Shoot a camera, not a gun

Status
Not open for further replies.
E__WOK said:
If the 2nd Amendment is not fit for present day use, then they need to remove the bill of rights judicially.
Click to expand...
Who are 'they'? And how do 'they' do it 'judicially'? How clear are you on constitutional law?

There are no constitutional objections to changing the constitution. It's been done quite often, including amendments and the repeal of amendments.

Cheers,

R.
 
Sounds reasonable. Then you could afford a national heath service.
Click to expand...

I'm all for national heath!

Jpegged.jpg
 
Riverman said:
The written constitution is at the heart of the problem of the insollubility of this debate. It is basically inflexible and fundamentalist to be so tied to a single and ancient text. Constitutional scholars in the United States tie themselves in the same types of etymological knots as those Islamic scholars and jurists who forge Sharia through interpreting the Quran. I am sure that the fairly rigid constitutional settlement of the US, forged in war and revolution, today contributes to the sclerosis and lack of dynamism in US
politics. It is a peculiar side effect of this constitutional settlement that it confers legitimacy on 'pro gun' arguments. Notwithstanding the huge number of guns in circulation in the US, nor the repeated and tragic acts of violence that play out each year in the US, it is silly to suppose that the federal government has anything other than an effective monopoly on poltical violence. In that regard the right to bear arms today fails because it really is not an assurance of any person's liberty (drone wars, guantanamo etc). Nor does it serve as an effective check on any sort of external threat (Pearl Harbor, 9/11).

The power of America's judiciary is also startling. Capable of striking down legislation on grounds of its 'constitutionality', this is quite some power over the legislature. It also belies the notion that sovereignty is in the hands of the people.

America is a great country. I enjoyed living their for two years. But it is certainly hobbled in certain respects by a constitutional settlement which, however expedient in its infancy, is rather less fit for purpose today.
Click to expand...

But if you want the shredded remnants of my Constitution, you'll have to come take it.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Who are 'they'? And how do 'they' do it 'judicially'? How clear are you on constitutional law?

There are no constitutional objections to changing the constitution. It's been done quite often, including amendments and the repeal of amendments.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

They is Congress and/or The States. Maybe you should refresh me.
 
banning ammo

banning ammo

Roger Hicks said:
And thefts, and losses. My aunt found a .32 Colt revolver in a house she bought, and we never found my mother-in-law's Mauser automatic pistol after she died. This is why I said there are SO MANY guns in circulation in the USA that ammunition control, not gun control, is probably a much safer/easier bet. Ammo gets used up. Guns don't.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Roger,

do you have any idea how many rounds can be reloaded with the equipment already in the hands of reloaders? Bullets, cases, primers, powder, and the relevant reloading equipment. Shucks, with the right equipment and supplies folks can and do cast their own bullets. Not to mention the ammunition they've already squirreled away. One of my dearest shooting friends has well over 1000 rounds in long-range precision rifle ammo in .308 alone, not to mention his stores of 5.56mm x45, 7.62x39, and then of course his handgun ammo in his service weapons caliber: 40S&W, .38Spl, and .45ACP. (he's retired law enforcement - there now, that'll make everybody feel "safer" won't it - though it escapes me as to why😕)

Once you have achieved a certain level of proficiency with live-ammuntion, especially in handgun ammo, one need not shoot 1000 rounds a week to stay that way. For handgun users, Air-Soft and Simunitions play a prominent role. So, end of the day, no way in hell to ban the production of ammunition. Oh i reckon one could make that illegal too - I mean after all, we know how many gang-bangers reload 😀
But then how does one enforce that? Warrantless entry into private homes? Gee, last time I thought we had laws against that. But, in this climate I wouldn't rule it out. Hell, we can ban everything and that should take care of all danger. :bang:
 
Roger Hicks said:
Who are 'they'? And how do 'they' do it 'judicially'? How clear are you on constitutional law?

There are no constitutional objections to changing the constitution. It's been done quite often, including amendments and the repeal of amendments.
Click to expand...

