I'll say it again......I actually LIKE guns!

I used to shoot air-rifles at a local club when I was a boy, joined the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, loved going clay-pigeon (skeet) shooting.

I grinned like an idiot for days after I got to shoot an SA-80 on an army range a couple of years ago. I have no problems with hunting for food or for vermin control. I am a confirmed carnivore and fisherman.

I just happen to think that:

- guns are not a suitable method of self-defense in the UK & have never been a deterrant to criminals
- public ownership of guns in the UK represents an unnecessarily high level of risk to the population overall
- gun ownership in the UK was never a right, and that curtailing the gun ownership privilege of some citizens to increase the safety of the overall population is a necessary step (and backed by the vast majority of the UK peopl)
- the increased use of guns by UK criminals would not be addressed by wider gun-ownership in the population
- in the US, I think that the firearm ownership situation is far from ideal and that better control measures are required to address the problems (although this may simply involve more strict application of current regulations)
- in the US, it would be a good idea if the authorities could actually find out who owns which guns, probably through some kind of gun registration
- gun registration doesn't entail gun confiscation. It enables it if guns are misused, but the gun lobby is sufficiently strong to repel any wholesale confiscation, and it would be political suicide anyway.

Now......somebody conclude from the above that I want to enact a total ban on firearms in the US. I dare you!

P.

make gun confiscation possible. I believe registration of handguns would almost certainly lead to confiscation in some local or state governments because the most strident gun-grabber groups want to ban all handguns. Handguns are the most effective and efficient arms for self defense, the choice of criminals and law enforcement personnel.

Until someone can devise a gun registration system that will guarantee 100% that gun confiscation will not occur, most pro-RKBA supporters will oppose registration.

Yes, it does make it possible, but wouldn't "local" or "state" governments need to overall the 2nd amendment to roll out wholesale confiscation?

I don't know, I suppose my issue is something like the following:

Even if laws were enacted democratically and in accordance with due process and relevant legislation, you'd ignore them.

I.E. gun ownership has a "special" status that means that no matter what measures are suggested, gun owners are morally allowed to ignore them if they perceive a threat to their gun ownership.

I.E. gun owners are right, and no matter what the government or court system decides, you're going to keep your guns.

Seriously, I'm not trying to take away your guns, but this whole attitude of gun ownership being an "untouchable holy-of-holies" worries me.

area want to protect their own individual rights.

Wholesale confiscation becomes a problem at the limit and gun-grabbers have advocated an incremental approach toward their goal of absolutely banning handguns.

Some gun-control supporters want local law enforcement officials to subjectively decide whether a law abiding citizen will receive a gun license or CCW permit. That is unacceptable because the executive branch of government is making law but law-making is reserved for the legislative branches of our governments.

The current case in Washington DC illustrates how a citizens RKBA can be thwarted by government.
QUOTE
Background
11. The District of Columbia Code, Title 7, Human Health Care and Safety, Subtitle J, Public Safety, Chapter 25, Firearms Control, prohibits possession of pistols, even in the home, and requires registered firearms in the home to be disabled. Section 7-2502.01(a) provides in part that “no person or organization in the District shall possess or control any firearm, unless the person or organization holds a valid registration certificate for the firearm.” However, § 7-2502.02(a) provides: “A registration certificate shall not be issued for a: . . . (4) Pistol not validly registered to the current registrant in the District prior to September 24, 1976 . . . .” “‘Pistol’ means any firearm originally designed to be fired by use of a single hand.” § 7-2501.01(12).
UNQUOTE

simply having police or BAFT agent makes gun confiscation "possible". That's why you see the occasional anti BATF rant. Because they 'might' be peeking in the window preparing to confiscate their guns. Or is that the criminals peeking in the windows that we must shoot? Dear God, they're all around us....

is stuffed with angels.

Lamplugh?

And ask if guns would be a deterrant.

That's the easy one. I could do the rest, but it's late, and I'm sleepy.

:eyes:

P.

And you are entirely welcome.

If you need anything else, just let me know.

guns are not a suitable method of self-defense in the UK & have never been a deterrant to criminals

Not even close to being truth. Mayube you can provide something that might prove your assertation.

- public ownership of guns in the UK represents an unnecessarily high level of risk to the population overall

Huh? so do cars, so does beer, so does climbing stairs.

gun ownership in the UK was never a right

It is a right. It may be denied, but it still is a right.

Same as freedom of speach.

backed by the vast majority of the UK peopl

Ahh, the tyranny of the majority. Scary thing that, you never can tell when that majority will decide that you are not to be tolerated anymore.

- the increased use of guns by UK criminals would not be addressed by wider gun-ownership in the population

Ahh, yet curtailing private ownership of guns by the population did nothing to decrease the use of guns by UK criminals.

in the US, it would be a good idea if the authorities could actually find out who owns which guns, probably through some kind of gun registration

Why?

gun registration doesn't entail gun confiscation. It enables it if guns are misused, but the gun lobby is sufficiently strong to repel any wholesale confiscation, and it would be political suicide anyway.

Right now gun control itself, no matter what form, seems to be political suicide (on a national level).

"guns are not a suitable method of self-defense in the UK & have never been a deterrant to criminals"

Not even close to being truth. Mayube you can provide something that might prove your assertation.

Part 1 - not a suitable method...Why? Well, because it would mean the wholesale introduction of firearms and intensive training into a society where even the majority of police officers don't want to be permanently armed, and which has no modern history of widespread gun ownership or useage. It would be the forced insertion of an alien object into a society which overwhelmingly disproves of that object being in private hands. In fact, the UK has a proud history of its citizens wandering around unarmed with any weapon. Moreover, introducing guns as a suitable means of self-defense is like cracking a nut with a sledgehammer - the problem just isn't severe enough to merit such a response.

Part 2 - "not a deterrant". I'm talking about historically in the UK. Gun ownership has never been so widespread that it could act as a deterrant.

"unnecessarily high level of risk to the population overall - Huh? so do cars, so does beer, so does climbing stairs." - not this again.....I can't even be bothered to go over (again) why this is a crap argument.

