jump to last post 1-18 of 18 discussions (94 posts)

Anti-Gun Crowd Ignores Texas Shooters Past ?

  1. ahorseback profile image76
    ahorsebackposted 11 days ago

    "Ban the gun" becomes the slogan most yelled for weeks after the  shooting anywhere ,   Those here at Hubpages , like all other mass media , jumps on the anti-gun bandwagon .   Before even all of the facts of an incident hit the streets the call arises from the usual ones .   "What do we do about guns and gun -owners ?"

    Now let's look at the brushes with the law that this shooter has had , including but not limited to , Bringing guns illegally onto an Air Force base to threaten commanding officers , multiple charges of domestic violence , animal cruelty , etc............escaping from a mental institution !

    I have offered dozens of times in the past my opinion of the stance of   our "soft on crime" legal system .   It does matter .   President Trump when asked by a young starry eyed reporter " Will You Now Institute Gun Restrictions ?"   Said , No .
    He pointed out the most violent city in the US 's restrictive laws ,Chicago , saying
    'Gun restrictions in Chicago is a disaster "

    When will America wake up to our legal system's systematic breakdown ?

    1. Greensleeves Hubs profile image98
      Greensleeves Hubsposted 9 days agoin reply to this

      Without knowing all the details about the Texas shooter, I fully concur that mental health clearly plays a major part in many crimes and if the authorities have been lax in their treatment of past offences which should have raised alarm bells, then that is certainly something which should be addressed.

      But of course no problem like this can be reduced to just one cause. A lax judicial system and failings by the authorities may be one aspect. That does not stop inadequate gun laws being another aspect.

      But regarding Chicago, the linking of Chicago's high murder rate to strict gun laws is wrong on so many counts. Mr Trump's assertion that 'gun restrictions in Chicago is a disaster' is typical of something which he does better than anyone else - the promulgation of 'fake news'. As I understand it, almost everything about the Chicago argument seems to be wrong - other than the basic fact that the city has a high murder rate.

  2. psycheskinner profile image84
    psycheskinnerposted 11 days ago

    That sounds like a list of reasons he shouldn't have had a gun. And in fact he was not legally allowed to have a gun, which is good.  What was missing was actively policing to take the gun away from him--which should not be impossible given that he posted pictures of it on Facebook.  Take home message: more resources for community policing.

    1. Aime F profile image85
      Aime Fposted 11 days agoin reply to this

      Exactly. It sounds like the “on the spot” background check failed miserably here.

      I still don’t think I’ve seen anyone saying they think that guns should be banned outright. “Gun control” does not equal banning guns. It means being more thorough in ensuring that people are suited to own firearms.

      For example, a small measure that could have potentially stopped this man from buying guns here in Canada, is reference checks. They would see that he was married (or previously married, I can’t remember if they were still together?) and notify her that he was trying to buy a gun. Given his history she’d have the opportunity to speak up. It’s a really simple addition that has potential to give police information beyond a background check.

      1. ahorseback profile image76
        ahorsebackposted 11 days agoin reply to this

        The man who shot this  murderer is credited by law enforcement with saving the lives of potentially dozens of more church goers .  Check your news media .   Will you site that heroism as happening in Canada too ?     What about those  heroics ?     As usual most fact is forgotten in gun  debates and the only accounts  become that which bore the hell out of honesty and celebrate the leftist anti- gun argument.      I can see just as much personal warfare going on with divorcee involvement in gun checks.

        Canada is overboard in it's vigilance in the war against legal gun owners.  Canada only has 10 % of the population of the US. and it's  "statistics " cannot fairly be debated.

        1. Aime F profile image85
          Aime Fposted 11 days agoin reply to this

          That particular brand of heroism is not happening in Canada because people don’t regularly walk into public establishments to shoot dozens of people in Canada.

          What do you feel is “overboard” about Canadian gun laws? Canada has 30.8 guns per capita - that’s the 11th highest in the world. There is no war on legal gun owners happening here.

          As for the “personal warfare” between past partners, it’s certainly possible. But it’s also certainly possible that someone could get a heads-up that their abusive ex-husband/wife is purchasing a gun and either notify police that they have concerns and/or take necessary precautions to protect themselves.

          1. wilderness profile image100
            wildernessposted 11 days agoin reply to this

            Or notify police that their non-abusive ex-husband (wife) did terrible things to them and they have tremendous concerns about them getting a gun.  Do your police go on hearsay or only on documented events?

            1. Aime F profile image85
              Aime Fposted 11 days agoin reply to this

              As I said, that’s a possibility. I’m sure they’re familiar that it’s a possibility as well. Personally I feel like the benefits of being extra cautious with giving someone who has negative character references outweighs the cons of someone not potentially being able to purchase a gun. But that’s just me.

