No Second Amendment in the UK

[devon deer]

@devon deer , I used to watch a lot of MCQBushcraft on youtube (appears channel is gone now) where he hiked, camped, and hunted rabbits in the UK. Was that likely private land or is there any public land available for hunting?

It would have been private land, no public land hunting, unless of course he was poaching!
But as a kid lots of us used to poach a few bunnies for the pot, only got chased off once by the farmer, few years later he welcomed us back with open arms!
Cheers
Richard

 

[FI460]

A gov firearm safe storage mandate upon law abiding citizens smells of political banter <HT Censored Political Party>, Don Lemon / CNN sensationalized as a means to govern private parental decisions.

I don't know, I'm an unaffiliated voter, who believes strongly in gun rights, but I wouldn't be opposed to state legislation on the matter, and would expect that it would prevent a fair number of negligent discharges.

I understand that you don't feel that it is the government's place, and I think I agree that it would be better implemented at the state level, but is it constitutional?

 

[VikingsGuy]

I agree with your first sentence and your last sentence. But we aren't talking about a few guys in America with guns. We are talking about millions and millions of citizens. Doctors, lawyers, teachers, farmers, firemen, politicians, mechanics, salesmen, single mothers, stay at home moms, small business owners, factory workers, etc....etc.... 2 Million new gun owners in 2020 alone. The collective ownership of firearms from such a diverse group makes our citizens harder to control if our government decides to become more tyrannical. If we slowly give up our gun rights through a more "nuanced conversation" we will get to see firsthand how valuable the 2A WAS. I myself hope this never happens. Appears many on here are just fine with it and don't realize they are the frog and the water is getting warmer by the day.

A little along the lines of the question, I asked a bit back in the thread - what evidence do you have that sufficient steps towards an authoritarian government are now happening that would reasonably result in your millions of armed Americans leaving their homes and families to participate in an insurrection against our elected government and fellow citizens? I know a lot of casual gun owners who wouldn't walk across the street over the issue. They have them if they can, won't lose sleep if they can't.

 

[SAJ-99]

I agree with your first sentence and your last sentence. But we aren't talking about a few guys in America with guns. We are talking about millions and millions of citizens. Doctors, lawyers, teachers, farmers, firemen, politicians, mechanics, salesmen, single mothers, stay at home moms, small business owners, factory workers, etc....etc.... 2 Million new gun owners in 2020 alone. The collective ownership of firearms from such a diverse group makes our citizens harder to control if our government decides to become more tyrannical. If we slowly give up our gun rights through a more "nuanced conversation" we will get to see firsthand how valuable the 2A WAS. I myself hope this never happens. Appears many on here are just fine with it and don't realize they are the frog and the water is getting warmer by the day.

The biggest risk is electing a tyrant who creates a "bogeyman" to get supporters to buy guns. Then convinces them that anyone who doesn't agree with them is the new "bogeyman" coming to get their guns. Before you know you are controlled with the 2A rights still in place because you are awaiting the next narrative from the tyrant. Tyrants don't exist without a supportive army (figurative and literal) to back them up. We are all frogs in the same pot.

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

The question really was that simple but for whatever reason, you won’t answer it honestly. Try this one. Why have governments throughout the history of the world attempted to limit the weapons of their citizens?

Good question, please explain:



Introduced by a Republican

Signed into law by a republican Governor, who said "no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons" and a gun is a "ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will"

The law was endorsed and cowritten by the NRA.

 

[VikingsGuy]

The biggest risk is electing a tyrant who creates a "bogeyman" to get supporters to buy guns. Then convinces them that anyone who doesn't agree with them is the new "bogeyman" coming to get their guns. Before you know you are controlled with the 2A rights still in place because you are awaiting the next narrative from the tyrant. Tyrants don't exist without a supportive army (figurative and literal) to back them up. We are all frogs in the same pot.

Good point. Hitler had his "Private Army" years before he had control of the government, as did Mao.

 

[Sytes]

The biggest risk is electing a tyrant...

Interesting choice of words...

 

[LWC55]

A little along the lines of the question, I asked a bit back in the thread - what evidence do you have that sufficient steps towards an authoritarian government are now happening that would reasonably result in your millions of armed Americans leaving their homes and families to participate in an insurrection against our elected government and fellow citizens? I know a lot of casual gun owners who wouldn't walk across the street over the issue. They have them if they can, won't lose sleep if they can't.

Socialism is an authoritarian form of government. The democratic party is openly moving that direction in a hurry.

I never said millions of armed Americans would participate in insurrection. They won't have to if we keep the 2A as it currently stands. Having the ability to do it is all that is needed. We need to keep that ability.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Socialism is an authoritarian form of government. The democratic party is openly moving that direction in a hurry.

I never said millions of armed Americans would participate in insurrection. They won't have to if we keep the 2A as it currently stands. Having the ability to do it is all that is needed. We need to keep that ability.

I hate socialism as much as anybody, but let's be clear, there is a big difference between socialism (where the government owns the means of production) and which invariably resorts to authoritarian governments to enforce this failed and unnatural economic theory; AND democracies that create (by democratic processes) generous social welfare programs (for good or for bad, ineffective or not). Socialism is NOT the same as generous social programs.

I agree that some of the most radical like AOC and Bernie flirt with outright socialism (and anti-fa demands it), but that is maybe 10% of the party - even Warren doesn't suggest socialism as a solution. The Democratic party establishment clearly understood the difference between possibly unwise fiscal plans and conversion from capitalism to socialism. That is how Biden went from 4th place to unbeatable front runner in 48 hours during the primary.

And frankly, folks on the right trying to blur these lines actually helps the far far left. Now millions of young people who want their student loans forgiven think that voting for "socialism" is what gets that done and are listening to AOC and anti-fa. Republicans and Democrats alike should nip this in the bud. Demand more social programs if you must, but realize that socialism is a de facto death sentence for our economy, liberty and our democracy, and has nothing at all to do with Medicare for All, racial equality or loan forgiveness.

 

[LWC55]

I hate socialism as much as anybody, but let's be clear, there is a big difference between socialism (where the government owns the means of production) and which invariably resorts to authoritarian governments to enforce this failed and unnatural economic theory; AND democracies that create (by democratic processes) generous social welfare programs (for good or for bad, ineffective or not). Socialism is NOT the same as generous social programs.

I agree that some of the most radical like AOC and Bernie flirt with outright socialism (and anti-fa demands it), but that is maybe 10% of the party - even Warren doesn't suggest socialism as a solution. The Democratic party establishment clearly understood the difference between possibly unwise fiscal plans and conversion from capitalism to socialism. That is how Biden went from 4th place to unbeatable front runner in 48 hours during the primary.

And frankly, folks on the right trying to blur these lines actually helps the far far left. Now millions of young people who want their student loans forgiven think that voting for "socialism" is what gets that done and are listening to AOC and anti-fa. Republicans and Democrats alike should nip this in the bud. Demand more social programs if you must, but realize that socialism is a de facto death sentence for our economy, liberty and our democracy, and has nothing at all to do with Medicare for All, racial equality or loan forgiveness.

I agree. Socialism is evil. The ascending members of the party are moving hard in that direction. They call themselves socialists. They align themselves with Marxist organizations like BLM. I will take their word for it. What we have seen for decades is the generous welfare programs as you put it. What is happening in the party now is not that.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I agree. Socialism is evil. The ascending members of the party are moving hard in that direction. They call themselves socialists. They align themselves with Marxist organizations like BLM. I will take their word for it. What we have seen for decades is the generous welfare programs as you put it. What is happening in the party now is not that.

We will see. We survived far more overt pro communist ideology by “youth” in the 1960’s - and all the while with no constitutional support for a personal right to bear arms at all from the 2A. That didn’t show up until 2008 with Heller, and by then all those radicals we suburbanites with mortgages and $100 lululemon leggings. My bet is we survive this too if we just calm down a bit.

 

[SAJ-99]

Interesting choice of words...

A lot of tyrants are elected first. Putin in Russia, Erdogan in Turkey, Duterte in Phillipines. That's how it starts- But Tyrants don't exist in a vacuum. They need to have support. First it is a message - stoke fear of something and promise to change. When you get power you start to seed doubt in the electoral process and change it to help you keep that power. Eventually it just becomes as exercise of filling the pockets of enough people with enough $ to keep them on board. I didn't come up with the plan, it has been around for ages. After all, the Roman Empire was a democracy. Almost all governments rot from within. The 2A won't prevent tyranny.

 

[LWC55]

We will see. We survived far more overt pro communist ideology by “youth” in the 1960’s - and all the while with no constitutional support for a personal right to bear arms at all from the 2A. That didn’t show up until 2008 with Heller, and by then all those radicals we suburbanites with mortgages and $100 lululemon leggings. My bet is we survive this too if we just calm down a bit.

You keep repeating this. Just because you say the 2A didn't support the personal right to bear arms until 2008 doe not make it so. The 2A hasn't changed since its inception. A 2008 court ruling that confirmed the original meaning does not change the history or the meaning it had for the prior 200+ years.

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

You keep repeating this. Just because you say the 2A didn't support the personal right to bear arms until 2008 doe not make it so. The 2A hasn't changed since its inception. A 2008 court ruling that confirmed the original meaning does not change the history or the meaning it had for the prior 200+ years.

Care to respond to my question, if you're going to drive with this line of reasoning.

 

[LWC55]

Care to respond to my question, if you're going to drive with this line of reasoning.

I'm sorry, what was your question?

 

[VikingsGuy]

You keep repeating this. Just because you say the 2A didn't support the personal right to bear arms until 2008 doe not make it so. The 2A hasn't changed since its inception. A 2008 court ruling that confirmed the original meaning does not change the history or the meaning it had for the prior 200+ years.

Please find me any binding SCOTUS legal case that agrees with you prior to Heller.

But just to be clear, with your logic gay marriage and the right to an abortion have been guaranteed rights in the US since 1860’s (original text of equal protection). That will come as quite a surprise to many.

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

I'm sorry, what was your question?

#165

 

[VikingsGuy]

#165

Hey, get in line, he still owes me answers to two or three.

 

[FI460]

You keep repeating this. Just because you say the 2A didn't support the personal right to bear arms until 2008 doe not make it so. The 2A hasn't changed since its inception. A 2008 court ruling that confirmed the original meaning does not change the history or the meaning it had for the prior 200+ years.

An individual interpretation of an amendment doesn't have any weight. The 10th Amendment Center would have us believe that public lands, the ATF, and the EPA are unconstitutional. That's clearly not the case.

 

[LWC55]

#165

You didn't ask a question but you referenced the Mulford Act. That was a gun control law put in place so that the government would have more control over its citizens. That particular legislation was in response to the Black Panther Party and was intended to reduce their power. For the record, I'm against gun control, no matter which party is trying to grab the power.