"gun ownership in the UK was never a right - It is a right. It may be denied, but it still is a right." NO IT WASN'T!!! WHY do you have trouble with this!?!?!?! It's simple.......gun ownership was allowed by law, and now it isn't in the UK. Unless you have a piece of paper signed by God that says "Guns are a right, and by the way I DO exist" then it's not a right. A bunch of guys in the US years ago saying it is, doesn't make it so. Even if you accept that self-defense is a right, that doesn't mean that guns are unless you can prove that they're the only suitable method. It may be recognised as a right in the US, but it isn't and wasn't in the UK. No matter how many times you shout it loudly, you actually have to PROVE that it's a right, not just assert it.

And while we're at it, how can you be so blind/stupid as to suggest that owning a gun comes into the same category as freedom of speech? I don't exactly see Amnesty International writing angry letters to Tony Blair, complaining that our rights are being infringed because we can't have guns. Wake up. Guns are regarded as a privilege, a necessary evil or a problem - it's only the US (IIRC) that sees ownership as a "right", and that was to address specific problems at a point in time, and theoretical problems in future - it doesn't entail that every asshole in the country can keep a .357 in his sock drawer.

"backed by the vast majority of the UK peopl-Ahh, the tyranny of the majority. Scary thing that, you never can tell when that majority will decide that you are not to be tolerated anymore. "

My God, you're right! This democracy thing has GOT to stop! Preventing a tiny minority from owning specific weapons is akin to wholesale, embedded racism...it's just like Nazi Germany!

"the increased use of guns by UK criminals would not be addressed by wider gun-ownership in the population - Ahh, yet curtailing private ownership of guns by the population did nothing to decrease the use of guns by UK criminals."

Jesus, that's really hard to follow.......You're criticising the gun ban for not achieving something that WASN'T one of its aims, then claiming that NOT banning public gun ownership would have helped dissuade criminals from tooling up.....It's like saying "You've banned guns, and yet littering has increased! Maybe if you hadn't banned guns littering would have DECREASED! HA!"...

BTW- The madness is not on my end.

1- Yes, access to the tools to exercise self-defense, is a right shared by ALL humans, doestn matter if it is in the US, or Britain, or Iraq, or Zimbabwe. IF you deny people the tools needed to exercise their right to self-defense then the right to self-defense no longer exists, because then those who happened to be born lucky, and with greater physical size, strength, or social status will dominate those of lesser size, strength or status... err sorry forgot you're from the UK, your system has gotten to the point where the right to self-defense is being denied to the masses.

2- You think that majority rule is a good thing if you agree with it? What do you think of it when the majority does something you do not agree with? Do you then think that it should be limited? If so, then you are a hypocrit. Either the majority overuling and denying the minority it's rights whenever and for whatever reason the majority decides is a good thing, or it is a bad thing, there is not any 'as long as I agree with it' ground.

3- You REALLY need to look up the history of gun ownership in your own country before you start spouting off about what is historically accurate. Guns used to be just as prevelent in the UK as in the US, but then those nasty Aristocrats decided that they didnt want to risk one of them nasty socialist uprisings (you know that is where the lower classes shoot the upper classes), and they began to limit gun ownership to the lower classes. Granted it took nearly 75 years, but they finally ended up doing it and they even convinced the gullible masses out there that it was a good thing. Sad, just sad, almost to the point of madness.

4- Fine you are of the opinion that gun-banning was put forth on the British people not for criminal behavior, but rather simply to get 'those nasty evil things' off the streets. Fine. Believe what you will, but do not try to force your views upon me or mine.

You write well, you really do, and there might even be a couple of good points in there.......but unfortunately it's buried in a stinking pile of utter rubbish. "For why?", I hear you ask.....well here goes.......

1. Assuming that I agree that self-defense is a right, you'll have to persuade me that guns are the most appropriate tool to guarrantee that right, specifically in the UK or anywhere else. In the UK, that seems highly unlikely - given that you're incredibly unlikely to be faced by an armed criminal, one would imagine that mace, tazer guns or something else less-lethal would be more appropriate.

"your system has gotten to the point where the right to self-defense is being denied to the masses" - Errr........well call me crazy, but I rather like living in a society which doesn't allow its citizens to go around armed in any way. I promise you that the day the UK allows its citizens to arm themselves for self-defense purposes, is the day that the UK "injury and death due to weapons" statistic goes through the roof. At the moment, if you get stopped by the police with a knife or a gun in your pocket, you're arrested....I'd rather have that situation than everyone walking around with guns/knives/snooker balls in socks.

2. "You think that majority rule is a good thing if you agree with it?". Well....errrr.......I think that majority rule (with some enshrined basic rights and minority representation) is a good thing full stop. Isn't that the only way that it works? Yes, you grant some basic human rights that exist regardless (to protect the minority), but after that you have to go with what the majority of people believe is right. However, I'm afraid that freedom of speech, worship, assembly and even self-defense are in an entirely different category to the "right" to have guns. Rights are "good in themselves", whereas owning guns is a means to an end. All things being equal, in a utopian society would we include "free guns for everybody" on the list of rights? No......it's safety / peace / self-defense that is the right here - eliminate the need for self-defense (in a utopia) and you eliminate the need for guns, therefore guns aren't a right. In fact, the tools to achieve any right aren't rights in themselves - if somebody prevents you from congregating, then your right to freedom of assembly has been broken....but you don't have a "right" to a bus journey to get to a protest.

Also, there are many laws that I'm not happy with and which I consider unfair......but you can't really choose which laws to obey and which to ignore. So I'm not a hypocrite, just FYI. Your problem (well...one of them) is that you start from a position of ASSUMING that gun ownership is a right, then yell because that right is being infringed...I'm saying it's not a right, so no rights are being infringed. Happily, as you're the one claiming something exists, you have to prove it. At the moment I'm not even sure you know what a "right" is or how "rights" work......but then neither do I really, despite months studying the concept of Justice and Rights.

3. Holy priceless collection of Etruscan Snoods, Batman! You're right.......It was an aristocratic conspiracy that led to the government banning firearms. I must have been imagining the 2 massacres at Dunblane and Hungerford and the huge swell of public support for a ban......those cunning long-dead Aristos sure had me fooled! What an idiot....here I am, living in perpetual servitude of Lord and Lady Snodgrass, barely surviving on the scraps thrown from their table and sleeping in the gutter, whilst my 15 children clean chimneys and shine shoes to make ends meet.....etc. etc. etc.

Have you got any idea whatsoever of what life in the UK is like? Perhaps you might consider purchasing a copy of The Guardian newspaper, rather than relying on Charles Dickens for an accurate and contemporary view.

