oldrover Posted November 3, 2016 #51 Share Posted November 3, 2016 Sorry for multiple quotes. I'm writing this on a tablet. Which also won't let me edit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorvir Posted November 3, 2016 #52 Share Posted November 3, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, oldrover said: Sorry for multiple quotes. I'm writing this on a tablet. Which also won't let me edit. Don't sweat it. Ninjadude isn't interested in posting honestly, so heads up. Notice that he claims that "we" are horrified, which might include the voices in his head, and the actual people I mentioned that are keenly interested in stripping away our rights to own and operate firearms as spelled out in the 2nd Amendment. He seems to be horrified by the truth and the facts. Figures. Being educated does seem scary to the uneducated, after all. I also like his cop-out about how supporting his side isn't worth wasting the time. So, keep in mind that yes, there are two sides. His side is going to be absolutely full of garbage and intolerance and ignorance. But, hey, that's ninjadude for you--I think you already know this, just look at his posts. He also seems to enjoy trolling me...must be because i'm one of the few people that actually pays attention to him anymore. To sum up, he'll come up with some tripe about the 2nd Amendment not being what it actually says (making one wonder if he's ever read it), then some more tripe out how guns and gun-owners are dangerous/evil/whatever, then top it off with some hateful stuff about the NRA, our right to self-defense, and how he and only he seems to know exactly what your Founding Fathers meant. Strap in for the ride, because his explanation will be as fun as riding a bicycle with no seat on it. Edited November 3, 2016 by Thorvir Hrothgaard 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquatus1 Posted November 3, 2016 #53 Share Posted November 3, 2016 20 hours ago, oldrover said: We hear about the NRA over here, but almost always it's presented as a caricature. Sometimes good, but mostly bad. All I know about it is that it's a powerful group, and Charlton Heston used to its president. is the gun ownership debate, as framed by the NRA, part of a wider political agenda? And, is it viewed in such stark terms at home, as it is abroad? Lastly to both of you, is the gun question as significant a debate as it's portrayed overseas? Honestly, I believe the sole reason there is a gun ownership debate to begin with is because of the NRA. Prior to the takeover, it simply wasn't an issue. Just like in your country, people owned guns. people used guns, and that was all there was too it. The NRA turned it into an "Us against Them" issue. On a personal basis, and I'm really not feeling up to doing the research on it, I believe there was a racial motivation on the part of Harlon B. Carter, and his policies exacerbated the divide between blacks and whites, simply because he didn't feel that black people should own guns. However, in its current form, I don't believe the NRA is actively riding that pony anymore, although it does take advantage of the existing environment to remain in power. Today, I believe the NRA is just like any other lobby group, in it for the money. Is the gun debate significant? Depends on who you ask. People taken in by NRA propaganda will tell you that they are the only thing that stands between you and the government taking away your guns. That makes it significant to them. But is the gun debate politically significant? Not really. Past history tells us that taking away guns was never a political turning point in the U.S., ever, and there has been practically zero legislation on the federal level regarding firearms. You will find that any time there is a gun massacre in the U.S. (and there are plenty), the first people to start an outcry against gun banning are the NRA groups, long before anyone else has even mentioned anything about guns control. And you will hear the usual refrain, using patriotism as a weapon, always referring to a "gun ban", implying there is actually significant support for a nation-wide blanket ban on guns, instead of the more realistic and reasonable gun control measures actually being suggested. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldrover Posted November 3, 2016 #54 Share Posted November 3, 2016 (edited) Thanks, I take your point. 54 minutes ago, aquatus1 said: But is the gun debate politically significant? Not really. Over here, it's portrayed as being a majorly divisive issue. I suppose that tells you more about the way the media tailors its product for its audience. It is an issue that puzzles people over here. 54 minutes ago, aquatus1 said: Just like in your country, people owned guns. people used guns, and that was all there was too it. Over here, first gun massacre was Hungerford in England, 19th August 1987, it saw 16 dead. The result was a ban on any self loading center fire rifle, and shotgun with a magazine capacity greater than three. I think the mood in the country was so angry, hardly anyone raised an objection. Second was Dunblane in Scotland, on the 13th of March 1996. 18 dead, 16 primary school children, one teacher and the gunman. I think anger would be an understatement for how people felt about that one. It resulted in sever restrictions, not a ban as most people think, on handguns. There were objections, but the general public was feeling pretty homicidal, so they weren't met with any sympathy. We did have another multiple shooting, and of course this doesn't cover illegally held guns, where a double barrel was used, but that didn't bring about any change in legislation, and for obvious reasons. In Britain attitudes to guns are very different to the U.S. But that's because our countries have very different histories, which tend to place things in very different contexts. To be truthful, and I'm not extending this outside of the UK, we don't really have any reasonable reason to own any of the now banned types of firearms here*, and it was obvious to most, that we never did have. So, wanting to was not seen as the norm. You were seen as 'playing with guns'. It was quite a stigma. But that's Britain, it doesn't apply to elsewhere. We don't view gun ownership abroad in those terms, it was a judgement strictly applied to our own. * This applies to the mainland only. Obviously, in Northern Ireland lots of people had reasons to carry