I'll try and make my response and clear and concise as possible. I like to use numbered points to help aid this. Allow me to begin.
1) You are right, I am British and my opinion has precious little bearing on US domestic policy vis a vis gun control laws. Though as you correctly note, I am free to criticise and I shall exercise my right to say what I think about the matter.
2) My point is not that they failed to consider changes to society per se. I think it amazingly unfortunate for your country that a special amendment was set aside to make it rightful and legal for every day Joe Bloggs's to bear arms. I understand that to make a revision of an amendment needs the support of the Executive AND two thirds of congress to agree. There's almost fuck all chance of that happening on guns, which is why I indicated the SYMBOLIC significance of providing some form of momentum and public awareness and support for gun control. It's worth hoping that some day, the 'right to bear arms' is eroded and made more realistic and amenable to a normal, civilised society. Here's hoping.
I can understand why the Constitution was made hard to change...but quite why it was deemed necessary to make it a 'right to bear arms' is beyond me. Surely, if things got that bad and a government became all dictatorial and oppressive or King George invaded again, then the people would rise up and get hold of loads of guns anyway. The whole thing would be a fait accomplie, so the law was pointless and has ended up backfiring massively.
3) My article was dated 2004 and I knew it was dated 2004 when I researched and used it for my article. It was completely relevant and important for the article as it reflected all the necessary facts that transpired, contemporaneously, from the non-extension to the assault weapon ban. i.e. the age of the article is a moot point and irrelevant.
4) My hollywood references did not in fact betray a lack of knowledge or understanding...they were to embellish a point via humour. My point was, arm a normal citizen with a high power weapon, and the likelohood is - they won't know how to use it properly and will probably end up killing unintended targets...or putting alot of holes into random nearby vehicles. I'm sure, if you read the section again, you'd see what I was getting at.
Media Term? Assault weapon? Look mate, I couldn't give a fuck about what guns do what, it really doesn't inflate my dick that much. All I know is, an Assault Weapon is a bit better and a bit more "kick ass" as you Americans might say, than a handgun. End of story. If you live in a house and you hear someone coming through the door downstairs, do you really need an unwieldy assault rifle to go and do your business? No. So why the need to make them legal? Ridiculous. It's clearly an antiquated law than allows very strange people to get together and hang their towels off eachother's penises while they pour monstrous verbal vitriol over non-existent 'Straw Man' liberals whp apparently are crawling all over America in a bid to institute socialism and the confiscation of guns. Get. Over. It.
5) You make an interesting point here, as you have provided evidence to show that the law was quite ineffective and served to prohibit little if nothing. I would ask then: What was the purpose of the temp ban and why, if it was pointless, was it instituted? If you could be balanced in an answer, that would be handy. I'm not really up for listening to a tirade against pussy bitch sell out Liberals and democrats etc.
6) This comes down to your persepctive that ownership is a 'right'. I would argue that it was once considered a right, and now it is so far removed from being a right in reality, the law needs to change.
What are you referring to about 'doing the same thing over and over'?
7) You apply the right wing American mindset to a British context, which is utterly laughable. This tiny country has a population of around 62 million (if you count recent illegal and unaccounted for immigration.)
Any liberalisation of gun laws here would bring anarchy and murder. Currently, gun crime is restricted to certain nasty areas of: London, Manchester, Nottingham, West Midlands. And in those areas, 75% or thereabouts of gun crime is caused by Yardies and other black drugs gangs. They tend to kill eachother and the guns they possess are indeed illegal. They are countered by extremely highly trained firearms police officers, who are monitored in every action they take. You cannot make the link between crime and gun ownership here.
Are we utterly dependent on the government for safety? Well, if you have to put it like that, in the most part, yes. The police do their job, it's not up to individuals to form vigilante gangs. What would that solve?
In this country, as Mr Boatang rightly said, you can use reasonable force to defend home and person. Which essentially means that unless you use violence out of REVENGE, then the law will recognise your violent actions as legal self defence. So you have about as much knowledge of the UK law in this regard, as I do about the technical infinite knowledge about all the different types of black steel that happens to fire volleys of little bullet type things in a straight line.
The only people who believe here that the criminal is protected and the people left to suffer and die is the British reactionary Far Right newspaper, The Daily Mail. Which is guaranteed to make house prices rise and to cause cancer and heart attacks. I recommend you DON'T read it.
You say the anti gun lobby is in retreat. I would argue yes, but not for the reasons you ascribe. That'll be down to the fact that for most of the last decade, there has been both a Rep Executive and a Rep Congress. Not really conducive towards the betterment of civilised conduct in society in my opinion.
Over to you, Matt.
Next: #4 - Part 1: On "Assault Weapons"
1) You are right, I am British and my opinion has precious little bearing on US domestic policy vis a vis gun control laws. Though as you correctly note, I am free to criticise and I shall exercise my right to say what I think about the matter.
