seb146 wrote:

LabQuest wrote:

seb146 wrote:

There are shootings every day in the United States. Not just Chicago. Shootings happen in Reno and Salt Lake and Dallas as well. Singling out Chicago is wrong. Also, yes, there are those gun safety measure in place, but they are not used in places like Texas and Indiana because "big gub'mint is takin r gunz!!!" crowd decided we don't need no stinking background checks or red flag laws. Recall that red flag laws would have made a difference in the last mass shooting we had. But, that infringes on rights, according to Republicans.

We have five year olds shooting their parents or siblings, too. They can not legally possess guns and, yet, they are shooting people.

It is illegal to carry marijuana in some states, yet people do. It is illegal to drive drunk yet people do. Maybe if the government tracked guns that would help. But, again, we can't do that or anything similar because Republicans whine that violates 2A rights. Maybe they should stop thinking those Black people are illegally carrying guns and start understanding they are part of a "well regulated militia".

Seb you really are wrong on this one. It really is all about Chicago. Yes, there are shootings every day in the USA. Its part of the burden of gun ownership. There's going to be those who are law breakers. But Chicago is an outlier. They vastly outnumber every other major metro area by far with mass shooting gun violence. They're protecting their drug territory due to the failed drug war and systematic incarceration policy. There are more guns in areas where gang and drug activity is non-existent. They're using guns because its the only means they have.

You can track guns all day long but if they're stolen what does it matter? Are you willing to go to jail because someone stole your legally purchased gun?

There was just a shooting at a mall in Alabama. That makes Alabama an outlier. A few years ago, a woman in San Francisco was shot walking down the street during a private gun sale.

Besides, what makes you think that every gun shot in Chicago is drug related? People have guns for other reasons. Protection from domestic disputes, protection from home invasion, because they look cool.... the list goes on. I am not denying that there is gun violence because of drugs. No doubt. But, just because Chicago has a higher rate of gun violence than, say, Denver, is meaningless. Thanks to the right wing Supreme Court, there is nothing we can do about it. So, stop pointing at Chicago and insisting that is the whole country. Chicago has tried and is trying to do something about it. But with lax gun laws in neighboring states, there is not much they can do. Right wingers on SCOTUS will just strike down laws anyway. I think that is something we need to discuss. Not "but Chicago!"

The situation in Chicago is because of conservatives ?! That is a place where liberal politicians have used great wealth to put their ideas fully into practice. Blaming the Supreme Court for the existence of guns in the US is not logical. What you really should blame is the Bill of Rights. That goes back to 1789. To repeal parts of the Bill of Rights is pretty radical stuff, and it won't happen. Supreme Court has little to do with it AFAIK

If the Chicago police had permission to defeat and neutralize the gunmen Chicago, they could do it. But the local leaders apparently don't want the gunmen to be stopped.

johns624 wrote:

3. If you're saying that criminals break the law to get guns, what good will more laws do?

What you are claiming means no laws should be made. Because why make any if people break them. Seriously how can you state that without just not thinking about what you are saying or meaning.

The reality is that most people follow the rules and laws, and it is the people that report and assist in ensuring those that break the law are limited or caught.

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

johns624 wrote:

3. If you're saying that criminals break the law to get guns, what good will more laws do?

What you are claiming means no laws should be made. Because why make any if people break them. Seriously how can you state that without just not thinking about what you are saying or meaning.

The reality is that most people follow the rules and laws, and it is the people that report and assist in ensuring those that break the law are limited or caught.

Tugg

Maybe they just need to enforce current laws? Remember the "One with gun gets you two" laws? Those are the first to be plea bargained away.

Gun control discussion in the US is a pointless task - it will literally solve nothing, because for far too long many states and counties have allowed unregulated, unrestricted firearm sales and ownership, and those guns are now untraceable.

Gun control will fail because you cant get back those guns - an amnesty wont work because people will simply put them under their mattress and deny they had them and you cant prove anything due to lack of records across all states, so you are back to having to deal with it on a one-to-one basis during police stops, which wont work. Amnesties only work where guns were tightly controlled before - registration and licensing required for sale and ownership for example.

