I'm trying to cut Trump some slack because the American people did after all vote for him, and because I can understand at least some of what he's trying to do. But the latest news is just too silly for words.

As we all know, Obama never got very far with his gun-control programme. But he did manage to get one law passed which required people who were known to be mentally ill to undergo background checks before they were issued with a gun. Of course to us in the UK, the mere idea that a mentally ill man could be given a gun at all, with or without background checks, seems totally insane. But that's America for you!

Today I heard that the new Republican-controlled congress has abolished that rule. Why? Because it discriminates against the mentally ill! We are talking here about people who are drawing a disability payment because their mental illness prevents them from working. In other words, they're not only crazy, they've publicly admitted that they're crazy. But still their constitutional right to bear arms must not be infringed in any way.

You couldn't make it up!

Hazel, here in these United States strict " gun control " produces cities like Chicago with its massive homicide rate. Here in New York City the teenagers, drug dealers, and criminals as well as the police force are armed to the teeth and the average citizen is just " prey " to any one that is armed!! Drugs are " illegal " too, but like guns, they are easily obtained because of the very high profits being made. Our governmental systems are not logical systems by a long shot!!

Hi Hazel...

I have to disagree with you to an extent. Yes, American citizens who are mentally ill still have constitutional rights, including the right to bear arms. To take away that right, there needs to be justifiable and sound legal reasons for doing so. Many, if not most, Americans take our constitutional freedoms seriously and are not sympathetic towards attempts to curtail them. As it is, every state is required by the Federal government to conduct background checks on anyone purchasing a handgun at a store (private sales and gun shows depending upon the state are not included.) What Congress is seeking to repeal, in my opinion, is redundant.

The UK has, to my knowledge, no similar constitutional guarantee and for various other reasons, including the different historical backgrounds of our two countries, I'm sure it's difficult for Britons to understand how we see things.

Regards...

How does something like this make any sense to intelligent people ?.
Seriously fsck'ed up.

Although I find it peculiar that a mentally-ill person would want to own a firearm, I am also very much aware that there are many, many kinds of "mental illnesses." (The human brain is a fearfully-made thing ...)

Generally, I oppose "blanket prohibitions" concerning the owning of firearms. I don't feel that they really protect anyone at all: they just feel good to the public.

Yeah, I've seen some damned-strange ... and expensive(!) ... weapons at various pawn shops. They looked like something The Terminator would carry, and they cost thousands of dollars each. Obviously, some people like them and buy them. As for me, I have no idea how you would clean one . . .

What I really want to start seeing is some mandatory gun education. Before you can buy the thing, you have to take a gun-safety course and you have to go onto a pistol-range and, well, "howzabout hit the target at least once in five shots."

Today, people buy pocket-cannons, which they have never fired nor seen being fired, and they "feel safe" with a thing that's just waiting to blow a hole in their foot. Or to go right through the paper-thin walls of their house and hit their neighbor. ("I didn't know it could do that!") ("Well, therefore you might just get 'homicide.'")

I was taught that a gun is a tool and I knew how to use that tool since I was eight years old. I took to it like a duck to the water because I was a fairly scrawny kid but here was a contest of skill. You, the (lovingly cared-for) weapon, and the target. It is a contest with yourself, and the outcome depends entirely on you. Before you squeeze-off that shot, there's nothing in the world except you and that far-away piece of paper. It's almost Zen. Fire the rounds, secure your weapon, go down-range and see the reward.

Any jock could get on the varsity team, but to get on a competitive shooting team was an entirely different matter. Of course we carried our guns to school, properly secured in their cases, placing them in our lockers and keeping the keys with us. It was simply the correct thing to do, and we thought nothing of it. We were responsible.

It also came in handy when the raccoons invaded our (country ...) garden: I could very-reliably get a clean kill, and soon the 'coons picked different cabbages. (Or there were none left ... I don't know.)

As far as I can remember, the Second Amendment places the right to bear arms within the context of a "well-regulated militia". You can't have a well-regulated militia unless someone is regulating it. That suggests to me that the constitution was designed to create a balance between private gun ownership and public safety. Such a balance exists today in a number of countries.

