Messages

Um, let me say, this isn't personal. I see the responses to my comment, but I don't understand them. I didn't say anything about a speaker, Trump or any gun lobby. The 2nd Amend. existed before any gun lobby. Is it not clear the people of America has made their choice? Our Supreme Court has repeatedly decided what gun laws are Constitutional and which are not. ( I don't know what sane or insane laws are)What did I say that was wrong? What did I say that was not factual? If you need more convincing, you need only look at the forums. The majority of members speaking/writing against America's gun laws and rights are NOT Americans. That too is a fact.

You said you didn't know what sane and insane gun laws were, I simply provided you a totally reasonable explanation -- but don't feel you have to thank me.

As for your point about no government ever voting to repeal the second amendment, you are correct, in as far as I know. No government has ever sought to prohibit a well-ordered militia from owning rim-loading rifles. That's a bit different from every Tom, Dick and Harriet being able to cart an AR15 with them everywhere they go, is it not?

As I previously stated, but clearly you missed it, there is absolutely no need to repeal the 2nd amendment in order to have sensible gun laws. Not that it should matter if there were a need to change the constitution in order to save innocent lives. How do you think the law got in there in the first place?

The real question is why so many people think it's fair enough for tens of thousands of men, women and children yearly to lose their lives at the hands of deranged or simply evil people, to satisfy a ridiculous gun obsession?

So, now that we've established that the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with allowing every man, woman and child access to weapons capable of killing multiple people within seconds, are you ready to suggest what steps governments CAN take to stop innocents being butchered?

CD, it is nice to see you back and I hope you're well. I really did not post to argue or engage in hyperbole or exaggerations, or to pretend SCOTUS hasn't already ruled multiple times on the militia thing, and what the limits are. As I stated, I don't expect people of other countries to know all the nuances of another nation's laws, rights, and customs. I do not know all the rights and laws of Canada, the UK, France, or Mexico, and I been to them several times. So, I do not try to tell their citizens about what their laws should be. I hope you and others, if not agree, then can understand, everyone and every nation is different, and that's ok. Good night.

Thank you for the kind welcome, Lancellot. So there's no misunderstanding, I'm not "back" to contribute poems or stories, much less to participate in farcical site "contests". So, until such time as my membership expires, I have the forum.

If anyone here has engaged in hyperbole or exaggerations, perhaps you might make it clear exactly where that has occurred. As for not being here to argue (or debate, as it is also known), then why are you here? Just to enlighten us with your view from the perspective of a citizen of the nation with the worst gun problem in the civilised world? To point out to us foreigners how wrong we are?

The thing is, you like to give the impression (as do all of those who refuse to acknowledge the severity of the problem), that almost everyone in your country agrees with you. That is clearly not the case. Sixty-three percent, or nearly two-thirds, of Americans say they want more legislation to address gun violence (https://www.pewresearch.org/topic/politics-policy/political-issues/gun-policy). So basically, your nation is not as different as you make out. A very vocal, powerful, cashed-up and deadly minority of its citizens are.

In one respect, America is different. That is, it "enjoys" the status of being the sole nation on the planet where guns are the leading cause of death of children. You've been invited on more than one occasion to offer your thoughts on how to rectify that. Regrettably, you've declined the invitation. Have a nice evening.

Lance, since your post was actually addressed to me and in response to a post I wrote, I am hoping you will read my response: Whilst your post was interesting and informative, it bore little correlation to the point I actually made, which was in response to Judiverse talking about mental health issues. I pointed out that if mental health is a big concern, which I agree it is in a lot of places, that certainly needs addressing, but if there is a high incidence of mental health issues, easier access to destructive weapons isn't a great idea. The 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' may be true, but it rather misses the point. It's easier to kill a lot of people in one go with a gun than it is with a baseball bat, or even a knife. If you know, as Judiverse intimated, that there's an increased problem with mental health, and it has been identified that mass shooters are people with issues that should have been addressed, surely, as well as asking why the issues haven't been addressed, it might be worth asking why, to coin a phrase, you are supplying matches in a firework factory. The fact that America as a whole isn't voting to do this/doesn't view the matter in this light doesn't really change the point I am making. It's a simple fact. Weapons of any kind and certain mental health issues don't make good bedfellows. Resolving rising mental health issues is going to take a lot of work, and it isn't a problem that will ever be eradicated, but the impact on the wider community might just be minimised if members of the population at large weren't able to obtain an item whose sole purpose is to kill. It's not exactly pushing the boundaries of logic to draw that conclusion. Now, I don't deny that the complexities of your legislative machinery are many and varied, or that the story of guns is deeper than mass shootings. Nor do I make any statements about what Americans want or do not want. I simply make the point that, considering concerns expressed by an American about rises in mental health issues and their links to mass shootings, the prevalence of guns isn't helping. Whether you want to, or indeed can do anything to resolve the sort of lighted match/powderkeg situation you have going on by tightening up gun laws as well as improving your approach to mental health is, as you say, up to you. If, nationally and in individual states, there is no clear preference to address existing legislation around guns, so be it. It's your prerogative.

I am going to start a thread about one of my Nation's darker moments. There's stuff about where our own legislation was woefully inadequate.  I hope to see you there. I will be interested in your view.