And Another Amerikan Shooting

[Mekong]

Whilst I do not claim to be very knowledgable on any history to be honest even I am aware that the US Constitution was loosely based on the 1689 English Bill of Rights and the second amendment which "Protects the Rights of the People to Keep and Bear Arms" was adopted in 1791.

 

I agree that back in the late 18th and early 19th Century that firearms were required for hunting and self defence, but back in 1791 firearms were not revolvers, semi automatics, automatics, assault rifles etc, hell Samuel Colt didn't even patent the six shot revolver until 1847 over 50 years after the second was adopted.

 

As an outsider, which I am, to me it seems that the NRA and the other Pro-Gun Lobbyists are using an antiquated constitutional right to defend their perceived rights to keep and bear arms when the arms in question are capable of far more collateral damage in the 21st Century then they were when the Second was adopted.

 

I am not saying that the Second amendment should be taken away from the american people but I do believe it needs reeling in a little, if a man (or woman) wished to go hunting then surely they can do it with a good rifle and don't need a semi automatic assault rifle, conversely for self defence the modern day Colt 45 is probably the 9MM Glock, why should anybody require anymore.

 

As I said "Rolls Eyes and looks on in disbelief"

[jitagawn]

"Thanks Coss. Still saying it's "absolutely incorrect" Jitagawn? "

 

No big deal but yes its incorrect

[jitagawn]

The funny thing is that after I posted that I knew people would quote that very biased article-I had already seen it and researched it...

 

But I ASLO knew that Flash would then make it clear....

Hard to believe most of what is written

Thanks

Flash

 

Right after the San B massacre Nazi feminists were proclaiming "it another white mans terrorist event"

 

Weapon access is wayyyy to easy for the nuts jobs -agreed-

BUT the WOMAN involved in San B. PASSED DHS TERRORIST SCREENING

 

I LIKE MY LES BAER 45 AND MY BROWNNG HI POWER 9MM

[Mekong]

BUT the WOMAN involved in San B. PASSED DHS TERRORIST SCREENING

 

 

Shows how lacking the screening process is IMHO, any nut job can get a weapon

[Flashermac]

Whilst I do not claim to be very knowledgable on any history to be honest even I am aware that the US Constitution was loosely based on the 1689 English Bill of Rights and the second amendment which "Protects the Rights of the People to Keep and Bear Arms" was adopted in 1791.

 

I agree that back in the late 18th and early 19th Century that firearms were required for hunting and self defence, but back in 1791 firearms were not revolvers, semi automatics, automatics, assault rifles etc, hell Samuel Colt didn't even patent the six shot revolver until 1847 over 50 years after the second was adopted.

 

As an outsider, which I am, to me it seems that the NRA and the other Pro-Gun Lobbyists are using an antiquated constitutional right to defend their perceived rights to keep and bear arms when the arms in question are capable of far more collateral damage in the 21st Century then they were when the Second was adopted.

 

I am not saying that the Second amendment should be taken away from the american people but I do believe it needs reeling in a little, if a man (or woman) wished to go hunting then surely they can do it with a good rifle and don't need a semi automatic assault rifle, conversely for self defence the modern day Colt 45 is probably the 9MM Glock, why should anybody require anymore.

 

As I said "Rolls Eyes and looks on in disbelief"

 

The "right to keep and bear arms" has been infringed many times, e.g. in NY City. Certain types of weapons are absolutely illegal in civilian hands, but I shake my head at the assault type weapons one can purchase these days in many states. I don't want one, and I wonder about those non-veterans who do. They sure as hell don't need them, and I'm not too comfortable with them having them. But the anti-gunners try to ban everything and end up shooting themselves in the foot, rightfully so. (The Federal government tried national prohibition for 13 years, and how well did that work?)

[Mekong]

Flash

 

I do agree that the anti-gunners are shooting themselves in the foot, the right to keep and bear arms is sacrosanct and it would be very unconstitutional to take away such a right.

 

But where is the line drawn, in my previous I intimated that the Second Amendment was adopted over 50 years prior to the Colt 45, today it is assault rifles who knows maybe in the next few years it may be briefcase sized "Dirty Bombs" it is an arm and under the Second Amendment I have the right, when will it end.

 

At the end of my day it is non of my business, not my country and not my laws, I lived there many years ago (if one can call TX USA) and no intention of returning but 1791 house readings need to be brought up to date.

 

In England it is still in the constitution, The 1689 English Bill of Rights it is totally legal to "Kill a Scotsman in York if he is in the possession of a Bow and Arrow" now I bet you don't see many English hanging around York on the off chance of spotting a Scotsman with a Bow and Arrow to have an excuse to kill him. Now if the Scotsman had a crossbow or a gun then it would be illegal since it is not a Bow and Arrow.

[Coss]

Isn't one mass killing two too many?

