And it begins: Obama Renews Push to Reduce Gun Violence

[Neil]

What's the mindset in the UK? I've been wondering this. I just didn't want to insult anyone by saying what it seems like to me to be the UK mindset. It seems to me that from what you've said, that the mindset is that most UK folks simply trust that your government does things with the best interest of the people in mind. Maybe your government is just that wonderful, I don't live there so I don't know. But in the US we don't have that luxury. How do you not have that luxury? How many times have you had to rise up against your government/military in the past few generations? It seems like in the UK, you guys have just accepted the fact that you're ultimately powerless over your government if it were to ever become out of control and a threat to it's people. The US is a nation built by rebels for the express purpose of escaping English rule. So in other words, our founding fathers were men who just could not tolerate the way things were done in your country. So it makes perfect sense that our ways seem alien to you. This is just the way we are. We question authority, and we're constantly suspicious of it. 1) I just don't think any of us can reasonably envisage that happening. Hence it just seeming paranoid? When's the last time it took place in the US for example? When did an armed civilian force need to take action against the government? 2) How are we powerless? We, the public, ultimately control virtually every power supply, drop of water and piece of food in the country? You suddenly expect some mind controlling drug to coerce soldiers into making people do things against their will by force? So in other words, our founding fathers were men who just could not tolerate the way things were done in your country. So it makes perfect sense that our ways seem alien to you. This is just the way we are. We question authority, and we're constantly suspicious of it. Twice in the past 100 years we've faught vicious wars against Germany. Yet, we now get on with them perfectly well, and all is forgotten now - Infact we're rather good at that sort of thing! Time's moved on, civilisation has moved on and so have we... Maybe it's time for the US to move on from X hundred year old history and mindsets? No insult indended, just letting you know my mindset/POV on this! And to put this into context, I'm not even suggesting people in the US losing their guns. Only looking at losing some of them and/or the more powerful ones... - - - Updated - - - It is rather annoying that our politicans have divided the nation to this extent. Explain? You think politicians in the US have resulted in some of the US public distrusting the goverment that much?

[babomb]

Neil, I don't know how else to explain it. Maybe your government is not as authoritarian as ours. Our presidents don't need the consent of congress to do anything anymore. They passed a law that gives them the power to incarcerate US citizens without due process. They passed a law that makes protesting anywhere near a federal building or where any politician that's protected by the secret service is, a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison. The cops here beat and tase people daily, for exercising their rights. Our government has created an atmosphere where they're allowed to do whatever they please, unrestricted by the checks and balances built into the system. They use our tax dollars to bail out financial institutions that blatantly break the law instead of holding them accountable. They disregard and trample the rights of the people daily. They do not represent the people anymore. This is an incredibly bad situation for a nation founded on the concepts of freedom. And this just keeps happening at a quicker and quicker pace. To you, an outsider looking in, this seems to be about guns and the laws regarding them. But to us this is just another case of the government taking away our rights. Just another instance of a president curtailing the checks and balances that the constitution put in place to protect us. Our president has already said that this new gun legislature will happen without having to go through congress. That's not the way things are supposed to be done. There's a reason why these things are supposed to go through congress. it's a checks and balances safeguard. It's to the point where the only things we can trust our government to do is lie, spend our tax dollars, and actively work to deny us our rights. They lie to us on such a regular basis that we have no choice but to always assume they're lying and withholding information. We don't choose this! This isn't the way we want things. But it's just the way things are. Maybe you have to be from here, and experience it to understand it. A few things. The founding fathers were also the Richest men in America (George Washington was the Richest in the colonies). They encouraged those loyal to the crown to be driven out of their homes at gunpoint and into Canada. They promised huge swaths of land to those soldiers who fought the war, and failed to deliver on most of these promises. When people refused to enlist to fight the British they tossed them in Jail. The American revolution was not a "Good Guys Vs Bad Guys." Sort of deal, it wasn't a Mel Gibson movie. Atrocities were committed on both sides, so lets not bring in "How this country was founded on rebels." argument. Not to mention, we spent quite a few years killing each other to prevent the dissolution of the union. War is a horrible thing. That's why it should be avoided if at all possible. But some things are worth fighting for. This country gained it's independence through war, by rebels. They committed atrocities, sure. If you choose to condemn them for their actions, that's on you. I don't choose that. I choose not to be a self-loathing American. There's never been a case in the history of the world where a nation fighting for it's Independence didn't get its hands dirty in the process. And nobody is making the claim that the founders were saints. I'm just saying that I happen to see the brilliance in the constitution, which I attribute to the nations success as the worlds youngest superpower. And I'd like to see the country continue to use the constitution as its guide. I don't believe that we can pick and choose what parts of the Constitution we follow. I'm sorry you don't agree with that. My intent was to simply say the following: Owning assault rifles for the sole purpose of defending your self from the government is not wise. You will die. If you want change, vote. Do not think that you're AR-15 can stop the US military, you will die. Hell The Government can already do it now simply by calling you a terrorist (Which I don't support). In the case of a state leaving the union. I have no qaums fighting these rebels. if it's simply red neck Texans deciding to quit America because they don't want Obamacare, or something similar. The line between oppressing your own people and WAR is when that state declares independence. They are their own country, and are not Citizens of the United States, but of Texas, Alabama, Alaska, Vermont, or whatever. That's vastly different then being told to line up and shoot American Citizens for not paying parking tickets, that's silly. I don't remember saying anything about executing people for not paying parking tickets. That's not even a relevant issue. Nobody is saying that guns should be the 1st option to use when you want to create change. But, people don't really have alot of faith in the electoral process anymore. And I completely understand why. But that's a different discussion. The point is that the 2nd amm is a failsafe for when democracy becomes corrupt and perverse, and is no longer an effective method for people to exercise control. That's it's intent. And I believe in it. How you feel about that is of no consequence to me. I know all about the rules of engagement, but when Texan air national guard troops attack Ft. Sill, or Ft. Polk, When American flags are burning and Federal buildings are burning, and the Citizens of Austin attacked and killed by Confederates, do you really think that the US Government is going to launch a limited war? When video reports come in of Pro American's being hung and driven out of the state, popular opinion isn't going to be that high for the rebels. It's a direct attack on National Sovereignty, no different then Mexico claiming Texas for itself, or Canada for Alaska. Hell even if we didn't invade and mop the floor with them, a total economic embargo and freezing of funds would devastate them into poverty. Before long states would break away and rejoin the Union (West Virginia did this in the American civil war). And you think WE are the ones with a warped sense of reality on this? There would never be a time where the federal government clears every option off the table and declares any state a separate and hostile entity, and just cuts loose on it. Never! That would not work to their advantage and they're painfully aware of that. The whole point of that comment, was that Assault Rifles are meant for Military and to a lesser degree Law enforcement use. a 5.56 round is terrible to hunt with due to how the round likes to bounce around in victims. Stating that you need it to fight the Government, whose military has been fighting counter insurgents for going on 11 years now is silly. Saying that you should have it with out mandatory classes/licensing/pysch eval is even sillier. I am not a chest beating Hooah soldier, I hate those guys. I'm just stating my opinion. That opinion is, you don't need a fucking AK47, for god damn anything. I'm all for mandatory safety classes as a requirement. I had to pass a safety class before getting a FOID card when I was a kid. Almost all my friends had to do the same thing. Same goes for licensing. Provided that getting that license isn't intentionally made economically prohibitive for the average citizen. The only problem I'd have with a psych eval is that there isn't currently any type of standard that can be used to prevent misuse of that requirement. Say you have a psychiatrist who does these evals, and his personal politics on guns is that citizens should not own them. So he uses his position to prevent people from being allowed to own them. Also, the way the medical industry works today is all monetary based. Doctors always find something wrong with their patients, that's how they make money. So if some guy's wife or child dies unexpectedly from accident or disease, and the guy is prescribed something to help him with anxiety or depression, that shouldn't mean he's stripped of his right to own a gun for the rest of his life. Or some 17-18 year old kid who breaks up with his girlfriend and threatens suicide in an attempt to gain her sympathy, and his parents take him for an overnight stay for observation in a psych ward. That shouldn't be grounds for losing your 2nd amm rights. There's alot of ways that the psychological aspect could be used to deny people their 2nd amm right, unjustly. There would have to be some standard way to apply that. Some way that isn't subject to anyones personal agandas. I don't know the answer to that problem. Or the larger problem. I desperately want these shootings to stop! But I don't see the banning of semi-auto rifles as the end all be all of the equation.

