Americans and Their Guns

[PeterRS]

This should perhaps be in the Politics forum but I am today so angry I want it posted where more can see it. If there is one American gun event I remember more than the vast thousands of others during my lifetime, it is not Sandy Hook or other hideous massacres. It is the tragic tale of a 16-year old Japanese exchange student, Yoshiro Hattori. At Halloween in 1992, Hattori was invited to a party for Japanese students. His homestay 'brother' drove him to the party. Hattori was dressed in a white tuxedo  in deference to the character played by John Travolta in the movie Saturday Night Fever. Finding an address with Halloween decorations outside, Hattori and his friend went up and rang the doorbell. It was the wrong address. As there was no response, they were in the act of leaving when the house owner, a 30-year old supermarket butcher named Rodney Peairs, opened the door, a magnum 44 in his hand. He shouted "Freeze". 

Almost certainly unaware what the word "freeze" meant, Hattori turned back to say to Peairs that they were there for the party. Hattori also did not have his contact lenses on that night. He moved towards Peairs. From a distance of just five feet, Peairs shot and killed him. This is where the law in the US appears to me madness! Originally Peairs was not charged with any crime as the Baton Rouge Police Department claimed Peairs had a legal right to shoot a trespasser. Only affter protests from the State Governor and the Japanese Consul was Peairs charged with manslaughter. It gets worse. Even though a police detective admitted in court that Peairs had said to him, "Boy, I messed up; I made a mistake," after a mere three hours deliberation, the jury found Peairs "not guilty".  At an ensuing civil trial, that verdict was overturned and Hattori's parents awarded US$650,000 in compensation.  The Peairs insurance company paid $100,000. Over more than three decades the Peairs have never paid one cent of any of the remainder.

Why do I think of that today? Last Saturday evening a group of young kids were playing a prank in Houston, Texas. I am sure as kids we all played pranks of various descriptions, sometimes annoying those who were the subject of the prank. But virtually always we put it to the back of our minds and just got on with daily life. Last Saturday, the prank was ringing doorbells and then running away quickly. It seems there were three boys, not yet teenagers. After one bell was rung, the kids ran like mad down the street. The houseowner quickly appeared at the door, gun in hand, saw the boys and randomly shot several times. The intent clearly was to kill. An 11-year old boy was shot in the back and died the following day.

The houseowner eventually gave himself up to the police and there is a possibility he will be charged with murder. Several guns were discovered in his home. Irrespective of the charge, in what civilised country in the world are people permitted to own guns and shoot anyone who comes near their front doors without first ascertaining the reason and a reasonable belief that they might come to serious harm? A halloween misunderstanding where the murdered victim is just 16 and has no gun and where the jury has the gall to bring a verdict of "not guilty" and an 11-year old playing a prank are wholly unacceptable circumstances for taking lives - young innocent lives. These are out and out murders which would never occur in most countries. And it is now finally being cited, along with a loathing of Donald Trump and what he, his sanctions and his law & order forces are doing in grabbing innocent people from the streets, as one reason for tourism to the United States starting to fall quite drastically. The US Travel Association estimated that the drop in inbound international travel to the US in March was 14%. The US then had a $50 billion travel trade deficit. 

https://abcnews.go.com/US/11-year-houston-boy-shot-door-knocking-prank/story?id=125141773

https://www.ustravel.org › us-travel-snapshot-april-2025

 

[unicorn]

1 hour ago, PeterRS said:

... Last Saturday evening a group of young kids were playing a prank in Houston, Texas. I am sure as kids we all played pranks of various descriptions, sometimes annoying those who were the subject of the prank. But virtually always we put it to the back of our minds and just got on with daily life. Last Saturday, the prank was ringing doorbells and then running away quickly. It seems there were three boys, not yet teenagers. After one bell was rung, the kids ran like mad down the street. The houseowner quickly appeared at the door, gun in hand, saw the boys and randomly shot several times. The intent clearly was to kill. An 11-year old boy was shot in the back and died the following day...

