You assume I'm not one of them... That said, I believe they do pay their fair share of taxes. So what if capital gains is so low. They have to risk money to make money and the money they risk has already been taxed! I make money on my Roth IRAs that I will never pay a dime of taxes on because it was taxed before it was deposited into the Roth. IT's not only legal, but it *is* fair.

So you're not going to answer my questions Nigee?

Again, I agree with you about the "Crony Capitalism" that arisen the US (and all over the world for that matter). But, even with my agreement, I do not agree that the gun issue in the US is as dominated by corporate interests as you portray. Obviously, there is some influence, but there are also huge corporate influences in the gun-control camp as well.

With more than 100 gun manufacturers across Europe, including some well known manufacturers of German, Italian, and UK origin, Europe doesn't actually want us to do away with guns. They just want to make the sound so their citizenry can feel good about their country while behind the scenes, their own gun makers continue to grow rich.

When have the rich and powerful NOT done "what they want?"

I seem to remember this system 300 odd years ago where some king ruled absolute and had a vast empire spanning oceans and continents... Where was that? That's right, the UK! And the Queen does the same today, just with a much smaller citizenry. I ask, is it possible for the Queen to break the law? Is it possible that the Royal family could ever go bankrupt without the entirety of the British empire going bankrupt? Don't lecture us on wealth corruption when you still have a Monarchy in place.

In line with Draugnar's point above. One of the more interesting aspects of history (IMO) is the rise in power the Bank of England -- which set the model for the central banking system we have in place today. From what I have studied, the BofE was chartered in 1762 (IIRC) and in short order it bankrupted the British Crown, but it also gave them a near unlimited source of fiat with which it projected the British Empire's power.

Wow, Draug, you really would have to go to a lot of effort if you wanted to be more wrong than your last post :p

What, the Royal family isn't wealthy? The Crown didn't basically own all of the British wealth 300 years ago and wasn't above the law?

Not 300 years ago, no. Quite a few Englishmen alive then will have remembered living in a Republic, and the post civil war monarchy never had anything like absolute power or absolute wealth. Even at the height of the Monarchy's power, long before 300 years ago, the Church rivaled it in terms of wealth.

Also pretty sure the Queen has a far larger citizenry than whoever had the job in 1714

I was more referring to pre American Revolution (which is just 12 years from 250 years ago) and I meant more citizenry in terms of number of nations/colonies under the mknarchy's direct control. Actual count of heads may be larger now, but count of governments that report to the crown is much smaller.

Ah, fair enough. If when you said citizenry you meant governments, and when said 300 you meant 238, and when you said"impossible to break the law" you meant. "subject to law", and when you said ruled absolute you meant a cog in the machinery of government... then I largely agree.

Well, us dumb 'Muricans assume that the Queen is pretty much the writer of the laws. I mean, in the time of the Scottish rebellion, Longshanks pretty much wrote the law to be whatever the hell he wanted it to be, didn't he? And there can be no doubt that his was an absolute rule. If the Queen now said "Do *this*!" whatever this was, would it not be done? Who does the military report to, if not the Crown. And if it reports to the Crown, would it not be obligated to follow her commands even if Parliament said no?

...Draugnar speaks for 'muricahns...

Not, you know, Americans.

If Obama ordered the US army to arrest all elected representatives of the people and support him as President for life would they do it?

In krellin's fantasy Tom Clany-fueled land, probably...

Because we all know Obama's actually a Sith Lord. Of course.

If Draug is typical of the level of understanding of historical facts about the British Commonwealth there is a whole load of ignorance out there but I have some more relevant up to date news that may be useful ...... you can change the constitution, it is not a holy book, just a bunch of old laws that every now and then need reviewing and updating. I realize some of you see it like religious text, there to be feared and revered, but they will be the idiots, the more intelligent need to be in positions of power but they are not, because big business pick your candidates and they are not interested in the good people, just the greedy ones who can be bought for votes. That is the only way I can try and explain some of your backward laws, funded by vested interests.

Nigee,

What a lot of people (American included) don't understand about a constitutional republic, which is what the US is, its Constitution is written to constrain the GOVERNMENT, not the people. These "positive laws" are written thusly: "the Right of the People to ... shale not be infringed." These are not LAWS as you're categorizing them. Whether you input speech, assembly, press, or keep and bear arms, these was not written by some greedy corporation. The "Bill of Rights" is a universal statement of the Rights that ALL humans inherently possess, the Constitution expresses or "memorializes" them to use the contractual term.

