PDA

View Full Version : time for change?



AMF
11th February 09, 10:48 AM
If this is the wrong forum for this then I apologize in advance, and please move to the appropriate forum.

For any of you who own guns, you may want to read this bill that has been presented to the House of Representatives by the Obama administration. I know at least some of you are as interested in this as I am.


http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h45ih.txt.pdf


This is the bill in a nut-shell:

-You will have to carry a photo ID firearms license.

-A training class is required to be licensed.

-Disclosure of your storage method is required for license.

-A thumb print is required for license.

-Every sale recorded by the federal government.

-If you move, and don't tell the Attorney General within 60 days, you are a criminal.

-If a firearm is stolen and you don't report it, you are a criminal.

-There will be no grandfathered firearms.

-If you do not obtain a license and report every firearm you currently own, you are a criminal.

-There will be a license fee and a fee for the "services" provided at purchase time.

-Licenses must be renewed every 5 years.`

WTF??????

From the bill:

“gun violence in the United States is associated with the majority of homicides, over half the

suicides, and two-thirds of non-fatal violent injuries; and on the afternoon of May 10, 2007, Blair Holt, a junior at Julian High School in Chicago, was killed on a public bus riding home from school when he used his body to shield a girl who was in the line of fire after a young man boarded the bus and started shooting.”



This is nothing more than scare tactics and propaganda by the liberal media to act as catalyst to force bills like this through. I’d like to see them put up the statistics for the violent crime that is DETERRED by legal, law abiding citizens owning guns.


Your thoughts?

Yiktin Voxbane
11th February 09, 11:05 AM
Small price to pay if possession of your precious firearms is SO important .

HappyOldGuy
11th February 09, 11:20 AM
First of all, you flunk civics in a major way. This has nothing to do with the Obama administration. That's just your gunjunkie lobbyists trying to frighten you.

Second of all, related to that, this bill is unlikely to go anywhere.

Third of all, if you want me to support your right to own them, then grow up and accept responsibility for reasonable common sense regulations. There are a couple of things about that bill that seem over the top, but you gunjunkies have been sold such a retarded bill of goods that you cry about the sky falling every time it rains.

Sun Wukong
11th February 09, 11:31 AM
AMF: You suck at research.

That bill was put forward by Bobby Rush, House Rep. NOT OBAMA or anyone in the executive branch.

Also, that bill isn't as bad as you are making it sound. Primarily, just because a person is fined money doesn't mean they are a criminal.

Ever get a parking ticket, does that make you a criminal?

fes_fsa
11th February 09, 11:54 AM
i'm with HOG on this--i don't think this bill will go anywhere either.

gun laws are already pretty strict and they haven't really done anything to decrease the rate of gun violence.

AMF
11th February 09, 11:55 AM
AMF: You suck at research.

That bill was put forward by Bobby Rush, House Rep. NOT OBAMA or anyone in the executive branch.

Okay, I was just passing it along from a e-mail I got and thought I'd post it. Guess I should have added the disclaimer.

I have thoughts on this but am about to go hit the gym I will post later as I get the chance?

But one thought before I go:

Isn't gun control, by any name, still censorship? If this in fact gets passed, then what is next?

Alright I will check in in a few hours.

Sun Wukong
11th February 09, 12:07 PM
Not all gun control is bad. If you'd like an example, then I'd like to direct you to your nearest prison for references.

boondock lee
11th February 09, 12:09 PM
Okay, I was just passing it along from a e-mail I got and thought I'd post it. Guess I should have added the disclaimer.

I have thoughts on this but am about to go hit the gym I will post later as I get the chance?

But one thought before I go:

Isn't gun control, by any name, still censorship? If this in fact gets passed, then what is next?

Alright I will check in in a few hours.

No. It is not censorship. Censorship deals with freedom of speech, not with possession of firearms.

If it does get passed ( which is highly unlikely in its current state), then it gets passed. Exactly what are you implying?

Sun Wukong
11th February 09, 12:11 PM
If it does get passed ( which is highly unlikely in its current state), then it gets passed. Exactly what are you implying?

2nd amendment > Democracy ???

Sun Wukong
11th February 09, 12:18 PM
Seriously though, gun control is an important issue; this I acknowledge. It's one of those things that get's people really hot and bothered; especially the anti-gun control crowd who have a tendency to get force fed a lot of meaningless statistics and BS.

I get it, you want to keep your guns. For most of you, I want you to keep your guns too.

Part of me wishes that this bill would pass just because it'd make you all feel like I've felt for the last 7 years under GWB while watching everything great about the US of A get tossed in the shitter and repeatedly disgraced.

The rational part of me doesn't want it to pass, because it spends WAY, WAY too much political capital in an ineffectual way.

Edit: seriously though, I would like you to look at that email and ask yourself the question of whether or not that mistake about the author of the bill was made intentionally or accidentally? Then ponder what else you may have taken at face value.

fes_fsa
11th February 09, 12:24 PM
Isn't gun control, by any name, still censorship?
yeah... let's equate gun control to free speech.

speech is censored and sometimes punished for a reason. you can't go into a crowded building a yell "fire". states have verbal abuse laws. if you commit a crime, what you say, or what someone has witnessed you saying, can establish motive and therefore punish you more than if you'd just commited the crime randomly.

don't think speech is free, because it isn't. it's regulated, just like guns are... only not to such a degree as guns.

then again, words can't directly kill a person, can they?


If this in fact gets passed, then what is next?

nothing. it says nothing about the government regulating the classes of weapons available for purchase or trade... nothing about concealed carry laws... nothing about regulating the number of weapons you can own...

if you live in a state that already has 'laxed gun laws, then this bill won't really change anything. even now you have to go through the federal government's hoops to own a gun... so i don't see what the big deal is.

Sun Wukong
11th February 09, 12:41 PM
Like the American bill of rights and the constitution? How about the expectation of a remote semblance of honesty and good will toward the nation in the oval office?

I would like to feed you a map of france.

Sun Wukong
11th February 09, 01:08 PM
There's so much stupid in that post, I could never possibly adequately address the short comings therein and retain my daily allotment of sanity.

Yiktin Voxbane
11th February 09, 01:09 PM
constitution

Didn't Cheney wipe his ass with that .. ?

If memory serves right it was "It's only a piece of paper"(WTF paper ? )

HappyOldGuy
11th February 09, 01:17 PM
Don't censor my right to speak freely using a firearm!

Seriously though, if you are a bleeding heart with your panties in a bunch about gun ownership in the US, and that is your hot button issue you should probably leave the country because things aren't likely to change in your lifetime. Whether you agree with the NRA or not, they are one lobbying group that has their crap together.

Not unless you are living in the 70's. LaPierre has led them into political irrelevance by making them a republican pet group and getting involved in things having nothing to do with guns. That's part of why we have seen so many major (if stupid) gun control laws passed for the last 15 years or so.

MrBadGuy
11th February 09, 01:22 PM
Damn hippies tryin to take away my six shooters...

Spade: The Real Snake
11th February 09, 01:25 PM
2nd amendment > Democracy ???

Dare I say the Founding Fathers would have argued that you change the ">" to an "equal sign"?

Sun Wukong
11th February 09, 01:28 PM
at the time a virginia farmer with a musket was the ultimate battlefield innovation, i don't really think they had in mind nuclear submarines and M1 tanks.

WarPhalange
11th February 09, 01:42 PM
Gun control as an issue is muddled by noise from gang violence and people who just plain don't give a fuck about whether they are labeled as criminals or not. It's like trying to listen to a song through your shitty iPod earphones while you have a hundred dumbasses screaming at each other around you.

Yes, you have crazies who buy guns legally and still murder people. But if you are going to start an expensive program to stop gun violence, you should probably try to do as much as you can with your resources, i.e. stop gang violence and illegal sale of weapons. How do gangs get their money? A lot of it comes from drugs, right? If they couldn't make any money off of drugs, would they have any money to buy weapons with? PROTIP: No. Etc., etc., legalize marijuana.

So while the bill itself isn't that bad really (prevents people from stockpiling weapons ala Waco or something), it doesn't do much for the amount of money it will undoubtedly cost. People need to give up on pride and ideals and go for what will actually solve the fucking problem. We've already seen this with "abstinence-only" sex ed. No, you fucking dumbass redneck, not teaching your kids about sex does NOT mean they will never know about it or especially try it. Suck it up and talk to them about it and give them god damn condoms. Let's see: Deny your kids pleasure and in return risk pregnancy when they try it anyway, or let them have fun while almost eliminating the risk of pregnancy? No, you have to have your fucking moral high ground by unilaterally declaring sex as being bad (for some reason).

This is the same damn thing. You want to get rid of violence, you have to eliminate the reason why it's there in the first place. Is letting adults smoke marijuana legally and letting them buy it at liquor stores (or pharmacies, or whatever) better or worse than letting fucking children shoot each other so that some fucking piece of shit can capitalize on having more turf to sell his drugs to people anyway?

Spade: The Real Snake
11th February 09, 01:42 PM
at the time a virginia farmer with a musket was the ultimate battlefield innovation, i don't really think they had in mind nuclear submarines and M1 tanks.

Progress.

Ain't it a bitch?

WarPhalange
11th February 09, 01:42 PM
at the time a virginia farmer with a musket was the ultimate battlefield innovation, i don't really think they had in mind nuclear submarines and M1 tanks.

I've actually had arguments with people that say yes, they did in fact envision automatic weapons.

Yes, these people also denied evolution.

AMF
11th February 09, 02:04 PM
Okay I am back, squats are good for the soul, so is running; albeit not on the same day, my ass is dragging. But I digress.


No. It is not censorship. Censorship deals with freedom of speech, not with possession of firearms.

If it does get passed ( which is highly unlikely in its current state), then it gets passed. Exactly what are you implying?


I guess I am implying that freedom of speech and the right to keep and arm bears (j/K) are both freedoms/liberties.

If one gets muzzled to excess (stomped on), then what stops the government from doing the same to the other?


Disclosure of your storage method is required for license.

A thumb print is required for license

Where is the honor system? How are they going to regulate this, cameras in the home?


I am quoting the buddy who sent the original message to me here:

"Their proposed laws don’t do anything but try to put the blame on someone else if a kid gets a gun, or a convicted criminal gets a gun and commits a crime, instead of harsher punishments on criminals and treating kids who use guns illegally as adults… just my $0.02"

Shawarma
11th February 09, 02:56 PM
Funny, I thought the 2nd amendment is pretty clear. I read it as "right to bear arms within a well-regulated militia." Funny how much debate weaponwimps and gunfags can get out of something I find quite straightforward.

I also lol at people claiming the 2nd amendment gives them the right to bear arms for self-defense. Blastin' niggaz stealing yo shit really doesn't strike me as having been the founder's intent.

Kiko
11th February 09, 02:59 PM
Look, the real reason to be annoyed with Obama is that his speech the other night meant no new episode of HOUSE this week.

HappyOldGuy
11th February 09, 03:04 PM
I also lol at people claiming the 2nd amendment gives them the right to bear arms for self-defense. Blastin' niggaz stealing yo shit really doesn't strike me as having been the founder's intent.

You're forgetting the whole slavery thing. That was in fact one of the key bits.

Phrost
11th February 09, 03:08 PM
"Infringed" is a pretty easy word to understand, even after 200 years.

What's seemingly tougher for the average manchildren who expect their Government to run their lives, do their laundry, and ensure they get digital TV, is that Liberty and Government are natural enemies.

The only way to maintain your freedom is to ensure the people have more actual power than their government. This means that each citizen should be allowed to have the same primary armament as the average infantry soldier carries.

Even with nukes, tanks, and jets, it'd be hard to subjugate 200 million Americans that each carried their own battle rifle and had the will to fight and die for their freedom.

This bill is simply another attempt to progressively chip away at the balance of power between citizens and their government, in a short-sighted attempt at earning more votes by creating a greater need for us to depend on them for our own safety. The chips being chiseled off in this case, are those of privacy, and the idea that the Government shouldn't have a centralized shopping list of firearms by owner in case it wants to start getting busy with the "Infringing".

HappyOldGuy
11th February 09, 03:16 PM
Leaving aside the delusional minuteman fantasies, Phrost is actually articulating the reason why this bill is a bad idea. I think in principle something like this bill is a good idea, but as a practical matter any bill like this is also going to need some "give back" to the gun nuts so that they don't feel like this is big government imposing this on them.

Spade: The Real Snake
11th February 09, 03:20 PM
Funny, I thought the 2nd amendment is pretty clear. I read it as "right to bear arms within a well-regulated militia." Funny how much debate weaponwimps and gunfags can get out of something I find quite straightforward.

I also lol at people claiming the 2nd amendment gives them the right to bear arms for self-defense. Blastin' niggaz stealing yo shit really doesn't strike me as having been the founder's intent.
I also don't think the original intent of the 1st Amendment forsaw Perez Hilton MSPaining penises on a celebrity's forehead and instantaneously submitting it for millions of people to view and calling it "Freedom of the Press".

