All four of them are enemies of the Republic. Corruption and tyranny know no bounds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Turlington
Printable View
All four of them are enemies of the Republic. Corruption and tyranny know no bounds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Turlington
What happens if your 'return fire' kills the wrong person -or people?Quote:
Originally Posted by kittyKaiti
And putting it into proportion - and allowing for the difference in scale of our nations - the numbers who died from gun offences in the UK is tiny compared with the US where the shoot-em up culture is so ingrained - and where any attempt to control them is undermined by the NRA.Quote:
Originally Posted by kittyKaiti
But then you'll never see that since guns are sacred.
This week in Leeds in the UK a teacher was stabbed to death in front of her class by a teenager. He was overpowered and restrained by other members of staff. Imagine if he'd had a gun though. He'd have defended himself and the death toll might well have been far higher.
Doubtless those in favour of guns will argue that if the class of kids had had guns they'd have shot him down.
But surely in the case of the Leeds incident, the key issue, on the basis of what we know so far, is that the boy concerned was not a good communicator or gregarious, he was 'a loner', reserved, affected by his parents divorce, and addicted to violent video games. Isn't this more likely to be a shaping factor than the availability of a gun, a knife, or a pencil? The availablity of an automatic weapon might well have caused carnage in the school -had he been able to get it in without being noticed -but surely the core problem is a degree of mental instability that went unnoticed, or untreated, and has ended in tragedy for all concerned. It does raise the question, if people are addicted to violent video games, are they more likely to act out their fantasy if their mental state allows it and other factors in their environment come into play?
That is irrelevant. The police have killed untold numbers of innocent Americans while using their service weapons to stop criminals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...icle-1.1587123
http://abcnews.go.com/US/women-accid...ry?id=20261689
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012...armed-robbery/
http://news.yahoo.com/ny-police-offi...163707908.html
And my all time favorite:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxWWJaTEdD0
I agree Stavros. The essential point I was making that knife incidents - whatever prompts them - are likely to be less deadly in a wider sense than a similarly troubled young person with a semi automatic weapon.
When domestic WMDs are available then the chances of multiple deaths is higher.
Which does not men we should not be taking a wider look at a culture which celebrates violece - through such things as violent video games.
But it is relevant, because your post stated:Quote:
Originally Posted by kittyKaiti
"At least now law abiding citizens have the ability to return fire, and kill the spree killer, instead of having to follow Department of Homeland Security recommendations to duck under desks and defend themselves with scissors (Or wait 10-20 minutes until SWAT arrives). Returning fire is the only way to stop a crazed gunman on a spree. "
-The issue is a member of the public deciding to use his or her weapon to intervene. Your assumption must be that he or she shoots accurately; mine is that in a situation of tension if not panic, your heroic John Citizen might just accidentally shoot the wrong person, maybe more than one person. Imagine it was in a dark cinema and a crazed gunmen opens fire during Batman -would you trust a heroic, strapped John Citizen to start firing back in that situation? And if the person accidentally killed is someone you love, would that not be 'relevant'? And if -in the US as well as the UK- policemen trained to use firearms can get it wrong, what is to say John Citizen is going to be any better?
Republicans and democrats = Enemies of the Republic. You advocate guns in the hands of the ordinary citizen and see the Government as the enemy of the people. Okay Ms Kaiti... spell out if you'd care to the way you'd like to see the USA governed?
She's quite insistent that the state governments should "authorize" the practice of propelling lead pellets into persons perceived to be life threatening, but doesn't think federal government should "authorize" the practice of buying weed killer, fertilizer and seed from a private manufacturer and using it on your private farm. I'm interested hear in broad outline what she thinks the government has the authority to prohibit as well as the distinction between authorizing and not prohibiting?
There needs to be methods to hold corrupt politicians under strict accountability for their actions. There needs to be increased oversight of powers given to federal agencies like Homeland Security, the ATF, the DEA, among hundreds of other agencies. There needs to be an increase in state sovereignty and less federal government control. There needs to be a way to hold law enforcement officers accountable for their actions and the destruction of the thin blue line fraternity mentality that allows corruption and cover-ups of brutality or other crimes committed by officers to breed in police departments. There needs to be a higher strict standard for following the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights. Supreme Court justices should be elected, not appointed. The impeachment and the recall processes to remove corrupt politicians should be modified to be easier. The American people themselves should have more direct say in issues. There needs to be an outright ban on political lobbying. There needs to be significant slashing of federal budget waste, like half of the currently existing federal bureaucratic alphabet agencies that have accomplished nothing (like the Department of Homeland Security entirely).Quote:
Originally Posted by Prospero
Excellent. I think you have now laid out a series of points which i am sure the Americans here can debate. Thanks.
