Obama calls for Gun Control Laws [Archive]

-:Undertaker:-

16-01-2013, 06:36 PM

Hahahaha let him try and take them! blood will be spilt in that event is all I can say.

Here is an incomplete list of potential national tragedies that were prevented thanks to an armed populace. I bet you didn't hear about any of these stories on the national news.

A 1997 high school shooting in Pearl, Miss., was halted by the school's vice principal after he retrieved the Colt .45 he kept in his truck.

A 1998 middle school shooting ended when a man living next door heard gunfire and apprehended the shooter with his shotgun.

A 2002 law school shooting in Grundy, Va., came to an abrupt conclusion when students carrying firearms confronted the shooter.

A 2007 mall shooting in Salt Lake City, Utah, ended when an armed off-duty police officer intervened.

A 2009 workplace shooting in Houston, Texas, was halted by two coworkers who carried concealed handguns.

A 2012 church shooting in Aurora, Colo., was stopped by a member of the congregation carrying a gun.

(Citation: http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/halt-the-massacre-of-innocent-children-by-ending-prohibition-on-self-defense-in) (h/t Jack Hunter)

As for the clowns congratulating him on his executive orders, you do realise executive orders are only there in order to clarify law and not create or nullify law? so if he does try and implement law via executive order he'll be bypassing Congress which means the end of the Republic. An attempt was made years ago to nationalise steel mills in the US and was rejected as the President cannot use executive orders to create law.

So if he does succeed in this, you're all cheering on a man who has committed what essentially will be a constitutional coup. Let us hope that if he is attempting to create law be decree and overturn the constitution like a third world dictator that he's impeached immediately.

FlyingJesus

16-01-2013, 06:40 PM

It won't get through Congress and he knows it, this is quite plainly just another ploy to get the growing number of liberals in America to think of him as the good guy while he bombs children

GommeInc

16-01-2013, 06:43 PM

Obama seems to be doing all the things Americans should hate. Using drones fighting a war he will never win in one of the most undemocratic ways possible - he should of informed his country that he has given the orders to use a cowardly and harmful form of warfare ... and now he's attempting to bypass congress :/ It's hilarious that people wish the UK was a bit more democratic and use the US as an example when they seem to have a worse leader and form of Government :/

Inseriousity.

16-01-2013, 06:57 PM

Won't happen, such a big change and could just be a gesture with no substance unless he keeps at it.

Kardan

16-01-2013, 07:20 PM

Placing a ban on the sale of certain weapons will just mean that sales will increase up until the ban as people stockpile what they need. A bit like the old lightbulbs back here in the UK.

Lee

16-01-2013, 08:14 PM

Hahahaha let him try and take them! blood will be spilt in that event is all I can say.

As for the clowns congratulating him on his executive orders, you do realise executive orders are only there in order to clarify law and not create or nullify law? so if he does try and implement law via executive order he'll be bypassing Congress which means the end of the Republic. An attempt was made years ago to nationalise steel mills in the US and was rejected as the President cannot use executive orders to create law.

So if he does succeed in this, you're all cheering on a man who has committed what essentially will be a constitutional coup. Let us hope that if he is attempting to create law be decree and overturn the constitution like a third world dictator that he's impeached immediately.

All of the quoted examples involve guns - this is what he is attempting to eliminate.

JoeyK.

16-01-2013, 08:40 PM

Ardemax

16-01-2013, 10:54 PM

Normally I would consider myself left-leaning, but I'm really against this legislation. Like many others have said, since when do criminals follow laws?

The only thing that this will accomplish is taking guns out of the hands of people who use them lawfully and up the prices on the black market for the multitude of guns that are already around. There's no way they can ever confiscate ALL of the so-called 'assault weapons' that have been sold over the years in the US. Regardless of what people say, the second amendment was not designed to protect someone's right to hunt - it was put in place to defend against those threatening one's family or property, emergency use in a foreign invasion (unlikely), and yes, to oppose the government if it becomes tyrannical.

While the tragedies that have occurred are sad (as a citizen of Colorado, I know all too well - I live 10 minutes from Aurora), taking away the right to purchase guns won't stop people from finding them. Even if they can't, it's not difficult to make a bomb that could kill just as many in a small, enclosed space like a classroom or a movie theater.

Look at Mexico - while it is technically legal to own a firearm given you meet all of the criteria, it is almost impossible for a normal citizen to carry one outside of their own home. Members of the cartels don't seem to care about the law, and the country has a homicide rate of 22.7 per 100,000 people, versus the United States at 4.8 per 100,000. In the UK, the murder rate is 12 per 100,000. Note that gun violence is significantly lower in the UK than in the US or Mexico, but the overall rate indicates that the ability to own and carry a gun with you acts as a deterrent against those who would otherwise commit murder using another method. I'm not entirely clear on whether or not a citizen of the UK can carry a concealed weapon though, if anyone can clear that up for me it would be great.

Somehow I get the feeling that our current system works a little better than the UK's or Mexico's. Nothing you EVER do can prevent 100% of all tragedies. If someone wants to commit mass murder, they will find a way, with or without a gun. The only thing keeping them legal changes is that an armed citizen has a chance to minimize the damage before the authorities can respond.

I'm quoting Wikipedia here but the murder rate in the UK is 1.2 per 100,000 and not 12 as you have stated.

Also to your very first line, by going by the attitude of "no criminals follow laws anyway" we shouldn't have laws at all because all the good and righteous would do what is morally right anyway, surely...

The legislation is probably just going to take away assault rifles, not things like handguns. I mean really, who the hell needs an assault rifle lying around in the garage in case the government turn against "us"?

I see pros and cons for both sides of the arguments of whether a country should relax its guns laws or not but I just keep asking myself whether I would feel safer in a country where guns are totally illegal and clamped down on (UK) or whether I'd feel safer in a country where people are allowed guns to defend themselves. It's like going out with a knife: the person who is most likely to get stabbed is yourself.

May have gone off topic slightly & I apologise :)

JoeyK.

16-01-2013, 11:32 PM

I'm quoting Wikipedia here but the murder rate in the UK is 1.2 per 100,000 and not 12 as you have stated.

Also to your very first line, by going by the attitude of "no criminals follow laws anyway" we shouldn't have laws at all because all the good and righteous would do what is morally right anyway, surely...

The legislation is probably just going to take away assault rifles, not things like handguns. I mean really, who the hell needs an assault rifle lying around in the garage in case the government turn against "us"?

I see pros and cons for both sides of the arguments of whether a country should relax its guns laws or not but I just keep asking myself whether I would feel safer in a country where guns are totally illegal and clamped down on (UK) or whether I'd feel safer in a country where people are allowed guns to defend themselves. It's like going out with a knife: the person who is most likely to get stabbed is yourself.

