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)

Seldomfitforpurpose 31st May 2015 22:16


Originally Posted by PukinDog (Post 8995983)
I hope you notice that your interpretation of U.S. Constitutional Amendments isn't included anywhere in the process, and if you're oblivious as to what, how, and most importantly why the Supreme Court has decided the things they have then it's nobody's fault but your own you haven't studied the material. It's not Top Secret or anything just because you're a foreigner.


So in essence when it says 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed' what it actually means is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed unless we decide otherwise and currently there are 9 types of folk we don't anywhere near guns'........

PukinDog 31st May 2015 23:16


Seldomfitforpurpose
So in essence when it says 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed' what it actually means is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed unless we decide otherwise and currently there are 9 types of folk we don't anywhere near guns'........
Read this again. Slowly. 100 times if you must until some sort of light begins to glow..


I'll reiterate; the Supreme Court doing so is provided-for in the Constitution itself. They are the final authority until the Constitution is amended (the means by which this can be accomplished is also provided-for in the Constitution) or a different opinion by the Supreme Court is rendered. The Supreme Court, by reviewing previous rulings and researching original intent, define what those Freedoms include by deciding what is or isn't protected, and as a consequence also what would represent an abridgment, curtailment, or infringement upon the same.
So no, there is no "in essence". A law that that doesn't encroach upon Constitutionally-protected Rights is not an infringement. If it were, it would be struck down by the Supreme Court when challenged. It's their Constitutional responsibility and part of their job to interpret and define such Constitutional things.. not the duly-elected lawmakers, or each individual citizen who sent them to Congress, and most certainly they are not decided by cluelessly thick spectators from far beyond our borders yapping their unlearned opinions worth less than a cat's puked-up hairball as to what is meant by "Freedom of Speech", "Freedom of the Press", the "Right to keep and bear arms","the Right to Peaceably Assemble" etc as found in the U.S. Bill of Rights, or what constitutes abridging, curtailing, or infringing upon any of them.

Hopefully, it's cleared up for you now. If there's any lingering doubt, trot yourself off to the U.S. and threaten to shoot the president. After you're arrested and imprisoned, take your case all the way to the Supreme Court, and with a copy of the Bill of Rights in hand declare that your "Freedom of Speech" has been abridged. Point right to that line that explicitly states "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of Speech" and argue that under YOUR interpretation of the 1st Amendment you have the Right to say anything you want without it being a crime because, you know, it "says so right there". Please report back to everyone here how far your insight into and understanding of US Constitutional law got you.

Keef 31st May 2015 23:30


Originally Posted by WingSlinger (Post 8995792)
Unlike you, who is a "subject" of the Crown and her government...

Are you sure? Where does it say we're "subjects"?

I live in England, and my passport says I am a "British Citizen". In my filing cabinet I have my old passports going back some decades. The 1984 one says "British Citizen", too.

My grandfather's passport says "British Subject", but he's been dead for a while. Time to update your records?

Seldomfitforpurpose 1st Jun 2015 08:08


Originally Posted by PukinDog (Post 8996149)
So no, there is no "in essence". A law that that doesn't encroach upon Constitutionally-protected Rights is not an infringement.


And I refer you back to the 68 Gun Act and ask you if you think the Constitutionally protected Rights of those who convicted of beating their spouse has not been infringed?


If their right to bear arms has been denied to them since 68 along with the others in that list then how or why, with the will of the people supporting it is not a law to prevent the next Mrs Lanza not being bought onto the statute books?

BOING 1st Jun 2015 16:36


If their right to bear arms has been denied to them since 68 along with the others in that list then how or why, with the will of the people supporting it is not a law to prevent the next Mrs Lanza not being bought onto the statute books?
First, you will need to justify your claim about the will of the people - you can't.

Second, you need to understand that a law basically designed to deal with one isolated event that inflicts itself on to the general population, to their inconvenience and removal of rights, is a bad law.

