Dont like guns?!?!

[Lovelife090994]

I believe the supreme court also ruled that racial segregation was legal didn't it? The supreme court is hardly a great voice.

I'm not even talking about that-you don't even understand your own government. The United States of America has something call the Congress-this congress can change the constitution called something called a constitutional amendment. They've done it for the 25th amendment in the past. So yeah the congress actually has the power to repeal the second amendment-that's a fact.

Your simply wrong about the second amendment-it can be repealed http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/11/15/Texas-A-M-Law-Professor-Time-To-Repeal-And-Replace-Second-Amendment





Not really, in Britain the hunting community mainly uses air rifles without license and bolt actions under very strict conditions. People don't tend to hunt with pistols unless it's for very small game because of the low caliber, lack of accuracy due to a short barrel and because of the other options.

Your arguments a complete strawman about the printing press-the nature of firearms have dramatically changed in the last 200 years.

Do you think we should update our laws every now and again? Yes or No? Simple as that



So then why are hand grenades banned? Why are heavy machine guns banned? Why are RPG's banned? Surely using your logic all those weapons should be available.

No-I'm sure the pro gun lobby only want to create life, spread love and be peaceful because we all know that's what guns do. I'll shoot the question back at you and ask how you would stop shootings like this happen without gun control? Any ideas? The US has a gun problem, none of you are accepting that are you. Your just grabbing your rifle and closing your eyes-the US has a very clear problem with guns

Again you are not answering my whole reply. Pity. Britain is not what we are talking about nor is Britain perfect. Grenades? You know dang well why they are banned, a weapon of mass destruction. Quit the anti-gun-owner comments, they are stereotyped and rude. I own no gun. And no we do not grab a gun blind unlike you whom you have probably never held a gun. We have gun control in many areas but where there are laws, people break the and the violence is crazy. All countries have problems. And back to the Supreme Court, yes segregation was once legal in America but it struck down and that was years ago, also not related to guns. Now quit dodging the bullet and answer already without the insults.

[Harry Smith]

Again you are not answering my whole reply. Pity. Britain is not what we are talking about nor is Britain perfect. Grenades? You know dang well why they are banned, a weapon of mass destruction. Quit the anti-gun-owner comments, they are stereotyped and rude. I own no gun. And no we do not grab a gun blind unlike you whom you have probably never held a gun. We have gun control in many areas but where there are laws, people break the and the violence is crazy. All countries have problems. And back to the Supreme Court, yes segregation was once legal in America but it struck down and that was years ago, also not related to guns. Now quit dodging the bullet and answer already without the insults.

What insult? I don't what to be accused of something I haven't done. Please quote me where I've been insulting/rude and then I'll continue. I'm sick of being accused by you in every thread of being rude. Quote away.

Can you also quote where I said the whole of Britain was perfect.

you have probably never held a gun

That's wrong, don't make assumptions. I've shot a walther G22, two air rifles and a double barrel shotgun. Do you want me to provide evidence?

[Lovelife090994]

Actually I do want to change free-speech laws-that's why I'm opposed to shops being able to refuse service to LGBT individuals or for people to be able to carry out hate speech. That's sidetracking though.

The constitution was written during a time of war 200 years ago, look how much the world has changed since then. How would you feel if we still followed the same divorce, sexuality and economic laws from back then as well-luckily the US has managed to make progress on all of these issues.

Also when it was written the average man had a 7ft musket that took about a minute for a trained man to fire, plus a bayonet. If said man wanted to go on a massacre on his own he'd probably be able to kill about 2 people before being stopped-however nowdays thanks to our tech smaller, more powerful guns are available to more people at a much cheaper price-do you agree? This means that I'd say the original premise of having a well trained militia is lost because a 20 year college student keeping 2 pistols and an AR-15 isn't really a militia for me. I'll happily list a clear criteria for a proper state approved militia.

I also don't like how you and the gun-lobby just hide behind the 2nd amendment-you have school massacre after school massacre yet you still insist that you need your 2nd amendment. The gun lobby simply can't admit that it's got a problem-do you accept that the US has a clear problem with gun violence?

Ok, so basically with you if it is what you want then you support it but if not you blatantly insult and call out a whole group when you know not everyone is the same? Nice, yoy surely are making yourself look so selfless and intellegent. Wake up! Do you think we want shootings in this country? No. Have you ever thought about the fact that soem do use guns responsibly? The 2nd ammendment cannot be repealed as you stated earlier. The minute one freedom is taken when will it end? Plus the Constitution was written in the 1770s, longer than 200 years ago. Also why not mention Britain's past flaws? World domination by claiming land in the Carribean, Canada at a point, America before we broke apart, India, all at the use of guns! Countless things have been done with both of our nations and neither outranks the other. Plus do you honestly think that a mass shooting is impossible in Britain? It can happen as long as there are bad people in the world.

What insult? I don't what to be accused of something I haven't done. Please quote me where I've been insulting/rude and then I'll continue. I'm sick of being accused by you in every thread of being rude. Quote away.

Can you also quote where I said the whole of Britain was perfect.

Have you heard of implying? You keep bringing up how America because of guns has this or that problem and then bring up matter-of-factly how Britain has this or that when we weren't talking on Britain. You accused the gun lobby of not caring, most actually do care. Don't play amnesia with me, read your previous posts for your show of apathy.


-merged double post. -Emerald Dream

[Danagal]

;)I like big guns ;)

[Harry Smith]

Have you heard of implying? You keep bringing up how America because of guns has this or that problem and then bring up matter-of-factly how Britain has this or that when we weren't talking on Britain. You accused the gun lobby of not caring, most actually do care. Don't play amnesia with me, read your previous posts for your show of apathy.

Okay-please quote me where I've implied all of Britain is perfect. Because if you knew me or my political views you'd know how much I disagree with the way it's being ran

I'm also calling you out on this

you have probably never held a gun

That's wrong, don't make assumptions. I've shot a walther G22, two air rifles and a double barrel shotgun. Do you want me to provide evidence?

Please stop making untrue comments-now onto the actual topic.

I brought up Britain because we had a school massacre in 1997-after said massacre we banned handguns. We haven't had one since-that's the dumbed down version.

You quite clearly are living in a dream world-the US has gun problem that is unparallel to other developed nations.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2012/12/firearm-OECD-UN-data3.jpg

[Lovelife090994]

Okay-please quote me where I've implied all of Britain is perfect.

I'm also calling you out on this



That's wrong, don't make assumptions. I've shot a walther G22, two air rifles and a double barrel shotgun. Do you want me to provide evidence?

Maybe it was the edit but I've seen this message before on the third line. As for the first you have not read. You keep acting as if Britain is better off with strict gun laws and you say how America needs them. We have them and many have told you how in places like Chicago with the strictest of gun control that the gun laws do not seem to be helping. What do supose we do then since you have tried to show how well you are acquainted with American law.

[Harry Smith]

Maybe it was the edit but I've seen this message before on the third line. As for the first you have not read. You keep acting as if Britain is better off with strict gun laws and you say how America needs them. We have them and many have told you how in places like Chicago with the strictest of gun control that the gun laws do not seem to be helping. What do supose we do then since you have tried to show how well you are acquainted with American law.

Okay so it's gone from

1) Me being a British Supremacist
2) Me saying that Britain is the best
3) Me saying that Britain's firearms laws are better.

If your going to accuse me of something at least stick to your guns. (excuse the pun)

you have probably never held a gun

I'm still waiting for you to reply to your claim I've never held a gun.

The problem is that the gun laws are all mixed up-sure Chicago has strict gun control laws-what stops me from going to Tennessee or other southern states, buying a gun and then hiding it in my car. You need clear Federal action-not a patchwork of different laws because it simply doesn't work.

Refer to the graph in my last post to see that America has a gun problem-do you agree with that?

[Vlerchan]

We have them and many have told you how in places like Chicago with the strictest of gun control that the gun laws do not seem to be helping.

Imposing strict gun-laws on a single-state or -area is never going to work.

The free movement of people (and the goods they're carrying the boot/trunk of their car) in the US allows for one to simply purchase a AR-15 in Maine - where gun-control is near non-existent - and then simply enter Chicago unfettered. I presume you can see the problem here without me needed to outline it further. I hope so.

[Lovelife090994]

Okay so it's gone from

1) Me being a British Supremacist
2) Me saying that Britain is the best
3) Me saying that Britain's firearms laws are better.

If your going to accuse me of something at least stick to your guns. (excuse the pun)



I'm still waiting for you to reply to your claim I've never held a gun.

The problem is that the gun laws are all mixed up-sure Chicago has strict gun control laws-what stops me from going to Tennessee or other southern states, buying a gun and then hiding it in my car. You need clear Federal action-not a patchwork of different laws because it simply doesn't work.

