Fucked if I know
- Jun 7, 2010
Ah Biden, you never fail to make me laugh whether it's with daft statements like this, or when somebody makes a humourous Arrested Development image with you involved.
I DO think that there is nothing I can disagree with in your post, Mr. Jack. Although, it took many centuries for people to accept representatives of non-white descendancy, gay people too. Maybe it is what USA needs. A bit of time.FalloutJack said:I tend to believe that gun laws are the way they are because it was not merely the United States army at the time that fought off Great Britain, but any old shmoe with a gun. The idea was that "Okay, in the event of an invasion, citizens have the legal right to take arms against those who would do harm to them" because of an uncertain future. Since then, and definitely before, this sort of privelege has been abused. What follows is, of course, the law then determining the appropriate use of guns and laying down heavily on misuse, and so on. The thing is...we already had guns. They happened and they weren't going to un-happen. You have two choices, then. You either integrate them into society and try to work with them or you alienate them from society and leaven those without wanting in a time of need. It's a sad case of have and have-not.VMK said:So... Was it intentional or unintetional imperfection of the most important legal act in USA?
Jokes aside, how many people are against possible future gun control policy in USA? I just want to understand this little thing I wrote about previously.
Really, gun control is a slippery devil to mess with, but I think if you try to control them in a manner the people won't agree with, you'll have alot of gun-toting folks out there to deal with, exactly what any invader would have to handle. Would you inflict that on our own authorities? Those boys have enough on their plate. In my opinion, criminals without guns over the years would start to get cleverer, more capable in a fight because maybe they have no gun, or that they DO when other people don't. Law-abiding citizens are law-abiding citizens, but some people laugh in your face and then shoot. Truthfully, though, if we started getting clever people who are better at being shitty people, we'dd have more problems than idiots with guns. We'd have professionals. I once heard about a man who held up a gas station with a hunk of wood! Which one - the robber or the gas attendant - is dumber, I don't know, but a gun controlled world might have that stick-user pulling out something smarter.
But do You really need machine guns and assault rifles for protection? Really? Because that is what is planned to be banned, as far as I am aware.tehpiemaker said:Oh, you mean guns that cost hundreds, if not, thousands of dollars? Largely owned by government organizations? Because I don't think you understand exactly it is what the second amendment is supposed to do. It's supposed to protect an individual freedom to protect themselves. The Consitution is meant to limit the control the government has over its citizens so that we aren't ruled by any fascist regime.VMK said:Yeah, yeah, second ammendment... Written during muskets era... I bet Washington & Co knew that in the future we'll have firearms that can literally slaughter about 50 people in about 15 seconds.
Anyhow, about percentages... Any info?
"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither." -Benjamin Franklin
I don't think anyone's actually going to try and take away guns that are legitimate hunting/defending pieces, no. However, you know how people are. Still, it's never the ownership of a gun in any form that worries me, but the person behind it. It's not guns that need the control, but the people. Time to work on things? Good notion. A psychological evaluation would be a better one. People who want guns should be screened. That would be safer without having to worry about the guns AND you're attacking the problem where it is.VMK said:Zoop
Well, people can go bonkers AFTER getting their license, but overall I agree. Also, as far as I am aware, in many southern states, firearms are sold like candies (correct me if I am wrong, please). This must be changed too, I think.FalloutJack said:I don't think anyone's actually going to try and take away guns that are legitimate hunting/defending pieces, no. However, you know how people are. Still, it's never the ownership of a gun in any form that worries me, but the person behind it. It's not guns that need the control, but the people. Time to work on things? Good notion. A psychological evaluation would be a better one. People who want guns should be screened. That would be safer without having to worry about the guns AND you're attacking the problem where it is.VMK said:Zoop
True, but THEN we can claim that it couldn't have been predicted, that we gave a gun to someone for whom doctors believed in the mental health of.VMK said:Well, people can go bonkers AFTER getting their license, but overall I agree. Also, as far as I am aware, in many southern states, firearms are sold like candies (correct me if I am wrong, please). This must be changed too, I think.
It would never pass in either House or Senate. A tax on all violent media would effect movies studios and cable/broadcast stations. Merica!'s culture is mostly violence based.Leximodicon said:Oh America, when will you stop being the xenophobic laughing stock of the civilized world?
