2nd Amendment for the U.K. -- long overdue

[MG1962]

You may need to do some research yourself. The fundamental principle of UK law is Parliamentary supremacy. Parliament can write legislation to do anything it likes. If the new legislation contradicts the old legislation, the old legislation is implicitly repealed.

But isn't that an ammendment you are talking about?

 

[brodski]

But isn't that an ammendment you are talking about?

No, it's legislation.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Much like irony, Americans haven't got a clue about gun rights. After repeated school shootings by $%@#heads who picked up guns like most citizens get their dry cleaning, it's about time the U.S. thought about dropping outdated and frankly stupid gun laws. How many more people have to die before the Yanks stop carrying guns?

Oooh, this is fun!

But how will we support domestic terrorism with out handguns?(yes that is a real argument in america, they don't say terrorism but more about uprisings to overthrow the government, but really it is the same thing)

 

[ponderingturtle]

If the only thing you can think of to do with a gun is kill things, then you shouldn't have one.

The whole point of this thread is about using guns to kill people, and that we need more people armed so that more people will be killed. The intent is so that bad people will be killed more, it means that people like the OP shouldn't have guns in your opinion.

 

[MG1962]

No, it's legislation.

I guess I am not explaining this well enough. Lets say we have legislation that say we can not eat boiled eggs. Call it the 2009 Egg act

Now the British government decides that this not such a good piece of legislation. They dont write a new act 2010 Egg Act that says you can now eat boiled eggs. They simply repeal the old one. If they decide you can eat eggs only on Mondays, they ammend the 2009 Egg act to reflect this

Is this correct or not?

 

[brodski]

I guess I am not explaining this well enough. Lets say we have legislation that say we can not eat boiled eggs. Call it the 2009 Egg act

Now the British government decides that this not such a good piece of legislation. They dont write a new act 2010 Egg Act that says you can now eat boiled eggs. They simply repeal the old one. If they decide you can eat eggs only on Mondays, they ammend the 2009 Egg act to reflect this

Is this correct or not?

What world normally happen is that there would be new legislation which would repeal the 2009 Egg act, probably in the form of a section inserted into some other legislation which was going though at the time, legislation can usually only be amended via new legislation. If they wanted to do it as standalone legislation you would get the “Egg (amendment) act 2010”. Even though it has the word “amendment” in the title, it’s still new legislation in its own right, and must go through exactly the same process as all other new legislation.

In the case of firearms legislation it would be even more complicated, say that the government wanted to repeal the current gun laws, they could have legislation which just repealed the 1997 firearms (amendment) act, but there would still be other laws in force (the 1967 firearms act for instance). It would be much more simple, and legislatively easier, to say right, here is the Wild (north) West act 2010, which states that everybody must carry at least one six shooter in case they want to hail a cab in the Lake District.

 

[MG1962]

What world normally happen is that there would be new legislation which would repeal the 2009 Egg act, probably in the form of a section inserted into some other legislation which was going though at the time, legislation can usually only be amended via new legislation. If they wanted to do it as standalone legislation you would get the “Egg (amendment) act 2010”. Even though it has the word “amendment” in the title, it’s still new legislation in its own right, and must go through exactly the same process as all other new legislation.

In the case of firearms legislation it would be even more complicated, say that the government wanted to repeal the current gun laws, they could have legislation which just repealed the 1997 firearms (amendment) act, but there would still be other laws in force (the 1967 firearms act for instance). It would be much more simple, and legislatively easier, to say right, here is the Wild (north) West act 2010, which states that everybody must carry at least one six shooter in case they want to hail a cab in the Lake District.

Okay gotcha

 

[drkitten]

I guess I am not explaining this well enough. Lets say we have legislation that say we can not eat boiled eggs. Call it the 2009 Egg act

Now the British government decides that this not such a good piece of legislation. They dont write a new act 2010 Egg Act that says you can now eat boiled eggs. They simply repeal the old one. If they decide you can eat eggs only on Mondays, they ammend the 2009 Egg act to reflect this.

Is this correct or not?

It is not correct.

Parliament can certainly choose to repeal the 2009 Egg Act, or to amend it.

But they can also pass the 2010 Monday Breakfast Act, which make the eating of boiled eggs mandatory at breakfast time on Monday, without mentioning or touching the 2009 Egg Act in any way. The effect of the new law is to implicitly repeal the 2009 Egg Act; a person charged with eating a boiled egg at Monday breakfast would have a complete defence in in the newer law. (Of course, the person eating a boiled egg at lunch on Tuesday would still be in trouble.)

