Gun Control Debate

[Dave_LF]

The question I'm asking is, if they don't, why not? Their initial conditions were awfully similar on paper. The Americans went on to write that document and revolt, the others... didn't.

[Frelga]

Do Canadians or Australians have something as equivalently iconic as the Declaration of Independence stating that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."?

And if they did (or, although they didn't) how come they weren't the ones to perpetuate slavery for almost another century?

[Túrin Turambar]

Very good question which deserves a long answer. The short one is that the British Government learned from its mistakes regarding the Thirteen Colonies and, over the first half of the nineteenth century, changed its policy to allow for the peaceful devolution of legislative and executive power. As a result, power was transferred peacefully to the colonies in British North America in the 1840s and Australia in the 1850s. There had been violent uprisings in Canada in the 1830s due to the lack of self-rule, and mass protests in Sydney in 1849 for the same reason, and there was talk in both places among more radical types of emulating the Americans. However, the willingness of the British Colonial Office to permit their colonies to have their own parliaments and cabinets with more or less full control of domestic matters made taking that line of thought any further unnecessary.

That said, on the surface I don't think this entirely explains the U.S. Bill of Rights. The American Bill of Rights is based almost entirely on the existing 1689 English one, which was passed by Parliament following the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the overthrow of King James II. One of the crimes the Parliament leveled against James was that he had "[caused] several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law", and so declared "that the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law". In short, James had attempted to disarm England's traditional militia and replace it with a permanent standing army, which he paid for by raising heavy taxes and then quartered in people's homes. Hence the various restrictions in the English (and subsequent American) Bill of Rights against disarming people and quartering soldiers in private houses. Contrary to popular belief, the American Revolution was an uprising in support of rather than opposition to contemporary British political ideas, albeit directed against the British Government. Being an act of parliament, though, the English Bill of Rights can be (and has been) amended over the years, whereas the American cannot. Even aside from the legal aspects, the American Bill of Rights has retained far more cultural significance, whereas the English one is mostly forgotten these days, even though it is the basis for many legal concepts throughout the Commonwealth. Parliamentary sovereignty, for example.

[yovargas]

Being an act of parliament, though, the English Bill of Rights can be (and has been) amended over the years, whereas the American cannot.

Of course it can be amended.

[Cerin]

I'm not sure I understand the disdain for 'politicization,' if I'm understanding the term correctly. It seems natural to me that people would talk about the laws pertaining to a certain activity, after a tragedy occurs around that activity; legislation is the way we change our laws, and politics is the way to affect legislation, so talking about our laws, one ends up talking politics.

Why should we not talk about gun control legislation in the aftermath of a tragic shooting like this? I think it would be bizarre if we did not.

[River]

Being an act of parliament, though, the English Bill of Rights can be (and has been) amended over the years, whereas the American cannot.

Of course it can be amended.

In fact, I'd argue that Amendment 14 is one such amendment.

However, amending the US Constitution is difficult by design. It doesn't happen without a tremendous amount of will behind it.

[RoseMorninStar]

I'm not sure I understand the disdain for 'politicization,' if I'm understanding the term correctly. It seems natural to me that people would talk about the laws pertaining to a certain activity, after a tragedy occurs around that activity; legislation is the way we change our laws, and politics is the way to affect legislation, so talking about our laws, one ends up talking politics.

Why should we not talk about gun control legislation in the aftermath of a tragic shooting like this? I think it would be bizarre if we did not.

Because greed.
There will be no change to gun laws because the gun business/lobby is big money. It doesn't matter what makes sense.. only if it makes CENTS.
Same for our health care. True reform isn't taking place because the way it is right now is too profitable (for a few).

[Sunsilver]

Rose, very true. I read somewhere today (forget just where) that the NRA was one of the three wealthiest and most powerful lobbying bodies in the U.S. If the people were to try to elect representatives in favour of gun control, the NRA would just oppose them with pro-gun candidates that they'd bought.

[yovargas]

I'm not sure I understand the disdain for 'politicization,' if I'm understanding the term correctly. It seems natural to me that people would talk about the laws pertaining to a certain activity, after a tragedy occurs around that activity; legislation is the way we change our laws, and politics is the way to affect legislation, so talking about our laws, one ends up talking politics.

Because this is no longer what politics is. Instead, it's a game between two teams trying to score points against each other, and playing games during a tragedy is uncouth, doncha know.

[Túrin Turambar]

Being an act of parliament, though, the English Bill of Rights can be (and has been) amended over the years, whereas the American cannot.

Of course it can be amended.

My mistake, I was writing too quickly. I meant amended by simple legislation.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

For all practical purposes, your original statement was correct.

[yovargas]

Except for the part where our constitution has been amended a bunch of times?

[Sunsilver]

Rosanne Cash has been speaking out for gun control for years. Here's her most recent editorial, and YES, the N.R.A. is guilty of funding 'domestic terrorism'!

Oh, and she gets death threats every time she speaks out about this.

By ROSANNE CASH
OCTOBER 3, 2017
New York Times

This article has been updated to reflect news developments.

I’ve been a gun-control activist for 20 years. Every time I speak out on the need for stricter gun laws, I get a new profusion of threats. There’s always plenty of the garden-variety “your dad would be ashamed of you” sexist nonsense, along with the much more menacing threats to my family and personal safety.

Last year, I performed at the Concert Across America to End Gun Violence with Jackson Browne, Eddie Vedder, Marc Cohn and the Harlem Gospel Choir, and we got death threats. People wanted to kill us because we wanted to end gun violence. That’s where we are: America, 2017.

