Possibly needless to say in most cases the guns used here are
later found to be illegal (unregistered)

That is basically the same here. They were obtained illegally

>and/or being used by someone who, by law, did not have the right
>to be using one. Outside of crimes of passion, the people using
>them to shoot "masses" of people are almost always already breaking
>existing laws just by possessing a firearm.

Yes, it seems there is often hints that a person is going to do
something like that if they can get ahold of a gun, and often that's
much too easy.

That said, it's not that hard to get a licence to buy huntimg
rifles and shot guns but hand guns are a another story

It is not supposed to be easy here, either. If you are going through

>legal means to purchase/obtain one, they don't just give it to you.
>I was shocked how long it took me to purchase a .22 rifle 15 or so
>years ago. You cannot just walk in, plop your money down, and walk out.

When I turned 18 I was old enough to purchase/own a gun so I filled
out a form and it was pretty easy to buy a 22. I didn't keep it for
long though. Did some target practice but I wasn't into hunting so
I sold it within a year and never bought another.

Neither apparently take as much time to legally purchase as they

>do to steal. If I was going to "make more laws" or strengthen
>existing ones, I would first be looking at stricter sentencing
>for people who steal firearms, and for those who purchase/sell
>them illegally. Those laws either don't exist, are not being
>enforced correctly, or are ignored until something bad happens.

I think if someone sells a gun to someone who uses it in a crime
the seller should be charged as an accessory. The system should
be set up to transfer ownership of guns where the buyer will be
identified and checked out, but all the people who think the
'People' will some day have to take the power away from the
government would freak out to hear me say something like that.

Yes, I think they kept the guns for 2 or 3 months while they
looked into it but he did get them back.

Sounds like it worked about how it should then. I have not read/heard

>any such stories lately but it seems like several years ago here in
>the US there were people who were acquitted and/or maybe not even
>tried once authorities realized they had the wrong person, and they
>were not receiving their seized property back after the fact.
>Not just guns but other confiscated belongings, money (especially
>money!), etc.

I got the impression that some jurisdictions were lining their

>coffers with these ill-begotten gains.

Yes, I can see that.. That reminded me of an odd but true story
which I know to be true since I was involved in a way..

Years ago I found a really nice folding knife when in the USA
and I bought two of them, the second for a good friend of mine.

He used to wear the snap closed sheath on his belt all the time
and one night on the way home he was accosted by probably an addict
with a steel bar who demanded money. He handed over his wallet
rather than fight over a few dollars, but once the person had
the wallet he raised the steel bar looking like he was planning
to kill my friend.. I think he got hit once before he managed
to get the folding knife out, and he stabbed the guy, who later
died.

My friend was arrested and charged with manslaughter. It took
a few months (with him out on bail) but it finally came to trial
and pretty quickly they decided he had acted in self defence
and the judge ruled him not guilty.. My friend stood up to leave
the court room, but he stopped and turned to the judge and said,
"And I want my F***king knife back!".. He did get it back.. B)

---
■ SLMR Rob ■ Don't listen to their foolishness - listen to mine ■

--- Scorpio BBS
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * KY, USA (1:2320/107)

That said, it's not that hard to get a licence to buy huntimg
rifles and shot guns but hand guns are a another story, and
automatic military type guns were always super hard to get and
in recent years they have, or are working on, totally banning
them to the public after a few mass shootings..

To be clear, hunting rifles and military-style rifles are pretty

> similar. They both shoot one bullet per trigger pull, military
> semi-automatics may support larger magazines which make them
> problematic. I don't think you need a 30-round removable magazine to
> hunt.

And you can often buy attachments that turn those military looking
weapons into fully automatic ones. I'm pretty sure up here they
limit the number of shells a gun can hold if it's a legal weapon
and not under a special collectors licence.

In the USA, the second amendment to the constitution has been used as a

> prop for the right to bear arms in any capacity (not just to form
> militias). We need guns to counter a government that oversteps their
> bounds. They seem awfully quiet these days.

As I understand it, the second amendment allows a State Militia the
right to bear arms, not individuals, but they always insist that
it gives everyone the right.. To my way of thinking a State Militia
is formed by the State government, not every whack-a-doo that gets
together with a few friends and decide to call themselves that.

