Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk

I remember the discussions we had here after the Sandy Hook shooting. The US has a real problem and you don't do a damn thing about it. When will you do something about it? The Brits did after their mass shooting incidents. The Aussies did after their worst mass shooting. I'm struggling whit why the US doesn't do anything about it. Your 2nd Amendment doesn't work or are all Americans members of a "well regulated militia" In the early 20th century, the US congress ratified the National Guard Act, that is your well regulated militia. We don't have the right to bare arms, among us it is a privilege to bare arms. It's like getting a driver's license. A person who wants to get a hunting license must undergo a training and a background check.


Is the US governed by the NRA or by you?

The British in the 1800s had guns, the Govt. used very minor incidents to virtually erase ownership. Australia used one incident to eliminate whole classes of guns, really w/o much justification. The 2nd Ad. says we have a Right to have guns, the thing about a well regulated (trained) Militia is a dependent clause. Now then The National Guard was a Federal take over of the State Militias so the Fed. Govt. could Federalize what was State Troops to prevent States from Seceeding. And, yes, all males are in the Militia as stated in the FEDERAL MILITIA Act of 1790 (not State Militia) As originally written the Act also required the ownership of a long arm identical to that in service with the Army. So..the Founding Fathers wanted the people to be armed with "weapons of War". Wording was changed 2 weeks later because of the financial burden purchasing would have imposed. There is no Right to drive. The NRA defends that Right.

Originally Posted by Capt Frogman

Even the Houston police chief is fed up and wants change!

"I know some have strong feelings about gun rights but I want you to know I've hit rock bottom and I am not interested in your views as it pertains to this issue. Please do not post anything about guns aren't the problem and there's little we can do," Chief Acevedo said in his Facebook post.

"This isn't a time for prayers, and study and inaction, it's a time for prayers, action and the asking of God's forgiveness for our inaction (especially the elected officials that ran to the cameras today, acted in a solemn manner, called for prayers, and will once again do absolutely nothing)," he added.

Chief Acevedo first spoke out about gun control in the aftermath of the Las Vegas shooting last October, and was a prominent figure in Texas's March for Our Lives demonstration following the Florida attack earlier this year.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44187718

Don't believe the rubbish the NRA are telling you. Nothing bad will happen if you don't have a firearm. Other countries are managing just fine with proper firearms controls.

Many Police Chiefs are appointed political hacks. " Nothing bad will happen if you don't have a firearm". This is an unsubstantiated claim, but, my Dad who was a career pilot, both in the USAF & the civilian world said: Guns are like parachutes, you will probably go your whole life w/o needing one, but if you do you'll need it real bad & there won't be time to go get one. All those dead administrators, coaches & teachers who charged gunmen empty handed were certainly in that spot.

[

Originally Posted by Capt Frogman

I think the PR woman said something about "protecting children". I guess they are sticking with the idea of arming teachers.

Fight the shootings by arming more people. Genius.

Better than sitting there with a finger up your ass because of the "Gun Free School Zone Act."

Originally Posted by BritinAfrica

Washington DC was once the murder capital of the US, since a handgun ban has been revoked, concealed carry has reduced crime.

A school shooting near Chicago was stopped by an armed officer at the school, the shooter was wounded and arrested.

In Israel trained teachers have carried guns in school for years, foiling attacks on a number of occasions.

JERUSALEM – Americans intent on ensuring a school massacre like the one in Newtown, Conn., never happens again could learn a lot from Israel, where the long menu of precautions includes armed teachers.

The Jewish state, which has long faced threats of terrorist strikes in crowded locations including schools, takes an all-of-the-above approach to safety in the classroom. Fences, metal detectors and armed private guards are part of a strategy overseen by the country’s national police. And the idea of armed teachers in the classroom, which stirred much controversy in the wake of the U.S. attack, has long been in practice in Israel, though a minority of them carry weapons today.

Oren Shemtov, CEO of Israel’s Academy of Security and Investigation, noted that attacks typically happen in a matter of minutes, and said gun-toting teachers could, at the very least, buy time for kids to escape while police race to the scene.

“Two (armed) teachers would have kept (the Newtown shooter) occupied for 45 seconds each,” said Shemtov, who is one of 16 people in Israel authorized to train those who instruct school guards.

Shemtov, a veteran of Israel’s security services who has been teaching security methods for 22 years, praised the Newtown teachers who gave their lives trying to protect children, but lamented the fact that they weren’t able to shoot back when gunman Adam Lanza opened fire, killing 20 children and six adults before shooting himself in the head as police converged on Sand Hook Elementary School.