Fact is, it is the way it is now.



I've actually had arguments with people that say yes, they did in fact envision automatic weapons.
Ever wish you had a fucking Death Ray? I don't think it is too far off to think some fucker in the Revolutionary War say, "Goddamit it would be easier if I could shoot more of these musket balls at once."

Phrost
11th February 09, 03:20 PM
Leaving aside the delusional minuteman fantasies, Phrost is actually articulating the reason why this bill is a bad idea. I think in principle something like this bill is a good idea, but as a practical matter any bill like this is also going to need some "give back" to the gun nuts so that they don't feel like this is big government imposing this on them.

The only thing delusional about what I said is the idea that the current crop of doughy Americans are capable of giving two shits about real freedom as long as they get to keep their comfy lifestyle.

Does it really intimidate you that much that there are people who are willing to die, if necessary, for what their principles? Is it because you know you're too fucking spineless to ever make such a commitment?

elipson
11th February 09, 03:23 PM
The only thing delusional about what I said is the idea that the current crop of doughy Americans are capable of giving two shits about real freedom as long as they get to keep their comfy lifestyle.

Whereas the truely "free" americans would rather have overpriced schools and healthcare if it meant that the government would stop "oppressing" them with a higher quality of life?

Phrost
11th February 09, 03:25 PM
Whereas the truely "free" americans would rather have overpriced schools and healthcare if it meant that the government would stop "oppressing" them with a higher quality of life?

In order to have someone wipe your ass for you, you have to first pull down your pants for them.

elipson
11th February 09, 03:27 PM
Because its relevant:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_liberty

Positive vs Negative liberty.

Phrost
11th February 09, 03:29 PM
Because its relevant:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_liberty

Positive vs Negative liberty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_Words

Please fucking quantify someone's "potential" for me, mathematically.

HappyOldGuy
11th February 09, 04:03 PM
Does it really intimidate you that much that there are people who are willing to die, if necessary, for what their principles? Is it because you know you're too fucking spineless to ever make such a commitment?

What about my constant mocking makes you think I'm intimidated? I'm annoyed and amused by people who let themselves be conned into giving up real freedoms as long as they get to keep their imaginary ability to take them back "someday." There is nothing wrong with people wanting gun rights. The problem is that people who think that gun rights are what protects the other ones seem to be willing to give those up as long as they can keep their guns.

Zendetta
11th February 09, 04:06 PM
Berlin believed that positive liberty nearly always gave rise to the abuse of power

I agree with Berlin.

Cullion
11th February 09, 04:08 PM
You could combine Phrost's and HOG's ideologies into an unholy union by only allowing people who were serving or had been honourably discharged from the armed forces the right to bear arms.

elipson
11th February 09, 04:09 PM
Wasn't trying to distract.

Was just thinking that this conversation seemed to be moving into the debate of positive vs negative liberty, and i was impatient so I decided to just jump to that stage. Phrost clearly believes in the idea of negative liberty (i dont like the term negative. Passive would be a better choice IMO). And there is nothing wrong with that opinion.

Quantify your "right" to own firearms, mathematically.

HappyOldGuy
11th February 09, 04:11 PM
You could combine Phrost's and HOG's ideologies into an unholy union by only allowing people who were serving or had been honourably discharged from the armed forces the right to bear arms.

I'm not sure where you are getting that? It would be more like only the people who had honorably served and the people who protested against their warmongering ways were allowed to bear arms.

elipson
11th February 09, 04:13 PM
So the only persons allowed to own guns would be the military types and those who hate the military types?

Ohhhhhhhh now THAT would be a fun place to live in!

HappyOldGuy
11th February 09, 04:14 PM
So the only persons allowed to own guns would be the military types and those who hate the military types?

Ohhhhhhhh now THAT would be a fun place to live in!

Basically, the people who give a shit, one way or the other.

Yeah, it would be amusing.

Phrost
11th February 09, 04:50 PM
What about my constant mocking makes you think I'm intimidated? I'm annoyed and amused by people who let themselves be conned into giving up real freedoms as long as they get to keep their imaginary ability to take them back "someday." There is nothing wrong with people wanting gun rights. The problem is that people who think that gun rights are what protects the other ones seem to be willing to give those up as long as they can keep their guns.

There's nothing imaginary about the founders intentions for an armed populace as a check against tyranny. An insurgency armed with little more than rifles similar to what the military has can do more than just resist, should the need arise.

And if you haven't gathered that I'm not exactly in lock-step with much of the assholes who comprise the NRA and even the Republican party then there's not much point in us discussing anything, really.

Phrost
11th February 09, 04:52 PM
Basically, the people who give a shit, one way or the other.

Yeah, it would be amusing.

People who aren't willing to put their lives on the line for their rights fully deserve having them taken away.

SBG-ape
11th February 09, 05:10 PM
If this in fact gets passed, then what is next?


It is a slipper slope. If we allow the government to require gun owners to be licenced & trained then the next thing you know they'll be expecting the same of car owners & that's just crazy. /snarky

Phrost
11th February 09, 05:10 PM
Quantify your "right" to own firearms, mathematically.

Unlike an abstract concept such as "potential", rights don't have to be explained, or quantified; they exist as a matter of Natural Law.

EuropIan
11th February 09, 05:13 PM
homemade bombs > guns


Law is too specific.

The course is a good idea though

elipson
11th February 09, 05:21 PM
Hahaha and the "Right" to own a firearm is somehow a Natural Law?!?!?!?!

Bahahahaha!!!!

The American "right" to own firearms is anachronistic and based on the political reality of the time that a) Britain liked trying to conquer everything and b) politics until this point tended to create dictatorships. At the time it was created it made perfect sense in a pragmatic fasion. This "right" was political and strategic. Don't kid yourself into thinking its a right under Natural Law just because Americans have deemed it so.

HappyOldGuy
11th February 09, 05:23 PM
There's nothing imaginary about the founders intentions for an armed populace as a check against tyranny. An insurgency armed with little more than rifles similar to what the military has can do more than just resist, should the need arise.

That part is a little imaginary, but it's not completely silly. The real imaginary part is that almost all the people who believe it have never bucked the system in their entire lives, but they think that the trivial act of owning a firearm means that they aren't sheep.

Cullion
11th February 09, 05:49 PM
What you mean by bucking the system, HoG ?

HappyOldGuy
11th February 09, 05:55 PM
What you mean by bucking the system, HoG ?

Trying to shape the political system in any way. I don't just mean hippy style anti-authoritarian stuff.

Cullion
11th February 09, 05:57 PM
Has it ever occurred to you that lots of people liked America the way it was, and the only thing they might be worried about is people trying to change it by taking away freedoms granted to them by the constitution?

HappyOldGuy
11th February 09, 06:03 PM
Has it ever occurred to you that lots of people liked America the way it was, and the only thing they might be worried about is people trying to change it by taking away freedoms granted to them by the constitution?

The "liked america the way it was" part has some validity, but the overwhelming majority of the gun nuts and pretty much all of their political organizations were cheering and waving flags the last 8 years while little freedoms like habeus corpus, the right not to be tortured into confession etc were erased. So...no.

elipson
11th February 09, 06:08 PM
Thats because the only two political choices were "have guns and be tortured" or "no torture and perversions of social freedoms, but no more guns either".

Guess that country would be better served with a third party perhaps? Maybe one that didn't try to take away guns but also respected all the other rights of a person in the society?

Silly two party system....

Cullion
11th February 09, 06:11 PM
The "liked america the way it was" part has some validity, but the overwhelming majority of the gun nuts and pretty much all of their political organizations were cheering and waving flags the last 8 years while little freedoms like habeus corpus, the right not to be tortured into confession etc were erased. So...no.

That's because they were mislead by sophistry and heavy propaganda. I think most of them can see it was wrong now.

HappyOldGuy
11th February 09, 06:13 PM
Thats because the only two political choices were "have guns and be tortured" or "no torture and perversions of social freedoms, but no more guns either".

Guess that country would be better served with a third party perhaps? Maybe one that didn't try to take away guns but also respected all the other rights of a person in the society?

Silly two party system....

This was an amusing jab, but let's not go getting our peanut butter in our chocolate.

Domite
11th February 09, 06:44 PM
Hahaha and the "Right" to own a firearm is somehow a Natural Law?!?!?!?!

Bahahahaha!!!!

The American "right" to own firearms is anachronistic and based on the political reality of the time that a) Britain liked trying to conquer everything and b) politics until this point tended to create dictatorships. At the time it was created it made perfect sense in a pragmatic fasion. This "right" was political and strategic. Don't kid yourself into thinking its a right under Natural Law just because Americans have deemed it so.

Really? What magically happened yesterday that makes facism less of a threat?

Sun Wukong
12th February 09, 03:04 AM
People who aren't willing to put their lives on the line for their rights fully deserve having them taken away.
While I admire your stoicism to a degree, do you honestly believe that?

It's one thing to hold such a belief for yourself, but another entirely to hold that belief in regard to how other people choose to live their lives. There is nothing wrong with a man who has given up violence as an option and has no place in his life for a weapon of death. Guns aren't designed to do anything but kill. While I support a man's right to kill in self defense, I do not support the right of a the armed to enforce their will on the unarmed, which you have indirectly voiced support for.

In your own words, "People who aren't willing to put their lives on the line for the rights deserve to have them taken away." To you, this unwillingness to arm one's self must seem like cowardice, however those who readily give up their lives have already given up everything except their principles.

Those who do not share those principles are not necessarily cowards, but may be merely smart enough to know when a risk and reward are not equitable values. They may also hold life in reverence so that killing to them seems like an act far worse than suffering the slings and arrows of injustice.

I think, I could agree with you if you merely changed what you said to "People who aren't willing to fight for their rights are going to have a hard time keeping them." Which is not to say that it will be impossible or that they deserve abuse for their unwillingness to resist tyranny, but rather that being smart enough to know when to "fold" on a wager of force in contention is a fine attribute in itself.

It is not always necessary to lay down one's life or even endanger it in the pursuit of maintaining their freedoms.

It is also not necessary to be willing to risk ones life to fight for their rights, nor should it be required for a person to be deserving of the respect that law abiding peaceful citizens should have.

People must find compromises with their ideals. A man that can't appreciate gentleness and peace seeking people simply isn't much of a man in my not so humble opinion. While I can allow myself to loathe my ideological counter-parts for their own weaknesses of vanity, I cannot allow myself to completely loose sight of my own principles in the trade off.

Simply put, I would like to posit that the lives and rights of vulnerable innocents are far too valuable to be cast off simply for their unwillingness to die. If anything, I find it a triumph of the human spirit to seek to live despite the hardships that life frequently visits upon them.

GuiltySpark
12th February 09, 03:35 AM
I think Sun Wukong brought up a great point.


at the time a virginia farmer with a musket was the ultimate battlefield innovation, i don't really think they had in mind nuclear submarines and M1 tanks.

Weapons progress. Is a farmer having a musket on the same level as someone having anti-tank weapons and shit capable of blasting out thousands of rounds a minute?
I'm not sure why the 2nd amendment was created.
Was it so that citizens would have weapons to oppose an invading army (Brits).
Was it to armt he population so that if the government oversteeped their authority the population could rise up and overthrow the evil government?
Both?

In the second possibility I find it rather detached from reality.
American citizens taking up arms to overthrow the government? Not happening.

From the armored vehicles to helicopter gunships to UAVs with thermal imaging to Satalites that can zoom in on someones licence plate? I think the overthrow the government idea doesn't hold much water.

All that said I don't think guncontrol is a bad thing but it's about balance IMO.
I can't help but believe that carrying an assault rifle simply because you were born under the stars and strips is a bad idea. People SHOULD prove a degree of responsibility, skill and behavior.


On to the OPs post.

-You will have to carry a photo ID firearms license.
Sure why not. You need one to drive a car.

-A training class is required to be licensed.
Same reason as above

-Disclosure of your storage method is required for license.
Seems like a good idea. I think all firearms should be stored in a safe and not under a bed or in a closet.

-A thumb print is required for license.
Sure. Helps against criminals possessing them, no?

-Every sale recorded by the federal government.
No real points for or against. If this WERE the case Iwould want very strict information storage guidelines so it doesn't turn into a shopping spree for online criminals.

-If you move, and don't tell the Attorney General within 60 days, you are a criminal.
Sure.

-If a firearm is stolen and you don't report it, you are a criminal.
I agree. That weapon could be used in a crime.

-There will be no grandfathered firearms.
Don't agree

-If you do not obtain a license and report every firearm you currently own, you are a criminal.
Well if it goes into being a law, thats what happens when you break a law, sorta

-There will be a license fee and a fee for the "services" provided at purchase time.
Nope.Shouldn't be any fee's. It costs us Canadians like $100 to register a weapon and the registery is SO fucked up. Not a single one of my weapons registrations is accurate. Wrong name to wrong weapon type to wrong address. Their fucked. We paid 2 billion dollars on a registry system before even ONE weapon was registered.

