Are we sure the moron wasn't a plant to launch JRM leadership campaign? Surely nobody has such inability to form an argument!
Remember that these are the same people who thought that hanging two effigies from a bridge alongside a huge sign saying “Hang the Tories” was fair political comment.
I saw one of Corbyn's charmers arguing on Twitter this morning that the effigies and banner were a Tory plant.
Given that the right to bear arms is in the US constitution, passing an amendment to change that would be a slow process which requires over 34 States to agree amongst other things. It may create plenty of work for lawyers.
That's not necessarily the case. Some amendments have gone through ratification very quickly. It all depends on the mood of the nation.
It would not appear necessary to amend the Constitution, David.
The Second Amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms, but leaves enough room for the State to specify what sort, where and when. This is presumably why you cannot keep a tank on your driveway, or a thermonuclear device in your garden shed.
Gun lobbyists could help by accepting that certain types of weapon should not be generally available to the public. Gun control advocates could help by accepting that the ultimate right to bear arms is not in question. A little flexibility by both groups could go a long way.
It exasperates me to read about the possible mental state or motives of the killer(s) in the wake of these outrages. I cannot believe the USA has a greater percentage of nutters than most other nations. Their nutters are simply bettered armed than most, Any attempt to improve the situation must begin by asking why that is so.
It is not just a question of the Second Amendment.
Mr. Urquhart, I fear pb.com has spoiled you when it comes to forming arguments and expectations thereof.
It struck me that we might be in a comparable time to when the Roman emperors were Honorius and Arcadius, brothers who were notable for both being rubbish.
Given that the right to bear arms is in the US constitution, passing an amendment to change that would be a slow process which requires over 34 States to agree amongst other things. It may create plenty of work for lawyers.
That's not necessarily the case. Some amendments have gone through ratification very quickly. It all depends on the mood of the nation.
Amending the any of the Bill of Rights amendments would be especially difficult though, IMO.
Fun fact, the most recent amendment to pass, the 27th, which requires a general congressional election to take place before a pay rise for members can take effect, was first proposed as one of the initial twelve amendment proposals, ten of which were immediate adopted and form the Bill of Rights. The 27th amendment took over 200 years to be ratified.
The other unratified amendment proposal from the original 12, if passed, would increase the size of the House of Representatives to over 6,000 members!
Given that the right to bear arms is in the US constitution, passing an amendment to change that would be a slow process which requires over 34 States to agree amongst other things. It may create plenty of work for lawyers.
Yes, it needs either a constitutional amendment of a very liberal Supreme Court willing to draw the line at certain types of weapons. Neither look like happening any time soon.
This is the sort of thing that civilians are allowed to play with in Nevada: .300 Gatling gun that sends 50 rounds a second down range. Oh, and Kari Byron, just because https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QC8jnSaCqxY
The problem with a liberal Court restricting the right is two-fold. Firstly, it'll take decades to get that kind of Court; and secondly, its opinion could always be reversed later under a different reinterpretation. The only real answer is a constitutional amendment. Even then, just repealing the 2nd amendment would not necessarily make a big practical difference (though it'd make a huge statement): many states contain their own version of the 2nd amendment within their own constitutions, which would be unaffected unless the federal Amendment explicitly gave Congress power to regulate gun use.
A good article David. The issue is that the American psyche has always had guns at its core, in a way that just isn’t there in say the UK. The second amendment was put there for a good reason, that the government should be scared of the people rather than vice versa.
This is something that people just don’t understand unless they’ve spend time there (and NY and LA don’t count!). It’s also a bloody big place, and in rural areas you’ll be needing a way to deal with a bear or two occasionally. People are very attached to the concept of defending themselves and their families from intruders, whether of the ursine or human variety. They don’t expect nor really want the state to defend their property.
The problem of course is there is a huge difference between a rifle for hunting / protection against the wild life and a belt fed or massive magazine fully auto assault rifle. Having spent a lot of time in rural America, I can get the first but legally being able to own 10 fully auto assault rifles is just bonkers and would never have been envisioned by the founding fathers.
Are we sure the moron wasn't a plant to launch JRM leadership campaign? Surely nobody has such inability to form an argument!
Remember that these are the same people who thought that hanging two effigies from a bridge alongside a huge sign saying “Hang the Tories” was fair political comment.
It is very similar to those videos of students losing their shit with academics. The one at Harvard was another where the young lady couldn't form any sort of argument, simply screaming loudly appeared to be what she thought was a persuasive approach.
And those shrill voices are supposed to be the next generation of intellectuals, yet they’re even scared of debate on their own college campuses.
Mr. Punter, it's sometime ago now, but at university (I did psychology) the figures indicated a quarter of a percent or so were psychopaths in the UK and either half or one percent in the US.
There are cultural prevalences of certain conditions. The US is highly competitive and does have some high psychological disorder rates. This isn't unique to the West (although things like anorexia are often culturally bound). In Japan, there's an extreme form of agoraphobia which can leave people unable to leave a house or sometimes even a room for years. There's also a problem with testicles becoming... I forget the precise term, but it's not good, due to an imbalance in yin and yang.
Whilst biologically there are not many differences across the whole species (there are some, hence minor variations needed in martial arts from the East if a Westerner is doing it, otherwise joint problems can occur due to slightly different body proportions), psychological disorders can vary significantly according to culture, in terms of both frequency and whether they exist at all.
Given that the right to bear arms is in the US constitution, passing an amendment to change that would be a slow process which requires over 34 States to agree amongst other things. It may create plenty of work for lawyers.
Yes, it needs either a constitutional amendment of a very liberal Supreme Court willing to draw the line at certain types of weapons. Neither look like happening any time soon.
This is the sort of thing that civilians are allowed to play with in Nevada: .300 Gatling gun that sends 50 rounds a second down range. Oh, and Kari Byron, just because https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QC8jnSaCqxY
The problem with a liberal Court restricting the right is two-fold. Firstly, it'll take decades to get that kind of Court; and secondly, its opinion could always be reversed later under a different reinterpretation. The only real answer is a constitutional amendment. Even then, just repealing the 2nd amendment would not necessarily make a big practical difference (though it'd make a huge statement): many states contain their own version of the 2nd amendment within their own constitutions, which would be unaffected unless the federal Amendment explicitly gave Congress power to regulate gun use.
