American's Rights To Bare Arms, Hows That Working Out?

[Gervinho's Forehead]

Eevn after the shocking primary school shooting today, there is still no question of tightening gun control in america. What will it take for the most backwards country in the Western World wake up and get a grip?

[Syn]

Was talking to an Ameretard bro last time this sort of shit happened and his response was that 'well guns are banned in school aren't they?'

[Gervinho's Forehead]

Was talking to an Ameretard bro last time this sort of shit happened and his response was that 'well guns are banned in school aren't they?'

:rolleyes:

That's the sort of response I'd expect a yanklander to give.

[Olivier's xmas twist]

Eevn after the shocking primary school shooting today, there is still no question of tightening gun control in america. What will it take for the most backwards country in the Western World wake up and get a grip?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2248307/Sandy-Hook-shooting-Barack-Obama-signals-push-gun-control-Connecticut-massacre.html

[Gervinho's Forehead]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2248307/Sandy-Hook-shooting-Barack-Obama-signals-push-gun-control-Connecticut-massacre.html

What a few people have said tonight is that there should be a police officer in every school....

[GP]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2248307/Sandy-Hook-shooting-Barack-Obama-signals-push-gun-control-Connecticut-massacre.html

No president will ever touch the 2nd amendment.

[Gervinho's Forehead]

No president will ever touch the 2nd amendment.

They wouldn't even dare and would more than likely increase the risk of getting shot.

[Olivier's xmas twist]

Eevn after the shocking primary school shooting today, there is still no question of tightening gun control in america. What will it take for the most backwards country in the Western World wake up and get a grip?

Gun control is the way forward. However it won't stop a nutter doing this again. Or a kid who feels he has been picked on, going into his ma or pa's draw and pullling out a gun and doing this typ of things.

[The Wengerbabies]

While this is undoubtedly a tragedy and certainly not the first of its kind, I still agree with the right to bear arms and wish we had a similar right.

[fakeyank]

While this is undoubtedly a tragedy and certainly not the first of its kind, I still agree with the right to bear arms and wish we had a similar right.

:gp:

[Letters]

While this is undoubtedly a tragedy and certainly not the first of its kind, I still agree with the right to bear arms and wish we had a similar right.
OK. Do carry on. Why do you agree it's a good idea for normal citizens to be armed.

[Xhaka Can’t]

Because he is incapable of making the correlation between the high murder rate in the US and the right to bear arms. Some Muppet american in holiday in Calgary actually wrote to the Herald that it was wrong that he was unable to carry his gun in Canada because he felt threatened when someone greeted him.

I'm not making this up, google Nose Hill Gentleman to find out more.

The right to bear arms is a fuctarded law that belongs in another age

[Letters]

The genie's out of the bottle though, I don't see how any effective gun legislation could be brought in when so many are in circulation.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

The second amendment is basically a firewall against government tyranny, british tyranny and against those who would help themselves to your land and property, i.e the kind of law or entitlement necessary when a state is establishing itself as a society back in the 18th century. As much as Obama's speech last night was very moving, he has signed bills into effect that has loosened restrictions on firearms like allowing people to carry concealed weapons on trains and in national parks etc

[She Wore A Yellow Ribbon]

when they eventually tighten the gun laws it'll move onto knives like in this country.

criminals are criminals. period.

[The Wengerbabies]

OK. Do carry on. Why do you agree it's a good idea for normal citizens to be armed.

Pretty much every Swiss man has an military issue gun. Do they have the same problems as the US?

Access to firearms is not the problem, stupidity is.

Imo it should be legal to have a gun in your house if you so wish.

[GP]

Access to firearms is not the problem, stupidity is.

And it's fair to say that the US has a higher than average level of stupidity, so lets not give them all the bang bang boomsticks.

[Olivier's xmas twist]

The genie's out of the bottle though, I don't see how any effective gun legislation could be brought in when so many are in circulation.

It won't be that effective, it will be a way to protect the govenrment whoever they are. Enof the day People that want to kill will. if they don't get guns, it will be knives etc.

