Just another day in Texas

[tamada]

A man shot dead five of his neighbours, including an eight-year-old, using an AR-15-style weapon after the family asked him to stop firing rounds in his garden, officials in Texas said.

I can hear the gun nuts already, "Guns don't kill people, drunken Mexicans do!"

[Khun Paul]

One is becoming inured to the plight of the American people, hanging on to a belief that65 owning guns is best for them when the 2nd aendmen clearly states ownership[ is requied to maintain an feasible Militia.

Hello current;ly the UNITIED States of AMERICa unbeknown obviously to a vast amount of the gnorant population does actually have a Large army, Navy, Air Force and Marines currently at its disposal 24/7, so the NEED for a Militia is diminished as well apart from dealing with arrogant ego loving uneducated Police Officers .

Sad to hear more so when children ar killed, but as they say, you reap what you sow.

[samster]

Yeah, what he said..... or did he?

[Whistler]

One is becoming inured to the plight of the American people, hanging on to a belief that65 owning guns is best for them when the 2nd aendmen clearly states ownership[ is requied to maintain an feasible Militia.

Hello current;ly the UNITIED States of AMERICa unbeknown obviously to a vast amount of the gnorant population does actually have a Large army, Navy, Air Force and Marines currently at its disposal 24/7, so the NEED for a Militia is diminished as well apart from dealing with arrogant ego loving uneducated Police Officers .

Sad to hear more so when children ar killed, but as they say, you reap what you sow.

The US Supreme Court overruled the militia issue in 2008. It was a split decision with a number of dissenting opinions. This is unlikely to be reviewed given the current courts conservative majority.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. It ruled that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms—unconnected with service in a militia—for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee.[1] It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that certain restrictions on guns and gun ownership were permissible. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense or whether the right was only intended for state militias.[2]

Because of the District of Columbia's status as a federal enclave (it is not in any U.S. state), the decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment's protections are incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution against the states.[3] This point was addressed two years later by McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), in which it was found that they are.

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed by a vote of 5 to 4 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Heller v. District of Columbia.[4][5] The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the Regulations Act was an unconstitutional ban, and struck down the portion of the Act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock". Prior to this decision, the law at issue also restricted residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to 1975

Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg, JJ., joined.

[Khun Paul]

Yep typical legal jargon to justify a system that is hopelessly flawed and causing deaths at an unprecendated level of all ages.Not that of the 600 odd Congress people or the even odder 100 SENATORS will ever run for an election banning guns thereby giving the rest of the population of over 340 odd milion even the remotest chance of expressing their views. Democracy ...Bull----- !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Whistler]

The much touted 'Checks and Balances' between the three arms of government, is a sham. With the President nominating judges and Congress approving, there is no independent judiciary, it is a fabrication from the other two arms. Dubya really stacked the court and it has a been a bastion of conservatism ever since.

[Kenr6583]

One is becoming inured to the plight of the American people, hanging on to a belief that65 owning guns is best for them when the 2nd aendmen clearly states ownership[ is requied to maintain an feasible Militia.

Hello current;ly the UNITIED States of AMERICa unbeknown obviously to a vast amount of the gnorant population does actually have a Large army, Navy, Air Force and Marines currently at its disposal 24/7, so the NEED for a Militia is diminished as well apart from dealing with arrogant ego loving uneducated Police Officers .

Sad to hear more so when children ar killed, but as they say, you reap what you sow.

It actually states “well regulated militia”.

[Udon Map]

Yep typical legal jargon to justify a system that is hopelessly flawed and causing deaths at an unprecendated level of all ages.Not that of the 600 odd Congress people or the even odder 100 SENATORS will ever run for an election banning guns thereby giving the rest of the population of over 340 odd milion even the remotest chance of expressing their views. Democracy ...Bull----- !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not "typical legal jargon" at all. The U.S. runs on a system set out in the Constitution. We abide by the decisions of the Supreme Court. Sure, it has tilted more conservative recently, but that is the way that the system was designed to work. Conservative presidents get to appoint conservative Supreme Court justices; liberal presidents get to appoint liberal Supreme Court justices. Oh, and there are 435 voting members of Congress plus six non-voting members (representing D.C., Puerto Rico, Samoa, Guam, U.S. Virgin Islands, and one I can't recall right now), not "600 odd".

