some deaths more important than others

[MrGongGong]

...........and sadly the whole arms business is "good" for the UK as well
So there's little political will anywhere to change that

[teamsaint]

...........and sadly the whole arms business is "good" for the UK as well
So there's little political will anywhere to change that

Well said.
We have little moral high ground here, what with cosying up to Bahrain and all the rest.

[Pabmusic]

...........and sadly the whole arms business is "good" for the UK as well
So there's little political will anywhere to change that

You're right, but I don't think that we export many arms to the US, not even for military use, so I doubt that a ban in the US would have much effect in Britain.

[MrGongGong]

Well said.
We have little moral high ground here, what with cosying up to Bahrain and all the rest.

Indeed we have none whatsoever (even in the supposed "real world" that some seem to insist we have to live in ! )
morally bankrupt i'm afraid

[Thropplenoggin]

i for one would be truly grateful if the usual suspects could give us all a break from their noisome chatter over the holiday period and especially on this thread .... thank you

I don't really understand this comment.

If you don't wish to read the "noisome chatter", either put the people you deem so reprehensible on 'Ignore' or simply don't read the thread.

"Forum": a meeting or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged.

Too many people on this forum only want to read comments that are aligned to their own world-view and political stance.

[teamsaint]

Indeed we have none whatsoever (even in the supposed "real world" that some seem to insist we have to live in ! )
morally bankrupt i'm afraid

morally and otherwise...
luckily, we have enough dosh for trident replacement.(in case north Korea or Iran attack) Phew.

[MrGongGong]

morally and otherwise...
luckily, we have enough dosh for trident replacement.(in case north Korea or Iran attack) Phew.

But not enough to prevent people with serious disabilities from being forced to work it seems...........

[Mr Pee]

I don't really understand this comment.




Too many people on this forum only want to read comments that are aligned to their own world-view and political stance.

That is certainly true, but whatever one's views, there is no justification for the sort of insulting language increasingly used by Mr GG, and mainly directed at one individual poster.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

I don't really understand this comment.

If you don't wish to read the "noisome chatter", either put the people you deem so reprehensible on 'Ignore' or simply don't read the thread.

"Forum": a meeting or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged.

Too many people on this forum only want to read comments that are aligned to their own world-view and political stance.

you miss my point entirely, it is not the polarity of views that is noisome but the animus to other posters thropplenoggin ... unfit for the period and unfit for this thread and generally since it has persisted for ages now disrespectful to all

[ahinton]

The second amendment to the US Constitution reads: "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". I think that any objective observer would realise that the right to "keep and bear arms" is contingent upon the need for "a well regulated militia", something that the US has not needed for more than 150 years. But that is not generally recognised by Americans, who tend to see only that "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Changing this law would be so much more difficult than it would be in Britain, or almost anywhere else. First of all, it is notoriously difficult for central government to pass any laws (look at the difficulty Obama had over medical insurance). Even where a central (federal) law is passed, it is usually up to the individual states to implement it through their own laws; they can be experts at circumventing federal laws. But this would not be just a change in the law - it would be an amendment to the Constitution, which would have to be passed in Congress and then ratified by three quarters of the states (38 of the 50) before it could become law. That is a truly tall order, and there have been only 27 amendments to date, the first 10 (the Bill of Rights) dating from 1791.

So I'm afraid it's a bit much to believe that the Americans might change the law significantly in the light of this appalling tragedy.

I agree with all of this in principle. It would require a fundamental change of heart and mind on the part of the majority of the adult population of US such as to improve the likelihood that, instead of having new laws and constitutional changes imposed upon them, they let the government of the day know that they want to have them made; quite how many incidents like that of last Friday there would have to be before this could establish itself is impossible to tell and, even then, how it could successfully be imparted to government is similarly a questionable matter. It would require a general swing against the notion of a need for a well-regulated militia and against the kind of endemic sabre-rattling for which US has acquired a international reputation and that would only be the foundation for such a move against the individuals' right to bear arms as you correctly quote from the Second Amendment. As I stated - a very long shot but not entirely impossible.

[teamsaint]

Its quite hard to find figures for our arms trade with the US.
overall the US sells more that 75% of all arms worldwide, which says a lot about gun control etc.
Perhaps we could bring influence to bear if we refused to buy military hardware from them. But as said, there is no will to do this.

[Pabmusic]

I agree with all of this in principle. It would require a fundamental change of heart and mind on the part of the majority of the adult population of US such as to improve the likelihood that, instead of having new laws and constitutional changes imposed upon them, they let the government of the day know that they want to have them made; quite how many incidents like that of last Friday there would have to be before this could establish itself is impossible to tell and, even then, how it could successfully be imparted to government is similarly a questionable matter. It would require a general swing against the notion of a need for a well-regulated militia and against the kind of endemic sabre-rattling for which US has acquired a international reputation and that would only be the foundation for such a move against the individuals' right to bear arms as you correctly quote from the Second Amendment. As I stated - a very long shot but not entirely impossible.

No - not entirely impossible. Let us hope...

[Thropplenoggin]

you miss my point entirely, it is not the polarity of views that is noisome but the animus to other posters thropplenoggin ... unfit for the period and unfit for this thread and generally since it has persisted for ages now disrespectful to all

Thanks for the clarification, CDJ.

[Ferretfancy]

I suggest "Simon" you just piss off and take your arrogant crap somewhere else
in the "real world' you are just another sad pathetic pub bore who likes the sound of his own tedious voice

MrGongGong

You may have a point, but if this was America you could of course go home and fetch your gun. Simon is lucky, as you don't know his whereabouts.

[MrGongGong]

MrGongGong

You may have a point, but if this was America you could of course go home and fetch your gun. Simon is lucky, as you don't know his whereabouts.

I'd be more likely to turn up outside his house with this playing Xenakis at full pelt .........