You are not logged in.

Announcement

Welcome to the one and only Spiceislander Talkshop. Please register and announce yourself in the New Members Forum. You will be upgraded to full use of the forum when it is established you are not a spammer.

#11 Feb 02, 2021 11:12 pm

gripe
Active

Re: Bidens boys gunning for gun owners

First, Expat, your caption is in some ways hyperbole. It gives the idea that the Biden Administration is on a vendetta without reason to punish gun owners. The reality is that what is being done is quite reasonable. Limits have to be placed on gun ownership given the obvious carnage that gun use has unleashed on people. By the way, in that carnage, both gun owners and those who never used or owned a gun have been victims.

Second, and related to my reasonableness comments above, is my take on WH Man's full-fledged but blinded support for the 2nd Amendment's reference to gun ownership. WH Man, have you considered that guns at the time of the Constitution's birth were not as many, varied, and deadly as they are currently? If you have given any thought to those facts, you should be able to appreciate the need for reasonable restraints on guns as they are today. Even RD recognizes that some restraints are needed. But, RD's scenarios do not go far enough if the intention is to reduce the carnage that guns -- through their use by people of all stripes -- inflict on human beings. So, WH Man, do not read the 2nd Amendment with blinders on lest you stumble and support hurting not only innocent folks but -- yes and truly -- gun lovers as well through the excesses that wanton gun ownership breeds.

Offline

#12 Feb 03, 2021 12:18 am

Real Distwalker
Active

Re: Bidens boys gunning for gun owners

Expat wrote:

Why wouldn't you accept background checks for an OTC sale at a gun shop or fair? Do people suddenly become reputable if they go to a shop?

That is already the law and has been for decades.  The private sale background check would be in addition to that.

Offline

#13 Feb 03, 2021 8:08 am

Expat
Active

Re: Bidens boys gunning for gun owners

The Subject line was an attention grabber, but from the brief observation of what was intended is not hyperbole at all. The reductions intended are in some cases extreme.

I am not a gun hater. I do I however think, and believe their access, and use needs to be restricted to some degree. But again from what little I have observed from this latest barrage some of those restrictions are knee jerk and dumb.

The intention to demonise AR15's is fricken stupid, simply because it is black and looks menacing. It is semi auto, it is no different to many sporting rifles. It is simply well designed to allow individual modification with various rails on it for accessories like torches. I do not argue that for civilian use a magazine reduction is sensible, many hunting rifles have a 5 round capacity, so going to 10 is not extreme. Its existing normal 30 should be OK, but due to the abuses by the few active sicko's out there fair enough reduce it to 10. I do not argue that bump stops was a way to try to facilitate something akin to full auto which as we know is illegal, and rightly so in civilian hands. It shouldn't have needed to be, it was simply a way for boys and girls to "play" at being soldiers, but as usual it's abuse makes it a sensible thing to ban them.

America is vastly different to most countries in terms of its wide open spaces where people who innocently may enjoy shooting either game, or just practice their accuracy skills. Whereas In urban areas access to gun ranges would be the outlet. The concept in a country with such a long historical connection to their use, and even today the need to keep certain species of animals in check sometimes for their own good, as over population in some animals causes them to all starve instead of just a few being killed.

I do not agree with this insane interpretation of the second amendment either. I also do not agree with its need. This need to keep an unruly government in check or to fight the red coats is absurd. Well, correction was absurd up until Mr T took the reigns. The law has been discussed by courts far more aware of the law than me a simple spectator, but how they go from a well regulated militia to every citizen wandering around with a bazooka is bizarre.

Another twist is States with gun ownership tend to have much more polite police. Excuse me sir, may I have a word with you about this or that. May I ask do you have a weapon on your person? As compared to hey you get the F over here.

Yet another example recounted by a Brit friend who was on a course in the States. He got into a quarrel in a bar over something petty. he reached into his jacket to pull out a packet of cigarettes, simultaneously most of the other patrons moved their hands towards places they would have kept their guns. Seeing this he said whoa, I am just getting cigarettes, and slowly took them out... hands relaxed. Point being had he been a crazy that was going to resolve a dumb argument with a gun he would have been out gunned, and either neutralised, or simply been made to return the gun to its proper location without incident.