2) My point is not that they failed to consider changes to society per se. I think it amazingly unfortunate for your country that a special amendment was set aside to make it rightful and legal for every day Joe Bloggs's to bear arms. I understand that to make a revision of an amendment needs the support of the Executive AND two thirds of congress to agree. There's almost fuck all chance of that happening on guns, which is why I indicated the SYMBOLIC significance of providing some form of momentum and public awareness and support for gun control. It's worth hoping that some day, the 'right to bear arms' is eroded and made more realistic and amenable to a normal, civilised society. Here's hoping.
I can understand why the Constitution was made hard to change...but quite why it was deemed necessary to make it a 'right to bear arms' is beyond me. Surely, if things got that bad and a government became all dictatorial and oppressive or King George invaded again, then the people would rise up and get hold of loads of guns anyway. The whole thing would be a fait accomplie, so the law was pointless and has ended up backfiring massively.
3) My article was dated 2004 and I knew it was dated 2004 when I researched and used it for my article. It was completely relevant and important for the article as it reflected all the necessary facts that transpired, contemporaneously, from the non-extension to the assault weapon ban. i.e. the age of the article is a moot point and irrelevant.
4) My hollywood references did not in fact betray a lack of knowledge or understanding...they were to embellish a point via humour. My point was, arm a normal citizen with a high power weapon, and the likelohood is - they won't know how to use it properly and will probably end up killing unintended targets...or putting alot of holes into random nearby vehicles. I'm sure, if you read the section again, you'd see what I was getting at.
Media Term? Assault weapon? Look mate, I couldn't give a fuck about what guns do what, it really doesn't inflate my dick that much. All I know is, an Assault Weapon is a bit better and a bit more "kick ass" as you Americans might say, than a handgun. End of story. If you live in a house and you hear someone coming through the door downstairs, do you really need an unwieldy assault rifle to go and do your business? No. So why the need to make them legal? Ridiculous. It's clearly an antiquated law than allows very strange people to get together and hang their towels off eachother's penises while they pour monstrous verbal vitriol over non-existent 'Straw Man' liberals whp apparently are crawling all over America in a bid to institute socialism and the confiscation of guns. Get. Over. It.
5) You make an interesting point here, as you have provided evidence to show that the law was quite ineffective and served to prohibit little if nothing. I would ask then: What was the purpose of the temp ban and why, if it was pointless, was it instituted? If you could be balanced in an answer, that would be handy. I'm not really up for listening to a tirade against pussy bitch sell out Liberals and democrats etc.
6) This comes down to your persepctive that ownership is a 'right'. I would argue that it was once considered a right, and now it is so far removed from being a right in reality, the law needs to change.
What are you referring to about 'doing the same thing over and over'?
7) You apply the right wing American mindset to a British context, which is utterly laughable. This tiny country has a population of around 62 million (if you count recent illegal and unaccounted for immigration.)
Any liberalisation of gun laws here would bring anarchy and murder. Currently, gun crime is restricted to certain nasty areas of: London, Manchester, Nottingham, West Midlands. And in those areas, 75% or thereabouts of gun crime is caused by Yardies and other black drugs gangs. They tend to kill eachother and the guns they possess are indeed illegal. They are countered by extremely highly trained firearms police officers, who are monitored in every action they take. You cannot make the link between crime and gun ownership here.
Are we utterly dependent on the government for safety? Well, if you have to put it like that, in the most part, yes. The police do their job, it's not up to individuals to form vigilante gangs. What would that solve?
In this country, as Mr Boatang rightly said, you can use reasonable force to defend home and person. Which essentially means that unless you use violence out of REVENGE, then the law will recognise your violent actions as legal self defence. So you have about as much knowledge of the UK law in this regard, as I do about the technical infinite knowledge about all the different types of black steel that happens to fire volleys of little bullet type things in a straight line.
The only people who believe here that the criminal is protected and the people left to suffer and die is the British reactionary Far Right newspaper, The Daily Mail. Which is guaranteed to make house prices rise and to cause cancer and heart attacks. I recommend you DON'T read it.
You say the anti gun lobby is in retreat. I would argue yes, but not for the reasons you ascribe. That'll be down to the fact that for most of the last decade, there has been both a Rep Executive and a Rep Congress. Not really conducive towards the betterment of civilised conduct in society in my opinion.
Over to you, Matt.
Next: #4 - Part 1: On "Assault Weapons"
4 comments:
Well, aside from the dick comments (if you only knew how many girls here own firearms and enjoy shooting sports...) I have to say that at least you are going about this with the right spirit. Granted, you are still wrong (due in part to your lack of education on the topic at hand), but unlike most people I've met with your viewpoint, you are open to debate. I think that is fantastic. Just promise me you won't stomp your feet and give up as we disassemble you arguments.
I understand that to make a revision of an amendment needs the support of the Executive AND two thirds of congress to agree.
Just a technical issue but it requires 2/3 of the Congress, 2/3 of the Senate AND 3/4 of the States. Approval by the executive is _not_ required: the executive has _no_ say in the matter.
Of course your conclusion that "There's almost fuck all chance of that happening on guns,..." is absolutely correct. And that is a very good thing.
Nice question
Yes, the answer almost same, as well as at me.
Post a Comment