May have gone off topic slightly & I apologise :)

You're right, I misquoted Wiki myself - the UK does have only 1.2 per 100k, my apologies - I'll use my horrible vision as an excuse :P . No, it would not remove the right to non 'assault' weapons, but I see this as a dangerous first step to even more restrictive laws.

The simple fact is that when the US was founded, the Bill of Rights was to serve as a basic guarantee of what each American citizen has a right to, and I don't believe that we should pass further laws to continually limit what that means, whether it's deciding what is 'hate speech', what guns you can or cannot own, who has a right to a trial by jury, and in the last few years almost all of these rights have been narrowed down, something that really disturbs me. I'm just tired of living in a country that is supposed to be 'free' when our rights are constantly reduced over the years. Apparently these days you have the freedom to do whatever you want as long as you agree with the majority, which is exactly what we were trying to prevent.

I see what you mean on my comment on following the laws, but I stand by my argument that if criminals can obtain these weapons, we should as a people have a right to them ourselves to defend against that possibility. If a felon breaks into your house with a semi-automatic rifle and you have a little handgun, who has the upper hand? Yes, weapons are commonly used against those who wield them, which is why it should be required to take a training course on how to use any weapon you purchase so you know how to use it properly. I personally carry a knife for work, but I would be more than capable of using it in self defense if necessary. I don't even own guns, outside of two hunting rifles i inherited from my father kept at my grandparents' home on the other side of the country.

Instead of banning these outright, I would prefer seeing stricter regulations on when and where you can carry specific weapons. For example, you can carry a handgun with you around town (barring schools, government buildings and the like), and you can carry a rifle or two with you if you're in a designated hunting area. However, if you own one of these 'assault weapons,' it should stay in your own home for self-defense purposes only.

Like I said - no legislation will EVER be able to stop people from doing this. The only thing it will accomplish is keeping the weapons in question from being used by law abiding citizens trying to protect themselves.

There's also the issue of border control between the US and Mexico - I don't think the UK has a neighbor so close that is entrenched in as much violence as we see here. If we outlaw these weapons, it becomes another good for them to bring over the border (whether to sell or to use), and will only cause the violence to spread further from the south.

My wife was born in Mexico, and still has family down there. It's absolutely terrible - there's news of more murders each day, and the normal citizens have no way of defending themselves other than to aid the cartels. Maybe if they could mow down a group of ten outlaws with a single weapon in a matter of seconds they'd think twice before invading their homes, but unfortunately only those cartels themselves have that power.

tl;dr - There is a legitimate use for assault weapons in self-defense.

-:Undertaker:-

17-01-2013, 12:08 AM

The legislation is probably just going to take away assault rifles, not things like handguns. I mean really, who the hell needs an assault rifle lying around in the garage in case the government turn against "us"?

You may laugh, but this is an incomplete list from last century of when the government turned against we the people;

Turkey/Ottoman Empire
China
Russia
Vietnam
Cambodia
Germany
Austria
Czechoslovakia
Yugoslavia
Spain
Portugal
Italy
Argentina
Chile
Brazil
Zimbabwe
Libya
Egypt
Iraq
Iran
Syria
Pakistan
Afghanistan
Romania
Greece
*America - the KKK pushed for gun control at its height, no prizes for guessing why.

...that's just a short list of countries where the government did turn against the people or a proportion of the people - and in many and most cases, removed gun rights for either everybody or a group such as the Jewish people.

I can't stand this attitude that a) it's never going to happen here, I mean this is Britain right? a prosperous nation in Europe? look at the list, some of the worst examples of tyranny took place in Europe - not once but twice in some cases and it's all happened in the lifetime of our grandparents. b) but this is a different century, it's all different now - why do you think Libyan and Syrian rebels begged for weapon supplies? because the Assad family and Gaddafi had restricted back gun rights.

I'd also add on to that, that most shootings in the United States are done via handguns and not assault rifles, as Ben Shapiro points out here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJdhAm_oUUs

I see pros and cons for both sides of the arguments of whether a country should relax its guns laws or not but I just keep asking myself whether I would feel safer in a country where guns are totally illegal and clamped down on (UK) or whether I'd feel safer in a country where people are allowed guns to defend themselves. It's like going out with a knife: the person who is most likely to get stabbed is yourself.

May have gone off topic slightly & I apologise :)

The chances of being gunned down are so ridiculously small it's statistically absurd that we're even having this debate about 'saving lives' - and on crime statistics, the figures can tell us anything we want - eg; that while gun crime may be high in the United States, as a result it has lower violent crime rates than the UK - and so on and so forth.

I commend JoeyK.; for two fantastic posts, +rep

All of the quoted examples involve guns - this is what he is attempting to eliminate.

Genocide and tyranny also involves guns, see various examples above.

Kardan

17-01-2013, 12:59 AM

You're right, I misquoted Wiki myself - the UK does have only 1.2 per 100k, my apologies - I'll use my horrible vision as an excuse :P . No, it would not remove the right to non 'assault' weapons, but I see this as a dangerous first step to even more restrictive laws.

The simple fact is that when the US was founded, the Bill of Rights was to serve as a basic guarantee of what each American citizen has a right to, and I don't believe that we should pass further laws to continually limit what that means, whether it's deciding what is 'hate speech', what guns you can or cannot own, who has a right to a trial by jury, and in the last few years almost all of these rights have been narrowed down, something that really disturbs me. I'm just tired of living in a country that is supposed to be 'free' when our rights are constantly reduced over the years. Apparently these days you have the freedom to do whatever you want as long as you agree with the majority, which is exactly what we were trying to prevent.

I see what you mean on my comment on following the laws, but I stand by my argument that if criminals can obtain these weapons, we should as a people have a right to them ourselves to defend against that possibility. If a felon breaks into your house with a semi-automatic rifle and you have a little handgun, who has the upper hand? Yes, weapons are commonly used against those who wield them, which is why it should be required to take a training course on how to use any weapon you purchase so you know how to use it properly. I personally carry a knife for work, but I would be more than capable of using it in self defense if necessary. I don't even own guns, outside of two hunting rifles i inherited from my father kept at my grandparents' home on the other side of the country.

Instead of banning these outright, I would prefer seeing stricter regulations on when and where you can carry specific weapons. For example, you can carry a handgun with you around town (barring schools, government buildings and the like), and you can carry a rifle or two with you if you're in a designated hunting area. However, if you own one of these 'assault weapons,' it should stay in your own home for self-defense purposes only.

Like I said - no legislation will EVER be able to stop people from doing this. The only thing it will accomplish is keeping the weapons in question from being used by law abiding citizens trying to protect themselves.

There's also the issue of border control between the US and Mexico - I don't think the UK has a neighbor so close that is entrenched in as much violence as we see here. If we outlaw these weapons, it becomes another good for them to bring over the border (whether to sell or to use), and will only cause the violence to spread further from the south.

