Why do we, as citizens, really need guns?

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: JS80
You think you have the right to control other people's lives, which is typical with you "liberals."

Errr... that is the opposite of liberalism...

Liberalism, yes. But not modern day liberals.

Just like how modern day "conservatives" are not really conservative in the classical sense.

I guess it's different in the states where socialist is a bit of a dirty word. Over here the more 'nanny state' lefties openly and proudly call themselves socialist, and mostly join the labour party, with the liberal party a seperate entity. Or that's how it should be anyway - I don't see how the lib dems reconcile their love of personal freedom with their tax raising proposals.

It's probably the difference between the US and our political system, over their they are either Communists or Fascists if you listen to the opponents of either side... lol.

Must be pretty fucking hard to vote for one of those.

err as opposed to the super politically correct labor and tory parties that drive people to vote for the bnp as protest not sure theres much to say about the folks across the pond when freedom of speech is still a debatable matter and legal allowances have been made for sharia courts.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Europeans arguing over American constitutional rights.


I've seen it all...

lol, sorry, didn't realize there was something wrong with that. I guess men shouldn't talk about womens' rights, or adults talk about the rights of children. And of course when we write books we should just describe what we see out our own window.

Oh you can do it all you want, but nobody takes you seriously.

I find that very sad. I am personally open to people's opinion no matter their country of origin, the color of their skin, their gender, or their sexual orientation.

The opinions of people who grew up in a different culture, country, and continent are irrelevant. That is why we fought a war to eliminate an out-of-touch government "across the pond". This is also why "States rights" gained so much traction.

Applying exactly the same laws in DC and Alaska does not make sense. Strong local governments are the way to go.

Actually, it DOES make a lot of sense to have unanimous laws within a nation, and to a lesser extent, in the world.

Isn't that exactly what the US demanded Iraq to comply with? International law?

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Europeans arguing over American constitutional rights.


I've seen it all...

lol, sorry, didn't realize there was something wrong with that. I guess men shouldn't talk about womens' rights, or adults talk about the rights of children. And of course when we write books we should just describe what we see out our own window.

Oh you can do it all you want, but nobody takes you seriously.

I find that very sad. I am personally open to people's opinion no matter their country of origin, the color of their skin, their gender, or their sexual orientation.

The opinions of people who grew up in a different culture, country, and continent are irrelevant.

That is, without any exaggeration, one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. Even the most brief examination world history, how ideas and cultures have flowed and evolved, would make you laugh your ass off at that statement.

That is why we fought a war to eliminate an out-of-touch government "across the pond". This is also why "States rights" gained so much traction.

It is exatly the sort of attitude expressed in the above statement which created the British Empire in the first place.

I see little point in continuing this conversation.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: JS80
You think you have the right to control other people's lives, which is typical with you "liberals."

IIRC, don't you fall right in line with the far right wing version of controlling other people's lives? (Drug prohibition, anti-homosexuality, etc)

Yes. And taking away the right to vote from most people, etc.

It was so ludicrous, I wasn't going to comment.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Europeans arguing over American constitutional rights.


I've seen it all...

lol, sorry, didn't realize there was something wrong with that. I guess men shouldn't talk about womens' rights, or adults talk about the rights of children. And of course when we write books we should just describe what we see out our own window.

Oh you can do it all you want, but nobody takes you seriously.

I find that very sad. I am personally open to people's opinion no matter their country of origin, the color of their skin, their gender, or their sexual orientation.

The opinions of people who grew up in a different culture, country, and continent are irrelevant. That is why we fought a war to eliminate an out-of-touch government "across the pond". This is also why "States rights" gained so much traction.

Applying exactly the same laws in DC and Alaska does not make sense. Strong local governments are the way to go.

Actually, it DOES make a lot of sense to have unanimous laws within a nation, and to a lesser extent, in the world.

Isn't that exactly what the US demanded Iraq to comply with? International law?

you can't even get the scots to fall into line

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Europeans arguing over American constitutional rights.


I've seen it all...

lol, sorry, didn't realize there was something wrong with that. I guess men shouldn't talk about womens' rights, or adults talk about the rights of children. And of course when we write books we should just describe what we see out our own window.

Oh you can do it all you want, but nobody takes you seriously.

I find that very sad. I am personally open to people's opinion no matter their country of origin, the color of their skin, their gender, or their sexual orientation.

The opinions of people who grew up in a different culture, country, and continent are irrelevant.

That is, without any exaggeration, one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. Even the most brief examination world history, how ideas and cultures have flowed and evolved, would make you laugh your ass off at that statement.

That is why we fought a war to eliminate an out-of-touch government "across the pond". This is also why "States rights" gained so much traction.

