JFKvsNixon Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 I honestly don't see why, in a modern society, a citizen should have any need of a machine specifically crafted to kill other people. I'm not sure that the US's murder problem is down to firearms though. Can't help I suppose. But Canada has roughly the same rules and their murder rate per capita was actually lower than ours last time I checked. If President Obama wants to change US gun laws, he can put forward a constitutional amendment repealing the second amendment and campaign for it to be passed. The USA is a constitutional republic for good reason and the President is not supposed to have the power to change such a thing without due process. Otherwise there'd be nothing to stop him overruling the first amendment either. You do not need to amend the Constitution to limit the sale of guns in America, just the political will. Gun ownership has already been limited without the Constitution being changed, so there is scope to limit it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 You do not need to amend the Constitution to limit the sale of guns in America, just the political will. Gun ownership has already been limited without the Constitution being changed, so there is scope to limit it. The amendment is quite clear. They may have got away with bending it, but that's all they're ever going to manage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timeh Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 If Harley gets offended by that, maybe he should remember Charleston before saying he's going to take guns to church. I meant it was unfair as i assumed the poster meant the Batman Cinema episode where 12 died. I felt it was unfair to bring that up to score a point. If i missed the point and got it wrong then ill happily retract my statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 The amendment is quite clear. They may have got away with bending it, but that's all they're ever going to manage. Show me where in the Constitution mentions guns? It talks about the right to bear arms, and currently there are a load of arms that are outlawed, so why can't the majority of guns be added to the outlawed arms? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 Show me where in the Constitution mentions guns? It talks about the right to bear arms, and currently there are a load of arms that are outlawed, so why can't the majority of guns be added to the outlawed arms? It says that "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". The use of the phrase "shall not be infringed" implies that any limitation falls outside the constitution. The way they've got around this before is primarily because it refers to the need to maintain a militia, and not to personal self defence. Therefore you can make a case that if you're not part of the militia, it does not apply. That only works up to a point. They need to draft a new version of the amendment which clarifies matters and get it ratified. It doesn't have to ban firearms completely, but as you hint at, they never allowed people to have Javelin missiles. It desperately needs modernising as do other parts of the constitution. There is a process for this and it should be followed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 I don't think that's true, here's a list that has plenty before the 60s. I don't think that's true either. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228340-100-steven-pinker-humans-are-less-violent-than-ever/ ---------- Post added 26-07-2015 at 13:04 ---------- Wow, is that a joke? You think the threat from ISIS right now is comparable to the threat from the British in the late 18th century? People who would in a few decades sail up river and burn down the Whitehouse? In terms of being able to carry out terrorist attacks on a major scale using the technology currently available to do so yes I do think that ISIS is a bigger threat that a few thousand redcoats marching down from Canada armed with muskets and bayonets. I'm pretty sure that with a scope and allowing for windage I could bring down an ISIS from 1500 feet with a good clean head shot using the old Winchester hog killer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 I'm pretty sure that with a scope and allowing for windage I could bring down an ISIS from 1500 feet with a good clean head shot using the old Winchester hog killer Truly nauseating; brings killing tools to be 'blessed' in a church, then gets a hard on for murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timeh Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 Truly nauseating; brings killing tools to be 'blessed' in a church, then gets a hard on for murder. Hard on Sorry ive had a drink so find childish things funny ---------- Post added 26-07-2015 at 18:50 ---------- By the way i think some of you are being too harsh on Harleyman. Ill bet good money he didnt mean it and was probably just joking. Ive no reason to defend him, im just saying it as i see it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 Truly nauseating; brings killing tools to be 'blessed' in a church, then gets a hard on for murder. You are utterly and completely devoid of any sense of humor whatsoever. I've never yet seen any humour in your posts, just sarcastic one liners or put downs. Life in your house must be a non stop barrel of laughs ---------- Post added 26-07-2015 at 18:18 ---------- Hard on Sorry ive had a drink so find childish things funny ---------- Post added 26-07-2015 at 18:50 ---------- By the way i think some of you are being too harsh on Harleyman. Ill bet good money he didnt mean it and was probably just joking. Ive no reason to defend him, im just saying it as i see it Well for once you've got something right. Maybe my sense of humour has become Americanized over many years, either that or no one on this thread has a grain of humour in him or her ---------- Post added 26-07-2015 at 18:34 ---------- I honestly don't see why, in a modern society, a citizen should have any need of a machine specifically crafted to kill other people. I'm not sure that the US's murder problem is down to firearms though. Can't help I suppose. But Canada has roughly the same rules and their murder rate per capita was actually lower than ours last time I checked. If President Obama wants to change US gun laws, he can put forward a constitutional amendment repealing the second amendment and campaign for it to be passed. The USA is a constitutional republic for good reason and the President is not supposed to have the power to change such a thing without due process. Otherwise there'd be nothing to stop him overruling the first amendment either. Is the highlighted remark above directed at the law abiding citizenry or at the criminal element ever present in society? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 Is the highlighted remark above directed at the law abiding citizenry or at the criminal element ever present in society? With due respect Harleyman, I doubt the efficacy of a firearm in practical self defence. More likely most would end up shooting themselves, or a member of their family. Feel free to convince me otherwise. Would you perhaps consider a training requirement and background/psychological check before issuing a firearm to a civilian? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now