quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

offers you a foxhole and kevlar panties and helmet, welcome to the P&R board :)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MyMasterStephen

An observation from England...

Over here, we have very tight gun laws. Effectively starting around 1900, they have steadily become more and more restrictive and now it's all but impossible to (legally) own a firearm unless it's held under lock and key at a shooting range. Shotguns are treated differently, but still require a licence to own and have to be kept in an approved locked cabinet at home when not in use. Even some categories of airgun fall under the Firearms Act.

Despite this, yes, there is gun crime. But it's a rare and remarkable event, and pretty much every case of death by gunshot is reported in the national media. Such reports typically hit the news once, maybe twice a week.

You got that right. About SIXTY deaths due to gun crime each year in the WHOLE of the UK. I live in a reasonably large city, and in my 47 years I have never even heard a gunshot. In what kind of a society do people fear for their safety when they walk in the street or - god help them - go into a Government building? I used to be in the Armed Forces and have shot smallbore and fullbore in competition, but - armed or not - I don't want to feel like I'm living in a frontier town and that everyone around me, whether open or concealed, is carrying firearms. 
In some larger cities in the bad areas of town it's common to hear gunshots. This is not normal in most places and in most places it's safe to walk the streets. Some places are less safe late at night.
Are the English more polite, more tolerant, more peaceable than the Americans? I doubt it. The only difference is that Americans have a right to keep and bear arms written into their law.

That law was drawn up in historic times, in response to historic circumstances. Do those circumstances still exist? Is a militia still required to maintain the security of the state? North Korea and Cuba have such requirements enshrined in law, but does the United States want to number itself amongst such neighbours? If the purpose of maintaining a militia is still valid, then surely everyone buying a weapon should undergo compulsory training (to satisfy the "well regulated" phrase), and anyone over 45 should relinquish their weapons, that being the age limit applied to the original definition of the "militia". And if there is still a need for a militia, why can their weapons not be held securely in local armouries or other such places?
The US constitution is a set of timeless principles for government (most of it).  The 2nd amendment in particular was put there because the founders did not trust  governments. In theory if the populace is armed they have the means to overthrow a tyrannical government. The militia and the security of a free state clauses are dependent on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Even in these modern times considering the whole world is going broke with the possibility of hyper inflation and chaos around the bend I'm personally not ready to amend the amendment. 

The requirement for self-defence seems obvious, and for self-defence within the home, fine: buy guns, knives, bombs, tasers whatever you want to defend your home. Whoever unlawfully intrudes onto your turf deserves everything they get. But the right to keep and bear (and use) such weapons should stop at the property boundary.....

........In the street, the best way to defend yourself against being shot, I'd suggest, would not be to carry a weapon yourself but to remove the weapon from any would-be assailant. That sounds good. How do we do that ? How do we defend ourselves against getting stabbed or a for a woman getting raped ?

No, you can't stuff the genie back into the bottle, but your assailant himself has the right to bear arms, so by trying to argue that YOU have the right to bear arms to defend yourself against HIM, what you're effectively arguing is that you're trying to defend yourself against your own law.  Our assailants probably do not have that right unless they have never been convicted of a violent crime. And your right that you can't stuff the genie back into the bottle. There are hundreds of millions of guns in the US.

Times change. Circumstances change. Some practices which, in history, were enshrined in law we now look back upon as barbaric. Some laws are drawn up to cater for circumstances which no longer prevail, and the laws fall redundant. Those laws are changed, amended, repealed. The right to keep and bear arms is itself an amendment. Neither it, nor the Bill of Rights, nor the Constitution to which it is appended, is immutable. Self defense is not barbaric. The circumstances for the 2nd amendment still prevail. We have liberals saying republicans are corrupt and conservatives think democrats are corrupt. Which is it ? In the face of rampant corruption we should trust these assholes and give up our guns ?   Maybe if we can balance a budget, stop the hemorrhaging, eliminate the looters and moochers from taking advantage of the system and insure our future prosperity then maybe we can talk about amending the 2nd amendment (I don't really mean that but it would give you guys a better argument).

