or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Best wishes from the uk
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Best wishes from the uk - Page 2

post #41 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

For one, people would often get shot for just trying to get their gun out to use.

 

Maybe. Maybe not. I notice you apply a greater than 50% probability to the worse possibility here. Do you have anything to support this?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Then you could have situations where there is a gun fight instead of simply handing over your money or letting someone else hand over theirs. Obviously too if any one could just walk around with a concealed firearm they may be tempted to use it when giving someone the bird might have sufficed if they'd not had it.

 

Again, do you have anything to support the probability of your claims or is this just your imagination masquerading as fact?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Having sensible registering practices and training in the UK is the biggest reason we have so few gun crimes. I don't see how you can deny it wouldn't help over time. Yes, criminals will still get guns, but it would become increasingly difficult, and over time mean that they are more likely to get caught with an illegally obtained gun.

 

At the same time people would have one means of self-defense eliminated from their options.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Let's not forget here either that this shooters assault rifle...

 

Stop saying that he was using an assault rifle. It wasn't an assault rifle.

 

700

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

If this guy had to have gone out and found an assault rifle et al. on the black market he may have been caught in the process of doing that. instead he just gets online and has everything he wants delivered. No red flags, just red blood.

 

Again, you're making assumptions here with supporting them.

 

In brief you are making almost entirely negative assumptions of what happens when people possess fire arms and assigning high probability to these negative possibilities and doing exactly the opposite (making almost entirely positive assumptions of what happens when people don't possess fire arms and assigning high probability to these positive possibilities). But nothing to back any of it up.

 

P.S. Do you also advocate disarming the police?

 

P.P.S. You might be interested in reading "The Law" by Frédéric Bastiat

 

P.P.P.S. I wonder if you have similar feelings about the civilians killed by Obama-authorized drone attacks in the past 3.5 years. Including the 19 who were killed in a drone attack ordered a mere 3 days after taking office. NOTE: That's more in one of his first official orders than were killed in Aurora by what we call a "mad man."


Edited by MJ1970 - 7/23/12 at 5:30pm

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #42 of 244

1000

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #43 of 244

GOD forbid this ever happens in our country. Never Again!
 

post #44 of 244

The liberal gun laws in the USA did nothing to protect the innocent people gunned down by what I consider to be an unhinged person.

 

As a Londoner, I for one am happy that I we don't have a culture where we see people walking around with guns. Increasingly the police will carry them in high profile situations/places but the shooting of Innocent (or unarmed) people by the police is still a rare occurrence that results in column inches or indeed even riots.

 

There is gun crime in the UK, often resulting in criminals with guns killing rivals. Regrettably bystanders are killed but fortunately we still have a police force that is concerned that carrying arms will alienate them and lead to an anti-upping scenario.

 

I cannot understand or subscribe to the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" mantra  Guns have little in the way of alternative uses other than causing damage.

 

Sadly, although we try to sympathize with the latest high profile atrocities that occur in the USA we are seldom shocked and view US gun laws as a historical anomaly.

post #45 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by hungover View Post

The liberal gun laws in the USA did nothing to protect the innocent people gunned down by what I consider to be an unhinged person.

 

Well, to be clear, the only person that was armed in that theater was the criminal.

 

You'll find this same pattern in the school, college campus and mall shootings.

 

These are all "gun-free zones."

 

Possibly, if someone had been armed for self-defense in any of the situations, they may have turned out less tragically.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by hungover View Post

I cannot understand or subscribe to the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" mantra

 

Perhaps you need a lesson in logic then. Let's try:

 

Hammers don't hammer nails, people do. Get it?

 

Cars don't drive down the road, people do. Get it?

 

The AR-15, shotgun and Glock's didn't kill those people, James Holmes did. Get it?

 

Unmanned drones don't kill civilian men, women and children, Barack Obama does when he orders drone attacks. Get it?

 

 

 

It should also be noted that James Holmes had booby-trapped his apartment with various explosive devices to kill or injure whoever entered it. No guns.

 

It's not the tool...it's the person using the tool.

 

This man wanted to kill people. He could have and would have done it in anyway. Had someone in that theater been armed for self-defense with a fire arm, they could have (and likely would have) ended him rampage faster than it would have taken anyone to dial 911.