Third, laws in the US are passed by Congress. The "will of the people" alone may encourage a small number of politicians to propose a law but that is a very far cry, in terms of time and effect, from a law being passed through the two Houses and signed by the President. It may surprise you that Congress considers that it has more important things to do than dropping everything to consider a pointless idea from somebody who is not even a citizen.

I see that you are becoming involve in the anti-tobacco campaign in another thread. Most commendable. Please continue to fight the good cause in your own country which apparently has as many pro-smokers as the US has pro-gun supporters. It will be interesting to see how you succeed in the anti-tobacco campaign, since the use of tobacco is not a right you should be able to roll up the opposition in very short order. Perhaps, when you have won the anti-smoking battle you can return to spend more time with us in this thread.

.

Seldomfitforpurpose 1st Jun 2015 16:45


Originally Posted by BOING (Post 8996964)

Second, you need to understand that a law basically designed to deal with one isolated event that inflicts itself on to the general population, to their inconvenience and removal of rights, is a bad law.

As the ban on wife/husband beaters has been around since 68 would you agree it a good law?

BOING 1st Jun 2015 18:59

More homework needed old chap.

The original "wife beater" law as you emotionally call it has been around since 1968. It was amended in 1996 in a way that made it paradise for divorce attorneys.

Remember the dramatic "If you leave me I do not know what I will do". That is now interpreted as a threat not a cry of despair so wife's attorney immediately files for a restraining order, hubby loses ability to purchase a firearm and very likely has any firearms he owns confiscated for ever. It is always handy if you want custody of the kids to show that hubby is a monster - I've seen it. And, of course, with cautious judges a restraining order is very easy to obtain.

So this is a summary the what basic law actually intends.

The 1968 Gun Control Act and subsequent amendments codified at 18 U.S.C. ß 921 et seq. prohibit anyone convicted of a felony and anyone subject to a domestic violence protective order from possessing a firearm. The intended effect of this new legislation is to extend the firearms ban to anyone convicted of a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence."
The 1996 change was to include the "misdemeanor domestic violence" bit which opened up the law to all sorts of abuse.

We now have a law that may help a number of victims but equally disadvantages the other party by branding them for life as an abuser following a trite accusation. You do not need to be a "wife beater" to fall foul of this law - you just need to use a wrong word in an emotional situation.

Your suggested law would help less victims (after all there are far less gun violence than domestic violence cases) but it would vastly increase the number of people subject to unwarranted examination of their private lives and vastly increase the number of young people stamped "mentally suspect" for the rest of their lives. In order to achieve what?

Is the 1968 law a good law? It certainly does good in some circumstances which is of value but to say it is a good law in a technical sense because of its very broad and imprecise interpretation I would say not.


.

BOING 1st Jun 2015 19:21

SFFP,

By the way. When are you going to get back to addressing the impracticality of your suggestion? I am still waiting to hear how you would cull the poor calves for branding as suggested by your, as yet unspecified, "mentally defective" test.

Do you think we could make do with a series of multiple choice questions on a computer?

How about if we did a secret search on their video game usage and ban anyone who had played a violent video game?

Perhaps we could save some effort and just say that any kid whose parents own guns must come from genetically mentally deficient stock and just restrict all such children?

In your pious, self centred, opinion you are expecting that the incompetent, vastly over-loaded and under-funded state government is going to employ what would need to be thousands of mental councellors (who do not presently exist) who would be sufficiently qualified to convince hundreds of Judges (who do not presently exist) and perhaps a jury, that a young man should be stamped as mentally defective for life. I think you should return to your crusade against UK smokers (but you may not want to meet an angry smoker face-to-face).

.

KenV 1st Jun 2015 20:06


And I refer you back to the 68 Gun Act and ask you if you think the Constitutionally protected Rights of those who convicted of beating their spouse has not been infringed?
What do I think? Probably, yes. But what I think does not matter. Nor what either political party thinks. Nor what Congress thinks. Nor what the President thinks. Only what the Supreme Court thinks really matters. That's how it works over here. We call that checks and balances, and we like it that way. It's too bad for you that you're so upset by our system, but no amount of ignorant narrow minded harping from across the seas is likely to change that system.

