[quote user=Wolffe] [quote user=DigitalAntichrist]Wolffe, can you explain exactly how the 1997 Firearms Act or the 2004 Hunting Act was "devastating to the average citizen"?[/quote]
Restriction of liberty and freedom is always devastating to ordinary citizens. [/quote]
The overwhelming majority of citizens in the UK didn't own firearms, nor did they go hunting. Explain how the tightening of UK gun laws to prevent the ownership of high calibre handguns and the ban on hunting with hounds has been devastating to the average citizen.
While in opposition, the Labour Party campaigned hard for a gun ban after the Dunblane Massacre, the then Conservative government also tightened the law but didn't fully accept the recommendations of The Cullen Report (see inquiry proceedings here). Labour made the ban an explicit part of their 1997 election manifesto. Labour won the 1997 election with an historic landslide. They had also campaigned on allowing a free vote on hunting, and did so again in the 2001 election (which they again won) before a bill was finally passed after seven years of parliamentary debate.
At the moment, the vast majority of people in the UK say that they do not want the abolition of the hunting bill.
"Among the general public as a whole, three quarters (75%) support the ban on fox hunting remaining, while 21% want it repealed. Over eight in ten (84%) think the ban on deer hunting should stay in place. A similar number – 85% - say hare coursing and hunting should remain illegal.
In rural communities, seven in ten (72%) want to see fox hunting remain illegal, whilst 82% think deer hunting should continue to be banned, and 86% support the ban on hare hunting and coursing.
Among potential Conservative supporters, six out of ten (62%) say that fox hunting should NOT be made legal again, with one in three (33%) saying it should.
Over eight in ten (83%) of Labour supporters are against fox hunting being legalised, compared to 13% in favour.
Three quarters (77%) of Liberal Democrat voters are against repeal, versus 19% in favour." - IPSOS MORI
Wolffe wrote:
DigitalAntichrist wrote:
Wolffe, can you explain exactly how the 1997 Firearms Act or the 2004 Hunting Act was "devastating to the average citizen"?
Restriction of liberty and freedom is always devastating to ordinary citizens.
The overwhelming majority of citizens in the UK didn't own firearms, nor did they go hunting. Explain how the tightening of UK gun laws to prevent the ownership of high calibre handguns and the ban on hunting with hounds has been devastating to the average citizen.
While in opposition, the Labour Party campaigned hard for a gun ban after the Dunblane Massacre, the then Conservative government also tightened the law but didn't fully accept the recommendations of The Cullen Report (see inquiry proceedings here). Labour made the ban an explicit part of their 1997 election manifesto. Labour won the 1997 election with an historic landslide. They had also campaigned on allowing a free vote on hunting, and did so again in the 2001 election (which they again won) before a bill was finally passed after seven years of parliamentary debate.
At the moment, the vast majority of people in the UK say that they do not want the abolition of the hunting bill.
"Among the general public as a whole, three quarters (75%) support the ban on fox hunting remaining, while 21% want it repealed. Over eight in ten (84%) think the ban on deer hunting should stay in place. A similar number – 85% - say hare coursing and hunting should remain illegal.
In rural communities, seven in ten (72%) want to see fox hunting remain illegal, whilst 82% think deer hunting should continue to be banned, and 86% support the ban on hare hunting and coursing.
Among potential Conservative supporters, six out of ten (62%) say that fox hunting should NOT be made legal again, with one in three (33%) saying it should.
Over eight in ten (83%) of Labour supporters are against fox hunting being legalised, compared to 13% in favour.
Three quarters (77%) of Liberal Democrat voters are against repeal, versus 19% in favour." - IPSOS MORI
[quote user=DigitalAntichrist] [quote user=Wolffe]Restriction of liberty and freedom is always devastating to ordinary citizens.[/quote]
The overwhelming majority of citizens in the UK didn't own firearms, nor did they go hunting. Explain how the tightening of UK gun laws to prevent the ownership of high calibre handguns and the ban on hunting with hounds has been devastating to the average citizen.
While in opposition, the Labour Party campaigned hard for a gun ban after the Dunblane Massacre, the then Conservative government also tightened the law but didn't fully accept the recommendations of The Cullen Report (see inquiry proceedings here). Labour made the ban an explicit part of their 1997 election manifesto. Labour won the 1997 election with an historic landslide. They had also campaigned on allowing a free vote on hunting, and did so again in the 2001 election (which they again won) before a bill was finally passed after seven years of parliamentary debate.
At the moment, the vast majority of people in the UK say that they do not want the abolition of the hunting bill.
"Among the general public as a whole, three quarters (75%) support the ban on fox hunting remaining, while 21% want it repealed. Over eight in ten (84%) think the ban on deer hunting should stay in place. A similar number – 85% - say hare coursing and hunting should remain illegal.
In rural communities, seven in ten (72%) want to see fox hunting remain illegal, whilst 82% think deer hunting should continue to be banned, and 86% support the ban on hare hunting and coursing.
Among potential Conservative supporters, six out of ten (62%) say that fox hunting should NOT be made legal again, with one in three (33%) saying it should.
Over eight in ten (83%) of Labour supporters are against fox hunting being legalised, compared to 13% in favour.
Three quarters (77%) of Liberal Democrat voters are against repeal, versus 19% in favour." - IPSOS MORI
[/quote]
I don't really care about hunting, having the ability to be armed = a free citizen. Doesn't matter if choose to exercise that right or not. It also doesn't matter what a majority wants. Rule of Law, not rule of the emotions of a mob.
DigitalAntichrist wrote:
Wolffe wrote:
Restriction of liberty and freedom is always devastating to ordinary citizens.
The overwhelming majority of citizens in the UK didn't own firearms, nor did they go hunting. Explain how the tightening of UK gun laws to prevent the ownership of high calibre handguns and the ban on hunting with hounds has been devastating to the average citizen.
While in opposition, the Labour Party campaigned hard for a gun ban after the Dunblane Massacre, the then Conservative government also tightened the law but didn't fully accept the recommendations of The Cullen Report (see inquiry proceedings here). Labour made the ban an explicit part of their 1997 election manifesto. Labour won the 1997 election with an historic landslide. They had also campaigned on allowing a free vote on hunting, and did so again in the 2001 election (which they again won) before a bill was finally passed after seven years of parliamentary debate.
At the moment, the vast majority of people in the UK say that they do not want the abolition of the hunting bill.
"Among the general public as a whole, three quarters (75%) support the ban on fox hunting remaining, while 21% want it repealed. Over eight in ten (84%) think the ban on deer hunting should stay in place. A similar number – 85% - say hare coursing and hunting should remain illegal.
In rural communities, seven in ten (72%) want to see fox hunting remain illegal, whilst 82% think deer hunting should continue to be banned, and 86% support the ban on hare hunting and coursing.
Among potential Conservative supporters, six out of ten (62%) say that fox hunting should NOT be made legal again, with one in three (33%) saying it should.
Over eight in ten (83%) of Labour supporters are against fox hunting being legalised, compared to 13% in favour.
Three quarters (77%) of Liberal Democrat voters are against repeal, versus 19% in favour." - IPSOS MORI
I don't really care about hunting, having the ability to be armed = a free citizen. Doesn't matter if choose to exercise that right or not. It also doesn't matter what a majority wants. Rule of Law, not rule of the emotions of a mob.
^ Wolffe, not caring what the majority wants seems contrary to your democratic aspirations and ideals, especially when in this case the majority have elected by an historic landslide a government that has campaigned hard on those issues. You're asking for a tyranny of the minority for your own personal point of view.
Also, you've already conceded the point with regard to gun ownership not ensuring freedom, remember?
[quote user=DigitalAntichrist] [quote user=Wolffe]suck my fat dick, loser.[/quote]
[/quote]
[quote user=Wolffe] [quote user=DigitalAntichrist]Surely this couldn't happen in America! I mean, they have hundreds of millions of guns to keep a tyrannical government at bay![/quote]
First off, simply possessing firearms isn't enough. You have to have the smarts & the balls to know when and how to use them, something most Americans do not have. [/quote]
^ Wolffe, not caring what the majority wants seems contrary to your democratic aspirations and ideals, especially when in this case the majority have elected by an historic landslide a government that has campaigned hard on those issues. You're asking for a tyranny of the minority for your own personal point of view.
Also, you've already conceded the point with regard to gun ownership not ensuring freedom, remember?
DigitalAntichrist wrote:
Wolffe wrote:
suck my fat dick, loser.
Wolffe wrote:
DigitalAntichrist wrote:
Surely this couldn't happen in America! I mean, they have hundreds of millions of guns to keep a tyrannical government at bay!
First off, simply possessing firearms isn't enough. You have to have the smarts & the balls to know when and how to use them, something most Americans do not have.
[quote user=DigitalAntichrist] ^ Wolffe, not caring what the majority wants seems contrary to your democratic aspirations and ideals, especially when in this case the majority have elected by an historic landslide a government that has campaigned hard on those issues. You're asking for a tyrrany of the minority for your own personal point of view.
Also, you've already conceded the point with regard to gun ownership not ensuring freedom, remember?
[quote user=DigitalAntichrist][quote user=Wolffe]suck my fat dick, loser.[/quote]
[/quote]
[quote user=Wolffe]First off, simply possessing firearms isn't enough. You have to have the smarts & the balls to know when and how to use them, something most Americans do not have.[/quote]
[/quote]
Having the ability to obtain weapons is a lot better than not, for once it is not, it is extremely difficult to reverse. At least with having the ability one can go out at any time and train himself with one.
DigitalAntichrist wrote:
^ Wolffe, not caring what the majority wants seems contrary to your democratic aspirations and ideals, especially when in this case the majority have elected by an historic landslide a government that has campaigned hard on those issues. You're asking for a tyrrany of the minority for your own personal point of view.
Also, you've already conceded the point with regard to gun ownership not ensuring freedom, remember?
DigitalAntichrist wrote:
Wolffe wrote:
suck my fat dick, loser.
Wolffe wrote:
First off, simply possessing firearms isn't enough. You have to have the smarts & the balls to know when and how to use them, something most Americans do not have.
Having the ability to obtain weapons is a lot better than not, for once it is not, it is extremely difficult to reverse. At least with having the ability one can go out at any time and train himself with one.
[quote user=Wolffe] [quote user=DigitalAntichrist]Also, you've already conceded the point with regard to gun ownership not ensuring freedom, remember?
[quote user=DigitalAntichrist][quote user=Wolffe]suck my fat dick, loser.[/quote]
[/quote]
[quote user=Wolffe]First off, simply possessing firearms isn't enough. You have to have the smarts & the balls to know when and how to use them, something most Americans do not have.[/quote]
[/quote]
Having the ability to obtain weapons is a lot better than not, for once it is not, it is extremely difficult to reverse. At least with having the ability one can go out at any time and train himself with one. [/quote]
Why is it better? You've already stated that simple possession isn't enough. You've conceded that despite the relatively high level of gun ownership in the US, where 80 million Americans own up to 300 million firearms, it hasn't had an impact on a government that "controls them way more than they control their government" and is, in your own words, a "tyranny". What is the point in having the constitutional right to bear arms if the populace don't use that right for its original intent? It becomes a meaningless argument.
You still haven't explained how or why the gun ban was devastating to the average citizen in the UK, given that even before the ban the average citizen in the UK didn't own firearms.
Wolffe wrote:
DigitalAntichrist wrote:
Also, you've already conceded the point with regard to gun ownership not ensuring freedom, remember?
DigitalAntichrist wrote:
Wolffe wrote:
suck my fat dick, loser.
Wolffe wrote:
First off, simply possessing firearms isn't enough. You have to have the smarts & the balls to know when and how to use them, something most Americans do not have.
Having the ability to obtain weapons is a lot better than not, for once it is not, it is extremely difficult to reverse. At least with having the ability one can go out at any time and train himself with one.
Why is it better? You've already stated that simple possession isn't enough. You've conceded that despite the relatively high level of gun ownership in the US, where 80 million Americans own up to 300 million firearms, it hasn't had an impact on a government that "controls them way more than they control their government" and is, in your own words, a "tyranny". What is the point in having the constitutional right to bear arms if the populace don't use that right for its original intent? It becomes a meaningless argument.
You still haven't explained how or why the gun ban was devastating to the average citizen in the UK, given that even before the ban the average citizen in the UK didn't own firearms.
[quote user=DigitalAntichrist] Why is it better? You've already stated that simple possession isn't enough. You've conceded that despite the relatively high level of gun ownership in the US, where 80 million Americans own up to 300 million firearms, it hasn't had an impact on a government that "controls them way more than they control their government" and is, in your own words, a "tyranny". What is the point in having the constitutional right to bear arms if the populace don't use that right for its original intent? It becomes a meaningless argument.
You still haven't explained how or why the gun ban was devastating to the average citizen in the UK, given that even before the ban the average citizen in the UK didn't own firearms. [/quote]
In an armed society like the US, a lot of politicians are still scared to death of the reality of an Armed America. This is partly why the tyranny is being introduced gradually over a century. If they could take away all the guns out of the hands of US citizens, it would be very easy to enslave them completely and utterly. The politicians worst fear isn't a bunch of hippies in the streets, but knowing there are hardcore groups of Americans who are heavily armed willing to combat tyranny (aka him and his cronies) by force if necessary.
