What about the right to arm bears?

- thank you R. WIlliams

circa 1984

...are killed by guns each year in the US? I wonder if just maybe, just maybe, the number of guns in circulation is somehow related to the number of gunshot victims?

"My kid has got as much right to die of a gunshot wound as the next child" seems to be the absurd mantra. Then again, lengthy research into the subject carried out in south Wales concluded that: 'guns don't kill people, rappers do', so maybe they're right?

Mines the one with the white flag in the pocket.

I always struggle to follow the "home defence" argument for owning machine guns and hunting rifles. But then in some states you can buy a bazooka for home defence, it seems.

No wonder some Americans don't think there's a problem in Afghanistan and Iraq - people firing rocket grenades and 50mm cannons at arbitrary targets (deer, strangers, furriners) seems to be normal suburban american behaviour.

... and positively kill every motherf**ker in the room, accept no substitutes.

Safest place in the US has to a mental hospital, cause all the crazies are running around outside with weapons on speed-dial.

Once again some traditional and interesting interpretations of what the 2nd ammendment is all about; it says that a citizens militia (as opposed to a standing army) is a good thing in stopping the government overstepping itself, so those in the militia have a right to bear arms, nothing about it being a good idea for everyone in a modern society having access to the sort of firepower associated with the armoury of a 3rd world country. Of course the problem now is how you would (even if you wanted to) disarm those who do not wish to be disarmed, so it is all a bit moot anyway. Preventing more weapons from entering the market is probably the limit of what is achievable.

Of course, with the absolute freedom to have whatever weapons they want attitude of the NRA, why has no-one asserted their right to carry WMDs? The US isn't so hot on tracking those babies down...

Why would anyone interested in "home defense" need an assault rifle that is lethal at ranges of well over a mile?

...and I suppose death by multiple gunshot wounds is in keeping with the 2nd Amendment and all?

Paris, 'cause she's a whole lot better to look at than the rotting corpse of Charlton Heston.

By this, and by the votes for anti gay marriage constitutional amendments in various states, Merkins are ensuring that the rest of the world realises that despite their voting for the groundbreaking change agenda of Obama, they are still a nation of God-fearin', gun-totin' rednecks at heart. God bless America, and God help the rest of us.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the right to bear arms restricted to members of local militia forces?

Isn't that what the 2nd amendment says?

Maybe Obama just wants to force US citizens to comply with the law.

What sane country needs it's population to have ready access to assault rifles? who will they be assaulting?

If you are a marksman you will not be using an assault rifle, you use a hunting rifle.

If you need personal defense you will not be using an assault rifle, you use a pistol.

The only use for an assault rifle is against mass targets.

Americans!

I can just see the big brave Americans hiding in their bunkers, pointing their '2nd amendment' machine guns out of the firing ports shouting 'we're not afraid' at anyone who will listen.

Anyway, I'm off to buy a Vickes water-cooled heavy-duty machine for when the carol-singers come around, actually I might get a couple of mortars as well.

sheesh.

ttfn

...but did anyone else read David Greenburg's family gunshop statement, with a severe redneck. hillbilly accent or was it just me?

As the GLC says "Guns don't kill people, rappers do!".

Talk about an overreaction. We don't have the Second Amendment here in Blighty but it's still not that hard to own a gun. Sure, there's a bit of paperwork, but these things are not toys. I used to do some indoor rifle shooting and after the Dunblane massacre, they did tighten the regulations a bit but it was still pretty much business as usual as far as the sport was concerned.

Sporting rifles should be limited to bolt action and up to a calibre suitable for their purpose based on hunting licence.

Home defence should be rimfire pistols or dual-barrel shotguns (no semis/autos). and pistols should require a firearms training certificate, a 'concealed' licence for carrying and/or a sports club membership to allow you to carry it off your property.

I can't think of a decent reason why anyone would need a AR-15. It's a the semi-auto version of the full auto M-16, same 5.56 calibre but civilians probably put higher grade ammo thru it. Either is good for a crime spree but not so great for hunting deer.

In the UK, pistols are illegal even for Olympian pistol shooters. Rimfire (can be semi) rifles (rabbits and other small vermin) require 50 acres of suitable land, authority and reason, centrefire (bolt-action or equiv) rifles (deer/foxes/boar etc) require 500 acres of suitable land, authority and reason.

Dual barrel shotguns are free4all after a police check but they'll still do you for ABH or 3rd degree murder if you shoot a burglar/rapist/murderer, take away your certificate+gun and chuck you in jail. TBH it's the only thing the US gets right in this respect.

These guys want Kalashnikovs and Armalites for home defence? Who the heck do they think they need to defend themselves against - an Al Quaeda assault squad?!? Bizarre...

