Political Ramblings

Status
Not open for further replies.
Date sort Score sort
chickened said:
CNN hosts come and go so fast it is hard to keep up let alone get a good understanding of the host's abilities. I cannot remember the show/topic but it only got like 50,000 viewers during a primetime debut airing. FOX is the most popular network in the US by far.

I agree the debate is very important I just hope the motives of our administration are legitimate. The administration and others have this belief that the NRA and the Republican are in bed with each other but in reality 1 in 88 Americans own a gun and that tells me they are not all Republicans in fact in many of the hunting shows that debut celebrities I think it is fair to say that the mix of R and D are very representative of the population.

Correct me if I am wrong but when the UK did their gun bans did they have the right to bear arms similar to the US?
Here the 2nd Amendment is as important to most Americans as the 1st Amendment and that really complicates the issue. To some it is like losing a limb and our other rights would forbid the implementation of such bans as are being introduced by the left and that brings a whole other set of issues to the debate... one being how to collect said illegal guns among others. Some roads once gone down that road are too far to turn completely around. A president that has used executive orders to trump the Constitution is one I do not trust.
Click to expand...
If they want to change the gun laws they should start with the 2nd Amendment. But they could never get the votes to do that so they will try to go around the 2nd Amendment. Any President that tries to trump the Constitution by executive order has given up his right to be President.

I wonder if Piers Morgan will ever be held accountable for his part in the phone hacking scandal ? Or will he stay here and tell us what is best for us ?
 
chickened said:
CNN hosts come and go so fast it is hard to keep up let alone get a good understanding of the host's abilities. I cannot remember the show/topic but it only got like 50,000 viewers during a primetime debut airing. FOX is the most popular network in the US by far.

I agree the debate is very important I just hope the motives of our administration are legitimate. The administration and others have this belief that the NRA and the Republican are in bed with each other but in reality 1 in 88 Americans own a gun and that tells me they are not all Republicans in fact in many of the hunting shows that debut celebrities I think it is fair to say that the mix of R and D are very representative of the population.

Correct me if I am wrong but when the UK did their gun bans did they have the right to bear arms similar to the US?
Here the 2nd Amendment is as important to most Americans as the 1st Amendment and that really complicates the issue. To some it is like losing a limb and our other rights would forbid the implementation of such bans as are being introduced by the left and that brings a whole other set of issues to the debate... one being how to collect said illegal guns among others. Some roads once gone down that road are too far to turn completely around. A president that has used executive orders to trump the Constitution is one I do not trust.
Click to expand...


I share your concern about the chipping away at personal rights and freedoms. We have our Prevention of Terrorism Act in the UK and you have your PATRIOT Act, both of which are sinister pieces of legislation that could be used way beyond the admitted purpose. In the UK, there is some suspicion that Dunblane was set up either to justify a handgun ban or to prevent the exposure of a paedophile ring. I've seen no evidence of either. I'm sure that you know the pattern of problem-reaction-solution and I take that into account in all circumstances such as the present one.

However, we need to keep a balance and accept that laws should change according to need. Most Brits. saw little legal need to own a gun except for target shooting, pheasant and grouse shooting and rough shooting on private land. Few had the need for gun protection at home.

The UK laws were never as open as those in at least some US States seem to be. You would submit a licence application to the police who would carry out a background check, ask why you needed the type of gun stated and ensure that you had an approved gun safe if you intended to keep the weapon at home. Automatic type rifles had to be kept at a gun club. If the police were satisfied, they would support your application in Court. The system was seen to fail for a number of reasons. Criminals managed to get hold of guns through theft and other means and the Hungerford shooter took his semi-automatics from the gun club on the day he shot up the town. Dunblane was the last gasp for handguns which few people needed to own.

There was no constitutional right to bear arms. In fact, the UK does not have anything that you would call a written constitution. You would have to go back to the Magna Carta. Tony Blair attempted to scrap Habeas Corpus and the jury system but failed. That was very suspicious. Gun ownership rights are by virtue of statute law only.

The big difference, I think, between the US and UK in this respect is the historical significance of personal arms and, in the UK, the general lack of need for them for self-protection.

