American gun laws

[demonwolf444]

Quote whatever figures you like. Banning guns, banning features, (AWB) banning magazine capacity, isnt going to achieve anything. Registering them to well funded local non governmental departments who carry out background checks thoroughly, and mental health assemments on those found to be "at risk" or whatever, could keep guns somewhat out of the hands of lunatics, this wont stop them from beating the tests or simply buying a gun on a black market. The fear amongst most americans is that the finestien AWB bans so many features that most commonly used guns will be grandfathered, and registered..and that that registration will facilitate confiscation in response to the next tragic event.. ect..True assault weapons (fully auto) are already registered via a $200 tax stamp. The state in which sandy hook is in already had an asault weapons ban in place ( so ive been told ) and so has alreayd been show not to work..

[Scully]

What I would be interested in knowing,is if any of the parents of those children which attend the Sandy Hook school,are firearms owners,and if any of them own weapons of the type used in the shootings,and if so,what are their attitudes towards civilian firearms ownership following the shootings.

I recall some old boy whom I think was shopped by his daughter when she discovered he had failed to hand in an illegally held gun(shotgun?) following the armistice post Dunblane.If memory serves he actually lived in Dunblane but wasn't related to any of the victims.

[Dr_Scholl]

That bit simply isn't true. They won't pass these laws because they will be voted out next time. They also won't pass them because they won't do any good as people wouldn't surrender their guns and they can't take them because they aren't registered. Even if they could take them they wouldn't try as American gun owners take the Second Amendment very, very seriously. They will shoot back, quite simply. Also, who are they going to employ to take them? Many cops are gun owners and so are many military personnel and neither of those groups are going to want to be involved. They'll shoot the politicians first.

 

The politicians who are pushing this are doing precisely when they accuse the NRA of doing; exploiting a political situation to further their own aganda. The proposed so called 'ban' on assault weapons is nothing of the sort and no one has even proposed that firearms should be physically removed from anyone. It's just a feel good proposal which would not have changed any of the mass-shootings the US has seen. It's a 'something must be done at any cost' reaction, rather than a reaction which would actually work.

 

The USA should be addressing it's awful mental health arrangements - especially in regards children and adolescents - but that would involve some actual thinking about really hard questions and the spending of a vast amount of money so it will never happen. It's far easier just to fudge the issue by pretending to do something, rather than actually doing anything.

 

J.

 

Obama's gun control push is falling apart pretty quickly now.

 

The Assault Weapons Ban is DOA. A ban on high capacity magazines isn't going anywhere either. The only change we may see out of this is universal background checks. He's already blaming House Republicans for the inaction, which is funny since he can't even manage to garner majority support in the Senate, where the Democrats have control.

 

The truth is few politicians, Democrat or Republican, wants to touch gun control. And it has nothing to do with the NRA and everything to do with gun owners voting on that issue and having very long memories.

Edited January 31, 2013 by Dr_Scholl

[Lock Stock & Barrel]

I know some here shy away from going to the trouble of fact checking their claims, assertions and bumper-sticker rhetoric, but some others may appreciate this...

 

 

10 Pro-Gun Myths, Shot Down

[BerettaEELL]

I know some here shy away from going to the trouble of fact checking their claims, assertions and bumper-sticker rhetoric, but some others may appreciate this...

 

 

10 Pro-Gun Myths, Shot Down

 

I agree with the fact checking part, I have seen posts on other forums here where assumptions are classed as fact and members posting good helpful information are either shot down or ridiculed.

 

Nice top 10 by the way,

 

G

[gazzthompson]

The American gun owners passion when it comes to firearms and the freedom they represent is remarkable. I love the mentality and wish people here valued personal liberty as much, too many Brits seem okay with giving up basic liberty for perceived safety (Shown in our firearm and speech laws).

[BerettaEELL]

The American gun owners passion when it comes to firearms and the freedom they represent is remarkable. I love the mentality and wish people here valued personal liberty as much, too many Brits seem okay with giving up basic liberty for perceived safety (Shown in our firearm and speech laws).

 

I concur, however drip by drip the laws have come in to stop us having any say whatsoever. I think if there had always been a British equivalent of the NRA things would be different, unfortunately It is illegal in the UK for ministers to take payments in the way they do in the US.

 

The issue here is that the population are ignored, especially when firearms are concerned. Remember the fuel crisis in 2000, Tony Blair said "Our policies will not be dictated by blockades.", and that protest brought the Country to a standstill.

[xxx.Morph.xxx]

Not rocket science to say Obama won't get in next time.

Err...what next time ?

The most time a President can stay in office is 2 terms or 10 years if taking over during another Presidents term.

[BerettaEELL]

 

Err...what next time ?

The most time a President can stay in office is 2 terms or 10 years if taking over during another Presidents term.

 

No **** Sherlock, If you look at my answer it says that it would not take a scientist to work out that Obama would not get in, because he had already served 2 term in office. I was being facetious.