FakePilot 1st Jun 2015 20:58


P - the figures I gave were to correct the wildly inaccurate figures of KenV. The UK figures are by no means the best of the developed world. I do not think that the actual gun ownership worries the rest of the developed world it is the rate that you use them to kill each other. Do you really think it is of no concern that you kill children usually accidentally on a daily basis? What level of gun deaths would I find acceptable? As near zero as possible,certainly a lot less than at present. Gun deaths have fallen over 40% in the last few years in the UK - as in the USA there is no agreement as to why. The simple fact still applies,if you have a lot of firearms in society,you will have a lot of people shot. What can be done? Absolutely nothing - the guns are already there.
I pretty much agree with all that, except you changed from "gun violence bad" to "guns causing violence".

The vast majority of those deaths are associated with other criminal behavior. I don't partake so why should I be penalized? My children and children of my peers aren't in danger of finding a loaded gun under the pillow.



Quote:
Originally Posted by FakePilot View Post
Because assault rifles cannot be sold in Maryland?


Is that not a direct infringement of your constitutional rights?
It is. I'm ok with them being restricted but not banned. Also, one of my assault rifles I bought during the assault weapon ban. How is this possible? (Please, without suggesting I am a criminal or mentally deficient.)

Seldomfitforpurpose 1st Jun 2015 21:40


Originally Posted by KenV (Post 8997213)
What do I think? Probably, yes. But what I think does not matter. Nor what either political party thinks. Nor what Congress thinks. Nor what the President thinks. Only what the Supreme Court thinks really matters. That's how it works over here. We call that checks and balances, and we like it that way. It's too bad for you that you're so upset by our system, but no amount of ignorant narrow minded harping from across the seas is likely to change that system.


I get that, but to arrive at the point where by the Supreme Court get to pass judgement some clever souls must have come up with the idea of denying wife/husband beaters with their constitutional rights to bear arms. Which would have gone the full 12 rounds to end up approved by the Supreme Court


If you think probably yes but its stood the test of time since 68 and the Supreme Court sanction it.............


Hence why is the notion of a law written by the same sort of clever folk to keep guns out of Adam Lanza's house unachievable?

BOING 1st Jun 2015 22:51

SFFP,


Hence why is the notion of a law written by the same sort of clever folk to keep guns out of Adam Lanza's house unachievable?

you are expecting that the incompetent, vastly over-loaded and under-funded state government is going to employ what would need to be thousands of mental councellors (who do not presently exist) who would be sufficiently qualified to convince hundreds of Judges (who do not presently exist) and perhaps a jury, that a young man should be stamped as mentally defective for life.
Impractical and valueless. Any further amplification required?

.

Seldomfitforpurpose 1st Jun 2015 23:31


Originally Posted by BOING (Post 8997376)
SFFP,

Impractical and valueless. Any further amplification required?


Lets try a bit of reverse engineering here.


After Thomas Hamilton walked into a school in Dunblane, Scotland on the 13th of March 1996 and shot dead 13 primary school children and 1 teacher we over here eventually took the step of banning the legal ownership of a hand gun, tiny amount of exclusions accepted.


Since Adam Lanza did what he did what have you guys done to pro actively try to prevent another Lanza happening?

boofhead 1st Jun 2015 23:52

If you ban legal handgun ownership what do you think would be the result? Even in Aus there was not a rush by those who owned guns to hand them in. Many people preferred to keep their guns and still have them. With no negative effect I might add. Many people handed in old worthless guns, got the taxpayer money for them and went out to buy newer, better guns.

So, again, what do you think would be the result of banning legal ownership of guns in the USA?

