Vegas shooting

[pinfireman]

Plenty of other countries get along jusy fine without an equivalent to the second amendment......

and some do not ??

[Graham M]

Why does anyone want more than 10 rounds in a Magazine??

Any legal quarry that a rifle is used for if not hit has pretty well got the message and bguuered off after the noise of the first shot. Deff gone after a second.

Paper targets are a bit more stubborn but are patient enough to let you reload at leasure.

Ah....just what any anti-shooting MP wants to hear.

 

Now.....why do you need more than one rifle ??

 

And why do you need more than 20rds of ammo ??

 

And is there really any need to kill any animals ??

 

[Rewulf]

The constitution in as far as the right to bear arms is no longer fit for purpose in this day and age.the right to hold a musket and pistol was never intended for today's society or weapons.also what part of the American constitution was this lunatic upholding when he decided to destroy so many innocent lives.its also a great shame that while the USA will likely do nothing as a result of this latest incident. We will have the law makers looking to tighten further our rules so as to prevent this type of thing happening here.strange old world really.

 

The wording in the 2nd is open to interpretation.

Although the musket argument has been used many times, it comes down to this

 

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

 

It says nothing of type ect, but its meaning is clear, you need to be able to fight back against an unjust/rogue government.

 

Compare it to

 

The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute 1 W. & M. st.2. c.2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.

 

English bill of rights 1689, you see, we wrote it first, to protect US from unjust leaders, where did these 'rights' disappear to ?

[Scully]

The constitution in as far as the right to bear arms is no longer fit for purpose in this day and age.the right to hold a musket and pistol was never intended for today's society or weapons.also what part of the American constitution was this lunatic upholding when he decided to destroy so many innocent lives.its also a great shame that while the USA will likely do nothing as a result of this latest incident. We will have the law makers looking to tighten further our rules so as to prevent this type of thing happening here.strange old world really.

Its not me you have to convince; but again; youre not looking at it from an American perspective.

As far as Im aware the constitution doesnt refer to any specific type of firearm, only arms.

[ditchman]

 

The wording in the 2nd is open to interpretation.

Although the musket argument has been used many times, it comes down to this

 

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

 

It says nothing of type ect, but its meaning is clear, you need to be able to fight back against an unjust/rogue government.

 

Compare it to

 

The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute 1 W. & M. st.2. c.2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.

 

English bill of rights 1689, you see, we wrote it first, to protect US from unjust leaders, where did these 'rights' disappear to ?

 

 

The interperatation of laws.......

 

i believe until very recently....MP's were permitted to carry arms in the House of commons.............but that law was recinded.about 10 years ago..

[Scully]

 

The wording in the 2nd is open to interpretation.

Although the musket argument has been used many times, it comes down to this

 

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

 

It says nothing of type ect, but its meaning is clear, you need to be able to fight back against an unjust/rogue government.

 

Compare it to

 

The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute 1 W. & M. st.2. c.2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.

 

English bill of rights 1689, you see, we wrote it first, to protect US from unjust leaders, where did these 'rights' disappear to ?

Im reading about this very subject ( how the English lost this part of the Bill of Rights ) at the moment, which is included in a book by Colin Greenwood I found in a local junk shop, regarding Firearms Control and its effectiveness in crime.

Makes for interesting reading.

[ditchman]

Its not me you have to convince; but again; youre not looking at it from an American perspective.

As far as Im aware the constitution doesnt refer to any specific type of firearm, only arms.

 

 

Some people believe that the phrase "right to bear arms"...is a law that gives local counties the "right to raise a militia" in the persuance of law and order and protection of the people....not a statement allowing an individual to carry weapons......thats how it was explained to me when i worked over there........the english language has changed over the years it was written/set down...its just peoples intepretation of it........

 

whatever the outcome of all this ...it wont make a jot of difference as it it is seated in t6he DNA of most americans...

[bostonmick]

As with most things back in the 1700's people then we're probably thinking the world would stay the same.or are you trying to say the Americans of the day were such visionaries they could see into the future.the Americans are all very quick to act and in a way dictate to others how they should live and behave yet are not so good at putting their own house in order.

[Scully]

 

 

Some people believe that the phrase "right to bear arms"...is a law that gives local counties the "right to raise a militia" in the persuance of law and order and protection of the people....not a statement allowing an individual to carry weapons......thats how it was explained to me when i worked over there........the english language has changed over the years it was written/set down...its just peoples intepretation of it........