My wife was born in Mexico, and still has family down there. It's absolutely terrible - there's news of more murders each day, and the normal citizens have no way of defending themselves other than to aid the cartels. Maybe if they could mow down a group of ten outlaws with a single weapon in a matter of seconds they'd think twice before invading their homes, but unfortunately only those cartels themselves have that power.

tl;dr - There is a legitimate use for assault weapons in self-defense.

This is a good post and I agree with pretty much everything you say. You will never be able to ban guns from America so the only thing that can be done is more restrictions. It's quite terrifying that people can just carry around handguns in the street, that seems a bit much for me.

You may laugh, but this is an incomplete list from last century of when the government turned against we the people;

Turkey/Ottoman Empire
China
Russia
Vietnam
Cambodia
Germany
Austria
Czechoslovakia
Yugoslavia
Spain
Portugal
Italy
Argentina
Chile
Brazil
Zimbabwe
Libya
Egypt
Iraq
Iran
Syria
Pakistan
Afghanistan
Romania
Greece
*America - the KKK pushed for gun control at its height, no prizes for guessing why.

...that's just a short list of countries where the government did turn against the people or a proportion of the people - and in many and most cases, removed gun rights for either everybody or a group such as the Jewish people.

I can't stand this attitude that a) it's never going to happen here, I mean this is Britain right? a prosperous nation in Europe? look at the list, some of the worst examples of tyranny took place in Europe - not once but twice in some cases and it's all happened in the lifetime of our grandparents. b) but this is a different century, it's all different now - why do you think Libyan and Syrian rebels begged for weapon supplies? because the Assad family and Gaddafi had restricted back gun rights.

I'd also add on to that, that most shootings in the United States are done via handguns and not assault rifles, as Ben Shapiro points out here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJdhAm_oUUs

The chances of being gunned down are so ridiculously small it's statistically absurd that we're even having this debate about 'saving lives' - and on crime statistics, the figures can tell us anything we want - eg; that while gun crime may be high in the United States, as a result it has lower violent crime rates than the UK - and so on and so forth.

I commend JoeyK.; for two fantastic posts, +rep

Genocide and tyranny also involves guns, see various examples above.

What is a key difference in the whole gun debate is that America already have guns and the UK don't. If you were to ban guns in America, it simply wouldn't work. People wouldn't give up their right to self defence as I'm sure you know. I assume that the majority of people in the US that have a weapon know how to handle one etc.
If you were to bring guns into the UK, for which there is no logical reason (self defence from gun crime simply isn't an issue as it may be in the US), would just cause chaos. The majority of the British public don't know a single thing about guns and it'll just cause more problems than it would solve. Also the US may have a lower 'violent crime' rate than the UK, but each country has a different classification of 'violent crime' so the statistics aren't accurate (although I'm not saying that the US does have less crime than the UK - who knows).

peteyt

17-01-2013, 02:57 AM

-:Undertaker:-

17-01-2013, 03:10 AM

I don't see the big fuss. So he bans some guns and not all and wants better background checking - won't this benefit most. I mean fair enough people want to protect themselves but they can do this with a normal gun, why would they need an assault rifle. Better background checks is always a plus.

Most crimes are done with non-assault weapons, ie hand guns - and again, assault weapons are not automatic weapons as the media portrays. The American people aren't stupid, they know once a madman does exactly the same thing with a hand gun or a shot gun then you'll come for them aswell. A future President will stand there at a press conference with children (a sickening PR stunt if you ask me) and use exactly the same tactics as he is now - and you'll all fall for it, because what you really want in the end is all guns banned from the citizens and only the state to have guns.

No deal.

What is a key difference in the whole gun debate is that America already have guns and the UK don't. If you were to ban guns in America, it simply wouldn't work. People wouldn't give up their right to self defence as I'm sure you know. I assume that the majority of people in the US that have a weapon know how to handle one etc.

If you were to bring guns into the UK, for which there is no logical reason (self defence from gun crime simply isn't an issue as it may be in the US), would just cause chaos. The majority of the British public don't know a single thing about guns and it'll just cause more problems than it would solve. Also the US may have a lower 'violent crime' rate than the UK, but each country has a different classification of 'violent crime' so the statistics aren't accurate (although I'm not saying that the US does have less crime than the UK - who knows).

That's why licenses are used, that you can only purchase a gun if you know how to operate one and have been vetted. I would legalise them that in the knowledge that bad things will happen (as with anything) deaths from guns are so statistically small that it's not an issue which ought to triumph over our freedoms and liberties. As for the statistics, exactly - they can be twisted either way just as I could argue that due to lower certain crimes in the US that guns have prevented that .... again I don't think this all exactly matters as deaths from guns in weighing up benefits vs negatives are so small and insignifigant in the grand scheme of things.

But no it's not the most pressing issue, but i'd like to see a return in time to our pre-1920s laws which were perfectly fine.

FiftyCal

17-01-2013, 08:22 AM

Now i have to do private backround checks when i perform a private sale? ugh... screw that, if i'm doing private sales with my friends i'm not backround checking them even if it's a felony

JoeyK.

17-01-2013, 09:18 AM

Now i have to do private backround checks when i perform a private sale? ugh... screw that, if i'm doing private sales with my friends i'm not backround checking them even if it's a felony

Then you'll be pretty sad when the weapon you sell is used in a crime and it wasn't transferred legally. Even if the weapon was used in self defense, they would check the license and see that it belongs to you. For a while now you have had to make sure that the person you're selling to can legally own a gun, that doesn't change - the only exception is antique weapons.

Ardemax

17-01-2013, 09:12 PM

Was not expecting two essays haha

You're right, I misquoted Wiki myself - the UK does have only 1.2 per 100k, my apologies - I'll use my horrible vision as an excuse :P . No, it would not remove the right to non 'assault' weapons, but I see this as a dangerous first step to even more restrictive laws.

The simple fact is that when the US was founded, the Bill of Rights was to serve as a basic guarantee of what each American citizen has a right to, and I don't believe that we should pass further laws to continually limit what that means, whether it's deciding what is 'hate speech', what guns you can or cannot own, who has a right to a trial by jury, and in the last few years almost all of these rights have been narrowed down, something that really disturbs me. I'm just tired of living in a country that is supposed to be 'free' when our rights are constantly reduced over the years. Apparently these days you have the freedom to do whatever you want as long as you agree with the majority, which is exactly what we were trying to prevent.

I understand that all Americans feel entitled to freedom by the Bill of Rights and I respect that Bill's morals (it's a great starting point to build a nation under). However, I don't think that they should be left unchanged for 250 or so years. So much can change in that amount of time and it can make the Bill look outdated (there weren't mass shootings of schoolchildren or of people in general when the Bill was in it's early years for example).

