Guns dont kill people, Americans do... Discuss

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

pembssurf

Active Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2014
Messages
691
Car
toyota
140 school shootings in the 3 years since Sandyhook. Another one today... Thoughts .......
 
I think we'll see a shift in this policy in America in the near future, which is a surprise to me as I never thought I'd see a change in my lifetime.

The idea that you can't change the constitution is changing. After all the 2nd Amendment giving you the right to keep and bear arms; is itself an amendment.

The death of so many children is creating an untenable position for the NRA, whose standard line of "if the teachers/church goers/congregation/general public/any old dog in the neighbourhood were armed this wouldn't have happened" etc etc is starting to look a little wishy washy.

I say watch this space. I have a feeling Obama might want to leave a legacy and this could be it.
 
Last edited:
The constitution CANNOT be changed….the twenty-seven or so previous amendments would tend to prove the opposite.

Something I have noticed over the last couple of decades or so is the pervasion of the politics of fear in the UK…keep the populace frightened of something and their attention is away from what shenanigans the political elite are up to. This practice was well established in America long before we 'adopted' the practice and have certainly stopped noticing that it was going on.

Just a thought to two.
 
The constitution can not be changed, but it can be re-interpreted.

It has been suggested that the 'right to bear arms' refers to the collective as opposed to individuals, i.e. armed police force, armed forces, etc to ensure Americans are not colonised again.

Another interrogation was that the right to bear arms dies not conflict with the need to have a permit...

And the definition of 'arms' can be redefined similar to the UK to exclude all handguns and other concealable weapons.

I think they will find some creative solution to the issues. Already gun laws very widely between states.
 
Last edited:
Simple extrapolation of their protectionist and isolationist politics says they will all shoot themselves to extinction by 2034 anyway!
 
Simple extrapolation of their protectionist and isolationist politics says they will all shoot themselves to extinction by 2034 anyway!

it looks like they may well not be the only country to do so......

Regardless of their consitution...they can introduce a law which means, in a state of peace, guns can be illegal to own and buy (and sell) to anyone outside of law enforcement. Of course, should a state of war exist in that country, the law would be disregarded so people can then protect their homeland. which is what the constitution is meant for.....not for shooting people because they can.
 
It just needs the word Nerf inserting.
 
it looks like they may well not be the only country to do so......

Regardless of their consitution...they can introduce a law which means, in a state of peace, guns can be illegal to own and buy (and sell) to anyone outside of law enforcement. Of course, should a state of war exist in that country, the law would be disregarded so people can then protect their homeland. which is what the constitution is meant for.....not for shooting people because they can.

It is not simply about 'private ownership'.

We have privately owned guns in the UK, the difference is that you need to have a legitimate reason to have one - farming, hunting, sport, etc - and self defence is not generally considered a legitimate reason.

It's more about tighter regulation, or as the Americans call it, Gun Control.
 
Additionally, in the US and most of Europe (but not UK), private security guards are armed. This is considered a must in countries with high rate of gun crime committed with illegally-held guns.

So it's not feasible or necessary to completely eliminate private ownership of guns - just regulate it.
 
Last edited:
A somewhat ironic piece on the 10:00 news last night. An American defense spokesman accusing Russia of bombing the rebels that they (the Americans) were arming via the CIA.
 
Wall off the Middle East. Let them get on with it, take peak over said wall in100 years for now to see how their getting on. Realistically though there is absolutely no reason for America to get involved with the Middle East now they are a oil exporter not importer. This whole mess is a direct knock-on from Afghanistan. Whoever thought that good foreign policy was to invade already unstable countries that generally hate the West anyway then supply them with copious amounts of weapons needs to be shot themselves.
 
America loves guns. This is the price they pay for that. It will never change (at least not in my lifetime)
 
...Whoever thought that good foreign policy was to invade already unstable countries that generally hate the West anyway then supply them with copious amounts of weapons needs to be shot themselves.

That sorted Russia and the US... :D the rest of Europe get off the hook (just) because we stopped doing this at some point after WW2.
 
Wall off the Middle East. Let them get on with it, take peak over said wall in100 years for now to see how their getting on. Realistically though there is absolutely no reason for America to get involved with the Middle East now they are a oil exporter not importer. This whole mess is a direct knock-on from Afghanistan. Whoever thought that good foreign policy was to invade already unstable countries that generally hate the West anyway then supply them with copious amounts of weapons needs to be shot themselves.

Despite their new-found shale reserves, the USA will still be hugely reliant on oil imports from the Middle East both now and as part of their long-term energy strategy.

And the current instability in Syria and the wider region has nothing to do with Afghanistan (that is far away and has no oil) and everything to do with the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Until then, ISIS didn't exist but has since been able to flourish and spread due to the upheavals, power vacuum and anti-Western feelings that our attack has created.
 
The death of so many children is creating an untenable position for the NRA, whose standard line of "if the teachers/church goers/congregation/general public/any old dog in the neighbourhood were armed this wouldn't have happened" etc etc is starting to look a little wishy washy.

Nah ... they'll just say that schoolkids should be armed too!
 
Heard on the radio today a US gun lobby spokesperson was asked how future school shootings could be averted, the answer was that if everyone was armed these shooters would not kill so many or get a chance to......the interviewer asked if he meant school kids..........and guess what the answer was?

They are total f*****g wack jobs over there......complete and utter looneys.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom