Gun control

Gun control

Nothing is more precious than life. The invention of guns makes it easier to take ones life. A single pull of a trigger can decide between life and death. Such lethal weapons are easily available in our society. They can be bought legally at federally owned or private gun stores, and at gun shows. There are far too many guns floating around the United States. With more than 200 million handguns produced in the United States, there is a chance that some of them may fall in the wrong hands. From time to time, sensational shootings provoke public outrage, resulting in the ratification of strict gun control laws. However, due to reactions by gun right proponents, the effectiveness of the governmental action to enforce these gun control laws is deterred. Americans have a long affection for guns based upon their heritage of hunting, sporting, and self-protection during colonial times. In addition, the United States won independence from Great Britain using the guns they possessed. Currently, according to the National Rifles Association (NRA) poll, eighty-nine percent of Americans believe they have a constitutional right to hold guns. Gun control opponents also use to argue that gun ownership is a right granted and protected by the United States Constitution, and that tough gun control laws encroach on those rights. In its entirety, the Second Amendment reads: “A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Despite claims from people in favor of guns that it is the citizens’ right to own and carry a weapon, the right to keep and bear arms by individuals is not protected by the constitution. The Second Amendment states that it is the right for a militia to have weapons, not everyone. The constitution clearly talks about a “well-regulated Militia”. According to the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, a militia is a trained military force whose members do not belong to a regular army but operate like one, especially to defend their country in an emergency. Today’s version of the “well-regulated Militia” is the National Guard. The constitution means it is the right for the National Guard, the arms forces, and law enforcers to hold guns, not the civil population. Widespread gun ownership lead to an increase of gun related deaths. Even with previous gun control laws in effect, such as the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Brady Law), as indicated by the CDC’s WISQARS Injury Mortality Reports, there are 29,569 gun deaths in the United States in the year 2004 alone. It is the second leading cause of deaths after motor crash and, in several states (Firearm Injury Center at the University of Pennsylvania, “Gun Violence Is a Serious Economic and Public Health Problem”, Current Controversies: Guns and Violence, 2005 p. 21). Stricter gun control laws should be put into place since guns lead to deaths of young people due to unintentional gunfire, economic costs on society, and unsafe societies.

From my essay I wrote for class.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Doesn't Belgium have some pretty strict gun-control laws? I could be wrong, but it seems I read that most of Europe is really tight about who can own what as far as guns are concerned.

As far as I know most European Counties have laws against owning guns, which is one reason why there are less gun deaths, another being the culture of course. Naturally when there is a death by gunfire it gets attention in the national press.

As far as rules about who should be "allowed" to own guns in my view this should not include, obviously, criminals and also those who cavort with terrorist organisations and maybe also those who are so witless as to fantasise about weapons and how deadly they are. As has been mentioned before a gun license makes real sense and part of that, again in my view, should be those who are educated in their ability to use guns safely, and have a responsible attitude towards their use. Naturally the same goes with knives.

Grenades are another issue. Last I checked, even in gun stores you can't buy them, even here in the gun-crazy USA. So, how does a civilian score some grenades so he can lob them into a crowd at a shopping center? Those things are controlled everywhere.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Grenades are another issue. Last I checked, even in gun stores you can't buy them, even here in the gun-crazy USA. So, how does a civilian score some grenades so he can lob them into a crowd at a shopping center? Those things are controlled everywhere.

There are always ways as means. I think you might have made this point before. But there should be as few ways and means as possible.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Doesn't Belgium have some pretty strict gun-control laws? I could be wrong, but it seems I read that most of Europe is really tight about who can own what as far as guns are concerned.

You're not wrong, but it's a very recent development. Someone went nuts right here in Antwerp half a decade ago. Consequently politicians hurried to prevent impulse weapons buying. Wikipedia says that only 10% of the estimated 2 million previously legal guns has in fact been registered following the new law. Illegal carrying of knives has since proved to be a much greater threat to public safety than illegal guns, though I doubt that's any new information.

