Newtown - Is it Really Time for a Change?

[9876543210]

fleetwood77,

Originally Posted by fleetwood77

Wasn't the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution made at a time when guns were single shot muzzle loaders - maybe they should interpret their Constitution literally and any knob who wants a gun should be restricted to a 1780's model.

Heh, heh. Maybe a good idea. I went through the process of firing an old muzzle loader once and that definitely takes some time. I even seem to remember seeing something on the Civil War where an expert soldier could load and fire one of those about five times in a minute. But that was an expert. It probably took me a half hour to load and fire the thing. Interesting idea.

[blondifan]

Originally Posted by 9876543210

blondifan,
How well have these laws gone over with the people? Most people complied? Were there many that refused to comply? What happened to them?

There were protests and some protesters were very passionate, as you would expect. I believe the laws were generally well accepted, baring in mind that illegal ownership is a very serious offence. There was a period of amnesty for serious firearms.
Personally i've never owned a firearm. As a landowner, i've signed necessary permission slips for a few friends enabling them to bare firearms to hunt pests on my property. I just use cage traps.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by 9876543210

Mal Hombre,



There's probably no real relevance but do you (or anyone) remember what kind of resistance there was? Did anyone fight to the end over keeping their guns? A lot of incidents? Or just a few? I fear there are probably more than a few in the US that would.

There was certainly no armed resistance and there were no violent incidents of opposition; direct resistance to government very occasionally reaches the level of public disorder, as with the Poll Tax riots of 1990, but except in Northern Ireland (a special case), British citizens hardly ever resort to lethal force against the elected government. That road leads to civil war; anyone doing such a thing would be dealt with as a traitor, not a common criminal, and the perpetrator would not merely be imprisonned, but outcast and reviled by the rest of society. The most recent example I can think of are the failed 21/7 suicide bombers, who are beyond the pale of forgiveness and I sincerely hope will be outcasts forever.

In the case of the firearms legislation of 1988 and 1997, the government had overwhelming public support, and the minority of dissenting voices were coldly ignored by the rest. They had the freedom to speak, and did; but they knew better than to challenge the overwhelming majority of their own community beyond registering their dissent on the record. Gun ownership has never been normal here, always the exception, and the majority who have never owned a gun were dismissive of the idea that ordinary people who have no need for a gun in their work and are not competitive sportsmen of a very high standard needed to own a gun.

In the USA, given the unhelpful position taken by the Supreme Court, I am dubious whether a mere law would be upheld as constitutional. A constitutional amendment might be needed, and the problem with that is that there is a Republican majority in the House of Representatives who are bound to support the NRA. Plenty of Democrats in Congress are also opposed to gun control.

I think this is a test for the American grassroots. How much do people in the USA want a reform here? First the ordinary people need to agree a common ground; it will not involve any law banning gun ownership, because there are many US citizens who bear arms and will not relinquish their right to bear arms, and thats just the way it is. At the most, people might agree to restrict gun ownership and hopefully outlaw any class of weapon which has no legal designed purpose, such as semi-automatics. NB You don't need a semi-automatic weapon for home defence; an ordinary pistol is actually more suitable, unless its 1942 and your home is Stalingrad. Only when the broad mass of public opinion is onside will it be possible to turn up the heat on the NRA and their bought politicians in Congress and dare them to resist the public pressure for constitutional amendment. In general terms, this is the way all constitutional reform is achieved in the USA.

[blueballsdc]

Originally Posted by 9876543210

Also, I noticed that as far as the buy back is concerned, most of the weapons returned were .22's. That would indicate to me that compliance was not very good as .22 calibers are only good for varmints and not much else. Meaning that people gave up the varmint rifle but kept the high powered rifle. Does that seem accurate?

.22s are very common because the weapons and more importantly the ammunition is very cheap. It is what most people use for training and everyday target practice. A brick (500 rounds) of .22LR ammo will run you about $30.00 depending where you shop.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by uli12345

A list of shame Top 10

Weapons (Private Property)

Land:

USA 270 000 000
India 40 000 000
China 40 000 000
Germany 25 000 000
France 19 000 000
Pakistan 18 000 000
Mexico 15 500 000
Brasilia 15 000 000
Russia 12 750 000
Yemen 8 000 000

Source:
German Magazine Focus

Germany surprises me; it is a very law-abiding place. In my brief visits there it struck me as a controlled society, which did not have much grafitti, much litter or much crime. I wonder why so many Germans own guns?