Refer to the graph in my last post to see that America has a gun problem-do you agree with that?

I know America has a gun problem, I've said twice. But your solutions involved the same things banning all guns and then bringing up grenades and nukes and why they should be legal if guns are legal. The British-American ordeal was not even the point, but I guess you missed that too. What stops you from buying a gun and stashing it in your car is that in states like Tennessee regular pull overs are the norm and that you must have a liscene to have a gun. If you are caught with a gun in some states you will be heavily fined, the gun will be confiscated and other effects may happen depending on the state's law. Not everyone follows the law, no. But for those breaking the gun laws they are the ones who do not care and often are the ones rather silent. Many shootings in this country are by mentally disturbed quiet few who you would never expect to do a mass shooting, it is not always the shady character.

[Harry Smith]

Many shootings in this country are by mentally disturbed quiet few who you would never expect to do a mass shooting, it is not always the shady character.

Police checks can't stop everything-the state police can't stop every car leaving the state to check for guns. I've had family drive through route 66 in a van and they weren't stopped once. The point about grenades was ironic-you quite clearly didn't get. I was making your argument look bad by pushing it to extreme levels

But surely the fear of 'mentally ill' having firearms should endorse gun control-or do you favour giving guns to people with a history of mental illness. I'd also say that you can't blame it on mental illness to somehow justify mas ownership. Interesting extract here...

The research evidence suggests that violence has many interacting causes, and that mental illness alone very rarely causes violence.Most people with serious mental illness - which includes conditions such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder - are never violent toward others, and are in fact more likely to be victims than perpetrators of violence

[Troye]

To me, having a gun is a right that should be kept only to people that have no intention of using them... I can't think of any legitimate reason why someone would want a gun. Hunting is archaic and outdated and everything else a gun could be used for (in my opinion) is malicious.

[Lovelife090994]

To me, having a gun is a right that should be kept only to people that have no intention of using them... I can't think of any legitimate reason why someone would want a gun. Hunting is archaic and outdated and everything else a gun could be used for (in my opinion) is malicious.

No offense but so many people are hunters, besides hunting is not outdated, old but still here. If a person wants to own a gun for hunting or home defense then it is their legal American right when that person has a liscense and the right mind to own one. True, much to do with guns can be seen as evil, but also so are things to do with some knives, and some bats. Ban all knives then some hunting and camping things just got a lot harder as well as cooking. If you ban bats then how will baseball be played? It is fine if your opinion says guns are malicious, just know that many law-abiding citizens hunt and disagree. I am no hunter but many in my family hunt, and they only hunt when allowed.

[Troye]

No offense but so many people are hunters, besides hunting is not outdated, old but still here. If a person wants to own a gun for hunting or home defense then it is their legal American right when that person has a liscense and the right mind to own one.

Yeah no doubt, I'm not arguing the legality of owning a gun, and I still stand by my belief that hunting is outdated (although I do understand how many people do it), but no doubt. I respect your opinion

[Lovelife090994]

Yeah no doubt, I'm not arguing the legality of owning a gun, and I still stand by my belief that hunting is outdated (although I do understand how many people do it), but no doubt. I respect your opinion

Sorry, can you go back and read what I edited in? I feel it is too much to leave out. I understand.

[Troye]

Sorry, can you go back and read what I edited in? I feel it is too much to leave out. I understand.

Yeah no problem. You do have a point with guns not being the only tool that can be misused, however in my mind guns are made for 1 sole purpose, which is to harm something in some way. Being extremely pro-life its just hypocritical for me to support the use of guns I feel, but again I understand where you're coming from!

[Lovelife090994]

Yeah no problem. You do have a point with guns not being the only tool that can be misused, however in my mind guns are made for 1 sole purpose, which is to harm something in some way. Being extremely pro-life its just hypocritical for me to support the use of guns I feel, but again I understand where you're coming from!

Funny you mention that. You know why? Out of all the weapons how come only guns are ever mentioned? It isn't the only weapon used in mass destruction or attacks. But take into account what guns replaced, the bow and arrow and some people have those. But why only the gun upheaval?

[Harry Smith]

Funny you mention that. You know why? Out of all the weapons how come only guns are ever mentioned? It isn't the only weapon used in mass destruction or attacks. But take into account what guns replaced, the bow and arrow and some people have those. But why only the gun upheaval?

By your logic nukes should be legal, since they're not the only ones used in mass attacks

[phuckphace]

because a conventional firearm wielded by one person can kill tens of millions of people in an instant

[Asterix]

I live in the UK where gun control is fairly tight. it's not the gun that is the problem but the person holding it. I reckon that there should be much better background checks and continued checks on those who own the guns, just to make it less convenient/easy for somebody to just go out and buy a weapon in those countries which have looser gun control laws than here.

[Miserabilia]

because a conventional firearm wielded by one person can kill tens of millions of people in an instant

It can kill milions of people, especially when everyone has one.
The time it takes doesn't matter.

[phuckphace]

It can kill milions of people, especially when everyone has one.
The time it takes doesn't matter.

because everyone commits murder

[Miserabilia]

because everyone commits murder

Because when you give everyone guns people will die.
There's no point in letting everyone own weapons that can kill someone that easily.
It's essentialy a nuclear bomb on smaller scale.

[phuckphace]

Because when you give everyone guns people will die.

assuming that all or most people have the inclination to commit murder, then yes, but that's obviously not realistic at all

There's no point in letting everyone own weapons that can kill someone that easily.

wouldn't be much of a weapon if it couldn't, that's the whole point

It's essentialy a nuclear bomb on smaller scale.

so what was the point of using nukes as an example to begin with? apples and oranges much? let's say you want to kill 10 million people. how many nukes (and people to launch them) does it take to kill that many vs. how many guns wielded by how many people? your logic is atrocious

[Miserabilia]

assuming that all or most people have the inclination to commit murder, then yes, but that's obviously not realistic at all



wouldn't be much of a weapon if it couldn't, that's the whole point



so what was the point of using nukes as an example to begin with? apples and oranges much? let's say you want to kill 10 million people. how many nukes (and people to launch them) does it take to kill that many vs. how many guns wielded by how many people? your logic is atrocious

assuming that all or most people have the inclination to commit murder, then yes, but that's obviously not realistic at all
Umm, no??
I said "people will die".
I never indicated a specific amount, so that's not assuing that all or most people have the inclination to commit murder.

so what was the point of using nukes as an example to begin with? apples and oranges much? let's say you want to kill 10 million people. how many nukes (and people to launch them) does it take to kill that many vs. how many guns wielded by how many people? your logic is atrocious
The amount of people one gun can kill v.s one nuke can kill is irrelevant. It's an example because you can use most of the arguments gun people use to defend the owning of guns to the owning of nukes.

[phuckphace]

yes some people will die, regardless of whether we have guns or not. what do you think happened before guns were invented?

The amount of people one gun can kill v.s one nuke can kill is irrelevant.

no it's quite relevant, quit evading my points

It's an example because you can use most of the arguments gun people use to defend the owning of guns to the owning of nukes.

sure you can, that is if you don't mind the intellectual dishonesty and lapse of logic required to do so. it's a shitty "example" for the reasons that I outlined above. do you not understand the fundamental differences between a gun and a nuke?

[Miserabilia]

yes some people will die, regardless of whether we have guns or not. what do you think happened before guns were invented?

Yes some people will die, regardless of whether we have nukes or not. What do you think happened before nukes were invented?

[phuckphace]

Yes some people will die, regardless of whether we have nukes or not. What do you think happened before nukes were invented?

before nukes were invented, could one person with one weapon instantly kill 50 million people and pollute the targeted area for centuries? no? okay then.

[Lovelife090994]

By your logic nukes should be legal, since they're not the only ones used in mass attacks

By your logic all weapons should be banned. Nukes? We've discussed this Harry. One nuke can erase a city from the Earth. Remember Nagasaki, Hiroshima? After seeing the damage the US and others refrain from using nuclear weapons. What is bad about a man or a woman owning a gun? Earlier in America three men broke into a mother of three's house. If she did not have a gun they would have killed her, they had knives. Guns can be used for good. Why do you think every police officer in America has guns? You act as if anyone can get a gun or a nuke. You need a liscense and training plus in some states a background check to even buy a gun. Plus automatic machine guns are not allowed outside the military. Nukes are held under tight lock and key in government facilities.

[Miserabilia]

yes some people will die, regardless of whether we have guns or not. what do you think happened before guns were invented?



no it's quite relevant, quit evading my points



sure you can, that is if you don't mind the intellectual dishonesty and lapse of logic required to do so. it's a shitty "example" for the reasons that I outlined above. do you not understand the fundamental differences between a gun and a nuke?

before nukes were invented, could one person with one weapon instantly kill 50 million people and pollute the targeted area for centuries? no? okay then.

no it's quite relevant, quit evading my points

I'm not "evading [your] points",
it's actualy just irrelevant.
The comparison was that of two lethal weapons.
They are both leathel, a gun is a nuke on a smaller scale.

sure you can, that is if you don't mind the intellectual dishonesty and lapse of logic required to do so. it's a shitty "example" for the reasons that I outlined above. do you not understand the fundamental differences between a gun and a nuke?