One could just vote them out of office. One could increase the powers of the executive branch to impeach corrupt judges and/or congressmen. One could make it easier for the legislative branch to impeach the president. Any legal action of one branch of government against another is always going to be preceded by expensive investigations and followed up with expensive hearings as we’ve seen in the past. Voting them out is the cheaper option and puts the decision directly in the hands of the voter.Quote:
There needs to be methods to hold corrupt politicians under strict accountability for their actions.
As long as voters perceive drugs and drug trafficking to be a problem the DEA will continue to thrive. I believe Congress is already charged with oversight. In the past they have formed special oversight committees and hired investigators to explore various allegations against the DEA. These are always very expensive affairs. Ditto with ATF and Homeland Security.Quote:
There needs to be increased oversight of powers given to federal agencies like Homeland Security, the ATF, the DEA, among hundreds of other agencies.
Here it would help if you were more specific. There are some things appropriate for the state and others appropriate for the federal government. Given, for example, that we ship food across States lines on a daily basis, who would be in a better position to prohibit the use of dangerous herbicides to protect our food supply, the Federal or the State government? I know you think the Federal government dropped the ball here, but clearly you think somebody should do something about herbicide use. There is also the problem of what the separate states can afford to do without financial support from the rest of us (i.e. the federal government). If, for example, the State of Illinois wants Federal tax dollars in the form of education aid, then it’s reasonable to expect some Federal control over how Illinois spends those dollars.Quote:
There needs to be an increase in state sovereignty and less federal government control.
There can be so strict standard for interpreting the Constitution. That’s the whole point of having a Judicial branch headed by the Supreme Court. Their job is to interpret and apply the Constitution. Some key passages of the document are notoriously and deliberately ambiguous and our understanding and application will continue to evolve. I think the electing Supreme Court Justices would be an extremely destabilizing practice. They need to be shielded from all sorts of influence and especially the influence of the majority. I would admit we could do a better job of shielding. An age limit or a term limit might be a good idea as well.Quote:
There needs to be a higher strict standard for following the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights. Supreme Court justices should be elected, not appointed.
This has not worked out so well for California. Prop this and Prop that have been a social nuisance.Quote:
The American people themselves should have more direct say in issues.
The influence of lobbyists needs to somehow be curtailed, but one would have to have a definition of lobbying to eliminate it, and one would have to dedicate an agency to the investigation of alleged breaches of the law. More money.Quote:
There needs to be an outright ban on political lobbying.
That’s almost a tautology. But what one voter sees as waste, another sees as an essential government function. I agree we could do without most, if not all, of Homeland Security. I also think we spend way too much on military projects and way to little on science and education (I also think a lot of what we allocate to education is ill-spent). You think we can cut some agencies but spending money on more oversight, investigations and impeachments is essential, and in some cases you may be right.Quote:
There needs to be significant slashing of federal budget waste,
[QUOTE=kittyKaiti;1485885]
There needs to be methods to hold corrupt politicians under strict accountability for their actions.
--In principle, I agree, but what we discovered in the UK when Members of Parliament were fiddling their expenses, is that some of them thought they were acting within the rules, so what you think is corrupt the politicians might think is legal. This needs close attention to the detail of what elected representatives can and cannot do, but ought to be possible to do.
There needs to be increased oversight of powers given to federal agencies like Homeland Security, the ATF, the DEA, among hundreds of other agencies.
---I am not an American so I cannot comment on this.
There needs to be an increase in state sovereignty and less federal government control.
---I understand the American context for States rights, but can't really comment. I think this is one of the key elements of the character (and historical development) of American democracy, but I don't really know how this works or should work on a policy by policy basis. Are there some issues, such as the right to vote, which should be determined by the Federal govt rather than a state? Do 'human rights' always trump 'states rights'?
On Guns -is this a Federal issue, or a local/state issue?
There needs to be a way to hold law enforcement officers accountable for their actions and the destruction of the thin blue line fraternity mentality that allows corruption and cover-ups of brutality or other crimes committed by officers to breed in police departments.