I am puzzled, I really am........the democratically elected government of the UK, with HUGE public backing, enacts a law. And yet you somehow have this idea that it's a huge aristocratic conspiracy to prevent the peasants revolting.....With a straight face you are suggesting that the majority of the population backing a government decision is somehow less fair or democratic than your own opinion on what my country's law should be.

And again, call me crazy, but I'm afraid that I don't see the UK's ex-handgun owners as a repressed minority....in the same way as you're not allowed the privilege of owning explosives and making your own fireworks, you're no longer allowed to own guns to take part in shooting - it's something that the government has deemed too dangerous and inappropriate in a modern British society.

4. No, I don't think that gun banning was done to get those "nasty evil things off the streets". It wasn't intended to address guns on the streets at all. It was intended to prevent the misuse of privately held firearms, such as in the Dunblane massacre. A tiny minority of people losing the privilege to follow a specific sport is insignificant compared to just one more mass shooting of children.

And I'll say it AGAIN, as you're clearly not listenning.......in modern times guns weren't widely owned in the UK, and where they were owned it was specifically for the following of sport or collection, NOT self-defense. Your bizarre picture of Brits wandering around freely with guns is as erroneous and hilarious as your theories of aristocratic conspiracy. (Incidentally, I'm not doubting that the aristos didn't want an armed uprising, I'm just saying that it's farsical to suggest that this was the cause, 75 years later, of the gun ban).

Please, think about why the UN's International Declaration of Human Rights fails to mention "one gun each", consider why NO other country considers access to firearms a "right", then consult a book on UK society that was published after the death of Queen Victoria, and let's talk again....

P.

the Second Amendment here says nothing at all about individual gun ownership, despite the strenuous public lying of folks like Wayne LaPierre, John AshKKKroft and Ted Nugent.

:puke:

He's the sort of shitheel who peddles that rubbish.

one would imagine that mace, tazer guns or something else less-lethal would be more appropriate

Sometimes they would be, but other times they would not. Would you want to have to grapple with some out-of-control nut attacking you with a knife/cricket bat/pint glass, etc., so as to get close enough to use a taser?

And, aren't those items also banned in the UK? If so, you don't even have those options. If you did have those options, I think your point about what some items being "more appropriate" for self defense would be more persuasive.

The carrying of any sort of weaponry for self-defense purposes is indeed illegal in the UK.

I don't think that my point is weakened by this, however.

Man_In_The_Moon is claiming that access to guns is a right, based entirely on the fact that self-defense is a right. This "deduction" only works if guns are the only (or most appropriate) effective means of self-defense. I've only got to show that this isn't necessarily so in order for his claim to fall flat.

P.

It is an endless debate as to which specific rights are "natural" or inherent, so I'm not going to argue with you. I just want to point out the distinction between natural rights, constitutional rights, and civil rights.

In my opinion, the natural right to "life," includes the right to self-defense. (It doesn't sound like you really dispute that.) In the US, we find the acknowledgement of that inherent right to self defense in the 2nd Amendment constitutional right to keep and bear the tools to make the right to self defense meaningful. The same constitutional right also acts as a guarantee of our natural rights to "liberty" and "property."

Obviously, in the UK, you don't have the equivalent of constitutional rights, and there is no legal concept of natural rights, so you are limited to civil rights, those rights enshrined in law. That accounts for much of the difference in our perspectives.

Furthermore, regardless of whether firearms are needed for self defense, the UK has effectively outlawed any tool used for self defense. Pull a screwdriver from your toolbelt to confront a mugger and see how quickly you are charged. So, the UK has infringed on your natural rights to life, liberty, and property, by taking away every tool you have to defend yourself, your liberty, and your property.

The link provided is to an action that has been filed and not disposed of:

COMPLAINT
(For Declaratory Judgment, Injunctive Relief, and Writ of Mandamus)
1. This is an action to vindicate the rights of residents of the District of Columbia to exercise the same rights accorded to American citizens in every State of the Union to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, which guarantees the right of law-abiding citizens to keep handguns in the home for lawful defense of their families and other lawful purposes.

The passage quoted by jody:

9. Jurisdiction is founded on 28 U.S.C. § 1331 in that this action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States, and under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) in that this action seeks to redress the deprivation, under color of the laws, statute, ordinances, regulations, customs and usages of the District of Columbia, of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the United States Constitution, and by Acts of Congress providing for equal rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States.

... is the ALLEGATION made by the plaintiffs.

Surely we are all aware that the filing of a complaint doth not anything make, and that courts have been known to agree to hear actions that they have no intention of allowing in order to make a clear disposition of the legal issues, and sometimes even chide the complainants severely.

Just for instance, a court may perfectly well allow a case to proceed, hear argument on the jurisdictional issues, and then decide that it does NOT have jurisdiction.

I certainly do not say that the fact that the court has not refused to hear this case suggests that it intends to use it for that purpose.

No more than I would say that the fact that the court (emphasis added) "has not rejected the case as a 'civil rights' issue suggests RKBA is a 'civil right'."

And that's because it "suggests" no such thing.

.

I agree with your basic assertion, jody, but in this case, iverglas is correct that simply because it hasn't been rejected yet, doesn't make the claims valid.

But as rights deprivations go, D.C.'s are pretty blatant. If Congress doesn't restore some measure of sanity before the courts rule, the D.C. cases should be winners. I won't predict outcomes at the trial level, however.

In fact, federal law says that if RKBA has not been specifically excluded when civil rights are restored to a felon, then that person has RKBA under federal law.

"Obviously, in the UK, you don't have the equivalent of constitutional rights, and there is no legal concept of natural rights, so you are limited to civil rights, those rights enshrined in law."

... some people really just don't have a clue what they're talking about, but do it incessantly anyhow.

http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/80042--a.htm
http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/80042--d.htm


"That accounts for much of the difference in our perspectives."

There are other theories for what accounts for what differences there may be, I assure you. One would be based on the thought that you have quite obviously got the cart before the horse: the differences in perspective account for what differences there are in the expressions of it. Another would be that the differences in perspective on the part of a few account for the attempts to interpret similar expressions of similar perspectives on the part of the society as if they were different.


"In my opinion, the natural right to 'life,' includes the right to self-defense."

As does, and not simply in my opinion, the constitutional right to life.


