If it wasn't for the gun loving Americans and our ability to produce war products like tanks, etc, england would be a German colony.
Theres a reason we had a revolution all those years ago
My response:
That's not quite what I'm saying. What I am saying is that people should be aware of what we Americans call the 'law of unintended consequences'. There are numerous example of this, but I'll just give a couple.
The 'Cop-Killer' bullet craze was one. This bit of hysteria was served up by NBC News on one of their 'White Papers'. There is a company in Ohio called KTW. KTW made ammunition that was designed for extreme penetration. It was made of tungsten with a coating of Teflon and was then put into a copper jacket to enable it to engage the handguns rifling.
I had heard of the KTW round several years prior to the NBC News piece because I had seen articles on it in my brother's police journals, extolling its superior ability to pierce barricades, auto bodies, etc. This was in the early 1970's (1972 or 1973) and the NBC piece came out in the early 1980's. NBC claimed in their White Paper that the KTW round had been designed to defeat the Kevlar vests that served police as soft body armor. There are three problems here: one was that KTW never sold their product to the general public but only to police and military agencies, and the second problem was the company's founders were two police officers and a coroner's investigator. The NBC claim that it was intended to defeat the police armor was thus demonstrably false because the KTW round was made by police for police. The third problem is that the KTW was made prior to police use of armor becoming widespread, so it could hardly have been designed to defeat Kevlar body armor because it pre-dated police body armor.
Bills were introduced to correct this 'problem' and the NRA opposed the bills. This opposition was widely-reported in the media and had the effect the media wanted, to wit; the made it look as though there was yet another group the NRA care nothing about and that was the police. The propaganda value this gave to the bill's proponents was immense. In addition to babies and little old ladies, the claim was advanced that the NRA now hated cops.
There was a problem however, and that was that in their zeal to correct what was in essence a non-existent problem* the reason for the NRA's opposition to these proposals was not explained: the way these bills were written, they would have banned nearly all ammunition used in rifles. Working quietly with friendly lawmakers, the bills in question were modified and the final bill passed with NRA support. BTW, that the NRA supported the final bill was not reported by the media.
One unintended consequence was that after the NBC piece aired, the number of police officers shot in the head increased.
One other bill I had told about before was Senator Boxer's "Junk Guns" proposal. The idea, as reported in the media, was to ban the sale of unsafe handguns. These guns were cheap guns made of pot metal that would be much more likely to blow up or something. They were unsafe, unreliable, inaccurate pieces of junk, whose sole virtue was their price. Hence the name of her bill. The determinant of junk gun status was the ATF sporting use formula, which used as the main criterion, the size of the gun. This stopped the importation of some very good quality guns made by Browning, and Walther among others.
Another curious thing I pointed out about Boxer's proposal was the exceedingly strange exception that the bill contained. Remember, these were cheap, unsafe, inaccurate unreliable guns. The exception was the police and the military alone had the right to buy and use unsafe unreliable, inaccurate pieces of junk. This exception showed the real purpose behind the bill; it was not aimed at unsafe guns as much as it was for guns suitable for concealed carry.
She relied on a willfully ignorant media to spin it her way. Hers was not so much ignorance as it was deliberate deception and the media came through for her like a champ.
So, good Dr_Baltar, while I can agree that opinions are valid, some come from gross ignorance as well. Please remember what I said about the law of unintended consequences.
*The reason I say it was a non-existent problem is because to the best of my knowledge, the number of police officers killed or wounded by 'cop-killer' ammunition is precisely zero.
I would have commented to him that I noticed he was speaking English, and not German. Then said "You're Welcome".
Oh yeah, that was the time when the King tried to take our guns?
The UK likes to brag about lack of gun violence, but that about other methods?
They have a big problem with knives and talk of a ban on knives. What about bottles, bats, clubs, sticks, stones, groups roaming the streets in packs?
The problem isn’t the tool, it’s the person.
They have a big problem with knives and talk of a ban on knives. What about bottles, bats, clubs, sticks, stones, groups roaming the streets in packs?
The problem isn’t the tool, it’s the person.
I travel to the UK often. There is already a ban on carrying knives except for when involved in certain activities such as camping.
