Trump moves to ban bump stocks

#42
I get the idea los Yanquis see restriction of 2A rights as the thin edge of the wedge. If there were any chance of changing the amendment I'm pretty sure pressure groups would have had a go by now. It's an internal thing and as stated previously, all the foot stamping and posturing in the world by those from other countries is not going to change a thing. That has to come from within and so far the distrust of big govt is an obstacle to that ever being allowed to happen.

It's something those who vote will have to live with until they decide to change it.
 
#43
I want artillery, I could have an awful lot of fun with that and I'm sure it could open up a whole lot of different and interesting disciplines, but that doesn't mean I should be allowed to have it. [The only way to stop a bad guy with artillery is a good guy with artillery!]
Nothing stopping you having some in the UK if you want to. A reenactor I know has just bought his second live firing cannon.

Edited to add; lots of people in the US own artillery of different types, I don't remember any of them being used in a crime though.
 
#44
I get the idea los Yanquis see restriction of 2A rights as the thin edge of the wedge. If there were any chance of changing the amendment I'm pretty sure pressure groups would have had a go by now. It's an internal thing and as stated previously, all the foot stamping and posturing in the world by those from other countries is not going to change a thing. That has to come from within and so far the distrust of big govt is an obstacle to that ever being allowed to happen.

It's something those who vote will have to live with until they decide to change it.
The interpretation of the Second Amendment seems to have varied over time, no reason the interpretation couldn't change to be more restrictive again if the public wanted it.
 
#46
The interpretation of the Second Amendment seems to have varied over time, no reason the interpretation couldn't change to be more restrictive again if the public wanted it.
Sure, why not. Those outside the US should keep stamping their feet and throwing their teddies until someone who matters pays attention to them.
 
#47
There was a moment of levity on Newsnight a couple of days ago when they interviewed an NRA spokesman about the shootings. Everyone was clearly expecting an old white guy banging on about the 2nd Amendment, but they got Antonia Okafor, a young, attractive black woman who campaigns for guns to be allowed to be carried in school.

You could almost hear the jaws dropping of the 200 viewers the show attracts.



unnamed-199-730x480.jpg



See here at 5.30s on the Iplayer.

Newsnight - 19/02/2018
 
#48
Following a mass shooting at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., in which 20 of the 26 victims were children, Obama addressed gun violence on Dec. 14, 2012, in a tearful White House press conference.
Obama's thoughts and condolences were more sincere and his 'sad face' more convincing than Trump's.
 
#50
I confess to being baffled by the concept of the 2nd Amendment by virtue of the fact that

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."​
The problem I have is this "Being necessary for the security of a free state." Now we can all bear arms for the security of the state by virtue of the fact that that we can all be called up and serve in the forces. The state gives us the power for that purpose, it also takes them away when not necessary. That is not the same as the "right to bear arms" nor is the restriction of arms an infringement. But the ownership of arms has little to do with the "security of the state" except in as far as LE has to go armed because every one has a gun. In principle if Switzerland issues a firearm to all it soldiers and FA offences are all but zero, wouldn't it be far better if the States did that. So it seems that two concepts have been entirely muddled up.
 
#52
I confess to being baffled by the concept of the 2nd Amendment by virtue of the fact that

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."​
The problem I have is this "Being necessary for the security of a free state." Now we can all bear arms for the security of the state by virtue of the fact that that we can all be called up and serve in the forces. The state gives us the power for that purpose, it also takes them away when not necessary. That is not the same as the "right to bear arms" nor is the restriction of arms an infringement. But the ownership of arms has little to do with the "security of the state" except in as far as LE has to go armed because every one has a gun. In principle if Switzerland issues a firearm to all it soldiers and FA offences are all but zero, wouldn't it be far better if the States did that. So it seems that two concepts have been entirely muddled up.
I had a similar conversation with an American colleague a few years ago. He pointed me to other things the people who wrote the Constitution and the Second Amendment had said/written. The Supreme Court's interpretation of what they wanted seems, to me, to match up with what they believed/intended.
 
