Another fucking school shooting (this time a primary school) in the U.S.

[lifetime fan]

You misunderstand the powers of the US President. Despite being President, he cannot issue laws per se so cannot just ban guns or change laws about them on his own.

 

Presidential Powers

 

Tragic events once again when a madman goes amok.

 

 

I know he can't introduce laws himself over night. My point was that as president and leader of the Democrats he has no interest in attempting to meaningfully change gun laws.

[Guest San Don]

I know he can't introduce laws himself over night. My point was that as president and leader of the Democrats he has no interest in attempting to meaningfully change gun laws.

 

He isnt the leader of the democrats in the way of our party leaders. The parties have separate leaders in Congress and the Senate. The President's position is to sign bills into law not draft them or coerce his party into introducing them.

 

In any event, there are likely as many democrats as republicans opposed to gun reform ensuring any such bill never reached the White House for his signature.

 

It's not whether he has any interest in introducing such a bill, he doesnt have the power.

 

The US political system is vastly different to ours and has surprisingly many checks and balances built in to prevent a President doing exactly what you \ we think he should do.

[1892-LFCWasBorn]

It's in the US Constitution as a right to bear arms. So effectively, once you satisfy the State's gun licence laws, you can get weapons legally.

 

Having sadi that, it's probably easier to get weapons illegally.

 

I understand the constitution, but if someone wanted a second gun/rifle etc it should be harder to get a licence for the 2nd weapon including some sort of mental/psychology tests (as well as the justification of owning a 2nd)? Obviously it could be argued that these should be in place to get one in the first place and maybe that's the angle that Obama can choose to tackle?

 

Apologies if I'm living in a complete fantasy world. :whistle:

[lifetime fan]

He isnt the leader of the democrats in the way of our party leaders. The parties have separate leaders in Congress and the Senate. The President's position is to sign bills into law not draft them or coerce his party into introducing them.

 

In any event, there are likely as many democrats as republicans opposed to gun reform ensuring any such bill never reached the White House for his signature.

 

It's not whether he has any interest in introducing such a bill, he doesnt have the power.

 

The US political system is vastly different to ours and has surprisingly many checks and balances built in to prevent a President doing exactly what you \ we think he should do.

 

 

I understand the US political system. Maybe I should have used the term 'figurehead' instead of leader of the Democrats.

 

My point still remains Obama has no interest in meaningfully changing gun laws compared to Clinton did at least.

 

Not so many checks and balances when it comes to big business though.

[Guest San Don]

I understand the constitution, but if someone wanted a second gun/rifle etc it should be harder to get a licence for the 2nd weapon including some sort of mental/psychology tests (as well as the justification of owning a 2nd one)? Obviously it could be argued that these should be in place to get one in the first place and maybe that's the angle that Obama can choose to tackle?

 

Apologies if I'm leaving in a complete fantasy world. :whistle:

 

No, its alien to me as well as you.

 

But, the centre of it goes back to the war of independence from the british. Once that was out of the way, it was enshrined in the new state's constitution that everyone had the right to bear arms. This was as a defence in case the brits or anyone else tried to take the country back.

 

Instead of having to conscript soldiers in time of war, virtually everyone was allowed to onw weapons. Not just one because in them days, guns werent that reliable so if you limited people to one gun and it didnt work, you had one less soldier on the battlefield.

 

As with all these things in a new developing country, people wanted guns to protect themselves from others not to mention the natives. Once people have something, they dont want it taken from them hence the NRA being a powerful lobby group.

 

We may think one gun is enough but you have to look beyond that unfortunately.

[Evelyn Tentions]

It's in the US Constitution as a right to bear arms. So effectively, once you satisfy the State's gun licence laws, you can get weapons legally.

 

Having sadi that, it's probably easier to get weapons illegally.

 

The right to bear arms, in the idiom of the times, means to join militia/armed forces.

The "right" to buy assault rifles and automatic weapons for defence stretches even the literal interpretation.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people is the usual NRA chant.

Well, then don't let people have guns. Fucking nutters.

Strange how they are almost fanatically religious but still condone carrying , and using, guns.

If they have a right to bear arms under the Constitution, restrict them to the guns of the period - muzzle loading muskets.

Nation of whack jobs, distinguished only from the radical muslim nations by their ability to speak English (sort of)

[Guest San Don]

I understand the US political system. Maybe I should have used the term 'figurehead' instead of leader of the Democrats.

 

My point still remains Obama has no interest in meaningfully changing gun laws compared to Clinton did at least.

 

Not so many checks and balances when it comes to big business though.

 

Im sorry but clearly you dont grasp the role of the US President otherwise you wouldnt make such a claim.

 

Anyway, this thread is about the victims. May they rest in peace and may the survivors find some solace at this time of year which will be forever tainted for them due to another maniac.