Yes, methinks 'judicially' is not the proper term, as stated, but E_WOK certainly knows there is an amendment process as part of the document itself that can be used to repeal previous amendments.
 
frank-grumman said:
Roger,

do you have any idea how many rounds can be reloaded with the equipment already in the hands of reloaders? Bullets, cases, primers, powder, and the relevant reloading equipment. Shucks, with the right equipment and supplies folks can and do cast their own bullets. Not to mention the ammunition they've already squirreled away. One of my dearest shooting friends has well over 1000 rounds in long-range precision rifle ammo in .308 alone, not to mention his stores of 5.56mm x45, 7.62x39, and then of course his handgun ammo in his service weapons caliber: 40S&W, .38Spl, and .45ACP. (he's retired law enforcement - there now, that'll make everybody feel "safer" won't it - though it escapes me as to why😕)

Once you have achieved a certain level of proficiency with live-ammuntion, especially in handgun ammo, one need not shoot 1000 rounds a week to stay that way. For handgun users, Air-Soft and Simunitions play a prominent role. So, end of the day, no way in hell to ban the production of ammunition. Oh i reckon one could make that illegal too - I mean after all, we know how many gang-bangers reload 😀
But then how does one enforce that? Warrantless entry into private homes? Gee, last time I thought we had laws against that. But, in this climate I wouldn't rule it out. Hell, we can ban everything and that should take care of all danger. :bang:
Click to expand...
Yes, I'm pretty well aware of how to reload. And (astonishingly) it's legal in quite a few places to buy components-- cases, primers, propellants, bullets -- even where it isn't legal to buy ready-to-fire ammunition. Or, equally astonishingly, where it is illegal to assemble the legally bought components.

My point is simple. Ammunition is a wasting asset (like film -- it gets used). Guns are like cameras (capital assets -- you can reload them as long as you can get ammunition). Make it harder (or merely more expensive) to get ammunition, or for that matter simply register ammo sales -- which I suspect could be done in the US by executive order tomorrow, because it doesn't restrict anyone's right to keep and bear arms -- and you make it harder to use the guns you've got. Film users should readily be able to relate to this one.

By the way: please don't conflate 'banning' and 'controlling'. We 'control' who can drive cars, via drivers' licenses, but we don't 'ban' cars.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger, not so sure executive order could do that (constitutionally), but many people seem to think it might happen, which is why ammo sales (and gun sales) have been exploding in the recent past.
 
E__WOK said:
If the 2nd Amendment is not fit for present day use, then they need to remove the bill of rights judicially.
Click to expand...

I presume you mean 'in accordance with the law'. Herein lies the rub. Easier said than done. America is shackled to the writ of those who framed its constitution hundreds of years ago. Its constitutional settlement is fundamentalist. It is commonly thought that the UK lacks a constitution. It does not. The UK constitutional settlement comprises diverse statutes stretching back hundreds of years. The beauty of the system (if one prizes flexibility and an ability to move with the times) is that Parliament is supreme. Parliament makes statute law and any statute is capable of changing or scrapping any other statute. No special process is required, just a majority in Parliament. Moreover, English judges (unlike their counterparts in the US Supreme Court) may not second guess Parliament. In the US, the opposite holds true. The legislative process by which 'constitutional' change may be effected is deliberately designed to be cumbersome and difficult, whilst the judiciary can and frequently does second guess the legislature on matters constitutional. So much for power to the people.
 
Liberals Call for Murder of NRA Leaders

Liberals Call for Murder of NRA Leaders

Jubb Jubb said:
With all the incredibly sad news coming out of the United States at the moment and all the loss of young life, it's hard to believe that a State Representative has made it public that he believes teachers should carry guns or have access to a gun in their classroom, and that by carrying such a weapon you are going to ensure the children are safe.

There is nothing safe about guns. Period.

I just can't get around why people feel that by carrying a lethal weapon, they are safe. It is an object that has been designed to end life. That is it's primary purpose, not protection.