"In the US, we find the acknowledgement of that inherent right to self defense in the 2nd Amendment constitutional right to keep and bear the tools to make the right to self defense meaningful."

In point of fact, the acknowledgement of the right to self-defence (however that right is characterized) is found in the right to life and not to be deprived thereof without due process, which is set out in your constitution. That right makes it imperative that a self-defence justification be available to a charge of assault or homicide, for instance, as it in fact is.

That right, the right of self-defence, would be complete without anything resembling the 2nd amendment. Exactly as it is in Canada and anywhere else that a right to life and not to be deprived thereof without due process (or the more stringent "fundamental justice", in Canada) is accepted.


"So, the UK has infringed on your natural rights to life, liberty, and property, by taking away every tool you have to defend yourself, your liberty, and your property."

And as far as I and all the Brits hereabouts are concerned, the state protects our right to life by prohibiting other people from walking around armed with things to kill us with. Just as it protects our freedom of speech by prohibiting other people from shouting "fire" in the crowded hall where we are planning a political protest. Amazing what a different perspective does, isn't it?

http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/2000/vol1/html/2000scr1_0783.html

Reference re Firearms Act (Can.), <2000> 1 S.C.R. 783

The Firearms Act constitutes a valid exercise of Parliament's jurisdiction over criminal law. The Act in "pith and substance" is directed to enhancing public safety by controlling access to firearms. Its purpose is to deter the misuse of firearms, control those given access to guns, and control specific types of weapons. It is aimed at a number of "mischiefs", including the illegal trade in guns, both within Canada and across the border with the United States, and the link between guns and violent crime, suicide, and accidental deaths. The purpose of the Firearms Act conforms with the historical public safety focus of all gun control laws. The changes introduced by the Act represent a limited expansion of the pre-existing gun control legislation. The effects of the Act also suggest that its essence is the promotion of public safety. The criteria for acquiring a licence are concerned with safety. Criminal record checks and background investigations are designed to keep guns out of the hands of those incapable of using them safely. Safety courses ensure that gun owners are qualified.

There are very many things that a person may do in the exercise of the right to life, or liberty, or freedom of speech, or what have you. Not all of them are, or have to be, legal. Where the things people do can be shown to interfere with an important public interest (like safety, i.e. the ability of other people to exercise their own rights without being harmed) and further a valid public purpose (like reducing the incidence of death and injury in the population), and where the limitation on the exercise of the right is rationally related to the goal and not disproportionate to the goal, and all that jazz, those activities may be prohibited or limited.


To many rational minds, the logic of the argument that everybody needs a gun in order to protect him/herself from everybody else with guns just isn't quite obvious.

.

"... some people really just don't have a clue what they're talking about, but do it incessantly anyhow.

http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/80042--a.htm
http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/80042--d.htm"

And some of us apparently never learned our manners.

Actually, those demonstrate my point. The Human Rights Act of 1998 is an Act of Parliament acknowledging the ECHR. As an Act of Parliament, it is not the equivalent of our Constitution. Through the will of Parliament it may be abrogated.

By definition, the rights acknowledged in the HRA of 1998 are civil rights, though you are free to argue that many of them correspond with certain natural rights.

The European Human Rights Convention, to which the UK is a party.

PART I
THE CONVENTION
RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
ARTICLE 2
RIGHT TO LIFE

1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.

"By definition, the rights acknowledged in the HRA of 1998 are civil rights, though you are free to argue that many of them correspond with certain natural rights."

Gee. A civil right? Where did that "right to life" of "everyone's" come from? Probably about the same place as the one "recognized" in your constitution, d'ya think? Hard to identify what it is -- thin air, social consensus, the mind of god -- but still pretty much the same, all the same.


"Actually, those demonstrate my point. The Human Rights Act of 1998 is an Act of Parliament acknowledging the ECHR. As an Act of Parliament, it is not the equivalent of our Constitution. Through the will of Parliament it may be abrogated."

And your constitution may be amended. You've heard of distinctions w/o a difference? There just ain't nothing writ in stone these days, is there?

The UK does not have a written constitution. That doesn't mean that it doesn't have constitutional documents and principles and conventions, and that they aren't enforceable. You have heard of, oh, Magna Carta, right?

The US's form of government just is not the only one in the world, and it most certainly is not the only one in the world that works. It's just that some USAmericans do like to think/pretend that their form of government sprang full-blown from some Zeus's forehead, flawless and eternal. Not everyone in the rest of the world agrees. And I know how incomprehensible this fact is to some USAmericans; I'm sure that quite a number of things are incomprehensible to USAmericans, and are nonetheless true.

Up here, we kinda compromised between parliamentary and constitutional supremacy. We have that provision in our constitution that allows Parliament (or a provincial legislature) to override certain constitutionally guaranteed rights, if it jumps through the appropriate hoops, even where the legislation it enacts has been adjudged (according to the same judicial process that applies in the US) to be "unconstitutional". Where the society disagrees with such a decision, it gets to vote the bastards out at the earliest opportunity and replace them with a Parliament that will not behave so badly. Funny thing is how Parliament doesn't actually do that, and Canadians so far haven't elected governments headed by parties that have promised to do it.

Down there, you have a government that actually *is* violating your rights in ways that simply would not be tolerated by Canadians, or in most respects by Brits. (Both Brits and Canadians suffered terrorism long before the US did, and did indeed respond in ways that have largely since been rejected.)

Funny how it works, isn't it?

.

"Gee. A civil right? Where did that "right to life" of "everyone's" come from? Probably about the same place as the one "recognized" in your constitution, d'ya think? Hard to identify what it is -- thin air, social consensus, the mind of god -- but still pretty much the same, all the same."

Rights may exist on several levels and in several forms. It is a legal and philosophical difference. It's not surprising then that we were having a legal and philosophical discussion. Yes, I may believe in a "natural" right to life. That right may be recognized in the U.S. Constitution and the ECHR. The right may also be reflected in U.S. law and in Acts of Parliament. But, yes, philosophically, it's all the same right. Legally, the difference matters. Hence, the discussion.

"And your constitution may be amended. You've heard of distinctions w/o a difference? There just ain't nothing writ in stone these days, is there?

The UK does not have a written constitution. That doesn't mean that it doesn't have constitutional documents and principles and conventions, and that they aren't enforceable. You have heard of, oh, Magna Carta, right?"

