And this isnt even touching the far worse starting point of the EU Charter vs the US constitution. There is neither a right to free speech nor a right to bear arms.
First of all, the EU
constitution is still being drafted. Secondly, you feel a right to keep and bear arms works for you - fine. Don't go about demanding that everyone else does things your way though, it undermines your stated belief in the right of a person to live their life the way they want. We're going to get a vote on whether or not we want the constitution presented. If the majority accept it, that's the way it goes.
Please. There is a very large gap between "issuing to people who are not prohibited" and "issuing to everyone." Even the most minimalist background checks to exclude violent felons and the insane have been shown to provide virtually 100% success rates in excluding villains from the CCW programs.
Maybe it works for you in the US (though there are those that differ in view, and there's no definitive answer outside of a pub discussion that I've ever seen). That doesn't mean it's going to work here, where we've had an active terrorist problem for the past 30 years where the terrorists are nearly indistinguishable from the civilians.
No you werent. The English civil war was in the mid 17th century.
Yeah, and ours was in 1922.
Maybe 10 years ago. We drink our beer by the pint up here, and it ain't no 3.2% crud.
Glad to hear it
Has or hasn't Ireland had a "de facto" ban on private ownership of most firearms for most of it's recent history?
It had a de facto ban on everything over .22 calibre and all pistols from '72 to the mid '90s ('96 if I remember right), and then up to .270 calibre was reintroduced, and now the restrictions have been all lifted.
Which do you see as a reasonable compromise?
Being asked to have a good reason to own a firearm and to not be a danger to others because I have one.
And is it reasonable that this already heavily qualified right can be revoked at any time in the misguided interests of protecting another nation from themselves?
First of all, it's not a right. Secondly, it's not heavily qualified. And thirdly, no, not really, but it's also unreasonable that 18-year-old kids get shot through the chest with a .50 calibre barrett because they were ordered to go stand at a traffic checkpoint. In other words, we had slightly different motivations than you lads have had in the past when it came to framing firearms laws. That's not to say we got the "right answer", if there is such a thing (and I don't think there is), but the answer we got
worked for us. Soverign nation, different culture, etc, etc, etc...
Look, the
reality of the situation here on the ground is that any chap who's not a known thug or a total wacko can get pretty much anything he or she wants if they have a reason to want it. And if they didn't have a reason to want a firearm, why would they be looking for one? There isn't any
real, day-to-day problem. The only people with undergarments uncomfortably arranged over here are the ones who think that on paper we should have an undeniable right to carry a .44 magnum tucked into the waistband of our trousers as we saunter down the high street. And frankly, very, very few of us have that much time for them because most of us think they're slightly cracked. Guns are seen over here by those of us that shoot as being like cars - not evil inherently, nor intrinsicly dangerous, but not harmless objects of fun either. Misused, or used by someone who doesn't know what they're doing, and they can be deadly. Used safely, they're never going to hurt anyone (except in cases where they're used
in extremis for self-defence, and that's surprisingly rare in Ireland).
(back atcha 