This quote sums it up: When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Since governments as an instrument, not criminals, have been used as a means of total human destruction and misery through all of the 20th century and indeed all of human history, it makes sense to be prepared to resist it if it ever arose in your own country however unlikely.
When you then acknowledge that tyranny, like crime can happen anywhere at any time you begin to see the importance in being armed to protect yourself and your nation.
The founders of the US were exploding with knowledge of past human governments, tyrannies, economics and had a understanding of human nature and natural law better than anyone I've read so far. They recognized the inherent right to self defense, building the recognition of that right into the supreme law of the land- the Constitution, to make sure citizens could use the best means available to accomplish the exercising of it. Indeed many people in the US considered the failure to stand up and defend against mortal harm by criminals or other groups as suicide as it showed you held your gift of life with contempt.
This is why I cannot understand people who will not take steps to know how to defend themselves. How can you ask someone else to risk their lives to defend you when you won't even defend yourself?
DigitalAntichrist wrote:
Why is it better? You've already stated that simple possession isn't enough. You've conceded that despite the relatively high level of gun ownership in the US, where 80 million Americans own up to 300 million firearms, it hasn't had an impact on a government that "controls them way more than they control their government" and is, in your own words, a "tyranny". What is the point in having the constitutional right to bear arms if the populace don't use that right for its original intent? It becomes a meaningless argument.
You still haven't explained how or why the gun ban was devastating to the average citizen in the UK, given that even before the ban the average citizen in the UK didn't own firearms.
In an armed society like the US, a lot of politicians are still scared to death of the reality of an Armed America. This is partly why the tyranny is being introduced gradually over a century. If they could take away all the guns out of the hands of US citizens, it would be very easy to enslave them completely and utterly. The politicians worst fear isn't a bunch of hippies in the streets, but knowing there are hardcore groups of Americans who are heavily armed willing to combat tyranny (aka him and his cronies) by force if necessary.
This quote sums it up: When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Since governments as an instrument, not criminals, have been used as a means of total human destruction and misery through all of the 20th century and indeed all of human history, it makes sense to be prepared to resist it if it ever arose in your own country however unlikely.
When you then acknowledge that tyranny, like crime can happen anywhere at any time you begin to see the importance in being armed to protect yourself and your nation.
The founders of the US were exploding with knowledge of past human governments, tyrannies, economics and had a understanding of human nature and natural law better than anyone I've read so far. They recognized the inherent right to self defense, building the recognition of that right into the supreme law of the land- the Constitution, to make sure citizens could use the best means available to accomplish the exercising of it. Indeed many people in the US considered the failure to stand up and defend against mortal harm by criminals or other groups as suicide as it showed you held your gift of life with contempt.
This is why I cannot understand people who will not take steps to know how to defend themselves. How can you ask someone else to risk their lives to defend you when you won't even defend yourself?
[quote user=Wolffe] [quote user=DigitalAntichrist] citizen in the UK didn't own firearms.[/quote]
In an armed society like the US, a lot of politicians are still scared to death of the reality of an Armed America. This is partly why the tyranny is being introduced gradually over a century. If they could take away all the guns out of the hands of US citizens, it would be very easy to enslave them completely and utterly. The politicians worst fear isn't a bunch of hippies in the streets, but knowing there are hardcore groups of Americans who are heavily armed willing to combat tyranny (aka him and his cronies) by force if necessary.
This quote sums it up: When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Since governments as an instrument, not criminals, have been used as a means of total human destruction and misery through all of the 20th century and indeed all of human history, it makes sense to be prepared to resist it if it ever arose in your own country however unlikely.
When you then acknowledge that tyranny, like crime can happen anywhere at any time you begin to see the importance in being armed to protect yourself and your nation. [/quote]
You're in complete denial, just look at the recent anti-terrorism legislation in the National Defense Authorization Act congress just passed which allows indefinite detention of US citizens. 80 million citizens armed with 300 million guns and still the politicians in Washington stripped them of their most basic rights... and these people who go on about their right to bear arms seem to ignore the reason they have that right - to prevent such legislation being passed. American politicians are not in fear of the populace, the US is IN REALITY an Armed America, but the politicians know damn well that as long as they go along with the NRA crowd and support the right to bear arms then they can do whatever the hell they like, even when it's removing the other rights those arms are meant to protect.... the right to bear arms seems to have become an end in itself instead of being a means of protecting all other rights. Am I belabouring the point... probably.
Wolffe wrote:
DigitalAntichrist wrote:
citizen in the UK didn't own firearms.
In an armed society like the US, a lot of politicians are still scared to death of the reality of an Armed America. This is partly why the tyranny is being introduced gradually over a century. If they could take away all the guns out of the hands of US citizens, it would be very easy to enslave them completely and utterly. The politicians worst fear isn't a bunch of hippies in the streets, but knowing there are hardcore groups of Americans who are heavily armed willing to combat tyranny (aka him and his cronies) by force if necessary.
This quote sums it up: When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Since governments as an instrument, not criminals, have been used as a means of total human destruction and misery through all of the 20th century and indeed all of human history, it makes sense to be prepared to resist it if it ever arose in your own country however unlikely.
When you then acknowledge that tyranny, like crime can happen anywhere at any time you begin to see the importance in being armed to protect yourself and your nation.
You're in complete denial, just look at the recent anti-terrorism legislation in the National Defense Authorization Act congress just passed which allows indefinite detention of US citizens. 80 million citizens armed with 300 million guns and still the politicians in Washington stripped them of their most basic rights... and these people who go on about their right to bear arms seem to ignore the reason they have that right - to prevent such legislation being passed. American politicians are not in fear of the populace, the US is IN REALITY an Armed America, but the politicians know damn well that as long as they go along with the NRA crowd and support the right to bear arms then they can do whatever the hell they like, even when it's removing the other rights those arms are meant to protect.... the right to bear arms seems to have become an end in itself instead of being a means of protecting all other rights. Am I belabouring the point... probably.
[quote user=tuoni] I guess Somalia must be the freedumbest and librarianistest country on the face of this planet.
[/quote]
Ah yes, you're diseased brain strikes again. Let's really bring a third world dump into this argument, which has been warring for a couple of decades and is controlled by warlords. Fucking retard. Don't even speak to me anymore.
tuoni wrote:
I guess Somalia must be the freedumbest and librarianistest country on the face of this planet.
Ah yes, you're diseased brain strikes again. Let's really bring a third world dump into this argument, which has been warring for a couple of decades and is controlled by warlords. Fucking retard. Don't even speak to me anymore.
If you want to look at what the politicians in the US are actually afraid of, then look at the anti-SOPA campaign. It wasn't the threat of an armed populace that made so many supporters of the bill change their minds.
If you want to look at what the politicians in the US are actually afraid of, then look at the anti-SOPA campaign. It wasn't the threat of an armed populace that made so many supporters of the bill change their minds.
[quote user=DigitalAntichrist] [quote user=Wolffe]When you then acknowledge that tyranny, like crime can happen anywhere at any time you begin to see the importance in being armed to protect yourself and your nation.[/quote]
You're in complete denial, just look at the recent anti-terrorism legislation in the National Defense Authorization Act congress just passed which allows indefinite detention of US citizens. 80 million citizens armed with 300 million guns and still the politicians in Washington stripped them of their most basic rights... and these people who go on about their right to bear arms seem to ignore the reason they have that right - to prevent such legislation being passed. American politicians are not in fear of the populace, the US is IN REALITY an Armed America, but the politicians know damn well that as long as they go along with the NRA crowd and support the right to bear arms then they can do whatever the hell they like, even when it's removing the other rights those arms are meant to protect.... the right to bear arms seems to have become an end in itself instead of being a means of protecting all other rights. Am I belabouring the point... probably. [/quote]
You're right. Tyranny is still being perpetrated on Americans. But when they are armed, they'll always have the last resort. At this point it is about options. If there was a 2nd US Civil war, the people would be totally justified in restoring their Republic and their Constitution against the government which in reality isn't the US Government since they are so beyond what the Constitution allows. All the founding fathers agree on this by the way. Most Americans don't even know the concept of being armed as a last resort from government is really the true meaning of the 2nd amendment.
And if the politicians weren't afraid of Americans being armed, why are attempts made every single day in all levels of government to try and restrict or use or ownership of them? If you think it has to do with safety you are naive! Armed Americans = Last real lingering threat to their plans of enslavement.
DigitalAntichrist wrote:
Wolffe wrote:
When you then acknowledge that tyranny, like crime can happen anywhere at any time you begin to see the importance in being armed to protect yourself and your nation.
You're in complete denial, just look at the recent anti-terrorism legislation in the National Defense Authorization Act congress just passed which allows indefinite detention of US citizens. 80 million citizens armed with 300 million guns and still the politicians in Washington stripped them of their most basic rights... and these people who go on about their right to bear arms seem to ignore the reason they have that right - to prevent such legislation being passed. American politicians are not in fear of the populace, the US is IN REALITY an Armed America, but the politicians know damn well that as long as they go along with the NRA crowd and support the right to bear arms then they can do whatever the hell they like, even when it's removing the other rights those arms are meant to protect.... the right to bear arms seems to have become an end in itself instead of being a means of protecting all other rights. Am I belabouring the point... probably.
You're right. Tyranny is still being perpetrated on Americans. But when they are armed, they'll always have the last resort. At this point it is about options. If there was a 2nd US Civil war, the people would be totally justified in restoring their Republic and their Constitution against the government which in reality isn't the US Government since they are so beyond what the Constitution allows. All the founding fathers agree on this by the way. Most Americans don't even know the concept of being armed as a last resort from government is really the true meaning of the 2nd amendment.
And if the politicians weren't afraid of Americans being armed, why are attempts made every single day in all levels of government to try and restrict or use or ownership of them? If you think it has to do with safety you are naive! Armed Americans = Last real lingering threat to their plans of enslavement.
[quote user=Wolffe] [quote user=DigitalAntichrist] an Armed America, but the politicians know damn well that as long as they go along with the NRA crowd and support the right to bear arms then they can do whatever the hell they like, even when it's removing the other rights those arms are meant to protect.... the right to bear arms seems to have become an end in itself instead of being a means of protecting all other rights. Am I belabouring the point... probably.[/quote]
You're right. Tyranny is still being perpetrated on Americans. But when they are armed, they'll always have the last resort. At this point it is about options. If there was a 2nd US Civil war, the people would be totally justified in restoring their Republic and their Constitution against the government which in reality isn't the US Government since they are so beyond what the Constitution allows. All the founding fathers agree on this by the way. Most Americans don't even know the concept of being armed as a last resort from government is really the true meaning of the 2nd amendment.
And if the politicians weren't afraid of Americans being armed, why are attempts made every single day in all levels of government to try and restrict or use or ownership of them? If you think it has to do with safety you are naive! [/quote]
Sure. As long as they have the right to bear arms then everything will be ok. Seems to be working out fine right now, eh.
Wolffe wrote:
DigitalAntichrist wrote:
an Armed America, but the politicians know damn well that as long as they go along with the NRA crowd and support the right to bear arms then they can do whatever the hell they like, even when it's removing the other rights those arms are meant to protect.... the right to bear arms seems to have become an end in itself instead of being a means of protecting all other rights. Am I belabouring the point... probably.
You're right. Tyranny is still being perpetrated on Americans. But when they are armed, they'll always have the last resort. At this point it is about options. If there was a 2nd US Civil war, the people would be totally justified in restoring their Republic and their Constitution against the government which in reality isn't the US Government since they are so beyond what the Constitution allows. All the founding fathers agree on this by the way. Most Americans don't even know the concept of being armed as a last resort from government is really the true meaning of the 2nd amendment.
And if the politicians weren't afraid of Americans being armed, why are attempts made every single day in all levels of government to try and restrict or use or ownership of them? If you think it has to do with safety you are naive!
Sure. As long as they have the right to bear arms then everything will be ok. Seems to be working out fine right now, eh.
[quote user=DigitalAntichrist] If you want to look at what the politicians in the US are actually afraid of, then look at the anti-SOPA campaign. It wasn't the threat of an armed populace that made so many supporters of the bill change their minds.
[/quote]
Yeah, they backed off. But they'll just try again, and again, and again, and again. They'll slip it into other bills or reword it slightly. I also find it ironic how no one really cared about tyranny in the US government but when SOPA was making the rounds suddenly millions stood up and screamed "NO! Don't take away my online entertainment!". They should take that same passion and fix other stuff too.
DigitalAntichrist wrote:
If you want to look at what the politicians in the US are actually afraid of, then look at the anti-SOPA campaign. It wasn't the threat of an armed populace that made so many supporters of the bill change their minds.
Yeah, they backed off. But they'll just try again, and again, and again, and again. They'll slip it into other bills or reword it slightly. I also find it ironic how no one really cared about tyranny in the US government but when SOPA was making the rounds suddenly millions stood up and screamed "NO! Don't take away my online entertainment!". They should take that same passion and fix other stuff too.
[quote user=DigitalAntichrist] And you still haven't explained how the UK gun ban was devastating to the average citizen. [/quote]
I would like our United Kingdom friends to be able to possess firearms for self-defense. Firearms equalize force & strength, so the oldest of ladies can defend herself against a young male thug.