Regrettably while guns can make certain dastardly acts more simple, they are not exclusive. In the UK, Knife crime is rampant. Whether that is just possession, or unfortunately stabbing, and murders. And making things illegal doesn't stop them. As was proved the other day by police catching some guys in Manchester or Birmingham I think it was with HAND GRENADES.

So now with this response I shall have pissed off all sides, as gun lovers and second ammendement advocates will hate it, and so will the gun haters.

Last edited by Expat (Feb 03, 2021 8:13 am)

Offline

#14 Feb 03, 2021 8:44 am

Real Distwalker
Active

Re: Bidens boys gunning for gun owners

Being in possession of a sidearm while consuming alcohol is illegal. If the bar story is true, a crime was committed.  For the record, I have yet to see anyone reach for a sidearm in the US, well, ever.

Offline

#15 Feb 03, 2021 1:18 pm

Slice
Active

Re: Bidens boys gunning for gun owners

One topis ah try me best to stay away from. I hate the damn thing.  Most of my PADNAHs like the damn thing and what makes it worst Wifee, brought up that possibility lately.  With me not being home sometimes, she is suggesting owning ah Fire Arm.

Ah betting Biden wont touch that topic while he president.

Offline

#16 Feb 03, 2021 3:54 pm

WH Man
Active

Re: Bidens boys gunning for gun owners

gripe wrote:

First, Expat, your caption is in some ways hyperbole. It gives the idea that the Biden Administration is on a vendetta without reason to punish gun owners. The reality is that what is being done is quite reasonable. Limits have to be placed on gun ownership given the obvious carnage that gun use has unleashed on people. By the way, in that carnage, both gun owners and those who never used or owned a gun have been victims.

Second, and related to my reasonableness comments above, is my take on WH Man's full-fledged but blinded support for the 2nd Amendment's reference to gun ownership. WH Man, have you considered that guns at the time of the Constitution's birth were not as many, varied, and deadly as they are currently? If you have given any thought to those facts, you should be able to appreciate the need for reasonable restraints on guns as they are today. Even RD recognizes that some restraints are needed. But, RD's scenarios do not go far enough if the intention is to reduce the carnage that guns -- through their use by people of all stripes -- inflict on human beings. So, WH Man, do not read the 2nd Amendment with blinders on lest you stumble and support hurting not only innocent folks but -- yes and truly -- gun lovers as well through the excesses that wanton gun ownership breeds.


I do not believe in "full-fledged but blinded support for the 2nd A...……..Yes, I also appreciate the need for reasonable restraints. Example, convicted felons and mentally unstable persons should not have legal access to firearms.

I also recognize the fact that the nature and characteristics of modern weapons are way different from when the 2 A  was written.  And we do make provisions for that.......Example, it's currently illegal to sell or purchase all automatic weapons and machine guns.

Now, the fact that weapons have changed does not means those rights should be curtailed. Tell me, when the 1 rst amendment was written, there were no computers, cell phones, internet or e-mail, does that mean that the 1 rst A does not apply to those platforms today?

The fact that evil immoral criminals create carnage with guns should not lead us to blame guns. A few years ago England outlawed gun ownership because of carnage and crime committed with guns. Today, there are more serious crimes committed with knives than what the gun murder rate used to be. Recently one stupid British politician raised the idea of outlawing certain types of knives. Insanity!

Some people use guns for evil purposes, guns are just inanimate objects.  About forty thousand people die each year from vehicular accidents on U S highways, do we now restrict the ownership of, or prohibit the manufacture of motor vehicles?

Last edited by WH Man (Feb 03, 2021 5:41 pm)

Offline

#17 Feb 03, 2021 8:24 pm

Expat
Active

Re: Bidens boys gunning for gun owners

WH Man wrote:
gripe wrote:

First, Expat, your caption is in some ways hyperbole. It gives the idea that the Biden Administration is on a vendetta without reason to punish gun owners. The reality is that what is being done is quite reasonable. Limits have to be placed on gun ownership given the obvious carnage that gun use has unleashed on people. By the way, in that carnage, both gun owners and those who never used or owned a gun have been victims.