Well, the man will probably be charged with murder, since the boys were running away. One caveat which one should add to the story was that this prank happened at 11 PM, when one would hope parents would know where an 11 year-old is. Of course, that's no excuse for the heinous murder, although it does give some context. Things also do vary quite a bit from state to state. One has to be especially careful in red states, especially Texas, because anyone can be carrying a concealed weapon, even out in the streets, not to mention in one's own property. In Texas, and some other states, one does not even have to fence one's property or put up No Trespassing signs. All one has to do it slop on some purple paint on a tree every 100 feet (30 meters), or on a post every 1000 feet (300 meters) in unforested land. You cross that, and you may be shot. I stayed at a hotel in a rural area in Texas near Big Bend National Park once, and there was a notice that if a guest were to climb a hill behind the hotel, he could be shot without notice. One does have to be mindful of local laws and customs.

https://www.ktsm.com/news/what-do-purple-fence-posts-mean-in-texas/

If you’re in the woods and come across a purple stripe, whether it be painted on a fence post, tree or somewhere else, you may not know what it means.

While the unusual sight may make a nice backdrop for a photo, it’s also meant to convey an important message.

As fall weather ramps up and hunting season continues, remember that in Texas, a purple stripe means “no trespassing,” so if you see one, don’t go beyond it.

In Texas Penal Code §30.05, if a property is fenced, posted with at least one sign, or marked with purple paint, it is illegal for anyone to enter. The fine or jail time for trespassing in Texas can be up to $2,000 or up to 180 days.

The law specifies the purple marking must consist of “vertical lines no less than eight inches in length and not less than one inch in width, and the bottom of the mark not less than three nor more than five feet from the ground.” The marking must also be placed at locations that are readily visible to any person approaching the property on trees or posts “no more than 100 feet apart on forest land or 1,000 feet apart on land other than forest land.”

Typical Texas/red state sign:

[unicorn]

Texas welcome sign (ironically, the word "Texas" meant "friend" in some local languages.

https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/texas-origin-of-name

"The word texas (tejas, tayshas, texias, thecas?, techan, teysas, techas?) had wide usage among the Indians of East Texas even before the coming of the Spanish, whose various transcriptions and interpretations gave rise to many theories about the meaning. The usual meaning was "friends," although the Hasinais applied the word to many groups-including Caddoan-to mean "allies." The Hasinais probably did not apply the name to themselves as a local group name; they did use the term, however, as a form of greeting: "Hello, friend."..."

[PeterRS]

7 hours ago, unicorn said:

One does have to be mindful of local laws and customs.

To me that makes not one iota of difference. Of course, as stated I am not American and I do not understand much of what happens politically and socially in America. But the ability of virtually anyone in the USA to grab a gun and murder unarmed teenage and pre-teen boys virtually on their doorsteps whether or not they were playing a stupid prank or not, is the mark of a hideously warped society, one where people care little about anyone but themselves and where the callous murder of young children seems only to increase each time lawmakers talk about the need to preserve the ridiculous 2nd Amendment. How many recall this was actually ratified on December 15 1791? That anyone can remotely consider a law passed 234 years ago remains relevant without any further amendment or revision in the year 2025 is close to madness in my limited view. It is as though the good and the bad people in America consider they still live in a country where they can slaughter the Native American Indian communities with impunity and the horse and buggy remains the only mode of transport.

All sensible societies accept that laws need to be revised or repealed with the passage of time. If not, homosexuals in England would still be subject to the death penalty under the Buggery Act of 1553. But that Act was revised in 1861 and again in 1885 before finally being being struck off the statute books (with certain exceptions as for sex with with minors, for example) in 1967. So if two gay members of this forum lived in England and the USA in the year 1886, would they rather be subject to two years in jail like Oscar Wilde or murdered on a doorstep?

[unicorn]

2 hours ago, PeterRS said:

To me that makes not one iota of difference....

I'm not defending (in fact, I deplore) the lax gun policies prevalent in Republican-led states. However, when traveling outside one's home state, it behooves one to be aware of local laws and customs, and not doing so is foolish. I also decry laws forbidding gay sex. For the most part, I avoid going to such countries, but have on occasion (Zambia, Zimbabwe, Egypt and Qatar). When I do go to such countries, I adjust my behavior accordingly. I can't say for sure why, but pickpocketing is generally rare in the US. According to this source, Detroit and Baltimore are the only cities in the world's top 26. Maybe it's because those tempted to pickpocket in the US are aware that they run a real risk of being shot if caught in the act.

https://sites.google.com/view/travel-for-a-purpose/travel-for-life/travel-tips/26-worst-cities-for-pickpocketing