The only entity that should FEAR the is the government. Yes, the Constitution can, and has, been changed. In fact, if you know its history, you'd know that the Bill of Rights itself was an amendment to the original draft which was deemed by people like Jefferson to not have stated these universal Rights specifically enough. Hence the fact that the oft debated "gun law" is the 2nd AMENDMENT.

The Bill of Rights is "positive law," i.e., it restricts government while any law in which the government restricts the people is "non-positive" law. It is this "non-positive" law against which you rail. The development of "corporate person" has allowed those mindless, souless instruments of greed to influence "law making" to favor them. I agree with you that corporate "support" for the 2nd Amendment is mostly based upon the economics, i.e., greed. But, again, the 2nd Amendment is positive law. It was written specifically to restrict ANY law being written that infringes upon the Right of the People to keep and bear arms and positive law always trumps non-positive law (or is supposed to).

As I have said before, the legal concept of the right of all people to defend themselves and their family predates the Magna Carta and is a pillar of the western legal system. Anti-gun people act as if it's just something that the government has to decide, that they just "ban guns." But, they might have been able to do that in other nations whose People weren't protected by strong and clearly written positive law, but not in the US. If the People decide to remove the 2nd Amendment, so be it -- but don't hold your breath. You can call it barbaric, backwards, or what ever you like. But, there is a very good reason why the founders of the Republic felt strong enough about the Right to bear arms that they it was their 2nd statement of positive law. Not their 10th, or even 3rd, but the 2nd after speech. The People ALWAYS have the Right of self-defense, period.

EDIT

"The only entity that should FEAR the Constitution is the government." is what I meant.

MM, I feel guns in those days were not the guns you see those days and although I agree of course with the principle selling people machine guns is a bit horrific. Somewhere in here common sense and common decency must prevail, it can not be right to sell over the counter some of these assault weapons.

"If Obama ordered the US army to arrest all elected representatives of the people and support him as President for life would they do it? "

Of course not. IT's unconstitutional. The military doesn't report to him, they report to the people of the United States through *all* of it's elected representatives (the President *and* Congress)

@ Draug

Quite so. It is clearly ridiculous question. As was yours. ;)

"Right and wrong" and this pie in the sky notion of "common decency" aren't at issue. Although I agree that assault weapons are frighteningly efficient and excessive. However, if they could be used against the People, the People should have the right to own then if they choose as setting them up to be outgunned infringes upon their Right to self-defense.

If you think that you Brits are more civilized and are displaying common decency by giving up your right of self-defense, please by all means bask in your superiority. Unfortunately in life nothing exists in isolation. Rights have backlashes, as do giving up rights. Your people have deemed that giving up your right of defense is a fair price to pay for a perceived increase in your level of safety due a lack of guns. Our people, by contrast, have said that we're unwilling to give up our rights to protect people from the potential harm that guns create. Obviously, both sides have their positives and their negatives. You think our negatives outweigh our positives -- and I can see why. I just wonder what you would say to someone whose life was SAVED by the presence of a gun, or to someone who lost a loved one in the UK who might have saved them if they were allowed to be armed.

MM - if this ability to defend yourself is so successful why do the stats say that actually loads of people seem to be failing to defend themselves against these aggressive murderous people carrying big guns. If it was successful we would all want more of it because people like success, anecdotal evidence would suggest that maybe it is not as successful as it is in your head.
Also I find myself with a fairly limited risk of myself or my house or any member of my family being attacked by someone carrying a machine gun, if I was I would still guess my chances of surviving such an attack would be fairly limited unless the guy rang ahead and let me know he was on his way around to kill myself and my family. Even idiots carrying guns aren't that stupid. Do be fair a determined person with a handgun would stand a good chance as well if he too did not ring ahead.
The problem is with these murderers they seem to stack the odds in their favour by just letting us know on social media that they are going on a murderous rampage, some are so lazy they can't even be bothered to do that.
I don't write the evidence, I am just commenting on it. You can choose to ignore it but it won't go away because next week there'll be another one.
It's not you pulling the trigger but with your attitude you could be the guy popping down the shop to pick him up some spare ammo, after all, everyone needs to defend themselves. There is nothing superior about being normal and please don't be intimidated by people just because they don't want to be armed, the way I see it cowards carry guns.

Nigee,

"if this ability to defend yourself is so successful why do the stats say that actually loads of people seem to be failing to defend themselves against these aggressive murderous people carrying big guns. If it was successful we would all want more of it because people like success, anecdotal evidence would suggest that maybe it is not as successful as it is in your head."