A good article David. The issue is that the American psyche has always had guns at its core, in a way that just isn’t there in say the UK. The second amendment was put there for a good reason, that the government should be scared of the people rather than vice versa.
This is something that people just don’t understand unless they’ve spend time there (and NY and LA don’t count!). It’s also a bloody big place, and in rural areas you’ll be needing a way to deal with a bear or two occasionally. People are very attached to the concept of defending themselves and their families from intruders, whether of the ursine or human variety. They don’t expect nor really want the state to defend their property.
The problem of course is there is a huge difference between a rifle for hunting / protection against the wild life and a belt fed or massive magazine fully auto assault rifle. Having spent a lot of time in rural America, I can get the first but legally being able to own 10 fully auto assault rifles is just bonkers and would never have been envisioned by the founding fathers.
Indeed so. The technology of weaponry has advanced somewhat since the Bill of Rights was passed in 1788.
Doughnut donny is going to address the nation in next couple of hours.
Huge test for him, hope he gets the tone right.
If I was an advisor I would have him do the teleprompter and no questions under the guise of busy trying to help organise a response...But then this is the Donald we are talking about.
Mr. Punter, it's sometime ago now, but at university (I did psychology) the figures indicated a quarter of a percent or so were psychopaths in the UK and either half or one percent in the US.
There are cultural prevalences of certain conditions. The US is highly competitive and does have some high psychological disorder rates. This isn't unique to the West (although things like anorexia are often culturally bound). In Japan, there's an extreme form of agoraphobia which can leave people unable to leave a house or sometimes even a room for years. There's also a problem with testicles becoming... I forget the precise term, but it's not good, due to an imbalance in yin and yang.
Whilst biologically there are not many differences across the whole species (there are some, hence minor variations needed in martial arts from the East if a Westerner is doing it, otherwise joint problems can occur due to slightly different body proportions), psychological disorders can vary significantly according to culture, in terms of both frequency and whether they exist at all.
Thanks for that info, Morris_Dancer. I wonder whether access to healthcare may play a part as well - here it is easier for those mentally ill to get treated, whereas in the US they've got all sorts of issues when it comes to healthcare.
It was losing money and passengers for years, actually
"In an update on trading in the year to the end of October 2016, the airline said it expected earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation of £48m, compared to £74m the year before. It blamed a ban on flights to the popular Egyptian resort town of Sharm el Sheikh and the fall in the pound since the EU referendum in June."
Quite. It was gaining passengers for years up from 5.3m in 2005 to 7.0m in 2014 and has only lost passengers in the last two years.
2015 was before the referendum
OK, so the fall in the pound meaning their dollar denominated purchases cost more had no effect?
The loss in 2015 was 8.6% The loss in 2016 was only 5%
The 8.6% shown by Wikipedia appears to be a typo. The fall in passenger numbers from 2014 to 2015 is actually an 18.6% drop. So in 2 year Monarch lost nearly one quarter of their passengers. Their load factor also dropped significantly in 2016. Given that for a typical airline fuel costs are around 19% of their operating costs, it is clear that loss of passengers far outweighed any effects caused by exchange rate movements.
I'm simplifying slightly but as far as I know all Swiss adult males between certain ages possess guns. But as a legacy of part of their conscript training, as part of national defence, and these are sealed and stored in locked cabinets in each home, which they must check-in annually.
My point is: you can have universal (or near universal) gun ownership, provided the individuals are trained, monitored and regulated properly.
I suspect in the US, it's the latter part that's the issue.
Doughnut donny is going to address the nation in next couple of hours.
Huge test for him, hope he gets the tone right.
If I was an advisor I would have him do the teleprompter and no questions under the guise of busy trying to help organise a response...But then this is the Donald we are talking about.
Absolutely. I’d do it as an ‘Address the Nation’ speech from the Oval Office, rather than a press conference. Pre recorded, and sticking to every word on the script with no deviation.
He can do Presidential when he wants to. Now is the time for it.
Given that the right to bear arms is in the US constitution, passing an amendment to change that would be a slow process which requires over 34 States to agree amongst other things. It may create plenty of work for lawyers.
Yes, it needs either a constitutional amendment of a very liberal Supreme Court willing to draw the line at certain types of weapons. Neither look like happening any time soon.
The problem with a liberal Court restricting the right is two-fold. Firstly, it'll take decades to get that kind of Court; and secondly, its opinion could always be reversed later under a different reinterpretation. The only real answer is a constitutional amendment. Even then, just repealing the 2nd amendment would not necessarily make a big practical difference (though it'd make a huge statement): many states contain their own version of the 2nd amendment within their own constitutions, which would be unaffected unless the federal Amendment explicitly gave Congress power to regulate gun use.
A good article David. The issue is that the American psyche has always had guns at its core, in a way that just isn’t there in say the UK. The second amendment was put there for a good reason, that the government should be scared of the people rather than vice versa.
This is something that people just don’t understand unless they’ve spend time there (and NY and LA don’t count!). It’s also a bloody big place, and in rural areas you’ll be needing a way to deal with a bear or two occasionally. People are very attached to the concept of defending themselves and their families from intruders, whether of the ursine or human variety. They don’t expect nor really want the state to defend their property.
The problem of course is there is a huge difference between a rifle for hunting / protection against the wild life and a belt fed or massive magazine fully auto assault rifle. Having spent a lot of time in rural America, I can get the first but legally being able to own 10 fully auto assault rifles is just bonkers and would never have been envisioned by the founding fathers.
Indeed so. The technology of weaponry has advanced somewhat since the Bill of Rights was passed in 1788.
How does canvassing work in the US?
Quite frankly, in some areas I'd be scared to do it unannounced, in case I got shot. Particularly if I was black.
Ms. Apocalypse, np. There are lots of problems trying to get accurate figures. For example, bulimia makes people think of vomiting and taking laxatives, but excessive exercise is also considered purging. But how many people would think a man who eats a lot but exercises it into muscle has an eating disorder?
Yes, it needs either a constitutional amendment of a very liberal Supreme Court willing to draw the line at certain types of weapons. Neither look like happening any time soon.
