Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

Girls & Guns, I feel safer already.

Yeah...that was what the Southern states said when the right to own slaves was in danger!

Do you folk truly think out what you are saying?

Sorry the right to own slaves under states laws was never in danger until the south illegally try to break away from the US and in order to change the status of the slaves it took a constitution amendment as President Lincoln order freeing the slaves apply and could apply legally only to the states that were then in a state of rebellion.

The morphological view Mac is that it is what it is as a hybrid.

What it is is best defined imo in the pages of A2K just as a pub can be defined by joining the discourse within it.

For example--defend your saying that ff's post was a good one. You actually do not feel the need to. If it is obvious to you it should be to everybody else.
It is not obvious to me.

America has the general properties of Rome at its apex. Unspiritual, unphilosophical, devoid of art, clannish to the point of brutality, success the only objective, an imagination directed to practical objects, lack of Gods. No soul--just intellect.

The point at which Civilisation turns Culture into nothingness. The place where The End of History was a best seller. Only possible in a nation which has come to think of itself as the final form of human perfection.

As if? History has swallowed up civilisations before.

When Nobility and Priesthood are replaced by journalists and machine politicians. When great cities suck the life out of the hinterland. A nomadic aggregate cohering unstably in high buildings cut off from the soil. Teeming anonymously back and forth. Traditionless, parasitical, matter-of-fact, street-wise clever, contemptuous of the countryside, tending to the inorganic. Natural rights taking precedence over hard-earned rights. Enshrined in law. What a thing that is eh? Every wanker, toss-pot and ne'er -do-well with the same rights as the astronaut, the scientist, the engineer. And more prone to exerting them as a compensation for their condition. oralloy claiming rights that Battle of Britain pilots not only did not have but did not want. And asserting them in a manner which is unconscionable to the point of only being credible because you've seen it. And only being different in degree from a multitude of examples on this site by the crudity and vulgarity of it. Not in any way a difference in kind.

His blurts nicely counterpointed by ff's mellifluous, seductive cadences, the exercise of which she obviously enjoys, not that I object to that I hasten to add, in the sense that they both arrive in the same place. No real change. A harmonious settling back after a hiccup. Possibly nothing but a slight downward trend, at best, in the rate of gun deaths and injuries which might easily be explained by other causes. And will be if it happens.

Journalists and machine politicians can explain anything any way you might ask them to. Being journalists and machine politicians is all they are interested in.

Failure is out of the question when success is worshipped. And as there are as many failures in the US as there are anywhere else the success has to be asserted. And there are many agencies eager and willing to assist for a consideration.

Conspicuous consumption is simply a coy mode of fighting. Admitting losing an argument is impossible unless it is settled with six guns at twenty paces. Or by the method Mr Jones deployed of a completely acted out performance of outraged dignity which I must say amused me no end. He will no doubt be quite the little lamb when his wife is washing his underpants or getting egg yolk off his shirt front. It wouldn't at all surprise me if Mr Morgan had written his lines.

We can only stand and stare and maybe chip in a word of advice from the sidelines with little hope of it being heeded and do what we can to resist the encroachment of American culture here. As the French do.

Wasn't Lincoln a Republican?

I am even more sorry than you to inform you that "the right to own slaves" was in severe danger before the secession of the southern states...because there were many, many people and organizations efforting to stop the practice. In fact, the election of Abraham Lincoln was considered a step in that direction...which was a huge part of the reason the states took the step. The Declaration of Independence of several of the states mentioned "the danger."

Yup...one who would probably vomit at the thought of what the party has become.

One who wouldn't tolerate what Obama and his democrats are doing to this country.

The SC had have many rulings over the slave issue that was pro slaves holders at the time and all the northern pressure groups for freeing the slaves were meaningless as far as freeing one southern slave until and if the constitution were change and given the requirements of changing the constitution that was not then in cards.

No any federal actions to free the slaves in the south would had been block by the SC short of a constitutional amendment.

Spendius it must be hell to be a citizen of a client nation of the US and eaten up with so must envy.

Love that you are using the Rome roads oh sorry I mean the US created internet to expressed your pain over the US being the central of the Western world in almost every area of life.

I agree that a constitutional amendment MAY HAVE been needed. Actually, there were certain actions of fiat by the executive that certainly existed because of the war and may have existed whether war or not...

...but your suggestion that it was not in danger is incorrect.

So long as there is agitation for a particular action...there is "danger" that the agitation may lead to change.

The reason so many of the gun-rights people are so exercised here is because of the agitation. There is no doubt a constitutional question exists...and it is not impossible for future SCOTUS to interpret the 2nd amendment in a way that could severely limit the rights of gun ownership.