Well, there's a bit of a difference. It is a wee bit harder to amend the Constitution than to pass a law. But that was never the original point.

I have read the Magna Carta, in English translation. I have never formally studied Latin.

"The US's form of government just is not the only one in the world, and it most certainly is not the only one in the world that works. It's just that some USAmericans do like to think/pretend that their form of government sprang full-blown from some Zeus's forehead, flawless and eternal. Not everyone in the rest of the world agrees. And I know how incomprehensible this fact is to some USAmericans; I'm sure that quite a number of things are incomprehensible to USAmericans, and are nonetheless true."

I've heard of lots of things, some of them during a few months in law school when I studied international law in Brussels. Others, I picked up at Harvard or at Duke Law School. I am rather familiar with the principles of the British and Canadian governments, so you should watch your stereotypes.

I never said that the U.S. form of government is superior or is the only one that works. I never even implied it. We have our own problems and our own rights violations. That said, without blaming it on the form of government, I am appalled by the anti-self-defense culture that has arisen in the UK. It has rendered the safeguard of public opinion impotent in protecting certain rights. Unforunately, even with the theoretical procedural safeguards in the U.S., public opinion could eventually do the same thing here.

"That said, without blaming it on the form of government,
I am appalled by the anti-self-defense culture that has
arisen in the UK."

In future, you could try not blaming it on the form of government, then.

The UK has a parliamentary system of government; that system traditionally includes the concept of parliamentary supremacy -- the people's elected representatives get the last word. (In a parliamentary system that is also a constitutional monarchy, there may be a formal "last word" by the sovereign.)

To some, this sounds inimical to things like minority rights: the majority can just vote 'em away. The funny thing, then, is that minority rights are better protected in Canada, with that tradition formally entrenched in its constitution (creating a bit of a hybrid, which was much debated), than in the US. To others, assigning the last word to those unelected judges (which is what having a written constitution does) is inimical to democracy. 'Tis a fine balancing act, and there simply is no perfect solution.

The fact is that systems of government are far less important in most instances than the level of public and government commitment to the things that the system is designed to protect. A country could be ruled by an absolute monarch for life who legislated by fiat -- or have absolutely no government or laws at all -- and its citizens could still have more freedoms, and more protections of their rights, than in the neighbouring representative democracy.

The only ultimate guarantee of any of our rights and freedoms is our neighbours' goodwill. If our neighbours refuse en masse to obey the laws that protect our rights and freedoms, or vote in governments that violate our rights and freedoms, no court and no bit of paper in the world is going to help.


You had said:

"Obviously, in the UK, you don't have the equivalent of constitutional rights,
and there is no legal concept of natural rights, so you are limited to civil rights,
those rights enshrined in law. That accounts for much of the difference in our perspectives."

You're now withdrawing the distinction you attempted to base on the presence/absence of the "natural rights" concept, and the distinction based on the fact that the UK has a parliamentary system of government. Things might have been just a little less ... muddy ... if you hadn't raised them in the first place.


"Well, there's a bit of a difference. It is a wee bit harder
to amend the Constitution than to pass a law. But that was never
the original point."

I disagree that it is any harder at all -- all that is needed is more majorities (in a federal system), and possibly larger majorities (depending on the actual provision). There's nothing at all to stop the electorate from electing such majorities.

But if that was never the original point, I'm still wondering why you chose to make it.


So, back to:

"That said, without blaming it on the form of government,
I am appalled by the anti-self-defense culture that has
arisen in the UK."

And a Brit or Canadian might easily say: "I am appalled at the culture of violence and death that has arisen in the US."

If we're going to talk about what shocks and appalls an individual, well, we could just keep doing it for the next few years and get nowhere at all.

And the funny thing is, the Brits and Canadians hereabouts tend to take some pains *not* to say things like that about the culture of the USAmericans they're talking to. Shocked and appalled we may be, but we tend not to think it civil to disparage you based on criteria that we recognize are ours and that we have no business demanding that you adopt -- or to characterize you based on a criterion that denies your entitlement to adopt your own criteria. But that, of course, is exactly what you have done.

Our criteria are shared by huge majorities of our fellow citizens, yours are presumably shared by at least some of your fellow citizens. We have no intention of imposing ours on you (although trade sanctions are certainly something I'd be willing to entertain!). And we'd generally (like a whole lot of other people in the world) just be happy if y'all would keep your noses in your own business and out of things that happen in places where the people reject your criteria for how to run a country.

.

Tony Martin will be mentioned.

"That said, without blaming it on the form of government,
I am appalled by the anti-self-defense culture that has
arisen in the UK."

Since this is an unsupported assertion, I'll make one of my own.

The poster who initially wrote this is talking cobblers. Justifiable self defence is not frowned upon by either the U.K populace or the Judiciary.

You mentioned Tony Martin first.

I guess it depends on the meaning you assign to "justifiable." It no longer has the meaning in the UK that it had under traditional common law or under the current law in most US states. Come one, tell me I'm wrong. Look at the UK case law 20, 50, and 100 years ago, and look at it now.

I can't be arsed. If you wish to support the assertion given by the previous poster.

"That said, without blaming it on the form of government,
I am appalled by the anti-self-defense culture that has
arisen in the UK."

Feel free to do so.

Happily, I live in the U.K and I reckon he / she is talking bollocks. Perhaps the U.K has moved to a position where killing people for perceived slights against person or property is no longer considered justifiable.

the previous poster.

"Perhaps the U.K has moved to a position where killing people for perceived slights against person or property is no longer considered justifiable."

Very clever. The law in the US permits using reasonable force, including deadly force if necessary, to prevent death or serious bodily injury, to yourself or another person. Beyond that, the law varies between states.

But in most US states, if someone forceably breaks into my house at night while I'm sleeping, I will be justified in defending my family. I can't see a non-threatening interpretation to a home invasion. A home invasion is not a "perceived slight," and I'm not obligated to give the home invader the benefit of the doubt.

Oh, look. Another strawman.

Perhaps the U.K has moved to a position where killing people for perceived slights against person or property is no longer considered justifiable.

If so, welcome to the developed world - we've been here a while. As jhfenton pointed out, self defense in the US also has strictly defined parameters. The only places I can see your "American self defense" examples being "legal" are somewhere like the podunk areas within rural latin america & middle eastern countries, where "honor killings" are tolerated by the local government as being just another cultural norm.

