Politics Gun laws and news around the world

[Euroamerican]

It's a CONSTANT leftie argument, that you don't need an assault weapon to hunt.

1. WHO defines "need"?
2. They still use that stupid term, "assault rifle"

Of course, you don't need an "assault rifle". The real argument is that they want to band semi-automatic rifles (and any semi-auto gun..ITLR) and you supposedly don't need more than a bolt-action to hunt. So, you don't need an assault rifle to hunt.

Again, who defines "need". I don't need a V-8 truck to drive down the road, but I do like to have one when I need to haul stuff. I don't need a 300 horsepower BMW sedan. But if I WANT one and I can afford it, it's a nice step up from a 4-banger hamster cart.

Besides that: I don't define my weapon ownership by the limited scope of hunting. I don't hunt. I don't sport shoot. I want a gun to give me the personal choice and ability to protect myself and my family from bad actors. And since bad actors know you might have a gun or another weapon, they frequently operate in groups. I want a semi-auto because I want to fire until the threat is down. And as we saw AGAIN last Tuesday, the official good guys don't get there in time. They ain't required to do so...

 

[colin traveller]

Meanwhile across in CommieCanada .. Trudeau Castro has introduced a freeze on Handgun ownership .


. ............................

 

[primer]

California introduces a bill that refuses to warn law enforcement of any threats made by students.
Due to Blacks Latinox (what is that) students targeted due to their own threats, according the the bright one who drafted it.

 

[JimHPTN]

California introduces a bill that refuses to warn law enforcement of any threats made by students.
Due to Blacks Latinox (what is that) students targeted due to their own threats, according the the bright one who drafted it.

Well that's counter productive.

 

[Hiryu2.0]

I might send you a photo of my bookshelf. Floor to ceiling, there are two layers.

No mention of the E-books, studies and articles on my laptops.

So I'll bet you a serious sum that I've read more American history than you have.
(I'm about to write an article on the Iva D'Aquino trial, I wonder how many Americans without Google know who he was.)

Okay, you've fallen for Trump and the political leanings he represents, that's how it is. But that you are only capable of twisting people's words like a low budget Tucker Carson... well .. epic.

"oh dear, here come the liberal black trans lesbians, and if all the lunatics can't keep shoulder-fired gatling guns for self-defense at home, they'll have everyone's kids transgendered and they'll rape everyone while forcing me to give my money to migrants"

that's about it for the NRA


Under these circumstances, the USA constitution has proved to be extremely timeless, serving as a basis for the constitutions of many other states. However, to meet the challenges of changing times, it has had to be updated from time to time through so-called "amendments". Such an amendment is not easy: a two-thirds majority is needed to table a proposal and a three-quarters majority to adopt one. To date, 27 amendments have been adopted, and the twists and turns of American history can be traced through them. Constitutional amendments have abolished slavery, given women the right to vote and introduced or abolished Prohibition. The most recent, XXVII, was passed in 1992, 203 years after it was introduced, and stipulates that changes to the pay of members of Congress cannot take effect until after the next election.

We are now interested in the first two, or rather the second amendment. The conflict with the American state between those who want a smaller or more centralised federal state, mentioned in the previous chapter, is a timeless one, and the first ten amendments are the product of this struggle. They were enacted in one package, the Bill of Rights, in 1791, and the struggle for their adoption was led by James Madison, later the fourth president. Several states adopted the Constitution only if these ten points were added as amendments. The first amendment is about freedom of assembly, speech, press and religion, the second is about the right to bear arms, the third prohibits soldiers from unlawfully entering civilian homes (not much of that nowadays, but it was left in the Constitution, that's for sure), the fourth prohibits searches without a warrant, the next three are about fair and impartial justice, the eighth prohibits inhuman punishment, the ninth protects rights not specifically covered by the constitution, and the tenth says that matters not covered by the constitution are the responsibility of the states or the people. (The Bill of Rights originally had 12 clauses, but two of them did not pass in 1791: what was originally intended to be the Second Amendment ended up being the XXVII Amendment mentioned at the end of the previous paragraph, and the original First Amendment would have provided that the size of the House of Representatives should depend on the number of the population. This was rejected for practical reasons, as a fixed number of members distributed in proportion to the population is easier to manage and in principle produces the same result).

The second amendment to the Constitution reads verbatim: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This right derives from old English law and can be seen as -naturally- essentially a corollary of the right to self-defence. The basis of the Americans' free bearer of arms, this can-you-handle-the-freedom.jpg one-sentence, the "2nd amendment" has also become a kind of slogan among gun nuts.

