Why do we, as citizens, really need guns?

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: 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.

There is no legal scanction you twit. Not any more than there is for the JW's witness sanctioned courts in the US or the Catholic courts in either of our nations... oh wait, you don't know about those? It's the same thing, personal courts are allowed without supervision in the US but not in the UK... hmmm, think there are about one Sharia court in every single mosque in the US? You'd be right to guess that.

It has NO legal standing in either of our communities but it exists in the US as well as in the UK or Russia for that matter (who, like the US don't really care about it either).

Free speech is different in every nation, in Germany it's different for a reason but the UK and the US have very similar laws on this one and i've already had this debate before, search for it and save me the trouble of repeating myself if you will.

Mostly because i only have about five minutes left before i'm heading out again.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: 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.

There is no legal scanction you twit. Not any more than there is for the JW's witness sanctioned courts in the US or the Catholic courts in either of our nations... oh wait, you don't know about those? It's the same thing, personal courts are allowed without supervision in the US but not in the UK... hmmm, think there are about one Sharia court in every single mosque in the US? You'd be right to guess that.

It has NO legal standing in either of our communities but it exists in the US as well as in the UK or Russia for that matter (who, like the US don't really care about it either).

Free speech is different in every nation, in Germany it's different for a reason but the UK and the US have very similar laws on this one and i've already had this debate before, search for it and save me the trouble of repeating myself if you will.

Mostly because i only have about five minutes left before i'm heading out again.

of course theres legal sanction. if there were none it would be completely without any support at all as it should be. but instead you've lent credibility to sharia courts, you've lent the power that comes with official recognition. by definition many of the people that will fall to that system aren't in a position to protect themselves, and so now they'll be nicely hidden away and abused thanks to your submission to sharia.

don't even compare them to some nuts in a mosque in the us that have no recognition.

"ISLAMIC law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.

The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.

Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court.

Previously, the rulings of sharia courts in Britain could not be enforced, and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims.

It has now emerged that sharia courts with these powers have been set up in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester with the network?s headquarters in Nuneaton, Warwickshire. Two more courts are being planned for Glasgow and Edinburgh. "

"Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.

Siddiqi said: ?We realised that under the Arbitration Act we can make rulings which can be enforced by county and high courts. The act allows disputes to be resolved using alternatives like tribunals. This method is called alternative dispute resolution, which for Muslims is what the sharia courts are.?

The disclosure that Muslim courts have legal powers in Britain comes seven months after Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, was pilloried for suggesting that the establishment of sharia in the future ?seems unavoidable? in Britain.

In July, the head of the judiciary, the lord chief justice, Lord Phillips, further stoked controversy when he said that sharia could be used to settle marital and financial disputes.

In fact, Muslim tribunal courts started passing sharia judgments in August 2007. They have dealt with more than 100 cases that range from Muslim divorce and inheritance to nuisance neighbours.

It has also emerged that tribunal courts have settled six cases of domestic violence between married couples, working in tandem with the police investigations. "

"There are concerns that women who agree to go to tribunal courts are getting worse deals because Islamic law favours men.

Siddiqi said that in a recent inheritance dispute handled by the court in Nuneaton, the estate of a Midlands man was divided between three daughters and two sons.

The judges on the panel gave the sons twice as much as the daughters, in accordance with sharia. Had the family gone to a normal British court, the daughters would have got equal amounts.

In the six cases of domestic violence, Siddiqi said the judges ordered the husbands to take anger management classes and mentoring from community elders. There was no further punishment.

In each case, the women subsequently withdrew the complaints they had lodged with the police and the police stopped their investigations. "
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t...ime/article4749183.ece
http://www.publicservice.co.uk/news_story.asp?id=7068
http://www.google.com/cse?cx=0...&q=uk+sharia&sa=Search

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: swbsam

I'm just beginning to think that there are two (or more) USAs. The values that I grew up with in New York City are very, very different from the those of people in the mid-west, for example. I'm related, by marriage, to people from those parts of the USA and they just don't get me, and I just don't get them. Unfortunately, those people are facing the end of their world - factories are closing down, Walmarts are their entire economy.. I see how scared they are of the future, and they cling on to their old world ideals..

It's sad, and I feel like an east coast liberal/elitist for feeling so distant from their reality..But look at the states and cities with the most wealth, aren't they all more liberal as well (unless the wealth is tied with local natural resources)? I really am trying to empathize, because I love what this country stands for.. Just some of it seems so antiquated.

There is a general problem with your philosophy. I'm sure you could make many valid points about why we don't need guns. I'm sure someone else can make many valid points about why free speech can be counterproductive. Also, I'm sure someone can make valid points about why we don't need any of the little, non-essential things that people enjoy, such as sports cars, privately owned airplanes, yachts, hot air balloons, etc. I'm sure the country would exist just fine if we took any or all of these things away.

However the USA was build with the philosophy that people have freedom and certain rights that cannot be infringed upon. It's completely against the idea of a civilized free country to suggest that one should be able to strip away someone else's rights simply because they don't see a need for that other person to own those things. You're doing this country a great injustice if you immigrate here and then push to rip away our freedoms, regardless of how irrelevant you think those freedoms are.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: swbsam

Originally posted by: JRussellDMD
To murder those who would try to murder my immediate family.

Has anyone here every really stopped a home invasion? Awesome if they have, I just don't see things playing out that way - it seems that guns make situations like robberies more dangerous ( a definite shoot out vs. just let them take your stuff)

why do you want them to take your stuff? as soon as the word's out in the thug world that swbsam and his house are easy pickings, you wouldn't have much left in a matter of days.

Now, imagine a thief shows up at your door or window only to be greeted by two barrels of loaded justice. ....He ain't coming back.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: 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.

There is no legal scanction you twit. Not any more than there is for the JW's witness sanctioned courts in the US or the Catholic courts in either of our nations... oh wait, you don't know about those? It's the same thing, personal courts are allowed without supervision in the US but not in the UK... hmmm, think there are about one Sharia court in every single mosque in the US? You'd be right to guess that.

It has NO legal standing in either of our communities but it exists in the US as well as in the UK or Russia for that matter (who, like the US don't really care about it either).

Free speech is different in every nation, in Germany it's different for a reason but the UK and the US have very similar laws on this one and i've already had this debate before, search for it and save me the trouble of repeating myself if you will.

Mostly because i only have about five minutes left before i'm heading out again.

of course theres legal sanction. if there were none it would be completely without any support at all as it should be. but instead you've lent credibility to sharia courts, you've lent the power that comes with official recognition. by definition many of the people that will fall to that system aren't in a position to protect themselves, and so now they'll be nicely hidden away and abused thanks to your submission to sharia.

don't even compare them to some nuts in a mosque in the us that have no recognition.

"ISLAMIC law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.

The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.

Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court.

Previously, the rulings of sharia courts in Britain could not be enforced, and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims.

It has now emerged that sharia courts with these powers have been set up in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester with the network?s headquarters in Nuneaton, Warwickshire. Two more courts are being planned for Glasgow and Edinburgh. "

"Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.

Siddiqi said: ?We realised that under the Arbitration Act we can make rulings which can be enforced by county and high courts. The act allows disputes to be resolved using alternatives like tribunals. This method is called alternative dispute resolution, which for Muslims is what the sharia courts are.?

The disclosure that Muslim courts have legal powers in Britain comes seven months after Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, was pilloried for suggesting that the establishment of sharia in the future ?seems unavoidable? in Britain.

In July, the head of the judiciary, the lord chief justice, Lord Phillips, further stoked controversy when he said that sharia could be used to settle marital and financial disputes.

In fact, Muslim tribunal courts started passing sharia judgments in August 2007. They have dealt with more than 100 cases that range from Muslim divorce and inheritance to nuisance neighbours.

It has also emerged that tribunal courts have settled six cases of domestic violence between married couples, working in tandem with the police investigations. "

"There are concerns that women who agree to go to tribunal courts are getting worse deals because Islamic law favours men.

Siddiqi said that in a recent inheritance dispute handled by the court in Nuneaton, the estate of a Midlands man was divided between three daughters and two sons.

The judges on the panel gave the sons twice as much as the daughters, in accordance with sharia. Had the family gone to a normal British court, the daughters would have got equal amounts.

In the six cases of domestic violence, Siddiqi said the judges ordered the husbands to take anger management classes and mentoring from community elders. There was no further punishment.