Alot of why these things happensm is down to society being fucked up.

[Syn]

when they eventually tighten the gun laws it'll move onto knives like in this country.

criminals are criminals. period.

Knives are less dangerous.

[She Wore A Yellow Ribbon]

they kill.

thats all that matters.

[Syn]

they kill.

thats all that matters.

Thats a very stupid way of looking at it. They are much less likely to kill. That's what matters.

[She Wore A Yellow Ribbon]

still kill though :coffee:

[Letters]

Thats a very stupid way of looking at it. They are much less likely to kill. That's what matters.
:gp:

[Letters]

Pretty much every Swiss man has an military issue gun. Do they have the same problems as the US?

Access to firearms is not the problem, stupidity is.

Imo it should be legal to have a gun in your house if you so wish.
There is some sense in that 2nd sentence. I found this on Wiki


The low incidence of gun crime in Switzerland is sometimes attributed to the fact that Switzerland is wealthy but also isolated. Social problems associated with gun crime in other industrialised countries, such as drugs or urban deprivation, are not widespread. Swiss men and women learn from an early age to associate firearms with defense of their country

You could say the same thing about alcohol, lots of countries have a culture of drinking alcohol but the UK has a particular problem with binge drinking. Just because other countries manage fine that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try and do something about the particular problems here. Plus the analogy breaks down because alcohol in moderation is benign, even beneficial. Guns only have one purpose and that is to harm.

This sort of thing happens with depressing regularity in the US but the pro-gun lobby are far too strong in the US so nothing will be done about it.

So yes, in theory people can all have guns and it's all fine, in practise it doesn't work in the US. Gun crime figures are ridiculous, these sorts of tragedies happen far too regularly and something should be done about it. I can't for the life of me think why anyone would want a gun in their home.

[Syn]

http://cdn.motinetwork.net/demotivationalposters.net/image/demotivational-poster/1011/the-right-to-bear-arms-demotivational-poster-1288917337.jpg

[Olivier's xmas twist]

There is some sense in that 2nd sentence. I found this on Wiki



You could say the same thing about alcohol, lots of countries have a culture of drinking alcohol but the UK has a particular problem with binge drinking. Just because other countries manage fine that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try and do something about the particular problems here. Plus the analogy breaks down because alcohol in moderation is benign, even beneficial. Guns only have one purpose and that is to harm.

This sort of thing happens with depressing regularity in the US but the pro-gun lobby are far too strong in the US so nothing will be done about it.

So yes, in theory people can all have guns and it's all fine, in practise it doesn't work in the US. Gun crime figures are ridiculous, these sorts of tragedies happen far too regularly and something should be done about it. I can't for the life of me think why anyone would want a gun in their home.

As a great man onces said "Guns don't kill people, people kill people".

[Letters]

As a great man onces said "Guns don't kill people, people kill people".
And sometimes people with guns kill people.
If they didn't have such ready access to those guns a lot of deaths would be prevented.

[Niall_Quinn]

Americans are under every conceivable threat from the state. Their liberties, supposedly enshrined in their Constitution and Bill of Rights are being stripped away daily. The idea of what America is supposed to be and the reality of what it actually is have never been further apart since the time of monarchy. In the end a citizen's "right" to bear arms might be the only thing between that citizen and tyrannical government.

It's interesting that many outside observers have strong views on this issue but it should also be remembered no outsider has the right to tell Americans how they should live or behave. If they want guns (and they do) then that's the end of it, not that I imagine they pay much attention to foreign opinion anyway. It's also interesting the people who are so vociferous about guns have less to say about drugs and propaganda - and I mean the legal drugs pushed by the state on so many of the citizens. The government is on the rampage trying to dope up as many kids as possible. They allow all sorts of shit to be used in food and the water supply. Their arms industry and energy companies create war and havoc across the globe and send kids (usually poor kids) to fight these hostile takeovers. They get drugs on the battlefield and drugs when they come home (but no genuine support).

