California Gun Control

[Roamy]

Oh Ya this is working real well. No one is armed in their vehicles as California laws prohibit that. So now in Oakland the criminals just walk up to the car and shoot you in
the head. Nice. Finestein is such a idiot along with the rest of the politicians in this state. Sh!t the way this oountry is going I am going to have to join the Aryan Brotherhood :)
Just a joke Ben !!!

[henners88]

This thread won't end well so I'll dash in and out. :)

BBC News - Connecticut backs gun controls after Newtown massacre (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22024289)

Bye :wave:

[Tazio]

Oh Ya this is working real well. No one is armed in their vehicles as California laws prohibit that. So now in Oakland the criminals just walk up to the car and shoot you in
the head. Nice. Finestein is such a idiot along with the rest of the politicians in this state. Sh!t the way this oountry is going I am going to have to join the Aryan Brotherhood :)
Just a joke Ben !!!

:s nore:

[Roamy]

It is going to be great when the pendulum swings back the other way. Alca you wouldn't be snoozing if you live in Oakland or Detroit but you would be doing one of the other esses :)
Oh and I like this one - Now in Conn I have 10 rds and the criminals have 30 - God how in the FK do these people get elected. Well I think at least most in office should turn in their guns.
These people are mental and should not have guns. So let me see where we are at now. The criminals have big clips and assult rifles, I get a little pistol. Now the gov will tax ammo off the chart. Hell I am ready to join the Euros - Figure out how to collect all the arms and then we can move to C4.

[race aficionado]

I'll add to the fun and combine 2 of our favorite contentious topics.
http://img.tapatalk.com/d/13/04/05/nu3uha2a.jpg

[anthonyvop]

This thread won't end well so I'll dash in and out. :)

BBC News - Connecticut backs gun controls after Newtown massacre (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22024289)

Bye :wave:

And not one of those new laws would have prevented the shooting.

[Tazio]

It is going to be great when the pendulum swings back the other way. Alca you wouldn't be snoozing if you live in Oakland or Detroit but you would be doing one of the other esses :)
Oh and I like this one - Now in Conn I have 10 rds and the criminals have 30 - God how in the FK do these people get elected. Well I think at least most in office should turn in their guns.
These people are mental and should not have guns. So let me see where we are at now. The criminals have big clips and assult rifles, I get a little pistol. Now the gov will tax ammo off the chart. Hell I am ready to join the Euros - Figure out how to collect all the arms and then we can move to C4.Let me know when crazed gun wielding criminals shooting into cars of unsuspecting Californians becomes a common event, because I have never known anyone this has happened to in the 53 years I've lived in The Great State of California.
Maybe you should send “Sherriff Joe” to CA. on a fact finding mission, or is he still in Hawaii trying to collect evidence that The President of The United States of America is a naturalized citizen :laugh:
:s nore:

Ph?i h?p mÃ*u tr?ng v?i g? nguyên, khi?n nhÃ* b?p có phong cách d?c dáo l?nh-nóng k?t h?p, t?o c?m giác hoÃ*n toÃ*n khác l?, không gian l?p t?c tr? nên sang tr?ng. NgoÃ*i ra, v?t li?u kim lo?i sáng loáng trÃ*n vÃ*o phòng b?p v?i s? lu?ng nhi?u lÃ*m cho nhÃ* b?p mang d?m hoi hu?ng công nghi?p; t? b?p nh?p kh?u b?ng nhôm, trông l? m?t, d?n g?ch men nhÃ* b?p cung sáng trung, g?ch men ph?ng kim lo?i, tr? thÃ*nh th?i thu?ng.

[Tazio]

Maybe you feel the necessity to carry your hog-iron in AZ. But California has a much lower incidence of gun violence. If you are not comfortable with our laws, I suggest you never travel behind "The Golden Curtain" :laugh:

http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/assets_c/2013/04/gun%20map%20cap-thumb-560x472.jpg

[anthonyvop]

Maybe you feel the necessity to carry your hog-iron in AZ. But California has a much lower incidence of gun violence. If you are not comfortable with our laws, I suggest you never travel behind "The Golden Curtain" :laugh:

http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/assets_c/2013/04/gun%20map%20cap-thumb-560x472.jpg

Your source is a graphic from a St Louis entertainment blog?

If you use this interactive map that uses the FBI's uniform crime report you will see how California is one of the worst states for gun crimes.

US gun crime map: interactive | News | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2011/sep/27/gun-crime-map-statistics)


Of course it pales in comparison with Illinois and the war zone that is Chicago. A place where private gun ownership of any form is all but completely illegal.

[Starter]

So we should all move to South Dakota?

[odykas]

http://d24w6bsrhbeh9d.cloudfront.net/photo/2278661_460s.jpg

[Tazio]

Your source is a graphic from a St Louis entertainment blog?

If you use this interactive map that uses the FBI's uniform crime report you will see how California is one of the worst states for gun crimes.

US gun crime map: interactive | News | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2011/sep/27/gun-crime-map-statistics)


Let us check gun deaths per capita which I think is a better indicator.

Firearms Death Rate per 100,000 - Kaiser State Health Facts (http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=113&cat=2&sub=32&sort=a&rgnhl=6)

Arizona well above the national average, and California is 34th. Nice try :dozey:

[donKey jote]

So we should all move to South Dakota?

or Nebraska even :andrea:

[Gregor-y]

I drive the length of Nebraska twice a year. The cops are super cool about not enforcing the 75 mph speed limit, but I wouldn't want to live there.

[anthonyvop]

Let us check gun deaths per capita which I think is a better indicator.

Firearms Death Rate per 100,000 - Kaiser State Health Facts (http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=113&cat=2&sub=32&sort=a&rgnhl=6)

Arizona well above the national average, and California is 34th. Nice try :dozey:


Nah...I'll stick with the 2012 F.B.I.'s statistics as it relates to crime and ignore the biased stats that lump in other non-crime related incidents from 5 years ago..... thank you very much.

Then of course there are the innumerable cases of crime prevented by armed citizens.

Very interesting read

http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/WP-Tough-Targets.pdf

[Rollo]

Very interesting read


I think it says loads about American society. It's written with a very very leading tone, assuming that the reader already agrees with the conclusions:
Even the most vehement advocates of gun control have to acknowledge that Americans use guns for self defense.

Something must be hideously faulty if you need to defend yourself from your own society. On that list of 50 states, if Australia was to be counted as a state, it would rank last on the list and still 23 times better than number 50.

Obviously, death by firearm is an acceptable part of American life. All I can assume is that people's lives are valued less than in other countries; coupled with the lack of decent medical care for so many people, the evidence begins to mount in favour of that conclusion.

[Tazio]

@ vop
Disagree, the data you provided with that FBI link (which is incomplete) does not support your claim:
If you use this interactive map that uses the FBI's uniform crime report you will see how California is one of the worst states for gun crimes.
Using the info you provided from the FBI, Ca. is not one of the worst in any of the three categories it gives per capita data for. In fact it shows that Ca. is in the middle or slightly better than the rest of the Union in the three categories that it rates per capita gun crime; assault, robbery, and murder. It is however difficult to draw conclusions as your link does not give specific per capita statistics.

As for the link I provided, the consideration of all gun related deaths is valid when deciding gun control legislation. :bulb:

[Alfa Fan]

And not one of those new laws would have prevented the shooting.

Because they don't go anywhere near far enough.. But at least its a step in the right direction.

[Starter]

Because they don't go anywhere near far enough.. But at least its a step in the right direction.
How far should they go? An honest question. To what extent do you believe it is either reasonable or lawful (or both) to go to in order to take guns out of society. And how would you advocate accomplishing that objective? Remembering that we're talking about the US and not some other place.

[airshifter]

Let me know when crazed gun wielding criminals shooting into cars of unsuspecting Californians becomes a common event, because I have never known anyone this has happened to in the 53 years I've lived in The Great State of California.
Maybe you should send “Sherriff Joe” to CA. on a fact finding mission, or is he still in Hawaii trying to collect evidence that The President of The United States of America is a naturalized citizen :laugh:
:s nore:

On another forum I frequent, a member from California almost died after being shot in his car... for the wheels. I lived in California three different times/places as an adult and shootings in and around vehicles were much more common than where I live now. Granted they are generally isolated to larger cities, but that is true in most states.

Most gun related crime happens in large cities, and as such IMO statistics should be more isolated to those larger cities. I think even those with strong anti gun views would feel far less comfortable in the armpits of DC or LA.

[airshifter]

How far should they go? An honest question. To what extent do you believe it is either reasonable or lawful (or both) to go to in order to take guns out of society. And how would you advocate accomplishing that objective? Remembering that we're talking about the US and not some other place.

A very good question that will likely remain unanswered from many in the "real" here and now of US gun control. I personally think that the problem is that the knee jerk gun control laws will do nothing but punish the legal and much more responsible gun owners, while the true concern is generally the thugs and criminals.

I'm also one who accepts some "big brother" control when it's valid. There are a lot of IMO non obtrusive measures that could take illegal guns off the streets, but many would fight them tooth and nail. As an example, having metal detectors and/or Xray machines at the exit for a large sports stadium, shopping mall, or any place with a high number of people exiting. It could be done so as not to "intrude" on normal daily life, and set up quickly without warning in most cases. I would not in the least bit mind if I was slowed down on my grocery store run if I knew the intent was only to disarm illegal weapons owners, but a great deal of society would say that "Big Brother" is over stepping his bounds.

[Gregor-y]

Most gun related crime happens in large cities, and as such IMO statistics should be more isolated to those larger cities. I think even those with strong anti gun views would feel far less comfortable in the armpits of DC or LA.
I think it's very much the opposite; highly concentrated urban areas want to limit access to firearms, while more thinly populated areas don't have the same sheer number of shootings due to the number of people living there and don't see the need for as much regulation.

Throw into this mix the political machinations of groups like the NRA that tie guns to other issues (freedom, racism, xenophobia) and then you get people much more agitated and likely to support other issues as well.

[Tazio]

On another forum I frequent, a member from California almost died after being shot in his car... for the wheels. I lived in California three different times/places as an adult and shootings in and around vehicles were much more common than where I live now. Granted they are generally isolated to larger cities, but that is true in most states.

Most gun related crime happens in large cities, and as such IMO statistics should be more isolated to those larger cities. I think even those with strong anti gun views would feel far less comfortable in the armpits of DC or LA.I certainly never meant to imply that it doesn't happen. I just think that certain types of gun advocates tend to use scare tactics, and overestimate the risk of a citizen being a victim of gun violence.

[Starter]

I certainly never meant to imply that it doesn't happen. I just think that certain types of gun advocates tend to use scare tactics, and overestimate the risk of a citizen being a victim of gun violence.
Much depends on where you live.

[Tazio]

Much depends on where you live. Of that I have no doubt. On a separate note, you also have a much higher likelihood of being a casualty of gun violence if you are a gang-banger for instance. I'm not against responsible gun ownership; I just choose to not own one.

[henners88]

I certainly never meant to imply that it doesn't happen. I just think that certain types of gun advocates tend to use scare tactics, and overestimate the risk of a citizen being a victim of gun violence.
I think you've hit the nail on the head there. The arms industry in the US is big business and scared consumers with unsurprisingly purchase more product. Much like Rupert Murdoch has a huge hand in how news is delivered in the UK for his own gain, the same can be said of the NRA over there when it comes to marketing their cause. The only winners from the Sandy Hook shooting was the arms companies selling record amounts and citizens are as scared as ever. Gun crime has risen in the UK by 35% since 2003 where a large percentage of those crimes are committed using illegally acquired weapons. I would imagine its a similar situation in the States but the difference is our media doesn't report it tot he same extent. If it did, we'd have every Tom, Dick, and Harry trying to obtain a shotgun license which are obtainable over here. I get the impression its a situation countries either want or don't.

[airshifter]

I certainly never meant to imply that it doesn't happen. I just think that certain types of gun advocates tend to use scare tactics, and overestimate the risk of a citizen being a victim of gun violence.

That I can agree with... but the anti gun view uses scare tactics just as often if not more IMO. Have you ever seen any chart that compares killings with illegal gun ownership vs legal gun ownership?

[airshifter]

I think you've hit the nail on the head there. The arms industry in the US is big business and scared consumers with unsurprisingly purchase more product.

I personally think some consumers are scared of loosing the right to buy guns. I have met or heard of very few who ever purchased a gun out of fear from a shooting or crime. Most I have met would probably move first.


Gun crime has risen in the UK by 35% since 2003 where a large percentage of those crimes are committed using illegally acquired weapons. I would imagine its a similar situation in the States but the difference is our media doesn't report it tot he same extent. If it did, we'd have every Tom, Dick, and Harry trying to obtain a shotgun license which are obtainable over here. I get the impression its a situation countries either want or don't.

Two points... first that the vast majority of gun crimes in the US takes place with illegally obtained guns.

And second... if the UK gun laws work, why is the gun crime rate increasing so quickly?

[Tazio]

That I can agree with... but the anti gun view uses scare tactics just as often if not more IMO. Have you ever seen any chart that compares killings with illegal gun ownership vs legal gun ownership?It is no secret that the pros and cons have the type of adversarial relationship that pervades almost every issue in our society.

[anthonyvop]

Something must be hideously faulty if you need to defend yourself from your own society.

I always love that argument. You rely on Government created and manned people to protect you from people.


How logical is that?

[henners88]

I personally think some consumers are scared of loosing the right to buy guns. I have met or heard of very few who ever purchased a gun out of fear from a shooting or crime. Most I have met would probably move first.
I think this is why many people like myself from other countries don't understand your (America's) fascination with guns. Some on this thread admit to being terrified of their own government and suggest they arms themselves for protection and in your area its just a sport.


Two points... first that the vast majority of gun crimes in the US takes place with illegally obtained guns.
Yeah that's what I said.

Gun crime has risen in the UK by 35% since 2003 where a large percentage of those crimes are committed using illegally acquired weapons. I would imagine its a similar situation in the States but the difference is our media doesn't report it to the same extent.


And second... if the UK gun laws work, why is the gun crime rate increasing so quickly?
They work because the vast majority of the general population don't own or carry guns. The increase is based on very few areas of the UK (not NI) where gang crime has increased and death rates are based on murders between gangs. The UK can still boast one of the lowest gun crimes rates in the world and we should be very proud of that. More money going to police services and community support is a far better answer than individuals arming themselves IMO. It may not work over there but thats not really my concern. You have a different culture and the cock up was made far long ago for it to be rectified now IMO. I don't mean that to be offensive but having discussed this so many times on here I'm happy we all know what we are doing regardless of how different it is.

[Rollo]

I always love that argument. You rely on Government created and manned people to protect you from people.

How logical is that?

As logical as paying tax for schools, hospitals, roads, a judicial system, public transport, stormwater, waste removal, an a competent working rule of law. In other words, relying on Government to provide the things that most people would expect of it and paying a reasonable amount of taxation for it.

[Alfa Fan]

How far should they go? An honest question. To what extent do you believe it is either reasonable or lawful (or both) to go to in order to take guns out of society. And how would you advocate accomplishing that objective? Remembering that we're talking about the US and not some other place.

To the point where it has reached in almost every other civilised democracy? And it has to be done from the ground up, eradicated from culture as well as just from a legislation viewpoint.

What difference does it being the US make and "not some other place"? That it is part of the culture currently is NOT good reason for it to remain.

The vilification and punishment of homosexuality (often punishment to the extremes of death) has been part or was part of the vast majority of societies for a couple of millennia at least, but is that a good justification of retaining the status quo? To me the answer is obvious.

[BDunnell]

The vilification and punishment of homosexuality (often punishment to the extremes of death) has been part or was part of the vast majority of societies for a couple of millennia at least, but is that a good justification of retaining the status quo? To me the answer is obvious.

Exactly.

[Starter]

To the point where it has reached in almost every other civilised democracy? And it has to be done from the ground up, eradicated from culture as well as just from a legislation viewpoint.

What difference does it being the US make and "not some other place"? That it is part of the culture currently is NOT good reason for it to remain.
I appreciate your response, but you didn't answer the question. Moral exercises of right and wrong are interesting to discuss, but are worthless if you can't apply them to the real world. That was the point of my question to you.