It is exatly the sort of attitude expressed in the above statement which created the British Empire in the first place.

I see little point in continuing this conversation.

Translation: I dont have anything to counter that.

Agreed.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
[
Actually, it DOES make a lot of sense to have unanimous laws within a nation, and to a lesser extent, in the world.

Isn't that exactly what the US demanded Iraq to comply with? International law?

Wow..the Euros are so out of touch, it is scary.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: hiromizu

Originally posted by: spidey07
To kill people or animals, that's why. Or for just plain fun.

Which according to some includes the two.

There's really no need for guns in society. Only the police or other law enforcement officers should carry them - and use them as sparingly as possible. A voice of reason goes a long way.

False. Fortunately the Constitution and the Supreme Court of the US disagree with you. And this comes from someone who owns 0 guns.

 

[KeithTalent]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

As far as I know the US has a very large number of citizens that grew up in a different culture, country, and continent. So you just ignore all immigrants as well?

KT

Last time I checked, in order to vote, you have to be a US Citizen. This means you were either born here, or went through a process to gain this citizenship. This includes learning US History, and you probably lived here during that process as well.

So only people that vote in the US have relevant opinions. How very, very close-minded of you. Well done.

KT

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: JS80
You think you have the right to control other people's lives, which is typical with you "liberals."

Errr... that is the opposite of liberalism...

Liberalism, yes. But not modern day liberals.

Just like how modern day "conservatives" are not really conservative in the classical sense.

I guess it's different in the states where socialist is a bit of a dirty word. Over here the more 'nanny state' lefties openly and proudly call themselves socialist, and mostly join the labour party, with the liberal party a seperate entity. Or that's how it should be anyway - I don't see how the lib dems reconcile their love of personal freedom with their tax raising proposals.

It's probably the difference between the US and our political system, over their they are either Communists or Fascists if you listen to the opponents of either side... lol.

Must be pretty fucking hard to vote for one of those.

err as opposed to the super politically correct labor and tory parties that drive people to vote for the bnp as protest not sure theres much to say about the folks across the pond when freedom of speech is still a debatable matter and legal allowances have been made for sharia courts.

I was making a joke about how the opponents of either party describe them as extremists in the US, you know that is true.

The Sharia courts have no legal standings and can not make legal rulings, they are like a priest advising the couple, nothing more and nothing less, if you had the ability to read behind the headlines, you'd know that.

It's akin to me saying that in the US you can't offend Muslims in the workplace so now you are an Islamist state, it's just stupid and i really expected better from you.

Free speech is as free in the UK as in the US.

Personally, i'm not to fond of either parties, but Brown has to go, he's a weakling and the Tories do have some good points.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
err as opposed to the super politically correct labor and tory parties that drive people to vote for the bnp as protest not sure theres much to say about the folks across the pond when freedom of speech is still a debatable matter and legal allowances have been made for sharia courts.

Two words - Patriot Act. And BTW the Sharia courts thing is simply made up by right wing papers.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

As far as I know the US has a very large number of citizens that grew up in a different culture, country, and continent. So you just ignore all immigrants as well?

KT

Last time I checked, in order to vote, you have to be a US Citizen. This means you were either born here, or went through a process to gain this citizenship. This includes learning US History, and you probably lived here during that process as well.

So only people that vote in the US have relevant opinions. How very, very close-minded of you. Well done.

KT

Actually, according to the voting process, yes. Only citizens have opinions that count, as only they can voice those opinions through the process of voting.

Who gives a shit what a guy that just hopped the border or over-stayed his visa thinks we should do with this country?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Europeans arguing over American constitutional rights.


I've seen it all...

lol, sorry, didn't realize there was something wrong with that. I guess men shouldn't talk about womens' rights, or adults talk about the rights of children. And of course when we write books we should just describe what we see out our own window.

Oh you can do it all you want, but nobody takes you seriously.

I find that very sad. I am personally open to people's opinion no matter their country of origin, the color of their skin, their gender, or their sexual orientation.

The opinions of people who grew up in a different culture, country, and continent are irrelevant. That is why we fought a war to eliminate an out-of-touch government "across the pond". This is also why "States rights" gained so much traction.

Applying exactly the same laws in DC and Alaska does not make sense. Strong local governments are the way to go.

Actually, it DOES make a lot of sense to have unanimous laws within a nation, and to a lesser extent, in the world.

Isn't that exactly what the US demanded Iraq to comply with? International law?

you can't even get the scots to fall into line

Son, i AM a Scotsman.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Brown has to go, he's a weakling

Best thing you've posted all day.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: hiromizu

Originally posted by: spidey07
To kill people or animals, that's why. Or for just plain fun.

Which according to some includes the two.

There's really no need for guns in society. Only the police or other law enforcement officers should carry them - and use them as sparingly as possible. A voice of reason goes a long way.

False. Fortunately the Constitution and the Supreme Court of the US disagree with you. And this comes from someone who owns 0 guns.

I can only guess that hiromizu has never tried to "reason" with a couple crack heads caught burglarizing his residence.

<-- currently own zero guns.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: KeithTalent

As far as I know the US has a very large number of citizens that grew up in a different culture, country, and continent. So you just ignore all immigrants as well?

KT

Last time I checked, in order to vote, you have to be a US Citizen. This means you were either born here, or went through a process to gain this citizenship. This includes learning US History, and you probably lived here during that process as well.

So only people that vote in the US have relevant opinions. How very, very close-minded of you. Well done.

KT

Actually, according to the voting process, yes. Only citizens have opinions that count, as only they can voice those opinions through the process of voting.

Who gives a shit what a guy that just hopped the border or over-stayed his visa thinks we should do with this country?

WTH are you people arguing about England for then or Iraq, or Afghanistan?

STFU then and only argue about the US.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

WTH are you people arguing about England for then or Iraq, or Afghanistan?

STFU then and only argue about the US.

I dont give a shit about day-to-day laws in Iraq. I wouldnt go onto an English board and say you guys should or shouldnt be able to do things.


We occupy Iraq and Afghanistan, sending tax dollars over there by the truckload. I think we can comment on those places

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Brown has to go, he's a weakling

Best thing you've posted all day.

I could have posted so many things that were right and it would still be the best thing.

I can't wait to see him go, he should be forced to run down Downing street while the people threw rotten fruit at him.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

WTH are you people arguing about England for then or Iraq, or Afghanistan?

STFU then and only argue about the US.

I dont give a shit about day-to-day laws in Iraq. I wouldnt go onto an English board and say you guys should or shouldnt be able to do things.


We occupy Iraq and Afghanistan, sending tax dollars over there by the truckload. I think we can comment on those places

No you don't, Afghanistan isn't occupied under US rule and neither is Iraq, are you fucking nuts or don't you have the faintest clue?

I'll leave it at this because not only don't you understand your own constitution nor how the US affects other nations (via NATO) OR that an occupation means you have governance over the territory but you are too fucking stupid to LEARN even when you are TOLD.

I give up on you, get back to me when you grow up enough to have been taught how this works.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Three points.

1. You would need the state of the art weapons, which at the time it was written was handguns and bolt action rifles and today they are everything from jets to haubitses to tanks to RPG's and so on and so forth, to be able to have the slightest chance against an army not on your side.
2. If the army is on your side, you don't need any weapon.
3. An illegal gun is nothing but a firearm you buy legally and file off the serial number off, that is what pretty much ALL illegal guns in the US are.

Remember the Finland school shooting? IF the dad had followed the law and kept his gun in his safe as he SHOULD HAVE instead of in the bedroom drawer, that would never have happened.

I don't mind people owning guns, i own quite a few myself but i DO mind that people keep them in their cabinets and bedroom drawers when they are not even in the room themeselves, THAT is irresponsible, if you have a permit to carry you keep it in a safe or on your person until you are close enough to put it down on an area where no one can grab it before you can.

Unfortunantly, VERY few gun owners are responsible gun owners.

I would NEVER leave a gun lying around without my personal supervision, not ANYWHERE, to do so is to be fucked up in the head.

never saw red dawn did ya.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: lupi

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Three points.

1. You would need the state of the art weapons, which at the time it was written was handguns and bolt action rifles and today they are everything from jets to haubitses to tanks to RPG's and so on and so forth, to be able to have the slightest chance against an army not on your side.
2. If the army is on your side, you don't need any weapon.
3. An illegal gun is nothing but a firearm you buy legally and file off the serial number off, that is what pretty much ALL illegal guns in the US are.

Remember the Finland school shooting? IF the dad had followed the law and kept his gun in his safe as he SHOULD HAVE instead of in the bedroom drawer, that would never have happened.

I don't mind people owning guns, i own quite a few myself but i DO mind that people keep them in their cabinets and bedroom drawers when they are not even in the room themeselves, THAT is irresponsible, if you have a permit to carry you keep it in a safe or on your person until you are close enough to put it down on an area where no one can grab it before you can.

Unfortunantly, VERY few gun owners are responsible gun owners.

I would NEVER leave a gun lying around without my personal supervision, not ANYWHERE, to do so is to be fucked up in the head.

never saw red dawn did ya.