DigitalAntichrist wrote:
And you still haven't explained how the UK gun ban was devastating to the average citizen.
I would like our United Kingdom friends to be able to possess firearms for self-defense. Firearms equalize force & strength, so the oldest of ladies can defend herself against a young male thug.
[quote user=tuoni] Hmm ... I wonder how many of those taking part in the Arab Spring had guns? Or perhaps the word truly is mightier than the sword ... [/quote]
Let's see how mighty your word is in Syria. With out U.N intervention of foreign solders carrying guns.
tuoni wrote:
Hmm ... I wonder how many of those taking part in the Arab Spring had guns? Or perhaps the word truly is mightier than the sword ...
Let's see how mighty your word is in Syria. With out U.N intervention of foreign solders carrying guns.
[quote user=DigitalAntichrist] [quote user=Wolffe][quote user=DigitalAntichrist]And you still haven't explained how the UK gun ban was devastating to the average citizen.[/quote]
It's devastating because they are DISARMED and UNABLE to resist criminals attack or tyranny in government, if they ever needed to. People buy emergency supplies of food all the time because it's a GOOD OPTION to have, even if they never need it and it just rots in storage.
I would rather have a gun and not need it than need a one but not have it.
I don't care how many gun owners there were before. That is irrelevant.
DigitalAntichrist wrote:
Wolffe wrote:
DigitalAntichrist wrote:
And you still haven't explained how the UK gun ban was devastating to the average citizen.
It's devastating because they are DISARMED and UNABLE to resist criminals attack or tyranny in government, if they ever needed to. People buy emergency supplies of food all the time because it's a GOOD OPTION to have, even if they never need it and it just rots in storage.
I would rather have a gun and not need it than need a one but not have it.
I don't care how many gun owners there were before. That is irrelevant.
It's devastating because they are DISARMED and UNABLE to resist criminals attack or tyranny in government, if they ever needed to. People buy emergency supplies of food all the time because it's a GOOD OPTION to have, even if they never need it and it just rots in storage.
I would rather have a gun and not need it than need a one but not have it.
I don't care how many gun owners there were before. That is irrelevant. [/quote]
Oh. I see. Guns would enable the people to resist the tyranny of government... like mass gun-ownership is protecting Americans from being stripped of their constitutional rights...
The level of gun ownership before the ban is irrelevant to it's impact?.. an impact you suggest was devastating? You are a funny chap.
Wolffe, around 160,000 people in the UK are still licenced to own firearms, there are over half a million legally held firearms in the UK... and if you include shotguns then the number of licences increases by 625,000 and the number of weapons increases by almost one and a half million.
It's devastating because they are DISARMED and UNABLE to resist criminals attack or tyranny in government, if they ever needed to. People buy emergency supplies of food all the time because it's a GOOD OPTION to have, even if they never need it and it just rots in storage.
I would rather have a gun and not need it than need a one but not have it.
I don't care how many gun owners there were before. That is irrelevant.
Oh. I see. Guns would enable the people to resist the tyranny of government... like mass gun-ownership is protecting Americans from being stripped of their constitutional rights...
The level of gun ownership before the ban is irrelevant to it's impact?.. an impact you suggest was devastating? You are a funny chap.
Wolffe, around 160,000 people in the UK are still licenced to own firearms, there are over half a million legally held firearms in the UK... and if you include shotguns then the number of licences increases by 625,000 and the number of weapons increases by almost one and a half million.
I don't give a rats ass. Permits, licenses, and regulations all restrict the freedom of the individual which is not okay.
Please read my lips clearly: Owning guns gives ordinary citizens a MEANS to resist tyranny both from government and criminals, it is not an end in itself. This is what I've been saying all along. The evidence is clear.
I don't give a rats ass. Permits, licenses, and regulations all restrict the freedom of the individual which is not okay.
Please read my lips clearly: Owning guns gives ordinary citizens a MEANS to resist tyranny both from government and criminals, it is not an end in itself. This is what I've been saying all along. The evidence is clear.
[quote user=Wolffe] I don't give a rats ass. Permits, licenses, and regulations all restrict the freedom of the individual which is not okay.
Please read my lips clearly: Owning guns gives ordinary citizens a MEANS to resist tyranny both from government and criminals, it is not an end in itself. This is what I've been saying all along. The evidence is clear.
[/quote]
What evidence?
Wolffe wrote:
I don't give a rats ass. Permits, licenses, and regulations all restrict the freedom of the individual which is not okay.
Please read my lips clearly: Owning guns gives ordinary citizens a MEANS to resist tyranny both from government and criminals, it is not an end in itself. This is what I've been saying all along. The evidence is clear.
[quote user=DigitalAntichrist] [quote user=Wolffe] to resist tyranny both from government and criminals, it is not an end in itself. This is what I've been saying all along. The evidence is clear.
[/quote]
What evidence?
[/quote]
Well for starters every mass extermination, annihilation or mass killing by governments in the 20th century alone were made possible by gun control schemes before the event took place. Nazi germany, Stalin's Paradise (starvation of millions of unarmed farmers), just to new a few. The only conclusion anyone could possibly gain from history is that an unarmed citizen = slave.
DigitalAntichrist wrote:
Wolffe wrote:
to resist tyranny both from government and criminals, it is not an end in itself. This is what I've been saying all along. The evidence is clear.
What evidence?
Well for starters every mass extermination, annihilation or mass killing by governments in the 20th century alone were made possible by gun control schemes before the event took place. Nazi germany, Stalin's Paradise (starvation of millions of unarmed farmers), just to new a few. The only conclusion anyone could possibly gain from history is that an unarmed citizen = slave.
Well for starters every mass extermination, annihilation or mass killing by governments in the 20th century alone were made possible by gun control schemes before the event took place. Nazi germany, Stalin's Paradise (starvation of millions of unarmed farmers), just to new a few. The only conclusion anyone could possibly gain from history is that an unarmed citizen = slave.
[/quote]
With regard to Germany, gun laws were tightened in 1919 due to the obligations Germany had under the Treaty of Versailles, and the Weimar governments tightened the law even more so in 1920. In 1928 the Weimar government introduced licencing for ownership, sale and manufacturing of all firearms. The Nazis didn't play with gun laws until 1938, five years into their monstrous regime, when they actually loosened the law and deregulated some types of firearms which under the Weimar system had been strictly licenced, they also made certain groups of people totally exempted from any form of licencing. The Nazis also lowered the age at which guns could be owned and extended the period a licence was valid for. Further, the 1938 act banning Jewish ownership of guns was passed after Kristallnacht. Your argument is a fallacy built on a fallacy.
Wolffe wrote:
DigitalAntichrist wrote:
What evidence?
Well for starters every mass extermination, annihilation or mass killing by governments in the 20th century alone were made possible by gun control schemes before the event took place. Nazi germany, Stalin's Paradise (starvation of millions of unarmed farmers), just to new a few. The only conclusion anyone could possibly gain from history is that an unarmed citizen = slave.
With regard to Germany, gun laws were tightened in 1919 due to the obligations Germany had under the Treaty of Versailles, and the Weimar governments tightened the law even more so in 1920. In 1928 the Weimar government introduced licencing for ownership, sale and manufacturing of all firearms. The Nazis didn't play with gun laws until 1938, five years into their monstrous regime, when they actually loosened the law and deregulated some types of firearms which under the Weimar system had been strictly licenced, they also made certain groups of people totally exempted from any form of licencing. The Nazis also lowered the age at which guns could be owned and extended the period a licence was valid for. Further, the 1938 act banning Jewish ownership of guns was passed after Kristallnacht. Your argument is a fallacy built on a fallacy.
[quote user=DigitalAntichrist] [quote user=Wolffe]Well for starters every mass extermination, annihilation or mass killing by governments in the 20th century alone were made possible by gun control schemes before the event took place. Nazi germany, Stalin's Paradise (starvation of millions of unarmed farmers), just to new a few. The only conclusion anyone could possibly gain from history is that an unarmed citizen = slave.
[/quote]
With regard to Germany, gun laws were tightened in 1919 due to the obligations Germany had under the Treaty of Versailles, and the Weimar governments tightened the law even more so in 1920. In 1928 the Weimar government introduced licencing for ownership, sale and manufacturing of all firearms. The Nazis didn't play with gun laws until 1938, five years into their monstrous regime, when they actually loosened the law and deregulated some types of firearms which under the Weimar system had been strictly licenced, they also made certain groups of people totally exempted from any form of licencing. The Nazis also lowered the age at which guns could be owned and extended the period a licence was valid for. Further, the 1938 act banning Jewish ownership of guns was passed after Kristallnacht. Your argument is a fallacy built on a fallacy.
[/quote]
Nope, built on solid fact. I do realize you'll never be convinced though, even when it's clear I'm right. All guns were registered in Nazi germany. The Nazi's knew exactly who had guns and where. It allowed for easy slaughter of the jews and control of the population. The only groups exempt from gun control were Nazi's themselves, fucking retard. It also opened up and gave Nazi government unrestricted power to decide what kinds of firearms could be or could not be owned by private citizens.
I'm not arguing semantics, by 1940 guns were extremely restricted and the only people exempt were Nazis and pro-Nazi groups. Such extreme gun control allowed Nazi Germany to better round up and slaughter innocent people. It wasn't the only reason, but it contributed largely to the disarming of jews and other groups, thus ensuring the efficiency of massacre.
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing." - Hitler
A few days before Kristallnacht the new york times in germany reported that on November 8th, "The Berlin Police President, Count Wolf Heinrich von Helldorf, announced that as a result of a police activity in the last few weeks the entire Jewish population of Berlin had been "disarmed" with the confiscation of 2,569 hand weapons, 1,702 firearms and 20,000 rounds of ammunition. Any Jews still found in possession of weapons without valid licenses are threatened with the severest punishment."
DigitalAntichrist wrote:
Wolffe wrote:
Well for starters every mass extermination, annihilation or mass killing by governments in the 20th century alone were made possible by gun control schemes before the event took place. Nazi germany, Stalin's Paradise (starvation of millions of unarmed farmers), just to new a few. The only conclusion anyone could possibly gain from history is that an unarmed citizen = slave.
With regard to Germany, gun laws were tightened in 1919 due to the obligations Germany had under the Treaty of Versailles, and the Weimar governments tightened the law even more so in 1920. In 1928 the Weimar government introduced licencing for ownership, sale and manufacturing of all firearms. The Nazis didn't play with gun laws until 1938, five years into their monstrous regime, when they actually loosened the law and deregulated some types of firearms which under the Weimar system had been strictly licenced, they also made certain groups of people totally exempted from any form of licencing. The Nazis also lowered the age at which guns could be owned and extended the period a licence was valid for. Further, the 1938 act banning Jewish ownership of guns was passed after Kristallnacht. Your argument is a fallacy built on a fallacy.
Nope, built on solid fact. I do realize you'll never be convinced though, even when it's clear I'm right. All guns were registered in Nazi germany. The Nazi's knew exactly who had guns and where. It allowed for easy slaughter of the jews and control of the population. The only groups exempt from gun control were Nazi's themselves, fucking retard. It also opened up and gave Nazi government unrestricted power to decide what kinds of firearms could be or could not be owned by private citizens.
I'm not arguing semantics, by 1940 guns were extremely restricted and the only people exempt were Nazis and pro-Nazi groups. Such extreme gun control allowed Nazi Germany to better round up and slaughter innocent people. It wasn't the only reason, but it contributed largely to the disarming of jews and other groups, thus ensuring the efficiency of massacre.
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing." - Hitler
A few days before Kristallnacht the new york times in germany reported that on November 8th, "The Berlin Police President, Count Wolf Heinrich von Helldorf, announced that as a result of a police activity in the last few weeks the entire Jewish population of Berlin had been "disarmed" with the confiscation of 2,569 hand weapons, 1,702 firearms and 20,000 rounds of ammunition. Any Jews still found in possession of weapons without valid licenses are threatened with the severest punishment."
Wolffe, everything I've said can be backed up with citation. I can and will reference you into the ground on this topic. I'll post but one example.
"Following Germany's defeat in World War I, the Weimar Republic passed very strict gun control laws essentially banning all gun ownership, in an attempt both to stabilize the country and to comply with the Versailles Treaty of 1919. The Treaty of Versailles itself imposed severe gun restrictions on German citizens. One of the key provisions of the Versailles Treaty, Article 169, stated that: Within two months from the coming into force of the present Treaty, German arms, munitions and war material, including antiaircraft material, existing in Germany in excess of the quantities allowed, must be surrendered to the Governments of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers to be destroyed or rendered useless. But even before the Treaty was signed, the German parliament of the Weimar Republic enacted legislation prohibiting gun possession.
In January 1919, the Reichstag enacted legislation requiring the surrender of all guns to the government. This law, as well as the August 7, 1920, Law on the Disarmament of the People passed in light of the Versailles Treaty, remained in effect until 1928, when the German parliament enacted the Law on Firearms and Ammunition (April 12, 1928)-a law which relaxed gun restrictions and put into effect a strict firearm licensing scheme. The licensing regulations foreshadowed Hitler's rise to power-and in fact, some argue, were enacted precisely in order to prevent armed insurrection, such as Hitler's attempted coup in Munich in 1923, as well as Hitler's later rise to power....
