Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst ... 3
Results 51 to 65 of 65
  1. #51
    Supreme Veteran
    keefy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    The Sock Gap
    Posts
    17,716
    Rep Power
    127
    Points
    60,564 (0 Banked)
    Items Gran Turismo 5Michelle MarshDoomid SoftwareCommodore 64Metal Gear Solid
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by GreatSpaceKoaster View Post
    Ahh yes.... I love when Brits chime in on our laws. The likes of Piers Morgan and company. Notice Americans don't feel the need to chime in and judge UK laws and beliefs? But boy.... the Brits are more than willing to judge USA laws and beliefs at the drop of a hat.

    In world rankings for total crimes per 1000 of it's citizens (total crimes means just that, all crimes such as murder, robbery, burglary, assault, fraud, etc etc),.........the UK has 3 TIMES the amount of crimes per 1000 citizens than the USA. Hardly the ones to be chastising us Americans.

    As for gun laws? They only restrict law abiding citizens. Criminals don't follow our laws to begin with..... that's why they are called criminals. A gun law is just yet another law they won't follow. That's why I support gun ownership for law abiding citizens. I ain't gonna be the fool caught using a knife in a gun fight. I'll be a dead fool.

    It's always the liberals pushing for stricter gun laws, yet the very same liberals plead for leniency and mercy on behalf of defendants who have used or possessed a gun at the time they were committing a crime. I've seen defendants get gun charges reduced or dropped in exchange for pleading guilty to the main charge of robbery more times than I care to remember. It's no wonder that the majority of trial lawyers are Democrats. It's why defendants usually get a slap on the wrist for gun possession in front of liberal judges. If liberals barely want to enforce and punish for existing gun laws, what's the point of making more gun laws that they will barely want to enforce and punish for also?
    We don't need guns to be tuff. Come and av a go if u fnk u r ard enuff!

  2. Likes darky89 likes this post
  3. #52
    Banned

    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    930
    Rep Power
    0
    Points
    11,608 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by darky89 View Post
    You might want to leave the forum then. As it's a forum..... for discussion.
    And yeah, obviously no Americans have any opinions on stuff outside of the US. That would be ludicrous.
    I never said Brits couldn't have an opinion. I simply stated they seem to feel the need to criticize the USA's laws, history and beliefs yet us Americans don't feel the need to constantly do the same of the UK's history, laws and beliefs. British musicians seem to be the worst offenders.

    They criticize our history of slavery and for treating minorities as 2nd class citizens....wanting us to very conveniently forget Britain's long history of colonizing countries around the world and treating their natives as 2nd class citizens. How about asking the black and Indian communities if they truly feel like first class citizens in the UK? You don't think they face their fair share of prejudice too?

    The USA's government surveillance is criticized as a breach of privacy, yet Brit's are perfectly fine with cameras all over the place with government watching the public's every move.

    Those in glass houses......

    Quote Originally Posted by keefy View Post
    We don't need guns to be tuff. Come and av a go if u fnk u r ard enuff!
    Guns rights aren't about being "tuff", they are about being prepared for the worst. The ones that are tough guys with guns are criminals, thugs and gangsters. They are the ones that routinely use guns to harass, intimidate, threaten and needlessly kill others. Those are the types hoping and itching for a reason to brandish and use their guns.

    In contrast......law abiding citizens pray they never have to pull out or use their guns. They are perfectly fine going their entire lives without the need to ever draw their guns.

    When you accuse law abiding citizens of being "tuff" for wanting to own and possess a gun to protect themselves and their families, that's just you projecting your anti-gun emotions on others trying to shame and insult them. You don't have to own a gun if you don't want to. But we choose to own guns.

