federal assault weapons ban

Naive or not, Grand Duke, I would like to see you develope this idea further. The oath to the queen making you safe, I mean.

So revel, because a few irresponsible idiots cannot control themselves and lack the maturity that firearm ownership requires, you are in favor of removing the right entirely?

By that logic, the headlines of:

Hillary Clinton to have alien baby.

Hitler is alive and living in Chicago.

Giant space meteor to hit Earth in 2006.

(By the way, all the above were actual stories carried in the Weekly World News or the National Enquirer)

So because some idiots use their 1st Amendment Rights in such a manner, are you for a repeal of the 1st Amendment?

And before you jump in and rail about how the Freedom of the Press has never hurt anyone, take a look at the history of the press publishing stories with accusations that later turn out to be false and yet the people of whom the stories were written, lose their livelihood, their homes and their families because the press 'jumped the gun'. Some people have even killed themselves over such false accusations. Even when the press retracts these stories, the damage is always done.

The Founding Fathers established these Rights for reasons, if you don't like them, write your Congressman (or woman) or your Senator. Don't be surprised though, if such a plan fails. Barring that, move to a state with much more stringent ownership of weapons. (You will be able to recognize these states, they are the ones with the highest crime rates.

There amany A2Kers with a better understanding of British politics and Establishment than I, and not all of them Brits themselves - Setanta & Walter come to mind. I will have a go at it though.

My own understanding of the situation is that the Queen rules our country, and the government runs it on her behalf. All MPs (Members of Parliament) swear an oath of allegiance to The Crown, and not to The State, The People or indeed our (non-existent) Constitution. All laws must receive Royal Assent before becoming law.

The theory goes then, that should eg. Tony Blair decide he was going to become a dictator, ban elections & opposition parties, impose martial law, whatever, he would be unable. Any law he attempted to create to this end would have to be approved by parliament and the Lords (the upper house).

Although this may be technically possible because Labour has the majority of seats, many Labour MPs would rebel and vote against, and the necessary majority would not be forthcoming. The Lords would definately vote against in a majority, even if only to protect their own interests as un-elected representatives with many privilages.

Even if all of this failed to stop laws being passed, the police, army, navy and airforce have sworn only to serve God and the Queen, and Tony Blair would (in theory) be unable to order them to enforce his evil plans.

Yes, there are many, many "Ifs" in this process, but given a choice between private gun ownership and a lot of "Ifs", the majority of my countrymen would choose the "Ifs" anytime.

All of that aside, I certainly wouldn't fancy trying to defend my rights with a hunting rifle against the military might of any country's amred forces, never mind those as numerous, well-trained, well-equiped and gung-ho as those of the US.

I understood that crime is more prevalent in the US than the UK, but I'm going to do some research before stating it as fact.

Fedral:

Interesting points re the dangers of having a free press, but I hardly think you can equate a negative news article with a shooting. Besides, a person has recourse if he or she is libeled. What recourse do you have if you're shot?

Of course, you could shoot back, as long as you're not dead or incapacitated.

Duke, I think it's a damn shame that Brits have been disarmed by their government. Haven't they now also made fox hunts illegal? Does anyone hunt in England anymore? Or have the liberal anti-gun anti-hunt anti-meat blowhards completely overrun the place?

The fast, and almost flip, answer to that, D'artagnan, is to ask what recourse you have if you are left with a minor, but lifelong disability resulting from a mugging in which you had no effective means of defense.

I could make up worse scenarios, but so could you.

We have not been disarmed, Cjhsa, as we were never 'armed' in the first place!

As for the hunting, I think that the bill was rejected by the House of Lords, but not 100% sure. I don't think many people are bothered either way. Hunting is a sport of the aristocracy not the general population, although there are numerous workers associated with the hunts. Shooting (grouse, pheasant) is marginally more common but, again, it is an elitist pass-time.

Meat-eating, despite our infamous Mad Cow Disease, is still very common!

