Silk Road forums
Discussion => Off topic => Topic started by: hee57 on December 13, 2012, 11:53 pm
-
So, recently there was another shooting in the news (here in America). I realized that I really have no idea what to think about the right to bear arms. Thoughts? Do control laws reduce overall violence or does it just keep legitimate people from getting them? I feel like limiting access will stop the random public shootings done by lunatics but it wouldn't stop organized crime/other criminals.
Any ideas?
-
My state is one of several "Constitutional Carry" states, meaning you don't need a concealed weapons permit to carry a concealed firearm, based on your second amendment rights. I'm in favor of even less gun control. It's idiotic to think politicians are going to actually try and put everybody's firearm on a list or that the UN is going to be able to go door to door to round up everybody's guns. The only way to go about that would be an Executive Order from Obama to the military, and as soon as he issued something like that, the military would turn on him in a second. It's a lot easier to go to capture and purge the Whitehouse than it is to try fighting a war against millions of pissed of gun owners. Criminals don't give a fuck about guns laws, so stricter gun control only leads to more innocent people not being able to defend themselves. The way to reduce gun violence is to have more private law abiding citizens packing heat, plain and simple.
-
My thoughts are you should be able to conceal a firearm without a permit because the Constitution does grant us that right. It's too bad that so many fuck ups had to fuck that up and continue to fuck it up so gun control laws keep getting stricter as time goes on.
Secretive
-
This thread disappeared for some reason.
-
Homicide rates rose 300% in Victoria 1 year after guns were banned in Australia by duress from federal government (federal government was not legally able to rule on gun control as this was reserved to state legislation, the answer was to threaten every state with funding prohibitions (not cuts) until they had complied). Between 2004 -2009, the number of reported firearms stolen in Australia increased by 6% every year. In 2008-2009, 1,570 guns were reported stolen across the country.
The stats show a fairly clear trend so hopefully I don’t need to spell this out for anybody.
I watched the highly sensationalised coverage on various networks until I grew bored and switched stations. It was dramatized, one-sided and predictable so I didn’t even bother considering their particular viewpoints on the matter. Last time I checked the object of journalism was to broadcast without putting their own personal little musings on the matter.
One thing struck me odd. Network 10 (not to mention a British broadcasting agency) ran a segment three weeks prior on the need for tighter gun control, and one of the newsreaders commented that the only thing that would push the message through would be if someone shot a bunch of kids.
The same circumstances happened in Australia in 1996. The media started running features on tighter gun control, and was proceeded by a fairly capable person taking out civilians in Port Arthur. Both shooters attempted to maximise casualties. Martin Bryant was observed taking aim of victims and bagging running headshots, impossible without a high level of clear headedness and prior training, or at least practice. Incidentally, 9 years before Port Arthur the NSW premier said there would be no effective gun control in Australia until there was a massacre in Tasmania.
This isn’t the part where I state my stance on gun control, assuming I have one. I merely wanted to point out that the Australian media handled it pretty badly in the “fair and impartial reporting” department, and that I know sh*t when I see it. I’m not giving rise to debate of any “cover-ups” or the big bad boogyman or whatever it is that people rant on about whenever someone says something they can’t intelligently explain. But most of us went to school, right? (Is anyone here still in nappies/diapers?) Some of us went to uni too? Didn’t you attend one of those classes where they showed us how to intelligently weigh up elements and arguments before blurting out our opinions like high school drop-outs (no offense if you didn’t finish school)? I guess that was my point. Before anyone reading this rants on in an angry, confused reply post with one or two lines of 3 year old logic interspersed with explicit language and fragmented shards of sub-rate English that, even when translated, means absolutely nothing, perhaps the smart thing to do would be admit that there are some similarities between Port Arthur and Sandy Hook Elementary School, both of them tragic and so absolutely needless.
(btw, I didn’t say anything bad or even lean one way or the other so if I see someone give me bad Karma I’ll know they can’t hack a debate, lol. If you disagree with me just phucing say so.)
Piece out, drive safely. :)
-
^^^ Telling it like it is(was).
Very true, disheartening words Razorspyne, i lost guns in 1996, guns that were family heirlooms, irreplaceable. All because the Aussie Media flat out TOLD the public that it was Bryant, WEEKS before there was a farce of a court hearing.
The Tasmania Police FUCKING PIGS held a mentally handicapped man with an IQ of 66 (the mind of a ten year old boy) in solitary confinement for 3 months until he confessed to the killing spree (Think - interrogation of a intellectually handicapped man by highly trained detectives (one named Det. PAYNE) and there was no lawyer present at any time)
There is a record of what happened in that time while they were interrogating Bryant, evidence was entered in a Tasmania court by Damian Bugg QC, a police interview transcript. This transcript is over 300 pages long, HALF OF IT WAS MISSING OR DELETED. The judge in court had no problem with this(!?). There was no video evidence of this interrogation due to "Technical Malfunction of video equipment on the day" according to police prosecutors.
The Aussie populace ate it up like dumb-arse little worker bees. They lapped up the illegal actions of a local newspaper, who illegally printed Martin Bryants face on the front page of their paper, BEFORE any of the witnesses were questioned, thus 'spoiling' their accounts.
This was shortly AFTER Kerry Packer took over the news. Coincidence? No.
Also, John Howard denied a Coronial Enquiry into this matter (which is highly illegal), Australias BIGGEST mass shooting EVER, and there was no coronial enquiry?! WTF?!?
To the people interested not only in what the media tell them - the internet has a wealth of information and misinformation, especially on Port Arthur Massacre, but make up your own mind with the available facts.
-
A handgun or shotgun to protect yourself, alright there could be some use to that. And since it's in the constitution you should be able to defend yourself this is reasonable, right?
But who the fuck needs a (semi)automatic weapon or rocket launcher (are they legal in the US? I won't be surprised.. ::) )
I say, make those weapons available to the Army only. No citizen should have this stuff in his home, including veterans. Once they retire they'll become citizens again so normal law applies.
People will be given 5 years to return those weapons to the government and trade them for a standard issue handgun or shotgun.
After 5 years those weapons will be government property so having them lay around would be theft of government property.
-
A handgun or shotgun to protect yourself, alright there could be some use to that. And since it's in the constitution you should be able to defend yourself this is reasonable, right?
But who the fuck needs a (semi)automatic weapon or rocket launcher (are they legal in the US? I won't be surprised.. ::) )
I say, make those weapons available to the Army only. No citizen should have this stuff in his home, including veterans. Once they retire they'll become citizens again so normal law applies.
People will be given 5 years to return those weapons to the government and trade them for a standard issue handgun or shotgun.
After 5 years those weapons will be government property so having them lay around would be theft of government property.
"
A mini-moke or VW beetle to drive around, alright there could be some use to that. And since it's in the constitution you should be able to drive yourself this is reasonable, right?
But who the fuck needs a turbo-charged v6 or super-charged smallblock v8 (are they legal in the US? I won't be surprised.. ::) )
I say, make those vehicles available to the Army only. No citizen should have these cars in his garage, including veterans. Once they retire they'll become citizens again so normal law applies.
People will be given 5 years to return those vehicles to the government and trade them for a standard issue moke or beetle.
After 5 years those cars will be government property so having them lay around would be theft of government property.
"
How does that sound? I don't see much difference...
-
A handgun or shotgun to protect yourself, alright there could be some use to that. And since it's in the constitution you should be able to defend yourself this is reasonable, right?
But who the fuck needs a (semi)automatic weapon or rocket launcher (are they legal in the US? I won't be surprised.. ::) )
I say, make those weapons available to the Army only. No citizen should have this stuff in his home, including veterans. Once they retire they'll become citizens again so normal law applies.
People will be given 5 years to return those weapons to the government and trade them for a standard issue handgun or shotgun.
After 5 years those weapons will be government property so having them lay around would be theft of government property.
You do realize aside from revolvers, handguns are a semi-automatic weapon by design, correct? One well placed shot will do more damage than all the pray and spray in the world in most cases. As far as I know John Q. Citizen can't legally purchase a rocket launcher, but with the right paperwork it might be possible, especially a state like Montana. Your whole "make semi-auto weapons available only to the army" sounds like tired UN rhetoric. You sound like General Monroe from the NBC show Revolution.
-
Thoughts on Gun Control? i own and carry a gun on me everyday in the usa i have a canceled carry permanent and i love guns they have saved my life and my wives life before .... i was in a corner store and it was getting robbed and i shot the guy in the chest and legs as he had just shot the store clerk and i was afraid he would come for me next. so i love guns. a gun in the hands of a bad person is a bad thing. a gun in the hands of a good person is a way to stop a bad person. end of story.
-
How does that sound? I don't see much difference...
I do, your post is not on topic.
Also; sport cars are safer compared on the risk they pose to both the driver and drivers of other vehicles than for example: sedans, SUV's, Minivans and pickup-trucks.
Automatic weapons are not safer than handguns.
You do realize aside from revolvers, handguns are a semi-automatic weapon by design, correct? One well placed shot will do more damage than all the pray and spray in the world in most cases. As far as I know John Q. Citizen can't legally purchase a rocket launcher, but with the right paperwork it might be possible, especially a state like Montana. Your whole "make semi-auto weapons available only to the army" sounds like tired UN rhetoric. You sound like General Monroe from the NBC show Revolution.
I think this is a case of a translation mistake, what I meant was weapons that fire fully automatically once the trigger is pulled and weapons that have the option of either fully automatic fire or not.
-
Once again someone's beaten me to post, so once again I come off unoriginal. Non semi is single cock, semi is one cock for clip, full auto is uninterrupted spray without need for individual clicks of the trigger (hold down). Hope that made sense. I don't even know if they make non semi-automatics anymore. They're horribly outdated. I'm pretty sure a rocket launcher is not available to general public Knomo! Lol. Are you thinking of FULLY automatic weapons? Assault rifles with customised open-end bullpup configurations? Your average gun nut probably would be restricted in that regard, usually army and spec forces carry that sh*t around, but consult your local NRA for more information. (Normal rifles can be purchases easily enough though.)
Didn't know of all that info on Martin Bryant. Knowing the sort of scum LE are, I don't need to be drawn a picture of why half the police interview transcript was missing and why they switched off the cameras for the interview. By rights this was a mistrial, as corrupted evidence by default results in the accused being released with no further charges pending (as in OJ Simpson). Didn't he have access to a lawyer? By law one must be provided. And if he was mentally disabled, then an interpreter aide needs to be there in addition to the barrister. Sounds like you know more law than I do, but I know THAT much at least.
Piece out. Drive safely. Don't forget to eat (yeah you always do when you're typing. Besides, heart rate almost doubles, get hungry quicker, get thinner quicker.) Anyway I'm going I'm going lol. Piece out.
(pmsl Red Rama.... it's spray and pray, not pray and spray lol. You spray, and pray some of it hits your target.(Not pissing, I mean gunburst))
Sheeeeeeesh....... While I was writing this two more posts came through. Clarification from Knomo re: auto vs. semi-auto. Re: Okamiyasha, if you can use a gun in a situation like you described to save a life, it makes you wonder why police "have to" empty a whole clip into someone's heart from point blank range. btw, taser guns were brought into Australia to replace, not accompany, their preexisting guns as too many innocent civilians were needlessly shot dead by police in that particular year. For some reason they forgot to take their revolvers (in Australia they have revolvers not Glocks) off them when they were given tasers.
It's an unarguable fact that there are some great cops, totally dedicated to upholding the law, ready to risk their lives and morally unquestionable. Sadly, it's also an unarguable fact that these same great cops have been deceased for many years. (Not sure if that came out right ;) )
-
Automatic weapons are not safer than handguns.
They are, actually.
Just like a sports car has better brakes, suspension and handling characteristics that it's lower powered counterparts, so too does a select-fire rifle have a shoulder stock, pistol grip and foregrip to aid in maintaining control of the firearm. Pistols, especially larger calibers, are very difficult to master effectively. Just like those professional stunt-drivers you see on TV! Many years of practice they have stunting, mmm.
ALL firearms have a some form of physically activated safety feature to help minimise misfires. Kinda like a seat-belt in a vehicle, it enhances safety, but accidents and deaths still occur.
There are MANY, MANY more deaths involving vehicles, than there are firearms. One may think that if the Governments of the world are actually worried about saving lives, they'd ban all vehicles? They would never do this, the world would fall apart.
-
(pmsl Red Rama.... it's spray and pray, not pray and spray lol. You spray, and pray some of it hits your target.(Not pissing, I mean gunburst))
I get the saying confused sometimes, thanks for the correction. Although I'm sure there's been at least one case of someone religious doing the praying before the actual spraying.
-
i live in aus and could not buy an assault weapon if i wanted to nuke heaps of people... simply because i cant get access to them... if i wanted to do that id have to go to america and go into a gun shop and load myself up bigtime.
australia would have plenty of mass shootings if loners had access to guns as easy as Americans did.
if i wanted to nuke people i wouldnt be able to source them even if i wanted too and that's because john howard took them away.
americans will go ape if the goverment took jesus' guns away from people though
-
(pmsl Red Rama.... it's spray and pray, not pray and spray lol. You spray, and pray some of it hits your target.(Not pissing, I mean gunburst))
I get the saying confused sometimes, thanks for the correction. Although I'm sure there's been at least one case of someone religious doing the praying before the actual spraying.
YEAH CUZZ - "pray and spray" is only when you use the toilets at your future inlaws place for the first time and you notice they had run out of toilet paper
-
I'm pro guns. The more the better.
No guns for wackos.
Modzi
-
Fuck gun control. There is a reason they don't want you to have them: guns are empowering.
To those who live in gun free countries: how prepared are you to rebel against your government?
-
Make each bullet $5,000
Chubs
-
I am 100% in favor of gun control.
It worked in Japan, it can work elsewhere too.
Fuck gun-lovers.
-
Automatic weapons are not safer than handguns.
They are, actually.
Just like a sports car has better brakes, suspension and handling characteristics that it's lower powered counterparts, so too does a select-fire rifle have a shoulder stock, pistol grip and foregrip to aid in maintaining control of the firearm. Pistols, especially larger calibers, are very difficult to master effectively. Just like those professional stunt-drivers you see on TV! Many years of practice they have stunting, mmm.
ALL firearms have a some form of physically activated safety feature to help minimise misfires. Kinda like a seat-blt in a vehicle, it enhances safety, but accidents and deaths still occur.
There are MANY, MANY more deaths involving vehicles, than there are firearms. One may think that if the Governments of the world are actually worried about saving lives, they'd ban all vehicles? They would never do this, the world would fall apart.
+1 for some one with knowledge and is not brain washed like: sweetbro, Chubs and joywind who is an incredibly fucking stupid brainwashed douche - gun control it has never worked anywhere moron - except in favor of the oppressive governments that enacts the law that takes it away from it's people.
fuck joywind in the ass with a telephone pole and then piss on his corpse! little dick bug fucker!
A handgun or shotgun to protect yourself, alright there could be some use to that. And since it's in the constitution you should be able to defend yourself this is reasonable, right?
But who the fuck needs a (semi)automatic weapon or rocket launcher (are they legal in the US? I won't be surprised.. ::) )
I say, make those weapons available to the Army only. No citizen should have this stuff in his home, including veterans. Once they retire they'll become citizens again so normal law applies.
People will be given 5 years to return those weapons to the government and trade them for a standard issue handgun or shotgun.
After 5 years those weapons will be government property so having them lay around would be theft of government property.
the right of gun ownership is not for hunting or target practice - the description " assault rifle " is only a made up political term used to demonize semi automatic weapons
and to take away out right to defend ourselves from criminals and an oppressive government!
would u be happyr if i assaulted u with my pistol? is my revolver an assault weapon?
congratulations !! u have been thoroughly brainwashed.
i only have one thing to say 2 u:
" Who has deceiv'd thee so oft as thy self? " ben franklin
EDIT: the first thing adolf hitler did was to take the guns away from law abiding citizens!
-
Make each bullet $5,000
Chubs
Oh Katt Williams, you so crazy! Though on a more serious note, I concur with the consensus and would like to add that guns are not the problem - people will find a way to kill each other one way or another and taking away a person's right to protect themselves from those people is simply ludacris and entirely counterproductive.
-
Make each bullet $5,000
Chubs
Oh Katt Williams, you so crazy! Though on a more serious note, I concur with the consensus and would like to add that guns are not the problem - people will find a way to kill each other one way or another and taking away a person's right to protect themselves from those people is simply ludacris and entirely counterproductive.
Actually, that's a Chris Rock joke. Anyone who seriously believes gun control is a good idea should keep plenty of KY handy for when the government bends them over and fucks them because they can't defend themselves.
-
Make each bullet $5,000
Chubs
Oh Katt Williams, you so crazy! Though on a more serious note, I concur with the consensus and would like to add that guns are not the problem - people will find a way to kill each other one way or another and taking away a person's right to protect themselves from those people is simply ludacris and entirely counterproductive.
Actually, that's a Chris Rock joke. Anyone who seriously believes gun control is a good idea should keep plenty of KY handy for when the government bends them over and fucks them because they can't defend themselves.
I stand corrected, and those in favor of gun control are essentially begging the government to stick it to them hard and fast. I almost feel bad for them being so deeply deluded...
-
Basically enough is enough. Yeah i know theres people out there who love shooting their guns and everything, but something has to be done.
The right to bear arms law is no longer needed, its old.
People having access to assault rifles, etc is just crazy.
Everyone man up and learn how to use your actual body for self defense, not just squeeze a trigger, anyone can do that.
Paranoid country..its like america is at war with itself...
-
Basically enough is enough. Yeah i know theres people out there who love shooting their guns and everything, but something has to be done.
The right to bear arms law is no longer needed, its old.
People having access to assault rifles, etc is just crazy.
Everyone man up and learn how to use your actual body for self defense, not just squeeze a trigger, anyone can do that.
Paranoid country..its like america is at war with itself...
When guns are outlawed - only outlaws will have guns.
Let's see you do kung-fu on a major meth abuser with a gun pointed on you.
-
Only reason for a guns use is to seriously name or kill.
Nothing more nothing less.
If you think you have the right to a gun then you are no better than a murderer and have as much respect as toe jam.
I live in a gun controlled country and not once have i had issues, Govts do their usual bending over in terms of policy et al, but i have a good paying job, access to buy drugs, can take drugs in my own discret time without being hassled and am violence free. Carrying a weapon to protect myself has never entered my mind.
Guns are legal in you arseholes constitution. Pot is banned and a jailable crime.
Go figure.
-
Man, there are some really warped people on this planet.
-
Only reason for a guns use is to seriously name or kill.
Nothing more nothing less.
If you think you have the right to a gun then you are no better than a murderer and have as much respect as toe jam.
I live in a gun controlled country and not once have i had issues, Govts do their usual bending over in terms of policy et al, but i have a good paying job, access to buy drugs, can take drugs in my own discret time without being hassled and am violence free. Carrying a weapon to protect myself has never entered my mind.
Guns are legal in you arseholes constitution. Pot is banned and a jailable crime.
Go figure.
Nice one!
I hope I never have any use for a gun but in all honesty it is useful to have a gun when you live far away from civilization. I am not for killing anything but if I walk outside and see a snake or wild animal about to attack my kids then I will want a gun for protection. Even when you live far away from the city you are more prone to criminals taking advantage of the situation
-
I'm a brit and I'm glad I live in a country where only the most violent criminals have access to firearms. Time and time again I'm dismayed by the news reports emanating from the US where some lunatic has flipped and taken out crowds of innocent people, even primary school children.
Our Sunday Times reported last weekend - "On the day of the (Newton) killings, Michigan passed a law to let people carry concealed weapons in schools, churches, sports stadiums, hospitals, bars and college campuses".
The argument that the answer is not to ban guns, but to allow more so that people can protect themselves, is quite simply retarded.
The same Sunday Times report published some stats from gunpolicy.org - the homicide by firearm rate per 100,000 population is 2.98 in the US, 0.03 here in the UK.
That's right - you're about 100X more likely to get killed by a gun the the US than the UK. The reason - here it is illegal to own a handgun - full stop. Shotguns and rifles are very carefully regulated and automatic weapons of any description are the preserve of the government and armed forces. This government has not done anything in my (long) lifetime that makes we wish "damn I wish I had a gun".
I'd like to see Obama make some progress around gun control, but I fear the retarded mouth-breathing redneck arseholes that make up the NRA and their ilk won't allow that to happen and your country will continue to report regular murderous rampages that send innocents to the morgue.
-
The fact that some of you resort to name calling really speaks volumes on how well you can argue your position.
Although I agree with the pro-gun advocates that the state should not have a monopoly on the tools of violence, your guns won't do shit against the government if they are backed by the military. It's no contest.You can't hold up in your shack if it's a smouldering crater. Even the police would outgun just about every American. They are trained and have better equipment in large numbers, they will roll you. It would be a horrible shitty bloody war and I hope to never have to see it, but whoever controls the military and the police runs shit.
And that's because we are all paying for it with our taxes. The weapon companies that make all these guns get most of their coin from you already when you pay the tax man. Which is funny, because if your taxes went to important shit like helping out mentally ill children or educating instead of indoctrinating we would probably have fewer sick kids get desperate and lose it. Then you could have your guns and eat them too.
-
Which is funny, because if your taxes went to important shit like helping out mentally ill children or educating instead of indoctrinating we would probably have fewer sick kids get desperate and lose it. Then you could have your guns and eat them too.
+1, well said, that's the argument both sides on here have failed to make. Though I have to disagree on the military/police part. Any extreme measure Obama took would be far more likely to turn the military against him. No army wants to go through the trouble of trying to go door to door trying to round up everyone's guns. It's a logistical nightmare the U.S. army wouldn't want any part of. Even with the police backing them up it's still a losing effort on their part. You also have to remember that there are more military bases worldwide than there are on U.S. soil. Not to mention if we defeated the greatest military force in the world once, we could certainly do it again. The majority of massacres in this country are carried out by people who bought the firearms legally. What annoys me the most is the same politicians going up on the podium saying we need stricter gun laws are the same assholes a year ago that were arming the Mexican Cartels.
-
Fuck gun control. There is a reason they don't want you to have them: guns are empowering.
To those who live in gun free countries: how prepared are you to rebel against your government?
Probably just as prepared as you are.
-
I'm a brit and I'm glad I live in a country where only the most violent criminals have access to firearms. Time and time again I'm dismayed by the news reports emanating from the US where some lunatic has flipped and taken out crowds of innocent people, even primary school children.
Our Sunday Times reported last weekend - "On the day of the (Newton) killings, Michigan passed a law to let people carry concealed weapons in schools, churches, sports stadiums, hospitals, bars and college campuses".
The argument that the answer is not to ban guns, but to allow more so that people can protect themselves, is quite simply retarded.
The same Sunday Times report published some stats from gunpolicy.org - the homicide by firearm rate per 100,000 population is 2.98 in the US, 0.03 here in the UK.
That's right - you're about 100X more likely to get killed by a gun the the US than the UK. The reason - here it is illegal to own a handgun - full stop. Shotguns and rifles are very carefully regulated and automatic weapons of any description are the preserve of the government and armed forces. This government has not done anything in my (long) lifetime that makes we wish "damn I wish I had a gun".
I'd like to see Obama make some progress around gun control, but I fear the retarded mouth-breathing redneck arseholes that make up the NRA and their ilk won't allow that to happen and your country will continue to report regular murderous rampages that send innocents to the morgue.
This.
-
Adam Kokesh hit the nail on the head (as always):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhjhKCu653I
-
It seems almost everyone "knows" America has a problem with guns. Each mass shooting in America is followed by a wave of commentary insisting that America's "gun culture" is a problem that Australia has done well to avoid. John Howard's 1996 gun laws are offered up as proof of our wisdom, and Howard himself describes them as one of his proudest achievements.
Underlying all this is the belief that the availability of guns results in more crime, therefore removing guns from private hands makes the community safer. America's problem, it is said, is simply too many guns.
The problem with that is it is totally false. Australia has never shown any inclination to emulate America with respect to gun ownership. Howard's gun laws achieved nothing in terms of public safety. Neither strict gun laws nor the level of gun ownership bear any relationship to crime, in Australia or elsewhere. And America's problem with guns, to the extent that it is a problem, is its policy of leaving the vulnerable undefended.
The massacre at Sandy Hook in the US in which 20 children and seven adults were murdered occurred in a Gun Free Zone. Guns are banned from all schools in Connecticut, as well as most other states.
There was nobody in the school with any practical means of countering the demented gunman who committed that atrocity. The little children and their teachers were utterly defenceless.
The two people murdered a couple of days earlier in the shopping centre in Oregon were also in a Gun Free Zone. In fact all the mass murders in the last 20 years in America, including Columbine and Virginia Tech, have occurred in Gun Free Zones.
One measure of insanity is to repeat the same failure time after time hoping that the next time the failure will turn out to be a success. Gun Free Zones are a lethal insanity. What this latest tragedy ought to prompt is a rising chorus of Americans demanding the elimination of what are effectively Criminal Safe Zones. What it is prompting instead is a crescendo of demands for greater gun control.
Yet gun control laws have never had any impact on crime rates anywhere in the world.
Malaysia has one of the strictest gun control laws in the world including the death penalty for illegal possession of a firearm. That has not stopped criminals from obtaining or using firearms in crime, or of engaging in shoot-outs with police.