Edited February 2, 2013 by BerettaEELL

[subsonicnat]

There is a very simple answer to the gun laws in America:

Obama does not need to change the 5th amendment , if he looks at the timing of the 5th amendment, at the time of writing it, there were no such things as Fully Auto weapons, Etc, Etc Etc, Not going to name them all.lol.

It has got out of control because of the TYPE of weapons now available:

IF the 5th amendment was translated into the weapons available THEN; He would not have to change anything in it:!!!!!! Correct.?.

Its the type and availability of said weapons, that is at fault: who needs grenades , rocket launchers Etc: Answer: NOBODY:

But military of course:::

[wildrover77]

I know some here shy away from going to the trouble of fact checking their claims, assertions and bumper-sticker rhetoric, but some others may appreciate this...

 

 

10 Pro-Gun Myths, Shot Down

 

LSB you call that a reference? I suggest you buy and read the books I have read and suggested for you on the other thread.

[Steppenwolf]

There is a very simple answer to the gun laws in America:

Obama does not need to change the 5th amendment , if he looks at the timing of the 5th amendment, at the time of writing it, there were no such things as Fully Auto weapons, Etc, Etc Etc, Not going to name them all.lol.

It has got out of control because of the TYPE of weapons now available:

IF the 5th amendment was translated into the weapons available THEN; He would not have to change anything in it:!!!!!! Correct. ?.

Its the type and availability of said weapons, that is at fault: who needs grenades , rocket launchers Etc: Answer: NOBODY:

But military of course:::

 

The 2nd Amendment and not the 5th Amendment says that "A well regulated militia being neccessary for the security of a free state, the RIGHT of the PEOPLE to to keep and bear ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

 

Right - it's a god given natural right. Not a right as defined by law or by government or any such given man made body.

People - you and me

Arms - It doesn't say: No future fully automatic guns, or pistols only or rifles only, arms now can mean anything from an arquebus to a machine gun.

Shall not be infringed - Do I really need to explain this to you? In UK law the same when applying for a shotgun certificate: "The chief officer of police SHALL grant a certificate...etc". Pretty self explanatory.

[Paxtond]

I would also like to add that as the army's weapons have got bigger and badder, the publics firearms did also. Part of the 2nd amendment is so the people can fight back of the government go to far

[gazzthompson]

There is a very simple answer to the gun laws in America:

Obama does not need to change the 5th amendment , if he looks at the timing of the 5th amendment, at the time of writing it, there were no such things as Fully Auto weapons, Etc, Etc Etc, Not going to name them all.lol.

It has got out of control because of the TYPE of weapons now available:

IF the 5th amendment was translated into the weapons available THEN; He would not have to change anything in it:!!!!!! Correct. ?.

Its the type and availability of said weapons, that is at fault: who needs grenades , rocket launchers Etc: Answer: NOBODY:

But military of course:::

 

The first amendment was written in the time of quill and paper not high capacity assault keyboards.

[Vipa]

The first amendment was written in the time of quill and paper not high capacity assault keyboards.

The basic premise of the 2nd amendment is to ensure that any government cannot oppress it's people (as the brits did and hence the war!) it matters not when it was written, what matters is that the people can (thereabouts) match the state on a footsoldier level thereby ensuring any government would be wary about attempting subjugation for fear of an armed uprising.

 

If we use the historical argument, the 2nd amendment would be useless as the state would have vastly superior technology and firepower.

 

Whether or not society needs this safety net in a 21st century world is wide open to debate and opinion BUT those who say it could NEVER happen are, in my opinion delusional.. civilisation exists on a knife edge and, in reality there are probably more threats to it now than there have ever been.

 

As for the original premise of the thread. I feel America should have SOME controls in order to ensure as best as possible that weapons don't fall into the hands of those with known mental illness or issues, there should be some sort of vetting but as an outsider looking in I think the 2nd amendment is still valid and has it's place in that society

[aris]

My personal opinion is that the US does need some sort of licensing system. Not necessarily licensing the guns, but licensing the person. Like a drivers license - you need one to drive. Gun licenses should allow people to own and buy guns. It would actually make the buying and selling of guns much easier - show your license - and you're deemed to be OK.

[Steppenwolf]

The problem with vettig is that it isn't really effective. Criminals will not submitt to vetting and mass murderers with somethign to hide will not be discovered like Michael Ryan, hamilton et al. So vetting will be effective at just confirming that the person you thought 90% likely to be law abiding actually is!

 

When you introduce a licence you nullify the Second Amendment which in my opnion is not reasonable.

[Scully]

As far as America is concerned,I think it may be a little late for a licensing system.The sheer numbers of unregistered firearms in circulation at present would nullify any attempts to license.A case of bolting the stable door methinks.

On another forum just recently a Canadian shooter was praising the fact that registration of rifles by civilians has just recently been de-regulated,meaning registration of full-bore rifles is no longer necessary.If I remember correctly licensing still applies,but once you become a license holder you are free to buy the rifle of your choice without further registration.Like our old shotgun license system prior to Hungerford.Makes sense to me.You're either fit to posess,or you're not.Simple.

On Channel 4 news the other night one of the leading articles concerned the fact that US sales of personal sidearms had significantly increased following the school shootings.Right or wrong,I can understand the logic behind this.With random shootings appearing to be on the increase in that country, the last thing you would want to be is unarmed.

[JonathanL]

The 2nd Amendment and not the 5th Amendment says that "A well regulated militia being neccessary for the security of a free state, the RIGHT of the PEOPLE to to keep and bear ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

 

Right - it's a god given natural right. Not a right as defined by law or by government or any such given man made body.

People - you and me

Arms - It doesn't say: No future fully automatic guns, or pistols only or rifles only, arms now can mean anything from an arquebus to a machine gun.

Shall not be infringed - Do I really need to explain this to you? In UK law the same when applying for a shotgun certificate: "The chief officer of police SHALL grant a certificate...etc". Pretty self explanatory.

 

And a firearm certificate too, don't forget.

 

J.

[JonathanL]

The basic premise of the 2nd amendment is to ensure that any government cannot oppress it's people (as the brits did and hence the war!) it matters not when it was written, what matters is that the people can (thereabouts) match the state on a footsoldier level thereby ensuring any government would be wary about attempting subjugation for fear of an armed uprising.

 

If we use the historical argument, the 2nd amendment would be useless as the state would have vastly superior technology and firepower.

 

Whether or not society needs this safety net in a 21st century world is wide open to debate and opinion BUT those who say it could NEVER happen are, in my opinion delusional.. civilisation exists on a knife edge and, in reality there are probably more threats to it now than there have ever been.

 

As for the original premise of the thread. I feel America should have SOME controls in order to ensure as best as possible that weapons don't fall into the hands of those with known mental illness or issues, there should be some sort of vetting but as an outsider looking in I think the 2nd amendment is still valid and has it's place in that society

 

Perfectly said.

 

J.

[JonathanL]

My personal opinion is that the US does need some sort of licensing system. Not necessarily licensing the guns, but licensing the person. Like a drivers license - you need one to drive. Gun licenses should allow people to own and buy guns. It would actually make the buying and selling of guns much easier - show your license - and you're deemed to be OK.

 

The argument against that is that if you have to produce a licence every time you buy a gun then it can, by definition, be used to create a register of gun owners and can be used to record what guns they own. Once a register exists it can be used to take guns away from people, thereby defeating the object of the second amendment.

 

You can't really blame the Americans for thinking this way as this is how the government managed to take guns from us on many occasions and has been done exactly the same way in other countries.

 

The analogy of a driving licence doesn't work because no where in the world do you need a licence to own a vehicle or even to use one - ok, there will probably be somewhere but you get the drift. You only need a licence to use one in public. We actually had that syetem at one time for firearms. The Gun Licence Act (1870, I think) made it a requirement to have a licence to carry a firearm outside the curtilidge of a dwelling house. The licence was merely a revenue raising thing, however, and was available on demand to anyone.

 

J.

[JonathanL]

The problem with vettig is that it isn't really effective. Criminals will not submitt to vetting and mass murderers with somethign to hide will not be discovered like Michael Ryan, hamilton et al. So vetting will be effective at just confirming that the person you thought 90% likely to be law abiding actually is!

 

When you introduce a licence you nullify the Second Amendment which in my opnion is not reasonable.

 

In the case of Hamilton the vetting procedure didn't work because the police simply ignored what it was telling them. There was even a police report into his activities which said that he was a devious, decieitful individual who was probably a paedophile yet it was completely ignored.

 

J.

[Steppenwolf]

And a firearm certificate too, don't forget.

 

J.

 

I didn't realised it was the same for a Firearms Certificate.

[wildrover77]

My personal opinion is that the US does need some sort of licensing system. Not necessarily licensing the guns, but licensing the person. Like a drivers license - you need one to drive. Gun licenses should allow people to own and buy guns. It would actually make the buying and selling of guns much easier - show your license - and you're deemed to be OK.

 

Not that you want to hear it but the massive increase in the use of guns in crime is not because of availibility it is down to cultural and social problems. Guns were much more freely available in America years ago when they had lower levels of armed crime. Funnily enough the same as the UK

[aris]

Not that you want to hear it but the massive increase in the use of guns in crime is not because of availibility it is down to cultural and social problems. Guns were much more freely available in America years ago when they had lower levels of armed crime. Funnily enough the same as the UK

 

Yet, they still have a high rate of gun deaths compared to other nations - orders of magnitude higher. I agree - it is very much a cultural/social thing. But how to solve it? Surely some sensible controls?