-Licenses must be renewed every 5 years.
Sure but at no cost.

Phrost
12th February 09, 10:38 AM
Hahaha and the "Right" to own a firearm is somehow a Natural Law?!?!?!?!

Bahahahaha!!!!

The American "right" to own firearms is anachronistic and based on the political reality of the time that a) Britain liked trying to conquer everything and b) politics until this point tended to create dictatorships. At the time it was created it made perfect sense in a pragmatic fasion. This "right" was political and strategic. Don't kid yourself into thinking its a right under Natural Law just because Americans have deemed it so.

The right to preserve my own individual sovereignty is done so down the barrel of a gun.

If you feel this right is anachronistic then you must see enslavement as the bold, progressive future to come. It's all well and good to feel safe under the warm blanket of western society. But it's beautifully ironic that the very social order that allows you to smugly sit there and turn your nose up at those willing to zealously guard freedom, was founded by such men armed with guns.

Without firearms in the hands of private citizens we wouldn't be where we are today.

Also, you're a fucking coward.

Phrost
12th February 09, 10:39 AM
-You will have to carry a photo ID firearms license.
Sure why not. You need one to drive a car.

-A training class is required to be licensed.
Same reason as above

-Disclosure of your storage method is required for license.
Seems like a good idea. I think all firearms should be stored in a safe and not under a bed or in a closet.

-A thumb print is required for license.
Sure. Helps against criminals possessing them, no?

-Every sale recorded by the federal government.
No real points for or against. If this WERE the case Iwould want very strict information storage guidelines so it doesn't turn into a shopping spree for online criminals.

-If you move, and don't tell the Attorney General within 60 days, you are a criminal.
Sure.

-If a firearm is stolen and you don't report it, you are a criminal.
I agree. That weapon could be used in a crime.

-There will be no grandfathered firearms.
Don't agree

-If you do not obtain a license and report every firearm you currently own, you are a criminal.
Well if it goes into being a law, thats what happens when you break a law, sorta

-There will be a license fee and a fee for the "services" provided at purchase time.
Nope.Shouldn't be any fee's. It costs us Canadians like $100 to register a weapon and the registery is SO fucked up. Not a single one of my weapons registrations is accurate. Wrong name to wrong weapon type to wrong address. Their fucked. We paid 2 billion dollars on a registry system before even ONE weapon was registered.

-Licenses must be renewed every 5 years.
Sure but at no cost.
Hi.

Fuck you.

EuropIan
12th February 09, 10:42 AM
The right to preserve my own individual sovereignty is done so down the barrel of a gun.

If you feel this right is anachronistic then you must see enslavement as the bold, progressive future to come. It's all well and good to feel safe under the warm blanket of western society. But it's beautifully ironic that the very social order that allows you to smugly sit there and turn your nose up at those willing to zealously guard freedom, was founded by such men armed with guns.

Without firearms in the hands of private citizens we wouldn't be where we are today.

Also, you're a fucking coward.
Home made bombs are superior for the things you list, save for protection vs home invasion.

Guns can help though.

Phrost
12th February 09, 10:49 AM
Home made bombs are superior for the things you list, save for protection vs home invasion.


The Department of Homeland Security actively monitors purchases of household items that could possibly be used in creating explosives. Such monitoring is only going to dramatically increase in the future as technologies for it improve, combined with a seeming rush to expand the power and reach of the federal government by both parties.

200 million people armed with the same or equivalent primary battle rifle used by the military would have a decent chance at resisting even the most powerful military in history.

Phrost
12th February 09, 10:58 AM
One more point:

Some of you are either failing to grasp or being willfully ignorant of the possibility that the world may not always be such a wonderful kindergarten of a place as it genuinely is at the moment.

99% of the people posting on this forum, myself included, have never known true hardship, faced the prospect of starvation, or suffered under tyranny. Consequently, for most of you, such things don't really enter into your frame of reference except as "things that happen in other parts of the world, but not here".

It wouldn't take much for the comfy western society to come tumbling down; an unfortunate series of natural disasters, maybe a dirty bomb or two, a major economic collapse; all of these things are real possibilities.

And if shit ever does go south, you fucking pussies who think your Government will always be there to wipe your ass are going to find that instead of the comforting sensation of a soft wad of paper back there, there's a massive bureaucratic cock with no plans to buy you dinner afterwards.

Katrina was just a warning. If you chose not to heed it then I have no fucking sympathy for you.

HappyOldGuy
12th February 09, 11:53 AM
One more point:

Some of you are either failing to grasp or being willfully ignorant of the possibility that the world may not always be such a wonderful kindergarten of a place as it genuinely is at the moment.

99% of the people posting on this forum, myself included, have never known true hardship, faced the prospect of starvation, or suffered under tyranny. Consequently, for most of you, such things don't really enter into your frame of reference except as "things that happen in other parts of the world, but not here".

It wouldn't take much for the comfy western society to come tumbling down; an unfortunate series of natural disasters, maybe a dirty bomb or two, a major economic collapse; all of these things are real possibilities.

And if shit ever does go south, you fucking pussies who think your Government will always be there to wipe your ass are going to find that instead of the comforting sensation of a soft wad of paper back there, there's a massive bureaucratic cock with no plans to buy you dinner afterwards.

Katrina was just a warning. If you chose not to heed it then I have no fucking sympathy for you.

Then I'll have to kill one of my neighbors and take their gun. Looking around the neighborhood, I like my chances.

elipson
12th February 09, 12:39 PM
Also, you're a fucking coward.

Go fuck yourself. The only thing that kept me outta the Canadian forces not passing the medical exam because of terrible knees and bad migraines. Fight and bitch all I want, the army docs wouldn't let me in. So go fuck yourself.

Not wanting inbred fucking morons running around with guns just because some backwoods hick thinks he has a "right" to own doesn't make anyone a coward.

Idiots in the country with a rifle and thugs with handguns aren't protecting my god damned freedom.

My freedoms are protected by the rule of law, traditions in democracy, an increase in telecommunications like the internet giving the power of media back to the people, an organized media that is in theory unbiased free, and military loyal not to a person but a system (constitution or bill of rights), a police force loyal to the rule of law and an independant judiciary.

You really think having a stock pile of guns makes you more free!?!?!?!?!?!? The right for a random fucking person to own a gun doesn't gaurantee shit!!!

Zendetta
12th February 09, 01:16 PM
Not wanting inbred fucking morons running around with guns just because some backwoods hick thinks he has a "right" to own doesn't make anyone a coward.

It may not make you a coward, but under our Constitution it definitely puts you at odds with the Rule of Law, which in fact does insure that Right.

That mythical "inbred moron" you are so scared of is a citizen entitled to said Right. The people that might put you in danger are often owning or at least carrying that gun illegally already, so you gun grabbing paranoia won't make you any safer.

So Gun-phobic types really are trading a Real Right (the Right to protect yourself, your family, and your individual sovereignty) for an Illusion of Safety.

Phrost
12th February 09, 01:28 PM
My freedoms are protected by the rule of law traditions in democracy, an increase in telecommunications like the internet giving the power of media back to the people, an organized media that is in theory unbiased free, and military loyal not to a person but a system (constitution or bill of rights), a police force loyal to the rule of law and an independant judiciary.
Because all of those things are permanent, and incorruptible. From now until the stars burn out this is how things will be and you can rely on your government, economy, and environment to always function as intended.

Right? After all, the horrible alternative is being prepared to rely on *gasp* yourself.



You really think having a stock pile of guns makes you more free!?!?!?!?!?!? The right for a random fucking person to own a gun doesn't gaurantee shit!!!
A firearm is a tool for ending the life of another creature. It can be used against an animal you want to kill for food, a criminal who wants to harm you, or a tyrant that wants to oppress you.

If guns were not threats to government power then every tyrant for the last 200 years wouldn't have taken steps to remove them from the hands of the people they sought to subject.

But go on living your life in intellectual cowardice, clinging to your ironic faith in the perpetual stability of a form of government created by people who believed in having a well-armed population in order to serve as a hedge against threats to it.

They knew it wouldn't last forever. They knew that the Tree of Liberty needed to be regularly refreshed with the blood of tyrants. They knew that a powerful, centralized government was nothing more than a tyrant's honeypot.

I sincerely hope that if the shit ever really does hit the fan, it's followed shortly after by the testicles you don't deserve to own.

EuropIan
12th February 09, 01:34 PM
The Department of Homeland Security actively monitors purchases of household items that could possibly be used in creating explosives. Such monitoring is only going to dramatically increase in the future as technologies for it improve, combined with a seeming rush to expand the power and reach of the federal government by both parties.

200 million people armed with the same or equivalent primary battle rifle used by the military would have a decent chance at resisting even the most powerful military in history.

Yeah, um, no.

Unless you envision filling out a questionaire everytime you buy a bottle of bleach.

HappyOldGuy
12th February 09, 01:43 PM
So Gun-phobic types really are trading a Real Right (the Right to protect yourself, your family, and your individual sovereignty)
Are you getting into newfangled implied rights stuff, cause none of those things are mentioned in my copy.



for an Illusion of Safety.
This is your good argument. I don't understand why you guys keep insisting on bringing up the shitty ones.

Zendetta
12th February 09, 02:32 PM
Are you getting into newfangled implied rights stuff, cause none of those things are mentioned in my copy.

Well, the Supreme Court sees it my way, but I'm actually going beyond the Constitution. I assert that the right to use force, including deadly force, to defend your person, property, and family is a principal of Natural Law.

I've also tried to point out before that I no longer see a clear distinction - Tyranny is Tyranny. It really doesn't matter to me whether one lives in an oppressive county or a Thug-ridden neighborhood.


This is your good argument. I don't understand why you guys keep insisting on bringing up the shitty ones.

The right to kill someone who is trying to kill me is a pretty solid point in my book.

HappyOldGuy
12th February 09, 02:58 PM
The right to kill someone who is trying to kill me is a pretty solid point in my book.
Moral right, not legal right. I think it's important to keep those things distinct. Your legal rights to self defense are governed by statute. I agree 100% about the moral right, just don't try now and fold that back into the 2nd amendment legal right.

Robot Jesus
12th February 09, 03:36 PM
since we are on the topic of revolution, what would cause you to revolt.

EuropIan
12th February 09, 03:40 PM
Total ban and subsequent confiscation of firearms.

/irony

taijiamn
12th February 09, 03:52 PM
Moral right, not legal right. I think it's important to keep those things distinct. Your legal rights to self defense are governed by statute. I agree 100% about the moral right, just don't try now and fold that back into the 2nd amendment legal right.

Could you elaborate on this a bit? How, if you have a moral right to protect yourself, do you not justify keeping the means necessary to protecting yourself?

HappyOldGuy
12th February 09, 03:56 PM
Could you elaborate on this a bit? How, if you have a moral right to protect yourself, do you not justify keeping the means necessary to protecting yourself?
You do according to my moral beliefs, but certain people (hi Phrost) keep mixing this up and claiming that the second amendment provides that all these wierd constitutional rights beyond what the text says.

MrBadGuy
12th February 09, 04:00 PM
Fact:

If you don't have a gun, you have no way of keeping the king of england from walking right into the middle of your god damn living room and saying "Whats up asshole, I'M TAKIN IT ALL BACK!"

Zendetta
12th February 09, 04:03 PM
Moral right, not legal right. I think it's important to keep those things distinct. Your legal rights to self defense are governed by statute. I agree 100% about the moral right, just don't try now and fold that back into the 2nd amendment legal right.

I see your point, BUT the problem is that attempts to undermine the legal rights enshrined in the second amendment will also constrain the aforementioned moral right.

Case in point: my feeling is that our local gun laws violate the 2nd Amendment. My roommate was mugged at gunpoint a week ago. IF he had been carrying a handgun (illegal in Oakland) he would have had to have shot first to insure his safety. Had he done this, HE would be the criminal, subject to imprisonment.

When a nation's laws run counter to natural/moral law, civil society will begin to erode. A nanny state (or anarchy) is a likely result.

And again, Tyranny is Tryanny - whether its Brown Shirts or Crips, the principal of armed coercion is the same.

taijiamn
12th February 09, 04:10 PM
... he would have had to have shot first to insure his safety. Had he done this, HE would be the criminal, subject to imprisonment...

Is that the way the state laws work in CA? Makes me happy to be a Texan.

HOG - what extra rights are you talking about? I think I missed something.

Zendetta
12th February 09, 04:24 PM
He's talking about interpretations of the Constitution that give implied rights beyond the letter of the law/strict intent.