The Second Amendment is vague and confusing as far as I can understand it. It was drafted at a time when defence of the country, perhaps against a British invasion but certainly in the absence of an effective national military, had to be in the hands of civilians. The Amendment specifically refers to organised militia but the latter part of the wording could be taken as a separate provision. However, reading it as that negates the need for the reference to militia. Additionally, guns have developed way beyond what could be anticipated at the time the Amendment was drafted and that raises the question as to whether law should moderate the perceived openness of the wording.

From where I am outside the US, it seems to me that some of the arguments based on foreign invasion or a hostile government are spurious, at least for the foreseeable future. If there is an attack from abroad, individual citizens with guns will be taken out quite quickly and the same would apply if the government decided to act violently against the population. The enemy is actually within. If gun crime gets more out of hand, then some drastic steps may be take at government level way beyond what is contemplated now.

I agree that an Executive order would be a bad move and hope that some agreement is reached. Some in Washington may agree and others may want to force the President to take Executive action. The political games are another enemy within.
 
Everyone knows that I am a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment. For starters, I believe that they really need to strengthen the NICS database. Many states don't update it with their felony convictions. And I am also not opposed at all to background checks for all gun sales if it is done correctly. At issue with private sales is the need to go through a licensed dealer. Luckily my primary dealer does all transfer for free for his patients. He is also my dentist and a class 7 manufacturer. I sent a recommendation to my representative that individuals should be allowed to register with the ATF and use that registration for running NICS checks prior to any sale or transfer. If we are allowed to use the form 4473, then the seller would have a record of the transaction and be able to record the NICS check number.

TT, you need to look at the contracts for ammunition that some of our internal agencies have offered for bid. The DHS had one for 750,000,000 rounds of 40 S&W hollow point ammunition over 5 years. That is more than we used per month in Iraq. They also had large contracts for 5.56 ammunition. DHS runs security at our airports as well as the INS. We know that they're not planning on locking down the borders and airports are free from shootouts. Their agents certainly will practice shooting, but the levels of ammunition that they purchased go well above training requirements. I have yet to hear why they need so much ammunition unless it is to quell any unrest.

The "musket" analogy of the 2nd amendment is also an invalid one. Do you think that the founding fathers, who were devout men, would have accepted the placing of a bible in urine as art and as such being protected under the 1st amendment? We don't know so we have to take the amendment at it is written. The founding fathers also could never have envisioned the Internet or instant communication technology that we see every day.
 
bakerjw said:
Everyone knows that I am a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment. For starters, I believe that they really need to strengthen the NICS database. Many states don't update it with their felony convictions. And I am also not opposed at all to background checks for all gun sales if it is done correctly. At issue with private sales is the need to go through a licensed dealer. Luckily my primary dealer does all transfer for free for his patients. He is also my dentist and a class 7 manufacturer. I sent a recommendation to my representative that individuals should be allowed to register with the ATF and use that registration for running NICS checks prior to any sale or transfer. If we are allowed to use the form 4473, then the seller would have a record of the transaction and be able to record the NICS check number.

TT, you need to look at the contracts for ammunition that some of our internal agencies have offered for bid. The DHS had one for 750,000,000 rounds of 40 S&W hollow point ammunition over 5 years. That is more than we used per month in Iraq. They also had large contracts for 5.56 ammunition. DHS runs security at our airports as well as the INS. We know that they're not planning on locking down the borders and airports are free from shootouts. Their agents certainly will practice shooting, but the levels of ammunition that they purchased go well above training requirements. I have yet to hear why they need so much ammunition unless it is to quell any unrest.

The "musket" analogy of the 2nd amendment is also an invalid one. Do you think that the founding fathers, who were devout men, would have accepted the placing of a bible in urine as art and as such being protected under the 1st amendment? We don't know so we have to take the amendment at it is written. The founding fathers also could never have envisioned the Internet or instant communication technology that we see every day.
Click to expand...


Strewth! Are they hoarding or selling?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

HoneyBeeHomestead
    • Love
    • Like
Honey Bee Homestead
2 3 4
Replies
35
Views
3K
HoneyBeeHomestead
HoneyBeeHomestead
Colleen Ray
    • Sad
    • Angry
    • Love
  • Locked
What I Learned From My Awful Experience with Avian Flu
18 19 20
Replies
195
Views
36K
21hens-incharge
21hens-incharge

New posts New threads Active threads

Back
Top Bottom