Britain banned pistols in 1997 following the Dunblane tragedy. In the following two years the use of pistols in crime rose by 40 percent. In the four years from 1997 to 2001 the rate of violent crime more than doubled. The chances of being mugged in London are six times greater than in New York.
In 1974 in Jamaica, legislation was introduced banning the private ownership of firearms and ammunition. The Prime Minister Michael Manley told the country, "There is no place in this society for the gun, now or ever." The sentence for almost any firearms crime was life imprisonment. There was no bail for those charged.
The murder rate in 1973 was 11 per 100,000. It soon rose to 30 and peaked at 40 per 100,000 in 1980. In May 2007 the World Bank issued a report saying, "Murder rates in the Caribbean (it was referring to Jamaica) – at 30 per 100,000 population annually – are higher than for any other region of the world and assault rates, at least based on assaults reported to police, are also significantly above the world average."
The Republic of Ireland banned virtually all firearms in 1973, requiring their surrender within just three days, based on concerns about the IRA. The following year the number of murders doubled and stayed at that level for the next 20 years. Other violent crimes increased as well.
In October 2003 the US Centre for Disease Control released a major study on gun control laws in the US in which it reviewed 51 published studies on eight different types of gun laws dating back to the 1970s. It covered firearms bans, ammunition bans, waiting periods, background checks, gun registration, gun owner licensing, right to carry laws, child access-prevention laws, "zero tolerance" of weapons in schools and various combinations of laws.
The main outcome was the finding of "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness" of those laws on violent crimes, suicides and accidental injuries. This despite the huge data set.
Since 1999 there have been almost a dozen academic studies of the impact of the Howard gun laws. All used Australian Bureau of Statistics cause of death figures. Probably the most authoritative was a paper by two female researchers, Baker and McPhedran. Peer reviewed and published in a credible journal, it showed no effect of the gun laws.
Based on the paper, the head of the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Dr Don Weatherburn, said:
"I too strongly supported the introduction of tougher gun laws after the Port Arthur massacre.
"The fact is, however, that the introduction of those laws did not result in any acceleration of the downward trend in gun homicide. They may have reduced the risk of mass shootings but we cannot be sure because no one has done the rigorous statistical work required to verify this possibility.
"It is always unpleasant to acknowledge facts that are inconsistent with your own point of view. But I thought that was what distinguished science from popular prejudice."
A 2008 publication (Lee and Suardi) was probably the most statistically exhaustive. It applied a battery of statistical tests to homicide and suicide data for the entire period 1915 to 2004, looking for a break point in the long term trend that could be attributed to the new laws. What they concluded was: "... there is little evidence to suggest that [the National Firearms Agreement] had any significant effects on firearm homicides and suicides. In addition, there also does not appear to be any substitution effects – that reduced access to firearms may have led those bent on committing homicide or suicide to use alternative methods."
Some have pointed to more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings as evidence of the impact. But mass shootings are rare and also did not occur in the 1950s, 60s and 70s despite easy firearm availability and minimal licensing.
On the other hand, mass murders have continued since the Howard gun laws. Examples include the Childers backpacker hostel fire and the nursing home fire at Quakers Hill. Furthermore, Australia's second worst mass murder, after Port Arthur, was a deliberately lit fire at the Whisky a Go Go disco in Brisbane in 1973.
It is also false to assume that strict gun laws have prevented massacres elsewhere. Despite tight regulation of firearms in Germany, in Berlin in 1999 a teenager went on a rampage killing 15 people before taking his own life. In 2002 in Erfurt a 19 year-old former student shot 16 people before killing himself.
The assumption that guns are freely available throughout America is equally false. Gun laws vary enormously within the country, from virtual prohibition to virtual laissez faire. There are also federal laws that severely restrict ownership of certain firearms.
Never acknowledged by those who endorse gun control is the fact that the states and cities with the strictest gun laws are those with the highest violent crime rates. Chief among these are Washington and Chicago.
Washington DC has one of the worst murder rates in the country. But the murder rate was declining up to 1976 when a blanket ban on handguns and ready to use long arms was introduced. Between 1976 and 1991 the murder rate rose 200% while the overall US rate rose only 9%.
The State of New Hampshire, on the other hand, is one of 41 with a permit system for concealed carry of pistols for self-defence. Its Bill of Rights says, "All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defences of themselves, their families, their property and the state".
New Hampshire has some of the lowest crime rates in the US and is nationally regarded as one of the safest places in which to live.
Since the early 1990s gun laws have been considerably relaxed in the US, particularly regarding self-defence, yet there has been no resulting increase in crime. The US national murder rate in 1991 was 9.8 per 100,000 but fell to 5.6 in 2006 and has continued to fall since.
The main change has been a big increase in states that allow concealed carry. Over five million Americans have concealed carry permits, just over two percent of the adult population.
In the states in which permits are issued, multiple victim public killings of the kind seen at Sandy Hook and Port Arthur have declined substantially. On hundreds of occasions, rarely mentioned in the media, armed citizens have either prevented massacres or reduced their impact by shooting back. Indeed, the only significant massacres in those states have occurred where guns were not permitted, such as schools and shopping malls.
Israel has had similar success in stopping mass public shootings. When it was realised that the police and military simply couldn't be there to protect people all the time when terrorists attack, a change of policy led to Israelis encouraged to carry concealed handguns. Since then terrorist gun attacks have been rare.
Today about 15 percent of Jewish adults in Israel have permits to carry concealed handguns. Thus in large public gatherings many citizens – unknown beforehand to the terrorists – are able to shoot back at them. During waves of terror attacks, Israel's national police chief will call on concealed handgun permit holders to make sure they carry firearms at all times.
The assumption that stricter gun laws can prevent the misuse of guns is just as misguided as the notion that strict drug laws prevent the misuse of drugs. Prohibition merely sends the business underground and increases the profits available to criminals. It cannot make something disappear.
If America had not declared its schools to be Gun Free Zones, one of the school's teachers at Sandy Hook may have been legally carrying a gun and thus able to save many lives.
This tragedy should be a wakeup call to those who want to prevent them from occurring again. Arming the good guys is how you prevent the bad guys from causing harm.
-
It seems almost everyone "knows" America has a problem with guns. Each mass shooting in America is followed by a wave of commentary insisting that America's "gun culture" is a problem that Australia has done well to avoid. John Howard's 1996 gun laws are offered up as proof of our wisdom, and Howard himself describes them as one of his proudest achievements.
Underlying all this is the belief that the availability of guns results in more crime, therefore removing guns from private hands makes the community safer. America's problem, it is said, is simply too many guns.
The problem with that is it is totally false. Australia has never shown any inclination to emulate America with respect to gun ownership. Howard's gun laws achieved nothing in terms of public safety. Neither strict gun laws nor the level of gun ownership bear any relationship to crime, in Australia or elsewhere. And America's problem with guns, to the extent that it is a problem, is its policy of leaving the vulnerable undefended.
The massacre at Sandy Hook in the US in which 20 children and seven adults were murdered occurred in a Gun Free Zone. Guns are banned from all schools in Connecticut, as well as most other states.
There was nobody in the school with any practical means of countering the demented gunman who committed that atrocity. The little children and their teachers were utterly defenceless.
The two people murdered a couple of days earlier in the shopping centre in Oregon were also in a Gun Free Zone. In fact all the mass murders in the last 20 years in America, including Columbine and Virginia Tech, have occurred in Gun Free Zones.
One measure of insanity is to repeat the same failure time after time hoping that the next time the failure will turn out to be a success. Gun Free Zones are a lethal insanity. What this latest tragedy ought to prompt is a rising chorus of Americans demanding the elimination of what are effectively Criminal Safe Zones. What it is prompting instead is a crescendo of demands for greater gun control.
Yet gun control laws have never had any impact on crime rates anywhere in the world.
Malaysia has one of the strictest gun control laws in the world including the death penalty for illegal possession of a firearm. That has not stopped criminals from obtaining or using firearms in crime, or of engaging in shoot-outs with police.
Britain banned pistols in 1997 following the Dunblane tragedy. In the following two years the use of pistols in crime rose by 40 percent. In the four years from 1997 to 2001 the rate of violent crime more than doubled. The chances of being mugged in London are six times greater than in New York.
In 1974 in Jamaica, legislation was introduced banning the private ownership of firearms and ammunition. The Prime Minister Michael Manley told the country, "There is no place in this society for the gun, now or ever." The sentence for almost any firearms crime was life imprisonment. There was no bail for those charged.
The murder rate in 1973 was 11 per 100,000. It soon rose to 30 and peaked at 40 per 100,000 in 1980. In May 2007 the World Bank issued a report saying, "Murder rates in the Caribbean (it was referring to Jamaica) – at 30 per 100,000 population annually – are higher than for any other region of the world and assault rates, at least based on assaults reported to police, are also significantly above the world average."
The Republic of Ireland banned virtually all firearms in 1973, requiring their surrender within just three days, based on concerns about the IRA. The following year the number of murders doubled and stayed at that level for the next 20 years. Other violent crimes increased as well.
In October 2003 the US Centre for Disease Control released a major study on gun control laws in the US in which it reviewed 51 published studies on eight different types of gun laws dating back to the 1970s. It covered firearms bans, ammunition bans, waiting periods, background checks, gun registration, gun owner licensing, right to carry laws, child access-prevention laws, "zero tolerance" of weapons in schools and various combinations of laws.
The main outcome was the finding of "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness" of those laws on violent crimes, suicides and accidental injuries. This despite the huge data set.
Since 1999 there have been almost a dozen academic studies of the impact of the Howard gun laws. All used Australian Bureau of Statistics cause of death figures. Probably the most authoritative was a paper by two female researchers, Baker and McPhedran. Peer reviewed and published in a credible journal, it showed no effect of the gun laws.
Based on the paper, the head of the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Dr Don Weatherburn, said:
"I too strongly supported the introduction of tougher gun laws after the Port Arthur massacre.
"The fact is, however, that the introduction of those laws did not result in any acceleration of the downward trend in gun homicide. They may have reduced the risk of mass shootings but we cannot be sure because no one has done the rigorous statistical work required to verify this possibility.
"It is always unpleasant to acknowledge facts that are inconsistent with your own point of view. But I thought that was what distinguished science from popular prejudice."
A 2008 publication (Lee and Suardi) was probably the most statistically exhaustive. It applied a battery of statistical tests to homicide and suicide data for the entire period 1915 to 2004, looking for a break point in the long term trend that could be attributed to the new laws. What they concluded was: "... there is little evidence to suggest that [the National Firearms Agreement] had any significant effects on firearm homicides and suicides. In addition, there also does not appear to be any substitution effects – that reduced access to firearms may have led those bent on committing homicide or suicide to use alternative methods."
Some have pointed to more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings as evidence of the impact. But mass shootings are rare and also did not occur in the 1950s, 60s and 70s despite easy firearm availability and minimal licensing.
On the other hand, mass murders have continued since the Howard gun laws. Examples include the Childers backpacker hostel fire and the nursing home fire at Quakers Hill. Furthermore, Australia's second worst mass murder, after Port Arthur, was a deliberately lit fire at the Whisky a Go Go disco in Brisbane in 1973.
It is also false to assume that strict gun laws have prevented massacres elsewhere. Despite tight regulation of firearms in Germany, in Berlin in 1999 a teenager went on a rampage killing 15 people before taking his own life. In 2002 in Erfurt a 19 year-old former student shot 16 people before killing himself.
The assumption that guns are freely available throughout America is equally false. Gun laws vary enormously within the country, from virtual prohibition to virtual laissez faire. There are also federal laws that severely restrict ownership of certain firearms.
Never acknowledged by those who endorse gun control is the fact that the states and cities with the strictest gun laws are those with the highest violent crime rates. Chief among these are Washington and Chicago.
Washington DC has one of the worst murder rates in the country. But the murder rate was declining up to 1976 when a blanket ban on handguns and ready to use long arms was introduced. Between 1976 and 1991 the murder rate rose 200% while the overall US rate rose only 9%.
The State of New Hampshire, on the other hand, is one of 41 with a permit system for concealed carry of pistols for self-defence. Its Bill of Rights says, "All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defences of themselves, their families, their property and the state".
New Hampshire has some of the lowest crime rates in the US and is nationally regarded as one of the safest places in which to live.
Since the early 1990s gun laws have been considerably relaxed in the US, particularly regarding self-defence, yet there has been no resulting increase in crime. The US national murder rate in 1991 was 9.8 per 100,000 but fell to 5.6 in 2006 and has continued to fall since.
The main change has been a big increase in states that allow concealed carry. Over five million Americans have concealed carry permits, just over two percent of the adult population.
In the states in which permits are issued, multiple victim public killings of the kind seen at Sandy Hook and Port Arthur have declined substantially. On hundreds of occasions, rarely mentioned in the media, armed citizens have either prevented massacres or reduced their impact by shooting back. Indeed, the only significant massacres in those states have occurred where guns were not permitted, such as schools and shopping malls.
Israel has had similar success in stopping mass public shootings. When it was realised that the police and military simply couldn't be there to protect people all the time when terrorists attack, a change of policy led to Israelis encouraged to carry concealed handguns. Since then terrorist gun attacks have been rare.
Today about 15 percent of Jewish adults in Israel have permits to carry concealed handguns. Thus in large public gatherings many citizens – unknown beforehand to the terrorists – are able to shoot back at them. During waves of terror attacks, Israel's national police chief will call on concealed handgun permit holders to make sure they carry firearms at all times.
The assumption that stricter gun laws can prevent the misuse of guns is just as misguided as the notion that strict drug laws prevent the misuse of drugs. Prohibition merely sends the business underground and increases the profits available to criminals. It cannot make something disappear.
If America had not declared its schools to be Gun Free Zones, one of the school's teachers at Sandy Hook may have been legally carrying a gun and thus able to save many lives.
This tragedy should be a wakeup call to those who want to prevent them from occurring again. Arming the good guys is how you prevent the bad guys from causing harm.
+1, very very good read. Are you a journalist? If not, you should become one :)
-
Stop trying to justify guns.
GUNS ARE MADE FOR ONE PURPOSE ONLY!
If there are no guns around then no one would need to have one to protect themselves. As simplistic as it sounds to you pro gun morons it's a fact.
The sad reality is americans are too stupid and caught up in their entitlements and rights that gun control will never happen. For every pacifist or person wanting guns banned there are 20 redkneck morons with 1/4 brain who will fight their right to arms. Thats the sad reality of the whole situation.
-
There is absolutely no way introducing new gun laws in the US would make a difference in the murder rate.
I have seen some serious vaults of unregistered weaponry and explosives in a couple southern states.. all belonging to a few god fearing squirrel huntin' rednecks who fukin' luv 'Merica. There is no way they will give that shit up and it will always find its way into the hands of stupid idiots who are going to cause trouble for innocent people because they needed help they never received.
I bet a more effective way to lower murder rates would be to decriminalize/ legalize drug use/possession/distribution!!! :)
Most people I know with guns only have them because they deal with illegal drugs. Or just preparing for the zombie apocalypse.
-
Stop trying to justify guns.
Don't tell me what the fuck to do.
GUNS ARE MADE FOR ONE PURPOSE ONLY!
Wrong.
If there are no guns around then no one would need to have one to protect themselves. As simplistic as it sounds to you pro gun morons it's a fact.
You're absolutely right. But unfortunately we don't live in your little utopian gun-free fairy world. We live in the real world and guns are reality.
The sad reality is americans are too stupid and caught up in their entitlements and rights that gun control will never happen. For every pacifist or person wanting guns banned there are 20 redkneck morons with 1/4 brain who will fight their right to arms. Thats the sad reality of the whole situation.
The sad reality is that pseudo-pacifists are too caught up in their little utopian gun-free fairy world to realize that guns in the hands of good guys are necessary to protect society from bad guys with guns.
-
Maybe cunts like you should be shipped to their own lawless island where they can shoot to kill as much as they want. On one condition, they sort out their own wounds deal with their own shit and leave the rest of us the fuck alone. It should sort itself out and us peace loving people can continue to live in a peaceful existence.
Might be utopian but it hell beats living ina state of constant paranoia thinking someones going to kill me with an assault weapon or machine gun.
Again dont try and justify guns you murderer.
-
Maybe cunts like you should be shipped to their own lawless island where they can shoot to kill as much as they want. On one condition, they sort out their own wounds deal with their own shit and leave the rest of us the fuck alone. It should sort itself out and us peace loving people can continue to live in a peaceful existence.
Might be utopian but it hell beats living ina state of constant paranoia thinking someones going to kill me with an assault weapon or machine gun.
Again dont try and justify guns you murderer.
You're delusional and paranoid. Seek professional help.
-
oh dear i am not the one who needs a gun to protect myself from the big bad baddies.
-
In the UK it is illegal to hold certain firearms, and illegal to hold/carry any out of the case in a public place.
Even illegal to fire legal airguns within so many yards of adjoining property.
Currently, the laws state that owning a handgun can give you five years. Not sure if the five means serving one third of the sentance, a third struck off if you don't kill a cellmate or guard and a thiird outside on a 'tag' which is some device locked to the ankle that has a device in your home so you need to be in by a certain time.
Shooting someone dead, your doing ten to twenty. Unless your a police informant then the judge would be told and sentance reduced for your cooperative relationship with the police.
Even shooting a cop., people can walk even before ten years! So, even cops have not got the golden rule when crfiminals would NEVER want to shoot a cop. that would mean life, gertting out when grey. Now, its not like that and if a young 14 yr old shoots a cop (and one will eventually) they will be out before they are 21.
In the UK, we have the army and police to protect us.
The army is so many thousands of miles way cleaning up someone elses nation, not ours. So forget the army. They are elsewhere.
The police, some are good, some are bad, but I'd sooner face cops with guns that the other people who use them who are farmers (all they have is a 12 bore shotgun and maybe some small calibre rifle) and bad people, usually bad young people, bad males between the ages of 12 to 25. They are the ones who usually shoot each other because they are cowards really and cannot fight. Also, many were 'dragged up' not raised. They think being on bail aged 12 is normal. They think snorting a few grams of coke is normal when snorting a few grams of coke (in abouyt 8 hours) would kill you.
Its usually the parent(s) who are 100% to blame and who should be made to live in metal containers far from civilisation, perhaps on some remote island off the UK. They breed, we pay for them to breed and the brood can be a burden on us all. I resent working my ass off to pay for other peoples children. Any man who has children ought to do anything to get money! I pay for my kids. I don't ecpect my neighbour to do it for me. And I know the work is not there. Just saying some parents, would not work if we gave them work on a silver platter. Too much of a distubance on the daytime TV and 4 litre of cider afternoon session!
As for guns, hmmm.....
Guns make it EASY to kill lots of people. They are made and designed to kill people! So, having been made by the million and sold by the million I am surprised we do not see schools, shopping malls and workplaces shot up more often!
I bet that guy in the USA would not have stabbed so many kids - but then again had the school allowed teachers and parents to carry guns, they could have shot the usua 1in tenl fucked up kid on Prozac (or some meds) with a grudge. At that point it was fair to shoot him. But had he lived in the UK, I doubt he would have got a gun. Costs too much and gangsters will not sell to local people who are likely to go el loco!
So guns? Would I have one? If it was legal I'd have a collection and once a week or twice, I'd go practice shooting in a licensed place. I know from army buddies how much of a buzz it is to let loose on a machine gun. Love to smoke some hash and play with a few guns, but its illegal, I don't need a gun to defend my home, I have a good lockl and solid oak door, and a hammer nearby plus a 8 foot pole which I used in martial arts. I'd so fuck up any burglar and without a gun, I'd do him worse! I'd put that pole ,un-lubed- up his burgling ass.
He would walk the walk for the rest of his life. He would be 'The Stand up guy' because sitting down, he would be in pain. My pain, a gift, to deter him from stealing off other people!!! He should have robbed a bank.
In fact, fuck that, I'f cut his dfick off so his possible DNA offspring would not key your car, tear up your plants and piss on the doors of local shops and hang about in gangs throwing shit at passers by. Cutting off his dick would save the tax payers. And give me that space cadet glow! Confidence boosting shit. Cutting off the dick of the burlgar who may have escaped!
Cut it off.
Pole up the ass
Plus, I'd be beating him up also - tied to a chair so I can decide if the police ought to be caught, or would the shithead accuse me of wrong?
So off a cliff then I guess. 5 valium in a beer, in the car, trip to the seaside.
Winds me up this shit.
What the fuckl was this thread on about originally?
Ah, gun control.
Lucky we aint got no guns here. Us English would be seeing shootings each day just because someone stood on your shadow or the local shop only had green Rizla. Add UK coke to the equation, Friday night out with legal guns would be great for the student surgeons who would have lots of bullet ridden kids to patch up.
Giving guns to an average 14 year old I'd expect 1 in 10 to go Columbine.
I hate guns myself, they should for killing bears or hunting shit, but we kill each other so maybe its best we have a few trusted people with guns and they can shoot the baddies who always will find guns anyhow. Or should we all have them so we can gang up on any bad people with guns. Or would we shoot our wife/husband in a drunken fight? ;D
Think my wife would do me with an AK47 once a month ;D Hey! Just saying! If men had period we'd want to drop nuclear bombs!
Anyway, fuck all this, send me some free drugs, I've had nothing here for ages! Used to be when I was liked, now I guess old Red is out of fashion? Well, I got my pole waiting for you if you sell me something bad! I'll give you ratings alright - right up where the sun doth not shine!
So, legalise all guns, or just have a few people have them.
Hitletr, Stalin and Mao all stopped private ownership of guns before they went on murder sprees!
You can see how unarmed Jews werre not threat to Hitler - makes me mad because in part, I got that Kosher blood also. But my mother was not Jewish but I feel Jewish, when its Jewish holidays, Muslim when its Muslim Eide. and I think Sikh Holy Days and Hindu should be respected.
I'm not just getting stomed here! This is worshop of Jah! I say to my wife, STFU, its something holy going on here, let me be! Pass me the lighter!
So, peace out,. this BBB oil is insane! So, I'll sue that vendor - give him the pole, but he might like it - so might you - and as for me - I'm putty in the hands now -= a stoned mess on the sofa, chocolate smears on my face, remote control in my hand, the fizzy drink on my table.
A holy mess!
So leave me to worship.
And the free drugs, samples, I say, hit the Red with some good Karma, just paid a heap of coin for some awful yayo! Restore my faith!
Hey men!
(Amen, get it?)
Fuck you all very much for reading! ;)
The nexy person to comment is itching with a nest of genital fleas.
Dare you comment now! ;D ;D ;D ;D
(do it, do it, do it)
And BBB, your oil, its shit! I want my coin back as I feel perfect - and even though my eyes are as red as the fucking setting sun in Africa, and even though I'm crawling to the stereo to put my headphones in, I want more value for money! lol - I lie, its good oil - AAA bud - and I just hope the vendor who done my wife for a gram of yayo is ready to pin back his or her ears! She is going to PM the dude, but, with coke, I've ways said, unless its repowdered (crush that block) and washed, it is not always going to give each buyer the same gram. Thiks gram, never seen my wife actually go back for a line every ten minutes!!! 100mg gone , another 50mg and anyway, wrong forum!
Guns, yes or no.
I say no, wishing we were not so fucked up as to need to kill each other.
But the realist, I got a shotgun licencse (in the country its normal) but no shotgun.
A shorgun is not considered a self defence weapon really. Too awkward. You only got two chances.
Good news is, when it hits it hits. Any burglar ten foot from a shotgun is going to be dead 100%.
No need to cut off the dick - but you could behead just to make sure. (bear in mind cops would get a bit sus over that :) )
Plus, I got a loved gun, a mighty weapon of love!
;D
-
just ordered 5x ar-15 lowers and 5x ar-10 lowers cause we all know what's about to go down in CA.
-
just ordered 5x ar-15 lowers and 5x ar-10 lowers cause we all know what's about to go down in CA.
My thoughts? Ummmm step one foot on my property and you"ll find out REAL quick :P
-
just ordered 5x ar-15 lowers and 5x ar-10 lowers cause we all know what's about to go down in CA.
Zombies?
-
Maybe cunts like you should be shipped to their own lawless island where they can shoot to kill as much as they want. On one condition, they sort out their own wounds deal with their own shit and leave the rest of us the fuck alone. It should sort itself out and us peace loving people can continue to live in a peaceful existence.
Might be utopian but it hell beats living ina state of constant paranoia thinking someones going to kill me with an assault weapon or machine gun.
Again dont try and justify guns you murderer.
I have a better idea. Why don't we just find u guilty of being: the pathetic, brainwashed, utopian, commie subversive that u are - seize: your assets - property - strip
u of your citizenship and kick your ass out of OUR country with only the shirt on your back.
by the way that's legal now - its unconstitutional - but thanks to the whores in congress it is now legal!
you clowns that think ur so much smarter than everyone else to the point that u think it's up to u to tell everyone else
how they should live just make me sick.
I say we embrace Stalin - Lenin - Mao - the biggest butchers of their own innocent countrymen in history!
we should have a purge here in america - execute all the commies!
u come over here by my place so i can subjugate your wanna be little slave to the man ass.
i'll have u working in the hot sun all day and then lock u up with the hogs at night.
that scenario pleases me far more of me being the one: beaten, tortured, worked and starved to death.
the funniest thing about u is that u are a useful idiot and dont even know it.
and that my friend is how you use ur little Saul Alinsky tactics to degrade and marginalize your opponent.
