The whole Second Amendment thing is going to go 1 of 2 ways:-
1. There will be a whole raft of changes to the Law to place the position back to where it was when the Second Amendment was passed. As an example, at the time it was deemed legal to "bear arms". But it was not as people pretend now. Guns at the time were totally different to those of today. Cannons were outlawed-today's assault rifles are far closer to cannons than muskets. Read this-
2. The gun lobby will still try to keep the US in the 18th Century. And, at some point, the right to bear arms will be abolished. Because, as it stands now, it is barbaric. And to pretend that 2022 is the same as 1791 is ridiculous.
To put the above into perspective, in 1791 most guns fire rate was 1-2 rounds per minute. The fastest was 3-4 rounds per minute.
Today, an AK-47 fires at 600 rounds per minute. That is not a hunting rifle. It is not for personal protection. It is a weapon primarily designed to kill large numbers of people. Its function is totally different to that in 1791.
Personally, I will never agree to the idea that the general public should be allowed to carry guns, except in carefully vetted exceptions. But I appreciate that many people do not share that view.
But anyone who thinks the public should be entitled to carry assault rifles should IMHO never be allowed to carry any sort of gun.
Shocking, but the 27th school shooting this year, over there.
May have said before here rarely follow the news - too grim however did not know that this was the 27th.
According to the GVA, of this year’s 212 mass shootings, 27 took place in schools. Following the attack, President Joe Biden said he was ‘sick and tired’ of gun violence in America. He said: ‘I hoped when I became president I wouldn’t have to do this again.’ metro.co.uk/2022/05/25/texas-school-massacre-marks-212th-mass-shooting-in-the-us-this-year-16705249/ Texas school massacre marks 212th mass shooting in the US ...
That figure is unbelievable.
You would have to think that because there are so many, they are priced in to life in the USA. Unfortunately there doesnt seem to be an obvious answer. There are currently more guns than people in America. So even if you could restrict gun ownership, which seems unlikely, the supply of them would probably merely move underground. I also think that to apply logical arguments is a pointless exercise. I listened to a woman being interviewed in the immediate aftermath of this shooting. She said that they cant give up their guns, because they would have nothing to defend themselves with, against the government, and look whats happening in Ukraine. It would seem that they would rather witness a mass shooting every day on the news, than even think about any restrictions on gun ownership. Even if the victims are defenceless little kids.
I reckon the 50 billion Biden has just sent to Ukraine could pay for a lot of school security.
Wouldn't you want America's help if we were being invaded by Russia ........ if we hadn't had their help in The Second World War, it is extremely unlikely we would have defeated Hitler ......... and we may all still be Governed by 'Na zis' .........hmmmmmmm
27. According to the GVA, of this year’s 212 mass shootings, 27 took place in schools. Following the attack, President Joe Biden said he was ‘sick and tired’ of gun violence in America. He said: ‘I hoped when I became president I wouldn’t have to do this again.’ metro.co.uk/2022/05/25/texas-school-massacre-marks-212th-mass-shooting-in-the-us-this-year-16705249/ Texas school massacre marks 212th mass shooting in the US ...
To put the above into perspective, in 1791 most guns fire rate was 1-2 rounds per minute. The fastest was 3-4 rounds per minute.
Today, an AK-47 fires at 600 rounds per minute. That is not a hunting rifle. It is not for personal protection. It is a weapon primarily designed to kill large numbers of people. Its function is totally different to that in 1791.
Personally, I will never agree to the idea that the general public should be allowed to carry guns, except in carefully vetted exceptions. But I appreciate that many people do not share that view.
But anyone who thinks the public should be entitled to carry assault rifles should IMHO never be allowed to carry any sort of gun.
I reckon the 50 billion Biden has just sent to Ukraine could pay for a lot of school security.
Wouldn't you want America's help if we were being invaded by Russia ........ if we hadn't had their help in The Second World War, it is extremely unlikely we would have defeated Hitler ......... and we may all still be Governed by 'Na zis' .........hmmmmmmm
The shootings have been going on a lot longer, way before the war started. The 2nd Amendment is too much of a political hot potato which no President wants to tackle. Nothing likely to happen this year with the mid terms coming up.
To put the above into perspective, in 1791 most guns fire rate was 1-2 rounds per minute. The fastest was 3-4 rounds per minute.
Today, an AK-47 fires at 600 rounds per minute. That is not a hunting rifle. It is not for personal protection. It is a weapon primarily designed to kill large numbers of people. Its function is totally different to that in 1791.
Personally, I will never agree to the idea that the general public should be allowed to carry guns, except in carefully vetted exceptions. But I appreciate that many people do not share that view.
But anyone who thinks the public should be entitled to carry assault rifles should IMHO never be allowed to carry any sort of gun.
Would the police give theirs up?
Seriously, what does that have to do with whether an 18-yr-old nutjob can carry one?
Although there would be no reason for the police to carry assault rifles (except in extreme cases) if criminals did not.
To put the above into perspective, in 1791 most guns fire rate was 1-2 rounds per minute. The fastest was 3-4 rounds per minute.
Today, an AK-47 fires at 600 rounds per minute. That is not a hunting rifle. It is not for personal protection. It is a weapon primarily designed to kill large numbers of people. Its function is totally different to that in 1791.
Personally, I will never agree to the idea that the general public should be allowed to carry guns, except in carefully vetted exceptions. But I appreciate that many people do not share that view.