 

[drkitten]

What world normally happen is that there would be new legislation which would repeal the 2009 Egg act, probably in the form of a section inserted into some other legislation which was going though at the time, legislation can usually only be amended via new legislation. If they wanted to do it as standalone legislation you would get the “Egg (amendment) act 2010”. Even though it has the word “amendment” in the title, it’s still new legislation in its own right, and must go through exactly the same process as all other new legislation.

In the case of firearms legislation it would be even more complicated, say that the government wanted to repeal the current gun laws, they could have legislation which just repealed the 1997 firearms (amendment) act, but there would still be other laws in force (the 1967 firearms act for instance). It would be much more simple, and legislatively easier, to say right, here is the Wild (north) West act 2010, which states that everybody must carry at least one six shooter in case they want to hail a cab in the Lake District.

But,.... and this is the key point... the Wild (north) West Act 2010 would not need to explicitly amend or overturn all the gun legislation it was overturning. It wouldn't even need to mention it. Anything dated prior to 2010 that conflicted with the WnWA2010 would no longer be in force.

 

[ZirconBlue]

Personally, I'm fine with them. I don't particularly want to shoot anyone, so I find it quite convenient that nobody else is allowed to shoot me.

Just as a point of clarification: even in the US others would not generally be allowed to shoot you (exceptions for self-defense, etc.) Just because it's legal to own guns doesn't mean it's legal to go around shooting people.

There is a major cultural difference between the US and UK.

But also:
The existing situation in the US can hardly be turned around. The government would have to take people's guns away. Not practical and not popular.

With so many guns in the country already, arming yourself is rational.
I don't think that pro-gun people are nuts.

But there is no reason why the UK should create a similar situation where you have a de-facto arms race between citizens.

I concur. I'm generally happy with our gun ownership rights in the US, as the citizens (subjects?) of the UK seem to be with their laws. I don't think it realistic, or even necissarily desirable, for either to change their current position.

 

[Rolfe]

Much like oral hygiene, the Brits haven't got a clue about ....

That analogy alone indicates to me that the primary purpose of this OP is trolling. What does firearms legislation have to do with oral hygiene? Or is there some new add-on for your six-shooter that also removes dental plaque?

Someone else has linked to the statistics, but it's a fact. Oral hygiene in Britain is on average better than in the USA. It's true that most Brits aren't especially interested in cosmetic dentistry, but that has nothing to do with oral hygiene. Teeth that are a bit crooked, or yellow-ish, or slightly chipped, or have amalgam fillings on the molars, may be and frequently are perfectly healthy. Most people's teeth are like that.

In contrast, what I observe in the USA is that one the one hand we see the artificial, blinding Hollywood smile, with gleaming white, even gnashers of strikingly artificial appearance. That tends to cover the reasonably well-off. Then on the other hand we see the gap-tooth smiles and the gross decay exhibited by most Americans in the less privileged classes.

I've seldom seen that last sort of mouth in Britain. It usually belongs either to a homeless person, or someone with a serious phobia of dentists. And yet it's so common in the USA, when the ordinary Joe is examined rather than the ones that usually appear on TV.

Which is why I conclude that the OP is merely intended to be gratuitously insulting.

Rolfe.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Parliament can certainly choose to repeal the 2009 Egg Act, or to amend it.

But they can also pass the 2010 Monday Breakfast Act, which make the eating of boiled eggs mandatory at breakfast time on Monday, without mentioning or touching the 2009 Egg Act in any way. The effect of the new law is to implicitly repeal the 2009 Egg Act; a person charged with eating a boiled egg at Monday breakfast would have a complete defence in in the newer law. (Of course, the person eating a boiled egg at lunch on Tuesday would still be in trouble.)

OK, I'm starting to see why having guns so we can overthrow the government might be a good thing.

Dave

 

[funk de fino]

Just as a point of clarification: even in the US others would not generally be allowed to shoot you (exceptions for self-defense, etc.) Just because it's legal to own guns doesn't mean it's legal to go around shooting people.

Some people in Texas may disagree with you

I concur. I'm generally happy with our gun ownership rights in the US, as the citizens (subjects?) of the UK seem to be with their laws. I don't think it realistic, or even necissarily desirable, for either to change their current position.

This. I am happy with ours. The USA is happy with theirs. It generally seems to be the US guys who start posts about the gun laws in the UK or the lack of free speech over here.

