PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Jet Blast (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast-16/)
-   -   A USA gun thread. That won't be controversial, will it? (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/549775-usa-gun-thread-wont-controversial-will.html)

wings folded 14th Nov 2014 18:48

She wouldn't dare do that would she? I mean kitchen knives are sacred. Ask our Edinburgh correspondent. Or ask me.

Untouchable.

If faced with a complete moron law enforcer, knock up a swift eggs benedict for their gustative delight. They won't actually know that knives are not really needed for that dish. :p

OFSO 14th Nov 2014 19:23

lethal toe nail clippers

Ah, toe clippers ! Thanks for the reminder.

I've stayed out of this thread until now because frankly as that guy with the pencil moustache said, I don't give a damn.

If you live in the USA you accept the laws pertaining to firearms. It's a fact of life, that's that, much the same as if you live in France you don't have to use deoderant, or in Germany hairy female armpits are de rigeur, or in the UK you get four sorts of weather every 24 hours (at least four sorts - often more) or if you live in Spain you get excellent food and good wine at low prices and live to be 90 when you're gored to death by a wild bull/wild boar/wild husband.

If you live in the USA you have the right to bear arms, you have the right to get shot by some gun-crazy nut, and frankly, who cares ? It's a way of life, it's a balance, this good, this bad, it's part of society/culture.

OFSO - who has weapons in his house as allowed by the law and who would CERTAINLY have more powerful weapons if he lived in the USA, and less powerful if he lived in the UK. It's all part of being a member of the society you live in.

PTT 14th Nov 2014 19:26

West Coast - anecdotal evidence does not make for significant under-reporting, which was the claim.

BenThere 14th Nov 2014 19:27

That is a wise observation, OFSO.

It is what it is.

wings folded 14th Nov 2014 20:14

Want another observation? (Well a few actually)

- Some folk like guns and want the right to own them to be preserved.
- Some folk have no wish to own guns and could not care less if they do not have the right to own them
- Some folk elect not to own guns even if they have the right
- Some folk are peeved that the cannot own a gun if they want to.

So either side of the Atlantic, there are contenteds and discontenteds.

Neither side will change the views of the two camps either side of the ocean.

Euros who point out the number of gun deaths in the US and seek to take the moral high ground, are no more right nor wrong than Americos who scorn what they term the loss of freedom in Europe.

More than once, I have observed that you do as you please over there. We do as we please over here.

Why is the thread still going on?

Do not gun shooters have a range to go to? Do not non gun shooters have other pursuits to follow?

As everyone is entrenched in their point of view, what is the point?

BenThere 14th Nov 2014 20:21


As everyone is entrenched in their point of view, what is the point?
I can only speak for myself, but I see my right to self-defense and the defense of my home and family as constantly under attack. A firearm is the best means I can determine to resist the threats to the sanctity of my home.

I also believe the evidence supports my contention that in most American communities, the more law-abiding citizens arm themselves, the safer everyone will be.

The argument will probably never end, but I'll continue to hold up my end of it.

Dushan 14th Nov 2014 20:24


Originally Posted by wings folded (Post 8742726)
Want another observation? (Well a few actually)

- Some folk like guns and want the right to own them to be preserved.
- Some folk have no wish to own guns and could not care less if they do not have the right to own them
- Some folk elect not to own guns even if they have the right
- Some folk are peeved that the cannot own a gun if they want to.

So either side of the Atlantic, there are contenteds and discontenteds.

Neither side will change the views of the two camps either side of the ocean.

Euros who point out the number of gun deaths in the US and seek to take the moral high ground, are no more right nor wrong than Americos who scorn what they term the loss of freedom in Europe.

More than once, I have observed that you do as you please over there. We do as we please over here.

Why is the thread still going on?

Do not gun shooters have a range to go to? Do not non gun shooters have other pursuits to follow?

As everyone is entrenched in their point of view, what is the point?

You forgot one category.

- Some folk have no wish to own guns and want the right to own them to be preserved.

Dushan 14th Nov 2014 20:28


More than once, I have observed that you do as you please over there. We do as we please over here.
No you don't. This category does not exist in your country. You do as the government pleases.