In these countries (e.g. Switzerland, Norway, Israel), the army is basically a militia with a small professional core. The citizen soldiers keep their guns at home for everybody's convenience. It ensures that if the country is invaded, they will be able to respond immediately without having to go to a central depot to collect their weapons. But they don't use those guns in their private lives to take potshots at people they feel aggrieved with, and they certainly don't take them into schools to slaughter children.

In the US, there's a school shooting every few months. Does anyone really believe that that was what the Founding Fathers had in mind?

I submit that "there could be an act of violence anywhere at any time." If you're determined to shoot-up a playground, you're gonna find a way to get your hands on something with which to do so. You're not going to pay attention to any laws that try to keep you from laying your hands on a weapon.

To me the biggest problem is that "guns are a symbol" to some people. They don't need one but by gawd they are determined to own one. And it's not a simple pocket revolver: it's a howitzer, probably full of plastic parts. The more it costs, the more you like it.

Nevertheless, there really are self-defense situations (which, of course, you should avoid!) in which, if you don't have the immediate means to fight back, you're going to be the body. Trouble is, plenty of people get into those situations with absolutely no training. (Or, because they are "carrying," they feel invincible.) They can wind up as bodies, too.

Sometimes, lawmakers do stupid things, too. For example, Tennessee legalized carrying weapons in bars, unless the bar-owner prohibited it. ("Drunk" plus "pistol" ... what's not to love?) Of course, today I never encounter a bar that doesn't have that "prohibited" sign prominently displayed! Tennessee lawmakers were idiots, but the owners weren't.

Everybody is for gun rights. Till one is pointed at you. then all of sudden. Things start to change in your mind.

Whether it be a cholo, gang banger, farmer, or law enforcement.

Having been shot. I can speak from experience.

Edit; because face it. Some folks just can't handle weapons in a responsible way.

Hi...

I think it's fair to say that our society and the Supreme Court have viewed gun ownership as an individual right.

No, certainly not but people and society were different back then. I think more people were God fearing and these kinds of things were unheard of. At the same time, the Founding Fathers, knew the value of having freedoms (including the right to bear arms) in place to help protect against tyranny in government. In fact, you may have heard Benjamin Franklin's quote about freedom...

The tragedies and destruction we are seeing in our country, quite honestly is a consequence of not only our sin nature (people in general) but also of a nation and a society who is continuing to turn away from God and His truth. Banning firearms is not going to remedy that fundamental problem.

Regards...

Hazel, trying to get americans to give up guns is like trying to get the british to give up the monachy, it may be a good thing to do but it aint never gonna happen!

The gun owners are fearful much like the linux users who don't trust the government. They feel that what seems to be a simple law will be used against them like the way California has been taking weapons legally owned.

They question how easy it would be for someone to claim you or I are mentally ill and therefor not allowed to possess a weapon.

You can generally get the owners view here. https://home.nra.org/

As I recall however the media was spinning story wrong.

Hi...

I can understand your proposal for those under 21 but not for those over.

Regards...

I never had a gun pointed at me in my entire life, yet I am against gun rights.

Comparing to what I see, hear and read about the USA, I must be living in some sort of impossible fairyland.

Still US Americans of all ethical couleur are defending their country's ways.

weird.

But can you understand why we have similar restrictions on cars, even for people over 21?

I'm not going to go too much into this due to this being a touchy subject.

My opinions: guns should be allowed, but in a way that enforces their use as self-defense.

One reason is that those who live out in the countryside or in an unincorporated area depend on state police in case of emergency and it can take longer for them to reach a residency that called than it would local police departments.

How this would be enforced I don't quite know. The fingerprint scanner idea interests me, but that's rather controversial last I checked.

As per the idea of the 2nd amendment being needed to overthrow the government: both Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion happened when many founders were still alive and had influence (the Whiskey Rebellion itself happened during George Washington's administration), and both were stopped.

And that is all I will say on the topic.