That's irrelevant, I can take your argument for a gun and replace it with a nuke, and it works. I could replace it with any lethal weapon, regardless of scale.

before nukes were invented, could one person with one weapon instantly kill 50 million people and pollute the targeted area for centuries? no? okay then.

Before guns were invented, could one person with one weapon instantly and easily kill several people with one simple hand movement?
You can do this all day long, the point is that there is NO POINT in letting everyone own lethal weapons with the pure itention of being lethal.

[phuckphace]

[random babbling]

it's clear that you're not the least bit interested in having a debate. I explained for you in the most elementary terms why you can't simply replace "gun" with "nuke" and why the two scenarios differ significantly and you simply ignored all of my points and just continued to shout "LOL THAT'S IRRELEVANT!!!" over and over again. not sure if trolling or just obtuse.

[thatcountrykid]

Heres a question. Who do you guys propose take the guns?

[Miserabilia]

it's clear that you're not the least bit interested in having a debate. I explained for you in the most elementary terms why you can't simply replace "gun" with "nuke" and why the two scenarios differ significantly and you simply ignored all of my points and just continued to shout "LOL THAT'S IRRELEVANT!!!" over and over again. not sure if trolling or just obtuse.

Wow, thanks for replacing my post with "random babbling".
If I was not interested in having a debate, I would not be having it.
I explained to you in the most elementary terms why the comparison of gun and nuke works. I said those points were irrelevant, because they were.
Anyway, if you concider me a "troll" or if you just want to respond with claiming to know how personaly interested I am in the subject and in the debate, that's fine but do it in a PM and not in a serious thread,
thanks in advance.

Heres a question. Who do you guys propose take the guns?

I propose make them illegal, because that would save alot of lives.

[Miserabilia]

Heres a question. Who do you guys propose take the guns?

I propose make them illegal, because that would save alot of lives.

[Lovelife090994]

I propose make them illegal, because that would save alot of lives.

If it isn't guns then it'll be something else. Not all with guns have inclination to murder.

[Miserabilia]

If it isn't guns then it'll be something else. Not all with guns have inclination to murder.

Yes and you can give people licences for hunting, etc, but allowing everyone to own a weapon as dangerously lethal as a gun is not nescecary.

[Harry Smith]

Heres a question. Who do you guys propose take the guns?

How do you guys propose your going to stop school massacres?

[Lovelife090994]

Yes and you can give people licences for hunting, etc, but allowing everyone to own a weapon as dangerously lethal as a gun is not nescecary.

Any weapon can be lethal. A gun is only fired when one puts their hand on a trigger. Unlike most smaller weapons it can be harder to get a gun. You do not walk into a gun store and purchase a gun, they will turn you away. Point is, not al hunters are going to murder, not all with guns are either. There are so many stories of guns saving lives here in America when break-ins occur.

[Miserabilia]

Any weapon can be lethal. A gun is only fired when one puts their hand on a trigger. Unlike most smaller weapons it can be harder to get a gun. You do not walk into a gun store and purchase a gun, they will turn you away. Point is, not al hunters are going to murder, not all with guns are either. There are so many stories of guns saving lives here in America when break-ins occur.

Right anything could be legal, I could hit someone with a bat in the head really hard and that could be lethal.
The point is that with a gun, you can END SOMEONE'S LIFE with ONE MOVEMENT OF YOUR FINGER.
You can't "accidentaly" kill someone with a bat,
but you can definetly expect accidents with a weapon as dangerous as a gun!!

A gun is MADE to shoot.
A gun is a weapon MADE to be a weapon.
Can you think of any other lethal weapon with the pure intention of being a lethal weapon, that's being sold out and is legal to have?
Probably not.
That's why it's ridiculous that people can still own guns.

Point is, not al hunters are going to murder, not all with guns are either.

MY GOD, when will you please stop doing that, "not all X is Y"!
NOBODY ever said that all hunters are going to murder, NOBODY.

The thing is, that there's no point in letting everyone own loaded lethal weapons.
It's literaly asking for trouble.

Honestly, what do you really need guns for? (Exept hunting?)
If people really needed guns for self defense, wouldn't all western europe be dead by now?
No, they are doing great.
As a matter of fact, they are doing better than the USA where everyone is shooting each other on sight , and where kids are walking into schools and shooting everyon they see.

[Harry Smith]

There are so many stories of guns saving lives here in America when break-ins occur.

Okay look at this

A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used to kill or injure in a domestic homicide, suicide, or unintentional shooting than to be used in self-defense.5

[Zenos]

I believe the supreme court also ruled that racial segregation was legal didn't it? The supreme court is hardly a great voice.




I'm not even talking about that-you don't even understand your own government. The United States of America has something call the Congress-this congress can change the constitution called something called a constitutional amendment. They've done it for the 25th amendment in the past. So yeah the congress actually has the power to repeal the second amendment-that's a fact.

Your simply wrong about the second amendment-it can be repealed http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/11/15/Texas-A-M-Law-Professor-Time-To-Repeal-And-Replace-Second-Amendment

( Just give up dude no one in America that understands what the part of the 2nd amendment means when it says shall not be infringed is not going to even suggest repealing it,because when it says "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" the founding fathers meant it was an amendment that can not even be repealedAlso stop telling people they do not understand their system and posting anti America nut jobs opinions.)



Not really, in Britain the hunting community mainly uses air rifles without license and bolt actions under very strict conditions. People don't tend to hunt with pistols unless it's for very small game because of the low caliber, lack of accuracy due to a short barrel and because of the other options.

Your arguments a complete strawman about the printing press-the nature of firearms have dramatically changed in the last 200 years.

Do you think we should update our laws every now and again? Yes or No? Simple as that



So then why are hand grenades banned? Why are heavy machine guns banned? Why are RPG's banned? Surely using your logic all those weapons should be available.

No-I'm sure the pro gun lobby only want to create life, spread love and be peaceful because we all know that's what guns do. I'll shoot the question back at you and ask how you would stop shootings like this happen without gun control? Any ideas? The US has a gun problem, none of you are accepting that are you. Your just grabbing your rifle and closing your eyes-the US has a very clear problem with guns


(Blah blah blah blame the guns that's like blaming the music,movies,books and video games etc etc. By your logic and reasoning anything with even the hint of violence in it is to blame and should be banned.

Soi what you going to start with on the banning? The classic literature,oh say for example the Conan stores of Robert E.Howard,or how about the horror of H.P.Lovecaft?


Your problem is that you want to blame guns just like somehow because I own guns they are whispering in my ear to go out and kill someone or they just take over my brain like some kinda of weird alien brain sucker amnd make me go out and kill people. face it your arguments are socialist tripe and you know very few people in the states are buying it)[/QUOTE]



Harry SmithQuote:


Actually I do want to change free-speech laws-that's why I'm opposed to shops being able to refuse service to LGBT individuals or for people to be able to carry out hate speech. That's sidetracking though.


( Sorry in America we have the right to say what we want to even if it's not popular or even right,the problem with you Socialist types is your Politically Correct and want to save people from themselves when it comes to what they can and can not say.No one needs a nanny state or system.To be honest if I say something that's hurtful that's my right because it might just be that the person I hurt with my words actually needed that to happen to get them to open their eyes,also if someone says something that hurts others and then gets the hell beat out of them for it,well then they learn to keep their mouths shut.)

The constitution was written during a time of war 200 years ago, look how much the world has changed since then. How would you feel if we still followed the same divorce, sexuality and economic laws from back then as well-luckily the US has managed to make progress on all of these issues.

Also when it was written the average man had a 7ft musket that took about a minute for a trained man to fire, plus a bayonet. If said man wanted to go on a massacre on his own he'd probably be able to kill about 2 people before being stopped-however nowdays thanks to our tech smaller, more powerful guns are available to more people at a much cheaper price-do you agree? This means that I'd say the original premise of having a well trained militia is lost because a 20 year college student keeping 2 pistols and an AR-15 isn't really a militia for me. I'll happily list a clear criteria for a proper state approved militia.

I also don't like how you and the gun-lobby just hide behind the 2nd amendment-you have school massacre after school massacre yet you still insist that you need your 2nd amendment. The gun lobby simply can't admit that it's got a problem-do you accept that the US has a clear problem with gun violence? [/QUOTE]

So you don't like how we Americans including the Gum lobbist want to keep our rights huh? TOUGH TURKEY! YOU ARE NOT AN AMERICAN CITIZEN AND THUS HAVE NO RIGHT TO CHANGE OUR LEGAL SYSTEM!