I wonder when we're going to look at the causes. Maybe in 20 years when

> the current crop of billionaires has passed on, we'll admit that
> manipulating a generation of children through social networks to
> increase revenue and political power, creating a for-profit food and
> medical care system that prioritizes corporate profits over their
> customer's well being, combined with a billionaire class that has
> systematically dismantled a thriving middle class has caused an
> irrecoverable erosion in mental health.

I think these things come in waves, highs and lows over the years.
Recently I think we are in some very odd extremes in a lot of areas
that I hope will correct itself before too long.

No extreme condition usually can be self sustaining for long unless
violence is used to subdue anyone who questions things. In those
systems you end up with a tiny wealthy class and a Huge poor class.
Some would argue that Canada and the USA have that now but you have to
look at places like India or Iran or Russia to see what that divide
can truly look like.

---
■ SLMR Rob ■ Call me anything but late for dinner ■

--- Scorpio BBS
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * KY, USA (1:2320/107)

Rob Mccart wrote to KURT WEISKE <=-

And you can often buy attachments that turn those military looking
weapons into fully automatic ones.

Do you mean a bump stock? Replacing the receiver to make a gun full
auto is a serious felony, but bump stocks use the recoil from the gun
to repeatedly pull the trigger. It's a loophole that some states have
closed.

I'm pretty sure up here they

limit the number of shells a gun can hold if it's a legal weapon
and not under a special collectors licence.

They limit the sales of high-capacity magazines, and I know there have
been some attempts to make switching mags slower. Which I'm all for -
If a hunter needs to shoot 10 rounds then reload to hit his target, he
shouldn't be hunting. :)

In the USA, the second amendment to the constitution has been used as a

> prop for the right to bear arms in any capacity (not just to form
> militias). We need guns to counter a government that oversteps their
> bounds. They seem awfully quiet these days.

As I understand it, the second amendment allows a State Militia the
right to bear arms, not individuals, but they always insist that
it gives everyone the right.. To my way of thinking a State Militia
is formed by the State government, not every whack-a-doo that gets together with a few friends and decide to call themselves that.

Yeah, and the whack-a-doos seem content with the current trampling of
rights by the government because it suits their agenda, I suppose.

I think these things come in waves, highs and lows over the years. Recently I think we are in some very odd extremes in a lot of areas
that I hope will correct itself before too long.

I agree, but this time I feel like the pendulum had swung too far to
come back. At least not in my lifetime.


... They will not harm their own. End of line.
--- MultiMail/Win v0.52
* Origin: http://realitycheckbbs.org | tomorrow's retro tech (1:218/700)

It is not supposed to be easy here, either. If you are
going through

>legal means to purchase/obtain one, they don't just give it
>to you. I was shocked how long it took me to purchase a .22
>rifle 15 or so years ago. You cannot just walk in, plop
>your money down, and walk out.

When I turned 18 I was old enough to purchase/own a gun so I
filled out a form and it was pretty easy to buy a 22. I didn't
keep it for long though. Did some target practice but I wasn't
into hunting so I sold it within a year and never bought
another.

If I had bought one at 18, or 21, I think it probably would have been about that easy back then, too. We also didn't have near as many mass shootings back then. You would think that'd be the opposite, but it wasn't and isn't.

Not sure why that is, but I think the "more gun laws" obviously isn't covering the whole problem, just the easiest part. As Kurt pointed out, mental health issues seem to be on the rise and are not really being addressed by anyone.

I think if someone sells a gun to someone who uses it in a
crime the seller should be charged as an accessory.

I am pretty sure they are supposed to be charged, especially if it is an illegal sale/purchase, but I just get the impression that isn't happening often enough.

The system

should be set up to transfer ownership of guns where the buyer
will be identified and checked out, but all the people who
think the 'People' will some day have to take the power away
from the government would freak out to hear me say something
like that.

I have never done a private transfer but agree there should be some identification and checking out there also. That said, as we are talking about transfers that are already illegal, I doubt they'd take them time to follow any rules. ;)

Yes, I can see that.. That reminded me of an odd but true
story which I know to be true since I was involved in a way..

