OT - Second Amendment - Obama nails it

[ddavis]

None of you will ever put it better than Jim Jefferies

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=89d_1411198955

[uspompeyfan]

I still don't see why posters are linking gun control with the Federal State.

The point about the US constitution is that it operates assuming that power lies with the individual and cedes power upwards reluctantly. This is the opposite of the UK where power resides with an individual and cascades downwards based on patronage.

Its not up to Obama or Congress to sort this out, it is the people and their local/state representatives. There is nothing stopping a county, city or state imposing tighter restrictions if they so wish. If the American people want to amend the constitution to enable gun control on a federal level then they need to get a petition supported in a majority of states.

That is a key point. Whenever there is an incident such as this, it has been the Federal Government that has demanded change. Where cities have wanted tougher laws, they have been voted in, by the people.

A report from The Department of Justice showed that there were thousands of incidents where guns prevented crime. This was on the radio and I haven't researched the figures myself, but these were incidents where a person about to be attacked, pulled out a gun and it was enough for the bad guys to run away (convenience store footage was another example where this action prevented burglary. The point I am making is that figures put out by the media can be distorted to fit the narrative. The report mentioned above was brought out to counteract an argument from the mainstream.

[uspompeyfan]

559 under 12s shot and killed already this year in America. If that statistic alone isn't enough to make them change their thinking on guns then there is no hope for them.

A terrible figure, anyone would agree. However, the vast majority of these deaths are caused through inner city gang violence. In addition many can also be attributed to illegal aliens. The country is very divided and unfortunately, the governing parties (plural) are too interested in fighting themselves than uniting the country.

Just over a week ago, 42 people were shot in Chicago, almost all were gang / drug related. Not one word on mainstream media or from the Administration.

When the young girl was shot in San Francisco by the illegal alien, it lasted a couple of days on television and nothing from the Administration (US citizen shot by a foreign national that had been arrested 5 times before and went to a sanctuary city that refuses to adopt Federal immigration laws)

None of the new laws that have been put out there would have stopped the incident in Oregon, if the laws that are already in place had been followed.

[uspompeyfan]

There is some comedy genius from uspompeyfan in this thread! Here are some of my highlights:-

America does seem to hive a high preponderance of Mummy's Boys

Once a government has too much control it becomes a Dictatorship without controls

America is the land of the Free.

I'm saving the best for last, though:-

john

Yep, he's forgotten how to spell the name of one of his closest friends! One day he'll realise his wacky views are due to him being, well, a bit dim.

Strange you have to trawl back to find snippets, just to take things out of context, but I imagine that is more your style. That said, having lived here for 16 of the last 20 years, I might have a better understanding of America than you MTB.

Yes, America's males do tend to have a closer affinity to their mother's than other nations, and often this is at the expense of their wives, who want to be an equal, not another mother.

America is the land of the Free - It is written and accepted in almost every city over here. It is in the words of their national anthem. The Bill of Rights provides many of these freedoms.

When a Government seizes control from the people it ceases to "By the people, for the People" and becomes a self serving entity to grab more power. Once the government decides by itself what the people will do (executive orders by the President for example, rather than Congress making the laws and passing them through the Senate), then surely it becomes a Dictatorship because one person is making and changing the rules. America's government is unlike the British one because at its inception, it was decided by the founding fathers, that this was the best way to prevent power from being taken by the people. Nowadays, the President has the advantage of a 5-4 Liberal biased Supreme Court (people not voted in by the People) to uphold his actions.

Jon / John - Wow, spellcheck defeated me eh!! To regard someone as a 'close friend', there would be regular contact. Although we are on Facebook, Jon has not visited my family for several years, but is always welcome. We haven't spoken much, but we have completely different lives. I see him as a friend whom my family and I would host in a heartbeat, regardless that are views may differ 180 degrees, but because he is a good person. Close friend is open to interpretation, so I won't judge what your definition is.

MTB, your immature attempts for insulting are just that. There are many on here who disagree with my politics, my Faith, my support of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I am sure that of the many on this board, there are people on here that wouldn't be friends if they met in person. You and I definitely fall into that category. We look at things completely differently and in our own opinions, we are both right. Accept it and move on.

As for the 'maligning of your character that you referred to in a reply to Lock Man on a different thread, I must presume you are referring to the 'generalization' comment - I don't have the time, like you do, to trawl back over the years, but recall clearly your referencing of 'Right Wing Loonies' (I am sure that while some may fall into that category, it is not 100% by a long shot). Another term would be 'Gun toting Jesus (or Creationalist) Freaks' in a previous thread from a couple of years back (may also have surrounded an evolution thread). While referencing my comments from the previous paragraph, I tend to accept our opinions differ, however, I prefer debating with more qualified people than your good self.

As for being 'dim', there are many who believe otherwise, on a corporate and private level. It is their opinions that I hold, rather than yours. I don't know what qualifications you hold, so I wouldn't label you in the same category as you aspire to label me, but truly, I don't really care.