“We need to give them the tools to be heroes,” Shemtov said. “No one wants to be a hero. They did what they had to do.”

Yup

Originally Posted by Capt Frogman

a tool for self-defense, and if necessary, to help protect others from terrorism.

That part is correct.

Originally Posted by BritinAfrica

The point I was making, in Israel teachers are armed which has prevented terrorist attacks on a number of occasions. a friend of mine in Israel has never done any military training, she owns a 7.65, not my choice of calibre but she has some sort of self defence. Her husband is a farmer carries a M16 (or possibly an AR 15).

Yup!

Originally Posted by BritinAfrica

Depends on the state in the US, they are not all as people think ""Walk into a gun shop and walk out with a machine gun"". Some states also have very strict regulations such as a cooling off period and police instruction before a carry permit is issued.

Gang members or people with criminal records are not allowed to own a firearm, but as usual criminals ignore the law and buy illegal firearms,

The tougher the gun laws the higher the crime. Unarmed victims make for bolder criminals.

Too long for one post!

Originally Posted by Capt Frogman

So why have the US mass shootings been carried out by kids with mental problems?

Originally Posted by BritinAfrica

There was a TV programme on this a few years ago, apparently from what I can remember the kids with mental health problems have drugs rammed down their throats rather then deal with the reasons behind the problems. Forcing drugs downs kids throats is a lot easier, I think it was a drug called XANAX.

Xanax (alprazolam) is a benzodiazepine (ben-zoe-dye-AZE-eh-peen). Alprazolam affects chemicals in the brain that may be unbalanced in people with anxiety.

Xanax is used to treat anxiety disorders, panic disorders, and anxiety caused by depression.

Xanax may also be used for purposes not listed in this medication guide.

As for getting hold of firearms that they shouldnt, there could be a number of reasons, buy a gun on the street or stealing from parents. Most states do not require firearms are locked away in a proper safe, then there is theft from pick up trucks with rifles hung in the rear window


One of Pfizer’s biggest selling meds, Xanax is usually prescribed for those who suffer from anxiety and depression, but it seems the drug causes the very thing it is supposed to treat – if you count losing your mind and shooting dozens of people a bit ‘anxious’.
The crazy “shooter” at the University of California, Santa Barbara, who shot six students in a rampage was likely addicted to benzodiazepines, a class of pharmaceuticals that can lead to extreme hysteria and outbursts of violence. Elliot Roger, the 22-year-old man blamed for a shooting spree in Isla Vista, California, was on Xanax.

But he certainly didn’t start this trend.

Aaron Ybarra, a 26-year-old who opened fire with a shotgun at Seattle Pacific University, killing one student and wounding two others had been prescribed the antidepressant Prozac and antipsychotic Risperda.

16-year-old Chris Plaskon stabbed Maren Sanchez, also 16, to death in a stairwell at Jonathan Law High School after she turned down his prom invitation, but he was taking drugs for ADHD.
James Holmes was hooked on a cocktail of Big Pharma drugs that have been found to be deadlier than cocaine and heroin combined (even at ‘safe’ levels). But the trend continues much farther.
Columbine shooters Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, as well as 15-year-old Kip Kinkel, were all on psychotropic drugs.
Even Ted Kaczinski the “Unabomber”, Michael McDermott, John Hinckley, Jr., Byran Uyesugi, Mark David Chapman and Charles Carl Roberts IV, the Amish school killer,were all on some form of SSRI psychotropic pharmaceutical drugs.

Ritalin seems to be involved with most of the shooters.

Originally Posted by Capt Frogman

Answer me this, why do civilians need assault rifles?

There is no difference between an "Semi-Automatic Assault Weapon" and any other semi-auto rifle. High cap guns have been around since the 16 round Henry rifles during the Civil War, high cap pistols since the 1890s. what we have now is kids screwed up by Liberal philosophy. Don't need religion, don't need a father in the family, some school districts prohibit teachers telling kids what's right & wrong, school systems being payed for kids diagnosed as ADD, so they have a financial incentive to diagnose & that puts kids on Ritalin. The Media screams out the names of the schoolers so they become "famous", some kids refer this as 'being popular" & gives others incentive to get famous & this pushes forward the Left's anti-gun agenda so the Media isn't going to tone it down.

Originally Posted by BritinAfrica

Britain’s largest police force has warned there has been steep increases in gun and knife crime in the capital over the past year, adding that years of budget cuts may at least be partially responsible.

The Metropolitan police said gun and knife crime rose 42% and 24% respectively and that recorded crime was up across virtually every category, in figures released two days after Cressida Dick took over as commissioner.