"Again dont try and justify guns you murderer." a completely lame attempt - listen to ur hate: radio, tv and worker magazine some
more and then come back when ur more practiced.
-
Maybe cunts like you should be shipped to their own lawless island where they can shoot to kill as much as they want. On one condition, they sort out their own wounds deal with their own shit and leave the rest of us the fuck alone. It should sort itself out and us peace loving people can continue to live in a peaceful existence.
Might be utopian but it hell beats living ina state of constant paranoia thinking someones going to kill me with an assault weapon or machine gun.
Again dont try and justify guns you murderer.
I have a better idea. Why don't we just find u guilty of being: the pathetic, brainwashed, utopian, commie subversive that u are - seize: your assets - property - strip
u of your citizenship and kick your ass out of OUR country with only the shirt on your back.
by the way that's legal now - its unconstitutional - but thanks to the whores in congress it is now legal!
you clowns that think ur so much smarter than everyone else to the point that u think it's up to u to tell everyone else
how they should live just make me sick.
I say we embrace Stalin - Lenin - Mao - the biggest butchers of their own innocent countrymen in history!
we should have a purge here in america - execute all the commies!
u come over here by my place so i can subjugate your wanna be little slave to the man ass.
i'll have u working in the hot sun all day and then lock u up with the hogs at night.
that scenario pleases me far more of me being the one: beaten, tortured, worked and starved to death.
the funniest thing about u is that u are a useful idiot and dont even know it.
and that my friend is how you use ur little Saul Alinsky tactics to degrade and marginalize your opponent.
"Again dont try and justify guns you murderer." a completely lame attempt - listen to ur hate: radio, tv and worker magazine some
more and then come back when ur more practiced.
Perfect example of why americans are just pathetic in all aspects. I don't even live in your septic tank of a country for me to leave. I ignored the rest of your rubbish..TLDR;
-
Actually i just read your rant and vile post.
You are a perfect example of why guns should be banned. Read what you wrote you moron. You are soaking in hate..i can tell just how you abused me and in the manner you did.
You sound like a typical dumb ignorant republican gun totting piece of shit amercan who has been brainwashed by nationalism and previous govts. They put the fucken fear in you man..and look at your speak..full of hate and pleasure in seeing others suffer.
The tyrants you mentioned have been dealt with..but the biggest tyrant of them all is still peddling his democratic ideals and disguising them as freedoms.
Fuck i pity americans.
-
The gun freaks in this thread are suggesting the problem can be solved if more citizens carry concealed weapons in public places, so a random nutter with an assault rifle is taken down before he can do any serious damage.
Genius !!!
::)
There's no justification for widespread gun ownership in a civilised society in the 21st century. As long as the US is awash with guns, gun crime will continue. As has been pointed out already, we still have some gun crime in the UK, but it's a tiny fraction of that in the US. Hell, the vast majority of our cops don't carry guns, and I prefer it that way.
Edited to add: Today the BBC news web site reports "An 11 year old was arrested near Salt Lake City, Utah, for bringing an unloaded handgun and bullets to school, saying he brought it to protect himself and his friends, the Salt Lake Tribune reported."
This kind of problem is what you get when ownership and concealed carrying of guns is part of the cultural fabric of society.
-
the right of gun ownership is not for hunting or target practice - the description " assault rifle " is only a made up political term used to demonize semi automatic weapons
and to take away out right to defend ourselves from criminals and an oppressive government!
would u be happyr if i assaulted u with my pistol? is my revolver an assault weapon?
congratulations !! u have been thoroughly brainwashed.
i only have one thing to say 2 u:
" Who has deceiv'd thee so oft as thy self? " ben franklin
EDIT: the first thing adolf hitler did was to take the guns away from law abiding citizens!
pmsl Christy Nugs. Ah. Assault rifles typically differ from older rifle types in much higher rof and all-round combat adaptability, not to mention maneuverability due their lighter composition and decreased size. Rifles that don't fit this category are sniper rifles, Gerunds, those bayonet thingy's whose name escapes me, shotguns, etc. So, not all rifles are classed as assault rifles.
-
Only reason for a guns use is to seriously name or kill.
Nothing more nothing less.
If you think you have the right to a gun then you are no better than a murderer and have as much respect as toe jam.
I live in a gun controlled country and not once have i had issues, Govts do their usual bending over in terms of policy et al, but i have a good paying job, access to buy drugs, can take drugs in my own discret time without being hassled and am violence free. Carrying a weapon to protect myself has never entered my mind.
Guns are legal in you arseholes constitution. Pot is banned and a jailable crime.
Go figure.
Congratulations chilliafterglow, you get my very first -K. (And I've given out maybe 15-20 +K, so you've really managed to achieve something.) Calling people murderers because of their opinion on firearms is almost as stupid as calling every American an asshole because their constitution has a 'bear arms' clause in it ("Guns are legal in you arseholes constitution." sic.)
And btw, can you at least TRY to make sense: ....."have as much respect as toe jam." ???
-
Are you a journalist? If not, you should become one :)
No, not a journo (thankfully), just someone who believes in their natural right to own as simple a tool as a hammer, a toothbrush, a car or a firearm.
The article, i found on sporting shooter magazine website here - http://www.sportingshootermag.com.au/news/disarming-the-good-guys-will-not-prevent-massacres
And yes, people DO get murdered with toothbrushes.
Quick, tree-huggers! BAN ALL TOOTHBRUSHES IMMEDIATELY!!!
-
Hmm..... Did anybody on this thread notice the difference between the way SmackMyBitch^ and chilliafterglow presented their arguments? Was it just me?
Stop trying to justify guns.
GUNS ARE MADE FOR ONE PURPOSE ONLY!
If there are no guns around then no one would need to have one to protect themselves. As simplistic as it sounds to you pro gun morons it's a fact.
The sad reality is americans are too stupid and caught up in their entitlements and rights that gun control will never happen. For every pacifist or person wanting guns banned there are 20 redkneck morons with 1/4 brain who will fight their right to arms. Thats the sad reality of the whole situation.
Hate to quote myself, but I feel your second sentence should be reassessed.....
Homicide rates rose 300% in Victoria 1 year after guns were banned in Australia by duress from federal government (federal government was not legally able to rule on gun control as this was reserved to state legislation, the answer was to threaten every state with funding prohibitions (not cuts) until they had complied). Between 2004 -2009, the number of reported firearms stolen in Australia increased by 6% every year. In 2008-2009, 1,570 guns were reported stolen across the country.
SmackMyBitch^ pretty much said the same, but gave more figures. If "no guns around" afforded us protection, it's odd that Australia's homicide rate actually went ^ not down after the ban (which from a legal perspective, could be argued as at least partially invalid anyway as duress was used in its drafting). The accelerating trend (by 6% per year) of firearm theft from 2004-9 would seem to indicate guns have not actually been banned in Australia, they've just been banned from law-abiding citizens. The trade is still very much alive, but not to non-criminals.
btw, I have to give +1 to SmackMyBitch^ for bothering to take the time to back ^ his/her claims with figures, and penning it in a calm, non aggressive, non ranty manner. (You should possibly explore the area of journalism.)
-
It doesn't matter to me anymore. I, and millions like me, have the guns we need and will pass them down to our children. They could ban them all, but we would be so armed to the teeth it wouldn't affect us, we'd just become illegal/underground. The underground makes for a freer environment anyway, just like how in the little bubble of strong privacy in the heavily regulated internet that's probably coming, the "criminals" who use Tor and PGP to make societies like this forum enjoy both freedom and responsibility on a scale inaccessible to most citizens.
I will always exercise my right to keep and bear arms, under color of law or no. The millions of responsibly armed, freedom-oriented people along with me, will do the same. Together we'll have a little bubble safeguarded against tyranny, kind of like what the SilkRoad is in stark contrast to the War on Drugs. Unfortunately, the rest of the world will suffer tyranny, but at this point the way the masses are clamoring to give up their own rights for safety (or, as was the case in Switzerland, they gave up many of their gun-rights not as a reaction to violence but simply because young people weren't interested), I'm not going to fight the battle for them. The main stream can send itself to hell, my pocket of human freedom is secure. Life in the cracks, if you will. Tthere will always be cracks.
I am heavily armed, and that will not change if I wake up a criminal one day. That is the reality for millions of people. The second amendment has served its purpose, we have an armed and free populace and it will not go away no matter what (barring an ENORMOUS fight, daily raids etc. that no politician could justify except in a very different world).
Don't worry, I will behave myself. I have no interest in hurting a human being without legitimate cause. I just hope the rest of my fellow criminals can say the same. Since they'll be pushed outside of any reasonable accountability to the law (like how drug dealers don't pay taxes, we gun criminals won't bother with the "reasonable regulations" anymore), you'll only be able to take their word for it. I hope you feel safer.
Mostly I'm just upset that society will hate me for doing nothing wrong. It hurts my feelings. I'll have to live my ideological life in the closet, because people will shout that disagreeing with them is equivalent to wanting schoolchildren dead. That's been keeping me up lately. My girlfriend is an anti-gun type who thinks that firing a pistol makes you go insane with a God-complex; I can already see the rift between us growing as this shooting has intensified her emotions. The zeitgeist around tragedies like these, the way people forget about the shooter and think "THOSE DAMN GUNS DID THIS," more and more of the mainstream forget that you can abhor violence without abhorring guns. To recognize that free people need to be armed is only to acknowledge the unfortunate fact that every society is built on the use or threat of force, but that good people can make a just society by spreading that use of force among a lawful majority rather than a centralized, corruptible elite.
-
Why do you trust the government more then you trust your fellow citizens? How are you going to rebel against your government without access to weapons?
-
Guns are avaible to people all over the US reguardless of gun laws. Gun laws only prevent honest citizens from obtaining guns because they dont want to break the law. However criminals are very willing to break the law and they will obtain firepower without reguard to laws.
-
Actually i just read your rant and vile post.
You are a perfect example of why guns should be banned. Read what you wrote you moron. You are soaking in hate..i can tell just how you abused me and in the manner you did.
You sound like a typical dumb ignorant republican gun totting piece of shit amercan who has been brainwashed by nationalism and previous govts. They put the fucken fear in you man..and look at your speak..full of hate and pleasure in seeing others suffer.
The tyrants you mentioned have been dealt with..but the biggest tyrant of them all is still peddling his democratic ideals and disguising them as freedoms.
Fuck i pity americans.
I can see my sarcasm and humor was lost on you!! Actually completely expected...lol
I thought long and hard about writing that but opted for it because i knew
it would bring out your true nature - as it did.
I was just trying to show you how to be a better more effective little socialist.
I suggest that you read Saul Alinski's book - rules for radicals.
If you do it will show you how your being lied to and brainwashed by your government and news media.
It will completely open your eyes as to the tactics they use to marginalize dissenters and keep the sheeple
subjugated usually without them even knowing it. Thus the useful idiot comment...lol
I am far from being filled with hate! rofl. I am also far from being a republican - Actually I am a political atheist.
(EDIT: I believe that both parties here in america are treasonous pieces of crap that have colluded to systematically
rob us of our rights little by little! )
I had my eyes opened years ago - our political system is set up to keep to keep both sides distrusting and hating
the other. It is this way so that we don't notice how far the politicians have their dicks up our collective asses.
You stated that we should all be put on an island to shoot and kill each other. I argue that there would be no shooting
and no killing. More than likely it would be the safest and most harmonious island in the world
Law abiding legal gun owners aren't the problem and never have been. I am sure that u don't know this
so ill enlighten you to the fact that in about half the states it is completely legal to own a fully automatic machine gun.
Can you tell me how many crimes have been committed by legal registered machine gun owners? No?
The answer is zero in almost 100 years. So in reality sir who is brainwashed and who is informed.
You also tell us "The tyrants you mentioned have been dealt with" Really? Who dealt with them?
Have you had a peek at China lately? Even if tyrants get dealt with new ones will take their place.
Human nature hasn't changed in thousands of years and i wager it never will. So much for your utopia.
The price of freedom is constant vigilance.
I do believe that we should recall all of our troops from everywhere in the world and bring them home.
I can find nothing in the constitution that says we the people should be taxed to subsidize the safety of any other country.
America HAS stuck it's nose in almost every other country's business in every case to steal natural resources
and nation wealth. The united states has been criminal in this aspect. The lying cheating whores in congress and
the apathetic uniformed citizenry are to blame for this situation. Hopefully one day the people will wake up.
The last ting is have to do is to express my pity for you sir!
Your a slave and are too stupid to realize it - I believe the proper word would be dolt.
I do not harbor any animosity towards you and only wish your eyes to be opened.
Christy
-
The price of freedom is constant vigilance.
I do believe that we should recall all of our troops from everywhere in the world and bring them home.
I can find nothing in the constitution that says we the people should be taxed to subsidize the safety of any other country.
America HAS stuck it's nose in almost every other country's business in every case to steal natural resources
and nation wealth. The united states has been criminal in this aspect.
Christy
Christy, you go girl!
And I never thought I'd be saying this, but I think it's true to a very great extent: guns don't kill people, people kill people. Murderous, savage, insane, absolutely bonkers kind of people. And they're all over the world, man. Just last week in China a man stabbed an entire classroom of kiddies, luckily no one was killed. I say STABBED, cause in China you can't have firearms, thanks to the dinosaurish tyranny they still have over there. Yeah, they're communist tyrants, but they sure let transnational corporations, mostly US, rape and enslave their own people and they call it having jobs. (So we here can buy absolute crap at fantastic prices in WalMart.) What a great planet!
goblin
-
I started this thread to try to figure out which way I would lean on this issue and I'm just more confused than ever haha.
-
There are about as many guns as people in the US, so around 300+ million.
There will always be unstable people who "flip-out" and kill people.
You will not be able to regulate people so it seems the options are increasing gun regulations or getting accustomed to mass shootings.
A tidbit to consider apart from that, in the US there are an immense amount of suicides that occur with firearms and those people are often left out of statistics of gunshot deaths.
-
A tidbit to consider apart from that, in the US there are an immense amount of suicides that occur with firearms and those people are often left out of statistics of gunshot deaths.
Which makes sense because they didn't commit suicide because they thought "Hey I have a gun, why not shoot myself in the head?" but because they were suicidal.
-
I started this thread to try to figure out which way I would lean on this issue and I'm just more confused than ever haha.
why would u ever need other people to help u decide what way to lean? either be hot or cold but never lukewarm...
There will always be unstable people who "flip-out" and kill people.
You will not be able to regulate people so it seems the options are increasing gun regulations or getting accustomed to mass shootings.
Really? those are the only options in the whole wide world?
u cant think of anything else that would stop it? that's kinda short sighted and simplistic isn't it?
well i understand the part of the amendment that says " congress shall make no law! "
how about this novel idea - actually punish the offender who has taken someones life with the
ultimate punishment in the public square like it use to be and violent crime was nearly non existent.
can we all agree that the first amendment is the most important in all of the amendments?
the freedom of speech and the right to the free exercise of religion etc. ?
i think we all can or we wouldn't be here lol. well the drugs are nice :P
i have a question however why didn't out founders make the tenth or any other amendment directly after the second?
why is the second amendment in second place right after the first?
because our wise forefathers knew that if you couldn't defend yourself against an oppressive government
there wouldn't be any amendments or any constitution - only slavery!
our amendments were numbered in order of importance.
and last but not least - to all you foreigners who somehow think that u have the right to tell any of us
here in our country how we should live - PISS OFF!
mind ur own business or go help the Greeks run their lives! Ohhh wait - you already did! roflmfao ;)
-
I started this thread to try to figure out which way I would lean on this issue and I'm just more confused than ever haha.
why would u ever need other people to help u decide what way to lean? either be hot or cold but never lukewarm...
There will always be unstable people who "flip-out" and kill people.
You will not be able to regulate people so it seems the options are increasing gun regulations or getting accustomed to mass shootings.
Really? those are the only options in the whole wide world?
u cant think of anything else that would stop it? that's kinda short sighted and simplistic isn't it?
well i understand the part of the amendment that says " congress shall make no law! "
how about this novel idea - actually punish the offender who has taken someones life with the
ultimate punishment in the public square like it use to be and violent crime was nearly non existent.
can we all agree that the first amendment is the most important in all of the amendments?
the freedom of speech and the right to the free exercise of religion etc. ?
i think we all can or we wouldn't be here lol. well the drugs are nice :P
i have a question however why didn't out founders make the tenth or any other amendment directly after the second?
why is the second amendment in second place right after the first?
because our wise forefathers knew that if you couldn't defend yourself against an oppressive government
there wouldn't be any amendments or any constitution - only slavery!
our amendments were numbered in order of importance.
and last but not least - to all you foreigners who somehow think that u have the right to tell any of us
here in our country how we should live - PISS OFF!
mind ur own business or go help the Greeks run their lives! Ohhh wait - you already did! roflmfao ;)
For such a nice vendor christy sure likes guns :P :P :P
But honestly, The 2nd is just that important. A well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country. I would rather not be around guns but the reality is that guns are s tools and there are jobs that can only be done using a gun.
-
I'd suggest the 2nd amendment is largely irrelevant in today's world. According to Wikipedia it was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. It goes on to say:
"In no particular order, early American settlers viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes:
deterring tyrannical government;
repelling invasion;
suppressing insurrection;
facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
participating in law enforcement;
enabling the people to organize a militia system."
So, a question for the gun nuts: How relevant is this amendment, 221 years (and 5 days) later? It's a very different world that we live in today.
I'd suggest the only one that's possibly still valid is self-defense. Given the US has 88.8 guns in private hands for every 100 people, this could well still be valid. Here in the UK we have 6.7 guns per 100 people (the vast majority of which are shotguns / hunting / sport shooting rifles) and our gun homicide rate is 1% of that in the US.
If you took the vast majority of privately held guns out of circulation, what outcome could there possibly be, other than a reduction in gun crime?
Christy - I would never presume to tell anyone else how to live their lives, and I don't believe I've done to in any of my posts in this thread.
What I have a problem with is the gun nuts that quote the 2nd amendment to justify continued carnage are no different to the christians who justify blinkered thinking and bigotry because it's written in a two thousand year old book.
Sure, guns don't kill people, people do. However they do a much, much better job when they use a gun. School children were attacked with guns in Connecticut, and parents are mourning the death of 20 of them. School children were attached with a knife in China, and none of them died.
-
I'd suggest the only one that's possibly still valid is self-defense. Given the US has 88.8 guns in private hands for every 100 people, this could well still be valid. Here in the UK we have 6.7 guns per 100 people (the vast majority of which are shotguns / hunting / sport shooting rifles) and our gun homicide rate is 1% of that in the US.
Homicide rate UK: 1.2
Homicide rate US: 4.2
Of course gun availability has a significant impact on GUN homicides, but not on ACTUAL homicides. The difference in actual homicide rate is largely caused by socioeconomic factors.
If you took the vast majority of privately held guns out of circulation, what outcome could there possibly be, other than a reduction in gun crime?
A rise in number of burglaries and armed robberies.
What I have a problem with is the gun nuts that quote the 2nd amendment to justify continued carnage are no different to the christians who justify blinkered thinking and bigotry because it's written in a two thousand year old book.
Did you just compare the constitution to the Bible? That's complete and utter bullshit. I hope you realize that.
School children were attached with a knife in China, and none of them died.
Oh, well, that makes it okay I guess.
It seems you haven't even read this thread because every single argument you have brought forth has already been refuted here.
-
No offense but this quote is just made up words with no meaning. The 2nd amendment is the foundation of the constitution and in order to preserve freedom the 2nd amendment is integral. Today the 2nd amendment is just as relevant as it ever was and it will always be an essential corner stone of American democracy. Dont sit here and tell me the 2nd isnt relevant because honestly if you wanna go there I would just say guess what the UK isnt relevant. Europeans are cool in some ways but in others they are ass backwards. All you Europeans are lucky that America has alot of food because if we ever run out you might see first hand how relevant the 2nd amend can be when food is short!!!!
LONG LIVE THE NRA and the 2nd!!!
I'd suggest the 2nd amendment is largely irrelevant in today's world. According to Wikipedia it was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. It goes on to say:
"In no particular order, early American settlers viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes:
deterring tyrannical government;
repelling invasion;
suppressing insurrection;
facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
participating in law enforcement;
enabling the people to organize a militia system."
So, a question for the gun nuts: How relevant is this amendment, 221 years (and 5 days) later? It's a very different world that we live in today.
I'd suggest the only one that's possibly still valid is self-defense. Given the US has 88.8 guns in private hands for every 100 people, this could well still be valid. Here in the UK we have 6.7 guns per 100 people (the vast majority of which are shotguns / hunting / sport shooting rifles) and our gun homicide rate is 1% of that in the US.
If you took the vast majority of privately held guns out of circulation, what outcome could there possibly be, other than a reduction in gun crime?
Christy - I would never presume to tell anyone else how to live their lives, and I don't believe I've done to in any of my posts in this thread.
What I have a problem with is the gun nuts that quote the 2nd amendment to justify continued carnage are no different to the christians who justify blinkered thinking and bigotry because it's written in a two thousand year old book.
Sure, guns don't kill people, people do. However they do a much, much better job when they use a gun. School children were attacked with guns in Connecticut, and parents are mourning the death of 20 of them. School children were attached with a knife in China, and none of them died.
-
Homicide rate UK: 1.2
Homicide rate US: 4.2
Of course gun availability has a significant impact on GUN homicides, but not on ACTUAL homicides. The difference in actual homicide rate is largely caused by socioeconomic factors.
Are you trying to say a gun homicide isn't an actual homicide?
Actually, I know what you were trying to say you just did an awful job of doing so.
You've got the US total homicide rate wrong - it's 4.6 not 4.2. The overall UK homicide rate is 26% of that in the US.
Looking at it another way, your GUN homicide rate at 2.98 per 100,000 people is 2.5X times our TOTAL homicide rate.
You can't be claiming that without any guns at all, the US murder rate would stay the same as people would still kill each other?
If you took the vast majority of privately held guns out of circulation, what outcome could there possibly be, other than a reduction in gun crime?
A rise in number of burglaries and armed robberies.
That old chestnut.... Got any data to back this up or do you just think it's true?
What I have a problem with is the gun nuts that quote the 2nd amendment to justify continued carnage are no different to the christians who justify blinkered thinking and bigotry because it's written in a two thousand year old book.
Did you just compare the constitution to the Bible? That's complete and utter bullshit. I hope you realize that.
I'm just pointing out that both represent teachings / guidance / laws that were written by relatively distant ancestors, who lived in worlds that were very different to ours. Not being familiar with the 2nd (or indeed any) amendment, I looked it up, and pointed out why I can't see much relevance today.
It's clearly sacred to many, so please, do me a favour mate and explain it's relevance in today's world.
School children were attached with a knife in China, and none of them died.
Oh, well, that makes it okay I guess.
Ask the twenty mourning families in Connecticut which outcome they would have preferred. I'd rather that children weren't attacked at all, but if they are surely it's better that they survive?
It seems you haven't even read this thread because every single argument you have brought forth has already been refuted here.
You haven't refuted any of my arguments, you've just told me that, in your opinion, I'm wrong. You have presented no logical, rational reason for it, you've not presented any data to prove your point, and you're preaching like a religious nut.
And ooooo.... look what's turned up.
No offense but this quote is just made up words with no meaning. The 2nd amendment is the foundation of the constitution and in order to preserve freedom the 2nd amendment is integral. Today the 2nd amendment is just as relevant as it ever was and it will always be an essential corner stone of American democracy. Dont sit here and tell me the 2nd isnt relevant because honestly if you wanna go there I would just say guess what the UK isnt relevant. Europeans are cool in some ways but in others they are ass backwards. All you Europeans are lucky that America has alot of food because if we ever run out you might see first hand how relevant the 2nd amend can be when food is short!!!!
LONG LIVE THE NRA and the 2nd!!!
Your congregation is here !!!! Let us pray!!!! Halleluiah
-
Just to clarify, I'm not from the US but from Germany. English in not my native language so I sometimes fuck up explaining things.
As I said, enough data has been posted in this thread. My previous post already consists of redundant arguments so please just take the time and read through this thread. If, after that, you're still convinced of your opinion, there not much I can say to convince you otherwise, especially if you don't deem my arguments rational and logical and simply ignore the points I make.
And stop calling people nuts for not agreeing with you. That only makes you look unreasonable.
-
I'd suggest the 2nd amendment is largely irrelevant in today's world. According to Wikipedia it was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. It goes on to say:
"In no particular order, early American settlers viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes:
deterring tyrannical government;
repelling invasion;
suppressing insurrection;
facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
participating in law enforcement;
enabling the people to organize a militia system."
So, a question for the gun nuts: How relevant is this amendment, 221 years (and 5 days) later? It's a very different world that we live in today.
I believe it is still very relevant.
Why would we no longer need to worry about deterring a tyrannical government? The US gov is larger and more tyrannical then it has ever been.
-
I'd suggest the 2nd amendment is largely irrelevant in today's world. According to Wikipedia it was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. It goes on to say:
"In no particular order, early American settlers viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes:
deterring tyrannical government;
repelling invasion;
suppressing insurrection;
facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
participating in law enforcement;
enabling the people to organize a militia system."
So, a question for the gun nuts: How relevant is this amendment, 221 years (and 5 days) later? It's a very different world that we live in today.
I believe it is still very relevant.
