Guns: how much longer will it take ....

Do you think that ANY law will stop criminals from using guns? Any law at all?

Criminals using guns isn't anywhere near as big a problem as NRA scum shooting up public spaces with legally owned assault weapons.

That's why we put a stop to it after Dunblane.

Over here there is a mandatory five year minimum sentence just for carrying a gun.

More often than not, it's not worth the risk of carrying a gun.

The criminal organisations that supply illegal weapons are far more responsible than your legal gun sellers.

They want any come back, so they're very careful who they let get hold of their guns and bullets, very careful indeed.

No Kyle Rittenhouses or potential school shooters would be allowed any because they know that if a mass shooting occurs the authorities will move Heaven and Earth to find who supplied it.

It's not worth it.

No gun deaths in London since October.

15 gun deaths in 2018.

12 in 2021.

We have one of the lowest rates of gun violence in the World because of our strict gun laws.

It's what a free society, (one that's not governed by the NRA, ) looks like.

I believe Izzy has it covered.

BillRM used to make abig deal about how our Olympics pistol team had to travel abroad to train.

What he didn't mention was that most people over here con't care about inconveniences shooting teams have to go through.

Public safety is more important.

There was a BBC dramatisation of The Great Train Robbery ended with a quote about sentencing and violence.

The train robbers did not carry guns but still got long sentences.

One of the jailed said that it sent a message to other criminals in that they might as well carry a gun because they won't get a lighter sentence.

He was right, and it's taken a long time for our lawmakers to realise that, but they have.

It is a problem with the method of thinking. Not the guns themselves.

You have to examine why people did what they did.
Wacko Siege happen because of the FBI raid on a Church. Like "They Live"
Uni-bomber happen due to technology and manipulation of such ideas.
School shootings happen no different due the 1980's vigilante case. ROFLOL
Blade Runner happen because he mistook his girlfriend for an intruder...
Brevick happen because of rap music and hip-hop along with globalization.
Ireland/Scotland terrorism of Britain happen see first scenes of Braveheart.
Les Miserable happen because the Monarchies was selfish.
Federal Reserve Banking happen because war between British and French.
Using drugs and hallucinogenics happens as a way to shut people up.
Chelsea Manning happen because Bradly Manning did the honest good thing

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

Also a crime is something you go to jail for ( serve time ). Thus term called "criminal"

ex-con( convict ) is somebody what was in jail but is no longer.

misdemeanors are charges you do not necessarily have to serve time for, nore will go to jail for at all.

All are considered dispositions

Disposition is any charge you are currently serving or had or have served. Once that time is done, dropped, or removed from your record, you no longer have to report on it.

For example you fail to report a restraining order that is currently in active an employment could do a background check and because you failed to report the order you would be disqualified for the job.

I'm pretty sure of two things in your response:
1. You either didn't read what I said, or
2.You didn't understand what I said

The entire 2ndammendment is a single sentence. That means something in the English language. So, what is the purpose of the opening "A well regulated militia"? It must have meaning. How does it relate to the rest of the sentence? This is the part people who focus on 'the right to bear arms' cant properly answer, or twist themselves into knots to try an answer...

...while the answer, if you have no agenda...is quite simple. A well regulated militia is the subject of the sentence. The right to bear arms is necessary (in the view of the writers at the time) to maintaining a well regulated militia. But the sentence also states that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of the State. What happens when that is no longer the case?


That's not the purpose of a comma, which is to separate two ideas or descriptions that are still related (as everything within a sentence is related). For speech writing (which this is not), it may indicate a place to take a pause.

Who?

They make it pretty clear, maybe it will help you?

If you pay attention to your presenters, even they couldn't explain their stance without inserting an entirely new word into the 2nd ammendment that would without doubt, if that word had existed in the 2nd ammendment, absolutely would have introduced a counter point (and therefore made their stance valid). That is the word 'but'....but the word 'but' is not in fact in the 2nd ammendment, so there is no counter point - just points that are related.

All their subsequent arguments are based on their insertion of this one word, and in the 2nd ammendment, there is no counter argument introduced by the word 'but'.

Ie. Read as is, the subject is 'A well regulated militia'. Introduce a 'but' and the subject would be the counter 'the right of the people to bear arms'. This latter isn't the case, as there is no 'but'.

Is English your second language? Honest question.

How about you go back and do some study on how the english language works, particularly the purpose of sentences. It is easy to ask nonsense questions like 'is English your second language' when you can't even answer, explain or work out for yourself how structure affects a sentence, or how words within a sentence are related.

Or you could even attempt to answer the questions I asked of you by yourself, rather than resorting to videos.

Yeah, it says people . . .

Never questioned that it says the people Glennn. I said the subject is 'A well regulated militia' and 'the right of the people' is the outcome of that subject (and subject to it)

I asked because you got hung on a single word instead of actually grasping what was said.

I use videos because they are already made and make the same point I would

Samuel Adams in the Massachusetts Ratifying Convention in 1788 said "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."

Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1824 "The Constitution of most of our states (And of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."

Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, no 28 wrote "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense"

Thomas Jefferson also wrote "The laws that forbid carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather ti encourage tahn to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an unarmed man."

George Mason, at Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution in 1788 said "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people in the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

Drafting the Virginia Constitution, Thomas Jefferson wrote "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."

Please take notice of how many times they say "people" and not "militia" when referring to who should bear arms.

Umm dude, if you do not understand the effect of the word 'but' between two ideas, then I don't know that I can help you understand what I said.

The rest of your response is made up of quotes which is fine, though it doesn't show that you at all understand how English works, as it is just a series of quotes. Only a couple of those quotes deal with the writers of the 2nd Ammendment - it is those quotes that have unarguable validity - all others are interpretations of the original intent (that includes anything I have written).

You do realise that 'the militia' is made up of 'the people', right? To identify the the need for a well regulated militia, is to identify the need for the people to bear arms (for a well regulated militia)

Quite frankly, the stance people take on this makes me wonder why they don't ask themselves Why wasn't the 2nd ammendment written as just:

- 'The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed'?

They didn't, and that was for a reason. The preceding words have meaning.

They do, but I do not think you understand them all together.

He read the 2A in full, then translated for non-English speakers like you. So you could understand it in modern English.

Sorry dude - he modified the 2nd ammendment by adding the word 'but'. The word but is incredibly significant in English as it introduces a contradiction (without it there is no contradiction). The rest of his explanation rested on his modification / introduction of a contradiction into the 2nd ammendment.

It is hardly the fault of anyone else on this forum if you want to buy an explanation based on a modified version that adds a contradiction into it. All it does is show you have an agenda.

It is also hardly the fault of anyone else in this forum if you want to avoid trying to explain it for yourself.

Excellent quote. I reserve the right to compensate for the absence of a perfect world.

If the American Supreme Court can simply take away a constitutional long accepted right to #abortion, why can’t they do the same with guns on the basis 2A no longer applies given it was enacted for a specific historical period??!!