              1. wilderness profile image100
                wildernessposted 11 days agoin reply to this

                I don't know...those "benefits" seem primarily directed at causing police to do a thorough investigation of anyone wanting a gun and has an angry ex.  Whereupon they then may deny or accept the application; if they deny, the person gets it illegally and kills with it  At best the "benefit" is to delay the murder by a few days/weeks and at worst causes a perfectly innocent person massive trouble with the law while taking law enforcement personnel away from doing the job of protecting the public.

                Thing is, at least in the US, very few guns used in murders are purchased legally (by the shooter) - denying guns to murderers seems to accomplish very little.  Whatever we may "feel" about the benefits that does seem to be the bottom line.  It's much like "feeling" that if we could only take the guns away then people couldn't kill any more, but the evidence from all over the world gives a lie to that, too.

                1. Aime F profile image85
                  Aime Fposted 11 days agoin reply to this

                  So since there’s a chance they’re going to acquire it illegally there’s no point in taking precautions when it comes to selling it legally? Do you think we should just do away with background checks, licensing, etc. completely and sell guns over the counter at the local corner store to anyone who walks in?

                  And as I mentioned previously at least if they legitimately are abusive and still manage to get a gun, the ex-spouse has been notified that they’re looking to get one and has some time to take precautions.

                  1. wilderness profile image100
                    wildernessposted 11 days agoin reply to this

                    You misunderstand - from all appearances it isn't a "chance" a gun will be obtained illegally if it is not available legally.  It is a virtual certainty, or, if a killer desires to kill and can't find their preferred tool, they will find a different weapon.

                    I'm all for gun controls, but only those controls that have a reasonable expectancy of saving lives.  And even then it is possible that the cost will exceed the returns - if, for example, there was a reasonable expectancy that buying back all guns at a cost of a trillion dollars while turning those that refuse to sell them into criminals would save one life, the cost exceeds the reward.

                    The US has some 20,000 gun control laws on the books, and we have the highest murder rate in the civilized world.  So I have to ask - what is the expected result of asking the public for opinions of whether a gun buyer should be able to purchase a gun?  Can we reasonably expect it to save live, or will it do nothing but cause problems for citizens and police?

                2. Greensleeves Hubs profile image98
                  Greensleeves Hubsposted 10 days agoin reply to this

                  If very few guns are purchased legally by shooters, then that is an argument for making it more difficult across society to buy guns. If guns are less readily available to the general public, then they are also less available to criminals. That is a truism which does accomplish a lot, as is amply demonstrated by other countries with stricter gun controls.  Of course people can still kill without guns, but not so easily or quickly. The evidence from all over the world doesn't give a lie to that - it proves it.

              2. Greensleeves Hubs profile image98
                Greensleeves Hubsposted 10 days agoin reply to this

                Not just you. Any sensible person anywhere in the world smile

          2. ahorseback profile image76
            ahorsebackposted 11 days agoin reply to this

            The same personal situation can develop here . What ?  You don't think an ex-wife couldn't cause you problems purchasing a gun in the US   ?   You have another thought coming !   

            What Canada does have is a land mass the size of the US with 1 tenth the population per square mile . One tenth the population  of the US !   You  and many, many here  don't get is ---that comparisons between the US and Canada  just don't work .

            My older brother in the 1980's once raised his voice at his  cheating wife , someone generally very quiet ,   when he found out his wife  was cheating on him ,   She called the police and had his firearms removed for one whole year - No charges filed , no court dates ,no  arrest no nothing , she moved out a week later  and he still went one full year .

            A friend of mine in New Hampshire has the same name  as someone  in Michigan and their SS # 's are just a couple off from each other ,   Every time he has made a firearm purchase in the last ten years  he has had to endure the  72 hour waiting period check before it gets straightened out .

            By the way ,there are hundreds of gun laws in the US  yet what good does it do if  the leniency of the justice system is so incredibly lax  ?   There are extensive background check questions on an application to purchase a firearm here that I experience each purchase , at least two pages and an FBI background check .

    2. ahorseback profile image76
      ahorsebackposted 11 days agoin reply to this

      There you have it , fix the justice system  and not do more darned legislating ,this  IS the problem . A  history of legal brushes with the law dealing with this guy should have foretold the outcome .  Especially dealing in violence and   abuse . The truth of the matter ,  animal torture IS one of the oldest flags on the books too.

  3. ahorseback profile image76
    ahorsebackposted 11 days ago

    Notice ,  Ahorseback is offering  a $ 100 reward for any criminal who illegally obtained a firearm , no question's asked ,   if you will just turn in to me or any other public official. In full realization  that although laws were broken in the acquisition of said firearm  , no  charges will be filed against you at all  .

    Anyone  see the problem with asking, even  politely,  a criminal to not use his firearm illegally anymore and turn it in ?

    Get it ?     Gun Crimes = criminal ? ............. No , guess not !