Why would we no longer need to worry about deterring a tyrannical government? The US gov is larger and more tyrannical then it has ever been.
^This, and now that the government feels the need to regulate every goddam thing that a person does, its becoming more and more relevant.
""When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." -Thomas Jefferson
-
I'd suggest the 2nd amendment is largely irrelevant in today's world. According to Wikipedia it was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. It goes on to say:
"In no particular order, early American settlers viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes:
deterring tyrannical government;
repelling invasion;
suppressing insurrection;
facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
participating in law enforcement;
enabling the people to organize a militia system."
So, a question for the gun nuts: How relevant is this amendment, 221 years (and 5 days) later? It's a very different world that we live in today.
I'd suggest the only one that's possibly still valid is self-defense. Given the US has 88.8 guns in private hands for every 100 people, this could well still be valid. Here in the UK we have 6.7 guns per 100 people (the vast majority of which are shotguns / hunting / sport shooting rifles) and our gun homicide rate is 1% of that in the US.
If you took the vast majority of privately held guns out of circulation, what outcome could there possibly be, other than a reduction in gun crime?
Christy - I would never presume to tell anyone else how to live their lives, and I don't believe I've done to in any of my posts in this thread.
What I have a problem with is the gun nuts that quote the 2nd amendment to justify continued carnage are no different to the christians who justify blinkered thinking and bigotry because it's written in a two thousand year old book.
Sure, guns don't kill people, people do. However they do a much, much better job when they use a gun. School children were attacked with guns in Connecticut, and parents are mourning the death of 20 of them. School children were attached with a knife in China, and none of them died.
Its largely relevant today because WE THE PEOPLE SAY IT IS....just because a group of bleeding heart left, right and middle whatevers, think guns need to be banned is Government stepping over our rights. OK, I will make a deal....give me LSD and ill give you my guns ;D
-
The reality is that if you disarm the people like in the uk you will largely eradicate gun massacres but at the cost of a society increasingly being like a bunch of docile sheep being dictated to by oppresive government. The uk previously had licensed possesion of handguns and a unarmed policeforce , now guns are banned and the police are increasingly becoming armed - not good.
Personally i hope the nra can remind some congressmen where there loyalty lies and they can see off the feinstein and obama threat to the 2A. Maybe comprimise with another 1994 style awb - surely everyone has stockpiled enough by now to see them through the next 10 years.
-
The point I was alluding to was that suicide rates are also higher in the US due to the prevalence of guns. Suicide, just like homicide, is a lot easier and to the point if you use a gun.
A tidbit to consider apart from that, in the US there are an immense amount of suicides that occur with firearms and those people are often left out of statistics of gunshot deaths.
Which makes sense because they didn't commit suicide because they thought "Hey I have a gun, why not shoot myself in the head?" but because they were suicidal.
-
No right to bear arms in this country, Australia. Sure there are crime fatalities but the only people carrying guns are criminals and even then if they get caught with a weapon they are sent to jail.
I walk around and am free. I don't fear that one day someone will walk into any school, cinema, mall and start mowing people down because they missed out on i dunno something.
The Aust govt? Sure they are bad but tyrants? Hardly. Am i scared of our govt to the point that i need to arm myself? BAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAH ahh no.
I don't know guys, but using the excuse of having to defend yourself against big bad governments...is well paranoia to the extreme..especially in the grand US of A. I find it sad but comical at the same time.
I think those with a gun fetish have more a power fetish hence why they feel they need guns.
-
Judging from the first few posts I take it my views are not welcome here so I won't bother sharing. I will say this however; any person who uses Australia in their argument against gun control is a fool. I don't care if you are Australian and you get a hard on handling a piece of metal, you are in the extreme minority. The vast majority of Australians are very happy with the current gun laws, and since Howard introduced the new laws we have not had a single massacre, as well as a swift drop in gun violence.
If you are an American and you believe you have the right to bear arms, so be it, to each their own. Just don't use Australia, who is in line with the rest of the world on this issue, to make your point. Your gun problem has gotten so bad your government talks about 'enhancing school security', yet you talk like aussies were stupid enough to give up their weapons. What a horrible place to bring a child up, can't even go to kindy without the fear of being shot to pieces but yeah, the aussies have it all wrong right? It would be offensive if it wasn't so silly.
Guns are not pillars of liberty they are tools of oppression, and they are extremely ineffective if one day the army for whatever reason decides to turn on it's own people.
-
The Aust govt? Sure they are bad but tyrants? Hardly. Am i scared of our govt to the point that i need to arm myself? BAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAH ahh no.
I don't know guys, but using the excuse of having to defend yourself against big bad governments...is well paranoia to the extreme..especially in the grand US of A. I find it sad but comical at the same time.
I think those with a gun fetish have more a power fetish hence why they feel they need guns.
I find your view to be very short-sighted. Once you give up your arms you have no way of easily regaining them later. There is a long history of governments abusing their people, as well as many present day examples. The experiences of these abused people are not laughable or comical.
I don't understand what you mean by 'especially in the grand US of A'. Is it especially unlikely that the US government will not take advantage of us past the point where we would like to resist?
On another note: the UK and AUS both have higher violent crime rates then the US. Don't think you are so much safer because your guns have already been taken away.
-
I have been living in Australia for over 3 decades and not once, not eben remotely thinking did i feel that the aust govt was going to turn around and oppress me in a way that a dictatorship does. And i can proudly say that i have no fear of this ever happening in my lifetime while in Australia.
Again you yanks are overly paranoid.
-
Judging from the first few posts I take it my views are not welcome here so I won't bother sharing. I will say this however; any person who uses Australia in their argument against gun control is a fool. I don't care if you are Australian and you get a hard on handling a piece of metal, you are in the extreme minority. The vast majority of Australians are very happy with the current gun laws, and since Howard introduced the new laws we have not had a single massacre, as well as a swift drop in gun violence.
If you are an American and you believe you have the right to bear arms, so be it, to each their own. Just don't use Australia, who is in line with the rest of the world on this issue, to make your point. Your gun problem has gotten so bad your government talks about 'enhancing school security', yet you talk like aussies were stupid enough to give up their weapons. What a horrible place to bring a child up, can't even go to kindy without the fear of being shot to pieces but yeah, the aussies have it all wrong right? It would be offensive if it wasn't so silly.
Guns are not pillars of liberty they are tools of oppression, and they are extremely ineffective if one day the army for whatever reason decides to turn on it's own people.
It's amazing how the yanks in this thread keep bringing up the same old excuse - oppressive governments, the government is going to get you better stock up on weaponry and then turn around and feel they know everything about our country to dismiss us as crazies for not having a gun culture.
I really feel that most yanks just feel the need to own a gun just thus they can have power over someone. This bullshit about needing them for hunting deers or for oppressive governments are pathetic they are sad.
I mean do they really need an AK-47 to shot deer? really?
-
The 2nd amendment is the foundation of the constitution and in order to preserve freedom the 2nd amendment is integral.
I agree with the 2nd amendment, but I have to point out one thing here. IF the 2nd amendment were the foundation of the constitution, then why did they have to amend the constitution to add it, and why is it the second one?
I personally feel that it is more than a right to bear arms, It is a responsibility for us to keep them.
I also believe there can be a balance between our rights to own guns, and laws controlling their sale and ownership. I don't see why there is such rage about wanting background checks fun for every gun sale. The only argument that I can even understand for allowing any sale without a check is the argument that the current computer system has random outages which would cost gun show operators money. To that I say suck it up! you chose to be in the business, and that is the nature of it. But why are all these good people so outraged that they have to prove that they aren't a habitual violent offender before they can purchase a tool that could further enable their violent nature? If they are really such good people, why are they so afraid to prove it? I have zero problem with a background check when I go to purchase deadly weapons, because I know that the reason they are doing those checks are to try to keep those same deadly weapons out of the hands of people who have histories of using violence against others. If that means I have to wait 3 days or 6 weeks, then that is what it takes. Why do people need guns same day? To protect themselves from an imminent threat? If the threat is that imminent, maybe they should ask for help. Now once that background is cleared, I think you should be able to purchase weaponry equivalent to the weapons that governments use, because how are we to protect ourselves from overbearing government without having weaponry that can compete with theirs?
Sorry to ramble on and I hope it made sense, but this is a complicated issue and my thoughts on it are equally complicated because I am trying to see the problem from both points of view and I just can't grasp the points of view from either side completely.
-
On another note: the UK and AUS both have higher violent crime rates then the US. Don't think you are so much safer because your guns have already been taken away.
Saw this comment and decided to stop lurking and start teaching cunts. How fucking dumb are you? we are trying to have a proper conversation and you come here with this obvious fucking lie. Fuck you you stupid redneck cunt, put up a bit of evidence, facts not fuckwit opinion please
-
Why do you trust the government more then you trust your fellow citizens? How are you going to rebel against your government without access to weapons?
Great logic there you redneck fag. Ever heard of an election? haha
Also while I'm here, can you please tell me how you plan to defend yourself with that faggy little gun of yours when our government decides to fire a long range missile at you? Or maybe an unmanned drone bomb, i would love to see you against one of those with that big manly gun of yours. You are such a tough cunt and the only reason you want a gun is to protect yourself from the government, but what have you done while bush and obama were signing away all our rights. Probably too busy lubing up the barrel while obama was making it legal for him to kill us citizens without trial right?
u r such a bad cunt, please shoot yourself, 'be free'
-
Any other vigilantes got a warchest of shitty oneliners they heard from fox news against gun control feel free to argue with me.
Guns dont kill people people kill people right, they are essential for liberty? Same goes for nuclear weapons but I bet you stupid fucks are happy for america to start another war just in case Iran have some right, what about their liberty? Oh wait we can have some control as long as our government tells us its ok, LIBERTY!! fucking ants
Your fuckwit o'reilly logic is too predictable, come at me cunts
-
Thoughts on Gun Control? i own and carry a gun on me everyday in the usa i have a canceled carry permanent and i love guns they have saved my life and my wives life before .... i was in a corner store and it was getting robbed and i shot the guy in the chest and legs as he had just shot the store clerk and i was afraid he would come for me next. so i love guns. a gun in the hands of a bad person is a bad thing. a gun in the hands of a good person is a way to stop a bad person. end of story.
awesome logic, there are too many guns so we need more guns!!
gun? no worries. skittles? eat lead suspicious cunt!
can you imagine how stupid the rest of the world feels when they look at our utopian society where we have very few massacres of 6 year olds. Yes, the rest of the world is fucking mad when it comes to tackling gun violence, just look at the gun deaths from every country compared to ours... oh wait dont do that it wont help your point, still though, GUNS!!!
-
On another note: the UK and AUS both have higher violent crime rates then the US. Don't think you are so much safer because your guns have already been taken away.
Saw this comment and decided to stop lurking and start teaching cunts. How fucking dumb are you? we are trying to have a proper conversation and you come here with this obvious fucking lie. Fuck you you stupid redneck cunt, put up a bit of evidence, facts not fuckwit opinion please
Why such hateful words?
"In the UK, there are 2,034 offences per 100,000 people, way ahead of second-placed Austria with a rate of 1,677.
The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 92 and South Africa 1,609."
Try using a search engine with the keywords 'violent crime' and the names of your favorite countries. Our numbers for gun related deaths is much higher of course, but that in itself does not tell the whole story.
Just because lots of people believe something does not make it true. The War on Drugs is total bullshit but the lie is perpetuated by millions of sheep repeating what they have been told. Open your mind. Let the millions of silent guns in America be a testament to the peacefulness of an armed society. One crazed shooter does not make all guns evil, just like one crazed baby-eating crackhead does not make all drugs evil.
-
UK has more total rapes and sexual assaults in raw number then the US, putting Rape/Sexual assault at around 6x higher per capita.
-
Fuck gun control. There is a reason they don't want you to have them: guns are empowering.
To those who live in gun free countries: how prepared are you to rebel against your government?
hahaha this farmer1 faggot watches rambo too much i think. What is your gun going to do against our army, what will 300million gun toting rednecks do against one nuclear bomb genius? You have spent way more money on the governments arsenal than your own you dumb fuck, where do you think the money for our laughably big army comes from?
-
On another note: the UK and AUS both have higher violent crime rates then the US. Don't think you are so much safer because your guns have already been taken away.
Saw this comment and decided to stop lurking and start teaching cunts. How fucking dumb are you? we are trying to have a proper conversation and you come here with this obvious fucking lie. Fuck you you stupid redneck cunt, put up a bit of evidence, facts not fuckwit opinion please
Why such hateful words?
"In the UK, there are 2,034 offences per 100,000 people, way ahead of second-placed Austria with a rate of 1,677.
The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 92 and South Africa 1,609."
Try using a search engine with the keywords 'violent crime' and the names of your favorite countries. Our numbers for gun related deaths is much higher of course, but that in itself does not tell the whole story.
Just because lots of people believe something does not make it true. The War on Drugs is total bullshit but the lie is perpetuated by millions of sheep repeating what they have been told. Open your mind. Let the millions of silent guns in America be a testament to the peacefulness of an armed society. One crazed shooter does not make all guns evil, just like one crazed baby-eating crackhead does not make all drugs evil.
Those numbers are fake as fuck why dont you post the NRA backed website you copied them from? haha deadshit faggot
you like facts instead? I got many
From www.americanbar.org/groups/committees/gun_violence/resources/the_u_s_compared_to_other_nations.html
The overall firearm-related death rate among U.S. children younger than 15 years of age is nearly 12 times higher than among children in 25 other industrialized countries combined.
bahaha so guns make us safer, except for children, but fuck them because farmer1 thinks we are safer with guns, fucking twit, fuck off over to fox news if you cant provide sources, or facts that can support gun control, noyt just skew the debate a la christians with their endless dumbfuck arguments
-
Why do you trust the government more then you trust your fellow citizens? How are you going to rebel against your government without access to weapons?
Great logic there you redneck fag. Ever heard of an election? haha
Also while I'm here, can you please tell me how you plan to defend yourself with that faggy little gun of yours when our government decides to fire a long range missile at you? Or maybe an unmanned drone bomb, i would love to see you against one of those with that big manly gun of yours. You are such a tough cunt and the only reason you want a gun is to protect yourself from the government, but what have you done while bush and obama were signing away all our rights. Probably too busy lubing up the barrel while obama was making it legal for him to kill us citizens without trial right?
u r such a bad cunt, please shoot yourself, 'be free'
I don't believe in our electoral system anymore. We have moved beyond that already.
Rebelling against the gov certainly isn't going to be easy! Have faith though, it can be done.
In no way do I approve of what Bush or Obama has done. You mention Obama assassinating US citizens without trial. This is one very good example of why we should remain armed.
-
On another note: the UK and AUS both have higher violent crime rates then the US. Don't think you are so much safer because your guns have already been taken away.
Saw this comment and decided to stop lurking and start teaching cunts. How fucking dumb are you? we are trying to have a proper conversation and you come here with this obvious fucking lie. Fuck you you stupid redneck cunt, put up a bit of evidence, facts not fuckwit opinion please
Just because lots of people believe something does not make it true. The War on Drugs is total bullshit but the lie is perpetuated by millions of sheep repeating what they have been told. Open your mind. Let the millions of silent guns in America be a testament to the peacefulness of an armed society. One crazed shooter does not make all guns evil, just like one crazed baby-eating crackhead does not make all drugs evil.
Why bring drugs into this? Drugs are made by people to make other people happy. Guns are created solely to kill, and in the case of assault rifles to kill humans, by gun companies with lobbying power. How do you bring drugs into this argument unless you know you have lost? genius
-
Fuck gun control. There is a reason they don't want you to have them: guns are empowering.
To those who live in gun free countries: how prepared are you to rebel against your government?
hahaha this farmer1 faggot watches rambo too much i think. What is your gun going to do against our army, what will 300million gun toting rednecks do against one nuclear bomb genius? You have spent way more money on the governments arsenal than your own you dumb fuck, where do you think the money for our laughably big army comes from?
None of my productivity goes into the US military machine.
-
Why do you trust the government more then you trust your fellow citizens? How are you going to rebel against your government without access to weapons?
Great logic there you redneck fag. Ever heard of an election? haha
Also while I'm here, can you please tell me how you plan to defend yourself with that faggy little gun of yours when our government decides to fire a long range missile at you? Or maybe an unmanned drone bomb, i would love to see you against one of those with that big manly gun of yours. You are such a tough cunt and the only reason you want a gun is to protect yourself from the government, but what have you done while bush and obama were signing away all our rights. Probably too busy lubing up the barrel while obama was making it legal for him to kill us citizens without trial right?
u r such a bad cunt, please shoot yourself, 'be free'
I don't believe in our electoral system anymore. We have moved beyond that already.
Rebelling against the gov certainly isn't going to be easy! Have faith though, it can be done.
In no way do I approve of what Bush or Obama has done. You mention Obama assassinating US citizens without trial. This is one very good example of why we should remain armed.
So you have given up on the electoral system because that is too hard? much easier to have a civil war LDO!!
Fact is champ you let the government take away all your rights when you voted reagan, and dont pretend you didnt or would if you could, I know you dontr like being on the wrong side of a historical argument but get ready because someday the US will wake up and little rambo wannabe fags like yourself can become bitter old cunts sitting on your porch whinging about how back in your day every single person had the right to kill 20 innocent 6 years olds, nowadays the government has taken that liberty away!! not right man john wayne would be pissed.
You are the type of stupid cunt who sings along to that asshole song not realising Leary is not one of you, he is mocking you you stupid cunt and he does not even have to hide it.
-
On another note: the UK and AUS both have higher violent crime rates then the US. Don't think you are so much safer because your guns have already been taken away.
Saw this comment and decided to stop lurking and start teaching cunts. How fucking dumb are you? we are trying to have a proper conversation and you come here with this obvious fucking lie. Fuck you you stupid redneck cunt, put up a bit of evidence, facts not fuckwit opinion please
Just because lots of people believe something does not make it true. The War on Drugs is total bullshit but the lie is perpetuated by millions of sheep repeating what they have been told. Open your mind. Let the millions of silent guns in America be a testament to the peacefulness of an armed society. One crazed shooter does not make all guns evil, just like one crazed baby-eating crackhead does not make all drugs evil.
Why bring drugs into this? Drugs are made by people to make other people happy. Guns are created solely to kill, and in the case of assault rifles to kill humans, by gun companies with lobbying power. How do you bring drugs into this argument unless you know you have lost? genius
Guns are created because there is a demand for them.
I brought drugs in because it is one thing we have in common. Some here espouse the right to the personal freedom to control what goes in their body, but are quick to deny others the right to defend themselves. From my perspective the right to self-defense is a very basic one. I don't doubt that at least one of those teachers had wished they could have defended themselves and their students in the final moments before that madman killed them and all.
-
Fuck gun control. There is a reason they don't want you to have them: guns are empowering.
To those who live in gun free countries: how prepared are you to rebel against your government?
hahaha this farmer1 faggot watches rambo too much i think. What is your gun going to do against our army, what will 300million gun toting rednecks do against one nuclear bomb genius? You have spent way more money on the governments arsenal than your own you dumb fuck, where do you think the money for our laughably big army comes from?
None of my productivity goes into the US military machine.
orly ok well then there is no way america can afford to attack anyone now they are not getting their taxes from farmers shop! obama is fake tearing up as we speak!!
Also you never answered my question about the people vs the army. How will 300 mill rednecks beat the army? stupid fuking know all please answer me that one!
-
Why do you trust the government more then you trust your fellow citizens? How are you going to rebel against your government without access to weapons?
Great logic there you redneck fag. Ever heard of an election? haha
Also while I'm here, can you please tell me how you plan to defend yourself with that faggy little gun of yours when our government decides to fire a long range missile at you? Or maybe an unmanned drone bomb, i would love to see you against one of those with that big manly gun of yours. You are such a tough cunt and the only reason you want a gun is to protect yourself from the government, but what have you done while bush and obama were signing away all our rights. Probably too busy lubing up the barrel while obama was making it legal for him to kill us citizens without trial right?
u r such a bad cunt, please shoot yourself, 'be free'
I don't believe in our electoral system anymore. We have moved beyond that already.
Rebelling against the gov certainly isn't going to be easy! Have faith though, it can be done.
In no way do I approve of what Bush or Obama has done. You mention Obama assassinating US citizens without trial. This is one very good example of why we should remain armed.
So you have given up on the electoral system because that is too hard? much easier to have a civil war LDO!!
Fact is champ you let the government take away all your rights when you voted reagan, and dont pretend you didnt or would if you could, I know you dontr like being on the wrong side of a historical argument but get ready because someday the US will wake up and little rambo wannabe fags like yourself can become bitter old cunts sitting on your porch whinging about how back in your day every single person had the right to kill 20 innocent 6 years olds, nowadays the government has taken that liberty away!! not right man john wayne would be pissed.
You are the type of stupid cunt who sings along to that asshole song not realising Leary is not one of you, he is mocking you you stupid cunt and he does not even have to hide it.
The only vote I have ever cast has been for Ron Paul.
-
Fuck gun control. There is a reason they don't want you to have them: guns are empowering.
To those who live in gun free countries: how prepared are you to rebel against your government?
hahaha this farmer1 faggot watches rambo too much i think. What is your gun going to do against our army, what will 300million gun toting rednecks do against one nuclear bomb genius? You have spent way more money on the governments arsenal than your own you dumb fuck, where do you think the money for our laughably big army comes from?
None of my productivity goes into the US military machine.
orly ok well then there is no way america can afford to attack anyone now they are not getting their taxes from farmers shop! obama is fake tearing up as we speak!!
Also you never answered my question about the people vs the army. How will 300 mill rednecks beat the army? stupid fuking know all please answer me that one!
Obama wishes he was smoking on my nugs.
I did answer:
"Rebelling against the gov certainly isn't going to be easy! Have faith though, it can be done."
-
On another note: the UK and AUS both have higher violent crime rates then the US. Don't think you are so much safer because your guns have already been taken away.
Saw this comment and decided to stop lurking and start teaching cunts. How fucking dumb are you? we are trying to have a proper conversation and you come here with this obvious fucking lie. Fuck you you stupid redneck cunt, put up a bit of evidence, facts not fuckwit opinion please
Just because lots of people believe something does not make it true. The War on Drugs is total bullshit but the lie is perpetuated by millions of sheep repeating what they have been told. Open your mind. Let the millions of silent guns in America be a testament to the peacefulness of an armed society. One crazed shooter does not make all guns evil, just like one crazed baby-eating crackhead does not make all drugs evil.
Why bring drugs into this? Drugs are made by people to make other people happy. Guns are created solely to kill, and in the case of assault rifles to kill humans, by gun companies with lobbying power. How do you bring drugs into this argument unless you know you have lost? genius
Guns are created because there is a demand for them.
I brought drugs in because it is one thing we have in common. Some here espouse the right to the personal freedom to control what goes in their body, but are quick to deny others the right to defend themselves. From my perspective the right to self-defense is a very basic one. I don't doubt that at least one of those teachers had wished they could have defended themselves and their students in the final moments before that madman killed them and all.
There is also a demand for meth that does not mean it is smart to use it fuckwit, Im fine with it though because meth is not made for the sole purpose of killing humans, unlike assault rifles.
You are right though, if we are serious about tackling gun violence we need more guns in the classroom haha, next brainwave please faggot that one has been tried and beaten
-
Fuck gun control. There is a reason they don't want you to have them: guns are empowering.
To those who live in gun free countries: how prepared are you to rebel against your government?
hahaha this farmer1 faggot watches rambo too much i think. What is your gun going to do against our army, what will 300million gun toting rednecks do against one nuclear bomb genius? You have spent way more money on the governments arsenal than your own you dumb fuck, where do you think the money for our laughably big army comes from?
None of my productivity goes into the US military machine.
orly ok well then there is no way america can afford to attack anyone now they are not getting their taxes from farmers shop! obama is fake tearing up as we speak!!
Also you never answered my question about the people vs the army. How will 300 mill rednecks beat the army? stupid fuking know all please answer me that one!
Obama wishes he was smoking on my nugs.
I did answer:
"Rebelling against the gov certainly isn't going to be easy! Have faith though, it can be done."
Umm no genius I asked how, not how difficult. Can you read rambo?
-
The reality is that if you disarm the people like in the uk you will largely eradicate gun massacres but at the cost of a society increasingly being like a bunch of docile sheep being dictated to by oppresive government.
Oh my lord!! God forbid we ever become docile sheep who have our rights dictated to us by an oppressive government!! Wait, can someone tell me why silk road is only accessible through the darknet? bahahaha you cunts are so unbelievably stupid and naive it scares me that you can legally carry a gun
-
I started this thread to try to figure out which way I would lean on this issue and I'm just more confused than ever haha.
Just listen to the NRA and relieve youself of critical thought, it feels good just ask farmer1 lol
-
I am 100% in favor of gun control.
It worked in Japan, it can work elsewhere too.
Fuck gun-lovers.
Fuck your facts and evidence!
FREEDOM!!
-
Automatic weapons are not safer than handguns.
They are, actually.
Just like a sports car has better brakes, suspension and handling characteristics that it's lower powered counterparts, so too does a select-fire rifle have a shoulder stock, pistol grip and foregrip to aid in maintaining control of the firearm. Pistols, especially larger calibers, are very difficult to master effectively. Just like those professional stunt-drivers you see on TV! Many years of practice they have stunting, mmm.
