Roughneck
Stick with Freeones
And this applies to the price of tea in China by what fraction?
cheers,
PS: You still haven't answered my question...
-
Do you have credits to spend? Why not pick up some VOD rentals? Find out how!
Outlawing guns in the US ...
- Thread starter Member2019
- Start date
cheers,
PS: You still haven't answered my question...
Marlo Manson
Hello Sexy girl how your Toes doing?
I would simply like to know if they amended the gun laws and did outlaw guns; how would they go about collecting all of our guns that we have already? the guns we own legally with a permit/license; guns we purchased with our own hard earned money; not to mention all the illegally owned guns that flood the streets of every city in america already? I don't think they could ever enforce a ban; if even a law was passed; it would take years and years for them to be enforce the ban; because millions of people in all the states would appeal the law and it would take years and years to settle all the appeals; which inturn means the law would never survive and it would be scrapped because the people would fight for their rights to the tune of costing the government millions if not billions of dollars in legal fee's.. never gonna happen.. :thefinger:hatsoff:
dick van cock
Closed Account
My guess would be that the news channels are not as biased on the issue as that blog you linked to. :dunno:
... but what do I know? I live in a country with tight gun control. That fact leads to the undeniable fact that gun-toting mobsters rule the streets while we law-abiding citizens are easy prey. Thank heavens, I'm still alive to type this message. But for how long?
Roughneck
Stick with Freeones
Your very response assumes the bias - if "news media" were supposed to be unbiased - why the need for such a "biased blog" (as you claim) to exist?
In any case - the stories on that blog are reports garnered from news media. It ain't "made up shit", to say the least.
If you think that blog is biased - you are welcome to prove them stories wrong.
'Very little' - at least when it comes to US law apparently.
Yeah - which is why you have students in your schools also going on shooting sprees...
I can't speak for your nation, since I do not live there and aren't attuned to your laws...
... but if you're in for a game of "one-up-manship" ....
cheers,
Member2019
1,000 posts to go for my own user title!
Non-gun related violence is still higher in the US as well ...
Which is why the political arguments kinda feel silent with all of the judges. How could the district deny legal, private, in-house gun ownership when gun-related crimes were pretty consistent over three decades?
The US has more non-gun related violence as well. It goes back to many aspects of the American nation. That's why gun-related crime is not reduced by banning guns. It really hasn't changed anything for DC in the last 30 years.
Which is why the political arguments kinda feel silent with all of the judges. How could the district deny legal, private, in-house gun ownership when gun-related crimes were pretty consistent over three decades?
dick van cock
Closed Account
The blog follows an agenda. It's comparable to a blog sponsored by the airline industry bemoaning the fact that there are only reports of crashed planes on the news while so many planes that safely reach their destination go unnoticed by the public.
The Second Amendment was drafted in the 18th century. I can't imagine that its fathers had a right to possess semi-automatic weapons and assault rifles on their minds.
Especially not when I read it literally: "a well-regulated militia". Army and police are "well-regulated militias" and only they should be allowed to bear arms - following the logic prevalent in Europe (as I have repeatedly linked to) of the Monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force
That happened twice in ten years. (Erfurt and Emsdetten) Hardly an argument for your case.
AFAIK you didn't annex a formerly socialist country, either. The reconstruction of East Germany's destitute economy has taken a toll on the country as a whole.
Member2019
1,000 posts to go for my own user title!
Interesting, until you consider ...
Airline travel is pretty damn safe, not just per mile, but actually per hour too.
Understand the US media is built on advertising, which is built on ratings.
They focus on negativity overwhelmingly so drive ratings, namely those that feed on it -- which is why the viewership has changed so drastically over the last 30-40 years.
So yes, it's "no worse" to counter that by focusing on the positive.
It's corporations controlling both, don't fool yourself to think otherwise in the US.
In fact, in the 19th century the new invention of "smokeless powder" would see a similar argument by some. There is always something that's "wrong" for someone to have under the 2nd Amendment in some people's eyes.
Same deal with pistols and other, concealed weapons that did very much exist in the 18th century. In fact, why didn't the founders differentiate by saying "rifles" instead of "arms" to state they were against concealed weapons? What about "arms" outside the home?
If you start second-guessing them, then I can easily counter with some very real, existing technologies and differences. Also note that people have played on the differences in grammar at the time and ignored many of the original drafts of the 2nd Amendment that attempted to highlight it was about the individual, not the state.
I'm warning you in advance, you're going to get smacked pretty hard here.
Again, you've been warned ...
