Jump to content
Click here to remove ads
Pete2304

So.....gun control

Recommended Posts

The perfect product for NRA gun nuts:

[media]

[/media]

Ha ha . . . excellent . . . . . in the Bodyguard game we've had these for decades

Share this post


Link to post

GOLD members can watch NEW & Exclusive Spywareonya Pee Videos in Full HD... Click HERE to upgrade now!

I love how you want to make your final statement (of opinion that you claim is fact) and then want to end the conversation. I do not know if you have ever dealt with deaf people. One of the funniest things I have seen was two deaf men (or at least one was deaf) having a heated discussion using sign language. One got frustrated with the other and closed his eyes. I see this same thing happening here

In my whole life I have never met an Anti-Gun Nut who could sustain an argument for very long

the only form of "Gun Control" we need is a straight eye and a steady hand

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Laws (or lawyers) suck here, if you beat up an intruder, you are the bad guy, several people are in prison for defending themselves, mostly from drugged up "ice" addicts. Another thing that sucks is that if someone does get in, and trips over shoes on the floor, you can get sued millions.

this is true . . . the sleazall system. . . er legal system has a lot to answer for . . . . . the RIGHT to self defence is a right not a privilege . . . . if we lived in a democracy we could have proper home defence/no retreat laws

Share this post


Link to post

Not sure there is much to decide I think it is all pretty much basic logic, we are all born with rights . . . . weather the sleazall system, and/or dodgy bankster controlled politicians agree or not . . . and I certainly would not trust them to decide for me, . . . I just think it is time the mass populace stood up against the corrupt system

Quote from Ballard . . . "It may not be easy, convenient or politically correct to stand for truth and right, but it is the right thing to do - always"

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Moderator Notice

When quoting other members, quote them accurately. Do not alter their words or add new ones if you are quoting them. I have removed a quote posted by Lickher who altered what was being quoted. This is not acceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Not sure there is much to decide I think it is all pretty much basic logic, we are all born with rights . . . . weather the sleazall system, and/or dodgy bankster controlled politicians agree or not . . . and I certainly would not trust them to decide for me, . . . I just think it is time the mass populace stood up against the corrupt system

Quote from Ballard . . . "It may not be easy, convenient or politically correct to stand for truth and right, but it is the right thing to do - always"

I'm not entirely sure what any of this discussion has to do with your opinion that the system is apparently corrupt. You were born with the right to own a gun. 100 years ago you'd have been born with the right to have a slave. Would you go and buy a slave tomorrow just because it was legal? If I'd been born a couple of hundred years ago I would have had the right to kill someone who disagreed with the monarchy. If that was still allowed would you encourage me to go out and do so?

Share this post


Link to post

Ok, this starting to get into a cross border situation again. What applies to your country has no relevance to ours. In Australia we have no such thing as the American Constitution, your Freedom of Speech is called Freedom of Opinion and even that is regulated. If I gripe my opinion to a journalist and that journalist reposted that to the country, he is liable for 2 years jail. T.V and Radio reporters have been to prison for so called "naming and shaming" usually a pedophile released back into the community.

The things I posted are what we live with, it may not sit right with you, but it works for us, and it has for 200 years. The following is part of the Human Rights that apply to us:

Victoria

Section 15 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) provides:

  1. Every person has the right to hold an opinion without interference.
  2. Every person has the right to freedom of expression which includes the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, whether within or outside Victoria and whether-

(a) orally; or

(b) in writing; or

© in print; or

(d) by way of art; or

(e) in another medium chosen by him or her.

3. Special duties and responsibilities are attached to the right of freedom of expression and the right may be subject to lawful restrictions reasonably necessary-

(a) to respect the rights and reputation of other persons; or

(b) for the protection of national security, public order, public health or public morality.

I'm done with this thread now, I'll read but not post. It is not my place to get into a bum fight about who's country is better, especially one who's "gun control" kill more people than our national road toll.