The vilification and punishment of homosexuality (often punishment to the extremes of death) has been part or was part of the vast majority of societies for a couple of millennia at least, but is that a good justification of retaining the status quo? To me the answer is obvious.
That has what to do with the subject at hand?

[henners88]

It shows deep running practices in society can be changed for the better. Then again you understood the point being made.

[BDunnell]

That has what to do with the subject at hand?

Oh, come on. You know exactly why the comment is relevant and are merely choosing not to respond to it.

[Starter]

Oh, come on. You know exactly why the comment is relevant and are merely choosing not to respond to it.
On the contrary, I see no connection between guns and gays, except on the most superficial level. Or are you trying to imply that those who have an opinion on one automatically have a certain opinion on the other? That would be a huge over reach if so.

[markabilly]

Guns and gays? Gays should have the right to keep and bare guns and get married.

As to marriage, I see no reason why they should be immune from that misery. It ain't fair to heterosexuals.




Anyway, I don't care, as long as I got her, who needs a gun?

http://healthyfrenchie.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/canadian-girls-demotivational-poster-1242352396.jpg#canaidan%20girl%20with%20ax%20640x8 00


Go ahead, sweetie, pull out your gun. I just hope it is big enough to see, so i don't miss it....

[BDunnell]

On the contrary, I see no connection between guns and gays, except on the most superficial level. Or are you trying to imply that those who have an opinion on one automatically have a certain opinion on the other? That would be a huge over reach if so.

It's a bit low for a former moderator to start trolling, I must say.

[markabilly]

It's a bit low for a former moderator to start trolling, I must say.

You are just jealous. But take comfort in knowing that he ain't up to your standards.....yet.

[BDunnell]

You are just jealous. But take comfort in knowing that he ain't up to your standards.....yet.

Re-read the previous posts. The relevance of the remark in question to this subject is obvious. It has even been stated explicitly at least once.

[Starter]

Re-read the previous posts. The relevance of the remark in question to this subject is obvious. It has even been stated explicitly at least once.
I realize you are talking about acceptance by society at large. But the comparison is tenuous at best. Homosexuality is something which some people have, a distinct minority of people, and seems to be pretty much hard wired at birth. No one knows why and it is present in much of the rest of the animal kingdom as well. Accepting it in modern society is relatively new, but some much older societies didn't have a problem with it. Serious objections to homosexuality came more from and were pushed by organized religions. How then does gun ownership, which is not a built in preference, but rather a choice which anyone, straight or gay, is able to make for themselves compare? It is also important to note that attitudes toward guns are completely different here than in much of Europe.

henners88's response, "It shows deep running practices in society can be changed for the better. Then again you understood the point being made.", also does not answer my question. I did not challenge whether it can be done, I asked HOW anyone proposes to accomplish it. You can propose anything you wish, but if you can't tell me how you are going to make in happen, then you are wasting everyone's time.

[Rollo]

It shows deep running practices in society can be changed for the better. Then again you understood the point being made.

Deep running practices in society can be changed for the better but in this case won't. Politicians do things based on the incentive to be re-elected. Unlike the issues surrounding homosexual rights, there is considerable disincentive to change policies on guns in the United States. One very vocal group has pretty well much decided for a lot of people that 10,000 deaths a year and $160bn a year in associated medical costs is an acceptable price to pay for this so called "freedom".


I asked HOW anyone proposes to accomplish it. You can propose anything you wish, but if you can't tell me how you are going to make in happen, then you are wasting everyone's time.

Starter makes an interesting point. Major revolutions occur when people feel that things are sufficiently bad enough to change them en masse. Unfortunately, society in the United States still hasn't made the connect between firearm use and increased medical costs.
Surely the best way to incentivise people to give up owning weapons would be to give HMO's the right to charge the full medical on costs that owing a weapons causes in society. Premiums would rise and people's economic choices would be accordingly changed.

[BDunnell]

Deep running practices in society can be changed for the better but in this case won't. Politicians do things based on the incentive to be re-elected.

Not always. To give him his dues, I certainly don't believe this is the case with David Cameron and gay marriage, for instance.

[Roamy]

this thread is about Gun Control in California NOT sucking dicks

[odykas]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/10/nyregion/boy-6-dies-after-being-shot-by-boy-4-in-toms-river-nj.html?_r=0



A 6-year-old New Jersey boy died on Tuesday after being shot in the head a day earlier by his 4-year-old neighbor while they were playing outside, according to the police and local news media reports.

No comments....

[Tazio]

Very sad preventable loss of life, which may well end up being a statistic that goes into the accident category as opposed to violent crime, which is why I pointed out earlier in this thread that all firearm fatalities need to be taken into account when considering gun control legislation.
Maybe we should change the name of this thread as Toms River is a long way from Sacramento. :bulb:

[airshifter]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/10/nyregion/boy-6-dies-after-being-shot-by-boy-4-in-toms-river-nj.html?_r=0



No comments....

Why no comments?

In this instance both children were far too young to legally own any weapon. As such I would think that even the most pro-gun types would wish that the parents who introduced the gun, or allowed it more likely, should be held accountable for the death. Though I am a gun owner, for me personally I think unless it could be proven that any child or other person went to great measures to overcome the legal owners security measures, that legal owner should be held accountable for any crime committed with said weapon.

[Starter]

Why no comments?

In this instance both children were far too young to legally own any weapon. As such I would think that even the most pro-gun types would wish that the parents who introduced the gun, or allowed it more likely, should be held accountable for the death. Though I am a gun owner, for me personally I think unless it could be proven that any child or other person went to great measures to overcome the legal owners security measures, that legal owner should be held accountable for any crime committed with said weapon.
I don't have a problem with that. I would like, as in all cases, for all the facts to be known before prosecuting anyone. Adults are responsible if they leave obvious hazards within reach of small children

[schmenke]

I would think that U.S. (or New Jersey state in this case) gun laws mandate minimum safe storage requirements. As such, the owner (parent(s)) in this case are criminally responsible.

[D-Type]

In most countries, if a dog bites somebody the owner can be prosecuted for failing to keep it under control or if a 'pet' lion attacks someone the owner can be prosecuted for not keeping it secured. Surely if a 4-year-old is able to shoot someone then the child's parents should be arrested.
But, of course, in the USA they and their child have a constitutional right to bear arms. :confused:

[Starter]

In most countries, if a dog bites somebody the owner can be prosecuted for failing to keep it under control or if a 'pet' lion attacks someone the owner can be prosecuted for not keeping it secured. Surely if a 4-year-old is able to shoot someone then the child's parents should be arrested.
But, of course, in the USA they and their child have a constitutional right to bear arms. :confused:
I am sure that will happen as outlined in your first paragraph.

In your second, children don't have a constitutional right to anything until they reach the age at which their state considers them an adult.

[Gregor-y]

I do remember some PSAs during Saturday morning cartoons around 1987 Yosemite Sam telling me the Constitution protects everyone (even kids)!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyCkNBOwbEQ
And You Tube comes through again!

[Rollo]

In your second, children don't have a constitutional right to anything until they reach the age at which their state considers them an adult.

Bollocks they don't.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
- Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Constitutional rights are only hedged in to the extent as the explicit statement of the law suggests; just because someone is a minor does not mean that they "don't have a constitutional right to anything".
I'd really really like to see you prove otherwise.

[Starter]

Bollocks they don't.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
- Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Constitutional rights are only hedged in to the extent as the explicit statement of the law suggests; just because someone is a minor does not mean that they "don't have a constitutional right to anything".
I'd really really like to see you prove otherwise.
Proven every day when a child has a conflict with a parent. Who do you think wins? Or the government - a child decides they don't need to go to school - who wins that one? Children are most definitely second class citizens as well they should be.

[anthonyvop]

Proven every day when a child has a conflict with a parent. Who do you think wins? Or the government - a child decides they don't need to go to school - who wins that one? Children are most definitely second class citizens as well they should be.


Actually Children are citizens in name only. They can't drink(21), Vote, purchase a firearm or ammo, not attend school through 12th grade, enter into a legal contract(18) or drive on public roads(16-18). Some cities even have curfews for minors.

[airshifter]

In my state any child still living at home can be denied a learners permit or drivers license unless the parent consents to allow it. The key words were quoted by Rollo... "Without due process of law".

[D-Type]

Yes, but ...
If the four-year-old's parents had not exercised their constitutional right to bear arms, the odds are that the six-year-old would still be alive.

[Spafranco]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/10/nyregion/boy-6-dies-after-being-shot-by-boy-4-in-toms-river-nj.html?_r=0



No comments....

Every day occurrence in the US. A two year old shot his mother when he found a gun under dads pillow. Dad is in the National Guard. This was yesterday. Today,a guy that was killed when he took four firemen hostage was found to have hundreds of guns. A cop was badly injured during a SWAT attack and all four firemen were injured when they apparent victims of their own rescue.

[Spafranco]

Actually Children are citizens in name only. They can't drink(21), Vote, purchase a firearm or ammo, not attend school through 12th grade, enter into a legal contract(18) or drive on public roads(16-18). Some cities even have curfews for minors.

But can go to war and be killed or maimed based upon lies.

[airshifter]

Yes, but ...
If the four-year-old's parents had not exercised their constitutional right to bear arms, the odds are that the six-year-old would still be alive.

I was shooting guns with my father by age 3 or 4. And I've yet to kill anyone. The reality is that a responsible parent can also be a gun owne, and idiots will be idiots regardless of weapons ownership.

[airshifter]

But can go to war and be killed or maimed based upon lies.

Now I finally get your actions in some of the threads on the forums. As one with the hater/conspiracy theory/anti government attitude it's easy for you to assume you have all the answers. Thanks for lowering the veil enough to reveal that!

[D-Type]

I was shooting guns with my father by age 3 or 4. And I've yet to kill anyone. The reality is that a responsible parent can also be a gun owne, and idiots will be idiots regardless of weapons ownership.
Yes, but ...
You can't legislate that people must act responsibly - you can only legislate to punish them if they act irresponsibly

And,
If they can't gain access to a gun, an idiot's (or young child's) actions are unlikely to be lethal.

[Starter]

Yes, but ...
You can't legislate that people must act responsibly - you can only legislate to punish them if they act irresponsibly

And,
If they can't gain access to a gun, an idiot's (or young child's) actions are unlikely to be lethal.
Sorry, I don't live my life spending all my efforts in trying to protect the world from idiots. You're on your own there my friend.

[airshifter]

Yes, but ...
You can't legislate that people must act responsibly - you can only legislate to punish them if they act irresponsibly

And,
If they can't gain access to a gun, an idiot's (or young child's) actions are unlikely to be lethal.

Do to parents not acting responsibly, kids die daily. Fact. And they do so at the hands of many commonly owned things that most of the world doesn't oppose. Compare accidental deaths of kids on a whole and guns are a very, very, very small percentage. Do we suggest banning pools, stairs, cars, knives, trampolines, etc?

[henners88]

Do to parents not acting responsibly, kids die daily. Fact. And they do so at the hands of many commonly owned things that most of the world doesn't oppose. Compare accidental deaths of kids on a whole and guns are a very, very, very small percentage. Do we suggest banning pools, stairs, cars, knives, trampolines, etc?
Again its the cultural difference in this argument. Accidents do happen but as a parent you limit the risk to your child by keeping them away from such dangers if at all possible. A kid I went to school with broke his neck when he fell off a trampoline. To this day they make me shudder whenever I see them in peoples back gardens. They have become hugely popular over here in recent years but I for one will not be buying one for my child based on my experience. That might be considered overkill, but that is my feelings on them. We don't tend to have swimming pools in our gardens either because our weather is so crap and they cost a small fortune to maintain for possibly 2 weeks of the year. If I did own one I would not allow my child to be unsupervised around it, much like when you take them to the local leisure centre you are with them the whole time. My parents have got rid of their pond due to my brother having children as it really was an unnecessary danger. From an early age you try to educate your children about the dangers of cars. Schools spend considerable time raising awareness too. For that reason you don't allow your children to play in the road early on and hope by the time they reach 8 or 9, they are responsible enough to understand. The same goes for knives, as you don't tend to let your child use sharp knives until they are old enough. A knife is a necessary everyday object so it inevitable they will use them at some point.

I think this is why us 'Euro's' don't understand that argument when it comes to guns. For us guns are not necessary everyday tools that children have to learn to use thankfully. I can't think of anything more irresponsible than teaching a 3 year old how to fire a gun. I'd rather they didn't know, but that is probably because its not in our culture. Boys will be boys and I know as a child I pretended sticks were guns during play time, but that's as far as I hope it will go for my kids. My wife is expecting right now so I hope for a safe peaceful upbringing for whatever gender we have.

I'm not saying you guys should get rid of your guns. As much as I don't understand the need, I acknowledge its part of your culture and you guys don't know anything different. You probably think I am way over protective but I am quite proud of that. Stay safe kids :)

[Spafranco]

That I can agree with... but the anti gun view uses scare tactics just as often if not more IMO. Have you ever seen any chart that compares killings with illegal gun ownership vs legal gun ownership?

Whatever the number, either way, there are too many of the people of my country needlessly dying as a result of proliferation and the unyielding stance of so many.
Was there a hue and cry when the Iraqi's (civilians) were disarmed? No, there was not and the right wing came up with their "reasoning" that it was dangerous for the military to have so many guns unaccounted for. (Hypocrisy) One rule for some another rule for others.

[Spafranco]

Now I finally get your actions in some of the threads on the forums. As one with the hater/conspiracy theory/anti government attitude it's easy for you to assume you have all the answers. Thanks for lowering the veil enough to reveal that!

I would suggest that you educate yourself and not apply your own unfavorable beliefs upon others.

Point out my anti-government attitude! Point out my hatred! Point out my conspiracy theories!

Have I assumed I have all the answers?! No, I do not. I do to irritate you. Is that considered a virtue? Hmmmm.

Lowering the veil? Great little adage, metaphor, or whatever was your intent.

You have made accusation against me in an attempt at getting me "banned".
Why?

Low veil? Good God man, you would have to be doing a good limbo to get any lower than you who won't yield one inch even after 20 school children were massacred.

[anthonyvop]

Whatever the number, either way, there are too many of the people of my country needlessly dying as a result of proliferation and the unyielding stance of so many.
Was there a hue and cry when the Iraqi's (civilians) were disarmed? No, there was not and the right wing came up with their "reasoning" that it was dangerous for the military to have so many guns unaccounted for. (Hypocrisy) One rule for some another rule for others.

Actually I did. I was appalled at the disarmament of the Iraqi citizenry and voiced my displeasure to my representatives. Of Course the media refused to cover it except to use it a proof of success.

[airshifter]

Again its the cultural difference in this argument. Accidents do happen but as a parent you limit the risk to your child by keeping them away from such dangers if at all possible. A kid I went to school with broke his neck when he fell off a trampoline. To this day they make me shudder whenever I see them in peoples back gardens. They have become hugely popular over here in recent years but I for one will not be buying one for my child based on my experience. That might be considered overkill, but that is my feelings on them. We don't tend to have swimming pools in our gardens either because our weather is so crap and they cost a small fortune to maintain for possibly 2 weeks of the year. If I did own one I would not allow my child to be unsupervised around it, much like when you take them to the local leisure centre you are with them the whole time. My parents have got rid of their pond due to my brother having children as it really was an unnecessary danger. From an early age you try to educate your children about the dangers of cars. Schools spend considerable time raising awareness too. For that reason you don't allow your children to play in the road early on and hope by the time they reach 8 or 9, they are responsible enough to understand. The same goes for knives, as you don't tend to let your child use sharp knives until they are old enough. A knife is a necessary everyday object so it inevitable they will use them at some point.

I think this is why us 'Euro's' don't understand that argument when it comes to guns. For us guns are not necessary everyday tools that children have to learn to use thankfully. I can't think of anything more irresponsible than teaching a 3 year old how to fire a gun. I'd rather they didn't know, but that is probably because its not in our culture. Boys will be boys and I know as a child I pretended sticks were guns during play time, but that's as far as I hope it will go for my kids. My wife is expecting right now so I hope for a safe peaceful upbringing for whatever gender we have.

I'm not saying you guys should get rid of your guns. As much as I don't understand the need, I acknowledge its part of your culture and you guys don't know anything different. You probably think I am way over protective but I am quite proud of that. Stay safe kids :)

Henners, firstly I commend you for doing whatever YOU think is best for your children. All responsible parents do that, though some of us probably have fears that we don't really have a legitimate basis for, but really it's up to what the parents want to do and think is safe.