There are millions of crazies wandering the cities of America, fallout from the perpetual war economy. Death and killing is worshipped and glorified as a means to persuade more and more poor saps to sign up and kill for the corporation. The media bangs on daily about the American dream and the preservation of life, liberty and prosperity delivered down the barrel of a gun. The American government is the most violent institution on this planet. The media is its cheerleader. The corporations its boss and guiding hand.

If you lived in such a nightmare (and you do if you live in Britain), would you want to face that government with your bare hands when the time comes? And even if this sounds insane to you (which I'm certain it does in most cases), would it be better to concentrate on the actual causes of violence so peoples lives and minds can be saved, rather than focus on the implements of violence (which America leads the world in pushing)?

It's simple to read reports on isolated incidents in a country of 300 million and then react by suggesting the further curtailment of liberty. That's what the government wants of course. But they'll have a job of it because I doubt there are many Americans who want to exist like the British and Europeans (but the compliant and complacent British in particular).

In the end it might well be the American citizen armed with the Bill of Rights and his handgun that saves the rest of us, despite our reluctance to stand for our own rights. This week the Euro fascist state achieved it's greatest victory yet with the transfer of draconian powers that usurp national sovereignty to a centralised bank. We fought those bastards using all manner of guns in WWI and WWII - now we piss on the memory of those who fought for freedom (in their own minds at least) by allowing the enemy to walk in unmolested. And we get on our high horse and suggest the yanks do the same.

I suspect they can see right through us and don't like what they see.

[Niall_Quinn]

And sometimes people with guns kill people.
If they didn't have such ready access to those guns a lot of deaths would be prevented.

Do you have any evidence to support this claim? And I wonder - living in a nation that uses violence all the time to achieve its objectives and having openly admitted to voting and thereby sanctioning this violence in all its forms, do you think guns should be taken away from governments too? Because they kill on a level several magnitudes greater than the citizen. The gun ban here in the UK has not stopped millions dying or being maimed by British bullets and bombs, has it? If we are going to ban guns then lets ban them properly and be genuine about it.

[Letters]

Do you have any evidence to support this claim?
Well yeah, look at the gun crime stats. Those wouldn't reduce to zero were the controls tighter but it would certainly bring it down considerably. I can't prove that, obviously, but I would have thought it's pretty self-evident. This kid snapped, he had access to a gun. In a lot of countries he wouldn't have done and the results would have most likely been less tragic. This happens often enough in the US to make it pretty obvious some controls are needed.


do you think guns should be taken away from governments too?

I don't know but that's a separate issue.

[She Wore A Yellow Ribbon]

edit.

[Niall_Quinn]

Well yeah, look at the gun crime stats. Those wouldn't reduce to zero were the controls tighter but it would certainly bring it down considerably. I can't prove that, obviously, but I would have thought it's pretty self-evident. This kid snapped, he had access to a gun. In a lot of countries he wouldn't have done and the results would have most likely been less tragic. This happens often enough in the US to make it pretty obvious some controls are needed.



I don't know but that's a separate issue.

Sorry, how is it a separate issue? Is the point of gun control to stop people being killed with guns? Or is it something else? Are we saying we want to limit the number of British people killed but it's another matter if we want to slaughter foreigners with guns? That's a strange form of control that seems to entirely serve the interests of the most violent abusers of guns.

But even if the elephant in the room is ignored, there is no evidence at all to suggest gun control in this country is either necessary or has been effective. And it's certainly not lawful under the Common Law. Criminals, unsurprisingly, pay no attention to the law and never have. They deal in opportunity and an unarmed and unprotected citizenry is ideal from them. With our police force transformed into a revenue generating bureaucracy our rights as citizens to defend ourselves (set out in our own Bill of Rights in 1689) have been removed in favour of reliance on an impotent and disinterested state. In fact we get told to walk away and cry to the state when we see a violent crime taking place in our community. You can't have liberty unless you have the right to defend it. It's impossible.

Our gun laws, leaving aside the fact they are entirely ineffective (because there was no cause to ever introduce them in terms of significant gun crime), remove a fundamental condition of our liberty. Violence is soaring in this country and citizens are powerless to defend themselves and even run the risk of prosecution should they attempt to exercise their basic human rights. How anyone can see this as progressive is a mystery. All we have done is place power in the hands of the blue collar criminal classes - the white collar criminals aren't affected by the law of course.