#53
No, but then again I haven't lost as much money as he has in terrible business decisions.
He's no businessman - he's someone who's been born into a rich family and surrounded by "yes" men and people with proper business acumen. This is obvious by the surprise he showed as POTUS when people finally started to tell him "no".
He is nothing more than a spoiled brat and bully who believes his own hype and not the self made man he likes to portray.

Trump University, anyone!
I hiked the beach by one of his golf courses in Palos verdes at the weekend - its hard to imagine a more beautiful setting ( and therefore valuable $$ wise.)

He is successful because of 'Yes men and other people with business acumen'? Very counter intuitive - Seems the media has done a bang up job of indoctrinating you.

To bump stocks - I think its low hanging fruit, designed to appease the more vocal gun grabbers.
 
#54
The part where it's been tested in the Supreme Court twice (IINM) and both times the verdict was that it stands as written.
Well done, what has that to do with your comment "Those outside the US should keep stamping their feet and throwing their teddies"?

It also doesn't address the fact that the Supreme Court could re-interpret it. Again, *IF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WANTED IT TO*
 

overopensights

ADC
Book Reviewer
#55
The debate isn't about fully automatic weapons - they are not the ones being used in shooting sprees!

Fully auto weapons (legally-owned ones, that is) are registered and strictly controlled in US, as has been stated many times. Spree shootings are typically carried out with commonly-available (in US) semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and pistols.

Don't know what club you belong to (is it TR only, by any chance?), but most people - given chance - enjoy shooting semi- and full-automatic firearms. Its an interesting visceral experience, and the rate of fire opens up many forms of competition and shooting disciplines.

If you don't understand why people want something, then you could apply the same logic to any hobby, interest or gadget.
All to his own I suppose. However I must have misheard the reporting on the 58 killed in the US a few months ago, I was of the wrong opinion, I thought it was a fully automatic that was used. Sorry folks!
 
#56
Well done, what has that to do with your comment "Those outside the US should keep stamping their feet and throwing their teddies"?

It also doesn't address the fact that the Supreme Court could re-interpret it. Again, *IF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WANTED IT TO*
It's been tested twice and so far they haven't come up with an argument that would change the meaning. The comment about foot stamping and teddy throwing applies to those wishful thinkers outside the US who spend a lot of time pissing and moaning about something over which they have no say. It's the same old crap ALL. THE. FOOKING. TIME.

Got no dog in the fight myself and quite frankly I think the perceived lack of responsible adults is worrying. That said, we see a lot of mongs shooting themselves and their mates in the arse, along with the gang shootings and general fookwittery in schools. What we don't see or hear about are the millions of responsible firearm owners who obey the law. There is legislation in place to deal with the mongs and fookwits but I don't know if the will is lacking or a political agenda is in place where mental illness and other problems are sidestepped for PC reasons, along with turning a blind eye to the gang violence due to problems with rights groups unhappy with tough measures.

Tightening up that legislation will, by definition, affect the law abiding. To the rest it's just so much paper. More rules won't fix things. Enforcing existing ones might but we've already discussed the obstacles to that.

Any change needs to come from within and once again, all the foot stamping in the world from outside won't make that happen.
 

overopensights

ADC
Book Reviewer
#57
Nothing stopping you having some in the UK if you want to. A reenactor I know has just bought his second live firing cannon.

Edited to add; lots of people in the US own artillery of different types, I don't remember any of them being used in a crime though.
I have a live firing cannon, I rarely fire it, but its much more fun than blasting off expensive ammo on full auto. The cannon is 2.5 inch bore and proofed to 2oz of black powder in old money, but a beauty to look at and lovely to listen to.
 
#58
Having been a shooter all my life, Full bore, Black Powder etc, and still at it. It occurs to me "Why the hell would anybody want a fully automatic weapon?" other than showing off, what possible use is it in any shooting world other than a proper combat situation. I discussed this last Sunday morning with about ten stalwarts at our Range, they are of the very same opinion.

I know the Americans are pretty touchy about the carriage of arms, but surely after all the shootings that they have had in the country in the past year alone, and the young lives already lost. Any man with a little sense should see the dire need to ban fully automatics.
I see you had a discussion about something totally irrelavant to mass shootings (and gun crime in general).
Well done... and you are a 'shooter all your life' and dont know your firearms terminology?
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top