U.S.A Second Amendment re-think

I would suggest that we have an identical problem here over boundary changes which need to be addressed to resolve the inbalance of voters per constituency. As you might recall this was due for consideration and proposals had been set down until Mr Clegg and his team had a hissy fit over Lords reform and took their ball off the field of play. Added to which the previous administration tinkered with our Constitution to no perceivable good end, whatsoever.

I don’t think we can teach Americans much about democracy.

Yes, I agree with that statement Chas. It’s the same on both sides, Lies, Lies, and more damned lies.and the come the G. E. they wonder why folks don’t or can’t be bothered to turn out and vote.
Jim.
Lincoln .7

Oops, this is a bit inconvenient…

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/05/07/Justice-Dept-Report-Destroys-Medias-Gun-Control-Narrative

I’m not sure that it is inconvenient…..rather that it is confusing.

Between the years of 1993 and 2011, as the assault weapons ban expired, more Americans purchased guns, the Supreme Court overturned outright gun bans, and individual states not only loosed gun control restrictions but also issued concealed carry permits to private citizens, incidents of gun violence in America collapsed.

Between 1993 and 2011, nonfatal gun crimes plummeted 69%; from 1.5 million to 467,300. Gun-related murders dropped 40%; from 18,253 to 11,101. Gun-related murders for black Americans plummeted by 51%.

The recent drift of this thread (and I haven’t read all the posts to date) would seem to indicate that the vast majority of gun-homicides in the United States are criminal-against-criminal and these crimes would be unaffected by increased (or decreased) gun-control legislation that would (only) be obeyed by the law-abiding gun-owner.

But here you have a change in the gun-control laws apparently affecting overall gun-crime in a major way.

And what about this extract from the same report:

There is just no question that an armed American populace is a safer American populace. This study also proves that smart policing and a willingness to award serious jail time to violent offenders (two areas our criminal justice system have focused on over the last two decades) does a helluva lot more to decrease the rate of gun violence than purely symbolic gun-grabbing laws.

Could it be that ‘smart policing and a willingness to award serious jail time to violent offenders’ rather than an ‘armed American populace’ is what actually caused the overall drop in gun-crime?

Clearly there is not ‘no question’ about it.

Indeed Chas, it seems that a lot of internal Laws over there are, as well as the Constitution seem to pose far more problems than our Laws do here!!

I would suggest that we have an identical problem here over boundary changes which need to be addressed to resolve the inbalance of voters per constituency. As you might recall this was due for consideration and proposals had been set down until Mr Clegg and his team had a hissy fit over Lords reform and took their ball off the field of play. Added to which the previous administration tinkered with our Constitution to no perceivable good end, whatsoever.

I don’t think we can teach Americans much about democracy.

RpR.
I understand, that is the Law in the States, that every gun carried by Airlines, MUST be able to be seen via Xray or metal detectors, prior to boarding.The newly developed handgun, 3D generated, cannot, as I understand.
The new weapon, a handgun, very well appropriately called the “Liberator”, and which anyone can download the plans to make one for FREE, is going to throw the Airlines into a wobbly. The only problem I see, is that the ammunition may set the Checking machines off as it passes through the checkhout.
I wonder if it would be possible to make the casings, and the projectile out of a similar material?.
Should they be banned before it may go into full production, or will it be yet another infringement of the 2nd?.and TSHTF yet again.

Jim.
Lincoln .7

How interesting, Linc. Perhaps our friends “over there” will bring us up to date.

Indeed Chas, it seems that a lot of internal Laws over there are, as well as the Constitution seem to pose far more problems than our Laws do here!!

Incidently, have you read about the new 3D plastic hand gun that has recently been shown and fired?.
Frightning to say the least.

Jim.
Lincoln .7

I do not believe that was the case.

Certainly the armaments company for which I worked cleared out the entire European inventory of hard-to-sell, or defective hand guns and were dutifully recompensed for every one.

Moggy

Would this Company, as a matter of interest, be Winchester?. Moggy.
Jim.
Lincoln .7

How interesting, Linc. Perhaps our friends “over there” will bring us up to date.

I think they are still under discussion Chas, far too important to be kicked into the Long Grass.
Jim.
Lincoln .7

No, the POTUS is elected by the Electoral College.

Indeed it is but I am sure I read of proposals to amend the system, because of its inherent “undemocraticness”, and remove the Electoral College aspect. Have these been kicked into the long grass or are they still being discussed? Or did I imagine it?