That being said, one is certainly more likely to be robbed at gunpoint in the US.

https://matadornetwork.com/read/worst-us-cities-for-pickpockets/

[PeterRS]

I respect @unicorn's argument, but frankly do agree with it. Having one's pocket picked is quite often the fault of the one wearing the pocket. That was the case when I was robbed in Rome, and I was perfectly well aware after the event it was my fault for not being more careful with my cash. Behaving in other countries according to the customs of those countries is also, with respect, not an argument. I have been in Doha and seen quite a few willing guys on the apps there. I have spent two weeks in Iran where my guide had a hooker in every city we visited. Pickpocketing, scams, and adjusting sexual behaviour to comply with other countries' laws have, at least to me, absolutely nothing to do with the ridiculously easy access to guns and the murder of innocent teens and pre-teens in the USA. There is absolutely no excuse for extinguishing a life in such a manner.

Trying to be fair, I realise that the situation in the USA thanks to that ridiculous 2nd Amendment is now totally out of control. But when a majority of the electorate want sticter gun controls and a major reduction in the ease with which guns can be acquired and lawmakers on both sides adamantly refuse even to tighten legislation, the fact that there are now far more guns than people in the country is just nuts. Even after the Brady Bill to mandate waiting longer periods before purchase was enacted, the useless Supreme Court struck it down! And even the 10 years after the Federal Assault Weapons ban was enacted in 1994 to get assault weapons of war off the streets, has never been reintroduced after it died its death in 2004. Why are American politicians such pussies when those in other countries like the UK and Australia have taken major action to enact much tighter gun legislation and make ownership of guns much more difficult?

[unicorn]

57 minutes ago, PeterRS said:

I respect @unicorn's argument, but frankly do agree with it. Having one's pocket picked is quite often the fault of the one wearing the pocket...

Well, I'm pleased to notice that you do agree with it. While there are prudent steps one can take to reduce ones risk of being pick-pocketed, the fault lies in the criminal, not the victim. Certainly one has to be careful in places like Paris, Naples, and Rome, but victims are not responsible for their crimes. A woman is not "asking to be raped" just because she wears sexy clothing in a park at night. Any rape is the fault of the rapist. That does not mean one should abandon caution and common sense, nor ignore warnings related to specific places. If anything, it should be local police authorities' responsibility to go after pick-pockets. I saw a video once of someone who taped multiple pick-pocketing episodes in Naples, and police were nowhere. It really wouldn't take that much effort. 

I strongly condemn anti-gay laws as seen in many Muslim countries and sub-Saharan African countries (and Russia). Do I think those laws are awful? Yes. Would I smooch a man in a public park in Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Aceh Province in Indonesia? No, no, no. Would I wear a rainbow shirt in Russia? Hell no. Would I play "ding-dong-ditch" in Texas? No. How about doing so at 11 PM? No, no, no, no, no, no. That being said, the murderer in this case will almost certainly be prosecuted, and probably convicted. But I'm glad that you agree that one has to have common sense, as well as awareness of local dangers, regardless of how one feels about local laws. I'm not one for being "dead right." 

[kokopelli3]

As an American citizen, I know of none in my circle of friends who has owned a handgun except for myself.  I knew a man who had some handguns and wanted to get rid of them at a very discounted price so I bought two nice pistols. I kept them locked in a safe and had no ammunition except a few bullets that came with them. Finally sold both of them at a profit. Too dangerous to keep in my house! I did live in a State with strict gun controls.

[PeterRS]

3 hours ago, unicorn said:

Well, I'm pleased to notice that you do agree with it. 

I think you will have realised from my following words that I erred, for which I apologise. I did mean to write "I do NOT agree with it".

This is the photo of the murdered 11-year old.

According to CNN, there is no law in Texas that permits a home owner to shoot and kill a boy who is running away from his property. The murderer Gonzalo Leon Jr. aged 42 has been formally charged with the teen's murder. In Texas the so-called "Castle Doctrine" or "Stand Your Ground" law permit a homeowner to shoot someone who unlawfully enters your building of if you as the home owner believe it is to prevent robbery, assault and certain other crimes. It does not cover a home owner leaving his home with a gun in hand and shooting and murdering an 11-year old boy in the act of running away from your building having caused no material harm. Prosecutors are adamant that the legislation does not cover the crime Leon Jr. committed as there was absolutely no threat whatever facing him.