- Some folk like guns and want the right to own them to be preserved.

wings folded 14th Nov 2014 20:31


I can only speak for myself, but I see my right to self-defense and the defense of my home and family as constantly under attack.
Only by busy-body, irritating, ankle snapping, Europeans, it would seem. Who you can easily ignore, because they correctly have no say. Your 2nd Amendment rights do not appear to be under attack likely to succeed from within your country, where the ultimate choice obviously lies.

rgbrock1 14th Nov 2014 20:35

I have an assortment of weapons for one main reason. Which has absolutely nothing to do with defending my loved ones from an armed intruder, or any other intruder, armed or not. (In the area the Mrs. and I live in, crime is unknown. Fortunate for us, I know. In the area my kids live in with their unarmed mother and step-father, crime is scarce. Also most fortunate.)

http://www.ambrosekane.com/wp-conten.../America-5.jpg

wings folded 14th Nov 2014 20:44


No you don't. This category does not exist in your country. You do as the government pleases.
The government is elected. By a process which has its faults, but no more than the US system or many others.

The US government, on the other hand, chooses to seek extradition of citizens from European countries who have committed no crime on their own turf, but have transgressed what "pleases" the US government.

(Please enlighten me what is "my country" by the way)

con-pilot 14th Nov 2014 20:55


The US government, on the other hand, chooses to seek extradition of citizens from European countries who have committed no crime on their own turf, but have transgressed what "pleases" the US government.
We (US Government) only do so with the permission of the 'other' country.

Remember, I used to do this.

As for "what pleases" the US Government, many, if not most times, are those that commit major felonies, such as murder, massive monetary embezzlement, drug cartel leaders, etc.

The only ones the general public hears about, via the media, are those that are of interest due to their notoriety. Such as Roman Polanski, the child rapist.

wings folded 14th Nov 2014 20:58

Or selling batteries to a company in a country in current disfavour in Washington?

rh200 14th Nov 2014 21:02


I had to change my primary care doctor, due to Obamacare, and on a form I had to fill out with my new doctor, I was asked if I had any guns in my home. I didn't answer the question.

Interesting, We generally regard going to the same doctor if possible a good thing as they know your history.


I'm not quite sure I understand what one has to do with the other.
Could be a couple of things. 1) Insurance risk policy costs to someone, or
2) A back door way to guage firearm ownership.

If you answer no then you either don't have one, or are a liar and leave your self open to consequences in the case of a accident. If you answer yes, no problem. If you don't answer it, they take it as some kind of admission that you do.

con-pilot 14th Nov 2014 21:09


Or selling batteries to a company in a country in current disfavour in Washington?
Have not heard about that one. When did this occur and what happened?

obgraham 14th Nov 2014 21:11


We generally regard going to the same doctor if possible a good thing as they know your history.
Rapidly disappearing concept in the US health care system. Government is requiring electronic medical records, which don't actually work, and which bury the relevant information under a sea of politically correct horseapples.

So now the doc has to ask that same gun question every time you come in, because he needs it to be checked in order to get paid, and he can't find where it was filled in before.

wings folded 14th Nov 2014 21:38


Have not heard about that one. When did this occur and what happened?
It's late here, con, so forgive the absence of a full response, but look up Christopher Tappin. He may have been as guilty as hell of flogging his batteries (weapon components) to a sanctioned country, (I have no idea).

Seems to me however that US law looks to extend its power beyong its frontiers for what strikes me as trivial reasons.

Just a reminder. I answered Dushan who said we do as our "government pleases"

No, it is worse. We seem to do as the US government pleases. Sometimes.

con-pilot 14th Nov 2014 22:11

Will do Wings, when I get more time I'll check into Christopher Tappin.

Thank you. :ok:

Dushan 14th Nov 2014 22:44

Wings, that is my point. Not only do you do as your government pleases, but also what some other government pleases.

Seems like a bunch of "tyrannical governments" and nothing to defend yourself with, agains them. Tsk, Tsk.

Your country, I guess where "We do as we please over here", wherever the over here is. egsh?

bcgallacher 14th Nov 2014 23:04

Dushan - doing as you please costs your society 80,000 gunshot victims per year of which number about 30,000 die. Doing as we please costs us 200 and 50 respectively.You call that freedom?