Also, I don't know about the shooting in Leuven, but the shooting in Alphen aan den Rijn was by someone who had a gun license.

Gun Control Myths, Lies, and Stupidity

There is absolutely no proof whatsoever that Gun Control & Regulation reduces crime, matter in fact it's quite the opposite--Gun Control increases crime, & that has been proven.

In this video featured on ABC News--not exactly a bastion of Conservatism--John Stossel exposes the myths of gun control and regulations. Unlike other news reports this one interviews criminals and their views on gun control. The view is unanimous - criminals are in favor of gun control.




Oh, btw, if your school, or University has passed a regulation banning students & facility from carrying firearms on their premises, make a copy of the following handbill & pass it around the campus, or post it on your bulletin boards.

Handbill

Gun Control in the UK & Their Warning to the U.S.

Everybody seems to site the success of Britain's Gun Control Laws in making Britain safer for it's citizens.

Success, I actually wonder.

Here, the British citizens themselves tell more than a slightly different story. Their story, & their warnings to America.




What do you think about this?

Now this wholy shows my oft stated opinion that so many in America are juvenile. This video is nothing to do with the situation in America. What you seem to forget Smileyfaze, is that we don't have the wholesale freedom of guns or gun culture or hunting as you have. So there is no equasion whatsover. Indeed the rise in gun crime is completely different from the wholesale world of America. This video does not show what British people feel but a selected minority. In addition it wasn't a protest about the right to bear arms like the children mind of the ex-Colonist mental approach' Very subtley ithe gun matter is worked into the report - talk about brainwashing. From a societywith a wholesale worship of guns -that doesn't happen in Britain. It is the damn influence of America on this country in films, stories the scary widespread use of guns. Much of the shooting that goes on in London is in the immigrant community who make up nearly 20% of the jails. So don't try and hijack that general protest by a picked minority as somehow the same mindset as your meant to be adult gun minds.

The vast majority of the country here do not want an America here and this video is selective and a desperate attempt by you to justify the mayhem your people have over the pond. The policeman is NOT typical. Neither do ALL policemen walk about like medieval knights showing yet another load of bollocks. Altogether misleading and as I said from an American warped viewpoint. None of this excuses the death rate in America and the desperation to be able to shoot crims or suspected crims. Your police repeatedly are sen as gung-ho all in the name of freedom. Whatever freeodoms that do get whittled away here in general it is a lot worse in America that self-claimed beacon of rights and freedoms. Incapable of standing back and looking in this video is right yp your one-way street.

How about tanks? I'd love to own one. Grand Rapids would never be the same!

.....
String is right. If you want one bad enough you can get one. That doesn't hold for Angelina Jolie, of course.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

The view is unanimous - criminals are in favor of gun control.

So? Criminals are in favour of the death sentence being outlawed - is that a good reason to do it? Are we going to start deciding policy based on what a certain set of criminals in TV interviews want?

Or do we determine policy based on evidence and observation?

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

The view is unanimous - criminals are in favor of gun control.

So? Criminals are in favour of the death sentence being outlawed - is that a good reason to do it? Are we going to start deciding policy based on what a certain set of criminals in TV interviews want?

Or do we determine policy based on evidence and observation?

BWA-HAHAHAHAHA!!! That played right into Smiley's hand. Unbelievable. Expect non-stop NRA propaganda for a while, courtesy of the above.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

BWA-HAHAHAHAHA!!! That played right into Smiley's hand. Unbelievable. Expect non-stop NRA propaganda for a while, courtesy of the above.

Do me a favour. That was happening already. Smiley's doesn't have facts or evidence, propaganda is all he has.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

The view is unanimous - criminals are in favor of gun control.

So? Criminals are in favour of the death sentence being outlawed - is that a good reason to do it? Are we going to start deciding policy based on what a certain set of criminals in TV interviews want?

Or do we determine policy based on evidence and observation?

Neither. Base it on the possibility that a wrongfully convicted person might be killed by the state.

We should only license murder for reasons of national security...Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, yada, yada, yada. Did I miss anybody?