Guns are there to stay in the US, with everything that means.

moo wrote:

Gun control discussion in the US is a pointless task - it will literally solve nothing, because for far too long many states and counties have allowed unregulated, unrestricted firearm sales and ownership, and those guns are now untraceable.

Gun control will fail because you cant get back those guns - an amnesty wont work because people will simply put them under their mattress and deny they had them and you cant prove anything due to lack of records across all states, so you are back to having to deal with it on a one-to-one basis during police stops, which wont work. Amnesties only work where guns were tightly controlled before - registration and licensing required for sale and ownership for example.

Guns are there to stay in the US, with everything that means.

Did Australians have the same attitude in 1996 when they radically strengthened their gun control problem and encouraged buybacks?

moo wrote:

Gun control discussion in the US is a pointless task - it will literally solve nothing, because for far too long many states and counties have allowed unregulated, unrestricted firearm sales and ownership, and those guns are now untraceable.

Please do some research before you post. Most firearms sales are regulated by the federal government. This includes all sales, both new and used, by any licensee (dealer). States can make stricter laws than the federal ones, but not more lenient. Counties really have nothing to do with it.

LittleFokker wrote:

moo wrote:

Gun control discussion in the US is a pointless task - it will literally solve nothing, because for far too long many states and counties have allowed unregulated, unrestricted firearm sales and ownership, and those guns are now untraceable.

Gun control will fail because you cant get back those guns - an amnesty wont work because people will simply put them under their mattress and deny they had them and you cant prove anything due to lack of records across all states, so you are back to having to deal with it on a one-to-one basis during police stops, which wont work. Amnesties only work where guns were tightly controlled before - registration and licensing required for sale and ownership for example.

Guns are there to stay in the US, with everything that means.

Did Australians have the same attitude in 1996 when they radically strengthened their gun control problem and encouraged buybacks?

Largely yes, given the fact that during amnesties since the restrictions came into force in 1996 continue to net significant numbers of unregistered firearms
- 51,000 in 2017 alone. This does indicate that attitudes are changing (or families are handing in guns owned by elderly family members as they are discovered), but its taken 25 years to get to this point and estimates of illegally held firearms are still very high (hundreds of thousands).

There is a better situation in the UK, where firearms were heavily restricted well before they were largely banned in 1997 in response to the 1996 Dunblane massacre, but we also dont have a gun culture either. There is still gun use in criminal culture in the UK, but its very small in comparison to other countries.

The gun culture in the US tho seems to be on an entirely different level to that even of Australia - to some, they are almost religious icons and changing that view in anything less than a generation is going to be nearly impossible. Trying to restrict those people from gun ownership is simply going to incite them and polarise politics even more.

Gun restriction in the US is impossible to implement now.

johns624 wrote:

moo wrote:

Gun control discussion in the US is a pointless task - it will literally solve nothing, because for far too long many states and counties have allowed unregulated, unrestricted firearm sales and ownership, and those guns are now untraceable.

Please do some research before you post. Most firearms sales are regulated by the federal government. This includes all sales, both new and used, by any licensee (dealer). States can make stricter laws than the federal ones, but not more lenient. Counties really have nothing to do with it.

Ive done my research thank you, Im confident in what I say.

Under Printz vs United States, it was established that States and local law enforcement officers are under no requirement to enforce federal gun ownership laws, although most states and localities have subsequently voluntarily done so.

Right now, more than half of the States have no requirement for a permit to buy a handgun or a requirement to register a handgun.

More than a dozen States have no requirement to conduct a background check on private sales. That means theres a huge and significant secondary market in untraceable guns.

Your current gun control laws have so many holes you could drive a combine harvester through them.

moo wrote:

The gun culture in the US tho seems to be on an entirely different level to that even of Australia - to some, they are almost religious icons and changing that view in anything less than a generation is going to be nearly impossible.