You really *REALLY* don't want to argue that the 2nd doesn't apply today because the people who penned it could not know what technology would be developed in the future and as such it shouldn't apply to that technology. That's an UNBELIEVABLY BAD line of logic to use, because precisely the same logic will then get applied to the 1st, and the lack of film, video games, or internet in the late 18th century.VMK said:Yeah, yeah, second ammendment... Written during muskets era... I bet Washington & Co knew that in the future we'll have firearms that can literally slaughter about 50 people in about 15 seconds.Schadrach said:The reason why serious gun control is unconstitutional is literally right next to the reason why a "violent media tax" is unconstitutional.VMK said:Meanwhile, in New Orleans another shooting happened. Three guys gunned Mother day parade participants...With real world guns... that shoot real world bullets... at real world people.
Americans, question: what percentage of American citizens are against gun restriction? I just want to understand whether your politicians are idiots (or pretending to be ones), or they just don't want to lose votes?
Yeah, yeah, first ammendment... Written during printing press and wax cylinders era... I bet Washington & Co knew that in the future we'll have machines that can literally communicate any insane message without restriction worldwide in seconds.
I died.DVS BSTrD said:I'm sorry but when I saw the picture all I could think of "My dick is THIS big"
Machine guns (defined in our laws as anything full-auto) are already effectively banned in this country. The debated "assault weapons ban" covers cosmetic and ergonomic features like a pistol grip or adjustable stock. So a rifle without these features is legal, while adding an adjustable stock for comfort would be banned.VMK said:But do You really need machine guns and assault rifles for protection? Really? Because that is what is planned to be banned, as far as I am aware.
Wow, you must know some real sociopaths then.By the way, it is MY people that are having certain problems with OUR goverment, WE are in dire need of action, but I would not give even a 9mm pistol to anyone, because I know, that while many people are responsible, most will use them (firearms) in illegal way. Not criminal, but shooting stray cats "for da lulz" would be quite common.
Oh, I didn't mean the government could harass journalists; I meant other private citizens and corporations. If I understand the libel laws (which I don't since I confused them with defamation), it's much easier to end up in court for libel in the UK than in the US. It's pretty hard to be convicted or lose a libel suit in the US.The Plunk said:Haha, if only. The government recently tried to reign in some of the media's outrageous privacy invasion and political influence by setting up an independent regulatory body. The newspapers basically said "No.", and that was the end of that.Clovus said:Well, on issue like this, ie free speech, I'd rather be in the US actually. Politicians can pass all the dumb laws they want regarding Free Speech, but they'll just get overturned by the Supreme Court. Great Britain has those really awful defamation laws that makes it really easy for journalists to be harrassed for reporting negative information.bfgmetalhead said:I love being an Englishman at times, one reason is that we don't have to deal with this. Non-religious government ftw.
Right, it's only the fringe stuff where we differ. Like, you can have much more stringent laws about racism than we generally can, right? The European Convention on Human Rights isn't nearly as sweeping as the US First Amendment. Age restrictions is another example of a difference - ours aren't enforced by law.You are right though, that parliament is sovereign and has technically limitless power. However, the Human Rights Act 1998 made the highest court of appeal the European Court of Human Rights. And, while parliament could just repeal the Human Rights Act if it wanted, it still effectively makes the European Convention on Human Rights an entrenched bill of rights for UK citizens.
Also Carmageddon. So, yeah, there's little of this now and even for film classification it isn't a problem anymore. A film like "Anti-Christ" wouldn't have made it through the system just a few years ago. I could imagine future games the incorporate stronger themes possibly having trouble as well.I can't think of any game that has been banned apart from Manhunt. The classification system doesn't ban anything. The only difference between ours and the US's is that selling a product to someone below the age of its classification is illegal.Your sane gun laws have probably avoided the kind of high profile violence that could lead to taxes, bans, and age restrictions on violent video games. But, if enough British politicians really pushed for something like that and passed it, I don't think it would be overturned by a court, right? I've definitely read about some MPs who are very unhappy about video games. Other countries like Australia and Germany have all kinds of weird restrictions. Actually, doesn't Britain still have a "classification" system that ends up banning certain movies and games?
I am really interested in a response to this. I didn't spend an hour researching this stuff before hand. I know I've been surprised by the lack of some aspects of free speech in some European countries before.