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)

con-pilot 25th Oct 2014 22:37


So the 2nd Ammendment could be ammended?
Absolutely. The Constitution has been amended 27 times. In fact, it could be completely removed.

How To Amend the Constitution

galaxy flyer 25th Oct 2014 22:45

And, without much effort, I can name 13 states that would block any such amendment. Heck, every state south of the Mason-Dixon and all the states west of the Mississippi and short of the Sierra Nevada would oppose in a state legislature vote. Not to worry, SFFP, it ain't happenin'

GF

Fliegenmong 25th Oct 2014 22:45

That could be a valid point I guess, if President George H.W. Bush would have finished off Saddam the first time, there would have been no second need to go back to Iraq. I mean the road was wide open, nothing or no one could have stopped us.

Those black flagged bearded murderers would likely have filled the void far earlier if SH was removed the first time round.....

John Hill 25th Oct 2014 22:51


Originally Posted by con-pilot
Okay, now that you are suddenly a Constitutional expert and seem to think that you know the Constitution better than the Supreme Court of the United States of America, please justify your statement.

I never made such a claim and hence your argument is a strawman.

galaxy flyer 25th Oct 2014 22:58

John Hill,

Come back after you read the Heller and McDonald decisions which provide all you need to know about how the SCOTUS feels about "militia" and "well regulated". In brief, that's a prefatory clause which does not limit the fundamental right. A right that existed well before 1783 in UK common law. The idea that government can disarm lawful citizens is a new idea brought on by control freaks espousing leftie ideas. Recognize them in the mirror, John?

BTW, you made the straw an argument about those decisions, justify it. Why did the Court amend the 2nd?

GF

Fliegenmong 25th Oct 2014 23:08

Anyone got a link to the original video anyway? Seems to have disappeared

John Hill 25th Oct 2014 23:11

I can see why gun fondling fundamentalists get along so well with other fundamentalists, they are so alike.

The principle is easy enough.

Take some chapter of divine writ ( Torah, Koran, Bible, US Constitution) and seize on a tiny verse or phrase and use that as the basis of an entire religious movement. Argue that words mean something special in this instance to suit whatever it is that you are wanting to become 'law'. Continue the argument and hopefully somewhere along the way some pope, bishop, rabbi, scholar, lawyer or judge will see it your way then you add their 'ruling' to your argument. Wash, rinse and repeat.

Seldomfitforpurpose 25th Oct 2014 23:28


Originally Posted by galaxy flyer (Post 8713994)
Not to worry, SFFP, it ain't happenin'

GF

But it could happen :p

con-pilot 25th Oct 2014 23:46


I never made such a claim and hence your argument is a strawman.
So you didn't post this.


Seldomfitforpurpose, technically no, practically yes. IMHO.
IMHO, which stand for In My Humble Opinion. Yes?

So back your opinion, your humble opinion, that the Supreme Court in 'practicality' changed the intent or original reasoning and/or wording of the Second Amendment.

You disagree with the recent Court’s option regarding the Second Amendment, yes or no? If yes, what make you believe that you have more knowledge of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights than the Supreme Court?

As for a Strawman's argument, I suggest you look into the mirror.

I don't hold out much hope, as you still don't know "who started the Korean War." :p

pigboat 25th Oct 2014 23:50


But it could happen...
Maybe it has already. :p

http://doctorbulldog.files.wordpress...ell-frozen.jpg

John Hill 25th Oct 2014 23:59


Originally Posted by con-pilot
So back your opinion, your humble opinion, that the Supreme Court in 'practicality' changed the intent or original reasoning and/or wording of the Second Amendment.

You are back with the strawman again, I never said the SCOTUS changed anything.


As for the Korean War, that of course is another strawman, not one of yours but one you, as a loyal Tag Team Troll member, enthusiastically promote. My position on the Korean War is that neither I nor you know who started the war although I am quite comfortable believing that you believe you know, my position is based on knowledge and lack of evidence whereas yours is based on dogma.

rh200 26th Oct 2014 01:31


I think that would have been just a bit over reactive personally.
Very true.


Hell, I was against Gulf War Two, but if Muslim terrorist sets off a nuclear weapon in the US, I think Mecca should be turned into glass.
I wasn't, If I knew there was going to be a idiot after W who was intent on destabilizing the middle east afterwards I might have though differently.

