Jump to content
beginnergirl

USA shootings and gun laws

Recommended Posts

i just heard that Texas has recently changed their laws to let its citizens carry handguns in public.

 

WTF?

 

the whole constitution law regarding arms was to let all citizens the right to bear arms in case the government turns against them. That i believe was the intent.

 

Also, have you ever been on a forum or a place to comment about guns in the USA? I got shredded when i mentioned how Aussies have strict gun laws.

 

Went into a shooting range in Texas to fire a few rounds [emoji23]... As soon as the range owner heard our Aussie accents he spent the next ten minutes lecturing us on "... And your country"..... I think he thought we personally made the gun laws in Australia!

 

The 80 yo gran in the lane next to us was impressive with her handgun.. Fired off a box of ammo and left [emoji23]

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the whole constitution law regarding arms was to let all citizens the right to bear arms in case the government turns against them. That i believe was the intent.

 

I'm not sure that's actually the case.

 

I believe that it reads: "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"

 

The 'intent' of the clause (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state) is something that Americans seem to have been arguing about ever since it was written.

 

Some argue that this was intended to ensure the govt did not turn against its own people i.e. the 'defence of freedom' argument.

 

Others argue that it was incorporated from pre-existing State Constitutions (post Declaration of Independence) and was intended to be specific to military service and the need (at the time) to maintain a militia (as used in the war of independence) as the thinking at the time was that standing armies were undesirable. i.e. the 'defence of the state' argument.

 

Still others argue it was intended to allow all citizens the right to legitimately defend themselves. i.e. the 'personal defence' argument.

 

However, as outsiders to it all, I suspect that we will always struggle to understand the intent, when even Americans can't agree on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Second Amendment was adopted in 1791 - 225 years ago!

 

In 1791, "arms" covered a whole plethora of weapons, from swords, muskets, rifles, cannon and even longbows.

 

In 1791 it took a crack regiment 10 to 15 seconds to load and fire a musket - note, a crack regiment of highly trained soldiers. A rifle took longer than a musket to load, was more accurate, with a range of approximately 250m.

 

In 1791 leeching was a recognised as a medical procedure, along with the blistering of the skin though the application of hot pokers to burn out illnesses.

 

In 2016 a handgun can fire 2000m, and an untrained first-timer can fire 3 rounds per second.

 

In 2016 medical procedures...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always thought the right to bear arms was about having a ready to go militia in the need to fight the British. I just tell yankies that I don't think the British are coming now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should have heard the twit on The Project last night. His opinion was that these mass shootings only happen in states where they have tighter gun control laws - so gun control laws aren't the answer.

 

I liked one thing Peter Hellier brought up. This dude said you can't go messing with the 2nd amendment - you just can't touch it (refering to what Obama is trying to do at the moment). Pete said - 'well, hang on! Isn't it an amendment in the first place, so why can't you amend an amendment......'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think if the masses of people have the balls to protest on social media and protest in 3 -4 days or more sit ins gun laws can be changed, alas i don't think the actual will is there as yet. , make no mistake people power wins. people power can bring down governments, but is sent it is more than the so called gun lobby and people are hiding behind this, it is just a but of media grabs at the moment with no real organisation.

 

the real fact is they just don't deep down even now think there is a problem (the masses i mean). and its not just the NRA.

 

but also make no mistake people power can change it. it just takes one person to organise an fight and don't leave outside congress until the y change the legislation or the twits resign.

 

 

on a similar subject, how would you feel if your kids go out in texas right now where citizens can legally carry a handgun yep i public. Imagine if that was in your city, i.e.. sydney,brisbane etc.

Edited by Prince

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh man. It just gets worse.

 

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/gforum.cgi?post=5821333;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;

 

Excuse my language in that thread. I just couldn't believe what I was reading.

 

I was reading somewhere (just got off plane, drunk a few beers, not going to look-up references, apologies), that a discussion with those wanting to carry guns summarised their thinking as them wanting to "play the hero" and being able to "save the innocents". Following your references to ST on this subject from other Tranny threads downesy, I've been reading them through.

 

My summary, based on reading the article and the ST threads that the whole "be a hero" concept is just about right. They see themselves as needing the "right" to carry a gun, as their "right" to be able to save women and children, ready to defend those who can't defend themselves.

 

Those who have been trained to handle weapons, as they may need to discharge those weapons in a firefight, always wonder how they'll react when that need arises; whether their training will come to the fore and whether they'll act as required by the situation. They never find out until they're in a firefight. These "wannabes" assume that because they have a weapon on their hip, they'll always be ready "when it goes down".

 

Popping off rounds on a range is not appropriate training; being able to throw-down "gun speak" does not mean one is trained; carrying a gun does not mean one is able to react in an appropriate manner. Reacting in an inappropriate manner will result in one pissing their pants, possibly shooting innocents, and definitely screwing-up the ability of those uniform-wearing, brave, trained, experienced, qualified personnel who are reacting appropriately.

 

The person you reference in your post downesy is exactly the type of person I would not want to carry a gun - plain scary!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im still waiting to hear the news reports about a massacre averted by Johnny Punter just happening to be in the right place at the right time with a heavily modified AR15 with 400 rounds of ammo in the trunk plus a loaded Sig and 3 spare clips on his belt.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im still waiting to hear the news reports about a massacre averted by Johnny Punter just happening to be in the right place at the right time with a heavily modified AR15 with 400 rounds of ammo in the trunk plus a loaded Sig and 3 spare clips on his belt.

 

National Security, let's just say it involved area 51, some armed ewoks, Chuck Norris already rendered unconscious and Bill Clinton about to blow the top off of a silo if the situation escalated any further.

 

Just be thankful you are here today to be asking that question which you shouldn't be asking.

 

Now look into this:

 

neuralizer_large.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An American friend liked an FB ad for suppressors. WTF could you possibly need a suppressor for? Preemptive self-defense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see a number of reasons...

 

- You believe that your dick is extremely large and owning this will make people believe it too.

 

- You believe that you are James-Bond-in-real-life, owning this will make people believe it too.

 

- You plan to kill someone.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WTF could you possibly need a suppressor for?

 

Suppressors are nothing like what you see in hollywood movies etc.

 

They reduce the noise from ear-shattering to very loud, allowing limited use without ear-defenders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless you use them with sub-sonic ammunition like low velocity .22 target rounds in which case they're barely audible

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting side-bar... Bruce Willis is supposedly partially deaf in his left ear (about 2/3 hearing loss) as a result of the scene in the original Die Hard film, where he fires a series of shots up from under a table. Apparently they used full charge blanks, but neglected to issue ear-plugs. The confined space and reflected sound, resulted in damaging levels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone at work pointed me to Jim Jefferies skit on US gun control yesterday. I watched it last night on YT. I can't link YT at work but look it up, it's pretty funny.

 

I'd never head of Jim Jefferies before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What will happen? Less people will get shot? Sounds like a downer to me!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What will happen? Less people will get shot? Sounds like a downer to me!

That means more yanks in this world. You're right. Big downer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×