The article Stu has above is what I fear will happen to the US as emotions overtake intellect. I am too lazy to research this but do our cousins (Canada, Great Britain, Australia) have written into laws something such as our second amendment that says: Regardless of what "anybody" does in any other country in the world if this is not included in what is felt as their God given right as a citizen of that country how can they be compared to the US. I totally hear what T is saying but this topic is beyond the emotional ramifications of what happened yesterday or ten years ago. This is rooted into who we are as citizens of the United States and cannot be altered without all three governing branches deciding on the matter much less the people who are supposed to drive those who govern the three branches of government.
So with that question answered there is no precedent, similarity or example from our cousins in Canada, Britain and Australia. How can anyone compare gun control laws, regulations or public view of guns from the above mentioned countries when they have no concept, practice or rights as a citizen of their country to own a gun as written for a few hundred years in the US.... :?:
Fun Fact Of The Day: Within A Decade Of The UK Banning And Confiscating Handguns, Crimes Involving Handguns Doubled… British libs got what their American counterparts can only dream about, a complete handgun ban and confiscation of existing guns and look at what the results were. Via WSJ: Americans are determined that massacres such as happened in Newtown, Conn., never happen again. But how? Many advocate more effective treatment of mentally-ill people or armed protection in so-called gun-free zones. Many others demand stricter control of firearms. We aren’t alone in facing this problem. Great Britain and Australia, for example, suffered mass shootings in the 1980s and 1990s. Both countries had very stringent gun laws when they occurred. Nevertheless, both decided that even stricter control of guns was the answer. Their experiences can be instructive. In 1987, Michael Ryan went on a shooting spree in his small town of Hungerford, England, killing 16 people (including his mother) and wounding another 14 before shooting himself. Since the public was unarmed—as were the police—Ryan wandered the streets for eight hours with two semiautomatic rifles and a handgun before anyone with a firearm was able to come to the rescue. Nine years later, in March 1996, Thomas Hamilton, a man known to be mentally unstable, walked into a primary school in the Scottish town of Dunblane and shot 16 young children and their teacher. He wounded 10 other children and three other teachers before taking his own life. After Hungerford, the British government banned semiautomatic rifles and brought shotguns—the last type of firearm that could be purchased with a simple show of fitness—under controls similar to those in place for pistols and rifles. Magazines were limited to two shells with a third in the chamber. Dunblane had a more dramatic impact. Hamilton had a firearm certificate, although according to the rules he should not have been granted one. A media frenzy coupled with an emotional campaign by parents of Dunblane resulted in the Firearms Act of 1998, which instituted a nearly complete ban on handguns. Owners of pistols were required to turn them in. The penalty for illegal possession of a pistol is up to 10 years in prison. The results have not been what proponents of the act wanted. Within a decade of the handgun ban and the confiscation of handguns from registered owners, crime with handguns had doubled according to British government crime reports. Gun crime, not a serious problem in the past, now is. Armed street gangs have some British police carrying guns for the first time. Moreover, another massacre occurred in June 2010. Derrick Bird, a taxi driver in Cumbria, shot his brother and a colleague then drove off through rural villages killing 12 people and injuring 11 more before killing himself.
Jim...that's the same article I linked to just above. Maybe better to have quoted from it as you did. :lol:
If our laws are insufficient, Ms. Pelosi has announced her remedy; http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons Current owners must register each weapon, be fingerprinted, photographed, and background checked.
Ralph, I am a passionate defender of our constitution and believe it to be the finest political and governing document ever crafted. That said, we have for generations in this country placed limits on the unfettered exercise of those rights when in so doing we infringe upon the overall public welfare and/or the rights of others. We have freedom of speech as guaranteed by the 1st amendment but try exercising that right by yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater or make a gun or bomb joke in a TSA security screening at the airport. We have free press, but libel laws in place to reasonably limit their exercise. Similarly with peaceable assembly, they just can't assemble on my property without my permission or likewise, on public property typically without a permit. In my view we clearly have a situation wherein the unfettered exercise of the right to bear arms in our country has created a situation contrary to the primary interest of the safety of the public. We have created an environment that has enabled deadly weapons in the control of thousands of individuals in whose hands the safety of the public and hence the general welfare of our society has been and is being jeopardized. This should be obvious on its face as their are thousands of innocents - primarily youth - who are being slaughtered in our country every year.....such weapons in the hands of worthy citizens, qualified to be trusted with the possession of a deadly weapon do not slaughter innocents. Clearly we have an obligation to ensure - to the best of our ability - that weapons don't fall into hands that are unworthy. Similar to the restrictions we place on our other freedoms in the interest of the public good, we have in my estimation, the same obligation to place restrictions on our right to bear arms consistent with the constitutional mandate to insure "domestic tranquility" and "promote the general welfare" by addressing this significant threat to our public safety.
T, We have never met and hopefully one day we will. We explain to the world our soul, beliefs, hopes and foundation that we stand on as we speak and write and upon the actions we make each and every moment. I believe that we are held accountable to those actions in life and beyond. Yes this great country has introduced some amazing thoughts into the world. We as Americans have set forth freedoms that not only unleash the carnal ideas and movements of man but those that stretch the ability where every man, woman and child is their own person and the power of ideas and thoughts that would have seen us burned or crucified in another era. We "do" owe the best we can provide to the safety of those around us. I have always had a disdain for the political side of humanity. It seems to be processed, fake and somewhere in an alternative universe between black and white. This being said I realize that it takes those in the political arena to hash out the differences that are set in place, were set in place and may be set in place in this country and others. If the process governed by those in the political office defers to the public that they represent demands a change or adaption to the current policies set beforehand that is only right. If the people say that our current rules are lacking then change must be done to hold true that our country is ruled by the "will of the people" and not by a thought process that is far removed by years and different demands. My belief has always been that we don't need assault rifles roaming the public. It has been this way since I have been accountable as an adult or better explained that since I have had common sense to think of others than myself. I do not feel that this removes our ability to protect our loved one, hunt wild game, or protect ourselves against a government that may one day want to control our every action. If those such as the NRA are proactive in this thought process they will be able to hold off the momentum and be a counter weight to the emotional outcry that currently feeds the people such as the media and anti gun lobby. You see, there always needs to be a balance to maintain one side or the other from pushing too far. The abundance of assault weapons with high round magazines (See Stu, I listened) which I presently own one such model are just a wee bit out of balance and the casualty unfortunately has been innocents. This no doubt this will be corrected and put in its proper place and hopefully the balance does not go the other way because that will cause death to more innocents. So that being said as always in my view, we are not that far apart and probably in agreement and that is how America was designed to operate.