I'm going out tomorrow to buy water pistols for 2 children I do hope I don't meet any ex-colonists wanting to kick ass as I won't get time to explain the ammo is water.........

Originally posted by rjhowie:

We should only license murder for reasons of national security...Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, yada, yada, yada. Did I miss anybody?

join the US Military you will get one. Or the CIA

Originally posted by rjhowie:

I'm going out tomorrow to buy water pistols for 2 children I do hope I don't meet any ex-colonists wanting to kick ass as I won't get time to explain the ammo is water.........

Several years ago, Villa Park banned water pistols from the parade route on the 4th of July. The reason is that it got out that the pistols and water balloons weren't filled with water. I don't know if that ban was ever lifted.

Hey, he said he was sorry.

It's not what you say, it's how you say it----

Criminals fear ARMED Citizens.

Research conducted by Professors James Wright and Peter Rossi, for a landmark study funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, points to the armed citizen as possibly the most effective deterrent to crime in the nation. Wright and Rossi questioned over 1,800 felons serving time in prisons across the nation and found:

81% agreed the "smart criminal" will try to find out if a potential victim is armed.
74% felt that burglars avoided occupied dwellings for fear of being shot.
80% of "handgun predators" had encountered armed citizens.
40% did not commit a specific crime for fear that the victim was armed.
34% of "handgun predators" were scared off or shot at by armed victims.
57% felt that the typical criminal feared being shot by citizens more than he feared being shot by police.

Professor Kleck estimates that annually 1,500-2,800 felons are legally killed in "excusable self-defense" or "justifiable" shootings by civilians, and 8,000-16,000 criminals are wounded. This compares to 300-600 justifiable homicides by police. Yet, in most instances, civilians used a firearm to threaten, apprehend, shoot at a criminal, or to fire a warning shot without injuring anyone.

Based on his extensive independent survey research, Kleck estimates that each year Americans use guns for protection from criminals more than 2.5 million times annually. U.S. Department of Justice victimization surveys show that protective use of a gun lessens the chance that robberies, rapes, and assaults will be successfully completed while also reducing the likelihood of victim injury. Clearly, criminals fear armed citizens.

Source: Wright and Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms (N.Y.: Aldine de Gruyter, 1986)

.................................................................................Facts, not Gun-Control Fantasy

Maybe living in a society where from 9500 to 18,800 people are killed or wounded "justifiably" by the civillian population is paradise for an IRA sympathiser, but it's not everyone's idea of Utopia.

For me it's a clear sign that something is wrong.

Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater. And then shooting the baby repeatedly.

In other news, the naughty countries don't like us having nuclear weapons, so we should all have nuclear weapons. How could that possibly go wrong?

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

In other news, the naughty countries don't like us having nuclear weapons, so we should all have nuclear weapons. How could that possibly go wrong?

they are idiots, do you blame them?

Originally posted by string:

Maybe living in a society where from 9500 to 18,800 people are killed or wounded "justifiably" by the civillian population is paradise for an IRA sympathiser, but it's not everyone's idea of Utopia.

Guess you won't be expected for dinner any time soon, & I was so looking forward to that. Cest la vie.

.....Tiocfaidh ár lá

Interesting reaction over there mjsmsprt40 about water pistols being banned or what. Here at our biggest annual lodge parade on the first Saturday of July with thousands on the march and more watching the police went along confiscating miniture drum mayor sticks children had and would impersonate band leaders throwing the stick up. They said they could be "weapons". Sometime it gets ridiculous!

I wouldn't get invited to your house either Smileyfaze but wouldn't want to associate with such a constituency being law abiding.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Interesting reaction over there mjsmsprt40 about water pistols being banned or what. Here at our biggest annual lodge parade on the first Saturday of July with thousands on the march and more watching the police went along confiscating miniture drum mayor sticks children had and would impersonate band leaders throwing the stick up. They said they could be "weapons". Sometime it gets ridiculous!

I wouldn't get invited to your house either Smileyfaze but wouldn't want to associate with such a constituency being law abiding.

I think I can promise that if you show up here by invitation, you won't get shot. I'm on the North Side of Villa Park these days, and gun-toting vigilantes don't patrol the streets the way Smiley would have you believe.

I'm closer to the train, too. It's a bit of a hike from the Ardmore Avenue station, but if I knew you were coming I might be persuaded to pick you up there.

Edit: The water pistols were banned because of what was in them. It wasn't water, some of the more unpleasant types had put bleach in them and some had relieved themselves into their waterpistols. That year, the fire departments refrained entirely from having the waterfight that was the highlight of the parade. I think in the following years cooler heads prevailed and I haven't heard of such shenanigans since.

They say that Gun registration and licensing will somehow make Americans safer, & curb crime........Yeah, Right---When Pigs Fly!

"Gun control" proponents tout automobile registration and licensing as model schemes for firearm ownership. Yet driving an automobile on city or state roads is a privilege and, as such, can be regulated, while the individual right to possess firearms is constitutionally protected from infringement. Registration and licensing do not prevent criminal misuse nor accidental fatalities involving motor vehicles in America, where more than 40,000 people die on the nation's highways each year. By contrast, about 1,400 persons are involved in fatal firearm accidents each year.

Registration and licensing have no effect on crime, as criminals, by definition, do not obey laws. Indeed, a national survey of prisoners conducted by Wright and Rossi for the Department of Justice found that 82% agreed that "gun laws only affect law-abiding citizens; criminals will always be able to get guns."

** Further, felons are constitutionally exempt from a gun registration requirement. According to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Haynes v. U.S., since felons are prohibited by law from possessing a firearm, compelling them to register firearms would violate the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. Only law-abiding citizens would be required to comply with registration--citizens who have neither committed crime nor have any intention of doing so.

Registration and licensing of America's 60-65 million gun owners and their 200 million firearms would require the creation of a huge bureaucracy at tremendous cost to the taxpayer, with absolutely no tangible anti-crime return. Indeed, New Zealand authorities repealed registration in the 1980s after police acknowledged its worthlessness, and a similar recommendation was made by Australian law enforcement. Law enforcement would be diverted from its primary responsibility, apprehending and arresting criminals, to investigating and processing paperwork on law-abiding citizens.

In the U.S., after President Clinton, Attorney General Reno, and others announced support for registration and licensing, police response was immediate and non-supportive. Dewey Stokes, President of the Fraternal Order of Police said ... I don't want to get into a situation where we have gun registration." Other law enforcement officers responded even more strongly. Charles Canterbury, President of the South Carolina FOP said, "On behalf of the South Carolina law enforcement, I can say we are adamantly opposed to registration of guns." Dennis Martin, President of the National Association of Chiefs of Police reported, "I have had a lot of calls from police chiefs and sheriffs who are worried about this. They are afraid that we're going to create a lot of criminals out of law-abiding people who don't want to get a license for their gun.

Finally, a national registration/licensing scheme would violate an individual's right to privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment and establish a basis upon which gun confiscation could be implemented. More than 60,000 rifles and shotguns were confiscated in April, 1989 from honest citizens who had dutifully registered their guns with the authorities in Soviet Georgia (Chicago Sun-Times, April 12, 1989, The Atlanta Journal and Constitution, May 21, 1989). Could that happen in America? Gun prohibitionists in Massachusetts, Ohio, and Washington, D.C., have already proposed using registration lists for such purposes. And, since 1991, New York City authorities have used registration lists to enforce a ban on semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. Avowed handgun prohibitionist Charles Morgan, as director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Washington office, in a 1975 hearing before the House Subcommittee on Crime stated: "I have not one doubt, even if I am in agreement with the National Rifle Association, that kind of a record-keeping procedure is the first step to eventual confiscation under one administration or another."

Reasonable fears of such confiscation lead otherwise law-abiding citizens to ignore such laws, creating a disrespect for law and a lessened support for government. In states and cities which recently required registration of semi-automatic firearms, estimates of compliance range from 5 to 10%.

