Guns, Guns Guns

Sorry about over riding you. Didn't mean to detract from the question.

I suspect that the answer is also a matter of not wanting to distract. By and large the courts have swayed heavily in favor of 2A protections. Chicago and DC had their concealed carry policies challenged recently. The courts rules those policies were too restrictive and in violation of the 2A.

The media by and large is not a supporter of the 2nd Amendment. Any Republican with a picture of himself holding a gun will have the media focus on the issue of guns rather than the many other issues important to those candidates. Tactically, it is wise for even staunchest 2A supporters to avoid gratuitous reminders of that position to the media.

Below is a link to a story suggestive of that bias.
http://news.investors.com/062315-758711-even-in-photos-associated-press-liberal-bias-on-display.htm?ven=fox_businesscp&src=aurlaeu

Annachie wrote:It sort of got over riden a bit.

I was curious how the Republican candidates seem to be avoiding being photographed actually holding a gun, or in front of the confed flag but that's a different topic.

I'm sure that they were in the past, but during the election cycle they seem to be avoiding it.

Am I off base, or just missing stuff.

And if I'm not, how does it reflect on their stated yay guns positions?

To give Ted Cruz some cred, the photo's of him I found appear to be while duck hunting. Got to respect a real hunter.

Actually the other thing I noticed was that shot guns, usually under over's, seemed to dominate what recent photo's there were.

It's almost a given that there are none of Hillary. Nor Bernie (he doesn't strike me as the hunting type anyway) Are there any other Democrat posibilities?

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

All I'm going to write is that it wouldn't be good for their ratings if any British political leader was seen with a firearm. It might even be political suicide.

But that's just a cultural thing!

For information, here's Wikipedia's page on gun politics in the United Kingdom

Note that firearms laws in Northern Ireland and Scotland differ somewhat from those in England and Wales. What this means in practice is that gun owners in the UK have to aware of at least three different sets of legislation.

Here is Police Scotland's webpage relating to firearms: HERE

Finally, this is the Firearms Act 1968, which, with revisions, is currently still in force in the UK: HERE

For some really heavy duty reading, THIS LINK (PDF reader required) leads to the Home Office's guide to Firearm Licensing Law 2015.

Mike.

That is what I can not understand. Yep ... our USA news media is very anti gun. I do not watch TV. Have not in over 20 years now. I have never even see President Obama or any other hack politician give a speech. Well, almost never.

The few political adds I have seen and the few news broadcasts I have suffered thorugh, the amount of boull shiete and spinning is absolutely incredible. I bring all the way the news in only 3 minutes have spun things to my friends attention.

They look at me like the deer caught in the headlights at night time out here in remote SW OR USA. My freinds have no conception of what I am trying to bring to their attention. They have been and are brain washed. Fast point here ...

Doesn't the news media here in the USA understand that their right to screw up the news and propagandize (sp) the presentations is as important as the gun rights they seem intent upon destroying? Makes no sense to me what so ever.

HB of CJ (oldest coot) I wonder if the USA won the cold war.

HB of CJ wrote:If the government takes away our guns, sooner or later they will clamp down on the freedom of speech. History repeats itself. Are these anti gunnes that dumb?

Apparently they may be. Our family grew up around firearms. This includes machine guns and suppressors. No problem. The stuff is not going to jump out of the gun safe.

No, those "antigunnies" actually bother to live in the real world instead of a fantasy.

Please, why don´t you actually read through world history. It´s frickin painful to see such idiotic delusions. Your "freedoms", whether they exist or not have ZERO to do with gun ownership.

HB of CJ wrote:The armed public must outgun any government. That is the way it must be. Right now our government outguns us. Very scary. Give them one inch and they become a ruler.

Eh, no. There exists no government that is outgunned by the public. And about the only place you can find where that ever happened is a hippie community.

Or among anarchists. You know, the extreme libertarian socialist offshoot.

If you want to a "Mad Max" style future, go ahead with believing your delusion, but please leave the rest of the world to itself.

HB of CJ wrote:The powers that be can no more take away gun rights in any capacity any more than they can abridge any way shape or form the right of freedom of speech.

Do you have ANY idea about how the idea of a government actually works? They have every right there is, as long as they stick to legal measures. And legal measures most definitely DO allow for changing, replacing or adding to ANY of your laws. Constitutional changes are just more difficult to do.

This is a legal FACT. You can claim whatever you wish but it still remains a fact. Just go talk to any lawyer(one not trying to pander to you).

HB of CJ wrote:What some people fail to understand about the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution is that is says what it does.

Oh FFS... Can´t all you folk just learn to read?

You CANNOT just split up a legal text as it suits you.

If you want a law that actually states that everyone can or should own weapons, then get some politician to push it through for you, but until then, no the 2nd amendment never said that.

At the time the Bill of Rights was written their was a militia law that specified all able bodied white male citizens between the ages of seventeen and sixty-five were to own a musket and show up to a militia drill once a month. However there is currently no national Militia law in force so congress dropped the ball again, and the courts have to muddle through the intent of the framers thus the muddle, controversy and arguments on both sides. That the National guard by law replaces the militias can be argued, as can the ultimate thought all citizens are members of the militia.

The term arms causes some problem I think both sides agree that a private citizen should not be able to own a thermonuclear weapon, I'd be nervous if my suicidal neighbor had his finger of the button of such. The problem is where to draw the line of what is a weapon of mass destruction. For instance you can own a muzzle loading canon but not explosive shells for same. You can own a hand cranked Gatling gun, but not a machine gun with out a special permit.

Basically I foresee this argument as having no solution as either side can make cogent arguments, that will have no effect on the strongly held beliefs of people on the other side. Just remember in presenting your arguments try to respect the fact others may well disagree with your opinion and personal name calling will just cause the loss of logic. So let's all try to keep the arguments friendly.

My personal belief is the Second Amenment give all people not precluded by mental defect or previous criminal activity the right to keep and bear arms, and since congress has not passed a new organized militia law that part of the amendment dealing with a well organized militia is essentially null and void meaning thus that all citizens have the right.

Feel free to disagree, Poker

pokermind wrote:My personal belief is the Second Amenment give all people not precluded by mental defect or previous criminal activity the right to keep and bear arms, and since congress has not passed a new organized militia law that part of the amendment dealing with a well organized militia is essentially null and void meaning thus that all citizens have the right.

Feel free to disagree, Poker

By the same token, if the militia part is null and void, you can argue that the "right to bear arms" part is null and void too. As Tenshinai says, you can't just take the law as written and ignore the inconvenient parts.

The E wrote:
By the same token, if the militia part is null and void, you can argue that the "right to bear arms" part is null and void too. As Tenshinai says, you can't just take the law as written and ignore the inconvenient parts.

Except one was a constitutional right and the other was a law.

Pretty simple really. Mikitia laws are not enforced but still exist in various states.

As far as governments not being overthrow by the common people. Is Vietnam still a french proxy? Does the Soviet Union still control Afghanistan? Sure the tories in New England thought the same thing in 1775. Heck for that matter how did Isis get its start? As Clauseitz said all war boils down to people. So who does the military support? Maybe that is why Yemen is the way it is now. Oh I forgot thet aren't civilized. (A typical parochial view.) But the greatest military force on earth couldn't help them much.

Nope not going to change any minds. Really could care less. A philosophical view. Just like all politics.

Pretty sure I have said most of this in this thread. But it doesn't fit the world view so it is ignored.

T2M

thinkstoomuch wrote:As far as governments not being overthrow by the common people. Is Vietnam still a french proxy? Does the Soviet Union still control Afghanistan? Sure the tories in New England thought the same thing in 1775. Heck for that matter how did Isis get its start? As Clauseitz said all war boils down to people. So who does the military support? Maybe that is why Yemen is the way it is now. Oh I forgot thet aren't civilized. (A typical parochial view.) But the greatest military force on earth couldn't help them much.

So, when are you going to overthrow this government you obviously hate so much?

The E wrote:So, when are you going to overthrow this government you obviously hate so much?

Interesting non reply.

Note I spent 20 years in my nation's military supporting my nation and its interests. (Edit) Basically putting my life on the line like those killed on the USS Stark. Going where and when that government told me.

You?

Whatever,
T2M

PS Thought about making this a PM but as he thought he can read my mind as to my motives for a post wanted to make sure the motives were explained.

PPS Support of a thing does not mean that the thing needs to be used, NOW. Of course the future is never what we think it will be. Also as was not replied to in the short term none of those instances had happy outcomes. Long term . . .

thinkstoomuch wrote:Interesting non reply.

Note I spent 20 years in my nation's military supporting my nation and its interests. (Edit) Basically putting my life on the line like those killed on the USS Stark. Going where and when that government told me.

You?

You certainly got me there. As a german growing up in the 90s and 00s, my military experience is limited to being a medic in a training company, helping to train combat medics, which I did for 18 months as part of my conscription service.

PPS Support of a thing does not mean that the thing needs to be used, NOW. Of course the future is never what we think it will be. Also as was not replied to in the short term none of those instances had happy outcomes. Long term . . .

The reason I ask is this.

In every discussion thread on the internet involving guns, americans, and the right of the latter to bear the former, the american conservative debaters will always point towards their guns as being tools "to keep government overreach in check" or rhetoric functionally identical to that.

It is my observation that those same commenters invariably spend a lot of time in other discussions lamenting that <thing the government did> was going too far, is a sure sign of overreach etc etc.

Now, to me, this calls the efficacy of private gun ownership as a tool to keep government overreach in check into question. If those guns actually acted as a deterrent, would those policies that the american conservatives protest be enacted?
The obvious rhetorical followup is that yes, of course they work, because without them things would be even worse; However, I find myself asking why the government is nevertheless capable and willing to push things even further into directions that american conservatives do not approve of.

In your post, you speak of long term consequences. All well and good. But your side has been hinting at those for how long now? Years? Decades? At what point would you be compelled to take up arms against the government?