Mass Shootings in the US

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.
There's a famous quote about the first amendment. I think it was made by a Judge. You have the right to free speech but that doesn't mean you can shout FIRE in a crowded theatre.

There's nothing in the second amendment that says convicted felons can't own firearms, yet they can't.

America is like any other country. Citizens' rights are whatever politicians say they are. We the people might as well be We the pawns because those in power will do whatever is politically expedient.

If a lot of politicians lose their seats in the November elections because they are pro-gun, there will be a rapid change of opinion among those who are left. The bottom line is that if they're more afraid of their electorate than the NRA, all those principles about the freedom to bear arms will be dropped faster than a pregnant intern. Americans are living in interesting times.
 
Can you not still shoot whatever you want on the over half your state the Federal government doesn't own? Assuming the landowner lets you of course.
In theory yes, in practice not so often. The days of landowners letting you walk onto their property are getting to be about over. Unless you know them from the Good Old Boy network good luck.
 
In theory yes, in practice not so often. The days of landowners letting you walk onto their property are getting to be about over. Unless you know them from the Good Old Boy network good luck.
So the issue is that the lead ban is restricting places where people can shoot to their own land and shooting ranges (which they presumably have to pay for?)
 
So the issue is that the lead ban is restricting places where people can shoot to their own land and shooting ranges (which they presumably have to pay for?)
Yes, and it makes it more expensive to take part in. Firearms ownership ain’t cheap and shooting in bulk can get pricey for people who go out more than once or twice a year. I try to put bewteen 3000 to 3500 rounds down range a year.
 
There's a famous quote about the first amendment. I think it was made by a Judge. You have the right to free speech but that doesn't mean you can shout FIRE in a crowded theatre.

There's nothing in the second amendment that says convicted felons can't own firearms, yet they can't.

America is like any other country. Citizens' rights are whatever politicians say they are. We the people might as well be We the pawns because those in power will do whatever is politically expedient.

If a lot of politicians lose their seats in the November elections because they are pro-gun, there will be a rapid change of opinion among those who are left. The bottom line is that if they're more afraid of their electorate than the NRA, all those principles about the freedom to bear arms will be dropped faster than a pregnant intern. Americans are living in interesting times.
The Red States will get Redder and the Blue States will get Bluer, and we will just hate each other even more.
 
Yes, and it makes it more expensive to take part in. Firearms ownership ain’t cheap and shooting in bulk can get pricey for people who go out more than once or twice a year. I try to put bewteen 3000 to 3500 rounds down range a year.
Thanks for explaining it sensibly.

Honestly, I still can't see the issue. I live near a lot of military land that I'm allowed on when it's not being used for exercises with the provisos that I can't make a campsite, start a campfire, nick any military property left lying about etc. (not that you would know that with the amount of spent 5.56 blank carpeting the place).

I can't see much of a difference between that and the Federal government banning lead ammunition being fired on their land. It's their train set and they choose what happens on it.

Different countries, different cultures.

Edit - if your shooting is costing you 1500 dollars a year in ammo, have you considered maybe cutting back a bit? I don't think we would see the same outcry if the ATF had banned recreational waterskiing (for example) on Federal land and people suddenly had to pay to go to boating lakes.
 
Thanks for explaining it sensibly.

Honestly, I still can't see the issue. I live near a lot of military land that I'm allowed on when it's not being used for exercises with the provisos that I can't make a campsite, start a campfire, nick any military property left lying about etc. (not that you would know that with the amount of spent 5.56 blank carpeting the place).

I can't see much of a difference between that and the Federal government banning lead ammunition being fired on their land. It's their train set and they choose what happens on it.

Different countries, different cultures.
M855 takes up a lot of shelf space. It is cheap mass produced ammo that is great to practice with. Removing they from the Civ market would impact shooters and ammo manufacturers.
 
M855 takes up a lot of shelf space. It is cheap mass produced ammo that is great to practice with. Removing they from the Civ market would impact shooters and ammo manufacturers.
Is the ban going ahead then? What I took from your link earlier was the ban was proposed as the M855 contains steel. It was then pointed out that the steel is a small percentage of the actual round so couldn't be banned under what was claimed.
 

skid2

LE
Book Reviewer
In theory yes, in practice not so often. The days of landowners letting you walk onto their property are getting to be about over. Unless you know them from the Good Old Boy network good luck.
It’s always been like that here. It would be bad form to step on someone’s property, armed without asking.
 