Why not, in the US there are people who own fully automatic machines guns provided they apply for and obtain a special licence. One a year they gather and shoot up old cars and what have you, enormous fun for everyone. As far as I am aware none of them are involved in crime of any sort. Years ago I fired a GPMG, a BREN in 303 and 7.62, a 9mm Sterling and STEN on a number of occasions and loved every second of it, in fact I'd love to fire them again.

The UK has been pushing Knife Control for some time now. Full auto guns have been restricted/heavily regulated since the 1930s. No crime has been committed by a registered owner using one. This would seem to support the pro-registration argument, but...the problem is the Govt. knows exactly where everyone of them is, and should the Govt. become tyrannical can easily confiscate them. One object of the 2nd Ad. is to provide the people with tools to oppose that.

Don't you think the US needs to reconsider the perception of owning a firearm to be a something you deserve?

The English Magna Carta had a part of the citizen should be armed, but the Brits don't base their legislation on a legislation from 1215. The US has a problem and we don't have the same problem. If you are so paranoid about the government you served, you shouldn't be eligible to bare arms, nor being eligible to drive a car.

Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk

Don't you think the US needs to reconsider the perception of owning a firearm to be a something you deserve?

The English Magna Carta had a part of the citizen should be armed, but the Brits don't base their legislation on a legislation from 1215. The US has a problem and we don't have the same problem. If you are so paranoid about the government you served, you shouldn't be eligible to bare arms, nor being eligible to drive a car.

Quite honestly, I do not trust the British government one iota.

Originally Posted by George

Too long for one post!


Ritalin seems to be involved with most of the shooters.


There is no difference between an "Semi-Automatic Assault Weapon" and any other semi-auto rifle. High cap guns have been around since the 16 round Henry rifles during the Civil War, high cap pistols since the 1890s. what we have now is kids screwed up by Liberal philosophy. Don't need religion, don't need a father in the family, some school districts prohibit teachers telling kids what's right & wrong, school systems being payed for kids diagnosed as ADD, so they have a financial incentive to diagnose & that puts kids on Ritalin. The Media screams out the names of the schoolers so they become "famous", some kids refer this as 'being popular" & gives others incentive to get famous & this pushes forward the Left's anti-gun agenda so the Media isn't going to tone it down.

The UK has been pushing Knife Control for some time now. Full auto guns have been restricted/heavily regulated since the 1930s. No crime has been committed by a registered owner using one. This would seem to support the pro-registration argument, but...the problem is the Govt. knows exactly where everyone of them is, and should the Govt. become tyrannical can easily confiscate them. One object of the 2nd Ad. is to provide the people with tools to oppose that.

I'm quite sure only an idiot would think your founding fathers would be in favour of putting machine guns in the hands of anyone. Back when your Founding Fathers were alive, you couldn't kill hundreds of people in thirty seconds flat, and you couldn't reload a gun in seconds. Guns were highly inaccurate, took one to two minutes to load, and held small amounts of ammo. The weapons we have today and the weapons we had during the making of the Bill of Rights are vastly different.

The 2nd Amendment was written back in the 18th century so that states had the right to form a militia in case the federal government became tyrannical. Back then, everyone had rifles and muskets which took anywhere between 30 seconds to 2 minutes to load. Nowadays we have semiautomatic weapons with 100 round magazines. These are called ASSAULT rifles, meaning they are primarily used for ASSAULT. The second ammendment has been broadly interpreted to include these weapons, which serve no purpose other than killing mass amounts of people or compensating for one's insignificant p**is.

Originally Posted by Capt Frogman

I'm quite sure only an idiot would think your founding fathers would be in favour of putting machine guns in the hands of anyone. Back when your Founding Fathers were alive, you couldn't kill hundreds of people in thirty seconds flat, and you couldn't reload a gun in seconds. Guns were highly inaccurate, took one to two minutes to load, and held small amounts of ammo. The weapons we have today and the weapons we had during the making of the Bill of Rights are vastly different.

The 2nd Amendment was written back in the 18th century so that states had the right to form a militia in case the federal government became tyrannical. Back then, everyone had rifles and muskets which took anywhere between 30 seconds to 2 minutes to load. Nowadays we have semiautomatic weapons with 100 round magazines. These are called ASSAULT rifles, meaning they are primarily used for ASSAULT. The second ammendment has been broadly interpreted to include these weapons, which serve no purpose other than killing mass amounts of people or compensating for one's insignificant p**is.

I think you may be over looking the obvious here, what is it that drives a nation to be so paranoid and afraid of it's own elected government that believes it needs specific legislation to allow it to take up arms against it.