I see what you mean on my comment on following the laws, but I stand by my argument that if criminals can obtain these weapons, we should as a people have a right to them ourselves to defend against that possibility. If a felon breaks into your house with a semi-automatic rifle and you have a little handgun, who has the upper hand? Yes, weapons are commonly used against those who wield them, which is why it should be required to take a training course on how to use any weapon you purchase so you know how to use it properly. I personally carry a knife for work, but I would be more than capable of using it in self defense if necessary. I don't even own guns, outside of two hunting rifles i inherited from my father kept at my grandparents' home on the other side of the country.

Then there's not a lot you can do. Even if you had an assault rifle to hand who's to say the felon isn't an ex-serviceman with pinpoint accuracy? Besides one precise shot with a handgun will kill someone just as fast as assault rifle bullets.

Instead of banning these outright, I would prefer seeing stricter regulations on when and where you can carry specific weapons. For example, you can carry a handgun with you around town (barring schools, government buildings and the like), and you can carry a rifle or two with you if you're in a designated hunting area. However, if you own one of these 'assault weapons,' it should stay in your own home for self-defense purposes only.

I totally agree about the stricter regulations, though I still can't understand why people feel the need to have an assault rifle in case of an emergency?

Like I said - no legislation will EVER be able to stop people from doing this. The only thing it will accomplish is keeping the weapons in question from being used by law abiding citizens trying to protect themselves.

There's also the issue of border control between the US and Mexico - I don't think the UK has a neighbor so close that is entrenched in as much violence as we see here. If we outlaw these weapons, it becomes another good for them to bring over the border (whether to sell or to use), and will only cause the violence to spread further from the south.

My wife was born in Mexico, and still has family down there. It's absolutely terrible - there's news of more murders each day, and the normal citizens have no way of defending themselves other than to aid the cartels. Maybe if they could mow down a group of ten outlaws with a single weapon in a matter of seconds they'd think twice before invading their homes, but unfortunately only those cartels themselves have that power.

That is certainly horrible to hear about what your wife's family has to see on a daily basis but what happened to the police? Shouldn't they be keeping order?

Also I'm not too convinced that adding more guns into circulation will reduce gun crime.

You may laugh, but this is an incomplete list from last century of when the government turned against we the people;

Turkey/Ottoman Empire
China
Russia
Vietnam
Cambodia
Germany
Austria
Czechoslovakia
Yugoslavia
Spain
Portugal
Italy
Argentina
Chile
Brazil
Zimbabwe
Libya
Egypt
Iraq
Iran
Syria
Pakistan
Afghanistan
Romania
Greece
*America - the KKK pushed for gun control at its height, no prizes for guessing why.

I was being US specific or relating to a more "stable" government (if you believe one exists). I don't see how the KKK pushing for gun control is a threat that fills people with so much fear that they need to board their windows and defend themselves with whatever is necessary?

May be being stupid here, but when has the US government turned against its people?

I can't stand this attitude that a) it's never going to happen here, I mean this is Britain right? a prosperous nation in Europe? look at the list, some of the worst examples of tyranny took place in Europe - not once but twice in some cases and it's all happened in the lifetime of our grandparents. b) but this is a different century, it's all different now - why do you think Libyan and Syrian rebels begged for weapon supplies? because the Assad family and Gaddafi had restricted back gun rights.

The chances of being gunned down are so ridiculously small it's statistically absurd that we're even having this debate about 'saving lives' - and on crime statistics, the figures can tell us anything we want - eg; that while gun crime may be high in the United States, as a result it has lower violent crime rates than the UK - and so on and so forth.

In your point about something like this ever happening in Britain I'd say that we have been such a stable country throughout history that I just can't see anything like that happening here. You mention that tyranny happened in countries in Europe. Well yes. Italy and Germany weren't exactly renowned for their stable leadership at the start of the 20th century.

But times are different now, do you honestly believe that a dictator could ever come to power in Britain and oppress his people like the likes of Hitler, Stalin or Mussolini? I don't believe so and that's why I feel Britain will never have this problem.

Chippiewill

17-01-2013, 09:43 PM

Here is an incomplete list of potential national tragedies that were prevented thanks to an armed populace. I bet you didn't hear about any of these stories on the national news.

A 1997 high school shooting in Pearl, Miss., was halted by the school's vice principal after he retrieved the Colt .45 he kept in his truck.

The school's assistant principal, Joel Myrick, retrieved a .45 caliber semi-automatic pistol from his truck and, spotting him near the parking lot, shouted for Woodham to stop. Woodham instead got into his mother's car and tried to escape. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting)
Wikipedia Article, fully cited. Not what I would call 'halted'

FiftyCal

17-01-2013, 11:09 PM

Then you'll be pretty sad when the weapon you sell is used in a crime and it wasn't transferred legally. Even if the weapon was used in self defense, they would check the license and see that it belongs to you. For a while now you have had to make sure that the person you're selling to can legally own a gun, that doesn't change - the only exception is antique weapons. Yeah, because my friends are going to shoot up a school right after i sell gun to them... My friends all have guns and they have had them for years so i'm pretty positive they aren't going to be used in crimes unless they sold them to some stranger but most of the time they only sell to people they know personally. Just because something becomes law doesn't mean i'm agreeing with it, so i'm not going to follow any. As a matter of fact there are a few of policemen/sheriffs that wrote letters to the vice president Joe Biden about the new laws and how they aren't going to enforce them on people. It seems like nothing became law until the whole setup of sandy hook happned

peteyt

18-01-2013, 05:35 AM

Most crimes are done with non-assault weapons, ie hand guns - and again, assault weapons are not automatic weapons as the media portrays. The American people aren't stupid, they know once a madman does exactly the same thing with a hand gun or a shot gun then you'll come for them aswell. A future President will stand there at a press conference with children (a sickening PR stunt if you ask me) and use exactly the same tactics as he is now - and you'll all fall for it, because what you really want in the end is all guns banned from the citizens and only the state to have guns.

No deal.

Sorry but I feel you've totally ignored my point and just went on another rant.

Yes I'll admit I'd rather have all guns banned, but as people have pointed out that will never happen, the people won't accept it. My point is that at least by banning assault rifles, larger weapons your removing the most dangerous of these while at the same time not preventing people to buy handheld weapons - basically people can still buy hand held weapons to protect themselves so I don't see what the fuss is about.

Also my second point was that nothing bad can come from tighter checks. Obviously they will never be perfect. Normal appearing people will every so often be able to fool their way through but any improvement to stop those who want to hurt people will be better.

I just see this as the best of both worlds right now - take the worst weapons out and make the tests for weapons stricter

JoeyK.

19-01-2013, 06:50 AM

Was not expecting two essays haha

I understand that all Americans feel entitled to freedom by the Bill of Rights and I respect that Bill's morals (it's a great starting point to build a nation under). However, I don't think that they should be left unchanged for 250 or so years. So much can change in that amount of time and it can make the Bill look outdated (there weren't mass shootings of schoolchildren or of people in general when the Bill was in it's early years for example).