[britishboy]

One thing I have always argued is this, there will always be murderers, that is correct.

If that murderer wants to kill many people and has a gun there will be a massacre! Of course the famous US counter argument is "That is why we should all have guns...." As if armed wannabe heroes could help the situation and we should rely on them.

If the murderer wants to kill many people and does not have a gun, people will probably still die but the murderer will have to use a something like a knife or bat. There will be no school massacre and he could be taken down by an unarmed policemen with a taser or mace.

Of course there are many heroes who have saved the day with guns but if nobody had guns they wouldn't be necessary.

Of course those who like guns and hunting should be able to do those things but they must be checked and get a license.

The ordinary police in England don't carry guns and most don't carry tasers because the public aren't armed. Should a situation arise where the police need guns we still have armed police.

So America, why not adopt a UK style approach to guns.



So you don't like how we Americans including the Gum lobbist want to keep our rights huh? TOUGH TURKEY! YOU ARE NOT AN AMERICAN CITIZEN AND THUS HAVE NO RIGHT TO CHANGE OUR LEGAL SYSTEM!

I can't believe I am supporting Harry Smith but he is correct. He is not trying to change your legal system, he is taking part in a debate on gun control. Your inward view isn't helping America, you should look out see what works better in other countries and see if you can apply it to your own. I doubt Harry Smith wants to be an American.

[thatcountrykid]

I propose make them illegal, because that would save alot of lives.

How do you guys propose your going to stop school massacres?

No i mean who do you think will come and get them

[Harry Smith]

YOU ARE NOT AN AMERICAN CITIZEN!

Really? I never knew, thanks for telling me. It doensn't matter where I was born-my argument is simply better than yours

No i mean who do you think will come and get them

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Alcohol,_Tobacco,_Firearms_and_Explosives

[Zenos]

One thing I have always argued is this, there will always be murderers, that is correct.

If that murderer wants to kill many people and has a gun there will be a massacre! Of course the famous US counter argument is "That is why we should all have guns...." As if armed wannabe heroes could help the situation and we should rely on them.

If the murderer wants to kill many people and does not have a gun, people will probably still die but the murderer will have to use a something like a knife or bat. There will be no school massacre and he could be taken down by an unarmed policemen with a taser or mace.

Of course there are many heroes who have saved the day with guns but if nobody had guns they wouldn't be necessary.

Of course those who like guns and hunting should be able to do those things but they must be checked and get a license.

The ordinary police in England don't carry guns and most don't carry tasers because the public aren't armed. Should a situation arise where the police need guns we still have armed police.

So America, why not adopt a UK style approach to guns.



I can't believe I am supporting Harry Smith but he is correct. He is not trying to change your legal system, he is taking part in a debate on gun control. Your inward view isn't helping America, you should look out see what works better in other countries and see if you can apply it to your own. I doubt Harry Smith wants to be an American.


-please do not double post. -Emerald Dream.


Just because something works for another nation doe snot mean it will work here.

Plus the 2nd amendment has stood the test of time because it is considered an inalienable right.

Inalienable right means a right according to natural law, a right that cannot be taken away, denied, or transferred .


Also what part of 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. where it says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. " do you guys not understand??
Our decisions on guns are made on among other things precedent,which is
legal decision or form of proceeding serving as an authoritative rule or pattern in future similar or analogous cases.

2.
any act, decision, or case that serves as a guide or justification for subsequent situations.

And no you are wrong if he had it his way our Constitution, Amendments and supreme court rulings be damned he'd try to force us to give up our gun.



, the Supreme Court definitively held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Moreover, this right applies not just to the federal government, but to states and municipalities as well.Also in 2008 in the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller , the Court held that (1) the District of Columbia's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounted to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly chose for the lawful purpose of self-defense, and thus violated the Second Amendment; and (2) the District's requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock also violated the Second Amendment, because the law made it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense. The Court reasoned that the Amendment's prefatory clause, i.e., "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," announced the Amendment's purpose, but did not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause, i.e., "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Moreover, the prefatory clause's history comported with the Court's interpretation, because the prefatory clause stemmed from the Anti-Federalists' concern that the federal government would disarm the people in order to disable the citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule.


The Court reasoned that this right is fundamental to the nation's scheme of ordered liberty, given that self-defense was a basic right recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present, and Heller held that individual self-defense was "the central component" of the Second Amendment right. Moreover, a survey of the contemporaneous history also demonstrated clearly that the Fourteenth Amendment's Framers and ratifiers counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to the Nation's system of ordered liberty -

[thatcountrykid]

Really? I never knew, thanks for telling me. It doensn't matter where I was born-my argument is simply better than yours



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Alcohol,_Tobacco,_Firearms_and_Explosives

Police wont do it and i can almost garuntee they wont do it. Have you seen what happened in Connecticut?

[Harry Smith]

Just because something works for another nation doe snot mean it will work here.

Plus the 2nd amendment has stood the test of time because it is considered an inalienable right.

Inalienable right means a right according to natural law, a right that cannot be taken away, denied, or transferred .


Also what part of 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. where it says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. " do you guys not understand??


, the Supreme Court definitively held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Moreover, this right applies not just to the federal government, but to states and municipalities as well.Also in 2008 in the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller , the Court held that (1) the District of Columbia's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounted to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly chose for the lawful purpose of self-defense, and thus violated the Second Amendment; and (2) the District's requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock also violated the Second Amendment, because the law made it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense. The Court reasoned that the Amendment's prefatory clause, i.e., "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," announced the Amendment's purpose, but did not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause, i.e., "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Moreover, the prefatory clause's history comported with the Court's interpretation, because the prefatory clause stemmed from the Anti-Federalists' concern that the federal government would disarm the people in order to disable the citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule.


The Court reasoned that this right is fundamental to the nation's scheme of ordered liberty, given that self-defense was a basic right recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present, and Heller held that individual self-defense was "the central component" of the Second Amendment right. Moreover, a survey of the contemporaneous history also demonstrated clearly that the Fourteenth Amendment's Framers and ratifiers counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to the Nation's system of ordered liberty -

Nice copying and pasting there :)

The second amendment can still be repealed by congress you know, I know you love your school massacres and all but the US really needs to introduce some change in it's firearms policy

Police wont do it and i can almost garuntee they wont do it. Have you seen what happened in Connecticut?

If they have an order from the federal government/the supreme court then they'd have to follow it by the very oath they swore to their office. I know you have some romantic view of the police but they just follow orders. The police are also quite different to the AFT teams and the FBI

[Zenos]

[QUOTE=Harry Smith;2721310]Really? I never knew, thanks for telling me. It doensn't matter where I was born-my argument is simply better than yours



QUOTE]

No it boils down to this fact you think your better,and you want so much to convince Americans that you know whats in our best interest.

[Harry Smith]

Really? I never knew, thanks for telling me. It doensn't matter where I was born-my argument is simply better than yoursQUOTE]

No it boils down to this fact you think your better,.

When did I say that I myself Harry Smith was better than you?

[Zenos]

When did I say that I myself Harry Smith was better than you?

(It's your attitude you are always bashing on America AND Americans and posting on here with a i'm better then you attitude toward us Americans)



Nice copying and pasting there :)

The second amendment can still be repealed by congress you know, I know you love your school massacres and all but the US really needs to introduce some change in it's firearms policy

Doesn't matter if I did copy and past it doesn't nullify the truth of my post.

See there you go trying to lump me as a gun owner in with people that have killed others.If they own guns to you they are a threat no matter how law abiding they are,nor even if their reasons for owning guns are within the laws.

And again you still do not understand a thing about the 2nd amendment and where is says "shall not be infringed."

To repeal that amendment is in fact to infringe upon that right,but you don't like guns to the point you do not see it for that fact!

[Harry Smith]

Doesn't matter if I did copy and past it doesn't nullify the truth of my post.

See there you go trying to lump me as a gun owner in with people that have killed others.If they own guns to you they are a threat no matter how law abiding they are,nor even if their reasons for owning guns are within the laws.

And again you still do not understand a thing about the 2nd amendment and where is says "shall not be infringed."

To repeal that amendment is in fact to infringe upon that right,but you don't like guns to the point you do not see it for that fact!