As typically seems to be the case, you (and other anti-gun people) seem to have made some (erroneous) correlation between successful self-defense and the right of self defense itself -- the two have nothing to do with each other. Even if (which I know is not the case, but I'll grant it for the sake of the discussion) the incidents of one needing to exercise his right to self-defense might be statistically remote, and of those incidents, it might be even more remote that he is "successful" in doing so, you CANNOT remove his right altogether.

But, in actual fact, the FBI's stats indicate with crystal clarity that "loads" of people ARE successful in defending themselves from violent attacks every year -- and most of those, don't even require the firearm to be discharged, the mere presence of it is enough to thwart the attack. Sadly, it is in the most UNARMED places in which people are unsuccessful in mounting any kind of defense.

So sure, if someone shows up at your home with a machine gun hell bent upon your demise (especially if he's trained) you don't stand much of a chance (unless you were similarly trained). However, if you were armed, you might stand at least a slight chance, and in an emergency life or death situation, and slight chance is far better than no chance at all.

I am not intimidated by you, but I don't think that your characterization of people who own firearms as "abnormal" is fair. I have no problem with you and your countrymen giving up your rights -- it's your choice. Further, you're welcome to your opinion that cowards carry guns. Do cowards wear seat belts when driving or life jackets when in a boat? Do cowards put lighten rods on important buildings? Is it cowardly to do a fire drill at a school, or to prepare an evacuation plan should you live in a hurricane zone? What I hear you saying is that only cowards prepare to deal with emergencies even if those emergencies are statistically remote.

Everyone does not "need to defend themselves" but they have the right to do so should the need arise. You take the odd stance that because the need doesn't arise very often, one shouldn't even be given the right to do so should the need arise. That to me is backwards.

MM- I don't think the only way you can defend yourself is with a gun but I think what you are trying to say is:-
1) If you have a gun you have a the right to defend yourself
2) If you don't have a gun you gave up your right to defend yourself.
With that puerile logic the guys with the most or biggest guns would be the safest but I'm sure there is a stat that says people who have lots of guns are more likely to suffer at the hands of a gun compared to people who don't have guns.
49 years of age, no gun related incidents in my house or any house I have ever lived in..... I know lots of people who also have suffered no gun-related incidents, I'm not convinced reality supports your argument.
I just don't see lots of people where I live suffering because they haven't got a gun, maybe if you can convince me I should all be scared and if you do a real good job me and all my friends will rush out buy a gun ..... because we listened to the marketing, the hype, the bullshit. Are your posts sponsored by the NRA?

"49 years of age, no gun related incidents in my house or any house I have ever lived in..... I know lots of people who also have suffered no gun-related incidents, I'm not convinced reality supports your argument."

Because a sample size of one is a perfectly valid sample size. MM didn't say those who don't have guns gave up their rights to defend themselves. He's saying you have no right to take away the right of *anyone* to defend themselves, with or without guns.

My brother owns a plethora of handguns, rifles, and shotguns. He is 43 and never had an incident in his house. Reality would suggest that a plurality of guns are perfectly safe by his sample size of one as well.

It's called anecdotal evidence and it isn't worth shit.

Oh and you wouldn't "rush out and buy one" because you don't live in the US. Where you live, you have no right to "rush out and buy one". Not to mention, you can't "rush out and buy one" in the US either. We have background checks and waiting periods required to purchase a firearm.

It's my ambition in life to own a plethora of something...

Still, the bones of Nigee's point is valid. The policy of limited private gun ownership is clearly effective at keeping gun crime low. It is far less effective at keeping burglary low, but extremely effective at keeping gun related accidents low.

"clearly effective at keeping gun crime low"

Only where it has been in place for a significant period such that there is little or no blackmarket of stolen guns and those that existed in criminal hands have disappeard through attrition into police custody to either be locked up in evidence or destroyed. The first 30 or 40 years would be extremely painful if you took away guns from the law abiding citizens hands. For the first decade, gun-related crimes would rise drastically and gun deaths along with it. Accidental deaths would drop, but criminal homicide would rise as the illegal guns would still be out there in the hands of the would be assailants. The next few decades would see a slow drop as the police eventually rounded up the killers and got ahold of their guns in small batches.

At the same time, you would have such an outdry and people determined to take the guns from them that there would be a plethora of Ruby Ridge and Waco incidents when the NRA's most extreme started hoarding their weapons and defied the authorities to come and take them. In some cases, the gunfight at the OK Corral would look like a minor incident.