Any murder in Texas is classed merely as murder. First degree and second degree hold no sway. The maximum penalty for murder is 99 years.  A murder charge can be reduced to a second degree felony if the prosecution and judge agree. That carries a maximum penalty of 20 years without parole. For the deliberate murder of a child, I believe 20 years is far too lenient.

[PeterRS]

3 hours ago, unicorn said:

While there are prudent steps one can take to reduce ones risk of being pick-pocketed, the fault lies in the criminal, not the victim. Certainly one has to be careful in places like Paris, Naples, and Rome, but victims are not responsible for their crimes. A woman is not "asking to be raped" just because she wears sexy clothing in a park at night. Any rape is the fault of the rapist. That does not mean one should abandon caution and common sense, nor ignore warnings related to specific places. If anything, it should be local police authorities' responsibility to go after pick-pockets. I saw a video once of someone who taped multiple pick-pocketing episodes in Naples, and police were nowhere. It really wouldn't take that much effort. 

It is surely perfectly ridiculous to equate a pickpocket with a rapist. Agreed - both are breaking the law, but this is not merely the breaking of one law because they is each covered by different laws! Please be sensible.

I had my pocket picked for the simple reason that I did not take precautions to secure all my cash. Having been to Rome several times, I knew all about pickpockets. I could quite easily have prevented the theft. My own stupidity resulted in it. 

But then to suggest that you expect the police to deal with a pickpocket is, sorry to say, further stupidity. Of course, in an ordered world that might be the sensible thing to do. But picture the scenario. I am walking by the Spanish Steps. I just realise my wallet has been stolen but I have not the faintest idea who stole it. I try to find a policeman. No luck. If I have been sensible and put the local English police reporting office number on to my phone, I call. I give my details and location. I am asked to describe the pickpocket. I cannot. If - and only if - the police decide this is a case worth looking at, they might send someone to talk with me. How long does that take? 15 minutes? With luck maybe 10. And where is the pickpocket by then? Having hopped on a motorcycle, he is probably praying for his thieving soul in St. Peter's more than two miles away - while at the same time thanking the good Lord that there are idiots who happily put there cash where it can be stolen. Ever seen this scene before?

[unicorn]

6 hours ago, PeterRS said:

...

This is the photo of the murdered 11-year old.

 For the deliberate murder of a child, I believe 20 years is far too lenient.

I certainly agree with you that 20 years would be far too lenient a sentence. Although, unlike you (apparently), I don't believe victims are responsible for crimes, that photo was obviously flipped (manipulated) to crudely (and ineffectually) attempt to hide the fact that the photo was taken at the victim's 6 year birthday party. In other words, while it is ostensibly a photo of the victim, it shows the victim when he was essentially half the age of when he was shot. Why not show his baby pictures? Of course, no one should be shot while they're running away, least of all for a fairly harmless prank. 

I'm sorry you were pickpocketed in Rome. While you probably should have been more careful, the reality is that lenient laws and lax law enforcement in Rome result in crime being more common than it needs to be. 

[PeterRS]

10 hours ago, unicorn said:

1. I certainly agree with you that 20 years would be far too lenient a sentence. Although, unlike you (apparently), I don't believe victims are responsible for crimes, that photo was obviously flipped (manipulated) to crudely (and ineffectually) attempt to hide the fact that the photo was taken at the victim's 6 year birthday party.

2. I'm sorry you were pickpocketed in Rome. While you probably should have been more careful, the reality is that lenient laws and lax law enforcement in Rome result in crime being more common than it needs to be. 

1. What does it matter how old the boy was when that photo was taken? I did not state the photo was taken when he waa 11. It was a photo pictured on many media outlets. DId this affect the outcome of his being murdered in cold blood? Of course not, but maybe you do not agree. And with equal respect, I frankly do not believe that is a photo of a six-year old. He is clearly several years older. I think you may be confusing this with the murder of Aiden Leos aged 6 in a road rage incident in 2021.