If we read this famous phrase again, we can see that it is worded in a rather strange way, if we really want to, and that it can be interpreted in several ways: not only as the right of the people individually to bear arms, but also as the right of the people collectively to bear arms. The anti-gunners are better off clinging to this ambiguity: after all, the institution of corporal arms is the US military - if you want to man up, join it. This part of the debate was finally settled by the then Republican-majority Supreme Court in 2008, which ruled that, under the official interpretation of the Second Amendment, bearing arms is a fundamental constitutional right of every person. And in a 2016 case, it was ruled that licensing applies to all types of weapons, not just weapons of war, and to those that did not exist in 1791. However, SCOTUS held that the state or member states have the right to restrict the right to bear arms within reasonable limits, just as everyone is free to drive a car, for example, but still must have a driver's license.

 

[TheKiwi]

All the other rights are individual ones. One need only read the deliberations of the framers of the amendment to see that it was intended as an individual right too.

One can no more license a right "to bear arms" as one can license the right to print, or the right to not incriminate oneself.

If the anti-gun movement was honest with itself, it would note that there is a method contained within the constitution to amend it. Is it laziness or the knowledge that such an amendment would never pass that has prevented any such move?

 

[Junglejim]

Well, first of all, it is not up to you to decide what people "need" or "don't need" for X and Y.
Second, guns in the US or Canada and laws surrounding them are not aimed at regulating hunting practice. I would recommend you actually read a book on US History (Tindal & Shi, America, a Narrative History; that's the book each 1rst year American Civilization student is asked to read) to, perhaps, clarify things on the cultural and legal frame of the issue.


Finally... machine gun? What are you talking about? LMG? MMG? SAW? LSW? HMG? GPMG?
Is that what your "friend" told you, or did you come up with that yourself? A AR15 is not a "machine gun".

Unless you go hunting with a PKM or M60?

Well it would have been a Machine Gun had he converted it to full auto, I dont believe the perp did, I can see where he might have made that mistake.

I am still down to having rights to have armed bears.

 

[Ivan le Fou]

Under these circumstances, the USA constitution has proved to be extremely timeless, serving as a basis for the constitutions of many other states. However, to meet the challenges of changing times, it has had to be updated from time to time through so-called "amendments". Such an amendment is not easy: a two-thirds majority is needed to table a proposal and a three-quarters majority to adopt one. To date, 27 amendments have been adopted, and the twists and turns of American history can be traced through them. Constitutional amendments have abolished slavery, given women the right to vote and introduced or abolished Prohibition. The most recent, XXVII, was passed in 1992, 203 years after it was introduced, and stipulates that changes to the pay of members of Congress cannot take effect until after the next election.

We are now interested in the first two, or rather the second amendment. The conflict with the American state between those who want a smaller or more centralised federal state, mentioned in the previous chapter, is a timeless one, and the first ten amendments are the product of this struggle. They were enacted in one package, the Bill of Rights, in 1791, and the struggle for their adoption was led by James Madison, later the fourth president. Several states adopted the Constitution only if these ten points were added as amendments. The first amendment is about freedom of assembly, speech, press and religion, the second is about the right to bear arms, the third prohibits soldiers from unlawfully entering civilian homes (not much of that nowadays, but it was left in the Constitution, that's for sure), the fourth prohibits searches without a warrant, the next three are about fair and impartial justice, the eighth prohibits inhuman punishment, the ninth protects rights not specifically covered by the constitution, and the tenth says that matters not covered by the constitution are the responsibility of the states or the people. (The Bill of Rights originally had 12 clauses, but two of them did not pass in 1791: what was originally intended to be the Second Amendment ended up being the XXVII Amendment mentioned at the end of the previous paragraph, and the original First Amendment would have provided that the size of the House of Representatives should depend on the number of the population. This was rejected for practical reasons, as a fixed number of members distributed in proportion to the population is easier to manage and in principle produces the same result).

The second amendment to the Constitution reads verbatim: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This right derives from old English law and can be seen as -naturally- essentially a corollary of the right to self-defence. The basis of the Americans' free bearer of arms, this can-you-handle-the-freedom.jpg one-sentence, the "2nd amendment" has also become a kind of slogan among gun nuts.

If we read this famous phrase again, we can see that it is worded in a rather strange way, if we really want to, and that it can be interpreted in several ways: not only as the right of the people individually to bear arms, but also as the right of the people collectively to bear arms. The anti-gunners are better off clinging to this ambiguity: after all, the institution of corporal arms is the US military - if you want to man up, join it. This part of the debate was finally settled by the then Republican-majority Supreme Court in 2008, which ruled that, under the official interpretation of the Second Amendment, bearing arms is a fundamental constitutional right of every person. And in a 2016 case, it was ruled that licensing applies to all types of weapons, not just weapons of war, and to those that did not exist in 1791. However, SCOTUS held that the state or member states have the right to restrict the right to bear arms within reasonable limits, just as everyone is free to drive a car, for example, but still must have a driver's license.

Might as well source the original page you copy-pasted that from.

And what with that obsession with Tucker Carlson?