Accessory! :D

He used to wear the snap closed sheath on his belt all the time
and one night on the way home he was accosted by probably an
addict with a steel bar who demanded money. He handed over his
wallet rather than fight over a few dollars, but once the
person had the wallet he raised the steel bar looking like he
was planning to kill my friend.. I think he got hit once
before he managed to get the folding knife out, and he stabbed
the guy, who later died.

My friend was arrested and charged with manslaughter. It took
a few months (with him out on bail) but it finally came to
trial and pretty quickly they decided he had acted in self
defence and the judge ruled him not guilty.. My friend stood up
to leave the court room, but he stopped and turned to the judge
and said, "And I want my F***king knife back!".. He did get it
back.. B)

Here, he may have got off without being charged, so long as it didn't happen in "the big city" or in certain states. OTOH, in my state's "big city," if he had hunted him down premeditated and stabbed him, they probably would have let him plead down to manslaughter and given him a suspended sentence, even if he had a record.

But that is another topic for some other time.

Mike

--- ScorpioWeb v0.39a (Linux/x86_64)
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * KY, USA (1:2320/107)

And you can often buy attachments that turn those military
looking weapons into fully automatic ones. I'm pretty sure up
here they limit the number of shells a gun can hold if it's a
legal weapon and not under a special collectors licence.

Here there are some states that will limit how many shells a *shotgun* can be loaded with. My father used to have a nice single-barrel with a max capacity of 5 shells but, due to regulations, it had some cork or other obstruction in the magazine that only allowed three to be loaded.

That was back in the 1970s so I don't know if such a regulation still exists or not. Does seem odd that they would limit a shotgun to only three, but don't limit semi-auto guns as strictly/at all. Makes me wonder if it was not related to some hunting regulation, i.e. something to be fair to the animals.

In the USA, the second amendment to the constitution has
been used as a

> prop for the right to bear arms in any capacity (not just
> to form militias). We need guns to counter a government
> that oversteps their bounds. They seem awfully quiet these
> days.

As I understand it, the second amendment allows a State Militia
the right to bear arms, not individuals, but they always insist
that it gives everyone the right.. To my way of thinking a
State Militia is formed by the State government, not every
whack-a-doo that gets together with a few friends and decide to
call themselves that.

I would agree you are correct on how state militias are formed. The "State Militia" bit in the Second Amendment is the reason given for the right to bear arms not being infringed, not the reason for "giving" the right.

If you read it carefully, it doesn't even "give" you the right to bear them -- it assumes that you *already* have the right to bear them. The government isn't giving you the right. You already have it and it "shall not be infringed" by Congress. It is meant to restrict the power of the Federal Government on this matter.

That is not just my opinion, but was one given by the Supreme Court back in the 1800s and upheld in more recent times.

Mike

--- ScorpioWeb v0.39a (Linux/x86_64)
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * KY, USA (1:2320/107)

Yeah, and the whack-a-doos seem content with the current
trampling of
rights by the government because it suits their agenda, I
suppose.

Just to review, which rights do you think are being trampled right now?

Part of the problem is that some of the rights in question are the ones that the "whack-a-doos" don't ever expect to exercise, or they don't realize what is going on. Much like the "other whack-a-doos" don't ever expect to use their Second Amendment rights ('cause guns are scary!) and are plenty fine with that right being trampled. So long as "their guy" is in charge, they also don't mind/don't notice others being trampled, either.

Goes both ways.

Mike

--- ScorpioWeb v0.39a (Linux/x86_64)
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * KY, USA (1:2320/107)

When I turned 18 I was old enough to purchase/own a gun so I
filled out a form and it was pretty easy to buy a 22. I didn't
keep it for long though.

If I had bought one at 18, or 21, I think it probably would have been

>about that easy back then, too. We also didn't have near as many
>mass shootings back then. You would think that'd be the opposite,
>but it wasn't and isn't.

Yes, I think that most of the problems are not to do with availability
of guns but are about social changes, whether due to mental health
issues or just a generation that doesn't care about anyone but
themselves a lot of the time. A lot of people seem happy to risk their,
or others, lives to get more 'Likes' online..

He used to wear the snap closed sheath on his belt all the time
and one night on the way home he was accosted by probably an
addict with a steel bar who demanded money. He handed over his
wallet rather than fight over a few dollars, but once the
person had the wallet he raised the steel bar looking like he
was planning to kill my friend.. I think he got hit once
before he managed to get the folding knife out, and he stabbed
the guy, who later died.