I am certainly not a fan of politicians but I am also not crazy enough to take on the police force or armed forces over a few firearms that I only use for recreation anyway nor am I deluded enough to think it is a battle I could win if I just purchased more firearms.

I find it somewhat amusing that since 2001 they have all but thrown out the first and fourth amendments without blinking an eye but will go to war with their own government over the second, I suspect that in reality this is due to the NRA who make their living from it and see mass killings as a way to spread fear and sell more.

The US was attacked by terrorists and you acted upon it. But you don't do anything about what happens in the US. If you think you can defend yourself against your own government, you are beyond stupid. Do you have an empirical evidence of when a democratic elected government has turned against its own citizens? If you use what happened in Germany during the Wiemar Republic. You are really paranoid. Don't get me wrong. I don't hate the US, rather the opposite. But your 2nd A doesn't work. As long as you accept school shootings and other public shootings without doing anything about it. You deserve what happens to you. Be prepared for when you are driving your kids to school, that might be the last time you see them.

Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk

Don't you think the US needs to reconsider the perception of owning a firearm to be a something you deserve?

The English Magna Carta had a part of the citizen should be armed, but the Brits don't base their legislation on a legislation from 1215. The US has a problem and we don't have the same problem. If you are so paranoid about the government you served, you shouldn't be eligible to bare arms, nor being eligible to drive a car.

Actually it's a Right, not something 'deserved". the brits had about the same ownership... well a privilege instead of rights...the we have until about the time that the Bolsheviks killed the Tsar and his ministers, then they started the long road to ending ownership. I guess they didn't want that happening to them(the govt.). The paranoid ones live in bunkers in the woods.

Originally Posted by Capt Frogman

I'm quite sure only an idiot would think your founding fathers would be in favour of putting machine guns in the hands of anyone. Back when your Founding Fathers were alive, you couldn't kill hundreds of people in thirty seconds flat, and you couldn't reload a gun in seconds. Guns were highly inaccurate, took one to two minutes to load, and held small amounts of ammo. The weapons we have today and the weapons we had during the making of the Bill of Rights are vastly different.

The 2nd Amendment was written back in the 18th century so that states had the right to form a militia in case the federal government became tyrannical. Back then, everyone had rifles and muskets which took anywhere between 30 seconds to 2 minutes to load. Nowadays we have semiautomatic weapons with 100 round magazines. These are called ASSAULT rifles, meaning they are primarily used for ASSAULT. The second ammendment has been broadly interpreted to include these weapons, which serve no purpose other than killing mass amounts of people or compensating for one's insignificant p**is.

As already stated, the FF wanted all males of military age armed with the same guns as the Army, to protect the Nation & their homes & themselves & in case the Govt became tyrannical. I imagine they'd shit if they saw what the Fed. govt. has evolved into. But the Constitution is a "living document' it unreasonable that it applies to everything in modern life except it's somehow locked into flintlocks, that's stupid. Besides the Pickle Gun had been conceptualized, there were Volley Guns & Bridge Guns. I'm sure they would say freedom of speech isn't limited to direct spoken word or letters written with a quill pen. "inaccurate guns" During the Revolutionary War we had quite a reputation for killing lots of Officers with our rifles. "Nowadays we have semiautomatic weapons with 100 round magazines. These are called ASSAULT rifles, meaning they are primarily used for ASSAULT. The second ammendment has been broadly interpreted to include these weapons, which serve no purpose other than killing mass amounts of people." It's just a name. They really aren't any different than any other semi-auto rifle except they look like a machine gun. do people really need 100 rd mags? Probably not, but if they can limit mags to 30 they have the precedent to cut it to 20, then 10, then....Some people think it's a great idea to limit them to small capacity so school personnel, disarmed by the ineffective "Gun Free School Zone" Law would have a better chance rushing the gunman with empty hands if the gunman has to change mags more often. Now then we have the "military ammo" Prior the the creation of the 5.56/.223Remington there was 2 rounds right on either side of it. The civilian 'sporting rounds' the .222 Remington & the .222 Rem. Magnum. One has just slightly less M/V & the other slightly more M/V than the 5.56, so they're wouldn't be any emotional hysteria over 'military ammo" if they were chambered for either of those. "or compensating for one's insignificant p**is." Sounds like psychobabble to me.

Originally Posted by MontyB

I think you may be over looking the obvious here, what is it that drives a nation to be so paranoid and afraid of it's own elected government that believes it needs specific legislation to allow it to take up arms against it.