The next 4 years should be, well, interesting...

Kalashnikovs??? How ironic. 15-20 years ago no self-respecting gun junkie would own some damn commie ruskie hardware..

I'd go for a Walther PPK, just for the 00 cool factor...

Anyone know where I can pick up an Aston Martin - cheap??

The AR15 is semi-automatic, but a stock AK47 is not.

...seems like something NRA is not so hot on. I wonder what could be had using that particular part to argue that access to guns should be restricted... Probably none, but the contortions would be amusing to watch.

Anyone who attempts to justify owning a gun or any other weapon by saying they might use it to scare or kill another human being is far to irresponsible to be in possession of such a weapon. Plain And Simple.

Home defense, for the love of smut, do you actually intend to kill some kid junkie just cause he's nicking your ipod? What's wrong with banging about and turning the lights on? You can even hold a heavy club if it makes you feel braver. What a bunch of pansies!

God better save America cause lets face only America's imaginary friend would!

The implication is heavy that because a "well-regulated militia" is referred to, then it is a given that one has to be a member of such a thing, to own and carry weapons.

“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 a preamble, something the writers used to express (one of) their intentions. I'm going to assume the writers thought carefully about what they put to paper - if they intended weapons to be available *only* to militia members ("people" is just about as general as you can get), it would be specified as such.

My interpretation of the text, would be that anyone can do the keeping and the bearing, because that would make it easier to raise and maintain militias, which would increase the security of the US against threats such as itself and foreigners.

Arguments that this amendment was misguided, over-reaching or just plain bloody stupid are valid (I'd disagree); but it's difficult and convoluted to claim that it doesn't give a normal citizen the right to own and carry a self-loading rifle.

Sadly, there is an unfortunate quantity of slack-jawed mouth-breathers here who slavishly partake of the right wing-nut talk radio bile here in the good-old USA. When Obama spoke of "bitter people, clinging to their guns and religion", he wasn't being dismissive, simply descriptive.

Anti-intellectualism is rampant here and I'm hoping this election will help diminish it's grasp on the country.

What they actually meant it to say was "right to arm bears" not "right to bear arms" because they were worried about the indigenous animals being wiped out. But then some idiot scribe went and wrote it incorrectly. It would have been such a pain in the ass to rewrite the page that apparently they left it in hoping no one would notice.

Or get drafted into the local State Guard and shipped off to Iran / Afghanistan for a tour of duty.

"The AR15 is semi-automatic, but a stock AK47 is not."

Wrong, a typical AK-47 for sale in the US will only be semi-automatic. The only exception is a full auto that was registered and built prior to 1986. Even then the only way to get a full auto is to pay several hundred dollars to the BATF for the permit (if the local law enforcement will sign off on it) and then pay upwards of $15,000 for the weapon itself.

----------------

FYI

In the DC vs Heller case the US Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd Am. referred to an individual right to keep and bear arms. That means every American (except felons and minors) not just militia forces.

Amid accusations of hypocrisy from Brits who apparently simply don't understand that the only way to stand up to government is to shoot at them, you say "Getting the guns away from the population is the first step in trampling the citizens rights."

I'm searching for a way to express my thoughts on this clearly and without unnecessary abuse. Here goes:

NO IT ISN'T YOU UTTER TWAT.

Oh dear, that didn't go well.

Before you fall off your moral high horse, lets consider a few facts:

1) Restricting firearms in the UK did not reduce gun crime, in fact is has increased since. All it did was criminalise a sport in which the vast majority of sports shooters were completely law-abiding. In fact, I have never heard of a member of any of the old pistol-shooting clubs I visited ever being involved in any form of criminal activity. Oh, and it killed the few pistol gunmakers still in business in the UK, despite the majority of their business being for export.

2) BY THEIR OWN ADMISSION in countless surveys of thievs, muggers, burglars and other unsavouries in the US, criminals admit they are LESS likely to break into the home of someone who they know is armed, for the simple reason they don't want to risk getting shot. Having unarmed victims is so much nicer for them. Even just an NRA sticker was enough to make a burglar look elsewhere.

3) Thieves said they carried weapons such as guns irrespctive of what the public was or wasn't carrying as their main threat was from other criminals. Having an unarmed public simply made it easier for armed criminals to commit crimes.

4) Cars kill far more people in the US EVERY MONTH than die from gun crime every year - are you hoping Obama will ban all means of automotive transport? In the UK alone, 2 teenagers a day are killed in automobile accidents, which is more than ten times the rate by all violent crime (knife, gun, fist and boot or two-by-four, etc) for what is supposedly the same age-group most at risk. By your own logic you will all be walking for the rest of your lives.