Switzerland was even more like Germany than Germany...if that makes any sense. The Swiss have a militia based national defence arrangement an awful lot like the "minutemen" from the earliest days of the USA; but everyone who has a military obligation retains a government issued semi-automatic weapon, which is government property, and if at any time you can't account for your army rifle, the Swiss police will boil your testacles. Fortunately the majority of Swiss are not an exciteable lot, and there is very little public gun crime in Switzerland, but domestic murders and suicides often involve the army rifle.

[9876543210]

blondifan,

Sorry, trying to keep up here. Think I may have bitten off more than I can chew. Anyway, if I remember correctly, you're in Australia?

Originally Posted by blondifan

There were protests and some protesters were very passionate, as you would expect.

OK. One last question. As far as you remember, were there many (if any) people offended enough by the new rules that they were willing to die for their guns?

[Pepper II]

This is an abhorrent tragedy, of course. An even greater tragedy would be to punish innocent sportsmen and shooting enthusiasts for someone else's crime. There will always be mentally deranged people around and if this guy couldn't have gotten his hands on a gun he just as easily could have driven a car into a crowd or taken some other action. Taking away a citizen's right to defend himself would only make the criminal's work easier and for some, more profitable. Criminal organizations import THOUSANDS of TONS of drugs into this country and it would be naive to think they wouldn't open a side business supplying illegal arms to criminals. If there's profit to be made the demand will be filled (remember the debacle called "prohibition"?) We're still living with the fallout from that.

There's a lot of misinformation disseminated by the left-wing media about firearms. First of all a semi-automatic rifle is NOT an assault rifle! Assault rifles are fully automatic (machine guns). Fully automatic rifles may only be legally owned by first passing a federal background check and registering the firearm with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (the BATFE). This process must be completed before a dealer can pass the firearm into your possession and currently takes about 6 months. To my knowledge there has never been a crime committed with one of these weapons by a civilian.

Let's not forget the actions which led to the formation of the US and the drafting of our Constitution. We had recently fought a war of independence with a tyrannical regime (no offense to you modern British friends). This would have been impossible without the private ownership of arms. THIS is fundamentally why some of us are so passionate about this subject. There are two very important provisions in our Constitution which were put there to insure a tyrannical leader could not take over the country even if he was first elected. These are the right of the people to keep and bear arms and the prohibition of using the military domestically.

Restricting the citizens to outdated antique weapons is ridiculous for the reasons cited above. One of the factors which led to the successful outcome of the Revolutionary War (as we call it here) was while the British army was equipped with smooth-bore muskets with a relatively short effective range, most of the colonists hunted and defended themselves with what were at the time superior weapons with rifled barrels (hence the name 'rifle'). These rifles had a much greater effective range and could engage the enemy before they could use their muskets.

Another favorite tactic of our sadly leftist media is to always use terms like "the gun lobby" and to portray the NRA as some sort of mysteriously funded evil entity hell-bent on protecting criminals (huh?). I've been an NRA life member since the mid 70's and I can tell you we're an organization made up of patriotic Americans who only want to protect our rights and enjoy our sport. The funding comes from over 4,300,000 members like myself through our dues and donations.

I live is south Florida and if any of you ever want to get together and go shooting feel free to PM me. This offer includes you foreigners, too! If you're going to be in the region don't hesitate to contact me. And don't worry if you only have a 3" pocket-knife; I'll be happy to supply the arms and ammo. I guarantee you'll have a blast!

Alright, let me get back to the pretty naked ladies, now.