ALL firearms have a some form of physically activated safety feature to help minimise misfires. Kinda like a seat-blt in a vehicle, it enhances safety, but accidents and deaths still occur.
There are MANY, MANY more deaths involving vehicles, than there are firearms. One may think that if the Governments of the world are actually worried about saving lives, they'd ban all vehicles? They would never do this, the world would fall apart.
+1 for some one with knowledge and is not brain washed like: sweetbro, Chubs and joywind who is an incredibly fucking stupid brainwashed douche - gun control it has never worked anywhere moron - except in favor of the oppressive governments that enacts the law that takes it away from it's people.
fuck joywind in the ass with a telephone pole and then piss on his corpse! little dick bug fucker!
A handgun or shotgun to protect yourself, alright there could be some use to that. And since it's in the constitution you should be able to defend yourself this is reasonable, right?
But who the fuck needs a (semi)automatic weapon or rocket launcher (are they legal in the US? I won't be surprised.. ::) )
I say, make those weapons available to the Army only. No citizen should have this stuff in his home, including veterans. Once they retire they'll become citizens again so normal law applies.
People will be given 5 years to return those weapons to the government and trade them for a standard issue handgun or shotgun.
After 5 years those weapons will be government property so having them lay around would be theft of government property.
the right of gun ownership is not for hunting or target practice - the description " assault rifle " is only a made up political term used to demonize semi automatic weapons
and to take away out right to defend ourselves from criminals and an oppressive government!
would u be happyr if i assaulted u with my pistol? is my revolver an assault weapon?
congratulations !! u have been thoroughly brainwashed.
i only have one thing to say 2 u:
" Who has deceiv'd thee so oft as thy self? " ben franklin
EDIT: the first thing adolf hitler did was to take the guns away from law abiding citizens!
Awesome argument christy, joywind is so brainwashed and gun control has never worked anywhere right?
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/
The sad thing is you will read 5 lines of this article, realise it destroys your fuckwit logic, and then move on and continue to call anyone who disagrees with you brainwashed haha i love that shit!
-
well cmon people farmer1 has run out of sean hannity mantras whos the next lamb to the slaughter? (dont worry that is metaphorical, unlike the newtown slaughter)
-
This is the best day of my life and I owe it all to guns!
-
Actually i just read your rant and vile post.
You are a perfect example of why guns should be banned. Read what you wrote you moron. You are soaking in hate..i can tell just how you abused me and in the manner you did.
You sound like a typical dumb ignorant republican gun totting piece of shit amercan who has been brainwashed by nationalism and previous govts. They put the fucken fear in you man..and look at your speak..full of hate and pleasure in seeing others suffer.
The tyrants you mentioned have been dealt with..but the biggest tyrant of them all is still peddling his democratic ideals and disguising them as freedoms.
Fuck i pity americans.
Dont pity us too much mate. this fuckwit gun culture is not as widespread as you would believe. The main reason there isnt bigger opposition to guns is because these gun toting heroes generally stick together, and get murdered together, by each other. I pity people from the south that have a brain, granted that is very few, but the south have refused to evolve since having their asses handed to them in the civil war
need proof? see farmer1's comments
-
I started this thread to try to figure out which way I would lean on this issue and I'm just more confused than ever haha.
why would u ever need other people to help u decide what way to lean? either be hot or cold but never lukewarm...
There will always be unstable people who "flip-out" and kill people.
You will not be able to regulate people so it seems the options are increasing gun regulations or getting accustomed to mass shootings.
Really? those are the only options in the whole wide world?
u cant think of anything else that would stop it? that's kinda short sighted and simplistic isn't it?
well i understand the part of the amendment that says " congress shall make no law! "
how about this novel idea - actually punish the offender who has taken someones life with the
ultimate punishment in the public square like it use to be and violent crime was nearly non existent.
Yes christy if only we could travel back to those utopian medieval times, where public hangings were commonplace and violent crime 'nearly non existent'. haha
Please, PLEASE, shoot yourself you stupid cunt, the government does not want you to!! are you going to let them deny you that right?!
-
I started this thread to try to figure out which way I would lean on this issue and I'm just more confused than ever haha.
why would u ever need other people to help u decide what way to lean? either be hot or cold but never lukewarm...
There will always be unstable people who "flip-out" and kill people.
You will not be able to regulate people so it seems the options are increasing gun regulations or getting accustomed to mass shootings.
and last but not least - to all you foreigners who somehow think that u have the right to tell any of us
here in our country how we should live - PISS OFF!
mind ur own business or go help the Greeks run their lives! Ohhh wait - you already did! roflmfao ;)
This is my favorite part of your nonsensical ramblings, cmon america, the country that polices the world through the guise of the 'united nations', dont let other countries tell you what to do, thats our job!!
Are you aware that the US government has officially requested the Netherlands to criminalise marijuana every single year it has been legal there? Stay out of our business foreigners!! haha fuckwit
How many countries do we have to invade before rednecks like you realise we are the fucked country? But small dicked faggots like farmer and tough bitches (scrags) like you wouldnt have it any other way. Liberty and Justice for all, unless you arent american, then you can do what the fuck you are told.
-
This is my favorite part of your nonsensical ramblings, cmon america, the country that polices the world through the guise of the 'united nations', dont let other countries tell you what to do, thats our job!!
Actually, most conservatives hate the UN. However, your point stands that America is the most meddling country in other people's affairs, mostly through military and financial tactics.
On the other hand, most of the pro-gun libertarians here disagree with that meddling. They take a non-interventionist position.
American is a big place with lots of differently opinionated people, and the left hand often working in direct contradiction to the right hand.
[/quote
Anyone who identifies themselves as pro-gun libertarians need their head checked. For every incident you can throw at me where guns were used for the advancement of liberty I can throw back another 1000 incidences where it was used to deny people liberty.
Thank you though for not resorting to fox news zingers when expressing your opinion, you join a select few in this thread:)
-
For such a nice vendor christy sure likes guns :P :P :P
But honestly, The 2nd is just that important. A well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country. I would rather not be around guns but the reality is that guns are s tools and there are jobs that can only be done using a gun.
ty ur a sweetie :)
i like playing with explosives too but that is for another thread lol :P
lets get serious though it's not really that i like guns THAT much!
the reality is i dislike and distrust my government so much that for them to try and take away
the only thing that we the people have as a guaranteed right - guaranteed mind u mainly so that when
our government becomes so tyrannical we have the means to overthrow those in power - i get a little pissed!
cut off a couple hundred snake heads and the rest would fall in line quickly.
PLEASE! read the first couple lines of the declaration of independence. that's what ima talking about!
I'd suggest the 2nd amendment is largely irrelevant in today's world. According to Wikipedia it was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. It goes on to say:
"In no particular order, early American settlers viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes:
deterring tyrannical government;
repelling invasion;
suppressing insurrection;
facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
participating in law enforcement;
enabling the people to organize a militia system."
So, a question for the gun nuts: How relevant is this amendment, 221 years (and 5 days) later? It's a very different world that we live in today.
I'd suggest the only one that's possibly still valid is self-defense. Given the US has 88.8 guns in private hands for every 100 people, this could well still be valid. Here in the UK we have 6.7 guns per 100 people (the vast majority of which are shotguns / hunting / sport shooting rifles) and our gun homicide rate is 1% of that in the US.
If you took the vast majority of privately held guns out of circulation, what outcome could there possibly be, other than a reduction in gun crime?
Christy - I would never presume to tell anyone else how to live their lives, and I don't believe I've done to in any of my posts in this thread.
What I have a problem with is the gun nuts that quote the 2nd amendment to justify continued carnage are no different to the christians who justify blinkered thinking and bigotry because it's written in a two thousand year old book.
Sure, guns don't kill people, people do. However they do a much, much better job when they use a gun. School children were attacked with guns in Connecticut, and parents are mourning the death of 20 of them. School children were attached with a knife in China, and none of them died.
i respectfully and wholeheartedly disagree with your relevance argument.
i can find no other point in the history of this country when the right to bear arms has been more relevant!
you quoted wiki - ok :P
"In no particular order, early American settlers viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes:
deterring tyrannical government =
my government has never in it's history been more tyrannical! they "legally" extort money and personal property from me upon pain of prison. i am forced to obey regulations made by non elected bureaucrats who are accountable to nobody. my infinitely wise congress has passed a law enclosed in a defense authorization bill that states ( i may be held without charges - indefinitely. my property and assets may be seized. while incarcerated without charges i have no right to a defense lawyer. i furthermore have no right to any communication with the outside world. now for the final bitch slap in the face - my president now can by order strip me of my citizenship and either execute me or kick me out of the country i was born in!
just a question! starting to get the fucking idea yet?
repelling invasion =
WE OWE THE CHINESE TRILLIONS!!!!!! nobody is naive enough to think that someday they just wont say " well just give us the western united states then - in lieu of payment. do u really believe the spineless jellyfish in washington would say no? and yes washington was not capitalized on purpose!
suppressing insurrection =
the whores in washington have pissed away our treasury and fortune. they have sold us out. they were not happy enough with that so they pissed away our yet unborn children's and grandchildren's inheritance.this country is completely bankrupt! if u have money invested here - sell it to some sucker - turn it into a tangible asset or commodity and do yourself a favor.
ok ok i know i am rambiling and depressing everyone! now on to the point of insurrection..... look to the tiny island the greek live on and what has been happening there! we cant afford to pay for assistance anymore - there is no money left! the only way we can pay for it is by printing more money out of thin air and accelerating the devaluation the dollar. we are doing that now.
what will happen when the checks to the 40+% quit showing up?
the federal reserve - a private bank that cant even be looked into by congress and charges us interest on our own money - AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL ENTITY! - commonly know as a central bank is currently exercising the devaluation of the American dollar by simply printing money out of thin air! we are fucked!
how long will this be allowed to last till the rest of the world says fuck u clowns! fuck America the whores of the world!!! ?
facilitating a natural right of self-defense =
I don't think i even need to comment on this one but i will for the benefit of u brits! the supreme court has made the judgement that we as citizens " DO NOT HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BE PROTECTED BY THE POLICE " we are on our own and are responsible for defending ourselves! criminals by their very nature don't obey laws. lets say ima criminal -
(well lol :P ok i'll give u that one!) - i can make my own gun and bullets - really!
ima criminal, i attack them with a gun, i dont care about the laws - so is some citizen suppose to defend themselves from my assault against them with a baseball bat or what?
seriously dude i can run down to the border here in cali - cross over - have a couple margaritas and pick up a full auto ak47 and ammo for a couple hundred bucks!
REALITY CHECK??????
participating in law enforcement = addressed in right to self defense!!
enabling the people to organize a militia system =
We the citizens en masse are the natural and logical last stand against the oppressor - be they foreign or domestic!
your also stated: " So, a question for the gun nuts "
my question is in fact: ( so a question for the: rabid, foaming at the mouth, anti-gun nutters!! why do u continue to be brainwashed by your news media and schoolteachers?
have they stopped teaching you how to think for yourselves in school ?)
Raise and call sir!
please read the classics - logic and rhetoric. i realize its boring but its worth it.
" Christy - I would never presume to tell anyone else how to live their lives, and I don't believe I've done to in any of my posts in this thread. "
how the hell can u say that with a straight face? u just have done exactly that!
as for the Chinese children u spoke of - i would never normally even bring this up your statement pissed me off and offended me enough to do it.
one of my best friends from san francisco came up at my request and we did indeed call the prefect there - i dont speak Chinese so she came to help.
i am donating 2000 dollars to the monistary there for counseling and medical assistance to those very poor children.
and fyi i give away tens of thousands of dollars worth of product to cancer patients here in cali every year.
so my question to u sir is do u really care about " the children" or just use the words "the children" to make an emotional argument?
NO they didn't die - they weren't killed but they have been disfigured and scarred for life!
in conclusion although u are completely misled and confused i congratulate u for being polite;
Christy
The point I was alluding to was that suicide rates are also higher in the US due to the prevalence of guns. Suicide, just like homicide, is a lot easier and to the point if you use a gun.
A tidbit to consider apart from that, in the US there are an immense amount of suicides that occur with firearms and those people are often left out of statistics of gunshot deaths.
Which makes sense because they didn't commit suicide because they thought "Hey I have a gun, why not shoot myself in the head?" but because they were suicidal.
my relative killed them self by drinking poison. do u really think that getting rid of guns will keep people from jumping off bridges or whatever?
Great logic there you redneck fag. Ever heard of an election? haha
Also while I'm here, can you please tell me how you plan to defend yourself with that faggy little gun of yours when our government decides to fire a long range missile at you? Or maybe an unmanned drone bomb, i would love to see you against one of those with that big manly gun of yours. You are such a tough cunt and the only reason you want a gun is to protect yourself from the government, but what have you done while bush and obama were signing away all our rights. Probably too busy lubing up the barrel while obama was making it legal for him to kill us citizens without trial right?
u r such a bad cunt, please shoot yourself, 'be free'
can u feel the love? ima pretty sure farmer is on the side of the constitution but what did u or i do within the same time frame?
ashamedly i must admit i did nothing except vote in a rigged election! i know i know u r only here to spread hate and misery.
enjoy your life then and please maintain low tones dude :P
EDIT: and one other thing - just for your personal benifit - get off the fucking CRACK PIPE!
cause ur a waste of air when ur on the shit!
-
can u feel the love? ima pretty sure farmer is on the side of the constitution but what did u or i do within the same time frame?
ashamedly i must admit i did nothing except vote in a rigged election!
maintain low tones dude :P
EDIT: and one other thing - just for your personal benifit - GET OFF THE FUCKING CRACK PIPE!
cause ur a waste of air when ur on the shit!
k scrag
-
I started this thread to try to figure out which way I would lean on this issue and I'm just more confused than ever haha.
why would u ever need other people to help u decide what way to lean? either be hot or cold but never lukewarm...
There will always be unstable people who "flip-out" and kill people.
You will not be able to regulate people so it seems the options are increasing gun regulations or getting accustomed to mass shootings.
Really? those are the only options in the whole wide world?
u cant think of anything else that would stop it? that's kinda short sighted and simplistic isn't it?
well i understand the part of the amendment that says " congress shall make no law! "
how about this novel idea - actually punish the offender who has taken someones life with the
ultimate punishment in the public square like it use to be and violent crime was nearly non existent.
Yes christy if only we could travel back to those utopian medieval times, where public hangings were commonplace and violent crime 'nearly non existent'. haha
Please, PLEASE, shoot yourself you stupid cunt, the government does not want you to!! are you going to let them deny you that right?!
I understand that this very important to you, its important to all of us. It seems like any time we talk about gun control on SR it gets heated. But honestly man take a second, and consider cooling down. I mean calling christy names because you dont agree, come on. Christys views often collide with other forum members but thats ok its a good thing to be outspoken about the important things.
-
I started this thread to try to figure out which way I would lean on this issue and I'm just more confused than ever haha.
why would u ever need other people to help u decide what way to lean? either be hot or cold but never lukewarm...
There will always be unstable people who "flip-out" and kill people.
You will not be able to regulate people so it seems the options are increasing gun regulations or getting accustomed to mass shootings.
Really? those are the only options in the whole wide world?
u cant think of anything else that would stop it? that's kinda short sighted and simplistic isn't it?
well i understand the part of the amendment that says " congress shall make no law! "
how about this novel idea - actually punish the offender who has taken someones life with the
ultimate punishment in the public square like it use to be and violent crime was nearly non existent.
Yes christy if only we could travel back to those utopian medieval times, where public hangings were commonplace and violent crime 'nearly non existent'. haha
Please, PLEASE, shoot yourself you stupid cunt, the government does not want you to!! are you going to let them deny you that right?!
Christys views often collide with other forum members but thats ok its a good thing to be outspoken about the important things.
Christy is not expressing her views when she calls for a return to medieval times because they were less violent haha. This is a debate on whether we should be allowed to own assault rifles or not, fuck civility moron
-
On another note: the UK and AUS both have higher violent crime rates then the US. Don't think you are so much safer because your guns have already been taken away.
Saw this comment and decided to stop lurking and start teaching cunts. How fucking dumb are you? we are trying to have a proper conversation and you come here with this obvious fucking lie. Fuck you you stupid redneck cunt, put up a bit of evidence, facts not fuckwit opinion please
Just because lots of people believe something does not make it true. The War on Drugs is total bullshit but the lie is perpetuated by millions of sheep repeating what they have been told. Open your mind. Let the millions of silent guns in America be a testament to the peacefulness of an armed society. One crazed shooter does not make all guns evil, just like one crazed baby-eating crackhead does not make all drugs evil.
Why bring drugs into this? Drugs are made by people to make other people happy. Guns are created solely to kill, and in the case of assault rifles to kill humans, by gun companies with lobbying power. How do you bring drugs into this argument unless you know you have lost? genius
Guns are created because there is a demand for them.
I brought drugs in because it is one thing we have in common. Some here espouse the right to the personal freedom to control what goes in their body, but are quick to deny others the right to defend themselves. From my perspective the right to self-defense is a very basic one. I don't doubt that at least one of those teachers had wished they could have defended themselves and their students in the final moments before that madman killed them and all.
There is also a demand for meth that does not mean it is smart to use it fuckwit, Im fine with it though because meth is not made for the sole purpose of killing humans, unlike assault rifles.
You are right though, if we are serious about tackling gun violence we need more guns in the classroom haha, next brainwave please faggot that one has been tried and beaten
Yes, there is also a demand for meth. Anything that there is demand for will be available for purchase. Only law abiding citizens do not have access.
I see no negative consequences with a teacher carrying a firearm in the classroom, concealed or open. How else would I expect them to protect children from an assailant?
-
I started this thread to try to figure out which way I would lean on this issue and I'm just more confused than ever haha.
why would u ever need other people to help u decide what way to lean? either be hot or cold but never lukewarm...
There will always be unstable people who "flip-out" and kill people.
You will not be able to regulate people so it seems the options are increasing gun regulations or getting accustomed to mass shootings.
Really? those are the only options in the whole wide world?
u cant think of anything else that would stop it? that's kinda short sighted and simplistic isn't it?
well i understand the part of the amendment that says " congress shall make no law! "
how about this novel idea - actually punish the offender who has taken someones life with the
ultimate punishment in the public square like it use to be and violent crime was nearly non existent.
Yes christy if only we could travel back to those utopian medieval times, where public hangings were commonplace and violent crime 'nearly non existent'. haha
Please, PLEASE, shoot yourself you stupid cunt, the government does not want you to!! are you going to let them deny you that right?!
Christys views often collide with other forum members but thats ok its a good thing to be outspoken about the important things.
Christy is not expressing her views when she calls for a return to medieval times because they were less violent haha. This is a debate on whether we should be allowed to own assault rifles or not, fuck civility moron
So I guess you decided not to cool down lol
-
well cmon people farmer1 has run out of sean hannity mantras whos the next lamb to the slaughter? (dont worry that is metaphorical, unlike the newtown slaughter)
Actually I was taking a beautiful woman out to diner.
I recognize the name Sean Hannity but I have no idea what mainstream media bullshit corporation he belongs to. I generally do not watch TV.
-
well cmon people farmer1 has run out of sean hannity mantras whos the next lamb to the slaughter? (dont worry that is metaphorical, unlike the newtown slaughter)
Actually I was taking a beautiful woman out to diner.
I recognize the name Sean Hannity but I have no idea what mainstream media bullshit corporation he belongs to. I generally do not watch TV.
+1 I love beautiful women as well. I hope things between you two go well! Good luck man :D
-
On another note: the UK and AUS both have higher violent crime rates then the US. Don't think you are so much safer because your guns have already been taken away.
Saw this comment and decided to stop lurking and start teaching cunts. How fucking dumb are you? we are trying to have a proper conversation and you come here with this obvious fucking lie. Fuck you you stupid redneck cunt, put up a bit of evidence, facts not fuckwit opinion please
Just because lots of people believe something does not make it true. The War on Drugs is total bullshit but the lie is perpetuated by millions of sheep repeating what they have been told. Open your mind. Let the millions of silent guns in America be a testament to the peacefulness of an armed society. One crazed shooter does not make all guns evil, just like one crazed baby-eating crackhead does not make all drugs evil.
Why bring drugs into this? Drugs are made by people to make other people happy. Guns are created solely to kill, and in the case of assault rifles to kill humans, by gun companies with lobbying power. How do you bring drugs into this argument unless you know you have lost? genius
Guns are created because there is a demand for them.
I brought drugs in because it is one thing we have in common. Some here espouse the right to the personal freedom to control what goes in their body, but are quick to deny others the right to defend themselves. From my perspective the right to self-defense is a very basic one. I don't doubt that at least one of those teachers had wished they could have defended themselves and their students in the final moments before that madman killed them and all.
There is also a demand for meth that does not mean it is smart to use it fuckwit, Im fine with it though because meth is not made for the sole purpose of killing humans, unlike assault rifles.
You are right though, if we are serious about tackling gun violence we need more guns in the classroom haha, next brainwave please faggot that one has been tried and beaten
Yes, there is also a demand for meth. Anything that there is demand for will be available for purchase. Only law abiding citizens do not have access.
I see no negative consequences with a teacher carrying a firearm in the classroom, concealed or open. How else would I expect them to protect children from an assailant?
haha more great gun loving logic there. Guns are rampant, our schools are not safe, quick, more guns!!!
ask an australian how they feel about having teachers armed in the classroom. 99% will say why the fuck would you have a gun near a school? For you see fuckknuckle, america is the only civilised country on this earth with a gun massacre problem haha
you are the stupidest cunt you dont even realise that.
and btw answer my simple question about the people vs the government, defend your views commando or bow down
-
If you come for my guns, you will get my bullets.
-
well cmon people farmer1 has run out of sean hannity mantras whos the next lamb to the slaughter? (dont worry that is metaphorical, unlike the newtown slaughter)
Actually I was taking a beautiful woman out to diner.
I recognize the name Sean Hannity but I have no idea what mainstream media bullshit corporation he belongs to. I generally do not watch TV.
You dont know who sean hannity is? A prominent conservative commentator/cunt and you have never heard of him yet you know all about the current electoral system and its faults right? haha you fucking deadshit knowall
dinner ended pretty quick, I guess she isnt impressed by mullets or your sick gun collection
and dony reply with how it went great, you chop her daily whatever mate this is an anonymous website fuckwit you looked stupid for 'bragging' the first time. Hey guys women arent completely repulsed by me check me out. fucking keyboard casanova
-
If you come for my guns, you will get my bullets.
hold on tight obamas gonna get em!
-
If you come for my guns, you will get my bullets.
hold on tight obamas gonna get em!
I hope Obama does take your guns because you sound like your crazy. I dont even think you should have a knife, you dont seem like you can be trusted with any kind of weapon.
-
If you come for my guns, you will get my bullets.
hold on tight obamas gonna get em!
I hope Obama does take your guns because you sound like your crazy. I dont even think you should have a knife, you dont seem like you can be trusted with any kind of weapon.
Real men use fists, until they turn 16 and realize violence is for chimpanzees. Unless you have a small dick, then you sell shitty weed on sr under the name farmer1
-
If you come for my guns, you will get my bullets.
hold on tight obamas gonna get em!
I hope Obama does take your guns because you sound like your crazy. I dont even think you should have a knife, you dont seem like you can be trusted with any kind of weapon.
Real men use fists, until they turn 16 and realize violence is for chimpanzees. Unless you have a small dick, then you sell shitty weed on sr under the name farmer1
I think you know that your crazy and thats why your doing all these crazy postings on your hider nic.
-
Our fucking firearms are right up there with our freedom of speech.. Our forefathers gave us these rights. It needs to stay that way. Just as when some one gets drunk every fucking night and goes home to beat their family's , its not the alcohol that gets the scrutiny. Do I really need to say this right now..guns don't kill people, people... you get the jist.
-
I would like to add that the anti-gun stance tends to be a privilege of people who don't need guns. Europeans are generally anti-gun and enjoy relatively low crime rates. Also, I'm not talking about rednecks who think guns will protect them against tanks and F-16s, those people are idiots. I'm talking about places like Somalia, where there's absolute chaos and you need a gun to survive. I would never deny them the right to own a gun, and a government that does is actually oppressing its people.
The point is that it depends on context. Some places are so dangerous that guns enhance your safety, others are so safe that they almost exclusively lead to unnecessary suffering. The question is which category American falls into.
point well taken - too much of the world lives in a dangerous shit hole that most of us Americans - i can't speak for - Europeans cant fathom. what is really going on outside of our well protected little bubbles? most if not all would find it shocking and abhorrent. i myself refuse to own a television - i find the programming depressing and insulting. i do however from time to time watch some news on the net - it never ceases to amaze me how often i find myself shaking my head in disgust! unfortunately human nature and the propensityof the few - the rare to visit violence and murder of whatever kind upon others will never change. their methods might change but the criminally insane will always, till the end of days, be with us - much to my dismay. unnecessary suffering? do u propose to mean unnecessary suffering from guns?
i will tell u - the MOST violent and largest murder of innocent school children happened here in america back in the nineteen twenties. a man that ran for a city council, or a treasurer job, or something like that was pissed he didnt get elected. he went to the nearby school shortly after his loss and went on a killing spree with dynamite. more teachers and children where killed that day than any other time in united states history. that was almost 100 years ago. so tell me - how much has human nature changed in the past 100 years? he didn't use a gun!
i really do appreciate the plight of the poor ravaged african countrys - tibet etc. i feel for all of the peoples of the oppressed world. their suffering pains me to my soul. the whole world is oppressed at this time in history to one degree or another - i fear it will only grow worse for everyone!
however my oppression is no less imagined than theirs. i have had the blessing of truly growing up completely free! i grew up in the country and was truly and completely within the constraints of morality - free. even though my oppression fails to compare to the atrocities the other poor souls of this world suffer i find myself resolute to maintain my freedom as it was before the political whores and bureaucrats stole it from me. every year i have less and less of it.
i refuse to bend to the will of the few who wish to enslave me.
they and their ilk are like a cancer to me that in course must be plucked out and thrown in the waste bin where they belong.
your beliefs you are free to keep but time and the ways of the world will eventually find you - for myself i choose freedom. i will have death or freedom. that is my choice and i am proud to have chosen it - if i perish i will still be free and will have my honor and my good word.
no mediocrity for me - that is for u sir!
EDIT: Merry Christmas;
Christy
Edit : do u really believe that the " red necks " think they will even be fighting against tanks and F16's? do u really believe that our military will fight against it's own people? do u think that anyone that speaks with a southern accent is stupid? who is the idiot?
just curious - roflmfao - good 4 u!
-
ask an australian how they feel about having teachers armed in the classroom. 99% will say why the fuck would you have a gun near a school? For you see fuckknuckle... blah blah rant rant piss moan...
I'm Australian and i think arming teachers is a great idea, it would be a great way to stop mentally unstable people like yourself from bursting in with a semi-auto rifle you stole from your mums bedroom and killing a bunch of kids, but why stop at teachers?
Everyone in the world should be taught the basics of firearms from a young age.
Thanks for supporting the pro-firearm movement dude!
-
ask an australian how they feel about having teachers armed in the classroom. 99% will say why the fuck would you have a gun near a school? For you see fuckknuckle... blah blah rant rant piss moan...
I'm Australian and i think arming teachers is a great idea, it would be a great way to stop mentally unstable people like yourself from bursting in with a semi-auto rifle you stole from your mums bedroom and killing a bunch of kids, but why stop at teachers?
Everyone in the world should be taught the basics of firearms from a young age.
Thanks for supporting the pro-firearm movement dude!
+1 I also think he is crazy. Smart people think alike!
-
Fuck gun control. There is a reason they don't want you to have them: guns are empowering.
To those who live in gun free countries: how prepared are you to rebel against your government?
hahaha this farmer1 faggot watches rambo too much i think. What is your gun going to do against our army, what will 300million gun toting rednecks do against one nuclear bomb genius? You have spent way more money on the governments arsenal than your own you dumb fuck, where do you think the money for our laughably big army comes from?
Dude, it's not what you say, it's how...... Just a suggestion......
-
"In the UK, there are 2,034 offences per 100,000 people, way ahead of second-placed Austria with a rate of 1,677.
The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 92 and South Africa 1,609."
Try using a search engine with the keywords 'violent crime' and the names of your favorite countries. Our numbers for gun related deaths is much higher of course, but that in itself does not tell the whole story.
Just because lots of people believe something does not make it true. The War on Drugs is total bullshit but the lie is perpetuated by millions of sheep repeating what they have been told. Open your mind. Let the millions of silent guns in America be a testament to the peacefulness of an armed society. One crazed shooter does not make all guns evil, just like one crazed baby-eating crackhead does not make all drugs evil.
Your info was surprising and I did indeed go and do some googling. And yes, in the UK our violence offences are indeed a source of national shame. If you ever visit the UK, take a trip into any city or large town on a friday / saturday night and you'll notice that our national pasttime is drinking at home in the early evening (called pre-loading), then going out to continue drinking till the pubs close at midnight or sometimes later. When the pubs kick everyone out, we go into the streets and fight over cabs, girls, their place in the queue in the kebab shop. Alot of these will end up with the participants being charged with a violence related offence.
This is another reason us brits don't like guns, we know firearms and booze aren't a good mix.
deterring tyrannical government =
my government has never in it's history been more tyrannical! they "legally" extort money and personal property from me upon pain of prison. i am forced to obey regulations made by non elected bureaucrats who are accountable to nobody. my infinitely wise congress has passed a law enclosed in a defense authorization bill that states ( i may be held without charges - indefinitely. my property and assets may be seized. while incarcerated without charges i have no right to a defense lawyer. i furthermore have no right to any communication with the outside world. now for the final bitch slap in the face - my president now can by order strip me of my citizenship and either execute me or kick me out of the country i was born in!
just a question! starting to get the fucking idea yet?
I've spent alot of time in your counytry in my adult life (including a spell living there), and media coverage I see about the US interests me. We all have our problems with tax, but I've never seen or heard anything like you describe here. Send me a link and I'll read it with an open mind.
repelling invasion =
WE OWE THE CHINESE TRILLIONS!!!!!! nobody is naive enough to think that someday they just wont say " well just give us the western united states then - in lieu of payment. do u really believe the spineless jellyfish in washington would say no? and yes washington was not capitalized on purpose!
The same thing was being said about the Japanese 15 or 20 years ago.
suppressing insurrection =
the whores in washington have pissed away our treasury and fortune. they have sold us out. they were not happy enough with that so they pissed away our yet unborn children's and grandchildren's inheritance.this country is completely bankrupt! if u have money invested here - sell it to some sucker - turn it into a tangible asset or commodity and do yourself a favor.
ok ok i know i am rambiling and depressing everyone! now on to the point of insurrection..... look to the tiny island the greek live on and what has been happening there! we cant afford to pay for assistance anymore - there is no money left! the only way we can pay for it is by printing more money out of thin air and accelerating the devaluation the dollar. we are doing that now.
what will happen when the checks to the 40+% quit showing up?
the federal reserve - a private bank that cant even be looked into by congress and charges us interest on our own money - AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL ENTITY! - commonly know as a central bank is currently exercising the devaluation of the American dollar by simply printing money out of thin air! we are fucked!
how long will this be allowed to last till the rest of the world says fuck u clowns! fuck America the whores of the world!!!
I agree with you on much of this, and would suggest the leaders of europe haven't done such a great job either. This, however is an enirely different debate, and I can't see how it justifies the right to bear arms.
facilitating a natural right of self-defense =
I don't think i even need to comment on this one but i will for the benefit of u brits! the supreme court has made the judgement that we as citizens " DO NOT HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BE PROTECTED BY THE POLICE " we are on our own and are responsible for defending ourselves! criminals by their very nature don't obey laws. lets say ima criminal -
(well lol :P ok i'll give u that one!) - i can make my own gun and bullets - really!
ima criminal, i attack them with a gun, i dont care about the laws - so is some citizen suppose to defend themselves from my assault against them with a baseball bat or what?
seriously dude i can run down to the border here in cali - cross over - have a couple margaritas and pick up a full auto ak47 and ammo for a couple hundred bucks!
REALITY CHECK??????
participating in law enforcement = addressed in right to self defense!!
enabling the people to organize a militia system =
We the citizens en masse are the natural and logical last stand against the oppressor - be they foreign or domestic!
To distill this: You want to be allowed to own whatever quantity you like of lethal weapons, because you might need to defend yourself against someone else who also has weapons.
your also stated: " So, a question for the gun nuts "
my question is in fact: ( so a question for the: rabid, foaming at the mouth, anti-gun nutters!! why do u continue to be brainwashed by your news media and schoolteachers?
have they stopped teaching you how to think for yourselves in school ?)
Raise and call sir!
please read the classics - logic and rhetoric. i realize its boring but its worth it.
It's been a long time since I was in school, university or even what you call graduate school, and being on this site to secure illegal drugs demonstrates I'm able to think for myself and make my own decisions.
" Christy - I would never presume to tell anyone else how to live their lives, and I don't believe I've done to in any of my posts in this thread. "
how the hell can u say that with a straight face? u just have done exactly that!
I don't believe I've posted one thing that says "you should give up owning guns". I know it's politically impossible and there are too many commercially vested interests involved for a logical, rational conclusion to come about. I have offered some arguments backed up with data that suggest a gun-free society can offer some real advantages. Sure there are some real disadvantages, especially if you really like guns, but by and large I think I prefer it.
as for the Chinese children u spoke of - i would never normally even bring this up your statement pissed me off and offended me enough to do it.
one of my best friends from san francisco came up at my request and we did indeed call the prefect there - i dont speak Chinese so she came to help.
i am donating 2000 dollars to the monistary there for counseling and medical assistance to those very poor children.
and fyi i give away tens of thousands of dollars worth of product to cancer patients here in cali every year.
so my question to u sir is do u really care about " the children" or just use the words "the children" to make an emotional argument?
NO they didn't die - they weren't killed but they have been disfigured and scarred for life!
Karma to you for doing that (although I'm not sure I'll be able to with my post count).
It's a dreadful thing, and in a better world it wouldn't have happened. My personal value judgement is that a scarred and disfigured life is better then none. The recent paralympics in London demonstrates that.
-
I think rather than control guns the problem is our society. It should grow up equilibrated persons working together not putting all against all. Because even if you make more difficult access a firearm to a "sick" person instead of help him, he will anyway do something really stupid first or later.
-
i love guns
010101010100001101
Kill all humans, Must kill all humans
010101001010010101
-
I think rather than control guns the problem is our society. It should grow up equilibrated persons working together not putting all against all. Because even if you make more difficult access a firearm to a "sick" person instead of help him, he will anyway do something really stupid first or later.
Exactly. Gun control is not the issue.
-
The NRA released a statement today, I believe the first since the Sandy Hook shooting.
>> home.nra.org/default.aspx
The statement describes how banks, airports, office buildings, power plants, courthouses and sports stadiums are all protected by armed security personnel; but schools are left completely defenceless. Schools are advertised as gun-free zones "and in so doing, they tell every insane killer in America that schools are their safest place to inflict maximum mayhem with minimum risk". The statement is strongly critical of the media. Blaming violent video games and movies for normalizing violence, warning that media coverage of events like this rewards monsters with wall-to-wall attention and exampling the ignorance of the media on the issue.
Rebutting the calls for more gun laws, the statement calls for Congress to take immediate action to put armed security personnel in every school. It asks parents, teachers and school administrators to formulate a solution for security based on their own unique situation.
I agree that if parents, teachers etc. determine that they need armed security (or any other security measure) to ensure the safety of the occupants of the school, they should not be prevented from doing so. But mandating that every school must have armed personnel on site is a bit too far. The next shooter may not even need to buzz or break the window to get in.
The NRA is putting forward resources, to any school who will accept, to find a solution to the risk of school shootings.
The statement was interrupted twice by people holding banners with words to the effect: "NRA kills kids", they were removed after a few moments. You could hear someone off-screen shout "keep to the script!". They took no questions after the statement.
This must have been a really difficult statement to give in front of the eyes of the media, knowing how it will be boiled down to whichever headline or talking point suits them.
-
The NRA released a statement today, I believe the first since the Sandy Hook shooting.
>> home.nra.org/default.aspx
The statement describes how banks, airports, office buildings, power plants, courthouses and sports stadiums are all protected by armed security personnel; but schools are left completely defenceless. Schools are advertised as gun-free zones "and in so doing, they tell every insane killer in America that schools are their safest place to inflict maximum mayhem with minimum risk". The statement is strongly critical of the media. Blaming violent video games and movies for normalizing violence, warning that media coverage of events like this rewards monsters with wall-to-wall attention and exampling the ignorance of the media on the issue.
Rebutting the calls for more gun laws, the statement calls for Congress to take immediate action to put armed security personnel in every school. It asks parents, teachers and school administrators to formulate a solution for security based on their own unique situation.
I agree that if parents, teachers etc. determine that they need armed security (or any other security measure) to ensure the safety of the occupants of the school, they should not be prevented from doing so. But mandating that every school must have armed personnel on site is a bit too far. The next shooter may not even need to buzz or break the window to get in.
The NRA is putting forward resources, to any school who will accept, to find a solution to the risk of school shootings.
The statement was interrupted twice by people holding banners with words to the effect: "NRA kills kids", they were removed after a few moments. You could hear someone off-screen shout "keep to the script!". They took no questions after the statement.
This must have been a really difficult statement to give in front of the eyes of the media, knowing how it will be boiled down to whichever headline or talking point suits them.
The transcript speaks the truth, folks. It really isn't an issue of guns, that is just how the politicians and media portray it so they have someone or something to blame. People like hearing the president say "we are going to put in place more restrictions and laws to prevent these accidents." Its music to peoples ears.
Personally, emotions should not have a place in politics. Doesn't anyone recall that Hitler, Mao, and other dictators were charismatic leaders that ran their countries off of emotions.
This is America. "Shall not been infringed" was infringed as soon as they made the first gun laws on the books.
-
Floydy:
hxxp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/15/americans-face-guantanamo-detention-obama
hxxps://secure.huffingtonpost.com/alton-lu/the-national-defense-auth_b_1180869.html
better yet download and read the actual bill if u r so inclined.
i can see that we just disagree so i will leave it at that - i will continue with my way and u on yours.
it is neither good nor bad in any case.
my feeling is i will be safer and more free following my path - to each their own.
-
If there are no guns around then no one would need to have one to protect themselves. As simplistic as it sounds to you pro gun morons it's a fact.
Exactly! And if there were no cars nobody would need to go anywhere. Same for hospitals and people getting sick, etc.. Joking aside, I do agree with you to a point. It just isn't going to happen in the real world. Like the kooks that want to train all teachers to spec-ops level of proficiency in handguns and have them all packing. It works great in theory but would never happen in the real world.
It doesn't matter to me anymore. I, and millions like me, have the guns we need and will pass them down to our children. .
+1
-
my feeling is i will be safer and more free following my path
you are safer (lol) and thats all that matters, who cares if it costs a few hundred innocent children their lives, fuck kids, its their fault for having redneck parents
-
I don't think guns should be prohibited/controlled more heavily than they are now. While it is true that not having them around would cut down on a lot of impulse shootings, it's not going to cut down on crime. If someone wants to kill someone, they are going to do it - whether it's with a bullet, a knife, or their kick ass karate moves and a belt. And those are things more likely to happen on impulse anyway. Even if guns were outlawed, they'll still exist and people will still be able to get them. Or even make them - something simple is crazy easy to make and it'll do the job. Anyone who can plan past the day will still be able to commit their crime.
-
I'm glad I reactivated this thread. I concur with snaffles, I said that above somewhere.
Even if guns were outlawed, they'll still exist and people will still be able to get them.
Guns aren't outlawed everywhere, they're still available, but not to non-criminals. "Law restricts only those that obey that law." Or something like that.
-
I am 100% in favor of gun control.
It worked in Japan, it can work elsewhere too.
Fuck gun-lovers.
It worked in Japan because of the way their society is. It has nothing to do with gun control. Why do you think the US NON-GUN RELATED murder rates are higher than the TOTAL murder rates in most other countries with strict gun control? It's not the guns that are the problem, it's society.
-
Floydy:
hxxp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/15/americans-face-guantanamo-detention-obama
hxxps://secure.huffingtonpost.com/alton-lu/the-national-defense-auth_b_1180869.html
better yet download and read the actual bill if u r so inclined.
That's interesting and I clearly missed it, so thanks for enlightening me. The political factions that opposed Obama's veto on this (and remember, on first taking office, he stated he'd close Gitmo) are presumably of a similar political colour to those currently opposing gun control laws?
That article is now a year old, I'd be interested to know how many US citizens have been caught up in this legislation and held without trial. Any idea? Did they get the opportunity to defend themselves with their legally held firearms?
The NRA statement from yesterday has made the headlines here. I will be fascinated by how this all plays out.
The cynic in me imagines the NRA meeting that decided to take this stance. Option 1: arm more people to defend the children - more lovely gun sales and resulting profits. Option 2: concede that some gun control is necessary and seek a compromise agreement that will minimise the financial impact..... Let's vote......
What intrigues me is the NRA strategy of confronting the gun control lobby head on, it's a high risk strategy, a zero sum game. And this in a political environment that relies on compromise and horse-trading to make decisions. Are they really going to stick to their position, or will we see them accept a compromise a month or two or six down the road? I suspect there won't be any compromise due to the financial interests involved.
"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" Yeee haaaah the NRA is channeling the spirit of John Wayne.
-
the american people haven't caught up on anything - their australian shepherd dog - the american news media has them well controlled!
it is never brought up - ever. the people here have no idea of how badly they r being raped.
seriously - the only difference between obama and bush is that obama is a black fellow.
they both wear the same suit!
No! gitmo is not closed - our military police force is still everywhere in the world illegally and unconstitutionally.
well obama is a flat out communist but even that is unimportant because he is only allowed
to implement what the bankers and corporations allow him to.
how many US citizens have been caught up in this legislation and held without trial.
truely - how can anyone but the treasonous whores that abuse the rights of the people know this.
did i mention u have no right to a lawyer or outside contact once u have been held illegally?
people disappear. there is no mention made by anyone.
read the actual language of the bill - now law - it reads like a nightmare.
as far as john wayne goes - were u allowed to see the whole press conference?
we weren't here! - cnn cut out for commercials when he was getting to his points.
he asked " with all of the billions wasted here in government spending why cant we have a guard in every school."
in every regard your anti gun premise is flawed - i have owned firearms my whole life and have never
used them to abuse or kill any another human being. and still ima baby killer?
intentionally lumped in with anyone of the imaginary psycho supposedly ignorant gun " nuts " ?
and dont bother telling me how u have never come out and actually said that when u consonantly infer it.
u r worried about some gun company making profits? what does any company strive to do?
if there were no profits nobody would work - what would be the point of your wasted labor?
i really find it hard to even carry on and intellectually stimulating conversation with u socialists/communists.
u r like a broken record - spewing out the same ridiculous uniformed talking points time after time.
you have succeeded in boring me sir.
good luck to u
edit: i typed billions twice - this merlot is really good. :P
-
I think that guns should not be regulated. A lot of non-criminal people like to shoot guns and collect guns, and they should not be stopped simply because they might use guns to commit a crime. If someone wants to kill the most possible people they wouldn't use a gun anyway, they would use a bomb or possibly poison. It is pretty much obviously true that if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns, it isn't like a criminal who is going to kill someone with a gun will not do so simply because guns are illegal. It will make it harder to obtain guns but not impossible, after all cocaine is illegal but easily obtained. Additionally they will probably just make a bomb if they are dead set on killing a lot of people.
The best solution to prevent school shootings isn't to control guns but rather to increase security at schools. How much money do they spend on the war on drugs every year? A quick google search gives me a figure of $76.8 billion dollars. A quick google search also reveals that there were 138,925 schools in the USA in 2010, including private and public. If they stopped fighting the war on drugs and redirected a half of the money from a single year fighting the war on drugs to one time school security improvements, that would result in each and every school in the USA obtaining $276,408 for improving their security. That is enough to buy bullet proof doors, windows and strong locks for classrooms. It is enough to have metal detectors at entrances. It is enough to have a computerized system for locking down the school if a major security breach is detected. It is enough to outfit schools with gunshot sound detection systems that could immediately report a shot fired to law enforcement. If each additional year they spent 10% of what they spend on the war on drugs on continuing school security measures, every single school in the USA could afford to have an armed guard on site. Many schools already have police on site and if they are armed as well there will be several armed guards, metal detectors, bullet proof barriers. They could invest in bullet proof lunch trays for children to shield themselves with if attackers come into their cafeteria, after getting their guns past the metal detectors at the entrances and dodging the several armed guards.
Why not invest in a system that can detect gunshots and precisely position where they are fired from to automatically deliver an incapacitating agent? Schools are already covered with sprinklers that are capable of delivering fire retardant, why not position them with gunshot detection systems that automatically trigger sprinklers that deliver tear gas to the precise area that the shot was fired from? Then bulletproof the school as well as possible so that shots fired from the outside have trouble to penetrate to the inside of the school? Then the attacker would need to wear a gas mask as well I suppose. Could have it shoot an electrified barb into the person firing the gun, although then it would need to be an even more precise system. Some combination of audio detection for general placement of the shot + CCTV capable of detecting the shape of a gun in that area may be enough to identify the attacker and have a tazer barb fired into them.
-
Fuck gun control. There is a reason they don't want you to have them: guns are empowering.
To those who live in gun free countries: how prepared are you to rebel against your government?
hahaha this farmer1 faggot watches rambo too much i think. What is your gun going to do against our army, what will 300million gun toting rednecks do against one nuclear bomb genius? You have spent way more money on the governments arsenal than your own you dumb fuck, where do you think the money for our laughably big army comes from?
To be fair the government nuking one of their cities to kill an insurgent with a gun would effectively give every insurgent with a gun an atom bomb. Modern warfare is not traditional warfare. Atom bombs are not effective against the combatants of today.
-
the american people haven't caught up on anything - their australian shepherd dog - the american news media has them well controlled!
it is never brought up - ever. the people here have no idea of how badly they r being raped.
seriously - the only difference between obama and bush is that obama is a black fellow.
they both wear the same suit!
No! gitmo is not closed - our military police force is still everywhere in the world illegally and unconstitutionally.
well obama is a flat out communist but even that is unimportant because he is only allowed
to implement what the bankers and corporations allow him to.
how many US citizens have been caught up in this legislation and held without trial.
truely - how can anyone but the treasonous whores that abuse the rights of the people know this.
did i mention u have no right to a lawyer or outside contact once u have been held illegally?
people disappear. there is no mention made by anyone.
read the actual language of the bill - now law - it reads like a nightmare.
as far as john wayne goes - were u allowed to see the whole press conference?
we weren't here! - cnn cut out for commercials when he was getting to his points.
he asked " with all of the billions wasted here in government spending why cant we have a guard in every school."
in every regard your anti gun premise is flawed - i have owned firearms my whole life and have never
used them to abuse or kill any another human being. and still ima baby killer?
intentionally lumped in with anyone of the imaginary psycho supposedly ignorant gun " nuts " ?
and dont bother telling me how u have never come out and actually said that when u consonantly infer it.
u r worried about some gun company making profits? what does any company strive to do?
if there were no profits nobody would work - what would be the point of your wasted labor?
i really find it hard to even carry on and intellectually stimulating conversation with u socialists/communists.
u r like a broken record - spewing out the same ridiculous uniformed talking points time after time.
you have succeeded in boring me sir.
good luck to u
edit: i typed billions twice - this merlot is really good. :P
I'll have what she's having thanks
-
The NRA released a statement today, I believe the first since the Sandy Hook shooting.
>> home.nra.org/default.aspx
The statement describes how banks, airports, office buildings, power plants, courthouses and sports stadiums are all protected by armed security personnel; but schools are left completely defenceless. Schools are advertised as gun-free zones "and in so doing, they tell every insane killer in America that schools are their safest place to inflict maximum mayhem with minimum risk". The statement is strongly critical of the media. Blaming violent video games and movies for normalizing violence, warning that media coverage of events like this rewards monsters with wall-to-wall attention and exampling the ignorance of the media on the issue.
Rebutting the calls for more gun laws, the statement calls for Congress to take immediate action to put armed security personnel in every school. It asks parents, teachers and school administrators to formulate a solution for security based on their own unique situation.
I agree that if parents, teachers etc. determine that they need armed security (or any other security measure) to ensure the safety of the occupants of the school, they should not be prevented from doing so. But mandating that every school must have armed personnel on site is a bit too far. The next shooter may not even need to buzz or break the window to get in.
The NRA is putting forward resources, to any school who will accept, to find a solution to the risk of school shootings.
The statement was interrupted twice by people holding banners with words to the effect: "NRA kills kids", they were removed after a few moments. You could hear someone off-screen shout "keep to the script!". They took no questions after the statement.
This must have been a really difficult statement to give in front of the eyes of the media, knowing how it will be boiled down to whichever headline or talking point suits them.
The transcript speaks the truth, folks. It really isn't an issue of guns, that is just how the politicians and media portray it so they have someone or something to blame.
Yes! It's about time someone had the balls to say guns are not the issue, GTA san andreas is!
-
That's interesting and I clearly missed it, so thanks for enlightening me. The political factions that opposed Obama's veto on this (and remember, on first taking office, he stated he'd close Gitmo) are presumably of a similar political colour to those currently opposing gun control laws?
That article is now a year old, I'd be interested to know how many US citizens have been caught up in this legislation and held without trial. Any idea? Did they get the opportunity to defend themselves with their legally held firearms?
The NRA statement from yesterday has made the headlines here. I will be fascinated by how this all plays out.
The cynic in me imagines the NRA meeting that decided to take this stance. Option 1: arm more people to defend the children - more lovely gun sales and resulting profits. Option 2: concede that some gun control is necessary and seek a compromise agreement that will minimise the financial impact..... Let's vote......
What intrigues me is the NRA strategy of confronting the gun control lobby head on, it's a high risk strategy, a zero sum game. And this in a political environment that relies on compromise and horse-trading to make decisions. Are they really going to stick to their position, or will we see them accept a compromise a month or two or six down the road? I suspect there won't be any compromise due to the financial interests involved.
"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" Yeee haaaah the NRA is channeling the spirit of John Wayne.
Democrat or republican, left or right, it doesn't matter. There is very little difference in our two political parties. They are both interested in increasing the size of government and only have slightly differing views on how it should be done. Who knows how many US citizens have been caught up? Who knows if they had the opportunity to defend themselves? That is the point: they don't have to tell us anymore. Don't try to make sense of the politics of it all, try to make sense of what is actually happening. I agree with Christy above: In practice Obama is no different then Bush. They are the perfect example of two things that are made out to appear very different, but really they are the same.
-
its interesting that the drugy fraternity does not naturally gravitate towards one side of the gun control debate.
Some drugies are libertarian and do not favour gun control.
Some drugies are feely feely humanitarian and do favour gun control.
One thing is certain the 2 opinions will never agree and guns will always be accessible and people will always die.
-
its interesting that the drugy fraternity does not naturally gravitate towards one side of the gun control debate.
Some drugies are libertarian and do not favour gun control.
Some drugies are feely feely humanitarian and do favour gun control.
One thing is certain the 2 opinions will never agree and guns will always be accessible and people will always die.
Using the threat of violence to control what physical property someone is allowed to own is not humanitarian. Denying someone the right to self-defense is not humanitarian.
-
It is very liberal though. Silk Road will consist probably mostly of Liberals with Libertarians a significant minority. Liberals are pro gun control and pro wealth redistribution, but socially they are like a less extreme form of libertarianism. They support gay marriage being legalized and are less concerned about teenage sex than conservatives are but more 'worried about the children' than Libertarians are, particularly when they can use this worry to provide jobs to the larger community. They also lean strongly towards at least marijuana being legalized and quite a few of them are for all drugs being legalized. In contrast to Libertarians they want to heavily regulate and tax the legal distribution of marijuana. Most of them who are against legalization are probably mostly worried about the jobs that will be lost if drugs are legalized. At their more extreme end they are the type of people who support the murder of individuals so that they can provide kidneys to the community in order to save two people. However immorally putting the community over the individual is a common trait of liberals despite its degree of expression varying. Liberals can really be split into two camps, liberal-libertarian and liberal-socialist, where the second description is the ideology that compliments their sort of liberalism. Liberal-libertarians are more in favor of relaxing laws that they think have no chance of harming the larger community so they are more individualistic but they will still put the community over the individual in specific cases, gun control being one of them where they see a large threat to the community for an individual right that they see as being needless in a world without civilian access to guns (however the large majority of them are statist enough to think that the government should be well armed), liberal-socialists struggle with a desire to 'help' the most people leading them to being quite controlling of the life of an individual (so not only should guns be banned, but so should drugs because they hurt individuals even if they will not have much of an impact outside of the community at large. However, gay marriage would still be seen as acceptable to them, and so would stem cell research).
Libertarians are quite liberal in some ways, generally they believe that the rights of the individual outweigh the needs of the community, this means that their opinion on drug legalization coincides more with liberals than conservatives, however unlike liberals they do not think government has a right to tax people for drugs or to regulate the drug trade. Libertarians are also more relaxed than conservatives regarding teenage sex and are fairly close to liberals in regard to their opinions on this, however they are also generally in favor of legalizing possession of all CP and this differs from liberals who are only in favor of CP possession sentences bringing less time than actually molesting children (which contrasts with conservatives). Liberal-libertarians are against the death sentence, in my experience quite a lot of anarcho libertarians are also against the death sentence but largely for different reasons, primarily a distrust of the government rather than seeing human life as too precious to destroy.
So pretty much SR appeals to Liberal-Libertarians and there are a ton more of them than actual Libertarians so they will probably be the largest group on SR. Libertarians are also extremely fond of SR , it resonates even more with their ideology than it does with the ideology of liberals (it is a business, not government regulated, run by an individual, not taxed but paid for as a voluntary service, etc). But libertarians are much rarer than liberals so there will be less of them here but they will still be a much more significant percentage of the people here than they are a percentage of people in the typical population. Conservatives will be the rarest group here, most of them are against drugs and religious, most of them support very strong government regulation of the individual but have little concern for the community either, they are mostly interested in the Rich and corporations. A lot of them seem to be brainwashed, and the fact that they are overwhelmingly religious does show a susceptibility to brainwashing.
-
Although I should mention that there are conservative-libertarians as well. They are against taxation of the individual and therefor on this issue they show more concern for individual rights than they do for the needs of the community. They also are for guns remaining legal, largely because they have a strong sense of American patriotism and the constitution of the USA does guarantee them the right to bear arms. Unfortunately they also have a strong sense of patriotism and that means that they are quite concerned with individuals following the letter of the law, which means that they think drug use should be punishable as a crime simply because it is determined by society to be a crime. Patriotism and strong Statism seem to go hand in hand. Also they will still be against things like homosexuality and drugs and sex in general simply because they still tend to be quite religious.
-
Libertarians are also more relaxed than conservatives regarding teenage sex and are fairly close to liberals in regard to their opinions on this, however they are also generally in favor of legalizing possession of all CP
Are you sure about that? I mean, by "generally" do you mean a majority? Because that's not a view I've ever seen associated with libertarians, although I understand it's not exactly something they would want to advertise.
-
Libertarians are also more relaxed than conservatives regarding teenage sex and are fairly close to liberals in regard to their opinions on this, however they are also generally in favor of legalizing possession of all CP
Are you sure about that? I mean, by "generally" do you mean a majority? Because that's not a view I've ever seen associated with libertarians, although I understand it's not exactly something they would want to advertise.
A majority of libertarian leaning people would put the age of consent at 16 instead of 18, they are against charging teenagers for self production of child porn / for sexting cases and they certainly wouldn't want to limit teenage access to condoms or contraceptive devices. I would say that a majority of libertarians are in favor of decriminalizing child porn possession, if not a large minority are. One example of a libertarian leaning organization that is very vocal about child porn possession and distribution decriminalization is the ACLU. Anarchist libertarians that I have met, and I have met several, are invariably against the criminalization of the exchange of any information and that certainly includes child pornography. I have met some people who are otherwise libertarian but strict in regards to CP and age of consent laws, but they are quite rare in my experience. A lot of this is in line with the general liberal philosophy, which favors an age of consent lower than 18 and teenage access to contraception and is against criminalization of child pornography self production and sexting. In regards to actual child porn distribution they are overwhelmingly in favor of criminalization, which contrasts with libertarians, in regards to child porn possession they are largely in favor of light punishment and 'rehabilitation' (which coincides with their desire to 'help people') and a small yet significant minority of them are for full out decriminalization of possession.
-
]NO GUN CONTROL !!! ITS OUR RIGHT TO BARE ARMS AND HAS BEEN THAT WAY!!! WHAT A WAY TO SLAP THE FOR FATHERS IN THE FACE!!! /G\<<<<<<<<<<<
-
Libertarians are also more relaxed than conservatives regarding teenage sex and are fairly close to liberals in regard to their opinions on this, however they are also generally in favor of legalizing possession of all CP
Are you sure about that? I mean, by "generally" do you mean a majority? Because that's not a view I've ever seen associated with libertarians, although I understand it's not exactly something they would want to advertise.
A majority of libertarian leaning people would put the age of consent at 16 instead of 18, they are against charging teenagers for self production of child porn / for sexting cases and they certainly wouldn't want to limit teenage access to condoms or contraceptive devices. I would say that a majority of libertarians are in favor of decriminalizing child porn possession, if not a large minority are. One example of a libertarian leaning organization that is very vocal about child porn possession and distribution decriminalization is the ACLU. Anarchist libertarians that I have met, and I have met several, are invariably against the criminalization of the exchange of any information and that certainly includes child pornography. I have met some people who are otherwise libertarian but strict in regards to CP and age of consent laws, but they are quite rare in my experience. A lot of this is in line with the general liberal philosophy, which favors an age of consent lower than 18 and teenage access to contraception and is against criminalization of child pornography self production and sexting. In regards to actual child porn distribution they are overwhelmingly in favor of criminalization, which contrasts with libertarians, in regards to child porn possession they are largely in favor of light punishment and 'rehabilitation' (which coincides with their desire to 'help people') and a small yet significant minority of them are for full out decriminalization of possession.
I strongly disagree with your opinion of Libertarians and CP. It is one I have never heard before.
CP has a victim: the child. This makes it impossible for any true Libertarian to believe it is acceptable.
-
I agree Farmer..
-
If you have never heard that libertarians are in favor of decriminalization of CP possession and distribution I wonder how long have you considered yourself to be a libertarian for? How much research have you actually done on what libertarians believe? Because anyone who is against the legalization of child porn possession is not really a 'pure' libertarian, and it is quite strongly associated with libertarianism to hold this belief. It is extremely associated with anarchists, you cannot want the censorship of information and really consider your self to be an Anarchist, these things are mutually exclusive. A quick google search confirms that the general libertarian position on CP possession is decriminalization:
from wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_regarding_child_pornography_laws
During the nomination process at the 2008 Libertarian National Convention, anarcho-capitalist and U.S. Presidential candidate Mary Ruwart came under fire for her comment in her 1998 book, Short answers to the tough questions, in which she stated her opposition not only to laws against possession of child pornography but even against its production, based on her belief that such laws actually encourage such behavior by increasing prices.[16]
although it does contrast with this immediately after it
Shane Cory, on behalf of the minarchist United States Libertarian Party in his role as executive director, issued a response saying, "We have an obligation to protect children from sexual exploitation and abuse, and we can do this by increasing communication between state and federal agencies to help combat this repulsive industry. While privacy rights should always be respected in the pursuit of child pornographers, more needs to be done to track down and prosecute the twisted individuals who exploit innocent children."[17] Cory resigned after the party refused to vote on a resolution asking states to strongly enforce existing child porn laws.[18]
I would say the first opinion that CP production should be legalized is a very small minority of libertarians, although I have run into a few who think this way (essentially they see themselves as owning their children up to a certain point in time). I know that the ACLU and quite a lot of libertarians are in favor of decriminalization of possession and distribution but distribution legalization may not be the most prevalent libertarian belief. I very rarely find libertarians except a few self professed libertarians here have claimed to be against CP possession legalization. I am not sure what they really are but they don't appear to be libertarian to me.
http://www.aclucentralflorida.org/questions.html
[3] Why does the ACLU support pornography?
Why are you in favor of child porn?
The ACLU does not support pornography. But we do oppose virtually all forms of censorship. Possessing books or films should not make one a criminal. Once society starts censoring "bad" ideas, it becomes very difficult to draw the line. Your idea of what is offensive may be a lot different from your neighbors. The ACLU takes a very purist approach in opposing censorship. Our policy is that possessing pornographic material should not itself be a crime. The best way to combat child pornography is for the government to prosecute those who exploit children by making pornography and we strongly agree with the enforcement of such prosecutions.
yro.slashdot.org/story/12/09/09/1314232/rick-falkvinge-on-child-porn-and-freedom-of-the-press
"Rick Falkvinge of the Swedish Pirate Party blogs on the subject of freedom of the press and foresees how users of Google glasses could be charged for possession and distribution of illegal porn. 'Child pornography is a toxic subject, but a very important one that cannot and should not be ignored. This is an attempt to bring the topic to a serious discussion, and explain why possession of child pornography need to be re-legalized in the next ten years.'"
So pretty much you know nothing about what libertarianism actually is, and you are almost certainly not really a libertarian. You are the one who is in favor of criminalizing CP possession and who thinks that possession of CP victimizes children, this is not a common view held in the libertarian community.
-
I strongly disagree with your opinion of Libertarians and CP. It is one I have never heard before.
CP has a victim: the child. This makes it impossible for any true Libertarian to believe it is acceptable.
That's the view I would have thought most libertarians shared. On the other hand, how is possession/viewing of child porn more wrong than viewing pics/videos of murder? That also has a victim, but viewing the content doesn't cause the crime. The crime has already been committed.
I can see the argument that within certain pedo communities, people are encouraged to produce CP, and that should be illegal in the same way that encouraging someone to commit violence or murder should be illegal. But what if you are merely a passive viewer of CP. How is that any more wrong than getting your jollies looking at murder videos?
-
In contrast to Libertarians they want to heavily regulate and tax the legal distribution of marijuana. Most of them (liberals) who are against legalization are probably mostly worried about their jobs that will be lost if drugs are legalized.
Thought provoking postings kmfkewm
-
I can see the argument that within certain pedo communities, people are encouraged to produce CP, and that should be illegal in the same way that encouraging someone to commit violence or murder should be illegal. But what if you are merely a passive viewer of CP. How is that any more wrong than getting your jollies looking at murder videos?
Exactly.
-
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1808384,00.html
The fracas started with Mary J. Ruwart, the candidate with perhaps the deepest, purest libertarian roots (her rejection of government is so complete that some party moderates have begun warning of the anarchical dangers of "Ruwarchy"). In April, a rival called her out for her thoughts in a 1999 book called Short Answers to the Tough Questions. "Children who willingly participate in sexual acts have the right to make that decision as well, even if it's distasteful to us personally," Ruwart wrote. "When we outlaw child pornography, the prices paid for child performers rise, increasing the incentives for parents to use children against their will."
That view settles better with me than the view that parents own their children, and is probably more prevalent in the libertarian community.
http://delawarelibertarian.blogspot.com/2008/03/facing-your-own-ideas-squarely-sean.html
Brit Libertarian Sean Gabb has been rather ceremoniously uninvited as a United Kingdom Independence Party speaker because--oh, wow!--they just discovered that he is in favor of drug legalization, eliminating the UK's race relations laws, and in repealing some child pornography laws.
[/quote]
http://www.mwilliams.info/archive/2004/05/the-dangers-of-libertarianism.php
Mr. Cramer describes some of the characteristics of a pure libertarian society.
If the objective were really libertarian--the only laws allowed would be those that punished one person directly injuring another--and the Constitution was amended (as it would have to be) to achieve this, I could be philosophic about it, I suppose.
There wouldn't be any laws against sex in public places, but there also wouldn't be any laws against carrying a gun for self-defense against criminal attack.
There wouldn't be any laws against child pornography, but there wouldn't be any copyright law, either, and a lot of pornography would be much less profitable without copyright.
There wouldn't be any laws against driving drunk (I mean, you haven't really hurt anyone until you have an accident), but then again, there wouldn't be any laws restricting machine gun ownership, either.
There wouldn't be any sodomy laws (not that I am a fan of those, anyway), but there also wouldn't be any law requiring you to hire homosexuals, or rent to them, either.
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/02/problem-of-gary-johnsons-libertarian-affiliation/
If Gary Johnson had remained a Republican or run as an independent or with some coalition party, he might have been worth continued support. As it is, Johnson has thrown in his lot with the subjectivists, anarchists, advocates of legalizing child pornography, and clownish incompetents of the LP. America needs the real case for liberty, not the Libertarian perversion of liberty.
I can probably find a lot more if you still want to claim that libertarians are for CP possession legalization. Hell in a taxonomy of child porn offenders I read once they even had a category called "Libertarian Offenders", people who are not pedophiles but rather stupidly download CP simply because they want to make a statement that they will not be censored and also they want to view information forbidden by the state. They are an extremely small percentage of arrested CP offenders but still made the taxonomy.
-
well obama is a flat out communist but even that is unimportant because he is only allowed
to implement what the bankers and corporations allow him to.
Communist? Ha ha ha ha. I suppose you believe he's Al-Quaeda too?
He's certainly been blocked by congress and the senate from doing alot of what he wants to do, groups with deep pockets and minority interests can do that, and it's not just the US where that happens. It's always been this way, especially with a president from one party and congress dominated by the other, for at least as long as I can remember. Sure bankers and corporations do influence legislation, but so does every other well-funded pressure group. Like the NRA.
how many US citizens have been caught up in this legislation and held without trial.
truely - how can anyone but the treasonous whores that abuse the rights of the people know this.
did i mention u have no right to a lawyer or outside contact once u have been held illegally?
people disappear. there is no mention made by anyone.
read the actual language of the bill - now law - it reads like a nightmare.
I've spent some time searching the web for up to date info on Guantanamo, and I cannot find ANY mention of US citizens being picked up in the US and detained without charge or trial. Suggesting it happens despite the fact it's never been reported because the government is keeping it quiet is the domain of conspiracy theorists. And all this in the country with the most open and closely scrutinised government on the planet. Sorry, I don't believe it.
On top of that, I'd suggest that if "they" are coming for you, no amount of guns will stop them, and the more you have, the more likely it'll end in "suicide by cop" or another Waco. Your best defence is having media-hungry lawyers, anti-government journalists and civil liberties groups on speed-dial, and making sure all your family and friends do the same. I can't believe your government is able to make people disappear without any of these groups catching even the smallest whisper of the fact.
as far as john wayne goes - were u allowed to see the whole press conference?
we weren't here! - cnn cut out for commercials when he was getting to his points.
he asked " with all of the billions wasted here in government spending why cant we have a guard in every school."
All I saw on the TV was a few soundbites, that was all that was broadcast on the BBC. I did, however, go on to read the transcript of the entire speech and didn't encounter anything particularly enlightening - just a pro-gun spokesman funded by the firearms industry, blaming anything other than guns, suggesting the solution to gun crime is loading up society with more guns.
I'd also like to remind you that Neil Gardner, an armed sheriff’s deputy who had been policing the Columbine school for almost two years, was there when the massacre happened, and he wasn't able to stop it.
And the ultimate irony - at the very same moment that the NRA was making its speech, a gun battle in Pennsylvania left three people dead, one of them an innocent woman who was decorating a church.
in every regard your anti gun premise is flawed - i have owned firearms my whole life and have never
used them to abuse or kill any another human being. and still ima baby killer?
intentionally lumped in with anyone of the imaginary psycho supposedly ignorant gun " nuts " ?
and dont bother telling me how u have never come out and actually said that when u consonantly infer it.
I've never called you a baby killer, nor even suggested you are.
Given there are 270 million-ish guns in private hands, and over 9,000 gun homicides, then it means that something like 99.99997% of guns aren't used to murder anyone in any particular year. And I'm glad to hear that you are one of that massive majority of responsible gun owners.
I'm sure Adam Lanza's mum was also a responsible gun owner who had no intention of allowing her guns to be used to murder young kids. That didn't prevent it happening. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
u r worried about some gun company making profits? what does any company strive to do?
if there were no profits nobody would work - what would be the point of your wasted labor?
i really find it hard to even carry on and intellectually stimulating conversation with u socialists/communists.
u r like a broken record - spewing out the same ridiculous uniformed talking points time after time.
you have succeeded in boring me sir.
I'm all in favour of companies making profits - I run one (a small one) myself and that provides my livelihood. I'm a believer in the free market and the profit motive as it's the only system that's been proved to get anywhere near working for the benefit of the people.
And I'm socialist? Communist? That's just resorting to namecalling, without any factual basis whatsoever, indeed if you had sight of my voting record over the several decades I've been old enough to vote, you wouldn't have written that.
As for my "uninformed talking points" - I've provided facts and data to back up my logical, rational argument that gun control has worked in other countries and has reduced gun crime. That bores you because you don't want to hear it.
The only counter argument we've got from you and others has been based on the second amendment. You Americans get spoon-fed this shit from kindergarden onwards, along with motherhood and apple pie, and it's recited to me as the gospel truth by the same people who tell me I'm brainwashed and incapable of independent thought. Get the irony?
I've questioned its validity in this thread and have yet to read anything in the numerous angry responses that justifies widespread and largely unfettered gun ownership in a civilised society in the 21st century.
I've also been interested to read a wide range of US media coverage of all this since the NRA speech on Friday. From what I've seen, the US population appears to be split around 50%:50% on gun controls, so at least half of you feel the same way I do. The more kids murdered in school, the more innocent people killed by heavily armed criminals and nutters, the more that percentage split will shift in favour of gun controls.
Gun control is coming to the US, of that you can be sure, whether the NRA and their supporters want it or not. The only remaining questions are how long it will take, how restrictive the controls will be, and how many more innocent people will lose their lives before it happens.
-
It is very liberal though.
The trouble with liberals is that they want government to be huge. That and that they distinguish between the foreign policy outrages committed by democraps and the very same foreign policy outrages committed by republicunts. If a so-called left-leaning (what a joke!) democrat goes and drops bombs and kills hundreds of people in country A (always under the hypocritical guise of humanitarianism [RTP]!) they will say it's justified, and if a repub goes and does the same (under naked imperialistic objectives) they will cry, foul! war crimes! And all the while both are underneath it all promoting the same economic wellbeing of corporations and advancing the neoliberal agenda. What crap.
They want government to be all-powerful as I said above. In truth, the only way to handle government is to somehow make it large and powerful when dealing with crooked corporations and the like, and small and weak when it comes to trying to dominate the private lives of ordinary people. I wonder if such a thing could be possible. What would it take?
At any rate, government now in the US (and come to think of it in all of western "first world" countries), is dysfuctional. In the US at least, there is a clause in the constitution that permits (it obligates really) the people to abolish government when it runs contrary to the interests of the people. Oh, if only that could be implemented.
goblin
-
] ITS OUR RIGHT TO BARE ARMS
No one is stopping you from wearing a tank top.
Why not invest in a system that can detect gunshots and precisely position where they are fired from
Like Boomerang or ShotSpotter? Interesting application. It would force the violent kooks to go subsonic (to not be detected) and large caliber (to still be lethal). But combined with automated image profiling software and CCTV? That would probably stop many shooters. Especially when combined with automated lock downs and fire door/windows like you suggest.
But as many have pointed out, this is actually a people problem rather than a gun problem. A paramedic outfit and a large medical bag would still probably get you and 30lbs of home made dirty bombs into an after school basked ball game to kill hundreds.
-
well obama is a flat out communist but even that is unimportant because he is only allowed
to implement what the bankers and corporations allow him to.
Communist? Ha ha ha ha. I suppose you believe he's Al-Quaeda too?
He's certainly been blocked by congress and the senate from doing alot of what he wants to do, groups with deep pockets and minority interests can do that, and it's not just the US where that happens. It's always been this way, especially with a president from one party and congress dominated by the other, for at least as long as I can remember. Sure bankers and corporations do influence legislation, but so does every other well-funded pressure group. Like the NRA.
how many US citizens have been caught up in this legislation and held without trial.
truely - how can anyone but the treasonous whores that abuse the rights of the people know this.
did i mention u have no right to a lawyer or outside contact once u have been held illegally?
people disappear. there is no mention made by anyone.
read the actual language of the bill - now law - it reads like a nightmare.
I've spent some time searching the web for up to date info on Guantanamo, and I cannot find ANY mention of US citizens being picked up in the US and detained without charge or trial. Suggesting it happens despite the fact it's never been reported because the government is keeping it quiet is the domain of conspiracy theorists. And all this in the country with the most open and closely scrutinised government on the planet. Sorry, I don't believe it.
On top of that, I'd suggest that if "they" are coming for you, no amount of guns will stop them, and the more you have, the more likely it'll end in "suicide by cop" or another Waco. Your best defence is having media-hungry lawyers, anti-government journalists and civil liberties groups on speed-dial, and making sure all your family and friends do the same. I can't believe your government is able to make people disappear without any of these groups catching even the smallest whisper of the fact.
as far as john wayne goes - were u allowed to see the whole press conference?
we weren't here! - cnn cut out for commercials when he was getting to his points.
he asked " with all of the billions wasted here in government spending why cant we have a guard in every school."
All I saw on the TV was a few soundbites, that was all that was broadcast on the BBC. I did, however, go on to read the transcript of the entire speech and didn't encounter anything particularly enlightening - just a pro-gun spokesman funded by the firearms industry, blaming anything other than guns, suggesting the solution to gun crime is loading up society with more guns.
I'd also like to remind you that Neil Gardner, an armed sheriff’s deputy who had been policing the Columbine school for almost two years, was there when the massacre happened, and he wasn't able to stop it.
And the ultimate irony - at the very same moment that the NRA was making its speech, a gun battle in Pennsylvania left three people dead, one of them an innocent woman who was decorating a church.
in every regard your anti gun premise is flawed - i have owned firearms my whole life and have never
used them to abuse or kill any another human being. and still ima baby killer?
intentionally lumped in with anyone of the imaginary psycho supposedly ignorant gun " nuts " ?
and dont bother telling me how u have never come out and actually said that when u consonantly infer it.
I've never called you a baby killer, nor even suggested you are.
Given there are 270 million-ish guns in private hands, and over 9,000 gun homicides, then it means that something like 99.99997% of guns aren't used to murder anyone in any particular year. And I'm glad to hear that you are one of that massive majority of responsible gun owners.
I'm sure Adam Lanza's mum was also a responsible gun owner who had no intention of allowing her guns to be used to murder young kids. That didn't prevent it happening. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
u r worried about some gun company making profits? what does any company strive to do?
if there were no profits nobody would work - what would be the point of your wasted labor?
i really find it hard to even carry on and intellectually stimulating conversation with u socialists/communists.
u r like a broken record - spewing out the same ridiculous uniformed talking points time after time.
you have succeeded in boring me sir.
I'm all in favour of companies making profits - I run one (a small one) myself and that provides my livelihood. I'm a believer in the free market and the profit motive as it's the only system that's been proved to get anywhere near working for the benefit of the people.
And I'm socialist? Communist? That's just resorting to namecalling, without any factual basis whatsoever, indeed if you had sight of my voting record over the several decades I've been old enough to vote, you wouldn't have written that.
As for my "uninformed talking points" - I've provided facts and data to back up my logical, rational argument that gun control has worked in other countries and has reduced gun crime. That bores you because you don't want to hear it.