5) I used to pitol-shoot legally as a hobby. Now, thanks to Knee-Jerk Blair, having committed no crime, my legal hobby has been outlawed. Instead, I now shoot small-bore rifles (so I can now kill at three-to-four times the range I could with the handgun, should I go postal), and clay pigeon shooting (beieve me, a shottie is a darn sight more deadly than any of my pistols ever were). All in all, Blair did not achieve anything other than making my sport more expensive, and all for a few votes.

6) The anti-gun lobby in the UK are predominantly urbanites with no understanding or interest in rural life or activities, just like the anti-hunting mob. In the US it is a very simialr picture with one big difference - in the US there are animals that can cause serious injury or death to rural people. Bear attacks are becoming more common in the US, and it is often only the use of a large-calibre pistol or a heavy rifle that will deal with a bear. Being able to put several rounds in quick succession into a charging bear is ideal, which the Armalite and Kalashnikov will do. A bolt action gives you one chance and then the bear will be on you.

Think it can't happen to you urbanites? On the night of June 17th 2007, 11-year-old Sam Ives was dragged out of his tent and killed in Uinta National Forest Park, Utah, by a black bear. Also in the tent was stepfather, mother and brother. None were armed, but the bear was later shot by officials. Now, I would dare Barack Obama to ask the parents if they would have liked to have a gun handy that night.

"I guess my point is the high and mighty comments about the barbarians in the States sound a bit ridiculous from a populace who has rolled over and spread their ass cheeks for their government to f' them?"

Sure, the Uk government would LIKE us to spread our ass/arse cheeks to f' us, but so far we have not let them, and at the next General Elextion they are likely to be voted out of power so they cannot introduce those utterly scandalous proposals.

As for your suggestion that all those guns in the US are being used to stop their politicians ganging up on them, whilst that might have been the original intent in the 2nd amenedment, do you seriously believe that is the reason most US guns owners have them today? And is it really worth around 3000 children & teenagers lives?

Why not try going without your "essential" weaponry for a year, and see how many children die, and how many times you get raped and pillaged by your local mayor?

Paris...because even she wouldn't let Gordon Brown spread her arse cheeks and....oh well.

Oddly enough, here in the US (I'm a Brit, by the way), more kids die each year in swimming-pools than are killed by firearms - so if it's all about "Save teh Chilluns", shouldn't we ban pools first?

Second - just to clarify something - the US Supreme Court recently (DC vs. Heller) affirmed that the Second Amendment is an individual right - nothing to do with militias.

Third - the term "assault-weapon" is a misnomer; I have two semi-automatic rifles and have never seen them jump up and assault anyone - nor are they "machine-guns". They're quite safe and a lot of fun in experienced hands - (I was military, then executive-protection, then Iraq PSD-team). Pity you lads aren't allowed to have them back in Blighty, though; personally I'd be worried about any government which doesn't trust me enough to own a firearm.

Fourth - It's what one does with it that matters, and as mentioned above, felons are currently not allowed to possess firearms anyway. So one has to ask - what is any new law going to do to change that?

Fifth - When we have people here like Carolyn McCarthy whose legislation is based on total ignorance (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U ) - how can we respect anything they're trying to pass? A barrel-shroud is not "a shoulder-thing that goes up", Ms McCarthy - get it flippin' well right.

Sorry, I don't believe in cosmetic legislation that does absolutely zero to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals.

Given that Peak Oil (see Hubbert Peak) is here and the US is about to undergo a 2nd Greater Depression there has never been a more pressing need for the Govt to disarm the people. Bush has now deployed shock combat troops at home in blatent disregard to the Posse Comitatus Act.

Tough times ahead means that when the US economically implodes there will be large scale social unrest.New Orleans during Katrina was a glimpse of what is to come. Every one is going to be tooled up.

People in the know in the US have seen this coming for years and have been moving to the UK pronto. i.e. Madonna, The Jacksons etc have been buying up property in the UK in anticipation of the Dollar collapse. Even rappers like Jay-Z (Glastonbury anyone?) who relied on a huge base in America have been touring like mad across Europe to make up for the dire financial straits at home.

Seriously, what's the name of this thing being argued about? Amendment. As in, it wasn't in the constitution to start with but was added later. So what's the big deal? If taking away guns would be against the 2nd amendment, just make another amendment to get rid of the damn thing. They've done it 27 times already, why not make it 28? Is it just possible that what seemed like good laws 220 years ago might not be the best we can do today?

Well, I did use the word "screw".

Sir William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England were highly influential and were used as a reference and text book for English Common Law. In his Commentaries, Blackstone described the right to arms.

"The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st.2. c.2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."

So - what happened, England? The action of a criminal stripped you law-abiding folk of your rights?