If i, as a Captain in the SAS, would make judgements based on movies, i would be as useless as you are.

And i did see it but IT'S A BLOODY MOVIE you stupid twat.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

WTH are you people arguing about England for then or Iraq, or Afghanistan?

STFU then and only argue about the US.

I dont give a shit about day-to-day laws in Iraq. I wouldnt go onto an English board and say you guys should or shouldnt be able to do things.


We occupy Iraq and Afghanistan, sending tax dollars over there by the truckload. I think we can comment on those places

No you don't, Afghanistan isn't occupied under US rule and neither is Iraq

Wow, apparently you dont know what a puppet is.


By the way, how are we appointing a new Prime minister? (From a UK paper, for your enjoyment)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl...-plan-to-bypass-karzai


How do you claim to be deployed in a country you know nothing about?

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: JS80
You think you have the right to control other people's lives, which is typical with you "liberals."

Errr... that is the opposite of liberalism...

Liberalism, yes. But not modern day liberals.

Just like how modern day "conservatives" are not really conservative in the classical sense.

I guess it's different in the states where socialist is a bit of a dirty word. Over here the more 'nanny state' lefties openly and proudly call themselves socialist, and mostly join the labour party, with the liberal party a seperate entity. Or that's how it should be anyway - I don't see how the lib dems reconcile their love of personal freedom with their tax raising proposals.

It's probably the difference between the US and our political system, over their they are either Communists or Fascists if you listen to the opponents of either side... lol.

Must be pretty fucking hard to vote for one of those.

err as opposed to the super politically correct labor and tory parties that drive people to vote for the bnp as protest not sure theres much to say about the folks across the pond when freedom of speech is still a debatable matter and legal allowances have been made for sharia courts.

I was making a joke about how the opponents of either party describe them as extremists in the US, you know that is true.

The Sharia courts have no legal standings and can not make legal rulings, they are like a priest advising the couple, nothing more and nothing less, if you had the ability to read behind the headlines, you'd know that.

It's akin to me saying that in the US you can't offend Muslims in the workplace so now you are an Islamist state, it's just stupid and i really expected better from you.

Free speech is as free in the UK as in the US.

Personally, i'm not to fond of either parties, but Brown has to go, he's a weakling and the Tories do have some good points.

lol thats bs and you know it. once you've given legal sanction these closed off and tight knit communities will guarantee that it doesn't make a lick of difference that its not "legally binding", they have all the community/family pressure they need, and you've given them a hand to make sure they can impose their will using their draconian system of laws.

as for free speech, laws against free speech continuously come up in your government, its quite openly debatable which is disturbing. most recently they tried to stifle free speech with the antihomophobia law.

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield


Son, i AM a Scotsman.

well maybe you should slap your snp friends around for a bit then. you have no ground to give advice when you can barely keep your country from breaking apart. pc multicultural nonsense run amuck, welsh signage all over the place, language training of children to cause division, even the tv is getting quota hours devoted to this divisive masturbatory me culture nonsense.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot

a world without violence is a great ideal, but it is naive to think you can make it happen.

this, pretty much.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: hiromizu

Originally posted by: racolvin

Originally posted by: hiromizu

Originally posted by: spidey07
To kill people or animals, that's why. Or for just plain fun.

Which according to some includes the two.

There's really no need for guns in society. Only the police or other law enforcement officers should carry them - and use them as sparingly as possible. A voice of reason goes a long way.

Oh please ...

The whole point of the "Right To Bear Arms" is and an armed populace is able to defend itself against an oppressive government. The poor schlubs who wrote the Constitution believed that armed rebellion is a perfectly viable way for the citizenry to force a government to either correct itself or to replace that government with one that is more friendly to their citizens.

Hunting and home protection are fine reasons to own a gun but the real reason that right is enshrined in the Constitution is keeping the politicians on their toes.

Sure, you guys go ahead and defend yourself against a government army. There's only a slight chance that they might win.

The constitution can and should be amended to reflect the needs of a modern society. This country would be a much more pleasant place to stay if we didn't have these idiot pro-gun wackos.

You saw how much problem the US military had dealing with insurgents in Iraq. They came out of the woodwork and vanished as quickly as they appeared. They were not a well defined forced, they were part of the populace. Now picture the USA, with tens of millions of citizens coming out of the woodwork picking off those who oppose them. To make matters worse, many of these rebels will actually be in the military.

People aren't going to identify themselves as rebels. They're going to blend in and strike when it's most effective. A tank driver in the Army isn't going to be a conscientious objector before a revolt. He's probably going to take his orders and then drive off with the tank.