Gun control laws do they work ?

[Nathan60]

  Is Northern Ireland a 3rd world country? The US gives them money with no payback. 

I thought it was a territory of England, kinda lie  Puerto Rico is to the US

[TonyJoey]

An armed citizenry in this thermonuclear age is about as much of a deterrent as pointed sticks would have been in World War 2. If anyone could make it past our strategic bombers, ICBM's, nuclear submarines, army, marines, and Navy, then I don't think Bill and the neighborhood militia are going to make a difference.

[Slate]

Given them plenty of gun donations too

      Treat your subjects right and they won't rebel. 

[Nathan60]

An armed citizenry in this thermonuclear age is about as much of a deterrent as pointed sticks would have been in World War 2. If anyone could make it past our strategic bombers, ICBM's, nuclear submarines, army, marines, and Navy, then I don't think Bill and the neighborhood militia are going to make a difference.

+1 QFT  however most people  dont want to nuke thier own back yards,  so guns STILL will protect from the NWO take over

[zack1234]

  Is Northern Ireland a 3rd world country? The US gives them money with no payback. 

stopped the war there it worked out cheaper, southern Ireland was a third world county until the 1980's when EU money paid for freeways. (1980 they got freeways).

Like giving money to greece its cheaper then letting the commies back in.

[guncrasher]

  Before WW2 the British Government passed many gun laws banning most rifles and pistols unless you could get a license to own with proof of a verified need to own. After the Battle of Dunkirk the British troops barely made it back to england but left most of thier equipment behind. An Invasion was a very real possibility and the country was woefully illequiped to repel it.

   The request for small arms was sent to a friend of England across the pond and the Citizens of that Free Nation gave generously. Thankfully this Nation had many factories that were producing many arms during peacetime and was able to retool supplying the needed war materials.

   Do not worry friends across the pond we will be ready again when the need is great with our weapons, factories and experienced Riflemen to stem the tide of evil that gains strength while some grow weak.

                                                                                                   Slate  

so the british had no guns at home or in the army and yet they never got invaded by the Germans.  there goes the theory that a weapon in every home will stop an invading army.  unless of course the weapons from the united states arrived next day thru federal express.


semp


semp

[mtnman]

No. Which is why they had fought for two years and three months before the US was forced into the war.

Are you saying England jumped into the war before they felt like they had to?  Willingly, before they felt forced?

[FireDrgn]

No, you really don't need the teapot.  It's convenient, but not necessary.

Way back in college a few of my semesters were spent in ethics classes, and they basically revolved around discussing and arguing "right" from "wrong" but we weren't allowed to use or consider any religious "rules or beliefs".  We had to argue using other criteria.

If we felt that murder was "wrong", we had to argue it without any religious aspects.  It's still fairly easy to argue that murder is wrong...  If you haven't done so already, read some Plato for a rough idea of how it can be done.

In the end we were able to argue reasons that the "big ten" rules were important even without any consideration for whether a teapot was up there or not.  Essentially, those rules are just simple rules that enable people to exist in a society.  If people break those rules (within the society) it causes internal issues and the society will work to resolve those issues.

The teapot argument only works within your own society.  Since there are many societies in the world, and more than one teapot, the one that any given society chooses can't be said to fully define truth.  Those other societies may have their own teapots, and while their "truth" is just as valid as yours, it may not agree with yours.

When it comes to life itself, I'm not sure I'd argue that anyone or anything has a "right to live". 

A right to defend their life?  Yes, absolutely.  Even a criminal on death row has that right, IMO.

But a right to be alive or remain alive?  No.

We must be using a different version of what true means.  If true can be different for everyone as you claim then I can have my own definition of true. That rule is necessarily  false.

Murder is wrong how?  I don't think you can account for it being wrong. 

[mtnman]

We must be using a different version of what true means.  If true can be different for everyone as you claim then I can have my own definition of true. That rule is necessarily  false.

Murder is wrong how?  I don't think you can account for it being wrong. 

Phew, fortunately I didn't argue as you state...  Read the response you quoted.

I didn't argue that true can be different for everyone.  I stated that there can be "multiple" truths, but not that everyone can necessarily have there own (and that all are different from each other).

Are you questioning whether murder is wrong?  As in, it could be "right" instead?  Or neither right OR wrong?

Or are you simply doubting that it could be defined as "wrong" through any other avenue than a statement by a deity?

If it helps at all, I'm thinking of "right" and "wrong" as more or less moral/immoral.

[VonMessa]

This thread is awesome!

[guncrasher]

This thread is awesome!

for me it's an exchange of ideas, but for the regular rednecks, it's war.  ok that's beer talking  .


semp

[danny76]

Are you saying England jumped into the war before they felt like they had to?  Willingly, before they felt forced?

Not at all. I am saying Britain had no choice, and the US joined in as soon as it was in the same position.

[zack1234]

This thread is awesome!

I don't think you are taking this thread seriously

[Slate]

so the british had no guns at home or in the army and yet they never got invaded by the Germans.  there goes the theory that a weapon in every home will stop an invading army.  unless of course the weapons from the united states arrived next day thru federal express.


semp


semp

     If supplies were not brought over from America before we entered the war the UK would have been invaded. Maybe if England was producing thier own small arms in large quantities there would have been less of our Merchant Seamen lost.

  It's not about guns in every home repelling invaders but the infrastructure of a robust gun manufacturing sector. The US manufacturers were there to gear up for the war. If you ban most gun sales to your citizens the factories would have been out of business and not able to be producing weapons quickly.
   This is how it went down in WW2. Does history repeat itself? Sure does.

                                                                                                       Slate

[zack1234]

Slate is amazing

Is there any ruby slippers

But what about the moon