| Another sad day in America 19:52 - Oct 2 with 1121 views | Joey_Joe_Joe_Junior |
I had my phone on silent last night and woke up to news in the desert. Terrible. With the industry I am in we have a lot of business interests in Las Vegas, we had 219 clients in Vegas last night and I have plenty of friends and co workers based over there. Luckily all my colleagues weren't directly caught up in it and those I know personally are safe.
A few things I'd like to put in perspective, although there are many millions of American obsessed with the second amendment, don't group an entire nation together as gun nuts. There are millions who even if they do support 2A want MUCH stricter guns laws in place. Millions of others are very much in support of a ban (never going to happen)or very strict gun control measures. It's shocking to me though that a piece of scripture written over 200 years ago holds such relevance in 2017, whether its part of the foundations of the country or not. How many more lives will it take.
There clearly has to be some meet in the middle ground and much much stronger background checks put in place. The few open carry states need to abolish that nonsense immediately as well. The type of weapon I could buy today simply with my US drivers license with no training is shocking. [Post edited 2 Oct 2017 19:53]
|  | | |  |
| Another sad day in America on 20:43 - Oct 2 with 1058 views | tcblue |
Yet the laws are broadly similar (perhaps Nevada aside) in many other countries, including Canada.
So, gun ownership isn't the thing and the whole of the thing. The relationship of 'freedom' and 'history' and 'America, flip yeah!' with guns, all plays a part as does the frankly terrifying way news is peddled there (scares sell!). And the sodding NRA lobbyists of course.
Glad to hear that all yours are safe. |  | | |
| Another sad day in America on 20:52 - Oct 2 with 1040 views | connorscontract |
The most shocking inconsistent thing about the fundamentalist approach the NRA etc have to the Second Amendment (that it is set in stone and inviolable) is that it is AN AMENDMENT!
By definition its existence proves that the Constitution isn't set in stone, and can develop as circumstances change. A legal principle about militias with muskets in a post-imperial context doesn't have to mean an individual has the right to be in possession of the means to kill, maim and injure nearly six hundred people in just two minutes.
For example, I can't see why a "Right to bear arms" allows automatic weapons with a high rate of fire, but not Cruise Missiles.
The simplest solution is to make the "Right to bear arms" clause dependent upon the being a member of a "well-regulated militia" principle. Totally consistent with the Constitution, but the Militia, in order to prove it is well-regulated, would have to have these regulations approved at both State and Federal level. These regulations could then limit the size of magazines, or number of weapons held, or rate of fire. Break the regulations and you are kicked out of the militia and you lose the right to bear arms. Totally consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution and 2nd Amendment.
However, that would require political will across both sides of both Houses and in every State. Too many vested interests for that to happen. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