Like President Obama, Rahm Emanuel pivots on gun control

Rahm Emanuel, who put the brakes on gun control in the Obama White House, is now pushing for broad changes to firearm policies in Chicago.
Like President Obama, the Chicago mayor has long embraced gun-control policies, but at times has worked behind the scenes to thwart the movement.

As Obama moves to pass new legislation to reduce gun violence after a shooting massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., Emanuel wants to strengthen Chicago’s gun laws to address an alarming increase in homicides.
In late December, Chicago attracted national attention when law-enforcement officials confirmed the city’s 500th homicide in 2012.
Emanuel has previously pushed new gun restriction laws and resisted them as well. When Emanuel served in the Clinton White House, he helped pass the assault weapons ban.
When he ran for the House in 2002, he vowed to toughen gun-control laws. During his primary race against former state Rep. Nancy Kaszak, gun-control activist Sarah Brady campaigned for Emanuel.
Years later at the helm of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Emanuel recruited candidates who supported gun rights. Some on the left ripped Emanuel for his recruiting efforts, but Democrats subsequently won back the House in 2006.
In 2009 while serving as Obama’s chief of staff, Emanuel reportedly told Eric Holder to “shut the f--k up” after the attorney general suggested reinstating the assault weapons ban — which expired in 2004. Emanuel’s profanity-laced frustration with Holder was detailed in Daniel Klaidman’s book, “Kill or Capture.”
Gun-safety groups and political scientists say Emanuel has always had an interest in pushing appropriate gun restrictions. But Emanuel also knows timing is everything in politics, the experts say.
“Based on his political record it would suggest that as Obama’s chief of staff, he made a judgment that emanated more from politics than policy,” said Robert Spitzer, the author of “The Politics of Gun Control” and a professor at the State University of New York at Cortland.
In 2009, Spitzer continued, Emanuel was likely more focused on Obama’s primary goal of passing healthcare reform and calculated that there weren’t enough votes to pass gun laws.
“There’s always an element of Emanuel that has his finger” to the political winds, Spitzer said. Now though, Emanuel “has a constituency that would be supportive to gun control.”
That’s the way politicians have to think on topics that are controversial, says Kristin A. Goss, an assistant professor of public policy at Duke University and the author of “Disarmed: The Missing Movement for Gun Control in America.”
“You have to sort of wait for the political stars to align,” Goss said.
Ladd Everitt, a spokesman for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, called Emanuel a “political pragmatist.”
“I think he’s a guy who likes to take action on issues when he feels the time is ripe,” Everitt said.
Emanuel is poised to unveil the specifics of his new gun ordinance in the coming week. He is also scheduled to appear alongside Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Rep. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.) on a panel on gun reform hosted by the Center for American Progress on Monday.
In December, a few days after the Sandy Hook shooting, Emanuel appeared on CBS’s "This Morning" and was pressed about his record on gun laws and his confrontation with Holder in 2009. He didn’t dispute the conflict with Holder, and focused his comments on Obama’s priorities at the time.
“The fact is in 2009 the president and the entire government was very clear, as the attorney general knows, in getting all the president’s legislation done and working with Congress to do that,” Emanuel said.
At various times, Obama has been put on the defensive regarding his gun-control record. In 2010, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence gave Obama an “F” grade. After the Connecticut shooting, an ABC News reporter asked Obama, “Where have you been [on gun control]?”
An irritated Obama listed his accomplishments over the last four years, adding, “I don’t think I’ve been on vacation.”
Emanuel’s office, meanwhile, notes that the mayor has always been an advocate for strong gun restrictions.
“He has a 20-year record of trying to get guns off of America’s streets,” spokesman Bill McCaffrey said, citing the Brady bill.
McCaffrey called the report of the confrontation with Holder a “third-hand account.”
Even if Emanuel seems to be factoring politics into his thinking on guns, it’s obviously the right time to pass new gun legislation, McCaffrey argued.
“Right now it is time to pass the legislation,” McCaffrey said.

I am not confusing the battle of hastings with anything.
I mentioned the Magna Carta, and a royal charter issued to the town of Tain in 1066



So tell me, is the Magna Carta just a mouldering old document now, with no relevance at all, or is it still the foundation for British law?

How Far Can Obama Go on Gun Control?

Vice-President Joe Biden's gun panel is set to report to President Barack Obama next Tuesday. The common view is that any legislation that is at all controversial would have a difficult time getting passed by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. Now, Biden has raised the possibility of getting gun control measures by executive order.

My advice for the president as someone who reads polls: go for it, if it's what you want to do. There is much discussion that acting by executive order would be seen as a "totalitarian" action and provoke a backlash. Nonsense, so long as the order is supporting a measure the public favors.