I have several extended family members that are Police in the UK. They are wanting to carry guns though they are NOT ALLOWED to say it to the public. They all tell me that crimes with melee weapons are off the rails. Guns are being used against cops more now too. Women cops are being raped assaulted and killed at a higher rate. Its especially bad with the Muslim refugee crisis in the UK now
But, but, that’s not what they tell us Americans.....Piers Morgan said so himself.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/timot...deadlier-february-than-new-york-city-n2466768
Time for Knife Control? London Had a Deadlier February Than New York City
Timothy Meads | Posted: Apr 01, 2018 11:45 AM
..."In nearly word-for-word fashion from the current gun control debate in America, this has led some Brits to ponder whether the proper solution is a crackdown on knives."...
Time for Knife Control? London Had a Deadlier February Than New York City
Timothy Meads | Posted: Apr 01, 2018 11:45 AM
..."In nearly word-for-word fashion from the current gun control debate in America, this has led some Brits to ponder whether the proper solution is a crackdown on knives."...
I am the one in black and the British gentleman is the one in red.
Good Analis, I'm trying to understand your position so an accurate response can be made.
Your position is that the phrase 'right of the people' as used in the Second Amendment (2A) is evidence that the 2A only protects a collective rather than an individual right.
Is this correct?
Yes, it is my position, as I had already stated in March...
If that is indeed your position, I find it somewhat puzzling then, that when the phrase is used elsewhere in our Bill pof Rights, it refers, if I am not mistaken, to an individual right.
The First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Or how about the Fourth Amendment?
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
If we follow the logic that you appear to use, there is no protection from searches and seizures here because the right does not apply to individuals but only the collective as a whole. Thus the Fourth Amendment is rendered meaningless.
No; it is only a collective right, according to some, when the Second Amendment is concerned.
With all due respect, sir, this logic escapes me.
I believe I've done this before, but it bears repeating. Let's look at the grammatical structure of the Second Amendment.
"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"
Let us break it down by clauses. We have two, the main clause and the militia clause. The militia Clause (A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a Free State) is merely a preamble, one reason for the protection of the right. It does not restrict the main clause in any way, and it is not even a complete sentence. The main clause is the operative clause, and it is a complete sentence. 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The collective rights advocates hang their hats on the militia clause and treat the main clause as though it is not there. This is illogical in a purely grammatical sense as the first clause is not, like I said before, even a complete sentence, and it does not restrict the main clause in any way. It merely states one reason for the existence of the Amendment.
No, good and noble Analis, the Second Amendment very much protects the already-existing individual right to arms. And the Vandercoy article you linked to in an earlier post very much supports this view.
The Vandercoy article:
http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/89vand.pdf
Good Analis, I'm trying to understand your position so an accurate response can be made.
Your position is that the phrase 'right of the people' as used in the Second Amendment (2A) is evidence that the 2A only protects a collective rather than an individual right.
Is this correct?
Yes, it is my position, as I had already stated in March...
If that is indeed your position, I find it somewhat puzzling then, that when the phrase is used elsewhere in our Bill pof Rights, it refers, if I am not mistaken, to an individual right.
The First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Or how about the Fourth Amendment?
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
If we follow the logic that you appear to use, there is no protection from searches and seizures here because the right does not apply to individuals but only the collective as a whole. Thus the Fourth Amendment is rendered meaningless.
No; it is only a collective right, according to some, when the Second Amendment is concerned.
With all due respect, sir, this logic escapes me.
I believe I've done this before, but it bears repeating. Let's look at the grammatical structure of the Second Amendment.
"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"
Let us break it down by clauses. We have two, the main clause and the militia clause. The militia Clause (A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a Free State) is merely a preamble, one reason for the protection of the right. It does not restrict the main clause in any way, and it is not even a complete sentence. The main clause is the operative clause, and it is a complete sentence. 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The collective rights advocates hang their hats on the militia clause and treat the main clause as though it is not there. This is illogical in a purely grammatical sense as the first clause is not, like I said before, even a complete sentence, and it does not restrict the main clause in any way. It merely states one reason for the existence of the Amendment.
No, good and noble Analis, the Second Amendment very much protects the already-existing individual right to arms. And the Vandercoy article you linked to in an earlier post very much supports this view.
The Vandercoy article:
http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/89vand.pdf
Similar threads