Mind you since the idiot in the white house has managed to stuff a significant amount of the middle east who is to say the same wouldn't be happening anyway in Iraqi?

As for Mecca and glass, there needs to be a staged approach, Medina maybe, or flatten the Temple mount and allow the Israelis to do what they want with it. Whilst there is no actual state involvement, the justification for glassifying Mecca cannot be made.

S

omeone on here the other day explaining there was no Gulf War Two.....that it was just the flaring up again of the first Gulf War.....
You need to differentiate between practical and technical. In essence to the average "Joh Bloh" it was another war. from a legalise side of things it was a continuance.

I believe if I remember correctly we are still technically at war with North Korea? As such most people would see any resumption of hostilities as a new war when it wouldn't be. The devils in the detail in the legal world.

Dushan 26th Oct 2014 02:10


Originally Posted by Seldomfitforpurpose (Post 8713981)
So the 2nd Ammendment could be ammended?

No it cannot. The Costitution can be amended by adding another amendment which could nullify an existing amendment. The 18th established the prohibition and the 21st repealed it.

obgraham 26th Oct 2014 05:50

I've come to the conclusion that John and PTT are conjoined twins, fully joined at the head, and with completely shared vasculature.

It's the only explanation that makes sense to me.

PTT 26th Oct 2014 07:09


Originally Posted by obgraham (Post 8714222)
I've come to the conclusion that John and PTT are conjoined twins, fully joined at the head, and with completely shared vasculature.

It's the only explanation that makes sense to me.

Oh yawn. Yet another personal attack instead of addressing the points being made.

If you've even bothered reading what I or he say then you'll have noticed very different styles and different opinions on a number of subjects, including the one at hand. Nor have I ever use the "tag team trolls" label on anyone. Of course, it makes you feel a bit better to try (emphasis on that word) to "make a funny" instead so you feel like you're contributing when actually you have nothing to say.

As to the matter at hand, I have no issue with people having guns. I have an issue with people being able to buy guns without an appropriate level of training - you need training and to pass a test to be able to drive a car, so why not for a gun? I don't see that it impinges on rights under the 2nd amendment, since guns are not the only form of arms out there. You could still own a halberd, should you so desire...
All that would be required (imo) is a basic level of training in appropriate storage, use and maintenance, and a test. I do also think that firearms should be registered in the same way as cars, and for the same reasons. Yes, you'd still get criminals getting hold of stolen guns just as we do with cars, but those law abiding citizens who have them will be trained in their use and respectful of them, and making it less likely for events like the recent Washington one happening.

rh200 26th Oct 2014 07:51


I've come to the conclusion that John and PTT are conjoined twins, fully joined at the head, and with completely shared vasculature.
Hardly, with PTT you can actually get a half decent conversation.

John Hill 26th Oct 2014 08:44

What would you like to discuss?

Dushan 26th Oct 2014 14:52


Originally Posted by rh200 (Post 8714285)
Hardly, with PTT you can actually get a half decent conversation.

True, as tiring as it gets, he is not sparing any words. JH, OTOH, thinks he can explain the US Constitution and The Federalist Papers in one line sentence.

Even Hemingway couldn't have done that.

BOING 26th Oct 2014 15:53

PTT
The problem with getting any half way sensible compromise on mandatory firearms training or gun sales regulations in the US are the extreme positions taken by the activists on either side. These activists have become the de-facto voices of the majority of the US population and the population is so sick of the interminable wrangling that it is quite happy to let them have the job. The average individual in the US already has a pretty fixed opinion on gun ownership of yes/no/don't care and all of the posturing that takes place is highly unlikely to change their minds.

Here is what happens. Whenever the extreme antis suggest a gun control regulation it tends to be open ended. It is written on the lines of "this regulation controls the sale of the named firearms plus any others that may be added to this list from time to time. Now, even someone who favours a measure of gun control is not going to support such a regulation so it fails but it is totally amazing how nearly every gun control regulation proposed contains such a "poison pill" clause.

Mandatory training rules are used by anti-gun politicians to make gun ownership difficult if not impossible for the average person. See the present situation in Washington DC.