Then there's not a lot you can do. Even if you had an assault rifle to hand who's to say the felon isn't an ex-serviceman with pinpoint accuracy? Besides one precise shot with a handgun will kill someone just as fast as assault rifle bullets.

I totally agree about the stricter regulations, though I still can't understand why people feel the need to have an assault rifle in case of an emergency?

That is certainly horrible to hear about what your wife's family has to see on a daily basis but what happened to the police? Shouldn't they be keeping order?

Also I'm not too convinced that adding more guns into circulation will reduce gun crime.

I was being US specific or relating to a more "stable" government (if you believe one exists). I don't see how the KKK pushing for gun control is a threat that fills people with so much fear that they need to board their windows and defend themselves with whatever is necessary?

May be being stupid here, but when has the US government turned against its people?

In your point about something like this ever happening in Britain I'd say that we have been such a stable country throughout history that I just can't see anything like that happening here. You mention that tyranny happened in countries in Europe. Well yes. Italy and Germany weren't exactly renowned for their stable leadership at the start of the 20th century.

But times are different now, do you honestly believe that a dictator could ever come to power in Britain and oppress his people like the likes of Hitler, Stalin or Mussolini? I don't believe so and that's why I feel Britain will never have this problem.

Sure, our societies have lasted a little while, but you cannot always trust the system. The Roman Republic lasted 500 years before its fall to a dictator, and I'm sure people thought the same of Rome at the time. To think that everything has fixed itself and no human being could ever obtain office in a powerful nation without being 'good' is stretching it. It's been less than 70 years since Germany fell in World War II, I wouldn't call that a long time. It's far from a peaceful world.

Ardemax

19-01-2013, 12:56 PM

Sure, our societies have lasted a little while, but you cannot always trust the system. The Roman Republic lasted 500 years before its fall to a dictator, and I'm sure people thought the same of Rome at the time. To think that everything has fixed itself and no human being could ever obtain office in a powerful nation without being 'good' is stretching it. It's been less than 70 years since Germany fell in World War II, I wouldn't call that a long time. It's far from a peaceful world.

Though, to my knowledge, they only achieved power in incredibly unlikely circumstances. Had Germany not been involved in WW1, then there would not have been a WW2 and no Hitler. Had there been stable government for the previous 20 years or so in Italy then Mussolini wouldn't have had a chance.

I see where you're coming from with there still being a chance of a dictatorship and the likes but I just can't see that ever happening in the UK or US :)

The Don

19-01-2013, 07:13 PM

There is absolutely no need for the guns to be legalised in the UK. The US is completely different as guns are so widespread that it would be futile trying to recall them all. Hopefully they can be slowly eradicated over the next decade or so with more legislation making it increasingly difficult to obtain one.

-:Undertaker:-

20-01-2013, 01:10 PM

Sorry but I feel you've totally ignored my point and just went on another rant.

Yes I'll admit I'd rather have all guns banned, but as people have pointed out that will never happen, the people won't accept it. My point is that at least by banning assault rifles, larger weapons your removing the most dangerous of these while at the same time not preventing people to buy handheld weapons - basically people can still buy hand held weapons to protect themselves so I don't see what the fuss is about.

Also my second point was that nothing bad can come from tighter checks. Obviously they will never be perfect. Normal appearing people will every so often be able to fool their way through but any improvement to stop those who want to hurt people will be better.

I just see this as the best of both worlds right now - take the worst weapons out and make the tests for weapons stricter

The first point is dud as most attacks are done via a small hand gun, so if you really wanted to save lives then you'd be calling for a ban on all guns - infact, you'd be advocating a ban on hand guns as your number one priority as they are the weapon of choice in most crimes related to guns. As for the point on danger, the assault weapons are not automatic weapons - you have it in your head (I suspect) that it's akin to having a machine gun... it is not. A great deal of these weapons (often the same weapons) have varying designs where some such as the AK or AR have a military style look but are exactly the same as a normal hunting rifle in terms of firepower, speed and so on.

On the second point, tight checks are already in place - sadly you cannot legislate against cases such as the lady and her crackpot son, she had passed all the tests but it was her personal failure that she did not keep her guns locked away out of the reach of her son because like all mothers, she didn't and would have never thought that her son was capable of doing what he did.

I think Ted Nugent put it best in a recent interview, that you'd have to be downright stupid to argue for more laws to be put in place when the kid had broken something like 41 laws relating to guns - it's mere idiocy to suggest a 42nd would have prevented it.

Though, to my knowledge, they only achieved power in incredibly unlikely circumstances. Had Germany not been involved in WW1, then there would not have been a WW2 and no Hitler. Had there been stable government for the previous 20 years or so in Italy then Mussolini wouldn't have had a chance.

I see where you're coming from with there still being a chance of a dictatorship and the likes but I just can't see that ever happening in the UK or US :)

I gave a comprehensive list of other countries where the population had been massacred by the government, Germany is not the only example - there are many more recent examples, take the actions of the Assad family in Syria for the past few decades - a country where the government has remained in place for so long during the uprising due to the reason that the population were unarmed. In the 1920s themselves, the British government banned guns in the first place because it feared an uprising - it wanted to make sure that in such circumstances that it would be the only force using guns on the opposition.

Or for another example thats recent, take Japanese US citizen POWs in WW2. Completely innocent people, taken and put into concentration camps in America - 70 years ago. True in this case guns were not banned, but had war hysteria not taken importance over civil liberties then the American government would not have dared imprison these people.

An unarmed population is an invitiation to a dictator, and not all dictators wear a Generals suit or sport a moustache remember.

In your point about something like this ever happening in Britain I'd say that we have been such a stable country throughout history that I just can't see anything like that happening here. You mention that tyranny happened in countries in Europe. Well yes. Italy and Germany weren't exactly renowned for their stable leadership at the start of the 20th century.

For most of our history the population have been armed, it was only since the 1920s that we haven't been.

But times are different now, do you honestly believe that a dictator could ever come to power in Britain and oppress his people like the likes of Hitler, Stalin or Mussolini? I don't believe so and that's why I feel Britain will never have this problem.

Facepalm, seriously. Facepalm. The sad thing is, if most people take this frankly naive view then at some point thousands if not millions of people will pay for it as they still are around the world. President Obama afterall is currently bombing people in drone strikes in countries who haven't attacked the United States - and again, the British government banned guns in the 1920s as it feared a revolution; it wanted to be sure that only it had firepower in a hypothetical revolution or uprising.

When I read stuff like that it actually makes me sick to my stomach because it's just so unread.

There is absolutely no need for the guns to be legalised in the UK.