  4. Onusonus profile image81
    Onusonusposted 11 days ago

    https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/23316508_1665704016801161_7596517966503152996_n.jpg?oh=7db090bfcf0d73c320c04ab315181004&oe=5AA22E9E

    1. Dean Traylor profile image93
      Dean Traylorposted 7 days agoin reply to this

      Just curious, are you trained to shoot at people...hitting a target it one thing, hitting a person in such a situation is another.

      1. ahorseback profile image76
        ahorsebackposted 7 days agoin reply to this

        Who are you talking to ?

        1. Dean Traylor profile image93
          Dean Traylorposted 7 days agoin reply to this

          The one who posted the Peanuts meme about how to take care of a mass shooter.

  5. tritrain profile image81
    tritrainposted 10 days ago

    Aime F  So true about the broken leg.   Or, I like to say "oh just walk it off" to a person with a broken leg.  That tells me right there they have no idea what they're talking about.

  6. Credence2 profile image82
    Credence2posted 10 days ago

    It is amazing that whenever some nutty white guy slaughter innocents in large numbers, the gun people start to circle the wagons and get defensive. If the shooter could have been identified as minority, leftist, particularly, Muslim, it would lend to rightwingers' arguments as justification to deport everybody in retaliation. And, of course, Trump will then get Kudos, his xenophobia vindicated.

    1. ahorseback profile image76
      ahorsebackposted 10 days agoin reply to this

      Whats truly amazing is how gun-less and gutless leftists always blame the gun first and the man last ! Attack the 2nd amendment first and guard with their lives the ineptitude of the systematic demise of the justice / incarceration system  ,  attacking the two hundred plus year old constitution instead of the present day culture of mindless and conscienceless violence .

      It's just so predictable and I  answered  my own questions .

      1. Credence2 profile image82
        Credence2posted 10 days agoin reply to this

        Would you have given me the same speech if the assailant were Muslim? I doubt it.

        1. ahorseback profile image76
          ahorsebackposted 10 days agoin reply to this

          Credence ,Oh  don't be contrary ,   The Muslim {immigrant Muslim ] is an entirely different problem except the penchant for terrorism , domestic or home grown  . What difference does religion have to do with homicidal  tendencies , get serious please ?

          Just can't see past the evil guns can you ?

          1. Credence2 profile image82
            Credence2posted 9 days agoin reply to this

            You conservatives bring up bogey men from halfway around the world as a threat, when your home grown boys are committing most of the high profile massacres. So, who should I fear the most?

            The only "terrorism" with an appreciable body count is the domestic sort. Does it really matter what the label is when the outcome is the same?

            I do see beyond the 'evil double standard" always promulgated by the Right.

    2. wilderness profile image100
      wildernessposted 10 days agoin reply to this

      And they shouldn't "circle the wagons"?  We already have a bill introduced to ban those dreadful "assault rifles" - the weapon that kills fewer people each year than bare hands and feet and far fewer than knives, in an irrational but very predictable, emotion laden gut response to the church tragedy.

      1. Credence2 profile image82
        Credence2posted 9 days agoin reply to this

        "And they shouldn't "circle the wagons"?  We already have a bill introduced to ban those dreadful "assault rifles" - the weapon that kills fewer people each year than bare hands and feet and far fewer than knives, in an irrational but very predictable, emotion laden gut response to the church tragedy."

        I never challenged possession of firearms as the basis of my discussion here. My point is that so called foreign terrorist threat with weapons is exaggerated relative to the mayhem committed by the 'all American boys....'

        1. wilderness profile image100
          wildernessposted 9 days agoin reply to this

          No, you didn't challenge the constitution.  Just the idea that conservatives must watch liberals very carefully ("circle the wagons") lest they lose their rights to fear mongering idiots that care nothing for facts.

  7. Onusonus profile image81
    Onusonusposted 10 days ago

    https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/23244332_687338344794189_1103919461297900845_n.jpg?oh=9f518287aa86f249a0c849476c9b6cbb&oe=5A9A8FCA

  8. ahorseback profile image76
    ahorsebackposted 9 days ago

    Greensleaves , So ,you are saying "Of course the justice  system  is flawed ".......but that's not it ......... "Of course mental health issues are a disaster" ........but that's not it .......,,,,,"Of course the history of this mans brushes with the law are there ".........but that's not it ............"Of course there is more than one cause ".........but that's not it  ............"Of  Chicago and many of our cities are  in turmoil  of violence ".......but it ain't that ..............."Of course an American has the constitutional right to defend himself against anyone  ."...............but it's not that either .

    You're saying ,      All of the faults of our justice , courts , incarceration system ,  legal system and mental health system .................... It's that big bad boogy -man ,the gun .

    I say ,Great ......one more expert  heard from.

    1. Greensleeves Hubs profile image98
      Greensleeves Hubsposted 9 days agoin reply to this

      Heard from, but appearently not listened to.