[Mr. Clean]

Explain? You think politicians in the US have resulted in some of the US public distrusting the goverment that much? lol Other than the media.....who else is there to blame? Not really much to explain. Our leaders in Congress are absolutely worthless. They get paid to argue and accomplish nothing. They haven't passed a budget in 3 years. We have a $16,000,000,000,000 deficit yet they just keep on spending like it we're 16 trillion dollars to the good. We weren't suppose to hit the debt ceiling until Feburary but guess what? We're hitting in on Monday....ooopsie .....They waste so much f-ing money on nothing that it just blows my mind. Then, you have the media which is just as divided. All the news agencies twist stories into being misleading by leaving out facts or carefully wording things to make you form certain opinions. I suppose society has a tiny part in it as well for having a "do whatever feels good regardless outcome" mentality. - - - Updated - - - The only problem I'd have with a psych eval is that there isn't currently any type of standard that can be used to prevent misuse of that requirement. Say you have a psychiatrist who does these evals, and his personal politics on guns is that citizens should not own them. So he uses his position to prevent people from being allowed to own them. Also, the way the medical industry works today is all monetary based. Doctors always find something wrong with their patients, that's how they make money. So if some guy's wife or child dies unexpectedly from accident or disease, and the guy is prescribed something to help him with anxiety or depression, that shouldn't mean he's stripped of his right to own a gun for the rest of his life. Or some 17-18 year old kid who breaks up with his girlfriend and threatens suicide in an attempt to gain her sympathy, and his parents take him for an overnight stay for observation in a psych ward. That shouldn't be grounds for losing your 2nd amm rights. There's alot of ways that the psychological aspect could be used to deny people their 2nd amm right, unjustly. There would have to be some standard way to apply that. Some way that isn't subject to anyones personal agandas. I don't know the answer to that problem. Or the larger problem. I desperately want these shootings to stop! But I don't see the banning of semi-auto rifles as the end all be all of the equation. Well put!

[Neil]

lol Other than the media.....who else is there to blame? Not really much to explain. There is of course the less paranoid explanation that no one is to blame? And $hit sometimes just happens? There's not many countries in the wake of the Bank nonsense a few years back that aren't in poor shape. The UK is just the same (unfortunately). And out eagerness to get involved in expensive military action hasn't helped!

