In view of what has happened to these, and indeed other School children, and many other incidents that have taken place, involving the use of Shotguns and Section 1 Firearms.do you think that any individual should be allowed to own seemingly as many weapons as they like?.in the U.S.A.
Personaly, I think the 2nd should be fine tuned, to allow anyone to own the minimum of weapons they REALY need, And all weapons be kept in a secure place within the owners property, or at a gun club, where they are secure.
Should they adopt the same rules and regs as we have here in the U.K.
The other week, I was watching a U.S.A. program where a family business purchased and sold, also traded weapons, and one chap brought to them a pristine GATLING gun he wanted to sell, need I say more?.
What are members views on gun ownership in the States?.
Jim.
Lincoln .7
By: RpR - 12th February 2013 at 17:57
NO
The confiscation of fire-arms during Katrina proved the point.
After the fact, they took what happened at Katrina to court and the courts said it was illegal and should never happen again, strictly on the basis of the 2nd Amendment.
The fact the government, including state and local, are trying to take fire-arms away from legal owners who have broken no laws shows that those who wrote the Constitution knew power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely is a fact that never goes away no matter how naive a populace may be.
By: Lincoln 7 - 12th February 2013 at 06:36
So don’t you think that in all those years ago, when the 2nd may have been relevant, the 2nd is rather outdated?.
It’s just an excuse to bear arms, “Just in case” which in these modern times is highly likely NOT, or ever likely to happen?.
Jim.
Lincoln .7
By: RpR - 11th February 2013 at 22:54
[QUOTE=Lincoln 7;1989432]
NO.
The Second Amendment exists to allow protection against the government.
When the government it was designed to protect against starts changing it, it is only for the governments sake, no one else.So, Can you please tell me when the USAs Government turned against it’s own citizens in a Civil War?.
Seems like the 1st sentence, contradicts the second :confused:
Jim.
Lincoln .7
That was an organized country’s army verses an organized country’s army, not relevant to the Second Amendment.
The Revolutionary War would be a better example of how it might work.
By: Lincoln 7 - 11th February 2013 at 22:01
[QUOTE=RpR;1989414]NO.
The Second Amendment exists to allow protection against the government.
When the government it was designed to protect against starts changing it, it is only for the governments sake, no one else.
So, Can you please tell me when the USAs Government turned against it’s own citizens in a Civil War?.
Seems like the 1st sentance, contradicts the second :confused:
Jim.
Lincoln .7
By: RpR - 11th February 2013 at 21:04
NO.
The Second Amendment exists to allow protection against the government.
When the government it was designed to protect against starts changing it, it is only for the governments sake, no one else.
It is extremely difficult to even attempt to do but the last thing this country needs is to become another Venezuela where the government can change the Constitution as it desire for its own sake.
That is one of the few things that can be said positive about politicians only being concerned with staying in office. Anyone/s attempting to seriously do so would be political history.
By: Lincoln 7 - 11th February 2013 at 19:32
C.D.
Warren, Very informative reading. One or two things the article says, echoes my words, inasmuch as that they also advocate locking weapons in a safe storage facility.etc.
So, IF they can alter rules and regulations, as we Brits have, then, a slight adjustment to the 2nd could be viable.
The first 10 Amendments, are cast in stone, the others are “Add ons”, so instead of infringing the Right of the 2nd Amendment, could they not, on the grounds of safety, just add on a few changes, and add them to the others, that in themselves, are not Rights per se?.
Jim.
Lincoln .7
By: Creaking Door - 11th February 2013 at 12:23
Interesting article about Swiss gun ownership:
By: ZRX61 - 8th February 2013 at 23:02
But you’ll concede that the ‘Gun Facts’ website has an agenda; it may just ‘collate’ data from other sources but it is deliberately making an argument against gun-control.
I spent a long time reading the ‘Gun Facts’ site last night and while I cannot contradict any of the figures it was clear that some of the figures were years out of date and possibly do not accurately reflect the current situation.
Some of the facts also seemed to contradict facts that you yourself had used to support your argument.
Coming back to this post. Gun Facts is more about showing the figures & reports spewed by the antis to be mainly pulled out of thin air or their exhaust port.
By: ZRX61 - 8th February 2013 at 22:57
That is odd.
Then you seem to not have very large interest in firearms as it has just as much information as any news-stand magazine and far more on historical fire-arms than the average news-stand magazine.
I only buy one magazine each month & that’s FlyPast. I rarely buy gun magazines unless I spot something on the cover that pertains to WWII rifles, S&W M&P pistols or Mossberg 590 shotguns. I’m more liable to buy a DIY mag. I used to buy Warbird Digest, but they went to subscription only & I can’t be arsed to fill out the paperwork for that.
By: Lincoln 7 - 8th February 2013 at 10:50
The condescending comments by some here towards Americans are quite disappointing.
