America - Gun Control
- Thread starter GNR4LIFE
- Start date
Marshall_magic
New member
Until enough Americans decide enough is enough and want to change something these massacres will continue to happen. They have their regular excuses, terrorism, thugs, mental illness, and they will use these to justify what happens. Their solution to the problem is more guns.
GNR4LIFE
Well-known member
@ said:
Try reading some of the YouTube comments on videos of the footage. Someone outside the US will commemt and say how ridiculous the gun laws are, amd how the death toll is lower in their country, and all Americans getting fired up in response. One reply was "Thanks for the advice, I'll keep sleeping with my piece next to me. To paraphrase Jim Jeffries, what kind of neighbourhood are you living in, to feel the need to sleep with a gun. I've been sleeping without a gun for 30 years and I've always been safe. The moral is, never question an American about their gun. They don't don't take too kindly to it.
Tigerdave
Well-known member
It'll never change over there, not while politicians keep taking "bribes" from the NRA
Tim Sheens
Well-known member
So this guy was obviously part of a well regulated militia protecting a free state and as such had the right to keep arms to protect it against the line dancing hordes hell bent on destroying it.
The current state of gun control, that being those with guns are in control is only a reasonably recent normalcy from my memory of events. It seeded in the seventies and really bloomed under the Reagan administration to become what it is today. You were not allowed to purchase and run around with, nor keep any of the military style weapons in proliferation today.
You may have been able to carry a gun during and in the shadow of the revolution, then having it proclaimed as part of the constitution a few years later through the bill of rights amendments, but it was never meant to allow open slather. The right to keep and carry arms was not written in isolation and as some of those very same words used in my opening sentence state, it is situation based, not merely an open right to carry guns.
To pretend it has always been a right is also false, and was policed at the time. Whilst allowed to carry arms for protection on your travels across the frontiers or defensive use on ranches etc, you weren't allowed to have guns in cities and had to hand them to the law/sheriffs for safe keeping upon arrival in a small town. The law was applied as there was no valid reason for ordinary citizens to have a gun in societies, just as there is no need now.
The current state of gun control, that being those with guns are in control is only a reasonably recent normalcy from my memory of events. It seeded in the seventies and really bloomed under the Reagan administration to become what it is today. You were not allowed to purchase and run around with, nor keep any of the military style weapons in proliferation today.
You may have been able to carry a gun during and in the shadow of the revolution, then having it proclaimed as part of the constitution a few years later through the bill of rights amendments, but it was never meant to allow open slather. The right to keep and carry arms was not written in isolation and as some of those very same words used in my opening sentence state, it is situation based, not merely an open right to carry guns.
To pretend it has always been a right is also false, and was policed at the time. Whilst allowed to carry arms for protection on your travels across the frontiers or defensive use on ranches etc, you weren't allowed to have guns in cities and had to hand them to the law/sheriffs for safe keeping upon arrival in a small town. The law was applied as there was no valid reason for ordinary citizens to have a gun in societies, just as there is no need now.
tsjonathan
New member
@ said:
yeh, my uncle was LAPD too.
Byron_Bay_Fan
New member
They should have a plebiscite costing about a billion dollars on banning guns then ignore the results.
They need more good guys with guns.
More guns seems like a very sensible solution.
More guns seems like a very sensible solution.
This is a topic i have spent alot of time on, and to understand the relationship between Americans and Guns, you need to understand their history.
The Poms voluntarily gave Australia nationhood, whilst in the USA it was citizens with guns who rose up against the King of England and forcibly took their independence.
So in the Declaration of Independence there is quite detailed explanation that if a federal government becomes tyrannical or overbearing, then the people have the right to form a militia and take down the government.
This is a big deal to the Yanks .. is the second amendment to their Constitution, not the 40th or the 90th, but the 2nd, right after Liberty and Freedom for all !
They literally see the right to bear arms as a check against the Federal Government turning on its people. We may scoff at that in Australia, however they have a completely different system of government over there.
In the Heller Supreme Court case, it was ruled that the right to bear arms is the personal right of every citizen. So when you try and take away something a person considers to be their God-given right, they will not be all too happy about this. Hence the emotionally charged response whenever the issue of gun control arises.
The Poms voluntarily gave Australia nationhood, whilst in the USA it was citizens with guns who rose up against the King of England and forcibly took their independence.
So in the Declaration of Independence there is quite detailed explanation that if a federal government becomes tyrannical or overbearing, then the people have the right to form a militia and take down the government.
This is a big deal to the Yanks .. is the second amendment to their Constitution, not the 40th or the 90th, but the 2nd, right after Liberty and Freedom for all !