A majority of the Senate and a substantial minority of the House of Representatives favor much stricter gun control, with many favoring a total ban. It pretty much splits along party lines, although there are a few exceptions, as always. But unless the Dems gain control of both the House and Senate as well as the presidency in 2024, things are unlikely to change anytime soon regarding gun control.

[Udon Map]

In case anyone's interested, this research report from Rand has tons of fact-based information about guns in America. You can click to drill down into most of the information presented on the summary page.

https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy.html

[Whistler]

Yep typical legal jargon to justify a system that is hopelessly flawed and causing deaths at an unprecendated level of all ages.Not that of the 600 odd Congress people or the even odder 100 SENATORS will ever run for an election banning guns thereby giving the rest of the population of over 340 odd milion even the remotest chance of expressing their views. Democracy ...Bull----- !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not "typical legal jargon" at all. The U.S. runs on a system set out in the Constitution. We abide by the decisions of the Supreme Court. Sure, it has tilted more conservative recently, but that is the way that the system was designed to work. Conservative presidents get to appoint conservative Supreme Court justices; liberal presidents get to appoint liberal Supreme Court justices. Oh, and there are 435 voting members of Congress plus six non-voting members (representing D.C., Puerto Rico, Samoa, Guam, U.S. Virgin Islands, and one I can't recall right now), not "600 odd".

A majority of the Senate and a substantial minority of the House of Representatives favor much stricter gun control, with many favoring a total ban. It pretty much splits along party lines, although there are a few exceptions, as always. But unless the Dems gain control of both the House and Senate as well as the presidency in 2024, things are unlikely to change anytime soon regarding gun control.

Not quite Mod. Recent appointments have gone against tradition with the senate blocking Obama's choice and expediting Trump's nominee. As the constitutions wording on such appointments is anything but specific, hard-liners like O'Connell has turned such appointments on its head. To be fair, Democrats have also pushed the boundaries.

There is no independent body to make a selection for Supreme Court appointments making this branch of government vulnerable to political interference, and thus weakening the much touted 'checks and balances'. The fact that Justices are appointed for life also weakens the Executive, as the appointment of younger appointees like Amy Barrett and Neil Gorsuch can influence the court for decades

[Udon Map]

Yep typical legal jargon to justify a system that is hopelessly flawed and causing deaths at an unprecendated level of all ages.Not that of the 600 odd Congress people or the even odder 100 SENATORS will ever run for an election banning guns thereby giving the rest of the population of over 340 odd milion even the remotest chance of expressing their views. Democracy ...Bull----- !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not "typical legal jargon" at all. The U.S. runs on a system set out in the Constitution. We abide by the decisions of the Supreme Court. Sure, it has tilted more conservative recently, but that is the way that the system was designed to work. Conservative presidents get to appoint conservative Supreme Court justices; liberal presidents get to appoint liberal Supreme Court justices. Oh, and there are 435 voting members of Congress plus six non-voting members (representing D.C., Puerto Rico, Samoa, Guam, U.S. Virgin Islands, and one I can't recall right now), not "600 odd".

A majority of the Senate and a substantial minority of the House of Representatives favor much stricter gun control, with many favoring a total ban. It pretty much splits along party lines, although there are a few exceptions, as always. But unless the Dems gain control of both the House and Senate as well as the presidency in 2024, things are unlikely to change anytime soon regarding gun control.

Not quite Mod. Recent appointments have gone against tradition with the senate blocking Obama's choice and expediting Trump's nominee. As the constitutions wording on such appointments is anything but specific, hard-liners like O'Connell has turned such appointments on its head. To be fair, Democrats have also pushed the boundaries.

That's true. Merrick Garland was denied a Supreme Court seat in a purely political maneuver. And, yes, Dems are just as bad as Republicans in this regard. IMO that type of nonsense accomplishes little more than degrading the democracy.