No-it just makes you look lazy and unoriginal. Texas law professor says it's quite clearly possible

http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/16/call-to-arms-texas-am-law-prof-says-its-time-to-repeal-second-amendment/

(It's your attitude you are always bashing on America AND Americans and posting on here with a i'm better then you attitude toward us Americans

Just because it says it can't be infringed doesn't mean anything, North Korea calls itself 'democract'. Doesn't make it true in any sense

(It's your attitude you are always bashing on America AND Americans and posting on here with a i'm better then you attitude toward us Americans

There are some things I like about America like Ralph Nader and the Kennedy family. I'm no way better than my American cousins-I've never said that. My argument was that our gun crime is lower and that our gun laws are in turn better

[britishboy]

Just because something works for another nation doe snot mean it will work here.

Plus the 2nd amendment has stood the test of time because it is considered an inalienable right.

Inalienable right means a right according to natural law, a right that cannot be taken away, denied, or transferred .


Also what part of 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. where it says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. " do you guys not understand??
Our decisions on guns are made on among other things precedent,which is
legal decision or form of proceeding serving as an authoritative rule or pattern in future similar or analogous cases.

2.
any act, decision, or case that serves as a guide or justification for subsequent situations.

And no you are wrong if he had it his way our Constitution, Amendments and supreme court rulings be damned he'd try to force us to give up our gun.



, the Supreme Court definitively held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Moreover, this right applies not just to the federal government, but to states and municipalities as well.Also in 2008 in the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller , the Court held that (1) the District of Columbia's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounted to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly chose for the lawful purpose of self-defense, and thus violated the Second Amendment; and (2) the District's requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock also violated the Second Amendment, because the law made it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense. The Court reasoned that the Amendment's prefatory clause, i.e., "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," announced the Amendment's purpose, but did not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause, i.e., "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Moreover, the prefatory clause's history comported with the Court's interpretation, because the prefatory clause stemmed from the Anti-Federalists' concern that the federal government would disarm the people in order to disable the citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule.


The Court reasoned that this right is fundamental to the nation's scheme of ordered liberty, given that self-defense was a basic right recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present, and Heller held that individual self-defense was "the central component" of the Second Amendment right. Moreover, a survey of the contemporaneous history also demonstrated clearly that the Fourteenth Amendment's Framers and ratifiers counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to the Nation's system of ordered liberty -

When the second amendment was written America was a different country with ineffective law enforcement, justifying the right to bear arms as well as the fact that fully automatic rifles with a magazine of 60 did not exist back then.

Self defense is a right, but if ones attacker does not have a gun and oneself is unarmed the result of the fight I am sure would be a lot better.

Harry doesn't like Britian so I doubt he likes the US.

In conclusion, if having a gun is part of your culture keep the guns however I see no harm with additional regulation.

[Harry Smith]

Harry doesn't like Britian so I doubt he likes the US.
.

That's a flat out lie-please quote me where I've said that?

[Zenos]

No-it just makes you look lazy and unoriginal. Texas law professor says it's quite clearly possible

http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/16/call-to-arms-texas-am-law-prof-says-its-time-to-repeal-second-amendment/

(It's your attitude you are always bashing on America AND Americans and posting on here with a i'm better then you attitude toward us Americans

Just because it says it can't be infringed doesn't mean anything, North Korea calls itself 'democract'. Doesn't make it true in any sense



There are some things I like about America like Ralph Nader and the Kennedy family. I'm no way better than my American cousins-I've never said that. My argument was that our gun crime is lower and that our gun laws are in turn better

Ah yes , Mary Margaret “Meg” Penrose the idiot who calls for the disarming of the american citizen in defiance of that the Constitution,the bill of rights and the Founding fathers said and wanted, and yet she is “extremely passionate about” the Constitution she calls outdated.

Yeh really i'd listen you her um huh she's a nutter but then you failed to notice this part in that link about what she wants to do.


Penrose then proposed a solution that would allow each state to determine its own gun policies.

The beauty of a ‘states’ rights model’ solution is it allows those of you who want to live in a state with strong restrictions to do so and those who want to live in a state with very loose restrictions to do so,” the professor explained.

You do realize that she'd be putting us when it cones to guns back before the 20th century when it was dun dun dunnnn wait for it wait for it,up to the individual states to decide on this topic ,and I can garuntee you most states will go with ITS OUR RIGHT!

[britishboy]

That's a flat out lie-please quote me where I've said that?

You don't like the Queen.

You don't like capitalism (I don't think that needs a capital?)

You don't like our police force.

You don't like our nuclear weapons.

Tell me what do you like?

[Zenos]

When the second amendment was written America was a different country with ineffective law enforcement, justifying the right to bear arms as well as the fact that fully automatic rifles with a magazine of 60 did not exist back then.


( well tell you what the States are a much bigger land mass then the Island(no offence meant) so in rural areas there snot enough cops,secondly just because cops have all the tech they have now does not mean they can be everywhere at once)

Self defense is a right, but if ones attacker does not have a gun and oneself is unarmed the result of the fight I am sure would be a lot better.



( ever try to fight ameth head or a crack head barehanded because the tripped out and jumped on you for no reason other then drug fueled paranoia?
Without somesort of weapon even a powerlifter who also knows how to fight would be in for it,also without guns people would just use someother thing as a weapon)

Harry doesn't like Britian so I doubt he likes the US.

In conclusion, if having a gun is part of your culture keep the guns however I see no harm with additional regulation.

( the problem with regulation of any kind is that the people that want to regulate guns have no idea of who to do it without going nutter on people and trying to over do it)

[britishboy]

( the problem with regulation of any kind is that the people that want to regulate guns have no idea of who to do it without going nutter on people and trying to over do it)

Well a few regulations I can think of that will help are; background checks; interviews with the person wanting a gun license; checks on where the gun would be stored and if it will be secure and can the gun owner actually use a gun safely and responsibly.

It sounds a lot but do that for a license and there would be no need to place further restrictions on the firearms themselves.

[Zenos]

Well a few regulations I can think of that will help are; background checks; interviews with the person wanting a gun license; checks on where the gun would be stored and if it will be secure and can the gun owner actually use a gun safely and responsibly.

It sounds a lot but do that for a license and there would be no need to place further restrictions on the firearms themselves.

I think most of that is stuff they already do.

the problem is that criminals know where to get guns under the table if you get my meaning.

And it wouldn't be hard to slip then across the southern boarder into the US.

[Harry Smith]

You don't like the Queen.

You don't like capitalism (I don't think that needs a capital?)

You don't like our police force.

You don't like our nuclear weapons.

Tell me what do you like?

Okay lets go through

1) Several British Members of parliament don't like the Queen. Helen Mirren, an actor who recently won a BAFTA (that's an award). I don't have to like our un-elected 87 year old German to like Britain, who voted for her?

2)That's nothing to do with Britain-I was perfectly happy with our economic policy 10 years. In this thing called Politics they change the economic policy-did you know that?

3)Who does? How many times have you been stopped and searched? Have you seen the billions of reports of police abuse in the last year alone-the racist murder of Stephen Lawrence, lying about an MP to get him fired, arresting protesters and attacking the blind with tasers. Our Police are great

4)Looooool, I hate Britain because I hate a nuclear rocket buried in a submarine-we discussed this before remember and you were unable to offer a pro-nuclear argument. It does fuck all- it doesn't stop war, it's a risk and we can't afford it. I'd also point out that 69 members of British parliament all oppose it-surely they hate Britain as well http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2013-14/150

I don't Britain, I hate the right wing outdated parts of Britain. I love our cricket, our food and the fact that we have proper gun laws and that we've managed to adapt ourselves

[britishboy]

I think most of that is stuff they already do.

the problem is that criminals know where to get guns under the table if you get my meaning.

And it wouldn't be hard to slip then across the southern boarder into the US.

All very true and at the end of the day as a 15 year old British citizen I am in no position to say what the US should be doing. I am against bull fighting in Spain but it is their culture and so I respect that, the same as I do for your firearms.

I do get your meaning and that would be nearly impossible to stamp out.

In the UK the police advertised "Carry a knife, lose your life." To educate youths how serious the offense is (The UK has a problem with knife crime ), just a suggestion but I think education could help but of course would not put off those who are determined.

[thatcountrykid]

Nice copying and pasting there :)

The second amendment can still be repealed by congress you know, I know you love your school massacres and all but the US really needs to introduce some change in it's firearms policy



If they have an order from the federal government/the supreme court then they'd have to follow it by the very oath they swore to their office. I know you have some romantic view of the police but they just follow orders. The police are also quite different to the AFT teams and the FBI

In conneticut 68 percent of police refused to register their guns. The swore to uphold the constitution against all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC. I would consider obama an enemy

[Zenos]

All very true and at the end of the day as a 15 year old British citizen I am in no position to say what the US should be doing. I am against bull fighting in Spain but it is their culture and so I respect that, the same as I do for your firearms.

I do get your meaning and that would be nearly impossible to stamp out.

In the UK the police advertised "Carry a knife, lose your life." To educate youths how serious the offense is (The UK has a problem with knife crime ), just a suggestion but I think education could help but of course would not put off those who are determined.

Hmm so it is true you guys have a knife culture:D

Well i'm like this I feel a person should be able to defend themselves with anything be it bare hands are hand held weapons from guns to knives to what ever simply because if not and you get killed they can't bring you back.

Plus if the person is trying to kill you then they have forfitted their right to live.

[Vlerchan]

The 2nd Amendment was originally supposed to protect the rights of states to maintain militias. The Founding Fathers were afraid that a centralized armed-forces would consolidate power and 'bad stuff' would happen as a result. If one actually reads the 2nd Amendment it becomes obvious that the use of 'the people' is a clear reference back to the aforementioned militias.

[…] one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,’ on the American public by special interest groups that I’ve ever seen in my life time. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies—the militias—would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires.

This is how to attribute people, Zenos. Otherwise it is plagiarism.

You don't like the Queen.

You don't like capitalism (I don't think that needs a capital?)

You don't like our police force.

You don't like our nuclear weapons.

Tell me what do you like?

Not Britian, I'd bet; not if he doesn't like (un-thethered) Capatalism and nuclear weaponry. It's simply not possible, man.

[Lovelife090994]

Right anything could be legal, I could hit someone with a bat in the head really hard and that could be lethal.
The point is that with a gun, you can END SOMEONE'S LIFE with ONE MOVEMENT OF YOUR FINGER.
You can't "accidentaly" kill someone with a bat,
but you can definetly expect accidents with a weapon as dangerous as a gun!!

A gun is MADE to shoot.
A gun is a weapon MADE to be a weapon.
Can you think of any other lethal weapon with the pure intention of being a lethal weapon, that's being sold out and is legal to have?
Probably not.
That's why it's ridiculous that people can still own guns.



MY GOD, when will you please stop doing that, "not all X is Y"!
NOBODY ever said that all hunters are going to murder, NOBODY.

The thing is, that there's no point in letting everyone own loaded lethal weapons.
It's literaly asking for trouble.

Honestly, what do you really need guns for? (Exept hunting?)
If people really needed guns for self defense, wouldn't all western europe be dead by now?
No, they are doing great.
As a matter of fact, they are doing better than the USA where everyone is shooting each other on sight , and where kids are walking into schools and shooting everyon they see.

Accidently guns have went off accidentally and many families have lost children, try telling them that guns can't go off by accident. You can kill someone with the push of a button nowadays with the right weapon.

Okay look at this

I just did, and I wish you fully cited it.

[Harry Smith]

In conneticut 68 percent of police refused to register their guns. The swore to uphold the constitution against all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC. I would consider obama an enemy

Did you also know that Obama wasn't born in the US?

[Lovelife090994]

Did you also know that Obama wasn't born in the US?

He was born in Hawaii. Hawaii is the 50th state in the United States of America. Plus his mother is a Kansas-born American. He is American. He's more American than you are.

[britishboy]

Okay lets go through

1) Several British Members of parliament don't like the Queen. Helen Mirren, an actor who recently won a BAFTA (that's an award). I don't have to like our un-elected 87 year old German to like Britain, who voted for her?

2)That's nothing to do with Britain-I was perfectly happy with our economic policy 10 years. In this thing called Politics they change the economic policy-did you know that?

3)Who does? How many times have you been stopped and searched? Have you seen the billions of reports of police abuse in the last year alone-the racist murder of Stephen Lawrence, lying about an MP to get him fired, arresting protesters and attacking the blind with tasers. Our Police are great

4)Looooool, I hate Britain because I hate a nuclear rocket buried in a submarine-we discussed this before remember and you were unable to offer a pro-nuclear argument. It does fuck all- it doesn't stop war, it's a risk and we can't afford it. I'd also point out that 69 members of British parliament all oppose it-surely they hate Britain as well http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2013-14/150

I don't Britain, I hate the right wing outdated parts of Britain. I love our cricket, our food and the fact that we have proper gun laws and that we've managed to adapt ourselves

1) So by that you also don't like the national anthem?
2) We are a capitalist country coming in and out of socialism.
3) I have never been stopped and searched. Incase you didn't realize criminals do not wear lables...
4)You support cuts to the military in fact you said we did not need a navy because it is not 1800s...
5) You have no passion! The passion gives it away, you ignore insults to the UK, join in yourself only stick up for the UK when it is gay marriage or gun control.

Hate Britian, love Britian, your not the PM so I do not care but do not claim to love Britian because you are transparent.

[Harry Smith]

He was born in Hawaii. Hawaii is the 50th state in the United States of America. Plus his mother is a Kansas-born American. He is American. He's more American than you are.

I was being sarcastic.... how did you not see that? It's called a joke

[Lovelife090994]

I was being sarcastic.... how did you not see that? It's called a joke

Perhaps, but here in America it has been grossly overused.

[Harry Smith]

Perhaps, but here in America it has been grossly overused.

I know-it's actually terrible how badly people treat him. Accusing him of not being American purely because he's Black. It just shows how desperate some tea-party members are


1) So by that you also don't like the national anthem?
2) We are a capitalist country coming in and out of socialism.
3) I have never been stopped and searched. Incase you didn't realize criminals do not wear lables...
4)You support cuts to the military in fact you said we did not need a navy because it is not 1800s...
5) You have no passion! The passion gives it away, you ignore insults to the UK, join in yourself only stick up for the UK when it is gay marriage or gun control.

Hate Britian, love Britian, your not the PM so I do not care but do not claim to love Britian because you are transparent.

1) I like Jerusalem very much-that's a good song. I much prefer the Rains of Castamere as our National anthem though.
2)Okay-as I said different governments change it. It's nothing to do with our British identity-the NHS something I do love however is extremely British.
3)No,Just No.
4)So now David Cameron hates the UK because he supports funding cuts? I said we don't need any new ships in a global recession because any student of military history knows that Aircraft carriers haven't been needed since 1983.
5)Lol Okay-I'll be extra passionate for you ;) That's the problem with us gays-we only care about gay marriage.

[britishboy]

Did you also know that Obama wasn't born in the US?
Another brilliant and reliable facts from you, remind me... Who do the Falklands belong to?
I was being sarcastic.... how did you not see that? It's called a joke
Oh when your wrong your joking.

Not Britian, I'd bet; not if he doesn't like (un-thethered) Capatalism and nuclear weaponry. It's simply not possible, man.
What do you mean?
Hmm so it is true you guys have a knife culture:D

Well i'm like this I feel a person should be able to defend themselves with anything be it bare hands are hand held weapons from guns to knives to what ever simply because if not and you get killed they can't bring you back.

Plus if the person is trying to kill you then they have forfitted their right to live.

I wouldn't call it a culture I've never met someone who carries a weapon of any kind, just something that is raising and the police want stamped out for obvious reasons.

But I argue this, if guns are regulated and restricted, neither you or your attacker would have a gun, would that not make you feel more safe?

Often when a man is attacked the attacker is trying to steal something or to hurt you, very rarely is the motive murder.

[Harry Smith]

Another brilliant and reliable facts from you, remind me... Who do the Falklands belong to?

I was being sarcastic for fuck's sake-I'm a fucking liberal-why would I say that someone I've openly supported in 2008 and 2012 isn't born in the US. It's something called Sarcasm-do you really think that I'd agree with Donald Trump. As I said about 10 minutes ago.

's actually terrible how badly people treat him. Accusing him of not being American purely because he's Black. It just shows how desperate some tea-party members are

[Zenos]

Another brilliant and reliable facts from you, remind me... Who do the Falklands belong to?

Oh when your wrong your joking.

What do you mean?


I wouldn't call it a culture I've never met someone who carries a weapon of any kind, just something that is raising and the police want stamped out for obvious reasons.

But I argue this, if guns are regulated and restricted, neither you or your attacker would have a gun, would that not make you feel more safe?

( Actually no ,not more safe then having a gun for the simple reason I am at home with nay mode of fighting from barehanded to weapons,but I reserve my right to own a gun just incase some drugged up nutter breaks into my home)

Often when a man is attacked the attacker is trying to steal something or to hurt you, very rarely is the motive murder.

Maybe so but I still want my guns,so even if I don't have to shoot then I can scare them off with them

[britishboy]

I was being sarcastic for fuck's sake-I'm a fucking liberal-why would I say that someone I've openly supported in 2008 and 2012 isn't born in the US. It's something called Sarcasm-do you really think that I'd agree with Donald Trump. As I said about 10 minutes ago.

I'm teasing you carm down;) No need for the French.

[britishboy]

Maybe so but I still want my guns,so even if I don't have to shoot then I can scare them off with them

Well that is just what we feel more safe with and would explain why non-Americans like me struggle to understand.

I feel more comfortable with nobody having guns whereas you feel most comfortable with a gun in your pocket, it's a difference of culture so all I can say is lets agree to disagree.

[Zenos]

Well that is just what we feel more safe with and would explain why non-Americans like me struggle to understand.

I feel more comfortable with nobody having guns whereas you feel most comfortable with a gun in your pocket, it's a difference of culture so all I can say is lets agree to disagree.

I do agree to disagree:)

[thatcountrykid]

I know-it's actually terrible how badly people treat him. Accusing him of not being American purely because he's Black. It just shows how desperate some tea-party members are




1) I like Jerusalem very much-that's a good song. I much prefer the Rains of Castamere as our National anthem though.
2)Okay-as I said different governments change it. It's nothing to do with our British identity-the NHS something I do love however is extremely British.
3)No,Just No.
4)So now David Cameron hates the UK because he supports funding cuts? I said we don't need any new ships in a global recession because any student of military history knows that Aircraft carriers haven't been needed since 1983.
5)Lol Okay-I'll be extra passionate for you ;) That's the problem with us gays-we only care about gay marriage.

I consider him un American because of what hes done to destroy the country. And you didnt answer me. Whos gonna take the guns if law enforcement refuses.

[Vlerchan]

I consider him un American because of what hes done to destroy the country.
How did he destroy the country?

You routinely make statements like this but never actually support them.

Whos gonna take the guns if law enforcement refuses.
There was still 32% of the Conneticut law-enforcers willing to do their jobs and enforce the law. I presume more would be drafted in if needed - National Guard, perhaps.

[thatcountrykid]

How did he destroy the country?

You routinely make statements like this but never actually support them.


There was still 32% of the Conneticut law-enforcers willing to do their jobs and enforce the law. I presume more would be drafted in if needed - National Guard, perhaps.

Hea trying to take away the second most important constitutional right. Obamacare. Immigration. And thats just 32% who rejistered their guns odds are they wont enforce gun control and most of national guard wont. People who want gun control dont usually join the military.

[Vlerchan]

Hea trying to take away the second most important constitutional right.
Obama is not attempting to institute a blanket-ban on all arms. The current-interpretation of the 2nd Amendment would still be upheld under his proposed-legislation.

Obamacare.
I'll give you this: ObamaCare hasn't worked as planned - and should be replaced with a system of Universal Healthcare. I wouldn't say it has destroyed the country however.

Immigration.
Please explain.

People who want gun control dont usually join the military.
Please provide verifiable evidence in support of this claim. Thanks.

[thatcountrykid]

Obama is not attempting to institute a blanket-ban on all arms. The current-interpretation of the 2nd Amendment would still be upheld under his proposed-legislation.


I'll give you this: ObamaCare hasn't worked as planned - and should be replaced with a system of Universal Healthcare. I wouldn't say it has destroyed the country however.


Please explain.


Please provide verifiable evidence in support of this claim. Thanks.

Once they begin to chip away from your basic rights what will stop them from taking more?

If the government will make everyone pay the same exact amount for healthcare than thats fine. Either pay or dont get any.

Allowing illegal immagrants in and not tequiring them to pay taxes. Giving them welfare while an illegal immagrant.

Look up the studies man

[Capto]

I think it's important to realize that most people simply are not rational.

[phuckphace]

*snip*

after some serious consideration I've settled on obtuse. this pointless back-and-forth exchange is wearisome

[Vlerchan]

Once they begin to chip away from your basic rights what will stop them from taking more?
I've already pointed out how they're not chipping away at your rights.

Though, (unfortunately) I presume the constitution will stop them from bringing-about the massive-reduction in gun-rights that I feel are needed.

Allowing illegal immagrants in[1] and not tequiring them to pay taxes[2][b/]. Giving them welfare while an illegal immagrant[b][3].
[1]: Bullshit, frankly. Obama had actually far-exceeded the deportation number of the entire Bush regime. (Source) (http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/234/) (Source) (http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-is-on-pace-to-deport-more-immigrants-in-his-first-term-than-bush-did-in-his-entire-presidency-2011-9) (Source) (http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/12/19/the-real-deal-on-obamas-deportation-record/) (Source) (http://www.latinbayarea.com/blog/obama-deported-more-immigrants-than-bush) (Source) (http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2010/05/20-11)

[2]: Bullshit, again. Illegal immigrants pay taxes; billions, actually. (Source) (http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/87xx/doc8711/12-6-immigration.pdf) They also consume billions in goods and services each year - Wikipedia places it at 150 billion, but it's unsourced - which lends itself towards economic growth.

[3]: Illegal immigrants contribute much-more towards social-welfare programs than they take out of it. (Source) (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/11/how-wealth-is-spread-distribution-of-government-benefits-services-taxes-by-income-quintile-in-us) (Source) (http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/social-security-risk-impact-immigration-reform-124712696.html)

Look up the studies man
You're the one making the claim.

I don't see why I should have to go out of my way to verify such. If it is not something that you just made up of the top-of-your-head then it would be as easy as just referring me to the source you discovered the report. So, yeah: keep looking.

[thatcountrykid]

I've already pointed out how they're not chipping away at your rights.

Though, (unfortunately) I presume the constitution will stop them from bringing-about the massive-reduction in gun-rights that I feel are needed.


[1]: Bullshit, frankly. Obama had actually far-exceeded the deportation number of the entire Bush regime. (Source) (http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/234/) (Source) (http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-is-on-pace-to-deport-more-immigrants-in-his-first-term-than-bush-did-in-his-entire-presidency-2011-9) (Source) (http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/12/19/the-real-deal-on-obamas-deportation-record/) (Source) (http://www.latinbayarea.com/blog/obama-deported-more-immigrants-than-bush) (Source) (http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2010/05/20-11)

[2]: Bullshit, again. Illegal immigrants pay taxes; billions, actually. (Source) (http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/87xx/doc8711/12-6-immigration.pdf) They also consume billions in goods and services each year - Wikipedia places it at 150 billion, but it's unsourced - which lends itself towards economic growth.

[3]: Illegal immigrants contribute much-more towards social-welfare programs than they take out of it. (Source) (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/11/how-wealth-is-spread-distribution-of-government-benefits-services-taxes-by-income-quintile-in-us) (Source) (http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/social-security-risk-impact-immigration-reform-124712696.html)


You're the one making the claim.

I don't see why I should have to go out of my way to verify such. If it is not something that you just made up of the top-of-your-head then it would be as easy as just referring me to the source you discovered the report. So, yeah: keep looking.

Where are you from man?

[xandyx]

Yeah no doubt, I'm not arguing the legality of owning a gun, and I still stand by my belief that hunting is outdated (although I do understand how many people do it), but no doubt. I respect your opinion

Well, I can't wait until all supermarkets and McDonald's close and you'll love hunting then. We didn't always have Pizza Huts to get our food, ya know. :)

People think meat comes from magic or something. I think hunting respects the animal MORE than other more "modern" ways. I think hunting levels the playing field, rather than to pen the animal up in the smallest cage, and feed it junk to make it fat just to eat it. And people think hunting is mean? At least with hunting they make you find them and work at getting the meat, like any predator in the food chain. Plus it's about 20x the amount and not so wasteful and expensive.

But, I'm a hunter and I guess I look at it different.

[Miserabilia]

Accidently guns have went off accidentally and many families have lost children, try telling them that guns can't go off by accident. You can kill someone with the push of a button nowadays with the right weapon.



I just did, and I wish you fully cited it.

Accidently guns have went off accidentally and many families have lost children, try telling them that guns can't go off by accident. You can kill someone with the push of a button nowadays with the right weapon.


Yes, that was actually exactly what I said, yes.

*Makes accusations instead of participating debate and walks out*
Oh well I guess now I am doing that same. Goodbye.

Well, I can't wait until all supermarkets and McDonald's close and you'll love hunting then. We didn't always have Pizza Huts to get our food, ya know. :)

People think meat comes from magic or something. I think hunting respects the animal MORE than other more "modern" ways. I think hunting levels the playing field, rather than to pen the animal up in the smallest cage, and feed it junk to make it fat just to eat it. And people think hunting is mean? At least with hunting they make you find them and work at getting the meat, like any predator in the food chain. Plus it's about 20x the amount and not so wasteful and expensive.

But, I'm a hunter and I guess I look at it different.

I'm pretty sure hunting is less efficient than mess bio production. But I'm cool with the whole hunting tradition.

[xandyx]

I'm pretty sure hunting is less efficient than mess bio production. But I'm cool with the whole hunting tradition.

I don't know. We get a deer, and the meat lasts our family for a long long time. Don't have to buy it for a long time if we didn't want to. And when your out there its like connected to nature, not warehouse meat. Ew. Tastes better, fresher, everything.

But whatever...everyone's different and that's ok.