Until now, the "answer" has been to allow more and more guns into the system, which has done nothing to decrease the death and misery and fear they cause. You don't fight a fire with petrol, and you don't eliminate the gun threat with more guns. Times change. Circumstances change. And laws have to change with them. It's time to drag this part of US law out of the 1790s, repeal the Second Amendment and put in its place something which reflects the realities of the 21st century. Unless and until this happens, you're just perpetuating a civil Arms Race which can only lead to more death and misery.
In my state and others that recently passed concealed carry permit laws allowing citizens to legally carry weapons crime has decreased. Dream on but the 2nd amendment is not going anywhere.

*Dons flak jacket and dives for cover*
 Don't forget the kevlar panties or you'll get your ass shot off.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: MyMasterStephen

An observation from England...

Over here, we have very tight gun laws. Effectively starting around 1900, they have steadily become more and more restrictive and now it's all but impossible to (legally) own a firearm unless it's held under lock and key at a shooting range. Shotguns are treated differently, but still require a licence to own and have to be kept in an approved locked cabinet at home when not in use. Even some categories of airgun fall under the Firearms Act.

Despite this, yes, there is gun crime. But it's a rare and remarkable event, and pretty much every case of death by gunshot is reported in the national media. Such reports typically hit the news once, maybe twice a week.

You got that right. About SIXTY deaths due to gun crime each year in the WHOLE of the UK. I live in a reasonably large city, and in my 47 years I have never even heard a gunshot. In what kind of a society do people fear for their safety when they walk in the street or - god help them - go into a Government building? I used to be in the Armed Forces and have shot smallbore and fullbore in competition, but - armed or not - I don't want to feel like I'm living in a frontier town and that everyone around me, whether open or concealed, is carrying firearms.  In some larger cities in the bad areas of town it's common to hear gunshots. This is not normal in most places and in most places it's safe to walk the streets. Some places are less safe late at night.

Are the English more polite, more tolerant, more peaceable than the Americans? I doubt it. The only difference is that Americans have a right to keep and bear arms written into their law.

That law was drawn up in historic times, in response to historic circumstances. Do those circumstances still exist? Is a militia still required to maintain the security of the state? North Korea and Cuba have such requirements enshrined in law, but does the United States want to number itself amongst such neighbours? If the purpose of maintaining a militia is still valid, then surely everyone buying a weapon should undergo compulsory training (to satisfy the "well regulated" phrase), and anyone over 45 should relinquish their weapons, that being the age limit applied to the original definition of the "militia". And if there is still a need for a militia, why can their weapons not be held securely in local armouries or other such places?
The US constitution is a set of timeless principles for government (most of it). "Timeless"? It dates from 1787, if my memory serves me right. And, as I say more than once, times have CHANGED. Unless you specifically WANT to stubbornly remain living in the late 18th century... The 2nd amendment in particular was put there because the founders did not trust  governments. They didn't trust the government they were themselves establishing...? In theory if the populace is armed they have the means to overthrow a tyrannical government. Or a rebellious population has the means to overthrow a legitimate government... The militia and the security of a free state clauses are dependent on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Using one questionable principle to justify another questionable principle. Even in these modern times considering the whole world is going broke with the possibility of hyper inflation and chaos around the bend I'm personally not ready to amend the amendment.  So your interest in owning guns is actually in defending yourself from your desperate fellow citizens (or even gaining power over them) if the government should collapse, and not in defending yourself against the government itself...

The requirement for self-defence seems obvious, and for self-defence within the home, fine: buy guns, knives, bombs, tasers whatever you want to defend your home. Whoever unlawfully intrudes onto your turf deserves everything they get. But the right to keep and bear (and use) such weapons should stop at the property boundary.....