And to clarify, I don't feel any NEED for guns. I have guns for sport and enjoy shooting. Similar to how you teach your kids to respect and be safe around cars, I learned ever greater respect for guns at a very young age. My father made it very clear that even when we were shooting low powered BB and pellet guns that you never ever point a gun at another human. And he would have busted our butts if we even thought about it.

As far as NEED goes though, we don't need most of the things dangerous to kids. Knives, power mowers (or a host of other power tools), cars, stairs, electricity.... I could name dozens and dozens of things that are dangerous and exist in most homes. We simply teach kids safety and respect for anything dangerous.

My guns are stored in a very safe manner and my child has no idea where they are. If she did find them she could not possibly over-ride the safety measures I have taken. I doubt most adults could figure it out for that matter.

[airshifter]

I would suggest that you educate yourself and not apply your own unfavorable beliefs upon others.

Point out my anti-government attitude! Point out my hatred! Point out my conspiracy theories!

Have I assumed I have all the answers?! No, I do not. I do to irritate you. Is that considered a virtue? Hmmmm.

Lowering the veil? Great little adage, metaphor, or whatever was your intent.

You have made accusation against me in an attempt at getting me "banned".
Why?

Low veil? Good God man, you would have to be doing a good limbo to get any lower than you who won't yield one inch even after 20 school children were massacred.


The fact that you made a statement about "wars created by lies" tells me you life in the past and enjoy placing blame. You attitude towards guns makes it clear you have no distinction between legal and lawful use of weapons and criminal theft of guns and illegal use of them. Your views on homosexuality are obviously biased and you seemed to enjoy using very old medical examples that you though would irritate people. You claim now you do things to irritate people, yet claim I am posting with the intention of getting you banned. think you are just doing fine working on that goal all by yourself. Am I irritated? Not in the slightest. I've run across many narrow minded opinions on the internet and have long ago accepted some people think the entire world should be just like them, as they have little respect for those with other opinions. But maybe your jabs at the political right and guns will get some of the thin skinned that fit that mold worked up. By not belonging to either the radical right or radical guns owners, I really don't even care what you or anyone else think of such elements.... to me it simply displays that you see the world through a very, very narrow field of view and are subject to quickly attaching stereotypes to others.

Without being able such distinctions I have a hard time imagining much other than a tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist myself.


P.S. Here is a link on where I went to pick up pizza earlier this evening. Do not be alarmed, neither myself or anyone else was shot during the visit.

All Around Pizzas & Deli loves gun owners « Hungeree (http://hungeree.com/society/all-around-pizzas-deli-loves-gun-owners/)

[Knock-on]

So, what is the opinion of Americans to these proposals? They seem quite lightweight to me but anythings a start.

[anthonyvop]

So, what is the opinion of Americans to these proposals? They seem quite lightweight to me but anythings a start.

Horrendous and a violation of even the most basic of human rights.

[airshifter]

So, what is the opinion of Americans to these proposals? They seem quite lightweight to me but anythings a start.

For me to answer honestly I'd have to look at the various proposals one by one. But overall the anti gun crowd IMO does not deal with facts. Facts shows that many areas with the strictest gun laws have the highest rates of crimes with guns. The facts also show this is due to criminal activity, not due to any legal gun use. Various "castle" laws have been directly shown to reduce crime rates. Those "castle" laws now also apply to vehicles in many states. Here in Virginia when the concealed carry became legal, there was a direct correlation to the number of permits issued and the rate of crime reduction.

If you click on the link I posted above... that is a pizza shop right down the road from me. The owner isn't really a gun slinging radical at all like much of the press tried to make him out to be. He organizes taxpayers groups, has meetings about ALL Constitutional rights, and encourages people to get involved and do something for themselves. He offered a discount for open carry or legal concealed carry permit weapons owners as a show of support, and it really wasn't about any press coverage or radical thoughts. But personally I'd feel much safer eating in there with my family than I would at a number of other places that prohibit legal weapons being brought into their facilities. This is a low crime area, but if some nutter showed up with bad intentions in that place they would likely have a really bad day long before the police could arrive.

I'm all for responsible and accountable gun ownership. I have no problem with a better system for accountability, background checks, laws that punish those that do not report stolen guns, etc, etc. But to be honest I'm tired of people trying to tell me that owning guns is dangerous. It's legal in this country, and I don't want to see knee jerk reactions changing already ineffective laws due to lack of proper enforcement. I'd have no problem with laws that actually made sense, and ridding this country of guns is simply a law that doesn't make sense IMO. It would only serve to punish legal gun owners, and give the criminal element the upper hand in use of force.

As I said, I've been around guns since a very young age. I've also served in the military and carried weapons on a regular basis even in peacetime duties. I'm well versed in the proper use of deadly force and the emotional and mental consequences of taking another human beings life, whether it is "justified" and legal or not. I've been in hostilities in the military severe enough to reflect on such possibilities, yet I've been fortunate enough to have never been placed in a situation where I took another humans life. There are situations where I'm sure I could, but they would now involve only direct protection of innocents from violence that I couldn't control by any other means. Even if my home were invaded I can honestly say I would only consider such a thing if myself or my family were under direct threat of serious harm. I have insurance and they could rob me... an insurance claim is much easier to deal with than the consequences of killing even a criminal human.

I've had two family members die at the hands of guns. One was murdered and as such involved criminal gun use. One committed suicide with the use of a legally owned gun of a family member. If that legal owner served prison time due to negligence I would have no issue with that, as the person who killed themselves was known by him to have some fairly moderate to severe depression and anxiety issues at the time, and was medicated to deal with them. The person that took their own life would likely not have done so without access to a gun IMO. I also have a grandmother who most likely escaped bodily harm or death by legally using a weapon. This was a small, frail, elderly woman who had a criminal break in to rob her. He took some things and demanded money, which she gave to him. He demanded more money and got very agitated. She had no more money to give him. Not knowing what to do, she went to her dresser drawer and pulled out a pistol my father had given her and showed her how to properly use. The criminal fled. She later admitted that she was so scared she probably could not have shot the man, but the display of the gun was all it took to make him flee.

So I've seen first hand the good and bad of guns, and seen it directly reflect on my direct family tree. Somehow such unusual circumstances came together to give me direct insight to dealing with the tragedies guns can create. But I've also seen a family member likely saved serious harm or worse. And over the years I've met more than a few people who had either family loss or protection of family by guns.

And with all that in mind, I still think legal, responsible, and accountable gun ownership is a good thing. My daughter will be learning to shoot soon, and if she keeps interest I will teach her to be a very good shot and enjoy the sport. If she had no interest I will still require her to learn all aspects of gun safety, including the use of deadly force for protection if ever needed. She will know every possible consequence of that use, and will be held accountable for proper and fitting use of the weapon only.

[webberf1]

Only read the first page of the thread, but I'm at least glad I never saw any mention of the joke that is the Second Ammendment. Its a laughable excuse for owning a gun if ever there were one.

[airshifter]

Only read the first page of the thread, but I'm at least glad I never saw any mention of the joke that is the Second Ammendment. Its a laughable excuse for owning a gun if ever there were one.

Following my lengthy post I find this an excellent example of much of the anti gun crowd. Without looking at any content or dealing with any facts, the decision has been made.

As for the second ammendment, please provide a better example of the legal ability of a nation to defend against it's leaders. It should be very easy for you with the second being laughable and all. ;)

[henners88]

As for the second ammendment, please provide a better example of the legal ability of a nation to defend against it's leaders.
What do you mean by this airshifter? The comment you were responding to was stupid but I'd like to understand what you mean here?

[Rollo]

As for the second ammendment, please provide a better example of the legal ability of a nation to defend against it's leaders. It should be very easy for you with the second being laughable and all. ;)

Done:
Federation Fact Sheet 1 – The Referendums 1898–1900 - Australian Electoral Commission (http://www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/publications/Fact_Sheets/factsheet1.htm)

In Australia, we have referenda where the people are asked to vote on stuff. It is easy to "defend against it's leaders" when we can put them out of a job by voting for someone else. Obviously it worked, since the nation of Australia was started at the ballot box; not the end of gun.

[Bagwan]

My wife's grandmother owned a wee corner store in Toronto long ago .
She had the attitude that , if someone stole from her , they had to be in a rough spot , so she would let them be .
A friend of hers was very upset by this , and insisted she have a gun .

She hated the idea .

He came to her shop , and whilst showing here how to use it , shot her .
The bullet went through her eye and out the back of here head , and miraculously , she survived .

The store never opened again , and she spent the rest of her life in a home , completely delusional .

True story .

[Starter]

Done:
Federation Fact Sheet 1 – The Referendums 1898–1900 - Australian Electoral Commission (http://www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/publications/Fact_Sheets/factsheet1.htm)

In Australia, we have referenda where the people are asked to vote on stuff. It is easy to "defend against it's leaders" when we can put them out of a job by voting for someone else. Obviously it worked, since the nation of Australia was started at the ballot box; not the end of gun.
Tell that to the Germans of the 20s and 30s, they got to vote too. Exactly how did that work out for them?

[henners88]

Tell that to the Germans of the 20s and 30s, they got to vote too. Exactly how did that work out for them?
I'd like to think in the modern age we as civilians are a little more informed than they were 70 and 90 years ago. Incidently most of the people affected from that era are long dead so its rather difficult to prove this particular point to them on mass. Then again the Nazi party were voted in by the people in the first place. Uninformed people voting off the back of propaganda. In the western world it very easy to educate yourself of the bigger picture and technology allows this.

Serious question, are there really a large number of Americans who truly believe part of firearm ownership is needed to protect against the leaders of your own country? I've seen that stated here by one or two people where it doesn't surprise me due to consistent paranoia, but really is this genuinely a concern for you guys?

[Spafranco]

The fact that you made a statement about "wars created by lies" tells me you life in the past and enjoy placing blame. You attitude towards guns makes it clear you have no distinction between legal and lawful use of weapons and criminal theft of guns and illegal use of them. Your views on homosexuality are obviously biased and you seemed to enjoy using very old medical examples that you though would irritate people. You claim now you do things to irritate people, yet claim I am posting with the intention of getting you banned. think you are just doing fine working on that goal all by yourself. Am I irritated? Not in the slightest. I've run across many narrow minded opinions on the internet and have long ago accepted some people think the entire world should be just like them, as they have little respect for those with other opinions. But maybe your jabs at the political right and guns will get some of the thin skinned that fit that mold worked up. By not belonging to either the radical right or radical guns owners, I really don't even care what you or anyone else think of such elements.... to me it simply displays that you see the world through a very, very narrow field of view and are subject to quickly attaching stereotypes to others.

Without being able such distinctions I have a hard time imagining much other than a tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist myself.


P.S. Here is a link on where I went to pick up pizza earlier this evening. Do not be alarmed, neither myself or anyone else was shot during the visit.

All Around Pizzas & Deli loves gun owners « Hungeree (http://hungeree.com/society/all-around-pizzas-deli-loves-gun-owners/)

As the man says. "I was being facetious" but you may not understand the meaning.

The War in Iraq was based upon what? The Gulf of Tonkin incident? Truth?

My views on homosexuality? You actually know what they are?

Starter,face it. You rabble rouse here all the time. It's as though you wait for my response so that you can use tired old cliche's and get likes from the Don.

Better that you get facts straight before you write them down as fact.

You have still not given my "anti-government or my conspiracy theory" an explanation.

Tell me Starter, when you really try to think of something, how long does it take to come to a valid conclusion?

Yes, you have tried to have me banned. No need to hide the fact. You goad and have your little clan of followers such as Donkey and Airshifter. They will give you likes as long as they are directed at moi.

My biggest question to you and your view on medical reports. When and for how long are they valid? Now I have simplified everything.

[D-Type]

As the man says. "I was being facetious" but you may not understand the meaning.

The War in Iraq was based upon what? The Gulf of Tonkin incident? Truth?

My views on homosexuality? You actually know what they are?

Starter,face it. You rabble rouse here all the time. It's as though you wait for my response so that you can use tired old cliche's and get likes from the Don.

Better that you get facts straight before you write them down as fact.

You have still not given my "anti-government or my conspiracy theory" an explanation.

Tell me Starter, when you really try to think of something, how long does it take to come to a valid conclusion?

Yes, you have tried to have me banned. No need to hide the fact. You goad and have your little clan of followers such as Donkey and Airshifter. They will give you likes as long as they are directed at moi.

My biggest question to you and your view on medical reports. When and for how long are they valid? Now I have simplified everything.
My friend,
Remember when you point one finger at someone else you are pointing three at yourself. Have you ever heard the phrase "Pot calling the kettle black"

And incidentally nobody has "tried to get you banned". Surprisingly, there has not yet been a complaint to the mods about any of your postings. Yet!

[anthonyvop]

Done:
Federation Fact Sheet 1 – The Referendums 1898–1900 - Australian Electoral Commission (http://www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/publications/Fact_Sheets/factsheet1.htm)

In Australia, we have referenda where the people are asked to vote on stuff. It is easy to "defend against it's leaders" when we can put them out of a job by voting for someone else. Obviously it worked, since the nation of Australia was started at the ballot box; not the end of gun.


The reason we have rights is to protect minorities from oppression by majorities. The Individual is the smallest minority there is. The "Majority" has no more right to vote away an individual's right than any single dictator, despot or governmental bureaucrat does.

[henners88]

Rights and laws mean absolutely nothing if you don't trust your own government and would consider arming yourself against a force that is never going to attack its own civilians lol.

[BDunnell]

The reason we have rights is to protect minorities from oppression by majorities.

Tell that to many of your fellow right-wingers, who would seek to deny people the right to have abortions, to deny gay people the right to marry, and so forth.

[Starter]

Starter,face it. You rabble rouse here all the time. It's as though you wait for my response so that you can use tired old cliche's and get likes from the Don.

Tell me Starter, when you really try to think of something, how long does it take to come to a valid conclusion?
Just kind of wondering why you decided to address those remarks to me? I haven't responded to anything you've posted in this thread. Are you perhaps a little more confused today than usual?

[Starter]

Rights and laws mean absolutely nothing if you don't trust your own government and would consider arming yourself against a force that is never going to attack its own civilians lol.
The government we had yesterday, have today and, hopefully, will have tomorrow is mostly OK. The Bill of Rights is forever, or at least until the country ends. So far we have fended off McCarthy, Nixon and Bush Jr without having to shoot anyone. But, who knows what the future will bring?

[BDunnell]

So far we have fended off McCarthy, Nixon and Bush Jr without having to shoot anyone. But, who knows what the future will bring?

Greater confidence in your national ability to produce leaders who don't need shooting, perhaps?

[Roamy]

Greater confidence in your national ability to produce leaders who don't need shooting, perhaps?

ok i will go with that - do you have any in mind. Actually most of congress need a good shooting - or actually most people in government decision making jobs.

[henners88]

Indeed Ben lol. I can't imagine having the mindset that I may need to use deadly force against our own Prime Minister! Mental.

[D-Type]

The government we had yesterday, have today and, hopefully, will have tomorrow is mostly OK. The Bill of Rights is forever, or at least until the country ends. So far we have fended off McCarthy, Nixon and Bush Jr without having to shoot anyone. But, who knows what the future will bring?
Please clarify what this means. I thought that the US "Bill of Rights" is the first ten amendments to the US Constitution. Surely it can be amended by further amendments to the Constitution.

[Starter]

Greater confidence in your national ability to produce leaders who don't need shooting, perhaps?
I have zero confidence in the leaders of ANY country not needing shooting from time to time. :p

[Spafranco]

My friend,
Remember when you point one finger at someone else you are pointing three at yourself. Have you ever heard the phrase "Pot calling the kettle black"

And incidentally nobody has "tried to get you banned". Surprisingly, there has not yet been a complaint to the mods about any of your postings. Yet!
Why would anybody point to any of my postings? So, now you isolate my postings and are audaciousness to say that I am akin to someone who has;let me see were they addressed in the same manner, well surprise surprise no, to make accuse me of anti-government sentiment.

Why, since you are here as a moderator can't you moderate fairly?

Yes, I have had someone try to have me banned.Have you heard the phrase "seek and you shall find"?

[Spafranco]

Just kind of wondering why you decided to address those remarks to me? I haven't responded to anything you've posted in this thread. Are you perhaps a little more confused today than usual?
My apologies. It was an error based upon the old "slip of the tongue is no fault of the mind".

By the way, don't ever invoke you're theories as to my mental capacity in a public forum.

[Starter]

My apologies. It was an error based upon the old "slip of the tongue is no fault of the mind".
Accepted.

[anthonyvop]

Rights and laws mean absolutely nothing if you don't trust your own government and would consider arming yourself against a force that is never going to attack its own civilians lol.

Never? Which country is this?

[anthonyvop]

Tell that to many of your fellow right-wingers, who would seek to deny people the right to have abortions, to deny gay people the right to marry, and so forth.

If you are addressing me then it only proves how narrow-minded and bigoted you are.

I have never called for a ban on Abortions nor the denial of anyone's right to marry. In fact I call for the total elimination of government sanctioned marriage. Just leave it to the couples and the lawyers.

[anthonyvop]

The government we had yesterday, have today and, hopefully, will have tomorrow is mostly OK. The Bill of Rights is forever, or at least until the country ends. So far we have fended off McCarthy, Nixon and Bush Jr without having to shoot anyone. But, who knows what the future will bring?

Of course it is the Democrats who tend to quickly use force against the American People. Japanese Interment, Jim Crow laws, Summary execution via drone...etc.

[Firstgear]

Indeed Ben lol. I can't imagine having the mindset that I may need to use deadly force against our own Prime Minister! Mental.
Have a read through the Thatcher thread and you may start to think you're in the minority. ;)

[Spafranco]

Why would anybody point to any of my postings? So, now you isolate my postings and with the audaciousness/audacity to say that I am akin to someone who has;let me see were they addressed in the same manner, well surprise surprise no, to make accuse me of anti-government sentiment.

Why, since you are here as a moderator can't you moderate fairly?



Yes, I have had someone try to have me banned.Have you heard the phrase "seek and you shall find"?


I needed to correct the errors. Excuse me.

[BDunnell]

If you are addressing me then it only proves how narrow-minded and bigoted you are.

I have never called for a ban on Abortions nor the denial of anyone's right to marry. In fact I call for the total elimination of government sanctioned marriage. Just leave it to the couples and the lawyers.

Re-read my statement and you will see that in no way is it directed at you. Had it been, I'd have made it very clear, let me assure you. I'm well aware of your view on marriage and abortion. So, please retract any suggestion that I'm narrow-minded and bigoted.

[Rollo]

The reason we have rights is to protect minorities from oppression by majorities. The Individual is the smallest minority there is. The "Majority" has no more right to vote away an individual's right than any single dictator, despot or governmental bureaucrat does.

Rights are pretty feckin' useless when you're dead.

The murderers who blew apart 23 people in Boston were also acting within their Second Amendment rights.

Incidentally seeing as this thread is called "California Gun Control" it's worth looking at the constitution of California:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
Nothing in this subdivision supersedes or modifies any provision of this Constitution, including the guarantees that a person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or denied equal protection of the laws, as provided in Section 7.
...
SEC. 7. (a) A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws;

The Individual might be the smallest minority there is but placing the ability for another Individual to obtain instruments which deprive ones life without due process of law produces tragic and dangerous results.

[anthonyvop]

Rights are pretty feckin' useless when you're dead.

The murderers who blew apart 23 people in Boston were also acting within their Second Amendment rights.

Of all the post I have read on this thread yours is the most inane, ignorant, infantile, vile and down right insulting.

I defy you to show me one case where a gun has deprived anyone of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or denied equal protection of the laws!

Just one! Just try! I want to see how far you will go.

[Starter]

The murderers who blew apart 23 people in Boston were also acting within their Second Amendment rights.
The ignorance expressed in that line is incredible. I suggest you educate yourself by careful reading of the second amendment. Followed by use of a Websters if there are any questions about the actual meaning of words.

[Roamy]

Rollo - Someone should unscrew your head and Sh!t in your neck !!

[airshifter]

What do you mean by this airshifter? The comment you were responding to was stupid but I'd like to understand what you mean here?

To completely understand this you have to understand that the initial rights were before the revolution and the 2nd amendment. It seems that the laws granted by the British were very similar, yet the British wanted to disarm the patriots that decided to make their own country. We all know the history of how that turned out.

The Bill of Rights was nothing more than a further clarification of rights as the government at the time saw as valid. Though I think it is safe to say that most people don't see some of these issues as required in modern day, the fact that they exist is a huge deterrent in the government every abusing authority. I'm not sure if you are familiar with the Ruby Ridge killings, but I'm sure you've heard of the Waco standoff. If actions such as those became more common it wouldn't surprise me to see the people rise up against the government. As such even the most power hungry of leaders really can't even attempt to gain too much control in this country. The armed citizens could readily overcome all law enforcement and military agencies.

Would I don a tin foil hat and cower in fear if somehow the 2nd was abolished? No, certainly not. But I doubt any sane leader would really try to get rid of it... he may face a militia of people in opposition to his actions.

[Roamy]

To completely understand this you have to understand that the initial rights were before the revolution and the 2nd amendment. It seems that the laws granted by the British were very similar, yet the British wanted to disarm the patriots that decided to make their own country. We all know the history of how that turned out.

The Bill of Rights was nothing more than a further clarification of rights as the government at the time saw as valid. Though I think it is safe to say that most people don't see some of these issues as required in modern day, the fact that they exist is a huge deterrent in the government every abusing authority. I'm not sure if you are familiar with the Ruby Ridge killings, but I'm sure you've heard of the Waco standoff. If actions such as those became more common it wouldn't surprise me to see the people rise up against the government. As such even the most power hungry of leaders really can't even attempt to gain too much control in this country. The armed citizens could readily overcome all law enforcement and military agencies.

Would I don a tin foil hat and cower in fear if somehow the 2nd was abolished? No, certainly not. But I doubt any sane leader would really try to get rid of it... he may face a militia of people in opposition to his actions.

Air _ the day will come. The Dems are all progressive in their attack to take our weapons. One piece at a time over years and years if it takes that long. First registration so they know which doors to knock on. Then clip sizes - Then gun types - next will be no hand guns only rifles with no clips. I will be gone by the time they succeed but if you don't change the teachers in this country you will have a dictator in twenty years.

[henners88]

To completely understand this you have to understand that the initial rights were before the revolution and the 2nd amendment. It seems that the laws granted by the British were very similar, yet the British wanted to disarm the patriots that decided to make their own country. We all know the history of how that turned out.

The Bill of Rights was nothing more than a further clarification of rights as the government at the time saw as valid. Though I think it is safe to say that most people don't see some of these issues as required in modern day, the fact that they exist is a huge deterrent in the government every abusing authority. I'm not sure if you are familiar with the Ruby Ridge killings, but I'm sure you've heard of the Waco standoff. If actions such as those became more common it wouldn't surprise me to see the people rise up against the government. As such even the most power hungry of leaders really can't even attempt to gain too much control in this country. The armed citizens could readily overcome all law enforcement and military agencies.

Would I don a tin foil hat and cower in fear if somehow the 2nd was abolished? No, certainly not. But I doubt any sane leader would really try to get rid of it... he may face a militia of people in opposition to his actions.
Sounds like a ticking time bomb if people genuinely think like that. There was a time in Britain where everybody was armed but we introduced a democracy and the use became obsolete. I don't think many countries have a more bloody history than ours yet we've evolved into a pretty civilised society. I guess we are all different. I'd be lying though if I said my views on America were not changing through what I have read here and elsewhere. I suppose this gives an insight into why America's foreign policy is not too popular around the world when you consider the reason's people acquire arms etc. No offence to you airshifter but I feel I have learnt something new here, not that Britain is in anyway perfect. I'm shocked how different our nations are in all reality. We often think we have a lot in common with American's in general but I think we are worlds apart :)

[Knock-on]

Sounds like a ticking time bomb if people genuinely think like that. There was a time in Britain where everybody was armed but we introduced a democracy and the use became obsolete. I don't think many countries have a more bloody history than ours yet we've evolved into a pretty civilised society. I guess we are all different. I'd be lying though if I said my views on America were not changing through what I have read here and elsewhere. I suppose this gives an insight into why America's foreign policy is not too popular around the world when you consider the reason's people acquire arms etc. No offence to you airshifter but I feel I have learnt something new here, not that Britain is in anyway perfect. I'm shocked how different our nations are in all reality. We often think we have a lot in common with American's in general but I think we are worlds apart :)

Indeed. I read with great interest Airshifters reply to my question a couple of pages ago and felt a familiar feeling of resignation.

When you hear people recounting that so and so was murdered by a gun and another was shot by accident and a third took their own life, it is saddening. To me there is a common denominator. Guns don't kill people, people kill people but in order to shoot them, they all have a gun. QED.

However, it is up to the American people to decide as they have a democracy. If enough people want it to change, it will change.

The big difference I see between the UK and Americas is personal responsibility to society. We have US forum members that proudly claim to carrying out criminal acts(owning guns before the legal age, carrying illegal guns abroad etc) but then claim that it's mostly criminals that commit gun crime. Duh! What are you then?? I think if gun control came in, these same people would defy it anyway citing their constitutional rights which seem to be like the 10 commandments: Sacrosanct in theory, ignored in practice unless it suits them :D

I'm not saying the UK is perfect. Far from it. However, I think I prefer to be here than the US :)

[webberf1]

Following my lengthy post I find this an excellent example of much of the anti gun crowd. Without looking at any content or dealing with any facts, the decision has been made.

As for the second ammendment, please provide a better example of the legal ability of a nation to defend against it's leaders. It should be very easy for you with the second being laughable and all. ;)

There's nothing at all wrong with the second ammendment per se, the laughable part is the fact that even Americans themselves dont take it seriously even though they quote it all the time. If you actually took it seriously you would have marched on Washington with guns loaded the moment the government took away your due process of law and right to privacy when Bush signed into law the Patriot Act, and then subsequent acts by both the Bush and Obama administrations to further the government's ability to spy on its citizens and hold them in custody without trial.

The only thing that would've spurred the American population into action would have been if the president released a statement explicitly saying "today we are signing a bill which WILL take away your freedoms" (and even then im not 100% certain if that would be enough to get you off your fat as*es). But alas, even the american government isnt that stupid. Instead they take away your freedoms more subtly by claiming its to 'fight terrorism' or calling the bills names like the 'patriot act' as if to suggest its unpatriotic not to blindly agree with it.

So yeah, next time you americans actually show you have the willingness, intelligence or show enough co-ordination to use the Second Ammendment to its logical purpose, I'll stop laughing every time you quote it as a sh**ty excuse for needing to own firearms.

[Knock-on]

Whilst I think the tone of Webbers post could be a touch more civil, he has a valid point made rather more throughly than mine. If the Bill of Rights and the 2nd Ammendment is sacrosant as some claim, then it must be accepted and applied as such and not be subject to cherry picking when it serves ones particular arguement while disregarded when it doesn't.

The constitution of the US and the rights it bestows was hard fought for but should not be set in stone. Rather it is an ideal that can be improved over time to suit a changing world like my analogy about the 10 Commandments. Christians regard it as a cornerstone of their religion. Something handed down from the hand of god. However, most Christians break them on a regular basis.

I'm not having a pop at Americans here. I do welcome the star that has been made to control the proliferation of firearms in that Country but it's going to be many decades until the gun problem is under control I think. As an outsider that enjoys visiting your country, I do feel uncomfortable seeing people walking around with them. Hell, I don't like seeing them at Heathrow in the hands of the Police :D

[airshifter]

Great responses thus far, but I don't have time to reply to all right now.

I'll simply say that I think much of the world is confused as to what MY personal thoughts are as they relate to gun rights. The example given by WebberF1 would point this out the best. To suggest that an armed escalation of conflict in opinion and in support of rights regarding the implementation of extension of the Patriot Act is in my view, simply insane. Is it a policy that somewhat invades privacy? Surely it is, but in my view only with the intentions of protecting people. I'm no more threatened by this then I am registering my cars... after all that makes me expose private information to a much larger group of people. Even if I was more greatly concerned with such things, I would talk with my voice and vote, and would not even consider arming myself to march on Washington over such a thing, regardless of the political party that takes such actions.

As I've said before I'd have no problems with registration of guns in the US, and greater accountability in the interest of supporting only responsible gun ownership. I'm not an NRA member and never again will be, as I think they fight blindly for rights not in the overall interest of safety and responsible ownership. And though I'm not by any means qualified to sit on the Supreme Court, I think the Supremes over the years have got it wrong. In current state I think the term "well regulated militia" has been abused by the court.

I appreciate that for the most part people can agree to disagree on these thoughts. But I'll also say I think much of the world (the US included) applies double standards and is poor in reflecting upon it's own laws and actions of their politicians. To address the comment of WebberF1 again, concerning what it would take to get Americans off our butts, consider this: Per captia the Bali bombings killed more Aussies than the 9/11 bombings killed US citizens. And yes Australia has helped in the various actions to end terrorism. But as usual they did so behind US actions, not on their own.

As for that matter, I noticed there was no valid response to what specific legal rights allow to take up arms or other forms of force to overthrow any Aussie government should the need ever arise.

[henners88]

To address the comment of WebberF1 again, concerning what it would take to get Americans off our butts, consider this: Per captia the Bali bombings killed more Aussies than the 9/11 bombings killed US citizens. And yes Australia has helped in the various actions to end terrorism. But as usual they did so behind US actions, not on their own.

As for that matter, I noticed there was no valid response to what specific legal rights allow to take up arms or other forms of force to overthrow any Aussie government should the need ever arise.
I think the reason Australia has helped US and British forces rather than led it, is because of their small population and military in comparison. Australia is vastly bigger than the UK in terms of land mass but has considerably less than half our overall population. Much like in the UK gun ownership is available and indeed taken up in remote and rural area's, but I don't think carry permits are issued to civilians to the extent of in the US. Plus after the Port Arthur shooting the Australian government rounded up over a third of the total legally held guns in the country through an amnesty, to which people actually complied and supported. Similar to what happened here in 1997. The result has been reassuring with gun crime at its lowest in the years that have followed. Then again I think the mindset of Australians and Brits are very different in cases like this.

[Starter]

There's nothing at all wrong with the second ammendment per se, the laughable part is the fact that even Americans themselves dont take it seriously even though they quote it all the time. If you actually took it seriously you would have marched on Washington with guns loaded the moment the government took away your due process of law and right to privacy when Bush signed into law the Patriot Act, and then subsequent acts by both the Bush and Obama administrations to further the government's ability to spy on its citizens and hold them in custody without trial.
The use of deadly force should be toward the end of possible responses of any reasonable person. Further, you can't grab your Winchester and go marching in the streets every time a politician passes a law you don't like. There is a democratic process and it needs to be given a chance to work. It's when the process fails to work or when a person in power ignores the process that action is a possible alternative. The Patriot Act was a definite concern for MANY US citizens , as much of it flies in the face of the Bill of Rights. It is slowly being undone through legislative action. The people didn't rise up because the actual use of those powers was very, very limited and never threatened the vast majority of citizens.


The only thing that would've spurred the American population into action would have been if the president released a statement explicitly saying "today we are signing a bill which WILL take away your freedoms" (and even then im not 100% certain if that would be enough to get you off your fat as*es). But alas, even the american government isnt that stupid. Instead they take away your freedoms more subtly by claiming its to 'fight terrorism' or calling the bills names like the 'patriot act' as if to suggest its unpatriotic not to blindly agree with it.
Sadly true than many of our citizens don't think past the ends of their noses, but that is true of most anywhere. It does not follow that we should just throw up our hands and give up "rights" just because it's easier to do. You should examine history closely and I think you will find that all governments slowly erode the rights of citizens. It's sort of the nature of the beast. New laws are always passed, usually to address matters of the moment (what, think long term?), but old ones are rarely dropped.


So yeah, next time you americans actually show you have the willingness, intelligence or show enough co-ordination to use the Second Ammendment to its logical purpose, I'll stop laughing every time you quote it as a sh**ty excuse for needing to own firearms.
The excesses of our government have not yet (with the real exception of our civil war), and hopefully never will, risen to the point where enough citizens have felt the need to take arms against it. The very fact that we could do so is a brake on possible abuses.