Like I've stated before, most gun owners in the US are not part of the "gun culture".

johns624 wrote:

moo wrote:

The gun culture in the US tho seems to be on an entirely different level to that even of Australia - to some, they are almost religious icons and changing that view in anything less than a generation is going to be nearly impossible.

Like I've stated before, most gun owners in the US are not part of the "gun culture".

The ones that are are enough for it to be a major problem on their own. And thats discounting the prevalence of guns in the criminal aspect of US society, where untraceable guns are a much sought after and protected requirement, and easy to get hold of.

moo wrote:

johns624 wrote:

moo wrote:

Gun control discussion in the US is a pointless task - it will literally solve nothing, because for far too long many states and counties have allowed unregulated, unrestricted firearm sales and ownership, and those guns are now untraceable.

Please do some research before you post. Most firearms sales are regulated by the federal government. This includes all sales, both new and used, by any licensee (dealer). States can make stricter laws than the federal ones, but not more lenient. Counties really have nothing to do with it.

Ive done my research thank you, Im confident in what I say.

Under Printz vs United States, it was established that States and local law enforcement officers are under no requirement to enforce federal gun ownership laws, although most states and localities have subsequently voluntarily done so.

Right now, more than half of the States have no requirement for a permit to buy a handgun or a requirement to register a handgun.

More than a dozen States have no requirement to conduct a background check on private sales. That means theres a huge and significant secondary market in untraceable guns.

Your current gun control laws have so many holes you could drive a combine harvester through them.

I’ve bought all types of guns, in state and out, from FFLs and private citizens. Not once did I not complete a BATF 4473 and have NICS check done. So, if you want to comply with the law, you’re wrong. If you don’t want to comply, nothing will stop you.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

moo wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Please do some research before you post. Most firearms sales are regulated by the federal government. This includes all sales, both new and used, by any licensee (dealer). States can make stricter laws than the federal ones, but not more lenient. Counties really have nothing to do with it.

Ive done my research thank you, Im confident in what I say.

Under Printz vs United States, it was established that States and local law enforcement officers are under no requirement to enforce federal gun ownership laws, although most states and localities have subsequently voluntarily done so.

Right now, more than half of the States have no requirement for a permit to buy a handgun or a requirement to register a handgun.

More than a dozen States have no requirement to conduct a background check on private sales. That means theres a huge and significant secondary market in untraceable guns.

Your current gun control laws have so many holes you could drive a combine harvester through them.

I’ve bought all types of guns, in state and out, from FFLs and private citizens. Not once did I not complete a BATF 4473 and have NICS check done. So, if you want to comply with the law, you’re wrong. If you don’t want to comply, nothing will stop you.

They don't want to hear that. It doesn't fit their narrative on internet gun sales and ghost guns and all other types of BS.

And the last two posts shows exactly why this will never work in the US - “Ive never done that so everyone doesnt do it either”...

Ive only been to the US twice in my life, and on the last visit in 2016 I visited a gun fair in Florida - I could have bought a gun from any of the stall holders there without showing so much as an ID. No background check, private sale, cash taken.

You guys have a gun problem, no matter how much you want to stick your heads in the sand. And the fact that this has been a problem for generations is why no laws today will resolve the issue. That is my point. You cant put the smoke back now, its far far too late for that.

Feel free to continue your delusion, I wont be visiting this thread again - I dont need to “win on the internet”, I can just sit back in my own back yard in a civilised country and join the billions of other people who are laughing at the United States Of America imploding on itself through violence, bloodshed and oppression.

The land of the free, where mass school shootings are “the norm”, where there have been so many videos over the past week of the police being horrifically violent that its no longer a statistical anomaly. Thats the America of today, a country ripping itself apart.

Have fun, Im done with this thread.

16 shot dead and 63 injured by gunfire in the last two days in Chicago.

Two were mass shootings of 6 or more people.

Not a peep on any of the major news sites or TV.

moo wrote:

I visited a gun fair in Florida - I could have bought a gun from any of the stall holders there without showing so much as an ID. No background check, private sale, cash taken.