........In the street, the best way to defend yourself against being shot, I'd suggest, would not be to carry a weapon yourself but to remove the weapon from any would-be assailant. That sounds good. How do we do that ? Repeal the Second Amendment, introduce gun controls and police the streets effectively. How do we defend ourselves against getting stabbed or a for a woman getting raped ? The same way we do in England.

No, you can't stuff the genie back into the bottle, but your assailant himself has the right to bear arms, so by trying to argue that YOU have the right to bear arms to defend yourself against HIM, what you're effectively arguing is that you're trying to defend yourself against your own law.  Our assailants probably do not have that right unless they have never been convicted of a violent crime. Every violent offender has to commit a first offence, and up until that point he's carrying legally. If he IS a convicted violent offender then he's probably carrying illegally. He'd be a lot less likely to be carrying if guns weren't in such plentiful supply and so easily obtainable. And your right that you can't stuff the genie back into the bottle. There are hundreds of millions of guns in the US. Yes indeed. A terrible state of affairs. However did that happen? And what can we do to correct it? Oh yes: that's what we're discussing right now

Times change. Circumstances change. Some practices which, in history, were enshrined in law we now look back upon as barbaric. Some laws are drawn up to cater for circumstances which no longer prevail, and the laws fall redundant. Those laws are changed, amended, repealed. The right to keep and bear arms is itself an amendment. Neither it, nor the Bill of Rights, nor the Constitution to which it is appended, is immutable. Self defense is not barbaric. Actually when writing that line, I was thinking of slavery... The circumstances for the 2nd amendment still prevail. We have liberals saying republicans are corrupt and conservatives think democrats are corrupt. Which is it ? And we have you suggesting they're all corrupt. Which is it? Gosh, could it be... all of the above? Of course politicians decry each other. Of course there is corruption. It's called politics! It's not unique to the US, and few are immune from it - even you. In the face of rampant corruption we should trust these assholes and give up our guns ?   Maybe if we can balance a budget, stop the hemorrhaging, eliminate the looters and moochers from taking advantage of the system and insure our future prosperity then maybe we can talk about amending the 2nd amendment (I don't really mean that but it would give you guys a better argument). Balancing a budget, stopping haemorraging, eliminating advantage-takers and ensuring future prosperity... None of these requires an armed populace, so achieving them doesn't justify disarming the populace. They're irrelevant to the argument.

Until now, the "answer" has been to allow more and more guns into the system, which has done nothing to decrease the death and misery and fear they cause. You don't fight a fire with petrol, and you don't eliminate the gun threat with more guns. Times change. Circumstances change. And laws have to change with them. It's time to drag this part of US law out of the 1790s, repeal the Second Amendment and put in its place something which reflects the realities of the 21st century. Unless and until this happens, you're just perpetuating a civil Arms Race which can only lead to more death and misery.
In my state and others that recently passed concealed carry permit laws allowing citizens to legally carry weapons crime has decreased. From abominable to terrible... Dream on but the 2nd amendment is not going anywhere. On this point I believe you to be entirely correct.

*Dons flak jacket and dives for cover*
 Don't forget the kevlar panties or you'll get your ass shot off.
*Checks ass has the requisite number of holes*

(Edited twice for spelling. So I'm anal: that's why I value the panties so highly)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

<snip>then maybe we can talk about amending the 2nd amendment (I don't really mean that but it would give you guys a better argument). </snip>
and people should believe you from now on, exactly why???
your credibility just lost the last few points and dove into zero territory.
Thank you for playing

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic


Ps, how many women get raped in america in a year ?? how many rapists get shot???
you have some figures for that I hope?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

That`s an irrational spin from a paranoid POV.

No one`s gonna take your guns away.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

then dont pretend that guns protect rape victims

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

And unfortunately, some rapists take the weapon and use it on their victim.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

then dont pretend that guns protect rape victims

I wonder how a rapist can rape some one with a .38 pointed at there head ??