Like Roe Vs Wade prtecting the right to have an abortion (which I beleive in) based on the implied Right to Privacy (which I think is a very weak legal justification based on rather creative interpretations of what is actually stated in the document)

Re. Texas vs California - a PERFECT symbol for the culture war. In Texas you can use your liberties to shoot a home invader. In California, its not (very) illegal to grow and smoke a medicinally useful plant.

Each has half of the puzzle, but insists its the Big Picture.

Which is why I support the Guns and Dope Party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns_and_Dope_Party

Harpy
12th February 09, 04:25 PM
People who aren't willing to put their lives on the line for their rights fully deserve having them taken away.

This deserves its own thread. I don't agree with you either Phrost.

HappyOldGuy
12th February 09, 04:25 PM
Specifically the implied right to stockpile arms for the purposes of overthrowing the government.

Harpy
12th February 09, 04:28 PM
Not so far from the concept of jihad is it?

taijiamn
12th February 09, 04:37 PM
Specifically the implied right to stockpile arms for the purposes of overthrowing the government.

Isn't that just part of the "spirit" of the amendment? Another part being, the capablitiy to have personal arms ready for the defense of the country, and defense of self.

HappyOldGuy
12th February 09, 04:40 PM
Isn't that just part of the "spirit" of the amendment? Another part being, the capablitiy to have personal arms ready for the defense of the country, and defense of self.
I was just a seance last night where we tried to contact the spirit of CPC 653.20-653.28. Bitch took my wallet and ran.

taijiamn
12th February 09, 04:46 PM
I guess I deserve that, I suppose I could have put in, the intent of the writers, which can still provoke the same response but you know what I mean.

HappyOldGuy
12th February 09, 04:51 PM
I guess I deserve that, I suppose I could have put in, the intent of the writers, which can still provoke the same response but you know what I mean.
This assumes that the writers had one unified intent. In general, and very much in this specific case, that just isn't true. It also assumes that we should care what their thoughts were as opposed to following the mechanisms that they laid out for resolving disputes (congress and the courts).

Phrost
12th February 09, 05:20 PM
Not so far from the concept of jihad is it?
Except for the fact that one is the logical response to a series of specific events and the other is a call to murder in the name of an invisible sky uncle.

If you don't think it's your duty to defend your rights, then I sincerely hope that you lose them.

Harpy
12th February 09, 05:36 PM
Phrost - you make it seem like an 'all or nothing' stance. I defend my rights as I see fit and where it won't upset the equilibrium of having to co-exist with other members of society.

I have yet to come across a situation in my life where I felt the need to die for a cause.

Cullion
12th February 09, 05:58 PM
Except for the fact that one is the logical response to a series of specific events and the other is a call to murder in the name of an invisible sky uncle.

If you don't think it's your duty to defend your rights, then I sincerely hope that you lose them.

She sort of has an implied point that you're missing.

You're actually the same as her. You didn't open fire on any cops or federal agents when the Patriot act was passed. 'Orange Alert' didn't have you stockpiling canned food and ammunition ready to take on the oppressors.

What kind of tyranny would it take before you opened fire ?

<deliberate douchey point>

What seperates you from basically being as placid as Lily but with a few Elmoresque fantasies about defending your rights one day and the occasional Heinlein quote?

Where's the line in the sand at which when crossed turns Phrost into a suburban guerilla?

Because I don't think most people really have one, as long as liberty is degraded gradually enough. See all those things you (and I) don't like about the UK?

That's America in 20 years.

Don't tell me that voting for Obama once Ron Paul was smeared and censored out of the race was your best defence of liberty.

</deliberate doucheness>

Harpy
12th February 09, 06:07 PM
Phrost - so if I should have the right to bear arms equal to those of the American military, I definitely should be able to strap some bombs to myself and claim my right to die in defence of my right to live the way I choose to. Right? Seems like a logical response to me...

Cullion
12th February 09, 06:15 PM
Yes, it is. However, that's not the same as having the right to strap on bombs to prevent others from living the way they choose.

Harpy
12th February 09, 06:17 PM
Incidental damage.

Cullion
12th February 09, 06:19 PM
No, you've missed the point. If the prime purpose of you blowing yourself up near a target is because you want to stop other people from allowing their women to wear miniskirts, that isn't the same as being willing to blow yourself up defending women's right to wear miniskirts.

Harpy
12th February 09, 06:21 PM
Is it wrong that I'm laughing? I get your point Cullion.

Harpy
12th February 09, 06:49 PM
Ewww, too much detail. Though I'm not suprised you're the type of guy who faints...

Harpy
12th February 09, 07:24 PM
Yeah right, fainter.

Cullion
12th February 09, 07:28 PM
NoB, let's have a time out on your gushing about your girlfriend all the time plz, or I will be forced to seduce her by IM.

Harpy
12th February 09, 07:30 PM
So Cullion, if I feel NoB isn't allowing me to live a life where I have the right not to hear about his post-coital fainting, can I blow myself up at his house?

Scrapper
12th February 09, 07:31 PM
Point of fact, most of the stuff that bill requires is already required in CT. I went through it all. It sucked.

Zendetta
12th February 09, 07:33 PM
fainter

LOL, pwnt.

Harpy
12th February 09, 07:38 PM
Point of fact, most of the stuff that bill requires is already required in CT. I went through it all. It sucked.

The main thing though is you now legally own firearms and instead of whining about the paperwork you went ahead and did it because you believed in your right. I respect that and don't see why other firearm owners just can't get on with it.

Cullion
12th February 09, 07:38 PM
So Cullion, if I feel NoB isn't allowing me to live a life where I have the right not to hear about his post-coital fainting, can I blow myself up at his house?

No. And you will stop teasing the NoB about his limp-dickery plz. It only encourages him.

Dark Helmet
12th February 09, 07:48 PM
Point of fact, most of the stuff that bill requires is already required in CT. I went through it all. It sucked.
You mean passing a test and then standing in line to pay a hundred bucks to get your license?

EuropIan
12th February 09, 07:49 PM
how comprehensive is the test?

Scrapper
12th February 09, 08:05 PM
Lily- I did in fact whine. They made me get 3 letters of recommendation from people who knew me. They then proceeded to file them without reading them. Which is good because I wrote them myself. I did get other people to sign them though.

The process took 6 months from start to finish. 2 sets of fingerprints, 2 background checks, a 10-hour course with a practical skills evaluation, and 2 different licensing centers (local and state). It was a ridiculous process that several individuals involved conceded was specifically designed to make people give up without getting the permit.

This also cost me a total of 250.00.

It was ridiculous. I hear Massachusetts and New York are worse.



The test was simply a field practicum. Load weapon, safely discharge weapon. Unload, clear jam, that sort of stuff. If you payy your 75 bucks and don't shoot the instructor, you will pass. It's like Tae kwon do.

AAAhmed46
12th February 09, 08:07 PM
I believe a civilized society should allow it's members to be armed.

The only ones penalized by this is the common law abiding man.

Not the criminal who will still get his hands on something and kill.

EuropIan
12th February 09, 08:07 PM
Ah, I see.

You guys know alot about guns.

Imagine I had high standards for a gun proficiency and safety test. What elements would be sensible to include?

Dark Helmet
12th February 09, 08:56 PM
I find the whole 'civilian militia' laughable in today's modern battlefield!

Zendetta
12th February 09, 09:09 PM
Ok, then try "asymetrical warfare"

Dark Helmet
12th February 09, 09:30 PM
Ok, then try "asymetrical warfare"
I believe any rebellion or revolution would have 2 probable outcomes. Either the nation falls into open civil war or it's revolution fails.

People would try but if they goals don't receive a broad base of support from the population any insurgency (or rebellion ) will undoubtedly fail in time. A "civilian militia' lacking up-to-date training , modern weapons and popular support would end.

MrBadGuy
12th February 09, 11:29 PM
Consider this a random interjection, but one argument I see is "what are you hicks going to do with your guns against a whole fucking army?"

All you guys seem to be underestimating what one man can do. In Dubya dubya deuce, one guy was like "fuck this shit" and singlehandedly killed OVER FIVE HUNDRED SOLDIERS. The soviet army nicknamed him the "White Death" for how hard he raped people.

Surely he must've been a pro elite sniper, trained from birth to be the perfect killing machine. GUESS AGAIN. Prior to WW2 he was a damn farmer.


On average he killed 5 men a day for 100 days. He didn't use a telescopic raper rifle either; he used the iron sights on his finnish version of the Mosin-Nagant.

An army of one indeed.

Sun Wukong
13th February 09, 03:57 AM
Also, you're a fucking coward.
I realize you may feel backed into a corner over your beliefs, and may have a problem reconciling the strength of your convictions but you don't think that maybe you've gone a bit too far here?

You do know that conscientious objectors in our military have been awarded the Medal of Honor and served selflessly in our military right?

Greater men than me have sacrificed their lives as well as those far less than me. Patriotism and bravery are not some easily calculable formula of beliefs.

I think maybe you've become, at least momentarily, over-wrought with your passions and relieved of your sensibilities.

Cullion
13th February 09, 04:25 AM
Phrost, you only theorize about having to defend your freedoms. You've never had to actually do it. Not that they haven't been taken away in your own adult lifetime (Patriot Act etc..), it's just that it happened, and you didn't do shit except for talk about it on the Internet. Why is that?

Sun Wukong
13th February 09, 04:36 AM
I think that he means when the apocalypse happens and when we have to take the streets with shotguns in order to get a loaf of bread.

I think that he just doesn't think that the tyranny that exists NOW is such a big problem but when the shit has finally boiled over and everybody who isn't armed to the teeth and a card carrying believer in the NRA dogma of a well armed populace (in his "Red Dawn" dreamscape future scenario) is going to wind up on the end of a fascist over-lords bayonet while he whistles Dixie and laughs about all the poor fools who got what was coming to them, apparently.

That or he is envisioning himself on the giving end of the bayonet and can't wait until he gets to start riding through society like a berserk viking raping and looting from all the weak peasants.

He's departed far enough from being rational that I honestly can't understand what is going on in his head.

This kind of zealotry is not befitting of an otherwise intelligent man.

Edit: While I really would like to have a zombie-proofed house, he's possibly in the mindset of the guy who actually went out and invested in bloody stump-mounting chainsaws and S-Mart Remington shotguns and learned enough latin to read the necronomicon and seal the deadites back into their cages while looking on at others as being too lulled into a false sense of security by liberal PRO-DEADITE propaganda.

CLATU! VERATA! NICTO!

Cullion
13th February 09, 04:51 AM
Don't get me wrong, I think adults should have the right to own firearms. What I'm actually pointing out to him is that much of his thinking is based on a Hollywoodisation.

His freedoms aren't likely to be taken away in a big dramatic scene where a cackling dictator in a black uniform announces his divine mandate on TV.

It will happen a little bit at a time, mostly advocated by concerned 'soccer moms' and anxious but caring seeming little guys who run 'child protection', 'poverty awareness' and 'anti racism' charities, and by the time private firearms ownership is outlawed, the total tax take shoots to over 60% of income (except for the extremely wealthy, who will evade most of it) and freedom of speech has morphed into 'freedom to speak responsibly' in the US, Phrost will likely find himself in a tiny minority, regarded as a bitter old crank.

Like me living in Britain, but even worse, because he'll still remember what it was like to not have to live like that.

Truculent Sheep
13th February 09, 05:27 AM
Somehow, the fact that we're only one year away from the Mid-Terms seems to suggest to me that The Bazza will not waste his time on a law like this. It's the sort of thing that gets Red State geezers rather pissed off and keen to vote Republican again. Unless The Bazza is stupid, but that's another thread.

Phrost
13th February 09, 11:06 AM
You fuckers are goddamn right that I'm angry and bitterly, bitterly disappointed that many of you are so incapable of seeing (or willfully refusing to acknowledge) the "death of 1000 cuts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_by_a_thousand_cuts)" attack on the Second Amendment either because you don't care, are fucking short-sighted, or because you're truly deluded into thinking that Government will always be there diligently protecting your interests and freedom. If you think the attack on liberty will be in the form of jack-booted thugs marching down the street you're a fucking idiot.

The Second Amendment was written with the specific intent to provide for a means of ensuring the people have the means to defend the other nine. Allowing it to be chipped away at is simply shameful. We've already been weaseled into the position where our government doesn't fear us. It won't be long until we, and not just the crackpots, have good reason to fear our government.

The problem is that people have made entire careers out of fearmongering and labeling those who own firearms as "gun nuts". Consequently, nobody sees anything wrong with creeping restrictions that "progressively" restrict firearms ownership to the point where it's all but illegal. This is what actually happened in the UK, so it's not some concept out of left field.

Would similar requirements be acceptable to express your free speech? Should you need to get a license, go through a background check and grammar test before you're allowed to report news or blog about the government's activities?

Fuck no, because the press haven't been intentionally demonized in the same way as law-abiding gun owners. The reality is that once people have had their means to rebel taken away the media can easily be silenced or co-opted.