Consider that in June 2012 Obama took executive action on a "mini-Dream Act" that provided a path to avoid deportation for some undocumented immigrants who came to the country before the age of 16, had a high school education (or were attending school) or had served in the military, and had no criminal background. He did so administratively because he couldn't get a law passed by Congress.

There was heavy public support before the order was signed. Back in late 2010, Gallup found that 54% of Americans would vote for a bill that would allow for undocumented immigrants who were brought to the country in their youth to have a pathway to citizenship. A late 2011, a Fox Poll put support for such a law at 63%.

After Obama made the new policy instruction, the public held to its position. Five polls taken between the June announcement and now found that anywhere from 54% to 64% of Americans still believe that young undocumented immigrants should not be sent packing. This includes three questions that specifically mentioned Obama's name, and that his administration had "announced" the policy change (in other words, the measure specifically didn't pass through Congress).

You might argue that the gun debate is different because the powerful gun rights lobby would be able to convince the public otherwise. The flaw in that statement is that the National Rifle Association (NRA) is just not that popular these days: only 42% of Americans have a favorable view of the NRA per Public Policy Polling, which is down from 48% just a few weeks ago.

The president is also dealing with a public that's seen its support for gun control climb higher since the Sandy Hook school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. I count five pollsters (ABC/Washington Post, CBS News, Gallup, CNN/ORC, and YouGov) that asked a question about whether gun control should be stricter before and after Newtown. Before the massacre, the weaker "stay the same" position on gun control beat the stricter position by an average of 3.8 percentage points. Afterward, stricter led by 11.4pt – a 15.2pt turn-around.

Past history suggests that the president can't wait around until he gets a Congress that is willing to cooperate. After the Columbine shooting in 1999, Americans' support for stricter gun laws jumped by 5-10pt. After a year or two, the spike had abated and appetite for stricter gun laws continued its slow decline to the minority position it held just before Newtown.

So what policies should the president consider, as long as he thinks courts will uphold his orders?

• He should end the "gun show loophole" to force people who buy guns at a gun show or through private sales and online shopping to have a background check: 92% of Americans favor this position per Gallup, while PPP puts support at 76%.

• Obama should seek to ban high-capacity ammunition clips that contain more than 10 bullets: CNN/ORC, Gallup, Pew, PPP, and YouGov all show at least 53% of Americans in favor of this policy.

• He should seek ways to ensure that people with poor mental health records do not get a gun: CNN/ORC found that 92% Americans did not want Americans with mental health problems to be in possession of a gun; PPP took it one step farther and discovered that 63% of Americans want people to be required to take a health exam before buying a gun.

• Obama should obviously prevent felons convicted of a violent crime from owning a gun: 94% and 92% approve of that measure, per PPP and CNN/ORC respectively.

• He should try to make sure that guns, even if not recently purchased, would be registered with a government or law enforcement agency: CNN/ORC finds 78% agree with that policy.

• Obama should look to ban outright bullets that explode or are designed to break through a bullet-proof vest: Pew found that 56% favor this position.

• Obama should try to make it more difficult to buy ammunition and/or guns over the internet: 69% of Americans wanted to ban these practices, according to PPP.

You'll note I don't include an assault weapons ban. The reason is that pollsters are split: Gallup and Pew signal that a majority is opposed to banning assault or semi-automatic weapons, while ABC/Washington Post, CNN/ORC, PPP, and YouGov show the reverse. It seems to me that, politically speaking, an executive order would be the wrong course on an issue that apparently splits the country down the middle.

Further, the president would almost certainly be better-off passing any law through Congress. It not only looks better, but it lessens the chance of any political blowback I may be underestimating. The danger, of course, is that if a bill fails to get through Congress, it would look like awfully sour grapes then to obtain gun control measures through executive orders. It's quite possible that the public would see that as executive over-reach.

Also, I am by no means a constitutional scholar: while there are plenty of people arguing in favor of executive action, others argue that some of these proposals, if put into action by executive order, would be unconstitutional and would be ruled so.

That said, if the president is sensitive to public opinion and reading the polls, there are a number of gun control policies he can obtain by executive order without fear of a backlash. But the lesson of Columbine is that he has a narrow window of opportunity, in the wake of Newtown, in which to act.

See what I mean Mac? The magic of assertion. Pat yourself on the back. Stroke your own ego. It answers to everything. It can't be wrong.

Although the term "Royal Burgh" was abolished in 1975, many former burghs still use it.

Notice Bill the "early" and the "late" and the "early 1970s.

It is an old document, without doubt the foundation of common law and from the 1275-version, a few provisions remained on the statute books into the twentieth century.

There is no British law.

Obama and the rest of the anti-freedom nuts have
a narrow window of opportunity that is closing fast.

Americans need to close the window and lock it.

Liberal, democrat PANIC.

Obama's Panicked Gun Control Won't Solve Gun Violence