[facestabber]

Not so much. A few things. The founding fathers were also the Richest men in America (George Washington was the Richest in the colonies). They encouraged those loyal to the crown to be driven out of their homes at gunpoint and into Canada. They promised huge swaths of land to those soldiers who fought the war, and failed to deliver on most of these promises. When people refused to enlist to fight the British they tossed them in Jail. The American revolution was not a "Good Guys Vs Bad Guys." Sort of deal, it wasn't a Mel Gibson movie. Atrocities were committed on both sides, so lets not bring in "How this country was founded on rebels." argument. Not to mention, we spent quite a few years killing each other to prevent the dissolution of the union. My intent was to simply say the following: Owning assault rifles for the sole purpose of defending your self from the government is not wise. You will die. If you want change, vote. Do not think that you're AR-15 can stop the US military, you will die. Hell The Government can already do it now simply by calling you a terrorist (Which I don't support). In the case of a state leaving the union. I have no qaums fighting these rebels. if it's simply red neck Texans deciding to quit America because they don't want Obamacare, or something similar. The line between oppressing your own people and WAR is when that state declares independence. They are their own country, and are not Citizens of the United States, but of Texas, Alabama, Alaska, Vermont, or whatever. That's vastly different then being told to line up and shoot American Citizens for not paying parking tickets, that's silly. I know all about the rules of engagement, but when Texan air national guard troops attack Ft. Sill, or Ft. Polk, When American flags are burning and Federal buildings are burning, and the Citizens of Austin attacked and killed by Confederates, do you really think that the US Government is going to launch a limited war? When video reports come in of Pro American's being hung and driven out of the state, popular opinion isn't going to be that high for the rebels. It's a direct attack on National Sovereignty, no different then Mexico claiming Texas for itself, or Canada for Alaska. Hell even if we didn't invade and mop the floor with them, a total economic embargo and freezing of funds would devastate them into poverty. Before long states would break away and rejoin the Union (West Virginia did this in the American civil war). Yeah fight to the bitter end? Tell that to the Germans, the Poles, The French, the Japanese, or the Former Confederate states, when you don't have the ability to fight, you surrender. Iraq, Vietnam, and Afghanistan are all versions of limited warfare. The Military held back to limit civilian casualties. Threat of M.A.D from the soviets in Vietnam prevented an invasion of North Vietnam, and Iraq/Afghanistan had/have members of the U.N/NATO participation. That was not total war, you have to go back to World War Two for that. An American Civil war would not have to worry about Soviet Missiles or UN troops pulling their forces out, tanks would roll, and rebellions would end. The argument that any state has a right to leave the Union was ended at the conclusion of the civil war. Red Dawn was not a documentary. The whole point of that comment, was that Assault Rifles are meant for Military and to a lesser degree Law enforcement use. a 5.56 round is terrible to hunt with due to how the round likes to bounce around in victims. Stating that you need it to fight the Government, whose military has been fighting counter insurgents for going on 11 years now is silly. Saying that you should have it with out mandatory classes/licensing/pysch eval is even sillier. I am not a chest beating Hooah soldier, I hate those guys. I'm just stating my opinion. That opinion is, you don't need a fucking AK47, for god damn anything. You could save the long winded attacks on; Our corrupt and flawed Founding Fathers, You're hatred of Texans, Blind faith in a dreamed up TOTAL war, add nauseum. You have a valid opinion that assault rifles are too powerful in the citizens hands. Heck part of me wants to agree with you because as an agent of gov't who legally carries body armor, a decked out ar-15 and swat training it would be nice to never have to go up against assault rifles. But to twist gun owners opinion that their ownership acts as a deterent into they want to wage TOTAL war against a military comprised of volunteer friends, family etc, just weakens your opinion. Regarding your statements fighting a state succeeding from the Union. What is wrong with you? Its clear you dislike Texans. You discredit these Americans to the point that they would be hanging "Pro" Americans. Burning flags etc. Your age is showing here. But I couldnt leave it at that. I asked a friend of mine to read your posts. He is a decorated Marine that served two combat tours in Iraq. Lost many men under his command. You may consider him one of those chest bumping soldiers that you hate. When he finished he shrugged his shoulders and chuckled, "he's a nurse in the fucking Army". I had to push him for more of an opinion because it was clear he didnt feel it needed to be quantified. States succeeding or not there is no f'n way any of the men he served with would turn their weapons toward Americans let alone your total war scenario. Some people join the military because they love their country and wish to serve, unfortunately some join simply for a college education he left it up to me to decide which you were. I dont mind your opinion on assault rifles. But for an anti gun violence advocate, how are you so willing to fight the "rebels" of Texas? Fight to the bitter end. Im glad you can so easily discredit the resolve of our enemies. Its funny because combat vets, though understandibly hate their enemy, will more often than not express a level of respect toward their resolve. So just sticking with your WW2 total war statement. A very small minority of Japanese soldiers surrendered. They did fight to the bitter end on Islands in the Pacific. And had we not developed the most devasting weapon in the world rest assured they would have defended their homeland on a scale that would have been devastating. I could never laugh at the Japanese for surrendering after two cities were leveled. Thank GOd Hitler interfered with his Generals. Very interesting that you chose this statement, "when you don't have the ability to fight, you surrender". Oh and American revolution was by a rebel force that stockpiled weapons equal to their opponents and trained in secret. The .223 round is effective for hunting. How can it be so deadly in an assault rifle yet not usual for the same reason with game? - - - Updated - - - There is of course the less paranoid explanation that no one is to blame? And $hit sometimes just happens? There's not many countries in the wake of the Bank nonsense a few years back that aren't in poor shape. The UK is just the same (unfortunately). And out eagerness to get involved in expensive military action hasn't helped! Neil I think you are probably right. Shit happens. It sucks, it really does. How do we account for the very few morons of society that wish to do harm. And folks my apologies for multiple posts but I am near computer illiterate. I can figure out how to quote multiple sources. To my Belgium friend. Let me start by saying I dont know much or understand your country and its issues. I dont want to offend you or your country men by my ignorance of Belgium. Correct me if I'm wrong but is it your belief that I consider the US a police state? If so no I dont believe that nor that it is very close. The US is however becoming a nanny state. For example Mayor Bloomberg of NYC has instituted a ban on surgary drinks. He has limited the size allowed for sale. Of the top of my head I dont know the amount but for example a person can no longer buy a 44oz coke because as he says, it encourages people to consume the entire contents of an unhealthy drink. A person can still buy 2 20oz drinks but that is besides the point that many things are getting out of hand in the US. Going only by your description of conditions in Belgium. I would say you are not at the level of a police state. It seems the populous is very dependant on the gov't which is a shame. America is on that path. Our social security program is in bad shape. I personally have taken it upon myself to fund my own retirement system because I dont trust the gov't. My gov't mandated pension, which I am required to contribute, is threatened everyday here in Illinois. So I'm forced to pay, the gov't overspent their budget and failed to contribute their promised contribution, and now its my fault and blame that the state is broke. There has been some really good discussion on this forum. Aside from the Texas hating poster, I enjoy reading this. But at the end of the day I need TWD back on tv to discuss the fun stuff.