I'm not sure what American crime figures read following the onset of recession, but beforehand violent crime in many parts of America was declining at such a sharp rate it was starting to converge with our own. This is odd considering the American mindset is to defend their liberty (up until Carter and the subsequent line of persuasive fascists at least) so you would expect more aggression within their society. Plus you have the overt racism, as opposed to ours which is more skilfully concealed. Whereas we are sheep and astounding cowards who willingly submit to the whims of state without the merest protest. We demand the state take on more of our personal responsibilities. And yet violence in our society is epidemic. This isn't just because the police force has abdicated at the demand of the state, it's also because the citizen has been rendered increasingly powerless by layer upon layer of legislation you can only conclude has been introduced to favour the criminal.

In the end I think people might just change their mind if they found a violent intruder in their home threatening their family and picked up the phone to the token police only to hear, "Press 1 if you are about to be assaulted..." Personally I'd rather fetch a gun and blow the fucker away. And how dare anyone say I don't have the right to do that. On my home! Who the fuck are these government ****s and lawyer ****s and judiciary ****s who want to preside over my right to protect my family 6 weeks after they might have been murdered? Is it their family at risk? I didn't think so.

Of course if I then take the gun onto the street and start committing crimes with it - fry me, I deserve it.

[Niall_Quinn]

***

That, my friend, is a statement that could land you in prison in this fucked up country.

[She Wore A Yellow Ribbon]

it was a banterous joke. but ive edited it.

[She Wore A Yellow Ribbon]

although id argue it isnt worse than what some people were saying about wanting stan to have a heart attack too.

[Niall_Quinn]

although id argue it isnt worse than what some people were saying about wanting stan to have a heart attack too.

I'm just saying. Free speech is a complete myth, never existed, never will.

[She Wore A Yellow Ribbon]

no no i know. its a joke you're right. the power of social media is ridiculous nowadays. thanks for the edit.

[The Wengerbabies]

I'm just saying. Free speech is a complete myth, never existed, never will.

:gp:

Its good that this forum is private now or most of us would be prosecuted.

[Cripps_orig]

Why does anyone need a gun?

[Niall_Quinn]

Why does anyone need a gun?

To defend themselves against groups or individuals they wouldn't normally be able to resist through purely physical means. Or to compete in sport. To hunt. Pest control. Or, for certain types (such as gangsters and governments) to more effectively commit crimes. Or as a deterrent to prevent a potential crime from ever taking place. There are surely many other reasons.

[Cripps_orig]

I can see both sides of the argument. Im neither here or there for either.

As a great man once said, "Guns dont kill people, people kill people"

[Olivier's xmas twist]

I can see both sides of the argument. Im neither here or there for either.

As a great man once said, "Guns dont kill people, people kill people"

:gp:

[WMUG]

To defend themselves against groups or individuals they wouldn't normally be able to resist through purely physical means. Or to compete in sport. To hunt. Pest control. Or, for certain types (such as gangsters and governments) to more effectively commit crimes. Or as a deterrent to prevent a potential crime from ever taking place. There are surely many other reasons.

And how many times have you been in such a situation?

[GP]

If I was American, I'd own a shit load of guns. Because I could.

But if they then took them away, I wouldn't start crying about it.

[Gervinho's Forehead]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIpLd0WQKCY

[Niall_Quinn]

And how many times have you been in such a situation?

Many, many times in some of those situations but not all of them - for example I haven't used guns to murder foreign nationals in the pursuit of British establishment interests.

[Letters]

Sorry, how is it a separate issue? Is the point of gun control to stop people being killed with guns? Or is it something else? Are we saying we want to limit the number of British people killed but it's another matter if we want to slaughter foreigners with guns? That's a strange form of control that seems to entirely serve the interests of the most violent abusers of guns.

This whole thread is about gun control in the sense of whether private citizens should be allowed to arm themselves.
The other things you're talking about are separate issues. Related, maybe, but not what we're talking about.