  4. Likes Ezekiel likes this post
  5. #53
    Master Guru
    darky89's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    In the bushes.
    Age
    25
    Posts
    7,075
    Rep Power
    95
    Points
    101,182 (0 Banked)
    Items FuturamaGoogle ChromeAmerican DadHalf-Life 2Battlefield 3User name style
    Quote Originally Posted by GreatSpaceKoaster View Post
    I never said Brits couldn't have an opinion. I simply stated they seem to feel the need to criticize the USA's laws, history and beliefs yet us Americans don't feel the need to constantly do the same of the UK's history, laws and beliefs. British musicians seem to be the worst offenders.
    Okay, so Brits are allowed to have opinions as long as they fall in line with yours? Or at least aren't critical.

    They criticize our history of slavery and for treating minorities as 2nd class citizens....wanting us to very conveniently forget Britain's long history of colonizing countries around the world and treating their natives as 2nd class citizens. How about asking the black and Indian communities if they truly feel like first class citizens in the UK? You don't think they face their fair share of prejudice too?
    Anyone that would criticize the US's previous and present treatment of minorities would do the same to the UK's treatment of minorities. Those with such morals wouldn't suddenly deem the treatment acceptable just because it was/is happening in their own country.

    The USA's government surveillance is criticized as a breach of privacy, yet Brit's are perfectly fine with cameras all over the place with government watching the public's every move.
    Sorry, I haven't seen the results of your study confirming this. Could you post them here so I can take a look?

    Those in glass houses......
    My house is made out of bricks....

    Guns rights aren't about being "tuff", they are about being prepared for the worst. The ones that are tough guys with guns are criminals, thugs and gangsters. They are the ones that routinely use guns to harass, intimidate, threaten and needlessly kill others. Those are the types hoping and itching for a reason to brandish and use their guns.
    Indeed, would it not then make sense to try and make guns more difficult to obtain? Obviously criminals are going to find ways of getting guns even if they were banned outright but it'd be worth trying to make it as difficult as possible.
    Last edited by darky89; 3 Weeks Ago at 21:28.

    Don't Steal. Don't Molest Little Children. Don't Deal Drugs.

  6. #54
    Supreme Veteran
    keefy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    The Sock Gap
    Posts
    17,716
    Rep Power
    127
    Points
    60,564 (0 Banked)
    Items Gran Turismo 5Michelle MarshDoomid SoftwareCommodore 64Metal Gear Solid
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by GreatSpaceKoaster View Post
    I never said Brits couldn't have an opinion. I simply stated they seem to feel the need to criticize the USA's laws, history and beliefs yet us Americans don't feel the need to constantly do the same of the UK's history, laws and beliefs. British musicians seem to be the worst offenders.

    They criticize our history of slavery and for treating minorities as 2nd class citizens....wanting us to very conveniently forget Britain's long history of colonizing countries around the world and treating their natives as 2nd class citizens. How about asking the black and Indian communities if they truly feel like first class citizens in the UK? You don't think they face their fair share of prejudice too?

    The USA's government surveillance is criticized as a breach of privacy, yet Brit's are perfectly fine with cameras all over the place with government watching the public's every move.

    Those in glass houses......



    Guns rights aren't about being "tuff", they are about being prepared for the worst. The ones that are tough guys with guns are criminals, thugs and gangsters. They are the ones that routinely use guns to harass, intimidate, threaten and needlessly kill others. Those are the types hoping and itching for a reason to brandish and use their guns.

    In contrast......law abiding citizens pray they never have to pull out or use their guns. They are perfectly fine going their entire lives without the need to ever draw their guns.

    When you accuse law abiding citizens of being "tuff" for wanting to own and possess a gun to protect themselves and their families, that's just you projecting your anti-gun emotions on others trying to shame and insult them. You don't have to own a gun if you don't want to. But we choose to own guns.

    No Brits have in this thread been criticising American history and or American beliefs so no idea why you are so on the attack against Brits in the first place.

  7. #55
    Dedicated Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    1,385
    Rep Power
    51
    Points
    9,160 (0 Banked)
    Brits criticise / take the piss out of everything, including each other. That's just how it is.

    For what it's worth, as a Brit I think I should be allowed to defend my home / family with a firearm. Maybe one day, but I don't hold much hope for a change in the law.