[Spafranco]

To completely understand this you have to understand that the initial rights were before the revolution and the 2nd amendment. It seems that the laws granted by the British were very similar, yet the British wanted to disarm the patriots that decided to make their own country. We all know the history of how that turned out.

The Bill of Rights was nothing more than a further clarification of rights as the government at the time saw as valid. Though I think it is safe to say that most people don't see some of these issues as required in modern day, the fact that they exist is a huge deterrent in the government every abusing authority. I'm not sure if you are familiar with the Ruby Ridge killings, but I'm sure you've heard of the Waco standoff. If actions such as those became more common it wouldn't surprise me to see the people rise up against the government. As such even the most power hungry of leaders really can't even attempt to gain too much control in this country. The armed citizens could readily overcome all law enforcement and military agencies.

Would I don a tin foil hat and cower in fear if somehow the 2nd was abolished? No, certainly not. But I doubt any sane leader would really try to get rid of it... he may face a militia of people in opposition to his actions.
Waco?!!! Have you forgotten the three ATF officers and their families that suffered the ultimate price while serving a warrant on Koresh an absolute madman.
Here is a guy along with the idiot at Ruby Ridge are held as examples of patriots while in the case of Koresh who was armed like a small nation would not allow the people3 to leave and thus is a hero to the gun radicals. The same applies to Weaver who was being served with a legal document but chose to disobey the laws of the land resulting in his wife being killed. Now he is a hero to the radical gun rights people.

[anthonyvop]

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/149039_468806706534899_692103975_n.jpg

[Starter]

Waco?!!! Have you forgotten the three ATF officers and their families that suffered the ultimate price while serving a warrant on Koresh an absolute madman.
Here is a guy along with the idiot at Ruby Ridge are held as examples of patriots while in the case of Koresh who was armed like a small nation would not allow the people3 to leave and thus is a hero to the gun radicals. The same applies to Weaver who was being served with a legal document but chose to disobey the laws of the land resulting in his wife being killed. Now he is a hero to the radical gun rights people.
In both cases the government over reaction was was completely out of proportion to the crime. Koresh's people weren't trying to escape him either. They were as nuts as he. In Weaver's case it was the so called government officials who opened fire first.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/149039_468806706534899_692103975_n.jpg

Greater Manchester, UK

Population - 2.6 million
Average salary - $40,000

Concealed gun law - no
#of gun stores - 0
Homicides 2010 - 35
Homicides per 100k - 1.3
Avg January high - 42 degrees F

[Firstgear]

How did Chicago come to have 113% of its own population?
Conlusion: The people that put that chart together are very sloppy so I don't trust any of their numbers. (I do agree though that cold weather can kill you)

[schmenke]

Calgary:

Population - 1.0 million
Average salary - $30,000

Concealed gun law - no
#of gun stores - 0
Homicides 2010 - 15
Homicides per 100k - 1.2
Avg January high - 27 degrees F ( :erm: )

C'mon Firstgear, chime in with stats for Winterpeg :p :

[Firstgear]

We prefer Winnerpeg (but seeing as it's been snowing yesterday and today, Winterpeg is understandable) :(

We've had the dubious distinction of being the murder capital of Canada more times than not in the last decade.
Population is about 700,000 with 39 homicides in 2011.
That puts us at 5.6 per 100k - eventhough we're the worst in Canada, we're still small fry when compared to the US.
Oh - I haven't looked it up, but I imagine our average high in January may make Calgary look toasty (but you've got those shinooks to bump up your average :p )

[Spafranco]

In both cases the government over reaction was was completely out of proportion to the crime. Koresh's people weren't trying to escape him either. They were as nuts as he. In Weaver's case it was the so called government officials who opened fire first.

I don't disagree with the fact that there was too much force used in the Koresh debacle. However, had he just obeyed the officers and not opened fire killing three ATF men the outcome may have been different.

[anthonyvop]

I'm Sorry.


I wasn't aware that Manchester and Calgary where in free countries.

Oh Wait.....They are NOT!!!!

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I'm Sorry.


I wasn't aware that Manchester and Calgary where in free countries.

Oh Wait.....They are NOT!!!!

Oh well that's us told.

I feel so sad at living in such a repressive country where I don't have the freedom to be shot.

[Spafranco]

I sure did not believe that freedom here in the US was because one could buy a gun. If that's was the case I would then state it was not free but a form of totalitarianism or dictatorship.
What makes America free is the 1st Amendment and similar laws in Canada and Great Britain.

Why Anthony Prop does not address the blatantly obvious fact that we have issues here in the US due to gun violence. Serious issues.

Hard to argue that guns are a good thing when you total all three European cities and see that they don't even raise a blimp on Chicago.
One US city 800 gun deaths in a year while three comparable cities have 108 approx.

[anthonyvop]

Oh well that's us told.

I feel so sad at living in such a repressive country where I don't have the freedom to be shot.


....................or Speech or thought. You can keep it.


I sure did not believe that freedom here in the US was because one could buy a gun. If that's was the case I would then state it was not free but a form of totalitarianism or dictatorship.
What makes America free is the 1st Amendment and similar laws in Canada and Great Britain.

Why Anthony Prop does not address the blatantly obvious fact that we have issues here in the US due to gun violence. Serious issues.

Hard to argue that guns are a good thing when you total all three European cities and see that they don't even raise a blimp on Chicago.
One US city 800 gun deaths in a year while three comparable cities have 108 approx.

Neither Great Britain nor Canada have anything close to the the 1st amendment of the US constitution. Freedom of speech isn't respected in either country and you can even be arrested for voicing an opinion. Disgusting really and frankly the fact that so many Brits and Canucks find that acceptable makes it easy to understand how people like Hitler come into power.

[Rollo]

Neither Great Britain nor Canada have anything close to the the 1st amendment of the US constitution. Freedom of speech isn't respected in either country and you can even be arrested for voicing an opinion. Disgusting really and frankly the fact that so many Brits and Canucks find that acceptable makes it easy to understand how people like Hitler come into power.

Britain has no written constitution. However:

Freedom of speech is guaranteed by Article 10 of the Charter of Human Rights of the EU:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf

Was further affirmed by the Human Rights Act 1998
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/section/12

And was already secured by the Bill of Rights Act 1689
Bill of Rights [1688] (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMarSess2/1/2)

Canada has the Canadian Bill of Rights 1960:
Canadian Bill of Rights (http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-12.3/FullText.html)

and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which is part of the Canadian Constitution:
Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982 (http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-15.html#h-39)

[henners88]

I'm Sorry.


I wasn't aware that Manchester and Calgary where in free countries.

Oh Wait.....They are NOT!!!!
So having a firearms license is the definition of being free is it?
The fact you live in a society where you feel the need to be armed in case a baddie breaks into your house or if the government one day decides to attack its own civilians suggests to me it is you guys who are prisoners of your own paranoia. Doesn't sound very 'free' to me lol!

[BDunnell]

neither great britain nor canada have anything close to the the 1st amendment of the us constitution. Freedom of speech isn't respected in either country and you can even be arrested for voicing an opinion. Disgusting really and frankly the fact that so many brits and canucks find that acceptable makes it easy to understand how people like hitler come into power.

Nurse, he's out of bed again!

[TheFamousEccles]

....................or Speech or thought. You can keep it.



Neither Great Britain nor Canada have anything close to the the 1st amendment of the US constitution. Freedom of speech isn't respected in either country and you can even be arrested for voicing an opinion. Disgusting really and frankly the fact that so many Brits and Canucks find that acceptable makes it easy to understand how people like Hitler come into power.

Oh christus - Have you heard of the quote (from one of your countrymen, I believe) - "Its better to be silent and let people think you are an idiot, rather than speak and leave no doubt."? Words to live by, I recon.

[TheFamousEccles]

The land of the free? Not on Obama's watch. Surely this kind of thing is republican territory, innit? This gun control non-argument is a smoke screen for something more insidious, IMO. Freedom of communication, freedom of association, freedom of speech, to name a few. C'mon Anthony - tell me my country doesn't have either of these, too.

Project PM Cloudlfare subpoena | Crikey (http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/04/17/cyberhysteria-obama-criminalises-research-project-and-crikey/)

[airshifter]

Waco?!!! Have you forgotten the three ATF officers and their families that suffered the ultimate price while serving a warrant on Koresh an absolute madman.
Here is a guy along with the idiot at Ruby Ridge are held as examples of patriots while in the case of Koresh who was armed like a small nation would not allow the people3 to leave and thus is a hero to the gun radicals. The same applies to Weaver who was being served with a legal document but chose to disobey the laws of the land resulting in his wife being killed. Now he is a hero to the radical gun rights people.

As usual in response to my posting, you've completely missed or intentionally mangled my point. No radical is a hero to me and I don't fit your stereotype. Both incidents warranted legal intervention, but they did NOT warrant escalation of violence that took place in both cases. Both situations could have been much better controlled and likely ended without loss of life.

[Spafranco]

As usual in response to my posting, you've completely missed or intentionally mangled my point. No radical is a hero to me and I don't fit your stereotype. Both incidents warranted legal intervention, but they did NOT warrant escalation of violence that took place in both cases. Both situations could have been much better controlled and likely ended without loss of life.

How did I miss or mangle your point. You stated that if more incidents like Waco and Ruby Ridge occurred you would not be surprised to see action taken against the Government! Is that correct or not.

Seems to me the deeper into the gun culture one goes the more sympathy goes to the real criminal. In the case of Ruby Ridge it was Weaver. In the case of Waco it was Koresh.
Waco, Koresh and and his followers killed three federal agents on day one. A standoff ensues.

Isn't it a fact that not one but a couple of agencies believe Koresh had stated the fire after many days of keeping those people imprisoned?

Ruby Ridge, kid shoots at FBI agent and gets shot.Running away Weaver shoots and kills an FBI agent. Weaver barricades himself in and his wife is killed.

Now, what is law enforcement expected to do in circumstances such as those?

[Starter]

The question here is not whether the government was correct in attempting to apprehend the individuals involved. It is the level of action taken, which was out of all relation to the original crimes. I suggest you go back and re read the final accounts, and particularly the timelines, of how things went down. You will find that your position is on thin ice,


Seems to me the deeper into the gun culture one goes the more sympathy goes to the real criminal. In the case of Ruby Ridge it was Weaver. In the case of Waco it was Koresh.
Waco, Koresh and and his followers killed three federal agents on day one. A standoff ensues.

Isn't it a fact that not one but a couple of agencies believe Koresh had stated the fire after many days of keeping those people imprisoned?

Ruby Ridge, kid shoots at FBI agent and gets shot.Running away Weaver shoots and kills an FBI agent. Weaver barricades himself in and his wife is killed.

Now, what is law enforcement expected to do in circumstances such as those?[/QUOTE]

[Starter]

Ruby Ridge, kid shoots at FBI agent and gets shot.Running away Weaver shoots and kills an FBI agent. Weaver barricades himself in and his wife is killed.

Now, what is law enforcement expected to do in circumstances such as those?
Ruby ridge - Agent hiding in bushes shoots dog when found by dog. Son (who is in no way a target of the government action), not knowing the shooter is a government agent and with no warrant or identification in evidence and no knowledge that an agent is on the property, shoots back at someone shooting toward him. Get your facts straight.

[Roamy]

Oh well that's us told.

I feel so sad at living in such a repressive country where I don't have the freedom to be shot.

No Jon you have that freedom - It just won't be done by a law abiding citizen !

[Roamy]

Calgary:

Population - 1.0 million
Average salary - $30,000

Concealed gun law - no
#of gun stores - 0
Homicides 2010 - 15
Homicides per 100k - 1.2
Avg January high - 27 degrees F ( :erm: )

C'mon Firstgear, chime in with stats for Winterpeg :p :

no wonder people aren't shot - It is too cold to go outside

[Spafranco]

Ruby ridge - Agent hiding in bushes shoots dog when found by dog. Son (who is in no way a target of the government action), not knowing the shooter is a government agent and with no warrant or identification in evidence and no knowledge that an agent is on the property, shoots back at someone shooting toward him. Get your facts straight.

Facts? Give me a break. There have conflicting reports on this issue for years so don't assume you have the high ground.

The son came upon Secret Service and FBI agents and he and a friend, Harris I believe, opened fire when the dog was shot/or not.

Now, how do you know that the agents did not identify themselves at that point? And, why is it okay for a person to take up a siege position when they know that law enforcement is there to arrest them? Weaver put his family at risk and ended up getting to be a poster boy for groups all over the country and excused when he won a monetary award from the government.

So, in essence, shoot an federal officer dead is fine. Have your wife killed by barricading yourself into your home is OK. Ignore all actions by the FBI and then get compensated. Gun lobby wins again.

[anthonyvop]

Britain has no written constitution. However:

Freedom of speech is guaranteed by Article 10 of the Charter of Human Rights of the EU:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf

Was further affirmed by the Human Rights Act 1998
Human Rights Act 1998 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/section/12)

And was already secured by the Bill of Rights Act 1689
Bill of Rights [1688] (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMarSess2/1/2)

Canada has the Canadian Bill of Rights 1960:
Canadian Bill of Rights (http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-12.3/FullText.html)

and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which is part of the Canadian Constitution:
Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982 (http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-15.html#h-39)


Yea right.

Then why do people get arrested or fined in those countries for the crime of voicing their views?

[BDunnell]

Yea right.

Then why do people get arrested or fined in those countries for the crime of voicing their views?

Tell you what, come over here, voice some of your views and see what happens. You'll merely be ignored or pilloried for your venal ignorance, but you won't be arrested.

Why do people get abused in your country merely for wanting an abortion?

[anthonyvop]

Tell you what, come over here, voice some of your views and see what happens. You'll merely be ignored or pilloried for your venal ignorance, but you won't be arrested.

How come Dale McAlpine was arrested? Harry Taylor? Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang? Stephen Green?

I don't agree with their views but I find it abhorrent that anyone would deny them the right to express it. No country can call itself free if they restrict speech.

[BDunnell]

How come Dale McAlpine was arrested? Harry Taylor? Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang? Stephen Green?

I don't agree with their views but I find it abhorrent that anyone would deny them the right to express it. No country can call itself free if they restrict speech.

I disagree with the arrests of all of those people. The majority of liberal-minded people in the UK would too, I'm sure. But in no sense do I believe that freedom of speech is unduly restricted. The cases you outline (one of which I am not aware of) are, to my mind, examples of police stupidity.

Now, how about answering my question about your fellow right-wingers who subject those wishing to have abortions to abuse?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Yea right.

Then why do people get arrested or fined in those countries for the crime of voicing their views?

Because they get caught on CCTV. The footage is then delivered to Her Majesty, who gets the Thought Police to arrest those who disturb the peace.

[anthonyvop]

I disagree with the arrests of all of those people. The majority of liberal-minded people in the UK would too, I'm sure. But in no sense do I believe that freedom of speech is unduly restricted. The cases you outline (one of which I am not aware of) are, to my mind, examples of police stupidity.

Now, how about answering my question about your fellow right-wingers who subject those wishing to have abortions to abuse?

Whether you agree with the arrest or not the fact is there ISN'T FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN THE UK.

and any restriction of speech, no matter how selective, is "unduly"

The Abortion question has nothing to do with the topic at hand and is just a feeble attempt at a red herring on your part.

[D-Type]

Please give me one well-documented example of someone being fined by a British court for voicing their view. (In this context, libel damages is not a fine)

[anthonyvop]

Please give me one well-documented example of someone being fined by a British court for voicing their view. (In this context, libel damages is not a fine)

Took me all of 20 seconds to find a "well-documented example of someone being fined by a British court for voicing their view"

Religious Liberty Cases | Harry Hammond (http://www.christian.org.uk/rel_liberties/cases/harry_hammond.htm)

Harry Hammond - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Hammond)

It shouldn't be a crime to insult someone | Mike Harris | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2012/jan/18/crime-insult-public-order-act)

Christians' rights: Martyred on a cross of secular liberalism - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9798039/Christians-rights-Martyred-on-a-cross-of-secular-liberalism.html)


Is that enough documentation for ya?????

[BDunnell]

Tony, why do you post here? After all, people get censured and banned for expressing certain views.