The "logic prevalent in Europe" was something that the Penns, Virginians and, most importantly, the Conns took great issue with, including on firearms -- and yes, in the 18th century!
In fact, much of the problem with the allegedly "rebellious Americans" was the fact that British started to put down various laws on the American colonies to match not just British Commonwealth rule, but the less free non-American Colonial laws.
Things like ...
- Being held until you confessed to a crime and otherwise being prosecuted and found guilty for another crime for merely not admitting your guilt
- Search and confiscation by the government of anything and everything without any reason
- The requirement to quarter soldiers in your home without question or should your loyalty be questioned
- The outlaw of any militia arsenal store, as well as any personal firearms in the home, which would be seized
- Assembly of people without the express authority of the governor under the powers granted by the crown or in its interest
If you're not paying attention, I just rambled off the 5th through 1st Amendments to the US Constitution.
These were "fresh in the minds" of many American states, especially Connecticut.
I will repeat that again ...
The five biggest complaints became our first, five Amendments!
The militia blurb is purposeful because state militias often had their stores confiscated as well as personal firearms in homes.
They did not include it to refer to militias only, but militias in addition as some British lawmakers believed in personal defense (and still do) but not organized militias.
The 2nd Amendment includes both because it sought to protect both.
There is extensive literature showing the two are one of the same, justifying militias with the same "rights" as an individual, which British Common Law in the colonies actually protected!
It's funny how many people now read it backwards.
How many Americans really understand why the 4th and 5th Amendments exist? Really?!
Most people think of "taking the 5th" as a co-out, not realizing it's reasons are just as crucial as others.
And the 1st Amendment has somehow lost its "assembly" meaning, which is of even greater concern at times.
Heck, some people say 1st through 5th are "dated" because the 3rd Amendment seems "out of place."
Again, these first five Amendments -- a full dozen years after Boston, Lexington and Concord, were fresh in the minds of a majority of states.
Their historical reasoning and value are crucial to not only what was there at that time, but what the founders foresaw.
It's in their own words of the time.
Don't assume otherwise, as many people do.
Reading Ben Franklin's "gun control" related viewpoints reads with an attitude like it was from a modern day, right-wing paper.
And this isn't factual?
Airline travel is pretty damn safe, not just per mile, but actually per hour too.
Understand the US media is built on advertising, which is built on ratings.
They focus on negativity overwhelmingly so drive ratings, namely those that feed on it -- which is why the viewership has changed so drastically over the last 30-40 years.
So yes, it's "no worse" to counter that by focusing on the positive.
It's corporations controlling both, don't fool yourself to think otherwise in the US.
Ironically, many aspects of improved weapons were discussed in literature. I don't think you realize how enlightened some of our founders were. Ben Franklin foretold quite a bit of the future world, and would easily surprise you with his own words on that matter.
In fact, in the 19th century the new invention of "smokeless powder" would see a similar argument by some. There is always something that's "wrong" for someone to have under the 2nd Amendment in some people's eyes.
Same deal with pistols and other, concealed weapons that did very much exist in the 18th century. In fact, why didn't the founders differentiate by saying "rifles" instead of "arms" to state they were against concealed weapons? What about "arms" outside the home?
If you start second-guessing them, then I can easily counter with some very real, existing technologies and differences. Also note that people have played on the differences in grammar at the time and ignored many of the original drafts of the 2nd Amendment that attempted to highlight it was about the individual, not the state.
Okay, now your ignorance is complete.
I'm warning you in advance, you're going to get smacked pretty hard here.
Again, you've been warned ...
The "logic prevalent in Europe" was something that the Penns, Virginians and, most importantly, the Conns took great issue with, including on firearms -- and yes, in the 18th century!
In fact, much of the problem with the allegedly "rebellious Americans" was the fact that British started to put down various laws on the American colonies to match not just British Commonwealth rule, but the less free non-American Colonial laws.
Things like ...
- Being held until you confessed to a crime and otherwise being prosecuted and found guilty for another crime for merely not admitting your guilt
- Search and confiscation by the government of anything and everything without any reason
- The requirement to quarter soldiers in your home without question or should your loyalty be questioned
- The outlaw of any militia arsenal store, as well as any personal firearms in the home, which would be seized
- Assembly of people without the express authority of the governor under the powers granted by the crown or in its interest
If you're not paying attention, I just rambled off the 5th through 1st Amendments to the US Constitution.
These were "fresh in the minds" of many American states, especially Connecticut.
I will repeat that again ...
The five biggest complaints became our first, five Amendments!