The problem with a liberal Court restricting the right is two-fold. Firstly, it'll take decades to get that kind of Court; and secondly, its opinion could always be reversed later under a different reinterpretation. The only real answer is a constitutional amendment. Even then, just repealing the 2nd amendment would not necessarily make a big practical difference (though it'd make a huge statement): many states contain their own version of the 2nd amendment within their own constitutions, which would be unaffected unless the federal Amendment explicitly gave Congress power to regulate gun use.
A good article David. The issue is that the American psyche has always had guns at its core, in a way that just isn’t there in say the UK. The second amendment was put there for a good reason, that the government should be scared of the people rather than vice versa.
This is something that people just don’t understand unless they’ve spend time there (and NY and LA don’t count!). It’s also a bloody big place, and in rural areas you’ll be needing a way to deal with a bear or two occasionally. People are very attached to the concept of defending themselves and their families from intruders, whether of the ursine or human variety. They don’t expect nor really want the state to defend their property.
The problem of course is there is a huge difference between a rifle for hunting / protection against the wild life and a belt fed or massive magazine fully auto assault rifle. Having spent a lot of time in rural America, I can get the first but legally being able to own 10 fully auto assault rifles is just bonkers and would never have been envisioned by the founding fathers.
Indeed so. The technology of weaponry has advanced somewhat since the Bill of Rights was passed in 1788.
How does canvassing work in the US?
Quite frankly, in some areas I'd be scared to do it unannounced, in case I got shot. Particularly if I was black.
Very long-term the Tories need to think about an electoral strategy that touches all parts.
The UK will likely be 50:50 white/non-white by 2050, and that spells permanent electoral oblivion unless the Tories can recast themselves to appeal to all forms of Britons or, better still, bring all Britons inside their values tent.
Given that the right to bear arms is in the US constitution, passing an amendment to change that would be a slow process which requires over 34 States to agree amongst other things. It may create plenty of work for lawyers.
The problem with a liberal Court restricting the right is two-fold. Firstly, it'll take decades to get that kind of Court; and secondly, its opinion could always be reversed later under a different reinterpretation. The only real answer is a constitutional amendment. Even then, just repealing the 2nd amendment would not necessarily make a big practical difference (though it'd make a huge statement): many states contain their own version of the 2nd amendment within their own constitutions, which would be unaffected unless the federal Amendment explicitly gave Congress power to regulate gun use.
A good article David. The issue is that the American psyche has always had guns at its core, in a way that just isn’t there in say the UK. The second amendment was put there for a good reason, that the government should be scared of the people rather than vice versa.
This is something that people just don’t understand unless they’ve spend time there (and NY and LA don’t count!). It’s also a bloody big place, and in rural areas you’ll be needing a way to deal with a bear or two occasionally. People are very attached to the concept of defending themselves and their families from intruders, whether of the ursine or human variety. They don’t expect nor really want the state to defend their property.
The problem of course is there is a huge difference between a rifle for hunting / protection against the wild life and a belt fed or massive magazine fully auto assault rifle. Having spent a lot of time in rural America, I can get the first but legally being able to own 10 fully auto assault rifles is just bonkers and would never have been envisioned by the founding fathers.
Indeed so. The technology of weaponry has advanced somewhat since the Bill of Rights was passed in 1788.
The Economist used such an argument a few years ago with gun ownership. They argued that weapons should be restricted to what was available at the time. Pikes, swords and matchlocks iirc was the suggestion.
Given that the right to bear arms is in the US constitution, passing an amendment to change that would be a slow process which requires over 34 States to agree amongst other things. It may create plenty of work for lawyers.
That's not necessarily the case. Some amendments have gone through ratification very quickly. It all depends on the mood of the nation.
It would not appear necessary to amend the Constitution, David.
The Second Amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms, but leaves enough room for the State to specify what sort, where and when. This is presumably why you cannot keep a tank on your driveway, or a thermonuclear device in your garden shed.
Gun lobbyists could help by accepting that certain types of weapon should not be generally available to the public. Gun control advocates could help by accepting that the ultimate right to bear arms is not in question. A little flexibility by both groups could go a long way.
It exasperates me to read about the possible mental state or motives of the killer(s) in the wake of these outrages. I cannot believe the USA has a greater percentage of nutters than most other nations. Their nutters are simply bettered armed than most, Any attempt to improve the situation must begin by asking why that is so.
It is not just a question of the Second Amendment.
To an extent. But it's not down to the Executive or to Congress to decide how far arms can be regulated; it's down to the Supreme Court, which can strike down any law or Executive Order it feels conflicts with the RTBA. And even if the Court could be made liberal enough to get a restrictive law through, there's no guarantee that a future one wouldn't reverse it.
i completely agree that there's a lot more to it than just the 2nd amendment but that is totemic and, as such, if the challenge is really to be made, then for symbollic reasons as much as for political ones, it needs repealing.
Given that the right to bear arms is in the US constitution, passing an amendment to change that would be a slow process which requires over 34 States to agree amongst other things. It may create plenty of work for lawyers.
That's not necessarily the case. Some amendments have gone through ratification very quickly. It all depends on the mood of the nation.
Amending the any of the Bill of Rights amendments would be especially difficult though, IMO.
Fun fact, the most recent amendment to pass, the 27th, which requires a general congressional election to take place before a pay rise for members can take effect, was first proposed as one of the initial twelve amendment proposals, ten of which were immediate adopted and form the Bill of Rights. The 27th amendment took over 200 years to be ratified.
The other unratified amendment proposal from the original 12, if passed, would increase the size of the House of Representatives to over 6,000 members!
That one is very much the exception. All the other 26 amendments passed within 5 years of being submitted for ratification and some passed within one year.
In reality, there's no way a proposal to repeal the 2nd would pass Congress now. It might not even be possible to find sponsors for such a proposal. But if the national opinion were to change such as for Congress to back it, chances are that opinion in the states would have substantially shifted in the same direction.
On JRM and the protestor, he handled it perfectly.
If the protestor has any good sense (entirely possible he doesn't) he will feel silly and embarrassed later.
I wouldn't be surprised if guardian interviewed him. He will surely feel very silly - when he couldn't quite remember what he was opppsed to - that's gotta feel dumb...
Quite frankly, in some areas I'd be scared to do it unannounced, in case I got shot. Particularly if I was black.