[No Shot Sherlock]

USPF, can I ask you a question for which I'd like a yes or no answer. If you were ever to return to live in the UK, would you feel the need to own a gun/guns for your personal safety or for the safety of your family?

[uspompeyfan]

USPF, can I ask you a question for which I'd like a yes or no answer. If you were ever to return to live in the UK, would you feel the need to own a gun/guns for your personal safety or for the safety of your family?

No.

[uspompeyfan]

But there again, I don't own one here in the US either..... I do feel that our house would be safer with one in it, but we have several small children and, honoring my wife, feel that this is something we don't need at this time. If I lived in a city environment with a higher crime rate, I wouldn't hesitate in having one in the house and encouraging my wife (who is trained to a higher standard than I am) to have it for the safety of the family.

[No Shot Sherlock]

USPF, can I ask you a question for which I'd like a yes or no answer. If you were ever to return to live in the UK, would you feel the need to own a gun/guns for your personal safety or for the safety of your family?

No.

Thank you.

[No Shot Sherlock]

But there again, I don't own one here in the US either..... I do feel that our house would be safer with one in it, but we have several small children and, honoring my wife, feel that this is something we don't need at this time. If I lived in a city environment with a higher crime rate, I wouldn't hesitate in having one in the house and encouraging my wife (who is trained to a higher standard than I am) to have it for the safety of the family.

But not if you lived in an inner city area in the UK with a similarly higher than average crime rate?

[uspompeyfan]

But there again, I don't own one here in the US either..... I do feel that our house would be safer with one in it, but we have several small children and, honoring my wife, feel that this is something we don't need at this time. If I lived in a city environment with a higher crime rate, I wouldn't hesitate in having one in the house and encouraging my wife (who is trained to a higher standard than I am) to have it for the safety of the family.

But not if you lived in an inner city area in the UK with a similarly higher than average crime rate?

The only incidence of burglary in England was when I had everything boxed up and I had to wait till the following day for a 'container' to arrive to be shipped out. A couple of 'helpers' from an agency were going to be paid to help. When I had to send the first container away as it was covered in oil and filthy, I was due to leave the house alone while I took my brother back to Telford, where he lived at the time.

My gut feeling had me return to the house rather than stay in Telford. Early in the morning around 1 ish, I heard the French doors opening. I was sleeping on the floor and, with cricket bat in hand, launched at the intruders - who departed very quickly it must be said.

I don't know if the situation in England has worsened in the past 13 or 14 years. The bad guys in the UK were typically younger men breaking in for anything valuable, unarmed. I don't think that the average burglar has changed that much, so a cricket bat would probably suffice. As the chances of a US criminal being armed is more likely, I would expect to raise my own comfort level.

Ultimately, I would rather have a gun and never need to use it, than need a gun and not have one. I don't think my views vary too much from Cinci in that regard and he packs heat.

[Miss Tickle's bottom]

I prefer debating with more qualified people than your good self.

Well that's put me in my place.

[Locky_McLockface]

When a Government seizes control from the people it ceases to "By the people, for the People" and becomes a self serving entity to grab more power. Once the government decides by itself what the people will do (executive orders by the President for example, rather than Congress making the laws and passing them through the Senate), then surely it becomes a Dictatorship because one person is making and changing the rules. America's government is unlike the British one because at its inception, it was decided by the founding fathers, that this was the best way to prevent power from being taken by the people. Nowadays, the President has the advantage of a 5-4 Liberal biased Supreme Court (people not voted in by the People) to uphold his actions.

I don't see your logic. Yes, if the Pres decrees something, then yeah, that's akin to a dictatorship. But if Congress/Senate pass a law, that's "Dictatorship by Committee", surely? The only true way to have government "By the People, For the people" is a nationwide referendum on every issue, which is clearly ridiculous.

But in any case, I don't see how why that applies to introducing tougher gun control laws in the US - obviously due process would need to be followed.

I still don't see why posters are linking gun control with the Federal State.

The point about the US constitution is that it operates assuming that power lies with the individual and cedes power upwards reluctantly. This is the opposite of the UK where power resides with an individual and cascades downwards based on patronage.

Its not up to Obama or Congress to sort this out, it is the people and their local/state representatives. There is nothing stopping a county, city or state imposing tighter restrictions if they so wish. If the American people want to amend the constitution to enable gun control on a federal level then they need to get a petition supported in a majority of states.

The reason it needs to be a federal issue is, as I've previously stated, that it's pointless one area introducing such controls unilaterally, allowing everyone to travel a few miles to the nearest uncontrolled area to obtain their firearm without control.

[phat_chris]

Perhaps there is a solution that could be a suitable compromise for both sides of the arguement.

Firstly an outright ban on the sale and ownership of automatic firearms. I am sure everyone will agree that this type of weapon has no place outside of the military and perhaps specially trained police officers.