  8. #56
    Stockholm Syndrome
    Sylar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    UK
    PSN ID
    Spikey456
    Age
    24
    Posts
    9,359
    Rep Power
    99
    Points
    152,266 (0 Banked)
    Items LuluFangLightningOlivia WildeLucy PinderMichelle MarshVita360 SlimPS3 Fat
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by GreatSpaceKoaster View Post
    I never said Brits couldn't have an opinion. I simply stated they seem to feel the need to criticize the USA's laws, history and beliefs yet us Americans don't feel the need to constantly do the same of the UK's history, laws and beliefs. British musicians seem to be the worst offenders.

    They criticize our history of slavery and for treating minorities as 2nd class citizens....wanting us to very conveniently forget Britain's long history of colonizing countries around the world and treating their natives as 2nd class citizens. How about asking the black and Indian communities if they truly feel like first class citizens in the UK? You don't think they face their fair share of prejudice too?

    The USA's government surveillance is criticized as a breach of privacy, yet Brit's are perfectly fine with cameras all over the place with government watching the public's every move.

    Those in glass houses......



    Guns rights aren't about being "tuff", they are about being prepared for the worst. The ones that are tough guys with guns are criminals, thugs and gangsters. They are the ones that routinely use guns to harass, intimidate, threaten and needlessly kill others. Those are the types hoping and itching for a reason to brandish and use their guns.

    In contrast......law abiding citizens pray they never have to pull out or use their guns. They are perfectly fine going their entire lives without the need to ever draw their guns.

    When you accuse law abiding citizens of being "tuff" for wanting to own and possess a gun to protect themselves and their families, that's just you projecting your anti-gun emotions on others trying to shame and insult them. You don't have to own a gun if you don't want to. But we choose to own guns.
    the people you are talking about are ignorant and uneducated morons who are blind to any logical thinking due to some deep rooted racist/fascist belief so please don't tar us with the same $#@! stained brush.
    Last edited by Sylar; 3 Weeks Ago at 21:47.




  9. #57
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    30,565
    Rep Power
    191
    Points
    108,207 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Zimmerman was also a law-abiding citizen. i will say that not all citizens should have guns. but it's difficult to decide how to weed out the vigilantes.

  10. #58
    Banned

    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    930
    Rep Power
    0
    Points
    11,608 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by darky89 View Post
    Okay, so Brits are allowed to have opinions as long as they fall in line with yours? Or at least aren't critical.


    Anyone that would criticize the US's previous and present treatment of minorities would do the same to the UK's treatment of minorities. Those with such morals wouldn't suddenly deem the treatment acceptable just because it was/is happening in their own country.


    Sorry, I haven't seen the results of your study confirming this. Could you post them here so I can take a look?


    My house is made out of bricks....


    Indeed, would it not then make sense to try and make guns more difficult to obtain? Obviously criminals are going to find ways of getting guns even if they were banned outright but it'd be worth trying to make it as difficult as possible.
    I never questioned a Brit's right to criticize, merely an observation that it's usually one-sided. It's like picking on a guy that almost never picks on you.

    As for a study? If Brits weren't okay with public surveillance cameras everywhere, they would be gone. They would either pressure public officials to get rid of them or replace public officials with ones that will. The government will only go as far as the public allows them to go.

    Here in America, local governments installed red light cameras to ticket offenders. There was no public outcry for them. The governments decided on their own that we needed them. The public was outraged and cities have been dropping the program left and right. And the ones that haven't, are being sued into dropping them.

    As for this statement of yours....

    Indeed, would it not then make sense to try and make guns more difficult to obtain? Obviously criminals are going to find ways of getting guns even if they were banned outright but it'd be worth trying to make it as difficult as possible
    .

    First off... the mentally ill son that stole his mother's gun, killed her, killed the students at Sandy Hook elementary school and killed himself.... would not have been prevented from doing so by a gun law. His mother wasn't mentally ill, she wasn't a felon or criminal and obtained it legally.