[I]f one reads the Nazi gun laws closely and compares them to earlier German gun legislation, as a straightforward exercise in statutory interpretation, several conclusions become clear. First, in 1938, the Nazi regime reenacted strict gun control laws and regulations that required licensing and reporting for the acquisition, transfer, or carrying of handguns, and for dealing and manufacturing in firearms and ammunition. In this respect, the Nazis had in place stringent gun regulation, including strict reporting requirements. Second, the Nazi gun laws of 1938 specifically banned Jewish persons from obtaining a license to manufacture firearms or ammunition. In this respect, the Nazi gun laws were more restrictive than those under the Weimar Republic. Third, with regard to possession and carrying of firearms, the Nazi regime relaxed the gun laws that were in place in Germany at the time the Nazis seized power. The Nazi gun laws of 1938 reflect a liberalization of the gun control measures that had been enacted by the Weimar Republic with respect to the acquisition, transfer, and carrying of firearms. In this regard, Hitler appears to have been more pro-gun than the predecessor Weimar Republic. Fourth, approximately eight months after enacting the 1938 Nazi gun laws, Hitler imposed regulations prohibiting Jewish persons from possessing any dangerous weapons, including firearms. The Nazi regime implemented this prohibition by confiscating weapons, including guns, from Jewish persons, and subsequently engaged in genocide of the Jewish population.
The toughest question in all of this is how to characterize the Nazi treatment of the Jewish population for the purpose of evaluating Adolf Hitler's position on gun control. The truth is, the question itself is absurd. The Nazis sought to disarm and kill the Jewish population. Their treatment of Jewish persons was, in this sense, orthogonal to their gun-control views. Nevertheless, if forced to take a position, it seems that the Nazis were relatively more pro-gun than the predecessor Weimar Republic, as evidenced by the overall relaxation of the laws regulating the acquisition, transfer and carrying of firearms reflected in the 1938 Nazi gun laws. Let's take this one step at a time. The history of gun control in Germany from the post-World War I period to the inception of World War II seems to be a history of declining, rather than increasing, gun control... (Harcourt, 2004).
[quote user=Wolffe] I'm not arguing semantics, by 1940 guns were extremely restricted and the only people exempt were Nazis and pro-Nazi groups. Such extreme gun control allowed Nazi Germany to better round up and slaughter innocent people.
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing." - Hitler
[/quote]
Semantics. No. I had family on my mother's side who were in Chelmno. By 1940 gun laws had been largely liberalised in Germany as compared to the conditions set by Versailles. By 1940 the process of the holocaust was well under way. The nazis didn't remove gun-ownership rights from Jews until after they started rounding them up for ghettos and camps in late 1938, and by then the much persecuted Jewish population of Berlin was 75,000. The number of guns confiscated from the 75,000 Jews amounted to a mere 1702, meaning that at most only 2.27% of Jews in Berlin were armed prior to the ban on Jews owning firearms. Kristallnacht, read up on it.
Wolffe, everything I've said can be backed up with citation. I can and will reference you into the ground on this topic. I'll post but one example.
"Following Germany's defeat in World War I, the Weimar Republic passed very strict gun control laws essentially banning all gun ownership, in an attempt both to stabilize the country and to comply with the Versailles Treaty of 1919. The Treaty of Versailles itself imposed severe gun restrictions on German citizens. One of the key provisions of the Versailles Treaty, Article 169, stated that: Within two months from the coming into force of the present Treaty, German arms, munitions and war material, including antiaircraft material, existing in Germany in excess of the quantities allowed, must be surrendered to the Governments of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers to be destroyed or rendered useless. But even before the Treaty was signed, the German parliament of the Weimar Republic enacted legislation prohibiting gun possession.
In January 1919, the Reichstag enacted legislation requiring the surrender of all guns to the government. This law, as well as the August 7, 1920, Law on the Disarmament of the People passed in light of the Versailles Treaty, remained in effect until 1928, when the German parliament enacted the Law on Firearms and Ammunition (April 12, 1928)-a law which relaxed gun restrictions and put into effect a strict firearm licensing scheme. The licensing regulations foreshadowed Hitler's rise to power-and in fact, some argue, were enacted precisely in order to prevent armed insurrection, such as Hitler's attempted coup in Munich in 1923, as well as Hitler's later rise to power....
[I]f one reads the Nazi gun laws closely and compares them to earlier German gun legislation, as a straightforward exercise in statutory interpretation, several conclusions become clear. First, in 1938, the Nazi regime reenacted strict gun control laws and regulations that required licensing and reporting for the acquisition, transfer, or carrying of handguns, and for dealing and manufacturing in firearms and ammunition. In this respect, the Nazis had in place stringent gun regulation, including strict reporting requirements. Second, the Nazi gun laws of 1938 specifically banned Jewish persons from obtaining a license to manufacture firearms or ammunition. In this respect, the Nazi gun laws were more restrictive than those under the Weimar Republic. Third, with regard to possession and carrying of firearms, the Nazi regime relaxed the gun laws that were in place in Germany at the time the Nazis seized power. The Nazi gun laws of 1938 reflect a liberalization of the gun control measures that had been enacted by the Weimar Republic with respect to the acquisition, transfer, and carrying of firearms. In this regard, Hitler appears to have been more pro-gun than the predecessor Weimar Republic. Fourth, approximately eight months after enacting the 1938 Nazi gun laws, Hitler imposed regulations prohibiting Jewish persons from possessing any dangerous weapons, including firearms. The Nazi regime implemented this prohibition by confiscating weapons, including guns, from Jewish persons, and subsequently engaged in genocide of the Jewish population.
The toughest question in all of this is how to characterize the Nazi treatment of the Jewish population for the purpose of evaluating Adolf Hitler's position on gun control. The truth is, the question itself is absurd. The Nazis sought to disarm and kill the Jewish population. Their treatment of Jewish persons was, in this sense, orthogonal to their gun-control views. Nevertheless, if forced to take a position, it seems that the Nazis were relatively more pro-gun than the predecessor Weimar Republic, as evidenced by the overall relaxation of the laws regulating the acquisition, transfer and carrying of firearms reflected in the 1938 Nazi gun laws. Let's take this one step at a time. The history of gun control in Germany from the post-World War I period to the inception of World War II seems to be a history of declining, rather than increasing, gun control... (Harcourt, 2004).
Wolffe wrote:
I'm not arguing semantics, by 1940 guns were extremely restricted and the only people exempt were Nazis and pro-Nazi groups. Such extreme gun control allowed Nazi Germany to better round up and slaughter innocent people.
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing." - Hitler
Semantics. No. I had family on my mother's side who were in Chelmno. By 1940 gun laws had been largely liberalised in Germany as compared to the conditions set by Versailles. By 1940 the process of the holocaust was well under way. The nazis didn't remove gun-ownership rights from Jews until after they started rounding them up for ghettos and camps in late 1938, and by then the much persecuted Jewish population of Berlin was 75,000. The number of guns confiscated from the 75,000 Jews amounted to a mere 1702, meaning that at most only 2.27% of Jews in Berlin were armed prior to the ban on Jews owning firearms. Kristallnacht, read up on it.
[quote user=mac] ^I still want a gun, they are fun. don't care aboot social bullshit, it's just another hobby. [/quote]
I have no problem with that rationale. As long as you have a licence and pass all the necessary legal requirements. I used to go shooting for fun, was a gun-club member, used to go lamping, and still (occasionaly) go deer hunting.
Personally, I think mental health screening should be mandatory, but that in itself is somewhat problematic.
mac wrote:
^I still want a gun, they are fun. don't care aboot social bullshit, it's just another hobby.
I have no problem with that rationale. As long as you have a licence and pass all the necessary legal requirements. I used to go shooting for fun, was a gun-club member, used to go lamping, and still (occasionaly) go deer hunting.
Personally, I think mental health screening should be mandatory, but that in itself is somewhat problematic.
[quote user=DigitalAntichrist] [quote user=mac]^I still want a gun, they are fun. don't care aboot social bullshit, it's just another hobby. [/quote]
I have no problem with that rationale. As long as you have a licence and pass all the necessary legal requirements. I used to go shooting for fun, was a gun-club member, used to go lamping, and still (occasionaly) go deer hunting.
Personally, I think mental health screening should be mandatory, but that in itself is somewhat problematic. [/quote]
and onerous.
DigitalAntichrist wrote:
mac wrote:
^I still want a gun, they are fun. don't care aboot social bullshit, it's just another hobby.
I have no problem with that rationale. As long as you have a licence and pass all the necessary legal requirements. I used to go shooting for fun, was a gun-club member, used to go lamping, and still (occasionaly) go deer hunting.
Personally, I think mental health screening should be mandatory, but that in itself is somewhat problematic.
People (be that individuals or group representation - government) do not have a right to impose a tyranny upon others in regards to restriction of items (drugs/guns etc.)
My 2 cents...
Licensing/any checks infringe upon freedom.
People (be that individuals or group representation - government) do not have a right to impose a tyranny upon others in regards to restriction of items (drugs/guns etc.)
People (be that individuals or group representation - government) do not have a right to impose a tyranny upon others in regards to restriction of items (drugs/guns etc.)
[/quote]
So freedom is great, especially when you have untrained, unsafe, inexperienced assholes running around with loaded weapons? Do you even have a fucking clue WHY regulations are in place?
otester wrote:
My 2 cents...
Licensing/any checks infringe upon freedom.
People (be that individuals or group representation - government) do not have a right to impose a tyranny upon others in regards to restriction of items (drugs/guns etc.)
So freedom is great, especially when you have untrained, unsafe, inexperienced assholes running around with loaded weapons? Do you even have a fucking clue WHY regulations are in place?
People (be that individuals or group representation - government) do not have a right to impose a tyranny upon others in regards to restriction of items (drugs/guns etc.)
[/quote]
So freedom is great, especially when you have untrained, unsafe, inexperienced assholes running around with loaded weapons? Do you even have a fucking clue WHY regulations are in place? [/quote]
Even those licensed and trained have been unsafe assholes, it's not something you can legislate, same with drivers licenses, a lot are still fucking awful.
The key is education, not legislation, same with drugs as well.
proofinlife wrote:
otester wrote:
My 2 cents...
Licensing/any checks infringe upon freedom.
People (be that individuals or group representation - government) do not have a right to impose a tyranny upon others in regards to restriction of items (drugs/guns etc.)
So freedom is great, especially when you have untrained, unsafe, inexperienced assholes running around with loaded weapons? Do you even have a fucking clue WHY regulations are in place?
Even those licensed and trained have been unsafe assholes, it's not something you can legislate, same with drivers licenses, a lot are still fucking awful.
The key is education, not legislation, same with drugs as well.
its the whole rash decision thing. you got agun you have a second of thought you kill someone but if you thought about for more than that second you probably wouldnt.
its the whole rash decision thing. you got agun you have a second of thought you kill someone but if you thought about for more than that second you probably wouldnt.
^ Guns of course have no moral code of their own are are entirely dependent on the user. In the same way a hammer can be used to build a home for a family but it could also be used to cave an innocent persons skull in. What your message says to me Limpy is that you simply do not trust the average UKer to be a responsible person. You are in essence saying the UK is full of irresponsible citizens who couldn't handle such a thing as handling weapons, and that only specially trained police should have them. On another note people often assume police get intense training with firearms, when in reality there are many ordinary citizens in the US alone who are better trained than the police in using guns.
^ Guns of course have no moral code of their own are are entirely dependent on the user. In the same way a hammer can be used to build a home for a family but it could also be used to cave an innocent persons skull in. What your message says to me Limpy is that you simply do not trust the average UKer to be a responsible person. You are in essence saying the UK is full of irresponsible citizens who couldn't handle such a thing as handling weapons, and that only specially trained police should have them. On another note people often assume police get intense training with firearms, when in reality there are many ordinary citizens in the US alone who are better trained than the police in using guns.
its the whole rash decision thing. you got agun you have a second of thought you kill someone but if you thought about for more than that second you probably wouldnt.
[/quote]
Well you only shoot someone if they are a threat to you, so chances are if you don't shoot them, your dead.
w1dg3t wrote:
its the whole rash decision thing. you got agun you have a second of thought you kill someone but if you thought about for more than that second you probably wouldnt.
Well you only shoot someone if they are a threat to you, so chances are if you don't shoot them, your dead.
you dont want guns but the crim breaking into your house will have one. [/quote]
"No one can always prepare for every eventuality, and you may still find yourself the sudden victim of a robbery attempt. During an armed robbery, it's most prudent to adopt the following tactics:
* do precisely as you are told, and no more;
* avoid eye contact with the robber;
* speak only when spoken to;
* tell the robber exactly what you are doing;
* make no sudden movements;
* don't activate alarms unless it is safe to do so;
* try to remain calm and control your emotions; and
* remember as many details as possible about the bandit and the incident.
If you believe we are peddling mere passivity as someone takes away your hard-earned valuables, you're quite wrong. There are other ways to fight other than the 'macho' way of the movies. Remember, one should only fight back physically as a last resort, when you feel as if your life or person (or someone with you) is, at that moment, truly in danger. After all, very few people are faster than speeding bullets in real-life."
You will most drastically be killed if you escalate the situation with gun. The best way to deter criminals is to not make yourself a target.
friedmeat wrote:
w1dg3t wrote:
we dont want guns
you dont want guns but the crim breaking into your house will have one.
