Newtown - Is it Really Time for a Change?

[Dimwit]

Originally Posted by 2cheap

I was researching Revolutionary firearms technology to confirm that Americans had the latest tech and were, in fact, ahead of the British when I came across something that explains a lot.

The Aristocracy had essentially insured that the commoners could not own firearms in order to keep the joys of hunting and the ability to defend themselves out of the hands of the unwashed.

I find it fascinating that the elites have, over time, managed to convince the proles that it was their own idea to keep them disarmed.
They've even managed to convince them to spend endless hours twisting themselves in knots defending their right to not have rights.

Complete and utter nonsense - there were no laws in Britain at the time of the American War of Independence to prevent anyone owing firearms:

FIREARM CONTROLS IN BRITAIN PART I THE HISTORY OF FIREARMS CONTROLS IN GREAT BRITAIN

EARLY LEGISLATION

1. Early English legislation relating to firearms was concerned only with the duty of the citizen to arm himself for the defence of the realm and for the maintenance of order. Restrictions on the use of firearms were concerned only with the maintenance of compulsory practice with the longbow or with the preservation of game. There was a clear and recognised right, as well as a duty for the subject to have arms for his own protection and to discharge his duty to the state, though those arms would not necessarily have been firearms.

2. The Bill of Rights of 1688 made it clear that Parliament considered that there was a right for citizens to have arms and by the mid 18th century the Common Law was very clear in recognising a constitutional right to have arms which Parliament had no authority to breach in general terms.....

3. That aspect of the American Constitution which relates to the right to keep arms is, in fact, no more than a modification of the English Common Law at the time of the American Revolution, the major difference being that the Americans created a written constitution.....

Source: parliament.uk


It wasn't until the twentieth century that the first law regulating the use of firearms was passed by Parliament. This was long after the aristocracy had any power in the UK:

..... in 1903 Britain passed its first ever "gun control" law, a minor one requiring a permit to carry a handgun and restricting the age of purchasers.

Source: ncc-1776.org (an extreme right-wing site, if ever I saw one).

.

[knobby109]

Originally Posted by Dimwit

Complete and utter nonsense - there were no laws in Britain at the time of the American War of Independence to prevent anyone owing firearms:



Source: parliament.uk


It wasn't until the twentieth century that the first law regulating the use of firearms was passed by Parliament. This was long after the aristocracy had any power in the UK:



Source: ncc-1776.org (an extreme right-wing site, if ever I saw one).

.

Yes, and thankfully not having a written constitution the UK was able to move with the times and assimilate changes in conditions.
The formation of a regular army and reserves and a police force removes the requirement and even desirability of having an armed citizenry.
Gun crime never was a major problem but the numbers of servicemen bringing back souvenirs from WW1 possibly brought about more restrictions. Since then guns have been more and more closely controlled and by and large the people have felt it to be a good thing that they have.

[9876543210]

jumbo prawns.

Originally Posted by jumbo prawns

Whats wrong with some responsibility when it comes to the second amendment?

Hear, hear!

[SanteeFats]

Here is my nickel. America is one of very few countries that were founded in the 1700-early 1800's. Europe and Asia were pretty much defined by this time. They were carved out with sword, spear, and bow and arrow. Fire arms played a major role in the founding of America. Most men (women were unfortunately suborned) had at least some experience with firearms. Either from hunting or some shooting sport. As they expanded westward guns played an even more pronounced role. They were a tool used by farmers and huntsmen. The rifle provided both a way to put meat on the table and as protection if needed. As time passed and more lethal weapons were invented the US civilians still generally used them for defense and food. Then came the so called "Wild West" era. Here you had the glorified time of the so called gunfighter and cowboy. Cowboys carried their short guns as a tool for snakes, run away horses they might have to shoot if their boot got caught in a stirrup,etc. The gunfighter mystic is not true. Most gunfights took place within ten feet. The high noon scenario has never been documented to have happened. The use of guns were glorified and exploited by the Eastern writers. They made some men out to be a lot more than they were. Hickcock, Earp, Buffalo Bill, even Annie Oakley. All this history has led to our so called gun culture.
I own guns and support the Second Amendment. I also support enforcing our existing laws. I support background checks for any sales transaction and I support reporting those who are deemed unstable by professionals. Now days the gang bangers and other outlaws do a lot of the shooting here. Most, but not always, they are using illegal weapons. My personal opinion is that the U.S. does not need to disarm it's citizenry but enforce existing laws. Newton was a tragedy that MIGHT have been prevented if the shooter had been properly reported to the authorities.
I don't think there is any cut and dried answer to this discussion but I think both sides need to realistically discuss it. Right now both sides do not want to give an inch. If the gun rights side concedes anything they are afraid the anti gunners will just press for more and more. It is the same for the anti crowd. If they give up anything then they are afraid they will lose ground.