My friend was arrested and charged with manslaughter.

Here, he may have got off without being charged, so long as it

>didn't happen in "the big city" or in certain states. OTOH, in
>my state's "big city," if he had hunted him down premeditated
>and stabbed him, they probably would have let him plead down to
>manslaughter and given him a suspended sentence, even if he had
>a record.

This took place in Vancouver B.C. Canada. Big city and very 'Liberal'
(the California of Canada). The rights of homeless people, hookers
and drug dealers are likely to be considered more important than the
rights of a (white?) person with a job and a home..

But maybe I'm a bit cynical... (Ya think?) B)

---
■ SLMR Rob ■ Have been "taken advantage" by women all my life :( ■

--- Scorpio BBS
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * KY, USA (1:2320/107)

And you can often buy attachments that turn those military
looking weapons into fully automatic ones. I'm pretty sure up
here they limit the number of shells a gun can hold if it's a
legal weapon and not under a special collectors licence.

Here there are some states that will limit how many shells a

>*shotgun* can be loaded with. My father used to have a nice
>single-barrel with a max capacity of 5 shells but, due to regulations,
>it had some cork or other obstruction in the magazine that only
>allowed three to be loaded.

They have the same thing here but it looks like the limit on shotgun
shells depends on what you are hunting (3 for migratory birds).
Otherwise it can have at least 5 (possibly more.. unclear) if it must
be manually cocked to shoot again rather than being semi-automatic.

If you read it carefully, it doesn't even "give" you the right

to bear them -- it assumes that you *already* have the right to
>bear them. The government isn't giving you the right. You already
>have it and it "shall not be infringed" by Congress. It is meant
>to restrict the power of the Federal Government on this matter.

That is not just my opinion, but was one given by the Supreme Court

>back in the 1800s and upheld in more recent times.

I hadn't thought about the exact wording of that so, my bad I guess..

I knew it had to do with the State having the right to stand up
against the Federals if required but the rest is outside of that.

That said, they change the constitution all the time if they
decide something from the past should no longer be allowed so
you can blame it on a change being blocked rather than change
being impossible..

---
■ SLMR Rob ■ The last thing I saw was this Fatal Error thing.... ■

--- Scorpio BBS
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * KY, USA (1:2320/107)

And you can often buy attachments that turn those military looking
weapons into fully automatic ones.

Do you mean a bump stock? Replacing the receiver to make a gun full

> auto is a serious felony, but bump stocks use the recoil from the gun
> to repeatedly pull the trigger. It's a loophole that some states have
> closed.

That is one way but I think there are other attachments you can get
that just replace what was not put in the military type guns in the
first place to stop them being fully automatic. Obviously that is
totally illegal too..

They limit the sales of high-capacity magazines, and I know there have

> been some attempts to make switching mags slower. Which I'm all for -
> If a hunter needs to shoot 10 rounds then reload to hit his target, he
> shouldn't be hunting. :)

Yes, military assault type guns are not good for hunting just by
design. Snipers don't use those in war.

As I understand it, the second amendment allows a State Militia the
right to bear arms, not individuals

Yeah, and the whack-a-doos seem content with the current trampling of

> rights by the government because it suits their agenda, I suppose.

As Mike pointed out, the wording should be taken differently than I
said but, in any case, the nut-bars will find a way to get a gun and
do what they want to do regardless of the laws so, what can you do?
Stiffer sentences don't seem to have a big effect on most crimes.

I think these things come in waves, highs and lows over the years.
Recently I think we are in some very odd extremes in a lot of areas
that I hope will correct itself before too long.

I agree, but this time I feel like the pendulum had swung too far to

> come back. At least not in my lifetime.

I agree it won't happen fast, and it may never go as far back to
what we grew up with as we'd hope, but maybe it will get a little
more reasonable than it seems the past decade or so.

---
■ SLMR Rob ■ Oh yeah? If you're so smart, why don't I understand you?

--- Scorpio BBS
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * KY, USA (1:2320/107)

Rob Mccart wrote to MIKE POWELL <=-

When I turned 18 I was old enough to purchase/own a gun so I
filled out a form and it was pretty easy to buy a 22. I didn't
keep it for long though.