concealed handguns, and they are still legally entitled to do so, subject to licensing. Edited November 3, 2016 by oldrover Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldrover Posted November 3, 2016 #55 Share Posted November 3, 2016 13 minutes ago, oldrover said: To be truthful, and I'm not extending this outside of the UK, we don't really have any reasonable reason to own any of the now banned types of firearms here*, and it was obvious to most, that we never did have. So, wanting to was not seen as the norm. You were seen as 'playing with guns'. It was quite a stigma. But that's Britain, it doesn't apply to elsewhere. We don't view gun ownership abroad in those terms, it was a judgement strictly applied to our own. Just to say, I realise this sounds like a Eurocentric attitude, and it is, but it's about context isn't it. In a culture where firearm ownership is proportionately tiny, it's the prevailing attitude. But, and I include myself in this, if someone who held those attitudes in their own country, was suddenly relocated to an area where gun ownership was much higher. Then I'd suspect that their attitude may well change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquatus1 Posted November 3, 2016 #56 Share Posted November 3, 2016 (edited) One also has to keep in mind the different types of gun owners out there. The one's the media likes to put on display are the pseudo-militia, have-my-gun-when-they-pry-it-from-my-cold-dead-fingers group. They are, truthfully, in the minority (albeit, the ones I tend to be most afraid of actually causing problems). Many more gun owners are recreational gun owners, and own a gun a little bit like many own a boat, and a little bit like a child owns a doll. Like most boats, guns are only occasionally taken out for use, and then in closely monitored environments, and there is nothing wrong with that. Like a doll, many of these owners also like to buy all the accessories that come with guns, not because they particularly need them, but because it is always fun to have the entire set. The gun owners who own guns for actual use are the more rural, farm-land folk, for whom a gun is a handy tool to protect livestock from predators, and for seasonal hunting. Some argue that hunting is no longer a necessity in the modern world, and therefore hunting should be considered recreation, however, regardless of whether these folks would starve or not without it, money is not always in high supply, and hunting provides several hundred pounds of meat for your family that you didn't have to hand-raise yourself. Neither of the two latter groups have much problem with reasonable gun control. The first group...they are the ones with the arguments that tend to raise a rational eyebrow, and, unsurprisingly, tend to be the ones most emotive on the subject of gun control. Edited November 3, 2016 by aquatus1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninjadude Posted November 4, 2016 #57 Share Posted November 4, 2016 An anachronism in today's world All these factors — the massive increase in population, the urbanization of our country, the changing character of our citizens over the centuries, and the increasing devastation of weaponry — have also changed the dynamics of an amendment written for the conditions of the 1700s, but still in play today. It is clear that the Second Amendment as written is an anachronism in today's world, a part of our constitutional rights that has outlived itself. Further, our Founding Fathers would almost certainly not object to modification or even repeal of the Second. Indeed, they made provisions for just such a possibility. Since 1791, when the Amendment was adopted, there have been a total of 27 amendments to that great constitutional document. Moreover, repeal itself is not unique or precedent-breaking. In 1933, the 21st Amendment did repeal the 18th. While we try to believe the Constitution is sacrosanct, it is in fact a "work in process" — and repealing the Second Amendment would serve our country well in the 21st century. Such repeal/amendment could also include retention of those types of weapons we would all likely agree on: such things as rifles for hunting, pistols for target shooting, certain approved security reasons for owning weapons, etc. But it would end forever the argument that virtually anyone can own any weapon of any devastation, for any reason, because of some vaguely defined "right" granted two centuries ago. https://www.minnpost.com/community-voices/2013/01/it-time-repeal-second-amendment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorvir Posted November 4, 2016 #58 Share Posted November 4, 2016 Gee, I called that one, didn't I? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted November 4, 2016 #59 Share Posted November 4, 2016 3 hours ago, Thorvir Hrothgaard said: Gee, I called that one, didn't I? I'm just eating popcorn. But Aquatus hit the nail squarely on the head there. With perfect accuracy. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poppi Posted November 8, 2016 #60 Share Posted November 8, 2016 (edited) #49-" We are horrified at what Thor claims."... Who is we Edited November 8, 2016 by Poppi well, we should all get along Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorvir Posted November 9, 2016 #61 Share Posted November 9, 2016 25 minutes ago, Poppi said: #49-" We are horrified at what Thor claims."... Who is we He's got problems... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorvir Posted November 9, 2016 #62 Share Posted November 9, 2016 (edited) On 11/4/2016 at 3:08 AM, psyche101 said: But Aquatus hit the nail squarely on the head there. With perfect accuracy. Not quite, because blaming the NRA is just not accurate and smells like more anti-NRA propaganda. Edited November 9, 2016 by Thorvir Hrothgaard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted November 9, 2016 #63 Share Posted November 9, 2016 36 minutes ago, Thorvir Hrothgaard said: Not quite, because blaming the NRA is just not accurate and smells like more anti-NRA propaganda. I do not think he did, he outlined the groups identified in general when these subjects are discussed. As he says, the reasonable groups have no problem with Gun Control. There seems to be a contingent in the US that is unusually attached to deadly weapons, which is not reflected in other civilised parts of the world. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now