Gun laws in USA??

[stui magpie]

Well, Trump has moved to ban bump stocks.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/20/poli ... index.html

I suppose that's a start.

[David]

So nothing on background checks, then? God, though, even that just seems like tinkering around the edges. Amazing that the NRA and their party have so effectively held the country hostage on this.

[Wokko]

What's the obsession with the NRA? Read what I posted about their modest contributions compared to many others. The issue is that Americans don't want to give up the 2nd amendment right to self defence. Gun control is a never satisfied beast that cuts away at freedom until you get the UK or Australia and people can't even defend themselves in their own home. People who've never even fired a .22 rifle, who piss their pants at the sight of an AR-15 and have no idea what they even mean when they say "assault rifle" are invariably the ones pushing to take away guns from people who've never committed any crimes or harmed anyone.



Want to stop mass shootings? Audit the FBI and find out why they're not following up on reports of these murderers and stop giving out psychotropic drugs like candy.

[David]

Nobody needs a military-style rapid-firing gun for self-defence. Nobody. You don't have to be a firearms guru or the gun equivalent of a bird-watcher to understand that. If the US is to maintain its 2nd amendment rights, and there's no sign that that's going to change anytime soon, then surely standard-issue handguns are more than enough for people to have (and still plenty capable of killing and maiming innocents), with hunting rifles limited to hunters and sports shooters who hold strictly-controlled permits.

That's a sane and utterly mainstream position to hold, consistent with the 2nd amendment and already goes much further than I would ever want to see implemented here (where I'm quite happy for guns to be out of public hands); the fact that it should be considered a radical political solution makes the rest of the world look at America in bewilderment.

[Wokko]

"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."

It's the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs. Property ownership based on need is of course something you'd be all for Comrade

For home defense you're better off with a semi auto shotgun, pistol for carrying outside, rifle for hunting. Ask someone who hunts something like Wild pigs if they're happy to be cycling the bolt while a 90kg pig or 270kg Grizzly bear is charging them. If they do need to use their rifle for home defence, would you want to be cycling the bolt while someone is shooting back?

I always said I was ok with Australia's gun laws because we didn't have home invasions or gang bangers car jacking us. Well, now we are.

[David]

[David]

https://www.americamagazine.org/repeal-second-amendment

Though we cannot create an absolutely safe world, we can create a safer world. This does not require an absolute ban on firearms. In the post-repeal world that we envision, some people will possess guns: hunters and sportsmen, law enforcement officers, the military, those who require firearms for morally reasonable purposes. Make no mistake, however: The world we envision is a world with far fewer guns, a world in which no one has a right to own one. Some people, though far fewer, will still die from gun violence. The disturbing feeling that we have failed to do everything in our power to remove the material cause of their deaths, however, will no longer compound our grief.

The Supreme Court has ruled that whatever the human costs involved, the Second Amendment "necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table." The justices are right. But the human cost is intolerable. Repeal the Second Amendment.

[Wokko]

[swoop42]

The 2nd amendment was adopted in 1791 a mere 15 years after America gained independence and appears simply a product of that period in history.

The right to bear arms contained within it was also a product of 1791 when the most powerful personal weapon was what exactly?

I dare say that in 1791 the people responsible for the 2nd amendment couldn't totally envisage the rapid fire ability and precision of the weaponry available today and that ordinary citizens would be able to access some that were designed for military service.

The simple reality though and the most important point is it's "the right to bear arms" not the "right to bear the most powerful arms available" and this is exactly the kind of thinking the likes of the NRA have bred within American culture across decades.

Not many people expect or desire to see Americans stripped of their guns entirely but the notion that ordinary citizens need semi-automatic pistols, pump action shotguns or military grade assault rifles for self defence in the home or hunting is rubbish.

[Wokko]

[Wokko]

Additionally the 2nd amendment was designed for the population to have the same weapons available to it as the Government.

[swoop42]

Again it was 1791.

Perhaps they should return to slavery also.

Hell lets start slaughtering Aboriginals like it's 1788.

I wonder if the average American understands what amendment means?

In case they don't.

A minor change or addition designed to improve a text, piece of legislation, etc.

Here's a radical thought.

Let's amend again.

It's been done before.

[HAL]

Some of them do, I think.

[stui magpie]

" Ask someone who hunts something like Wild pigs if they're happy to be cycling the bolt while a 90kg pig or 270kg Grizzly bear is charging them.

As someone who used to hunt, if you aren't a good enough hunter and shot to be able to take down your target with a single clean shot, you shouldn't be hunting.

[Wokko]