Outside the major cities, by telephone!!
Also, there's more of an emphasis on meeting voters at public locations. This morning there were Republican activists handing out fliers for the County Executive election at my station. For the first time I couldn't blow them off by saying "I'm sorry, but I don't have a vote" as I became a US citizen last Friday!
Given that the right to bear arms is in the US constitution, passing an amendment to change that would be a slow process which requires over 34 States to agree amongst other things. It may create plenty of work for lawyers.
Yes, it needs either a constitutional amendment of a very liberal Supreme Court willing to draw the line at certain types of weapons. Neither look like happening any time soon.
This is the sort of thing that civilians are allowed to play with in Nevada: .300 Gatling gun that sends 50 rounds a second down range. Oh, and Kari Byron, just because https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QC8jnSaCqxY
The problem with a liberal Court restricting the right is two-fold. Firstly, it'll take decades to get that kind of Court; and secondly, its opinion could always be reversed later under a different reinterpretation. The only real answer is a constitutional amendment. Even then, just repealing the 2nd amendment would not necessarily make a big practical difference (though it'd make a huge statement): many states contain their own version of the 2nd amendment within their own constitutions, which would be unaffected unless the federal Amendment explicitly gave Congress power to regulate gun use.
A good article David. The issue is that the American psyche has always had guns at its core, in a way that just isn’t there in say the UK. The second amendment was put there for a good reason, that the government should be scared of the people rather than vice versa.
This is something that people just don’t understand unless they’ve spend time there (and NY and LA don’t count!). It’s also a bloody big place, and in rural areas you’ll be needing a way to deal with a bear or two occasionally. People are very attached to the concept of defending themselves and their families from intruders, whether of the ursine or human variety. They don’t expect nor really want the state to defend their property.
The two largest cities in the US 'don't count' ? An interesting perspective, especially considering that around four fifths of the US population are urban dwellers....
While the shooter in US background is most unusual, the terrorist in France is same old same old. North African background, petty criminal...
A suspected jihadist who stabbed two young women to death at Marseille's main train station had used several aliases and was a known petty criminal, French police and officials say.
Ruth Davidson might be dullishly centrist, but she's a passionate Unionist, pro-defence and makes me laugh.
If it was a choice between her and Corbyn, I'd wade through blood for her.
I would consider voting for her. If it was her vs. Andy Burnham I probably would.
I think Andy Burnham is another Osborne. He assumed that Labour were going to be thrashed with them not only not forming the present government but with no chance of forming the next either. So he went off to do something more useful. I am sure he is full of regret about not being in the Commons now with Labour looking favourites next time out. How does he get back in time?
Ruth Davidson might be dullishly centrist, but she's a passionate Unionist, pro-defence and makes me laugh.
If it was a choice between her and Corbyn, I'd wade through blood for her.
She is a brilliant campaigner, everything May isn't. We don't yet know if she can actually run anything. The evidence on that in the Scottish Conservatives is slightly mixed.
Given that the right to bear arms is in the US constitution, passing an amendment to change that would be a slow process which requires over 34 States to agree amongst other things. It may create plenty of work for lawyers.
The problem with a liberal Court restricting the right is two-fold. Firstly, it'll take decades to get that kind of Court; and secondly, its opinion could always be reversed later under a different reinterpretation. The only real answer is a constitutional amendment. Even then, just repealing the 2nd amendment would not necessarily make a big practical difference (though it'd make a huge statement): many states contain their own version of the 2nd amendment within their own constitutions, which would be unaffected unless the federal Amendment explicitly gave Congress power to regulate gun use.
A good article David. The issue is that the American psyche has always had guns at its core, in a way that just isn’t there in say the UK. The second amendment was put there for a good reason, that the government should be scared of the people rather than vice versa.
This is something that people just don’t understand unless they’ve spend time there (and NY and LA don’t count!). It’s also a bloody big place, and in rural areas you’ll be needing a way to deal with a bear or two occasionally. People are very attached to the concept of defending themselves and their families from intruders, whether of the ursine or human variety. They don’t expect nor really want the state to defend their property.
The problem of course is there is a huge difference between a rifle for hunting / protection against the wild life and a belt fed or massive magazine fully auto assault rifle. Having spent a lot of time in rural America, I can get the first but legally being able to own 10 fully auto assault rifles is just bonkers and would never have been envisioned by the founding fathers.
Indeed so. The technology of weaponry has advanced somewhat since the Bill of Rights was passed in 1788.
The Economist used such an argument a few years ago with gun ownership. They argued that weapons should be restricted to what was available at the time. Pikes, swords and matchlocks iirc was the suggestion.
Given that the right to bear arms is in the US constitution, passing an amendment to change that would be a slow process which requires over 34 States to agree amongst other things. It may create plenty of work for lawyers.
Yes, it needs either a constitutional amendment of a very liberal Supreme Court willing to draw the line at certain types of weapons. Neither look like happening any time soon.
This is the sort of thing that civilians are allowed to play with in Nevada: .300 Gatling gun that sends 50 rounds a second down range. Oh, and Kari Byron, just because https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QC8jnSaCqxY
The problem with a liberal Court restricting the right is two-fold. Firstly, it'll take decades to get that kind of Court; and secondly, its opinion could always be reversed later under a different reinterpretation. The only real answer is a constitutional amendment. Even then, just repealing the 2nd amendment would not necessarily make a big practical difference (though it'd make a huge statement): many states contain their own version of the 2nd amendment within their own constitutions, which would be unaffected unless the federal Amendment explicitly gave Congress power to regulate gun use.
A good article David. The issue is that the American psyche has always had guns at its core, in a way that just isn’t there in say the UK. The second amendment was put there for a good reason, that the government should be scared of the people rather than vice versa.
This is something that people just don’t understand unless they’ve spend time there (and NY and LA don’t count!). It’s also a bloody big place, and in rural areas you’ll be needing a way to deal with a bear or two occasionally. People are very attached to the concept of defending themselves and their families from intruders, whether of the ursine or human variety. They don’t expect nor really want the state to defend their property.
The two largest cities in the US 'don't count' ? An interesting perspective, especially considering that around four fifths of the US population are urban dwellers....