Secondly anyone wishing to own a gun will have to request a firearms licence. Similar to a car licence the person applying with have to undergo a knowledge based test, have training to pass a firearms proficiency test and also have background checks to see if they are suitable to own a gun. This licence becomes the owner's gun passport and must be carried at all times the owner is in possession of their firearm.

Thirdly a limit will be placed on how much ammunition can be purchased by each licence holder. The licence must be presented when purchasing ammunition and will allow the retailer to check a central database to check whether they have reached their ammunition limit. Let's say for example the annual limit for ammuntion is say 3 rounds. That's more than enough for a homeowner looking to protect their family from a burglar. More crucially though criminals will not have easy supply of ammunition for their crimes. Moreover mass shootings become almost impossible.

People will still be entitled to go to registered and licenced firing ranges which will be allowed a greater supply of ammunition. Also for those that like to hunt, registered hunting trips could be arranged with ammunition supplied by the organisers and all unused ammunition returned at the end of the trip.

Heavy penalties should be imposed on anyone without a licence being in possession of a firearm and on anyone selling firearms or ammunition to someone without a licence or exceeding their quota.

I would be interested to see what our American friends think of these proposals.

[The Cincinnati Kid]

Perhaps there is a solution that could be a suitable compromise for both sides of the arguement.

Firstly an outright ban on the sale and ownership of automatic firearms. I am sure everyone will agree that this type of weapon has no place outside of the military and perhaps specially trained police officers.

Secondly anyone wishing to own a gun will have to request a firearms licence. Similar to a car licence the person applying with have to undergo a knowledge based test, have training to pass a firearms proficiency test and also have background checks to see if they are suitable to own a gun. This licence becomes the owner's gun passport and must be carried at all times the owner is in possession of their firearm.

Thirdly a limit will be placed on how much ammunition can be purchased by each licence holder. The licence must be presented when purchasing ammunition and will allow the retailer to check a central database to check whether they have reached their ammunition limit. Let's say for example the annual limit for ammuntion is say 3 rounds. That's more than enough for a homeowner looking to protect their family from a burglar. More crucially though criminals will not have easy supply of ammunition for their crimes. Moreover mass shootings become almost impossible.

People will still be entitled to go to registered and licenced firing ranges which will be allowed a greater supply of ammunition. Also for those that like to hunt, registered hunting trips could be arranged with ammunition supplied by the organisers and all unused ammunition returned at the end of the trip.

Heavy penalties should be imposed on anyone without a licence being in possession of a firearm and on anyone selling firearms or ammunition to someone without a licence or exceeding their quota.

I would be interested to see what our American friends think of these proposals.

Good day Chris!...well point 1...you cant buy automatic weapons here. (there may be some state exceptions for qualified range instructors)...but I cant go anywhere and buy a fully automatic weapon....nor do I think any of these dastardly crimes were commited with automatic weapons. Perhaps you are refering to semi auto?...which is self loading but single shot.
Point 2 is already in place in most States if you want to carry your hand gun out and about. It is not required for keeping 1 at home
Point 3 is a nice idea but its really unworkable. For starters if you accept I can have a pistol at home....well...I need more than 3 rounds for home defence....I think you will find in home defence cases where a pistol is used, people empty the magazine in the heat of the moment....plus if you ever get to shoot a pistol under pressure at a target 15 ft away....you can empty a 15 round clip and be lucky to rack 3 hits.

Look...we all know what the problem is but you're just not going to eliminate 200 years of gun culture with a few laws. Not to mention half the police forces in the US wouldn't enforce them anyways. But you do have to start somewhere
1. Universal background check for every current owner and future purchaser. Most American already support this but the Dmes are too scared to make it a political issue and the REps are unanimously against it
2. Free universal access to mental healthcare
3. The removal of legal protections from lawsuits for gun sales stores and manufacturers...this would force the universal development of owner only fire technology
4. The legalization of drugs across the US

Until then ...I have not yet heard any sensible argument that would make me give up my arsenal.

I leave you...and this topic...with the Zombie Problem.
Britain has developed small pockets of flesh eating zombies. The only way to kill them is with a sword. So many of you would start carrying swords right?...I mean you'd be stupid not to pack a sword right?
Problem is, now that everyone carries a sword there a lot of other problems. Fights and deaths in the pubs on Fri/Sat nights, sword wealding fans at soccerball games....arguments over girls turning deadly....domestic spats ending in slashing.....all to the point where swords are killing more people than zombies.

Do you give up your sword???

[Weybridge]

I think there's a more obvious answer. In the early 17th Century when the flesh eating zombies, or angry Catholics as they were known back then, we just took the swords off everyone in the streets. The zombies got p1ssed off about that, and tried to blow up parliament and overthrow the country, but failed - probably because they had no swords.

Ultimately, they gave up and disappeared off...to...America... Oh wait, I think I've spotted your problem.