Poll: Lets pretend the government passes a law stating that you can't have a gun anymore...

[Single Shot]

HA! Let's see your proof on that one. And by the way, what makes "stabbing the bastard" worse than shooting him? Or, I daresay, if this criminal is such an unarmed innocent who just so happens to be confused about the concepts of privacy and personal property, why aren't we shooing him away at gunpoint so nobody gets hurt (which happens thousands upon thousands of times)?

But I know that last bit is absolutely bogus. There is NO provision for a citizen's right to life in UK law. NONE. There are laws in place that persecute life takers, however you have no right to defend yourself whatsoever. Prove me wrong.

ADDENDUM: Funny, kid. Truth is, very few of your "facts" pass muster to warrant argument. I dropped them, simply because, for example, I don't really give a damn about your post-modern take on social "-isms." But regarding that one nugget, I will add this in closing: every "-ism" - socialism, capitalism, communism - it's just a matter of which side has the guns and who gets told what to do.

are you adding to old posts so i don't notice you getting the last word? really? are you that defeated?
but this addition has summed up your arguement very well. you see a gun as power, and the American people as seperate to the American goverment. you see democracy as being secure only by the threat of violence. and you see the suppressive use of violence as bad.
The goverment is not out to get you. handing in your sixty round, semi-auto killing machine of death will not alow Obama to sell you to china. but it might stop Joe Crazy from shooting up a school, an office, or another public place.

 

[the clockmaker]

There is NO provision for a citizen's right to life in UK law. NONE. There are laws in place that persecute life takers, however you have no right to defend yourself whatsoever. Prove me wrong.

UK rights are drawn from two primary sources, the European convention on Human rights and the UK human rights act of 1998.
Article 2 of the European convention on human rights (helpfully titled right to life) states,

Article 2 - Right to life

1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.

2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:

a. in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
b. in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
c. in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.

And isn't that just par for the course for you mate. Do you even check what you are saying before you say it?

 

[Single Shot]

Snippy

That's amazing, I have to say. You instantly jump to many, many conclusions that are far from true. At no point did I say anything about no violence, feeling completely safe, or anything. Violence happens here as it does in other places, because such is human nature. I have no illusions about the outside world. It's a cruel, scary place.

Guns are in the end machines designed to wound and kill others. You'll have to be pretty darn good to convince me that normal people owning a machine that was designed to wound and kill is ever a good idea.

But this isn't about any of that for you anymore. This is about the government in general. This is you believing you are one of the few people who 'woke up' and thinks everything is a big conspiracy. I might be correct in that assumption, I might be incorrect, and saying this might make you mad at me. By no means do I mean to attack you personally, and I do not intend to hurt your feelings. Just try to see things from a different perspective every now and then, alright?

So a normal person has no right to defend himself, according to your take. Right? So, let's say, how about an ...ABnormal person? Because, if you ask me, I think a "normal" person is just the type that deserves the right and the ability to defend himself.

Governments know better than to make martyrs of people, my friend. They're smarter than that. Instead, it's much easier to make something unpopular. Then you get a form of self-regulation where the instant anybody questions the government's blatantly subversive activities, someone yells "conspiracy" in much the same way I use the word "pretentious" to describe indie developers. "Nut, crazy, conspiracy theorist." Yep. I've heard it all. In fact, I've even been called a "hippie" before. But a gun-loving hippie? God, isn't that some sort of pop-culture paradox?

And don't ever accuse me of not seeing other perspectives. I'm quite thorough in the practice, actually. It just so happens that I have concluded that all anti-gun swill is wrong. Simple. There's not a single redeeming or valid argument in the lot. It just so happens that a swarm of weak-minded, weak-willed stay-at-homes managed to out-breed individuals with a more pragmatic approach, and are going to implore the government to sic armed goons on people to get their way. Simple.

I've given anti-gunners a fair shake, really I have. It just so happens that every single one I've personally talked to has been critically wrong in every way, has nothing relevant to say, and no argument. And lately, they've turned to disgusting tactics, taking advantage of the deaths of children to get their way, going to far as to come out with their rhetoric and accuse me, head-on, of murdering children. So no, I have no respect at all for anti-gun nuts. They prevail only out of the sheer loudness of their voice, as do spoiled brats.

Okay, but the anti-gun people have to shout in order to overcome years of systematic misdirection and culture.
at the end of the day, for me at least, it all boils down to this. no gun massicres have ever taken place in a country with tighter gun control. and how would you feel Travis, if someone busted into your work/school/movie theatre/ insert place here and killed your friends. how would you feel if Lauren was among them. that is what the Anti-gun people think about. you'd have ne defence there. and even if you pulled your weapon, the attackers almost always have rifles, the same rifles gun control would limit, or strike in crowded areas where a pistol is more likely to kill other innocents. they would still kill you. they would kill as many people as they could. some people are crazy
think about that. i'm going to get something to eat and not worry about being shot because i live in a (Semi-)sane country.

 

[Single Shot]

HA! Let's see your proof on that one. And by the way, what makes "stabbing the bastard" worse than shooting him? Or, I daresay, if this criminal is such an unarmed innocent who just so happens to be confused about the concepts of privacy and personal property, why aren't we shooing him away at gunpoint so nobody gets hurt (which happens thousands upon thousands of times)?

But I know that last bit is absolutely bogus. There is NO provision for a citizen's right to life in UK law. NONE. There are laws in place that persecute life takers, however you have no right to defend yourself whatsoever. Prove me wrong.

ADDENDUM: Funny, kid. Truth is, very few of your "facts" pass muster to warrant argument. I dropped them, simply because, for example, I don't really give a damn about your post-modern take on social "-isms." But regarding that one nugget, I will add this in closing: every "-ism" - socialism, capitalism, communism - it's just a matter of which side has the guns and who gets told what to do.

are you adding to old posts so i don't notice you getting the last word? really? are you that defeated?
but this addition has summed up your arguement very well. you see a gun as power, and the American people as seperate to the American goverment. you see democracy as being secure only by the threat of violence. and you see the suppressive use of violence as bad.
The goverment is not out to get you. handing in your sixty round, semi-auto killing machine of death will not alow Obama to sell you to china. but it might stop Joe Crazy from shooting up a school, an office, or another public place.

No, I edit because it is impolite to double post.

And if you don't know what "power" is in terms of government, then I suggest you hit the books. The American people are indeed separate from the federal and state governments, as the only one true democracy that I am aware of exists in Switzerland, where votes are held by and for the public. Try some critical thinking. What role does an intermediary such as the Senate have in an actual Democratic process? Sit and think about it.

Representatives? Sure, if those people weren't in fact people with agendas of their own which can and do supersede the wills of the people they supposedly represent. Random example: the overwhelming majority of people in several counties in numerous states voted against water fluoridation in the early years of the practice, but the federal government overturned state and county-wide results and proceeded with fluoridation anyway. This is now happening in the UK, where public petitions against the practice are slammed down by the government.

I'm drifting WAY off topic here.

The common mans voice might not make it into these decisions,but we decide who does make them. if people chose the right person for the job they wouldn't worry so much about the goverment deciding to kill them all. you allowed your goverment to become that way.

 

[Single Shot]

I stopped reading when "no gun massacres take place in lah lah lah"

Bullshit. BULLSHIT. How about knife massacres? Huh? How about pickup truck massacres?

Oh, God, you people.

right, i just read this morning that somebody ran over two hundred people in his truck before slashing another fifty to death with a pocket knife nad spooning the eye's out a baby.
name one massacre that took place without guns and i can name a dozen that used them.

 

[xDarc]

We're trying to discuss reasonable regulation: things like licensing, safety regulations, and bans on certain types of guns.

Nobody is trying to discuss that.

Bullshit. The President and the Vice President of the United States are discussing exactly that at this very moment.

I'd hardly call executive order sensible, logical or rational- anything you describe.

So again, there is no middle. There is only reality and perception.

I've noticed a trend of you making grand, but meaningless pronouncements. There is no middle? do you honestly listen to yourself?

Yes, there is no middle. You can Katori can discuss the middle, on gun "control," meanwhile Obama and Biden will be looking at gun "bans" and registration acts for people who already own banned weapons. It is a step towards confiscation, not the middle. I could go dig up one of those old x-men mutant registration polls to see how the escapist feels about telling the government what they have and where to come get them, and the response will be markedly different than what people are now claiming is "the middle." Reality IS perception.

