Defending your rights.

a reply to: Jefferton

It's painfully obvious I'm more interesting than the topic that was about defending your rights.

Clearly I have neither the first or the second.

I wonder which one they will take next.

The sentimental value is understandable.
Hopefully for your sake it will never come to a point where they are taken from you

I’m not for guns btw, but I have thought how some must be inherited or gifts

As I understand it, the US has already outlawed, rightly or wrongly, the sale of fully automatic weapons.

The current debate centers on whether semi-automatic, “assault”-type weapons (is that even the proper description?) be banned for sale as well, in the name of “gun control”.

Those in favor of such a ban point to the recent tragedy in Florida where a semi-automatic rifle was used to kill 17 people, mostly children.

Those opposed to any further impediments to legally own and use firearms point out their (often debated) right to own such weapons, the fact that mentally disturbed individuals bent on violence will likely commit that violence with whatever weapon is at hand, and therefore, our focus should be on preventing violent acts by identifying and curing mental illness.

I think that we can assume that no one wants more innocents to die, by gunfire or any other means. I hope that we can agree that no one is, also, willing to surrender any of their rights without due consideration.

The issue of mental health in the US must be addressed, no argument there. We all live too close to one another to ignore the “contagious” impact mental illness can have on our society.

But those who argue that we should focus on mental health instead of gun control may be attempting to deflect from the fact that our understanding of mental health issues, especially those that Accurately Predict future violent outbursts, is far from perfected. In fact, the human psyche is such that it may well be impossible to determine whether a particular person person will, or won’t, become a “mass murderer” at some time in an unspecified future with any certainty.

How far down the slippery slope of “Pre-Crime” are we willing to slide?

And then of course there is the question of who is to be the arbiter of “sanity”?

What if, as a result of advanced psychological evaluation techniques, developed in some future, it is determined that the very desire to own a firearm is a “red flag” indicator of a potentially violent individual?

Far fetched? If you own firearms, are you willing to risk it? I wouldn’t be.

But until we can figure who will or won’t decide to mow down a classroom full of kids, some one will likely mow down a classroom full of kids.

And they will probably use a semi-automatic weapon to do it.

I don’t support “banning” anything. I certainly don’t support confiscation of guns.

But, in light of decisions by Dick’s and Wal-Mart to restrict firearm sales, maybe it’s time for the gun manufacturers themselves to step up and cease the production and importation of semi-automatic weapons for “civilian” use only; law enforcement and the military, due to the situations they routinely encounter, would still have full access to all the weapons they currently employ.

Those weapons already in circulation remain in circulation; their legal use, sale, trade, and bequeathment unimpeded. If stolen, they must be reported; if recovered they will be returned. If used in the commission of a crime, the weapon is destroyed after it use as evidence is discharged.

No legislation required. Strictly voluntary.

Because something has to be done, and it best that what is done comes from those most immediately affected by the action.

Because they want to, not because they are forced to.

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: slider1982

Bit wrong all that.
I'm in the process of getting a firearms license and I'm not a farmer, I'm a gun club member never been in trouble and will have a gun safe.
2 million fire arms licenses in the UK btw.
Oh and I practice archery all the time in the woods even had two cops come over and ask me about it and when they saw I was responsible they just told me not to be silly, one actually had a go.

Where in the UK are you where officers have allowed you to practice archery on public land and just "not to be silly"???..


RA

a reply to: slider1982

Yorkshire.
Police are normally okay If you are okay with them. I showed them I could not fire any arrow where anyone went I shoot against a raised embankment.
Same when I got stopped with a machete strapped to my backpack in Newport I explained why I had it and I knew the law I had a good reason, they were happy and said carry on.

You're getting to my point. You dealt with law enforcement over a bow and machete but there was no issues because you're not a criminal. Criminals don't care about laws. If they did they wouldn't be criminals. It's the average citizen of the US and their rights in question. As if they're somehow the cause for school shootings whenever they defend their constitutional rights.

I don't want to make it political but whenever there was a mass shooting in the US by someone of Muslim faith, we were told not to associate Islam with the attacks and guns weren't an issue. Those same people are now fine painting law abiding Americans with the same broad brush as the sick individuals committing the shootings. The hypocrisy there is mind-blowing but using the BS argument that gun owners don't care about children because we don't see bans as a fix is what has me the most upset as a responsible father, gun owner, and American.