      Quite funny actually how you chose to paraphrase what I actually said, so as to include virtually everything which I never said, and never would have said. smile And none of those societal problems were responsible for arming him with a gun.

      1. ahorseback profile image76
        ahorsebackposted 9 days agoin reply to this

        I don't fault you my friend , you actually use the daily  used liberal tactic of implying a whole lot of innuendo and factualizing nothing .  So let me help you ,  here's the most direct and serious issue   , Of the thousands of gun violence , domestic violence , a whole separate  military system of  law  on the books in America today  ,  This man was given pass after pass  after pass  after pass.........?

        See the problem with instituting more law ?

        1. Greensleeves Hubs profile image98
          Greensleeves Hubsposted 8 days agoin reply to this

           

          I can happily provide facts including plenty of relevence to Chicago if you wish, but I think we both know that the problem with 'facts' - or rather statistics - is that they can very easily be interpreted any way you want to on this issue - both sides do that, but it's something that the gun lobby have become particularly expert at.

  9. tritrain profile image81
    tritrainposted 9 days ago

    You're calling liberals idiots?  What about those of us here, are we idiots if we're liberal?

    1. wilderness profile image100
      wildernessposted 9 days agoin reply to this

      No, you're idiots if you think that further regulation banning the sale of those black, scary looking guns that are used to murder fewer people than hands and feet is what the country needs.

      1. Greensleeves Hubs profile image98
        Greensleeves Hubsposted 8 days agoin reply to this

        I'll rise to that bait. Yes, further regulation is what the country needs, and yes, if no one had guns, it would save countless lives. Maybe you think that makes me an idiot or uneducated, but if so you would also think the same thing about the vast majority of people in free-thinking, informed democracies around the world, pretty much none of whom would ever want to follow America as a role model on this issue.

        But let's be sensible - no one is sugesting all guns should be removed tomorrow morning. That would be disastrous! For a start, criminals obviously wouldn't all give them up. What sensible people - not idiots or the uneducated - would suggest is rigorous checks on would-be owners and a clamp down on illegal sales, and a very gradual, phased withdrawal of certain categories of weapon. As the markets - both 'legal' and 'black' - dry up, so criminals would find it increasingly hard to obtain guns. That's what's happened in numerous other countries around the world, where no one feels the need for a gun.

  10. tritrain profile image81
    tritrainposted 9 days ago

    I'll bite.  Let's say I want to see the AR 15, Mini-14 and other semi-automatic rifles heavily regulated or even banned.  Now I'm an idiot?  Go ahead and say it.  I dare you.

    1. ahorseback profile image76
      ahorsebackposted 9 days agoin reply to this

      No , your no idiot , just one more misdirected , ill-informed  anti- progressive progressive.      Fix the justice system and enforcement we have and  mass killings will die a slow death , keep jockeying  for non- assault 'assault weapons bans " and even if you succeed--- watch nothing change . Fix the broken justice system !

      Liberals should take classes on the difference between "black guns " and  "assault weapons" to begin with  ,    but then why bother .   They would only go to spring break and skip it all.

    2. wilderness profile image100
      wildernessposted 9 days agoin reply to this

      Guess that would have to depend on your reasons.  If you're honest enough to say that you have an irrational fear of them and therefore millions of people should not be allowed to own one I might disagree but that doesn't make you an idiot.

      If, on the other hand, you say that no one should have one because it will save countless lives, well, you haven't bothered to educate yourself.  Or can't, which should say something in itself.

      1. ahorseback profile image76
        ahorsebackposted 9 days agoin reply to this

        Couldn't have been said nicer or better !

    3. Onusonus profile image81
      Onusonusposted 8 days agoin reply to this

      https://i.redditmedia.com/Y8vhQm8W3KR7XbmfmtQrmvz0dgi2kutvqdo1ghX1pEI.jpg?w=600&s=185b7ee6d166a9993c41afc2fd417022

  11. tritrain profile image81
    tritrainposted 9 days ago

    I didn't ask you.  But I would rather see these types of discussions left to a conservative forum so you can all commiserate together.  Leave this political crap off this forum.  Why you think it's ok to talk about guns when the they are not allowed as a hub is beyond me. 

    I'm waiting for them to close these deservedly stupid threads once and for all.

    1. ahorseback profile image76
      ahorsebackposted 9 days agoin reply to this

      So typical ," Leave the opposing debates elsewhere "  Ummm, ........guess what ?
      They were here before you were .
      You know ,.....  I didn't know guns weren't allowed as hubs , if they aren't .

      That's one more nail in the HubPage ,pop up corporation to me .

  12. ahorseback profile image76
    ahorsebackposted 8 days ago

    So , Of all of the genius in the  alt -liberal world , perhaps one of you can explain the  difference between  the benefits of the literal destructing of the second amendment rights as compared to the first amendment rights that cause as  much death, property destruction ,cop killings ,  political wars and cultural turmoil ?