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

That`s an irrational spin from a paranoid POV.

No one`s gonna take your guns away.

There are many in power who have tried awfully hard. Their still trying. If it was up to some on this board they'd be gone.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MyMasterStephen

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: MyMasterStephen

An observation from England...

Over here, we have very tight gun laws. Effectively starting around 1900, they have steadily become more and more restrictive and now it's all but impossible to (legally) own a firearm unless it's held under lock and key at a shooting range. Shotguns are treated differently, but still require a licence to own and have to be kept in an approved locked cabinet at home when not in use. Even some categories of airgun fall under the Firearms Act.

Despite this, yes, there is gun crime. But it's a rare and remarkable event, and pretty much every case of death by gunshot is reported in the national media. Such reports typically hit the news once, maybe twice a week.

You got that right. About SIXTY deaths due to gun crime each year in the WHOLE of the UK. I live in a reasonably large city, and in my 47 years I have never even heard a gunshot. In what kind of a society do people fear for their safety when they walk in the street or - god help them - go into a Government building? I used to be in the Armed Forces and have shot smallbore and fullbore in competition, but - armed or not - I don't want to feel like I'm living in a frontier town and that everyone around me, whether open or concealed, is carrying firearms.  In some larger cities in the bad areas of town it's common to hear gunshots. This is not normal in most places and in most places it's safe to walk the streets. Some places are less safe late at night.

Are the English more polite, more tolerant, more peaceable than the Americans? I doubt it. The only difference is that Americans have a right to keep and bear arms written into their law.

That law was drawn up in historic times, in response to historic circumstances. Do those circumstances still exist? Is a militia still required to maintain the security of the state? North Korea and Cuba have such requirements enshrined in law, but does the United States want to number itself amongst such neighbours? If the purpose of maintaining a militia is still valid, then surely everyone buying a weapon should undergo compulsory training (to satisfy the "well regulated" phrase), and anyone over 45 should relinquish their weapons, that being the age limit applied to the original definition of the "militia". And if there is still a need for a militia, why can their weapons not be held securely in local armouries or other such places?
The US constitution is a set of timeless principles for government (most of it). "Timeless"? It dates from 1787, if my memory serves me right. And, as I say more than once, times have CHANGED. Unless you specifically WANT to stubbornly remain living in the late 18th century... Things can change but the principles still apply.

The 2nd amendment in particular was put there because the founders did not trust  governments. They didn't trust the government they were themselves establishing...? No, they were all too familiar with history and they did not trust governments in general. That's why they wrote the constitution, to try and form a more perfect government.

In theory if the populace is armed they have the means to overthrow a tyrannical government. Or a rebellious population has the means to overthrow a legitimate government... If that legitimate government was tyrannical and corrupt.

The militia and the security of a free state clauses are dependent on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Using one questionable principle to justify another questionable principle. I'm not questioning it you are, and my point was that so many, especially those who hate guns misinterpret the militia clause in the 2nd amendment, deliberately and otherwise.

Even in these modern times considering the whole world is going broke with the possibility of hyper inflation and chaos around the bend I'm personally not ready to amend the amendment.  So your interest in owning guns is actually in defending yourself from your desperate fellow citizens (or even gaining power over them) if the government should collapse, and not in defending yourself against the government itself... No, the point was we may need them (among other things) in order to survive. You"re trying to spin my words.s

The requirement for self-defence seems obvious, and for self-defence within the home, fine: buy guns, knives, bombs, tasers whatever you want to defend your home. Whoever unlawfully intrudes onto your turf deserves everything they get. But the right to keep and bear (and use) such weapons should stop at the property boundary.....

........In the street, the best way to defend yourself against being shot, I'd suggest, would not be to carry a weapon yourself but to remove the weapon from any would-be assailant. That sounds good. How do we do that ? Repeal the Second Amendment, introduce gun controls and police the streets effectively. Repeal the 2nd amendment ??No way Jose'. Police the streets effectively ? How should we go about doing that ?