Congratulations, you would have been a felon!

LabQuest wrote:

16 shot dead and 63 injured by gunfire in the last two days in Chicago.

Two were mass shootings of 6 or more people.

Not a peep on any of the major news sites or TV.

It is a very sad state of affairs that it only seems to have made the local news.

From my outside perspective, the US has both a gun problem and a social problem. Having gun ownership written into the (amended) Constitution set the scene, but then developing a nation striving for wealth at the same time as living with tremndous income disparity has taken the US down a particular path.

Adding in the actions of the NRA over the past 30 years, I can barely harness thoughts and prayers over US gun violence these days. Gun control isn't the answer, it's only the very beginning of the answer. And the US doesn't seem to be able to even make that start.

Kent350787 wrote:

Adding in the actions of the NRA over the past 30 years, I can barely harness thoughts and prayers over US gun violence these days. Gun control isn't the answer, it's only the very beginning of the answer. And the US doesn't seem to be able to even make that start.

Gun control is just the beginning. The US needs to sort out its problems with crime (murder rate 5x higher than other developed nations) prison (incarceration rate 9x higher than other developed nations) homelessness, drug abuse, poverty, race relations, healthcare and infrastructure issues that have produced a society that causes so many Americans to feel as if they need to arm themselves with a stockpile of AR-15s in the first place.

It is a monumental task that’ll take a decades long plan with effective leaders. The US is so politically fractured now with corrupt leaders who only care about gaining bribes from lobbyists to bankroll their next election that will not happen for a generation.

Kent350787 wrote:

LabQuest wrote:

16 shot dead and 63 injured by gunfire in the last two days in Chicago.

Two were mass shootings of 6 or more people.

Not a peep on any of the major news sites or TV.

It is a very sad state of affairs that it only seems to have made the local news.

From my outside perspective, the US has both a gun problem and a social problem. Having gun ownership written into the (amended) Constitution set the scene, but then developing a nation striving for wealth at the same time as living with tremndous income disparity has taken the US down a particular path.

Adding in the actions of the NRA over the past 30 years, I can barely harness thoughts and prayers over US gun violence these days. Gun control isn't the answer, it's only the very beginning of the answer. And the US doesn't seem to be able to even make that start.

Its a poverty and drug issue. Go to the next neighborhood over and its safe and fine just like the rest of the country. Like I've been saying its tiny sections of cities that inflate the gun murders to insane numbers. Take out those handful of neighborhoods and its not really an issue.

moo wrote:

... in 2016 I visited a gun fair in Florida - I could have bought a gun from any of the stall holders there without showing so much as an ID. No background check, private sale, cash taken..

Not true. All Florida Gun Shows have the same requirements as a gun shop, You still need a background check, and if you don't have a CCW, you will wait five business days to pick up your firearm, So as sensational as you try to make it, it simply isn't so.

extender wrote:

moo wrote:

... in 2016 I visited a gun fair in Florida - I could have bought a gun from any of the stall holders there without showing so much as an ID. No background check, private sale, cash taken..

Not true. All Florida Gun Shows have the same requirements as a gun shop, You still need a background check, and if you don't have a CCW, you will wait five business days to pick up your firearm, So as sensational as you try to make it, it simply isn't so.

Not to mention that as a foreign national, it would be illegal to sell to him. There are very, very limited provisions for it to be done, but he wouldn't qualify for them.

Not much 'control' here, from the very people who need to exercise it the most.

https://www.kiro7.com/news/trending/cop ... FQUJAHZJE/

GDB wrote:

Not much 'control' here, from the very people who need to exercise it the most.

https://www.kiro7.com/news/trending/cop ... FQUJAHZJE/

You can't fix stupid. But that goes with everything in life.

