@BillRM,
Quote:Sorry but we have a bill of rights so the majority can not limit the freedoms of the minority in certain areas.............
Really? Seems the right of women to vote was definitely limited, despite that fact. The civil rights of non-whites were extremely limited, first with regard to voting, then regarding the use of public facilities, like public restrooms and drinking fountains, and, of course, the right to marry whites.
And the Defense Of Marriage Act now limits the ability of gays and lesbians to marry their partners and enjoy all the legal and financial benefits that heterosexual married couples enjoy.
And Japanese-Americans were put into internment camps during WWII.
So, spare me your fantasy that the majority cannot limit the freedoms of the minority.
And it's not just a majority vs minority issue when it comes to public health or public safety--issues regarding the general welfare. Since the Constitution was established to promote the general welfare, as one of it's main purposes, it has been re-interpreted and amended to achieve that purpose as the social climate and culture in the country has changed since it was first signed, and, for that reason, new laws were established and others were struck down, to reflect that.
Just as freedom of speech is restricted when it comes to child pornography, or yelling, "Fire!" in a crowded theater where there is no fire, or writing. "Kill the Jews" on a synagogue facade, or advocating the violent overthrow of the government, the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution is also subject to limitations and restrictions, and those can also be altered to reflect both the changing social conditions and the need to better insure the general welfare in matters of public health and safety.
So, there is no unlimited "freedom" implied in the "right to bear arms"--that was never the intention of the Founding Fathers, and that is not the interpretation offered by the current U.S. Supreme Court. All rights can be subject to limitations and restrictions in order to promote the general welfare.
At present, the degree of gun violence in this country is a problem related to the public health and safety--the general welfare--despite the efforts of the NRA to cast it primarily as a "rights" issue. And the NRA's flat-out refusal to acknowledge the extent of the public health problem, and to address it by more sensible regulation and control, is as illogical, and dangerous, to the public welfare as it would be if we had a disease threatening our citizens and they were fighting attempts to use vaccines to control it because they believed that vaccines weakened the body's immune response. The NRA has even blocked efforts and funding to the CDC to try to better investigate gun violence, so that the gun control debate could be better informed by scientific research.
More guns in circulation, and in private hands, cannot possibly reduce our public health problem with gun violence--it can only increase it. For any gun actually used in self defense, many many more will be used in other ways to cause senseless deaths and maiming, whether intentionally or by accident, or will wind up being used in criminal activities. The more guns there are, and the easier they are to obtain, the higher the probability becomes that they will fall into the wrong hands, or be used considerably more often for violent reasons, or to cause senseless deaths, than they will ever be used for legitimate instances of self defense.
For that reason, the gun control debate should focus on risk management to try to contain a public safety problem--and the risk is coming from both the prevalence of guns, and from the inadequate control and regulation of those guns. And the NRA mouthpiece, Wayne LaPierre, sounded like a fool last week when he tried to deny and ignore that fact. And posters, like you, sound equally like fools when you try to do the same thing.
Quote:I still am shaking my head concerning laws that are so insane that the poor UK national pistol team need to leave the country to target practice. ...
Hell can your military practice inside the country or is that the reason you are willing to go with the US into the hotspots of the world so you can used those weapons.......LOL
A once great country now control by little old ladies of both sexes.
Those frankly idiotic comments show how deeply you have been brain-washed by the American myth that "real men" carry, and use, and enjoy, guns--that masculinity is somehow tied to the use of a gun and gun violence, and the bigger and badder the gun the better. From our historic wild West, to icons like John Wayne, and characters like Dirty Harry, the American media has implanted that false image of masculinity in the public mind, and interactive violent video games now allow and encourage both little boys and grown men to live out such fantasies by actually becoming virtual shooters and killers.
You've been brain-washed, sucker. That gun of yours doesn't make you any more of a "real man"--and those who live in the U.K. don't suffer any lack of masculinity from not owning or carrying or using one.
It can easily be argued that the real wimp is the man who doesn't feel safe without his gun--because he's the one who lacks the personal resources--including the brains and verbal abilities--to deal with life without it.
