Irish Gun Control - To Strict?

Fuinseog wrote: »

what gives Nodin? you normally espouse the lefty argument and here you are advocating more guns for our little island?

Since when has been being anti-gun "left wing"? Thats some US notion.

I'll just leave this here...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91913260

Regardless of anyone's stand on the 2nd amendment, the US Supreme Court has ruled it is an individuals right. Neither Congress nor the President can change, ignore or reject a US Supreme Court decision or order short of modifying the Constitution itself, or a new review by the Supreme Court itself. This is extremely rare(but has happened). However, the US Justice System operates upon the 'Stare Decisis' principle, and places very heavy weight upon US Supreme Court precedents. So much so that lower court cases are often thrown out if they are not in step with previous Supreme Court decisions on the subject in review, and thus the Supreme Court rarely sees a case for review.

I might add that the 2nd amendment does not say the militia has the right to bear arms, but clearly states that it is 'the people' whom have the right. In order to reinterpret it as other than a peoples right, you would have to reinterpret every other right guaranteed to 'the people' in every other amendment in which they are cited as a right belonging to the state instead. This would make the 10th amendment very confusing:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. "

A militia argument implies that the state and the people are one and the same if it bases it's principle upon the second amendment being a states right. It would have to accept that 'the people' and 'the state' are semantically the same. Which, of course, they are not. The state is a representative of the people. The "or" in the 10th Amendment is a bit of a clue.

Even if one sticks to the militia argument, The Constitution does not allow the military to interact with the public except in the most extreme cases, and requires a presidential order or Act of Congress. It only allows the militia to freely organize within the civilian population. The militia was only legally defined as a loose force in the Militia Act of 1903. Until then, every American was considered part of the militia. The act itself specifies every able-bodied male citizen between the ages of 17 and 45(basically those of draftable age) whom are NOT members of organized state militias or military. This does not remotely nullify the Second Amendment, nor does it replace it as it is an Act and not an amendment.

And perhaps most to the point is the Declaration Of Independence:

"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.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

The passage in bold is not something an unarmed, non military populace can really accomplish. Some would argue that freedom from oppression is ageless and not really open to reinterpretation.

robindch wrote: »

And criminals who know that their victims are likely to be armed, will arm themselves and will be prepared to use their weapon. That doesn't happen here in Ireland where most (all?) home-invasion crimes are done without firearms. Yes, I might get the sugar kicked out of me if I attack some thief in my hallway, but I'm not going to end up dead. See response to (1).Rights: the keep-and-bear-arms amendment was inserted, as the text made quite clear, so that state leaders could have a militia whom they could call on: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Since the US Army now fulfils that role, and people don't hold weapons to belong to state-level militias, that amendment does not apply.

Secondly, why shouldn't you own weapons? Because they're fucking dangerous, that's why.

The USA has gun-related deaths (suicide, mistakes, attack and defence) which are way, way, way beyond what any other developed nation suffers and the political power and financial clout of the NRA and the wider weapons-supply industry makes it impossible for the political class to deal with the issue. And so, the USA will continue to kill thousands every year for no reason. Still, at least they make good phallic substitutes.

codex1 wrote: »

"common thing" - what thing?

Fact is, I cannot legally buy high powered sporting firearms in Ireland that I can buy over here, which I object to & is the whole point here.

Ive been reading this thread and can't read anymore, but I do think thats a ridiculous point and cannot understand why your so annoyed you can't buy some automatic machine gun in a country you don't live in.