I am certainly not a fan of politicians but I am also not crazy enough to take on the police force or armed forces over a few firearms that I only use for recreation anyway nor am I deluded enough to think it is a battle I could win if I just purchased more firearms.

I find it somewhat amusing that since 2001 they have all but thrown out the first and fourth amendments without blinking an eye but will go to war with their own government over the second, I suspect that in reality this is due to the NRA who make their living from it and see mass killings as a way to spread fear and sell more.

Apparently the FF believed it was a good idea. The only people who look forward to mass shooting are those who want to disarm the people so they can further their Agenda. The threat to gun Rights is real. divide & conquer, one class or type at a time. Of course they'd love to have a irrational reaction to some outrage & ban all guns at once.

Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk

The US was attacked by terrorists and you acted upon it. But you don't do anything about what happens in the US. If you think you can defend yourself against your own government, you are beyond stupid. Do you have an empirical evidence of when a democratic elected government has turned against its own citizens? If you use what happened in Germany during the Wiemar Republic. You are really paranoid. Don't get me wrong. I don't hate the US, rather the opposite. But your 2nd A doesn't work. As long as you accept school shootings and other public shootings without doing anything about it. You deserve what happens to you. Be prepared for when you are driving your kids to school, that might be the last time you see them.

It's not what I think, it's what the FF thought. Besides the Afghans & Iraqis seem to have done reasonably well against Armys. "Do you have an empirical evidence of when a democratic elected government has turned against its own citizens? If you use what happened in Germany during the Wiemar Republic.' well that's cute, make a statement & immediately contradict it & try to write it off. How about Venezuela, they now have an elected oppressive Socialist cesspool Govt that they voted in.

Originally Posted by George

Actually it's a Right, not something 'deserved". the brits had about the same ownership... well a privilege instead of rights...the we have until about the time that the Bolsheviks killed the Tsar and his ministers, then they started the long road to ending ownership. I guess they didn't want that happening to them(the govt.). The paranoid ones live in bunkers in the woods.

The Brit's saw sense and implemented sensible gun controls that, on the whole work very well.

Originally Posted by George

As already stated, the FF wanted all males of military age armed with the same guns as the Army, to protect the Nation & their homes & themselves & in case the Govt became tyrannical. I imagine they'd shit if they saw what the Fed. govt. has evolved into. But the Constitution is a "living document' it unreasonable that it applies to everything in modern life except it's somehow locked into flintlocks, that's stupid. Besides the Pickle Gun had been conceptualized, there were Volley Guns & Bridge Guns. I'm sure they would say freedom of speech isn't limited to direct spoken word or letters written with a quill pen. "inaccurate guns" During the Revolutionary War we had quite a reputation for killing lots of Officers with our rifles. "Nowadays we have semiautomatic weapons with 100 round magazines. These are called ASSAULT rifles, meaning they are primarily used for ASSAULT. The second ammendment has been broadly interpreted to include these weapons, which serve no purpose other than killing mass amounts of people." It's just a name. They really aren't any different than any other semi-auto rifle except they look like a machine gun. do people really need 100 rd mags? Probably not, but if they can limit mags to 30 they have the precedent to cut it to 20, then 10, then....Some people think it's a great idea to limit them to small capacity so school personnel, disarmed by the ineffective "Gun Free School Zone" Law would have a better chance rushing the gunman with empty hands if the gunman has to change mags more often. Now then we have the "military ammo" Prior the the creation of the 5.56/.223Remington there was 2 rounds right on either side of it. The civilian 'sporting rounds' the .222 Remington & the .222 Rem. Magnum. One has just slightly less M/V & the other slightly more M/V than the 5.56, so they're wouldn't be any emotional hysteria over 'military ammo" if they were chambered for either of those. "or compensating for one's insignificant p**is." Sounds like psychobabble to me.

Isn't your Trump government tyrannical?

Having used military semi automatic assault rifles while serving in the military, I struggle to see why any civilian needs one or indeed finds any use for one.

I'm glad you admit a 100 round mag isn't needed. But you don't want to see them banned. The majority of your massacres have involved the use of assault rifles because they can inflict the most amount of suffering in a very short time.

The difference is we won our independence by fighting tyranny. It is part of our national identity and we are quite aware on how government excesses can lead to tyranny. Thankfully, we haven’t had to care what Britain, or any other nations citizens, think about the inalienable rights our citizens are guaranteed by our constitution. Seems you all have more pressing matters to worry about with your cultures dying slowly by third world migrants who are imposing their own sets of laws...and the very governments you seem to think we shouldn’t be paranoid about are the ones who are allowing it to happen.

Freedom is messy. I’ll take my chances on this side of the pond.