And by reverse engineering, do you suggest that every person who wanted a gun and was not prohibited by law from owning one could be given a gun? You know, that might work!

BOING 1st Jun 2015 23:58

SFFP,

The basic difference between any of the other presently existing firearms restrictions and the idea you are suggesting is this. The other existing firearms restrictions are based on facts that are already established such as this man a felon, this man an illegal immigrant or this man has been certified as being mentally unstable by a court. You are suggesting a system that actually goes out and actively tries to find young people who MAY be a threat and then go through the process of legally certifying them mentally unsuitable to be in possession of a firearm.

Banning someone from possessing a firearm when they already have a record is easy. You have a record - no firearm. Actively searching out potentially troubled young people, since you would have to check girls as well as boys, would be enormously difficult, expensive, time consuming and inaccurate.

There are 320 million people in the US, statistics show there are 44 MILLION young people in the approximate age range of 10 to 20. How are you going to check the mental status of 44 MILLION individuals?

Get real SFFP - this is totally impractical.

Now, even if we hired the number of mental assessors required (assuming each assessor makes 200 examinations a year that would require 220,000 assessors even if we keep the numbers static) what would happen? If someone presented to you is borderline ( based on whatever standard you use) what are you going to say, OK or mentally unsuited? You would probably play safe and say mentally unsuited. You then have to take your case to a court (because one opinion does not prove the case) and the person must be legally certified as mentally unsuitable in order to face a legal restriction. So now the court will order other opinions and the parents, who would quite rightly not wish to have their child declared mentally deficient will get themselves attorneys and expert witnesses, and statistically, so will tens of thousands of other parents. How long do you think it will take for the available judges to hear all these cases? How many young people would eventually be certified?

And,of course, you can't just assess each young person just once, mental attitudes change in the teenage years, young people get new ideas and new influences, they use new drugs. Therefore there would have to be provision for repeated testing. What do you think would work, a test every three years? That leaves us requiring 132 MILLION mental examinations and that is only on the present population.

It appears that the UK has a population of 64 million people. No sane person can seriously suggest providing government provided mental examinations for a number of young people equal to two thirds of the population of the UK.

Your idea is well meaning but it is based on 99.5% emotion and 0.5% logic (and that is being generous). You really are going to have to admit that your off-the-top-of-your-head idea really is totally impractical and the reason is that you got so totally emotionally involved with it that you did not think past stage one. Why don't you try coming up with new ideas instead of blowing life into dead ones?

You asked why the clever people who came up with the 1968 ideas can't come up with an idea to cover the Lanza case - now you know.

.

BOING 2nd Jun 2015 00:31

Sorry,
Couldn't resist passing this on.


http://media.cagle.com/12/2012/07/30/116053_600.jpg

Seldomfitforpurpose 2nd Jun 2015 08:31


Originally Posted by BOING (Post 8997433)
SFFP,
You asked why the clever people who came up with the 1968 ideas can't come up with an idea to cover the Lanza case - now you know.

What do I actually know, apart from your continued persistence in writing War and Peace whilst trying to prove its too difficult to do. Not impossible because you have gotten no where near that just 'too difficult'.

How do Drs arrive at the decision that someone is mentally unstable and therefore iaw the 68 gun act can no longer own a firearm? Is it just a snap judgement or is it a painstakingly long process to ensure that the right and proper thing is done?

ExXB 2nd Jun 2015 10:27

To summarise:

The 2nd Amendment says 'the right ... shall not be infringed'.

but

The supreme court says 'Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Courtís opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.' (Heller vs DC)

So 2nd Amendment rights are not unlimited. Should a governments (state or federal) pass a law that all hand-gun owners should have training and/or licenses these would qualify under the supreme court's decision. (Granted that specific provisions of such laws could be deemed unconstitutional if they restricted access arbitrarily or on a discriminatory basis - for example)

Who could argue against all gun owners being trained in their use ... ???

BOING 2nd Jun 2015 16:03

SFFP,
The reason for writing long posts is an attempt to make sure that you have every detail you need to reconsider your inane suggestion. Obviously the attempt failed.


How do Drs arrive at the decision that someone is mentally unstable and therefore iaw the 68 gun act can no longer own a firearm? Is it just a snap judgement or is it a painstakingly long process to ensure that the right and proper thing is done?
Federal law states when a person “has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution.”

State laws generally expand on the Federal law only by providing more detailed descriptions of the conditions.

What is clear is that all these situations normally require judicial action (See below), no one in the US can be declared mentally deficient simply because someone says it is so. Generally, if you want to have someone declared as mentally incompetent, say in regard to a will, you would need to prepare a case and submit it to a Court. This may be a simple process if the claim is not contested otherwise hang on to your hat and wallet because this is going to turn into a long and expensive ride.

In some States the exception to the required judicial ruling occurs when someone "voluntarily" enters mental treatment.

As pointed out before pre-existing evidence of mental problems makes it simple and cheap to add mental unsuitability as a reason for not allowing a person to buy a gun. Testing for mental unsuitability and proving it to the satisfaction of a Judge is a whole different matter of time and expense which is what makes your suggestion impractical.

Now, remember I am only dealing with the practicality of your idea, there are many more civil rights and Constitutionality issues your idea would need to consider.

.

KenV 2nd Jun 2015 16:33


Hence why is the notion of a law written by the same sort of clever folk to keep guns out of Adam Lanza's house unachievable?
Really? You can't see it? Or you refuse to see it? I'll repeat it one more time.

In the case of the wife beater, a person has been adjudicated to be a wife beater and that adjudication restricts his ability to own a firearm. Rights CAN be restricted/regulated, but they cannot be infringed. (My OPINION is that this particular restriction is excessive and has become an infringement.)

In the case of Lanza (as has been pointed out REPEATEDLY) there was no adjudication of any kind, and there is no (practical) process available whereby an adjudication can be made.

KenV 2nd Jun 2015 16:50


Lets try a bit of reverse engineering here.

After Thomas Hamilton walked into a school in Dunblane, Scotland on the 13th of March 1996 and shot dead 13 primary school children and 1 teacher we over here eventually took the step of banning the legal ownership of a hand gun, tiny amount of exclusions accepted.
Wow. From an American perspective this is a stupid solution to a violent problem. And by stupid I mean contrary to the founding principles of our republic and contrary to our current interpretation of the Constitution upon which our republic is based. Assuming your government included an individual "Right to Keep and Bear Arms", what solution would your government have implemented instead? Maybe we could use that over here.


Since Adam Lanza did what he did what have you guys done to pro actively try to prevent another Lanza happening?
We have certainly NOT engaged in the stupidity of the solution your government chose, and our constitution makes such a solution impossible. Assuming your government included an individual "Right to Keep and Bear Arms", what solution would your government have implemented? Maybe we could use that over here.

BOING 2nd Jun 2015 17:05

Actually under common law the Englishman used to have a right to armed self defense. Unfortunately for for the common man this was a "Law" which could be removed at the whim of politicians not a "Right" as in the USA.

The lesson is never to compromise on a "Right".

.

finfly1 2nd Jun 2015 17:26

There is an expression to the effect that if you are the only person in a card game who is not cheating, you will lose.

Banning gun ownership basically only applies to law abiding people who were not the problem in the first place.

If one lives in a society where many people ARE armed, and the supreme law of the land gives one that right, how is it a surprise that good, honest, reliable citizens feel they can do so with impunity and without censure?

The lack of knowledge about this country by some people living elsewhere would really be more amusing than alarming, were they not SO convinced that they have a clue what they are on about. Being blatantly insulting and abusive does not make you more right than being wrong politely.