Share this post


Link to post
In my whole life I have never met an Anti-Gun Nut who could sustain an argument for very long

the only form of "Gun Control" we need is a straight eye and a steady hand

Are you sure about that? This argument has been going on for a while here and believe me, as an "anti-gun nut" myself, I could give you facts, figures and well reasoned arguments for as long as you like.

Share this post


Link to post
Moderator Notice

When quoting other members, quote them accurately. Do not alter their words or add new ones if you are quoting them. I have removed a quote posted by Lickher who altered what was being quoted. This is not acceptable.

Please note, that I was not trying to change the post, just to add a comment . . . . this didn't turn out as I expected, appologies if it appeared that way, it was not the intent. I was not actually aware,until now that you could change someone else's post

Share this post


Link to post
Please note, that I was not trying to change the post, just to add a comment . . . . this didn't turn out as I expected, appologies if it appeared that way, it was not the intent. I was not actually aware,until now that you could change someone else's post

No worries. I can see that your added words were intended to be your own comments. And that you maybe assumed they'd appear separately. :)

Whilst no one but mods can edit or change anyone else's post, members can actually change anything in their own posts. This includes any quotes of others embedded in their own posts, even though it would be wrong to do so.

I think it would be better if the system did not allow us to alter anything in quotation boxes, but alas we can. Changing this would probably add a whole new layer of complexity for Admin that the site doesn't need. So we just have to trust members to be responsible.

Share this post


Link to post

I would never add words to a Quote, but it would seen all right to cut a quote to the only point that one would like to respond to and show by . . . . that it had been cut.

Back to Gun Control.

I was attend a lecture at Williamsburg, a Historical site in Virginia, and the lecturer informed us that in Colonial time it was required by law that every male of age had to carry a firearm, and could be fined for failure to do so. This so that anyone thinking about misbehaving badly could realize that he could be shot any nearby citizen.

I have no clue as to when this law was repealed.

Share this post


Link to post
Are you sure about that? This argument has been going on for a while here and believe me, as an "anti-gun nut" myself, I could give you facts, figures and well reasoned arguments for as long as you like.

Facts? More like interpretations that fit your opinion. You have stated yourself that you know very little about guns and have no desire to learn

Figures? We all know that you can twist data to make is say what you want

Well reasoned arguments? Again, your opinion. You start with the idea that guns are bad (which in my view is a false premise) and then claim your "facts" prove your view

Nut? Absolutely :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
I would never add words to a Quote, but it would seen all right to cut a quote to the only point that one would like to respond to and show by . . . . that it had been cut.

.

I often will cut part of a quote that has no relevance to other portions of the quote to which I am replying. For example, I did this here, removing the section about Williamsburg, and only leaving the portion that I am responding to.

Share this post


Link to post
I would never add words to a Quote, but it would seen all right to cut a quote to the only point that one would like to respond to and show by . . . . that it had been cut.

I often do that. We all do. Apologies for not being clearer.

It is perfectly ok to only quote the relevant part of what someone has said. Only when their words are actually altered or additional words they didn't use are added does it become questionable.

Share this post


Link to post
[ATTACH=full]77161[/ATTACH]

Better that an elected government have the ultimate power to regulate who has access to lethal weapons and for what purpose, with it's accountable and highly trained law enforcement officers having the necessary arms to enforce this, than that any old nutter, anywhere, has access to their own private arsenal.

I bet those kids who died at Columbine and in other places could have benefitted from a society in which only the cops could legally access the guns.

I wonder how much more innocent American kids' blood needs to drench the Second Amendment before Americans stand up and say "Enough!"

How many more innocent kids' lives need to be taken before it dawns upon a critical mass their their kids' right not only to live without fear of schoolroom shootings, but to live - period - is a much more fundamental right than anyone's right to bear arms!

