Why?

[Matt Black]

I'm sorry, it was the English Bill of Rights of 1689 which allowed Protestants to bear arms within the law. of course as you point out the law was changed. Too bad.



But it has happened. I read all the time about home invasions and such and the people remain defenseless in their own homes.



Yes, but the gun banners at such things can never happen but the reality is they do.



I was just pointing out all the terrible violence that occurs all the time in merry ole England. Tell me would you rather get shot or have acid thrown in your face? I'll take a bullet thank you very much.



Well you have a good point there. But I have accepted the reality that while we live on this earth there really is no safe place to be. Death lurks around every corner and it could happen any time to any one of us.



UK Telegraph 03 Sep 2012: A farm tenant and his wife who were arrested after two suspected burglars were shot at their isolated home had been the victims of a number of robberies.

Farmer Tony Martin shot a burglar dead in August of 1999. He was arrested, charged with murder and subsequently convicted and sentenced to five years in prison. And there are more stories like that out there.



At the beginning of the war, you were crying for weapons to replace those left on the beaches at Dunkirk. Thankfully we sent them to you so at least your Home Guard had something to fight with.



With all your comments here, not once have I seen you place the blame on the shooter. That rifle did not magically pick itself up, trot down to the school and start killing those students. I don't want anyone to get needlessly killed, but the gun simply did not fire itself.



That is a ridiculous platitude. It remains a fact though, that the teacher who got killed after getting his kids into a classroom, had he had a firearm at least would have had a chance to survive. He didn't, and he didn't



Because we have these rights that you just do not understand. The only way would be confiscation as no person would give their rifles up willingly. I guarantee you that if the authorities tried to get the guns from the people, it would get bloody real fast.

It's past midnight here and I need to get some shutter so I can't pick up on everything you've put but will have a go.

The Tony Martin case: Martin was convicted because he shot an unarmed burglar in the back whilst the criminal was trying to escape. A jury of his peers found - correctly IMO - that this was retaliation not self defence.

The Bill of Rights was passed after we had fought within living memory a bloody civil war about, amongst other things, royal tyranny. Fortunately in part in consequence of the Bill, Parliament gradually assumed power over the Crown and in time became fully democratic itself so that particular aspect of the Bill of Rights that existed the time of the Bill had ceased to be an issue by about 100 years ago.

I agree with your last comment in part though I lament it: I think you would be looking at a Second Civil War were you to go from zero to sixty as it were in one move.

 

[Matt Black]

Once again the issue flies far over your head. You just can't seem to understand having an inalienable, enumerated Constitutional right.

It's not inalienable if it's an amendmemt. Clue's in the name...

Off to bed now...

 

[Rob_BW]

It's not inalienable if it's an amendmemt. Clue's in the name...

Off to bed now...

Most anyone who's taken a US Civics course in high school is chuckling at your statement.

But good night, Matt.

 

[TCassidy]

Are they required to undergo any form of military training? If not, on what sense can they be held to constitute a militia

You, of all people, should understand what a militia is and how one is formed and trained.

After the Boston Tea Party your mentally defective king tried to block Boston harbor.

British attempts to disarm the Massachusetts militia at Concord in April 1775 led to open combat. Militia forces then besieged Boston, forcing the British army to run away with their tails between their legs in March 1776. And the rest is history.

Of course, the sadly demented King tried again in 1812 and the Brits were sent packing with their tails between their legs again (remember the battle of New Orleans?).

The Brits are slow learners, but you kick their backsides often and hard enough they finally wake up and smell the coffee, or tea.

Then in 1917, after their being totally defeated by the Central Powers, the US stepped in and totally defeated the Central Powers and saved England's bacon in just 19 months.

But, again, the Brits, being such slow learners, let their mouths overload their ability to back up their words, and were driven off the Continent and, once again, the US had to intervene to save their bacon. The Axis powers in Europe were defeated by May 1945. Then we turned east and finished off the Emperor of Japan.

I wonder if, when their government falls to the Islamo-facist invasion disguised as "immigration" and Sharia Law is declared to be the law of the land, they will have enough sense to ask for our help again, and will be very grateful that Americans are so skilled in their use of firearms to once again bail them out of the mess of their own making.

 

[TCassidy]

It's not inalienable if it's an amendmemt. Clue's in the name.

Once again you demonstrate a total lack of understanding regarding the subject.

Inalienable rights are not granted by the Constitution. Inalienable rights are God given rights, the right to life and the right to defend our lives is one such inalienable right, that the Constitution acknowledges, but does not grant.

But I guess Brit Lawyers are not taught the finer points of US Constitutional Law.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

You need to accept tactical situations differ. Yes, the facts of the Las Vegas massacre made a response by legally armed law abiding citizens moot. But, other situations don't meet the same facts. So, such a response would be possible and life-saving.

Either which way, the accounts give the lie to the myth that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 10:30 PM Pacific.

 

[carpro]

Because you haven't even grasped the point being made: suppose the armed people in the audience had fired back: how long would it have taken it to degenerate into a complete free for all with firearms going off right left and centre even before the police showed up? And when they did, how are they supposed to sort the good guys from the bad? The Vegas PD told armed civilians not to go to the scene for that very fear.

One of the dumbest posts in the thread.

No one in the audience was stupid enough to try to hit a target hundreds of yards away with any handguns they might have been carrying. Your scenario is incredibly ignorant of the situation and the facts.

A post from lala land. In short, you have no point.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

On a much larger scale, I have no doubt you would recognize the differences between the tactics of Wellington, Haig, and Montgomery. Why are you trying to fit the anomalous situation in Las Vegas with the more common though still deplorable situations?

You need to accept tactical situations differ. Yes, the facts of the Las Vegas massacre made a response by legally armed law abiding citizens moot. But, other situations don't meet the same facts. So, such a response would be possible and life-saving.

 

[Adonia]

What happened to the other bit of the 2A, BTW, you know, the bit about having a well-regulated militia? Surely that's the National Guard, Army and the police?

No, they are the government, the authorities. The words "the people" that one reads in the Constitution mean the citizenry as individuals. For instance when it says in the 4th Amendment that: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against .....etc. that clearly means us as individuals, not the collective. It's the same thing with the 2nd, it was "the people" with their privately owned firearms who answered the call to Lexington and Concord.

Mandatory training, courses, inspections, keeping locked away etc?

Inspections? By who? No one comes into my house unless they are invited in by me or my wife. Keeping locked away? In a home that contains 2 adults who are both trained there is no reason to keep the firearm locked away, that is my choice. If my wife needs it some night while I am away, it needs to be easily and quickly accessible. When children come over, then it gets locked up.

 

[carpro]

Let's face it. Brits, and almost all of the free world simply do not understand the relationship between Americans, the Constitution, and firearms. It's so deeply imbedded in our history, our psyche, and our laws, that they will never understand.

They either forget, or just don't know, that the American Revolution actually began when the British tried to confiscate the arsenal of guns at Concord. The first battle of the Texas revolution was at Gonzales and was precipitated by the Mexicans trying to confiscate a cannon. The American West was tamed with the gun by armed citizens. The concept of armed self defense is deeply ingrained in our society.

Foreigners just don't get it.

Neither would they ever understand that attempted gun confiscation by our own federal government, which we fear more than any other government, would likely be met by armed resistance. And certainly , an invasion by a foreign enemy would meet with never ending armed resistance and insurrection, fueled by the millions of guns in private hands.

Texans, for sure, and a lot of other Americans know what "Molon labe" means and will die before they let their guns be taken away.

Brits, in particular, have been both on the receiving end of our proficiency with firearms and the beneficiary of the same numerous times over the past 100 years. You'd think they'd eventually catch on.

 

[SheepWhisperer]

So, I repeat: a good guy with a gun there would not have stopped the bad guy with the gun

No, not likely IN THAT PARTICULAR SITUATION.

 

[thatbrian]

Which....um...demonstrates an irrational fear of Muslims. I rest my case

Which demonstrates you have you head in the sand. Walk the Tower Bridge much?

 

[thatbrian]

So we come back to the viability if an 18th century solution to a 21st century problem.

That is postmodern, relativistic nonsense (redundant, I know)

Using your logic, the cross of Christ is too outdated to do mankind any good.

 

[TCassidy]

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I am in favor of extensive background checks for anyone wanting any type of weapon. That includes a psychological evaluation. I have first hand seen people become unhinged and Discharge deer rifles and killing bystanders, shotguns killing bystanders, handguns, bow & arrows etc. in post mortums, it’s always that the shooter becomes or was always mentally unbalanced, of course that never happens in the calm and tranquil country that is the USA.

 

[TCassidy]

I am in favor of extensive background checks for anyone wanting any type of weapon.

How do we get that past the HIPAA laws?

 

[Matt Black]

I'm sorry, it was the English Bill of Rights of 1689 which allowed Protestants to bear arms within the law. of course as you point out the law was changed. Too bad.



But it has happened. I read all the time about home invasions and such and the people remain defenseless in their own homes.



Yes, but the gun banners at such things can never happen but the reality is they do.



I was just pointing out all the terrible violence that occurs all the time in merry ole England. Tell me would you rather get shot or have acid thrown in your face? I'll take a bullet thank you very much.



Well you have a good point there. But I have accepted the reality that while we live on this earth there really is no safe place to be. Death lurks around every corner and it could happen any time to any one of us.



UK Telegraph 03 Sep 2012: A farm tenant and his wife who were arrested after two suspected burglars were shot at their isolated home had been the victims of a number of robberies.

Farmer Tony Martin shot a burglar dead in August of 1999. He was arrested, charged with murder and subsequently convicted and sentenced to five years in prison. And there are more stories like that out there.



At the beginning of the war, you were crying for weapons to replace those left on the beaches at Dunkirk. Thankfully we sent them to you so at least your Home Guard had something to fight with.



With all your comments here, not once have I seen you place the blame on the shooter. That rifle did not magically pick itself up, trot down to the school and start killing those students. I don't want anyone to get needlessly killed, but the gun simply did not fire itself.



That is a ridiculous platitude. It remains a fact though, that the teacher who got killed after getting his kids into a classroom, had he had a firearm at least would have had a chance to survive. He didn't, and he didn't



Because we have these rights that you just do not understand. The only way would be confiscation as no person would give their rifles up willingly. I guarantee you that if the authorities tried to get the guns from the people, it would get bloody real fast.

Ok, don't know how many of these I'll get it before the 6 hour window closes as am getting up for work at the same time but I think I left off here.

Your suggestion that teachers be armed: for me that's one of the scariest ideas to come out of these school shootings and would.have me pulling my kids out of such a school without hesitation. I well remember my own teachers, some of whom were prone to violent outbursts involving throwing chalk or board rubbers at your head, or bashing your head against the blackboard if you annoyed them. The thought of giving one of them access to firearms fills me with horror and must surely rank as one of the most shocking suggestions to come out of this.

 

[Matt Black]

That's the definition according to federal law. Plain as it says. I can't dumb it down any more. Did you see any mention of training (in the case if males)? If not, it's because there isn't any.

Then then not a well regulated militia then are they, just an armed rabble. Rather different from Washington's Continental, wouldn't you say?

If that what 'well regulated' actually means then it sounds more like a recipe for vigilantism, mob rule and anarchy. Whither then the Rule of Law, private property etc?

 

[Matt Black]

You, of all people, should understand what a militia is and how one is formed and trained.

After the Boston Tea Party your mentally defective king tried to block Boston harbor.

British attempts to disarm the Massachusetts militia at Concord in April 1775 led to open combat. Militia forces then besieged Boston, forcing the British army to run away with their tails between their legs in March 1776. And the rest is history.

Of course, the sadly demented King tried again in 1812 and the Brits were sent packing with their tails between their legs again (remember the battle of New Orleans?).

The Brits are slow learners, but you kick their backsides often and hard enough they finally wake up and smell the coffee, or tea.

Then in 1917, after their being totally defeated by the Central Powers, the US stepped in and totally defeated the Central Powers and saved England's bacon in just 19 months.

But, again, the Brits, being such slow learners, let their mouths overload their ability to back up their words, and were driven off the Continent and, once again, the US had to intervene to save their bacon. The Axis powers in Europe were defeated by May 1945. Then we turned east and finished off the Emperor of Japan.

I wonder if, when their government falls to the Islamo-facist invasion disguised as "immigration" and Sharia Law is declared to be the law of the land, they will have enough sense to ask for our help again, and will be very grateful that Americans are so skilled in their use of firearms to once again bail them out of the mess of their own making.

Ok, some inaccuracies to tackle here. George III didn't suffer from porphyria until 1788 some 5 years after the Treaty of Paris but, in any event, it was Parliament (then run by oligarchs like Townsend and North) who screwed up not the king. Even more so in 1812: George had been declared incapacitated and a Regency appointed but again it was Parliament who waged war (kind of a spin off from the Napoleonic Wars when we stood largely alone against a foreign despotic power - sound familiar?).

And we're not about to be overrun by sharia: that's just more Islamaphobic nonsense. Try getting your news from somewhere other than Breitbart and it's far-right ilk