The Second Amendment and the "Right" to Bear Arms

WildCat said:
Okay, here we go:
Click to expand...

Yes, and I'm not saying what you said I was arguing. No surprise there.

Once again, I can back up my points while you continuously deny that you've posted what you did. Someone is being blatantly dishonest in this thread, and it's not me.

Keep spinning and backpedaling Belz! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I can't tell if this is a delusion or yours or a lie on your part. Your attempt to tu quoque my accusations is childish and pointless.
 
Something I think people are forgetting is that from a long historical perspective democracy is an experimental governing model. The US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are the most similar of the former European colonies.The level of control over the citizens' ability to defend themselves varies, but as far as I know the nations with the Queen on the money have more control than the US. You're the control group.

In the US pitri dish the occupants are allowed firearms, lockblade knives, silencers and fully-automatic rifles if we're willing to pay the fee, V8 engines everywhere (for no additional licensing cost) and cheesecake in fast food restaurants.

So I suggest y'all shove off, leave us to our experimental status getting fat, guzzling gasoline and shooting stuff, and quit judging. Perhaps in another hundred years the experiment have run it's course, with statistically relevant results one way or another.
 
Last edited:
ApolloGnomon said:
Something I think people are forgetting is that from a long historical perspective democracy is an experimental governing model. The US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are the most similar of the former European colonies.The level of control over the citizens' ability to defend themselves varies, but as far as I know the nations with the Queen on the money have more control than the US. You're the control group.

In the US pitri dish the occupants are allowed firearms, lockblade knives, silencers and fully-automatic rifles if we're willing to pay the fee, V8 engines everywhere (for no additional licensing cost) and cheesecake in fast food restaurants.

So I suggest y'all shove off, leave us to our experimental status getting fat, guzzling gasoline and shooting stuff, and quit judging. Perhaps in another hundred years the experiment have run it's course, with statistically relevant results one way or another.
Click to expand...
Silencers are actually far less controlled in the UK than here. Just go to the store and grab one and take it home.

I guess they didn't panic over the Hollywood depiction of them as sniper specials and such, and just saw them as the hearing protection and noise pollution reducer they are.
 
ApolloGnomon said:
Something I think people are forgetting is that from a long historical perspective democracy is an experimental governing model. The US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are the most similar of the former European colonies.The level of control over the citizens' ability to defend themselves varies, but as far as I know the nations with the Queen on the money have more control than the US. You're the control group.

In the US pitri dish the occupants are allowed firearms, lockblade knives, silencers and fully-automatic rifles if we're willing to pay the fee, V8 engines everywhere (for no additional licensing cost) and cheesecake in fast food restaurants.

So I suggest y'all shove off, leave us to our experimental status getting fat, guzzling gasoline and shooting stuff, and quit judging. Perhaps in another hundred years the experiment have run it's course, with statistically relevant results one way or another.
Click to expand...
That'd be fine if the USA were not the third most populous nation and the most influential economy on the planet, not to mention your overwhelming domination of popular media in the other countries you mention. It'd also be fine if your murder rate weren't so high compared to those other countries. If your "experiment" takes a hundred years to run its course, that's millions of people whose deaths might have been preventable.
 
I wonder if anyone factors into their gun debates research that has been done on the psychology of killing (a very new field of research).

Findings thus far would argue against allowing civilians to arm themselves for their own protection.
 
arthwollipot said:
That'd be fine if the USA were not the third most populous nation and the most influential economy on the planet, not to mention your overwhelming domination of popular media in the other countries you mention. It'd also be fine if your murder rate weren't so high compared to those other countries. If your "experiment" takes a hundred years to run its course, that's millions of people whose deaths might have been preventable.
Click to expand...

Well those horses has long since bolted on that one.

Now, as I said before, there are much deeper issues wrt violent crime than "ZOMG! Guns are Artifacts of Khorne that make you into a homicidal maniac!"

- Rampant poverty in the US, especially in the inner urban communities
- institutional racism (Read: Mass incarceration and War on Drugs) making that much worse for minorities. AFAIK, demographically, the US is VERY different from western europe, and is more like Brazil in that regard.
- Terrible education system in the US that's way too fragmented (Every country should look to the Singapore model for that one)

And in the grand scheme of things, the US murder rate is nothing compared to the likes of Russia (yet no-one in the "civilised" countries is condemning Russia for being "barbaric")
 
gumboot said:
I wonder if anyone factors into their gun debates research that has been done on the psychology of killing (a very new field of research).

Findings thus far would argue against allowing civilians to arm themselves for their own protection.
Click to expand...

Do you have a link for that ?
 
WildCat said:
Unless they really want them, like the IRA. Then they can even get heavy machine guns.
Click to expand...

You keep mentioning the IRA. A paramilitary organisation, until recently, well funded with overseas donations with a specific political goal in mind. They're a pretty specific case with a lot of resources not available to the common criminal or even to an organised drug gang. Why do you keep mentioning them, they're not relevant.
 
arthwollipot said:
That'd be fine if the USA were not the third most populous nation and the most influential economy on the planet, not to mention your overwhelming domination of popular media in the other countries you mention. It'd also be fine if your murder rate weren't so high compared to those other countries. If your "experiment" takes a hundred years to run its course, that's millions of people whose deaths might have been preventable.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but they will have died free. Not like those lilly livered europeans, living under a nanny state that forces them to live in an environment with less lead in it.
 
3point14 said:
Yeah, but they will have died free. Not like those lilly livered europeans, living under a nanny state that forces them to live in an environment with less lead in it.
Click to expand...

Americans need STRONG LEADERS to make HARD DECISIONS to save them from themselves!

Of course, maybe it's the fact that Americans have a strong distrust of government ingrained into them ever since the Vietnam War, and reinforced by the War on Terror and the recent NSA revelations?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom