Anti-gun laws working well in England Merged Rifle In Every Pot

Getting rid of guns makes for a more civilised society IMO. Where I'm from, I rarely think about guns, in fact I only think about them when on messageboards. Having a society awash with firearms does nothing for my peace of mind.

I did cut and paste my post to a text doc, but didn't save it (duh!)

I assure you that if you were in your home one evening half asleep and were awakened by a noise made by a burgler who had just broken into your home, you suddenly realize that the person does NOT realize you are there. Quickly you dart down behind an object, he's coming, you peer out from your frightning hiding place to see that he HAS a gun. He is combing your home, Oh my god you think to yourself, has he already killed anyone? Oh my God, my children, their bedrooms are on the end of the house he is headed to.


I personally believe your opinion of guns would change! I may be wrong but I don't think so. Not when one well placed shot would completely eliminate any doubt about rather you could address this situation.


Now you go ahead and pretend that this sort of stuff only happens to other folks if you want to. The fact is, it does. I can also give you some statistics if you wish. 100% of everyone who was ever staring dowmn the barrell of their killers gun.......................agrees with me!
 
Why does it make it more confusing? I have no problem with people having certain kinds of firearms as long as they (the person) has a licence.
If you dont' have a problem with it why do you want us to be rid of them? And what does it matter what type it is. If I want a tank for no other reason than my own personal amusement with blowing piles of dirt what's it to you?

I know re the second. We don't have the second where I'm from...:razz:

Our founders made it a right for a very specific reason. The same reason that they succeeded from Britain. that if a government was trying to unjustly control a group, that group needs to have the ability to fight back. If owning a gun is made a privilege, then someone obviously has to bestow that privilege. In the case of driver's licenses that would be the government. By extension if our government controls the privilege of gun ownership -the very government that we may need to revolt against at some point- you have a eliminated a major tool in trying to combat the government.
 
Getting rid of guns makes for a more civilised society IMO. Where I'm from, I rarely think about guns, in fact I only think about them when on messageboards. Having a society awash with firearms does nothing for my peace of mind.

Another really simple way to look at from your perspective would be this:

Your premise is that lots of guns does nothing for your peace of mind. Using the KISS method you have two basic solutions: Get rid of guns, or work on educating your mind on guns some more. I would recommend the later and in doing so keep the following in mind:

A professor of mine noted that it is important to ask yourself what you’re really trying to find evidence of. Many people make the mistake of trying to prove something rather than trying to find out if something is or is not. Start with a blank slate and pretend you know nothing about guns or anything gun related. Now start with what you are trying to prove, in your case no guns makes for a more civilized society or the opposite, more guns leads to less civilized society. Again at this point pretend you know nothing about guns what so ever. That being the case you should have 50/50 chance of coming up with true or false. Scientists have found though that this is not the case. Even knowing nothing you have a better chance of coming up with true because what are trying to find has already skewed the evidence you will find. The point is if I say I’m gonna prove salt is bad for you, even if I know nothing about salt, it is more likely that I will lean toward evidence to support my case and disregard what doesn’t.

As far as your concerned that means you have found that guns create a less civilized society because that’s really all you WANTED to find in the first place.
 
Sorry Grump, but that just plain isn't true. Your objective as I see it is to make a safer society by reducing gun violence. You seem to feel the best way to do that is to just get rid of guns. This accomplishes nothing. You will not have made society more civilized. Guns or inanimate objects. guns or lack of them can't "make" anything. They have to be acted on by humans who make choices w/o a gun they will find some other means to exercise their choice.

No. I don't feel guns cause violence. I feel that the people who wish to cause harm using them have a way of carry out violence that others means don't. How far would have the Columbine losers got with a machete?

You are assuming that someone who wants to kill someone will simply go "oh nevermind then" if he doesn't have a gun.

No, I am assuming when I walk down the street the guy next to me isn't going to lose his rag while being armed with a gun as opposed to just going off his nut...

Your above statement however implies that they are less civilized some how. Your position is to punish everyone for the purpose of weeding out the bad apples for no other reason than that you believe it is the easiest way to deal with them.

What I was meaning to imply was that there is a better way of solving issues than at the point of gun. IEL: Two CCW adherents have a road rage incident against each other. Two unarmed people have the same problem, what's the end result? A few bruises or a funeral?

Practically speaking 'awash' would mean a lot of guns in an area. I happen to live in such an area. As an educated guess in knowing my neighbors, there are probably no fewer than 100 firearms within a square mile of where I live.

I would surprised if there was even one within one square mile of me..

The sum of which is that for your argument to work there should be some reason for me to be afraid of all these people around me that own guns. There isn't one.

I have no reason to be afraid either. Handguns are more or less illegal where I am and if anybody does have a gun within one mile radius, chances are it is for hunting too..
 
If you dont' have a problem with it why do you want us to be rid of them? And what does it matter what type it is. If I want a tank for no other reason than my own personal amusement with blowing piles of dirt what's it to you?

So you don't mind if I own a nuke? And are you allowed a tank?

Our founders made it a right for a very specific reason. The same reason that they succeeded from Britain. that if a government was trying to unjustly control a group, that group needs to have the ability to fight back.

Now, this is a really interesting argument. I post on another board that has a gun thread. And the pro-gunners are nowhere near as civil as you guys. One thing that continually trips them up is this English guy who has lived in the US and now resides in Australia. He keeps on asking them the same question(s) and I'll be blowed if 1) they don't answer him, or if they do 2) they insult him without answering him. And here is the scenario. Bush declares marshall law tomorrow and himself president for life. The Joint Chiefs of staff and all military personal under their command agree with his decision. What do you do? What can you do? How do you fight against tanks, APCs, F16s? And if you do fight back, where is your centre of command? How can you coordinate against a fixed command that has the latest hardware available to it? In other words, even if you have a fully automatic weapon, how can you fight the tyranny? Does having a gun even mean anything?

If owning a gun is made a privilege, then someone obviously has to bestow that privilege. In the case of driver's licenses that would be the government. By extension if our government controls the privilege of gun ownership -the very government that we may need to revolt against at some point- you have a eliminated a major tool in trying to combat the government.

Where I live I need a license. I get my license and get a gun. you don't need a license but you get a gun. What has changed other than my govt has a set of procedures whereby I have to pass a written test on firearm safety and they get my signature? How am I disadvantaged from you? You think because they have my name and address they don't have yours?
 
If there were no such thing as guns, criminals would find the most available object/weapon to do their deeds with. In order for law abiding citizens to answer this threat those same weapons would have to be avail to them.

Notwithstanding the fact that a gun CAN kill, it must be in the hands of a criminal to be used in committing a criminal act. Law abiding citizens don't commit crimes.

I really have a hard time understanding the opinion of the left on this subject. This is single most easy to understand issue on the discussion platform. The only part I do not agree with from the righties is their not understanding "permitting". I have no problem with it! In the same regard as law abiding folks should be allowed to own guns, they should register them and be issued a permit. My problem starts with all the criteria. "See my story about renewing my license in this thread.

A thousand stories could be posted here about innocent people who were either saved by a citizen with a gun or folks who used them theirslef to save a life.


GET REAL LEFTIES!
 
Dr Grump said:
So you don't mind if I own a nuke? And are you allowed a tank?

Nice Strawman there, Forrest.



Seriously though, you're a ****ing idiot. A nuke is not a firearm. A tank is not a firearm. Both are as relevent to this dicussion as my cousin who was bitten by a dog in 2nd grade. Got it? I doubt it :rofl:
 
Nice Strawman there, Forrest.

Seriously though, you're a fucking idiot. A nuke is not a firearm. A tank is not a firearm. Both are as relevent to this dicussion as my cousin who was bitten by a dog in 2nd grade. Got it? I doubt it :rofl:

I never said a nuke or a tank was a firearm. Where in the 2nd are firearms mentioned? :eusa_drool:
 
Gee, what kind would you allow?

Probably these kind: http://translate.google.com/transla...uzu-gallary.html&langpair=ja|en&hl=en&ie=UTF8

(Scroll down to where it says "handgun")

He definitely wouldn't allow .50 BMG rifles, since those are used in so many crimes :rolleyes:

He'd renew KKKlinton's worthless ban on so-called "assault weapons."

Mind you, he probably couldn't tell you what an assault weapon is.

But Bill told him that a bayonet lug on an AR-15 made it more dangerous.

And of course Forrest believed him :rofl:
 
23rd word.You realize that our vernacular is a bit different than theirs was, right? Nevermind. Of course you don't.

Funny, in my version the 23rd word doesn't say firearm. Oh, the venacular has changed...rigghttt...so you're rewriting the second and its interpretation? Cool...great game! carry on slowboy! You're already batting above your average!
 
so you're rewriting the second and its interpretation?

Says the libtard. LMAO. Nooooo, you and your ilk would never try to reinterpret the second amendment, would you Forrest?

"The second amendment actually calls for the founding of the national guard, but it doesn't grant private citizens the right to keep and bear arms"

"Well, the second amendment was actually written so that people had the right to hunt"

"Clearly it only allows us to have bolt-action rifles"

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Etc, etc, etc

Since you clearly think that the constitution is a "living, breating" document along with all of your communist democrat buddies, let's apply the same argument you losers use against the second amendment to the first:

"There were no assault rifles around when the second amendment was ratified. People should only be able to have access to firearms that were available at that time, such as muskets"

becomes:

"There was no pornography when the bill of rights was written. There were no gay pride parades...... "

And so on and so forth. I could list all of the first amendment freedoms libtards enjoy now (most of which would have warranted execution at the time the constitution was being written) but it's late and I have to be at work early tomorrow (not all of us are on welfare, Forrest).

You can see why your libtarded argument doesn't hold any water. Oh wait, of course you can't :rofl:
 
Says the libtard. LMAO. Nooooo, you and your ilk would never try to reinterpret the second amendment, would you Forrest?

Er, you're the one reinterpreting it. You're the one saying the venacular has changed. Make up your mind what side of the fence you sit, else you start looking even more stupid than you already are...


Since you clearly think that the constitution is a "living, breating" document along with all of your communist democrat buddies, let's apply the same argument you losers use against the second amendment to the first:

Of course it is a living, breathing document. Even somebody with your limited intelligence realises that not only is there an amendment process, but it has been enacted....on quite a few occasions...then again, you're not exactly the brightest bulb are you Slowboy?

People should only be able to have access to firearms that were available at that time, such as muskets"

But not nukes or tanks? hhhmmmmm....back to school for ya Blowboy...

I could list all of the first amendment freedoms libtards enjoy now

Hey, you're on a roll. Be my guest...:cool:

but it's late and I have to be at work early tomorrow (not all of us are on welfare, Forrest)

Flipping burgers at Mickey D's hardly constitutes work, but hey, whatever floats your boat....:rofl:
 
No. I don't feel guns cause violence. I feel that the people who wish to cause harm using them have a way of carry out violence that others means don't.
These others "don't" because of what reason Dr. Grump? Would that reason be that regulations like licensing, registration, waiting periods, ect. restrict gun ownership only for the "others" you speak of?

How far would have the Columbine losers got with a machete?
Not very far at all if teachers were allowed to have guns on campus.

What I was meaning to imply was that there is a better way of solving issues than at the point of gun. IEL: Two CCW adherents have a road rage incident against each other. Two unarmed people have the same problem, what's the end result? A few bruises or a funeral?
What about two civilized people with guns? I'd say no shooting OR bruises. I object to your premise--that owning guns is in some way a problem for civilized folks--as I have from the beginning.

Now, this is a really interesting argument. I post on another board that has a gun thread. And the pro-gunners are nowhere near as civil as you guys. One thing that continually trips them up is this English guy who has lived in the US and now resides in Australia. He keeps on asking them the same question(s) and I'll be blowed if 1) they don't answer him, or if they do 2) they insult him without answering him. And here is the scenario. Bush declares marshall law tomorrow and himself president for life. The Joint Chiefs of staff and all military personal under their command agree with his decision. What do you do? What can you do? How do you fight against tanks, APCs, F16s? And if you do fight back, where is your centre of command? How can you coordinate against a fixed command that has the latest hardware available to it? In other words, even if you have a fully automatic weapon, how can you fight the tyranny? Does having a gun even mean anything?
The lessons of US in Viet-Nam and USSR in Afghanistan, for openers, suggest there's quite a bit that can be done. Cell organization appears to be rather daunting to centralized command. The premise of tyranny requires the tyrant to spare the lives of some of those he would oppress, otherwise he can't be a tyrant--defenders of liberty don't have to spare the lives of any of their oppressors. You underestimate the inherent weakness in the tyrant's premise.

I never said a nuke or a tank was a firearm. Where in the 2nd are firearms mentioned? :eusa_drool:
I once read an argument--or maybe I made it once, I can't remember every battle I've fought--that there is some distinction to be made between "arms" and "ordinance." The argument being that "arms" is not inclusive of "ordinance" therefore the right protected by the 2nd, does not extend to ordinance.

Whether I made that argument or not, I'm not sure I buy it. I see no reason to prohibit the private ownership of ordinance--I think most ordinace possesses it's own inherent limitations.

Also, FYI, firearms are a sub-set of "arms," which the right to keep and bear thereof, is mentioned rather prominently in the 2nd Amendment.
 
Grump you keep contradicting yourself, you have said in multiple posts that you have no problem with people haveing guns. By extension that would mean in your mind there is not a problem with guns, yet you want to get rid of them.

Why would you want to get rid of something that is not a problem?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top