You know what I think the middle is? Talking about the real problem. One side wants to keep their guns, the other wants to feel safe; (which is a generous description since many of them really just want all the guns gone, especially the scary ones) but let's assume an AWB and registration act which will criminalize legal owners for weapons that cause a tiny fraction of total homicides per year really is in the interest of public safety...

What's the middle?

It would seem to me the middle is making efforts to curb the causes of people wanting to kill everyone at random in the first place. People just aren't doing this on a lark, a lot of them are a reflection in what is wrong with society. Why not figure out why Americans are wound so tight and so violent in the first place?

No, just take the weapons away and things will sort themselves out naturally. Right.

And lastly, whatever you think the middle is, it doesn't matter anyway because that is not what we are going to see out of politicians who are willing to use executive order to try to skirt the constitution. That is someone who wants to take rights away, not someone talking about the middle. The whole notion of the middle is a joke and an offense to people who have a perception shaped by REALITY.

 

[Single Shot]

And your point is WHAT? You have no point. None. Who cares? Dead is dead. And if one person can be saved with a gun and that person is someone I care about, then I don't CARE about your nonsense. Society needs a critical reevaluation of SO SO many things, but foremost of those is the subject of responsibility and self-reliance.

Some idiot's argument is "I don't need a gun, cops will come save me because I pay taxes." Am I supposed to feel bad for that guy? No, that's a choice. Am I supposed to feel bad for the parents of a psycho murderer kid? No, they had him hopped up on nine types of psychoactive drugs, probably at the bequest of the government no less. It's always someone else's fault these days - it's a scapegoat society and I'm frankly at a loss as to how people have managed to fall so far so fast.

Huh? Travis, calm down and take your medication. my point was that less poeple die in gun control countries. death is indeed a bad thing.
if civilians don'r have guns, less criminals will have guns. so less people will be shot. so crime will go down. are you following any of this.

EDIT: i re-read your post and realized you didn't get it. i was being sarcastic.


SARCASTIC

Adjective
Marked by or given to using irony in order to mock or convey contempt.
Synonyms
mordant - biting - cutting - acrimonious - snide

 

[Single Shot]

HA! Let's see your proof on that one. And by the way, what makes "stabbing the bastard" worse than shooting him? Or, I daresay, if this criminal is such an unarmed innocent who just so happens to be confused about the concepts of privacy and personal property, why aren't we shooing him away at gunpoint so nobody gets hurt (which happens thousands upon thousands of times)?

But I know that last bit is absolutely bogus. There is NO provision for a citizen's right to life in UK law. NONE. There are laws in place that persecute life takers, however you have no right to defend yourself whatsoever. Prove me wrong.

ADDENDUM: Funny, kid. Truth is, very few of your "facts" pass muster to warrant argument. I dropped them, simply because, for example, I don't really give a damn about your post-modern take on social "-isms." But regarding that one nugget, I will add this in closing: every "-ism" - socialism, capitalism, communism - it's just a matter of which side has the guns and who gets told what to do.

are you adding to old posts so i don't notice you getting the last word? really? are you that defeated?
but this addition has summed up your arguement very well. you see a gun as power, and the American people as seperate to the American goverment. you see democracy as being secure only by the threat of violence. and you see the suppressive use of violence as bad.
The goverment is not out to get you. handing in your sixty round, semi-auto killing machine of death will not alow Obama to sell you to china. but it might stop Joe Crazy from shooting up a school, an office, or another public place.

No, I edit because it is impolite to double post.

And if you don't know what "power" is in terms of government, then I suggest you hit the books. The American people are indeed separate from the federal and state governments, as the only one true democracy that I am aware of exists in Switzerland, where votes are held by and for the public. Try some critical thinking. What role does an intermediary such as the Senate have in an actual Democratic process? Sit and think about it.

Representatives? Sure, if those people weren't in fact people with agendas of their own which can and do supersede the wills of the people they supposedly represent. Random example: the overwhelming majority of people in several counties in numerous states voted against water fluoridation in the early years of the practice, but the federal government overturned state and county-wide results and proceeded with fluoridation anyway. This is now happening in the UK, where public petitions against the practice are slammed down by the government.

I'm drifting WAY off topic here.

The common mans voice might not make it into these decisions,but we decide who does make them. if people chose the right person for the job they wouldn't worry so much about the goverment deciding to kill them all. you allowed your goverment to become that way.