 

Perhaps instead of trying to find new ways to disarm people and diminish their ability to defend themselves with firearms we ought to:

 

  1. Try to understand why some people go on rampages like this and address that deeper problem, and,
  2. Help more people to be trained and equipped to do so just in case we cannot stop people from going on violent rampages.

Edited by MJ1970 - 7/24/12 at 1:23pm

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #46 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by hungover View Post

The liberal gun laws in the USA did nothing to protect the innocent people gunned down by what I consider to be an unhinged person.

 

As a Londoner, I for one am happy that I we don't have a culture where we see people walking around with guns. Increasingly the police will carry them in high profile situations/places but the shooting of Innocent (or unarmed) people by the police is still a rare occurrence that results in column inches or indeed even riots.

 

There is gun crime in the UK, often resulting in criminals with guns killing rivals. Regrettably bystanders are killed but fortunately we still have a police force that is concerned that carrying arms will alienate them and lead to an anti-upping scenario.

 

I cannot understand or subscribe to the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" mantra  Guns have little in the way of alternative uses other than causing damage.

 

Sadly, although we try to sympathize with the latest high profile atrocities that occur in the USA we are seldom shocked and view US gun laws as a historical anomaly.

 

Many police in large cities in the UK are armed, as opposed to those in small towns and villages. However, since 1990, approximately 1450 people have died at the hands of the police in the UK - this averages out to about 65 each year. How does this compare to the US, with some 400 killings by the police each year? Proportionately almost the same, considering that the total population of the US is some 6 times that of the UK. The statistics do not show the relative proportion of shooting deaths, in relation to *all* deaths at the hands of the police... but I guess for the deceased, and their families and friends, the method of killing is of secondary importance.

 

The cold blooded terrorist murder of electrician Jean Charles Menezes, at the Stockwell "tube" station in 2005 still stands out as one of the most worst examples of arbitrary assassinaton by police in modern times, and the phony inquiry and jury-shackling that followed was one of the most fragrant examples of the corruption that is endemic in the UK Home Office and Scotland Yard. To date, nobody has been brought to justice, and the thugs are still on the streets, uninvestigated and unpunished.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #47 of 244
Thread Starter 
Till I have more time to post-

"In 2010, five UK police officers lost their lives in the course of duty or on their way to or from being on duty.  All five died as a result of road traffic accidents.  They are remembered here.

Contrast this with the experience in the United States:

“In just twenty-four hours, at least eleven cops were shot around the country. The most recent incident at a fugitive’s house in St. Petersburg, Florida, left two officers dead and a U.S. marshal wounded Monday. Hours earlier, an Oregon officer was critically wounded after being shot multiple times during a traffic stop. Monday’s violence followed a bloody Sunday that left an officer in Indianapolis critically wounded during a traffic stop shooting, four officers in Indianapolis wounded after a gunman opened fire in a precinct and two more officers in Washington wounded in a shootout in a Walmart parking lot.”

According to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, over the last ten years there have been on average 163 US police officers killed each year, 16,041 injured and 58,821 assaulted. "
~ Link later
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #48 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

 

Perhaps you need a lesson in logic then. Let's try:

 

 And perhaps you need a lesson in manners.

post #49 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

 

Many police in large cities in the UK are armed, as opposed to those in small towns and villages. However, since 1990, approximately 1450 people have died at the hands of the police in the UK - this averages out to about 65 each year. How does this compare to the US, with some 400 killings by the police each year? Proportionately almost the same, considering that the total population of the US is some 6 times that of the UK. The statistics do not show the relative proportion of shooting deaths, in relation to *all* deaths at the hands of the police... but I guess for the deceased, and their families and friends, the method of killing is of secondary importance.

 

The cold blooded terrorist murder of electrician Jean Charles Menezes, at the Stockwell "tube" station in 2005 still stands out as one of the most worst examples of arbitrary assassinaton by police in modern times, and the phony inquiry and jury-shackling that followed was one of the most fragrant examples of the corruption that is endemic in the UK Home Office and Scotland Yard. To date, nobody has been brought to justice, and the thugs are still on the streets, uninvestigated and unpunished.

 The 1433 "deaths at the hands of the police in the uk"- only 54 were the result of shooting, 429 were the result of pursuit (including traffic accidents), 950 occurred in custody (a combination of police brutality and natural causes).