Share this post


Link to post

And we have come to the basic difference between us. You want to trust government (made up of humans with human flaws) to protect you from evil. I do not trust government, and believe that some of the members of the government are the most evil. My belief is that it is my God given right to protect myself. Look at Nazi Germany. They elected Hitler and the people were disarmed. After the people had no power and the government had all the guns, they started doing things like the Holocaust, and having Dr Mengele doing his horrific experiments on defenseless victims.

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Hitler, Stalin and Mao all disarmed the citizens claiming that would make them safe. I am not willing to follow the lead of those victims

Share this post


Link to post
And we have come to the basic difference between us. You want to trust government (made up of humans with human flaws) to protect you from evil. I do not trust government, and believe that some of the members of the government are the most evil. My belief is that it is my God given right to protect myself. Look at Nazi Germany. They elected Hitler and the people were disarmed. After the people had no power and the government had all the guns, they started doing things like the Holocaust, and having Dr Mengele doing his horrific experiments on defenseless victims.

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Hitler, Stalin and Mao all disarmed the citizens claiming that would make them safe. I am not willing to follow the lead of those victims

We in Britain have had no right to bear arms for centuries. We have not morphed into Nazi Germany. And had the people of Nazi Germany been armed, it would not have saved them. Many of them would have used those arms in support of the regime, which of course also had a monopoly on all armed professionals, ie the army and the police. Those using their weapons to challenge them would simply have been slaughtered and killed, before their dead bodies were disarmed anyway, their guns taken from their cold dead hands.

Your only defence against tyranny is not your ability to carry arms, but your good sense not to elect potential despots, and to arrange your constitutional affairs in such a way that it is extremely difficult for anyone to become a despot.

Democracy is your ultimate defence against tyranny, not a gun.

And if you value democracy and the avoidance of despots, Trump is a very poor choice, but that's a whole other can of worms right there.

And the basic difference between us is that, whilst my trust in politicians is not great by any stretch of the imagination, I nevertheless trust these governments I elect, and the trained professionals they ultimately lead, rather more with firearms than I trust any old nutter planning a mass killing because he thinks aliens are telling him to do it!

Share this post


Link to post

im sorry do you honestly think you could possably defend yourself against a tyranical government that spends trillions of dollars on its military with basically grandads hunting rifle and the .38 special you keep by the bed?

as far as im aware the ordinary man has never had the right to bear arms in england at least, the feudal sstem may have required men of fighting age to have access to and be proficant with arms, but that was normally limited to bows or pole arms, maybes ome form of dagger. Swords would normally be reserved for men at arms and kights. Firearms would have been financially out of the reach of civilians and posably even prohibited (you dont want your feudal serf rising up against you). Militias here were largely phased out by the 17th and 18th century in favour of a standing army so we have never had a need to bear arms.

Share this post


Link to post
im sorry do you honestly think you could possably defend yourself against a tyranical government that spends trillions of dollars on its military with basically grandads hunting rifle and the .38 special you keep by the bed?

Do you honestly think that my firearms consist of only "grandad's hunting rifle and a 38 special (popular in the 1970's but there are many better options now) ?

Share this post


Link to post

nope, but it basically will amount to very little in coomparrison to what you are up against, you cant bring small arms to a drone fight

Share this post


Link to post

There is an irony in the situation that by voting for Trump, and should the unlikely happen and he were to actually become president there would probably more of a need for the people to have to take up their weapons and overthrow the government than at any point in America's history!

Egwalrus, you're continued insistence that my lack of firearms knowledge renders my opinion irrelevant couldn't be more wrong. You point a gun at someone's head and fire it are the various merits of that guns accuracy really going to make any difference?

As for you dismissing my facts. Well let's talk then, please firstly answer the question I've been asking you since the start of this thread, justify the fact that school children are more likely to be shot whilst they are trying to get their heads round an algebra equation than they are in my country. By justify, I mean counteract that fact, not just tell me it's your right to bear arms. Let's talk facts. Because that is a fact

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×