** Source: Haynes v. U.S., 309 U.S. 85 (1968).

The purpose of registration is to let the government know who owns firearms & what guns they possess. We know there is historical record that the ultimate outcome of registration/licensing has been to exert control over people via confiscating their means of self-defense, & not to reduce crime as people originally thought.

The 1928 German Law on Firearms and Ammunition required all firearms to be registered.
When Hitler came to power he used the existing lists he inherited to confiscate firearms.
He knew many Germans opposed him. The Nazi's used the
1928 Law on Firearms and Ammunition to disarm their opponents---to prevent any armed resistance.

Millions of these disarmed people, especially Jews, were sent to their deaths in Nazi concentration camps.

Question:
If you once thought there was little harm, & a greater good to come from firearm licensing & registration, do you still think relinquishing your Freedoms & Liberty to a government via firearm licensing & registration is OK, or do you find yourself reconsidering?

Smiley: Put down the votive candles and the sacramental wine, and step away from the altar you have made to place the sacrifices you have made to your guns, which you have made into your gods (small "g"). The whole business has gotten beyond silly and you play right into the hands of the very people you fear with this stuff, since you come off looking like the very sort of person who should not be allowed to have guns. I'm pro-Second Amendment, and your stuff scares me almost into thinking the gun grabbers might have a point.


Both sides: Take a breather for a bit. Turn the propaganda mills down and stop and think--- if you can.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Smiley: Put down the votive candles and the sacramental wine, and step away from the altar you have made to place the sacrifices you have made to your guns, which you have made into your gods (small "g"). The whole business has gotten beyond silly and you play right into the hands of the very people you fear with this stuff, since you come off looking like the very sort of person who should not be allowed to have guns. I'm pro-Second Amendment, and your stuff scares me almost into thinking the gun grabbers might have a point.


Both sides: Take a breather for a bit. Turn the propaganda mills down and stop and think--- if you can.

Early in this thread, a wise man said.
"This is a subject on which otherwise sensible people become shrill and illogical. On both sides.
It is like religion. No good comes from discussing it."

Twice.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Turn the propaganda mills down and stop and think--- if you can.

People today somehow denote any propaganda as being deceitful, & based on lies. Unfortunately for them they misunderstand the word. Propaganda can be false, but it can also be truth.

Sorry mjm, but I took an oath to serve & protect years ago, & I will continue to honor it regardless of my enlistment status.

Actually I understand that oath better today than the day I took it, & it's today when protecting the Constitution means more than it ever did before.

I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same................So help me God.

Supporting & defending the Constitution of the United States. That means something, today & always.

Those who wish to destroy it are my enemies, whether foreign or domestic.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Turn the propaganda mills down and stop and think--- if you can.

Sorry, I took an oath to serve & protect years ago, & I will continue to honor it regardless of my enlistment status.

I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same................So help me God.

Yes, but not by shooting and killing all those suspected to be antiamerican. Who put you in charge to make that decision? Where is your 00 license to kill?

Pro guns think it is their responsibilty to defend against enemies like they are some defenders. Leave the judgement to train professions. You can end up killing the wrong guy and you wouldn't want that.

Also, are you expecting a time in this modem world that a time would come when overthrow of the government is necessary? That would make that a military coup and tell me of a coup that resulted in a democractic government. Cuba? Nope. Iran? Burma? Certainly not!

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Yes, but not by shooting and killing all those suspected to be antiamerican. Who put you in charge to make that decision? Where is your 00 license to kill?

Wiki,,,I think you're losing some skrews there mate....Who's indiscriminately making judgments like that, & acting on them in that manner by merely owning & bearing firearms??

Oh, & who gives you the right to tell me, an American, what my American rights are in the first place??? The right to defend oneself, my right to defend myself, is first & foremost, & not any right granted by man.

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Pro guns think it is their responsibilty to defend against enemies like they are some defenders. Leave the judgement to train professions. You can end up killing the wrong guy and you wouldn't want that.

Sorry (not apologetically), but nothing is perfect, not the trained professionals, nor I.

