Author Topic: More Gun control???  (Read 7035 times)

Offline beet1e

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7848
More Gun control???
« Reply #330 on: August 26, 2004, 11:11:43 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by lazs2
put another way..... Why ban firearms if the thousands of pistol owners were not causing any INCREASE in crime?    Why bother?   I submit that they had a positive affect if any since the crime went up rather than down after the ban but... even if the effect were zero.... why bother to change the law?
I don't think the change in law was to inconvenience pistol shooters. Its design was more to do with the prevention of another Dunblane (we'd already had Hungerford). UK gun homicides are currently < 100 in any calendar year, as compared with a minimum of 5,000 in the US (sometimes more than 13,000 - as in 1992) in any calendar year. I never said our gun laws worked perfectly, but I'm glad they're there.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2004, 03:09:49 AM by beet1e »

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
More Gun control???
« Reply #331 on: August 26, 2004, 11:11:54 AM »
appears to be the other way around...  it is your government that has proven it fears an armed citizenry.  

We merely claim that governments should fear an armed citizenry.   If we have no teeth then they have no fear.

you pretty much prove my case by showing that governments do fear armed citizens and try to disarm them... having the royals and the royal dog killed really shook em up it appears.

lazs

Offline Curval

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11572
      • http://n/a
More Gun control???
« Reply #332 on: August 26, 2004, 12:35:30 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by lazs2
In burmuda they did it because of the fear of the government.... several royals and the royal dogs were killed.

lazs


Then you say:

it is your government that has proven it fears an armed citizenry

Which is it Lazs....you keep making this up as you go along.
Some will fall in love with life and drink it from a fountain that is pouring like an avalanche coming down the mountain

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
More Gun control???
« Reply #333 on: August 26, 2004, 02:42:03 PM »
all governments fear an armed citiizenry.... yours simply did something about it and made you helpless.

Hope you don't live to regret it but... all you are capable of IS hope at this point... the royals pulled your fangs.

lazs

Offline Curval

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11572
      • http://n/a
More Gun control???
« Reply #334 on: August 26, 2004, 03:08:40 PM »
As Beet1e has already pointed out...your government does not fear you.  What you say sounds great but it is just silly in the context of modern day society.
Some will fall in love with life and drink it from a fountain that is pouring like an avalanche coming down the mountain

Offline twitchy

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 621
More Gun control???
« Reply #335 on: August 26, 2004, 03:28:34 PM »
No Gun Control is a VERY BAD IDEA. For the simple reason that our government is based on a system of checks and blances that keeps one organization or another from gaining too much power, the right to bear arms is the only check and balance we americans have to protect our soverignty. It may sound radical or revolutionary, but it is the only true insurance we have. Mao Tse Tung, Hitler, Mousolini, all implemented gun control to seize weapons from the citizenry once they seized control of the governments. The right to bear arms is not only to defend yourself, it is the only balance We The People have to dissolve the governing body if we should ever need to.
Founder & CO
Pigs on the Wing
Oinking Bases since 2000 AD

Offline beet1e

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7848
More Gun control???
« Reply #336 on: August 27, 2004, 03:25:34 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by twitchy
No Gun Control is a VERY BAD IDEA. For the simple reason that our government is based on a system of checks and blances that keeps one organization or another from gaining too much power, the right to bear arms is the only check and balance we americans have to protect our soverignty. It may sound radical or revolutionary, but it is the only true insurance we have. Mao Tse Tung, Hitler, Mousolini, all implemented gun control to seize weapons from the citizenry once they seized control of the governments. The right to bear arms is not only to defend yourself, it is the only balance We The People have to dissolve the governing body if we should ever need to.
I know of many occasions when people have enjoyed a false sense of security, provided by a dubious insurance policy. When they come to make a claim, ruh-roh - there's a long list of exclusion clauses. Better check your coverage, if I were you. I don't think it's going to cut the mustard.

Lazs - you've been to Britain, but it seems you learned nothing from it. You need to try to understand that in at least four generations, we have not been an armed society. There was never a time when Brits roamed the streets packing heat. There was never a time when I or any of my friends or relatives EVER slept with a loaded .45 by the bed, with one in the spout. You're fond of making it sound that we were all armed, just as in America, and then on one dark day had all our guns taken away... it was never like that. There was no mass confiscation because there would have been bugger all to confiscate. OK, we had highwaymen in centuries gone by, and stage coaches that ran from London to the west country sometimes got robbed around Hounslow Heath, so gentlemen passengers were advised to carry their "sidearms". But that was yonks ago.

In order to portray your vision of Britain, you seem to use a composite picture, drawn from several different centuries. And that Britain exists only in your mind.

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
More Gun control???
« Reply #337 on: August 27, 2004, 08:31:18 AM »
Never a time that your citizens were armed with revolvers and handguns?   Bull.... You had a very high percentage of gun owners in the early 1900's up till 1920.

As for your thinking that governments aren't fearfull of armed citizens... look at every tyrant, including england and you will see that the first thing a tyrant does is try to disarm the citizens... revolutions abound in this world... very successful ones... because of guns..  it is you who should read the fine print on your policy... vietnam.. china south and central America.. Africa and afgahn and all over the globe people change history and topple governments with firearms.

The U.S. could not rule an armed citizenry without their consent.

curval.. it is yu who are being obtuse...  beetle has not come close to proving that firearms can't topple goverments... that is silly on the face of it.   The U.S. would be a very hard country to impose tyranical rule over.

All freedom costs.. it seems that our freedom to own the right to defend ourselves causes our murders to be done with guns instead of knives or bombs... our murder rate is about 1 in 100000 more than england but we prevent 2-3 million crimes a year with em... who knows how many of those millions would have been murders?

Our countries are different... I like having armed cops and I like knowing that there are responsible citizens out there with concealed carry permits ready and willing to defend me or mine.

I would like to take this opportunity to...

to thank all concealled carry permit holders...   Thank you for being good citizens and taking the crap you get on these boards and elsewhere.   Thank you for making the U.S. a little safer.

lazs

Offline beet1e

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7848
More Gun control???
« Reply #338 on: August 27, 2004, 08:49:05 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by lazs2
You had a very high percentage of gun owners in the early 1900's up till 1920.
Complete bollocks.

...as is the suggestion that your "armed citizens" could hold the US military at bay. (covered in an earlier post)

...as is the suggestion that our government can do what it likes and we are powerless to resist.  (also covered in an earlier post)

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
More Gun control???
« Reply #339 on: August 27, 2004, 08:58:47 AM »
please explain to me how you arrived at the conclussion that an unpopular government could subjugate an armed population in the U.S.?

I hope that you are not using waco or ruby ridge as an example?

An example of how the government is powerless is better served with the world trade center and Ok. city federal building and... armed bank robbers all across the country.

even so... all of the above examples are when we have a fairly popular government... now imagine that half the army and half the population wants the government out and the government has suspended elections.

Better look up the number of guns in england per capita (especialy london) before 1920 beetle.

Offline beet1e

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7848
More Gun control???
« Reply #340 on: August 27, 2004, 10:40:00 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by lazs2
please explain to me how you arrived at the conclussion that an unpopular government could subjugate an armed population in the U.S.?
I've already done that, in other threads, and further up in this thread. I'm not going to retype everything 500 times.

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
More Gun control???
« Reply #341 on: August 27, 2004, 10:51:57 AM »
And I have proven every single time (and again above) that you are wrong and shortsighted on the subject.

it is apparent that revolution works in modern times... it is also apparent that armed citizens can defeat an unpopular government... sometimes against allomost inconcievably overwhelming odds (vietnam)..

It is also apparent that even a strong popular government like ours can not protect us from acts of terrorism or revolt.   So how could they stop a popular revolt?   they couldn't.

lazs

Offline beet1e

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7848
More Gun control???
« Reply #342 on: August 27, 2004, 11:11:20 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by lazs2
And I have proven every single time (and again above) that you are wrong and shortsighted on the subject.
No, your post above proved nothing. It merely asked a question.

Waco? That wasn't going to be my example, but why shouldn't it be?
Quote
It is also apparent that even a strong popular government like ours
The Bush administration is "strong"? I seem to remember that the Bush victory was the most closely run election the US has ever seen in modern times, and was decided by a relative handful of votes in Florida.
Quote
And I have proven every single time (and again above) that you are wrong and shortsighted on the subject.
No, and people from at least 16 different countries would disagree with you. Right now, you've turned your attention from England and Bermuda to try your luck with New Zealand. I notice you're getting some of the same answers.

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
More Gun control???
« Reply #343 on: August 27, 2004, 02:51:00 PM »
wrong... the newzealanders turned their attention to me.  I have no interest in their crime rate or country except for a possible visit.  

You are correct about getting some of the same answers tho... one guy in nz is so brainwashed that he thinks his neighbors will go insane if given the freedom to own firearms... I think studying how someone gets that brainwashed would be a worthwhile study.    meanwhile... the nz guy is enjoying twice the per capita burglary rate as people in the U.S. are...  strange.

you can't use waco much because it was not a popular uprising.... it was an isolated group of a few people with the might of the entire government behind stopping them,

the current government is popular.  the number of people willing to take up arms against it right now is extremely low.

lazs

Offline beet1e

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7848
More Gun control???
« Reply #344 on: August 27, 2004, 02:59:48 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by lazs2
please explain to me how you arrived at the conclussion that an unpopular government could subjugate an armed population in the U.S.?
Please explain to me the circumstances under which such a conflict might arise.