 

 

firearm-related death-rate per 100,000 population in one year

USA 10.27

UK  0.46

 

In 2010 we had 600 murders, you had almost 13,000, of which 8775 were caused by fire arms. This does not take into accounts injuries or killings deemed lawful that might have not resulted in death otherwise. (your population is 5 times the size of ours)

 

 

Nuff said....

 

 

 

 

Re Jean Charles Menezes- Not sure what your point is. The police fucked up big time.

 

Re Phone hacking????  Are you suggesting that I need a gun to shot people that want to hack my voice mail?

post #50 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by hungover View Post

 And perhaps you need a lesson in manners.

 

Possibly. But do you at least understand the "gun don't kill people" "mantra" now?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #51 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

Possibly. But do you at least understand the "gun don't kill people" "mantra" now?

so, accordingly land mines don't kill people. The fault lies with people standing on them.

And death doesn't kill people, its the expiration of living that kills them...

post #52 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by hungover View Post

so, accordingly land mines don't kill people. The fault lies with people standing on them.

And death doesn't kill people, its the expiration of living that kills them...

 

Are landmines alive? Are they sentient? Did they position and arm themselves of their own accord? No. The fault lies with the people who laid and armed those mines.

 

Are guns alive? Are they sentient? Do guns sprout legs and walk into movie theaters, shooting indiscriminately? No. The fault lies with the people who use guns to harm peaceful people.

 

Shall we ban bows and arrows, too? Knives? Dart guns? Blunt objects? Cars? All of those things could be used (by PEOPLE with malicious intent) to harm or kill others.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #53 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by hungover View Post

so, accordingly land mines don't kill people. The fault lies with people standing on them.

 

No, the fault lies with those who placed the land mines. I would think that is fairly obvious. But, maybe not. Wow.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by hungover View Post

And death doesn't kill people, its the expiration of living that kills them...

 

Oh dear.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #54 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by hungover View Post

The liberal gun laws in the USA did nothing to protect the innocent people gunned down by what I consider to be an unhinged person.

 

And just about a year ago, some of the toughest gun laws in the world did nothing to prevent a massacre in Norway.

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #55 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

 

And just about a year ago, some of the toughest gun laws in the world did nothing to prevent a massacre in Norway.

 By a man holding licences that allowed him to legally purchase the semi-automatic weapons that he then went on to kill people with.

 

Evidently the gun laws there are not tough enough

post #56 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by hungover View Post

By a man holding licences that allowed him to legally purchase the semi-automatic weapons that he then went on to kill people with.

 

That was the same in this shooting in Aurora, Colorado.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by hungover View Post

Evidently the gun laws there are not tough enough

 

Well, that's one conclusion. It isn't necessarily the logical one and you've failed to show the connective tissue to this conclusion. But don't let that bother you.

 

The fact is that there's not much that is going to stop a sufficiently motivated killer from killing people. Except, possibly, a sufficiently armed populous.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #57 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

 

Are landmines alive? Are they sentient? Did they position and arm themselves of their own accord? No. The fault lies with the people who laid and armed those mines.

 

Are guns alive? Are they sentient? Do guns sprout legs and walk into movie theaters, shooting indiscriminately? No. The fault lies with the people who use guns to harm peaceful people.

 

Shall we ban bows and arrows, too? Knives? Dart guns? Blunt objects? Cars? All of those things could be used (by PEOPLE with malicious intent) to harm or kill others.

 Ok, so landmines, I was being flippant (I shall address this in my next post).

 

 

Knives? Blunt objects? Cars?- The primary function of each of those items is not death or injury. Although most objects can be used as a weapon they remain pretty ineffective at killing large volumes of people in a very short people of time. Off hand I cannot think of any high profile hammer bludgeoning sprees that have resulted in scores of people being killed.  There are examples of attacks involving knives/swords that have killed multiple persons but the death count tends to be much lower. In most cases the assailant has been overpowered without further fatalities.

post #58 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by hungover View Post

Knives? Blunt objects? Cars?- The primary function of each of those items is not death or injury. Although most objects can be used as a weapon they remain pretty ineffective at killing large volumes of people in a very short people of time. Off hand I cannot think of any high profile hammer bludgeoning sprees that have resulted in scores of people being killed.  There are examples of attacks involving knives/swords that have killed multiple persons but the death count tends to be much lower. In most cases the assailant has been overpowered without further fatalities.