"And a Brit or Canadian might easily say: 'I am appalled at the culture of violence and death that has arisen in the US.'"

Actually, I'll be happy to say it for you. I am appalled at the culture of violence that has arisen in parts of the US. For better or worse, there are small pockets in many of the urban areas of the US where the crime and violence is appalling. It is a problem that needs to be addressed. However, it is certainly not the norm for the vast majority of the US. (Looking at murder rates plotted on a map of US counties is revealing.) The violence in the US has everything to do with socioeconomic factors in troubled communities, and very little to do with firearms. For that reason, laws aimed at restricting firearms do little to solve the problem.

The problem is poverty. The problem is the breakdown of the family. The problem is the counter-productive "War on Drugs." The problem is is a culture of hopelessness in these communities.

So real solutions have to address the problems, not red herrings like firearms. There is no correlation, or there is a negative correlation, between crime rates and firearm ownership rates in the US. I'm not arguing that it is necessarily a causal relationship, only that the mere presence of firearms in communities do not contribute to crime.

I'm not going to dispute that firearms in troubled hands may facilitate crime, but criminal laws have shown no effect in keeping those firearms out of those troubled hands. Gun control laws do nothing but make it more expensive and difficult for law-abiding citizens such as me to buy and use firearms. Good laws do not punish the law-abiding majority for a hypothetical, improbable benefit in reducing crime.

that says that handguns are the weapon of choice for criminals. Note that she didn't say that they like to use cars or deers to shoot people.

The UK does not have a 2nd Ammendment. The Second Ammendment guarantees a an INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms. The Fifth Circuit Court has ruled in US vs Emmerson the the RKBA is an individual right.

In response to arguments propounded by Professor Laurence Tribe and others describing the Second Amendment as being simply "seemingly state-militia-based" rather than "supporting broad principles" of private ownership of guns, Justice Scalia pointed out that it is incorrect to assume that the word "militia" refers only to "‘a select group of citizen-soldiers . . . rather than, as the Virginia Bill of Rights of June 1776 defined it, ‘the body of the people, trained to arms."’ Antonin Scalia, Response, in A Matter of Interpretation, supra at 129, 136 n.13 (quoting JOYCE LEE MALCOLM, TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS 136, 148 (1994)).

Justice Scalia also notes that "his was also the conception of ‘militia’ entertained by James Madison," citing The Federalist No. 46 for support. Id. "It would also be strange," he goes on to say, "to find in the midst of a catalog of the rights of individuals a provision securing to the states the right to maintain a designated ‘Militia.’ Dispassionate scholarship suggests quite strongly that the right of the people to keep and bear arms meant just that." Id. at 137 n.13 (citing JOYCE LEE MALCOLM, TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS (1994); William Van Alstyne, The Second Amendment and the Personal Right to Arms, 43 DUKE L.J. 1236 (1994)).

Justice Scalia concludes by stating that "t is very likely that modern Americans no longer look contemptuously, as Madison did, upon the governments of Europe that ‘are afraid to trust the people with arms,’ The Federalist No. 46; and the . . . Constitution that Professor Tribe espouses will probably give effect to that new sentiment by effectively eliminating the Second Amendment. But there is no need to deceive ourselves as to what the original Second Amendment said and meant. Of course, properly understood, it is no limitation upon arms control by the states." Id.

Thus, concerns about the social costs of enforcing the Second Amendment must be outweighed by considering the lengths to which the federal courts have gone to uphold other rights in the Constitution. The rights of the Second Amendment should be as zealously guarded as the other individual liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/guns/emerson.htm

Scalia? You're actually trying to pass Tony Scalia off as someone WE should listen to?

Ri-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-ght. Next up, what Ann Coulter thinks.

found his REASONONING in the matter to be sound.
Can you show where the logic is incorrect or is this just another ad hominem where you make the statement and IMPLY the conclusion??? If you are unsure what I am referring to see:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=18011#18057
1 - Mr. X is pro-gun
2 - Mr. X is a vicious stupid dishonest racist
3 - Therefore the pro-gun viewpoint is a vicious stupid dishonest racist viewpoint.
You may not directly state #3 but it is DEFINITELY implied by the tone/language of you post.

you really think it's worth discussing whehter Tony Scalia is honest?

It would appear that you are trying to avoid the question of whether or not the reasoning behind the 2ND Ammendment being an indiviual right is valid or not.
I believe that it is. I have yet to see valid proof that it is not an individual right. By the rules I am limited to quoting only 4 paragraphs. The ruling examines the RKBA in several different ways. There is no way to post the whole thing without violating the rules.
Go read the entire ruling, then come back and point by point show the flaws in the logic used by the Fifth Circuit Court to come to this decision is incorrect. This is the only VALID method of showing that it is not an individual right.

"I have yet to see valid proof that it is not an individual right."
And I have yet to see anything but outright LIES saying it is. Moreover, they're lies being pushed by some of the scummiest folks on the planet..

"Go read the entire ruling"
Been there, done that.

"This is the only VALID method of showing that it is not an individual right."
Sez you. Of course, you also think Tony Scalia is worth listening to.

And I have yet to see anything but outright LIES saying it is.
You claim this is a lie but offer no proof???
Moreover, they're lies being pushed by some of the scummiest folks on the planet..
This is an attack on the person/presons making the claim not a refutation of the claim itself. This is the fallacy of Ad Hominem. (again)


:puke:

It's not like this argument has any more credibility than Fat Tony does.....

that is why you will not refute the evidence presented
:argh:

"Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia ridiculed his court's recent ruling legalizing gay sex, telling an audience of conservative activists Thursday that the ruling ignores the Constitution in favor of a modern, liberal sensibility.
Scalia adopted a mocking tone to read from the court's June ruling that struck down state antisodomy laws in Texas and elsewhere.
Scalia wrote a bitter dissent in the gay sex case that was longer than the ruling itself.
ISI draws much of its funding from conservative foundations, including three controlled by or associated with billionaire philanthropist Richard Mellon Scaife, a vehement critic of former President Clinton."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031024/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_scalia_2

Jeepers, there was a time not so long ago when a judge was expected to at least pretend in public to be impartial and apolitical. But that's the scumbags of the GOP for you.