As news reports today have highlighted, the man was not in his house when the bell was rung. He was actually waiting in the shadows with the gun in his hand. He then followed the boys as they ran away BEFORE he fired any shots. He was clearly intent on shooting one or more. This makes his murder charge much more serious as I assume it now involves premeditation. He deserves the maximum penalty of life in prison without the possibility of parole. In a search of his home, in addition to the handgun, police found 20 other guns and tactical and smoke grenades. This man is a monster.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ding-dong-ditch-prank-shooting-houston-suspect-waiting-shadows/

2. You are kind but please do not be sorry for me. I was on my 5th or 6th visit to the city, I knew about pickpocketing but still I placed some cash where it could be relatively easily taken when distracted by a thief's accomplice. I still believe had I been more sensible, it could not have happened as it did. I agree, though, for a casual tourist Rome is pickpocket's heaven, as are many big cities. But I still believe that virtually all who have their pockets picked are to a certain extent at fault for not taking greater care of their cash and valuables. And I still believe that even tightening up laws and giving the police more powers will help not one iota. The vdo clip from The Take I posted immediately above shows how simple it is for a talented pickpocket to steal your cash and have melded anonymously into nearby crowds long before you realise your cash is gone! We each have a responsibility for our own belongings.

Finally, and again with all respect, I do not think a very serious subject like the murder of an 11-year old should be peppered with cartoons. Wrong thread! Wrong attitude!

[unicorn]

3 hours ago, PeterRS said:

... This man is a monster... I do not think a very serious subject like the murder of an 11-year old should be peppered with cartoons....

For God's sake, I've made it quite clear that I don't disagree with you regarding the egregiousness of the crime. The only difference between us is that I don't believe that victims are responsible for crimes committed unto them, and you do. You were not responsible for being pickpocketed, though you were apparently foolish in how you secured your money in one of the most pickpocket-prone cities on the planet. As I've said, I believe that the best way to discourage further crimes is to prosecute the guilty to the full extent of the law, and I certainly believe they should throw the book at the murderer (although playing ding-dong-ditch at 11 PM in Texas is not wise). No one's posting cartoons. You're hallucinating. 

[PeterRS]

1 hour ago, unicorn said:

For God's sake, I've made it quite clear that I don't disagree with you regarding the egregiousness of the crime. The only difference between us is that I don't believe that victims are responsible for crimes committed unto them, and you do. You were not responsible for being pickpocketed, though you were apparently foolish in how you secured your money in one of the most pickpocket-prone cities on the planet. As I've said, I believe that the best way to discourage further crimes is to prosecute the guilty to the full extent of the law, and I certainly believe they should throw the book at the murderer (although playing ding-dong-ditch at 11 PM in Texas is not wise). No one's posting cartoons. You're hallucinating. 

Ok, so we don't agree. In Rome I was responsible for being pickpocketed for the simpe reason that i was aware of the city's reputation and I did not do enough to keep my cash safe. That's pretty obvious. On the other hand, I was not responsible the first time a taxi driver in Istanbul instantly switched a 10 million note for a 5 million one. I knew i had given him a 10 million note but I was not aware of that scam and in any case I had absolutely no way of proving it.

Similarly, anyone expecting the police and legislation to protect them from pickpocketing wherever they happen to be will be mightily disappointed. The problem with pickpockets is that they are almost every time far from the scene by the time a policeman gets anywhere close. 

You cartoons posted on Tuesday at 2:03pm are obvious and stupid. You may not regard them as cartoons but even though they may be found in Texas, they are visuals that are quite inappropriate for this particular subject matter.

[unicorn]

10 hours ago, PeterRS said:

...You cartoons posted on Tuesday at 2:03pm...

You're factually wrong if you think those are cartoons. Those are many examples of actual signs one will see while traveling in Texas (and some other states). If you think those are cartoons and walk past one, you could end up literally dead-wrong. You might not have taken the warnings about pickpockets in Rome seriously, but you'd be an even bigger fool if you mistook those signs as jokes. I remember taking a cruise some years ago with my ex. At the time, it was common for unrelated passengers to be seated together at larger tables during meals. One woman from Texas (single) literally bragged that she owned a backhoe so that she could burry the bodies of any trespasser who wandered into her property. Certainly not a joking matter. 