If I had bought one at 18, or 21, I think it probably would have been

>about that easy back then, too. We also didn't have near as many
>mass shootings back then. You would think that'd be the opposite,
>but it wasn't and isn't.

Yes, I think that most of the problems are not to do with availability
of guns but are about social changes, whether due to mental health
issues or just a generation that doesn't care about anyone but
themselves a lot of the time. A lot of people seem happy to risk their,
or others, lives to get more 'Likes' online..

Yeah, even when they won't live through the experience. I think that may
be a difference from previous generations... or maybe it was only just that previous generations didn't have social media and/or were more likely to be locked up for being mentally unfit before it came to that.

I watched someone (with no medial credentials that I am aware of)
discussing how our society has become so "connected" to the point where we don't have to interact socially... or even go outside... that it is having consequences on our mental well-being.

While it was just the theory of an apparent non-professional, it sure
sounds plausable.

Here, he may have got off without being charged, so long as it

>didn't happen in "the big city" or in certain states. OTOH, in
>my state's "big city," if he had hunted him down premeditated
>and stabbed him, they probably would have let him plead down to
>manslaughter and given him a suspended sentence, even if he had
>a record.

This took place in Vancouver B.C. Canada. Big city and very 'Liberal'
(the California of Canada). The rights of homeless people, hookers
and drug dealers are likely to be considered more important than the rights of a (white?) person with a job and a home..

But maybe I'm a bit cynical... (Ya think?) B)

That is where I was going with that. Also cynical, and would also add the rights of someone who does something big enough... like murder... that they make the news > the rights of someone who is picked up on outstanding warrants for misdemeanors who doesn't make the news.

That is true 100% in Louisville. If you make the news, they have to keep
you alive to go to trial (or plea bargin to a much lesser charge, etc.)
If you don't make the news, Metro Corrections can let your fellow inmates
drag you from your cell, beat you comatose, just dump you off somewhere
(but NOT the hospital!), then claim no knowledge as to what happened.

Mike

... Tell me, is something eluding you, Sunshine?
--- MultiMail/DOS
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * KY, USA (1:2320/107)

Rob Mccart wrote to MIKE POWELL <=-

That said, they change the constitution all the time if they
decide something from the past should no longer be allowed so
you can blame it on a change being blocked rather than change
being impossible..

I can remember when they were trying to ammend the constitution in the
1970s or very early 1980s. IIRC, the people in two thirds of the states
had to vote "Yes" for it to become a part of the constitution. It didn't
pass. The change doesn't get blocked by "them" in Congress, but by the
states and the voters.

That is the only time in the last 50+ years that any attempt to legally change the Constitution was made, so it doesn't happen "all the time" any more. ;)

It became so difficult for the politicians to get the people to agree to whatever change they wanted that the politicians have resorted to passing laws (and signing executive orders) and hoping no one ever mounts a Constitutional challenge in the courts.

Mike

... Does anybody here remember Vera Lynn?
--- MultiMail/DOS
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * KY, USA (1:2320/107)

Yes, it sounded like there were warning signs about that one
long before the event happened. You'd think the warning signs
would have kept the guns away from the kid, especially in
Canada..

Considering that Canada's guns laws are more strict, one would sure

>have thought so. Sort of goes to show that the laws often only apply
>to the people who won't be planning any mass shootings. They only
>apply to the real threats after-the-fact.

Yes, we don't get as many incidents here (per-capita) as you do
down there but the numbers are going up. Possibly needless to say
in most cases the guns used here are later found to be illegal
(unregistered) and purchased from the USA in one way or another.

That said, it's not that hard to get a licence to buy huntimg
rifles and shot guns but hand guns are a another story, and
automatic military type guns were always super hard to get and
in recent years they have, or are working on, totally banning
them to the public after a few mass shootings..

True.. I know that about 30 years ago a close friend of my
brothers got into an argument with his girlfriend and said some
nasty things. He claims he never actually threatened her (?)
but, in any case, a couple of days later the police showed up
at his place and confiscated his gun collection. He was a
licenced collector, every gun registered with the police.

I would be ok with this so long as they eventually gave them back.