Do we start rabble rousing about the US having too much free speech by starting threads on it? A lot of them cannot see the similarities between themselves and the EJ Armstrong poster. Just opposite sides of the fence.

 

[MG1962]

I concur. I'm generally happy with our gun ownership rights in the US, as the citizens (subjects?) of the UK seem to be with their laws. I don't think it realistic, or even necissarily desirable, for either to change their current position.

And this is the core truth of the matter. The UK has the laws it wants. It has process to change those laws. The US is also in the same position. In any country where the people have a democratic say, all laws are up for grabs. Nothing is set in stone. In my mind that is a great thing

 

[drkitten]

OK, I'm starting to see why having guns so we can overthrow the government might be a good thing.

Huh?

What's so mind-boggling about it? The US Congress can do the same thing. In every government of which I'm aware, new legislation automatically trumps old legislation unless the old legislation is somehow set up to be superior -- e.g. as the Constitution trumps ordinary statute, or Federal law trumps state law.

 

[Rolfe]

Many many people in the UK have guns and carry them legally. One such person was Derrick Bird. He lived in a small rural area, nevertheless there were still over 22,000 legally owned guns in his county. [....]

Comparing the firearm death rates in America and the UK, America's isn ot higher because Americans can legally own guns and Brits can't. It is because a higher proportion of Americans choose to legally own a gun.

It is not the laws it is the mindset that needs to change for the British gun ownership levels to match America's. I hope that never happens if it also leads to a dramatic increase in the firearm death rate to match that you have in America.

I was going to say, what Dave Rogers said. Then, what Mark Corrigan said. But in the end I go with, what Lothian said. The American mindset where the gun is seen as some sort of macho posturing symbol isn't anything we really want any part of.

I wonder if there is actually any example of an incipient shooting spree in American being foiled because some passer-by had a gun? Because it seems to me there's a chance that having even more bullets flying around would just increase the death toll.

Spree killers, it seems, usually own their weapons legally. Thus it's not surprising that in the countries where far fewer of the population have guns, there are far fewer spree killings. Personally, I'm not that concerned that I might become a victim of gun crime. Whatever the statistics, it's so remote that I'm happy to sleep with my door open. What makes me particularly comfortable about doing that is knowing that it's highly unlikely my neighbour's angst-ridden teenager will be able to get hold of a gun.

(Actually, all our spree shooters, all three of them in, like, recorded history, have been angst-ridden middle-aged men, so maybe it's my neighbour himself I should be glad hasn't got a gun, not his son!)

When there's no culture of gun ownership, and it's quite hard to get a gun legally, only the bad guys have guns. Bad guys tend to shoot other bad guys. Fine with me.

Rolfe.

 

[Mikemcc]

So if China lobs a nuke at us we can shoot at it with our guns.

Nah, I'm being facetious.

We might get to plink tanks with rifle fire before we get blown up by artillery.


The whole American militia to defend the land thing is like the anti-rattlesnake bracelet.

"Well, has the U.S. ever been invaded in the last 200 years? The militia threat must be working"

Yep, we Brits did so in 1812-15 for a start.

 

[Rolfe]

It generally seems to be the US guys who start posts about the gun laws in the UK or the lack of free speech over here.

Do we start rabble rousing about the US having too much free speech by starting threads on it? A lot of them cannot see the similarities between themselves and the EJ Armstrong poster. Just opposite sides of the fence.

To be fair, I've seen a few threads started by non-Americans decrying the gun violence after they've had one of their distressingly common shooting incidents. Yank-baiting isn't entirely an Armstrong pastime....

Rolfe.

 

[23_Tauri]

Personally, I'm fine with them. I don't particularly want to shoot anyone, so I find it quite convenient that nobody else is allowed to shoot me. With fewer legal guns in the country, we have fewer illegal guns, so in general criminals don't have easy access to firearms, and in general tend not to use them casually. Our rate of firearms-related deaths is typically around thirty times lower than that in the USA, and I'm OK with that too. In general the political trend in the UK has been towards tighter rather than looser gun control, mainly because the evidence suggests that's what the majority of the population actually wants.

Here here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but after Hungerford there was a ban on owning semi-automatic rifles, after Dunbane it was hand guns. Brits generally want less guns in society, not more, because less guns = less people being murdered by guns. It's a no brainer, really it is.

 

[Naddig74]

If the only thing you can think of to do with a gun is kill things, then you shouldn't have one.

Come on then...list three other uses for a gun. Just three.