NYC is to America as London is to the UK. It is simultaneously an encapsulation of and an opposite to the whole.
The election is next month, and I'll be in Stockholm. I did check the box for an absentee ballot when I registered to vote after my citizenship ceremony on Friday past . I'm not terribly confident the Westchester County Board of Elections will be efficient enough to process it in time though.
Given that the right to bear arms is in the US constitution, passing an amendment to change that would be a slow process which requires over 34 States to agree amongst other things. It may create plenty of work for lawyers.
Yes, it needs either a constitutional amendment of a very liberal Supreme Court willing to draw the line at certain types of weapons. Neither look like happening any time soon.
This is the sort of thing that civilians are allowed to play with in Nevada: .300 Gatling gun that sends 50 rounds a second down range. Oh, and Kari Byron, just because https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QC8jnSaCqxY
The problem with a liberal Court restricting the right is two-fold. Firstly, it'll take decades to get that kind of Court; and secondly, its opinion could always be reversed later under a different reinterpretation. The only real answer is a constitutional amendment. Even then, just repealing the 2nd amendment would not necessarily make a big practical difference (though it'd make a huge statement): many states contain their own version of the 2nd amendment within their own constitutions, which would be unaffected unless the federal Amendment explicitly gave Congress power to regulate gun use.
A good article David. The issue is that the American psyche has always had guns at its core, in a way that just isn’t there in say the UK. The second amendment was put there for a good reason, that the government should be scared of the people rather than vice versa.
This is something that people just don’t understand unless they’ve spend time there (and NY and LA don’t count!). It’s also a bloody big place, and in rural areas you’ll be needing a way to deal with a bear or two occasionally. People are very attached to the concept of defending themselves and their families from intruders, whether of the ursine or human variety. They don’t expect nor really want the state to defend their property.
The two largest cities in the US 'don't count' ? An interesting perspective, especially considering that around four fifths of the US population are urban dwellers....
NYC is to America as London is to the UK. It is simultaneously an encapsulation of and an opposite to the whole.
Given that the right to bear arms is in the US constitution, passing an amendment to change that would be a slow process which requires over 34 States to agree amongst other things. It may create plenty of work for lawyers.
That's not necessarily the case. Some amendments have gone through ratification very quickly. It all depends on the mood of the nation.
It would not appear necessary to amend the Constitution, David.
The Second Amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms, but leaves enough room for the State to specify what sort, where and when. This is presumably why you cannot keep a tank on your driveway, or a thermonuclear device in your garden shed.
Gun lobbyists could help by accepting that certain types of weapon should not be generally available to the public. Gun control advocates could help by accepting that the ultimate right to bear arms is not in question. A little flexibility by both groups could go a long way.
It exasperates me to read about the possible mental state or motives of the killer(s) in the wake of these outrages. I cannot believe the USA has a greater percentage of nutters than most other nations. Their nutters are simply bettered armed than most, Any attempt to improve the situation must begin by asking why that is so.
It is not just a question of the Second Amendment.
I don't disagree - but the gun control people have for a long time been seeking only very modest changes. A background check for mental illness, a ban on assault rifles, researching gun violence, limiting magazine sizes etc. No one thinks it's possible to overturn the ultimate right to bear arms.
But the NRA know that scaring their members with stories of govt taking your guns makes for good copy and boosts sales. There is simply no middle ground for them.
NYC is to America as London is to the UK. It is simultaneously an encapsulation of and an opposite to the whole.
And would you argue London 'doesn't count'?
If we were having a conversation say "car control" or "banning cars" because London dwellers think cars are dirty and not necessary because you can just use the Tube then yes I would say they don't count.
Incidentally I once saw Diane Abbott on This Week suggest something very similar to that!
The Economist used such an argument a few years ago with gun ownership. They argued that weapons should be restricted to what was available at the time. Pikes, swords and matchlocks iirc was the suggestion.
That's more 1620 than 1789 isn't it?
Quite right. We don't need the lethal new fanglery of flintlocks.
The Economist used such an argument a few years ago with gun ownership. They argued that weapons should be restricted to what was available at the time. Pikes, swords and matchlocks iirc was the suggestion.
That's more 1620 than 1789 isn't it?
Quite right. We don't need the lethal new fanglery of flintlocks.
It's amendment that had a place and purpose back then but has none now. Laughable something that old is used to guarantee rights now.
With no proof IS have claimed responsibility for the Vegas attack and they say the attacker converted to Islam some months ago.
ISIS claim responsibility for just about everything these days. Your bag for life split on the way home, it was an ISIS soldier who weakened it...
That said, there is something properly Not Quite Right about this story.
Well as I said down thread, this guy doesn't fit the usual profile of a mass shooter, but who knows. It clearly wasn't an instant response to something, it has been carefully planned, but why...we don't know.
Utter bollocks. The rise of Ryanair, easy jet, wizz is reason.
Crap route choices would be an equally valid reason. Who exactly wants to fly Manchester to Stockholm....
Volvo rep at the Tory conference?
poster of the year material
Main reason was loss of their Egyptian, Turkish and North Africa routes following the collapse of tourism due to terrorist attacks
Doesn't anybody think that paying more for fuel etc due to the £ being weaker had a deleterious effect on the economic prospects of the airline, which was all the original post claimed? Seems a statement of the bleeding obvious (rather than "utter bollocks"), doesn't it?
Utter bollocks. The rise of Ryanair, easy jet, wizz is reason.
Crap route choices would be an equally valid reason. Who exactly wants to fly Manchester to Stockholm....
Volvo rep at the Tory conference?
poster of the year material
Main reason was loss of their Egyptian, Turkish and North Africa routes following the collapse of tourism due to terrorist attacks
Doesn't anybody think that paying more for fuel etc due to the £ being weaker had a deleterious effect on the economic prospects of the airline, which was all the original post claimed? Seems a statement of the bleeding obvious (rather than "utter bollocks"), doesn't it?
Yep - you can argue about the degree of the 4/5 factors from bbc but seems pretty obvious. But expecting nuance on a brexit related issue was a bit optimistic!
Utter bollocks. The rise of Ryanair, easy jet, wizz is reason.
Crap route choices would be an equally valid reason. Who exactly wants to fly Manchester to Stockholm....