But anyone who thinks the public should be entitled to carry assault rifles should IMHO never be allowed to carry any sort of gun.
Would the police give theirs up?
Seriously, what does that have to do with whether an 18-yr-old nutjob can carry one?
Although there would be no reason for the police to carry assault rifles (except in extreme cases) if criminals did not.
What has Floyd got to do with a mass shooting of kids?
Again, you are just trying to stir up trouble. The tweet is about the racist murder of George Floyd as it's the second anniversary. and not the latest tragic school shooting. Just that while we grieve, we should take a moment to remember GF.
To put the above into perspective, in 1791 most guns fire rate was 1-2 rounds per minute. The fastest was 3-4 rounds per minute.
Today, an AK-47 fires at 600 rounds per minute. That is not a hunting rifle. It is not for personal protection. It is a weapon primarily designed to kill large numbers of people. Its function is totally different to that in 1791.
Personally, I will never agree to the idea that the general public should be allowed to carry guns, except in carefully vetted exceptions. But I appreciate that many people do not share that view.
But anyone who thinks the public should be entitled to carry assault rifles should IMHO never be allowed to carry any sort of gun.
Would the police give theirs up?
Seriously, what does that have to do with whether an 18-yr-old nutjob can carry one?
Although there would be no reason for the police to carry assault rifles (except in extreme cases) if criminals did not.
To put the above into perspective, in 1791 most guns fire rate was 1-2 rounds per minute. The fastest was 3-4 rounds per minute.
Today, an AK-47 fires at 600 rounds per minute. That is not a hunting rifle. It is not for personal protection. It is a weapon primarily designed to kill large numbers of people. Its function is totally different to that in 1791.
Personally, I will never agree to the idea that the general public should be allowed to carry guns, except in carefully vetted exceptions. But I appreciate that many people do not share that view.
But anyone who thinks the public should be entitled to carry assault rifles should IMHO never be allowed to carry any sort of gun.
Comments
1. There will be a whole raft of changes to the Law to place the position back to where it was when the Second Amendment was passed. As an example, at the time it was deemed legal to "bear arms". But it was not as people pretend now. Guns at the time were totally different to those of today. Cannons were outlawed-today's assault rifles are far closer to cannons than muskets. Read this-
https://www.ranker.com/list/firearms-in-1791/rachel-souerbry
2. The gun lobby will still try to keep the US in the 18th Century. And, at some point, the right to bear arms will be abolished. Because, as it stands now, it is barbaric. And to pretend that 2022 is the same as 1791 is ridiculous.
Today, an AK-47 fires at 600 rounds per minute. That is not a hunting rifle. It is not for personal protection. It is a weapon primarily designed to kill large numbers of people. Its function is totally different to that in 1791.
Personally, I will never agree to the idea that the general public should be allowed to carry guns, except in carefully vetted exceptions. But I appreciate that many people do not share that view.
But anyone who thinks the public should be entitled to carry assault rifles should IMHO never be allowed to carry any sort of gun.
Unfortunately there doesnt seem to be an obvious answer.
There are currently more guns than people in America.
So even if you could restrict gun ownership, which seems unlikely, the supply of them would probably merely move underground.
I also think that to apply logical arguments is a pointless exercise.
I listened to a woman being interviewed in the immediate aftermath of this shooting.
She said that they cant give up their guns, because they would have nothing to defend themselves with, against the government, and look whats happening in Ukraine.
It would seem that they would rather witness a mass shooting every day on the news, than even think about any restrictions on gun ownership.
Even if the victims are defenceless little kids.
Wouldn't you want America's help if we were being invaded by Russia ........ if we hadn't had their help in The Second World War, it is extremely unlikely we would have defeated Hitler ......... and we may all still be Governed by 'Na zis' .........hmmmmmmm
UK Gun Laws ....... NO shootings at Schools since the Dunblane Massacre in 1996 (26 years ago) when the Laws were changed
USA Gun Laws ........ 12 Mass shootings at school THIS YEAR alone
This is a very long read but here's the list of Mass Shootings at Schools in USA since 2000 according to Wikipedia.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States
According to the GVA, of this year’s 212 mass shootings, 27 took place in schools. Following the attack, President Joe Biden said he was ‘sick and tired’ of gun violence in America. He said: ‘I hoped when I became president I wouldn’t have to do this again.’
metro.co.uk/2022/05/25/texas-school-massacre-marks-212th-mass-shooting-in-the-us-this-year-16705249/
Texas school massacre marks 212th mass shooting in the US ...
Wouldn't you want America's help if we were being invaded by Russia ........ if we hadn't had their help in The Second World War, it is extremely unlikely we would have defeated Hitler ......... and we may all still be Governed by 'Na zis' .........hmmmmmmm
The shootings have been going on a lot longer, way before the war started.
The 2nd Amendment is too much of a political hot potato which no President wants to tackle.
Nothing likely to happen this year with the mid terms coming up.
Although there would be no reason for the police to carry assault rifles (except in extreme cases) if criminals did not.
He's talking about the racist killing of a black man because it's the second anniversary of his death.
But you knew that.
The tweet is about the racist murder of George Floyd as it's the second anniversary.
and not the latest tragic school shooting.
Just that while we grieve, we should take a moment to remember GF.
You may not be able to do both.
Non racists can.
https://reason.com/2022/05/26/uvalde-texas-mass-shooting-statistics-gun-crimes-misleading/