[Mr. Clean]

There is of course the less paranoid explanation that no one is to blame? And $hit sometimes just happens? There's not many countries in the wake of the Bank nonsense a few years back that aren't in poor shape. The UK is just the same (unfortunately). And out eagerness to get involved in expensive military action hasn't helped! The burden of blame should always fall on someone's shoulders weither their decisions were reckless or made in good faith. Sure, accidents happen but when it comes to powerful positions such of The US President or Congress....no one should recieve a pass for making a poor decision especially when it negatively affects millions of folks. This is why so many people are pissed about the Benghazi, Libya attack....because someone screwed up.....people died because of poor planning/decision making....and the people in charge are just staring at the ground...kicking dirt around....all the while still refusing to tell the truth after a failed attempt to place blame on some low budget movie about the muslim prophet.

[botc]

THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS NOT UP FOR DEBATE AND NEITHER IS THE REST! WE KICKED TYRANNICAL ASS THE FIRST TIME AND BRING IT ON AGAIN IF NECESSARY! im tired of this debate even though it will never end. and a certain someone said it best "FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!!!" GOD BLESS AMERICA!

[babomb]

There is of course the less paranoid explanation that no one is to blame? And $hit sometimes just happens? There's not many countries in the wake of the Bank nonsense a few years back that aren't in poor shape. The UK is just the same (unfortunately). And out eagerness to get involved in expensive military action hasn't helped! So you're insinuating that there's the possibility that our politicians are just doing the best they can with a bad situation, and some of us are just so paranoid that we see it as malicious intent? You're joking right!? It seems as if you subscribe to the belief that it's better to close your eyes and ignore things than to come to any conclusion that can be construed as paranoid. There's really no point to this whole discussion if you're gonna invalidate all of our concerns by immediately assuming that it all comes down to paranoia. Maybe you should educate yourself about the situation over here, become more familiar with our concerns before you conveniently pigeon hole us as paranoid quacks. Are you familiar with the term "Useful Idiot"? I'm not calling you one, I'm just wondering if you're familiar with the concept. Here's the wikipedia definition: In political jargon, useful idiot is a pejorative term for people perceived as propagandists for a cause whose goals they do not understand, and who are used cynically by the leaders of the cause. The term has been used to refer to Soviet sympathizers in Western countries. The implication was that, although the people in question naïvely thought of themselves as an ally of the Soviet Union, they were actually held in contempt and were being cynically used. The use of the term in political discourse has since been extended to other propagandists, especially those who are seen to unwittingly support a malignant cause which they naïvely believe to be a force for good. People unknowingly become useful idiots by arguing for or against something that they haven't taken the time to fully understand, or has been arrived at by purely emotional criteria. I'm not calling anyone here a useful idiot, I'm just throwing it out there so people can avoid stepping into that if at all possible. People that become useful idiots do so by the best of intentions. They aren't fully aware of the scope of the larger picture.