Criminals, unsurprisingly, pay no attention to the law and never have. They deal in opportunity and an unarmed and unprotected citizenry is ideal from them.

But it also means that criminals in the UK don't expect home-owners to be armed and so generally don't go armed themselves. If they knew the home owner would most likely have a gun then they'll probably have one. The incidence of criminals being armed is rising but still relatively rare in this country:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/record-rise-in-number-of-burglars-using-guns-433752.html

Home owners DO have the right to defend their properties in this country but not with a gun. Studies have shown than homes which do have guns in actively increase the risk to the home owners:

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-kellermann.htm
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full


Violence is soaring in this country

Do you have a source for that? Because when I Googled to find stats all I could find were ones showing no real change or even a decrease:

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-stats/crime-statistics/period-ending-march-2012/trends-in-crime--a-short-story.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jul/14/crime-statistics-england-wales

Although interestingly the perception of crime was that it was increasing. Maybe because the press obsess about it.


Whereas we are sheep and astounding cowards who willingly submit to the whims of state without the merest protest.

And what do you do about it, write rants on an internet messageboard?

[Niall_Quinn]

This whole thread is about gun control in the sense of whether private citizens should be allowed to arm themselves.
The other things you're talking about are separate issues. Related, maybe, but not what we're talking about.

I'll deal with this first because it ends the issue once and for all. What you are saying is the state should be able to legislate the rights and behaviour of its citizens and yet the state itself need not be subject to the same laws. Supposedly the state would argue its crime sprees across the globe are all conducted in self defence. So why can this condition not be enjoyed by citizens - the right to self defence? All law has to fall if it is inequitable and discriminatory because it is illegitimate from the outset. The only way around this is to conceal the underlying principles with arguments suggesting special conditions apply to favoured parties, which is what you are doing here. In fact you say the "two" issues (there is only one issue) are separate. Therefore, by your argument, the state is entitled to greater privilege than the citizen. Surely the exact reverse of the intention when the whole idea of government was speculated? This is not uncommon. The reversal of intent is at the heart of the state.

[Thierrymon]

Have they blamed this on video games yet? They seem to be the scapegoat for these sort of tragedies these days.

[GP]

Have they blamed this on video games yet? They seem to be the scapegoat for these sort of tragedies these days.

Mass Effect, apparently.

[V-Pig]

http://www.goodhousekeeping.com/cm/goodhousekeeping/images/TC/Love-Arms-fb.jpg

[Injury Time]

http://www.goodhousekeeping.com/cm/goodhousekeeping/images/TC/Love-Arms-fb.jpg

:getcoat:

[Letters]

What you are saying is the state should be able to legislate the rights and behaviour of its citizens and yet the state itself need not be subject to the same laws.No I'm not.

Now how about dealing with the things I have said. Fanx :good:

[Niall_Quinn]

No I'm not.

Now how about dealing with the things I have said. Fanx :good:

I dealing with what you said. You are claiming the use of guns by the state and the use of guns by civilians are separate issues. They can only be separate issues if the state is not bound by the laws it insists upon for the citizen.

[fakeyank]

Sorry, how is it a separate issue? Is the point of gun control to stop people being killed with guns? Or is it something else? Are we saying we want to limit the number of British people killed but it's another matter if we want to slaughter foreigners with guns? That's a strange form of control that seems to entirely serve the interests of the most violent abusers of guns.

But even if the elephant in the room is ignored, there is no evidence at all to suggest gun control in this country is either necessary or has been effective. And it's certainly not lawful under the Common Law. Criminals, unsurprisingly, pay no attention to the law and never have. They deal in opportunity and an unarmed and unprotected citizenry is ideal from them. With our police force transformed into a revenue generating bureaucracy our rights as citizens to defend ourselves (set out in our own Bill of Rights in 1689) have been removed in favour of reliance on an impotent and disinterested state. In fact we get told to walk away and cry to the state when we see a violent crime taking place in our community. You can't have liberty unless you have the right to defend it. It's impossible.

