Originally Posted by Xavier1985
the usa is no different to any other western world country, except that is one of the youngest and feel like they have something to prove. We over here in the uk don't get pushed around any more or less than the americans do... this was true even back in the "founding father" days, just didn't want to pay the kings taxes, but they ended up paying their own tax, amusing.
i'll never be convinced of being pro-gun owner ship, especially arming people to the teeth, that is just immature and ignorant. if there is a problem with massacres, handing out more guns will not resolve the issue, it would just make it easier for the suspect to do what they will do.
i went to Vegas a few years ago, even the car valet people have pistols, how ridiculous, et they will be arming MacDonald's employees next. That is one of the most off putting things about the USA, their fetish for guns.
but as i said before, ban and make automatic and some semi automatic weapons, anyone who has an arsenal of weapons has intent, if you only wanted to own a weapon for protection, you would only need a small pistol or something to that extent. Anything bigger or more powerful and it goes beyond defence and into the realm of intent.
After Obama made that ridiculous speech, I felt a need to check here to see if we had a current thread on this subjuect. I chose your comment because of the inconsistencies in your facts.
First, we did not rebel because we had to pay taxes, it was the idea that we were not allowed representation in even the Commons to protest the fact. It was like the South before the War Between the States being told they could not protest punitive tariffs on Cotton sold outside the US itself.
As for intent; Guns are a good investment. There are a couple of places here in Vegas where if I had the money, I could go in, rent a weapon, anything from a German machine gun from WWII up to a Ma Deuce fifty caliber or even 'old painless' from Predator, and fire it. Of course they aren't going to let me off the range with it, but if you've ever wanted to see an MG42 'Hitler's Zipper' and actually fire it, you get the chance.
As recently as the Shrub's administration, the Justice department was ordered to get together with Constitutional law scholars to examine the wording of the constitution, and they reported (2006 if I am correct) that while the term militia is used, it states that the average American has the right to own a gun, and our government does not have the right to restrict that.
The reason they keep pushing these laws is because we can muzzle ourselves
if they get enough sheep to baa in chorus.
As for polarization, back in the late 60s, the pro gun lobby tried to get a bill passed to ban Saturday Night Specials, cheap guns sometimes more dangerous to those who use them. The NRA actually came out at the time and stated they would support it if it were properly written. The basics of the law was the gun had to be cheap (At the time, the price was set at less than a hundred dollar) poorly constructed, small enough to conceal, and of an inefficient caliber (The NRA would have accepted anything smaller than 7.62 short, the old .32).
Where this alliance fell apart was in deciding how many of these had to apply. The NRA wanted at least two. But the Pro control mob wanted it to be any one criteria.
Using that measure, a Ruger Olympic Match in 22 short is one, even if it would cost you 1500 dollars to buy. The Beretta .380 a finely machined weapon which back then cost about 75 dollars would have been banned because of the price, and the Colt Chief's Special with a 2 and a half inch barrel (63mm) would have been banned because it was designed to be concealed.
In my lifetime they have tried to ban [ammunition[/i] on the grounds that it is like dynamite, meaning you need a special permit to buy it. They tried to say the National Guard was the Militia the 2nd Amendment spoke of, so we don't need guns. Since I was alive when the National Guard opened fire at Kent State I can't call them 'well organized'. The minor fact that since 1903 the National Guard is defined as a secondary Army reserve
unit, and the Feds used this when they first nationalized, then ordered the National Guard to Stand down when Governor Wallace used them to block College integration in Alabama is incidental.
The militia spoken of in 1783 was every armed citizen coming out ready to defend their homes, not some guy being paid for 36 days a year to go out and get some remedial training as a soldier, which is what the Guard is.
The problem is every time this comes up, it's an emotional response to a failure to enforce existing laws. And the Advocates, especially in Hollywood come down on their own who disagree. When Tom Selleck made a commercial for the NRA, Rosie O'Donnel, a Gun Control advocate accused him of being paid to make it, even though it has always been NRA policy that only members
of the NRA make public announcements for the organization and ask them to do it as members, not as paid spokesmen. O'Donnel can say 'I don't need a gun' because she has a security system that sends armed officers if she hits the panic button. I, with an income of about $720 a month can't afford to even get a price estimate
from one. And saying 'the police will protect you' is a joke. We'd need one cop per a hundred people to have anywhere close to that protection.
The reason I came down on Obama's speech is because I've heard something like it before. Back when they had a TV show named Quincy on the air, the producers got on a 'cause of the week' spree. When they got to gun control, Jack Klugman who starred as the title character said, '75% of the American people want a comprehensive ban of guns, but no one listens'.
Sounds a lot like 'Our people want this, and I'm going to give it to them' to me. The problem with that claim is simple.
When 75% of our people want something they get
it, even if they have to do a grass roots campaign needed to create a new Constitutional Amendment.