[Neil]

THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS NOT UP FOR DEBATE AND NEITHER IS THE REST! WE KICKED TYRANNICAL ASS THE FIRST TIME AND BRING IT ON AGAIN IF NECESSARY! im tired of this debate even though it will never end. and a certain someone said it best "FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!!!" GOD BLESS AMERICA! The question is, has the 2nd amendment - created hundreds of years ago under very different times (& weapons) - got carried away and allowed too many, or too powerful guns, into the hands of the public? And, what is enough to protect your personal freedom? Surely we can discuss that? Was the 6000 odd rounds of ammunition bought by James Holmes (Aurora) for his four guns too much? Would 20 rounds and two hand guns be enough to server as protection? Or do you need access to as many guns as you want? When the 2nd amendment was created do you think they envisaged :- (1) Modern high performance weapons? (2) Modern high figure death rates? And, once again, no one is suggesting doing away with the 2nd amendment... So maybe take off your caps lock, calm down, and discuss rather than blindly rant... - - - Updated - - - So you're insinuating that there's the possibility that our politicians are just doing the best they can with a bad situation, and some of us are just so paranoid that we see it as malicious intent? You're joking right!? So if we try to remain on the topic of gun ownership, I must admit being generally confused at trying to endorse the need for powerful assault rifles to protect you/us from the government... The stepping stones we've seem to have taken - unless I've missed something is - you/we need guns, lots of them, and powerful ones, because we don't trust the government, and the evidence for that is the deficit (unless I misunderstood)? Which, they either created on purpose or through mismanagement? I'm having trouble joining up the dots here... Can you explain what signs of malicious intent there is from your governemt that should ring alarm bells for your freedom? And lets remember cultural upbringing is a strong force. It's the reason many don't bat an eyelid at stoning rape victims to death in Iran. And it's the reason why we're (UK) so passionate about queuing! There's clearly a strong cultural force in the US surrounding guns... Which I suspect is why our views/feelings differ...

[strayrider]

1) I just don't think any of us can reasonably envisage that happening. Hence it just seeming paranoid? When's the last time it took place in the US for example? When did an armed civilian force need to take action against the government? That's the brilliance of the 2nd Amendment. As long as the average [American] man or woman is in possession of of weapons of this type, we do not have to take action against the government. The weapons themselves, in private hands, act as a deterrent. Paranoid? Seriously, Neil. Consider Senator Diane Feinstein’s latest proposal. This particular scheme includes the photographing and fingerprinting of non-criminal gun owners. http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/publ...ssault-weapons The same Senator Feinstein who said in 2004: “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in.” http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openfo...em-2813319.php And we have New York governor Andrew Cuomo suggesting that confiscation could be an option. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...eliana-johnson How would they go about confiscating these guns? What would they do if citizens refused to relinquish them? Anyway, if our own politicians weren't spouting this bullshit then I’d say that, yes, gun owners are probably paranoid. But they are saying these things, aren't they? So, how are we being paranoid? Twice in the past 100 years we've faught vicious wars against Germany. Yet, we now get on with them perfectly well, and all is forgotten now - Infact we're rather good at that sort of thing. Time's moved on, civilisation has moved on and so have we... Maybe it's time for the US to move on from X hundred year old history and mindsets? Actually, technology has advanced; human nature remains the same. Civilization is a reflection of that nature at any given time. You're at peace with Germany, now. The future will always be uncertain. And to put this into context, I'm not even suggesting people in the US losing their guns. Only looking at losing some of them and/or the more powerful... I believe that your empathy for us is sincere, but no thank you. -stray- - - - Updated - - - And, what is enough to protect your personal freedom? Surely we can discuss that? Was the 6000 odd rounds of ammunition bought by James Holmes (Aurora) for his four guns too much? Would 20 rounds and two hand guns be enough to server as protection? Or do you need access to as many guns as you want? When the 2nd amendment was created do you think they envisaged :- (1) Modern high performance weapons? (2) Modern high figure death rates? I do not understand why you think that this is simply a matter of "me" protecting "my" personal freedom. Are you honestly of the opinion that we [Americans] are so self-centered that we cannot grasp the concept of ideology or philosophy as to how it affects us beyond a personal level? Are we, in your opinion, incapable of thinking in a manner that considers other points of view? 6000 rounds. He only fired a fraction of that number, didn't he? 4 guns. He only used one. No one else in the theater was armed so he got away with it. 2 handguns and 20 rounds for protection. Personal protection is only one facet of the issue. 2nd Amendment; visualization. 1) Were the Founders aware that technology advances? Were they able to compare the weapons at their disposal versus those available to the ancient Greeks or Romans, for example? 2) In a nation of 300+ million, gun deaths do not even represent a drop in the bucket. We live in a free country. There is no guarantee that we will be safe (although, by and large, we are). America is not a padded crib. It can be a very dangerous place, guns or not. -stray-

[Neil]