I do believe I’ll have to take RAF Mildenhall off of my list for future assignments…
Please don’t Tar everyone with the same brush, it’s only an opinion mostly, not fact as we all know.And sometimes we all get carried away in the heat of the moment, the more that’s been posted on this subject, the more I am understanding the attitude towards weapons in the USA compared to ours over here.
I must admit, some of the things from our friends from over the pond, have been an eye opener, some informative, and others plain stupid, regarding all the gun laws that differ from State to State.
I am sure no offence was/has been made to you, or your fellow Countrymen.
Life is a learning curve, and if you don’t ask, you will never get to know things.:)
Jim.
Lincoln .7
By: Creaking Door - 8th February 2013 at 08:40
Its just fat boys playing with a toy that could have killed them.
D’you know some of us were having quite a civilised, informative discussion until you ‘joined the fray’.
And now, it seems, the author of some of the most informative posts has chosen to delete them; thanks! :rolleyes:
By: PhantomII - 8th February 2013 at 07:13
The condescending comments by some here towards Americans are quite disappointing.
I do believe I’ll have to take RAF Mildenhall off of my list for future assignments…
By: RpR - 8th February 2013 at 05:32
This video makes a nonsense of having a weapon for personal protection.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEgxTzGV8Kk
Its just fat boys playing with a toy that could have killed them. Of course if you could recognise the bad guy at 2,430 metres*. I suppose its OK
*Canadian Snipers record for killing a Taliban in 2002.
How does that video have anything to do with self-defense?
By: RpR - 8th February 2013 at 05:29
Anyone can join by paying the membership fee. They have elected leaders. I was a member for 5 years, but gave it up owing to the amount of junk mail I received… including a request to “renew early” only a week after I paid a five year membership. I read the one page of their magazine that interests me & throw it in the trash.
That is odd.
Then you seem to not have very large interest in firearms as it has just as much information as any news-stand magazine and far more on historical fire-arms than the average news-stand magazine.
I have been a member for well over thirty years and am one category short of the top level available.
I asked at the National Show what I get if pay for the top rank. The guy laughed and said your name on a wall.
I will eventually do it but only when I have few hundred dollars burning a hole in my pocket.
One good thing, I get the magazine, without any more money, till I die, and beyond that if no one at that addresses tells them I am dead.
By: paul178 - 8th February 2013 at 00:47
This video makes a nonsense of having a weapon for personal protection.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEgxTzGV8Kk
Its just fat boys playing with a toy that could have killed them. Of course if you could recognise the bad guy at 2,430 metres*. I suppose its OK
*Canadian Snipers record for killing a Taliban in 2002.
By: ZRX61 - 8th February 2013 at 00:22
Anyone can join by paying the membership fee. They have elected leaders. I was a member for 5 years, but gave it up owing to the amount of junk mail I received… including a request to “renew early” only a week after I paid a five year membership. I read the one page of their magazine that interests me & throw it in the trash.
By: Lincoln 7 - 7th February 2013 at 23:14
The NRA has, and at times still is, become too much of an Washington insider in their politics which is the side of the organization that the majority of members rely on to fight against anti-gun politics.
In the past several elections the NRA did nothing to oppose several candidates who more members than not, would rather have not had, due to issues other than just gun rights.
When they asked the NRA why they did not support the preferred candidate they responded by saying that the candidate who won had a good rating with the NRA and that was all that mattered.
Do the NRA have any “Ground rules” to enable one to become a member?.
Also, who Governs the NRA?.
Jim.
Lincoln .7
By: ZRX61 - 7th February 2013 at 23:00
http://weaselzippers.us/2013/02/07/piers-morgan-fan-goes-on-shooting-rampage-killing-three/
By: RpR - 7th February 2013 at 22:53
That’s the impression I had prior to posting this, however, it’s good to hear yours, and others from over the ponds opinion.
From what I gather,and I hasten to add it’s only my opinion, that it’s only a small percentage, giving the majority a bad name.
T.B.H. I also don’t think that the NRA help themselves much in their argument, sometimes I wonder if they havn’t shot themselves in the foot, Pardon the pun.
Jim.
Lincoln .7
The NRA has, and at times still is, become too much of an Washington insider in their politics which is the side of the organization that the majority of members rely on to fight against anti-gun politics.
In the past several elections the NRA did nothing to oppose several candidates who more members than not, would rather have not had, due to issues other than just gun rights.
When they asked the NRA why they did not support the preferred candidate they responded by saying that the candidate who won had a good rating with the NRA and that was all that mattered.
By: paul178 - 7th February 2013 at 21:29
D C Page. No not just through TV but also though Personal contact here and overseas, Skype and listening and observing the American abroad(ie as visitors to Bath) Do not think for one minute that I think all UK citizens are perfect a significant minority make me cringe and should have been strangled at birth.
So back to guns if this minority had guns I dread to think what the death rate would be. Similar to the USA maybe?
Sign In
December 15, 2012 at 9:52 am