 

You seem to assume that guns have no other function that to indiscriminately kill people for no reason.

 

Perhaps I'm wrong, but this appears to be the path you're going down.

 

But guns can be used for :

 

- hunting

- self defense against assailants using guns or some of the devices you listed above

 

Guns are not just tools for offense...they are also effective tools for defense.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #59 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

You seem to assume that guns have no other function that to indiscriminately kill people for no reason.

 

Perhaps I'm wrong, but this appears to be the path you're going down.

 

But guns can be used for :

 

- hunting

- self defense against assailants using guns or some of the devices you listed above

 

Guns are not just tools for offense...they are also effective tools for defense.

Regard my earlier statement- "The primary function of each of those items is not death or injury" (ie a car is not designed to be used as a weapon), now tell me where i said "guns have no other function that to indiscriminately kill people for no reason".

 

Both "legitimate" uses for guns that you have cited involve the use of guns to facilitate death or injury... 

 

Please feel free to demonstrate your superior "logic" by showing me how a gun has a function other than as a weapon. A portable device for making round holes in coke cans for those unable to use ring pulls?

post #60 of 244

This killer in Colorado could not have killed 12 people with a knife that is for sure or maimed others. Guns are the ones that kill not knifes or other objects.
 

post #61 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by hungover View Post

Regard my earlier statement- "The primary function of each of those items is not death or injury" (ie a car is not designed to be used as a weapon), now tell me where i said "guns have no other function that to indiscriminately kill people for no reason".

 

I didn't claim you said it, simply that, from your statements, you seem to be assuming that. If my inference is wrong, I apologize.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by hungover View Post

Both "legitimate" uses for guns that you have cited involve the use of guns to facilitate death or injury... 

 

Please feel free to demonstrate your superior "logic" by showing me how a gun has a function other than as a weapon. A portable device for making round holes in coke cans for those unable to use ring pulls?

 

I have not claimed it has a use beyond a weapon. I simply claimed that this use is not always offensive as in the example in Colorado. These weapons can be used in two other ways:

 

a) defensively in protection of life and property

 

b) hunting for the gathering of food

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #62 of 244
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

Maybe. Maybe not. I notice you apply a greater than 50% probability to the worse possibility here. Do you have anything to support this?

 

 

 

Again, do you have anything to support the probability of your claims or is this just your imagination masquerading as fact?

 

 

 

At the same time people would have one means of self-defense eliminated from their options.

 

 

 

Stop saying that he was using an assault rifle. It wasn't an assault rifle.

 

700

 

 

 

 

Again, you're making assumptions here with supporting them.

 

In brief you are making almost entirely negative assumptions of what happens when people possess fire arms and assigning high probability to these negative possibilities and doing exactly the opposite (making almost entirely positive assumptions of what happens when people don't possess fire arms and assigning high probability to these positive possibilities). But nothing to back any of it up.

 

P.S. Do you also advocate disarming the police?

 

P.P.S. You might be interested in reading "The Law" by Frédéric Bastiat

 

P.P.P.S. I wonder if you have similar feelings about the civilians killed by Obama-authorized drone attacks in the past 3.5 years. Including the 19 who were killed in a drone attack ordered a mere 3 days after taking office. NOTE: That's more in one of his first official orders than were killed in Aurora by what we call a "mad man."

A guy walks up to your car at a red light and points a gun at you and demands you hand over your wallet. Do you give him it, or open the glove box?

 

I think I know what you'd do, especially if you had a wife and kids with you.

 

Common sense dictates that typically getting into a gun fight isn't the answer, that's even what the police recommend. They're not stupid enough to recommend that people risk their lives for $117. Knuckleheads might, and so evolution weeds them out. 

 

If the carbine the shooter had isn't an assault rifle so be it, I really don't know. Nonetheless it was able to shoot off up to 70 rounds per minute and had 100 round clips. It jammed or he'd have slaughtered many more. Making these guns available to the public is asking for trouble. It's pure madness. 

"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #63 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

A guy walks up to your car at a red light and points a gun at you and demands you hand over your wallet. Do you give him it, or open the glove box?

 

I think I know what you'd do, especially if you had a wife and kids with you.

 

Of course I would given the money in the scenario you've described? What's your point? Will you now engage in outline a set of contrived scenarios that all suit your argument?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Common sense dictates that typically getting into a gun fight isn't the answer, that's even what the police recommend.

 

I'm not sure taking advice from the police is always the best course of action. But you're free to do whatever you like.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

If the carbine the shooter had isn't an assault rifle so be it, I really don't know.

 

Then educate and inform yourself before using inaccurate terminology.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Nonetheless it was able to shoot off up to 70 rounds per minute and had 100 round clips. It jammed or he'd have slaughtered many more.

 

We're all aware of the facts that have been revealed so far.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Making these guns available to the public...

 

The guns are available to the public.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

...is asking for trouble. It's pure madness. 

 

Thank for sharing your opinion.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #64 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

The guns are available to the public.

 

Millions upon millions of gun owners did not walk into movie theaters and slaughter people today. Yet we should punish responsible gun owners because of the actions of a madman?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #65 of 244

We should start to go after buyers who are purchasing these 100 round clips which is not needed at all.This is for the military not civilians.
 

post #66 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

 

Millions upon millions of gun owners did not walk into movie theaters and slaughter people today. Yet we should punish responsible gun owners because of the actions of a madman?

 Nor has anyone used a nuclear war head since the bombing of Japan (other than test explosions). Never-the-less "we" dictate who should and should not be allowed to own weapons, but hang on, bombs don't kill people, they are used for defence...

post #67 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

Of course I would given the money in the scenario you've described? What's your point? Will you now engage in outline a set of contrived scenarios that all suit your argument?

 

 

 

I'm not sure taking advice from the police is always the best course of action. But you're free to do whatever you like.

 

 

 

Then educate and inform yourself before using inaccurate terminology.

 

 

 

We're all aware of the facts that have been revealed so far.

 

 

 

The guns are available to the public.

 

 

 

Thank for sharing your opinion.

 Actually I was unaware that the death toll was lower as a result of the gun jamming.

 

Why in your opinion would one need to be able to fire 70 bullets in a minute? What would one be hunting or defending themselves against that would require so many shots? A woolly mammoth, defending yourself against a crowd of zombies?

post #68 of 244
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hungover View Post

 Actually I was unaware that the death toll was lower as a result of the gun jamming.

 

Why in your opinion would one need to be able to fire 70 bullets in a minute? What would one be hunting or defending themselves against that would require so many shots? A woolly mammoth, defending yourself against a crowd of zombies?

Yeah, it's a terrible weapon and luckily it malfunctioned. The NRA fought hard to overturn the law that made them illegal. Now we have this, instead of the possibility that if he'd tried to buy one illegally he may have been arrested before carrying out this massacre. People should be as mad as hell and start demonstrating before this happens again and again and again.

"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
"I have been made victorious by terror~ Muhammad

"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," ~ Barack Obama

Reply
post #69 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

As you might know from my posts here I grew up in the uk but have an American father. I went to the US for the first time at 17. I lived there up until 3.5 yrs ago for ten years. Today I found very disturbing and I felt closer to those I've known and know in the US than I have for a long time. Sadness, shock and anger put me back.

Hands, you must realise that humanity is at the very early stages of our evolution. Some people say thousands, millions, billions of years have passed since we got to this stage. But that's relative. How long did it take for the first CO2 molecule to form? Can we even measure that in any meaningful way.

Assuming humans are sentient, which I believe, then we are just at the very embryonic stage. Humans have done horrible things to each other on a massive scale since the start of humanity.

Luckily, in the past 50 years it does seem like the transition (which may take a few hundred years) to the "Age Of Aquarius" is happening. We are all now intimately connected on a global scale, and each one of us feels that there is something more, something going on, something changing... It can be for the better, but we have to be patient and await the secrets of the universe to gradually unfold.

Of course, I cannot belittle any tragedy however large or small that happens, it is devastating to many.

But something is definitely happening. Our polluted environment, overuse of energy, and damaged minds as the result of all that can change by sustainable living.

I have a theory that by unearthing so much energy (aka oil) we have inadvertently now continually shoved our minds and soul so full of energy (information, Internet, feelings, emotion, money, food, corrupted surroundings) that we do not even have a yardstick of what is normal human existence, for the present.