The only counter argument we've got from you and others has been based on the second amendment. You Americans get spoon-fed this shit from kindergarden onwards, along with motherhood and apple pie, and it's recited to me as the gospel truth by the same people who tell me I'm brainwashed and incapable of independent thought. Get the irony?
I've questioned its validity in this thread and have yet to read anything in the numerous angry responses that justifies widespread and largely unfettered gun ownership in a civilised society in the 21st century.
I've also been interested to read a wide range of US media coverage of all this since the NRA speech on Friday. From what I've seen, the US population appears to be split around 50%:50% on gun controls, so at least half of you feel the same way I do. The more kids murdered in school, the more innocent people killed by heavily armed criminals and nutters, the more that percentage split will shift in favour of gun controls.
Gun control is coming to the US, of that you can be sure, whether the NRA and their supporters want it or not. The only remaining questions are how long it will take, how restrictive the controls will be, and how many more innocent people will lose their lives before it happens.
really floyd - good luck in all your endeavors - my time is worth much more to me than this.
Merry Christmas;
Christy
-
really floyd - good luck in all your endeavors - my time is worth much more to me than this.
Merry Christmas;
Christy
And a merry xmas to you.
My mother in law is arriving later, can I please borrow one of your guns?
-
If you have never heard that libertarians are in favor of decriminalization of CP possession and distribution I wonder how long have you considered yourself to be a libertarian for? How much research have you actually done on what libertarians believe? Because anyone who is against the legalization of child porn possession is not really a 'pure' libertarian, and it is quite strongly associated with libertarianism to hold this belief. It is extremely associated with anarchists, you cannot want the censorship of information and really consider your self to be an Anarchist, these things are mutually exclusive. A quick google search confirms that the general libertarian position on CP possession is decriminalization:
from wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_regarding_child_pornography_laws
During the nomination process at the 2008 Libertarian National Convention, anarcho-capitalist and U.S. Presidential candidate Mary Ruwart came under fire for her comment in her 1998 book, Short answers to the tough questions, in which she stated her opposition not only to laws against possession of child pornography but even against its production, based on her belief that such laws actually encourage such behavior by increasing prices.[16]
although it does contrast with this immediately after it
Shane Cory, on behalf of the minarchist United States Libertarian Party in his role as executive director, issued a response saying, "We have an obligation to protect children from sexual exploitation and abuse, and we can do this by increasing communication between state and federal agencies to help combat this repulsive industry. While privacy rights should always be respected in the pursuit of child pornographers, more needs to be done to track down and prosecute the twisted individuals who exploit innocent children."[17] Cory resigned after the party refused to vote on a resolution asking states to strongly enforce existing child porn laws.[18]
I would say the first opinion that CP production should be legalized is a very small minority of libertarians, although I have run into a few who think this way (essentially they see themselves as owning their children up to a certain point in time). I know that the ACLU and quite a lot of libertarians are in favor of decriminalization of possession and distribution but distribution legalization may not be the most prevalent libertarian belief. I very rarely find libertarians except a few self professed libertarians here have claimed to be against CP possession legalization. I am not sure what they really are but they don't appear to be libertarian to me.
http://www.aclucentralflorida.org/questions.html
[3] Why does the ACLU support pornography?
Why are you in favor of child porn?
The ACLU does not support pornography. But we do oppose virtually all forms of censorship. Possessing books or films should not make one a criminal. Once society starts censoring "bad" ideas, it becomes very difficult to draw the line. Your idea of what is offensive may be a lot different from your neighbors. The ACLU takes a very purist approach in opposing censorship. Our policy is that possessing pornographic material should not itself be a crime. The best way to combat child pornography is for the government to prosecute those who exploit children by making pornography and we strongly agree with the enforcement of such prosecutions.
yro.slashdot.org/story/12/09/09/1314232/rick-falkvinge-on-child-porn-and-freedom-of-the-press
"Rick Falkvinge of the Swedish Pirate Party blogs on the subject of freedom of the press and foresees how users of Google glasses could be charged for possession and distribution of illegal porn. 'Child pornography is a toxic subject, but a very important one that cannot and should not be ignored. This is an attempt to bring the topic to a serious discussion, and explain why possession of child pornography need to be re-legalized in the next ten years.'"
So pretty much you know nothing about what libertarianism actually is, and you are almost certainly not really a libertarian. You are the one who is in favor of criminalizing CP possession and who thinks that possession of CP victimizes children, this is not a common view held in the libertarian community.
Having sex with a child is wrong. The child is no less of a victim because you have a handycam rolling while you are abusing them. Paying someone to abuse a child for your viewing pleasure makes you an accomplice. This is also wrong.
Simply having pictures of abuse does not in itself constitute a crime. I am glad the pictures from Abu Ghraib were leaked but that doesn't mean I think it is ok to take photos while abusing a person. Is this the point you are trying to make? Stating that all Libertarians support child pornography is neither clear nor accurate.
-
And while you yanks need to discuss this issue the gun toll rises and rises. Today Xmas day two families are mourning from death by guns plus the plethora of other gun fatalities we haven't heard off.
Talk is very cheap and fuck your second amendment, just ban the fucken guns and time to educate you yanks on the true meaning of "freedom of speech" and "right to bear arms" and the responsibilities that come with them.
So sad..firefighters go to put out a blaze and then thing they are being gunned down.
God bless america huh.
-
And while you yanks need to discuss this issue the gun toll rises and rises. Today Xmas day two families are mourning from death by guns plus the plethora of other gun fatalities we haven't heard off.
Talk is very cheap and fuck your second amendment, just ban the fucken guns and time to educate you yanks on the true meaning of "freedom of speech" and "right to bear arms" and the responsibilities that come with them.
So sad..firefighters go to put out a blaze and then thing they are being gunned down.
God bless america huh.
There comes responsibility with freedom of speech?! Please explain to me how the fuck that works.
-
And while you yanks need to discuss this issue the gun toll rises and rises. Today Xmas day two families are mourning from death by guns plus the plethora of other gun fatalities we haven't heard off.
Talk is very cheap and fuck your second amendment, just ban the fucken guns and time to educate you yanks on the true meaning of "freedom of speech" and "right to bear arms" and the responsibilities that come with them.
So sad..firefighters go to put out a blaze and then thing they are being gunned down.
God bless america huh.
And in other news...
*clearnet link* http://www.courierpress.com/news/2012/dec/24/man-found-slain-in-front-yard/
A 79-year-old Evansville man shot and killed a 19-year-old who was attacking his granddaughter, Evansville Police said in a news release.
Davon Obryant Gee was pronounced dead at a home in the 500 block of South Denby Avenue on Sunday night, according to the Vanderburgh County Coroner's Office.
The name of man who shot and killed Gee has not been released by police because the man has not been charged with a crime, according to city police officials.
Police said Gee got into an argument with a 17-year-old girl at the Denby Avenue home on Sunday evening. Gee threatened to assault the girl and to use a "stun gun" on her.
She ran from the house but Gee chased her down, catching her in the yard and beating her. The girl's 79-year-old grandfather, who was in the house, came outside to help her. He told Gee to quit beating the girl.
According to witnesses, Gee then threatened to use the stun gun on the grandfather. Reaching into his pocket, he approached the 79-year-old who told him several times to stop.
The grandfather told police he feared he could not defend himself against the bigger, younger attacker and that he feared the stun gun would kill him due to a heart condition. When the man kept approaching, witnesses said, the grandfather pulled out a handgun and fired one shot. Gee ran into a neighboring yard and collapsed.
When police arrived, they attempted life-saving measures but the man died at the scene.
The gun was recovered inside the grandfather's house. The stun gun was recovered from Gee's pocket.
Investigators will complete a case file and forward it to the Vanderburgh County Prosecutor's Office for review.
Gee died from cardiac arrhythmia and exsanguination due to a gunshot to the chest, according to a report from the Vanderburgh County Coroner's Office. An autopsy was performed Monday morning.
-
Im late to the party but i read the whole thread. I noticed how the anit-gun crew resorted to adhomen attacks, specifically against farmer1, when he brought up good points.
Regulation does not work, columbine happened right in the middle of the last assult weapons ban. I find it ironic that there are people who come this forum, that was created to circumvent the prohibition of drugs, to argue for the prohibition of guns. One would have to lack a complete understanding of the supply & demand relationship to think prohibition is a good thing. Can you not see the parallels between gun and drug prohibition? The current booming sales of guns should clearly indicate that even the threat of regulating the supply of guns clearly drives demand through the roof. I cant even find high capacity mags online, they are sold out everywhere. I dont trust the US government and i would never give up my gun. I legaly carry my gun with me everywhere, If someone starts shooting at me, im going to shoot back.
Im from the US, it seems most of the anti-gun people here are not from the US, while the majority of US citizens wish to retain their right to bear arms.
-
heavysmoker, yup, you're right on everything you just said. Look what those crazy motherfuckers did when Adam Kokesh tried to have normal discussion with them:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIS2RYEgejY
-
And while you yanks need to discuss this issue the gun toll rises and rises. Today Xmas day two families are mourning from death by guns plus the plethora of other gun fatalities we haven't heard off.
Talk is very cheap and fuck your second amendment, just ban the fucken guns and time to educate you yanks on the true meaning of "freedom of speech" and "right to bear arms" and the responsibilities that come with them.
So sad..firefighters go to put out a blaze and then thing they are being gunned down.
God bless america huh.
And in other news...
*clearnet link* http://www.courierpress.com/news/2012/dec/24/man-found-slain-in-front-yard/
A 79-year-old Evansville man shot and killed a 19-year-old who was attacking his granddaughter, Evansville Police said in a news release.
Davon Obryant Gee was pronounced dead at a home in the 500 block of South Denby Avenue on Sunday night, according to the Vanderburgh County Coroner's Office.
The name of man who shot and killed Gee has not been released by police because the man has not been charged with a crime, according to city police officials.
Police said Gee got into an argument with a 17-year-old girl at the Denby Avenue home on Sunday evening. Gee threatened to assault the girl and to use a "stun gun" on her.
She ran from the house but Gee chased her down, catching her in the yard and beating her. The girl's 79-year-old grandfather, who was in the house, came outside to help her. He told Gee to quit beating the girl.
According to witnesses, Gee then threatened to use the stun gun on the grandfather. Reaching into his pocket, he approached the 79-year-old who told him several times to stop.
The grandfather told police he feared he could not defend himself against the bigger, younger attacker and that he feared the stun gun would kill him due to a heart condition. When the man kept approaching, witnesses said, the grandfather pulled out a handgun and fired one shot. Gee ran into a neighboring yard and collapsed.
When police arrived, they attempted life-saving measures but the man died at the scene.
The gun was recovered inside the grandfather's house. The stun gun was recovered from Gee's pocket.
Investigators will complete a case file and forward it to the Vanderburgh County Prosecutor's Office for review.
Gee died from cardiac arrhythmia and exsanguination due to a gunshot to the chest, according to a report from the Vanderburgh County Coroner's Office. An autopsy was performed Monday morning.
Gee, pardon the pun, I am completely wrong, how could I have been so stupid? If only there was an obvious flaw with that extremely rare scenario. Hmmm, let me think.... redneck fagot like yourself shoots dead his mate or family member in an unprovoked fit of rage, then tells the police he had no choice it was self defence. wow would you look at that, the fact that murderers can claim self defence because their victims are dead just blew your fuckwit analogy out of the water. If only I could reference a high profile story that occurred recently... gee, pardon the pun, let me think.... oh wait, I got it, how about Treyvon Martin and his deadly skittles? yeah, thanks farmer1, I love the stand your ground law, or any shooting where you can only hear one side of the story because the other cunt is dead! its fucken awesome for sociopaths like yourself, wow no wonder America is such a peaceful country with very few gun deaths (you fucking faggot cunt)
answer the question I have put to your knowall ass more than once in this thread or fuck off back to your fox news mates because you oviously cant match it with anyone with at least half a brain you child.
just to make it clear for you in farmer1 terms, if our 'argument' was a gunfight, you would be dead on the ground riddled with bullets and I would be untouched explaining to the officer that this turd was trying to play rambo with his brain but realised he was all out of ammo to begin with
-
If you have never heard that libertarians are in favor of decriminalization of CP possession and distribution I wonder how long have you considered yourself to be a libertarian for? How much research have you actually done on what libertarians believe? Because anyone who is against the legalization of child porn possession is not really a 'pure' libertarian, and it is quite strongly associated with libertarianism to hold this belief. It is extremely associated with anarchists, you cannot want the censorship of information and really consider your self to be an Anarchist, these things are mutually exclusive. A quick google search confirms that the general libertarian position on CP possession is decriminalization:
from wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_regarding_child_pornography_laws
During the nomination process at the 2008 Libertarian National Convention, anarcho-capitalist and U.S. Presidential candidate Mary Ruwart came under fire for her comment in her 1998 book, Short answers to the tough questions, in which she stated her opposition not only to laws against possession of child pornography but even against its production, based on her belief that such laws actually encourage such behavior by increasing prices.[16]
although it does contrast with this immediately after it
Shane Cory, on behalf of the minarchist United States Libertarian Party in his role as executive director, issued a response saying, "We have an obligation to protect children from sexual exploitation and abuse, and we can do this by increasing communication between state and federal agencies to help combat this repulsive industry. While privacy rights should always be respected in the pursuit of child pornographers, more needs to be done to track down and prosecute the twisted individuals who exploit innocent children."[17] Cory resigned after the party refused to vote on a resolution asking states to strongly enforce existing child porn laws.[18]
I would say the first opinion that CP production should be legalized is a very small minority of libertarians, although I have run into a few who think this way (essentially they see themselves as owning their children up to a certain point in time). I know that the ACLU and quite a lot of libertarians are in favor of decriminalization of possession and distribution but distribution legalization may not be the most prevalent libertarian belief. I very rarely find libertarians except a few self professed libertarians here have claimed to be against CP possession legalization. I am not sure what they really are but they don't appear to be libertarian to me.
http://www.aclucentralflorida.org/questions.html
[3] Why does the ACLU support pornography?
Why are you in favor of child porn?
The ACLU does not support pornography. But we do oppose virtually all forms of censorship. Possessing books or films should not make one a criminal. Once society starts censoring "bad" ideas, it becomes very difficult to draw the line. Your idea of what is offensive may be a lot different from your neighbors. The ACLU takes a very purist approach in opposing censorship. Our policy is that possessing pornographic material should not itself be a crime. The best way to combat child pornography is for the government to prosecute those who exploit children by making pornography and we strongly agree with the enforcement of such prosecutions.
yro.slashdot.org/story/12/09/09/1314232/rick-falkvinge-on-child-porn-and-freedom-of-the-press
"Rick Falkvinge of the Swedish Pirate Party blogs on the subject of freedom of the press and foresees how users of Google glasses could be charged for possession and distribution of illegal porn. 'Child pornography is a toxic subject, but a very important one that cannot and should not be ignored. This is an attempt to bring the topic to a serious discussion, and explain why possession of child pornography need to be re-legalized in the next ten years.'"
So pretty much you know nothing about what libertarianism actually is, and you are almost certainly not really a libertarian. You are the one who is in favor of criminalizing CP possession and who thinks that possession of CP victimizes children, this is not a common view held in the libertarian community.
Having sex with a child is wrong. The child is no less of a victim because you have a handycam rolling while you are abusing them. Paying someone to abuse a child for your viewing pleasure makes you an accomplice. This is also wrong.
Simply having pictures of abuse does not in itself constitute a crime. I am glad the pictures from Abu Ghraib were leaked but that doesn't mean I think it is ok to take photos while abusing a person. Is this the point you are trying to make? Stating that all Libertarians support child pornography is neither clear nor accurate.
I think I was quite clear in saying that Libertarians overwhelmingly support the decriminalization of child pornography possession and the decriminalization of child pornography self production and distribution, quite a lot of them additionally support decriminalizing distribution as well, and the more extreme ones are even in favor of decriminalizing voluntary prostitution between adults and 'consenting' children. I don't see how much more clear or accurate I could be than that? The only case where I said that a libertarian would be in favor of allowing an adult to create child pornography with non-consenting children is a small minority who think that a child is the property of its parents while it relies on them to sustain life. I was additionally quite clear and accurate in saying that this is an extreme view not commonly held by libertarians.
-
If you have never heard that libertarians are in favor of decriminalization of CP possession and distribution I wonder how long have you considered yourself to be a libertarian for? How much research have you actually done on what libertarians believe? Because anyone who is against the legalization of child porn possession is not really a 'pure' libertarian, and it is quite strongly associated with libertarianism to hold this belief. It is extremely associated with anarchists, you cannot want the censorship of information and really consider your self to be an Anarchist, these things are mutually exclusive. A quick google search confirms that the general libertarian position on CP possession is decriminalization:
from wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_regarding_child_pornography_laws
During the nomination process at the 2008 Libertarian National Convention, anarcho-capitalist and U.S. Presidential candidate Mary Ruwart came under fire for her comment in her 1998 book, Short answers to the tough questions, in which she stated her opposition not only to laws against possession of child pornography but even against its production, based on her belief that such laws actually encourage such behavior by increasing prices.[16]
although it does contrast with this immediately after it
Shane Cory, on behalf of the minarchist United States Libertarian Party in his role as executive director, issued a response saying, "We have an obligation to protect children from sexual exploitation and abuse, and we can do this by increasing communication between state and federal agencies to help combat this repulsive industry. While privacy rights should always be respected in the pursuit of child pornographers, more needs to be done to track down and prosecute the twisted individuals who exploit innocent children."[17] Cory resigned after the party refused to vote on a resolution asking states to strongly enforce existing child porn laws.[18]
I would say the first opinion that CP production should be legalized is a very small minority of libertarians, although I have run into a few who think this way (essentially they see themselves as owning their children up to a certain point in time). I know that the ACLU and quite a lot of libertarians are in favor of decriminalization of possession and distribution but distribution legalization may not be the most prevalent libertarian belief. I very rarely find libertarians except a few self professed libertarians here have claimed to be against CP possession legalization. I am not sure what they really are but they don't appear to be libertarian to me.
http://www.aclucentralflorida.org/questions.html
[3] Why does the ACLU support pornography?
Why are you in favor of child porn?
The ACLU does not support pornography. But we do oppose virtually all forms of censorship. Possessing books or films should not make one a criminal. Once society starts censoring "bad" ideas, it becomes very difficult to draw the line. Your idea of what is offensive may be a lot different from your neighbors. The ACLU takes a very purist approach in opposing censorship. Our policy is that possessing pornographic material should not itself be a crime. The best way to combat child pornography is for the government to prosecute those who exploit children by making pornography and we strongly agree with the enforcement of such prosecutions.
yro.slashdot.org/story/12/09/09/1314232/rick-falkvinge-on-child-porn-and-freedom-of-the-press
"Rick Falkvinge of the Swedish Pirate Party blogs on the subject of freedom of the press and foresees how users of Google glasses could be charged for possession and distribution of illegal porn. 'Child pornography is a toxic subject, but a very important one that cannot and should not be ignored. This is an attempt to bring the topic to a serious discussion, and explain why possession of child pornography need to be re-legalized in the next ten years.'"
So pretty much you know nothing about what libertarianism actually is, and you are almost certainly not really a libertarian. You are the one who is in favor of criminalizing CP possession and who thinks that possession of CP victimizes children, this is not a common view held in the libertarian community.
Having sex with a child is wrong. The child is no less of a victim because you have a handycam rolling while you are abusing them. Paying someone to abuse a child for your viewing pleasure makes you an accomplice. This is also wrong.
Simply having pictures of abuse does not in itself constitute a crime. I am glad the pictures from Abu Ghraib were leaked but that doesn't mean I think it is ok to take photos while abusing a person. Is this the point you are trying to make? Stating that all Libertarians support child pornography is neither clear nor accurate.
I think I was quite clear in saying that Libertarians overwhelmingly support the decriminalization of child pornography possession and the decriminalization of child pornography self production and distribution, quite a lot of them additionally support decriminalizing distribution as well, and the more extreme ones are even in favor of decriminalizing voluntary prostitution between adults and 'consenting' children. I don't see how much more clear or accurate I could be than that? The only case where I said that a libertarian would be in favor of allowing an adult to create child pornography with non-consenting children is a small minority who think that a child is the property of its parents while it relies on them to sustain life. I was additionally quite clear and accurate in saying that this is an extreme view not commonly held by libertarians.
hate to get off topic but damn man you talk some shit. You aint been hanging with libertarians bud you been chilling with rock spiders. Most libertarians realize that a child of a certain young age cant possibly consent. just because a little five year old says ok to his dad/stepdad playing hide the sausage dont mean there is proper consent, otherwise a kidnapper could just say the kid consented when he willingly jumped in the free candy van duh.
libertarians overwhelmingly support decrimming of child porn possession? haha keep telling yourself that bud whatever helps you sleep at night. if you are so sure you could start a thread here asking all members who identify as libertarians to say what they think on the subject, if you get 1 in 10 saying they support decrimming child porn possession ill mail you a signed pic of justin beiber or something
libertarians overwhelmingly believe you have the right to do pretty much anything you want as long as you dont hurt other people, how is a 6 year old going to deny a few adults who put the fear in him you sick fuck?
you might actually be gayer than farmer1
-
And while you yanks need to discuss this issue the gun toll rises and rises. Today Xmas day two families are mourning from death by guns plus the plethora of other gun fatalities we haven't heard off.
Talk is very cheap and fuck your second amendment, just ban the fucken guns and time to educate you yanks on the true meaning of "freedom of speech" and "right to bear arms" and the responsibilities that come with them.
So sad..firefighters go to put out a blaze and then thing they are being gunned down.
God bless america huh.
And in other news...
*clearnet link* http://www.courierpress.com/news/2012/dec/24/man-found-slain-in-front-yard/
A 79-year-old Evansville man shot and killed a 19-year-old who was attacking his granddaughter, Evansville Police said in a news release.
Davon Obryant Gee was pronounced dead at a home in the 500 block of South Denby Avenue on Sunday night, according to the Vanderburgh County Coroner's Office.
The name of man who shot and killed Gee has not been released by police because the man has not been charged with a crime, according to city police officials.
Police said Gee got into an argument with a 17-year-old girl at the Denby Avenue home on Sunday evening. Gee threatened to assault the girl and to use a "stun gun" on her.
She ran from the house but Gee chased her down, catching her in the yard and beating her. The girl's 79-year-old grandfather, who was in the house, came outside to help her. He told Gee to quit beating the girl.
According to witnesses, Gee then threatened to use the stun gun on the grandfather. Reaching into his pocket, he approached the 79-year-old who told him several times to stop.
The grandfather told police he feared he could not defend himself against the bigger, younger attacker and that he feared the stun gun would kill him due to a heart condition. When the man kept approaching, witnesses said, the grandfather pulled out a handgun and fired one shot. Gee ran into a neighboring yard and collapsed.
When police arrived, they attempted life-saving measures but the man died at the scene.
The gun was recovered inside the grandfather's house. The stun gun was recovered from Gee's pocket.
Investigators will complete a case file and forward it to the Vanderburgh County Prosecutor's Office for review.
Gee died from cardiac arrhythmia and exsanguination due to a gunshot to the chest, according to a report from the Vanderburgh County Coroner's Office. An autopsy was performed Monday morning.
Gee, pardon the pun, I am completely wrong, how could I have been so stupid? If only there was an obvious flaw with that extremely rare scenario. Hmmm, let me think.... redneck fagot like yourself shoots dead his mate or family member in an unprovoked fit of rage, then tells the police he had no choice it was self defence. wow would you look at that, the fact that murderers can claim self defence because their victims are dead just blew your fuckwit analogy out of the water. If only I could reference a high profile story that occurred recently... gee, pardon the pun, let me think.... oh wait, I got it, how about Treyvon Martin and his deadly skittles? yeah, thanks farmer1, I love the stand your ground law, or any shooting where you can only hear one side of the story because the other cunt is dead! its fucken awesome for sociopaths like yourself, wow no wonder America is such a peaceful country with very few gun deaths (you fucking faggot cunt)
answer the question I have put to your knowall ass more than once in this thread or fuck off back to your fox news mates because you oviously cant match it with anyone with at least half a brain you child.
just to make it clear for you in farmer1 terms, if our 'argument' was a gunfight, you would be dead on the ground riddled with bullets and I would be untouched explaining to the officer that this turd was trying to play rambo with his brain but realised he was all out of ammo to begin with
Your argument is flawed because zimmerman has been charged with treyvons death. He will be judged by a jurry of his peers, and if they feel zimmermans life was in danger he will walk. If they feel zimmerman used excessive force, he will go to jail. It's not like zimmerman was completely unprovoked, have you seen the photos?
I really like the insult you have been using, "faggot redneck". I like it because the terms are pretty exclusive. "Redneck" at least checks out, most rednecks are pro gun. Most homosexuals, or "faggots" as you so eloquently put it, tend to be liberal and vote for gun control.
If your argument with farmer1 was a gun fight, how could you win without a gun? You would willingly give up your right to a gun (or brain to carry on your own analogy) while farmer1 clearly has his. If you want to give up your own rights, by all means be my guest. I have a problem when you use your own fear of guns to infringe on my right to own a gun.
Also for an FYI, im an atheist. I hate organized religion, the republican party, and fox news. I prefer cnn with that "faggot" anderson cooper.
PS Santa just brought me a FN Herstal five-seven pistol. Lower recoil than a 9mm, and it is accurate at up to 100 yards and has a 20 round magazine. U mad bro?