"No one can always prepare for every eventuality, and you may still find yourself the sudden victim of a robbery attempt. During an armed robbery, it's most prudent to adopt the following tactics:
* do precisely as you are told, and no more;
* avoid eye contact with the robber;
* speak only when spoken to;
* tell the robber exactly what you are doing;
* make no sudden movements;
* don't activate alarms unless it is safe to do so;
* try to remain calm and control your emotions; and
* remember as many details as possible about the bandit and the incident.
If you believe we are peddling mere passivity as someone takes away your hard-earned valuables, you're quite wrong. There are other ways to fight other than the 'macho' way of the movies. Remember, one should only fight back physically as a last resort, when you feel as if your life or person (or someone with you) is, at that moment, truly in danger. After all, very few people are faster than speeding bullets in real-life."
[quote user=darkzevahc] [quote user=friedmeat]you dont want guns but the crim breaking into your house will have one.[/quote]
"No one can always prepare for every eventuality, and you may still find yourself the sudden victim of a robbery attempt. During an armed robbery, it's most prudent to adopt the following tactics:
* do precisely as you are told, and no more;
* avoid eye contact with the robber;
* speak only when spoken to;
* tell the robber exactly what you are doing;
* make no sudden movements;
* don't activate alarms unless it is safe to do so;
* try to remain calm and control your emotions; and
* remember as many details as possible about the bandit and the incident.
If you believe we are peddling mere passivity as someone takes away your hard-earned valuables, you're quite wrong. There are other ways to fight other than the 'macho' way of the movies. Remember, one should only fight back physically as a last resort, when you feel as if your life or person (or someone with you) is, at that moment, truly in danger. After all, very few people are faster than speeding bullets in real-life."
You will most drastically be killed if you escalate the situation with gun. The best way to deter criminals is to not make yourself a target.
[/quote]
It's not about the valuables it's about domination, when you let someone steal something from you, they're dominating you, give me liberty or give me death.
This is why I like the idea of open carrying, serves as a deterrent and also makes it easier to access and more likely to survive, like in the case in the article, you can tell what someones intentions are just from body language.
darkzevahc wrote:
friedmeat wrote:
you dont want guns but the crim breaking into your house will have one.
"No one can always prepare for every eventuality, and you may still find yourself the sudden victim of a robbery attempt. During an armed robbery, it's most prudent to adopt the following tactics:
* do precisely as you are told, and no more;
* avoid eye contact with the robber;
* speak only when spoken to;
* tell the robber exactly what you are doing;
* make no sudden movements;
* don't activate alarms unless it is safe to do so;
* try to remain calm and control your emotions; and
* remember as many details as possible about the bandit and the incident.
If you believe we are peddling mere passivity as someone takes away your hard-earned valuables, you're quite wrong. There are other ways to fight other than the 'macho' way of the movies. Remember, one should only fight back physically as a last resort, when you feel as if your life or person (or someone with you) is, at that moment, truly in danger. After all, very few people are faster than speeding bullets in real-life."
You will most drastically be killed if you escalate the situation with gun. The best way to deter criminals is to not make yourself a target.
It's not about the valuables it's about domination, when you let someone steal something from you, they're dominating you, give me liberty or give me death.
This is why I like the idea of open carrying, serves as a deterrent and also makes it easier to access and more likely to survive, like in the case in the article, you can tell what someones intentions are just from body language.
24
| 201 views | www.liveleak.com
Wolffe, can you explain exactly how the 1997 Firearms Act or the 2004 Hunting Act was "devastating to the average citizen"?
Wolffe, can you explain exactly how the 1997 Firearms Act or the 2004 Hunting Act was "devastating to the average citizen"?
Wolffe, can you explain exactly how the 1997 Firearms Act or the 2004 Hunting Act was "devastating to the average citizen"?
[/quote]
Restriction of liberty and freedom is always devastating to ordinary citizens.
Wolffe, can you explain exactly how the 1997 Firearms Act or the 2004 Hunting Act was "devastating to the average citizen"?
Restriction of liberty and freedom is always devastating to ordinary citizens.
Restriction of liberty and freedom is always devastating to ordinary citizens.
[/quote]
The overwhelming majority of citizens in the UK didn't own firearms, nor did they go hunting. Explain how the tightening of UK gun laws to prevent the ownership of high calibre handguns and the ban on hunting with hounds has been devastating to the average citizen.
While in opposition, the Labour Party campaigned hard for a gun ban after the Dunblane Massacre, the then Conservative government also tightened the law but didn't fully accept the recommendations of The Cullen Report (see inquiry proceedings here). Labour made the ban an explicit part of their 1997 election manifesto. Labour won the 1997 election with an historic landslide. They had also campaigned on allowing a free vote on hunting, and did so again in the 2001 election (which they again won) before a bill was finally passed after seven years of parliamentary debate.
At the moment, the vast majority of people in the UK say that they do not want the abolition of the hunting bill.
"Among the general public as a whole, three quarters (75%) support the ban on fox hunting remaining, while 21% want it repealed. Over eight in ten (84%) think the ban on deer hunting should stay in place. A similar number – 85% - say hare coursing and hunting should remain illegal.
In rural communities, seven in ten (72%) want to see fox hunting remain illegal, whilst 82% think deer hunting should continue to be banned, and 86% support the ban on hare hunting and coursing.
Among potential Conservative supporters, six out of ten (62%) say that fox hunting should NOT be made legal again, with one in three (33%) saying it should.
Over eight in ten (83%) of Labour supporters are against fox hunting being legalised, compared to 13% in favour.
Three quarters (77%) of Liberal Democrat voters are against repeal, versus 19% in favour." - IPSOS MORI
Restriction of liberty and freedom is always devastating to ordinary citizens.
The overwhelming majority of citizens in the UK didn't own firearms, nor did they go hunting. Explain how the tightening of UK gun laws to prevent the ownership of high calibre handguns and the ban on hunting with hounds has been devastating to the average citizen.
While in opposition, the Labour Party campaigned hard for a gun ban after the Dunblane Massacre, the then Conservative government also tightened the law but didn't fully accept the recommendations of The Cullen Report (see inquiry proceedings here). Labour made the ban an explicit part of their 1997 election manifesto. Labour won the 1997 election with an historic landslide. They had also campaigned on allowing a free vote on hunting, and did so again in the 2001 election (which they again won) before a bill was finally passed after seven years of parliamentary debate.
At the moment, the vast majority of people in the UK say that they do not want the abolition of the hunting bill.
"Among the general public as a whole, three quarters (75%) support the ban on fox hunting remaining, while 21% want it repealed. Over eight in ten (84%) think the ban on deer hunting should stay in place. A similar number – 85% - say hare coursing and hunting should remain illegal.
In rural communities, seven in ten (72%) want to see fox hunting remain illegal, whilst 82% think deer hunting should continue to be banned, and 86% support the ban on hare hunting and coursing.
Among potential Conservative supporters, six out of ten (62%) say that fox hunting should NOT be made legal again, with one in three (33%) saying it should.
Over eight in ten (83%) of Labour supporters are against fox hunting being legalised, compared to 13% in favour.
Three quarters (77%) of Liberal Democrat voters are against repeal, versus 19% in favour." - IPSOS MORI
[/quote]
Fixed.
Fixed.
The overwhelming majority of citizens in the UK didn't own firearms, nor did they go hunting. Explain how the tightening of UK gun laws to prevent the ownership of high calibre handguns and the ban on hunting with hounds has been devastating to the average citizen.
While in opposition, the Labour Party campaigned hard for a gun ban after the Dunblane Massacre, the then Conservative government also tightened the law but didn't fully accept the recommendations of The Cullen Report (see inquiry proceedings here). Labour made the ban an explicit part of their 1997 election manifesto. Labour won the 1997 election with an historic landslide. They had also campaigned on allowing a free vote on hunting, and did so again in the 2001 election (which they again won) before a bill was finally passed after seven years of parliamentary debate.
At the moment, the vast majority of people in the UK say that they do not want the abolition of the hunting bill.
"Among the general public as a whole, three quarters (75%) support the ban on fox hunting remaining, while 21% want it repealed. Over eight in ten (84%) think the ban on deer hunting should stay in place. A similar number – 85% - say hare coursing and hunting should remain illegal.
In rural communities, seven in ten (72%) want to see fox hunting remain illegal, whilst 82% think deer hunting should continue to be banned, and 86% support the ban on hare hunting and coursing.
Among potential Conservative supporters, six out of ten (62%) say that fox hunting should NOT be made legal again, with one in three (33%) saying it should.
Over eight in ten (83%) of Labour supporters are against fox hunting being legalised, compared to 13% in favour.
Three quarters (77%) of Liberal Democrat voters are against repeal, versus 19% in favour." - IPSOS MORI
[/quote]
I don't really care about hunting, having the ability to be armed = a free citizen. Doesn't matter if choose to exercise that right or not. It also doesn't matter what a majority wants. Rule of Law, not rule of the emotions of a mob.
The overwhelming majority of citizens in the UK didn't own firearms, nor did they go hunting. Explain how the tightening of UK gun laws to prevent the ownership of high calibre handguns and the ban on hunting with hounds has been devastating to the average citizen.
While in opposition, the Labour Party campaigned hard for a gun ban after the Dunblane Massacre, the then Conservative government also tightened the law but didn't fully accept the recommendations of The Cullen Report (see inquiry proceedings here). Labour made the ban an explicit part of their 1997 election manifesto. Labour won the 1997 election with an historic landslide. They had also campaigned on allowing a free vote on hunting, and did so again in the 2001 election (which they again won) before a bill was finally passed after seven years of parliamentary debate.
At the moment, the vast majority of people in the UK say that they do not want the abolition of the hunting bill.
"Among the general public as a whole, three quarters (75%) support the ban on fox hunting remaining, while 21% want it repealed. Over eight in ten (84%) think the ban on deer hunting should stay in place. A similar number – 85% - say hare coursing and hunting should remain illegal.
In rural communities, seven in ten (72%) want to see fox hunting remain illegal, whilst 82% think deer hunting should continue to be banned, and 86% support the ban on hare hunting and coursing.
Among potential Conservative supporters, six out of ten (62%) say that fox hunting should NOT be made legal again, with one in three (33%) saying it should.
Over eight in ten (83%) of Labour supporters are against fox hunting being legalised, compared to 13% in favour.
Three quarters (77%) of Liberal Democrat voters are against repeal, versus 19% in favour." - IPSOS MORI
I don't really care about hunting, having the ability to be armed = a free citizen. Doesn't matter if choose to exercise that right or not. It also doesn't matter what a majority wants. Rule of Law, not rule of the emotions of a mob.
Also, you've already conceded the point with regard to gun ownership not ensuring freedom, remember?
[quote user=DigitalAntichrist] [quote user=Wolffe]suck my fat dick, loser.[/quote]
[/quote]
[quote user=Wolffe] [quote user=DigitalAntichrist]Surely this couldn't happen in America! I mean, they have hundreds of millions of guns to keep a tyrannical government at bay![/quote]
First off, simply possessing firearms isn't enough. You have to have the smarts & the balls to know when and how to use them, something most Americans do not have.
[/quote]
Also, you've already conceded the point with regard to gun ownership not ensuring freedom, remember?
First off, simply possessing firearms isn't enough. You have to have the smarts & the balls to know when and how to use them, something most Americans do not have.
Fixed.
[/quote]
you love the word derp more than wolffe loves guns.......sure sounds like a stupid word, but you insist its brilliant.......wtf
Fixed.
you love the word derp more than wolffe loves guns.......sure sounds like a stupid word, but you insist its brilliant.......wtf
Also, you've already conceded the point with regard to gun ownership not ensuring freedom, remember?
[quote user=DigitalAntichrist][quote user=Wolffe]suck my fat dick, loser.[/quote]
[quote user=Wolffe]First off, simply possessing firearms isn't enough. You have to have the smarts & the balls to know when and how to use them, something most Americans do not have.[/quote]
[/quote]
Having the ability to obtain weapons is a lot better than not, for once it is not, it is extremely difficult to reverse. At least with having the ability one can go out at any time and train himself with one.
Also, you've already conceded the point with regard to gun ownership not ensuring freedom, remember?
Having the ability to obtain weapons is a lot better than not, for once it is not, it is extremely difficult to reverse. At least with having the ability one can go out at any time and train himself with one.
[quote user=DigitalAntichrist][quote user=Wolffe]suck my fat dick, loser.[/quote]
[quote user=Wolffe]First off, simply possessing firearms isn't enough. You have to have the smarts & the balls to know when and how to use them, something most Americans do not have.[/quote]
[/quote]
Having the ability to obtain weapons is a lot better than not, for once it is not, it is extremely difficult to reverse. At least with having the ability one can go out at any time and train himself with one.
[/quote]
Why is it better? You've already stated that simple possession isn't enough. You've conceded that despite the relatively high level of gun ownership in the US, where 80 million Americans own up to 300 million firearms, it hasn't had an impact on a government that "controls them way more than they control their government" and is, in your own words, a "tyranny". What is the point in having the constitutional right to bear arms if the populace don't use that right for its original intent? It becomes a meaningless argument.
You still haven't explained how or why the gun ban was devastating to the average citizen in the UK, given that even before the ban the average citizen in the UK didn't own firearms.