[Guest San Don]

The right to bear arms, in the idiom of the times, means to join militia/armed forces.

The "right" to buy assault rifles and automatic weapons for defence stretches even the literal interpretation.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people is the usual NRA chant.

Well, then don't let people have guns. Fucking nutters.

Strange how they are almost fanatically religious but still condone carrying , and using, guns.

If they have a right to bear arms under the Constitution, restrict them to the guns of the period - muzzle loading muskets.

Nation of whack jobs, distinguished only from the radical muslim nations by their ability to speak English (sort of)

 

The NRA has successfully lobbied that the right to bear arms stretches beyond the need to maintain a free standing army.

 

The simple point is, the constitution allows the current status quo (or rather lobby groups such as the NRA have successfully imprinted that right in people's minds).

 

As I have said, there are probably as many (more?) democrats and republicans against amending the constitution. If the overwhelming population of the US was for it, the political leaders may be more keen to do it.

 

It's all unreal to us ie the need to own a gun never mind more than one that mst of us dont grasp it.

[lifetime fan]

Im sorry but clearly you dont grasp the role of the US President otherwise you wouldnt make such a claim.

 

Anyway, this thread is about the victims. May they rest in peace and may the survivors find some solace at this time of year which will be forever tainted for them due to another maniac.

 

 

Both Bush and Clinton effected gun control laws through 'executive order'.

 

You are right about this thread though, lets not spoil it for others.

[Section_31]

Think I raised this on the 'American mentality' thread, as I find it pretty fascinating. I think a lot of the problems in the states, dating back to prohibition and beyond, stem from the fact it's not one country but two. You've got the cities and the rural picket fence and cornfield brigades. To both sets of Americans, booze, drugs, religion and guns probably symbols of very different things.

 

To the 'Republican' America it's a symbol of not wanting to be controlled or conquered by a government, any government, especially their own, their ethos is that if the state is allowed to arm its representatives - the police, the forces, the national guard - but you're not allowed to arm yourself, you're instantly its potential slave.

 

It's deep rooted and seems strange to us, as we have a very different view of 'the state' and of government. We've been raised (conditioned?) to think of the monarch and the state as benevolent, trustworthy (for the most part) and a protector, something which we get behind and depend upon to look after us and defend us, in certain states of the USA the opposite seems almost true with regards the way they view 'the state' and government. That real freedom, that the 'real' America is having a home and land and a family and nobody telling you what to do or dabbling in your affairs, and the right to bear arms is probably part of that mindset.

 

In that context I view Britain like a military unit. You're a fully paid-up member of a bureaucratic, highly structured entity with functioning parts of which you are merely one and where strength comes from working with the man in charge.

 

America I view more like the Mafia, the government is like Paulie from Goodfellas - you go about your business, pay a piece of tribute, and he offers you protection from people who are also freely going about their business, but who might be otherwise tempted to fuck with you to get ahead if he wasn't there in the background.

[Newport]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

What I don't get is why the interpretation of the Second Amendment seems to be mostly focused on the second half of it, and it also doesn't state what kind of arms you are allowed to bear.

[banger]

Whenever there is talk of gun control in the states , i always think of this from a surrealstic art book from the 90s

 

 

 

YOU GET AMAZING SENSATIONS FROM GUNS. YOU GET RESULTS FROM GUNS. MAN IS AN AGGRESSIVE ANIMAL; YOU HAVE TO HAVE A GOOD OFFENSE AND A GOOD DEFENSE. TOO MANY CITIZENS THINK THEY ARE HELPLESS. THEY LEAVE EVERYTHING TO THE AUTHORITIES AND THIS CAUSES CORRUPTION. RESPONSIBILITY SHOULD GO BACK WHERE IT BELONGS. IT IS YOUR LIFE SO TAKE CONTROL AND FEEL VITAL. THERE MAY BE SOME ACCIDENTS ALONG THE PATH TO SELF-EXPRESSION AND SELFDETERMINATION. SOME HARMLESS PEOPLE WILL BE HURT. HOWEVER, G-U-N SPELLS PRIDE TO THE STRONG, SAFETY TO THE WEAK AND HOPE TO THE HOPELESS. GUNS MAKE WRONG RIGHT FAST.

[Gym Beglin]

Americans DO have a right to bear arms, and we shouldn't stop that.

 

But we can bin all the ammunition we want.

 

#win

[Gym Beglin]

'Executive Order', 'Executive Decision', same thing, it's not like the President can make a decision of his own volition, he would need key people to agree to it and counter-sign it.

And, more importantly, Executive Decisions are only made because it is time-critical, there isnt time for it to be properly debated. In this case, there is plenty of time to debate it, and this is all Obama is asking, that a 'serious' debate occur in senate now about gun control. He's right, it can't be ignored anymore if America wants to become a more civilised country.

 

The constitution doesn't even make any sense, how is it fair and lawful for some citizens to obtain a gun but the poor and most vulnerable cannot even afford one in most cases? Arm the toddlers, seems like they need defending the most at the moment.

[Bjornebye]

Time to arm the kids.

[clangers]

Time to arm the kids.

 

That's the logical extension of the pro-gun's lobby's argument at the moment. If they're going to have to arm kindergarten teachers then why not just get it over with?

 

I appreciate it's a different culture and from what I can see no one is actually suggesting banning guns in reality. At the very least would it be so unreasonable to expect those individual's who want to own high powered semi-automatic weapons to at least be forced to keep them in a secured location e.g. only used and stored onsite at a gun club?

 

Bottom line is we have a clear pattern of events, a very troubled male (often young) with mental health issues and who are hugely aggrieved reach a trigger point and then act. The very fact of these weapons not being easily and immediately available would save lives.

 

Personally I can't see any rational or justification in a civil society for the need to own high powered assault rifles and pistols.

[Cardie]

Banning guns won't stop people doing this, it'll just mean they have to be marginally more imaginative or determined.

[Fowlers God]

I own an extensive range of knives in myt kitchen. I dont go round stabbing people.

 

More needs to be done about the mental health of the perputrators and not about the guns. Take guns out of the maths and you still get the same answer, just with a different weapon.

 

I read the paper this morning and all it noted was that the killer shot his dad at home and then his mother at the school. It didnt go into any detail about notes that he left to advise why he did this.

 

there will be a letter or transcript somewhere. The killer wanted notoriety, as the killings was so public so he would have left a reason- strnage that this hasnt been made public yet.

[Dougie Do'ins]

Bottom line is we have a clear pattern of events, a very troubled male (often young) with mental health issues and who are hugely aggrieved reach a trigger point and then act. The very fact of these weapons not being easily and immediately available would save lives.

 

Personally I can't see any rational or justification in a civil society for the need to own high powered assault rifles and pistols.

But is it not the case that when thee individuals get their gun licences, they can be quite sane ? Once people are in possession of guns, who's to say what their mindset will be in 1, 5, 10, 20 years ? Someone like Thomas Hamilton, who lives quite normally suddenly has a moment or a build up of madness, and the only time people realise there's a problem, it's to late.

 

It doesn't matter who you are or if you've been declared the quite sane by a panel of experts, the truth is, if you've got readily available access to a fire arm, your a risk.

[Cardie]

But is it not the case that when thee individuals get their gun licences' date=' they can be quite sane ? Once people are in possession of guns, who's to say what their mindset will be in 1, 5, 10, 20 years ? Someone like Thomas Hamilton, who lives quite normally suddenly has a moment or a build up of madness, and the only time people realise there's a problem, it's to late.

 

It doesn't matter who you are or if you've been declared the quite sane by a panel of experts, the truth is, if you've got readily available access to a fire arm, your a risk.[/quote']

 

You're a risk of being a bit stabby if you've got a knife or rapey if you've got a cock. Guns aren't unique when it comes to killing people just a bit more efficent.

 

Guns are banned in the uk and while we have a different culture and tend to be less nuts it doesn't stop gun crime.

[Dougie Do'ins]

You're a risk of being a bit stabby if you've got a knife or rapey if you've got a cock. Guns aren't unique when it comes to killing people just a bit more efficent.

 

Guns are banned in the uk and while we have a different culture and tend to be less nuts it doesn't stop gun crime.

Which is the point a was making. It's not the weapon that's the problem is it ? It's the person in control of it.

[Cardie]

Which is the point a was making. It's not the weapon that's the problem is it ? It's the person in control of it.

 

Misread it then.

[setreal]

You're a risk of being a bit stabby if you've got a knife or rapey if you've got a cock. Guns aren't unique when it comes to killing people just a bit more efficent.

 

 

Yes, they are. They enable anyone to eliminate their target(s) with the speed and leisure of the push of a button. You don't need physical strength, courage or even proximity. They completely changed war, crime - everything where you needed to get your hands dirty before. The idea that the outcome of last night would have been the same without guns is laughable. In fact, I'd bet my life savings that dude would never have found the courage to go in there armed with knives, acid, or whatever.

[Skidfingers McGonical]

I've no doubt someone from the NRA will be along shortly to tell everyone how tragic it was those kids weren't armed themselves.

 

Backward fucking cunts.

 

Charlton Heston was unavailable for comment.

[Cardie]

They completely changed war,

 

Like most new weapons before them be it cross bow, long bow etcetc.

 

Like i said earlier banning them won't stop it, they'll either get more creative (maces flamethrowers and bombs have all been used in the past) or more determined, if they want a gun they'll get one, banned or otherwise.