    So okay people , no more free speech rights , Ban the first amendment !

    Why no ? It could save countless lives.

    1. Greensleeves Hubs profile image98
      Greensleeves Hubsposted 8 days agoin reply to this

      I can only explain the difference from a foreign perspective, though maybe it would be one shared by those who support greater gun control in the U.S? The First Amendment is all about free speech, free expression and belief (or non-belief) and was remarkably enlightened for the time when it was written. Even free speech has its limitations (security issues etc) but its necessity is recognised as a fundamental human right, perhaps second only to the right to peacefully choose the people who govern you - because free exchange of views is essential to make valid, informed decisions in an election. People may differ on the extent of the freedom (whether libel laws for example should be strengthened to prevent 'fake news' or protect the innocent from defamation) but the basic right to state your opinion and discuss - as we are amicably doing here smile - is absolutely fundamental. What's more, getting rid of free speech would not save lives, because it would lead to dictatorship, and dictatorship almost invariably leads ultimately to civil war or revolution. No other way to change the government would remain.

      The Second Amendment has always been the subject of discussion due to the odd wording employed, but however the phrasing is interpreted, many would argue it is very different in its merit. The right of self-defence is certainly another equally fundamental right, but what defensive weapons are proportionate in a society with an organised police force? In most of the democratic world, nobody even talks about guns and nobody wants guns - it's a total non-issue in the UK - because almost no one feels threatened by guns. We can use other weapons for self-defence against burglars etc (commensurate with the level of threat) but otherwise law and order is left to the police and everyone feels safe with that.

      I realise Americans have a different historical perspective, and also a lack of any trust in the Government or the police which ingrains in many a deep-rooted belief in the need for personal defensive weaponry, but whereas the basics of the First Amendment would surely be agreed by everyone, the basics of the Second Amendment are more open to debate.

      1. wilderness profile image100
        wildernessposted 8 days agoin reply to this

        "What's more, getting rid of free speech would not save lives..."

        Buried within this statement is the crux of the matter in the US, for it makes a very strong insinuation that getting rid of guns WILL save lives.  Unfortunately for that assumption there isn't a country in the world where that has proven true, but there are quite a few where the opposite has happened (government "purges" after disarming the public).

  13. ahorseback profile image76
    ahorsebackposted 8 days ago

    Greensleeves ,  Oh but , "The first amendment is a ""fundamental "" constitutional right , " ..........and the second is up for interpretation ?  No , actually not when it was written and not now . there are  27- simple words for an entire amendment ? 
    If 27 words makes an amendment  hard to interpret , then your interpretation is the problem  and not the written word , a militia was made up  of simply civilians then   and the national guard today  is too.

    1. Greensleeves Hubs profile image98
      Greensleeves Hubsposted 8 days agoin reply to this

      My point is that free speech is a fundamental human right, irrespective of the American constitution. It is a human right in any decent country. Bearing arms is not. It may be a Constitutional right, but that is very different from a fundamental human right. It's not recognised as a human right in almost all other countries.

      The fact that the 2nd Amendment is only 27 words long is precisely the problem. There isn't enough detail or clarity of wording to be sure as to what was intended. It is very much open to interpretation and that was clear from the Columbia v Heller Supreme Court ruling. A majority of 5:4 is hardly overwhelming, especially when I believe all but two of the judges were appointed by Republican presidents, four notably conservative judges voted in favour of the pro-'right to bear arms' argument and four notably liberal judges voted in dissent. Only one judge - Anthony Kennedy, who gave the decisive fifth vote - was less predictable in his voting practices. (I am relying on neutral websites for all this information, but do you dispute it?)

      In other words the Supreme Court judges were very divided in their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, and on another occasion with a different Supreme Court make-up clearly may have given a very different judgement. Even allowing for this verdict, the judges stated that this right is far from being unlimited in terms of the types of guns, how they are carried, or where they are carried. So that too is open to interpretation.

      1. wilderness profile image100
        wildernessposted 8 days agoin reply to this

        "There isn't enough detail or clarity of wording to be sure as to what was intended."

        Are you assuming the intent was a limitation of some kind?  Or was the intent to leave it to future generations to decide was is reasonable and what is not?  Or was the intent to allow each and every citizen (white male, of course, considering the times) ownership of any weapon they could lay hands on?

        1. ahorseback profile image76
          ahorsebackposted 8 days agoin reply to this

          What the second's simplicity was , was an obvious assumption that the need to acquire food daily ,  defend one's home and their family ,  defend ones absolute and universal right to liberty , freedom from tyranny , and to promise the  retention of that newly formed sovereign government from all evil intent from inside or outside of our borders was guaranteed.

          27 simply basic words in English .