    Most recreational drugs have been illegal for decades. Yet in the year 2014, I only need to make a few phone calls and have just about any drug I want. Even delivered to my house. So how did those laws making it hard to obtain drugs work out? Many people in jail or with arrest records, billions of tax dollars spent fighting it, but still plenty of drugs everywhere.

    So the laws pertaining to guns will do little. There are 300+ million guns in the USA alone. Guns are a reality. There's no un-ringing that bell. And no amount of laws will change that.

    Also... those that claim they don't want to ban guns and only want "sensible" gun laws that keep them out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.....are LIARS!

    Ever heard the saying "Give them an inch and they'll take a mile"? Ever heard of a "trojan horse"? Ever heard of a politician promising one thing to get elected and then does the exact opposite once the foolish voters have elected them?



    My personal classic go to example is the state of California's cigarette laws.....

    Back in the late 1980's, the state proposed a law that restaurants and businesses provide a separate ventilated non-smoking area so non-smokers wouldn't have to inhale the smoke. Smokers cried foul saying it's merely a Trojan horse measure to later heavily restrict or ban smoking altogether.

    The proponents of the law called such comments "nonsense". That we just want to come up with a "sensible" law that helps protect the public at large, while maintaining the rights of smokers to smoke. They claimed that they had no intentions of going any further than that and that such assertions were false and unfounded.

    So the smokers and the general public took them at their word and the law was passed.

    NOW... fast forward a number of years. The proponents then later pushed for no smoking at all in restaurants and businesses cuz it created an unhealthy environment for employees to work in. That you must smoke outside. Swore up and down they aren't gonna go any further than that. The law passed.

    Then a few more years passed and they said NOW you must smoke a certain amount of feet from the entrance. AGAIN clamming they had no intentions of going any further. The law was passed.

    Then they started banning smoking in open air public beaches and parks. You could be the only person on a beach with nobody else there to possibly inhale your smoke....and you still will get a hefty fine for doing so.

    Now cities are banning electronic vapor cigarettes that release only water vapor and not carcinogenic smoke....in the same places as regular cigarettes are not allowed.

    So much for "sensible" and "We have no intentions of going further" bull$#@! lies!

    When a gun owner hears the word "sensible gun laws" from the gun control crowd and that we have "no intentions of taking your gun rights away"........ all that gun owner really hears is "this is a stop gap measure until we go even further in taking your gun rights away in the future".


    Quote Originally Posted by keefy View Post
    No Brits have in this thread been criticising American history and or American beliefs so no idea why you are so on the attack against Brits in the first place.
    This mainly had to do with Piers Morgan and those Brits that chime in along with him, but it doesn't mean ALL Brits of course.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sylar View Post
    the people you are talking about are ignorant and uneducated morons who are blind to any logical thinking due to some deep rooted racist/fascist belief so please don't tar us with the same $#@! stained brush.
    I didn't tar ALL Brits. I merely made the observation that when criticism is thrown either direction, I've seen far more of it coming from Brits towards America than I have of Americans towards Britain. That's all I was saying. If you aren't one of those Brits doing it then it obviously doesn't apply to you.
    Last edited by GreatSpaceKoaster; 3 Weeks Ago at 10:48.

  11. #59
    Supreme Veteran
    mynd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Down Under
    Age
    41
    Posts
    17,567
    Rep Power
    162
    Points
    161,347 (0 Banked)
    Items User name style
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Somethign I find interesting...

    Does the right to bear arms include the right to privately owned nuclear weapons?

    No. There is no right to bear weapons like a gun, outside of the right to life (whether for self-defense, or hunting, etc.). A corollary of a principle (such as the right to bear arms) cannot violate the principle on which it hierarchically depends upon (the right to self-defense). A nuclear weapon — i.e., an atomic bomb — is a weapon of mass destruction. There is no such thing as the right to mass destruction, as it lies in contradiction to the right to self-defense. One does not defend oneself against a mugger by tossing a nuclear bomb.

    Nuclear weapons are not weapons of self-defense. They are weapons of total offense, that render (in the present context) all weapons of self-defense useless. Such a ‘right to own a nuclear weapon’ would in practice turn the right to self-defense into a chimera. After all, how does one defend oneself against a nuclear bomb? By ducking for cover?
    http://capitalism.org/guns/does-the-...arians-insist/

    Is this true?, if it is, then you can completely toss automatic weapons on that pile as well.

    I find this an interesting discussion on the rule of law.

  12. #60
    Master Guru
    darky89's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    In the bushes.
    Age
    25
    Posts
    7,075
    Rep Power
    95
    Points
    101,182 (0 Banked)
    Items FuturamaGoogle ChromeAmerican DadHalf-Life 2Battlefield 3User name style
    Quote Originally Posted by GreatSpaceKoaster View Post
    I never questioned a Brit's right to criticize, merely an observation that it's usually one-sided. It's like picking on a guy that almost never picks on you.

    As for a study? If Brits weren't okay with public surveillance cameras everywhere, they would be gone. They would either pressure public officials to get rid of them or replace public officials with ones that will. The government will only go as far as the public allows them to go.

    Here in America, local governments installed red light cameras to ticket offenders. There was no public outcry for them. The governments decided on their own that we needed them. The public was outraged and cities have been dropping the program left and right. And the ones that haven't, are being sued into dropping them.

    As for this statement of yours....


    Most recreational drugs have been illegal for decades. Yet in the year 2014, I only need to make a few phone calls and have just about any drug I want. Even delivered to my house. So how did those laws making it hard obtain drugs work out? Many people in jail or with arrest records, billions of tax dollars spent fighting it, but still plenty of drugs everywhere.

    So the laws pertaining to guns will do little. There are 300+ million guns in the USA alone. Guns are a reality. There's no un-ringing that bell. And no amount of laws will change that.

    Also... those that claim they don't want to ban guns and only want "sensible" gun laws that keep them out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.....are LIARS!

    Ever heard the saying "Give them an inch and they'll take a mile"? Ever heard of a "trojan horse"? Ever heard of a politician promising one thing to get elected and then does the exact opposite once the foolish voters have elected them?



    My personal classic go to example is the state of California's cigarette laws.....

    Back in the late 1980's, the state proposed a law that restaurants and businesses provide a separate ventilated non-smoking area so non-smokers wouldn't have to inhale the smoke. Smokers cried foul saying it's merely a Trojan horse measure to later heavily restrict or ban smoking altogether.

    The proponents of the law called such comments "nonsense". That we just want to come up with a "sensible" law that helps protect the public at large, while maintaining the rights of smokers to smoke. They claimed that they had no intentions of going any further than that and that such assertions were false and unfounded.

    So the smokers and the general public took them at their word and the law was passed.

    NOW... fast forward a number of years. The proponents then later pushed for no smoking at all in restaurants and businesses cuz it created an unhealthy environment for employees to work in. That you must smoke outside. Swore up and down they aren't gonna go any further than that. The law passed.

    Then a few more years passed and they said NOW you must smoke a certain amount of feet from the entrance. AGAIN clamming they had no intentions of going any further. The law was passed.

    Then they started banning smoking in open air public beaches and parks. You could be the only person on a beach with nobody else there to possibly inhale your smoke....and you still will get a hefty fine for doing so.

    Now cities are banning electronic vapor cigarettes that release only water vapor and not carcinogenic smoke....in the same places as regular cigarettes are not allowed.

    So much for "sensible" and "We have no intentions of going further" bull$#@! lies!

    When a gun owner hears the word "sensible gun laws" from the gun control crowd and that we have "no intentions of taking your gun rights away"........ all that gun owner really hears is "this is a stop gap measure until we go even further in taking your gun rights away in the future".