[Whistler]

The US Constitution is over 250 years old, The Australian Constitution was also framed in the 1890's. Do we really need these instruments any longer? They were written for long past conditions and contemporary viewpoints that are antiquated by modern standards. Yes, they have been amended to an extent, but you cannot truly modernise anything that old. Maybe have a built in sunset on any constitution and legislate that they be re-written every 50 or 100 years.

Kinda like The Christian Bible (and all its versions), Mosiac law, The Koran etc. Chuck 'em out as far as I am concerned. They are impediments to progress.

[jackspratt]

Maybe have a built in sunset on any constitution and legislate that they be re-written every 50 or 100 years.

What do you suggest should happen to the body of law that has evolved around the discarded constitution(s)?

[Khun Paul]

there we have an American stating that may law-makers agree with stricter GUN CONTROL and yet the wonderful law makers find it impossible to regulate it a many are afraid of NOT being re-elected f they go against Party lines, . how bloody pathetic not working for the good of the pep[le but for the good of themselves. .

AS I said Americans reap what they sow, hopefully they will shoot each other and the rest can star again. because by god after listening to the tripe spewed out by some sorry but they deserve all the shooting and killing .

[Whistler]

Very good question.

Constitutions are written over a period of years, for instance, the Australian Constitution was started around 1890 but not implemented until 1901. The first US Constitution was written in 1787, it was only 4 pages long and not implemented until 1789.

If a permanent review was part of parliamentary administration, then there would be plenty of time to review anomalies. I would also suggest that constitutions are pared back to the basics and allow parliamentary law to stand on its own merits. There are numerous cases over the past century of countries adopting re-written constitutions, they do not holus-bolus discard every word from the old constitution.

One might question the need for a written constitution at all, The UK does not have one. Australia does not have a 'Bill of Rights'. I would argue that neither of these nations are any less free than the USA. The US Bill of Rights was shown to be flawed with Gitmo, where persons who would normally be protected for due process, were tortured and locked up for more than a decade without trial.

[noosard]

like here and change the constitution every couple of years
seems to work

[Whistler]

like here and change the constitution every couple of years
seems to work

If you wish to compare Thailand to a developed world country you have a mountain of work to do. Your next assignment is a comparative physiological treatise matching a goldfish with a blue whale.

[tamada]

there we have an American stating that may law-makers agree with stricter GUN CONTROL and yet the wonderful law makers find it impossible to regulate it a many are afraid of NOT being re-elected f they go against Party lines, . how bloody pathetic not working for the good of the pep[le but for the good of themselves. .

AS I said Americans reap what they sow, hopefully they will shoot each other and the rest can star again. because by god after listening to the tripe spewed out by some sorry but they deserve all the shooting and killing .

British politics are partisan, French politics are partisan, Thai politics are shambolically so. Dozens of Tory MP's in the UK have signalled their retirement from politics ahead of the expected rout in next year's general election. Their trough will have thin gruel on the Opposition benches so they're quitting because there's nothing in it for them. The altruistic man or woman representing the constituent have always been a rare find and getting scarcer than hen's teeth.

Why are you so aggravated about the American derivative? It's not unique. Bit of a skewed obsession going on there. Especially with that last bit suggesting they deserve to die. With the possible exception of a few on internet forums, nobody really deserves to die.

[Whistler]

I have many wonderful American friends that are concerned about gun crime in the USA just like most of is here do. They do not deserve to die.

[Khun Paul]

I too have many many American friends and family, some of whom have relocated to stay safer although it appears the mind numbing hypocritical people some of whom decry Gun Violence are in actual fact owners of more guns than the average American.

True no-one deserves to die BUT although politics maybe partisan does not mean that the average normal sane AMERICAN Has to follow the laid down voting rules and follow like lemmings when they vote, they should use that right to vote for the person that will deliver what they want . Currently if your not either Red or Blue you are ostracized, both in some cases verbally and physically . So the statement they ge what they voted for is true and it is a fact that fate of America lies in the hands of the voters. So lets see n the next wo years, how many so-=called Mage outspoken rude insensitive law makers get re-elected , if hey do , bye bye America as a great democracy they rid it with TRUMP And look what happened there when the so-called Democratic leader did NOT get re-elected. !!!