Dushan 14th Nov 2014 23:23

You don't do as you please. You do as your government thinks is best for you. If you did as you please you would have no guns, but would have full freedom to own guns.

Magnus would have not lost his Python and Pardini, and you would still have 200 gun deaths. So punishing him achieved nothing.

obgraham 15th Nov 2014 00:33

It's true that "freedom" here to many means free to be a gangbanger, spend your life pursuing dope, "hos", and rap music as you strive to win "respect".

The fact that the death rate associated with such a lifestyle is very high, concerns me not one bit.

There is an alternative. Get an education.

West Coast 15th Nov 2014 01:08

Wings folded


Seems to me however that US law looks to extend its power beyong its frontiers for what strikes me as trivial reasons.
I wasn't familar with the case till you mentioned it. Did this gent violate US laws or international trade sanctions?

To be clear, it's not simply the US that reaches beyond its borders. The UK govt has inferred it plans on blocking Argentina receiving replacement fighter aircraft from other countries if the jet has British content in it. The Brits likely will ask the US to do the same.

finfly1 15th Nov 2014 02:55

"doing as you please costs your society 80,000 gunshot victims per year of which number about 30,000 die. Doing as we please costs us 200 and 50 respectively.You call that freedom? "

We are talking respective populations of 316million vs 5.3 million, right?

PTT 15th Nov 2014 07:57


Originally Posted by Dushan (Post 8742966)
You don't do as you please. You do as your government thinks is best for you. If you did as you please you would have no guns, but would have full freedom to own guns.

You don't do as you please either. You also do as your government thinks is best for you. If you did as you please you would have no nuclear weapons, but would have full freedom to own nuclear weapons :rolleyes:

The whole "we're free" bit simply isn't the case any more to the degree which you are pushing it. It certainly was at the inception of your nation, and it was for some time after that, but there is a huge list of things you cannot do because your government (state or federal) says so. You basically have one more freedom than us in this respect, and it's one which costs you an extra bunch of deaths per year. Jefferson's tree of liberty requires a hell of a lot of refreshment, and appears to not care if it is the blood of patriots, tyrants or innocent bystanders which it sups on for this one freedom.

Matari 15th Nov 2014 14:27

Speaking of eggs, I went with friends for Vietnamese Steak & Eggs this morning in one of the largest cities in the US, in the center of a massive urban enterprise of some 5 million people. More people of every hue and ethnicity than in all of Norway, together in this bustling, thriving place, in a state that has more people than the Netherlands. The GDP of the state is larger than that of most European countries and insignificant South Pacific island-states.

How do we manage this, I thought, while savoring the delicious egg dish. According to our European betters, we are all cowering in fear, armed to the teeth, waiting for the apocalypse! We need to change our ways, and they are here to explain how!

Fortunately there were no tiresome busybodies around to tell us how to live our lives. Although there were people from every corner of the globe, all pursuing different professions and hobbies, a couple gun owners, a fishermen, and a goofy artist. We were just enjoying ourselves, our company, and especially, the eggs.

Dushan 15th Nov 2014 14:51


Originally Posted by PTT (Post 8743270)
You don't do as you please either. You also do as your government thinks is best for you. If you did as you please you would have no nuclear weapons, but would have full freedom to own nuclear weapons :rolleyes:

Are you confusing me with someone from NZ? What makes you think I wouldn't want nuclear weapons?

PTT 15th Nov 2014 15:00


Originally Posted by Dushan (Post 8743675)
What makes you think I wouldn't want nuclear weapons?

Thank you for proving my point very nicely. Your government says you can't have them, so you don't do as you please but as your government thinks is best for you.

Hempy 15th Nov 2014 15:35

PTT, thats BS. The 2nd Amendment states specifically that as a US citizen, you have the right to bear ARMS. I'm pretty sure that nuclear weapons count as 'arms', so any decision by the US Government that contradicts the 2nd has to be unconstitutional. Does it not?