KenV 2nd Jun 2015 17:27


Actually under common law the Englishman used to have a right to armed self defense. Unfortunately for for the common man this was a "Law" which could be removed at the whim of politicians not a "Right" as in the USA.
Indeed. Now two points:

1. I'm not up to speed on current UK law, but is unarmed self defense even a right anymore for an Englishman? My understanding is no.

2. Can anyone name a SINGLE right an Englishman currently has that cannot be removed at the whim of politicians? Just one. And you really insist that's a good thing? Really?!!!

bcgallacher 2nd Jun 2015 17:37

My understanding is that your right under the second amendment can be removed by politicians also - where is the difference? It is in fact an amendment - no part of your constitution is writ in stone,if the political will is there it can be amended. In spite of all sorts of posts on this subject,none of our American gun owners can explain why they shoot each other in numbers unknown to the rest of the developed world

bcgallacher 2nd Jun 2015 17:43

Ken V - would it not be a good thing if your politicians took away your right to kill each other in industrial numbers. We are no less free than yourselves - we may not like our politicians but we do not fear oppression from them as many of your fellow countrymen fear yours. I do not fear being shot by a British policeman,he does not fear being shot by a British citizen - you have the freedom to fear both.

con-pilot 2nd Jun 2015 18:22


I do not fear being shot by a British policeman,he does not fear being shot by a British citizen

You wany to make a bet on that?

bcgallacher 2nd Jun 2015 19:00

I will take your bet anytime - the last police officer to be shot dead in the UK was 2012, In 2013 the UK police fired 3 shots with no deaths.In 2013 30 US police officers were shot dead - even allowing for the disparity in population there is no comparison. Ever had a traffic stop by British traffic police? - they could not care less whether you get out your car,with or without your hands in view, no yelling to keep hands on wheel etc.totally relaxed. Why is this? Because the risk of being shot in the UK is about akin to being struck by lightning
Read a recent article in I think in the Washington Post - an investigating reporter has found that civilian deaths due to police shootings are grossly underestimated - this year up to date there have been 365 - there is no official figures simply because there is no single authority to do so.

FakePilot 2nd Jun 2015 19:17


My understanding is that your right under the second amendment can be removed by politicians also - where is the difference? It is in fact an amendment - no part of your constitution is writ in stone,if the political will is there it can be amended. In spite of all sorts of posts on this subject,none of our American gun owners can explain why they shoot each other in numbers unknown to the rest of the developed world
The Bill of Rights is a recognition of rights that we all have given by God. People kept forgetting this hence the Bill of Rights.

But the Constitution can be amended and sometimes is. Alcohol for instance.

You want to know why Americans shoot each other in great numbers!? Because the they have the means and the motive. :8

Yes, the means is the guns! If that is what you were digging for then it's time to gloat.

con-pilot 2nd Jun 2015 21:54


I will take your bet anytime
Great! :ok:


By the way, I formed my opinion on the street cop to cop talking to English cops. The guy or girl walking the beat in tourist area in the City of London has a much different outlook that those walking the Eastern areas of London.

So donít kid yourself, they all have a fear of not going home because they were shot. That may not be the number one concern, but it is there.

Toadstool 3rd Jun 2015 00:08

Why they do it.
 
Top 10 Health Benefits of Going To a Shooting Range -

I've felt some of this!

Mr Chips 3rd Jun 2015 00:29

Metropolitan Police officers shot a man dead in 2014

bcgallacher 3rd Jun 2015 08:19

Fake Pilot - Rights given by God? I think a lot of people will have a problem with that. A large and increasing number of the population of developed countries have no religious beliefs. I have lived in countries where people have no rights God given or otherwise - any "rights"which we have are those that have been developed by our own societies and will change as our societies develope further.

Ancient Mariner 3rd Jun 2015 09:28


Originally Posted by Toadstool (Post 8998683)

"Promotes liberty" Now there's a "health benefit" worth mentioning.


I think I'll stick to biking, hiking, diving and skiing. ;)
Per

bcgallacher 3rd Jun 2015 10:46

The one about personal responsibility does not seem to be working too well if the numbers of accidental deaths and those caused by firearms being left in unsafe places are anything to go by.