"1 - Mr. X is pro-gun
2 - Mr. X is a vicious stupid dishonest racist
3 - Therefore the pro-gun viewpoint is a vicious stupid dishonest racist viewpoint.
You may not directly state #3 but it is DEFINITELY implied by the tone/language of you post."
Holy shit! That really IS too fucking bad for the RKBA crowd, isn't it? I feel it is just awful and tragic that anyone at DU might leap to that conclusion, just because every individual or group that can be identified as vicious, stupid, dishonest, and racist, such as Jesse Helms, Trent Lott, David Duke, the KKK, the Aryan Nations, Stormfront,org, and the like, are all peddling this bogus "gun rights" crap at the top of their lungs.

Of course, perhaps if the gun rights crowd didn't anoint racist thugs like Ted Nugent and Larry Pratt as their leaders, or put just about every group or person that can be identified as working for justice, tolerance and progress on an idiotic "enemies list," perhaps other readers might not be so quick to jump to that conclusion.

The Court quotes Scalia as saying:

Of course, properly understood, it <the 2nd amendment> is no limitation upon arms control by the states.

I give up. What is this "properly understood"? He just reads in some power for the states to limit the exercise of this right?

And if it is no limitation upon arms control by the states, what's your problem?


The Court when on to say:

Thus, concerns about the social costs of enforcing the Second Amendment must be outweighed by considering the lengths to which the federal courts have gone to uphold other rights in the Constitution. The rights of the Second Amendment should be as zealously guarded as the other individual liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

I gather that Scalia didn't say all that. He said what I quoted above. It doesn't look quite the same.

"Zealously guarding" rights means requiring that the state demonstrate its justification for limiting the exercise of those rights. Cool. I can't imagine anyone having any problem with that.

And of course, that's even assuming for the sake of argument that this "individual right" biz is a correct interpretation.


Oh, and by the way -- I don't really think you have to worry about copyright infringement when reproducing passages from decisions of the courts. I mean, the site you lifted that from doesn't actually own copyright in the judgment, does it?

.

We are talking about the opinion of one of the most rabid right wing extremists around today.

If there were any actual legal basis for this at all, gun loonies like the NRA or GOA could go into court and get any gun control law they dislike struck down instantly.

Yet they never even TRY to sue.

The Bill of Rights was originally meant as a restriction only on the Federal government. The protection of individual rights was left mainly to the states. The fourteenth amendment changed the state/federal balance of power, and over time some rights have been "incorporated" under the fourteenth amendment and the federal government now takes the lead in protecting those rights.


Read Hugo Black's dissent in Adamson for a good primer on incorporation. Hugo Black was not a conservative, but he had great trouble with the notion of selective incorporation since there was no rational or historical justification for protecting some parts of the Bill of Rights more strenuously than others, other than the whims or personal preferences of some judges.

The legislative history of the Fourteenth Amendment shows clearly that those legislators intended that the Second amendment was to be protected by the federal government just as strongly as other protections of the Bill of Rights.

Read also the Freedman's Bureau laws that were intended to protect the freed slaves after the American Civil War.

(quote)
And of course, that's even assuming for the sake of argument that this "individual right" biz is a correct interpretation.
(end quote)


I had hoped that you would have come to some conclusion by now, or at least firmed up an opinion either way on the meaning of the Second Amendment.

You were onto something a month or so ago (4th amendment vs. 2nd amendment)but then you quit your line of reasoning. What happened?
Didn't you like the result of your own line of argument? (see ohmigod and my response)

Yeah there's a sensible voice in America.

handed down by the Fifth Circuit Court??
There is a lot more to it then what was Quoted.
If you would like to refute claim made in the quote, you should attack the logic, not the person making the statement. To attack the person not thier logic is the Fallacy of Ad Hominem.

then the gun nuts will label you whatever the hell Wayne LaPierre tells them to label you. They don't think independently of their marionettes.

you will be labeled with whatever the VPC or Brady Center tell them to label those who oppose gun control. Also there are posters here who like to label them as racicsts and loonies.
It would be nice to have a debate here without all the name calling.
:grouphug:

I oppose gun control not because someone tells me to, but because it's what I believe.

And if you favor gun control, I may disagree with you, I may think you're wrong, I don't intend to label anyone with anything, except for the "I think you're wrong about gun control" label.

Ever since guns took away JDK, RFK, Malcom X, Medgar Evers, and Dr. King.

Long before VPD was founded and long before anyone ever heard of Sarah Brady. To paraphrase Jame, I favor gun control not because someone tells me to, but because it's what I believe.

(I've been staying away from the J/PS board for a few days, but I had to chime in on this one. Those who favor gun control are not mindless parrots who repreat what they're told. That role is reserved for the dittoheads on this world, and those who worship Ted Nugent.)

I'd have to say that his murder hurt this country more than any other.

Itr would be nice if the gun enthusiasts didn't pick people like Ted Nugent and Larry Pratt as leaders, too.

I am not a member of the NRA.
However I do agree with thier position that the 2nd guarantees an individual right. This however does not make me bigoted or racist.

Funny how there's not the least bit of uproar from the gun rights crowd about having so many bigots in charge....instead, there's a furious attempt to keep the rest of us from noticing, or commenting aloud.

"squawking" about the shortcomings of certain gun control advocates, I have however often pointed out that it is the fallacy of Ad Hominem to try to refute the claim made by these certain individuals based thier opinions in other matters, and not on the logic of thier claim in regards to gun control.

:nopity:

...he wouldn't be the racist asshole that he is.

Which places all positions he holds under suspicion.

How often the "gun rights" advocates are involved in any number of scummy causes...

I understand that you disagree with him, but characterizing him as incapable of "Logical Thought" is a bit over the top. It does not mean that you should dismiss anything he has to say outright as being wrong. Yet whenever I bring up the "individual rights" claim out come the postings stating the racists, etc. have the same view of the 2nd.
I have yet to see where it has been shown that the findings of the Fifth Circuit Court that the 2nd provides an individual RKBA is faulty. The fact that Terrible Ted, The KKK et al agree with the position of the Fifth Circuit Court does not automatically prove that the Court is wrong.

nt

He's an untalented hack. Thousands of kids playing in garage bands are far better musicians than Ted Nugent ever was on his best day.

non est disputandum (*turns up "Stromptroopin'")*

I have been playing guitar for something like 35 years now, and Ted is a very skilled and talented guitarist, who is not only amazingly technically proficient, but fairly creative within his chosen genre. You can bash his politics, his beliefs, how he lives his life, etc., and we can agree or not, but he happens to be an excellent musician, and even if one were to loathe him, it would be inaccurate to say otherwise.