That's the brilliance of the 2nd Amendment. As long as the average [American] man or woman is in possession of of weapons of this type, we do not have to take action against the government. The weapons themselves, in private hands, act as a deterrent. Paranoid? Seriously, Neil. Consider Senator Diane Feinstein’s latest proposal. This particular scheme includes the photographing and fingerprinting of non-criminal gun owners. http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/publ...ssault-weapons Looking at your links... In January, Senator Feinstein will introduce a bill to stop the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition feeding devices. Isn't this using the system exactly as its suppose to be used? Democracy in action? Or are gun owners beyond this system? Isn't it the same system that's dictated your existing gun laws and restrictions? The ones you're currently defending? How would they go about confiscating these guns? What would they do if citizens refused to relinquish them? Don't know... Tricky business... But if the law is passed, and citizens refused to relinquesh them, then surely they are going against the very democratic system they're so infavour of protecting? Other countries have managed to adjust their gun ownership laws to small degrees... Actually, technology has advanced; human nature remains the same. Civilization is a reflection of that nature at any given time. You're at peace with Germany, now. The future will always be uncertain. Not true... Human culture changes... When was the last witch burned? I'm happy to predict:- 1) Although we went to war with Germany twice last century, we won't this one... 2) The americans have never had to rise up against their government over the past few centuries, and won't this one. I do not understand why you think that this is simply a matter of "me" protecting "my" personal freedom. Well, the "personal protection" argument seems to be used all too often... Do americans typically buy guns for personal protection, or in preparation for armed uprisings against the state? 6000 rounds. He only fired a fraction of that number, didn't he? All very fair points. If you/we indeed decide that reducing the number of guns in circulation, and their power, will not inturn reduce murders and mass shootings, then indeed its pointless. But my gut feel is, gun ownership in the US is too relaxed, and this is reflected in the regularity of their use, often by the very people you do not want to have them. 2nd Amendment; visualization. 1) Were the Founders aware that technology advances? Were they able to compare the weapons at their disposal versus those available to the ancient Greeks or Romans, for example? 2) In a nation of 300+ million, gun deaths do not even represent a drop in the bucket. We live in a free country. There is no guarantee that we will be safe (although, by and large, we are). America is not a padded crib. It can be a very dangerous place, guns or not. RE 1 - Not sure of why Greek and Romans come into this? The 2nd amendment is being used in defense of the current ownership of guns in the US. It's fair to say, when it was drawn up, it didn't envisage individuals having the kind of horrific fire power they can easily obtain today. RE 2 - Well that's fine. Here in the UK we're happy to stick with 30mph speed limits instead of reducing them down to 20mph, even though that would save lives. We weigh up the -ves of lives lost with +ve effects of the higher speeds. As long as the majority of the US population is happy that their ease off access to huge amounts of powerful firearms is worth the price (and there is price there of some sort), then fine... But just to suggest blindly, the 2nd amendment is spot on, and all current gun restrictions are fine and dandy seems amazing to me. You mean the very people you mistrust so much, have got it absolutely right?!

[facestabber]

Neil I have to take issue about defending our laws. In the US we have what is called Ex Post Facto laws. Which means that laws cannot be enacted which retroactively criminalize an act which was legal prior to a law enacted. So any type of ban on guns which states ownership is a crime and asks the people to relinquish them is completely against our laws and what our Constitution was designed to protect its people from. Senator Feinstein is a nut anyways and if she did intact express interest in confiscating guns she has dangerously over stepped her bounds as an agent of govt. Her attitude is exactly what gun owners fear. Interesting enough our corrupt and democratically controlled city of Chicago just reached 500 murders for 2012. I don't know the stats but I can safely say the overwhelming majority were committed by felons using illegally obtained guns. The criminals will always find a way. Heroin cocaine both illegal yet the market demands them. No doubt discussion and action are needed but I just can't justify knee jerk reactions of rewriting founding laws based on a small minority of human pieces of shit determined to kill.

[babomb]

