Only in America... | Page 45 | Vital Football

Only in America...

The only UK equivalent I can think of is attitudes towards the Royal Family. It's not possible to make a rational argument for the status quo yet people emotionally hold onto it. The Royals are not causing quite so many deaths though.
 
LA_Imp said:
The only UK equivalent I can think of is attitudes towards the Royal Family. It's not possible to make a rational argument for the status quo yet people emotionally hold onto it. The Royals are not causing quite so many deaths though.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't carry a royal even if I had a license!
 
Both parties have had decades to make a stand on this. It doesn't matter whether one party is broadly in favour of guns and the other is not. This should be above politics.

It must reach a point where somebody on one side or the other decides this is THE issue in the US, breaks ranks and does something about it - even if it causes the mother of all backlashes.

But they won't, they're all swampy career politicians.

Nearly 250 mass shootings (4 or more fatalities) already this year alone. It is beyond staggering.
 
Last edited:
As Biden suggested modest tightening of gun ownership rules, the NRA issued a flowery statement about how how America stands above the rest of the world and is admired because of its adherence to the 'Constitootion'.

Yeh, right. The rest of the world laughs at America's gun laws and scratches its head that no-one is willing to deal with its inevitable consequences.

Sick beyond belief.
 
Not me. The Republicans have spent decades painting themselves into an extreme right-wing corner which now means being the Donald Trump party.
 
The only thing i can see in America changing unfortunately is it getting worse

Cant see the gun law changing
 
Sincilbanks said:
"A well regulated militia..."

https://abc13.com/mom-charged-after-bullet-targeted-for-loose-dog-strikes-her-son/10728726/
Click to expand...

That notion itself is an interesting one, isn't? What would actually constitute a "well-regulated militia"? I haven't really thought - or read - much about the reasons this phrase was used, but my understanding is that it was meant to be a counter-balance to the notion that a government can become tyrannical over its citizens such that the only recourse would be armed insurrection.

To me, there seems to be three problems with that idea. Firstly, it suggests that the Founding Fathers didn't have as much faith in their Constitution, Bill of rights and political system as we might assume.

Secondly, where is the safe-guard that these "well-regulated militias" (how is that done, exactly?) don't become an easily accessible instrument of tyranny themselves?

Finally, we see the result of this amendment writ large today in America's epidemic of civilian gun deaths which, just from 1970 to date, outnumber every single military casualty suffered in every conflict the American military has been involved in since 1776.

Just some ad hoc thoughts, really.
 
NottyImp said:
That notion itself is an interesting one, isn't? What would actually constitute a "well-regulated militia"? I haven't really thought - or read - much about the reasons this phrase was used, but my understanding is that it was meant to be a counter-balance to the notion that a government can become tyrannical over its citizens such that the only recourse would be armed insurrection.

To me, there seems to be three problems with that idea. Firstly, it suggests that the Founding Fathers didn't have as much faith in their Constitution, Bill of rights and political system as we might assume.

Secondly, where is the safe-guard that these "well-regulated militias" (how is that done, exactly?) don't become an easily accessible instrument of tyranny themselves?

Finally, we see the result of this amendment writ large today in America's epidemic of civilian gun deaths which, just from 1970 to date, outnumber every single military casualty suffered in every conflict the American military has been involved in since 1776.

Just some ad hoc thoughts, really.
Click to expand...

https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf

"Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined," says Rakove. "It didn't mean 'regulation' in the sense that we use it now, in that it's not about the regulatory state. There's been nuance there. It means the militia was in an effective shape to fight." In other words, it didn't mean the state was controlling the militia in a certain way, but rather that the militia was prepared to do its duty

Essentially a disciplined force, competent and organised with a fixed and specific aim.

I suspect the reference in the constitution referred to something like the "minute men" not morons in tactical camouflage toting assault rifle clones while shopping for salad...
 
The second amendment was not inserted into the constitution as a counterbalance to national government. It was inserted at a time when the United States didn't have a proper standing army (in fact many of the founding fathers were against the idea of having one), had needed the help of a foreign power to win a war of independence, and was expanding west.

The 1777 articles of confederation confirmed an organised system where the power to wage war, and even raise an army, was dependent on the agreement of at least nine of the 13 states, who were required by law to maintain their own “well regulated and disciplined militia".

That all changed when the constitution was enacted ten years later. All affairs of war and the raising of armies were now in the hands of the commander in chief ie the president, and a simple congressional majority was all that was needed to confirm a state of war on his orders. It was, in effect, a power grab.

The second amendment (note it wasn't part of the original document) was inserted to allow individual states to maintain a militia for the purposes of defence. It was essentially a reassurance after that power grab. That is all.

The amendment is not unlimited in its scope. It says nothing of:

Bearing guns in public
Owning guns without a licence
The number of guns allowed
The type of guns allowed
Where and how those guns are stored

In fact the only 21st century court ruling on its scope is that it allows individual Americans to own a hand gun that is stored at home for self-defence (Heller versus DC, 2008).
 
Last edited:
John Bigbooté said:
The second amendment was not inserted into the constitution as a counterbalance to national government. It was inserted at a time when the United States didn't have a proper standing army (in fact many of the founding fathers were against the idea of having one), had needed the help of a foreign power to win a war of independence, and was expanding west. The pre-constitutional continental congresses had an organised system where the power to wage war, and even raise an army, was dependent on the agreement of at least nine of the 13 colonies. There was no commander in chief, and the national congress couldn't even appoint senior officers.

That all changed with the constitution was written and enacted. All affairs of war were now in the hands of the commander in chief ie the president, and a simple congressional majority was all that was needed to confirm a state of war on his orders. It was, in effect a power grab.

The second amendment (note it wasn't part of the original document) was inserted to allow individual states to maintain a militia for the purposes of defence. It was essentially a reassurance after that power grab. That is all.

The amendment is not unlimited in its scope. It says nothing of:

Bearing guns in public
Owning guns without a licence
The number of guns allowed
The type of guns allowed
Where and how those guns are stored

In fact the only 21st century court ruling on its scope is that it allows individual Americans to own a hand gun that is stored at home for self-defence (Heller versus DC, 2008).
Click to expand...

Thanks, interesting response. It's an area of history I should study more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.