There have been what? - 27 amendments? to the US constitution over the years. I'm no expert on US constitutional law, but is there any valid reason for that aspect not to be re-evaluated? Does anyone truly believe that the right to bear arms included the right to murder indiscriminately, or that the founding fathers wouldn't be turning in their graves at the degree of bloodshed sanctioned by fools cowering behind their memory? They were talking about a militia (organised by a civilian authority, btw) which could be brought together to defend its area from warlords or foreign powers. Particularly Britain, who they felt was still likely to want to try and retake the country through Canada. How could they ever imagine the sheer destructive power of modern assault weapons being put in the hands of the mentally unstable? I'm not accusing you of agreeing with it, btw - but it really is the most pathetic and self-serving of excuses that the gun lobby comes out with.
I'm ok with that. Seriously, it's an unconscionable attitude that they have. Within hours Ted Cruz was reiterating the usual drivel about "law-abiding citizens" and their "rights". What about the rights of 10 year-old kids not to be shot in school? The right launched a smear campaign against Obama because he tried to introduce some measure of gun control. No doubt we'll see the same thing against Biden and anyone else who speaks out for the same thing. The Republicans get financial support from the NRA, as well. It's not even a vexed question imo, it is just plainly and simply wrong - though the answer may not be so simple (as I said earlier). It angers me that there is even a debate.
Russia has apparently lost circa 22,000 troops fighting a war in Ukraine. In the past 12 months circa 19,500 people have died in USA of gunshot wounds, there is no war in the USA that I am aware of!!!
I don't agree with the right to bear arms. I was more pointing out that the Republican party use the Second Amendment right as the reason why it's alright to do so. Sort of regarding it more, I'd say, as a clear instruction to take up arms rather than it's okay to do so if you so wish. (A bit like legalising cannabis doesn't mean you have to start using it.) As you say the reason for the Amendment was so that American citizens could defend themselves and their property from the British. That need disappeared relatively quickly. I may be wrong but I don't think any of the Amendments have taken anything out of the Constitution but rather have added extra elements that were deemed necessary - the first 10 Amendments aka The Bill of Rights added just 10 years after the Constitution was framed giving civil rights to individuals - and hadn't been included originally. Actually loosely based on our 1689 Bill of Rights. The only way I can see it ever being changed is for the right to bear arms only applying to the militia as the original Amendment intended.
Australia is the perfect model. Similar gun ownership to US at one time. Put restrictions on guns after shootings. Now have very low gun crime. The NRA mantra of "only outlaws will carry guns" was proven to be incorrect by real life example in Oz.
No thank you! Without the West and North East to moderate politics and act as a counterbalance, life in the South would be unbearable.
Move. You are already terrorising the local wildlife so you can claim it as environmentalism to.move to a move liberal zone in the tri state arrangement.
No reason it can't be amended, but the first five amendments, the Bill Of Rights, is seen as sort of extra holy, by some, so harder to get support. Looking at the amendment though it does Indeed give "right to bear arms" but only to a "well regulated militia". There is no "well regulated" part of guns in the US. If you buy from a gun show instead of a gun shop, you can skip all the normal checks that occur and often buy under the table so you don't even get registered properly.
There is always a war against common sense here. Not sure when it started, but I observed it was already long time in motion when I moved here.
I can't say I disagree wholesale with the Republican party because I'm very much in favour of their stance on abortion - a hot topic there at the moment. When Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi, despite being practising Catholics, are fine with a woman's right to choose abortion including abortion up till birth, it's only Republicans who are speaking out about it. I'm glad that Pelosi has been denied receiving Holy Communion over her position on this. As I said the other day I don't want to get into this particular issue. I've only brought it up again today because it is currently being debated there and I find myself on the Republican side with this one. So, if that's what they are called, then I'm okay with some right wing views.
They may believe that as their own personal opinion, and different states have different rules, some are very relaxed about it... The majority of states though have the deadline at 20 weeks (by which time a baby is pretty well developed). I believe the UK is 24 weeks, because that's approximately the time a baby can reliably survive with care if born. Personally, I think the whole subject is very grey with no correct answer. I don't like abortion, I would never suggest abortion to a partner, or want to be involved in any work assisting abortions. But I find the whole subject too grey for absolutes, some people's circumstances are different to my own. It's a no win political question- any stance one could possibly take tramples on somebody's liberties.
Thanks for taking the time to answer and for expressing your view. I don't want to take it any further because I do have a strong opinion and I don't ever want to get into a heated, emotional discussion on here... over anything non - football related.
I said gun law is not a vexed question imo, whereas abortion is probably the most vexed question imaginable. I have no intention of going into my own opinion on that on here, but I will say that I can see both sides. I utterly fail to see any possible argument for the current state of gun availability in the US so the comparison doesn't work for me. I will say that I presume the Republican anti-abortion stance is one of considering it a form of homicide, so how they have the nerve to make that stance whilst simultaneously supporting a state of affairs that allows a continuous and unequivocal form of homicide is unfathomable. Immense hypocrisy.
That is correct. Interestingly, they are also the party that supports capital punishment. (Not that I am equating the life of a baby to the life of a criminal... It's just a little ironic that democrats are pro abortion and anti capital punishment and republicans are anti abortion and pro capital punishment.)
I think this is typical of the right-left divide everywhere. Though obviously there will be people in both camps whose views differ.
I didn't actually compare the two. I brought it up as it's a current example of a Republican stance that I do agree with. Like you, I think it's the greatest hypocrisy there is. If human life is sacrosanct and precious, then (using just the politicians morals and not those of the wider population) how can they simultaneously push for restrictions in one area that will save millions of lives while also pushing for fewer restrictions in another that will see more lives lost.
Do you not think why the **** am I living here? I know uk is a bit of a mess as well but guns, healthcare, trump… is america that great a place to be living?