They literally see the right to bear arms as a check against the Federal Government turning on its people. We may scoff at that in Australia, however they have a completely different system of government over there.
In the Heller Supreme Court case, it was ruled that the right to bear arms is the personal right of every citizen. So when you try and take away something a person considers to be their God-given right, they will not be all too happy about this. Hence the emotionally charged response whenever the issue of gun control arises.
GNR4LIFE
Well-known member
Its a cultural issue. We can't comprehend the situation because our society isn't obsessed with guns and we have laws. They don't, so its normal to walk around with a gun. Another brain dead argument i have read is gun laws won't stop bad guys from getting guns. Of course it won't, it hasn't even stopped them here, that's going to happen. But it reduces the chances dramatically.
During one of these types of mass shootings when the cops are caught up in the confusion and are trying to shut the threat down, if they see a good guy with a firearm drawn in plain clothes, they will more than likely shoot the good guy assuming he's the one causing the problems. More unnecessary deaths.
The second amendment was drafted for a significantly different period of history. England are not coming back to claim what was once theirs. The USA have the strongest military force on the planet to defend themselves from external threats, and if they believe the second amendment to be really what it is to rally against a tyrannical or overbearing government, they'd have acted and taken them down already as their federal government has done nothing the last two to three decades but disenfranchise many to enrich a few.
Jim Jefferies can be a bit hit or miss, but he's bang on when he says the only legitimate excuse they've got when gun control or bans are discussed is "get stuffed, I like guns." That's all they've got.
The whole good guys handing in their guns while criminals won't is a misdirection as well. Most guns the bad guys have were likely once legal until thieved from their legitimate owners, reducing the pool of available weapons means that it will be harder for criminals to get their hands on them. Demand will increase while supply goes down, which means black market weapons will become more expensive and your run of the mill gangbanger won't be able to afford them so readily.
The second amendment was drafted for a significantly different period of history. England are not coming back to claim what was once theirs. The USA have the strongest military force on the planet to defend themselves from external threats, and if they believe the second amendment to be really what it is to rally against a tyrannical or overbearing government, they'd have acted and taken them down already as their federal government has done nothing the last two to three decades but disenfranchise many to enrich a few.
Jim Jefferies can be a bit hit or miss, but he's bang on when he says the only legitimate excuse they've got when gun control or bans are discussed is "get stuffed, I like guns." That's all they've got.
The whole good guys handing in their guns while criminals won't is a misdirection as well. Most guns the bad guys have were likely once legal until thieved from their legitimate owners, reducing the pool of available weapons means that it will be harder for criminals to get their hands on them. Demand will increase while supply goes down, which means black market weapons will become more expensive and your run of the mill gangbanger won't be able to afford them so readily.
voice_of_reason
Well-known member
@ said:
Absolutely correct, it's a cultural issue.
The only analogy Australians would understand would be if the government said "we're going to ban drinking in Australia". People from other countries would point out how many deaths there are, how much damage it causes to families, how much it costs the nation and how more moderate countries don't have the problems we have with alcohol but do you think Aussies would be happy to change?
Simply swap US guns for Aussie beers to see how strident people are to maintain their culture. We're just as bad, just not with guns.
Breitbart cite mostly robbery or home invasion attempts. I didn't see any examples of homocides and certainly no mass shootings prevented or curtailed by armed citizens. Indeed one of the performers in LV noted that several members of their entourage were licensed gun carriers but could not use the guns because the police would assume they were acting maliciously.
If you have enough guns in circulation chances are at various points a "goodie" will shoot a criminal. This of course needs to be balanced against homicides carried out by licensed gun owners against other family members (by design or accidentally), innocent people killed by mistaken identity or misconception and the dozens and dozens of people killed in mass shootings.
If you have enough guns in circulation chances are at various points a "goodie" will shoot a criminal. This of course needs to be balanced against homicides carried out by licensed gun owners against other family members (by design or accidentally), innocent people killed by mistaken identity or misconception and the dozens and dozens of people killed in mass shootings.
@ said:
A very thought provoking post. You could extrapolate the basis of most gun control arguments to cover off what we'd counter an alcohol ban with.
I will say though that there's one significant underlying difference and that is comparing alcohol to an implement which it's express intent is to kill and maim. The same as the argument used by Yanks "oh well the Muslims are driving trucks into crowds now, do we ban trucks?" No, because their prime purpose is transport, not as a weapon. If an IS agent hijacks a tank and kills a bunch of people GTA style, then yeah it is a consistent argument.
@ said:
http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/
This has some pretty good overarching statistics.
InBenjiWeTrust
Well-known member
@ said:
sadly, our tax paid, ABC and SBS, are good examples of fake news sources, where opinions often replace facts.