[SanteeFats]

From Jumbo Prawns: Whats wrong with some responsibility when it comes to the second amendment?[/QUOTE]

Both sides are afraid to give. If the gunners do they are afraid the anti's will push for more. The anti's are afraid to give any thing to the gunners for the same reason

[SanteeFats]

Originally Posted by knobby109

I live in a society where within living memory there was no real gun control.Over the years gun ownership has been under more and more stringent rules to the extent that nowadays they hardly exist. Yes, some criminals still have them but rarely actually take the risk of using them.
Do I feel at risk because I'm not armed but criminals may be? To be honest I never give it any thought , I'm more likely to be struck by lightning than by a bullet. Disarming the populace is possible and in my view necessary if you wish to live in a civilised society.

I agree with your statements but would also like to point out that America is a little different from most countries, not that that excuses the violence at all. America was founded well after most other countries had been established, usually by the use of swords, spears, bows and arrows, etc. America just took it a step further and used guns. Firearms were tools that were used for not only protection but also to put food on the table. As the expansion westward continued and firearms became more advanced they were still used mostly for sustenance and defense was secondary except for those who used them for venal gain by robbery and murder. So firearms are inculcated into a lot of American lore. Unfortunately there are always criminals in any society, it just depends on what they chose to use as a weapon. Also America has two basically wide open borders where almost anything can be gotten, legal and illegal. The gangs and drug dealers get open access to weapons and their products and use them accordingly. In the UK and other European countries there seems to be a not as ready access. Not that there are not problems I am sure. Anywhere there is illegal profit there are those that will try and profit. America has the right to bear arms ground in to its fiber among many citizens and while there are tragedies that occur, my personal opinion is that if existing gun laws in America were enforced and that EVERY firearms transaction had to under go a background check plus EVERY mental patient deemed unfit was reported then a lot, I admit not all, murders would be avoided.

[dethtongue]

Originally Posted by SanteeFats

I agree with your statements but would also like to point out that America is a little different from most countries, not that that excuses the violence at all. America was founded well after most other countries had been established, usually by the use of swords, spears, bows and arrows, etc. America just took it a step further and used guns. Firearms were tools that were used for not only protection but also to put food on the table. As the expansion westward continued and firearms became more advanced they were still used mostly for sustenance and defense was secondary except for those who used them for venal gain by robbery and murder. So firearms are inculcated into a lot of American lore. Unfortunately there are always criminals in any society, it just depends on what they chose to use as a weapon. Also America has two basically wide open borders where almost anything can be gotten, legal and illegal. The gangs and drug dealers get open access to weapons and their products and use them accordingly. In the UK and other European countries there seems to be a not as ready access. Not that there are not problems I am sure. Anywhere there is illegal profit there are those that will try and profit. America has the right to bear arms ground in to its fiber among many citizens and while there are tragedies that occur, my personal opinion is that if existing gun laws in America were enforced and that EVERY firearms transaction had to under go a background check plus EVERY mental patient deemed unfit was reported then a lot, I admit not all, murders would be avoided.

I think this is only partially true. Firearms were pretty widely available everywhere after their invention and their utility demonstrated. What makes America's case truly different is most nations did not have an organization like the NRA who have made guns their main and primary focus and who have successfully managed to convey that America's greatness, the values she holds dear and her national heritage are tied intimately with these objects. The NRA has been around since the 1871. That's less than six years after the Civil War to put this in perspective. They've had a very long time to craft their brand and perception of history on to the American consciousness. Bloomburg has a lot of catching up to do.

[SanteeFats]

Originally Posted by dethtongue

I think this is only partially true. Firearms were pretty widely available everywhere after their invention and their utility demonstrated.

I must disagree. For many decades if not centuries guns were so expensive that only the rich could afford to own one or of course a militant order or nation. After all you wouldn't want an armed peasantry in the oppressive societies of Europe or Asia would you? Guns only became available to the general populace about 300 years or so ago. Which coincided with the rediscovery of the America's. Even then they were extremely expensive but purchased as a necessary tool. I think this was more so in North America as the US and Canada expanded westward and almost everyone (at least the males) felt they must have one for hunting and protection.