Anyway, your lengthy, and likely borrowed from somewhere else, post does not really add anything to the conversation apart from giving a brief summary about the Constitution. Barely anything in your post has to do with the 2nd and the actual debates surrounding the Amendment, but rather beating around the bush with already well known and established generalities that have already been tackled at length. When not straight out irrelevant to the conversation.

The issue being addressed though, and on which you received a few correction, is "the need" for people to have a "machine gun" for "hunting".
The mere fact you are phrasing your argument this way shows a clear discrepancy with your recent ctrl-c ctrl-v. Not only the wording, but the phrasing, which are pretty inconsistent with the way you usually post.

It is not about "a need". It is not about "hunting". It is not about "machine guns" and certainly not about "needing a machine gun to go hunting".

These were your words buddy.
Well... are these even "your" words to begin with? And not someone else's?

 

[Ivan le Fou]

Well it would have been a Machine Gun had he converted it to full auto, I dont believe the perp did, I can see where he might have made that mistake.

I am still down to having rights to have armed bears.

Technically yes, but practically no.
I mean yes he could have, but considering what is known of his background it is unlikely he would have been able to or could have been able to.

Unless he was a SOT (which is most likely wasn't, though "technically" his grandma could have been) building a post - 1986 machine gun or a military armorer (which "burger flipper" does not count as, but again his grandma "could have been"), embarking in such endeavor would have been illegal for him (but it is "very likely" he didn't really care about what is legal or not).
Wether he and/or his grandma were SOTs or military armorers? Hum... no... just guessing there but I'd wager they were not.

But even if he had been a SOT and wanted to build a real M16, somehow after having managed to obtain the appropriate parts, find a proper receiver (then modify it, drill it, etc...), file a Form 2 with the ATF, get it approved by the glowies, well... it takes time. Or simply go for the "coat-hanger" way.

Or he could have purchased a transferable M16, which goes at more than $20,000 these days. Which, again, on a burger flipper salary, is kind of a stretch. That being said, it is not as if he had planed to reimburse his loans.
And DD does not sell transferable guns, iirc.

 

[primer]

Taxcindy claimed after her Biden meeting that her confiscation was unanimously approved.
Well unanimously I have not not met any legal gun owners who agree and the gangs still have them.
...2 more shootings in Auckland.

 

[NZM305]

Taxcindy claimed after her Biden meeting that her confiscation was unanimously approved.
Well unanimously I have not not met any legal gun owners who agree and the gangs still have them.
...2 more shootings in Auckland.

She obviously hasn't had her minders tell her about the two claims in the Waitangi Tribunal then. Geez all her woke followers might not like to hear that some of the natives aren't happy with her.

 

[Ivan le Fou]

She obviously hasn't had her minders tell her about the two claims in the Waitangi Tribunal then. Geez all her woke followers might not like to hear that some of the natives aren't happy with her.

The woke knee-jerk reaction to that will likely be "they are uneducated, and discriminated against, noble savages who don't know what is good for them".

 

[Junglejim]

Reports of active shooter in a Tulsa Oklahoma, hospital. 4 dead. Time from first call till the perp was engaged and "killed himself" 9 minutes.

 

[Ivan le Fou]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Yet mature enough to ask for gender-transition.

 

[Ivan le Fou]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[primer]

Reports of active shooter in a Tulsa Oklahoma, hospital. 4 dead. Time from first call till the perp was engaged and "killed himself" 9 minutes.

Suicides they don't report those. Reason is the copy cat nature.
I don't reckon they'd stop to use violence to resolve their perceived threats. One idea though is US needs anger management counseling, or how about teach morals again.
Can be too conceit... looking at Auckland shootings. It spreads and as we are witnessing its the same path to Chicago and there is no clamp down on gangs until a resent last week salutary increase in budget for police gang control. More counselors.
After the Christchurch massacre they created a list to do. Half of the recommendations involved creating a watchdog to identify the ones like the Aussie online crusader the cops approved to legally buy guns. To stop stuff like that. Nup not done that, but guns in legal possession. Take those.
They let it all slide until its a mess floor then clean it up by scrubbing the ceiling.

 

[Ivan le Fou]

Suicides they don't report those. Reason is the copy cat nature.
I don't reckon they'd stop to use violence to resolve their perceived threats. One idea though is US needs anger management counseling, or how about teach morals again.

Mental health is a, if not the, big issue.

 

[Euroamerican]

I'm probably going to go out and buy another high-capacity 9mm handgun and maybe some other stuff in the next few days, just because I want to and because, "Buck Fiden 24"...

 

[primer]

More inflation.

 

[Ivan le Fou]

I'm probably going to go out and buy another high-capacity 9mm handgun and maybe some other stuff in the next few days, just because I want to and because, "Buck Fiden 24"...

9mm???

Do you know that you can rip out someone's lungs with a 9mm high-capacity-clip full-semi-auto bullet??

Why do you NEED such a weapon of war?