Volvo rep at the Tory conference?
poster of the year material
Main reason was loss of their Egyptian, Turkish and North Africa routes following the collapse of tourism due to terrorist attacks
Doesn't anybody think that paying more for fuel etc due to the £ being weaker had a deleterious effect on the economic prospects of the airline, which was all the original post claimed? Seems a statement of the bleeding obvious (rather than "utter bollocks"), doesn't it?
It was peanuts compared to the other problems they had. Which is why they have collapsed and the other British based airlines have not. Or perhaps you think that Brexit and the drop in the value of the pound is also why Berlin Airways collapsed a few months ago? Your simplistic explanations reflect your own bias rather than the real world.
Utter bollocks. The rise of Ryanair, easy jet, wizz is reason.
Crap route choices would be an equally valid reason. Who exactly wants to fly Manchester to Stockholm....
Volvo rep at the Tory conference?
poster of the year material
Main reason was loss of their Egyptian, Turkish and North Africa routes following the collapse of tourism due to terrorist attacks
Doesn't anybody think that paying more for fuel etc due to the £ being weaker had a deleterious effect on the economic prospects of the airline, which was all the original post claimed? Seems a statement of the bleeding obvious (rather than "utter bollocks"), doesn't it?
It was an issue but only at the margins. Their underlying issue was that they were neither low cost or premium and the charter traffic materially weakened. They claimed to be a scheduled carrier but people didn't see them like that. Their main bases were also hubs for easyJet and Ryanair. Yes their load factor had risen in the last 12 months, but RPK was withering. Discounting for volume - I assume that Greybull were priming for a takeout.
In short and as with Air Berlin it was more surprising that the business lasted as long as it did.
Utter bollocks. The rise of Ryanair, easy jet, wizz is reason.
Crap route choices would be an equally valid reason. Who exactly wants to fly Manchester to Stockholm....
Volvo rep at the Tory conference?
poster of the year material
Main reason was loss of their Egyptian, Turkish and North Africa routes following the collapse of tourism due to terrorist attacks
Doesn't anybody think that paying more for fuel etc due to the £ being weaker had a deleterious effect on the economic prospects of the airline, which was all the original post claimed? Seems a statement of the bleeding obvious (rather than "utter bollocks"), doesn't it?
ABTA confirmed that the loss of capacity following the terrorist attacks in the middle east had impacted enormously as they had a much smaller market to compete in and this was before the fall in the pound
The Economist used such an argument a few years ago with gun ownership. They argued that weapons should be restricted to what was available at the time. Pikes, swords and matchlocks iirc was the suggestion.
That's more 1620 than 1789 isn't it?
Quite right. We don't need the lethal new fanglery of flintlocks.
It's amendment that had a place and purpose back then but has none now. Laughable something that old is used to guarantee rights now.
They will never modernize or change it.
Age is no guarantee of obsolescence. There are older statues on the British books that are still good value for money. Indeed, most of the other nine amendments from the US Bill of Rights remain necessary to today's society and politics, and to the extent that some bits are out-of-date (stationing of soldiers in private homes, for example), they're irrelevant rather than harmful. It's only the 2nd which is that.
Interesting (and a relief) that this Las Vegas gunman could fly and owned two planes, but opted not to make use of one of them for his attack, unless he didn't plan for it to end in suicide.
Utter bollocks. The rise of Ryanair, easy jet, wizz is reason.
Crap route choices would be an equally valid reason. Who exactly wants to fly Manchester to Stockholm....
Volvo rep at the Tory conference?
poster of the year material
Main reason was loss of their Egyptian, Turkish and North Africa routes following the collapse of tourism due to terrorist attacks
Doesn't anybody think that paying more for fuel etc due to the £ being weaker had a deleterious effect on the economic prospects of the airline, which was all the original post claimed? Seems a statement of the bleeding obvious (rather than "utter bollocks"), doesn't it?
It was an issue but only at the margins. Their underlying issue was that they were neither low cost or premium and the charter traffic materially weakened. They claimed to be a scheduled carrier but people didn't see them like that. Their main bases were also hubs for easyJet and Ryanair. Yes their load factor had risen in the last 12 months, but RPK was withering. Discounting for volume - I assume that Greybull were priming for a takeout.
In short and as with Air Berlin it was more surprising that the business lasted as long as it did.
Blame Brexit if it makes you happier.
We have always found Monarch to be just that bit better with leg room, food, scheduling etc.
When we went on a villa holiday to a Greek Island about eight years ago we found most people were having to be ferried to catch flights from Thesoloniki because their airline had gone bust. Our travel agent complained on the way out that we arrived at a different time to the others on a Monarch flight but was pleased we had return flights and she didn't have to spend 24 hours on a ferry taking us to Thesoloniki.
Trump was very measured and seemed to get it right and this was also confirmed by Sky presenter, going as far as saying that it was the best response he has managed in a crisis so far
The Economist used such an argument a few years ago with gun ownership. They argued that weapons should be restricted to what was available at the time. Pikes, swords and matchlocks iirc was the suggestion.
For some reason I don't see Republican supreme court justices who are normally so keen on original intent running with that arguement.
re Sheffield: Just imagine what a fuss the Guardian-reading classes would be making if it were a Conservative council engaged in cutting down hundreds of trees for no discernible reason. There would be mass demonstrations, several articles a day in the Guardian saying was proof of how nasty the Conservatives are, and questions in parliament every week.
To paraphrase Churchill after some tried to portray Dunkirk as a victory
"We must be very careful not to assign to this deliverance the attributes of a victory. General election are not won by losing your majority."
Works better as an anti labour point, if you replace the last two words with "them".
Did I hear Johnny mercer on wato saying that he never bothered to vote in elections prior to becoming an MP, and that may should sack the entire cabinet in the course of the next 12 months?
Utter bollocks. The rise of Ryanair, easy jet, wizz is reason.
Crap route choices would be an equally valid reason. Who exactly wants to fly Manchester to Stockholm....
Volvo rep at the Tory conference?
poster of the year material
Main reason was loss of their Egyptian, Turkish and North Africa routes following the collapse of tourism due to terrorist attacks
Doesn't anybody think that paying more for fuel etc due to the £ being weaker had a deleterious effect on the economic prospects of the airline, which was all the original post claimed? Seems a statement of the bleeding obvious (rather than "utter bollocks"), doesn't it?