Stupid decisions have disastrous consequences sometimes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rV0D_wr89J0

Tugger wrote:

LabQuest wrote:

I'm a moderate democrat that believes in the right to own and carry a gun if you pass background checks (which you already have to), pass a safety course (which you have to do), and routinely train. Most people I know who own guns do this. I think all sales, even private, need to pass background checks. I support red-flag laws. I don't think that's too crazy.

I basically agree overall with this. I al;ways bring it back to my family and how they "regulate" guns within the family. A typical hunting family, you need to prove you can properly handle a firearm before any family member is given a gun or is allowed to go hunting or bring a firearm into the house.

It's simple, it's smart, and most any hunting family follows this "code" (whatever you want to call it). Basically any respectable firearm carrying individual follows this. I'll ask this to any poster on A.net that carries a firearm, will you allow just anyone to carry a weapon around you or go hunting with you? Or do you have to know them and how they are with a weapon? Aren't there people you would not want to be around when they have a weapon or go hunting with you?

Tugg

Pretty sure this is what the Founders meant by a "Well regulated Militia"....anything else is just a mob with guns.....because the "well regulated" part of the text is soooo easily omitted. I think folks should have firearms, and just like a divers license, show up for testing every x years to enforce the "well regulated" part....

bhill wrote:

Tugger wrote:

LabQuest wrote:

I'm a moderate democrat that believes in the right to own and carry a gun if you pass background checks (which you already have to), pass a safety course (which you have to do), and routinely train. Most people I know who own guns do this. I think all sales, even private, need to pass background checks. I support red-flag laws. I don't think that's too crazy.

I basically agree overall with this. I al;ways bring it back to my family and how they "regulate" guns within the family. A typical hunting family, you need to prove you can properly handle a firearm before any family member is given a gun or is allowed to go hunting or bring a firearm into the house.

It's simple, it's smart, and most any hunting family follows this "code" (whatever you want to call it). Basically any respectable firearm carrying individual follows this. I'll ask this to any poster on A.net that carries a firearm, will you allow just anyone to carry a weapon around you or go hunting with you? Or do you have to know them and how they are with a weapon? Aren't there people you would not want to be around when they have a weapon or go hunting with you?

Tugg

Pretty sure this is what the Founders meant by a "Well regulated Militia"....anything else is just a mob with guns.....because the "well regulated" part of the text is soooo easily omitted. I think folks should have firearms, and just like a divers license, show up for testing every x years to enforce the "well regulated" part....

Where do you have to get retested every few years to keep your license?

Gun control in the USA isn't the problem, we have many laws to legal access to and use of them. Its people control and changing a culture that encourages gun possession and use.

As I have discussed on this subject before, guns have there legitimate uses including hunting animals for food, skin, fur and safety, protection of property, self-defense, policing and military actions. Too often they are used to control and have power over other humans with their ability to kill someone, from a gang member in a major city, to controlling a woman, to commuting a crime for property.

To me as to trying to control gun deaths is to try go after or prevent the personal from using them. Make sure the penalties for possession or use in a crime are long and harsh. As a saying goes in NY State as to criminal use of a gun 'Use a gun - go to jail'. Go after those that are 'straw buyers' of and private resellers of guns. Try to keep guns away from those with mental health problems although that conflicts with HIPAA medical privacy laws. Keep guns and their use by those who have been arrested for assault, especially as to a spouse or child. Deal better with poverty, discrimination, the lack of decent paying jobs, lack of decent but affordable housing. Keep people active in constructive activities. Keep families together. Work with schools to teach non-violent behaviors. Put pressure on those that produce TV and movies to move away from depicting gun violence and use. Train cops more and better in dealing with conflict situations without the use of a gun.

There is no easy answers but we can try to change the attitude as to guns away from evil use.

LabQuest wrote:

bhill wrote:

Tugger wrote:

I basically agree overall with this. I al;ways bring it back to my family and how they "regulate" guns within the family. A typical hunting family, you need to prove you can properly handle a firearm before any family member is given a gun or is allowed to go hunting or bring a firearm into the house.