>If they kept them, not so much.

Yes, I think they kept the guns for 2 or 3 months while they
looked into it but he did get them back. If I recall, I think
when they started seriously investigating, the lady finally
admitted she had exaggerated the situation 'to get back at him'..

___
■ SLMR Rob ■ If you notice my mind wandering... send it home ■

--- ScorpioBBS/QWK v0.38a (Linux/x86_64)
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * KY, USA (1:2320/107)

Yes, I think that most of the problems are not to do with availability
of guns but are about social changes, whether due to mental health
issues or just a generation that doesn't care about anyone but
themselves a lot of the time. A lot of people seem happy to risk their,
or others, lives to get more 'Likes' online..

Yeah, even when they won't live through the experience. I think that may

>be a difference from previous generations... or maybe it was only just
>that previous generations didn't have social media and/or were more likely
>to be locked up for being mentally unfit before it came to that.

It seems these days that being 'popular' online has become a Huge issue.
I think someone who in the past would have just suffered silently will
now do something extreme, killing themselves and/or others, just so
they will go down with a big news story.. Finally some 'Likes'..

I watched someone (with no medial credentials that I am aware of)

>discussing how our society has become so "connected" to the point
?where we don't have to interact socially... or even go outside...
>that it is having consequences on our mental well-being.

I'd imagine so, but that may depend on the person too. I live
alone here and usually only see other people one day every
2 weeks when I do the shopping and other errands and it doesn't
bother me much. I also rarely talk to anyone on the phone, mostly
my brother one day a week, so my online and eMail contacts are
almost my only human interaction other than the few times a year
in the summer when my niece and family come up several times for
a few days to use my sister's cottage next door.

The rights of homeless people, hookers and drug dealers are
likely to be considered more important than the rights of
a (white?) person with a job and a home..

But maybe I'm a bit cynical... (Ya think?) B)

That is where I was going with that. Also cynical, and would also add the

>rights of someone who does something big enough... like murder... that they
>make the news > the rights of someone who is picked up on outstanding warrant
>for misdemeanors who doesn't make the news.

That is true 100% in Louisville. If you make the news, they have to keep

>you alive to go to trial (or plea bargin to a much lesser charge, etc.)
>If you don't make the news, Metro Corrections can let your fellow inmates
>drag you from your cell, beat you comatose, just dump you off somewhere
>(but NOT the hospital!), then claim no knowledge as to what happened.

Wow, that's really something. I've never heard of anything similar
up here, and I hope that means it doesn't happen, but I can't be sure.

---
■ SLMR Rob ■ Man, that lightning sounds clo#Æ#√! &^#√%#¿√ NO CARRIER ■

--- Scorpio BBS
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * KY, USA (1:2320/107)

That said, they change the constitution all the time if they
decide something from the past should no longer be allowed so
you can blame it on a change being blocked rather than change
being impossible..

I can remember when they were trying to ammend the constitution in the

>1970s or very early 1980s. IIRC, the people in two thirds of the states
>had to vote "Yes" for it to become a part of the constitution. It didn't
>pass. The change doesn't get blocked by "them" in Congress, but by the
>states and the voters.

That is the only time in the last 50+ years that any attempt to legally chang

>the Constitution was made, so it doesn't happen "all the time" any more. ;)

Okay, maybe 'all the time' was an exaggeration.. B)
This was probably from back when you were saying but I thought I recalled
them having to make changes to do with 'minority' rights, or lack of.

It does make sense though that a good majority has to approve a change
to such an important part of the laws and rights of the country.

---
■ SLMR Rob ■ I can't use Windows... My cat ate my mouse :( ■

--- Scorpio BBS
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * KY, USA (1:2320/107)

Okay, maybe 'all the time' was an exaggeration.. B)
This was probably from back when you were saying but I thought
I recalled them having to make changes to do with 'minority'
rights, or lack of.

There was, which was before the time I was discussing. The one I was thinking about was the ERA, which was re-introduced in 1971 and failed to be ratified by enough states before a set 1982 deadline.

That said, I do stand corrected re: ones ratified since then!

Twenty-seventh Amendment - 1992
Key Details
Ratification Date: May 7, 1992
Purpose: It prohibits any changes to the salary of members of Congress from taking effect until after the next election of the House of Representatives.