So if we try to remain on the topic of gun ownership, I must admit being generally confused at trying to endorse the need for powerful assault rifles to protect you/us from the government... The stepping stones we've seem to have taken - unless I've missed something is - you/we need guns, lots of them, and powerful ones, because we don't trust the government, and the evidence for that is the deficit (unless I misunderstood)? Which, they either created on purpose or through mismanagement? I'm having trouble joining up the dots here... Can you explain what signs of malicious intent there is from your governemt that should ring alarm bells for your freedom? And lets remember cultural upbringing is a strong force. It's the reason many don't bat an eyelid at stoning rape victims to death in Iran. And it's the reason why we're (UK) so passionate about queuing! There's clearly a strong cultural force in the US surrounding guns... Which I suspect is why our views/feelings differ... The deficit? Seriously? This is just proof that you clearly have no idea what's really going on in the US! Maybe you missed this is one of my last posts: Neil, I don't know how else to explain it. Maybe your government is not as authoritarian as ours. Our presidents don't need the consent of congress to do anything anymore. They passed a law that gives them the power to incarcerate US citizens without due process. They passed a law that makes protesting anywhere near a federal building or where any politician that's protected by the secret service is, a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison. The cops here beat and tase people daily, for exercising their rights. Our government has created an atmosphere where they're allowed to do whatever they please, unrestricted by the checks and balances built into the system. They use our tax dollars to bail out financial institutions that blatantly break the law instead of holding them accountable. They disregard and trample the rights of the people daily. They do not represent the people anymore. This is an incredibly bad situation for a nation founded on the concepts of freedom. And this just keeps happening at a quicker and quicker pace. To you, an outsider looking in, this seems to be about guns and the laws regarding them. But to us this is just another case of the government taking away our rights. Just another instance of a president curtailing the checks and balances that the constitution put in place to protect us. Our president has already said that this new gun legislature will happen without having to go through congress. That's not the way things are supposed to be done. There's a reason why these things are supposed to go through congress. it's a checks and balances safeguard. It's to the point where the only things we can trust our government to do is lie, spend our tax dollars, and actively work to deny us our rights. They lie to us on such a regular basis that we have no choice but to always assume they're lying and withholding information. We don't choose this! This isn't the way we want things. But it's just the way things are. Maybe you have to be from here, and experience it to understand it. What's happening is that they're systematically taking away the peoples ability to resist them. This is evident. This is not paranoia, this is not about the deficit. The mainstream media does NOT report on this stuff. Because they're owned by the same corporations that own the politicians. Big government and big business have fused together. And they're actively removing the checks and balances that were put in place by the constitution to protect the interests of the people. Habeas corpus (English pronunciation: /ˌheɪbiəs ˈkɔrpəs/; Latin: "you have the body") is a writ (legal action) which requires a person under arrest to be brought before a judge or into court.[1][2] This ensures that a prisoner can be released from unlawful detention—that is, detention lacking sufficient cause or evidence. The remedy can be sought by the prisoner or by another person coming to the prisoner's aid. This right originated in the English legal system, and is now available in many nations. It has historically been an important legal instrument safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary state action. This was phased out when they passed the NDAA. The NDAA gives them the power to incarcerate citizens for an indefinite amount of time, without ever being formally charged with a crime. They are not allowed legal counsel. They just sit in prison. Luckily, there are still some judges that value freedom and don't just play along with this. Then you have the bailouts, where tax money was used to rescue rich folks that broke the law. The people urged several politicians to appeal the indefinite detention under the NDAA, which they did. But it failed and indefinite detention is now an option, as legal as it can be without having the support of the people. Can they just come and get you in the middle of the night in the UK, under suspicion of terrorism or political agitation, and hold you as long as they want without bringing you before a judge, and without even a public defender? The fear is that as they continue to trample on civil liberties, that anyone who stands in opposition of that can be considered a domestic terrorist, and detained indefinitely. The idea behind the right to bear arms is not that the citizens would unite in force to attack the most powerful military in the world. It's that the citizens would have a means to resist if/when the nations leaders become so overbearing and begin using warpowers against citizens to detain them and force them to comply with unconstitutional laws and subject us to civil rights violations. Well, the ability to detain us arbitrarily has already been established. Or right to public assembly to make our voices heard has been curtailed. Some of us don't see the whole 2nd amm issue as a standalone issue. We see a pattern here, where lawmakers are actively taking away our ability to exercise our constitutional and civil rights. Taking away our right to bear arms is really just the nail in the coffin. So you ask "am I missing something"? YES! You are missing alot. You have no idea what our government is doing to the people of this country. You mistakenly believe that this is about guns, and protecting the people from those with them. This is about removing the peoples ability to determine their own future and the future of this country. This is about Fascism. And it's only getting worse. This is why we feel we need guns to protect ourselves from a government that's determined to legislate away ALL of our constitutional rights so that we have no choice but to accept whatever they want to do. We've tried peaceful assembly. They send their shock troops out to crack skulls when we assemble. And now they've passed a law that makes protesting anywhere near a government building a federal offense punishable by up to 10 years in prison. And if you are charged under that law, you automatically lose your 2nd amm rights because you're now a felon. This also strikes a blow to the 1st amm. We're no longer able to march on washington to make our grievances and voices heard. This establishes a pattern that shows that our leaders are only interested in furthering their own aganda, and strengthening their own power. They care nothing about the people. We are sheep to them. We're an annoyance to them in their endeavors. It's a power struggle between those who believe they have the ability to do whatever they want, at the expense of the rightful owners of this country. And once our abilities to effect change, and make our voices heard are completely done away with, that's when things will REALLY get bad. And this won't only be bad for US citizens. This will be bad for the entire world!! This is why I said that you should familiarize yourself with the situation here. Because you obviously have no clue. It's also why I said people should be careful to avoid becoming "useful idiots". Here's that definition again: In political jargon, useful idiot is a pejorative term for people perceived as propagandists for a cause whose goals they do not understand, and who are used cynically by the leaders of the cause. The term has been used to refer to Soviet sympathizers in Western countries. The implication was that, although the people in question naïvely thought of themselves as an ally of the Soviet Union, they were actually held in contempt and were being cynically used. The use of the term in political discourse has since been extended to other propagandists, especially those who are seen to unwittingly support a malignant cause which they naïvely believe to be a force for good.

[krisvds]

Babomb, not meaning to be disrespectful or anything, but naming anyone disagreeing with your theory a useful 'idiot' and so on... Frankly it comes across as condescending. Though i have done this myself on a couple of occassions. You could even say you are being the 'useful idiot' for the NRA's, the Tea Party's and others cause. Democratic rights are, and this is where Europe and America share more than they fear or believe under stress by an economical, harsh neoliberal system that clearly is granting powerful multinationals more power than simple citizens. Look at the economical crisis; some banks had to be saved with tax payers money because those responsible had 'gambled' their money away in dubious constructions where they had created a financial bubble. Were these bankers held responsible? Not in the States and not over here in Europe either. Banks where considered too big to fail. In Brussels there are currently more people working for lobby groups than there are for the European parliament... Meanwhile the Greek are becoming a nation where a majority are becoming 'working poor' fast. Lasw are being written and changed constantly protecting a harsh and injust system that is crushing people at an alarming rate. The cynical thing here is that if you think sitting at home on top of your arsenal will instill fear in these kinds of people I fear you are dead wrong. While you are preparing to take arms against your 'oppressive and fascist' government the 1% are walking to the bank, whistling. Atlas Shrugged tucked away under their arm in all likelyhood ...