If you would care to go back and reread my post, I did put a disclaimer in there that I don't really think we should make gun illegal. I just said I don't happen to like them nor do I like the mentality of most of those who are so gung-hoe on guns to the point where they are obessesed by it. A large majority of them seem to be a lot like some of the people I know who are for the most part racist and gun crazy "religionist" zealots. Of course there are exceptions.

What I am saying what if peole who are not responsible like those in my neighborood and one time my own husband, had assault weapons shootin all over the place. I think more than ducks and dogs would get shot although that is bad enough.

Thanks GD. That's interesting, and so long as everyone believes it, it may work. There are other things, and more likely things, to defend against than your own, but that doesn't detract from the argument.

It's worked for the last few thousand years, and I see no reason why it won't continue to work. :wink:




Can you explain what you mean by this? I'm confused (for a change).

Duke, England was disarmed:

"Newly released statistics reported October 13th show that since the British government passed one of the most stringent gun bans in the world in 1997, Britain's murder rate has risen to its highest level since records began being kept 100 years ago.

The number of murders in the first eight months of this year has risen by as much as 22% in some of Britain's biggest cities, which account for the majority of homicides. This builds on a 4% rise in the murder rate in the year to March and is 20% higher than the total for 1997, the first year of Tony Blair's government and the year that strict new gun bans were imposed. Police say random killings are rising. Official figures show the proportion of murders in which the victim is not known to the killer has nearly doubled in the past decade to 31%. The British Home Office reports that handgun crime is at its highest since 1993, while overall gun crimes have never been higher. Since the draconian 1997 gun ban was passed, criminal misuse of handguns has jumped by 40 percent. As in California, much of the gun violence is related to urban youth gang warfare and the illicit drug trade. But petty criminals are now using guns during common street crime. London has surpassed the crime rate of New York City. Robberies, in which criminals use or threaten violence, have gone up by 35 percent in the past year. In fact, Chris Fox, vice-president of the British Association of Chief Police Officers, said the rising murder rate put Britain out of line with America, where it has fallen 12%, and France and Germany, where it has dropped 29% and 27% respectively since 1995.

Under the 1997 gun law, law abiding citizens were forced to give up their handguns. Pistols that had been in families for generations, including priceless antiques and Olympic pistols, were confiscated by the government for a fraction of their value, all in the name of public safety. Yet on October 13th, the London Sunday Times reported that Commander Andy Baker, who is in charge of more than 900 detectives investigating all murders in London, blames drugs and a greater availability of guns for the increased violence. And according to Associated Press: "Dave Rodgers, vice chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, said the ban made little difference to the number of guns in the hands of criminals." He acknowledged, "The underground supply of guns does not seem to have dried up at all.: Since the ban didn't work, Tony Blair's government is now calling for a ban on replica firearms, gun shaped cigarette lighters, and air pistols."

http://www.crpa.org/pressrls101502.html

I was wrong.

I wouldn't necessarily throw in the towel on this point, Duke. The source for that long screed is hardly an objective one...

You can argue the statistics if you want but you cannot argue my point of fact that the Brits were disarmed.

When I spent time in the UK, during the '80s, the police did not, for the most part, carry guns. And that was the tradition there, not something new.

How do you account for that, cjhsa? Were they crazy? Or can it be that a society can function somehow without everyone being armed to the teeth?

I think they're nuts, yes. Especially in today's world.

Bah. They just feel that you don't need to shoot people to maintain the peace. And it's been working just fine for a long time.

Cycloptichorn

There IS a difference D'art,

If I shoot you because I believe that you pose a threat to me and am later proven wrong, I can and will be prosecuted by the law and you as the victim can sue me for damages in court.

If a reporter publishes a story about you and makes a mistake, as long as there was an 'absence of malice' in the reporting, you have no legal recourse in seeking legal redress or damages.

As they say: 'The pen is mighter than the sword' (And more legally protected)

Well, perhaps that's because they feel that you should use a bit more judgement before shooting someone than you do when writing an article.

If you kill someone with your shot, they don't have a recourse against you. Sure, society can try and judge them, but that is hardly helpful to the dead guy.

If you defame someone, their reputation is hurt. hardly comprable to killing them.

Cycloptichorn