[9876543210]

scoundrel,

Originally Posted by scoundrel

There was certainly no armed resistance and there were no violent incidents of opposition; direct resistance to government very occasionally reaches the level of public disorder, as with the Poll Tax riots of 1990, but except in Northern Ireland (a special case), British citizens hardly ever resort to lethal force against the elected government. That road leads to civil war; anyone doing such a thing would be dealt with as a traitor, not a common criminal, and the perpetrator would not merely be imprisonned, but outcast and reviled by the rest of society. The most recent example I can think of are the failed 21/7 suicide bombers, who are beyond the pale of forgiveness and I sincerely hope will be outcasts forever.

So people in Britain pretty much just gave up their weapons peaceably? Thats good to hear. I guess that really doesn't surprise me as .... ummm, I don't know how to say this. Brits aren't like Americans in many ways. Americans, I think, are probably more like the Australians. A bit rough, unpolished, wary of many things. I'm trying to understand how many Americans will react to the advent of laws eliminating some gun ownership rights. I'm sure, after this incident, that most Americans will understand and comply. But I'm also sure that some won't. They won't act like the British. This is one of my main concerns.

In the case of the firearms legislation of 1988 and 1997, the government had overwhelming public support, and the minority of dissenting voices were coldly ignored by the rest. They had the freedom to speak, and did; but they knew better than to challenge the overwhelming majority of their own community beyond registering their dissent on the record.

I guess thats where we need to get to. I wonder how the NRA would react to being "coldly ignored".

Gun ownership has never been normal here, always the exception, and the majority who have never owned a gun were dismissive of the idea that ordinary people who have no need for a gun in their work and are not competitive sportsmen of a very high standard needed to own a gun.

When I think about it, the only picture I have of British gun ownership is of some large landowner (or his hunter) using a dual barrel shotgun for shooting birds. So, in order to own any type of gun in Britain you must be a competitive sportsman or need it for work. OK, I get that.

In the USA, given the unhelpful position taken by the Supreme Court, I am dubious whether a mere law would be upheld as constitutional. A constitutional amendment might be needed, and the problem with that is that there is a Republican majority in the House of Representatives who are bound to support the NRA. Plenty of Democrats in Congress are also opposed to gun control.

You're probably correct here. But there are some "murmurs" that some Republican may be changing their minds. I did see a conservative Democrat (Joe Mancin of W Virginia) this morning who looked to be almost in shock who said he's changed his mind and will now support a ban. So we'll see.

I think this is a test for the American grassroots. How much do people in the USA want a reform here? First the ordinary people need to agree a common ground; it will not involve any law banning gun ownership, because there are many US citizens who bear arms and will not relinquish their right to bear arms, and thats just the way it is. At the most, people might agree to restrict gun ownership and hopefully outlaw any class of weapon which has no legal designed purpose, such as semi-automatics. NB You don't need a semi-automatic weapon for home defence; an ordinary pistol is actually more suitable, unless its 1942 and your home is Stalingrad. Only when the broad mass of public opinion is onside will it be possible to turn up the heat on the NRA and their bought politicians in Congress and dare them to resist the public pressure for constitutional amendment. In general terms, this is the way all constitutional reform is achieved in the USA.

And that is exactly where we need to go.

[9876543210]

Pepper II,

Originally Posted by Pepper II

An even greater tragedy would be to punish innocent sportsmen and shooting enthusiasts for someone else's crime.

You really believe this? You really think that it would be a greater tragedy of someone wasn't able to own an assault rifle? More tragic than the death of 20 babies? Sorry, not buying it.

There will always be mentally deranged people around and if this guy couldn't have gotten his hands on a gun he just as easily could have driven a car into a crowd or taken some other action.

Um, you do know he drove a car to the school and parked it right at the front entrance. You can see it in all of the photos of the front of the school. Its the dark one parked Illegally right by the front walk.

Taking away a citizen's right to defend himself would only make the criminal's work easier and for some, more profitable. Criminal organizations import THOUSANDS of TONS of drugs into this country and it would be naive to think they wouldn't open a side business supplying illegal arms to criminals. If there's profit to be made the demand will be filled (remember the debacle called "prohibition"?) We're still living with the fallout from that.

Nobody is talking about taking anyone's right to defense away. Only the ability to use assault weapons. Those must go, and they must go now!