Is the ban going ahead then? What I took from your link earlier was the ban was proposed as the M855 contains steel. It was then pointed out that the steel is a small percentage of the actual round so couldn't be banned under what was claimed.
No it was shot down. It was targeted because technically the M855 is considered armor piercing due to the steel pentrator. It will go through a 2nd chance vest but not a modern Sapi.
 
It’s always been like that here. It would be bad form to step on someone’s property, armed without asking.
Yes but in the old days most owners would allow you to hunt their property as long as you asked and did not act like a twat. Now hunting is big money for out of state or country money. People will pay thousands for trophy game hunts.
 
No it was shot down. It was targeted because technically the M855 is considered armor piercing due to the steel pentrator. It will go through a 2nd chance vest but not a modern Sapi.
So the ammo isn't banned. Its use on private land is not banned. All that has been banned is the use of lead-based ammunition on Federal land.

Nope, I still can't see the issue.
 

skid2

LE
Book Reviewer
Yes but in the old days most owners would allow you to hunt their property as long as you asked and did not act like a twat. Now hunting is big money for out of state or country money. People will pay thousands for trophy game hunts.
Ah, same here. Charm works too. Not acting like a twat being a major plus.

Although most people with guns and the strange thing known as a ‘fire arms certificate’. Tend to behave quite well.
 
Ah, same here. Charm works too. Not acting like a twat being a major plus.

Although most people with guns and the strange thing known as a ‘fire arms certificate’. Tend to behave quite well.
Most people do, but all it takes is one retard to screw it up for everybody else. If some fuckwit shoots a cow or a horse it is game over for everybody else sadly.
 
It was the way the Feds tried to do it. A
quiet back door ban by the ATF. Weaponizing government to suit the needs of a political agenda tends to piss folks off greatly.

ATF sued over plan to ban popular AR-15 ammo
But the ban wasn't passed. From the link you just gave "more than 200 members of Congress wrote to former ATF director Todd Jones expressing “serious concern” that the proposal might violate the Second Amendment". That does sort of show that your governmental systems work?

Also, I'm not sure how you can argue banning ammo is 'weaponising government', especially when the army etc. doesn't use that ammunition (I think most US agencies, army etc. use edit - M855A1 which is a different beast).
 

skid2

LE
Book Reviewer
Most people do, but all it takes is one retard to screw it up for everybody else. If some fuckwit shoots a cow or a horse it is game over for everybody else sadly.
True and I’m sitting here thinking what sort of person, (your description is spot on) would shoot a cow or a horse.

Getting harder to find, although when I asked an old friend for ‘permission’ thinking of starting up again he was delighted. Couldn’t have been happier.
I think he’s got plans.
 
True and I’m sitting here thinking what sort of person, (your description is spot on) would shoot a cow or a horse.

Getting harder to find, although when I asked an old friend for ‘permission’ thinking of starting up again he was delighted. Couldn’t have been happier.
I think he’s got plans.
A ******* retard. We have a few, that manage to cause grief.
 
There's a famous quote about the first amendment. I think it was made by a Judge. You have the right to free speech but that doesn't mean you can shout FIRE in a crowded theatre.

There's nothing in the second amendment that says convicted felons can't own firearms, yet they can't.

America is like any other country. Citizens' rights are whatever politicians say they are. We the people might as well be We the pawns because those in power will do whatever is politically expedient.

If a lot of politicians lose their seats in the November elections because they are pro-gun, there will be a rapid change of opinion among those who are left. The bottom line is that if they're more afraid of their electorate than the NRA, all those principles about the freedom to bear arms will be dropped faster than a pregnant intern. Americans are living in interesting times.
Rights may well be codified but in actuality, they are demanded and taken.

When an authority seeks to negate a right, the people will either accept the negation or, if they consider the right important enough, will defend it and oppose the negation.

A felon's right to keep and bear arms is obviously not important enough for a large enough proportion of the people to defend. So in actuality, felons don't have the right, regardless of the written code. Felons, as a group, are not coordinated or strong enough to defend the right on their own. They could demand it but they cannot take it.

The government don't appear to be strong enough or able, to negate the right of the rest of the people. The people, on this issue, would appear able and willing to defend it.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top