Controversial! +13 A brilliant response to 'Anti Gun Control'.

[MCPWilk]

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution 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 NRA took this to the Supreme Court to have the preamble disregarded. The founding fathers knew what they were doing in allowing a militia to be armed, it is modern 'influences' that have chosen to misinterpret the Constitution.

Of course, people kill, weapons are but tools. A man with his hands or a hand held rock or bladed weapon might kill one person, but an individual with a modern firearm has the capacity to kill far more. Surely that is the issue, not just the right to bear arms, but the particular arms involved?

Mike

 

[Ferris]

Time for some lightness.....

 

[Ron Tamburrini]

I see this will turn into the inevitable cat fight.

Hopefully not as I am friends with the moderators .
Its nice to have a discussion while waiting on paint drying , and as my American daughter in-law points out ; we may speak a very similar language but we are a totally different race with different views , and she also reminded me that it was Europeans that killed most of the indians and not Americans

 

[Ferris]

I feel a bit of friction coming from our colonial friends across the pond,which when taken as a laugh, it's o.k. blame the French for the problems the U.S. is experiencing.as if it wasn't for their help during the AWI,us Brits would have still had the colony.

About losing the colony....that first try at gun control didn't go well.... That love for guns clearly preceded the constitution...

 

[billyturnip]

it was Europeans that killed most of the indians and not Americans

Wrong continent, that was the Indian Mutiny, 1857 but yes that is true and I believe those Europeans were mostly Scotsmen.

 

[Helm]

lol Rog

 

[peedee]

There is no point discussing this any further guys.

The people who say it is their constitutional right to bear arms say It's to uphold democracy against a Tyranny.

So whilst everyone knows it's not ok to be a dick, and simple commonsense tells normal folks that mitigating disaster by legislating against it and limiting access to dangerous weaponry; Only people with blinkered views cannot see the point.....it's still their right. The fact that they are now in the minority....in a democracy reinforces their blinkered opinion using the contrary view of the democratic opinion of the majority as a potential tyranny.

This cannot change without legislation being imposed.

So in the meantime we can only remind people that it's not ok to be a dick knowing a dick can't listen.

I genuinely understand the views of both sides and write these few words knowing there is no justifyable argument against them and also that any reply will be simpley gainsay and rhetorical hot air.
What a sad world were we refuse to learn from the lessons
offered by incidents around us.

Happy modelling
Paul

 

[billyturnip]

lol Rog

I've got my own views on the subject Steve but this isn't the place to air them nor would it make a difference so you got that instead.

 

[Ron Tamburrini]

Europeans were mostly Scotsmen.
Oh yea , and I suppose they all had fekin red hair too
I thought they were all De da's

 

[billyturnip]

Europeans were mostly Scotsmen.
Oh yea , and I suppose they all had fekin red hair too
I thought they were all De da's

Red headed Scotsmen commanded by Englishmen, coz we can read an right.

 

[DEL]

I see this will turn into the inevitable cat fight.
Europeans that killed most of the indians and not Americans

I'd always thought that it was post independence that most American 'indians' were killed through war, starvation and disease.

 

[brian]

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution 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 NRA took this to the Supreme Court to have the preamble disregarded. The founding fathers knew what they were doing in allowing a militia to be armed, it is modern 'influences' that have chosen to misinterpret the Constitution.

Of course, people kill, weapons are but tools. A man with his hands or a hand held rock or bladed weapon might kill one person, but an individual with a modern firearm has the capacity to kill far more. Surely that is the issue, not just the right to bear arms, but the particular arms involved?

Mike

I partially agree with you,but what a firearm gives you, is distance, and not so much up close and personal like a knife.As for Charlton Heston,what a complete twat he was.Who did he think he was,Moses?

 

[Ron Tamburrini]

I partially agree with you,but what a firearm gives you, is distance, and not so much up close and personal like a knife.

Thats why we Scots prefer the Dirk , up close and nasty compared with pansys with guns

 

[Helm]

You prefer guys named Dirk you say Ron ?
Steve

 

[Ron Tamburrini]

Red headed Scotsmen commanded by Englishmen, coz we can read an right.

Aye and all Swedes look like this
But the reality is this now

 

[billyturnip]

Aye and all Swedes look like this View attachment 220202
But the reality is this now View attachment 220203

I don't believe you, that could be anyone in there.

 

[Ron Tamburrini]

You prefer guys named Dirk you say Ron ?
Steve

 

[DEL]

View attachment 220203

........ and the front view ..........

 

[tomifune]

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution 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 NRA took this to the Supreme Court to have the preamble disregarded. The founding fathers knew what they were doing in allowing a militia to be armed, it is modern 'influences' that have chosen to misinterpret the Constitution.

Of course, people kill, weapons are but tools. A man with his hands or a hand held rock or bladed weapon might kill one person, but an individual with a modern firearm has the capacity to kill far more. Surely that is the issue, not just the right to bear arms, but the particular arms involved?

Mike

Actually this is not true. Both court cases that addressed the 2nd Amendment were brought by citizens in the localities where local laws were passed with regulations so convuluted that you couldn't own any firearm. For many years the Supreme Court avoided to rule on 2nd Amendment issues.
The issue, District of Columbia vs. Heller 2008, was whether that municipalities went too far with local laws which infringed a citizens 2nd amendment rights. The NRA was involved as a backer in the case and like any court case (remember OJ?), was divided , but decided to go ahead. If you read the ruling, it basically states the second amendment guarantees you the right to a firearm, but the court left it open to what kind of firearm and to states rights to pass laws restricting all use of firearms.
The next decision, McDonald vs. City of Chicago 2010, the Supreme Court ruled without a doubt that states cannot restrict the right to keep and bear arms. The NRA was not involved in this case. The city of Chicago has been charged millions of dollars in fines for dragging their feet changing their gun laws to abide with the court decisions.

Bob

 

[Ron Tamburrini]

........ and the front view ..........
View attachment 220205

Sexy