Hempy 3rd Jun 2015 12:37


I think I'll stick to biking, hiking, diving and skiing.
68% of American adults are overweight or obese. I'd stick with your plan! :ok:

Choxolate 3rd Jun 2015 12:40

I have said this before in other threads but as a Brit I have no personal interest in US gun legislation (other than my eldest son lives in Ohio). If the majority of US citizens feel that the "right to bear arms" should not be challenged and left in place without amendment then so be it.

They also have to accept the downside of such a freedom - that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of unnecessary deaths each year as a result.

To deny that these two are causally related is to deny reality, to accept that such a price is worth paying is not for me to say, I do not live there.

I am content to live in a country where the likelihood of death by firearm is at least an order of magnitude less than those in some other countries, and that the price for this is the (general) illegality of firearm possession.

FakePilot 3rd Jun 2015 15:58


Fake Pilot - Rights given by God? I think a lot of people will have a problem with that. A large and increasing number of the population of developed countries have no religious beliefs. I have lived in countries where people have no rights God given or otherwise - any "rights"which we have are those that have been developed by our own societies and will change as our societies develope further.
Given god, natural, whichever. The rights are inherent in people is the concept. You are born, you have these um, inalienable rights.

I'm amused by the "Societies change and change people with them", because every history class sounds like every other history class. Our basic motivations haven't changed in well, a long time.

And about the "chances of getting shot". Statistics apply to populations not to individuals. My chances are very close to yours.

KenV 3rd Jun 2015 16:25


Ken V - would it not be a good thing if your politicians took away your right to kill each other in industrial numbers.
No such right exists. We do have a right to keep and bear arms. That is a far FAR different thing. It takes someone both clueless and arrogant to assume they are the same.


We are no less free than yourselves
Maybe. Maybe not. That's a matter of opinion. What is fact and not opinion is that none of the freedoms you enjoy are rights. Many of our freedoms are rights that may not be infringed.


we may not like our politicians but we do not fear oppression from them as many of your fellow countrymen fear yours.
Utterly false. And one of the reasons we do not fear our politicians is because we have rights that are protected by the Constitution. If you believe Americans fear our politicians, you fundamentally misunderstand America and Americans.


I do not fear being shot by a British policeman,he does not fear being shot by a British citizen - you have the freedom to fear both.
False. I have essentially zero fear that I will be shot by an American policeman or citizen. If you believe Americans fear our police or each other, you watch way too much American TV and other media.

KenV 3rd Jun 2015 17:12


My understanding is that your right under the second amendment can be removed by politicians also - where is the difference?
"Where is the difference?" Really?!!!! Wow. After all this back and forth you claim to be blind to the difference?

1. The difference is that the existence of the Bill of Rights makes it illegal for the politician in the executive branch to do so unilaterally. No such protection exists in your system.

2. If the politician in the executive branch does so anyway (which has happened) he will be slapped down by the politicians in the Legislative Branch and/or the non politicians in the Judicial Branch. Which has also happened. No such protection exists in your system.

3. If somehow the politicians in both the executive branch and BOTH houses of the legislative branch do so (and they have), they will be slapped down by our Judicial Branch (which has also happened). Our judiciary, unlike yours, is INDEPENDENT of both other branches of government. And these folks, by design, are NOT politicians. No such protection exists in your system.

4. If the unthinkable happens and all three branches of government attempt to remove our Constitutional rights (which has never happened), the Constitution has already seen to it that the people are armed and able to resist tyranny. This protection does not exist in your system.

You don't even have the first layer of protection, and we have three layers of protection beyond the first, with TWO of them not involving politicians. Which is the whole point, and which makes our system FUNDAMENTALLY "different" than yours.

And you somehow are blind to that difference? Really? Amazing! (Which brings up the truism: "None are so blind as those who will not see.")


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.


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