        2. Greensleeves Hubs profile image98
          Greensleeves Hubsposted 7 days agoin reply to this

          To me, the linking of two elements in just 27 words - 'a well regulated militia being necessary' and 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' indicates that the latter is conditional on the former. At that time a newly founded nation was far from secure. But today there is a well regulated police force, a well regulated standing army and a well regulated National Guard all in place.

          I realise that this linking of the two elements is disputed, plus there is the feeling among some conservatives of the need to keep arms for protection against a tyrannical government. But the way I read it the intent seems limited to that period of history when a militia of the people might have to be called upon to defend the nation against insurrection or invasion.

          But to be honest, it seems strange to those of us viewing from afar, that interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is even an issue of relevence. The Constitution and the Founding Fathers hold a place of reverence in American society, so it may seem almost blasphemous to say so, but should the precise intent of a handful of men at the end of the 18th century hold sway over what's best for hundreds of millions of people at the beginning of the 21st? The real issue should be 'are guns a good thing or a bad thing and should they be controlled today?'

          1. wilderness profile image100
            wildernessposted 7 days agoin reply to this

            What you're advocating removes us from the realm of law and justice into mob rule, though.  When we simply ignore the constitution as no longer applicable, even though it IS the law, we have lost the entire concept of law.

            But there is another problem as well; that "good thing" and "bad thing" are not dependent on fact, but only on the emotional makeup of the speaker and listener.  The current thrust in congress to ban those terrible "assault weapons" (that are used to murder fewer people than hands and feet are) is a case in point; those lawmakers would remove rights from millions of people for no more reason than a fear factor that has been worked on for years, building it to suit the prejudices of a few.

            1. Greensleeves Hubs profile image98
              Greensleeves Hubsposted 7 days agoin reply to this

              OK, I guess you know what my response to that would be. Do all countries which lack a written constitution have mob rule, or lack the concept of law? In the UK there is no such structure, yet there's no fear of societal breakdown. Some other countries also lack a written constitution, including that degenerate haven of mob rule and lawlessness, New Zealand smile Seriously, I'm sure a constitution may give some feeling of reassurance to a nation, but strict adherence to the surmised intentions of its authors - rather than the spirit of just law and human rights - is hardly a pre-requisite for civilised law.

              1. wilderness profile image100
                wildernessposted 7 days agoin reply to this

                "Do all countries which lack a written constitution have mob rule, or lack the concept of law?"

                I don't know - do they constantly squabble over changing existing laws according to current desires of the majority, rampaging over the desires of a minority for no more reason than they don't like with others do?  That's almost textbook definition of "mob rule" - the majority always gets what it wants without regard to the minority.

                Our constitution goes to great length to protect minorities, and personally I like it that way.

                1. Greensleeves Hubs profile image98
                  Greensleeves Hubsposted 7 days agoin reply to this

                  No, we just peacefully change laws through debate in Parliament to keep in step with the changes in society over time, as opposed to adhering to  200 year old laws.

                  As for minority rights, I'm not sure how we measure up legally. I can only say that there seems generally to be more respect between races and creeds in the UK than there is in America, possibly less islamophobia (despite high rates of Islamic immigration here), less racial tension between police and minorities, less hostility towards gays, transexuals etc, much greater respect for atheists, and more tolerance between those on the two sides of the birth control issue.

                  1. wilderness profile image100
                    wildernessposted 7 days agoin reply to this

                    "No, we just peacefully change laws through debate in Parliament to keep in step with the changes in society over time, as opposed to adhering to  200 year old laws. "

                    How long has it been since religious fights and murders were common?  10 years?  20?  Were there not riots over Brexit?  No trouble/violence over Scotland's proposed exit from the UK (why was it even proposed - do Scots not feel they are getting a fair shake in parliament)?

                    But don't forget that your common law (basis for American law in many cases) is not 200 years old, but a thousand.  And still in effect.

                  2. ahorseback profile image76
                    ahorsebackposted 7 days agoin reply to this

                    Respectfully my UK. friend  , who are you trying to kid about less negative human nature in the UK ?   The only difference between America's crime , etc.  and the rest of the free world  is the incredible media  dump of negativity in the US. 
                    America's sensationalizing news media is the latest "reality show" for the rest of the world. That's the only reason  that you know what our culture is comprised of. If the UK , France ,  Greece , Russia had our media freedoms ,  the real picture over there would be much the same and perhaps worse .

      2. GA Anderson profile image83
        GA Andersonposted 8 days agoin reply to this

        Hi greensleeves, I understand your perspective that the divided Heller court decision may seem to cast  doubt on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, but if you consider the wording, (those infamous 27 words), of the amendment in the context of the times, and the author's notes and explanations of its intent, then I don't think you will find the ambiguity you think the Heller decision illustrates.