If the United States doesn't allow its citizens to be armed, there's genuinely no hope for the rest of the world. So yes, I'm fucking angry. I have a right to be.

And the rest of you who are too busy sucking on government teat to pay attention to the slow, controlled slide towards tyranny and away from the ideals upon which this country was founded, all deserve traitors' deaths.

HappyOldGuy
13th February 09, 01:38 PM
Noone is denying that there are people out there who are interested in taking your guns away. And other than a couple of the canucks, noone thinks they should be allowed to. Your problem is that you are so emotionally wrapped up in this issue that you automatically lash out at anyone who doesn't have sticky pages in their copies of guns and ammo. I mean, you still think I'm some sort of anti-gun nut just because I don't buy into your apocalyptic black helicopter fantasies. Even though I oppose assault weapons bans and favor shall issue on CCW. And guess what, I often sit around talking with the lefty side of my local politically active community, and I've managed to convice quite a few of them to rethink their opinions on the topic.

Phrost
13th February 09, 01:56 PM
If the shoe doesn't fit, feel free to pull it from your ass.

Cullion
13th February 09, 02:17 PM
You fuckers are goddamn right that I'm angry and bitterly, bitterly disappointed that many of you are so incapable of seeing (or willfully refusing to acknowledge) the "death of 1000 cuts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_by_a_thousand_cuts)" attack on the Second Amendment

I can see it very, very clearly for what it is. But I'm asking you why you're so angry about it with the American liberals here. What are you going to do about it ?

What I'm telling you is, those guns that are for defending your liberty will never get used, because you'll never be given a sufficiently dramatic super-villain dictator announcement for you to feel like using them wouldn't single you out as a nutty lone-gunman figure.


If you think the attack on liberty will be in the form of jack-booted thugs marching down the street you're a fucking idiot.

If you already knew that, why didn't you take up arms when the Patriot Act was passed? That wasn't hardcore enough for you? I'll ask again What would it take?



The Second Amendment was written with the specific intent to provide for a means of ensuring the people have the means to defend the other nine. Allowing it to be chipped away at is simply shameful.

But you've allowed it to be chipped away too. You didn't open fire. You voted for Obama.



We've already been weaseled into the position where our government doesn't fear us. It won't be long until we, and not just the crackpots, have good reason to fear our government.

Right. So what are you going to do about it ?


This is what actually happened in the UK, so it's not some concept out of left field.

Yes it is, and now we're losing our freedom of speech at an impressive pace too.



Would similar requirements be acceptable to express your free speech? Should you need to get a license, go through a background check and grammar test before you're allowed to report news or blog about the government's activities?

Fuck no, because the press haven't been intentionally demonized in the same way as law-abiding gun owners. The reality is that once people have had their means to rebel taken away the media can easily be silenced or co-opted.

To be honest, the media gets co-opted first, not afterwards. Most people just don't notice, or consider evidence of it to be 'conspiracy theory'.
We have an official Internet censor in the UK now. Check out wikileaks for what's going on here.

But, this is all by-the-by.

If guns are the final defence of your liberty, why aren't you using them instead of just ranting about it on the Internet?

Come on Mr. Patriot, show us what you've got.

Phrost
13th February 09, 02:27 PM
But you've allowed it to be chipped away too. You didn't open fire. You voted for Obama.

The fuck? I voted for McCain.




Right. So what are you going to do about it ?


Right now I'm fighting in the most effective way I can. That's pretty obvious. Should the time come for action, hopefully I'll still be young enough to do something about it.

Realistically, I expect that this is a battle my kid or grandkids will have to literally fight.




If guns are the final defence of your liberty, why aren't you using them instead of just ranting about it on the Internet?

Come on Mr. Patriot, show us what you've got.

I literally rolled my eyes at this.

Cullion
13th February 09, 02:34 PM
The fuck? I voted for McCain.

Sorry, I got confused because you thought about supporting Obama for a while.
McCain doesn't exactly have a great record on gun control either.



Right now I'm fighting in the most effective way I can. That's pretty obvious. Should the time come for action, hopefully I'll still be young enough to do something about it.

Realistically, I expect that this is a battle my kid or grandkids will have to literally fight.

It will happen sooner than that and they won't fight. There'll be nut after nut who slaughters some children after circumventing the existing controls with or without breaking the current law and the restrictions will tighten.
The country that swallowed the Patriot Act, 'Orange Alert' and a multi-trillion dollar heist to 'stabilise the economy' will do what it has to 'for the children'.

Except for an ever shrinking group of 'angry nuts' who appear further and further from the mainstream. Most people still think what happened at Waco was justified because Koresh 'was a paedophile'.

You'll do anything 'for the children'. You'll see.



I literally rolled my eyes at this.

Imagine what the Liberals' eyes were doing when you were raving at them for 'cowardice'.

taijiamn
13th February 09, 02:53 PM
If, as you've stated, armed uprising is the last defense, shouldn't the first line be trying to get people you believe will support your cause into public office? Writing your represntatives, speaking with like minded people, trying to convince others.

Personally choosing to act against a government is futile without other likeminded people to support your cause, right?

Sun Wukong
13th February 09, 03:23 PM
Fuck no, because the press haven't been intentionally demonized in the same way as law-abiding gun owners.


Huh? THE PRESS HASN'T BEEN DEMONIZED the way law-abiding gun owners have? Bill O'Reilly compared Ariana Huffington to the Nazies. Hell, nearly every republican public figure and mouth piece on the planet has shouted down the free press. The right-wing constantly demonizes the media at every chance, while exploiting it like fucking Groebels.

I wonder how often the NRA get's death threats as opposed to people who have actually been killed, had attempts on their life and imprisoned for being part of the media.

You know, it is legal to be an asshole, so yeah, some law-abiding gun owners probably have been demonized, but it wasn't just because they owned a reasonable firearm or number of firearms. I think maybe you need to take a step back for a minute and re-examine the way you feel, maybe drink some hot tea and smoke a romeo y julieta.



And the rest of you who are too busy sucking on government teat to pay attention to the slow, controlled slide towards tyranny and away from the ideals upon which this country was founded, all deserve traitors' deaths.

Wow, you wanted people to take you seriously, and this is what you post? People who don't hold your convictions deserve traitors' deaths? WOW. That just blows me away man.

Can you identify what you mean by tyranny and the warning signs of it aside from encroachment on firearm owners liberties and the IRS and typical right wing schpiel?

Sun Wukong
13th February 09, 03:33 PM
Cognac is your friend, have one, I think you need this.

Wounded Ronin
13th February 09, 07:27 PM
Since the philosophical and operatic has been done to death in this thread already, I'll just add that I feel the gun control issue in the US is also largely cultural. It tends to break down along state and cultural lines and basically there's a bunch of Americans who use guns and have a culture of using them for various constructive purposes, and a bunch who are afraid of them, learned everything about them from movies, and are prone to fantasizing about overblown gun violence scenarios. Most people don't use logic and critical thinking to come to a conclusion but rather have a default cultural feeling about the topic and then pull a bunch of statistics and arguments out of their ass to rationalize their viewpoint and villify the other group of Americans.

Ergo, I actually feel that if every single American were given a non-threatening and fun intro to target shooting with various classic firearms, lots of the anti-gun people would change their minds. Because guns wouldn't be omnipotent, omnipresent, and all-powerful to them anymore.

boondock lee
13th February 09, 08:29 PM
The fuck? I voted for McCain.




^

Real reason why Phrost is pissed.

kanegs
13th February 09, 08:33 PM
The really stupid thing about H.R. 45 is that it wouldn't do anything to stop gun violence anyway. It's just as useless as most of the TSA airport restrictions.

I don't see it passing through congress, but I'm sure someone will use it to drum up more gun sales (or votes in the next election).

My opinion on gun control is that "we" should be allowed anything that "they" can take home with them when "they" are off duty.

GuiltySpark
13th February 09, 11:00 PM
200 million people armed with the same or equivalent primary battle rifle used by the military would have a decent chance at resisting even the most powerful military in history.

And you think said 200 million people would get on board, wear the same patch and rise up as a body and fight the government?

Or do you think people would turn on each other? Try and grab a piece of the pie, carve up the place?

People should show a reasonable level of skill to own firearms.
During my hunting course I watched anidiot load 2 16 or 20 gauge rounds in a double barrel then 2 12 gauge ones behind them. Closed the breach and he really thought he was set.

Maybe a compromise with certain types of firearms having to be registered.

Mas
13th February 09, 11:04 PM
I do agree with Phrost in that an armed populace can certainly defend themselves against tyranny, given they are all willing to fight and die. Even a few million fighting asymmetrical warfare can be a thorn in the side to any military force.

However, organization is the main problem I think. Americans are terrible at fighting wars at first, but eventually figure it out.

Therefore, hear me out, I say the government arms the entire populace with the standard-issue weapon of the military, I dunno put it in taxes somewhere. They are given courses on the preservation of liberty, asymmetrical warfare, small-unit tactics, and whatever it takes to overthrow the government if necessary.

Eh? C'mon

Robot Jesus
14th February 09, 12:28 AM
My opinion on gun control is that "we" should be allowed anything that "they" can take home with them when "they" are off duty.


was under the impression that this was the status quo. this is a good rule

GuiltySpark
14th February 09, 12:55 AM
I do agree with Phrost in that an armed populace can certainly defend themselves against tyranny
Considering the bullshit Americans bought with the whole invade Iraq thing by the time Americans realized something wrong it would be too late.

Not saying Americans are stupid but I DO think many of them are very gullible and naive when it comes to that stuff.

taijiamn
14th February 09, 02:27 AM
Ergo, I actually feel that if every single American were given a non-threatening and fun intro to target shooting with various classic firearms, lots of the anti-gun people would change their minds. Because guns wouldn't be omnipotent, omnipresent, and all-powerful to them anymore.

This is a nifty thought, but I'd argue that it would probably work about as well as letting everyone have a monitored medicinal toke. Most people would probably agree that it's pretty harmless, but someone would show up with "My baby got killed cause someone smoked(or used a gun)," and the hysteria would start again, maybe smaller, or if it has a reason to be high profile, it might just go back to where we are now.

Cullion
14th February 09, 06:47 AM
Considering the bullshit Americans bought with the whole invade Iraq thing by the time Americans realized something wrong it would be too late.

Not saying Americans are stupid but I DO think many of them are very gullible and naive when it comes to that stuff.

They're inventive and passionate, but they're too trusting of authority figures and tend to view political issues in terms of picking a sports team to cheer for.

Sun Wukong
14th February 09, 07:48 AM
Ergo, I actually feel that if every single American were given a non-threatening and fun intro to target shooting with various classic firearms, lots of the anti-gun people would change their minds. Because guns wouldn't be omnipotent, omnipresent, and all-powerful to them anymore.

I think you are making the mistake to believe that people who are familiar with and have used firearms for one purpose or another quite frequently in their lives wouldn't be in favor of tighter control over them.

^To me, this is a tad naive.

Show of hands, who here knows someone who died from a firearm?

I have known personally on a 1st name basis 3 self inflicted firearm related deaths. On a casual acquaintence level, I know of at least 3 more. On the manslaughter and murder page, I know both murdered and murderer.

I did a full hitch in the US Army. I spent every summer of my childhood on a farm in Louisiana and have killed my fare share of small woodland creatures with firearms. I have slain turtles fucking up the fish hatchery, to birds, squirrels, and a deer; just one, I preferred smaller, faster, more plentiful game; like pheasant, ducks and squirrels.

I can recognize an M-16 by sound alone because of the clapping echo that the plastic hand guards make when a round is fired.

I own 4 rifles, but do not house them in my home. 3 of them were hunting rifles inherited from my grandpa, and one of them is a 8mm semi-automatic Mauser rifle that I refinished and refurbished myself.

Target shooting is not the issue. Responsible gun ownership is. Guns aren't fucking toys, no matter how much people like to act like they are super cool. A gun is a weapon, and by default is a TOOL not a fucking toy. Additionally, as a weapon they should not be treated lightly culturally. Like that idiot who put an uzi in the hands of an 8 year old boy and was then shocked when he couldn't control it and blew his fucking brains out with it.

You don't leave them loaded lying unsecured around the house. you don't carry them in your car, or leave them unattended in your car, unless you are going to shoot something or it is part of your job. You sure as fuck don't handle them when you've been drinking and I'd rather break them myself than hand them off to some asshole who is going to "play" with them. People are generally kinda stupid, and the thought of allowing unrestricted access to firearms for every person on the planet seems more than a bit retarded to me because not everyone is capable of using them responsibly.

If that means I'm somehow part of "big mother" government problem, then fuck it, you're welcome to have stupid beliefs that revolve around dime store pulp fiction western novel romantics where firearms are as harmless as fluoride in public water supplies. A highly armed citizenry does NOT guarantee a stable life free of tyranny, in fact, it just means you have to now be doubly careful.