On the other side, the NRA as part of its negotiating position will only argue for zero firearms control because they feel that there are no concessions being offered by the other side that justify any concessions on their part.

And sorry PTT, you will have to leave your halbard at home. Many jurisdictions have restrictions on knives, other edged weapons, cosh type weapons and many types of martial arts weapons such as throwing stars. In fact, in my State your are issued with a concealed HANDGUN license which, literally, means you can carry a concealed handgun but not any other form of concealed weapon.


.

ExXB 26th Oct 2014 16:38


Originally Posted by PTT (Post 8714259)
As to the matter at hand, I have no issue with people having guns. I have an issue with people being able to buy guns without an appropriate* level of training - you need training and to pass a test to be able to drive a car, so why not for a gun? I don't see that it impinges on rights under the 2nd amendment, ...

All that would be required (imo) is a basic level of training in appropriate storage, use and maintenance, and a test. I do also think that firearms should be registered in the same way as cars, and for the same reasons. Yes, you'd still get criminals getting hold of stolen guns just as we do with cars, but those law abiding citizens who have them will be trained in their use and respectful of them, and making it less likely for events like the recent Washington one happening.

+1

I also believe that said tests and registration be done by each State's DMVs. They have perfected the testing and issuing of driver's licenses and car registrations. Their information could not be shared with the federal government but could be shared with police officials in other States.

*Appropriate meaning a level agreed between gun industry experts, police forces and huffy puffy left wing NYT readers.

BOING 26th Oct 2014 17:18

Got to deal with the situation as it is gentlemen.

Presently the ownership of a firearm in America is a "right" under the Constitution. Now, we all know that this "right" causes some very uncomfortable ramifications. Presently it has been established that this right can be over-ridden by a criminal background, certain mental health problems and other specific exclusions. However, the argument that a mandatory training course can be a condition of ownership does not get much traction, especially if excessive cost or delay is involved.

Anybody even slightly aware of firearms regulations knows that the imposition of incidental costs and the imposition of onerous application procedures is a favourite tactic of anti-gun legislators therefore any suggestion that training should be required is viewed with suspicion. We have a situation that many people agree that a level of training is desirable but not many think this should be a restriction on basic firearm ownership. For example, what is a recently divorced woman who has been threatened with death by her ex-husband supposed to do? She doesn't have a penny to spend and the threat could be made real the next day. The police are not interested until someone finds the body.

Training restrictions are often applied to firearms usage that is over and above the basic "right" such as concealed carry of firearms, hunter training and specific training for armed security guards etc. and there is generally no objection to these requirements ( except in the case of concealed carry where it is sometimes argued that this should be included in the basic right of ownership).



.

PTT 26th Oct 2014 17:22

So the problem is not that there is no sensible solution, it's that the extremists on either side see any sensible solution as a possible "win" by the other side.

It comes as no surprise, but people are stupid :ugh:


Presently the ownership of a firearm in America is a "right" under the Constitution
Is it? I thought it said "bear arms" not "bear firearms".

galaxy flyer 26th Oct 2014 17:34

I don't object to a training requirement, but fail to see where it will have any effect on gun crimes. It might have a marginal effect on accidental discharges and resultant injury or deaths. But 2/3rds of the murders are inner city crimes where the deadliness of a gun is a feature, not a bug that can be eliminated by training.

GF

mixture 26th Oct 2014 17:42


not a bug that can be eliminated by training.
Not by training, but can gun-related inner city crimes can definitely be significantly curtailed if you make it harder to gain access to guns in the first place.... the rest of the western world is living proof of that.... wouldn't take much for the US to learn from the Europeans, Aussies or Kiwis.

And before you try clutching at those straws, no guns don't get replaced by other weapons...the rest of the world demonstrates that too.

PTT 26th Oct 2014 17:45


fail to see where it will have any effect on gun crimes. It might have a marginal effect on accidental discharges and resultant injury or deaths
I already addressed the fact that it will have little effect on crime. That's not the intent. There is no (acceptable) panacea which will prevent all gun deaths, so complaining that it won't do x and y when it is only intended to do z is a non sequitur.
Unintentional Deaths and Injuries

In 2010, unintentional firearm injuries caused the deaths of 606 people.18

From 2005-2010, almost 3,800 people in the U.S. died from unintentional shootings.19

Over 1,300 victims of unintentional shootings for the period 20052010 were under 25 years of age.20
(source)
The effect isn't marginal for those people or their families.