If people such as myself ever find ourselves in danger in areas of bad crime, don't think we won't and can't easily buy a gun from the black market. You, the anti-gun lobby or David Cameron aren't going to stop me or anybody else from protecting ourselves.

The US is completely different as guns are so widespread that it would be futile trying to recall them all. Hopefully they can be slowly eradicated over the next decade or so with more legislation making it increasingly difficult to obtain one.

That's not going to happen so long as there are people in America who value the constitution, so dream on.

In my opinion and the opinion of the Founding Fathers of America (hence why they put gun rights into the constitution), any government which attempts to take away rights enshrined in the US Constitution ought to have the guns turned on them - thats their purpose.

US Sheriffs in the news have been saying that if any Federal Agents attempts to defy the Second Amendment, they will have their officers arrest those federal agents who have been sent there on Obama's order. So let them try, the states won't have it.

peteyt

20-01-2013, 06:39 PM

The first point is dud as most attacks are done via a small hand gun, so if you really wanted to save lives then you'd be calling for a ban on all guns - infact, you'd be advocating a ban on hand guns as your number one priority as they are the weapon of choice in most crimes related to guns. As for the point on danger, the assault weapons are not automatic weapons - you have it in your head (I suspect) that it's akin to having a machine gun... it is not. A great deal of these weapons (often the same weapons) have varying designs where some such as the AK or AR have a military style look but are exactly the same as a normal hunting rifle in terms of firepower, speed and so on.

On the second point, tight checks are already in place - sadly you cannot legislate against cases such as the lady and her crackpot son, she had passed all the tests but it was her personal failure that she did not keep her guns locked away out of the reach of her son because like all mothers, she didn't and would have never thought that her son was capable of doing what he did.

I think Ted Nugent put it best in a recent interview, that you'd have to be downright stupid to argue for more laws to be put in place when the kid had broken something like 41 laws relating to guns - it's mere idiocy to suggest a 42nd would have prevented it.

I never denied it wasn't hand guns causing the crimes and never did mention anything about automatic guns. As you know if it was up to me all would be banned in most situations but it looks like that will never happen as America has had them legal for far too long. But I do think that you can make it better by banning the other types of weapon if you can protect yourself with a handgun then other guns won't be needed. It just feels like people are trying to take guns too far as if they need all guns legalised.

Also do regular re-checks happen as I don't know myself? If not then a good idea would be to regular check people who have weapons. It won't obviously 100 percent solve the problem but it might allow for people to be spotted who are unbalanced, removing their guns before they can do something. You mentioned drug use and guns what about a law banning users of certain drugs from using weapons because drugs and weapons is never a good mix. And finally there should be a law written in that gun users should keep their gun locked at all times and are responsible for it. Yes I know people e.g. children will try and get hold of them just like children get hold of alcohol but its better than nothing.

Jake

20-01-2013, 06:56 PM

The school's assistant principal, Joel Myrick, retrieved a .45 caliber semi-automatic pistol from his truck and, spotting him near the parking lot, shouted for Woodham to stop. Woodham instead got into his mother's car and tried to escape. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting)
Wikipedia Article, fully cited. Not what I would call 'halted'

You cannot quote wikipedia..

Wikipedia can be edited by anyone as long as its not offensive.

I could claim that my name is josiffi trebormint and im the richest person in the world and i invented the tripopod.

It is not a valid source!

-:Undertaker:-

20-01-2013, 06:57 PM

I never denied it wasn't hand guns causing the crimes and never did mention anything about automatic guns. As you know if it was up to me all would be banned in most situations but it looks like that will never happen as America has had them legal for far too long. But I do think that you can make it better by banning the other types of weapon if you can protect yourself with a handgun then other guns won't be needed. It just feels like people are trying to take guns too far as if they need all guns legalised.

You backtrack and then go on to state your point again, that guns such as the one used in the Sandybrooks massacre (which is again a semi-automatic which fires one bullet per trigger pull like a hand gun and not an automatic weapons) ought to be banned. But you're not using logic on this. The overwhelming majority of deaths due to gun violence in the United States are not caused by semi-automatic weapons such as the ones you are seeing plastered all over the news, the majority are done by the likes of hand guns, pistols and shot guns.

Therefore, why is your argument (alike Piers Morgan) that we should ban the guns which are only used in a tiny minority of violent gun crimes in the US as opposed to the likes of hand guns which are used in the vast majority? it doesn't add up, in reality you should be arguing for a ban on hand guns with semi-automatics remaining exempt.

I think I know the reason - that being uneducated on guns (and I freely admit I am too, I don't own one at the moment and have never fired one as of yet) means that when you see a picture of an AR/AK on the television - it does look scary, it looks downright lethal. But as I explained earlier, a little research and you'll find that these weapons are merely designed like that for looks and not for any added power or automatic function.

Also do regular re-checks happen as I don't know myself? If not then a good idea would be to regular check people who have weapons. It won't obviously 100 percent solve the problem but it might allow for people to be spotted who are unbalanced, removing their guns before they can do something. You mentioned drug use and guns what about a law banning users of certain drugs from using weapons because drugs and weapons is never a good mix. And finally there should be a law written in that gun users should keep their gun locked at all times and are responsible for it. Yes I know people e.g. children will try and get hold of them just like children get hold of alcohol but its better than nothing.

At present the United States has strict gun laws and amazingly it's the states/cities which have the tougher gun laws which have the biggest problem with guns, whereas places out in Texas and the southern states have the lower crime rates where conceal and carry is legal. But let's relate this to the Sandyhook killings - the mother was vetted perfectly fine for guns, and the son wasn't on the mental health radar nor did the mother seemingly suspect anything (because after all who would, who saw Raoul Moat coming?). So here you have a system which cannot be fixed because human error will always occur - a clearly evil, calculating and insane madman made the calculated choice to go out and kill innocent people. I'm afraid no such law can prevent cases such as this occuring, ie Raoul Moat here in the UK.

I take it back to the Ted Nugent point, in this case the kid had already broken 41 laws - what makes anybody think that a 42nd law would have made the slightest bit of difference? it's madness to even suggest it.

The Don

20-01-2013, 07:00 PM

If people such as myself ever find ourselves in danger in areas of bad crime, don't think we won't and can't easily buy a gun from the black market. You, the anti-gun lobby or David Cameron aren't going to stop me or anybody else from protecting ourselves.

I don't believe for a second that you would would be able to purchase a gun. I'd love to watch you approach a shady character in a criminal wasteland and get laughed at and then proceed to get mugged . I'll leave you to your dreamworld though!

-:Undertaker:-

20-01-2013, 07:08 PM

I don't believe for a second that you would would be able to purchase a gun. I'd love to watch you approach a shady character in a criminal wasteland and get laughed at and then proceed to get mugged . I'll leave you to your dreamworld though!

Oh I know of areas where you'd easily be able to purchase one, just have a few contacts and it wouldn't be hard - the likes of drug dealers would be most clued up as they most probably have guns themselves and know where to get hold of them. Or you could just apply for a hunting weapon and state that it's purely for hunting purpose, just as farmers do - and many of them use for self defence in case of break in's. One of the areas I know of was covered by Ross Kemp on Gangs, where it showed them all, young lads, wielding guns from what I recall. Incidently it was the same area in which the boy Rhys Jones was murdered by being shot at in a carpark.

The world you inhabit is the same one as Mexico, illegal guns yet they're rife - because in reality it isn't about guns, it's about culture.

peteyt

20-01-2013, 08:02 PM

You backtrack and then go on to state your point again, that guns such as the one used in the Sandybrooks massacre (which is again a semi-automatic which fires one bullet per trigger pull like a hand gun and not an automatic weapons) ought to be banned. But you're not using logic on this. The overwhelming majority of deaths due to gun violence in the United States are not caused by semi-automatic weapons such as the ones you are seeing plastered all over the news, the majority are done by the likes of hand guns, pistols and shot guns.

Therefore, why is your argument (alike Piers Morgan) that we should ban the guns which are only used in a tiny minority of violent gun crimes in the US as opposed to the likes of hand guns which are used in the vast majority? it doesn't add up, in reality you should be arguing for a ban on hand guns with semi-automatics remaining exempt.

I think I know the reason - that being uneducated on guns (and I freely admit I am too, I don't own one at the moment and have never fired one as of yet) means that when you see a picture of an AR/AK on the television - it does look scary, it looks downright lethal. But as I explained earlier, a little research and you'll find that these weapons are merely designed like that for looks and not for any added power or automatic function.

At present the United States has strict gun laws and amazingly it's the states/cities which have the tougher gun laws which have the biggest problem with guns, whereas places out in Texas and the southern states have the lower crime rates where conceal and carry is legal. But let's relate this to the Sandyhook killings - the mother was vetted perfectly fine for guns, and the son wasn't on the mental health radar nor did the mother seemingly suspect anything (because after all who would, who saw Raoul Moat coming?). So here you have a system which cannot be fixed because human error will always occur - a clearly evil, calculating and insane madman made the calculated choice to go out and kill innocent people. I'm afraid no such law can prevent cases such as this occuring, ie Raoul Moat here in the UK.

I take it back to the Ted Nugent point, in this case the kid had already broken 41 laws - what makes anybody think that a 42nd law would have made the slightest bit of difference? it's madness to even suggest it.

I will admit my knowledge on guns isn't great. I also know that the guns being used are usually handguns but that doesn't mean you shouldn't ban the other guns - there are many types of weapons out there, why should people have access to loads of them. If you want to make it safer, you can by at least reducing the amount of weapons people can get to.

I also think Obama should actually try and do more to prevent these weapons from coming in illegally, to do more to prevent the black markets. Obviously I know that to think that all the black markets would be eradicated would be extremely naive but I'm sure they could maybe reduce it. The less access the bad guys have for weapons, the less people would need to defend themselves.

JoeyK.

21-01-2013, 03:31 AM

peteyt

22-01-2013, 03:04 AM

It's been an interesting discussion and I think that both sides have had their say. My final comment will be this - If I could live in a world where nobody had a firearm, I would do it in a heartbeat. However, I do not trust other people with that power if I am not allowed the same privilege. I would trust my neighbor with an assault rifle long before I'd give one to anyone involved in the government.

Those who don't know history are bound to repeat it - Edmund Burke

I know this has been said plenty of times, but if the government did want to take over they could do so very easily. Nuclear weapons, rockets and so on anyone? They have things that a gun would be useless to stop.

Cepheuses

22-01-2013, 03:30 AM

I couldn't stop looking and laughing at Biden in the back who was just nodding along.

Good to see this coming through.

Agree!

Ardemax

22-01-2013, 10:37 AM

I gave a comprehensive list of other countries where the population had been massacred by the government, Germany is not the only example - there are many more recent examples, take the actions of the Assad family in Syria for the past few decades - a country where the government has remained in place for so long during the uprising due to the reason that the population were unarmed. In the 1920s themselves, the British government banned guns in the first place because it feared an uprising - it wanted to make sure that in such circumstances that it would be the only force using guns on the opposition.
In a stable country (e.g. Britain) there is no need for guns just to be stored away just in case the government massacre their people because it won't happen. I'd love to agree with you and think that Nick Clegg has a secret Liberal Army ready to take over Suffolk City Centre on the word "go", but it simply isn't going to happen.

Or for another example thats recent, take Japanese US citizen POWs in WW2. Completely innocent people, taken and put into concentration camps in America - 70 years ago. True in this case guns were not banned, but had war hysteria not taken importance over civil liberties then the American government would not have dared imprison these people.

And you think that had these Japanese people been armed and attempted to shoot the officials that the situation would have been made better?

An unarmed population is an invitiation to a dictator, and not all dictators wear a Generals suit or sport a moustache remember.

So do you believe that a dictatorship is possible in Britain?

For most of our history the population have been armed, it was only since the 1920s that we haven't been.

Though they were not armed with the types of guns you see today. Would you want to go back to a time of pre-1920?

Facepalm, seriously. Facepalm. The sad thing is, if most people take this frankly naive view then at some point thousands if not millions of people will pay for it as they still are around the world. President Obama afterall is currently bombing people in drone strikes in countries who haven't attacked the United States - and again, the British government banned guns in the 1920s as it feared a revolution; it wanted to be sure that only it had firepower in a hypothetical revolution or uprising.

When I read stuff like that it actually makes me sick to my stomach because it's just so unread.

I'm sorry that I believe that the British government is not going to turn against its people and massacre them. I think you may have been watching too many American action films :)

-:Undertaker:-

22-01-2013, 10:54 AM

I know this has been said plenty of times, but if the government did want to take over they could do so very easily. Nuclear weapons, rockets and so on anyone? They have things that a gun would be useless to stop.

You really don't understand how a government takes power or a coup de'tat is performed. In almost every circumstance of a coup de'tat taking place, armed groups or the military itself occupy key government buildings and secure landmarks such as bridges (usually in the capital but then major cities) - and that's how a coup is performed. The next stage of a dictatorial coup when power is secured by the new regime is the knocking on peoples doors of the security services in the middle of the night.

And we know what that means.

In a stable country (e.g. Britain) there is no need for guns just to be stored away just in case the government massacre their people because it won't happen. I'd love to agree with you and think that Nick Clegg has a secret Liberal Army ready to take over Suffolk City Centre on the word "go", but it simply isn't going to happen.

It won't happen. Ah, well i'm glad your so sure of it - that's put my well informed historical concerns to bed. And what are tommorows lottery numbers?

And you think that had these Japanese people been armed and attempted to shoot the officials that the situation would have been made better?

