Hehe, good comeback.
Morbyd
- Thread starter Barbie
- Start date
Hehe, good comeback.
agentundercover
Active Member
Sweet child of mine. Is someone suggesting that the gun ownership issue in the US should be decided in favour of the NRA?
Is this the ref to 2nd amendment? Better on british politics than US i'm afraid!
I just noticed the line about 'screwing law abiding gun users'
Now i'm a consequentialist (thanks to dawkins for helping me defining this) surely less guns = good. Irrespective of whether its against individual rights etc. That cant be under debate surely given the right thinking nature of the people on this forum . My impression is that its only the crazed right who believe otherwise? Apols if wrong end of stick!
Is this the ref to 2nd amendment? Better on british politics than US i'm afraid!
I just noticed the line about 'screwing law abiding gun users'
Now i'm a consequentialist (thanks to dawkins for helping me defining this) surely less guns = good. Irrespective of whether its against individual rights etc. That cant be under debate surely given the right thinking nature of the people on this forum . My impression is that its only the crazed right who believe otherwise? Apols if wrong end of stick!
nah laguna is saying that the 2A is a crucial issue for him, clearly also for the NRA. my point is that however strongly you feel about the issue surely their are more important matters.
i msut add that I also feel the 2A was proposed for a post civil war embryonic democracy over 200 years and for me has done devasting harm with limited tangible benefit.
Morbyd
Moderator
It's a wierd thing though, isn't it, that Canada has something like 2 guns for every person and substantially less gun crime? England's got strict gun laws and look how many shootings you've had over the past couple of weeks. It's not all black & white.
You're right that the 2nd amendment's right to bear arms was designed for a post-revolutionary war (not civil war) country, where people were afraid the government could turn despotic much like the colonizers they'd just cast off. That's probably already happened now
but no one has used their guns to rise up! (though Tim McVeigh did use a truck full of fertilizer 
). I know Laguna's going to come back hard at me on this one, but times have changed and it's time to take the guns off the streets of America. All of them. Except for hunting rifles, maybe.
It won't solve everything (see: England) but it's got to reduce gun violence to some degree. Then, at least we won't have idiots like the Top Gear guys constantly babbling on about getting shot while visiting the States
Last edited by a moderator:
Quite.
of course, mea culpa.
I know you guys won't like it but I think the right to bear arms is an important part of the US democracy. More guns may equal more violence in the US, but then so does more violence in the media, does that mean there should be a ban on violence in the media? Giving up certain rights that our country was built on eventually will lead to no rights (a little extreme but you get the idea). I don't own a gun, but I believe that as a law abiding citizen, I should have the right to own a gun. Plus there is the added benefit of the fact that if China ever wanted to invade the US, they would never even make it through Compton 
. I just don't trust my government enough to allow the gov to have all the guns and the citizens to have none.
. I just don't trust my government enough to allow the gov to have all the guns and the citizens to have none.LagunaBeachCA
New Member
Agent:
As a consequentialist, there is a flip side to less guns = good. Try Germany in the Nazi era. Their version of gun control was that only the Gestapo, SS, Wehrmacht and Nazis were to have guns, and the rest were to have none. Look how that turned out for anyone who complied with the "Gun Controllers".
Finally, try Washington DC, where it is impossible to own a handgun much less carry one. The crime rate is one of the highest in the country. I know that it has a lot do with demographics, but the point is that less guns is not always equal less crime. A great read is John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime".
Morbyd:
No, I would never get ticked off at you, ma brotha from anotha motha. I always like a good discussion, and respect the views of people even though they might be 180deg. opposite from mine. The reality is that there are almost 2 guns to every one person in the US. There is absolutely no way that it is possible to take away and destroy every firearm in the country. That's a utopia.
I do not really agree with the point that 2A is designed for a post-revolutionary war (not civil war) country, where people were afraid the government could turn despotic, because 2A is timeless.
Abolishing guns will eliminate the law abiding citizen from committing the "violent" act of defending themselves, but the criminals will be more brazen to continue with their gun violence. Sammy "the Bull" Gravano (Gotti's Underboss), expressed his love for gun control in an interview with Vanity Fair: "Gun control? It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I'm a bad guy, I'm always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You pull the trigger with a lock on, and I'll pull the trigger. We'll see who wins." Now that's a consequence of gun control that is very clearly explained by "a guy with field experience".
Unfortunately, the US society is a far violent society than Western European societies. Switzerland has extremely liberal gun laws, but they do not have near the level of crime and violence that we do. If the more guns = more violence principle were true then Switzerland should be a war zone.
No one needs a gun till they need one, just like I do not need a hammer till I need one. One cannot press charges against the police because they were not there to "serve and protect" when one really needed service and protection. In CA where the gun laws are some of the strictest in the nation, during the LA riots, people were running to gun shops to buy firearms, and they were shocked, surprised and frustrated when they found out that there was a 10 day waiting period, even though the FBI background check is instantaneous. Now why the heck does one have to wait 10 days when one has been cleared by the FBI? It's not as if there are other checks being done in the meanwhile. It's an absurd law, but the only ones who obey it are law abiding people. The crooks do not hang around for 10 days.
Yes, there are other important issues in the world, but for me personally, a candidate's stance on RKBA overrides everything else. The RKBA also shows that the government has trust in the people; at least that's what James Madison said. Having lived in countries where only the select few have a right to defend themselves I really appreciate the fact that my adopted country has the Second Amendment.