But, know one thing, I was given life, & it's my God given right to defend my life form all forces. Period...

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Also, are you expecting a time in this modem world that a time would come when overthrow of the government is necessary?

No, I don't expect that time will come, but I believe it is my right to be always prepared in the event that it might become necessary.

Are you planning a coup? If so I'm definately contacting the CIA and reporting you. Nothing good ever come from a coup of a democratic government. Cuba? Nope. How about Iran? No. Burma/Myanmar? No. All coups come about from displeasure of the incumbent government. But the person leading the coup end up a dictator.

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Are you planning a coup? If so I'm definately contacting the CIA and reporting you.

Your cheese has completely slid off yer cracker!!! .....



Out of my way.....I'm with ya there Mike.....all wiki will see is elbows & assholes!

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Are you planning a coup? If so I'm definately contacting the CIA and reporting you.

Your cheese has completely slid off yer cracker!!! .....

Well you implied it. You are certainly willing to overthrow the current government as soon as it becomes rogue in your eyes.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Out of my way.....I'm with ya there Mike.....all wiki will see is elbows & assholes!

Well consider I was on and off this thread due to the gun bearing gun supporters who will not give away his guns even if everyone else is dead due to gun death. They are more interested in owning guns than people dying of it.

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Are you planning a coup? If so I'm definately contacting the CIA and reporting you.

Your cheese has completely slid off yer cracker!!! .....

Well you implied it. You are certainly willing to overthrow the current government as soon as it becomes rogue in your eyes.

First of all I never implied any such thing....never.

Secondly, the rights of ALL AMERICANS, documented & codified in those documents that gave birth to OUR Nation, gives US (ALL AMERICANS..not you) the right to remove the United States government if it ever becomes necessary.

Now that's a fact!

From the U.S. Declaration of Independence *

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.......

Put that in yer pipe & smoke it!

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

They say that Gun registration and licensing will somehow make Americans safer, & curb crime........Yeah, Right---When Pigs Fly!

There's this thing called free will, heard of it?

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Secondly, the rights of ALL AMERICANS, documented & codified in those documents that gave birth to OUR Nation, gives US (ALL AMERICANS..not you) the right to remove the United States government if it ever becomes necessary.

Now that's a fact!

your wrong, it's not a right, it's an obligation.

Originally posted by The Declaration of Independence:

In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
A DECLARATION
By the REPRESENTATIVES of the
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
In GENERAL CONGRESS assembled.
WHEN in the course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness—-That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The History of the Present King of Great-Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World.

It says its our right, back then it meant "duty". Duty to protect, duty to uphold, defend, and destroy anything corrupt. It is the civilian duty, that if our strays from the roots in which our blood was split for, we are to, by honor bound duty, remind them of such.

Originally posted by Virusboy:

It says its our right, back then it meant "duty". Duty to protect, duty to uphold, defend....

I respect this part of your statement's opinion.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Originally posted by Virusboy:

It says its our right, back then it meant "duty". Duty to protect, duty to uphold, defend....

I respect this part of your statement's opinion.

then if you truly know what i am saying you'd respect the entire statement. Gun Control is a way for the gov't to stop this from happening, that's evident. In most, if not all states, you can't buy both gun and ammo together. you need so many checks for a gun, then a permit to carry concealed. Not to mention cops everywhere are taught that if you have a gun, point first, ask later. It's obvious your either not American, or you don't fully grasp the idea Thomas Jefferson made, an idea everyone at the time and kinda still agree with.

Originally posted by Virusboy:

It's obvious your either not American, or you don't fully grasp the idea Thomas Jefferson made, an idea everyone at the time and kinda still agree with.

Fwiw, SF is an American.

Originally posted by wikipedian:

They are more interested in owning guns than people dying of it.

Yes, well, it's an issue that we Americans can deal with in our own way thanks.

Having lived in both countries, yours and mine, I've reviewed the arguments for both sides and have reached my conclusion(s).
You cannot own handguns in your country, but I can in mine. Don't like that? Tough cheese.