The militia blurb is purposeful because state militias often had their stores confiscated as well as personal firearms in homes.
They did not include it to refer to militias only, but militias in addition as some British lawmakers believed in personal defense (and still do) but not organized militias.
The 2nd Amendment includes both because it sought to protect both.
There is extensive literature showing the two are one of the same, justifying militias with the same "rights" as an individual, which British Common Law in the colonies actually protected!
It's funny how many people now read it backwards.
How many Americans really understand why the 4th and 5th Amendments exist? Really?!
Most people think of "taking the 5th" as a co-out, not realizing it's reasons are just as crucial as others.
And the 1st Amendment has somehow lost its "assembly" meaning, which is of even greater concern at times.
Heck, some people say 1st through 5th are "dated" because the 3rd Amendment seems "out of place."
Again, these first five Amendments -- a full dozen years after Boston, Lexington and Concord, were fresh in the minds of a majority of states.
Their historical reasoning and value are crucial to not only what was there at that time, but what the founders foresaw.
It's in their own words of the time.
Don't assume otherwise, as many people do.
Reading Ben Franklin's "gun control" related viewpoints reads with an attitude like it was from a modern day, right-wing paper.
Mr. Daystar
In a bell tower, watching you through cross hairs.
They meant for the PEOPLE to own the same guns as the Government they might need to defend against, then it was a musket, now the best we can do is semi automatic. The Government usurped the Constitution with the Federal Firearms Act of 1934. The point is, we are supposed to be on EQUAL ground. I guess we should all be using horse and buggy, because the founding fathers could not have foreseen the "big block" Chevy.dick van cock said:
Sorry, but the police and army work for/are the Government. Those are the people we may need to defend against. Even if you take them out of the equation, the Government uses companies like Blackwater, and has branches like F.E.M.A., the 2 I would be most concerned with at this point anywaydick van cock said:
As far as my personal feelings, it was too close...this should have been a landslide decision, it's still a win, for now, the anti gun lobby is a bitter, selfish, bunch. They don't like to lose, and will typically stomp their feet, and whine out every bad excuse they can think of to explain their lose. Gun owners must ALWAYS vigilant of those that have no respect for their right to bear arms. By the way, my feet hurt from doing a happy dance all day yesterday.
Friday on my mind
Pain heals, chicks dig scars, Freeones lasts forever
Re: "Violent Enough" ...
Sputnik you have to realize you are dealing with someone here who does not let facts get in the way of his arguements.While I am a supporter of 2nd amendment rights it is undeniable that legal gun ownership is related to gun deaths and shootings.Guns are much more likely to be used in acts of violence or suicide by people who legally own them then any other circumstance.Guns are more likely to be used in heat of the moment arguements type of situations then in the commision of any crime or the defense of any crime.And even the overwheling majority of the highly publicized cases you hear about like the rampage at Virginia Tech were with "legal guns".But don't beleive me ,there are people who have done studies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Kellermann
So yes Sputnik you have plenty to worry about from your neighbor and his legal guns.
Sputnik you have to realize you are dealing with someone here who does not let facts get in the way of his arguements.While I am a supporter of 2nd amendment rights it is undeniable that legal gun ownership is related to gun deaths and shootings.Guns are much more likely to be used in acts of violence or suicide by people who legally own them then any other circumstance.Guns are more likely to be used in heat of the moment arguements type of situations then in the commision of any crime or the defense of any crime.And even the overwheling majority of the highly publicized cases you hear about like the rampage at Virginia Tech were with "legal guns".But don't beleive me ,there are people who have done studies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Kellermann
So yes Sputnik you have plenty to worry about from your neighbor and his legal guns.
ninetysixcavy
If you don't wanna have kids with me, why don't we just practice?
Protection. Hunting. I have said this many times on this board....my aunts rural town is the safest place in the whole country, and everyone owns a firearm there, including her. How hard is this to understand?
Like an AOL poll???
Don't worry DVC. When you are robbed at gun-point by some three time loser, I will be there to protect you.
Because they are (with the deepest respect) paranoid about governments.They really believe , crazy as it is, that having guns protects them against the government ; it's been repeated so often it has become part of their thinking.Yet their Constitution does give them a high degree of protection. and gun ownership gives none or at most very little.I am every bit as free as an American (though in a different way) and nobody I know has a gun or even wants one.
ninetysixcavy
If you don't wanna have kids with me, why don't we just practice?
How hard is it for people to understand that areas heavily (legally) armed in America are the safest in the world? You people aren't using your noggin.
Member2019
1,000 posts to go for my own user title!
Er, well, I don't know if I'd argue "safest in the world," being that the US is pretty violent (always has been).How hard is it for people to understand that areas heavily (legally) armed in America are the safest in the world? You people aren't using your noggin.
But I would argue that you can find many larger towns and even smaller cities where they are the "safest in America."
I really can't believe how some factions of the "left wing" are using this in ways that don't apply.
Even portions of the DC ban will be re-passed and will pass the scrutiny of the new ruling.
Chicago sounds like it will also conform.
You don't need to eliminate the right to eliminate most of the threat in large cities.
That's what the Supreme Court basically said if someone read it, and didn't just look at the law getting struck down.
ninetysixcavy
If you don't wanna have kids with me, why don't we just practice?
The safest areas in the country are rural or countryside. These places also have the highest (legal) per-capita gun onwership. Inner cities are far more dangerous than the aforementioned areas.
tubuler
Junior Olympic Pole Vaulter
Plenty, if not most, of Americans believe in one way or another that the "system" is fucked up. I am most definitely one of those people. However, no one can agree on a way to bring about change because people disagree in the US just like in every other country.
Don't make the mistake of believing that just because you were born outside the US you have some sort of enlightened perspective that no American can ever achieve. Plenty of Americans feel the same way you do.
I personally agree with many of your points. I just wish you wouldn't accuse every American of being dull-witted morons that are too afraid "of ever touching the system or ever challenging the government in time of war or ever admitting "our system sucks, we're bonded into a new form of slavery and completely powerless"..."
We are in a time of war right now and millions of Americans have protested the war and challenged the Bush regimes reasons for waging it. We voted in a Democratic congress and Senate. We are about to elect the first black President in US history(something the UK can't say). What more would you have us do? Conduct a violent revolution perhaps?:dunno: Because just about everything short of that has been done and is being done.
tubuler
Junior Olympic Pole Vaulter
^Fox, I think you misunderstood part of my post. I didn't say most Americans want a new system of Government. I said most Americans would agree with you, in one way or another, that the current system is fucked up. Just look at the shitload of opinions on this forum. Everybody has got some sort of complaint or some suggestion for change.
And I didn't really say "look at England, they're fucked up too", I just said that we are electing a black President(something the UK can't say). I think that shows progression.
I'm for change just as you are. And I'm much more concerned with significant issues than I am with meaningless "wedge" issues like gay marraige or abortion or gun policies.
I think change will gradually take place. But what type of change and how fast it will come are a mystery to me.
I like your idealism and I very much want improvement to take place. Just as you do. I would love to hear some suggestions from you about what we should be doing to change things. How do we unshackle ourselves from this new form of "slavery"?
And I didn't really say "look at England, they're fucked up too", I just said that we are electing a black President(something the UK can't say). I think that shows progression.
I'm for change just as you are. And I'm much more concerned with significant issues than I am with meaningless "wedge" issues like gay marraige or abortion or gun policies.
I think change will gradually take place. But what type of change and how fast it will come are a mystery to me.
I like your idealism and I very much want improvement to take place. Just as you do. I would love to hear some suggestions from you about what we should be doing to change things. How do we unshackle ourselves from this new form of "slavery"?
Facial_King
I'm too lazy to set a usertitle.
I hope you're not saying that there's an actual CONNECTION between those 2 things. Why not connect cows and corn with low crime rates? We need to bring some cows into the big cities!
When you only have 1 person per 5 square miles (or whatever low-density, rural number you wish to give), the possibility for conflict will drop dramatically, for starters.
===
Well, I hope the gun-lovers are happy now that the SCOTUS gave 'em what they wanted.
Have fun out there, kids.
ninetysixcavy
If you don't wanna have kids with me, why don't we just practice?
:lame:
Per-capita gun onwership is high in the burbs as well, and those aren't sparsely poulated areas. Where would you rather walk alone at night: the inner city or small town USA? It's a simple question...
titsrock
I'm too lazy to set a usertitle.
:lame:
Per-capita gun onwership is high in the burbs as well, and those aren't sparsely poulated areas. Where would you rather walk alone at night: the inner city or small town USA? It's a simple question...
What's your definition of Suburb, Rural and Inner city? Would you like to know the reason why you can form your "safe" conclusion? Racism. It's also the reason any person's safety is at issue from walking down "the wrong part of town." Some ghettoes/barrios are nothing more than Americanized "Sadr Cities."
Is that acceptable to you? Why don't you want to feel free to walk down any public street in any town in America? Why is racial compartmentalization so acceptable to Conservatives/Wackoes?
Similar threads