Having the ability to obtain weapons is a lot better than not, for once it is not, it is extremely difficult to reverse. At least with having the ability one can go out at any time and train himself with one.
Why is it better? You've already stated that simple possession isn't enough. You've conceded that despite the relatively high level of gun ownership in the US, where 80 million Americans own up to 300 million firearms, it hasn't had an impact on a government that "controls them way more than they control their government" and is, in your own words, a "tyranny". What is the point in having the constitutional right to bear arms if the populace don't use that right for its original intent? It becomes a meaningless argument.
You still haven't explained how or why the gun ban was devastating to the average citizen in the UK, given that even before the ban the average citizen in the UK didn't own firearms.
Wolffe fap. think he just came
Wolffe fap. think he just came
Why is it better? You've already stated that simple possession isn't enough. You've conceded that despite the relatively high level of gun ownership in the US, where 80 million Americans own up to 300 million firearms, it hasn't had an impact on a government that "controls them way more than they control their government" and is, in your own words, a "tyranny". What is the point in having the constitutional right to bear arms if the populace don't use that right for its original intent? It becomes a meaningless argument.
You still haven't explained how or why the gun ban was devastating to the average citizen in the UK, given that even before the ban the average citizen in the UK didn't own firearms.
[/quote]
In an armed society like the US, a lot of politicians are still scared to death of the reality of an Armed America. This is partly why the tyranny is being introduced gradually over a century. If they could take away all the guns out of the hands of US citizens, it would be very easy to enslave them completely and utterly. The politicians worst fear isn't a bunch of hippies in the streets, but knowing there are hardcore groups of Americans who are heavily armed willing to combat tyranny (aka him and his cronies) by force if necessary.
This quote sums it up: When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Since governments as an instrument, not criminals, have been used as a means of total human destruction and misery through all of the 20th century and indeed all of human history, it makes sense to be prepared to resist it if it ever arose in your own country however unlikely.
When you then acknowledge that tyranny, like crime can happen anywhere at any time you begin to see the importance in being armed to protect yourself and your nation.
The founders of the US were exploding with knowledge of past human governments, tyrannies, economics and had a understanding of human nature and natural law better than anyone I've read so far. They recognized the inherent right to self defense, building the recognition of that right into the supreme law of the land- the Constitution, to make sure citizens could use the best means available to accomplish the exercising of it. Indeed many people in the US considered the failure to stand up and defend against mortal harm by criminals or other groups as suicide as it showed you held your gift of life with contempt.
This is why I cannot understand people who will not take steps to know how to defend themselves. How can you ask someone else to risk their lives to defend you when you won't even defend yourself?
Why is it better? You've already stated that simple possession isn't enough. You've conceded that despite the relatively high level of gun ownership in the US, where 80 million Americans own up to 300 million firearms, it hasn't had an impact on a government that "controls them way more than they control their government" and is, in your own words, a "tyranny". What is the point in having the constitutional right to bear arms if the populace don't use that right for its original intent? It becomes a meaningless argument.
You still haven't explained how or why the gun ban was devastating to the average citizen in the UK, given that even before the ban the average citizen in the UK didn't own firearms.
In an armed society like the US, a lot of politicians are still scared to death of the reality of an Armed America. This is partly why the tyranny is being introduced gradually over a century. If they could take away all the guns out of the hands of US citizens, it would be very easy to enslave them completely and utterly. The politicians worst fear isn't a bunch of hippies in the streets, but knowing there are hardcore groups of Americans who are heavily armed willing to combat tyranny (aka him and his cronies) by force if necessary.
This quote sums it up: When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Since governments as an instrument, not criminals, have been used as a means of total human destruction and misery through all of the 20th century and indeed all of human history, it makes sense to be prepared to resist it if it ever arose in your own country however unlikely.
When you then acknowledge that tyranny, like crime can happen anywhere at any time you begin to see the importance in being armed to protect yourself and your nation.
The founders of the US were exploding with knowledge of past human governments, tyrannies, economics and had a understanding of human nature and natural law better than anyone I've read so far. They recognized the inherent right to self defense, building the recognition of that right into the supreme law of the land- the Constitution, to make sure citizens could use the best means available to accomplish the exercising of it. Indeed many people in the US considered the failure to stand up and defend against mortal harm by criminals or other groups as suicide as it showed you held your gift of life with contempt.
This is why I cannot understand people who will not take steps to know how to defend themselves. How can you ask someone else to risk their lives to defend you when you won't even defend yourself?
In an armed society like the US, a lot of politicians are still scared to death of the reality of an Armed America. This is partly why the tyranny is being introduced gradually over a century. If they could take away all the guns out of the hands of US citizens, it would be very easy to enslave them completely and utterly. The politicians worst fear isn't a bunch of hippies in the streets, but knowing there are hardcore groups of Americans who are heavily armed willing to combat tyranny (aka him and his cronies) by force if necessary.
This quote sums it up: When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Since governments as an instrument, not criminals, have been used as a means of total human destruction and misery through all of the 20th century and indeed all of human history, it makes sense to be prepared to resist it if it ever arose in your own country however unlikely.
When you then acknowledge that tyranny, like crime can happen anywhere at any time you begin to see the importance in being armed to protect yourself and your nation.
[/quote]
You're in complete denial, just look at the recent anti-terrorism legislation in the National Defense Authorization Act congress just passed which allows indefinite detention of US citizens. 80 million citizens armed with 300 million guns and still the politicians in Washington stripped them of their most basic rights... and these people who go on about their right to bear arms seem to ignore the reason they have that right - to prevent such legislation being passed. American politicians are not in fear of the populace, the US is IN REALITY an Armed America, but the politicians know damn well that as long as they go along with the NRA crowd and support the right to bear arms then they can do whatever the hell they like, even when it's removing the other rights those arms are meant to protect.... the right to bear arms seems to have become an end in itself instead of being a means of protecting all other rights. Am I belabouring the point... probably.
In an armed society like the US, a lot of politicians are still scared to death of the reality of an Armed America. This is partly why the tyranny is being introduced gradually over a century. If they could take away all the guns out of the hands of US citizens, it would be very easy to enslave them completely and utterly. The politicians worst fear isn't a bunch of hippies in the streets, but knowing there are hardcore groups of Americans who are heavily armed willing to combat tyranny (aka him and his cronies) by force if necessary.
This quote sums it up: When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Since governments as an instrument, not criminals, have been used as a means of total human destruction and misery through all of the 20th century and indeed all of human history, it makes sense to be prepared to resist it if it ever arose in your own country however unlikely.
When you then acknowledge that tyranny, like crime can happen anywhere at any time you begin to see the importance in being armed to protect yourself and your nation.
You're in complete denial, just look at the recent anti-terrorism legislation in the National Defense Authorization Act congress just passed which allows indefinite detention of US citizens. 80 million citizens armed with 300 million guns and still the politicians in Washington stripped them of their most basic rights... and these people who go on about their right to bear arms seem to ignore the reason they have that right - to prevent such legislation being passed. American politicians are not in fear of the populace, the US is IN REALITY an Armed America, but the politicians know damn well that as long as they go along with the NRA crowd and support the right to bear arms then they can do whatever the hell they like, even when it's removing the other rights those arms are meant to protect.... the right to bear arms seems to have become an end in itself instead of being a means of protecting all other rights. Am I belabouring the point... probably.
[/quote]
Ah yes, you're diseased brain strikes again. Let's really bring a third world dump into this argument, which has been warring for a couple of decades and is controlled by warlords. Fucking retard. Don't even speak to me anymore.
Ah yes, you're diseased brain strikes again. Let's really bring a third world dump into this argument, which has been warring for a couple of decades and is controlled by warlords. Fucking retard. Don't even speak to me anymore.
You're in complete denial, just look at the recent anti-terrorism legislation in the National Defense Authorization Act congress just passed which allows indefinite detention of US citizens. 80 million citizens armed with 300 million guns and still the politicians in Washington stripped them of their most basic rights... and these people who go on about their right to bear arms seem to ignore the reason they have that right - to prevent such legislation being passed. American politicians are not in fear of the populace, the US is IN REALITY an Armed America, but the politicians know damn well that as long as they go along with the NRA crowd and support the right to bear arms then they can do whatever the hell they like, even when it's removing the other rights those arms are meant to protect.... the right to bear arms seems to have become an end in itself instead of being a means of protecting all other rights. Am I belabouring the point... probably.
[/quote]
You're right.
Tyranny is still being perpetrated on Americans. But when they are armed, they'll always have the last resort. At this point it is about options. If there was a 2nd US Civil war, the people would be totally justified in restoring their Republic and their Constitution against the government which in reality isn't the US Government since they are so beyond what the Constitution allows. All the founding fathers agree on this by the way.
Most Americans don't even know the concept of being armed as a last resort from government is really the true meaning of the 2nd amendment.
And if the politicians weren't afraid of Americans being armed, why are attempts made every single day in all levels of government to try and restrict or use or ownership of them? If you think it has to do with safety you are naive!
Armed Americans = Last real lingering threat to their plans of enslavement.
You're in complete denial, just look at the recent anti-terrorism legislation in the National Defense Authorization Act congress just passed which allows indefinite detention of US citizens. 80 million citizens armed with 300 million guns and still the politicians in Washington stripped them of their most basic rights... and these people who go on about their right to bear arms seem to ignore the reason they have that right - to prevent such legislation being passed. American politicians are not in fear of the populace, the US is IN REALITY an Armed America, but the politicians know damn well that as long as they go along with the NRA crowd and support the right to bear arms then they can do whatever the hell they like, even when it's removing the other rights those arms are meant to protect.... the right to bear arms seems to have become an end in itself instead of being a means of protecting all other rights. Am I belabouring the point... probably.
You're right.
Tyranny is still being perpetrated on Americans. But when they are armed, they'll always have the last resort. At this point it is about options. If there was a 2nd US Civil war, the people would be totally justified in restoring their Republic and their Constitution against the government which in reality isn't the US Government since they are so beyond what the Constitution allows. All the founding fathers agree on this by the way.
Most Americans don't even know the concept of being armed as a last resort from government is really the true meaning of the 2nd amendment.
And if the politicians weren't afraid of Americans being armed, why are attempts made every single day in all levels of government to try and restrict or use or ownership of them? If you think it has to do with safety you are naive!
Armed Americans = Last real lingering threat to their plans of enslavement.
You're right.
Tyranny is still being perpetrated on Americans. But when they are armed, they'll always have the last resort. At this point it is about options. If there was a 2nd US Civil war, the people would be totally justified in restoring their Republic and their Constitution against the government which in reality isn't the US Government since they are so beyond what the Constitution allows. All the founding fathers agree on this by the way.
Most Americans don't even know the concept of being armed as a last resort from government is really the true meaning of the 2nd amendment.
And if the politicians weren't afraid of Americans being armed, why are attempts made every single day in all levels of government to try and restrict or use or ownership of them? If you think it has to do with safety you are naive!
[/quote]
Sure. As long as they have the right to bear arms then everything will be ok. Seems to be working out fine right now, eh.
You're right.
Tyranny is still being perpetrated on Americans. But when they are armed, they'll always have the last resort. At this point it is about options. If there was a 2nd US Civil war, the people would be totally justified in restoring their Republic and their Constitution against the government which in reality isn't the US Government since they are so beyond what the Constitution allows. All the founding fathers agree on this by the way.
Most Americans don't even know the concept of being armed as a last resort from government is really the true meaning of the 2nd amendment.
And if the politicians weren't afraid of Americans being armed, why are attempts made every single day in all levels of government to try and restrict or use or ownership of them? If you think it has to do with safety you are naive!
Sure. As long as they have the right to bear arms then everything will be ok. Seems to be working out fine right now, eh.
[/quote]
Yeah, they backed off. But they'll just try again, and again, and again, and again. They'll slip it into other bills or reword it slightly. I also find it ironic how no one really cared about tyranny in the US government but when SOPA was making the rounds suddenly millions stood up and screamed "NO! Don't take away my online entertainment!". They should take that same passion and fix other stuff too.
Yeah, they backed off. But they'll just try again, and again, and again, and again. They'll slip it into other bills or reword it slightly. I also find it ironic how no one really cared about tyranny in the US government but when SOPA was making the rounds suddenly millions stood up and screamed "NO! Don't take away my online entertainment!". They should take that same passion and fix other stuff too.
[/quote]
I would like our United Kingdom friends to be able to possess firearms for self-defense. Firearms equalize force & strength, so the oldest of ladies can defend herself against a young male thug.
I would like our United Kingdom friends to be able to possess firearms for self-defense. Firearms equalize force & strength, so the oldest of ladies can defend herself against a young male thug.
[/quote]
That's not an answer.
Also...
That's not an answer.
Also...
[/quote]
Let's see how mighty your word is in Syria. With out U.N intervention of foreign solders carrying guns.
Let's see how mighty your word is in Syria. With out U.N intervention of foreign solders carrying guns.
[/quote]
That's not an answer.
Also...
[/quote]
It's devastating because they are DISARMED and UNABLE to resist criminals attack or tyranny in government, if they ever needed to.
People buy emergency supplies of food all the time because it's a GOOD OPTION to have, even if they never need it and it just rots in storage.