---We have this problem in the UK. There are no easy solutions, part of the problem is recruitment and the kind of people who choose to become police officers. In this country, class has been a significant factor, with many police officers coming from the same social background (sometimes the same schools) as the criminals. The lack of minorities in the UK police force tends to reinforce a belief that there is bias in policing -the majority of young men stopped on the street and searched by the police have been 'Black and Asian', yet the conviction rate is small by comparison. Not sure how this applies to the USA. I suspect that in both countries where gangs of Black youths are common, the fact is that the most lucrative criminals are white, and wear suits.
There needs to be a higher strict standard for following the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.
---No comment.
Supreme Court justices should be elected, not appointed.
---If you mean every American voter, a) very expensive, and will the richest Judges get better coverage and more votes?; b) could they be elected by Congress? Who chooses the list of candidates?
The impeachment and the recall processes to remove corrupt politicians should be modified to be easier.
---Again, as with the scandal over expenses, MPs were prosecuted and sent to jail, but in some cases MPs have been falsely accused when they were innocent. In the case of a government official, Andrew Mitchell was leaving Downing Street on a bicycle when the policeman refused to open the central gate, suggesting Mitchell use the side gate prompting the MP to get upset and allegedly call the copper a 'fucking pleb'. It has subsequently emerged that police officers who were not even on duty in London at the time posted incriminating evidence which, on your argument could have lost Mitchell his seat -instead 3 officers have now been sacked from the force. Corrupt politicians may not always be corrupt, just because someone doesn't like them and smears their reputation is not a sound basis on which to throw them out.
The American people themselves should have more direct say in issues. There needs to be an outright ban on political lobbying.
---Imagine that a group of transgendered people decide to form a political action group to lobby their state and federal representatives to change the law so that transgendered people can change their birth certificate to reflect their new gender status. They might not have the funds the Koch brothers have, but their right to lobby is equal. I think you might want to change the rules on how lobbying works, rather than ban it outright.
There needs to be significant slashing of federal budget waste, like half of the currently existing federal bureaucratic alphabet agencies that have accomplished nothing (like the Department of Homeland Security entirely).
-The amount of taxpayer's money that goes awol because of incompetence or duff government schemes is beyond belief. In the UK alone it is measured over the last 20 years in billions of pounds -not dollars, pounds. If elected politicians were made financially responsible for the money they allocate to useless projects, in the form of a surcharge or liability, then maybe bridges to nowhere would not be funded, and 'integrated computing' systems actually work!
Many of these changes would require Constitutional amendments. You can't change the appointment process for federal judges without an amendment as any deviation from the current process would contradict the appointments clause. Impeachment itself is also prescribed in the Constitution so if you want to change the standard for impeachment, that would also require a Constitutional amendment.Quote:
Originally Posted by kittyKaiti
You also say you want more states' rights. That would require an amendment to the Constitution (the 10th amendment would have to be re-written or an enumerated power of the federal government narrowed). You say the Bill of Rights should be more strictly construed. Usually when the bill of rights is construed more strictly that tends to invalidate states laws that conflict with it.
The bill of rights is written into the federal constitution and incorporated via the 14th amendment to apply to the states. If you have a stricter standard for applying the bill of rights you have less not more state sovereignty. For instance, if a state wanted to ban guns and it was too broad, that state law would be invalidated by a stricter application of the 2nd amendment. As it stands, courts balance the compelling interest of the state against the challenge to the fundamental right embodied in the Constitution. With guns, they would balance the fundamental right of citizens to own guns against the state's right to control who is allowed to possess them in furtherance of their interest in the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens (the state's police powers).
But generally, by enforcing the first 9 amendments of the federal constitution you put a limit on the ability of a state to pass laws.
Gun nuts have been warning us about the upcoming gun ban for almost 50 years. Of course, I don't see any reason to doubt YOU.
What I was trying to say but didn't get around to is that Kitty is not recommending more fidelity to our Constitution. She is recommending strict adherence to those portions she likes, even more than the document contemplated, and abdication of those she doesn't. The result would be a government that would not have checks and balances, that would not have a strong federal government (the entire purpose of the Constitutional convention), that would not have an insulated and independent judiciary, that would also not allow for delegation by the legislature to create federal agencies, which would in turn neuter the executive branch.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
There's a very good reason for Judges to be appointed. When they interpret the Constitution and the laws, they are not responding to the popular will. They are a check against majority rule that was built into the Constitution so that certain rights could not be curtailed no matter how people vote. I find it strange someone could be so big on the bill of rights and then want to make the Judges who interpret our founding document accountable to the whims of the voting public! Legislators who pass laws already are. Judges are there to say certain laws cannot be passed no matter what the people's indirect representatives vote for because they have a Constitution to uphold.