That the problem with the Parliamentary system; they apply one-size-fits-all solutions to issues that are more complicated than that......

Originally posted by Virusboy:

Not to mention cops everywhere are taught that if you have a gun, point first, ask later.

Not everywhere. If you're not in a big city, they may not do either.

A couple of years ago now, I was coming out of the back room at work when this older fellow passed right in front of me. No shopping cart or basket, though some people come to the store just to walk. Not quite sure why he had a stainless steel Beretta on his right hip. Of course it did strike me as unusual, but it is completely legal in this state. Mind, it would also be completely legal for the manager to tell him to leave ... but I'm not the manager.

Having been involved with this issue for some time, I know that there's a county about 30 miles from here where it is supposed to be quite normal for people to carry weapons openly like that. It isn't normal here, but as long as you aren't threatening anyone with it there's no law against it. Not that I'd do so in one of the major cities, if someone called in about you they'd probably charge you with creating a public disturbance or some such.

One other point, before I seriously join those cats in that earlier post: I get the idea that some of you out-of-towners have it in your heads that Americans all are armed to the teeth, that we regularly walk around with guns like it's High Noon at the OK corral or that we drive around with our cars bristling with Thompson guns like in an Elliot Ness movie.

Well, fergedaboudit. It doesn't happen like that outside of Smiley's wet dreams. Frankly, judging by his posts, I don't know why he has legal firearms, and right now I'm beginning to suspect about Virus as well, but that's their wet dreams and not necessarily reality. We don't all go around carrying guns everywhere, many of us don't even have guns for any number of reasons, and we're not all hair-trigger shootists waiting for you to get on our last nerve so we can gun you down in the street.

So, next time I see one of your posts suggesting that we're all gun-toting goofs over here, I'm pretty much going to disregard both the post and the poster. The post for being terribly inaccurate, and the poster for refusing to learn anything about America outside of what he sees in old Western movies and Al Capone Shoot-em-up movies.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

One other point, before I seriously join those cats in that earlier post: I get the idea that some of you out-of-towners have it in your heads that Americans all are armed to the teeth, that we regularly walk around with guns like it's High Noon at the OK corral or that we drive around with our cars bristling with Thompson guns like in an Elliot Ness movie.

Well, fergedaboudit. It doesn't happen like that outside of Smiley's wet dreams. Frankly, judging by his posts, I don't know why he has legal firearms, and right now I'm beginning to suspect about Virus as well, but that's their wet dreams and not necessarily reality. We don't all go around carrying guns everywhere, many of us don't even have guns for any number of reasons, and we're not all hair-trigger shootists waiting for you to get on our last nerve so we can gun you down in the street.

So, next time I see one of your posts suggesting that we're all gun-toting goofs over here, I'm pretty much going to disregard both the post and the poster. The post for being terribly inaccurate, and the poster for refusing to learn anything about America outside of what he sees in old Western movies and Al Capone Shoot-em-up movies.

As you so eloquently alluded to my wet dreams, you need to know before I describe my dream (not even moist) that I agree with you about what it is in the USA. We aren't a bunch of guys & gals, all armed to the eyeballs with blocks of wood on our shoulders daring anyone to knock them off so we can fill them fill of holes. Not even close, but let them wallow in their own misconceptions---I for one couldn't care less what they think.
We are, & here's my dream, we are just a bunch of fun loving people that enjoy the freedom & liberties America affords us merely due to the accident of our birth. We thoroughly enjoy testing the extremes--pushing the envelope. We love the place we live in--we wouldn't trade that for anything, & we don't appreciate "outsiders" thinking that they have some sort of distinct right to dictate that we Americans change the things we have & love. To them I say piss off.
Central to our way of life, we want to be left alone....period....we want the "outsiders" out of our faces, & we want "big central government" out of our faces....begone.....we want to be left in peace, & we want to live our lives our way, free of restriction, in peace, & to hell with what happens beyond our horizons, & what they feel a "better way" to live is.