Second, and related to my reasonableness comments above, is my take on WH Man's full-fledged but blinded support for the 2nd Amendment's reference to gun ownership. WH Man, have you considered that guns at the time of the Constitution's birth were not as many, varied, and deadly as they are currently? If you have given any thought to those facts, you should be able to appreciate the need for reasonable restraints on guns as they are today. Even RD recognizes that some restraints are needed. But, RD's scenarios do not go far enough if the intention is to reduce the carnage that guns -- through their use by people of all stripes -- inflict on human beings. So, WH Man, do not read the 2nd Amendment with blinders on lest you stumble and support hurting not only innocent folks but -- yes and truly -- gun lovers as well through the excesses that wanton gun ownership breeds.


I do not believe in "full-fledged but blinded support for the 2nd A...……..Yes, I also appreciate the need for reasonable restraints. Example, convicted felons and mentally unstable persons should not have legal access to firearms.

I also recognize the fact that the nature and characteristics of modern weapons are way different from when the 2 A  was written.  And we do make provisions for that.......Example, it's currently illegal to sell or purchase all automatic weapons and machine guns.

Now, the fact that weapons have changed does not means those rights should be curtailed. Tell me, when the 1 rst amendment was written, there were no computers, cell phones, internet or e-mail, does that mean that the 1 rst A does not apply to those platforms today?

The fact that evil immoral criminals create carnage with guns should not lead us to blame guns. A few years ago England outlawed gun ownership because of carnage and crime committed with guns. Today, there are more serious crimes committed with knives than what the gun murder rate used to be. Recently one stupid British politician raised the idea of outlawing certain types of knives. Insanity!

Some people use guns for evil purposes, guns are just inanimate objects.  About forty thousand people die each year from vehicular accidents on U S highways, do we now restrict the ownership of, or prohibit the manufacture of motor vehicles?

Correction, they only banned hand guns, although specialist and unique items are allowed but only in a very controlled club setting. Other than fully auto, bazookas, tanks and the like provided you have adequate reason, and usually a club involvement, or perhaps a farm application, then your rifles and shotguns are fine even though regulated.

Yep, and we could stop children from using swings etc if you want to get to the nanny state but in all fairness that car analogy is pretty feeble. 99.99 accidents with cars is because of being a new driver, which obviously is a high risk period in any drivers life. As well as unexpected climactic conditions, again which some drivers haven't experienced, Undue care and attention, bravado, and mechanical failure.

With guns one or two of those examples may carry a slight comparison, but mainly because of the stupidity of the owner. Children killed by getting access to a firearm, Owners doing stupid stuff when cleaning the "empty" gun, the idiot checking a gun with a hang fire, people killed/injured by criminals using their own guns on them, Suicide... not usually a driving death, Murder, not usually a driving death, accidental discharges, just plain stupidity, never mind the White supremacists , or the evangelical over the top BLM equaliser, there are all kinds of individuals that make an object whilst laying in a safe inanimate into a very animated piece of killing machine.

Yes you can go into the kitchen and take a 10 inch bladed knife from the holder and go settle a score, but at the risk of being arrested if you aren't a chef going from home to work. Just like taking down hand guns pissed me big time as that was my sport, similarly the control on knives irritated me, as I liked my rose handled brass finished lock knife. It was just a very tactile thing, I have a slightly smaller version sitting on my desk at the moment, but then I am not in the UK.

Seeing how far down the slope Britain has gone with drugs, gangs and general violence in the past 50 years, knives which anyone could pick up at one point is not such a daft thing to restrict. While you can still kill someone with a 21/2 inch blade, it isn't as easy unless you know what you are doing as a 3,4,5,10 inch blade. Can you not see the young show off getting into trouble with his skeleton blade, or one of those split handle swish it around in martial arts movies, the less out there, the less they can be used.

The criminals are not going to worry about the firearm offence when they are already neck deep in doo doo, so curtailing hand guns for civilians was stupid, as licensed people do not use things that can immediately be traced back to them. A crim buys a gun shoots someone, and then throws it over a hedge, and done with that.

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB