Home Defense As The Founding Fathers Intended

[Born Hunter 17,975]

oh i believe the British heavily iinfluenced that ammendment. They saw the Brits as tyrannts and wanted to govern themselfs.Anything else was an afterthought.

 

Effective Militia on paper may sound good, but its far from that mate!

 

 

LOL i knew you would be on that post like a pigeon on a chip.

 

Not gonna debate it with you buddy i think we both know we are poles apart on this issue. I will bow out gracefully and let you get back to you're gun porn (joke)

 

LOL, I'm not really disagreeing with ya. Part of the justification for 2A is to deter foreign invasion, for instance an attempt by the British to retake the colonies post independence, as you said. Also to keep the citizens free and able to defend their own properties from more minor assaults. It's an essential part of the American self sufficient frontiersman way as much as the bigger protection of democracy.

 

I think it's hard to argue against any infringement in the 21stC but some of the justifications are still very valid and even the bigger ones of the protection of democracy I still see as valid, though less so. We don't get it over here because our mindset is just totally reversed compared to the yanks.

[sandymere 8,263]

Guns don’t reduce crime and the right to bear arms as it is interpreted in the USA certainly has not reduced crime.

 

It does lead to more people getting shot though!

 

Little light wiki

 

The gun homicide rate in England and Whales is about one for every 1 million people, according to the Geneva Declaration of Armed Violence and Development, . In a population of 56 million, that adds up to about 50 to 60 gun killings annually. In the USA, by contrast, there are about 160 times as many gun homicides in a country that is roughly six times larger in population. There were 8,124 gun homicides in 2014, according to the latest FBI figures.

[ChrisJones 7,975]

The grass always greener as they say......

 

About 7 years back in the UK me & a work colleague were taken out for a meal by some company reps. One of the guys was an American, a really nice chap who had grown up in rural America hunting shooting etc......he was pro-gun, but had concerns about the gun situation in the states.

Whilst doing similar work in the states, working in a construction supplies company, he'd twice had to deal with disgruntled armed customers! What he loved about the UK was the lack of guns on everyday folk, that it was more relaxed regarding the real threat of gun violence. He thought we had the gun situation about right......:-)

Just one guys opinion, that's all......

 

I think if you are a licences gun holder in the UK, you should have the right to defend your property with it from some scumbag...tbh.

 

There's a lot of that thinking, throughout the US. There isn't any gun owner I know that doesn't want to see a reduction in crime, but there isn't a single one of them that will agree to a constitutional amendment either. Even some of the anti gunners will accept the situation because they believe in the constitution, over the concerns of a political interest group.

 

The constitution doesn't guarantee rights. It simply states that they're inalienable. As the framing legal document of the nation it's classified the same as your right to free speech.

 

While we can pick data to suit our particular view points, guns are just a tool. Same as knives and IED's. If someone wants to commit a violent assault they'll do it. We all focus on the tool that's used to commit the crime. Over here we look at Chicago, LA, and guns. Over in the UK you look at any major city and it's knives. No amount of legal restriction will stop it.

 

"But Chris... We banned guns and our level of gun crime is much lower than the USA"

 

Correct but guns were never woven into the culture, of the UK, as they are in the US. With an average of one in three households packing some kind of firearm they're simply not going away. If they banned them tomorrow dealing with those that they can trace would be an astronomical task and political suicide for the people that want to see it pushed through. That would only be dealing with the guns that they know about...

 

Ironically now that Mr Trump has been elected more and more people aligning with democratic viewpoints are taking to the range and learning to shoot. It seems that the 2nd amendment is still relevant in the USA as suddenly the winning team, over the last decade, has now become the runner up. They're now looking up the ladder and seeing that tyrannical government might be a thing after all.

 

They're not going away... Not unless you pry them from their cold dead hands.

 

I think the founding fathers had lines of redcoats in mind when they penned those words.

I think they would be horrified if they were alive today.

 

You're absolutely correct but the emphasis is on tyrannical government. The whole reason for the war of independence, in the first place. When enshrining it legally they made it the duty of every patriot to resist, with the constitutional protection to do so.

[Accip74 7,112]

 

The grass always greener as they say......

About 7 years back in the UK me & a work colleague were taken out for a meal by some company reps. One of the guys was an American, a really nice chap who had grown up in rural America hunting shooting etc......he was pro-gun, but had concerns about the gun situation in the states.

Whilst doing similar work in the states, working in a construction supplies company, he'd twice had to deal with disgruntled armed customers! What he loved about the UK was the lack of guns on everyday folk, that it was more relaxed regarding the real threat of gun violence. He thought we had the gun situation about right......:-)

Just one guys opinion, that's all......

I think if you are a licences gun holder in the UK, you should have the right to defend your property with it from some scumbag...tbh.

 

There's a lot of that thinking, throughout the US. There isn't any gun owner I know that doesn't want to see a reduction in crime, but there isn't a single one of them that will agree to a constitutional amendment either. Even some of the anti gunners will accept the situation because they believe in the constitution, over the concerns of a political interest group.

 

The constitution doesn't guarantee rights. It simply states that they're inalienable. As the framing legal document of the nation it's classified the same as your right to free speech.

 

While we can pick data to suit our particular view points, guns are just a tool. Same as knives and IED's. If someone wants to commit a violent assault they'll do it. We all focus on the tool that's used to commit the crime. Over here we look at Chicago, LA, and guns. Over in the UK you look at any major city and it's knives. No amount of legal restriction will stop it.

"But Chris... We banned guns and our level of gun crime is much lower than the USA"

 

Correct but guns were never woven into the culture, of the UK, as they are in the US. With an average of one in three households packing some kind of firearm they're simply not going away. If they banned them tomorrow dealing with those that they can trace would be an astronomical task and political suicide for the people that want to see it pushed through. That would only be dealing with the guns that they know about...

 

Ironically now that Mr Trump has been elected more and more people aligning with democratic viewpoints are taking to the range and learning to shoot. It seems that the 2nd amendment is still relevant in the USA as suddenly the winning team, over the last decade, has now become the runner up. They're now looking up the ladder and seeing that tyrannical government might be a thing after all.

 

They're not going away... Not unless you pry them from their cold dead hands.

 

I think the founding fathers had lines of redcoats in mind when they penned those words.

I think they would be horrified if they were alive today.

 

You're absolutely correct but the emphasis is on tyrannical government. The whole reason for the war of independence, in the first place. When enshrining it legally they made it the duty of every patriot to resist, with the constitutional protection to do so.

Chris I can accept all that mate, at the same time I think it's fine to criticise & be concerned about gun culture in the states, like I think it's fine to admire the freedom you have there.........like you say, it's never going away.

What I find laughable is the opinion we should have the same freedom regarding guns in the UK. It's in the blood in the states, it's a very cultural thing, good & bad, but for the UK to suddenly have the same freedom to arm themselves with automatic weapons I think would be a fcuking disaster waiting to happen!!! We are not ready for that......haha, but again, it's never going to happen:-)

I find it difficult to articulate my thoughts on the 2nd amendment, I do think it's admirable, but at the same time time I don't think it's been particularly healthy for the Americans....haha. I do have to admit though to being quite impressed by the bundy family story & the armed standoff over water rights............I am conflicted ;-)

[ChrisJones 7,975]

Chris I can accept all that mate, at the same time I think it's fine to criticise & be concerned about gun culture in the states, like I think it's fine to admire the freedom you have there.........like you say, it's never going away.

What I find laughable is the opinion we should have the same freedom regarding guns in the UK. It's in the blood in the states, it's a very cultural thing, good & bad, but for the UK to suddenly have the same freedom to arm themselves with automatic weapons I think would be a fcuking disaster waiting to happen!!! We are not ready for that......haha, but again, it's never going to happen:-)

I find it difficult to articulate my thoughts on the 2nd amendment, I do think it's admirable, but at the same time time I don't think it's been particularly healthy for the Americans....haha. I do have to admit though to being quite impressed by the bundy family story & the armed standoff over water rights............I am conflicted ;-)

Absolutely, mate. It's not without it's problems. When you look at the crime figures guns definitely exacerbate the problem. On the flip side you rarely get the good stories where the good guys use them to prevent tragedies. School shootings came up, a while back on another thread. We'll never know how many times resource officers (police officers assigned to schools) have used firearms to prevent mass shootings, because they never became mass shootings.

 

As I've said before, where I live pretty much everyone is packing. It's part of the fabric. Watching someone open carry here is worrying for the tourists but it's to the point where it's like someone carrying a drill, or paintbrush. It's just accepted. Crime is none existent and isn't really in any danger of going up. I think the last time the sheriff was called out to our neighbourhood was when Mrs Nordstrom, down the street, got an pinyon jay stuck in a her hair. It's that kinda place.

 

If you go to Chicago though, or LA, or Detroit, all bets are off. The democrats tried to use the gun crime figures as stick to beat the 2A with for decades but it still fails to address the root causes of why they're being used. High crime areas are high crime areas for a reason, no matter what country you're in. As we've discussed politics on other threads there is a lot of finger pointing going on. "It's his fault" No one wants to actually get stuck in and solve the problems these communities face.

 

The Bundy case is a snap shot of the rural attitudes to the feds. There are people that use that example of why the 2A was penned. However, Bundy is a bellend. He's using public lands to graze his emaciated cattle (about 70 miles from where I'm sat) and while there's absolutely nothing wrong with that he has refused to pay his grazing permit for over a decade. It wasn't so much water rights as it was paying his bills. He believes that particular tax is unconstitutional as public lands are just that. The fed disagree and want him to pay his bills. They managed to dissuade the fed from pursuing it any further but they've put a lien on his ranch. He'll pay up one way or another.