It was peanuts compared to the other problems they had. Which is why they have collapsed and the other British based airlines have not. Or perhaps you think that Brexit and the drop in the value of the pound is also why Berlin Airways collapsed a few months ago? Your simplistic explanations reflect your own bias rather than the real world.
“We take nearly all of our revenue in pounds and a lot of our costs go out in dollars and euros,” explained Mr Swaffield.
“We pay for aircraft leases and fuel in dollars and things like navigation and ground handling in euros. So we get no revenue benefit from a decline in the pound but we get a big cost increase.”
by all means say peanuts if you like.
The demise of one struggling airline makes no difference whatsoever to whether Brexit was a good idea or not in any case.
To paraphrase Churchill after some tried to portray Dunkirk as a victory
"We must be very careful not to assign to this deliverance the attributes of a victory. General election are not won by losing your majority."
Works better as an anti labour point, if you replace the last two words with "them".
Did I hear Johnny mercer on wato saying that he never bothered to vote in elections prior to becoming an MP, and that may should sack the entire cabinet in the course of the next 12 months?
It would be very amusing if she did so. But it's awful advice. Talk about blaming others for your mistakes!
To paraphrase Churchill after some tried to portray Dunkirk as a victory
"We must be very careful not to assign to this deliverance the attributes of a victory. General election are not won by losing your majority."
Works better as an anti labour point, if you replace the last two words with "them".
Did I hear Johnny mercer on wato saying that he never bothered to vote in elections prior to becoming an MP, and that may should sack the entire cabinet in the course of the next 12 months?
I find it astonishing someone motivated to become an MP never previously voted. What a strange world we live in.
Utter bollocks. The rise of Ryanair, easy jet, wizz is reason.
Crap route choices would be an equally valid reason. Who exactly wants to fly Manchester to Stockholm....
Volvo rep at the Tory conference?
poster of the year material
Main reason was loss of their Egyptian, Turkish and North Africa routes following the collapse of tourism due to terrorist attacks
Doesn't anybody think that paying more for fuel etc due to the £ being weaker had a deleterious effect on the economic prospects of the airline, which was all the original post claimed? Seems a statement of the bleeding obvious (rather than "utter bollocks"), doesn't it?
It was peanuts compared to the other problems they had. Which is why they have collapsed and the other British based airlines have not. Or perhaps you think that Brexit and the drop in the value of the pound is also why Berlin Airways collapsed a few months ago? Your simplistic explanations reflect your own bias rather than the real world.
“We take nearly all of our revenue in pounds and a lot of our costs go out in dollars and euros,” explained Mr Swaffield.
“We pay for aircraft leases and fuel in dollars and things like navigation and ground handling in euros. So we get no revenue benefit from a decline in the pound but we get a big cost increase.”
by all means say peanuts if you like.
The demise of one struggling airline makes no difference whatsoever to whether Brexit was a good idea or not in any case.
Quite, My 'simplistic explanation" consisted of 'Monarch hurt by Brexit fall in £'. It's simple and factually correct, but a Brexiteer just can't seem to accept simple facts where they are inconvenient to their views.
To paraphrase Churchill after some tried to portray Dunkirk as a victory
"We must be very careful not to assign to this deliverance the attributes of a victory. General election are not won by losing your majority."
Works better as an anti labour point, if you replace the last two words with "them".
Did I hear Johnny mercer on wato saying that he never bothered to vote in elections prior to becoming an MP, and that may should sack the entire cabinet in the course of the next 12 months?
I’ve been hors de combat from the world of politics for the last 72 hours so didn’t it hear it, but it sounds like something he’s said in the past.
He said in the past being an active water soldier voting wasn’t a priority.
To paraphrase Churchill after some tried to portray Dunkirk as a victory "We must be very careful not to assign to this deliverance the attributes of a victory. General election are not won by losing your majority."
Works better as an anti labour point, if you replace the last two words with "them". Did I hear Johnny mercer on wato saying that he never bothered to vote in elections prior to becoming an MP, and that may should sack the entire cabinet in the course of the next 12 months?
I find it astonishing someone motivated to become an MP never previously voted. What a strange world we live in.
Depends rather on what his motivation was for wanting to become an MP......
To paraphrase Churchill after some tried to portray Dunkirk as a victory
"We must be very careful not to assign to this deliverance the attributes of a victory. General election are not won by losing your majority."
Works better as an anti labour point, if you replace the last two words with "them".
Did I hear Johnny mercer on wato saying that he never bothered to vote in elections prior to becoming an MP, and that may should sack the entire cabinet in the course of the next 12 months?
I find it astonishing someone motivated to become an MP never previously voted. What a strange world we live in.
From 2015, read this, and you’ll be wanting to have Johnny Mercer’s babies.
There is always somebody who makes a tw@t of themselves...
I mean it does look like he was a lone wolf, we have no idea on his mental state, terrorist seems a fair description, white privilege sorry you what...
It is an attempt at a joke, it is in very poor taste to say the least.
There is always somebody who makes a tw@t of themselves...
I mean it does look like he was a lone wolf, we have no idea on his mental state, terrorist seems a fair description, white privilege sorry you what...
It is an attempt at a joke, it is in very poor taste to say the least.
re Sheffield: Just imagine what a fuss the Guardian-reading classes would be making if it were a Conservative council engaged in cutting down hundreds of trees for no discernible reason. There would be mass demonstrations, several articles a day in the Guardian saying was proof of how nasty the Conservatives are, and questions in parliament every week.
There is always somebody who makes a tw@t of themselves...
I mean it does look like he was a lone wolf, we have no idea on his mental state, terrorist seems a fair description, white privilege sorry you what...
It is an attempt at a joke, it is in very poor taste to say the least.
There is always somebody who makes a tw@t of themselves...
I mean it does look like he was a lone wolf, we have no idea on his mental state, terrorist seems a fair description, white privilege sorry you what...
It is an attempt at a joke, it is in very poor taste to say the least.
Comments
Cuckoo cuckoo.
The Second Amendment protects the individual's right to bear arms, but leaves enough room for the State to specify what sort, where and when. This is presumably why you cannot keep a tank on your driveway, or a thermonuclear device in your garden shed.