The current gun control laws aren't perfect, but I'd rather have them than not have them because a guy that just got out of the joint for repeated violent offenses should NOT be allowed to buy a firearm.

Cullion
14th February 09, 07:59 AM
That was a well argued point Sun. I have some questions:-

i) The guy with repeated violent imprisonable offences is a pretty convincing example of somebody who shouldn't be issued a licence. Who else do you think should be excluded?

ii) What's your view of the carrying of firearms for the purpose of self-defence ?
Obviously, you don't feel the need yourself as you don't keep them at home (or presumably, in your car). But the police just can't be there all the time and there are lots of situations where a lone citizen having a pistol on them could make all the difference to whether they're going home alive/unraped or not.

GuiltySpark
14th February 09, 08:05 AM
They're inventive and passionate, but they're too trusting of authority figures and tend to view political issues in terms of picking a sports team to cheer for.

I think your bang on with that statement.
I've seen some of the debates on TV and they really do seem like it's picking a sport team, not deciding the future of the most powerful nation in the world.


I don't see guncontrol in so far as a up and coming tyrnacial (that the right word?) government removing weapons from the hands of citizens to quell resistance, I think it is (or should be) about reducing crime. Part of which includes not just rules for law abiding citizens but hammering the fuck out of criminals who use weapons and companies/groups that let weapons fall into scumbags hands.

Few years ago in Toronto there was a big gun amnetsty,
Guns are dangerous. We know some of you have unwanted guns laying around but just don't know how to et rid of them. Tell you want, come by the police staion tomorrow drop your guns off and we will destroy them, no questions asked.
Well
One guy came in a day early, droped off some kinda weapon and was charged for it AND the fucking Toronto police turned around took all the guns to be destroyed and sold them BACK to the public 'In order to raise money for the police station to further protect the citizens bla bla'
They should have fired a lot people over that.

Sun Wukong
14th February 09, 08:44 AM
That was a well argued point Sun. I have some questions:-

i) The guy with repeated violent imprisonable offences is a pretty convincing example of somebody who shouldn't be issued a licence. Who else do you think should be excluded?

Basically guns don't belong any place outside of the home, except in the hands of officers of the law, where there are large congregations of children present or alcohol being served or places where the potential for catastrophic violence and loss of life are at a premium. Sporting events, airports and public demonstrations where tempers are high and reasoning is not are pretty good examples.



ii) What's your view of the carrying of firearms for the purpose of self-defence?


I'm all for it as long as the person carrying the weapon has proven themselves to be responsible. However, there should be restrictions on where a civilian can carry a firearm and under what conditions a civilian should be allowed access. If a guy is drunk, I don't care if he does have a concealed weapon permit, it should be illegal for him to be handling a firearm.



Obviously, you don't feel the need yourself as you don't keep them at home (or presumably, in your car). But the police just can't be there all the time and there are lots of situations where a lone citizen having a pistol on them could make all the difference to whether they're going home alive/unraped or not.
Sure, I don't have a problem with firearms in the home as long as they are properly handled and stored. My brother has a rather stout 9 gauge pump action shotgun in his home and I don't see a problem with that.

Walking around in public is another matter entirely however. I think that businesses should be allowed to dictate whether or not they allow civilian firearms on their premises. I think private neighborhoods should be allowed to declare their neighborhoods firearm free by unanimous vote. I similarly think that local government should be allowed to set their own rules about firearm carry independent of the federal government.

Naturally it doesn't make sense for a rural out door sports area should have the same rules as a crime infested inner city slum.

I don't mind open carry laws, as long they also go through background checks and with the understanding that carrying a firearm while intoxicated is illegal and carries a stiff penalty. I think that any infraction of the law including misdemeanors and serious traffic violations should suspend a person's right to carry a firearm.

Ideally, people would have to prove their responsibility and reliability in order to keep their weapons. A person who shows warning signs of being irresponsible should not be allowed a firearm. It should be a privilege to be armed, and not an inalienable right.

Cullion
14th February 09, 08:53 AM
Basically guns don't belong any place, except in the hands of officers of the law, there are children or alcohol being served or places where the potential for catastrophic violence and loss of life are at a premium. Sporting events, airports and public demonstrations where tempers are high and reasoning is not are pretty good examples.

I'd go with that, except that if it's in a public place 'demonstration' might be difficult to define precisely.



i'm all for it as long as the person carrying the weapon has proven themselves to be responsible. However, there should be restrictions on where a civilian can carry a firearm and under what conditions a civilian should be allowed access. If a guy is drunk, I don't care if he does have a concealed weapon permit, it should be illegal for him to be handling a firearm.

I wouldn't have a problem with a police officer stopping somebody for being drunk and disorderly (or drink driving) confiscating their gun for later return if they give a positive breath reading.



Walking around in public is another matter entirely however. I think that businesses should be allowed to dictate whether or not they allow civilian firearms on their premises.

No problem with that. I'm all for allowing the owner of private property to set conditions for entrance.



I think private neighborhoods should be allowed to declare their neighborhoods firearm free by unanimous vote.

I'm not sure what the definition of private neighbourhood is, we don't exactly have them in the UK.



I similarly think that local government should be allowed to set their own rules about firearm carry independent of the federal government.

I don't. Local government in the UK functions over some very small geographic areas, it would be quite impractical to have people suddenly being outside the law when they drive over an imaginary line down some country lane or borough of a city.



Naturally it doesn't make sense for a rural out door sports area should have the same rules as a crime infested inner city slum.

Hmm.. see above.



I don't mind open carry laws, as long they also go through background checks and with the understanding that carrying a firearm while intoxicated is illegal and carries a stiff penalty. I think that any infraction of the law including misdemeanors and serious traffic violations should suspend a person's right to carry a firearm.

Suspend indefinitely ?



Ideally, people who have to prove their responsibility and reliability in order to keep their weapons. A person who shows warning signs of being irresponsible should not be allowed a firearm. It should be a privilege to be armed, and not an inalienable right.

I'd rather the presumption was that adults were responsible and restrictions only applied to those who proved themselves irresponsible.

Sun Wukong
14th February 09, 09:14 AM
I don't. Local government in the UK functions over some very small geographic areas, it would be quite impractical to have people suddenly being outside the law when they drive over an imaginary line down some country lane or borough of a city.


I guess you're right, it is difficult to determine but different localities can have vastly different circumstances. A guy rolling down the street in the government district of Washington DC with a high powered rifle with a scope attached at 4 a.m should raise some eyebrows but a guy driving down a dirt road in Louisiana with the same rifle early in the morning just means it's hunting season.



Suspend indefinitely ?


Suspend as long as is fitting for whatever trespass against the law happened. Obviously a parking ticket is meaningless, but a DUI or assault and battery is not.



I'd rather the presumption was that adults were responsible and restrictions only applied to those who proved themselves irresponsible.

I think that is a fine ideal, as long as the necessary steps are taken in advance to insure the person is qualified in advance of allowing them to purchase the weapon. For instance, I have a mentally handicapped younger sister who doesn't look remotely mentally handicapped. She was quite pretty when she was teenager and young adult, and aside from her language being a bit on the ebonic's side of the language spectrum most people wouldn't be able to tell she was cruising around with a IQ classification of mental retardation. It would be no more responsible to hand her a firearm than it would be to give one to an unsupervised delinquent 10 year old girl.

Cullion
14th February 09, 09:35 AM
Suspend as long as is fitting for whatever trespass against the law happened. Obviously a parking ticket is meaningless, but a DUI or assault and battery is not.

Alright. I can understand that if a DUI means you aren't trusted to drive a car for a term, you shouldn't be trusted with firearm for the same term. I'd go along with that.


She was quite pretty when she was teenager and young adult, and aside from her language being a bit on the ebonic's side of the language spectrum most people wouldn't be able to tell she was cruising around with a IQ classification of mental retardation. It would be no more responsible to hand her a firearm than it would be to give one to an unsupervised delinquent 10 year old girl.

Serious question: Was her IQ classification low enough that she'd be debarred from joining any branch of the military ?

Sun Wukong
14th February 09, 10:20 AM
definitely not, should could never join a branch of the military. she's got between a 70 and 75 IQ. high functioning, and she doesn't have any other medical problems. She is literate, but her ability to do math or read writing meant for adult consumption is almost non-existent.

GuiltySpark
14th February 09, 11:14 AM
When it comes to firearms responsibility I wonder what's more important.
The ability to do math & read and write or ethics and reasoning. Not sure if that's the right word. Like someone realizing what the long term effects and consequences of their actions would be.

Cullion
14th February 09, 11:25 AM
I think these things are incredibly hard to test for in advance, and my inner Riddeck is distrustful of any person or group who'd claim the competence to set the test.

That's why I prefer to err on the side of presuming competence and let it be stripped (temporarily or permantly depending on the offence). At one end of the scale, losing your right to carry a firearm on your person for the same length of time you lose the right to drive a car seems perfectly reasonable for a DUI.

Further along the scale, crimes of violence that got you gaol time would all be candidates for permanent loss of gun rights.

GuiltySpark
14th February 09, 11:34 AM
I think their great ideas.
Lost your right to carry/use firearms akin to that of what hapens with driving/alcohol.

Violent crimes with weapons means you loose your gun rights.

Cullion
14th February 09, 11:34 AM
People are allowed to own hunting rifles and keep them at home in France. The UK is much, much stricter. I don't know anybody who is allowed to keep a firearm at home. I knew one or two who were allowed to keep shotguns in safely locked cabinets in the early 90s, and they had to apply from a licence from the local police to be allowed to do that. It was still extremely rare. They aren't allowed to now.

The laws are so strict. The British Olympic pistol shooting team has to train overseas when they train together. Serious.

You can still take hunting rifles and shotguns out in marked off areas of private land under the supervision of licenced instructors, but the weapons are all kept in a secure armoury that gets inspected regularly.

The only way you're going to legally handle a concealable pistol, semiautomatic or automatic weapon in the UK is if you join the military or a police firearms unit.

Sun Wukong
14th February 09, 11:48 AM
There are allot of people in this thread who would be much, much happier living in France. Seriously. Sign a notarized contract saying you will pay me 10 grand if you set foot in the US again and I will pay for your one way ticket to Paris.

Making the US better one person at a time. The least I can do.

Yeah, well I think you're a homo with delusions of manhood.

Sun Wukong
14th February 09, 12:56 PM
Writing checks your ass can't cash is no way for a fiscally responsible republican to act.

Dark Helmet
14th February 09, 12:57 PM
There are allot of people in this thread who would be much, much happier living in France. Seriously. Sign a notarized contract saying you will pay me 10 grand if you set foot in the US again and I will pay for your one way ticket to Paris.

Making the US better one person at a time. The least I can do.
Why move?

With just a few changes to existing laws the US can turn into a bastion of social reform. Something that would envy even Prez. Chavez.

HappyOldGuy
14th February 09, 01:11 PM
There are more of us than there are of you.

And we're all moving to Washington.

Democracy sucks, don't it.

Zendetta
14th February 09, 01:17 PM
Democracy sucks, don't it.

The Tyranny of the Majority sure does. Which is exactly why these things were inscribed as Rights that wouldn't/couldn't/shouldn't be taken away.

Sun Wukong
14th February 09, 01:22 PM
I am going to retrieve Reagan's wang from his rotting corpse and F you with it.

That sentence by itself tells me that you don't have what it takes to so much as raise my blood pressure. You're going to "F" me? You can't be "F"ing" serious.




Shhh! Don't give away any more of the leftwing's secrets or they will have you turned into a gay hairdresser!

Quoth the guy with the Britney Spears CD and MP3 collection.

F54rqDh2mWA

Sun Wukong
14th February 09, 01:23 PM
The Tyranny of the Majority sure does. Which is exactly why these things were inscribed as Rights that wouldn't/couldn't/shouldn't be taken away.

So are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness but we take those things away from people who fuck up bad enough don't we?

Zendetta
14th February 09, 01:35 PM
Oh, absolutely. I don't have any problem with restricting Rights as punishment for showing that you can't handle the responsibility. Freedom and Responsibility are two sides of the same coin.

The rest of your argument veers into elitism, however: "Most people are too stupid, etc". Like Cullion, I would be suspicious of the inevitable elite that would make those calls.

As to your other question: I've seen a father and son get accidentally shot on a dove field (minor injuries) and a kid on my soccer team was killed when his best friend shot him point blank with his father's "unloaded" gun.

And I laughed my ass off at that video of the cop shooting himself in front of a bunch of schoolkids.

Stupid shit DOES happen. My issue, in a nutshell, is that I won't tolerate my rights being restricted because someone else is an unsafe idiot.

Sun Wukong
14th February 09, 01:37 PM
The trick is to weed out the idiots and not let them play with guns.

Spade: The Real Snake
14th February 09, 01:51 PM
No. Let the idiots die, let the obese people without medical care eat themselves to death. Let Darwins dream come true. It could happen in a few generations if we would just stop enabling stupidity.

No...that's not true.

We can teach Darwin but can't teach "Sky Uncle" in school but the government is supposed to play "Sky Uncle" but not let Darwin play out.

Cullion
14th February 09, 01:58 PM
No. We tried to do that in Guantanamo Bay and have some productive interrogations but the liberals wouldn't let us.

What's this 'us' stuff? You weren't waterboarding people in an offshore detention camp were you?. Was it your idea?

What's wrong with due process of law?

Sun Wukong
14th February 09, 02:04 PM
No. We tried to do that in Guantanamo Bay and have some productive interrogations but the liberals wouldn't let us.

You're baiting again, get new bait.



I am sure those living in fairy land have little to no blood pressure problems.

You can do better than that. Fairy land, really? See, this is the problem with your paradigm, in a nutshell:

Your arguments hide behind simplicity, insult and the assumption of superior positioning, as though your supposedly common sense ideology were a referendum of immutable truth.

What you are lacking is substantial evidence to the contrary as your opinions are insubstantial and based entirely on (dis)information you've apparently gleaned from spending too much time listening to entertainment conservative talk radio.

The real world that you like to claim as your sole proprietorship is far more complicated than you seem to either be allowing yourself to comprehend or in such a state as you are incapable of seeing it for anything more complex than simple formula of: feel's right = is right.

While my clever talk may be quickly dismissed by you and those of similar disposition, I haven't heard a single spark of intelligence come from your commentary on this subject. I'm sure you'll likely say the same thing back to me, but you see that's just not going to hold water without something substantive on your part.

Now, you can choose to engage in conversation like an adult or you can keep up this tired charade of attempted trolling, it's up to you.

You're more than welcome to keep trying to get me to rant about how i'm going to murder you with my cock, but you'll have to try harder than this.

EuropIan
14th February 09, 02:27 PM
what are they then?

Prisoners of war? no.

Zendetta
14th February 09, 02:29 PM
untermenschen

Dark Helmet
14th February 09, 03:00 PM
Shhh! Don't give away any more of the leftwing's secrets or they will have you turned into a gay hairdresser!Don't go there.
3YoJtORCibA

Cullion
14th February 09, 03:02 PM
Due process of law is for American citizens and civilized nations. Not people who believe Allah wants all unbelievers dead / America is the great Satan and act on it / support it through terrorism.

I can't tell if your trolling yet.

Can you distinguish 'terrorism' from 'homicide' for me plz?

EuropIan
14th February 09, 03:15 PM
No nun, what are they?

HappyOldGuy
14th February 09, 03:15 PM
The Tyranny of the Majority sure does. Which is exactly why these things were inscribed as Rights that wouldn't/couldn't/shouldn't be taken away.
I'm confused. Are we back on gun control? I thought we switched over to NunOn trying to act tough while being strappedoned with a gimp mask?

HappyOldGuy
14th February 09, 03:31 PM
You are just jealous. I could look tough wearing nothing but a tu-tu filling the bad role in a bukake video.

Maybe if you hadn't had that ribbon in your hair.

Cullion
14th February 09, 03:41 PM
NoB, it's time to stop bragging about what a sub you are.

The women here are all either 'been there done that, bored of it' (like Kiko) or they're like fes, which means if you ever get lonely and meet her in a motel you'll get 30 seconds of hot saucy humiliation followed by a really cold, clinical process where she straps you down, cuts out the organs you have left which might still have sale value in China and then leaves you with a bill which has your girlfriend's number on the bottom as a kind of subtle blackmail warning in case you survive.

Sun Wukong
14th February 09, 04:18 PM
At least you finally stopped at least momentarily with the uber-republican troll jobbing. I thought I never let private jokes die.

Sun Wukong
14th February 09, 04:42 PM
Just curious, you don't think I'm against the free distribution of firearms because 'killing is morally wrong', do you?

In that case, you are projecting and you probably need to read Beyond Good and Evil to see where I'm coming from.

Without giving too much away, I really don't think killing is wrong at all any more than I think pruning a rose bush is.

Truculent Sheep
14th February 09, 05:21 PM
As I said earlier, it will all come down to how stupid The Bazza is.

If he's stupid, he'll dust off the AWB, make a lot of swing voters get angry and have a serious risk of losing both the Senate and Congress in 2010. It could also be a dangerous wedge issue in 2012, if the Mastodons get a half-decent Presidential candidate.

If he's clever (not always guaranteed with Law graduates), he'll focus on the wars and the economy and make token gestures to keep his core support happy without actually doing anything. He may choose to do a bit of both too, though, with appropriate levels of stupid and clever ensuing as a result,

Cullion
14th February 09, 05:26 PM
My view is he's got 2 terms for free because Bush was _awful_, and he's got years of being able to blame the previous administration for the economic troubles we'll all undoubtedly face.

Maybe I misread american voters and they're more fickle than I understand.

Truculent Sheep
14th February 09, 05:33 PM
My view is he's got 2 terms for free because Bush was _awful_, and he's got years of being able to blame the previous administration for the economic troubles we'll all undoubtedly face.

Maybe I misread american voters and they're more fickle than I understand.

He's certainly afloat on a veritable tidal wave of good will right now. We will see how soon he'll squander it, as all politicians do.

Dark Helmet
14th February 09, 05:33 PM
Actually, I wouldn't have a problem with waterboarding an American citizen if the information gained could save a child's life or something else noble.
So long as there's actual proof that that citizen has done something wrong? Havens for bid that nobody in the last 8 years who weren't supected of being traitors.

Sun Wukong
14th February 09, 05:47 PM
Do you see the error of what you just said? Gun registration is a form of gun control, so now gun contol is good sometimes?

How can that be when you just said the harder it is to obtain a gun the bigger the market will be for illegal guns? (BTW, this argument doesn't hold water) As supply goes down, demand inevitably rises in alternative markets but doesn't mean there are more sales in said market unless they have the supply to meet them.

Dark Helmet
14th February 09, 05:48 PM
I don't care so much about motivation, the harder you make it to obtain a gun legally, the larger the market for illegal guns will be. I would much rather have a gun crime commited with a legal gun versus an illegal one. Much better chances of catching the criminal.
So a law-abiding citizen will break the law to get a gun?

Cullion
14th February 09, 05:55 PM
He's certainly afloat on a veritable tidal wave of good will right now. We will see how soon he'll squander it, as all politicians do.

Obama is more charming and has a bigger historical mandate than Blair, and he also has a much, much greater leaway to blame the former administration for his country's troubles.

He will fuck it up, because he's a lazy socialist who'se never had a real job, just like Blair, that's inevitable. But he will have much more wiggle room to hide it in. He'll fuck it up without people like HoG even noticing.

Cullion
14th February 09, 05:57 PM
Registering guns as a panacea for their misuse is a foolish idea because it's too easy to change their balistic characteristics for short-range urban crime.

Zendetta
14th February 09, 07:16 PM
I'm confused. Are we back on gun control? I thought we switched over to NunOn trying to act tough while being strappedoned with a gimp mask?

See? This is why I love you. You make my points for me so much more eloquently than I ever could.

Nun in a Gimp Mask is a GREAT example of why I want Guns to be readily available.



Now here's a thought for you Urban Coastal Elites: pt 1

People in rural areas MUST have guns, or your chickens, cats, possibly children may well get eaten by coyotes, wild dogs (my dad shot two last summer), chupacabras, meth fiends, and so on.

(maybe not in the UK? because you've plowed all your wilderness and chavs stick to the city? Awstraya wtf?)

Meanwhile, in the city, many crimes are committed with stolen guns, or guns bought on the black market. This may slow, but will not stop even if guns are heavily restricted.

So, gun crime in the city seems to be a fact of life, for now anyway. Whether a citizen can defend themselves is up for grabs, and generally seems to be sliding down a slippery slope to me.

One option is to spend much more money on much more invasive policing - I'm not to keen on this for several reasons.

So, I think decent folks NEED guns. Whether you live in the city or the country, help is unlikely to arrive in time and you may have to deal with predators yourself.

I want to push this discussion beyond the things we agree on:
*Guns are obviously awesome!
*Guns are also insanely dangerous
*We definitely need to be able to control certain people's access to them
*etc

Zendetta
14th February 09, 07:17 PM
pt 2

So here's what I earnestly believe about Guns. They are as awesome, as dangerous, as a rattle snake's fangs or a scorpion's sting. Guns are the consummate tool that has allowed Homo Sapien, the tool-using ape, to overcome the lion's fang and the serpent's venom and achieve mastery over the earth.

Guns are the lever by which the smart have overcome the strong.

From a certain perspective, PC sentiments be damned, the Long Gun may as well be the symbol of my Tribe. Damn right its Cultural, my Culture is one of self reliance.

Knowledge of the Right Use of Arms was once considered well within the province of a Gentleman. I contend that when civilized people turn their backs on their responsibility - always the other face of freedom, no? - to maintain the safety of their communities then Civilization will fall into Barbarism as a matter of course.

The third alternative, as I've already suggested, is in the direction of a Police State - or at least a State where the Police are ever-present.

Guns and gun violence isn't going away, but guns are leaving the hands of regular folks - MANY jurisdictions have laws prohibiting a reasonable use of force (or even the ownership of the tool for that job). Contrary to the fear-mongers, this doesn't make us safer. I'm of the mind it does quite the opposite.

And when its only the Criminals and the Agents of the State that have access to guns, it won't just be our lives that are in danger, at all.

Robot Jesus
14th February 09, 07:32 PM
but none of us are arguing that. I don't think anyone here wants to eleminate guns.

I can only speak for myself but i feel an effective gun control program would allow open acsses to firarms for the majoraty. It's not a mandate to dissarm the populus, but rather to dissarm the minority who shouldent be armed.

Zendetta
14th February 09, 07:38 PM
but none of us are arguing that. I don't think anyone here wants to eleminate guns.

Oh, I can dig it. That's why I said I wanted to advance the discussion.


I can only speak for myself but i feel an effective gun control program would allow open acsses to firarms for the majoraty. It's not a mandate to dissarm the populus, but rather to dissarm the minority who shouldent be armed.

Again, I'm hip. But it needs to go further: my mandate is to arm the populace (the well behaved ones) and facilitate a healthier cultural attitude around guns.

Guns are Cool, and Cool People Need Guns. If they don't have them Uncool People still will, and they'll make things considerably Less Cool than they should/could be.

Zendetta
14th February 09, 08:06 PM
Also, we need guns so we can put your spelling out of its misery.

Truculent Sheep
14th February 09, 08:29 PM
Obama is more charming and has a bigger historical mandate than Blair, and he also has a much, much greater leaway to blame the former administration for his country's troubles.

He will fuck it up, because he's a lazy socialist who'se never had a real job, just like Blair, that's inevitable. But he will have much more wiggle room to hide it in. He'll fuck it up without people like HoG even noticing.

Of course, the parallels between Bliar and The Bazza are considerable. On the other hand, looking at manifestos like 'The Audacity Of Hope' are revealing. Whereas the texts put out by Blair pre-1997 tended towards the vague yet messianic, The Bazza's, meanwhile, seems full of statements that are open to interpretation and allow him maximum political maneuverability, while sounding superficially rousing.

He's a devious sod - the only questions are whether that will translate into success or whether he will trap himself in the end.

Sun Wukong
15th February 09, 09:23 AM
He will fuck it up, because he's a lazy socialist who'se never had a real job, just like Blair, that's inevitable. But he will have much more wiggle room to hide it in. He'll fuck it up without people like HoG even noticing.

Please be a little more accurate here. What exactly do you believe is going to get fucked up?

You barely acknowledge that he's at the bottom of a huge fucking chasm of the Bush admin's and his forebears' mistakes and then you dismiss him as a socialist though he has taken every effort to be as centrist as possible given the national mood. You can see how I might be having a problem with determining whether or not you are merely citing your disdain of ideological differences with the liberal movement in your own country and confusing them with the "liberal" movement in ours.

You realize there is a disparity there don't you?

There is always going to be something to be disappointed about in any given administration, and I realize you loathe the way life in your own country is, however, the way of life in the US is remarkably different by my reckoning of your accounts regarding the UK.

I think you need to spend some time in the US to get a feel of things for yourself, you might find the experience illuminating.

Cullion
15th February 09, 09:42 AM
Please be a little more accurate here. What exactly do you believe is going to get fucked up?

Two main things:-

i) He's going to make the economic crisis worse than it need be by further weakening your public finances.

ii) He's going to entangle the US more deeply in the troubles of the Middle East.

Do I think he will do anything good?

Yes. He's already shown willing to avoid some of the worst excesses of the Bush regime in terms of how these wars are conducted by shutting down Guantanamo. A bit less of the stimulus spending will be sucked up by the corporate/financial elite.