It's simple, it's smart, and most any hunting family follows this "code" (whatever you want to call it). Basically any respectable firearm carrying individual follows this. I'll ask this to any poster on A.net that carries a firearm, will you allow just anyone to carry a weapon around you or go hunting with you? Or do you have to know them and how they are with a weapon? Aren't there people you would not want to be around when they have a weapon or go hunting with you?

Tugg

Pretty sure this is what the Founders meant by a "Well regulated Militia"....anything else is just a mob with guns.....because the "well regulated" part of the text is soooo easily omitted. I think folks should have firearms, and just like a divers license, show up for testing every x years to enforce the "well regulated" part....

Where do you have to get retested every few years to keep your license?

Depends on the State and your age...some require a vision test and road sign competency.

tommy1808 wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

Gun sales have never been higher. You can forget about gun control. With the discussion over "defunding the police," regular people will need far more guns than they previously did.

I guess you can point us to a study showing exploding gun ownership rates for Camden N.J.? Since crime rate dropped after they dissolved their PD...

Best regards
Thomas

Camden dramatically increased police presence.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ ... rms-313750

Defunding didn't happen, that was the excuse. With medical and benefits...

Lightsaber

bhill wrote:

Tugger wrote:

LabQuest wrote:

I'm a moderate democrat that believes in the right to own and carry a gun if you pass background checks (which you already have to), pass a safety course (which you have to do), and routinely train. Most people I know who own guns do this. I think all sales, even private, need to pass background checks. I support red-flag laws. I don't think that's too crazy.

I basically agree overall with this. I al;ways bring it back to my family and how they "regulate" guns within the family. A typical hunting family, you need to prove you can properly handle a firearm before any family member is given a gun or is allowed to go hunting or bring a firearm into the house.

It's simple, it's smart, and most any hunting family follows this "code" (whatever you want to call it). Basically any respectable firearm carrying individual follows this. I'll ask this to any poster on A.net that carries a firearm, will you allow just anyone to carry a weapon around you or go hunting with you? Or do you have to know them and how they are with a weapon? Aren't there people you would not want to be around when they have a weapon or go hunting with you?

Tugg

Pretty sure this is what the Founders meant by a "Well regulated Militia"....anything else is just a mob with guns.....because the "well regulated" part of the text is soooo easily omitted. I think folks should have firearms, and just like a divers license, show up for testing every x years to enforce the "well regulated" part....

You're wrong. The Militia Act of 1792 places every able-bodied white male American between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia. The Militia Act of 1862 changed this to include all males, regardless of race. So if one is a male between 18 and 45 they're in a Militia.

ItnStln wrote:

bhill wrote:

Tugger wrote:

I basically agree overall with this. I al;ways bring it back to my family and how they "regulate" guns within the family. A typical hunting family, you need to prove you can properly handle a firearm before any family member is given a gun or is allowed to go hunting or bring a firearm into the house.

It's simple, it's smart, and most any hunting family follows this "code" (whatever you want to call it). Basically any respectable firearm carrying individual follows this. I'll ask this to any poster on A.net that carries a firearm, will you allow just anyone to carry a weapon around you or go hunting with you? Or do you have to know them and how they are with a weapon? Aren't there people you would not want to be around when they have a weapon or go hunting with you?

Tugg

Pretty sure this is what the Founders meant by a "Well regulated Militia"....anything else is just a mob with guns.....because the "well regulated" part of the text is soooo easily omitted. I think folks should have firearms, and just like a divers license, show up for testing every x years to enforce the "well regulated" part....

You're wrong. The Militia Act of 1792 places every able-bodied white male American between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia. The Militia Act of 1862 changed this to include all males, regardless of race. So if one is a male between 18 and 45 they're in a Militia.

And the militia act of 1903 repealed both. From then onwards, the militia is the National Guard which is indeed well regulated.

Up until the 30s the National Guard Bureau was called the Militia bureau.

ItnStln wrote:

You're wrong. The Militia Act of 1792 places every able-bodied white male American between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia.