 

whatever the outcome of all this ...it wont make a jot of difference as it it is seated in t6he DNA of most americans...

Yes; its open to interpretation, and has been debated at length by Americans with a vested interest from opposing views. It is what it is.

[Scully]

As with most things back in the 1700's people then we're probably thinking the world would stay the same.or are you trying to say the Americans of the day were such visionaries they could see into the future.

Im not suggesting anything of the sort; just telling it as it is; which is that no type of firearm was mentioned as far as I know, only arms.

[ditchman]

Yes; its open to interpretation, and has been debated at length by Americans with a vested interest from opposing views. It is what it is.

 

 

do you know if there are any statuts/laws with similar wording in ...that are from that period...that are English/British...?

[bostonmick]

Im not suggesting anything of the sort; just telling it as it is; which is that no type of firearm was mentioned as far as I know, only arms.

Well either way it does not look like the Americans will do anything to stop this carnage year on year.and our guns will slowly be eroded so we can't shoot even clay discs.and then you can all sit back and admire the Americans for their defense of the right to kill each other at will.while being virtually uncontrolled in any way.what I wonder will happened the day comes that conventional weapons are no longer used in warfare and the like.what with drones and other such things.they will then be able to go about their murdering ways completely undetected. Wow that's freedom.

[Rewulf]

Well either way it does not look like the Americans will do anything to stop this carnage year on year.and our guns will slowly be eroded so we can't shoot even clay discs.and then you can all sit back and admire the Americans for their defense of the right to kill each other at will.while being virtually uncontrolled in any way.what I wonder will happened the day comes that conventional weapons are no longer used in warfare and the like.what with drones and other such things.they will then be able to go about their murdering ways completely undetected. Wow that's freedom.

 

The fact that the masses are not completely defenceless, stops the government/ruling elite from simply riding roughshod over us.

Those small freedoms keep us safe from subjugation, make no mistake about that.

[Scully]

 

 

do you know if there are any statuts/laws with similar wording in ...that are from that period...that are English/British...?

You would have to read the Bill of Rights if you were interested, but I couldnt quote any off the top of my head.

The right to bear arms in this country is only recorded as far back as the 13th Century, and in Elizabethan times Protestants has the right to arm themselves against Catholics! Thats politics and religion for you!

There are some very good books out there in the subject.

[Scully]

Well either way it does not look like the Americans will do anything to stop this carnage year on year.and our guns will slowly be eroded so we can't shoot even clay discs.and then you can all sit back and admire the Americans for their defense of the right to kill each other at will.while being virtually uncontrolled in any way.what I wonder will happened the day comes that conventional weapons are no longer used in warfare and the like.what with drones and other such things.they will then be able to go about their murdering ways completely undetected. Wow that's freedom.

Im not getting involved with you in an argument Mick; you always seem to want to make it personal; as if in some way Im responsible simply because I happen to agree with peoples right to arm themselves for the defence of themselves and those they care for, especially when governing bodies employ armed personnel to help govern.

I cant honestly see a need for fully automatic firearms from a civilian point of view; but as Ive said before, its having the freedom to choose.

They made the choice, not me, so now they have to decide what to do with it.

[bostonmick]

Im not getting involved with you in an argument Mick; you always seem to want to make it personal; as if in some way Im responsible simply because I happen to agree with peoples right to arm themselves for the defence of themselves and those they care for, especially when governing bodies employ armed personnel to help govern.

I cant honestly see a need for fully automatic firearms from a civilian point of view; but as Ive said before, its having the freedom to choose.

They made the choice, not me, so now they have to decide what to do with it.

There is no argument Scully.and I am definitely not getting into anything personal.i can accept the arms for self defense and even at a stretch the arms to defend against a corrupted government. I don't know the figures fo people shot in self defense and as far as I know it has been many years since the Americans took up arms against their government. All I could say at risk of being wrong is the numbers killed by gunfire in those circumstances would be a lot less than we are seeing in senseless slaughter of people just going about their normal life and causing no harm to anyone.

[mossy835]

over there the nra, puts money in to the goverment.if they try to ban guns the money stops,the nra are very rich.so no changes will be made,they did agree to ban the bump stock, thats all'

Edited October 6, 2017 by mossy835

[pinfireman]

The world doesn't seem to bother putting political pressure on the yanks to change their constitution.