I allowed my government to become that way? Me, the crazy conspiracy theorist trying to tell people NOT to let the government become that way? And make no mistake, the citizens in modern "democracy" pick NO one. You are presented with a "choice" of a select group of rich individuals who all belong to the "club," who then take their term and run off fixing things according to their political party's wishlist. Enormous, game-changing laws silently pass through the legal system with almost no knowledge or input from the American people. People would SHUDDER to think of the kinds of things that hit the table, get the stamp of approval, and become actionable law without so much as a passing glance by the public.

I'm sorry, but your cute idea of a fantastic free state where fairness and due process are the order of the day - it's pure rubbish. Also, balls.

Honestly, you should be terrified at the prospect of a government so desperate to thoroughly disarm the populace, censor the internet as well as private media.

No, not you personally. the group don't care about you. it cares about the middle ground. it cares about the majorities. it cares about being voted in again. as a people the Americans who voted before have chosen this route by action and inaction. you cannot change that overnight
and my 'cute' idea is what is happening in most democracy's. people vote for their leaders, their leaders represent the people because they want to be voted for again. the people decide if someone else could do a better job and vot again.
America is run by popular opinion as closely as is feasible. if it wasn't that goverment wouldn't have been reelected.

 

[Single Shot]

So a normal person has no right to defend himself, according to your take. Right? So, let's say, how about an ...ABnormal person? Because, if you ask me, I think a "normal" person is just the type that deserves the right and the ability to defend himself.

Of all the things, the word "normal" is what you jump on. Funny. What I mean is that nobody except the army and police should ever own a gun. I did not say they don't have the right to defend themselves. That would be madness, and you know it.

And don't ever accuse me of not seeing other perspectives. I'm quite thorough in the practice, actually. It just so happens that I have concluded that all anti-gun swill is wrong. Simple. There's not a single redeeming or valid argument in the lot. It just so happens that a swarm of weak-minded, weak-willed stay-at-homes managed to out-breed individuals with a more pragmatic approach, and are going to implore the government to sic armed goons on people to get their way. Simple.

I've given anti-gunners a fair shake, really I have. It just so happens that every single one I've personally talked to has been critically wrong in every way, has nothing relevant to say, and no argument. And lately, they've turned to disgusting tactics, taking advantage of the deaths of children to get their way, going to far as to come out with their rhetoric and accuse me, head-on, of murdering children. So no, I have no respect at all for anti-gun nuts. They prevail only out of the sheer loudness of their voice, as do spoiled brats.

As I said, guns are machines of death. They are created for the sole purpose of threatening, wounding, and killing. I personally believe that it would be nice if people didn't own them simply because of that. Of course, I am a fool who also believes it would be nice if people only used knives for cooking, not for sticking into other people.

I have to say, I do agree with you on that last bit. I think owning a gun makes you about as likely to murder children as playing video games makes me to go on a violent rampage. That is, not at all. It's dumb and untrue, and anyone saying that it is should shut up and go away.

Yeah, but while owning a gun won't make you go on a rampage it does make it easier for the people who do want to kill to do so. the Lanza kid would have gotten nowhere without guns, but with them he... well you know the rest.
It isn't the gun owners who are the problem most of the time. it is the people who use them when they snap.

 

[Single Shot]

I stopped reading when "no gun massacres take place in lah lah lah"

Bullshit. BULLSHIT. How about knife massacres? Huh? How about pickup truck massacres?

Oh, God, you people.

And then I went back. And laughed. Really? I'm dumbfounded, honestly. Truly. Why...just...why...no. No, this is a stroke waiting to happen... but I'll try.

Okay. -sigh- Your answer to crazy people trying to go down in a blaze of glory, trying to ruin as many lives as they can on the way out of their pitiful existence as possible, trying to make as many headlines as they can... Your answer is...what? Don't try to fight back? ...Or...what? Don't go to movie theaters? Don't watch movies?

Don't watch movies. You know, THAT I think I can actually get behind.

Dear God why.

and once again you change an old post to change my reply.
you seem to have missed the point. without guns these depressed psychos wouldn't be able to go out in a 'blaze of glory' as you put it. they would just kill themselves or get help.
remember i'm fighting for GUN CONTROL the statement previously was related to that, not just a scream of "WAHWEDHWADHAWDHAW" like your side of the debate.