Again, it may not be much comfort but I have intimate knowledge of mental illness and anyone that does know well of it, the border between normal and crazy, lawful and psychopathic is extremely, extremely thin.

I'm not saying some people are not just evil bastards, but in some case, they truly for whatever reason, have no connection with normal human society.

Take care all and I wish for healing for all.
post #70 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Yeah, it's a terrible weapon and luckily it malfunctioned. The NRA fought hard to overturn the law that made them illegal. Now we have this, instead of the possibility that if he'd tried to buy one illegally he may have been arrested before carrying out this massacre. People should be as mad as hell and start demonstrating before this happens again and again and again.

I think the world has lost much of the spirit of compromise.

OK, let's say everyone can own a handgun. Fine. But nobody needs hardcore military-spec submachine guns.

For the first time I shot (at a shooting range) a semi-auto. Though I would never want to own one (legal in some circumstances in my current location), I can see why some people want to. But I definitely, in my opinion, should not be allowed to own a Uzi, MP5, let alone semi-auto/auto rifles. To compensate, shooting ranges should allow for people to not own but try shooting Uzis and MP5s etc.

As for hunting, fine, hunting rifles but as it has been brought up again and again no sane person can say they're going after animals with Call Of Duty MW2 class weapons.

Freedom. But with important Boundaries.

I mean, for ****'s sake, what normal citizen in the world should be allowed to buy this, let alone carry it around wherever they want to: (I can't seem to post image easily, forum glitch)
Edited by sr2012 - 7/27/12 at 8:09am
post #71 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by sr2012 View Post

Freedom. But with important Boundaries.

 

What are the boundaries you propose?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #72 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

What are the boundaries you propose?

1.
Handgun ownership allowed but with proper gun club membership, safe requirements, etc.

2.
Semi-auto can be shot at shooting ranges but must be kept there. No personal ownership of Uzi, AR15, AK47, MP5, etc.

3.
Education and counselling line for the mentally ill that are prone to violence.
post #73 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

What are the boundaries you propose?

 He mentioned them in his post, namely allowing people to use but not own such weapons.

 

 

If the origins of the right to bear arms result from the freedom to repel aggressive foreign armies (ie the British) then why not allow drones or anti-tank weapons etc?

 

 

 

 

Edit- sorry the previous rpost beat me to it

post #74 of 244
I mean, it what country can any motherfucker off the street walk around with this:

220px-AR15_A3_Tactical_Carbine_pic1.jpg
post #75 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by sr2012 View Post

I mean, it what country can any motherfucker off the street walk around with this:
220px-AR15_A3_Tactical_Carbine_pic1.jpg

 

:rolleyes:

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #76 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

1rolleyes.gif

Explain yourself. If you think carrying something for a war zone is legit in civilian life then I definitely fall on the side of "that's right-to-bear-arms gone cuckoo".

If people are so into it, then allow it only at shooting ranges for people to try and blow of steam. But not to own.
post #77 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by hungover View Post

He mentioned them in his post, namely allowing people to use but not own such weapons.

 

I was asking more broadly, since it was a broad statement. I seems that those who want "boundaries" on freedom often have many more in mind than they initially let on. It becomes a laundry list of things they just don't like others doing.

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by hungover View Post

If the origins of the right to bear arms result from the freedom to repel aggressive foreign armies...

 

And domestic tyrants also.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #78 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by sr2012 View Post


1.
Handgun ownership allowed but with proper gun club membership, safe requirements, etc.
2.
Semi-auto can be shot at shooting ranges but must be kept there. No personal ownership of Uzi, AR15, AK47, MP5, etc.
3.
Education and counselling line for the mentally ill that are prone to violence.

 

These are the only boundaries you propose in a "free" society? Why? Why should everyone submit to your boundaries here?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #79 of 244

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #80 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I was asking more broadly, since it was a broad statement. I seems that those who want "boundaries" on freedom often have many more in mind than they initially let on. It becomes a laundry list of things they just don't like others doing.

No, you can keep a life-sized body pillow of Katy Perry and do what you will to it in your own home, or you can even carry it around on the street.

This is the standard "slippery-slope" nonsensical argument.

If I am a human, and you are a human, then if we live in proximity to each other, we have to work something out, otherwise why bother, let's just go back to clubs and beat the crap out of each other for a piece of squirrel.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Best wishes from the uk