I started a poll in the DU Lounge, asking people's opinion of Ted Kugent. The overwhelming #1 choice is "Right-Wing Asshole". "Good Musician" got one vote, or 2% of the vote so far.

Here's a link to the poll:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=333491

From the poll thread I started in the Lounge. It's been in there almost all day:

What Is Your Opinion of Ted Nugent?

Poll result (140 votes)

Good Musician (3 votes, 2%)
Untalented Hack (6 votes, 4%)
Moronic Gun Nut (15 votes, 11%)
Defender of Personal Freedom (3 votes, 2%)
Bambi Killer (4 votes, 3%)
Carnivore (1 votes, 1%)
Right-Wing Asshole (89 votes, 64%)
Draft Dodger/ Pants Crapper (9 votes, 6%)
No Opinion (3 votes, 2%)
Other (Please specify in a reply) (7 votes, 5%)

Nugent is a republican. This is a liberal site. If Elton John had the same beliefs as Ted you would have got the same responce from a poll in the lounge.

I didn't say what my opinion was, and I made "Good Musician" the first choice in the list. Perhaps the simple truth is that most people recognize Ted Nugent for the brain-dead asshole that he is.

And the debate won't be settled until the Supremes decide to rule on a 2nd Amendment case.

And BTW, all you have to do is go to Ted Nugent's web site or read any of his ramblings to see how truly incapable of logical thought he is.

ruled in US vs Miller that a shotgun with a barrel less the 18" was not useful to the Military. Miller was never in the military. He was charged with tranporting a shotgun with a barrel less the 18" that was not registered. If the the 2nd did not provide an individual right to bear arms, why would the rule the way they did. They could have just said it was a collective right and been done. However they ruled on the fact that the shotgun in question was not suitable for Military use. It did not say anything about whether or not it had a sporting use (it doesn't). The Fifth circuit Court in thier decision reference the ruling in US v. Miller in their analysis of the 2nd.
The current AWB bans weapons based on military features, or features that would make the weapon more useful to the Military. This seems to be the exact opposite of the findings of US v. Miller that weapons that are not suitable for military use were not protected by the 2nd.

Well, I guess I'm a "gun nut," and I tend to be quite independent. I frequently disagree with the NRA and with Wayne LaPierre. Of course, when I do disagree with the NRA, it's usually because the NRA is compromising on issues I would prefer to debate. I think the NRA should much more aggressive in educating and campaigning for our rights. That's why I'm a member of the GOA and the Ohioans for Concealed Carry as well.

Now that's a rational group for you, not like them nuts at the NRA.

They dont seem to be as conservative right wing leaning as the NRA when it comes to politics.

The GOA is headed by Larry Pratt, a guy so racist even Pat Buchanan had to bail on him.

... that is relatively reasonable? I forget what it's called. Maybe our friend was thinking of that one ...

.

The American Firearms Association (which seems to be basically a website run by a PA gun and rod club) is supposedly so "liberal" that it landed on the NRA's idiotic enemies list.....but from the outside, it seems to be the same mixture of hysteria, dishonesty and paranoia as the others.

http://www.gunsmoke.com/scot/guns/firearms_internet.html

American Firearms Association
Take your blood pressure medication before you visit this site. It pretends to
be on the side of law abiding gun owners, proclaiming that compromise is the
only way to approach gun ownership. It prides itself in being a home for NRA
refugees. Backed by gun grabbers, supported by the same misguided folks
that nearly brought the NRA to its knees a few short years ago, the American
Firearms Association is no friend of gun owners. Don't encourage them, don't
support them, and most of all DON'T BE FOOLED into thinking they care
about your firearms rights. If AFA had its way, only cops and the military would
have guns (no matter what kind of horse-pucky they are peddling this week).


The link it gives -- http://www.globescope.com/afa/news.html -- just doesn't do anything for me. I mean, literally. I just get little broken images.

Ah -- this one http://www.valkyriearms.com/sites.htm gives this link: http://www.firearms.org/

Doesn't seem to fit the description! --

Firearms.org is about We the People rallying against tyranny
at the highest levels of our society. It is about groups like
the Violence Policy Center and Handgun Control, Inc. who have
the unmitigated gall to propigate absolute deception under
the guise of "safety".

Although Dr. Sarah might have a good case for a diagnosis of paranoia in this instance.

I leave you with this, from there:

Please get used to having us around, because our colors are
tride and true and these colors do not run.


"Tride" they may well be ... I'm afraid I wouldn't know. ;)

.

LOL!

hand.

Try to at least find some up-to-date rumors to spread.

For those who want the other side: The Media Pratt Fall

I don't agree with all of Pratt's politics, but he (and the GOA) are usually right on 2nd Amendment issues. Unfortunately, dismissing RKBA advocates as racist seems to your favorite ploy.

(Just whom *are* you quoting in all your post headers?)

You left out a bit of info about the title of your link:

The Media's Pratt Fall
by Larry Pratt
Executive Director

Hmm. I'll bet you've heard of that thing called "self-serving evidence" ...


Edit: oops, meant to mention something else you didn't ... the citation of Rush Limbaugh by the person giving the self-serving evidence. Hmm, an appeal to authority ... and such an authority.

.

is Pratt's claim that he bailed to keep people from perceiving Pat Buchanan as a racist!

That would be the same Pat Buchanan who told his knot of inbred followers that "Negroes were happier under Jim Crow" and wrote a book explaining what a mistake it was for the US not to join Hitler in WW2...

and it's pretty darn obvious who wrote it when you click on the link. But thank you for clarifying that. The link contains Pratt's response to the slander. I think everyone can read the article and decide for themselves.

Regardless, accusations of racism do nothing to advance your underlying argument.

"The link contains Pratt's response to the slander."
And a hilarious response it is, too.....

So many of those scumbags pushing the phony "gun rights" agenda in public ARE racist asswipes..and Pratt is one of the most loathsome.

Sez the odious turd: "the Center for Public Integrity, a left-wing organization created for "dirty tricks" campaigns. "
Well, anybody stupid enough to buy THAT line deserves what they get.