpoint
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

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

The right is not granted by the amendment per se; its existence is already assumed. The gist of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.
The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.
It's kind of like saying, "A well-schooled electorate being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books shall not be infringed." Unless of course books are later found to be "potentially lethal"

 

[Pete Martin]

Jose, Jose, Jose...

I have enjoyed reading this thread, always like a good discussion, and felt I had nothing to add to it until your extremely blinkered comments about 'MOST' air gun owners...

you are sadly mistaken if you think that trying to damn another mans sport is going to get you or our sport anywhere, I am as passionate about paintball as anyone but trying to shift a bad spot light onto the users of air guns is.... well for want of a better word... stupid and misguided.

for a start the sport of air rifle shooting is far more established than paintball, we should be speaking to organisations from this sport and both be working toghther to combat the issues of gun control... look at it logically Paintball markers are Air Guns... markers powered by AIR just with larger balls... (easy...)

alienating Air Gun users against Paintball is not a smart move...

my 2 cents...

 

[Baca Loco]

Originally posted by Hotpoint

1--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?

2--But lets leave religion alone. Politics is bad enough

1--this is way beneath your usual standard. To suggest the G. Washington quote implies the content of your follow-up statement is disingenuous at best.
Btw, the 'In God We Trust' is a late 19th or early 20th century addition to our money (which has a certain irony all its own). Nothing to do with G.W or the Founders.
2--Nobody was arguing religion. The debate was over meaning

 

[Mark]

Originally posted by Mark/Static
The right is not granted by the amendment per se; its existence is already assumed. The gist of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.
The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.
It's kind of like saying, "A well-schooled electorate being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books shall not be infringed." Unless of course books are later found to be "potentially lethal"

I am with Hotpoint in so far as to say .."Its your constitution and you have to live with it" but when misquoted (to begin with )and misinterpreted by one of the countries residents who is subject to its implications. In your post above you use the word "gist" this means to imply (a contradiction of your own post already) you use the term "like" in the way to inferr that the words used are similair to other meanings....... it is this problem with the way your constitution is written that keeps a lot of lawyers in work...this particular amendment is one of the more "famous" ones but there isn't a inferred meaning hidden within, you say there is and so do a lot of others and so do a lot of people say the opposite (hence the lawyers gainful employment and pension plan). It is straight forward but for many many years people have kept on buying guns citing the 2nd amendment and now it is way too late to repeal and reword in plain english to fix the mistake made all those years ago. Fine have your guns, I have never said otherwise but at least recognise that the arguement is flawed, you have gotten away with it for so many years now that the chances of repeal is just not gonna happen.

 

[Mark]

Oh by the way courtesy of Cornell University

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentii

note the commas etc seems they found the same version as Hotpoint

Oh and here on your own goverments website just incase the lawyers got it wrong

http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/charters_of_freedom/bill_of_rights/amendments_1-10.html

Isn't the internet wonderful

 

[Jones the Paint Magnet]

Originally posted by Mark/Static

I think you got that backwards. You compromised personal freedom with legistlation. Isn't that what you meant?

I don’t think so. Where you have 100% personal freedom and no legislation on side of the scale and total security through legsilation & enforcement and no personal freedom on the other, any place between the two is a compromise between factors (and I’m not using “compromise” in a derogatory sense here). Maybe this is an oversimplification, but I still don’t think it is necessarily untrue.

I see a progression that, by your own admission, stems from an unreasonable fear. The logic seems to follow this train of thought, "since banning a few guns hasn't helped, we should ban more." Now they're working up to the potentially lethal. It seems only fitting that this thought process continues, and ends with the unthinkable. I hope you all prevail though. Good luck!

- that's exactly what I'm frightened of happening with paintball!(although re-assured by the pro-active stance by UKPSF). Why? Because trifling details like facts and responsible legal users have never stood in the way of a UK government thinking it knows best (and how best to win voters). Witness Trinity's post in another thread how a UK MP telling Commons that a .22 handgun could kill at 2 miles.