    This mainly had to do with Piers Morgan and those Brits that chime in along with him, but it doesn't mean ALL Brits of course.



    I didn't tar ALL Brits. I merely made the observation that when criticism is thrown either direction, I've seen far more of it coming from Brits towards America than I have of Americans towards Britain. That's all I was saying. If you aren't one of those Brits doing it then it obviously doesn't apply to you.


    I don't think there should be sensible gun laws under the guise of slowly restricting them more so. I absolutely think they should be banned outright.
    But as you've said, the bell has been rung on that, and just banning them probably isn't feasible. So tricking people into slowly removing the amount of guns in America, though underhanded, would be better than doing nothing.

    First off... the mentally ill son that stole his mother's gun, killed her, killed the students at Sandy Hook elementary school and killed himself.... would not have been prevented from doing so by a gun law. His mother wasn't mentally ill, she wasn't a felon or criminal and obtained it legally.
    And that's exactly my point. There weren't many barriers to stop that from happening. That gun was just purchased, no dodgy deals, or having the right contacts....

    Like I said, of course criminals and other folk will still be able to get hold of guns (unlawfully) if they really want to. But at the moment they don't have to, they can just go buy one.

    Also, we obviously have completely opposite opinions, this isn't going to go anywhere. So I'm officially declaring I shall not bother to respond directly to your response.
    Last edited by darky89; 3 Weeks Ago at 08:10.

    Don't Steal. Don't Molest Little Children. Don't Deal Drugs.

  13. #61
    Forum Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Age
    31
    Posts
    8,416
    Rep Power
    102
    Points
    1,700 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by mynd View Post
    Somethign I find interesting...

    http://capitalism.org/guns/does-the-...arians-insist/

    Is this true?, if it is, then you can completely toss automatic weapons on that pile as well.

    I find this an interesting discussion on the rule of law.
    A nuke is most certainly a self-defense weapon. People who say otherwise are completely missing out on the fact that a nuclear weapon doesn't have to be lobbed and detonated for it to be "used". A nuclear weapon is first and foremost, a weapon of mass deterrence. The meaning WMD is a double-entendre. How something is used determines whether or not it is a weapon for self-defense. Nuclear weapons are no different. The problem isn't in the weapon in and of itself. The problem is with the individual. The libertarians are most certainly correct on this issue.

  14. #62
    Supreme Veteran
    keefy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    The Sock Gap
    Posts
    17,716
    Rep Power
    127
    Points
    60,564 (0 Banked)
    Items Gran Turismo 5Michelle MarshDoomid SoftwareCommodore 64Metal Gear Solid
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Nukes are designed to be mass destruction weapons. The fear they bring with mass destruction put people off from launching them and only to be used as last resort.
    Last edited by keefy; 2 Weeks Ago at 22:16.

  15. #63
    Forum Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Age
    31
    Posts
    8,416
    Rep Power
    102
    Points
    1,700 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by keefy View Post
    Nukes are designed to be mass destruction weapons. The fear they bring with mass destruction put people off from launching them and only to be used as last resort.
    Which makes them a mass deterrence weapon. Just having a nuke makes one less susceptible to attack. In this regard, it becomes a weapon for self-defense.

  16. #64
    Supreme Veteran
    keefy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    The Sock Gap
    Posts
    17,716
    Rep Power
    127
    Points
    60,564 (0 Banked)
    Items Gran Turismo 5Michelle MarshDoomid SoftwareCommodore 64Metal Gear Solid
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Ezekiel View Post
    Which makes them a mass deterrence weapon. Just having a nuke makes one less susceptible to attack. In this regard, it becomes a weapon for self-defense.
    They do deter but It was never the primary function though, nobody originally designed them to deter.
    Last edited by keefy; 2 Weeks Ago at 09:09.

  17. #65
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    30,565
    Rep Power
    191
    Points
    108,207 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    i don't understand why people are comparing a nuclear weapon to an AR?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
vBCredits II Deluxe v2.1.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2010-2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.