        Take a few minutes to look for yourself. Look at Madison's Constitutional debate notes, and the Federalist Papers relative to the 2nd;
        *I apologize for the link referrals, it is contrary to my usual postings, but it does serve the purposes of my comment.

        Madfison's Federal CoventionDebate Notes - Avalon Project

        James Madison Research Library

        The Federalist #29

        The Federalist #46

        After looking at these "author's" perspectives - in their times,  you may very well continue with your  current opinion, but I  think you will at least have noted that there was no ambiguity in the author's minds when they constructed the 2nd Amendment.,

        GA

        1. Greensleeves Hubs profile image98
          Greensleeves Hubsposted 7 days agoin reply to this

          Thanks GA for those links. No apologies necessary! smile It'll take time to read through all of them, especially as I think it's necessary to do so 2 or 3 times to fully understand the 18th century phraseology and inferences, but I will do so when time permits. (Quite apart from the arguments, it's always interesting anyway to read documents such as these to gain an insight into the thinking of historic figures and the nature of society at that time.)

          I have looked briefly at two of the documents, (the 2nd and 3rd linked) and they indicate the range of opinions at the time, and the Research Library Notes make clear the different views over how to precisely word the Amendment. I do feel on preliminary reading that the ambiguity does remain, certainly with regard to the limitations of the 'right' and whether it was a 'right' for all time. But I will read through them again in due course, so cheers.

          I would however refer you to the reply I recently gave to to 'wilderness', as to where priorities should surely lie - the exact intent of the writers of the Amendment, or the needs of 21st Century America. But that is for present day Americans to decide, not me. I can only offer a detached, foreign perspective smile

          1. GA Anderson profile image83
            GA Andersonposted 7 days agoin reply to this

            I understand your "foreign" perspective on the Second Amendment. By foreign I mean just that - not an American perspective, so it is understandable that you view it differently.

            From what small amount of reading I have done concerning this topic, I can relate a few points with confidence. One is that our Constitutional language and intent must be understood in the context of the times and circumstances of the Constitution's creation. As such, to try to apply 21st century interpretations will seldom meet the mark of the author's intentions.

            Secondly, and one of the reasons I consider our Constitution's structure and wording a brilliant accomplishment is that the document is a foundation, a structure, for our government that is not period dependent. It is not a detailed finished product that says this is what America will be, it is the foundation for the finished product of America to be built on. It's structure and wording was purposeful because our Founder's understood there would be future times they could not begin to guess at, so the document they were creating had to be concise enough to carry meaning and intent, but not so rigid or detailed to preclude future circumstances.

            Consider the simple wording of their First Amendment aspects of free speech, and religious freedom. They didn't try to prescribe the parameters of either one. They didn't say you couldn't yell "Fire!" in a crowded venue, or that you couldn't put the Ten Commandments on the Courthouse lawn. But they did understand that there would be future considerations that would require those kind of details, so they merely constructed the framework, and an amendment process to accommodate changes, and a judiciary to validate parameters.

            Back on topic, and with those thoughts in mind, consider the simplicity of the Second Amendment. They didn't insert details like; when you could bear arms, or even what kind of arms. They merely established the Right, and left the rest for future considerations by the citizens, our government, and our courts.

            There is one point you make that is very clearly documented by notes and writings of the times. The Right to bear arms for the purposes of having an available citizen militia was very much directed to concerns of defense against a powerful central government that could turn tyrannical, and the standing armies that central government would come to posses.

            The bottom line is that the militia spoken of in the Second was directly intended for defense purposes against our new government - should it go wrong, not primarily for defense against foreign invaders or internal insurrections.

            I have had this type of conversation before, and can only hope to have sparked an interest for further reading. Because that is where a true, non-biased,non-political understanding will come from. Even with the 2nd being so tightly knotted, (these days), with political gun control stances, there was nothing political about the Second's creation.

            I hope I didn't tire you out, as you can see, this is a topic I am enthusiastic about. ;-)

            GA

  14. ahorseback profile image76
    ahorsebackposted 8 days ago

    The only truth decent liberals ever use that bears and resemblance to due righteousness is "In my opinion " , But,   lets talk about a basic fundamental human rights,  until something  less than  50 years ago in America and actually still in every state here and much if not most of the world  hunting is an accepted  way of life and so the weapons to that purpose are as well.

    Any talk of gun confiscation , reduced rights ,limitations , governed collections , confiscations or controls for that matter go against that simple 2nd amendment.
    Liberals here seem to be the only ones who believe  constitutional law as being fluid  .    There comes a point when even amended law strangles the original intent of the constitutional right itself.   And the laws that  amend , alter or change the second amendment already do that. Hence ,the un-moving supreme court stance supporting the 2nd.

    Look at the second amendment this way , it is as  perpetual as the constitution is itself.

  15. Kathleen Cochran profile image83
    Kathleen Cochranposted 8 days ago

    Oh, he had a reason!  Well then, that makes it all right?