Don't get me wrong - I'm still glad that if someone ever tries and mugs me, chances are they won't be carrying anything I can't run away from - but I guess he whole point of the media circus surrounding UK firearms (and it is a circus, with all the associated distractions and hyperbole) is that we don't want to see our game lumped in with some ill-advised knee-jerk reaction.

Sorry if I'm wrong on the registration thing Hotpoint- I was assuming this would be done by us, not the govt.

 

[TJ Lambini]

Just saw this in a shooting mag...

It's an extract from a piece by a Texan farmer relating to a day out hunting when he ran into some rustlers...

"Now you can call me pessimistic, but I have good reason: I have twice walked into ambushes, once drove into one, have been shot by a sniper and hit by friendly fire, and that was just what happened to me; people with me fared worse. As my wife says, who else but a paranoid would develop reaction drills for his hunting trips?"

And that was all before he ran into tha rustlers which this story was based on...

 

[stongle]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2656875.stm

Hmm interesting, just saw this on the BBC. Gonna start saving for my Barret light .50

 

[Alien]

originally from Jones the Paint Magnet

UK MP telling Commons that a .22 handgun could kill at 2 miles.

You may put a rolly eyes smiley with that one, but the caution on all .22 caliber ammunition states "dangerous to 1.5 miles"
Ok,the trajectory would be like a morter but it is still dangerous that far out. Did you know that you can get .22 rifle bullets that can be fired at 4000 fps

Strongl
The Barret light 50 is a lousy defence weapon unless you see them coming from a mile off better off with a pump action shotgun loaded with SSG rounds




Now this has been a great discussion, but just think about this:
57000 of the most law abiding people in this country had there sport (and some there livelyhoods) taken from them in '97. All because we said we liston to the outcome of a report. We ended up getting shafted and what good did it do?

How many paintballers are there in this country? and do you think Jack Straw will even think about us if he decides to have tighter controls on air guns..


Mark/Static
I've read all your posts and agree with most of what you say. keep on fighting your corner dude

Alien

 

[JoseDominguez]

Jose, Jose, Jose...

Originally posted by Pete Martin
I have enjoyed reading this thread, always like a good discussion, and felt I had nothing to add to it until your extremely blinkered comments about 'MOST' air gun owners...

you are sadly mistaken if you think that trying to damn another mans sport is going to get you or our sport anywhere, I am as passionate about paintball as anyone but trying to shift a bad spot light onto the users of air guns is.... well for want of a better word... stupid and misguided.

for a start the sport of air rifle shooting is far more established than paintball, we should be speaking to organisations from this sport and both be working toghther to combat the issues of gun control... look at it logically Paintball markers are Air Guns... markers powered by AIR just with larger balls... (easy...)

alienating Air Gun users against Paintball is not a smart move...

my 2 cents...

Read my posts, I never damned anyones sport, I specifically commented on irresponsible airgun owners of whom there are a great many, the people who fire them illegaly at anything handy, for the simple reason that they are not aware of just how dangerous they can be, it's considered a game and it's OK "it's just an air-gun" I never tried to shift blame onto anyone, I stated that we in th UK need to make the powers that be aware that paintball markers are not the same as airguns to avoid catching the same ban (and it's coming).
And at what point did I direct my comments to most airgun owners? I said lots of casual owners were irresponsible, then explained the reason: that many kids had them bought for them, kids who shouldn't legally own them. However if you work it out, I think you will find that the number of airguns in England (including replica desert eagles etc..) far outweighs the number of target shooting airgunners.
I also think that you'll find most responsible, target shooting airgunners will agree with this point, as the irresponsible/uneducated users are going to cost them their sport. (in exactly the same way as the irresponsible lunatics who cost pistol shooters theirs). Airgun vandalism and assault may not be a problem in Australia, I don't know, which is why I don't presume to tell you otherwise.

And you consider airguns and markers the same? promise that you'll never bunker me then.
And as for shifting a spotlight, that's the last thing I want and is my entire point, it's already on the airgun, I don't want it to move on to us.