Our gun laws, leaving aside the fact they are entirely ineffective (because there was no cause to ever introduce them in terms of significant gun crime), remove a fundamental condition of our liberty. Violence is soaring in this country and citizens are powerless to defend themselves and even run the risk of prosecution should they attempt to exercise their basic human rights. How anyone can see this as progressive is a mystery. All we have done is place power in the hands of the blue collar criminal classes - the white collar criminals aren't affected by the law of course.

I'm not sure what American crime figures read following the onset of recession, but beforehand violent crime in many parts of America was declining at such a sharp rate it was starting to converge with our own. This is odd considering the American mindset is to defend their liberty (up until Carter and the subsequent line of persuasive fascists at least) so you would expect more aggression within their society. Plus you have the overt racism, as opposed to ours which is more skilfully concealed. Whereas we are sheep and astounding cowards who willingly submit to the whims of state without the merest protest. We demand the state take on more of our personal responsibilities. And yet violence in our society is epidemic. This isn't just because the police force has abdicated at the demand of the state, it's also because the citizen has been rendered increasingly powerless by layer upon layer of legislation you can only conclude has been introduced to favour the criminal.

In the end I think people might just change their mind if they found a violent intruder in their home threatening their family and picked up the phone to the token police only to hear, "Press 1 if you are about to be assaulted..." Personally I'd rather fetch a gun and blow the fucker away. And how dare anyone say I don't have the right to do that. On my home! Who the fuck are these government ****s and lawyer ****s and judiciary ****s who want to preside over my right to protect my family 6 weeks after they might have been murdered? Is it their family at risk? I didn't think so.

Of course if I then take the gun onto the street and start committing crimes with it - fry me, I deserve it.

Where is CK when you need someone to summarize? :(

[Thierrymon]

Mass Effect, apparently.

Probably all the gay love scenes turned him into the mass killer.

[Letters]

I dealing with what you said.
No, you're asserting things above which I've posted links to studies on which show the reverse of what you claim.
You're ignoring that and trying to change the subject.

[Niall_Quinn]

No, you're asserting things above which I've posted links to studies on which show the reverse of what you claim.
You're ignoring that and trying to change the subject.

No, we haven't got to that part yet. I'm still on your first paragraph talking about your apparent acceptance of the citizen's rights being constrained while the rights of the state are not subject to such constraint. If that's what you are saying then it considerably changes the scope of the argument and I'd give very different answers to your subsequent points. If that's not what you are saying then I reiterate the importance of dealing with the most far ranging and violent abuse of firearms, namely the criminal activity of the state. Denying guns to citizens under the pretence this will cause less death attributable to firearms yet allowing the state to rampage across the globe on a murder spree using a wide variety of firearms doesn't seem like a sane position. Tackling the almost non-existent (before and after gun control) effects of gun abuse by the citizen but ignoring the abuses of the state is like cutting your toenails as a remedy to cancer.

[GP]

Q: How many NRA spokesmen do you need to change a light bulb?
A: More guns.

[Olivier's xmas twist]

Q: How many NRA spokesmen do you need to change a light bulb?
A: More guns.

Bunch of Dickheads they are.

[She Wore A Yellow Ribbon]

dont think we can criticise america over gun laws when we still haven't made footballs illegal

:fergie:

[Cripps_orig]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-20838729

Piers :bow:

Yanks :doh:

[Letters]

dont think we can criticise america over gun laws when we still haven't made footballs illegal

:fergie:
:haha:

[Olivier's xmas twist]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-20838729

Piers :bow:

Yanks :doh:

FY :pal:

[Xhaka Can’t]

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/0433b30576/cold-dead-hand-with-jim-carrey?playlist=featured_videos

Jim Carrey totally redeems himself!

[Nayan]

And sometimes people with guns kill people.
If they didn't have such ready access to those guns a lot of deaths would be prevented.

giving idiots easy acess to guns makes it very easy for people to kill people

[Niall_Quinn]

giving idiots easy acess to guns makes it very easy for people to kill people

Yes, but that's inevitable when you have an interventionist foreign policy.