New poll shows england wants its guns back

I agree evil people exist. But owning a gun isn't going to change that. Its people and their upbringing that are going to change that not gun legislation or ownership. People have been aggressive for 1000's of years they haven't changed much, but get worse. Countries have wanted to arm themselves against aggressors. Now US seems to want to believe the largest aggressor, even if they profess it is for defense rather than aggression that they spend all the money. It starts at the bottom. That is where we need to start with gun ownesrship. People need to not feel they need a gun. Then the government might see they don't need such a big army or defense budget to defend themselves.

 

I agree that crime is a symptom of a larger problem. That larger problem is loss of familial and social responsibility.

While you may find it deplorable from a moral perspective, I see gun ownership as a responsibility for those of us that have families. I would go so far to say that not having one is irresponsible if you have a family to protect.

Here's the difference between you and I on this subject:

I don't think living my life hoping someone won't hurt my family is something I can count on. If it ever did happen, and I could not at least have the chance to defend them, I could never live with the results.

Owning guns can and does make evil people stop existing, it happens more and more every day.

There is a huge movement in this country of responsible, gun owning, CCW holders and I, for one, am glad.

A gun is a tool, not a moral compass.

 

I respect your opinion, but hope we can agree to disagree. Its refreshing on this forum to find someone that can discuss such opposing views in such a realistic manner, without being nasty or self opinionated.

One of the great things about this country is that there can be over 300m people with so many different opinions. I just wish US could get its politics sorted out, as the present course will, IMO, lead to US being sidelined ultimately. This will be sad unless US begins to recognize that other peoples in other countries have a right to an opinion which is not the US collective political opinion.

 

Everyone has the right to live their lives the way they want if it doesn't harm others, I agree with that. You have as much right as I do to choices.

That's all that people who own guns ask for. To be judged as individuals. A legal gun owner has as much to do with a criminal gun owner as someone driving to work does with drunk drivers.

I think you'll find most americans don't like or agree with their governments policies.

 

District of Columbia vs Heller - 2008 - https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

Extract - " ... the D. C. Circuit reversed, holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess firearms and that the city’s total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right."

and further held in McDonald vs City of Chicago - http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

 

I'd like to see the data for the highlighted item please as I believe you are in error.

 

J

I think we agree totally on guns, even though we are on different sides of this fence.

But Americans get the government dmeocratically, like UK. You might not like your government just as I abhorred Tony Blair et al. And the new labor leader they have now. I thought US might be different, but it isn't. We get who the majority elect, whether we like them or not. At least the government is democratically elected and not totalitarian in nature.

 

I do not own guns, but I still benefit from the 2nd because a criminals doesn't know that

if guns were 100% banned, then criminals know they are the only ones with guns

.... sometimes you have to lose a right to realize why people fought so hard for the right in the first place

course it's really hard to get back a right once you give it up
.

 

Yes. It does protect it, it doesn't grant it.

The purpose of the 2A was to acknowledge that self defense was a God given right, and was to be protected from the government by the Constitution, and specifically the 2A.

 

I didn't say it granted it, please read my first comment as follows

The US has one thing the UK does not and that is a Constitutional Amendment that allows for the bearing of arms, now the Supreme court has deemed that the 2nd Amendment includes the right of the individual to own and bear arms (District of Columbia vs Heller - 2008 - https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html ), until that decision is challenged and over turned everything else is irrelevant.

You were the one used granted not me.

There is no such thing as a "God given right"

 

This self-admitted "unscientific poll" (apart from being a couple of years out of date) is ridiculous. Guns are just not on the radar in Britain. Hardly anyone wanted them, and fewer still want them back.
The DT Is a right wing Murdoch publication, read by many in the USA, and the "poll" was online. The assertion that it reflected British attitudes is simply false. The "Blaze" article in the OP even helpfully suggests that the poll was still open at the time it was published.

 

When that Sharia gets good and started in merry old England do you think those attitudes may change? Will this happen before or after the name change to Englangistan.

 

I realise some Americans' attachment to guns equates to a religion, but not in Britain (of which England is only one part)

 

England apparently does not have any attachment to the concept of self defense either.

 

They wouldn't have the violence stats they do if that were true.

 

The only reason the UK is able to keep a handle on things are the video cameras every 2 feet in a country 1/3rd the size of Texas. Not many places to hide.

In a major crisis their police force will get buried. They couldn't even deal with the London riots, they just dealt with the aftermath and used their camera footage to catch the looters.

 

I'm quite aware of makes up the UK, keeping in mind the Scots almost did the right thing a few months ago. Just keep that stiff upper lip when Westminister becomes a mosque.

 

Days after the White House, right? Oh, Wait....

 

We still have our guns. You don't. Just remember to learn the new words to God Save the Iman.

 

You have more muslims with guns too. More than us. Look behind you!

 

And they are fully aware of the fact that they are in a country that does not appreciate their presence, surrounded by infidels with racist views who are just waiting for them to do something to warrant a violent response against them. That is likely the primary reason jihads against cartoonists who mock Allah and Mohammed can only be carried out overseas, rather than in the united states. The last time such an effort was tried, it was a miserable failure.

 

The US may have a Constitution, well written and great words and it has Coomon Law. Unfortuntately UK tends to win on Commonsense application of the law, whereas US relies on the Rule of Law oftne missapplied to suite the powerful money men.

I think some times, in fact quite often, common sense application of the Common Law wins for people, even though I also think the Constiturion is, Like the Magna Carta, written in the1200's by King John of England, a great document. Oh! And I do believe that many of the words and phrases used in writing the Constitution were used first in the Magna Carta and have been used by many other nations since to define the rules by which government rules countries. So don't be misled to think that the Constitution is uniquely great. Other documents that came before were plagiarized by the writers to write this one.

 

I don't disagree .. however the common law of the UK (often refereed to as the unwritten constitution) is not "set in stone" where as the US Constitution is and can only be changed through defined means .. UK common law can, and is changed through other methods.

None of the Magna Carta is a legal document - though a lot of what it intended remains at the core of UK law .. BTW the Magna Carta was not written by King John, it was written by the Barons and was used as a means to curtail the power and absolute rule of the monarchy and initially it was a failure, only later being resurrected by Henry III as a way of drawing support away from the rebel factions.

I have no illusion that the Constitution is "uniquely great", the point being in this discussion is that the Constitution IS a legal document that defines certain rights of the people and restrictions of the government, where as the UK has no such document. to compare the UK from of law with the US is fraught with problems.

 

Show us the common sense in the approach of the United Kingdom not allowing force to be used in matters pertaining to self defense.

 

Fugazi, of course you are right that the Barons pressured King John into accepting the Magna Carta. But they rarely get the acclaim they deserve for that.

And of course the Constitution is a set of rules that govern the way government can act. That too is good and bad. I favor the Common Law for people and a system based on historical legal precedent that changes with the times. I see the Constitution these days quite often holding back political progress, particularly from wealthy, stubborn, old fashioned Conservatives. A bit like the British landed gentry that ruled UK when America declared its Independance from Britain. I think US with GOP in charge would become like Britain was when King George was in charge of UK over 200 years ago.

And I see the Supreme Court, that supposedly independent body of clever lawyers as political puppets not a truly independent judicial body, like the British Court of Appeal, which is not elected by any member of government. That is what we need in US.