Thread: this would make me very nervous, record gun sales in US

I don't have strong views one way or the other on this; However I believe majority of people are not responsible enough or guaranteed to react correctly in situations in which the 'need' for the gun might arise resulting in death of the wrong person or the victim trying to protect themselves. On the other hand, rules such as these only keep responsible law abiding people from weapons, the crims still go ahead and get what they want anyway

Originally Posted by 1976_michelle

rules such as these only keep responsible law abiding people from weapons, the crims still go ahead and get what they want anyway

Correct

Re the Australian democracy, we, as a people, really have no way of changing the law if we don't like it. The Americans can, they can put up an Initiative or Proposition, which, if voted through by the people, allows them to have laws rescinded. We can't do anything.

See [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initiative"]Initiative - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initiatives_and_referendums_in_the_United_States"]Initiatives and referendums in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Disregard the title, read the text. Admittedly, some weird things get proposed and, in the Bible Belt even more so.
US elections 2008: the strange world of local ballot propositions | World news | The Guardian

Guys
This is a lively discussion and I would just like to add a few comments.

As an Englishman in America I would say that the US constitution bears some relevance to the Treaty of Arbroth 1320.
Not surprising however since many of the the founding fathers have some Scottish heritage.

Declaration of Arbroath

The right to bear arm comes from the Minute Man settler and his musket hung over the fire place. One of the most famous incidences comes from Gen Borgoyne's march south from Ft Ticonderoga and he, being short of rations and horses, decided to steal them from the local settlers.
He made the mistaken judgemen of not understanding his enemy who were armed unlike their fellow Brits on the other side of the pond!

Basically a bad move, since the locals were armed with a weapon more superior than the British army's Brown Bess or limited supplies of the Ferguson . Based upon a German fowling piece, the Kentucky Long Rifle shot the crap out of the British Army being much more accurate in what is probably the first type of guerrilla warfare the world had seen.

As a fire arms enthusiast I find that the average American is ignorant of firearms in general and in cities many are not armed and have never owned any sort of firearm.
This changes in various areas of the country, & out west in rural areas you are more likely to see citizens sporting a side arm.

It is the general acceptance that an armed citizenry is a polite citizenry.
On the whole I would say that is so, and contrary to the UK where mugging and assaults on the elderly are commonplace, the contrary exists!
Basically who wants to mug granny if she pulls a snub nosed .38 out of her purse and blows the the would-be assailants head off!
see;
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMZbW2Q92MM"]Senior Citizen Opens Fire on Robbers of Internet Cafe - YouTube[/ame]

Notably the only other western country which has the right to bear arms is Switzerland and its citizenry militia army. The folks there haven't fought a war for more than 500 years. Granted they don't poke their noses into other peoples business but this country can mobilize at least half a million fighting men within 48 hours. Even Adolf when we went on his grand Euro walk about gave these blokes a wide berth.
See:-
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95zI8zrmxIQ"]Why Switzerland has a low crime rate: everyone has guns. - YouTube[/ame]
Take a note of what is said by the US Senator at the end.

Dennis
zedcars

The right to bear arms is the Americans safeguard against domination by the ruling class. When the constitution was written, many Americans were refugees from a Europe where only the nobility could bear arms. As a result persecution, be it religious, economic or just plain bullying, was rife.

The yanks decided that if all men could bear arms, persecution would only go so far, as sooner or later men would defend themselves.

In my opinion, it is one of the great safeguards of liberty. I would rather the silent majority who make up most of our nation be armed and able to defend common dense and decency in the event of trouble.

Basically who wants to mug granny if she pulls a snub nosed .38 out of her purse and blows the the would-be assailants head off!
see;

This is the bit that is pure John Wayne fantasy. A mugger doesn't walk up to Granny and say "excuse me, I am going to mug you". A mugger with more than two brain cells comes up from behind, knocks granny to the ground and scuttles off with a gun and a handbag.

Originally Posted by Andrew Morris

The right to bear arms is the Americans safeguard against domination by the ruling class. When the constitution was written, many Americans were refugees from a Europe where only the nobility could bear arms. As a result persecution, be it religious, economic or just plain bullying, was rife.

The yanks decided that if all men could bear arms, persecution would only go so far, as sooner or later men would defend themselves.

In my opinion, it is one of the great safeguards of liberty. I would rather the silent majority who make up most of our nation be armed and able to defend common dense and decency in the event of trouble.

Andrew
You are absolutely right!
You have to look at English latter day history to get a handle on it.

In short Britain (the ruling classes) were scared of a popular uprising made worse by the loss of the American Colonies and then the French revolution which followed shortly thereafter.
The masses in Britain never got any enfranchisement to mention until the 3rd reform acts which were hard fought for, nor general education until 1880
My paternal grand father Sam Williams was the first member of my family who could read and write, being born in 1887.
The second reform act only was enacted after mass riots on Bristol & elsewhere like Derby.

To understand these circumstances you have to look at the source of money and wealth. This was centered around the Lord and Lady of the manor and the Ag sector; tithe farmer /peasant farming and the Enclosures Acts. Some gentry having created new wealth in the Carib Colonies and by the emerging Industrial Revolution.

In the latter parts of the 19th century there were about 1.5 million people working in almost slave like conditions as domestic staff in these manor houses and farming communities.

The "knock on the head" was that the United States beat the UK/Germany at the industrial revolution game and Canada/Australia/New Zealand were able to produce food much cheaper than they could in the UK with was increasingly being imported & eroding prices.

The result was a loss of income and eroding power base of the landed gentry.
To inject money into these systems the ruling classes actively engaged in marrying American debutantes of wealthy ordinary industrialists; in short new money!
Winston Churchill's mother was an American who married into the English Aristocracy as a wealth injection.

As we can read in history the 20th century was the century of the working man. The system was swept away mostly by a World War (1914/1918.) The UK power base was severely eroded and the manor house withered on the vine through the post war years of the 20's & 30's. The bankers and Industrialist replaced them.
As my maternal grandfather said "we as sqaudies marched to war in France, the gentry officer class rode on horseback, but bullets and shells didn't discriminate so many of the young gentry were lost as rightful heirs to a defunct system".

Reference to a popular UK uprising was prevalent during the Bolshevik Revolution when the King of England almost got the Romanov's repatriated to the UK. Prime Minster David Lloyd George,the wily old fox had sense not to allow it for obvious reasons!
The Russian Revolution Ninety Years After | Solidarity
This gives the reader the general fears of the ruling classes in the first part of the 20th century which had existed for centuries.
I submit that the UK has always been rightly aware of popular discontent by the masses and that explains why the Constitutions of the USA was written to rub out many of the inequalities which existed at that time when England was the master of its American Colonies.
Dennis
zedcars

Originally Posted by bee utey

This is the bit that is pure John Wayne fantasy. A mugger doesn't walk up to Granny and say "excuse me, I am going to mug you". A mugger with more than two brain cells comes up from behind, knocks granny to the ground and scuttles off with a gun and a handbag.

No but the very risk of getting shot levels the playing field!
Recently two villains in the UK broke into a lonely farmhouse with intent to rob. They were shot by the occupier.
I suppose the sad part was that the occupier was interrogated for more than 40 hours and treated harshly..
The good bit was that the two burglars were told at trail by the judge that if you burgle expect to be shot!

In the USA that would have fallen on a "Make My Day" law.
Interestingly the couple who were burgled have now left the UK for Australia. Emigrated.
Dennis
zedcars