[Spafranco]

Took me all of 20 seconds to find a "well-documented example of someone being fined by a British court for voicing their view"

Religious Liberty Cases | Harry Hammond (http://www.christian.org.uk/rel_liberties/cases/harry_hammond.htm)

Harry Hammond - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Hammond)

It shouldn't be a crime to insult someone | Mike Harris | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2012/jan/18/crime-insult-public-order-act)

Christians' rights: Martyred on a cross of secular liberalism - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9798039/Christians-rights-Martyred-on-a-cross-of-secular-liberalism.html)


Is that enough documentation for ya?????

Don't you and many others laugh at people who link to wikipedia? Just askin.

[Starter]

I disagree with the arrests of all of those people. The majority of liberal-minded people in the UK would too, I'm sure. But in no sense do I believe that freedom of speech is unduly restricted. The cases you outline (one of which I am not aware of) are, to my mind, examples of police stupidity.
I am not familiar with the cases cited, so don't know the answer. IF the people arrested, upon the police officer's superior becoming aware of the circumstances, were immediately freed with apologies and the officers in question disciplined, then I would agree with you. If not, then Tony has a point which is hard to deny.

[BDunnell]

Don't you and many others laugh at people who link to wikipedia?

Tony has a large amount of his own peer-reviewed academic data to draw on as well, I'm sure.

Oh, wait — no, it's only Wikipedia.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Took me all of 20 seconds to find a "well-documented example of someone being fined by a British court for voicing their view"

Religious Liberty Cases | Harry Hammond (http://www.christian.org.uk/rel_liberties/cases/harry_hammond.htm)

Harry Hammond - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Hammond)

It shouldn't be a crime to insult someone | Mike Harris | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2012/jan/18/crime-insult-public-order-act)

Christians' rights: Martyred on a cross of secular liberalism - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9798039/Christians-rights-Martyred-on-a-cross-of-secular-liberalism.html)


Is that enough documentation for ya?????

If only someone in the crowd had a gun.....

[anthonyvop]

Tony, why do you post here? After all, people get censured and banned for expressing certain views.

This is a private site. If the owners wish to remove me from here it is well within their rights.

[anthonyvop]

Don't you and many others laugh at people who link to wikipedia? Just askin.

Sometimes I "Dumb it down" so that even the Left wingers can understand.

[anthonyvop]

Tony has a large amount of his own peer-reviewed academic data to draw on as well, I'm sure.

Oh, wait — no, it's only Wikipedia.

That is right. The Guardian and the Telegraph are just subsidiaries of Wikipedia.


Why don't you actually address the fact that there IS NO FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN THE UK?

[anthonyvop]

If only someone in the crowd had a gun.....

Actually many a legitimate revolution have been based on the desire for the people to have freedom of speech and expression. So..........

[BDunnell]

Sometimes I "Dumb it down" so that even the Left wingers can understand.

If you are to make such statements, it would do you some good if you were able to write them without unnecessary capital letters.

[BDunnell]

Why don't you actually address the fact that there IS NO FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN THE UK?

Because it's rubbish. If there was 'NO' freedom of speech in the UK, I would not be able to say, for example, that I consider the current government to be a bunch of incompetent charlatans. That I can do so means that freedom of speech clearly does exist. Now grow up and stop making nonsensical, inarticulate, ranting statements with no basis in fact.

[BDunnell]

The Abortion question has nothing to do with the topic at hand and is just a feeble attempt at a red herring on your part.

Meaning you are unable to answer it without fear of contradicting yourself.

[BDunnell]

EDIT — Post removed by me.

[Spafranco]

To think using an * to obscure a letter contained in a post got one banned.

Clemency and a pardon for all of those banned for using a *. :)

[anthonyvop]

Because it's rubbish. If there was 'NO' freedom of speech in the UK, I would not be able to say, for example, that I consider the current government to be a bunch of incompetent charlatans. That I can do so means that freedom of speech clearly does exist. Now grow up and stop making nonsensical, inarticulate, ranting statements with no basis in fact.


And yet the facts, as provided, have proven you wrong.

Remember. The right to freedom of expression isn't to protect popular speech.....It is to protect unpopular speech.

[BDunnell]

And yet the facts, as provided, have proven you wrong.

How can I be wrong when I state that you are incorrect in saying that there is 'NO' (your word, with its pointless capitalisation left intact) freedom of speech in the UK? This is, as I said, clearly not true.

Like I said, come over here, erect a soapbox and start shouting your views. You won't be arrested so long as you don't cause a disturbance or a breach of the peace. You will, however, be laughed at long and loud. Let me know when you arrive. I'll alert the news networks.

[anthonyvop]

Meaning you are unable to answer it without fear of contradicting yourself.


No fear and no contradiction. I just refuse to be drawn into your red herring of ambiguity. Abortion has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

[anthonyvop]

How can I be wrong when I state that you are incorrect in saying that there is 'NO' (your word, with its pointless capitalisation left intact) freedom of speech in the UK? This is, as I said, clearly not true.
.

I have proven without any doubt that there is no freedom of speech in the UK.

If one person is prosecuted and convicted for stating his opinion in the UK that means that stating one's opinion in the UK is restricted. That means speech is restricted.

Logic isn't your forte is it?

[BDunnell]

I have proven without any doubt that there is no freedom of speech in the UK.

Let me repeat myself again. If there is 'no freedom of speech in the UK', how am I able to criticise the government in open forums and get away with it? Not a difficult one to answer.

And you still haven't answered my other question. Most impolite. When are you coming over to holler your opinions through a megaphone to the sound of laughter and indifference?

[anthonyvop]

Let me repeat myself again. If there is 'no freedom of speech in the UK', how am I able to criticise the government in open forums and get away with it? Not a difficult one to answer.

Wow. Let you really have a problem with logic don't you?

I have shown you actual instances where speech has been restricted. Any restriction on speech means there is NO freedom of speech. Your inane complaining about the government is considered acceptable by certain special interest groups and so the government hasn't restricted it.....yet.

Now go on TV or the radio over there and say something that the Muslims, Gays or Trade Unions find "Offensive and see how long before they come knocking on your door.


And you still haven't answered my other question. Most impolite. When are you coming over to holler your opinions through a megaphone to the sound of laughter and indifference?

And be treated like Michael Savage?

[BDunnell]

Wow. Let you really have a problem with logic don't you?

I have shown you actual instances where speech has been restricted. Any restriction on speech means there is NO freedom of speech. Your inane complaining about the government is considered acceptable by certain special interest groups and so the government hasn't restricted it.....yet.

Now go on TV or the radio over there and say something that the Muslims, Gays or Trade Unions find "Offensive and see how long before they come knocking on your door.



And be treated like Michael Savage?

Funniest post I've ever read.

Go on, Tony, come over. You'll enjoy being locked up — plenty to do. A lot of your fellow political prisoner inmates miss their wives an awful lot, you know.

[Starter]

Any Mods around to shut this pissing contest down?

[Spafranco]

All you have to do is go to YouTube and see Galloway trumpet his views. I for one am surprised that Anthony would believe that there is no freedom of speech in Great Britain or Canada.
Every Western nation has free speech as far as I know. Even Turkey as far as I know. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[BDunnell]

All you have to do is go to YouTube and see Galloway trumpet his views. I for one am surprised that Anthony would believe that there is no freedom of speech in Great Britain or Canada.
Every Western nation has free speech as far as I know. Even Turkey as far as I know. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Some people see everything in black and white, rather than shades of grey.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Some people see everything in black and white, rather than shades of grey.

50 shades of what?

Starter is right, it is time to close the thread!! :p

[Rollo]

Press Freedom Index 2013 - Reporters Without Borders (http://en.rsf.org/spip.php?page=classement&id_rubrique=1054)
Press Freedom Index 2013:
1 Finland
2 Netherlands
3 Norway
4 Luxembourg
5 Andorra

8 New Zealand
20 Canada
26 Australia
29 United Kingdom
32 United States

Owing to the plurality of press ownership, a lot of EU countries score higher than the United States; owing to a stronger press tradition which openly attacks government, the four anglophone dominions also score higher than the United States.

One only needs to look at today's newspapers to see protests in action in the UK:
Margaret Thatcher funeral: Protesters chant "scum" and shout obscene remarks as coffin passes - Mirror Online (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/margaret-thatcher-funeral-protesters-chant-1837262)
Anti-Thatcher protesters chanted "scum" and shouted obscene remarks as Lady Thatcher's coffin passed them today.
As the full military procession, which is estimated to have cost the taxpayer £8 million, passed London's Ludgate Circus, some shouted "what a waste of money" and "scum" while others booed.
- Sanchez Manning, Daily Mirror, 17th Apr 2013.

I even note that due to parliamentary privilege, an MP can say literally anything with impunity on the floor of the house; that situation has never existed in the US.
The suggestion that "there is NO freedom of speech" in the UK is to ignore reality. Heck even an inquiry into the ethics and practices of the press didn't really bring about any concrete change.

[henners88]

Its actually legal to take photographs in a public street in most of the free countries of the world including the UK and United States. Its legal to photograph police officers, embassies, government buildings etc etc. Doesn't mean you won't be arrested and held for hours and hours by the authorities and who will initially inform you that what you were doing was illegal. I'm just giving an example because although we live in a free society, there are restrictions we often don't care to admit.

[BDunnell]

Its actually legal to take photographs in a public street in most of the free countries of the world including the UK and United States. Its legal to photograph police officers, embassies, government buildings etc etc. Doesn't mean you won't be arrested and held for hours and hours by the authorities and who will initially inform you that what you were doing was illegal. I'm just giving an example because although we live in a free society, there are restrictions we often don't care to admit.

The US, I've found, being the most paranoid about people pointing cameras anywhere near its embassies.

[airshifter]

Press Freedom Index 2013 - Reporters Without Borders (http://en.rsf.org/spip.php?page=classement&id_rubrique=1054)
Press Freedom Index 2013:
1 Finland
2 Netherlands
3 Norway
4 Luxembourg
5 Andorra

8 New Zealand
20 Canada
26 Australia
29 United Kingdom
32 United States

Owing to the plurality of press ownership, a lot of EU countries score higher than the United States; owing to a stronger press tradition which openly attacks government, the four anglophone dominions also score higher than the United States.

One only needs to look at today's newspapers to see protests in action in the UK:
Margaret Thatcher funeral: Protesters chant "scum" and shout obscene remarks as coffin passes - Mirror Online (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/margaret-thatcher-funeral-protesters-chant-1837262)
Anti-Thatcher protesters chanted "scum" and shouted obscene remarks as Lady Thatcher's coffin passed them today.
As the full military procession, which is estimated to have cost the taxpayer £8 million, passed London's Ludgate Circus, some shouted "what a waste of money" and "scum" while others booed.
- Sanchez Manning, Daily Mirror, 17th Apr 2013.

I even note that due to parliamentary privilege, an MP can say literally anything with impunity on the floor of the house; that situation has never existed in the US.
The suggestion that "there is NO freedom of speech" in the UK is to ignore reality. Heck even an inquiry into the ethics and practices of the press didn't really bring about any concrete change.

Before stating the below let me say I agree that the UK has relative freedom of speech, as do most western countries. All of them have flaws and examples of the laws being abused though also, so none are perfect.

For the example you have however, I see press freedom as a different thing. It seems to me the larger and more powerful countries have a great deal more "corrupt" or otherwise non professional media that add their spin to just about everything they do. In short, they often have very low standards in regards to reporting the facts, and are much better at adding "spin" factor. I suspect this is one of the reasons that many of the larger western countries are down farther on the list.

[airshifter]

The US, I've found, being the most paranoid about people pointing cameras anywhere near its embassies.

I can't say that I've ever noticed this to be true. I've been around embassies in quite a few countries and TBH never noticed that ANY country seemed overly paranoid. I would think that any country would want to take notice of anyone spending too much time with a camera, as embassies are often targets of some sort.

Not to counter your opinion, but what influenced yours?

[henners88]

I can't say that I've ever noticed this to be true. I've been around embassies in quite a few countries and TBH never noticed that ANY country seemed overly paranoid. I would think that any country would want to take notice of anyone spending too much time with a camera, as embassies are often targets of some sort.

Not to counter your opinion, but what influenced yours?
That is very true. In London I have been approached and asked what I am doing when taking photographs (Cityscapes) but the police are more than happy once they realise you are no threat. Private security firms who aren't briefed on the law is another matter. The point I wished to make by bringing that up is the fact intervention is often present when doing fully legal things. Mr Vop suggested freedom of speech doesn't exist in the UK which is absolute rubbish. Its a lie pure and simple. You can protest in any street in the land as long as you are respectful, peaceful, and not inciting violence. The police will step in when freedom of speech crosses the line of racism or homophobia because of the potential violence it is likely to invite. I'm sure that is pretty much the case in the United States too. You're free to make your point, but you are not free to invite something which will waste time and tax payers money. Freedom of speech will always be moderated because decency laws along with public order laws govern what is acceptable in a public place.

[BDunnell]

I can't say that I've ever noticed this to be true. I've been around embassies in quite a few countries and TBH never noticed that ANY country seemed overly paranoid. I would think that any country would want to take notice of anyone spending too much time with a camera, as embassies are often targets of some sort.

Not to counter your opinion, but what influenced yours?

Merely having a camera out in the vicinity of the US Embassy in Sarajevo in 2005, without even brandishing it and while sitting some distance away from the building itself, caused someone in the embassy to tell the security guards to come over to me and ask me to put it away. Needless to say, I refused.

[Spafranco]

Did you really keep your camera in the open? Those guys are tough.

On the same trip that I mentioned on another thread whilst in Ireland my wife and I went into a post office to buy stamps. We about to go when there all this commotion going on around us. It was three or four policemen telling us not to be alarmed that they were just conducting routine blah blah. We were allowed to leave but what surprised me was the number of soldiers that were there armed and pointing their weapons at the doors with two inside. Scared my wife as she stated what would happen if there was a loud noise. How would they react. We got to our car and I took out my video recorder and my wife her regular camera. I no sooner had the camera up when a plain clothes cop I'd not seen shouted to put down the camera. I continued to record not knowing he was a cop. What harm were we doing. I soon found out how serious he was. It was like a friggin movie. He came walking across the street with this scowl on his face, very intense. Out of nowhere two others came behind us. First guy asked for our names and passports. I asked who he was and he just plain ignored me. "Your passports and cameras, I won't ask again". Well, I'm not a dumb yank and so we gave him the cameras and passports.

He looked at the passports and then asked about the pictures. We hadn't taken pictures or video although he checked video recorder. Then he stated it was a violation to take photo's of police and army picking up or delivering money to post offices' or banks. This was not the old fashioned stage irish cop one sees on TV. The four cops ( I believe they were cops) were young big and like all the police I see in Ireland and the UK tall and fit looking.

They spoke politely but professionally. They never identified themselves. Anyone know if the Irish cops must identify themselves or did we come across plain clothes army?

[D-Type]

Which side of the border were you?

[Knock-on]

Took me all of 20 seconds to find a "well-documented example of someone being fined by a British court for voicing their view"

Religious Liberty Cases | Harry Hammond (http://www.christian.org.uk/rel_liberties/cases/harry_hammond.htm)

Harry Hammond - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Hammond)

It shouldn't be a crime to insult someone | Mike Harris | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2012/jan/18/crime-insult-public-order-act)

Christians' rights: Martyred on a cross of secular liberalism - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9798039/Christians-rights-Martyred-on-a-cross-of-secular-liberalism.html)


Is that enough documentation for ya?????

Quick question. Why was Nakoula Basseley Nakoula arrested and jailed. Parole violation or because of a film? OK, he's a scumbag but would he be in jail now if he hadn't of made that vile picture?

What about your very own Guantanamo Bay? Abuse, Torture, illegal detainment without hope of trial, including minors. 166 people still there being refused basic human rights. Where's their freedom of speech?

But, and I never thought I would say this, you do have a point. Section 5 of the Public Order Act is not fit for purpose. It inhibits free speech and should be scrapped. It is against the Law to hit someone, it is against the law to intimidate and violate someone but it should not be against the Law to offend someone. I find it offensive that young men walk around with their underpants showing and their trousers half way to their knees but I'm not going to call the Police on them. Equally, some idiot in the street spouting that Blasphamy is a sin and I'll go to Hell should be laughed at. For a start you might just as well threaten me with being sent to Mordor but in the good old days, we ignored these people and walked on. So we should today.

To say the UK doesn't have freedom of speech is laughable and makes you look silly but there are elements of the Law that curb it and I don't agree with them.

[BDunnell]

Quick question. Why was Nakoula Basseley Nakoula arrested and jailed. Parole violation or because of a film? OK, he's a scumbag but would he be in jail now if he hadn't of made that vile picture?

What about your very own Guantanamo Bay? Abuse, Torture, illegal detainment without hope of trial, including minors. 166 people still there being refused basic human rights. Where's their freedom of speech?

But, and I never thought I would say this, you do have a point. Section 5 of the Public Order Act is not fit for purpose. It inhibits free speech and should be scrapped. It is against the Law to hit someone, it is against the law to intimidate and violate someone but it should not be against the Law to offend someone. I find it offensive that young men walk around with their underpants showing and their trousers half way to their knees but I'm not going to call the Police on them. Equally, some idiot in the street spouting that Blasphamy is a sin and I'll go to Hell should be laughed at. For a start you might just as well threaten me with being sent to Mordor but in the good old days, we ignored these people and walked on. So we should today.

To say the UK doesn't have freedom of speech is laughable and makes you look silly but there are elements of the Law that curb it and I don't agree with them.

Pretty much my view exactly.

[markabilly]

I am glad I was not in Boston without a gun in my house while the police were searching for the bomber.......esp. living in the house with the boat in the backyard.

[Spafranco]

Which side of the border were you?

If you are asking me, we were in the South in Mayo.

[odykas]

More Gun Stores In America Than Grocery Stores - Business Insider (http://www.businessinsider.com/more-gun-stores-in-america-than-grocery-stores-2012-12)

Speechless

[Starter]

More Gun Stores In America Than Grocery Stores - Business Insider (http://www.businessinsider.com/more-gun-stores-in-america-than-grocery-stores-2012-12)

Speechless
Half truths again.

There are many fewer gun stores in America than grocery stores. When you add in chain stores like Wal-Mart, KMart and general purpose sporting goods stores like Sports Authority and Dick's, which also sell guns and where gun sales are a very small percentage of their business, you might get to more outlets. However, to be fair, you then need to take all the convenience stores like 7-11, Highs, Royal Farms, WaWa, etc. which also sell food and add that back to the grocery store count, and the balance goes back the other way by far.

Statistics lie if you don't know the parameters. Or fudge them on purpose to make your point.

[Roamy]

In 1863 a Democrat shot and killed Abraham Lincoln, President of the
United States .
In 1983 a registered Democrat shot and wounded Ronald Reagan.
In 2007 a registered Democrat named Seung-Hui Cho shot and killed 32
people in Virginia Tech.
In 2010 a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner
shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killing 6 others.
In 2011 a registered Democrat named James Holmes went into a movie
theater and shot and killed 12 people.
In 2013 a registered Democrat named Adam Lanza shot and killed 26
people in a school.
One could go on, but you get the point, even if the media does
not.
Clearly, there is a problem with Democrats and guns.

SOLUTION: It should simply be illegal for Democrats to own guns.
Best idea I've seen.

[henners88]

More Gun Stores In America Than Grocery Stores - Business Insider (http://www.businessinsider.com/more-gun-stores-in-america-than-grocery-stores-2012-12)

Speechless
People who can't afford groceries can get groceries if they remember three important words: 'stick 'em up!'

[schmenke]

I remember years ago driving through a small town in the U.S. west (I think it was in Montana) and stopping into a local convenience store that was part of a petrol station. On the shelf behind the cashier I noticed bottles of liquor for sale along side boxes of ammunition. Gas, ammo and vodka - One-stop shopping :D

[mr nobody]

In 1863 a Democrat shot and killed Abraham Lincoln, President of the
United States .
In 1983 a registered Democrat shot and wounded Ronald Reagan.
In 2007 a registered Democrat named Seung-Hui Cho shot and killed 32
people in Virginia Tech.
In 2010 a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner
shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killing 6 others.
In 2011 a registered Democrat named James Holmes went into a movie
theater and shot and killed 12 people.
In 2013 a registered Democrat named Adam Lanza shot and killed 26
people in a school.
One could go on, but you get the point, even if the media does
not.
Clearly, there is a problem with Democrats and guns.

SOLUTION: It should simply be illegal for Democrats to own guns.
Best idea I've seen.





Wait a minute, you have the American flag under your name and you don't know that Abraham Lincoln was shot in 1865 and not 1863, not to mention that 2012 was when Adam Lanza shot those kids and adults. Also James Holmes shot the movie theater people in 2012 as well.

[odykas]

SOLUTION: It should simply be illegal for Democrats to own guns.
Best idea I've seen.



Even better solution: It should simply be illegal for all civilians to own guns.

[Starter]

Even better solution: It should simply be illegal for all civilians to own guns.
Sorry, that solution is unconstitutional. ;)

[BDunnell]

Wait a minute, you have the American flag under your name and you don't know that Abraham Lincoln was shot in 1865 and not 1863, not to mention that 2012 was when Adam Lanza shot those kids and adults. Also James Holmes shot the movie theater people in 2012 as well.

I don't think Roamy does 'know' any of the above. It is clearly copied and pasted from somewhere else.

[ioan]

I don't think Roamy does 'know' any of the above. It is clearly copied and pasted from somewhere else.

Yep, we live in the age of Copy + Paste.
At least he can use a mouse, that qualifies him to buy guns.

[mr nobody]

Yep, we live in the age of Copy + Paste.
At least he can use a mouse, that qualifies him to buy guns.
It's becoming increasingly obvious that it's not that people are anti-gun around here, they are simply jealous of the freedoms and rights that Americans enjoy. Folks, envy is never a good habit to get into.

[ioan]

It's becoming increasingly obvious that it's not that people are anti-gun around here, they are simply jealous of the freedoms and rights that Americans enjoy. Folks, envy is never a good habit to get into.

I truly hope that was sarcasm.

[BDunnell]

It's becoming increasingly obvious that it's not that people are anti-gun around here, they are simply jealous of the freedoms and rights that Americans enjoy. Folks, envy is never a good habit to get into.

Neither is the groundless accusation that people who are critical of something are actually envious of it. Hardly ever is it accurate, and certainly not in this case.

[mr nobody]

I truly hope that was sarcasm.


Neither is the groundless accusation that people who are critical of something are actually envious of it. Hardly ever is it accurate, and certainly not in this case.
If the shoe fits, wear it. Otherwise, let it pass you by. If you get defensive about it, that only means one thing. Oh well.

[BDunnell]

If the shoe fits, wear it. Otherwise, let it pass you by. If you get defensive about it, that only means one thing. Oh well.

No, I'm not being defensive; I'm just saying you're entirely wrong.

[mr nobody]

No, I'm not being defensive; I'm just saying you're entirely wrong.
Prove me wrong then. You make that statement, you had best back it up or make yourself look worse then you already do.

[henners88]

It's becoming increasingly obvious that it's not that people are anti-gun around here, they are simply jealous of the freedoms and rights that Americans enjoy. Folks, envy is never a good habit to get into.
I can assure you the criticisms about American gun laws here have nothing to do with us Europeans being jealous that we don't have the same freedoms lol. Interesting you've reached that conclusion after all that has been said. I think a good indicator to prove you wrong would be to repeat a point I made on the now closed thread. We are able to own certain legal firearms here be it with a license or less powerful air weapons. We just aren't brought up to need them or recognise that there is a need. In short, we can own them but choose not to, hence a totally different outlook to yourselves. :)

[mr nobody]

I can assure you the criticisms about American gun laws here have nothing to do with us Europeans being jealous that we don't have the same freedoms lol. Interesting you've reached that conclusion after all that has been said. I think a good indicator to prove you wrong would be to repeat a point I made on the now closed thread. We are able to own certain legal firearms here be it with a license or less powerful air weapons. We just aren't brought up to need them or recognise that there is a need. In short, we can own them but choose not to, hence a totally different outlook to yourselves. :) So you feel that the only reason Americans own guns is because we need them? You really are out of touch with the mindset of American gun owners. It's okay for you to make an ill conceived generalization but anyone else that does (or even looks like they do) you instantly take an issue with it? A little goose/gander analogy behind that statement of yours, henners88?

[henners88]

So you feel that the only reason Americans own guns is because we need them? You really are out of touch with the mindset of American gun owners. It's okay for you to make an ill conceived generalization but anyone else that does (or even looks like they do) you instantly take an issue with it? A little goose/gander analogy behind that statement of yours, henners88?
How about you explain the gun culture in America then? I didn't give a reason why I thought you guys have them, I just explained our reason for not. People like myself keep getting accused of not understanding your culture, but no explanation seems to be offered in return. We've established both our nations have certain rights to firearms, why does one use that privilege with such force and the other doesn't? Educate me :)

[ioan]

If the shoe fits, wear it. Otherwise, let it pass you by. If you get defensive about it, that only means one thing. Oh well.

Straw man argument.
No, the shoe doesn't fit, however over here we do have opinions and we like to make them known, especially to those who think they know us better then they know themselves.

[ioan]

So you feel that the only reason Americans own guns is because we need them?

Not sure you need them, however I am pretty sure that you own them cause you are scared of a bunch of things, most of them not even true.

[Starter]

How about you explain the gun culture in America then? I didn't give a reason why I thought you guys have them, I just explained our reason for not. People like myself keep getting accused of not understanding your culture, but no explanation seems to be offered in return. We've established both our nations have certain rights to firearms, why does one use that privilege with such force and the other doesn't? Educate me :)
There is no one reason. It's a large and, in terms of cultural heritage, very diverse country - something which I'm not sure Europeans truly understand. I know why I support our second amendment, but I only speak for myself. Others either have different reasons or give different weights to some of the same reasons. When you speak of America one size does not fit all.

[henners88]

There is no one reason. It's a large and, in terms of cultural heritage, very diverse country - something which I'm not sure Europeans truly understand. I know why I support our second amendment, but I only speak for myself. Others either have different reasons or give different weights to some of the same reasons. When you speak of America one size does not fit all.
I'm sure most Europeans will never understand it, but I suppose its because our cultures are often a lot older than that is the US and we've worked at them a lot longer. After all its a fairly new country by world standards built up on immigration with hundreds of nationalities contributing to its modern society.

I may never understand your culture surrounding guns, but obviously that will not devalue my opinion. It's clear there is a lack of understanding from yourselves in regards to European culture too, so it's reassuring this isn't one sided.

[mr nobody]

Not sure you need them, however I am pretty sure that you own them cause you are scared of a bunch of things, most of them not even true.
I don't own a single gun based on fears or irrational thinking. I own multiple guns based on the relaxation they give me and on the mastering of my own ability to push myself towards goals of accuracy and precision that I gain when target shooting that can be applied to my every day life.

[mr nobody]

Straw man argument.
No, the shoe doesn't fit, however over here we do have opinions and we like to make them known, especially to those who think they know us better then they know themselves. You call it a "straw man argument" because you are incapable of refuting what I said. Your lack of ability to debate doesn't mean my point is any lesser or greater then yours. It simply exposes you inability to debate something.

[D-Type]

Let's face it there is no right or wrong here. There is clearly a cultural difference - in Europe we generally don't own guns while in the USA you do.
Can you offer an explanation as to why this difference exists?

[airshifter]

Pot


Straw man argument.
No, the shoe doesn't fit, however over here we do have opinions and we like to make them known, especially to those who think they know us better then they know themselves.

Kettle


Not sure you need them, however I am pretty sure that you own them cause you are scared of a bunch of things, most of them not even true.

= Black :laugh:


Really Ioan, if you are going to be critical of people thinking they have to answers to what those in other countries feel, don't follow that post up with yet another of your opinions on what drives people in the country they live in.

[airshifter]

Let's face it there is no right or wrong here. There is clearly a cultural difference - in Europe we generally don't own guns while in the USA you do.
Can you offer an explanation as to why this difference exists?


Being both you and Henners have asked, I can offer only my input. As stated by Starter the US is not a "one size fits all" country. My Nobody has already offered his views on gun ownership.

My introduction to guns was at a very young age, and through my father. He was both an avid hunter in his younger years, as well as a career military man. He probably shot guns much more while hunting than in any other sport use. He owned mostly shotguns and various rifles, and only a couple of pistols that I recall.

I did some hunting for years, but TBH tired of it. I can get out into nature without hunting if I desire, and being a very good shot didn't find a great deal of sport in many types of hunting. Combined with not wanting to drag and clean a deer or such, I decided some sport shooting was fun, and I could stop at a store and get the evening meal.

During my days in the military I did a decent bit of shooting. At a bare minimum several hundred rounds per year, and in some cases probably thousands of rounds. I've shot just about everything we had during that time, from standard issue weapons to larger caliber machine guns and more specialized weapons such as submachine guns, .50 caliber rifles, and sniper weapons. I've done precision shooting with military weapons at ranges in excess of 1000 meters.

Much like Mr Nobody I get a great deal of stress relief shooting. And despite what many think, many forms of shooting involve a great deal of discipline to do well at it. I held for a time a range record while in the military, and considering that thousands of others shot at that range, it was no easy task. Precision long range shooting is very challenging and requires a good understanding of ballistics of the weapon, atmospheric conditions and affects it will have, and ability to control both your heart rate and breathing. Lots of discipline, and lots of math as well. :)

So in my case shooting is fun, relieves stress, and can be enjoyed responsibly by anyone who wishes to do it.

Here in the US I can say I don't agree with many of the gun laws. My state is among those that have concealed carry permitted and I'm 100% behind it. Violent crimes rates declined immediately after allowing such use. We can also legally open carry in this state. It's not very common in this area, but some people do have a legitimate IMO desire to do so in certain conditions. On the state and federal level I'd be fine with longer waits, better background checks, etc. To me the biggest problem concerns responsible ownership after the purchase of the weapon. If it was up to me alone I would want yearly registration. It could be done at a very low cost, and require a person to sign having physically accounted for each weapon they own, and that said weapon is still in their possession. After that I would also want to toughen up laws concerning access by unlawful users such as minors, people with a mental health issue, etc. As far as I'm concerned if my child somehow got a gun of mine and killed someone I should be held accountable for that death. If the gun was not safely stored and was open and readily accessible, the owner should IMO at a minimum be charged with manslaughter equivalent charges. But it should also be case by case... if a person overcomes many proper safekeeping measures, locks, etc to access a weapon then the majority of responsibility falls on that person rather than the owner.


I think ease of access does cause problems in this country, but overall I still feel that the person behind the trigger is the issue, not the gun. When I first visited the UK in the 80s here in the US the average local bar might have 4-6 type of beer on tap. In the UK the same size bar might have 20 of various types, temps they served at, and some much higher in alcohol content. But I never thought that allowing such a thing indicated that the UK promoted drunk driving, simply that the UK might make the people themselves accountable for their actions. The same applies to ages for drinking... but in my view unless I planned on moving there and had children in those age groups it really doesn't affect me. It's a social/cultural thing you your country accepts and I don't feel a need to question it.



I appreciate that yourself and a few others are at least trying to understand the differences in US gun culture and doing so without judgement but only opinion as you see fit. But you have to also consider that many (probably most) caustic replies are formed by those others placing harsh judgements on things they really don't understand at all. The post above is a prime example.... someone asserting their belief that others shouldn't judge them, but quickly placing judgement on others.

[gadjo_dilo]

So in my case shooting is fun, relieves stress, and can be enjoyed responsibly by anyone who wishes to do it..
From the very start don't take my post like a criticism. It's just pure curiosity:

1. And when you feel like having fun where do you go and shoot?
2. Why for people like you can't be some specialized places where people can go and shoot without having the guns in their home?
3. There are many other ways to relieve stress. Why so many americans chose this way? Because you already talk about a "gun culture" and it sounds a bit scary to me.

[henners88]

Being both you and Henners have asked, I can offer only my input. As stated by Starter the US is not a "one size fits all" country. My Nobody has already offered his views on gun ownership.
First of all airshifter I'd like to say thank you for offering an explanation on your experiences and going some way to explain the culture as you see it. You've highlighted very well that there is a vast cultural divide between America and most of Europe. I don't think its just guns, but many aspects of life where I think we simply don't get each other. As I said before your country is such a mix of nationalities overall, I think you have a very different culture because of it.