In each case, the women subsequently withdrew the complaints they had lodged with the police and the police stopped their investigations. "
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t...ime/article4749183.ece

I'm sorry, i'll bookmark this post but i don't have the time to read it right now, i have to go.

I'll send you a PM when i made my reply, good enough?

Jake

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: 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.

I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of the armed forces defected in the event of a revolt. It's likely that every single one of them would have family and friends among those who they were meant to suppress. Of course the people wouldn't be entirely united either. Even so, the administration would have as much luck going to war with the american people as a fish would have going to war with the water...unless the population were carefully managed and eventually disarmed in such a way as to make them think it was the right thing to do and they did it themselves.

I'm no conspiracy theorist though. I think democracy is working just fine and we really are legislating ourselves into slavery without even realizing it.

 

[daishi5]

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

I think OCguy31 is actually a member of the Brady group trying to drive people into gun control by making people who favor gun rights look like a bunch of lunatics.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: daishi5

I think OCguy31 is actually a member of the Brady group trying to drive people into gun control by making people who favor gun rights by making the gun rights group look like a bunch of lunatics.

Do you have something of intellect and/or substance to say to refute that only citizens can vote, or were you just wanting to get in a drive-by one-liner?

 

[daishi5]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: daishi5

I think OCguy31 is actually a member of the Brady group trying to drive people into gun control by making people who favor gun rights by making the gun rights group look like a bunch of lunatics.

Do you have something of intellect and/or substance to say to refute that only citizens can vote, or were you just wanting to get in a drive-by one-liner?

I already posted in this thread, and I fully support gun rights. But seriously, you have gone through here without making any good points, you have insulted people, and you have gone through so many logical fallacies it is almost laughable. There are many good times that a good point could be made, but you are so hard set on proving that people from another country shouldn't get to voice their opinion that you seem to have forgotten that our country was founded on the belief that all men are endowed with unalienable rights one of which we are talking about now.

 

[spaceman]

this thread went to hell.predictably.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: daishi5

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: daishi5

I think OCguy31 is actually a member of the Brady group trying to drive people into gun control by making people who favor gun rights by making the gun rights group look like a bunch of lunatics.

Do you have something of intellect and/or substance to say to refute that only citizens can vote, or were you just wanting to get in a drive-by one-liner?

I already posted in this thread, and I fully support gun rights. But seriously, you have gone through here without making any good points, you have insulted people, and you have gone through so many logical fallacies it is almost laughable. There are many good times that a good point could be made, but you are so hard set on proving that people from another country shouldn't get to voice their opinion that you seem to have forgotten that our country was founded on the belief that all men are endowed with unalienable rights one of which we are talking about now.

Interesting. Why cant illegal immigrants or people in other nations vote in the US? Why cant I vote in the UK or Jamaica for that matter?

Why cant an illegal work in this country above the table?

I never said they couldnt voice their opinion, I just said it really has no bearing.

If I think Anime should be illegal in Japan, do you really think the Japanese give two flying shits?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
I agree with you, of course homosexual marriage is allowed PER THE CONSTITUTION, since it's not disallowed in there.

And it DOES apply to citisens since it DOES mention citizens rights in it.

Christ, go read your own constitution before you argue more with this man who isn't even an American but an Englishman currently in Afghanistan.

No, it does not apply to citizens. It applies to the federal government (and in many instances, to state governments). The Constitution is a contract between the government and the people, or the states. It merely outlines what the federal government can and cannot due. It does not specify what citizens can or cannot do, aside from the few powers set aside to the federal government (coining money, managing wars, etc.).

the 13th amendment is directly enforceable against the people. it's the only part of the constitution directly enforceable against the people. the rest of it is only enforceable against the federal government or against the states as incorporated in the 14th amendment.

 

[daishi5]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Interesting. Why cant illegal immigrants or people in other nations vote in the US? Why cant I vote in the UK or Jamaica for that matter?

Why cant an illegal work in this country above the table?

I never said they couldnt voice their opinion, I just said it really has no bearing.

If I think Anime should be illegal in Japan, do you really think the Japanese give two flying shits?