Sounds just like the 'tyrannical government' the 2nd amendment was put in place to defend against imo. Where is the outrage?

galaxy flyer 15th Nov 2014 16:07

Hempy,

Well, then it really just a matter of where to draw the line then. You propose the line could be drawn at nuclear weapons; I'm more along the lines of Gatling guns. I have several friends with real live machine guns, so that seems to be fine. ICBM in the backyard would cool, but the neighbors might not like my foreign policy.

GF

PTT 15th Nov 2014 16:23


Originally Posted by galaxy flyer (Post 8743737)
Well, then it really just a matter of where to draw the line then.

The existence of a line proves my point. We merely draw it in different places.

And if I read him right Hempy was being sarcastic. I may well have that wrong, though...

West Coast 15th Nov 2014 16:31

Don't think anyone has proven in the strictest legal sense that I can't have a nuke in my garage PTT.

PTT 15th Nov 2014 16:34

I linked the relevant US code above: 42 U.S. Code § 2131 - License required | LII / Legal Information Institute
It shall be unlawful, except as provided in section 2121 of this title, for any person within the United States to transfer or receive in interstate commerce, manufacture, produce, transfer, acquire, possess, use, import, or export any utilization or production facility except under and in accordance with a license issued by the Commission pursuant to section 2133 or 2134 of this title.
Here's another: 42 U.S. Code § 2122 - Prohibitions governing atomic weapons | LII / Legal Information Institute
(a) It shall be unlawful, except as provided in section 2121 of this title, for any person, inside or outside of the United States, to knowingly participate in the development of, manufacture, produce, transfer, acquire, receive, possess, import, export, or use, or possess and threaten to use, any atomic weapon. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to modify the provisions of section 2051 (a) or 2131 of this title.

Dushan 15th Nov 2014 16:38


Originally Posted by PTT (Post 8743685)
Thank you for proving my point very nicely. Your government says you can't have them, so you don't do as you please but as your government thinks is best for you.

Your point, if there at all, is obtuse as usual.

You said:

If you did as you please you would have no nuclear weapons, but would have full freedom to own nuclear weapons
To which I replied:

What makes you think I wouldn't want nuclear weapons?

Just because I don't have them doesn't mean I wouldn't want them. There are a lot of thing I don't have that I want.

OTOH Magnus had and wanted his guns but is not allowed and had to forfeit them to be destroyed, which is crime against humanity when a Colt Python is destroyed.

PTT 15th Nov 2014 16:44

Dushan - my point is quite clear: you don't do as you please either. You also do as your government thinks is best for you. The only difference is where the line is drawn as to what weapons our governments allow us to own.

West Coast 15th Nov 2014 17:02

No nukes huh?

PTT

Thanks, I guess this gives further ammunition to the under reported weapons theory. A nuke in every garage in my motto.

PTT 15th Nov 2014 17:33


Originally Posted by West Coast (Post 8743801)
I guess this gives further ammunition to the under reported weapons theory.

How so?

A nuke in every garage in my motto.
Of course it is... :rolleyes:

BenThere 15th Nov 2014 17:49

Suppose this rhetorical issue actually did materialize with an individual seeking to own and possess a nuclear weapon, and fight in court to secure his 'right'.

I expect it would be adjudicated that a nuclear weapon is not an 'arm' as envisioned by the 2nd amendment, but rather a high explosive, and categorized as such would not be protected. Ample laws are in place in, I suspect, all jurisdictions in the US limiting possession and use of explosives.

Perhaps a few 2nd amendment supporters might think such a right exists, but any assertion would garner no support among the rest of us. Even in the event a nuclear weapon could be miniaturized to the size of a rifle shell, the explosives argument would prevail, along with existing federal statutes prohibiting nuclear weapons as cited above.

PTT 15th Nov 2014 17:58


I expect it would be adjudicated that a nuclear weapon is not an 'arm' as envisioned by the 2nd amendment
So it's merely a matter of interpretation by the government (in this case the judiciary). Like I said: they define where the line is drawn.

Dushan 15th Nov 2014 18:50

PTT, you know what? You are being tiresomely pedantic, as usual. The bottom line is we can have handguns, you can't.

Don't go around drawing some imaginary line. Ours is way, way in the distance (if it even exists), and yours is right under your nose, or more like right through your nose.

Live with it.


All times are GMT. The time now is 17:25.


Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.