Printable View
Okay Tom, you miserable, commie-pinko, gun-hating wanker. You think you can disagree with me??? Well I got news for you. I agree, firearms should be harder to acquire than narcotics. However, I'm thinking, maybe some narcotics should be legalized :)Quote:
Personally I think that firearms should be harder to aquire than narcotics.
Trish called me a wanker! And it really turned me on! Bad, bad Tom.
And I assume the narcotic you want legalised is the devil weed, you evil enemy of the people, hater of the constitution and general low-life!
That would be the one I'm personally interested in. Now wank it slow while you call me a low-life again and again. oooooo :oops:Quote:
...I assume the narcotic you want legalised is the devil weed, you ...general low-life!
Stop it! Just stop it, you low life!
Such Un-American activity cannot go unpunished, I'll have you know.
I realize people have different takes on issues, and I can respect that; however, because someone sees it differently then you does not make their stance silly. I am personally a big believer in a person's right to keep firearms in their home.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomfurbs
First of all, you have the right to defend yourself and your home. It is (or perhaps sadly was) a fundamental principal of our nation that in forming a government, most freedoms/rights were to be retained by individuals (the People). Certainly your right to defend your own life and property is among those retained.
Second of all, and more importantly, is the notion that a disarmed populace is far more susceptible to takeover by a hostile government (no I am not holed up in my bomb shelter while writing this). However, one need only look to recent actions of our government to realize we are heading down a dangerous path i.e., refusing 5th, 6th, and 8th amendment rights to United States citizens it accuses of terrorist actions; along with the erosion of 4th amendment rights (telecom monitoring for example).
I am well aware that some people will argue that with the advent of modern day military weapons a rifle, pistol, or shotgun will do little in the way of protecting free society from a hostile government. However, the muskets in use by most colonials was laughable compared to the weaponry employed by the British. A more modern day example might be Iraq, where a rag tag bunch of (mainly) uneducated fighters have bogged down the most powerful military in the world with little more than AK-47s and fairly low tech explosives.
Either way, I am not sitting here and advocating that everyone go arm themselves to the teeth, or start planting roadside bombs lol. I just believe that it is vitally important that citizens retain the right to arm themselves for self-defense. Reasonable limitations on that right such as firearms safety classes, and prohibitions on convicted felons or the mentally ill (as in previously committed persons) are fine.
I don't have the right to carry firearms in my country (with the exception of shotguns, which are very hard to aquire).Quote:
Originally Posted by NYBURBS
Am I scared that Gordon Brown and co will suddenly turn around and order some squaddies to take over my house? Not really.
If he did do so, would me being armed make any difference? Not really.
I don't think guns guarantee anything, especially not freedom. People are volatile and unpredictable, and giving them access to a quick, relatively easy way of killing someone is a bad idea, in my opinion.
And I don't believe anyone who says that training and familiarisation leads to a respect of guns and a respect for human life. In the wake of the 7/7 bombings in London, armed Police from the Met chased down a suspect into the Tube and shot him in the head at point blank range in a crowded tube carriage. Was the perp a terrorist suspect on his way to blow up a train? No, he was a Brazilian student named Jean Charles de Menezes, who was on his way to school.
Anyway, I repect your opinion, NYBurbs. But I reserve the right to call SillyBillyInHouston silly. :lol: :lol:
Wait a second Tom. Don't you live in Great Britan or some part of the commonwealth? It's no wonder that arguments based on the wisdom of our founding fathers would not work on you. After all they kicked the English where it counts.
InHouston may well have been reporting on a story that did not happen to his neighbor. But I assure you all such things do happen. In a home invasion robbery, especially if you are a traswoman you better be armed. When I lived alone I always kept a knife close at hand in case of uninvited guest. Or invited one's who decided they are going to attack me. With a handgun I would be that much safer from attack.
'Or some part of the Commonwealth'. Heh you are quite funny.Quote:
Originally Posted by BrendaQG
Erm...the founding fathers were British, gorgeous. As were the Pilgrim fathers. Britain's rejects, to be exact.
Of course home invasions happen. Will having a gun help you? I doubt it.
Will allowing the populace easy access to firearms make anything safer? Look at the difference in crime between my country and yours. Then waffle on about the 'wisdom' of the founding fathers.
Were you drunk when you typed this sentence? You have been to University, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by BrendaQG
Tell, me. Since when does someone's country of origin cloud their understanding of abstract concepts. Ae you saying that because I am from the UK I cannot understand a concept (The US Constitution) based on the teachings of three European insitutions: John Locke, Montesquieu, and Plato?
Are you silly?
Fair enough on SillyBilly (I don't know him, so I'm not here to defend him). As to your points, let's look at this not from what a single person can do when armed, instead let's consider a populace. There are approx 300 million Americans, and at any given time let's guesstimate that 1/3 of that are adult citizens whom would be eligible to possess firearms. One person might not be a deterrent to a wayward political figure or group, but 100 million armed people are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomfurbs
History really is filled with examples of tyrants disarming the populace, and is one of reasons the right to keep and bear arms has been enshrined in various political documents; for instance the Protestants demanded the right to keep arms that was included for them in the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Perhaps we will evolve one day to the point where such fail safes are no longer needed; however, one need only tune into CNN or BBC world news to know we are far from being there at the moment.
As for firearms leading to instances of greater violence, I will not dispute that there are sad examples of this. However, I personally would rather risk such a situation than face the possible alternatives. Society in general would be "safer" if the police could randomly enter homes or stop people on the street to conduct random warrantless searches without cause. I for one would not be willing to trade those rights away either in the name of safety.
I have personally experienced violence in various forms. I know better than to think that calling the police will prevent that violence or save me from it. Nine out of ten times, when the police arrive, whatever was going to happen to you has already taken place. You have an inherent right to defend what is yours, and that includes your life.
At the end of the day, there will always be violent crime. I do not have all the answers to solving or reducing this. However, I suspect that the solutions lie more in wider spread access to quality education and people seeing themselves as having a greater stake in their own futures (and that of society), rather than in disarming people.