more people dead by a crazed gun man, this time in a naval base building
interfering in other countries business whilst not stopping the slaughter of innocents in its own country is wrong
A very simplistic view NLA.
The USA is a very large and diverse country and is always going to throw up some oddballs. Despite some federal aspects, central government plays second fiddle to state law. The President of the USA is often described as the most powerful man in the world but he's not necessarily the most powerful man in the US!
As for them poking their nose in elsewhere well some believe that Kerry's gunslinging forced the Russains to do something very quickly regarding Syria. If they do give up their chemical weapons surely that's a good thing? And would it have happened without Uncle Sam wading in?
it reads wrong and I don't want to edit it as it would look insincere, I didn't mean tht they shouldn't interfere just that rthey should stop this gun killing bollox at the same time
it reads wrong and I don't want to edit it as it would look insincere, I didn't mean tht they shouldn't interfere just that rthey should stop this gun killing bollox at the same time
Sure mate, get your point.
US always seem worse as everything like this gets so much coverage. Things like this do happen elsewhere too but we don't hear about all of them. Of course their gun laws don't help. Nothing ever seems to be done about that despite many promises. We moved very quickly post Dunblane. I am aware of the history of the second amendment by the way before anyone starts.
Never a truer word spoken. It belongs in the past - when it was like the wild west. Now, it's people clinging to the second amendment that are keeping it like the wild west.
I just don't understand how a country can allow its citizens to be slaughtered so easily, and not make major and hard decisions that will be unpopular, but will ensure that people don't die so easily
Never a truer word spoken. It belongs in the past - when it was like the wild west. Now, it's people clinging to the second amendment that are keeping it like the wild west.
But it's the people with the money and influence. It will take a few more generations for this to die out.
Never a truer word spoken. It belongs in the past - when it was like the wild west. Now, it's people clinging to the second amendment that are keeping it like the wild west.
But it's the people with the money and influence. It will take a few more generations for this to die out.
True. And I'm aware of the argument (it's hard to refute it) that since the genie has been out of the bottle for so long, it's impossible to put back in. The criminals there are not going to suddenly give up their guns because everyone else is. Impossible situation.
you'll never get rid of the lunatic element, and they will probably still have guns - Think how many people in the UK have guns - but maybe there will be a culture change with fewer guns around. Much less likely for the wrong people to get hold of them, and much fewer accidents
The problem is that in America, with the 'War of Independence', Cowboys & Indians, the Wild West, gangsters with tommy guns, all of this mythologizing and glorification of guns, it's part of the national psyche almost. In Britain we have myths of Robin Hood, or King Arthur and the Round Table, but no-one is likely to go around in armour waving swords. The American equivalent is the likes of Billy The Kid, or Jesse James, who when all is said and done were murderous criminals.
There is a lot to admire about America I think, but also a lot that it is quite right to fear, or at least disapprove of. I'm pretty sure that even the 'anti-gun' crowd are more against the restriction and control of firearms sale instead of an outright ban. The laws passed in the UK after the tragedy in Dunblane would just not ever get passed across the pond.
The right to bear arms without infringement. Adopted in 1791 and now being adhered to as if the American constitution is some form of religious text.
The amendment is at least 100 years past its sell by date and is an albatross hanging around the people's neck. Will be a very brave president to try to change it though.
It actually reads "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."
From a legal point of view, this is very poorly worded as it is open to interpretation. The common perception of this in the US ignores the militia part totally, whereas it was obviously intended to be central to the whole idea.
Never a truer word spoken. It belongs in the past - when it was like the wild west. Now, it's people clinging to the second amendment that are keeping it like the wild west.
If they're called amendments, does that suggest they have been changed before? If so why can't they change it again!
Never a truer word spoken. It belongs in the past - when it was like the wild west. Now, it's people clinging to the second amendment that are keeping it like the wild west.
If they're called amendments, does that suggest they have been changed before? If so why can't they change it again!
Comments
The USA is a very large and diverse country and is always going to throw up some oddballs. Despite some federal aspects, central government plays second fiddle to state law. The President of the USA is often described as the most powerful man in the world but he's not necessarily the most powerful man in the US!
As for them poking their nose in elsewhere well some believe that Kerry's gunslinging forced the Russains to do something very quickly regarding Syria. If they do give up their chemical weapons surely that's a good thing? And would it have happened without Uncle Sam wading in?
Of course they are not always right
US always seem worse as everything like this gets so much coverage. Things like this do happen elsewhere too but we don't hear about all of them. Of course their gun laws don't help. Nothing ever seems to be done about that despite many promises. We moved very quickly post Dunblane.
I am aware of the history of the second amendment by the way before anyone starts.
This is the problem with a country writing a constitution to follow forever, the date it is written cannot relate to the future needs of the country.
There is a lot to admire about America I think, but also a lot that it is quite right to fear, or at least disapprove of. I'm pretty sure that even the 'anti-gun' crowd are more against the restriction and control of firearms sale instead of an outright ban. The laws passed in the UK after the tragedy in Dunblane would just not ever get passed across the pond.
The right to bear arms without infringement. Adopted in 1791 and now being adhered to as if the American constitution is some form of religious text.
The amendment is at least 100 years past its sell by date and is an albatross hanging around the people's neck. Will be a very brave president to try to change it though.
From a legal point of view, this is very poorly worded as it is open to interpretation. The common perception of this in the US ignores the militia part totally, whereas it was obviously intended to be central to the whole idea.
Worrying escalation.