Apparently that one had been rattling around since *1789* but wasn't fully ratified by enough states until 1992!

Prior to the 27th, the last successful one was the 26th Amendment, which lowered the voting age from 21 to 18. That was ratified in 1971.

So that is two in my 56+ year lifetime, and only one since my reference point (the ERA's failure in 1982). ;)

During the 1960s, there were three ratified. They granted Presidential electors to the District of Columbia, made poll taxes unconstitutional, and clarified presidential succession and how to fill Vice Presidential vacancies. The first two were early in the decade, 1961 and 63, while the last one was ratified in 1967. I am guessing it may have been triggered by the assassination of John F Kennedy a few years earlier (it was introduced in 1965).

Before that, the most recent successful one was in 1951, to introduce the Presidential term limit.

IMHO, after the failure of the ERA, a lot of politicians have been using the methods I previously mentioned... pass a law, or sign an executive order, and hope it is never challenged as unconstitutional in the courts.

It does make sense though that a good majority has to approve a
change to such an important part of the laws and rights of the
country.

Two-thirds of Congress has to approve, then 3/4ths of the states must ratify it. I think it is a good method.

Mike

--- ScorpioWeb v0.39a (Linux/x86_64)
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * KY, USA (1:2320/107)

Rob Mccart wrote to MIKE POWELL <=-

Yes, we don't get as many incidents here (per-capita) as you do
down there but the numbers are going up. Possibly needless to say
in most cases the guns used here are later found to be illegal (unregistered) and purchased from the USA in one way or another.

That said, it's not that hard to get a licence to buy huntimg
rifles and shot guns but hand guns are a another story, and
automatic military type guns were always super hard to get and
in recent years they have, or are working on, totally banning
them to the public after a few mass shootings..

To be clear, hunting rifles and military-style rifles are pretty
similar. They both shoot one bullet per trigger pull, military
semi-automatics may support larger magazines which make them
problematic. I don't think you need a 30-round removable magazine to
hunt.

The mechanism is the same, though. One's black and looks like a
full-auto assault rifle, the other typically has a wood stock and looks
like it belongs in a rack in the back of a pickup truck.

Full automatic rifles are heavily restricted.

In the USA, the second amendment to the constitution has been used as a
prop for the right to bear arms in any capacity (not just to form
militias). We need guns to counter a government that oversteps their
bounds. They seem awfully quiet these days.

I wonder when we're going to look at the causes. Maybe in 20 years when
the current crop of billionaires has passed on, we'll admit that
manipulating a generation of children through social networks to
increase revenue and political power, creating a for-profit food and
medical care system that prioritizes corporate profits over their
customer's well being, combined with a billionaire class that has
systematically dismantled a thriving middle class has caused an
irrecoverable erosion in mental health.

True.. I know that about 30 years ago a close friend of my
brothers got into an argument with his girlfriend and said some
nasty things. He claims he never actually threatened her (?)
but, in any case, a couple of days later the police showed up
at his place and confiscated his gun collection. He was a
licenced collector, every gun registered with the police.

I would be ok with this so long as they eventually gave them back.

>If they kept them, not so much.

Yes, I think they kept the guns for 2 or 3 months while they
looked into it but he did get them back. If I recall, I think
when they started seriously investigating, the lady finally
admitted she had exaggerated the situation 'to get back at him'..

___
SLMR Rob If you notice my mind wandering... send it home

--- ScorpioBBS/QWK v0.38a (Linux/x86_64)
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * KY, USA (1:2320/107)

... Walk without rhythm and you won't attact the worm.
--- MultiMail/Win v0.52
* Origin: http://realitycheckbbs.org | tomorrow's retro tech (1:218/700)

Considering that Canada's guns laws are more strict, one
would sure

>have thought so. Sort of goes to show that the laws often
>only apply to the people who won't be planning any mass
>shootings. They only apply to the real threats
>after-the-fact.

Yes, we don't get as many incidents here (per-capita) as you do
down there but the numbers are going up. Possibly needless to
say in most cases the guns used here are later found to be
illegal (unregistered) and purchased from the USA in one way or
another.

