Seven years after Sandy Hook, the politics of guns has changed | TheHill

On a Friday morning in December 2012, a gunman burst through the doors of Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., committing one of the worst mass shootings in U.S. history that left 20

Source: Seven years after Sandy Hook, the politics of guns has changed | TheHill

At March For Our Lives, survivors lead hundreds of thousands in call for change : NBC News

WASHINGTON — Marjory Stoneman Douglas senior Emma Gonzalez stood silent, with tears streaming down her face, on a stage in front of thousands at Saturday’s March For Our Lives.

After listing the names of the 17 people killed when a gunman rampaged through her school on Valentine’s Day, Gonzalez asked the crowd to fathom how so many could be murdered in only 6 minutes and 20 seconds.

And then she stopped speaking.

Silent minutes ticked by. Then an alarm beeped.


Source: At March For Our Lives, survivors lead hundreds of thousands in call for change : NBC News

Is Piers Morgan Right?

Piers Morgan petitions

Piers was right the gun lobby progressed by the NRA   is too powerful in the USA.

Re 2nd Amendment, this does give a right to bear arms, but only to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, not to go to schools, etc to kill innocent people. Also it was created in the 18th century, when guns were not as fast loading as they are now. Although there have been some amendments.  The first was the National Firearms Act of 1934, then the Gun Control Act of 1968, and finally the Hughes Amendment in 1986. In essence, what these three laws have done is to say respectfully that fully automatic firearms must be taxed and regulated, cannot be imported from outside the United States, and can no longer manufacture and/or register new/existing full auto weapons with the federal government (BATFE).

No one is advocating the withdrawal of the right to bear arms, just restrict it so the modern fast loading weapons are not included.

Who needs an automatic gun that has a magazine of many rounds to protect your own home?

Now Piers goes for the Bible

Piers is chairing an entertainment show and whether you like him or not he is certainly great at PR, look at all the free publicity he is having.


How many are now watching his show, just to find out what outlandish comments he will make next.


He is certainly pushing the 1st Amendment to its core.


Which Amendment will he go far next? Is he working is way through the American Constitution and the Bill of Rights?

Will he last the pace?


USA, should there be a change in the gun law

Poll; Stricter Gun Control

This is a very emotive subject and I would not wish to tell the people of the USA what to do.

From a far, my view is, the poll in question is asking for stricter gun control, not the banning of guns. Any law that is made, no matter what the subject is, can not be 100% effective, but that is no reason not to have laws. Laws are there to protect the people of the country from others who intentionally or not cause harm to others.

Regarding the young man in this instance, it would appear that he suffered from some medical condition that may or may not have some bearing on why he did what he did. It also appears, that although he had access to quite a few guns, he wanted more and two days before the massacre, Adam Lanza went to a sporting goods store in Danbury, Connecticut, and tried to buy a rifle. He was turned down because he did not want to undergo a background check or abide by the state’s waiting period for gun sales.

Perhaps with hind sight this was a situation which should have been reported.

While the law did stop his purchase of further weapons, he did have the access to the weapons at his home.

In the light of what has happened with the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, should the Gun Law of the USA be looked at, but no one should believe that any change in the law would stop another incident happening. The tightening of a gun law could only reduce the risk of another incident happening.

But many believe that any alteration to the ‘Right to Bear Arms’ as stated in the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution, would be a major infringement of this Right.  this was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the United States Bill of Rights. This was then included in the United States Constitution, which was originally adopted on September 17, 1787. Over the years the Constitution as been amended seventeen additional times (for a total of 27 amendments), the Bill of Rights being the first 10 of the total 27 amendments. In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions concerning the Second Amendment. In 2008 District of Columbia v Heller held that the 2nd Amendment  protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home and in federal enclaves . The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states. While in 2010 McDonald v Chicago held that the right of an individual to “keep and bear arms” protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.

Back ground check were brought in by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act on November 30, 1993. It may be that a check on the person making the application is not sufficient, but checks on the immediate family may also be necessary. In this incident, this may have then brought to light the possible mental condition of Adam Lanza, which could have meant that no guns would have been allowed at his home.

Although not necessarily common knowledge the UK has the Bill of Rights 1689, which among with other rights, gave the rights to bear arms. This, however has been considerably amended by the gun politics in the UK. These changes were mostly made in response to UK shooting incidents .

In over 200 years, from the 18th to the 21 st century, of USA history many changes have taken place to habitat, social and culture, but not to the gun laws, should this be so?

For those of you who, not only wish no change, but also not to even to consider change, bear in mind, would you want on your conscience that when another incident occurs, you stopped the possibility of a change occurring that could have prevented that occurrence. Changes will not stop another incident, but may reduce their occurrence.

Also, you may say that USA Judges have made rulings in court cases, but these were in keeping with the current laws in relation to gun control.  Judges do not make laws, they provide judgments in line with the current legislation in force at that time. If you wish to minimise the risk of another shooting occurring this can only be done by considering changes to the current USA laws on gun control.  Some do say that the laws are there at present, but if that is so, why did they not stop the incident happening?

I do hope that what ever the governing bodies of the USA and its people decide to do or decide not to do, that incidents of this nature will be few and far between.