 

[jimmie50]

I look at the second amendment with an eye to history.  When the US was established and the second amendment written, the world was a very different place. I don't believe the founding fathers could ever had predicted or remotely considered how guns or society as a whole would change over time. They could not have anticipated all of the technological advances.  250 years ago the founding fathers were in the midst of a war for independence and much of that fight was done by local militias.  We had no developed and organized military as we do today.  Militias, for the most part, are things of the past.  Much of the land was undeveloped and a vast wilderness, most of which was still to be explored.  People survived more off the land and needed guns for hunting as well as some form of protection.  Law and order certainly wasn't as developed as it is today.  Times and circumstances change.  I do not believe in a literal interpretation of the constitution.  It is an important document, yes, but it needs to relate to contemporary times.  I personally have never owned, nor would I own any type of firearm.  My father enjoyed hunting and fishing, so he owned a hunting rifle.  I would go fishing with him, but always refused to go hunting.  I had no desire to participate.  Once my father passed away, his hunting rifle was disposed of to local law enforcement.  I am definitely a proponent of gun control.  It is frustrating that politicians only pay 'lip service' to the issue, and only briefly when there is some type of shooting incident that makes national news.  I simply do not understand the need for people to possess multiple guns, assault rifles, or other weapons that have the ability to cause massive destruction.  What has happened to our world?!?  

[PeterRS]

4 hours ago, jimmie50 said:

I look at the second amendment with an eye to history.  When the US was established and the second amendment written, the world was a very different place. I don't believe the founding fathers could ever had predicted or remotely considered how guns or society as a whole would change over time. They could not have anticipated all of the technological advances.  250 years ago the founding fathers were in the midst of a war for independence and much of that fight was done by local militias.  We had no developed and organized military as we do today.  Militias, for the most part, are things of the past.  Much of the land was undeveloped and a vast wilderness, most of which was still to be explored.  People survived more off the land and needed guns for hunting as well as some form of protection . . . What has happened to our world?!?  

An excellent summary of what I think many believe, apart from gunowners that is. Some years ago I wrote a long article about how the USA has not kept pace with history and social advances. Basically, in addition to retating much of @jimmie50's post, I queried a number of other issues. Why, for example, does the USA consider it still requires around ten weeks between the date of voting and the installation of the new administration? Other countries achieve this in a matter of days. The UK in just 24 hours. No doubt it is because when the USA became a country vote counting was a much more laborious affair, with horses and buggies having to take the voting slips to Washington where they could be re-tallied and a result finally announced. Yet we have lived in the age of the computer for several decades now. The result should be known - and then contested if so desired - within days and the new President immediately sworn in. In the UK a contested constituency result is recounted within a matter of hours - by hand! What damage could an outgoing President do during that ten-week interregnum?

When attempts were made to reduce the influence of money in elections, the Supreme Court got rid of that little annoyance by permitting the starting of Super-Pacs. That only resulted in vastly more money from groups with even more entrenched political positions influencing elections. And no-one in the electorate seems to bother about it.

That individual states should have the right to choose their own voting system is understandable - for their own interstate elections. A general election is a country-wide affair and there should be just one voting system that is exactly the same for all states. Yet the present system means Presidents can be elected on the basis of disputed "hanging chads" in just one State! Then there is the Supreme Court! Who mandated that judges be recommended by political parties? And who mandated that judges serve until death? To me that is some form of idiocy as we saw during Trump's first term with three Conservative judges appointed. Why was 87 year old Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a superb judge but who suffered from a battery of illnesses, not persuaded to stand down by Obama so that another moderate could be put in her place? DId he just assume that Hillary Clinton would win and all would be well? If so, then that was sheer stupidity. In the UK top judges must retire at 75.

We also saw it in Bush I's term with his ridiculous claim that Clarence Thomas was the most suitable candidate to fill an empty seat on the Court. Thomas had been a judge for only 19 months! Despite the claims of sexual advances by Anita Hill, other ladies with similar claims were prevented from giving evidence. The appointment was shoved through with indecent haste - and the Chairman of that Select Committee who prevented the ladies from  backing Ms. Hill's claims was Joe Biden! So now the US has two alleged sex offenders on its top Court. Had a 75 years old rule been in place, Thomas could have retired and taken up all his bribes from the rich without any threat to his position.