Dushan 26th Oct 2014 17:57


Originally Posted by galaxy flyer (Post 8714981)
I don't object to a training requirement, but fail to see where it will have any effect on gun crimes. It might have a marginal effect on accidental discharges and resultant injury or deaths. But 2/3rds of the murders are inner city crimes where the deadliness of a gun is a feature, not a bug that can be eliminated by training.

GF

Disagree. If all the gangbangers were taught how to shoot properly they will have greater chance of hitting the intended target (another gangbanger) than innocent bystanders. Win/win.

PTT 26th Oct 2014 19:13

You make a fair point there, Dushan :D

galaxy flyer 26th Oct 2014 20:08

mixture,

Are you arguing that Brits, Aussies and Kiwis has US levels of violence and the adoption of draconian gun control laws reduced them to present levels? Or, are you arguing that those new laws reduced violence from those countries prior levels of violence? Neither of which are true, by the way.

GF

bcgallacher 26th Oct 2014 20:12

The U.S. Has about 300 million firearms in society,the result of this is an annual death rate of about 30,000 by gunshot. The 2nd Amendment is usually quoted as the reason for the large number of guns in comparison to other OECD countries. The spurious justifications for taking advantage of this law such as 'to defend my family' or 'to protect us from an oppressive government ' really don't hold water. The death rate is shameful for a supposedly advanced country but there is absolutely nothing to be done to reduce this. The guns are already in society and I cannot see any kind of legislation making the slightest difference.The US will just have to live with this slaughter for the foreseeable future. The murder rate is falling worldwide - including gun murders for reasons that are hard to discern.All guns cannot be kept out of the hands of the irresponsible but some countries such as my own have done a reasonable job of it. The pity is that the same conditions do not exist in the US.

obgraham 26th Oct 2014 20:35


Originally Posted by PTT (Post 8714259)
Oh yawn. Yet another personal attack instead of addressing the points being made.

...it makes you feel a bit better to try (emphasis on that word) to "make a funny" instead so you feel like you're contributing when actually you have nothing to say.

As a famous former President was wont to say, "There you go again", PTT. Anytime anyone here suggests that you are getting a bit tiresome, to you it is some sort of "personal attack".

I have, to my discredit, actually read your postings on this and the other currently active topic. And I have to say, that despite likely thousands of words, quotings, and circular arguments, I don't think you have actually contributed a single new thought to this constant effort to somehow reform us poor backward "Murcans" on the topic of firearms or tolerance to a certain group. We've heard it all many, many times before.

I made no attempt to contribute to the discussion. I preferred a tiny bit of sarcasm disguised as anatomy. That was by design, and just as valid as your continual parsing of words.

BOING 26th Oct 2014 21:01

The people of the UK should be looking forward rather than resting on their self awarded laurels. If, or should we say when, unrest occurs in the UK between various ethnic groups for various reasons the present small armed sector of the police force will be rapidly overwhelmed, imagine the worst days of Northern Ireland with five hundred times more opponents. Individual acts of violence, riots in the streets, attacks on police stations and military facilities will all occur.

I imagine at that time the anti gun crowd will wish that the country held more than a handful of individuals who were capable of handling a firearm so that they could be rapidly absorbed into a self-defense force.

There are those that argue that an armed American public could not stand up to a rogue American government, I would argue that an unarmed UK population would have even less chance of standing up to its rioting immigrant population.

.

perthsaint 26th Oct 2014 21:03

Comedy gold:D

rh200 26th Oct 2014 21:57


So the problem is not that there is no sensible solution, it's that the extremists on either side see any sensible solution as a possible "win" by the other side.
Due to the fact both sides of politics are both guilty of using wedges once they crack open an issue, it is no wonder.


It comes as no surprise, but people are stupid
Thats why the saying is, "individuals are smart, people are stupid".

Statistics are a funny thing, another favorite of both sides is the use of statistical to absolute figures to suit their arguments when it suits.

It would be interesting to see the breakdown of overall crime/ murder rates amongst western countries, then do some filtering depending on type.