Oops, this is a bit inconvenient…

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/05/07/Justice-Dept-Report-Destroys-Medias-Gun-Control-Narrative

Don’t look for a new Justice Department report about American gun violence to receive any serious media coverage over the coming days, or ever. According to the report from the department’s Bureau of Statistics, every argument the media and the left are currently making to push for new restrictions on our Second Amendment civil rights, are made up of anti-science nonsense. This report not only proves the media wrong, it proves the NRA right.

Between the years of 1993 and 2011, as the assault weapons ban expired, more Americans purchased guns, the Supreme Court overturned outright gun bans, and individual states not only loosed gun control restrictions but also issued concealed carry permits to private citizens, incidents of gun violence in America collapsed.

Between 1993 and 2011, nonfatal gun crimes plummeted 69%; from 1.5 million to 467,300. Gun-related murders dropped 40%; from 18,253 to 11,101. Gun-related murders for black Americans plummeted by 51%.

The report also shows that the media-created hysteria over school shootings is wildly misleading. Between ’93 and ’11, the murder rate in schools dropped by almost a third; from 29 to 20.

Background checks have also been exposed as another bogus narrative the media’s crafted out of thin air. This report proves beyond any doubt that closing the so-called gun show loophole will accomplish next to nothing. Less than one-percent of state prisoners caught with a gun purchased it at a gun show. Moreover, who knows how many of those criminals might have passed or did pass a background check.

So-called assault weapons are also not a problem, Only “2% of state inmates and 3% of federal inmates were armed with a military-style semiautomatic or fully automatic firearm.”

What this study clearly shows is that Obama, Democrats, and the media don’t give a damn about stopping gun violence. If they did, they would be focused on everything but the one and two-percent problems.

What we have here is a yet-another culture war; nothing more nothing less — and one aimed at the type of law-abiding citizens who attend gun shows and enjoy these so-called assault weapons. In other words, Red State conservatives.

What is especially crucial to keep in mind is that 2011 is not some kind of outlier. If you study the original report, you will see that these decreases are all part of an 18-year trend, not an outlier year or two.

This report is extremely good news is you are the kind of person who gives a damn about human life.

But if you are cynical, power-hungry Democrats more uncomfortable with the idea of human freedom than you are pleased with a decrease in human life, this report is bad news. Furthermore, if you are a dishonest member of the media who believes that delivering political wins to Democrats is more important than human life, this report is also bad news.

There is just no question that an armed American populace is a safer American populace. This study also proves that smart policing and a willingness to award serious jail time to violent offenders (two areas our criminal justice system have focused on over the last two decades) does a helluva lot more to decrease the rate of gun violence than purely symbolic gun-grabbing laws.

Thanks to this study we also know for a fact now that the Newtown massacre is being exploited by the media only to demonize Obama’s political enemies.

Sorry Rick, not following you. Republic or not, does the US have a democratically elected President? One man and one vote and all that?

Regards,

kev35

No, the POTUS is elected by the Electoral College.

Sorry Rick, not following you. Republic or not, does the US have a democratically elected President? One man and one vote and all that?

Regards,

kev35

Not for president.

RpR.

Thanks for those two posts, very informative and disheartening to know. However, why aren’t Law Enforcement Agencies (God knows you have enough of them – City, County, State and Federal) more effective in reducing gang and drug crime? Particularly when firearms are involved.–Profiling which works very well to control organized crime and even career criminals, has become so politically incorrect that even a hint of it to solve a crime will bring liberals out demonizing the law enforcement and victims while making criminals, including ones that commit violent felonies victims.
That is why 80 year old persons in wheel chairs and children are strip searched at airports. One MUST examine x number of persons, regardless of zero chance of being a threat to avoid cries of racial or ethnic profiling. This is also why criminals can still get on aircraft unchecked. If they checked only persons that fit the profile for possible trouble, the ACLU and Democratic leaders in Washington would be in all the papers and on the airwaves screaming racial/ethnic profiling, even though race has nothing to do with it, and certain ethnic groups are a serious problem. (As a side note, if you look like a long haired hippy type from the sixties, and cross back in across the border, your car will be stripped down as far as possible. I know this first hand. )
The inmates are running the asylum.