You are confusing two very different things, JOS and Atheus may think our gun laws are too lax, but they cannot do anything to change that. That is the way it is, but you think that their opinion does not matter just because they have no power to cause change. The problem with that is the way you go about it. There are people who will read this, whose minds can be changed, and you are giving them the impression that people who support gun rights are just rude blowhards. The case for gun rights has a lot of good reasoning and factual support behind it, and the people whose minds can be changed need to see that, if they don't we may lose those rights forever.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: swbsam

Originally posted by: K1052
Why are rights always on the defensive these against people who demand that we show a "need"?

Why do you need to be able to speak your mind? Why do you need to be able to go to your church/synagogue/temple/mosque/etc? Why do you need to be protected from unreasonable search if you're not doing anything wrong? The list goes on...

We can't solve all the world's problems by prohibitive legislation nor is it beneficial to try regardless of what politicians promise you to get themselves elected.

What I don't understand is that guns have the potential to limit the liberty of others. I think we'd have anarchy if we just said "fuck it, do as you will" and legalize everything. I agree that some legislation is trivial but I think it's ok to question both sides of the coin (from needlessly prohibitive to the other extreme).

Anything I listed above has the same potential.

We've got millions of people literally eating themselves to death in this country and you're only concerned about the very small number that make headlines because a gun was involved. How about some legislation to make stores stop selling food that's bad for you? The god damned Hostess company kills more people than guns do. That's limiting my liberty by draining heath care resources, raising my taxes, and increasing what I pay for insurance.

Ban the fatties1111!

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: 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.

I don't care if you are the Lieutenant of the neighborhood ass picking brigade. While a movie there is a very real sense of the culture that has still permeated within the populace since the formation of this country. Don't believe that, then come on over and give it a try. We've kicked your ass as many times as we've saved it and are always up for another go.

 

[txrandom]

Fast food and obesity kills many more people than guns and alcohol combined. Where is your outrage against that?

 

[Muse]

Aside from hunting (could be regulated), it'd be self defense. But I think the statistics bear out the fact that you're around 20 times as likely to hurt yourself or someone who lives with you with a firearm than have the opportunity to exercise the self defense aspect. So I'm on the OP's side here.

 

[JohnCU]

OMG P&N HAS INVADED OT!

 

[GLeeM]

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defence? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defence be the *real* object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?
-- Patrick Henry, speech of June 9 1788


"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
Thomas Jefferson

 

[lupi]

traffic deaths are the leading cause of death for cops, guess we should restrict the number of them that drive.

 

[DeliciousTacos]

Why shouldn't we own guns?

 

[Bulk Beef]

If i, as a Captain in the SAS

What color is the boathouse at Hereford?

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of the armed forces defected in the event of a revolt. It's likely that every single one of them would have family and friends among those who they were meant to suppress. Of course the people wouldn't be entirely united either. Even so, the administration would have as much luck going to war with the american people as a fish would have going to war with the water...unless the population were carefully managed and eventually disarmed in such a way as to make them think it was the right thing to do and they did it themselves.

I'm no conspiracy theorist though. I think democracy is working just fine and we really are legislating ourselves into slavery without even realizing it.

I have found that most all Military folks I talk to take their Oath VERY seriously. You are more correct than you think (they'd refuse unconstitutional orders against their own citizens).

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: txrandom
Fast food and obesity kills many more people than guns and alcohol combined. Where is your outrage against that?

Or trucks and cars. All should be banned in favor of public transportation.

 

[Lalakai]

an interesting aspect of the original importance of the right to bear arms. The originators of the constitution felt that is was second, only to the freedom of speech and assembly. They realized that potential abuse by government would be balanced by every indivdual having the right to bear arms. If the individual choose not to, that was their choice; but the freedom to make that choice was critical and highly important to the framers of the constitution.

Look in WW2 at Yamamoto's recommendation to not attack the American mainland. He had schooled here and knew that any invation would be met by guns "behind every tree and blade of grass". Perhaps people feel we have become more civilized and those threats couldn't affect us anymore. It's your choice to believe what you wish and to act as you see fit. Fortunately the constitution gave you the ability to speak freely, and millions of soldiers have given you the freedom to express those opinions in English instead of German or Japanese. That same constitution gave me freedom to own and bear arms, regardless of their purpose or type. I excercise that option with great appreciation.