Dr. Mick:
How many gang bangers have been running around the streets with the .270 Winchester that grandpa uses for hunting deer?
As a consequentialist, there is a flip side to less guns = good. Try Germany in the Nazi era. Their version of gun control was that only the Gestapo, SS, Wehrmacht and Nazis were to have guns, and the rest were to have none. Look how that turned out for anyone who complied with the "Gun Controllers".
Finally, try Washington DC, where it is impossible to own a handgun much less carry one. The crime rate is one of the highest in the country. I know that it has a lot do with demographics, but the point is that less guns is not always equal less crime. A great read is John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime".
Morbyd:
No, I would never get ticked off at you, ma brotha from anotha motha. I always like a good discussion, and respect the views of people even though they might be 180deg. opposite from mine. The reality is that there are almost 2 guns to every one person in the US. There is absolutely no way that it is possible to take away and destroy every firearm in the country. That's a utopia.
I do not really agree with the point that 2A is designed for a post-revolutionary war (not civil war) country, where people were afraid the government could turn despotic, because 2A is timeless.
Abolishing guns will eliminate the law abiding citizen from committing the "violent" act of defending themselves, but the criminals will be more brazen to continue with their gun violence. Sammy "the Bull" Gravano (Gotti's Underboss), expressed his love for gun control in an interview with Vanity Fair: "Gun control? It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I'm a bad guy, I'm always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You pull the trigger with a lock on, and I'll pull the trigger. We'll see who wins." Now that's a consequence of gun control that is very clearly explained by "a guy with field experience".
Unfortunately, the US society is a far violent society than Western European societies. Switzerland has extremely liberal gun laws, but they do not have near the level of crime and violence that we do. If the more guns = more violence principle were true then Switzerland should be a war zone.
No one needs a gun till they need one, just like I do not need a hammer till I need one. One cannot press charges against the police because they were not there to "serve and protect" when one really needed service and protection. In CA where the gun laws are some of the strictest in the nation, during the LA riots, people were running to gun shops to buy firearms, and they were shocked, surprised and frustrated when they found out that there was a 10 day waiting period, even though the FBI background check is instantaneous. Now why the heck does one have to wait 10 days when one has been cleared by the FBI? It's not as if there are other checks being done in the meanwhile. It's an absurd law, but the only ones who obey it are law abiding people. The crooks do not hang around for 10 days.
Yes, there are other important issues in the world, but for me personally, a candidate's stance on RKBA overrides everything else. The RKBA also shows that the government has trust in the people; at least that's what James Madison said. Having lived in countries where only the select few have a right to defend themselves I really appreciate the fact that my adopted country has the Second Amendment.
Dr. Mick:
How many gang bangers have been running around the streets with the .270 Winchester that grandpa uses for hunting deer?
Last edited by a moderator:
Morbyd
Moderator
You think people should have hunting rifles on the streets of America?
Not on the streets, of course. But my uncles and grandfathers all hunted, mainly deer. Especially in rural areas, hunting is part of life everywhere. I don't mean hunting for sport but hunting for animals that you eventually eat.
Laguna - Well argued. Still not sure I agree, but very well put.
Not on the streets, of course. But my uncles and grandfathers all hunted, mainly deer. Especially in rural areas, hunting is part of life everywhere. I don't mean hunting for sport but hunting for animals that you eventually eat.
so you come from a long proud line of deerhunters!
Lol…this one still running?
“Yeah coz Thatcher was a complete diaster wasn't she. Dingus.”
That was your ‘standard comment’ you absolute……Bellsniff. You didn’t expect any comeback? You must be the ‘alpha male’ of your group Super Parsnip?
You still haven’t added anything of any note to proceedings, despite having been taught about Thatcher for a year of life by an economics lecturer with a brain the size of Kent.
Instead, you just rant and rave about how intelligent you are and how no one else could possibly know as much as you do because you are quote/unquote “supremely intelligent”
“Also, I only posted as it annoys me that people go with the standard views of everyone else without looking into it and making an informed decision”
Once again, this line shows how you fail to take into account other peoples views and opinions when they are the opposite of yours. Apparently I am jumping on a “Thatcher hating bandwagon” because that is a “standard view” – Heaven forbid that I actually have an opinion based on the reality of having grown up with her as Prime Minister of my country for over 10 years of my life and I witnessed at first hand the destruction of many peoples lives due to her policies and her actions.
I had no idea how old you were before but I now know you are 20. So you were born around 1986. You were 5 (ish) when the poll tax riots took place and she got booted out of power. A sad sad day in the Polack house no doubt and I guess you were crying into your pillow (in your bunk bed).
Last edited by a moderator:
The decade of greed? - more like the decade of Opportunity.
8)
Essex though aren't you?
Essex moved into The City and has stayed ever since.
Essex though aren't you?
Essex moved into The City and has stayed ever since.
Hong Kong to essex, and still in essex.
would purchase my own place, but there nothing about thats makes financial sense (unless you're earning over £40k p/a).
u could blame Thatcher for letting people buy up the council house stocks, but i dont see Labour going out of their way to replenish the stock do you?
guns don't kill..... people do.
i think you will find that it is people + guns that do the damage.
re:thatcher. i am already rehearsing my rendition of 'ding dong the witch is dead' in anticipation
good for u!