BTW,,,Mike, I have legal guns because I am a law abiding citizen of the United States of America; I have a natural right to defend myself--whats mine--& whats near & dear to me; & having to trespass beyond the scope of what is guaranteed me in my Constitution--nothing more, nothing less--would be abhorrent to me in total.

You have posted too much bellicose drivel to be credible on those remarks, SF. . . . Things like boasting about killing people, watching the life drain from their eyes, claiming to be a violent & eager killer, a passion for absurdly over-lethal weaponry, and support for IRA terroism not to mention your own invention, the ever-present mugger.
I go along much more with mjm's take but with the proviso that remarks about "cowboy" Americans here are more likely reactions to your inanities and not reflections on what people really think all Americans are like. rjh has actually said something simlar, although he can't resist taking the piss out of the odd ex colonialist.
As for myself I have respect & liking for America and Americans I have met, with very few exceptions.
Yes it is a US Affair whether guns are owned in America but you miss or ignore the point which is that those who are America's friends care enough to argue for a change to a US domestic arms race seemingly out of control.
Your outpourings do not exactly add to those friends.

Originally posted by string:

You have posted too much bellicose drivel to be credible on those remarks, SF. . . . Things like boasting about killing people, watching the life drain from their eyes, claiming to be a violent & eager killer, a passion for absurdly over-lethal weaponry, and support for IRA

All true, but that changes nothing, I was what I was, & did what I did without one shred of shame or regret, except to say in retrospect I could have done some things better. I took a measure of pleasure in being the best at what I was though, & made a fine living teaching others my "skills". I even based an extremely successful consulting business around my various "talents", but again that's immaterial & changes nothing. If I ever needed to defend myself, my family, my friends, or my Country I wouldn't hesitate one split second in doing whatever I needed to do, until the threat was eradicated, so how do those credentials make me any less credible?
I certainly hope you don't think I'm somehow oddly seeking some brand of redemption. I ask for nothing of the sort.
One thing I am ecstatically pleased with is that you were paying fairly close attention, but somehow I doubt if that changes anything. You will always be one of those "outsiders" I spoke of---I suppose just like me, you will always be what you are too.
No string, I don't want, nor do I seek any approval from you or anyone else. My previous post was as usual, just statements of facts, & how you interpret them is purely an exercise of your own free will. In essence though....there is one thing I do ask of you...I'd like to know....what's your point?

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Fwiw, SF is an American.

he then doesn't fully grasp such an idea.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

suspect about Virus as well

I don't own guns, yet. I find it a bit sad that our own founding father are be spit on at the grave whilst rolling in the grave.

Originally posted by Virusboy:

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Fwiw, SF is an American.

he then doesn't fully grasp such an idea.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

suspect about Virus as well

I don't own guns, yet. I find it a bit sad that our own founding father are be spit on at the grave whilst rolling in the grave.

Good point, & very perceptive.

Originally posted by Virusboy:

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Fwiw, SF is an American.

he then doesn't fully grasp such an idea.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

suspect about Virus as well

I don't own guns, yet. I find it a bit sad that our own founding father are be spit on at the grave whilst rolling in the grave.

First, I never spit on a founding father in my life, and I don't plan starting any time soon. Save it for some other time.

Second: Some pro-Second Amendment types have gone from it being our right to keep and bear arms to the point where we are COMMANDED to keep and bear arms, and if we fail to do so we're less than good Americans. I noted a tendency towards this thinking in your post, and that's what gave rise to my earlier comment. It's a duty, now, and not a right? Two different things in today's usage of language anyway, and if my reading of history is right it wasn't all that different back then either.

Circumstances may, of course, change the deal somewhat. When your community has a common enemy, it may very well be the duty of every able-bodied citizen to arm himself with whatever weapon he can lay his hands on and join his neighbors in the common cause. In the situation we have in much of America today, that's far less clear. I don't think the newspaper boy (yes, some communities still have them) poses that much of a threat that me and my neighbors are all required to be armed. It's entirely possible to be a good patriotic American without ever possessing a gun.