 How do we defend ourselves against getting stabbed or a for a woman getting raped ? The same way we do in England. And how is that pray I ask ?

No, you can't stuff the genie back into the bottle, but your assailant himself has the right to bear arms, so by trying to argue that YOU have the right to bear arms to defend yourself against HIM, what you're effectively arguing is that you're trying to defend yourself against your own law.  Our assailants probably do not have that right unless they have never been convicted of a violent crime. Every violent offender has to commit a first offence, and up until that point he's carrying legally.  If he IS a convicted violent offender then he's probably carrying illegally. That's exactly what I meant.


He'd be a lot less likely to be carrying if guns weren't in such plentiful supply and so easily obtainable. What was that you said about stuffing that genie back in the bottle ?

 And your right that you can't stuff the genie back into the bottle. There are hundreds of millions of guns in the US. Yes indeed. A terrible state of affairs. However did that happen? And what can we do to correct it? Oh yes: that's what we're discussing right now.
I'm fine with it. Why are you so worried about it ?


Times change. Circumstances change. Some practices which, in history, were enshrined in law we now look back upon as barbaric. Some laws are drawn up to cater for circumstances which no longer prevail, and the laws fall redundant. Those laws are changed, amended, repealed. The right to keep and bear arms is itself an amendment. Neither it, nor the Bill of Rights, nor the Constitution to which it is appended, is immutable. Self defense is not barbaric. Actually when writing that line, I was thinking of slavery...

The circumstances for the 2nd amendment still prevail. We have liberals saying republicans are corrupt and conservatives think democrats are corrupt. Which is it ? And we have you suggesting they're all corrupt. Which is it? Gosh, could it be... all of the above? Of course politicians decry each other. Of course there is corruption. It's called politics! It's not unique to the US, and few are immune from it - even you. All the more reason not to disarm.

In the face of rampant corruption we should trust these assholes and give up our guns ?   Maybe if we can balance a budget, stop the hemorrhaging, eliminate the looters and moochers from taking advantage of the system and insure our future prosperity then maybe we can talk about amending the 2nd amendment (I don't really mean that but it would give you guys a better argument). Balancing a budget, stopping haemorraging, eliminating advantage-takers and ensuring future prosperity... None of these requires an armed populace, so achieving them doesn't justify disarming the populace. They're irrelevant to the argument. The point is, what got us there is corruption which may not necessarily require an armed populace but I prefer an armed populace none the less.

Until now, the "answer" has been to allow more and more guns into the system, which has done nothing to decrease the death and misery and fear they cause. You don't fight a fire with petrol, and you don't eliminate the gun threat with more guns. Times change. Circumstances change. And laws have to change with them. It's time to drag this part of US law out of the 1790s, repeal the Second Amendment and put in its place something which reflects the realities of the 21st century. Unless and until this happens, you're just perpetuating a civil Arms Race which can only lead to more death and misery.
In my state and others that recently passed concealed carry permit laws allowing citizens to legally carry weapons crime has decreased. From abominable to terrible... Only terrible in your mind.

Dream on but the 2nd amendment is not going anywhere. On this point I believe you to be entirely correct. Right on dude. I'm glad we can agree on something.

*Dons flak jacket and dives for cover*
 Don't forget the kevlar panties or you'll get your ass shot off.
*Checks ass has the requisite number of holes*

(Edited twice for spelling. So I'm anal: that's why I value the panties so highly)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

"There are many in power who have tried awfully hard"

Ok....


Name names.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

It isnt up to some on this board... and we know it.
but your wild claims need addressing, and I snipped your comment because the rest of it was boring and I wanted to make a point, I dont believe you were being sarcastic, a) because you arent very good at it and b) your posts prove that you meant it.
If you are going to make certain claims, make sure you can back them up or be pulled up on it.
bullshit detectors here are highly tuned.