You barely acknowledge that he's at the bottom of a huge fucking chasm of the Bush admin's and his forebears' mistakes and then you dismiss him as a socialist though he has taken every effort to be as centrist as possible given the national mood.

He's made every effort to be seen as centrist to people who don't pay attention to his policies. His pioneer youth corps and support for vast bailout spending point to the future.



You can see how I might be having a problem with determining whether or not you are merely citing your disdain of ideological differences with the liberal movement in your own country and confusing them with the "liberal" movement in ours.

You realize there is a disparity there don't you?

Yes I see what you're saying.



There is always going to be something to be disappointed about in any given administration, and I realize you loathe the way life in your own country is, however, the way of life in the US is remarkably different by my reckoning of your accounts regarding the UK.

I think you need to spend some time in the US to get a feel of things for yourself, you might find the experience illuminating.

This is true. Let's put it this way; I'm trying to warn you against making the same mistakes as us.

Sun Wukong
15th February 09, 09:43 AM
On the subject of him never having a real job, he taught constitutional law for 11 years and was a civil rights attorney for 9 years. i'm not sure what makes a good president, but that's a damn fine start in my opinion.

Sun Wukong
15th February 09, 09:59 AM
The bailout in it's current form is a mistake in my opinion, however, as I see it there are not many winning options and there are definitely not any Win/Win scenarios.

I acknowledge that the bailout, including the first legislation passed under GW was socialist policy and I have been reading your posts on what we should be doing instead of what has been done in regard to the current global economic crunch.

You've very nearly convinced me that your way is not a bad way to go. I think if you were in the US, you might be inclined to see things a little differently with some of the spending in the bill given the neglect shown by GW but as for giving money to Wall Street without major strings attached, I too believe it's a mistake.

In my opinion that money should not just be gifted but should actually buy something and I think that appeals very much to the commonwealth of american constituency.

However, the most significant problem that I see is a total lack of republican willingness to be involved in it to bring forth alternative answers. I think they'd really rather see the whole thing tank so that they can fill the vacuum with their own ideologies rather than have anything to do with improving the bill.

In short, the current right wing government representatives would instead of doing their god damn jobs, prefer the bailout become Obama's Iraq war so they want to see it fail and contribute to that failure in any way they can.

Seriously, have you heard the shit-tastic idea's they've pitched about this? TAX BREAKS for the wealthiest few again? For the same fuck-tard captain's of industry who put us in this shit?

You can't TAX break your way out of a major monetary crisis like this. It's fine when you want to ease a recession or spur growth at the END of a recession and beginning of a boom, but you CANNOT just answer all your economic problems with same solution over and over again.

What I'm seeing in DC right now is a vacuum of rightwing (political) support for the nation with a few sane voices of desent mixed in among them.

Cullion
15th February 09, 10:34 AM
Well, as you know, I'm not a fan of the mainstream republican party and had Obama down as my early second choice after Ron Paul for who I wanted to see win.

In my view this mess is largely the result of Alan Greenspan trying to avert previous (smaller) recessions by papering over the cracks with new credit. It just stored up a bigger collapse for later.

I'm going to sound all alarmist now.

If our governments attempt to avert this depression by the methods Greenspan used in the past, but with the dial turned even further into the red zone, the final collapse when that credit bubble bursts will make the Great Depression look like a minor blip.

Things are already so bad in various European countries that pretty serious media management is going on to try and prevent the trouble spreading. The Icelandic government has collapsed and normally placid middle class people throw stones at government buildiings. There are calls to completely dissolve their ancient parliament and run the country by direct democracy via a webforum. They had to borrow money from Russia to keep the populace fed.

Ireland, Spain and the UK all have pretty serious credit problems on a par with Iceland's. Can you picture a country as populous and densely populated as the UK undergoing a complete collapse of representative democracy like Iceland ?
<shudders>

I hope it doesn't happen this time. I expect mass unemployment and riot police to be out on the streets in all major UK cities by the summer, but that's happened here before several times during the 20 century. We'll survive. We'll still eat. We'll retain democratic representative government. We'll recover.

I have no doubt that if we just paper over the cracks we will endure an even larger crash in 5-10 years that any attempt to fix by stimulus will simply lead to hyperinflation of the type seen in Zimbabwe or the Weimar Republic. Even in the US. That's game over. That's the end of anything resembling liberal democracy for most of the world's population.

Now is not the time for more of the same.

Phrost
15th February 09, 11:33 AM
The problem is that when people get scared, most try to run and hide under the skirt of Government. And then government, like a virus, takes advantage of the opportunity to grow even larger and more putrefacient.

Cullion
15th February 09, 11:51 AM
Well, it's not just government that's the problem here. It's centralisation of power enabled by government in a close, often corrupt relationship with large corporations.

Sun Wukong
15th February 09, 12:12 PM
well that's certainly a major fly in the ointment.

Phrost
15th February 09, 01:33 PM
Which is why it's always better for freedom, to have as much power in the hands of individual citizens as possible.

Hence, guns.

Any centralization of power is a threat to liberty. Government's just historically been at the top of that list. Corporations should be watched as well, and monopolies stomped out in the stage when they're just a threat to free enterprise.

Sun Wukong
16th February 09, 04:44 PM
while I don't think the firearms owned by the american public would be any more than a speed bump to a serious invasion force or modern military, you do make a good argument about monopolies being the blight of commerce.

Cullion
16th February 09, 04:46 PM
while I don't think the firearms owned by the american public would be any more than a speed bump to a serious invasion force or modern military, you do make a good argument about monopolies being the blight of commerce.

I don't think Afghanistan looks that easy for our modern militaries at the moment. Those guys don't have tanks or helicopters.

HappyOldGuy
16th February 09, 04:50 PM
I don't think Afghanistan looks that easy for our modern militaries at the moment. Those guys don't have tanks or helicopters.

They do however have anti tank and anti helicopter weapons, artillery, and explosives. Infinitely more importantly. they have a safe harbor in a nuclear armed state.

Sun Wukong
16th February 09, 05:57 PM
yeah, there's not a whole heck of a lot of RPG's and ground to air missiles in the hands of montana militiamen, nor is there a neighboring country that is more than capable and happy to constantly supply them with additional arms.

Of course, if the US tries to annex Canada or have a border dispute with Mexico that might change.

Cullion
16th February 09, 06:49 PM
They do however have anti tank and anti helicopter weapons, artillery, and explosives.

They've got stuff americans could build in a barn.



Infinitely more importantly. they have a safe harbor in a nuclear armed state.

You think Pakistan protects them from America by the threat of it's nuclear weapons ?

I don't think it works like that. I think they're just real hard to find on thousands of square miles of their own mountainous home turf.

Robot Jesus
16th February 09, 07:29 PM
any realistic scenario for American revolution I think would involve the military turning on the government with some loyalist generals fighting back, and in most likelihood the American government would most likely be the bad guys.

HappyOldGuy
16th February 09, 07:31 PM
They've got stuff americans could build in a barn.


I'm a decently handy guy, I don't think I can build a radar guided anti-aircraft missle in my garage. Not even an infrared.

Maybe if I had a barn.

Phrost
16th February 09, 10:25 PM
I think you severely overestimate the number of stinger missles/etc in play over there.

RPGs and old Soviet artillery? Sure. But they only sent the Afghans a handful of the good stuff, over 25 years ago.

taijiamn
16th February 09, 10:30 PM
If you can buy these, how hard would it be to fill it with more charge and steel berrings? Bet you could do that in your barn.

http://www.redwolfairsoft.com/redwolf/airsoft/NewsDetail?newsID=757

HappyOldGuy
16th February 09, 10:59 PM
I think you severely overestimate the number of stinger missles/etc in play over there.

RPGs and old Soviet artillery? Sure. But they only sent the Afghans a handful of the good stuff, over 25 years ago.
AIUI, they are getting new stuff through Pakistan, China, and especially Iran.


Edit: googlage http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6975934.stm

Sun Wukong
17th February 09, 12:32 AM
I think you severely overestimate the number of stinger missles/etc in play over there.

RPGs and old Soviet artillery? Sure. But they only sent the Afghans a handful of the good stuff, over 25 years ago.

Yes, but they can still buy/get for free black market arms from Syria and other hostile factions.

Sun Wukong
17th February 09, 12:33 AM
AIUI, they are getting new stuff through Pakistan, China, and especially Iran.


Edit: googlage http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6975934.stm

Damn it, beat me to it.

GuiltySpark
17th February 09, 01:09 AM
I don't think Afghanistan looks that easy for our modern militaries at the moment. Those guys don't have tanks or helicopters.
Theres also retarded rules of engagement like not being able to blow away a guy whos digging a hole in the side of a culvert at 3 am on a spot where IEDs are constantly found and 5 vehicles in the last month and a half have been destroyed.

It's not a matter of our military not being able to defeat them. It's the politicians wanting to have their cake and eat it too.


The IEDs we find come conviently wrapped in materials markd MADE IN PAKISTAN and MADE IN IRAN.

Cullion
17th February 09, 05:29 AM
I'm a decently handy guy, I don't think I can build a radar guided anti-aircraft missle in my garage. Not even an infrared.

How many aircraft have the Taliban shot down ? I'm talking about stuff like mortars and improvised bombs. I'm talking about the kind of hardware that the IRA fought with.

Besides, the point about any large uprising being likely to include defecting elements of the military sort of nullifies this point.

Phrost
17th February 09, 11:08 AM
If you can buy these, how hard would it be to fill it with more charge and steel berrings? Bet you could do that in your barn.

http://www.redwolfairsoft.com/redwolf/airsoft/NewsDetail?newsID=757

Pretty hard in England since they banned Airsoft too last time I checked.

Cullion
17th February 09, 11:30 AM
No I think it's still legal here, but carrying a replica gun around in public is a bad idea.

Zendetta
17th February 09, 11:39 AM
I can't speak for all of us Colonists, but I for one am really looking forward to your treatise on "How Faire Britannia Fell Into Ruin".

Sun Wukong
17th February 09, 03:38 PM
probably has something to do with the massive economic depression england experienced and the lack of compassion showed by the conservative opposition which pushed people away.

Cullion
17th February 09, 03:47 PM
On my graduation day from Oxford, the provost of my college gave a talk about us going forth and being important etc..

Most of the societies and committees amongst the graduate students had American presidents (the American students were generally more ambitious and together about getting good voluntary service and elected positions on their resumes before leaving college), and he thanked them.

He then went off on a bit of a tangent about the decline of Britain and put it partly down to genetics and breeding and said that he thought that most of the go-getters and dreamers of big dreams had left the country for the new frontiers of the colonies in the 18th and 19th centuries (whose descendants were here amongst us with new accents. The Americans who weren't of British ancestry scowled a little at this point but let him continue), with most of the remainder having been slaughtered in the two great wars after volunteering for the most glamorous and dangerous jobs.

Nobody British clapped and he looked a little bit embarrassed. He may have had a point. To a degree. He was on his second bottle of wine though.

HappyOldGuy
17th February 09, 03:54 PM
That's why it's so important to import the go getters from the rest of the world.




That's what we do anyhow.

Sun Wukong
17th February 09, 03:55 PM
it's what we used to do maybe. we turn down qualified over achievers all the time, especially those from poor countries desperately trying to get out.

HappyOldGuy
17th February 09, 03:59 PM
it's what we used to do maybe. we turn down qualified over achievers all the time, especially those from poor countries desperately trying to get out.
Grading on a curve, we still do well. Although the DHS has screwed with enough folks that it has hurt a little.

Back to the OP. Maybe we should start making them take gun sensitivity classes.

jubei33
10th December 12, 03:11 PM
Where are those?

Vieux Normand
10th December 12, 03:20 PM
Very soon after I'd arrived in qnuxtan, I knew where I could find a handgun cheap under-the-counter. I had that choice.

I also had the choice of doing all the things qnux need to do in order to be legally armed. An "safety course" a cabbage could pass with no problem and a bit of paperwork. Big fucking deal. Having been used to hunting where I was from, I had no issue choosing the latter.

'mrkns who object, on constitutional grounds, to licenced gun ownership can rest assured: they will always have the cheap under-the-counter handgun option if they really want to Strike A Blow For Liberty or whatever.

Syntactical Disruptorize
10th December 12, 11:45 PM
'mrkns who object, on constitutional grounds, to licenced gun ownership can rest assured: they will always have the cheap under-the-counter handgun option if they really want to Strike A Blow For Liberty or whatever.
Forcing people to go to illegitimate lengths to achieve legitimate ends is generally a losing proposition. The last time we did that as a nation, we learned what Prohibition cost us. I'd rather not be that stupid again.

Feryk
11th December 12, 04:22 PM
You are being that stupid now with marijuana. Why stop there?

Feryk
11th December 12, 04:24 PM
It's gonna be a two state sized greenhouse there now.

Kind of like BC is here.