This is a rather neat dovetailing of two critical issues. Yes, why not?
Before we discuss "waste" which always going to be difficult. Let's look at how much the average American takes home after tax. These are recent figures of the % of salary you take home for the G20 countries. US is about in the middle.Quote:
Originally Posted by kittyKaiti
- Italy - 50.59% (takes home $202,360 out of $400,000 salary)
- India - 54.90%
- United Kingdom - 57.28%
- France - 58.10%
- Canada - 58.13%
- Japan - 58.68%
- Australia - 59.30%
- United States - 60.45% (based on New York state tax)
- Germany - 60.61%
- South Africa - 61.78%
- China - 62.05%
- Argentina - 64.02%
- Turkey - 64.64%
- South Korea - 65.75%
- Indonesia - 69.78%
- Mexico - 70.60%
- Brazil - 73.32%
- Russia - 87%
- Saudi Arabia - 96.86% (so you take home $387,400 out of the $400,000 salary)
Interesting!
Now have a look at http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/economic-crime-survey
Discuss
My assertion is that things like this are more likely to happen, than use for protection.
http://fox8.com/2014/04/27/bride-sho...n-wedding-day/
And another incident
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-27243115
Castle Doctrine. The name is asinine. A home is not a fortress. In most States the doctrine allows the use of deadly force against an intruder provided one surmises his life is in imminent peril from the intruder. In Montana the doctrine may have a more lax proviso.Quote:
Originally Posted by martin48
In this case, the shooter (Markus Kaarma) claims to have been burgled twice in the past few months. He told his hairdresser that he had been waiting for the past three nights with his shotgun to shoot "some fucking kid." Sounds more like premeditation rather than fear of "immanent peril". Sounds to me, like he reasoned, before the shooting, that the punishment for theft should be death. The victim was a German exchange student named Dede. No articles I've read up to this time speculate on why Dede came into Kaarma's garage that evening. But he did, and he set off the alarms. Without shouting any warning, Kaarma fired four shots blindly into the dark of the garage in four distinct directions.
My opinion, this was a case of Bad Kaarma.
Sounds like they baited their garage like a mouse trap...seems the prosecution might be able to argue premeditation.Quote:
Originally Posted by martin48
At least in the following case the man was found guilty,especially since he was stupid enough to include a sound recording under some surreal belief it would somehow help in his defense ...warning: the included sound recording in the article quite graphic: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crim...icle-1.1776145
When will Congress put the brakes on these lethal loonies?
Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Never, and that's the saddest and angriest word I've typed in quite a while.
Sounds like pre-meditated murder to me.
Every state law is different regarding this but the traditional common law rule is that you aren't allowed to use deadly force in defense of property alone. Every state law should at least comport with that. I agree with Trish (and others) that this was murder. He didn't reasonably believe he was in peril, but planned to kill someone he thought was a thief.
Most of the time there is a common sense presumption that someone in your house is a threat to your safety. However, when you suspect they have already been there without harming you and you lay in wait to kill them (in your garage no less) you effectively rebut that presumption.
Good luck getting a jury in Montana to convict under these circumstances. Fucking disgusting.
I think we talked about this with stand your ground. Even when these absurdly named doctrines don't apply, they offer an invitation for jury nullification. They reflect a certain ethos and urge the jury to acquit based on shared values with the killer. I know I get pedantic on the legal issues so I won't get into the castle doctrine, except to say that it offers more of a rhetorical defense than a legal one.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
This perhaps over simplifies it, but any law that values property above life is intrinsically and morally wrong.
Jesus Christ. Is there no end to the stupidity and arrogance of these people? Does anyone outside the armed forces actually NEED a fucking machine gun?
http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...nra-opposition
I was alerted by something in this paragraph to an aspect of 'gun control' that I had not been aware of before:
A plan by President Barack Obama to close a loophole which allows Americans to buy weapons such as machine guns, grenades and sawn-off shotguns without undergoing background checks is set to be delayed, due to intense opposition from the NRA and other anti-gun-control activists.
Grenades? Is this real? For self-defence? So if someone breaks into your house are you going to pull out a hand grenade and say 'Leave my house or I pull the pin'??
The article makes much of 'gun trusts' so that
individuals [becoming members of]... so-called “gun trusts” can currently take ownership of weapons regulated under the National Firearms Act (NFA) without providing identifying information when registering the items with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).
http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...nra-opposition
You don't NEED a lot of things that also affect life but they are legal. Individuals owning NFA items are a small minority in the gun community. I see the main sticking point is that it adds Chief Law Enforcement Officers (i.e., CLEOs) to the process. Currently, if an individual tries to obtain a NFA item without being apart of a trust, the CLEO has to sign off on Form 4. The problem is that a CLEO can have biases (e.g., political and personal reasons) that would cause them to not sign off on Form 4. You can do everything else successful in the process; however, the CLEO can simply say "no" without a reason under the proposed rule. It causes a de facto ban in some jurisdictions for something that is legal.Quote:
Originally Posted by robertlouis
Then again, do you see rampant crime committed by NFA items? No. Why? The process of obtaining a NFA item can be tedious and long. As well, the cost to obtain them is high. For example, the cost of owning a full-auto M16 can costs upwards of $20,000. M249? Good luck finding a transferable one. If you do find one, the cost may be of a small to medium house.
Think of it this way..Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
Hundreds of groups and thousands of individuals in america have been stockpiling these and other weapons like bazookas, RPG's etc..
They're all waiting for when SHTF (shit hits the fan)
If SHTF will you want to be without guns and body armor?
In a SHTF situation I would very much like to have a hand full of grenades and a couple disposable bazookas.. lol..
I think everyone should know how to use a firearm safely.. When the day comes that you have to use a gun.. it's not the time to learn how..
Every responsible individual should be allowed to own firearms.. here in Canada we can't own automatics.. certainly not grenades or many types of modified guns.. But after you take a couple courses you can get longarms and handguns as well as various semi-auto assault rifles..
I think background checks should be mandatory for gun licencing to help prevent whacko's from buying guns.. Firearms don't kill people.. people kill people..
My Zombie Apocalypse Gun.. Hatsan ESCORT MPA-TS Semi-Auto 12 Gauge.. I like the name and it's sexy.. Wicked kick tho with 00 buck.. lol.. :D
http://www.hatsan.com.tr/images/escort_mpa_ts.jpg
Citation please... and do try to note the sources of such things... as well is if the 'stockpiling' has been legal as things like 'bazookas, RPG's etc' generally require an ATF sign off.Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexisDVyne
Define 'automatics'.Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexisDVyne
Do you mean fully automatic weapons?
If so, while legal to own down here in the states, the costs of acquiring one are beyond the means of most normal people (aside from the 9-12 month approve after your check for the $200 tax stamp has been cashed), the supply of fully automatic weapons that is available to the civilian population has slowly been decreasing since the passage of the Firearm Owners' Protection Act of 1986, now often commanding $20k-$30k for a weapon functionally identical to something your local Police Department can buy for ~$600.
Remind me... the first tend amendments to the US Constitution... what do we call those again? That's right! They aren't the 'bill of needs', they're the 'bill of rights'.Quote:
Originally Posted by robertlouis
You are free to say "so and so doesn't need X, Y or Z" all you want, fear though that others push a similar view against your own life.
Stop for a moment and recall that most 'loopholes' are already aspects of the law which have likely existed for quite some time and only now have reached your awareness because enough people in the awareness of the reporter (already a detached viewer) have been for quite some time been 'exploiting' it... then ask yourself... "Has this loophole really been a problem?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
Like all NFA items, the tracking of ownership of lawfully constructed/transferred items is quite carefully tracked (usually involving nearly a year waiting period for the average civilian).Quote:
Grenades? Is this real? For self-defence? So if someone breaks into your house are you going to pull out a hand grenade and say 'Leave my house or I pull the pin'??
'Grenades' are generally not something that are commonly available in the civilian market (where unlike firearms, when used are no longer able to be used again), though are classified in the 'destructive devices' category of the NFA for tax purposes.
I'd be more worried about flame throwers... which are far easier to build & acquire lawfully than grenades.
That's not fully accurate... and I say that as a person who controls a gun trust which controls several NFA items.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
Normally to acquire an NFA item (as an individual) the signature of your local CLEO (Chief Law Enforcement Officer) is required and a fingerprint card sent off to the ATF... which can be a problem if your local CLEO refuses to sign off, or if you want a little more freedom with your NFA device... such as being able to hand it to a friend while at the local range to try (the $200 transfer tax for suppressor, SBR, SBS, DD, AoW, & automatic weapons is for 'transfers'... which depending on the mood of your local LEO, would include you handing something to a friend standing 5 feet away from you to use while you watch).