Suicide is a classic, if someone is genuine, then there going to do it regardless. If some one goes berserk, then a guns convenient. hence its just a probabilities he will take out more people. Mind you that someone could drive though a crowd of people and kill more.

Its a complicated situation that is just a lighting rod for both sides of politics.


Is it? I thought it said "bear arms" not "bear firearms".
Yea I was thinking about that yesterday, does that imply any type of "arm". If so then why is anything restricted? And if you allow some restriction because of the "greater good", then why not more?

Someone here is well versed enough to explain that one:p.

The simple fact is we can moan all we like, but the Yanks have to many guns in society now to enact Utopian visions of gun control. All thats going to happen, is you hurt the law abiding majority. And like prohibition, you will just make criminals out of the ones who would normally have them legally.

PTT 26th Oct 2014 22:16

obgraham - There's a world of difference between "getting a bit tiresome and "I've come to the conclusion that John and PTT are conjoined twins, fully joined at the head, and with completely shared vasculature." The former is a legitimate opinion on the matter at hand; the latter is not. If people find me tiresome they don't have to read what I write. Doesn't bother me either way.

rh200 - all true in your middle paragraph. Guns make it easier and quicker, though. The chap in the video in the OP had a pretty valid point when he was talking about the cooling off period a musket gives you (15:10). I can't think of any other readily accessible item where it's so fast and so easy to kill people in a matter of seconds from picking it up. Which is by design, of course :p

The simple fact is we can moan all we like, but the Yanks have to many guns in society now to enact Utopian visions of gun control. All thats going to happen, is you hurt the law abiding majority. And like prohibition, you will just make criminals out of the ones who would normally have them legally.
I agree: there's no way back now. The aim, therefore, should be for the responsible gun owners to do something to ensure the irresponsible ones don't kill quite so many. After all, not doing anything is tacit agreement with it, right? ;)

Mr Chips 26th Oct 2014 23:13

Yes yes yes...but when is John Hill going to explain what he meant with his comments about the second amendment?

Should I get fresh popcorn?

421dog 27th Oct 2014 00:08


I agree: there's no way back now. The aim, therefore, should be for the responsible gun owners to do something to ensure the irresponsible ones don't kill quite so many. After all, not doing anything is tacit agreement with it, right? ;)
http://www.pprune.org/images/statusicon/user_online.gif http://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/report.gif http://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/reply_small.gif
I can think of very few people who I know who would not represent a societal asset if appropriately armed.

We are all running headlong toward the least common denominator, and, at some level, I still believe that the vast majority of neighbors (Neighbours) across the pond, as well as those in the boreal and austral regions likely represent a similar commodity.

When we abrogate our responsibility to be good citizens and rely on some nebulous concept of government to be the only ones who are charged with doing what's right, we deserve what we get.

Think about it, if we made it possible for every business traveler (with 12 weeks of training and a background check, at his expense) to get a substantial discount in exchange for carrying a gun on domestic flights, we'd never have another peep out of the middle eastern element.

I believe that people are basically good, and what we need to do is marginalize bad behavior and expect good from people.

Treating every man as a criminal is doomed to fail.

Zaphod Beblebrox 27th Oct 2014 00:57

Former Supreme Court Justce John Paul Stevens on guns
 
Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a book called:
Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution (Penn State Romance Studies) Hardcover April 22, 2014


by (Author)

Stevens, in his book suggests that the words "when serving in the militia" be added, so that the amendment would read: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.

That's just one man's opinion but it is the opinion of someone who's job it was to think about these issues in detail. The language would not make gun ownership illegal it would preserve the right "when serving in the militia" which is something we don't have now anyway. It would however leave the door open to allow states to regulate gun ownership on an individual basis.

Gun ownership would no longer be a constitution right but subject to regulation by state law.

Don't shoot I am just the messenger, please...



Dushan 27th Oct 2014 01:06

I stopped at "Penn State Romance Studies"

galaxy flyer 27th Oct 2014 01:16

It is already amply regulated by the states AND the Federal government. Heck, our government violated its own laws in the "Fast and Furious" debacle.

GF

vaqueroaero 27th Oct 2014 02:34

At least individuals in the US can do this though. Maybe, in the event of an uprising, we can take out some drones or something.

This P-51 Mustang Restoration Includes Operational .50cal Machine Guns


All times are GMT. The time now is 14:57.


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