[strayrider]

Response to Neil (sorry, the unstable nature of your current BB precluded me responding in the normal fashion. I was kicked off twice, losing everything that I had written…). Isn't this using the system exactly as its supposed to be used? Democracy in action? Or are gun owners beyond this system? Isn't it the same system that's dictated your existing gun laws and restrictions? The ones you're currently defending? Sure, members of the Senate are permitted to introduce bills for consideration so long as those bills do not involve the imposition of new taxes or the authorization of the spending of federal money. What you need to understand, however, is that this is not “democracy in action”. The United States is not a democracy. We are a republic. Patrick Henry warned us of individuals like Dianne Feinstein…"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined..." Don't know... Tricky business... (A: They’d have to resort to force; kicking in doors; house-to-house searches and seizures.) But if the law is passed, and citizens refused to relinquesh them, then surely they are going against the very democratic system they're so in favour of protecting? No, because the individuals demanding that firearms be relinquished would be operating against the principles of a republic. Common sense would compel us to disobey them. Other countries have managed to adjust their gun ownership laws to small degrees... Okay. Not true... Human culture changes... When was the last witch burned? I'm happy to predict: 1) Although we went to war with Germany twice last century, we won't this one... 2) The Americans have never had to rise up against their government over the past few centuries, and won't this one. True, human culture changes. I have already agreed with you on this particular point. My argument is that human nature is static. In terms of cognition and emotion we are no different than humans of 2500 years ago. While our knowledge has advanced (hence the changes in culture (thank God for the Renaissance)); our baser instincts remain intact. 1) I was simply making the point that the future is uncertain, not suggesting that England and Germany will go to war anytime soon (if ever). 2) We do not have to stage an armed revolution in order to “rise up”. Shit, what do you English think we are? An unwashed mass of trigger-happy rebels? BTW: have you checked out the record number of guns sold in America over the past few weeks since our impetuous leader started his gun control blather? The 2nd Amendment ROCKS! Well, the "personal protection" argument seems to be used all too often... Do Americans typically buy guns for personal protection, or in preparation for armed uprisings against the state? Granted, that is a common, valid argument. I specifically own guns for several reasons, hence the variety of firearms in my personal collection. Oh, did I say “collection”? How NRA assholish of me. What I meant to say was “in my personal arsenal”. Regardless, I am not the spokesman for the typical American. I cannot tell you why others own firearms. If you/we indeed decide that reducing the number of guns in circulation, and their power, will not in turn reduce murders and mass shootings, then indeed it’s pointless [to argue?]. It is never “pointless” to argue/debate an issue, however, there are currently so many firearms of the type that Feinstein wants to ban in circulation that her gun grab/registration scheme will do nothing to reduce mass shootings. Some people might “turn them all in” or submit to registration, but the problematic among us will do neither. But my gut feel is, gun ownership in the US is too relaxed, and this is reflected in the regularity of their use, often by the very people you do not want to have them. Why should the exercising of an inherent right be anything but relaxed? The fact that people who should not have access to firearms have access to firearms is a reflection of a broken system. First repair the system. Focus on the people who are the source of the problem, not on the people who are not causing the problem because they are not the cause of the problem. Is this not common sense? RE 1 - Not sure of why Greek and Romans come into this? The 2nd amendment is being used in defense of the current ownership of guns in the US. It's fair to say, when it was drawn up, it didn't envisage individuals having the kind of horrific fire power they can easily obtain today. I used the Greeks and Romans as examples of technological advancement. Honest. Go back and check. The Constitution was drawn up to separate the branches of government. The Bill of Rights was drawn up to recognize and guarantee the natural (inherent) rights of the individual and also to limit governmental authority over the individual. The 2nd amendment is part of the Bill of Rights. It really doesn’t matter what the Founders envisioned in terms of technology. They recognized that, in order to protect the natural rights of liberty, the common citizen should be armed. If potential adversaries are armed with modern weapons, it is silly to suggest that citizens should stick with muzzle loaders. I’m not implying that you think Americans should only own muzzle loaders, Neil, only that this is a common argument from the anti-gun left. Nor am I implying that everyone on the left is anti-gun. Let’s keep the debate clean, shall we? What I personally believe that they did not envisioned a society in which persons who are mentally ill or inclined toward criminal behavior as being permitted to walk freely among us. They didn’t do this to us. We did it to ourselves. The old boys must be spinning in their graves. I’m not suggesting that mentally ill persons be treated as criminals, BTW; however, certain of them do need closer professional supervision than they are currently receiving. RE 2 - … As long as the majority of the US population is happy that their ease off access to huge amounts of powerful firearms is worth the price (and there is price there of some sort), then fine... It does not matter what the majority of the US population is happy with. The US is not a democracy. We, for example, have an inherent right to keep and bear arms; we do not have an inherent right to be happy (or feel safe) regardless of what most people might think. In terms of the latter two; we can strive to be happy or feel safe, but we are never guaranteed that we will achieve either goal. You play the cards that you are dealt. You dance with the one who brung you. But just to suggest blindly, the 2nd amendment is spot on, and all current gun restrictions are fine and dandy seems amazing to me. You mean the very people you mistrust so much, have got it absolutely right?! I am forwarding nothing “blindly”. The 2nd Amendment is “spot on” because it is. Where did I state that all current gun restrictions are “fine and dandy”? Am I missing something here? -stray-