If only the well regulated militia should have weapons, should people under 18 or above 45 be allowed weapons? And who determines if someone between 18 and 45 is able-bodied? Sounds like gun control was intended by the founders.

petertenthije wrote:

ItnStln wrote:

You're wrong. The Militia Act of 1792 places every able-bodied white male American between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia.

If only the well regulated militia should have weapons, should people under 18 or above 45 be allowed weapons? And who determines if someone between 18 and 45 is able-bodied? Sounds like gun control was intended by the founders.

You and everybody else is still oblivious to basic grammar and the prefatory clause in the 2nd Amendment does not require membership in the militia to have the rights of the operative clause...”.the right of the people to keep and hear arms shall not be infringed”. Is there any confusion over what “shall not be infringed “ means?

Why is it that gun friendly states like New Hampshire, Maine, and Vermont have such low rates of homicide?

I've never heard of a mass shooting in these states in my lifetime, despite their gun laws being just like southern states. Florida and Texas have similar laws yet have frequent incidents of such violence. Heck, even California (The state with the tightest gun laws) often experiences massacres and has a much higher homicide rate than those of NH, ME, and VT.

Yes, I know that NH, ME, and VT have low populations. But even then, their homicide rates PER CAPITA are some of the lowest in the nation. Such an enigma.

Why do so many here care what happens in the US, when they don't even live here? It doesn't affect you at all. American foreign policy may affect you so is fair game but our domestic policies don't concern you at all.

bennett123 wrote:

So why did they put in the rest of the wording if they meant that the right was universal.

Also 'the right of THE People' and 'the right of ALL people' do not mean the same thing.

Then, why if being a member was intended to be mandatory, didn’t the Founders just say, “the right of the militia to keep and bear arms....”? They didn’t did they? THE people clearly implies ALL the people, as in the opening phrase, “We, the people,”.

johns624 wrote:

Why do so many here care what happens in the US, when they don't even live here? It doesn't affect you at all. American foreign policy may affect you so is fair game but our domestic policies don't concern you at all.

How else are they supposed to feel superior by getting upset over something that has nothing to do with them?

bennett123 wrote:

Second Amendment
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.

Curious that they refer to 'A well regulated Militia' and then ', the right of the people to keep and bear Arms'.

They seem to be referring to two different things.

Incidentally, if it applied to all the people, would that include felons and children?.

Go read DC v. Heller and get back to me.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

Second Amendment
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.

Curious that they refer to 'A well regulated Militia' and then ', the right of the people to keep and bear Arms'.

They seem to be referring to two different things.

Incidentally, if it applied to all the people, would that include felons and children?.

Go read DC v. Heller and get back to me.

I'm not sure why people are arguing over the verbiage of the 2nd. It is irrelevant. It has already been decided by the SCOTUS...

I was one of those, who supports the 2nd amendment but never thought of owning a gun. Wow, how that changed so fast these past month or so. I did not hesitate to become a gun owner considering the situation by which police was retreating and not forcefully in many cases enforcing the law.

So, this is why the 2nd amendment was necessary I think, the government resigned to their sole duty of protecting my liberties and rights, therefore I had to take matter in my own hands. Do I feel safer? perhaps, now I know I don't have to call 911 and let them decide if they want to come to my support, for which I pay taxes for. And that's despite me living in a Republican state, and not one of those liberal cities.

The left already owns the 1st amendment and basically is destroying it, and they have been coming for the 2nd for a long time. We just saw why.

moo wrote:

Feel free to continue your delusion, I wont be visiting this thread again - I dont need to “win on the internet”, I can just sit back in my own back yard in a civilised country and join the billions of other people who are laughing at the United States Of America imploding on itself through violence, bloodshed and oppression.

The land of the free, where mass school shootings are “the norm”, where there have been so many videos over the past week of the police being horrifically violent that its no longer a statistical anomaly. Thats the America of today, a country ripping itself apart.

Have fun, Im done with this thread.

You are 100 percent correct!! It is embarrassing as an American to live in such a violent, gun obsessed country. We need to ban all guns here!! I think Canada and Mexico will be dealing with a lot of U.S. refugees as the economy and health care system continue to collapse here.

LCDFlight wrote:

Gun sales have never been higher. You can forget about gun control. With the discussion over "defunding the police," regular people will need far more guns than they previously did.

This has been hot topic at the garage lately. You can't really control people having guns anymore, many are needing it for personal use and protection. If there's some kind of a scanning technology where legit owners can attach to their guns so authority can detect like through RF if gun is registered, and vice versa.

bennett123 wrote:

LabQuest

Are you proposing that Europeans should not comment on topics relating to the US, and that Americans should not comment on topics relating to Europe?.

Maybe because it's of no concern to you and doesn't affect you? Like I said previously, US foreign policy and other things that affect you are fair game. But when people feel the need to say things like "all civilized countries have gun control", they aren't debating, they're insulting and trying to act superior.

Pi7472000 wrote:

moo wrote:

Feel free to continue your delusion, I wont be visiting this thread again - I dont need to “win on the internet”, I can just sit back in my own back yard in a civilised country and join the billions of other people who are laughing at the United States Of America imploding on itself through violence, bloodshed and oppression.

The land of the free, where mass school shootings are “the norm”, where there have been so many videos over the past week of the police being horrifically violent that its no longer a statistical anomaly. Thats the America of today, a country ripping itself apart.

Have fun, Im done with this thread.

You are 100 percent correct!! It is embarrassing as an American to live in such a violent, gun obsessed country. We need to ban all guns here!! I think Canada and Mexico will be dealing with a lot of U.S. refugees as the economy and health care system continue to collapse here.

Sorry to break the bad news to you but Canada and Mexico have guns, also. Mexico has a murder rate almost 6 times the US rate. You're free to move, though. If they let you in...

bennett123 wrote:

Johns624

You have not answered the question.

I answered it to my satisfaction.
I may engage in a thread about certain European countries not spending enough on defense because it's a NATO topic but I don't tell the UK what they should do about Brexit, for example. I just want others to do the same. There is one prolific poster that thinks that he has to be the "conscience" of the US.

johns624 wrote:

bennett123 wrote:

Johns624

You have not answered the question.

I answered it to my satisfaction.
I may engage in a thread about certain European countries not spending enough on defense because it's a NATO topic but I don't tell the UK what they should do about Brexit, for example. I just want others to do the same. There is one prolific poster that thinks that he has to be the "conscience" of the US.

Whether we or you like it, what happens in the US does actually have an impact elsewhere, across a wide range of topics. US culture permeates almost every western country. English speaking countries especially so, but even continental Europe. From TV shows, music, political and idelogical influence (e.g Brexit, Steve Bannon etc). You may not like us pointing out the amount of crap that goes on in the US that does have an adverse affect on us, but it does happen and it's real. Gun culture in the US, (for example in rap / hip hop music, movies) - the glorification of guns has had a measurable and incredibly bad influence on younger generations in inner cities in Europe.

The other thing is, this is a discussion forum, with people from all over the world. Why the hell wouldn't you want to hear from other people, hear their views, learn from their experiences maybe? One of the biggest problems in modern day life - people's inability to critically think, looking at data and understand that sometimes someone else may have done something better than you have, fixed something. Copying that solution and modfiying it for your use (i'm talking about politics and running countries) is perfectly acceptable, in fact it should be welcome.

bennett123 wrote:

LabQuest

Are you proposing that Europeans should not comment on topics relating to the US, and that Americans should not comment on topics relating to Europe?.

Not sure why the subject should not be discussed.

I'm just saying Europeans always come into any discussion about America like the European way is the correct way. Most Europeans automatically think the 2nd amendment is crazy and that we're some nutjob of a place because people own guns like its the wild west. If they had any real experience with gun culture in the USA they'd understand its not like they think it is at all.

But Europe has been the "superior" continent for a long time so I guess its hard to shake that after dominating and colonizing half the world for the last four centuries.