When I speak of gun control, I don’t necessarily mean the abolition of guns in their entirety. Yes, I’ve no doubt whatsoever that there are a lot of what you refer to as goblin v goblin shootings. Gun control will not control or deter the criminal element, that is the job of Law Enforcement. America should no longer be a ghastly parody of the wild west. It is the use of firearms that are legally owned which is in need of control. The latest school shootings have all been carried out with legally owned firearms. The bigger the stick then the greater the opportunity is for greater damage. Restricting the number of weapons held in the home, their type and the amount of ammunition one can legally own would be a significant step toward the reduction of incidents such as Sandy Hook. There has to be a way around the problem that does not require the prying of a weapon from the cold dead fingers of the owner.

Regards,

kev35

This would be a god-send for criminals who are getting more violent.
What happened at any of the shooting you are thinking of is what comes with a free society, and the laws would do zero to affect it, period.
Restricting the amount of ammunition?– Some shooters will go through hundreds of rounds in a day and thousands in a month.
It only takes six rounds to kill six people if the victims are unarmed and cowering on the ground.

The type of ammunition recommended for home defense is the type the liberals like to babble about, as it is designed to kill quickly and effectively. Any one who shoots a criminal and does not intend to kill him is a fool who deserves any misery the failure to do so may bring about.
Number in a home if one had twenty guns no one, without exception can use twenty guns to commit a crime.
Shotguns are the most lethal weapon if these nut-job criminals really want to kill people. Most hand gun rounds will not pass through one door of a vehicle and out the other, shot gun slugs will.
Number six bird-shot at four feet will turn a humans brains into bloody jelly.
All the BS, and it is bull-****, about high powered this and that is just ignorant fear mongering by a biased ignorant press and the politicians whose buttocks they suck fudge out of. There are some truly high powered handguns out there, I have two that can bring down a Water-Buffalo, as gun writer found out by going out and doing it, but these have not been used in crimes, at least not ones that have made the press EVER.

The U.S. is returning to the wild west days partly because the people the government spends more and more time trying to control,
are law abiding citizens.
Laws only affect those who obey them, yet thousands of new laws are being created across the country every few years.
How does this stop criminals from doing anything?

Well David, you’ve caused me to rethink my life choices. I feel like an awful person now. I’m going to drive to California next week and turn in all my guns….even my two “assault rifles.” 😉

ZRX61 – my quote was in relation to the plastic gun . It doesn’t fill any gap in any market apart from the hands of people who may wish to transport a weapon for unlawful purposes. As for weapons full stop -I have American friends who hunt and they only hunt what they can eat. They don’t use assault weapons – they use effectively sniper rifles which will stop a large animal.I have no problem with that – the problem I have is with people who have assault rifles etc for which they have no genuine purpose i.e the mother of Michael Lanza .

Sorry Rick, not following you. Republic or not, does the US have a democratically elected President? One man and one vote and all that?

Regards,

kev35

RpR.

Thanks for those two posts, very informative and disheartening to know. However, why aren’t Law Enforcement Agencies (God knows you have enough of them – City, County, State and Federal) more effective in reducing gang and drug crime? Particularly when firearms are involved.

When I speak of gun control, I don’t necessarily mean the abolition of guns in their entirety. Yes, I’ve no doubt whatsoever that there are a lot of what you refer to as goblin v goblin shootings. Gun control will not control or deter the criminal element, that is the job of Law Enforcement. America should no longer be a ghastly parody of the wild west. It is the use of firearms that are legally owned which is in need of control. The latest school shootings have all been carried out with legally owned firearms. The bigger the stick then the greater the opportunity is for greater damage. Restricting the number of weapons held in the home, their type and the amount of ammunition one can legally own would be a significant step toward the reduction of incidents such as Sandy Hook. There has to be a way around the problem that does not require the prying of a weapon from the cold dead fingers of the owner.

Regards,

kev35

But Rick, that’s democracy for you, the land of the free and all that good stuff. You all want a democracy but you either moan when the other guy wins or moan about the apathy that means a large portion of the eligible voters cant, as you so rightly say, be bothered. It’s exactly the same here. So what should that be telling us about politicians?

Regards,

kev35

The US is a republic.

There is no need for this product –

So there is no need to hunt? or for vermin control? How do you think cattle are killed at slaughter houses? I can think of hundreds of thousands of people who would disagree completely with your broad brush stroke. Perhaps you can share with us how you defend yourself against a 600lb bear or wild hog etc with a pocket knife?

But Rick, that’s democracy for you, the land of the free and all that good stuff. You all want a democracy but you either moan when the other guy wins or moan about the apathy that means a large portion of the eligible voters cant, as you so rightly say, be bothered. It’s exactly the same here. So what should that be telling us about politicians?

Regards,

kev35