Absolutely, the US Government illegally took away their rights as US citizens which are in the constitution and they had absolutely every right to oppose that in every manner possible - that's see uh the whole point in a constitution.

So do you believe that a dictatorship is possible in Britain?

It is possible anywhere, yes absolutely.

At the time when the US Constitution was created, the United Kingdom was after all an absolute monarchy - and thats exactly the reason why the Founding Fathers of the United States put gun rights into their consitution, to protect from the possibility of a dictatorship ever arising.

Though they were not armed with the types of guns you see today. Would you want to go back to a time of pre-1920?

The types of guns we see today are relatively the same. The British and American constitutions did not state "you can have gun rights BUT if they happen to improve you can't" - so it's a dud argument. But do I want our pre-1920 gun laws back? yes.

I'm sorry that I believe that the British government is not going to turn against its people and massacre them. I think you may have been watching too many American action films :)

And you've read too few (if any) history books.

Ardemax

22-01-2013, 11:05 AM

It won't happen. Ah, well i'm glad your so sure of it. And what are tommorows lottery numbers?

I shall go and barricade my windows and doors right away then.

Absolutely, the US Government illegally took away their rights as US citizens which are in the constitution and they had absolutely every right to oppose that in every manner possible - that's see uh the whole point in a constitution.

But it's Americans and "different" people pre-1960. It wasn't exactly a great place to live if you were foreign anyway and there were deep-lying problems in the US as it was which needed to be addressed before the whole gun issue.

It is possible anywhere, yes absolutely.

Say I'm an aspiring dictator, how would I go about becoming one in the lands of the United Kingdom?

The types of guns we see today are relatively the same. The British and American constitutions did not state "you can have gun rights BUT if they happen to improve you can't" - so it's a dud argument. But do I want our pre-1920 gun laws back? yes.

We can't pick and choose in this debate :P either you want the pre-1920 British lifestyle or you don't. It comes as a package. Just like you can't have the American glory days of the '20s without the downfall.

And you've read too few (if any) history books.

Believing that not all governments aren't evil and want to tear up the place when their people turn a blind eye is surely not as crazy as you make it to be.

FYI I've read at least three Horrible History books, just a heads up.

-:Undertaker:-

22-01-2013, 11:26 AM

I shall go and barricade my windows and doors right away then.

Again, no real responses to a well informed historical argument - just attempts to make fun of the argument.

If the argument was silly and baseless, then thats fine - but this has happened time after time after time throughout history.

But it's Americans and "different" people pre-1960. It wasn't exactly a great place to live if you were foreign anyway and there were deep-lying problems in the US as it was which needed to be addressed before the whole gun issue.

The US Constitution is what grants rights, not the government of the day. Do you understand that? the US Government was in direct violation of the US Constitution by throwing those people in concentration camps just because of their ancestry.

Say I'm an aspiring dictator, how would I go about becoming one in the lands of the United Kingdom?

There are many ways, for example most coups take place in times of economic hardship - either via the ballot box as with the National Socialists in Germany and Mussolini in Italy or via a military coup as in Chile in the 1970s or as in the 1970s in Britain when it was being discussed amongst the military top figures that a coup may have had to have been taken against the Callaghan Government because of the Winter of Discontent.

Some coups are good, some are bad - the point is, when the new government (elected or not) takes office and sets up regime, that it has a counterbalance in force with an armed people meaning that its much harder for them to drag people away in the middle of the night.

Any questions? or is that clear as daylight?

We can't pick and choose in this debate :P either you want the pre-1920 British lifestyle or you don't. It comes as a package. Just like you can't have the American glory days of the '20s without the downfall.

Saying that I want a 1920s lifestyle because I want a 1920s law returned shows just how weak your argument has become i'm afraid. There are a great deal of laws I would like to repeal, such as the 1972 European Communities Act - that doesn't mean i'm advocating a return to the 1970s.

Be sensible.

Believing that not all governments aren't evil and want to tear up the place when their people turn a blind eye is surely not as crazy as you make it to be.

I never said all governments are evil.

Ardemax

22-01-2013, 05:28 PM

The US Constitution is what grants rights, not the government of the day. Do you understand that? the US Government was in direct violation of the US Constitution by throwing those people in concentration camps just because of their ancestry.

Americans started to panic yes. I don't think you can say it was purely the government vs. the people in this case because a lot of American people were also pushed by the war mentality that shielded day-to-day life and influenced their thinking.

There are many ways, for example most coups take place in times of economic hardship - either via the ballot box as with the National Socialists in Germany and Mussolini in Italy or via a military coup as in Chile in the 1970s or as in the 1970s in Britain when it was being discussed amongst the military top figures that a coup may have had to have been taken against the Callaghan Government because of the Winter of Discontent.

Some coups are good, some are bad - the point is, when the new government (elected or not) takes office and sets up regime, that it has a counterbalance in force with an armed people meaning that its much harder for them to drag people away in the middle of the night.

Any questions? or is that clear as daylight?

So linking this back to the general topic, you still believe that Britons should be allowed guns in case the government of the day turn on them?

Saying that I want a 1920s lifestyle because I want a 1920s law returned shows just how weak your argument has become i'm afraid. There are a great deal of laws I would like to repeal, such as the 1972 European Communities Act - that doesn't mean i'm advocating a return to the 1970s.

Be sensible.

I will try to "be sensible", as you so elegantly put it. What I was trying to get at was that laws and policies are passed with acknowledgement of the current world climate (obviously) and so they are tailored to that time. The problem with wanting a law back that was changed some 90 years ago is that the time gap is too great and it would need to adapt to the modern day. Things were a tad different then.

I never said all governments are evil.

From your comments and posts you implied they were. My bad.

-:Undertaker:-

24-01-2013, 11:32 PM

Americans started to panic yes. I don't think you can say it was purely the government vs. the people in this case because a lot of American people were also pushed by the war mentality that shielded day-to-day life and influenced their thinking.

Yes, and thats the entire point in having a constitution which protects certain rights such as gun rights and freedom of speech against the government or 'tyranny of the majority' of the day - it's why the Founding Fathers put guns into the constitution as they were well aware of how both the government and the people can often sometimes side against another people as seen with the Japanese Americans in WWII.

So linking this back to the general topic, you still believe that Britons should be allowed guns in case the government of the day turn on them?

Yes, absolutely.

I will try to "be sensible", as you so elegantly put it. What I was trying to get at was that laws and policies are passed with acknowledgement of the current world climate (obviously) and so they are tailored to that time. The problem with wanting a law back that was changed some 90 years ago is that the time gap is too great and it would need to adapt to the modern day. Things were a tad different then.

I never said bring back the exact piece of legislation, obviously it would be amended or redrafted to include modern day provisions. But the general gun law that was around prior to 1920 I would bring back, yes.