There's a lot of misinformation disseminated by the left-wing media about firearms. First of all a semi-automatic rifle is NOT an assault rifle! Assault rifles are fully automatic (machine guns). Fully automatic rifles may only be legally owned by first passing a federal background check and registering the firearm with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (the BATFE). This process must be completed before a dealer can pass the firearm into your possession and currently takes about 6 months. To my knowledge there has never been a crime committed with one of these weapons by a civilian.

It may not fit you're definition of an assault rifle but any weapon that can kill at least 26 people within about two minutes is an assault rifle. Even a pro with a single shot rifle or shotgun isn't going to come close to that number in two minutes. A 20 year old with little or no experience did that in about two minutes. Sorry, thats an assault rifle.

Let's not forget the actions which led to the formation of the US and the drafting of our Constitution. We had recently fought a war of independence with a tyrannical regime (no offense to you modern British friends). This would have been impossible without the private ownership of arms. THIS is fundamentally why some of us are so passionate about this subject. There are two very important provisions in our Constitution which were put there to insure a tyrannical leader could not take over the country even if he was first elected. These are the right of the people to keep and bear arms and the prohibition of using the military domestically.

I used to think there was some validity with this argument but no longer. We don't live in the 1700's any longer. Technology has moved on. You may not trust the government, and I can understand that, but do you really think you could do anything against them if they came for you? Not a chance. You might be able to get a few of them (probably not) but they're definitely going to get you. They have missiles and drones which can watch you day and night 24/7. So no, this argument no longer works.

Restricting the citizens to outdated antique weapons is ridiculous for the reasons cited above. One of the factors which led to the successful outcome of the Revolutionary War (as we call it here) was while the British army was equipped with smooth-bore muskets with a relatively short effective range, most of the colonists hunted and defended themselves with what were at the time superior weapons with rifled barrels (hence the name 'rifle'). These rifles had a much greater effective range and could engage the enemy before they could use their muskets.

I think most gun owners know this. I do think the idea of limiting owners to muzzle loaders is kind of interesting though. We'd actually have to get to be good shots again.

Another favorite tactic of our sadly leftist media is to always use terms like "the gun lobby" and to portray the NRA as some sort of mysteriously funded evil entity hell-bent on protecting criminals (huh?). I've been an NRA life member since the mid 70's and I can tell you we're an organization made up of patriotic Americans who only want to protect our rights and enjoy our sport. The funding comes from over 4,300,000 members like myself through our dues and donations.

I was a member back in the 70's. I don't remember why I quit but I'm pretty sure it had something to do with a lack of common sense. My dad's still a member though. Again, I'm not talking about taking away anyone's deer rifle, shotgun or most handguns (as long as it doesn't have a 30 round clip). What we must get rid of are assault weapons. Period. There is no reason, in the sporting community, for such weapons.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by 9876543210

scoundrel,

So people in Britain pretty much just gave up their weapons peaceably? Thats good to hear. I guess that really doesn't surprise me as .... ummm, I don't know how to say this. Brits aren't like Americans in many ways. Americans, I think, are probably more like the Australians. A bit rough, unpolished, wary of many things. I'm trying to understand how many Americans will react to the advent of laws eliminating some gun ownership rights. I'm sure, after this incident, that most Americans will understand and comply. But I'm also sure that some won't. They won't act like the British. This is one of my main concerns.

I think I know what you are diplomatically avoiding.

But the British are not traditionally a demonstrative or histrionic people. We sometimes bite without so much as a warning bark beforehand; if we were dogs, we would not be nice dogs. But we still believe in the lawful authority of our state, which derives traditionally from our monarch; rebellion is a leap of the imagination for us here. But we have done it in the past and when we do it, we eat the whole enchilada as it were. Either we remain loyal or we cut off our monarch's head; there isn't an in-between with us. I would suggest that the United States ought not to be shy about dealing mercilessly with individuals and small groups who take up arms against the elected government, whose authority comes from the whole people. I am of course talking about "second amendment solutions" rather than lawful dissent or even civil disobedience.

Anyone who took up arms against our government over a law passed in parliament would risk the penalty for treason, which is not a slap on the wrist. We only abolished the death penalty for treason quite recently.