 

That's very witty

 

The argument against gun control makes the point that if everyone carried a gun at all times,mass shootings would be more difficult.This has a certain logic.But would you want to live in a society like that ?

 

It would also enable a room full'o red necks to empty their clips into a couple of Sikh gentlemen in the mistaken assumption that the gentlemen were Muslim and therefore Terrorists.

 

You see precedents of this sort of behaviour by cops vs black teenagers.

 

 

In England it is still in the constitution, The 1689 English Bill of Rights it is totally legal to "Kill a Scotsman in York if he is in the possession of a Bow and Arrow" now I bet you don't see many English hanging around York on the off chance of spotting a Scotsman with a Bow and Arrow to have an excuse to kill him. Now if the Scotsman had a crossbow or a gun then it would be illegal since it is not a Bow and Arrow.

 

Not many, but still...

 

Munchie, time to retire the bow and arrow...

[unit731]

It's all the Brits fault.

 

“This Article reviews the British gun control program that precipitated the American Revolution: the 1774 import ban on firearms and gunpowder; the 1774-75 confiscations of firearms and gunpowder; and the use of violence to effectuate the confiscations. It was these events that changed a situation of political tension into a shooting war. Each of these British abuses provides insights into the scope of the modern Second Amendment.

 

Furious at the December 1773 Boston Tea Party, Parliament in 1774 passed the Coercive Acts. The particular provisions of the Coercive Acts were offensive to Americans, but it was the possibility that the British might deploy the army to enforce them that primed many colonists for armed resistance. The Patriots of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, resolved: “That in the event of Great Britain attempting to force unjust laws upon us by the strength of arms, our cause we leave to heaven and our rifles.†A South Carolina newspaper essay, reprinted in Virginia, urged that any law that had to be enforced by the military was necessarily illegitimate.

 

The Royal Governor of Massachusetts, General Thomas Gage, had forbidden town meetings from taking place more than once a year. When he dispatched the Redcoats to break up an illegal town meeting in Salem, 3000 armed Americans appeared in response, and the British retreated. Gage’s aide John Andrews explained that everyone in the area aged 16 years or older owned a gun and plenty of gunpowder.

 

Military rule would be difficult to impose on an armed populace. Gage had only 2,000 troops in Boston. There were thousands of armed men in Boston alone, and more in the surrounding area. One response to the problem was to deprive the Americans of gunpowder.â€

 

LINK

[Coss]

Absolute Morons

 

Reporters root through San Bernardino shooters' apartment on live TV

 

 

I won't post the whole thing here, it's a wish mash of twits, photos and videos interspersed through the story. Read it here: http://www.cbc.ca/news/trending/reporters-root-through-san-bernardino-shooters-apartment-on-live-tv-1.3351259

[Mekong]

It's all the Brits fault.

 

“This Article reviews the British gun control program that precipitated the American Revolution: the 1774 import ban on firearms and gunpowder; the 1774-75 confiscations of firearms and gunpowder; and the use of violence to effectuate the confiscations. It was these events that changed a situation of political tension into a shooting war. Each of these British abuses provides insights into the scope of the modern Second Amendment.

 

Furious at the December 1773 Boston Tea Party, Parliament in 1774 passed the Coercive Acts. The particular provisions of the Coercive Acts were offensive to Americans, but it was the possibility that the British might deploy the army to enforce them that primed many colonists for armed resistance. The Patriots of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, resolved: “That in the event of Great Britain attempting to force unjust laws upon us by the strength of arms, our cause we leave to heaven and our rifles.†A South Carolina newspaper essay, reprinted in Virginia, urged that any law that had to be enforced by the military was necessarily illegitimate.

 

The Royal Governor of Massachusetts, General Thomas Gage, had forbidden town meetings from taking place more than once a year. When he dispatched the Redcoats to break up an illegal town meeting in Salem, 3000 armed Americans appeared in response, and the British retreated. Gage’s aide John Andrews explained that everyone in the area aged 16 years or older owned a gun and plenty of gunpowder.

 

Military rule would be difficult to impose on an armed populace. Gage had only 2,000 troops in Boston. There were thousands of armed men in Boston alone, and more in the surrounding area. One response to the problem was to deprive the Americans of gunpowder.â€

 

LINK

 

 

haha an american take on things as always, its amazing some of you guys grew up capable of wiping your own arses and tying your own shoelaces

 

The tea act of 1773 actually reduced taxes on said commodity the Brits being savvy international dealers of things both legal and illegal as deemed by the empire at the time could land tea dockside on the east coast at a lower price than the smugglers could. The Boston Tea Party was American Smugglers outraged at the crown undercutting their trade, well done King George, he taught Pablo Escobar all he knew.

 

Damn good excuse for this though, I dd see him in York but without a Bow and Arrow

 

For your history my friend Boston occurred 3 years before Independence t'was a British Colony at the time, American History began in 1776 fuck I have owned houses in the UK older than your nation

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nukbsRpvR-I