Gun trusts create a predictable level of freedom where the trust owns all such items and a very limited # of owners of the trust (identified by name and signature) each time the trust adds or disposes of an item from it's rolls when submitted to the ATF (yes, a full copy of the trust and the NFA items it owns is sent EACH TIME a new NFA item is added)).
While this not only bypasses the need for a CLEO to sign off, but also removes the necessity for a fingerprint card, but also allows for the temporary addition & removal of a temporary trustee should you wish to temporarily 'transfer' an item to someone for a limited period of time... such as you being at the range with them and wanting to let them try out your suppressor, SBR, SBS, DD, AOW, or automatic weapon... which otherwise would require a $200 tax payment and a stamp being returned to you in 12 months (given the current wait time)... of course when they hand it back, you've a similar issue ($200 & a good long time to wait for the tax stamp).
Leaping through hoops to justify their sick obsession... the legalese of the last few posts is nauseating. The death of a teenage girl in Chicago at the weekend shot by another teenage girl in a row over a boy - speaks louder to basic humanity than all your weasel words of the rights to keep your murderous weapons. Oh ...and there were more than 200 gun deaths in Chicago in the past few days. Yep gangs to quite an extent - but plenty of others caught in the crossfire. Without such a torrent of weaponry this would not have happened on this scale.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crim...icle-1.1773215
http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...ce-nine-killed
Yep - I know i'm a Brit where we don't allow weaponry like this because we don't have the idiotic element of your constitution composed at a time when there was a genuine need for this to resist the threat of British power. Nowadays it is just a rich and deep evil in your culture.
The events still unfolding in Nevada offer further evidence of the streak of insanity in the US body politic.
I wonder about certain people who post on HA... bobvela has 124 posts. Virtually all of them are about guns. (a handful of his earliest posts are about girls) I wonder if he is here for the real topic of the forum or if he is simply here to argue the NRA case. C'mn Bob... come clean. You are I see a self confessed Tea Prty supporter. But are you actually interested in Tgirls. If not why not go publish your offensive gun drivel elsewhere.
But how will you know when that day has come when the SHTF? For some Americans, that day came when Obama was elected President. It is not like The War of the Worlds (which was on tv last night), where you will see giant zombies stalking the land. On the other hand, guns play a role in the mythology of America like the pilgrims and the pioneers and the sense some people may have of being isolated in a large country threatened by outsiders. But in this day and age, that is an awful lot of ironware begging to be abused....Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexisDVyne
You clearly have a lot of detailed knowledge of how your system -or systems- work, given that the rules seem to differ from state to state. I did post something a long time ago to point out how gun control had changed since the Civil War and how when the earlier attempts to control gun ownership were introduced, it was generated by a fear, or panic that freed slaves would have access to firearms and that the consequences of that would be catastrophic. Again, there was a time when the NRA was a leading promoter of gun control, and it was I believe during the Reagan Presidency that the NRA became more 'libertarian', although I believe it was during Reagan's tenure as Governor of California that stricter rules on the ownership of firearms were introduced in that state.Quote:
Originally Posted by bobvela
One small detail, that notdrunk alluded to in his post earlier strikes a chord -the right of a CLEO to refuse a licence to someone for who knows what reason. Can we assume that if a Black American, your equal, applies to join a Gun Trust, or applies individually through a CLEO to own a weapon, it will be given the same degree of thought that would be given to his fellow Americans? I am not persuaded that the 'checks and balances' you provide are always going to ensure that firearms do not fall into the wrong hands.
As I have said before, most Americans who own firearms must be trustworthy or your death roll would be far higher; but there are still too many people with mental health problems, politically motivated extremists, and others who, suddenly, go be berserk who have access to weapons. To combat the irrational element you need more gun control, but to seriously improve gun control, I think you need a different culture. Guns, and violence, are part of (but not the only part) American culture, that is at the root of the problem.
Now people can make their own drones, so how long will it be before someone sticks a bomb on one and sends it over to a target to make the news?
And I don't share Prospero's 'holier than thou' attitude as we have gun nuts in the UK and have had our share of mass killings, be it Dunblane, Hungerford, or smaller incidents like Raoul Moat or the man in Leicester who was given back guns the police had taken away from him at one time, which he then used to annihilate his family. Not to mention crime -the riots in London in 2011 were sparked by the shooting dead of a gangster who, the police allege, had picked up a gun on his way to commit a revenge shooting. We are not immune.