For the past few decades, the National Rifle Association has increasingly nurtured an alliance with country music artists and their fans. You can see it in “N.R.A. Country,” which promotes the artists who support the philosophical, and perhaps economic, thrall of the N.R.A., with the pernicious tag line “Celebrate the Lifestyle.”

That wholesome public relations veneer masks something deeply sinister and profoundly destructive. There is no other way to say this: The N.R.A. funds domestic terrorism.

A shadow government exists in the world of gun sales, and the people who write gun regulations are the very people who profit from gun sales. The N.R.A. would like to keep it that way.

The laws we have in place to prevent the procurement of military-style weapons by mentally ill citizens are laughable by the standards of any civilized society. But even those pathetic restrictions would be eased if the N.R.A. had its way. Just this week, the House of Representatives was scheduled to vote on a measure that would loosen restrictions on gun silencers and armor-piercing bullets (the vote was indefinitely postponed after the Las Vegas massacre). It’s not hard to learn about how millions of N.R.A. dollars have spread throughout Congress to influence that vote.

If the proposed law had passed before the mass shooting in Las Vegas on Sunday, and the rifles in the assailant’s hotel room had been fitted with silencers, one could safely assume that the death toll would be much, much higher. Those who ran from the concert and survived did so because they heard the gunfire. None of that matters to the N.R.A.

I encourage more artists in country and American roots music to end your silence. It is no longer enough to separate yourself quietly. The laws the N.R.A. would pass are a threat to you, your fans, and to the concerts and festivals we enjoy.

The stakes are too high to not disavow collusion with the N.R.A. Pull apart the threads of patriotism and lax gun laws that it has so subtly and maliciously intertwined. They are not the same.

I know you’ll be bullied for speaking out. This is how they operate. Not everyone will like you for taking a stand. Let it roll off your back. Some people may burn your records or ask for refunds for tickets to your concerts. Whatever. Find the strength of moral conviction, even if it comes with a price tag, which it will. Don’t let them bully you into silence. That’s where their power lies — in the silence of rational voices and in the apathy of those who can speak truth to power.

This is a moment in American history that can’t be met with silence. According to PolitiFact, from 2005 to 2015, some 300,000 people were killed by gun violence. That’s roughly the population of Pittsburgh. The grief that extends through the affected families is endless.

Those of us who make our living in “the tower of song,” as Leonard Cohen so eloquently put it, must let our voices ring out. The N.R.A. will stick to its post-shooting playbook. It will say that we shouldn’t “politicize” the Las Vegas carnage by talking about gun control at this time, and that this isn’t about guns, it’s about people, and that even more of us should be armed to protect ourselves. Enough.

Patriotism and a belief in strong gun control are not antithetical. We need common-sense gun laws, and I hope my fellow occupants of the tower of song will join me in saying so. In unity, we can drown out the bullies.

Okay, I'm going to get off the net and go on about my day now. I just can't handle any more of this, and with Trump in power nothing is going to change on the gun control front.

[Frelga]

@PeterNikeas: "Law enforcement source confirms to @USATODAY - Vegas shooter booked Chicago hotel room during Lollapalooza" https://t.co/Pfjb3JQXmD


Eta: Sunny, this one is on Congress much more than it is on Trump. I am not aware of Trump having any particular ties to the NRA, unlike many Congresspersons.

[Dave_LF]

The focus is always on the NRA, which is fine, but I sometimes wonder how much of gun laws' untouchability comes from the military. There have got to be people there who love having so much privately-funded weapons production capacity and R&D laying around.

[Frelga]

My sense is that military doesn't like cutting edge military tech being available to the public, although I can't back it up.

Either way, it's the NRA that contributes to elections and harasses anyone who tries to do anything. If the military is behind them, I haven't seen any proof yet.

[Sunsilver]

Here's the NRA's last tweet before the Las Vegas shooting began:

http://www.distractify.com/news/2017/10 ... zine-tweet

In an NRA-produced video, American Hunter [the N.R.A.'s official magazine] managing editor Jon Draper is absolutely giddy about massive power of the FN SCAR 17S. Draper traveled to the test range of the manufacturer, FN, where he spoke to Jay Recto, the “assault weapons manager.” After being taken through some of the rifle’s features by Recto, a giddy Draper declares: “Literally, this is the same rifle that the military gets without the full auto happy switch. That’s fantastic!”

“Exactly, you don’t have the happy switch, that’s about it,” Recto agrees

"Full auto happy switch..."

And here's the video the above quote is from:




This is NOT a hunting rifle, folks. This is a military assault rifle, which has been fitted with a bump stock, to allow it to be fired almost continuously. (Paddock's rifles were also fitted with bump stocks, which are currently legal.)

Why are there rifles like this in the hands of CIVILIANS??

[Sunsilver]

And now, of course, legislators are calling for the ban of these bump stocks.

As a result they are flying off the shelves...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... s-massacre

Oh, and some stats on campaign donations from the NRA. I haven't checked the figures for accuracy, though. The source is liable to be - shall we say - a tad biased?

[Frelga]

NRA came out in support of bump stock ban.

Plot twist: the Vegas shooter made his latest gun purchase from "Skipper" Speece, described as Cliven Bundy's bodyguard and friend.

https://twitter.com/JohnLGC/status/916054076382523393

[River]

The more I hear about bump-stocks the more I wonder why they even exist. They make the weapon they're attached to less accurate and more prone to malfunction (machines don't do well outside their operating specs). What's the point? Other than spraying down a crowd of concert-goers?