In 2025, the time of a four-year Presidency is no longer tenable. It is too short, even though Trump haters will not agree. With only two political parties having any chance of running the country, as we have seen it results in constant changes in senior administration personnel and policies. With the world's second largest power having no such restrictions and President Xi able even to extend his own tenure, the Chinese have long been able to think and act long-term. No matter that the country is now experiencing considerable economic hardships and other problems, it is in a far better position than the USA to  solve them and grow faster, both economically and militarily. While the USA has concentrated on its relations with just a few countries, China has expanded its reach, and is continuing to do so through the Belt & Road initiative. And then of course there is the fact - fact - that most voters in the United States vote on US-related issues. That is perfectly understandable - but surely not in the world in 2025? 

Since WWII, the USA has been the world's policeman and many of us are and should be extremely grateful to that country for taking on that role. Yet, we cannot escape the fact that voters in the United States vote on the basis largely of local issues. That, I understand, is particularly true in the central belt. Yet it is estimated that between 45% and 50% of US citizens do not have passports and have never travelled outside their country. The majorty of those who do have passports are to be found on the east and west coasts. So the majority of those in the USA have never travelled abroad, know about other countries, their peoples, their societies and their problems only from their own media sources. A 2021 census showed that roughtly 85% of Britons have passports. No doubt understadable given the proximity of EU countries. Yet surely Canada and Mexico are as easy for US citizens to visit? China issues more passports than the USA. When you add in valid travel entry/exit permits, that's another 300 million. Even though China is vastly bigger in terms of population, my view is that in the next few years the Chinese as a whole will soon know more about the world than Americans.  

I write all this in the full understanding that other countries, including my own, have their own set of major problem issues which they have failed to solve. But then other countries are not the leader of the free world.

[Mavica]

4 hours ago, jimmie50 said:

I look at the second amendment with an eye to history.  When the US was established and the second amendment written, the world was a very different place. I don't believe the founding fathers could ever had predicted or remotely considered how guns or society as a whole would change over time. They could not have anticipated all of the technological advances.  250 years ago the founding fathers were in the midst of a war for independence and much of that fight was done by local militias.  We had no developed and organized military as we do today.  Militias, for the most part, are things of the past.  Much of the land was undeveloped and a vast wilderness, most of which was still to be explored.  People survived more off the land and needed guns for hunting as well as some form of protection.  Law and order certainly wasn't as developed as it is today.  Times and circumstances change.  I do not believe in a literal interpretation of the constitution.  It is an important document, yes, but it needs to relate to contemporary times.  I personally have never owned, nor would I own any type of firearm.  My father enjoyed hunting and fishing, so he owned a hunting rifle.  I would go fishing with him, but always refused to go hunting.  I had no desire to participate.  Once my father passed away, his hunting rifle was disposed of to local law enforcement.  I am definitely a proponent of gun control.  It is frustrating that politicians only pay 'lip service' to the issue, and only briefly when there is some type of shooting incident that makes national news.  I simply do not understand the need for people to possess multiple guns, assault rifles, or other weapons that have the ability to cause massive destruction.  What has happened to our world?!?  

The USA Supreme Court has perverted the meaning and intent of the Second Amendment, which does not allow what's been permitted.  However, there's no turning back.

[PeterRS]

11 minutes ago, Mavica said:

The USA Supreme Court has perverted the meaning and intent of the Second Amendment, which does not allow what's been permitted.  However, there's no turning back.

So there are indeed two issues here - the Supreme Court and the 2nd Amendment. What I fail to understand is that if laws can be repealed - and I am sure some have over the centuries in the USA - why cannot an Amendement to the Constitution be altered?

[Mavica]

1 minute ago, PeterRS said:

So there are indeed two issues here - the Supreme Court and the 2nd Amendment. What I fail to understand is that if laws can be repealed - and I am sure some have over the centuries in the USA - why cannot an Amendement to the Constitution be altered?

There's an amendment process that should be followed.  Instead, we have the Supreme Court offering it's interpretation that deviates from the original intent.

[Keithambrose]

5 hours ago, Mavica said:

There's an amendment process that should be followed.  Instead, we have the Supreme Court offering it's interpretation that deviates from the original intent.

As I understand  it, an amendment to the Constitution has to be proposed by a two thirds vote of Congress, and then ratified by three quarters of the States. There is no chance of this happening,  unfortunately.  

 

Another madness, to add to those set out by  @PeterRS, is that the whole of the House of Representatives is elected every two years. So as soon as they finish an election, they are canvassing for the next one. Let alone the happy business of gerrymandering Congressional districts.  Yet further, I don't think the founding fathers anticipated the huge population  differences now found in the States, when they agreed 2 Senators per State. California  has a population  of nearly 40 million, Wyoming, 590,000. Both have 2 Senators!

[kokopelli3]

Peter wrote "Yet it is estimated that between 45% and 50% of US citizens do not have passports and have never travelled outside their country. The majorty of those who do have passports are to be found on the east and west coasts. So the majority of those in the USA have never travelled abroad, know about other countries, their peoples, their societies and their problems only from their own media sources"

The USA is a large country, about the 3rd or 4th largest in the world thus there is little need  to travel to other countries for tourism purposes. Even now land travel to Canada does not require a Passport.  I have traveled to Mexico by  land and did not need a Passport but that was  10+ years ago. You simply walked across a bridge from USA to Mexico to enter Tijuana, of course one would have some form of ID with them.My parents traveled to Canada and never held a Passport. But even so, about 50% of Americans do have a Passport, which, people wise,  that is 170 million Passports in circulation, and increasing annually,  which I  believe to be the highest in the world.

Plus many people in USA have little incentive to travel abroad for whatever reason. As for knowledge of the countries, their peoples, their societies , etc, that all depends on their level of education, ethnic identity,  and interests. etc.  Kind of like the situation here in Thailand!  555 

 

 

[unicorn]

6 hours ago, kokopelli3 said:

... Even now land travel to Canada does not require a Passport.  I have traveled to Mexico by  land and did not need a Passport but that was  10+ years ago. You simply walked across a bridge from USA to Mexico to enter Tijuana, of course one would have some form of ID with them.My parents traveled to Canada and never held a Passport....

Shortly following 9/11/01, some form of passport has been required, even for land and sea crossings. Though valid for domestic air travel, even enhanced driver's licenses are not valid for entry into Canada and Mexico. 

https://www.tsa.gov/real-id/real-id-faqs

Q: Can I use my REAL ID card to cross the border into Canada and Mexico and for international travel?

No. REAL ID cards cannot be used for border crossings into Canada, Mexico or other international travel.

For land and sea crossings (for example by train, car, or cruise ship), one can use a passport card rather than present the passport book, but most people who use the passport card also have a passport book. A Global Entry card (or NEXUS or SENTRI) is also adequate, although one must have a passport book to get such a card. Any international travel by air requires the full passport book. 

 

[jimmie50]

8 hours ago, Keithambrose said:

As I understand  it, an amendment to the Constitution has to be proposed by a two thirds vote of Congress, and then ratified by three quarters of the States.

The process for adding, repealing or changing an Amendment is outlined in Article V of the Constitution, and basically requires at least 2/3 of both Houses of Congress to agree on the change, which must then be ratified (approved) by no less than 3/4 of all the states.

The Twenty-First Amendment, which repealed the Eighteenth Amendment banning alcohol manufacturing and sales, was ratified on December 5, 1933. This decision to repeal a constitutional amendment was unprecedented and the only time it has happened.  

Unfortunately, politics in the US has become so partisan it no longer is what is best for the country as a whole, but the only thing that matters to today's politicians is party ideology.  I dare say the founding fathers would be shocked and disappointed to see what has happened over time.  I don't believe what we have today truly represents the vision they had for the US.  

[jimmie50]

Article 3 of the Constitution established life tenure for Supreme Court Justices.  Founding fathers, and specifically Alexander Hamilton, felt this was important to ensure judicial independence from the political branches of government.  The fact that the justices are nominated by a politician (president) and approved by another group of politicians (senators) seems to have escaped their thinking completely?!?  It simply boggles the mind.  In fact, it has had the opposite effect.  While other democracies around the world have opted to adopt tenure rules that actually connect the courts to the political process in a more regulated and predictable way, the US system entrenched within the constitution allows one party to lock in a politically one-sided Supreme Court that favors their views and interests.  Had the founders of this country been more thoughtful and careful in establishing the court system, they would have realized that regular and predictable turnover of justices increases the likelihood that political change in both the legislative and executive branches would also be reflected in Supreme Court appointments and then would prevent what we have now...a long-lasting, systemically biased court.  This is the unfortunate situation we find ourselves in now, not just with their interpretation of the second amendment, but the broader question now before us of executive branch over-reaching.  My fear is that our system of checks and balances the founding fathers established is almost broken to a point of no return.