 

On the other hand America puts political pressure on other parts of the world regarding human rights etc.etc. They can't lead this way they are so unbending when it comes to real change. They think the world should change and yet consistently permit murder on an increasing scale in their own back yard.

 

I had the misfortune to see some of the carnage on the TV and thought. Do you know what? Some #### **** little poxy dive hole countries wouldn't let behaviour like that continue. And the might of America did. ******* well shape up.

 

Pull your finger out of your ******** Mr Trump because we are more than fed up listening to the old fashioned ******** regarding dumb citizens bearing arms and killing one another.

 

I think your gasket will blow and you'll start lobbing missiles at N Korea because it's easier to do this rather than bin your ridiculous gun laws.

 

 

Whilst the Americans may apply pressure on human rights to others (they rarely succeed), this is definitely NOT about human rights! You are confused. This about citizens claiming a constitutional right, not about citizens being denied one.The fact we disagree with it is irrelevant.

Yes. After first rounding them up; because they have guns, whereas the ones being rounded up don't.

correct!

[pinfireman]

Im reading about this very subject ( how the English lost this part of the Bill of Rights ) at the moment, which is included in a book by Colin Greenwood I found in a local junk shop, regarding Firearms Control and its effectiveness in crime.

Makes for interesting reading.

Colin Greenwood was hounded out of the Police force for expressing his (correct) views on firearms legislation, as I recall, he was an Inspector. At a WAGBI meeting in Wakefield in 1976? where Ian Botham and Jack Charlton were on stage in attendance, Colin gave his views, and warned what would happen if we did not unite.....he was proved right!

[pinfireman]

As with most things back in the 1700's people then we're probably thinking the world would stay the same.or are you trying to say the Americans of the day were such visionaries they could see into the future.the Americans are all very quick to act and in a way dictate to others how they should live and behave yet are not so good at putting their own house in order.

and we are? I bet the ordinary people in Venezuala would like to have that right as of now, whilst Jeremy Corbyns friend and hero President Maduro, jails opposition leaders, and closes opposition newspapers....

[pinfireman]

Well either way it does not look like the Americans will do anything to stop this carnage year on year.and our guns will slowly be eroded so we can't shoot even clay discs.and then you can all sit back and admire the Americans for their defense of the right to kill each other at will.while being virtually uncontrolled in any way.what I wonder will happened the day comes that conventional weapons are no longer used in warfare and the like.what with drones and other such things.they will then be able to go about their murdering ways completely undetected. Wow that's freedom.

When you get a Corbyn lead Momentum backed Hard Left government, you will find out.............remember, all the anti fringe parties back him, and he will repay them, and it will have absolutely NOTHING to do with what happened in Vegas!

[spanj]

When you get a Corbyn lead Momentum backed Hard Left government, you will find out.............remember, all the anti fringe parties back him, and he will repay them, and it will have absolutely NOTHING to do with what happened in Vegas!

Sadly I can see both scenarios coming around very soon. We will only have ourselves to blame as can be seen from some of the comments seen in this and other threads. I despair

[Graham M]

Colin Greenwood was hounded out of the Police force for expressing his (correct) views on firearms legislation, as I recall, he was an Inspector. At a WAGBI meeting in Wakefield in 1976? where Ian Botham and Jack Charlton were on stage in attendance, Colin gave his views, and warned what would happen if we did not unite.....he was proved right!

Met Colin Greenwood at the Midland game fair many moons ago; a police officer who loved shooting. Used to buy "Guns Review", of which Colin was the Editor, until it ceased in the late 90s I think it was.

[Scully]

Colin Greenwood was hounded out of the Police force for expressing his (correct) views on firearms legislation, as I recall, he was an Inspector. At a WAGBI meeting in Wakefield in 1976? where Ian Botham and Jack Charlton were on stage in attendance, Colin gave his views, and warned what would happen if we did not unite.....he was proved right!

Yes, he always fought the shooters corner. Sadly the agendas of others with more influence won, despite his common sense approach.

Met Colin Greenwood at the Midland game fair many moons ago; a police officer who loved shooting. Used to buy "Guns Review", of which Colin was the Editor, until it ceased in the late 90s I think it was.

I still have many copies of Guns Review; great mag.