I would rather have a gun and not need it than need a one but not have it.
I don't care how many gun owners there were before. That is irrelevant.
That's not an answer.
Also...
It's devastating because they are DISARMED and UNABLE to resist criminals attack or tyranny in government, if they ever needed to.
People buy emergency supplies of food all the time because it's a GOOD OPTION to have, even if they never need it and it just rots in storage.
I would rather have a gun and not need it than need a one but not have it.
I don't care how many gun owners there were before. That is irrelevant.
Also...
[/quote]
It's devastating because they are DISARMED and UNABLE to resist criminals attack or tyranny in government, if they ever needed to.
People buy emergency supplies of food all the time because it's a GOOD OPTION to have, even if they never need it and it just rots in storage.
I would rather have a gun and not need it than need a one but not have it.
I don't care how many gun owners there were before. That is irrelevant.
[/quote]
Oh. I see. Guns would enable the people to resist the tyranny of government... like mass gun-ownership is protecting Americans from being stripped of their constitutional rights...
The level of gun ownership before the ban is irrelevant to it's impact?.. an impact you suggest was devastating? You are a funny chap.
Wolffe, around 160,000 people in the UK are still licenced to own firearms, there are over half a million legally held firearms in the UK... and if you include shotguns then the number of licences increases by 625,000 and the number of weapons increases by almost one and a half million.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/mar/25/gun-ownership-firearms-certificates
Also...
It's devastating because they are DISARMED and UNABLE to resist criminals attack or tyranny in government, if they ever needed to.
People buy emergency supplies of food all the time because it's a GOOD OPTION to have, even if they never need it and it just rots in storage.
I would rather have a gun and not need it than need a one but not have it.
I don't care how many gun owners there were before. That is irrelevant.
Oh. I see. Guns would enable the people to resist the tyranny of government... like mass gun-ownership is protecting Americans from being stripped of their constitutional rights...
The level of gun ownership before the ban is irrelevant to it's impact?.. an impact you suggest was devastating? You are a funny chap.
Wolffe, around 160,000 people in the UK are still licenced to own firearms, there are over half a million legally held firearms in the UK... and if you include shotguns then the number of licences increases by 625,000 and the number of weapons increases by almost one and a half million.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/mar/25/gun-ownership-firearms-certificates
Permits, licenses, and regulations all restrict the freedom of the individual which is not okay.
Please read my lips clearly: Owning guns gives ordinary citizens a MEANS to resist tyranny both from government and criminals, it is not an end in itself. This is what I've been saying all along. The evidence is clear.
Permits, licenses, and regulations all restrict the freedom of the individual which is not okay.
Please read my lips clearly: Owning guns gives ordinary citizens a MEANS to resist tyranny both from government and criminals, it is not an end in itself. This is what I've been saying all along. The evidence is clear.
Permits, licenses, and regulations all restrict the freedom of the individual which is not okay.
Please read my lips clearly: Owning guns gives ordinary citizens a MEANS to resist tyranny both from government and criminals, it is not an end in itself. This is what I've been saying all along. The evidence is clear.
[/quote]
What evidence?
Permits, licenses, and regulations all restrict the freedom of the individual which is not okay.
Please read my lips clearly: Owning guns gives ordinary citizens a MEANS to resist tyranny both from government and criminals, it is not an end in itself. This is what I've been saying all along. The evidence is clear.
What evidence?
[/quote]
What evidence?
[/quote]
Well for starters every mass extermination, annihilation or mass killing by governments in the 20th century alone were made possible by gun control schemes before the event took place. Nazi germany, Stalin's Paradise (starvation of millions of unarmed farmers), just to new a few. The only conclusion anyone could possibly gain from history is that an unarmed citizen = slave.
What evidence?
Well for starters every mass extermination, annihilation or mass killing by governments in the 20th century alone were made possible by gun control schemes before the event took place. Nazi germany, Stalin's Paradise (starvation of millions of unarmed farmers), just to new a few. The only conclusion anyone could possibly gain from history is that an unarmed citizen = slave.
[/quote]
Well for starters every mass extermination, annihilation or mass killing by governments in the 20th century alone were made possible by gun control schemes before the event took place. Nazi germany, Stalin's Paradise (starvation of millions of unarmed farmers), just to new a few. The only conclusion anyone could possibly gain from history is that an unarmed citizen = slave.
[/quote]
With regard to Germany, gun laws were tightened in 1919 due to the obligations Germany had under the Treaty of Versailles, and the Weimar governments tightened the law even more so in 1920. In 1928 the Weimar government introduced licencing for ownership, sale and manufacturing of all firearms. The Nazis didn't play with gun laws until 1938, five years into their monstrous regime, when they actually loosened the law and deregulated some types of firearms which under the Weimar system had been strictly licenced, they also made certain groups of people totally exempted from any form of licencing. The Nazis also lowered the age at which guns could be owned and extended the period a licence was valid for. Further, the 1938 act banning Jewish ownership of guns was passed after Kristallnacht. Your argument is a fallacy built on a fallacy.
Well for starters every mass extermination, annihilation or mass killing by governments in the 20th century alone were made possible by gun control schemes before the event took place. Nazi germany, Stalin's Paradise (starvation of millions of unarmed farmers), just to new a few. The only conclusion anyone could possibly gain from history is that an unarmed citizen = slave.
With regard to Germany, gun laws were tightened in 1919 due to the obligations Germany had under the Treaty of Versailles, and the Weimar governments tightened the law even more so in 1920. In 1928 the Weimar government introduced licencing for ownership, sale and manufacturing of all firearms. The Nazis didn't play with gun laws until 1938, five years into their monstrous regime, when they actually loosened the law and deregulated some types of firearms which under the Weimar system had been strictly licenced, they also made certain groups of people totally exempted from any form of licencing. The Nazis also lowered the age at which guns could be owned and extended the period a licence was valid for. Further, the 1938 act banning Jewish ownership of guns was passed after Kristallnacht. Your argument is a fallacy built on a fallacy.
[/quote]
With regard to Germany, gun laws were tightened in 1919 due to the obligations Germany had under the Treaty of Versailles, and the Weimar governments tightened the law even more so in 1920. In 1928 the Weimar government introduced licencing for ownership, sale and manufacturing of all firearms. The Nazis didn't play with gun laws until 1938, five years into their monstrous regime, when they actually loosened the law and deregulated some types of firearms which under the Weimar system had been strictly licenced, they also made certain groups of people totally exempted from any form of licencing. The Nazis also lowered the age at which guns could be owned and extended the period a licence was valid for. Further, the 1938 act banning Jewish ownership of guns was passed after Kristallnacht. Your argument is a fallacy built on a fallacy.
[/quote]
Nope, built on solid fact. I do realize you'll never be convinced though, even when it's clear I'm right. All guns were registered in Nazi germany. The Nazi's knew exactly who had guns and where. It allowed for easy slaughter of the jews and control of the population. The only groups exempt from gun control were Nazi's themselves, fucking retard. It also opened up and gave Nazi government unrestricted power to decide what kinds of firearms could be or could not be owned by private citizens.
I'm not arguing semantics, by 1940 guns were extremely restricted and the only people exempt were Nazis and pro-Nazi groups. Such extreme gun control allowed Nazi Germany to better round up and slaughter innocent people. It wasn't the only reason, but it contributed largely to the disarming of jews and other groups, thus ensuring the efficiency of massacre.
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing." - Hitler
A few days before Kristallnacht the new york times in germany reported that on November 8th, "The Berlin Police President, Count Wolf Heinrich von Helldorf, announced that as a result of a police activity in the last few weeks the entire Jewish population of Berlin had been "disarmed" with the confiscation of 2,569 hand weapons, 1,702 firearms and 20,000 rounds of ammunition. Any Jews still found in possession of weapons without valid licenses are threatened with the severest punishment."
With regard to Germany, gun laws were tightened in 1919 due to the obligations Germany had under the Treaty of Versailles, and the Weimar governments tightened the law even more so in 1920. In 1928 the Weimar government introduced licencing for ownership, sale and manufacturing of all firearms. The Nazis didn't play with gun laws until 1938, five years into their monstrous regime, when they actually loosened the law and deregulated some types of firearms which under the Weimar system had been strictly licenced, they also made certain groups of people totally exempted from any form of licencing. The Nazis also lowered the age at which guns could be owned and extended the period a licence was valid for. Further, the 1938 act banning Jewish ownership of guns was passed after Kristallnacht. Your argument is a fallacy built on a fallacy.
Nope, built on solid fact. I do realize you'll never be convinced though, even when it's clear I'm right. All guns were registered in Nazi germany. The Nazi's knew exactly who had guns and where. It allowed for easy slaughter of the jews and control of the population. The only groups exempt from gun control were Nazi's themselves, fucking retard. It also opened up and gave Nazi government unrestricted power to decide what kinds of firearms could be or could not be owned by private citizens.
I'm not arguing semantics, by 1940 guns were extremely restricted and the only people exempt were Nazis and pro-Nazi groups. Such extreme gun control allowed Nazi Germany to better round up and slaughter innocent people. It wasn't the only reason, but it contributed largely to the disarming of jews and other groups, thus ensuring the efficiency of massacre.
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing." - Hitler
A few days before Kristallnacht the new york times in germany reported that on November 8th, "The Berlin Police President, Count Wolf Heinrich von Helldorf, announced that as a result of a police activity in the last few weeks the entire Jewish population of Berlin had been "disarmed" with the confiscation of 2,569 hand weapons, 1,702 firearms and 20,000 rounds of ammunition. Any Jews still found in possession of weapons without valid licenses are threatened with the severest punishment."
"Following Germany's defeat in World War I, the Weimar Republic passed very strict gun control laws essentially banning all gun ownership, in an attempt both to stabilize the country and to comply with the Versailles Treaty of 1919. The Treaty of Versailles itself imposed severe gun restrictions on German citizens. One of the key provisions of the Versailles Treaty, Article 169, stated that: Within two months from the coming into force of the present Treaty, German arms, munitions and war material, including antiaircraft material, existing in Germany in excess of the quantities allowed, must be surrendered to the Governments of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers to be destroyed or rendered useless. But even before the Treaty was signed, the German parliament of the Weimar Republic enacted legislation prohibiting gun possession.
In January 1919, the Reichstag enacted legislation requiring the surrender of all guns to the government. This law, as well as the August 7, 1920, Law on the Disarmament of the People passed in light of the Versailles Treaty, remained in effect until 1928, when the German parliament enacted the Law on Firearms and Ammunition (April 12, 1928)-a law which relaxed gun restrictions and put into effect a strict firearm licensing scheme. The licensing regulations foreshadowed Hitler's rise to power-and in fact, some argue, were enacted precisely in order to prevent armed insurrection, such as Hitler's attempted coup in Munich in 1923, as well as Hitler's later rise to power....
[I]f one reads the Nazi gun laws closely and compares them to earlier German gun legislation, as a straightforward exercise in statutory interpretation, several conclusions become clear. First, in 1938, the Nazi regime reenacted strict gun control laws and regulations that required licensing and reporting for the acquisition, transfer, or carrying of handguns, and for dealing and manufacturing in firearms and ammunition. In this respect, the Nazis had in place stringent gun regulation, including strict reporting requirements. Second, the Nazi gun laws of 1938 specifically banned Jewish persons from obtaining a license to manufacture firearms or ammunition. In this respect, the Nazi gun laws were more restrictive than those under the Weimar Republic. Third, with regard to possession and carrying of firearms, the Nazi regime relaxed the gun laws that were in place in Germany at the time the Nazis seized power. The Nazi gun laws of 1938 reflect a liberalization of the gun control measures that had been enacted by the Weimar Republic with respect to the acquisition, transfer, and carrying of firearms. In this regard, Hitler appears to have been more pro-gun than the predecessor Weimar Republic. Fourth, approximately eight months after enacting the 1938 Nazi gun laws, Hitler imposed regulations prohibiting Jewish persons from possessing any dangerous weapons, including firearms. The Nazi regime implemented this prohibition by confiscating weapons, including guns, from Jewish persons, and subsequently engaged in genocide of the Jewish population.
The toughest question in all of this is how to characterize the Nazi treatment of the Jewish population for the purpose of evaluating Adolf Hitler's position on gun control. The truth is, the question itself is absurd. The Nazis sought to disarm and kill the Jewish population. Their treatment of Jewish persons was, in this sense, orthogonal to their gun-control views. Nevertheless, if forced to take a position, it seems that the Nazis were relatively more pro-gun than the predecessor Weimar Republic, as evidenced by the overall relaxation of the laws regulating the acquisition, transfer and carrying of firearms reflected in the 1938 Nazi gun laws. Let's take this one step at a time. The history of gun control in Germany from the post-World War I period to the inception of World War II seems to be a history of declining, rather than increasing, gun control... (Harcourt, 2004).
[quote user=Wolffe]
I'm not arguing semantics, by 1940 guns were extremely restricted and the only people exempt were Nazis and pro-Nazi groups. Such extreme gun control allowed Nazi Germany to better round up and slaughter innocent people.