  16. ahorseback profile image76
    ahorsebackposted 7 days ago

    Not one element of constitutional law can be so severely altered without the compromising of the whole .   I understand that a city dweller has no need or  familiarity with a  ten gauge shotgun    ,   someone residing and raised in  London has no need for the idea of a vintage gun collection ,  a man in  gated community in Baltimore has no understanding or need for personal protection with 911  three minutes from his door.

    IF each of you asked yourself fairly , What is YOUR OWN  personal understanding and experience  with gun ownership ?    What you read about in Vanity fair  about personal protection ?   What you watch  on 60 minutes and was produced by urban dwellers , educated at Georgetown and so chopped, cut  and edited in a NYC studio ?

    Or ,   did you grow up with the firearm heritage passed down through generations of constant  ownership ?     From a young age  traditionally handed  a firearm at a young age and trained in it's safe use and operation ,   Were you taught the proper cleaning , maintenance and use  at the range or in the home by trusted adults , quite often in the back yards of rural  homes  ?   Was that upbringing related to military service often times the only offering of a making a living  for  rural  Americans ? Did you attain your firearms training and use at the calling of your government ?  That right of possession?

    I don't truly expect anyone in the anti- gun  crowd to understand , much less support , 
    such reasonable responses from the right because   I am not that naive  ,  true opposition is constant opposition ,  but a well instituted and much legally dissected meaning to the Second Amendment has already been done , hundreds of times in the courts , in just about every single election cycle in our American history .

    Worry not , the second amendment isn't going anywhere soon .

    1. wilderness profile image100
      wildernessposted 7 days agoin reply to this

      Depends on your definition of "soon"  My prediction is that within the next 50 years the second amendment will be either repealed or so emasculated with "proper" interpretation  as to be useless in providing the right to bear arms.  The "I WILL control you!" crowd is destined to win this one.

      1. ahorseback profile image76
        ahorsebackposted 7 days agoin reply to this

        Maybe , hell  probably but at what cost ?   I know that there are many ,many millions of Americans that are willing  to push that to the limits .  I have said before that  it would involve civil war .    Yet ,  I also fully and consciously admit to the presence of indoctrination in our schools and in our youth  .     Just as in all such things it is obviously our young that are the future  and that will be the true telling of this debate .
        In the mean time , we fight on.

        1. wilderness profile image100
          wildernessposted 7 days agoin reply to this

          In the meantime we fight on, but it's a losing battle.  Far too many people aren't interested in facts and results, just in an emotional appeal to fear, and it's getting worse.  What percentage of people, for instance, know that the dreaded "assault rifle" is used in only a tiny percentage of murders (about 2%), is the most popular rifle in the country, AND cares about either one?  We are being trained that terminology (implying military usage) and appearance is cause for fear, and fear will triumph reason any day.

          1. ahorseback profile image76
            ahorsebackposted 7 days agoin reply to this

            I do know that most anti-s wouldn't know which end of the gun to put against their shoulder , we must teach them so they don't get hurt .

            Good point on fear and paranoia .

  17. ahorseback profile image76
    ahorsebackposted 7 days ago

    A few fact's unknown to most with gun questions outside of America ; 99.99+% accurate within  the U.S.
    -automatic weapons are illegal to own by U.S. citizens[only federally licensed  ]
    -Most people who are into guns have been so for many years
    -Are safe and always act safely when shooting
    -Demand safety from other shooters at all times
    -Majority of gun's owned are primitive in design
    -Marketed fake " assault rifles" are just that , lacking ' automatic' fire
    -All new / used gun sales legally require extensive , instant FBI background check
    -Felons cannot legally own guns
    -Full auto weapons owner  have to have special Fed . licence[hard to attain ]
    -Gun show/sales  unless illegal ,  must be legally registered with FBI ,B.G. check
    -I have  attended hundreds and never witness an illegal gun show or sale .
    -People under 21 cannot legally purchase a handgun
    -nor under 18 yr.s without parental signing [long-guns ]
    -Any more questions ?

  18. ahorseback profile image76
    ahorsebackposted 6 days ago

    Consider also the timing at the writing of the second amendment that people today cannot hardly  begin to imagine ,  Protesters  in the streets of Boston , A people taken to the streets over politics , taking up arms  and laying down their rakes , shovels and hoes .    Putting aside family , farm and business' ,   leaving their homes by force ,   marriages put off ,   child bearings missed .    Marching  for weeks on end to muster .   

    Watch the Mel Gibson movie , The Patriot just once ,  And then read the 27 words of the second amendment  .      The simplicity of those words for people who love their country rings bells year after year  since then .    And ask yourself ,  Is the  politcal / cultural / media   atmosphere  so different today than it was in 1777   ?

    The Second Amendment isn't going anywhere soon .

 
working