In the UK the same size bar might have 20 of various types, temps they served at, and some much higher in alcohol content. But I never thought that allowing such a thing indicated that the UK promoted drunk driving, simply that the UK might make the people themselves accountable for their actions. The same applies to ages for drinking... but in my view unless I planned on moving there and had children in those age groups it really doesn't affect me. It's a social/cultural thing you your country accepts and I don't feel a need to question it.
You raise a good point here about alcohol. Having visited the States several times I have noticed the different attitudes to alcohol. There is a drinking culture here in the UK and its a problem our government are trying to solve and have been for many years now. You are also right about the strength of alcohol in the UK and its the same for most of Europe where we do tend to serve it at a higher percentage than that in the States. I was amazed a few years ago when in a bar in the States I order a pint of Budweiser and noticed the percentage is a lower percent than what you export to us in the UK. I drank three pints and was also surprised when a fourth was refused due to an apparent three pint rule. The guy actually thought I had a drinking problem. Three pints!!

Another memory I have is when a group of lads came over from the States on an exchange period when I was in University. They were all big lads who were in their Uni American Football team. They would have been the same age as us, so 19 or 20 at the time and they were loving the fact you could drink here at 18, whereas they were still classed as under age at home. There was a lot of banter and bragging from them concerning how much alcohol they thought they could drink, and unfortunately for them they learned that the hard way after hitting our pubs a little too hard on only the second night. One ended up in A&E and the others ended up with two day hangovers, yet I think the most they consumed was 10 pints as they all drank in rounds with us. Like guns, I suppose attitudes to alcohol are also a point of difference. I don't mean to be offensive when I criticize the gun culture, I just don't really understand it. Even though you and starter have explained certain things from your own perspectives, I still don't fully understand it. For stress relief I tend to play computer games, or play badminton. At weekends I have a couple of beers or open a bottle of wine. We're just very different. :)

Up phụ bạn hiền. rảnh phụ mình chữ ký nha. thanks

[airshifter]

From the very start don't take my post like a criticism. It's just pure curiosity:

1. And when you feel like having fun where do you go and shoot?
2. Why for people like you can't be some specialized places where people can go and shoot without having the guns in their home?
3. There are many other ways to relieve stress. Why so many americans chose this way? Because you already talk about a "gun culture" and it sounds a bit scary to me.

No offense or criticism taken. :D

1. In my case there are several local indoor shooting ranges, as well as a local outdoor range. I'd have to travel a few miles but not far.

2. For target shooting only it could be done, but would be less convenient for most. I would assume there would be a fee to store weapons which also increases cost. I would also assume that if you wanted to change locations there would be some sort of transfer fee or laws. It would also prevent me from keeping my property in my home. Many ranges do rent weapons though, often so potential buyers could check out a specific model or such. There are also quite a few people that live in more rural areas that can potentially shoot on their or another persons private property, within laws set by the locality.

3. I also relieve stress in other ways.... it's just another form of doing so. Being this is a motorsport forum I'll compare it to racing a car. Both take skill to do well, incur risk, and involve the ability to harness power and control it.


I personally think the press abroad skews the reality of the US gun culture. I have a number of friends and neighbors I've known for years and the issue doesn't come up unless someone happens to bring up hunting or shooting, which is fairly rare really.

[airshifter]

First of all airshifter I'd like to say thank you for offering an explanation on your experiences and going some way to explain the culture as you see it. You've highlighted very well that there is a vast cultural divide between America and most of Europe. I don't think its just guns, but many aspects of life where I think we simply don't get each other. As I said before your country is such a mix of nationalities overall, I think you have a very different culture because of it.


You raise a good point here about alcohol. Having visited the States several times I have noticed the different attitudes to alcohol. There is a drinking culture here in the UK and its a problem our government are trying to solve and have been for many years now. You are also right about the strength of alcohol in the UK and its the same for most of Europe where we do tend to serve it at a higher percentage than that in the States. I was amazed a few years ago when in a bar in the States I order a pint of Budweiser and noticed the percentage is a lower percent than what you export to us in the UK. I drank three pints and was also surprised when a fourth was refused due to an apparent three pint rule. The guy actually thought I had a drinking problem. Three pints!!

Another memory I have is when a group of lads came over from the States on an exchange period when I was in University. They were all big lads who were in their Uni American Football team. They would have been the same age as us, so 19 or 20 at the time and they were loving the fact you could drink here at 18, whereas they were still classed as under age at home. There was a lot of banter and bragging from them concerning how much alcohol they thought they could drink, and unfortunately for them they learned that the hard way after hitting our pubs a little too hard on only the second night. One ended up in A&E and the others ended up with two day hangovers, yet I think the most they consumed was 10 pints as they all drank in rounds with us. Like guns, I suppose attitudes to alcohol are also a point of difference. I don't mean to be offensive when I criticize the gun culture, I just don't really understand it. Even though you and starter have explained certain things from your own perspectives, I still don't fully understand it. For stress relief I tend to play computer games, or play badminton. At weekends I have a couple of beers or open a bottle of wine. We're just very different. :)

Just for the record, no offense at all is taken by myself when you or any other forum member poses a question, or even questions the reasoning behind the thinking of the gun culture here in the US. It's when people try to claim I'm scared, paranoid, etc that it gets old. It would be similar to me thinking that since the UK has more drinking options and the culture accepts it, it's simply because you all have alcohol problems.

Having visited I know that not all from the UK have alcohol problems. Closer to 75% maybe! :laugh:

To me different is different and nothing more. I think if many or most people would look up the word "mindful" and apply it they might understand things better. Sometimes human nature is to judge and see things as "good" or "bad", but many don't slow down enough to understand that different is not always "bad".

[gadjo_dilo]

.... it's just another form of doing so. Being this is a motorsport forum I'll compare it to racing a car. Both take skill to do well, incur risk, and involve the ability to harness power and control it.


However it's interesting that - at least to my knowledge - no country has a "racing cars culture"..... :devil:

[Starter]

However it's interesting that - at least to my knowledge - no country has a "racing cars culture"..... :devil:
You CLEARLY have never driven on the Washington DC beltway. :D :D :D

[odykas]

Sorry, that solution is unconstitutional. ;)
No, it's not.

The (obsolete) 2nd amendment states:



A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

What percentage of today's US population could be classified as "well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free State"?.
No more than 1% I assume and probably close to 0%.

[Rudy Tamasz]

I think ease of access does cause problems in this country, but overall I still feel that the person behind the trigger is the issue, not the gun. When I first visited the UK in the 80s here in the US the average local bar might have 4-6 type of beer on tap. In the UK the same size bar might have 20 of various types, temps they served at, and some much higher in alcohol content. But I never thought that allowing such a thing indicated that the UK promoted drunk driving, simply that the UK might make the people themselves accountable for their actions. The same applies to ages for drinking... but in my view unless I planned on moving there and had children in those age groups it really doesn't affect me. It's a social/cultural thing you your country accepts and I don't feel a need to question it.


I have worked on non-profit projects meant to curb excessive drinking. To be perfectly fair, data shows that restrictions on access work way better than telling people about dangers of alcohol consumption. I'm mentioning this just for your situational awareness and do not mean to apply same logic to guns.

[Knock-on]

No, it's not.

The (obsolete) 2nd amendment states:



What percentage of today's US population could be classified as "well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free State"?.
No more than 1% I assume and probably close to 0%.

To be fair, the US Gangs and organised criminals of which we hear so much about on these threads are probably the closest you have to a clear regulated Militia. Organised, clear chains of command, ruthless and experienced in combat. If it ever got to a Civil War, I think we know who would prevail.

[Starter]

I have worked on non-profit projects meant to curb excessive drinking. To be perfectly fair, data shows that restrictions on access work way better than telling people about dangers of alcohol consumption. I'm mentioning this just for your situational awareness and do not mean to apply same logic to guns.
Um, yeah, we tried that. It was called prohibition. Didn't work out too well and created a well financed criminal class.

[Starter]

No, it's not.

The (obsolete) 2nd amendment states:



What percentage of today's US population could be classified as "well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free State"?.
No more than 1% I assume and probably close to 0%.
As a language issue, the comma separating the first part from the second part of the quote proves your interpretation wrong.

On a more practical level, a substantial number of court contests on the subject, up to and including the US Supreme Court, also prove your interpretation wrong.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Um, yeah, we tried that. It was called prohibition. Didn't work out too well and created a well financed criminal class.

Fair enough, if people want to drink, they will. But if you close the bar at 11 pm instead of midnight, a few pints will remain unconsumed. If you raise the price of alcohol by 50 per cent some people will think twice before buying that extra bottle.

[Starter]

Fair enough, if people want to drink, they will. But if you close the bar at 11 pm instead of midnight, a few pints will remain unconsumed. If you raise the price of alcohol by 50 per cent some people will think twice before buying that extra bottle.
Your first part is probably correct for the most part. The second is not, in that you would have created a prime opportunity for enterprising people to profit from providing the commodity at a better price.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Your first part is probably correct for the most part. The second is not, in that you would have created a prime opportunity for enterprising people to profit from providing the commodity at a better price.

Your point would be valid for drugs but not alcohol. Drug dealers willingly risk going to jail for selling illegal stuff because the profit is huge. In case of alcohol, the scale of profit is different. If a legal store sells a bottle of liquor for $50 and you want to sell it for $25, are you ready to do a few years for just $25?

[Starter]

Your point would be valid for drugs but not alcohol. Drug dealers willingly risk going to jail for selling illegal stuff because the profit is huge. In case of alcohol, the scale of profit is different. If a legal store sells a bottle of liquor for $50 and you want to sell it for $25, are you ready to do a few years for just $25?
It's not $25, it's the number of your customers times $25. The street level profit margins of drugs is not much different than alcohol. We have people here bootlegging cigarettes from North Carolina to other states to avoid the tax on them. Free enterprise rules - something politicians and those who would ban something people want always forget.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Again, it is only so far that you would want to go weighing risks versus profits.

Also, no society can exist without reasonable bans. If you simply unleash free enterprise in all areas you'll end up seeing child porn around etc.

[Starter]

Again, it is only so far that you would want to go weighing risks versus profits.

Also, no society can exist without reasonable bans. If you simply unleash free enterprise in all areas you'll end up seeing child porn around etc.
You mean child porn isn't around?? Could have fooled me.

Agree, but you have to understand "reasonable". You can legislate and control things up to a point. It's when you try to ban, or unreasonably raise the bar to entry, of something which enough people want that you will create the underground economy in that thing.

[Gregor-y]

However it's interesting that - at least to my knowledge - no country has a "racing cars culture"..... :devil:


You CLEARLY have never driven on the Washington DC beltway. :D :D :D

Or the Eisenhower Expressway coming into Chicago.

On a serious note, what about Finland? ;)

[ioan]

I don't own a single gun based on fears or irrational thinking.

That's what they all say.

[mr nobody]

That's what they all say. Wrong again. This gun owner doesn't say that so that instantly makes your statement wrong. Cheer up, you'll get one right one of these days.

[D-Type]

Wrong again. This gun owner doesn't say that so that instantly makes your statement wrong. Cheer up, you'll get one right one of these days.

With respect, you did say that. It was a while ago - Post 209.

[Roamy]

Well I have a decision to make. I have enough pistols now so I have to turn my attention to other additions. I can't decide whether to get a shotgun next or a very long range rifle - at least a mile and a half. I am leaning toward the shotgun. What say you all?

I kinda like this gun
FNH USA - Distinct Advantage :: SLP (http://www.fnhusa.com/l/products/commercial/shotguns/slp-series/slp-tactical/)
But it does not use a magazine so that limits you to 8 rounds.

[henners88]

Well I have a decision to make. I have enough pistols now so I have to turn my attention to other additions. I can't decide whether to get a shotgun next or a very long range rifle - at least a mile and a half. I am leaning toward the shotgun. What say you all?

I kinda like this gun
FNH USA - Distinct Advantage :: SLP (http://www.fnhusa.com/l/products/commercial/shotguns/slp-series/slp-tactical/)
But it does not use a magazine so that limits you to 8 rounds.
Get a tank, you can use it to get to work or get free McDonalds drive thru which may come in handy. You can't shoot a plane down with a shotgun either.

[Starter]

Get a tank, you can use it to get to work or get free McDonalds drive thru which may come in handy. You can't shoot a plane down with a shotgun either.
No, but you have a good chance at one of those pesky black helicopters. I think I winged one the other day.

[Bagwan]

Well I have a decision to make. I have enough pistols now so I have to turn my attention to other additions. I can't decide whether to get a shotgun next or a very long range rifle - at least a mile and a half. I am leaning toward the shotgun. What say you all?

I kinda like this gun
FNH USA - Distinct Advantage :: SLP (http://www.fnhusa.com/l/products/commercial/shotguns/slp-series/slp-tactical/)
But it does not use a magazine so that limits you to 8 rounds.

Hey , cowboy , how many pistols is enough pistols ?
Can y'all actually have too many ?

[Roamy]

Hey , cowboy , how many pistols is enough pistols ?
Can y'all actually have too many ?

well here is the way I broke it down

What is the badest ass think you may encounter?
1. Grizzly Bear
A. Smith and Wesson 460 Mag plus a lot of praying you never have to use it
2. Everything else up to and including a black bear and moose
A. 10 mm - one powerful mother. One for home and concealed carry - One for the truck

I could consider a pocket pistol but probably just shoot my dick off :)

So with all of that you have to carry one in the chamber so it comes down to safety and holsters. I think Glock shines is this area. You have no time to jack one in the chamber if a cougar is
coming.

Also you probably thether the gun to your belt in case you get knocked down.
nite sights a must of course.

[odykas]

FNH USA - Distinct Advantage :: SLP (http://www.fnhusa.com/l/products/commercial/shotguns/slp-series/slp-tactical/)
But it does not use a magazine so that limits you to 8 rounds.

That might be an issue in case the bear starts shooting back :p :

[D-Type]

Do bears shoot in the woods? ;)

[odykas]

Do bears shoot in the woods? ;)

They have the right to bear arms.

[Jag_Warrior]

Well I have a decision to make. I have enough pistols now so I have to turn my attention to other additions. I can't decide whether to get a shotgun next or a very long range rifle - at least a mile and a half. I am leaning toward the shotgun. What say you all?

I kinda like this gun
FNH USA - Distinct Advantage :: SLP (http://www.fnhusa.com/l/products/commercial/shotguns/slp-series/slp-tactical/)
But it does not use a magazine so that limits you to 8 rounds.

Hard to answer. That's like saying you want to choose between a sports car and a pickup truck; a long range rifle and a shotgun have almost nothing in common. If you're into long range shooting (or want to get into it), get a rifle. But I promise that you'll spend way more on just the scope for a true long range rifle (a Barrett, for instance) than all but the nicest shotgun.

Have you thought about building a rifle? Get yourself a good action from a trashed Remington 700 or an older Mauser in good condition and you'll have something to build off of.

[Bagwan]

I saw a Gattling gun on one of those "picker" shows a little while ago , cowboy .

They took the thing out to a range and shot it .
Custer should have taken a few of those along .

Gnarly hand crank machine for mowing down bears .

[Roamy]

That might be an issue in case the bear starts shooting back :p :

they don't need to. There are a lot of dead people who shot a Grizz and didn't get the job done. Plus you have to know the difference between bear scats.
black bear leave a patch about 8 in in diameter which contains berries and undigested leaves.
Grizz scat is about 18 in in diameter and contain a distinct smell of pepper, contains little silver bells and whistles, and has parts of a airhorn.

[Roamy]

Hard to answer. That's like saying you want to choose between a sports car and a pickup truck; a long range rifle and a shotgun have almost nothing in common. If you're into long range shooting (or want to get into it), get a rifle. But I promise that you'll spend way more on just the scope for a true long range rifle (a Barrett, for instance) than all but the nicest shotgun.

Have you thought about building a rifle? Get yourself a good action from a trashed Remington 700 or an older Mauser in good condition and you'll have something to build off of.

Thanks Jag,

Some good ideas. I will probably start with the shotgun. I case I get the urge to go hunting again. I only hunt birds because I don't like eating and cleaning the rest of the critters out there.

[Roamy]

I saw a Gattling gun on one of those "picker" shows a little while ago , cowboy .

They took the thing out to a range and shot it .
Custer should have taken a few of those along .

Gnarly hand crank machine for mowing down bears .

hey Bag

Check this out AA-12 Fully Automatic Shotgun!!! - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOoUVeyaY_8)