Mass Shootings in the US

You can no longer buy a new full auto though?
I don't know the actual wording of the right but armed could reasonably allow for banning of all firearms. A citizen would still have the right to bear arms by virtue of being able to carry an axe or a crossbow or a knife or a spear.

In the UK, we're not allowed to be 'armed' with anything, so I suggest the argument above holds water.

While no doubt being absolute bollocks.
 
Let the yanks have flintlocks as were in vogue when the constitution was written
Does that mean TV, radio and the internet shouldn't be covered by the First Amendment then?
 
I don't know the actual wording of the right but armed could reasonably allow for banning of all firearms. A citizen would still have the right to bear arms by virtue of being able to carry an axe or a crossbow or a knife or a spear.

In the UK, we're not allowed to be 'armed' with anything, so I suggest the argument above holds water.

While no doubt being absolute bollocks.
You used to be able until quite recently, but some tinkering went on, now you can't. They strangled the new market by putting a huge cost and administration mountain in they way. I would imagine this sort of back door administration causes greater concern in the pro-gun camp, it's a slow creeping erosion.
 
You used to be able until quite recently, but some tinkering went on, now you can't. They strangled the new market by putting a huge cost and administration mountain in they way. I would imagine this sort of back door administration causes greater concern in the pro-gun camp, it's a slow creeping erosion.

Yes death by a thousand cuts. Obama tried quite hard to do that.
 
Yes death by a thousand cuts. Obama tried quite hard to do that.
What exactly did he do? Tthe only thing I've heard about that he managed to achieve was stopping people judged incapable of managing their own bank account buying firearms.

Were there other things as well? This isn't a point scoring thing, I am interested.
 
That does seem a bit dodgy in terms of what was said versus what they wanted to achieve. If I'm reading it right then on Federal land any lead bullet is banned?

On reading it further, it doesn't seem anywhere near as bad as the headline suggests. Fish and Wildlife ask for lead rounds to be banned (presumably as lead is water-soluble and will have nasty effects on fish, drinking water etc.).

Thanks to some incredibly specific legislation from 1968 and 1986 any bullets made from interesting alloys are banned as they may be armour piercing.

The ATF asked for the M855 5.56 round to be banned, apparently on spurious grounds of its steel content which was actually minimal. The ban was then rescinded when people pointed out it was stupid.

Ammo manufacturers asked for their new rounds to be approved but, as they are constructed from the same alloys banned by the 1968 legislation, they weren't approved.

The biggest issue in that article seems to be that the ATF judge the classification of ammunition based on how likely criminals are to use it.

I honestly don't see the problem there but, as we are two very different cultures, I suspect you see it differently.

Edit - I just looked at the ATF guidelines document thing, bollocks to reading that.
 
That does seem a bit dodgy in terms of what was said versus what they wanted to achieve. If I'm reading it right then on Federal land any lead bullet is banned?

On reading it further, it doesn't seem anywhere near as bad as the headline suggests. Fish and Wildlife ask for lead rounds to be banned (presumably as lead is water-soluble and will have nasty effects on fish, drinking water etc.).

Thanks to some incredibly specific legislation from 1968 and 1986 any bullets made from interesting alloys are banned as they may be armour piercing.

The ATF asked for the M855 5.56 round to be banned, apparently on spurious grounds of its steel content which was actually minimal. The ban was then rescinded when people pointed out it was stupid.

Ammo manufacturers asked for their new rounds to be approved but, as they are constructed from the same alloys banned by the 1968 legislation, they weren't approved.

The biggest issue in that article seems to be that the ATF judge the classification of ammunition based on how likely criminals are to use it.

I honestly don't see the problem there but, as we are two very different cultures, I suspect you see it differently.

Edit - I just looked at the ATF guidelines document thing, bollocks to reading that.
It also means you can’t shoot recreationally on Fed land either. Nobody is saying hunting with lead is a great idea anymore. However shooting into a hillside with a .22 or 9mm would be banned.

The M855 is cheap. 7-9 bucks for a box of 20 , many people like myself use this as cheap range ammo. By banning you just make it more expensive for people to go out and shoot and discourage people from participating. By turning it into a rich mans game you cut out millions.
 
No, it is a privilege, no matter how you dress it up, as there are limits and restrictions to it.
Case law disagrees
Rights cannot be Licensed-

Murdock vs. Pennsylvania 319 US 105

''No State can convert a liberty, into a license and charge a fee therefore''
http://www.constitution.org/ussc/319-105a.htm


Shuttlesworth vs. City of Birmingham 394 US 197

''If the state converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the Citizen can ignore the license and fee
and engage in the right(liberty) with impunity"
Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147 (1969)

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570
(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742
The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states
 
It also means you can’t shoot recreationally on Fed land either. Nobody is saying hunting with lead is a great idea anymore. However shooting into a hillside with a .22 or 9mm would be banned.

The M855 is cheap. 7-9 bucks for a box of 20 , many people like myself use this as cheap range ammo. By banning you just make it more expensive for people to go out and shoot and discourage people from participating. By turning it into a rich mans game you cut out millions.
But as I read it lead based bullets are fine everywhere in the US that isn't federal land?

How much of the US is federal land compared to private/state owned?
 
In a similar vein, I would say that a right is available to everyone and can then be restricted whereas a privilege is initially denied to everyone and then granted to individuals.

In the UK, everyone has the right to liberty and freedom; unless of course you happen to be in prison when that right is removed from you. In contrast, firearms ownership or driving a car is a privilege that people only get after going through the licensing process.
Actually no: firearms ownership is still a right, though a highly proscribed one.
That's why it's a firearms certificate, rather than a firearms licence.
Unfortunately, successive governments have seen fit to chip away at that right, at every opportunity, largely on the premise of "public safety" when the real reason is social control.
 
Actually no: firearms ownership is still a right, though a highly proscribed one.
That's why it's a firearms certificate, rather than a firearms licence.
Unfortunately, successive governments have seen fit to chip away at that right, at every opportunity, largely on the premise of "public safety" when the real reason is social control.
So everyone in the UK is entitled to own a firearm? It is in fact a right, the same as the right to an education and the right to a fair trial?

It's interesting that for the people I can think of every single one has the right to a fair trial by jury yet only 2 have the 'right' to own firearms.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top