That is basically the same here. They were obtained illegally and/or being used by someone who, by law, did not have the right to be using one. Outside of crimes of passion, the people using them to shoot "masses" of people are almost always already breaking existing laws just by possessing a firearm.

That is something that anti-gun folks in the USA often like to ignore, and something that I don't think people in other countries understand.

That said, it's not that hard to get a licence to buy huntimg
rifles and shot guns but hand guns are a another story, and
automatic military type guns were always super hard to get and
in recent years they have, or are working on, totally banning
them to the public after a few mass shootings..

It is not supposed to be easy here, either. If you are going through legal means to purchase/obtain one, they don't just give it to you. I was shocked how long it took me to purchase a .22 rifle 15 or so years ago. You cannot just walk in, plop your money down, and walk out.

My understanding is that handguns also take longer, but it has been a very long time since I looked into purchasing one so I cannot say 100% for sure.

Neither apparently take as much time to legally purchase as they do to steal. If I was going to "make more laws" or strengthen existing ones, I would first be looking at stricter sentencing for people who steal firearms, and for those who purchase/sell them illegally. Those laws either don't exist, are not being enforced correctly, or are ignored until something bad happens.

Instead, many US states and jurisdictions try to take the easy way, lazy way, or something else stupid way and only crack down on those operating within the law. You can usually tell those places by looking up gun crime stats. The more issues an area has with armed robberies, assaults, and shootings, the more likely they are to be ignoring the actual problem.

Yes, I think they kept the guns for 2 or 3 months while they
looked into it but he did get them back. If I recall, I think
when they started seriously investigating, the lady finally
admitted she had exaggerated the situation 'to get back at
him'..

Sounds like it worked about how it should them. I have not read/heard any such stories lately but it seems like several years ago here in the US there were people who were acquitted and/or maybe not even tried once authorities realized they had the wrong person, and they were not receiving their seized property back after the fact. Not just guns but other confiscated belongings, money (especially money!), etc.

I got the impression that some jurisdictions were lining their coffers with these ill-begotten gains.

Mike

--- ScorpioWeb v0.39a (Linux/x86_64)
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * KY, USA (1:2320/107)

I wonder when we're going to look at the causes. Maybe in 20
years when
the current crop of billionaires has passed on, we'll admit
that
manipulating a generation of children through social networks
to
increase revenue and political power, creating a for-profit
food and
medical care system that prioritizes corporate profits over
their
customer's well being, combined with a billionaire class that
has
systematically dismantled a thriving middle class has caused
an
irrecoverable erosion in mental health.

The rise of social media and the rapid increase in pharmaceutical advertising that we've witnessed in the past 20 or so years might be more of a danger to us than whatever science-fiction-becomes-reality situation we are setting ourselves up for with unregulated AI.

At least with AI, thanks in part to science fiction, I believe there are at least some folks out there who do realize what kind of danger can be caused. I don't think many/any people saw what social media or pharma-advertising/lobbying could cause until it was already happening.

Mike

--- ScorpioWeb v0.39a (Linux/x86_64)
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * KY, USA (1:2320/107)

This was probably from back when you were saying but I thought
I recalled them having to make changes to do with 'minority'
rights, or lack of.

There was, which was before the time I was discussing. The one

>I was thinking about was the ERA, which was re-introduced in 1971
>and failed to be ratified by enough states before a set 1982 deadline.

That said, I do stand corrected re: ones ratified since then!

Interesting.. that got me looking into ours and there has only ever
been a single change to our constitution, to do with the rights of
Aboriginal people in 1983.. Technically I guess there was another
change in 1882, not to any rights but when our constitution was
'Patriated' so that we didn't require a proposed change to be
approved by The United Kingdom Parliament in Britain.

For a change to pass it requires approval by the House of Commons,
the Senate and at least 7 provincial legislatures representing at
least 50% of the population.

Two-thirds of Congress has to approve, then 3/4ths of the

>states must ratify it. I think it is a good method.

Yes, sounds more fussy than ours, although you've had more changes
to yours than our single change since 1867 when the British North
America Act was created by 4 provinces making up the total Canadian
Union at the time.. Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick,
all provinces to the Eastern side.

---
■ SLMR Rob ■ Conserve body heat... Use somebody elses' ■

--- Scorpio BBS
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * KY, USA (1:2320/107)