[dethtongue]

Originally Posted by SanteeFats

I must disagree. For many decades if not centuries guns were so expensive that only the rich could afford to own one or of course a militant order or nation. After all you wouldn't want an armed peasantry in the oppressive societies of Europe or Asia would you? Guns only became available to the general populace about 300 years or so ago. Which coincided with the rediscovery of the America's. Even then they were extremely expensive but purchased as a necessary tool. I think this was more so in North America as the US and Canada expanded westward and almost everyone (at least the males) felt they must have one for hunting and protection.

While I must respectfully disagree with your disagreement of my exception to your statement. The very reasons you list for why they would be useful to American colonists is why they would be useful to anyone living in a place without telephones, electric lighting, automobiles, or a local police department. As for the oppressive societies of Europe and Asia you mention this is exactly the type of thing I allude to when I speak of how the NRA has managed to shape our thinking on the subject of firearms.

The Europe of 300 years ago was not the medieval era and didn't have peasants per se. While they might have been more exploited than we in the modern era consider reasonable people coming to America were not usually leaving economic persecution but religious persecution, and arguably the working poor in America were just as oppressed here as we like to paint the Europeans as. We had our own migration and exodus we like to call the Westward expansion for exactly that reason. A gun in that scenario was a tool for the frontier and not for overthrowing "the man".

As for the expense of a firearm it would be a relatively sophisticated piece of equipment, but no more so than quite a few farm or homestead implements common to the time and necessary for survival on a farm or frontier area. Most poor people could and would purchase one because it would be a necessary tool. In short a firearm would be a useful thing in a country without infrastructure and communications or immediate government authority. It is a luxury and ego gratifying item in places that have those things. Myself I cant think of a better way of gratifying someone's ego than by proclaiming that by purchasing yet another $500.00 Chinese AK knockoff you are defending Lady Liberty herself.

The NRA likes to promote the idea that firearms make us free, and special, and unique. IDEAS make people free, and special, and unique. Sometimes a firearm is needed to purchase or protect that freedom but simply having a firearm is no guarantee that you are free or defending freedom. Just as many armed colonists fought for the British as against them during the American Revolution. Both sides during the Civil War had ready access to guns. One of those sides was most definitely not supporting freedom. Pretty much every terrorist organization on the planet has plenty of brave, heavily armed people, but they are usually not defending freedom...except when they think they are.

Sometimes having a gun saves lives. I do not dispute that, but what needs to be examined is how many are taken needlessly and pointlessly relative to how many they save and weigh the two on a scale. When society sees flaws detrimental to the wellbeing of society we try to take steps to correct it for the betterment of all. That is why cars now have seatbelts- despite all the resistance to it initially. That is why we have campaigned against drunken driving- which has lead to a noticeable impact in related deaths, That is why we put surgeons warnings on cigarettes, why we have easy to access fire escapes in buildings, why companies cant dump toxic shit into your drinking water (Except apparently in W. Virginia.) Why your food cant have rat turds in it as one of the ingredients, why airlines cant just embark passengers with two broken engines, etc. etc. Everything but this one issue is subject to rational scrutiny.

We can look to Europe for a pretty stark lesson in why our gun laws might be a bit flawed when adding up yearly death relative to population. I would submit each and every country in Europe has its peculiarities and flaws, old shames and the whatnot but they are no less free overall than we like to pretend we are. In many ways they are starting to bypass us on that score even pretty dramatically. The NRA isn't defending freedom. They are defending their preferred way of life, and a notion of American history that they would like to pretend it was. I'm actually trying to be a bit optimistic with that assessment. A cynic or nihilist would simply say the NRA is trying to protect the bottom line of gun manufacturers. Guns in this country are a multi billion dollar industry. Name to me one multi-billion dollar industry in America that doesn't have a powerful lobbying agent behind it...like the NRA, and certainly few that have been active for so long.

Like I said: Blomburg has a lot of catching up to do.

[SanteeFats]

Originally Posted by Dimwit

Complete and utter nonsense - there were no laws in Britain at the time of the American War of Independence to prevent anyone owing firearms:
Source: ncc-1776.org (an extreme right-wing site, if ever I saw one).

That may be true but what was the cost of a weapon compared to the median income of the time? I think you will find that only rich could realistically afford any kind of firearm.