Obama calls for Gun Control Laws

[-:Undertaker:-]

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]

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.]

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

[peteyt]

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]

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]

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:-]

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]

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 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:-]

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 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]

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.