Gun lobbyists could help by accepting that certain types of weapon should not be generally available to the public. Gun control advocates could help by accepting that the ultimate right to bear arms is not in question. A little flexibility by both groups could go a long way.
It exasperates me to read about the possible mental state or motives of the killer(s) in the wake of these outrages. I cannot believe the USA has a greater percentage of nutters than most other nations. Their nutters are simply bettered armed than most, Any attempt to improve the situation must begin by asking why that is so.
It is not just a question of the Second Amendment.
Mr. Urquhart, I fear pb.com has spoiled you when it comes to forming arguments and expectations thereof.
It struck me that we might be in a comparable time to when the Roman emperors were Honorius and Arcadius, brothers who were notable for both being rubbish.
Fun fact, the most recent amendment to pass, the 27th, which requires a general congressional election to take place before a pay rise for members can take effect, was first proposed as one of the initial twelve amendment proposals, ten of which were immediate adopted and form the Bill of Rights. The 27th amendment took over 200 years to be ratified.
The other unratified amendment proposal from the original 12, if passed, would increase the size of the House of Representatives to over 6,000 members!
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2012/12/22/test-11/
There are cultural prevalences of certain conditions. The US is highly competitive and does have some high psychological disorder rates. This isn't unique to the West (although things like anorexia are often culturally bound). In Japan, there's an extreme form of agoraphobia which can leave people unable to leave a house or sometimes even a room for years. There's also a problem with testicles becoming... I forget the precise term, but it's not good, due to an imbalance in yin and yang.
Whilst biologically there are not many differences across the whole species (there are some, hence minor variations needed in martial arts from the East if a Westerner is doing it, otherwise joint problems can occur due to slightly different body proportions), psychological disorders can vary significantly according to culture, in terms of both frequency and whether they exist at all.
If the protestor has any good sense (entirely possible he doesn't) he will feel silly and embarrassed later.
My point is: you can have universal (or near universal) gun ownership, provided the individuals are trained, monitored and regulated properly.
I suspect in the US, it's the latter part that's the issue.
He can do Presidential when he wants to. Now is the time for it.
Quite frankly, in some areas I'd be scared to do it unannounced, in case I got shot. Particularly if I was black.
The UK will likely be 50:50 white/non-white by 2050, and that spells permanent electoral oblivion unless the Tories can recast themselves to appeal to all forms of Britons or, better still, bring all Britons inside their values tent.
They argued that weapons should be restricted to what was available at the time.
Pikes, swords and matchlocks iirc was the suggestion.
i completely agree that there's a lot more to it than just the 2nd amendment but that is totemic and, as such, if the challenge is really to be made, then for symbollic reasons as much as for political ones, it needs repealing.
If it was a choice between her and Corbyn, I'd wade through blood for her.
In reality, there's no way a proposal to repeal the 2nd would pass Congress now. It might not even be possible to find sponsors for such a proposal. But if the national opinion were to change such as for Congress to back it, chances are that opinion in the states would have substantially shifted in the same direction.
He will surely feel very silly - when he couldn't quite remember what he was opppsed to - that's gotta feel dumb...
If it was her vs. Andy Burnham I probably would.
An interesting perspective, especially considering that around four fifths of the US population are urban dwellers....
A suspected jihadist who stabbed two young women to death at Marseille's main train station had used several aliases and was a known petty criminal, French police and officials say.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-41466614
The media gave more airtime to Scottish Dawn (whilst a valid news story, nobody was murdered).
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-41010848
Hopefully they aren't been trained against Maomentumers...
"We must be very careful not to assign to this deliverance the attributes of a victory. General election are not won by losing your majority."
But the NRA know that scaring their members with stories of govt taking your guns makes for good copy and boosts sales. There is simply no middle ground for them.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/jan/06/congress-blocked-obama-call-gun-control-mass-shoot/
Incidentally I once saw Diane Abbott on This Week suggest something very similar to that!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-europe-41444799/double-agent-kim-philby-honoured-with-moscow-exhibition
They will never modernize or change it.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/reuters/article-4941152/Islamic-state-claims-Las-Vegas-shooting-says-attacker-recent-convert-Islam.html
I seriously doubt it is Islam though, how could such a peaceful ideology be involved with violence and death?
Ha, saw that line by itself and didn't know if you were referring to the Quran or the Second Amendment.
Seems a statement of the bleeding obvious (rather than "utter bollocks"), doesn't it?
But expecting nuance on a brexit related issue was a bit optimistic!
In short and as with Air Berlin it was more surprising that the business lasted as long as it did.
Blame Brexit if it makes you happier.
When we went on a villa holiday to a Greek Island about eight years ago we found most people were having to be ferried to catch flights from Thesoloniki because their airline had gone bust. Our travel agent complained on the way out that we arrived at a different time to the others on a Monarch flight but was pleased we had return flights and she didn't have to spend 24 hours on a ferry taking us to Thesoloniki.
As it's a Labour council... silence.
Did I hear Johnny mercer on wato saying that he never bothered to vote in elections prior to becoming an MP, and that may should sack the entire cabinet in the course of the next 12 months?
“We pay for aircraft leases and fuel in dollars and things like navigation and ground handling in euros. So we get no revenue benefit from a decline in the pound but we get a big cost increase.”
by all means say peanuts if you like.
The demise of one struggling airline makes no difference whatsoever to whether Brexit was a good idea or not in any case.
Morus, formerly of this parish, has given Lord Adonis an absolute schooling on the judiciary.
Lord Adonis will be applying lotion to the burns for weeks.
My 'simplistic explanation" consisted of 'Monarch hurt by Brexit fall in £'.
It's simple and factually correct, but a Brexiteer just can't seem to accept simple facts where they are inconvenient to their views.
He said in the past being an active water soldier voting wasn’t a priority.
http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/8070974
https://twitter.com/Greg_Callus/status/914784758906982400
I mean it does look like he was a lone wolf, we have no idea on his mental state, terrorist seems a fair description, white privilege sorry you what...
It is an attempt at a joke, it is in very poor taste to say the least.
https://twitter.com/DavidLetternan/status/914818851904397312
All while using their money to live as far away from non-whites as possible.
Feel free to edit / delete.