[Miserabilia]

I don't know. We get a deer, and the meat lasts our family for a long long time. Don't have to buy it for a long time if we didn't want to. And when your out there its like connected to nature, not warehouse meat. Ew. Tastes better, fresher, everything.

But whatever...everyone's different and that's ok.

I know that it tastes better and it's good if you hunt and you can get around with that, but non-hunting people need to eat too and there's not enough hunting to provide that, plus hunting on that scale would cause disruption of the species

[ninja789]

really don't like

[Elvalight]

I think of guns as being a part of a dark side of humanity, and just as a dark side, can be used in different ways. Guns can be used to kill or protect, therefore if we take the guns away from the people, what happens to us? Death will happen one way or another, murderers will always find a way to kill good people, and if you take away such a strong defense, what good will be done? Guns and death are not pretty, but they exist, so it's about time we have a little faith in people and not treat adults as if they were mentally unstable maniacs. What ever happened to the right to bear arms?

[Harry Smith]

I think of guns as being a part of a dark side of humanity, and just as a dark side, can be used in different ways. Guns can be used to kill or protect, therefore if we take the guns away from the people, what happens to us? Death will happen one way or another, murderers will always find a way to kill good people, and if you take away such a strong defense, what good will be done? Guns and death are not pretty, but they exist, so it's about time we have a little faith in people and not treat adults as if they were mentally unstable maniacs. What ever happened to the right to bear arms?

What this http://images.t-nation.com/forum_images/7/c/7cdb0_ORIG-family_guy_bear_arms.jpg

I'm also calling you out on the claim that guns somehow protect because it's extremely over-exaggerated-just because you have a gun under your bed doesn't turn you into James Bond. A NYPD cop can only hit a moving target 37% of the time in combat-so what chance do you have?

I'd also like to point out as I've said before that a gun is 22 times more likely to be involved in an assault or unintentional killing than it is going for self defense

[Elvalight]

What this image (http://images.t-nation.com/forum_images/7/c/7cdb0_ORIG-family_guy_bear_arms.jpg)

I'm also calling you out on the claim that guns somehow protect because it's extremely over-exaggerated-just because you have a gun under your bed doesn't turn you into James Bond. A NYPD cop can only hit a moving target 37% of the time in combat-so what chance do you have?

I'd also like to point out as I've said before that a gun is 22 times more likely to be involved in an assault or unintentional killing than it is going for self defense

Obviously accidents will never just disappear, but for those who actually learn how to use a gun and have a permit should be able to own one.

[Harry Smith]

Obviously accidents will never just disappear, but for those who actually learn how to use a gun and have a permit should be able to own one.

No they don't-having a deadly weapon like a firearm greatly increasing the risk of fatal accidents-especially if children are in the home

[Elvalight]

No they don't-having a deadly weapon like a firearm greatly increasing the risk of fatal accidents-especially if children are in the home

But we still have the right to bear arms :/

[Zenos]

No they don't-having a deadly weapon like a firearm greatly increasing the risk of fatal accidents-especially if children are in the home

And i'd bet dollars to do donuts the parents NEVER taught the kids RESPECT for the firearm and responsible useage of it.

See if more children where taight that and at least took hunting to see that hey a gun once the tigger is pulled can kill their would be FAR LESS accidents fatal or otherwise with guns in the home!

YOU blame guns not the people who could with simple instruction of the children prevent such incidents but that's the socialist indoctrination!

[Harry Smith]

But we still have the right to bear arms :/

You sure do-ashame they didn't add the right to school massacres as the 3rd amendment

And i'd bet dollars to do donuts the parents NEVER taught the kids RESPECT for the firearm and responsible useage of it.

See if more children where taight that and at least took hunting to see that hey a gun once the tigger is pulled can kill their would be FAR LESS accidents fatal or otherwise with guns in the home!

YOU blame guns not the people who could with simple instruction of the children prevent such incidents but that's the socialist indoctrination!

I known someone who shot themselves with an air-rifle despite years of use and training. There's only so much education can do-it also doesn't stop a husband/partner in a fit of anger grabbing a gun and shooting his wife does it?

It's not socialist indoctrination-many non socialists e.g Barbara boxer, Pat Toomney, Ronald Reagans media officer all agree with gun control. But sure blame it on the socialists

[Zenos]

You sure do-ashame they didn't add the right to school massacres as the 3rd amendment



I known someone who shot themselves with an air-rifle despite years of use and training. There's only so much education can do-it also doesn't stop a husband/partner in a fit of anger grabbing a gun and shooting his wife does it?

It's not socialist indoctrination-many non socialists e.g Barbara boxer, Pat Toomney, Ronald Reagans media officer all agree with gun control. But sure blame it on the socialists



LOL well i'd blame it on the U.S.S.R. style Commies or the Nazis but they are defunct!

[lacrossebro14]

The second amendment was made to protect are God given rights from socialistic Communists Like you who want to deprive us of our rights and freedoms and before you worry about my country look at yours you guys can't even have knifes and the UK's violent crime rate is higher than America's so Ya tell me how your "gun control" is working for you and look back on history hitler proposed a gun control before he rounded up and killed 8 million Jews, Stalin proposed a gun control before he started a mass genocide of 10 million Russians look at China's dictator Mao before he turned China into a Communist country he proposed and enforced gun control after that he committed a mass genocide of the Chinese. Gun control only leads to Nothing but death and dictatorship.

[Vlerchan]

Where are you from man?

Rural Ireland.

I'm taking your lack of response to my actual points as some form of reluctant acceptance. You don't have a problem with that, right?

[Stronk Serb]

LOL well i'd blame it on the U.S.S.R. style Commies or the Nazis but they are defunct!

Typical, "WE DUN LAYK X SO LETS CALL IT COMMANISM!!!!!!!!111111!!!1!!!" is making you sound dumb.

[thatcountrykid]

Rural Ireland.

I'm taking your lack of response to my actual points as some form of reluctant acceptance. You don't have a problem with that, right?

Yeah i do have a problem with it because thats not what im doing. Im trying to find out where your from. Tell me if im wrong but northern ireland can have guns but the rest cant correct?

[Vlerchan]

Yeah i do have a problem with it because thats not what im doing. Im trying to find out where your from.
I'm failing to see why where I'm from holds any relevance to my points. But, okay: I'll play ball for now.

Tell me if im wrong but northern ireland can have guns[1] but the rest[2] cant correct?
[1]:

Northern Irish laws: http://www.psni.police.uk/index/advice-and-legislation/firearms/advice_firearms_know_the_law.htm

Irish laws: http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/cp/ireland

Possession is lawful in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. It's just difficult to acquire permits.

[2]: Ireland and Northern Ireland are too entirely independent countries. I just want to make that clear.

[thatcountrykid]

I'm failing to see why where I'm from holds any relevance to my points. But, okay: I'll play ball for now.


[1]:

Northern Irish laws: http://www.psni.police.uk/index/advice-and-legislation/firearms/advice_firearms_know_the_law.htm

Irish laws: http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/cp/ireland

Possession is lawful in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. It's just difficult to acquire permits.

[2]: Ireland and Northern Ireland are too entirely independent countries. I just want to make that clear.

Location can determine what kind of an experiance you have. Im assuming you havent been around them much and havent had the freedom of it so you dont quite understand why american dont want to loose our second most important right.

[Vlerchan]

Location can determine what kind of an experiance you have. Im assuming you havent been around them much and havent had the freedom of it so you dont quite understand why american dont want to loose our second most important right.

Cool.

Can you respond to the points I made previously now? Thanks.

[lacrossebro14]

Communism and socialism is Nothing but trouble it leads to Nothing but death and destruction

[Zenos]

Typical, "WE DUN LAYK X SO LETS CALL IT COMMANISM!!!!!!!!111111!!!1!!!" is making you sound dumb.

Do you not understand a Joke??:rolleyes:

[Stronk Serb]

Do you not understand a Joke??:rolleyes:

No, I have yet to fully understand the American sense of humor. It's kinda diferent from Serbian humor.

73% of gun commited crimes are done with legal, registered weapons. I say limit the access to the weapons so no random nutjob has access to them and focus more on confiscating illegal guns. A hunting rifle or a pistol is good enough for home defence. If you want something more... I think go serve a tour in the army. It's kinda like that here.

[Zenos]

No, I have yet to fully understand the American sense of humor. It's kinda diferent from Serbian humor.

73% of gun commited crimes are done with legal, registered weapons. I say limit the access to the weapons so no random nutjob has access to them and focus more on confiscating illegal guns. A hunting rifle or a pistol is good enough for home defence. If you want something more... I think go serve a tour in the army. It's kinda like that here.

LOL don't worry it. every nation has it's own sense of humor.

the problem with gun violence in America is a lot of times the gun was stolen from the home of a law abiding citizen which is why we take precautions at my home.