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing." - Hitler
[/quote]
Semantics. No. I had family on my mother's side who were in Chelmno. By 1940 gun laws had been largely liberalised in Germany as compared to the conditions set by Versailles. By 1940 the process of the holocaust was well under way. The nazis didn't remove gun-ownership rights from Jews until after they started rounding them up for ghettos and camps in late 1938, and by then the much persecuted Jewish population of Berlin was 75,000. The number of guns confiscated from the 75,000 Jews amounted to a mere 1702, meaning that at most only 2.27% of Jews in Berlin were armed prior to the ban on Jews owning firearms. Kristallnacht, read up on it.
"Following Germany's defeat in World War I, the Weimar Republic passed very strict gun control laws essentially banning all gun ownership, in an attempt both to stabilize the country and to comply with the Versailles Treaty of 1919. The Treaty of Versailles itself imposed severe gun restrictions on German citizens. One of the key provisions of the Versailles Treaty, Article 169, stated that: Within two months from the coming into force of the present Treaty, German arms, munitions and war material, including antiaircraft material, existing in Germany in excess of the quantities allowed, must be surrendered to the Governments of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers to be destroyed or rendered useless. But even before the Treaty was signed, the German parliament of the Weimar Republic enacted legislation prohibiting gun possession.
In January 1919, the Reichstag enacted legislation requiring the surrender of all guns to the government. This law, as well as the August 7, 1920, Law on the Disarmament of the People passed in light of the Versailles Treaty, remained in effect until 1928, when the German parliament enacted the Law on Firearms and Ammunition (April 12, 1928)-a law which relaxed gun restrictions and put into effect a strict firearm licensing scheme. The licensing regulations foreshadowed Hitler's rise to power-and in fact, some argue, were enacted precisely in order to prevent armed insurrection, such as Hitler's attempted coup in Munich in 1923, as well as Hitler's later rise to power....
[I]f one reads the Nazi gun laws closely and compares them to earlier German gun legislation, as a straightforward exercise in statutory interpretation, several conclusions become clear. First, in 1938, the Nazi regime reenacted strict gun control laws and regulations that required licensing and reporting for the acquisition, transfer, or carrying of handguns, and for dealing and manufacturing in firearms and ammunition. In this respect, the Nazis had in place stringent gun regulation, including strict reporting requirements. Second, the Nazi gun laws of 1938 specifically banned Jewish persons from obtaining a license to manufacture firearms or ammunition. In this respect, the Nazi gun laws were more restrictive than those under the Weimar Republic. Third, with regard to possession and carrying of firearms, the Nazi regime relaxed the gun laws that were in place in Germany at the time the Nazis seized power. The Nazi gun laws of 1938 reflect a liberalization of the gun control measures that had been enacted by the Weimar Republic with respect to the acquisition, transfer, and carrying of firearms. In this regard, Hitler appears to have been more pro-gun than the predecessor Weimar Republic. Fourth, approximately eight months after enacting the 1938 Nazi gun laws, Hitler imposed regulations prohibiting Jewish persons from possessing any dangerous weapons, including firearms. The Nazi regime implemented this prohibition by confiscating weapons, including guns, from Jewish persons, and subsequently engaged in genocide of the Jewish population.
The toughest question in all of this is how to characterize the Nazi treatment of the Jewish population for the purpose of evaluating Adolf Hitler's position on gun control. The truth is, the question itself is absurd. The Nazis sought to disarm and kill the Jewish population. Their treatment of Jewish persons was, in this sense, orthogonal to their gun-control views. Nevertheless, if forced to take a position, it seems that the Nazis were relatively more pro-gun than the predecessor Weimar Republic, as evidenced by the overall relaxation of the laws regulating the acquisition, transfer and carrying of firearms reflected in the 1938 Nazi gun laws. Let's take this one step at a time. The history of gun control in Germany from the post-World War I period to the inception of World War II seems to be a history of declining, rather than increasing, gun control... (Harcourt, 2004).
I'm not arguing semantics, by 1940 guns were extremely restricted and the only people exempt were Nazis and pro-Nazi groups. Such extreme gun control allowed Nazi Germany to better round up and slaughter innocent people.
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing." - Hitler
Semantics. No. I had family on my mother's side who were in Chelmno. By 1940 gun laws had been largely liberalised in Germany as compared to the conditions set by Versailles. By 1940 the process of the holocaust was well under way. The nazis didn't remove gun-ownership rights from Jews until after they started rounding them up for ghettos and camps in late 1938, and by then the much persecuted Jewish population of Berlin was 75,000. The number of guns confiscated from the 75,000 Jews amounted to a mere 1702, meaning that at most only 2.27% of Jews in Berlin were armed prior to the ban on Jews owning firearms. Kristallnacht, read up on it.
[/quote]
I have no problem with that rationale. As long as you have a licence and pass all the necessary legal requirements. I used to go shooting for fun, was a gun-club member, used to go lamping, and still (occasionaly) go deer hunting.
Personally, I think mental health screening should be mandatory, but that in itself is somewhat problematic.
I have no problem with that rationale. As long as you have a licence and pass all the necessary legal requirements. I used to go shooting for fun, was a gun-club member, used to go lamping, and still (occasionaly) go deer hunting.
Personally, I think mental health screening should be mandatory, but that in itself is somewhat problematic.
I have no problem with that rationale. As long as you have a licence and pass all the necessary legal requirements. I used to go shooting for fun, was a gun-club member, used to go lamping, and still (occasionaly) go deer hunting.
Personally, I think mental health screening should be mandatory, but that in itself is somewhat problematic.
[/quote]
and onerous.
I have no problem with that rationale. As long as you have a licence and pass all the necessary legal requirements. I used to go shooting for fun, was a gun-club member, used to go lamping, and still (occasionaly) go deer hunting.
Personally, I think mental health screening should be mandatory, but that in itself is somewhat problematic.
and onerous.
[/quote]
So freedom is great, especially when you have untrained, unsafe, inexperienced assholes running around with loaded weapons? Do you even have a fucking clue WHY regulations are in place?
So freedom is great, especially when you have untrained, unsafe, inexperienced assholes running around with loaded weapons? Do you even have a fucking clue WHY regulations are in place?
- Licensing/any checks infringe upon freedom.
- People (be that individuals or group representation - government) do not have a right to impose a tyranny upon others in regards to restriction of items (drugs/guns etc.)
[/quote]So freedom is great, especially when you have untrained, unsafe, inexperienced assholes running around with loaded weapons? Do you even have a fucking clue WHY regulations are in place?
[/quote]
Even those licensed and trained have been unsafe assholes, it's not something you can legislate, same with drivers licenses, a lot are still fucking awful.
The key is education, not legislation, same with drugs as well.
So freedom is great, especially when you have untrained, unsafe, inexperienced assholes running around with loaded weapons? Do you even have a fucking clue WHY regulations are in place?
Even those licensed and trained have been unsafe assholes, it's not something you can legislate, same with drivers licenses, a lot are still fucking awful.
The key is education, not legislation, same with drugs as well.
[/quote]
Nope, built on derp.
I'm not arguing derp.
"Derp hitler socialism conspiracy guns derp" - Some guy with a banjo
A few days before Kristallnacht, derp.
[/quote]
fixed
Nope, built on derp.
I'm not arguing derp.
"Derp hitler socialism conspiracy guns derp" - Some guy with a banjo
A few days before Kristallnacht, derp.
fixed
[/quote]
The guns used in U.S. ghetto's are all over the counter guns which get sold for an extra sum around the corner. Legislation of lethal weapons is shit.
The guns used in U.S. ghetto's are all over the counter guns which get sold for an extra sum around the corner. Legislation of lethal weapons is shit.
we dont want guns
we dont want guns
we dont want guns
[/quote]That's ok, free choice, but the option is there if you want one.
we dont want guns
That's ok, free choice, but the option is there if you want one.
its the whole rash decision thing. you got agun you have a second of thought you kill someone but if you thought
about for more than that second you probably wouldnt.
its the whole rash decision thing. you got agun you have a second of thought you kill someone but if you thought
about for more than that second you probably wouldnt.
What your message says to me Limpy is that you simply do not trust the average UKer to be a responsible person. You are in essence saying the UK is full of irresponsible citizens who couldn't handle such a thing as handling weapons, and that only specially trained police should have them. On another note people often assume police get intense training with firearms, when in reality there are many ordinary citizens in the US alone who are better trained than the police in using guns.
What your message says to me Limpy is that you simply do not trust the average UKer to be a responsible person. You are in essence saying the UK is full of irresponsible citizens who couldn't handle such a thing as handling weapons, and that only specially trained police should have them. On another note people often assume police get intense training with firearms, when in reality there are many ordinary citizens in the US alone who are better trained than the police in using guns.
its the whole rash decision thing. you got agun you have a second of thought you kill someone but if you thought
about for more than that second you probably wouldnt.
[/quote]
Well you only shoot someone if they are a threat to you, so chances are if you don't shoot them, your dead.
its the whole rash decision thing. you got agun you have a second of thought you kill someone but if you thought
about for more than that second you probably wouldnt.
Well you only shoot someone if they are a threat to you, so chances are if you don't shoot them, your dead.
we dont want guns
[/quote]
you dont want guns but the crim breaking into your house will have one.
we dont want guns
you dont want guns but the crim breaking into your house will have one.
we dont want guns
[/quote]you dont want guns but the crim breaking into your house will have one.
[/quote]
"No one can always prepare for every eventuality, and you may still find yourself the sudden victim of a robbery attempt. During an armed robbery, it's most prudent to adopt the following tactics:
* do precisely as you are told, and no more;
* avoid eye contact with the robber;
* speak only when spoken to;
* tell the robber exactly what you are doing;
* make no sudden movements;
* don't activate alarms unless it is safe to do so;
* try to remain calm and control your emotions; and
* remember as many details as possible about the bandit and the incident.
If you believe we are peddling mere passivity as someone takes away your hard-earned valuables, you're quite wrong. There are other ways to fight other than the 'macho' way of the movies. Remember, one should only fight back physically as a last resort, when you feel as if your life or person (or someone with you) is, at that moment, truly in danger. After all, very few people are faster than speeding bullets in real-life."
LINK
You will most drastically be killed if you escalate the situation with gun. The best way to deter criminals is to not make yourself a target.
we dont want guns
you dont want guns but the crim breaking into your house will have one.
"No one can always prepare for every eventuality, and you may still find yourself the sudden victim of a robbery attempt. During an armed robbery, it's most prudent to adopt the following tactics:
* do precisely as you are told, and no more;
* avoid eye contact with the robber;
* speak only when spoken to;
* tell the robber exactly what you are doing;
* make no sudden movements;
* don't activate alarms unless it is safe to do so;
* try to remain calm and control your emotions; and
* remember as many details as possible about the bandit and the incident.
If you believe we are peddling mere passivity as someone takes away your hard-earned valuables, you're quite wrong. There are other ways to fight other than the 'macho' way of the movies. Remember, one should only fight back physically as a last resort, when you feel as if your life or person (or someone with you) is, at that moment, truly in danger. After all, very few people are faster than speeding bullets in real-life."
LINK
You will most drastically be killed if you escalate the situation with gun. The best way to deter criminals is to not make yourself a target.
"No one can always prepare for every eventuality, and you may still find yourself the sudden victim of a robbery attempt. During an armed robbery, it's most prudent to adopt the following tactics:
* do precisely as you are told, and no more;
* avoid eye contact with the robber;
* speak only when spoken to;
* tell the robber exactly what you are doing;
* make no sudden movements;
* don't activate alarms unless it is safe to do so;
* try to remain calm and control your emotions; and
* remember as many details as possible about the bandit and the incident.
If you believe we are peddling mere passivity as someone takes away your hard-earned valuables, you're quite wrong. There are other ways to fight other than the 'macho' way of the movies. Remember, one should only fight back physically as a last resort, when you feel as if your life or person (or someone with you) is, at that moment, truly in danger. After all, very few people are faster than speeding bullets in real-life."
LINK
You will most drastically be killed if you escalate the situation with gun. The best way to deter criminals is to not make yourself a target.
[/quote]
It's not about the valuables it's about domination, when you let someone steal something from you, they're dominating you, give me liberty or give me death.
This is why I like the idea of open carrying, serves as a deterrent and also makes it easier to access and more likely to survive, like in the case in the article, you can tell what someones intentions are just from body language.
"No one can always prepare for every eventuality, and you may still find yourself the sudden victim of a robbery attempt. During an armed robbery, it's most prudent to adopt the following tactics:
* do precisely as you are told, and no more;
* avoid eye contact with the robber;
* speak only when spoken to;
* tell the robber exactly what you are doing;
* make no sudden movements;
* don't activate alarms unless it is safe to do so;
* try to remain calm and control your emotions; and
* remember as many details as possible about the bandit and the incident.
If you believe we are peddling mere passivity as someone takes away your hard-earned valuables, you're quite wrong. There are other ways to fight other than the 'macho' way of the movies. Remember, one should only fight back physically as a last resort, when you feel as if your life or person (or someone with you) is, at that moment, truly in danger. After all, very few people are faster than speeding bullets in real-life."
LINK
You will most drastically be killed if you escalate the situation with gun. The best way to deter criminals is to not make yourself a target.
It's not about the valuables it's about domination, when you let someone steal something from you, they're dominating you, give me liberty or give me death.
This is why I like the idea of open carrying, serves as a deterrent and also makes it easier to access and more likely to survive, like in the case in the article, you can tell what someones intentions are just from body language.