Lock Stock & Barrel

Fair point - my mistake, but let's not get too carried away. Correction: it doesn't take a repeal of the constitution, but an amendment to it. The two are not the same. Nonsense: you can't call something 'propaganda' merely on the flimsy basis that you might disagree with it. With the exception of the Northern Irish dog license, find one example of something I've posted here which you can dispute using impartial, reliable (i.e. not from the NRA, FOX 'News' or other similar partisan voodoo) sources - seeing as a number here seem to think that merely by offering an ill-informed or unsupported opinion they can have any credibility. Can you please provide a verifiable, non-NRA source for this claim?

That is how the law works: unless something is expressly forbidden (i.e. illegal), it is legal - ergo a right. The fact that you might need a license to do same merely addresses the issue of the concomitant responsibilities which go with that activity - such as driving a car, owning a firearm or watching a TV. The UK doesn't have, thankfully, a written constitution - at least not one that's codified; so we can add to or change our laws as we see fit - unlike the US, who need what amounts to an act of God to try and change their Constitution on any given matter under the guise of an amendment.

No, that's flawed logic: everyone in the UK has the right to own a dog (unless barred for legal reasons from doing so - e.g. after being found guilty of animal cruelty), but they need a license to own one. People have the right in the UK to watch TV, but they need a license to do so - or are you saying that people who live in areas where they can't get TV reception are haing their rights are infringed?

Ah, so because some of these deaths are gang-related, that makes it OK then...? We'll be the judge of this alleged study's impartiality - please post your source for it so we can judge for ourselves.

Like I said, a whiner.

And the fact that there are over 30,000 gun-related deaths in the US every year doesn't dint your ardour in that completely specious assertion? Let's see you back up your "beliefs" with some hard and impartial evidence - or is that too much to ask?

Then for the love of god what is it you're creating about? Shotguns face no immediate prospect of being banned (be they for game or clays), so what's your beef?

Did you two just fall asleep and miss the biggest shooting show in the country or something? There were million of pounds worth of all manner of guns to be bought - legally.

Having seen someone die from Dementia, akin to, but not the same as Parkinson's, I can understand why it makes sense either to remove or not re-issue their FAC or SGC. After all, driver's licences are removed or refused for certain people without either of these diseases when they patently are not safe to be behind the wheel of a car due to infirmity or illness (e.g. the risk of heart attack). If, as the police do, you have a public safety brief as your job description, why would you then knowingly allow someone with the symptoms of either disease hold a weapon where they hold the more than likely prospect of not being in control of their own faculties - potentially resulting in the intentional discharge of that weapon in the direction of other people? It's bad enough when able-bodied shooters have a negligent discharge, but to place a gun in the hands of someone who cannot control their shooting safety discipline just seems insane.

Hardly - merely just anti-******** artistes who make no effort to fact-check their posts here before gobbing-off like some paranoid whiner.

You've clearly not red the article - and if you have, you've done your usual trick of filtering out anything (regardless of how accurate) with which you disagree. C'est la vie.

Whilst conveniently forgetting that background checks for criminal record or history of mental illness, depression, addiction etc are not done as a matter of course in the US. Many US states require no background checks whatsoever. Switzerland is often held up by "liberty-luvvin Merkins" as the 'model' by which access to weapons should be applied - when they (again, conveniently) forget that the process for applying for a weapon's permit in Switzerland is just as stringent, and perhaps more so, than that in the UK.

This has nothing to do with the "nanny state", as it's a personal business decision taken by Google - I suspect after the recent spate of school/shopping mall/university massacres in the US. An example of the nanny state would be where the UK or US gov't had enforced this move upon Google, and neither has, so this is the polar opposite of nanny state and actually an example of a company in a free market economy making its own business decisions. Go ahead a boycott who you like, but this has nothing to do with the state, nanny or otherwise.

Understood mate - and the offer still stands.