I've started reading news sites comments, articles, the National Rifle Associations facebook page (and comments from people that have liked it) and it completely frightens the sh*t out of me that a lot of people still will not act on banning guns. They believe that if a civilian was armed when a shooting like this happened, they'd jump in there and "protect" everybody.
This mentality is just crazy.


Shoot a camera, not a gun.
Click to expand...

Please talk about facts rather than feelings.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...der-of-nra-leaders-after-sandy-hook-shootings
 
Last edited:
Some Additional Facts

Some Additional Facts

As I said earlier, it is a complicated issue but a couple more facts to throw into the argument.

States with the most restrictive gun laws have less shootings. Is that because they tend to be liberal and less involved with the gun culture or because guns are harder to get?

And there are loopholes in our gun laws. I recently went to a gun show in Houston to purchase an AK47 which would be destroyed at a press event held by the "Caravan for Peace" which was protesting the violence in Mexico and how it was directly tied to US guns going south and drugs coming north. Several journalists went with me to cover the purchase. One was a young British journalist living in Mexico. I asked her to see if she could buy a handgun. An hour later she walked out with a .357. No paperwork or background check and she told me she did not try to hide her identity.

There are too many holes in gun control laws. If we have to register cars, why not guns?
 
Woke up and checked this thread half expecting it to have spiraled out of control whilst I was asleep, and was pleasantly surprised. Excellent discussion, and I think the fact that it's still on track and civil proves how serious we all know this situation really is...
 
Why???

Why???

Why, Roger, do you make the assumption that ammo is "a wasting asset?" Why do you assume ti will get used? If I had X amount of ammo on Day1, why would I not have it on day X + n??? Ammunition expenditure rate varies as a direct function of the need to expend it and context in which it is to be expended.

For those of us with exceptional combat handgun proficiency, my use of Air-Soft pellets in force-on-force scenarios is all I need to maintain proficiency. With respect to other firearms some folks have, they have sufficient stock already on hand so that even the expenditure of some requisite # of rounds they have already determined to be needed for maintaining proficiency at, say 600 to 1000 yards, will hardly put a dent in their stores.

You make the mistaken assumption that all firearms owners are out on the range everyday shooting up their supply. Not true. You also may be making the unwarranted assumption that shooting up mega #'s of rounds is requisite to maintaining proficiency. Not true. So, ban or control, whatever. Right, we sure do control driving with driver's licenses HAHA. Ask the LEO in the area I provide consultation to. The, to use the politically correct language, "undocumented immigrants" are driving amok, w/o driver's licenses - now that's real control 😀 Indeed, such failed efforts typically lead to a ban. Banning is de facto control, nicht wahr? The forthcoming and again impotent hi-cap magazine ban, "assault" (sic) weapon ban, will have the same effect as the previous one. NONE AT ALL.

Happy shooting 🙂

Roger Hicks said:
Yes, I'm pretty well aware of how to reload. And (astonishingly) it's legal in quite a few places to buy components-- cases, primers, propellants, bullets -- even where it isn't legal to buy ready-to-fire ammunition. Or, equally astonishingly, where it is illegal to assemble the legally bought components.

My point is simple. Ammunition is a wasting asset (like film -- it gets used). Guns are like cameras (capital assets -- you can reload them as long as you can get ammunition). Make it harder (or merely more expensive) to get ammunition, or for that matter simply register ammo sales -- which I suspect could be done in the US by executive order tomorrow, because it doesn't restrict anyone's right to keep and bear arms -- and you make it harder to use the guns you've got. Film users should readily be able to relate to this one.

By the way: please don't conflate 'banning' and 'controlling'. We 'control' who can drive cars, via drivers' licenses, but we don't 'ban' cars.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
The problem with the 'lunatic' arguement is that there are lunatics everywhere that have these thoughts. Mental health is definitely a big part of the problem, but the bigger part is the access to weapons. Take away the weapons and you just have a lunatic.

If the U.S. does not take action on this, then they are bound to continually have these events happen over time. And to the rest of the world, it looks like they've learnt nothing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom