Quote:
Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II
your statement clearly shows you're not reading what I write, or that my English is not good enough, or that you don't understand your own language. Read my posts again and please give me a valid reason why people licensed from the institution couldn't own semiauto full bore firearms and pistols.
no, my definition of agree is respecting the fact that some people can own certain firearms and that you don't have to fear from them, since they won't jump on you and shoot your head off. It sounds like you think that every gun owner is a nutter!!
Ok, according to the theory of both of you, if I seek something cos I like it I should be kept away from it?!
You two sound like the envious losers who slag people who own fast cars just because they can't afford it..
Talking of which, here's another comparison: say that I like fast cars, which have a serious potential of infringing the law because of their speed, and that we could well do without, since you can have a normal car for your commuting. Shall we forbid fast cars just cos they serve no purpose? Or shall we be free to own something that yes, potentially it can be used to infringe the law and even kill someone, but still it's our own personal free choice to spend our own money?
|
If tight gun legislation prevents ONE person being killed by someone who had previously passed whatever tests were in place, and who legally owned their firearms... It's done it's job. End of, simple as that. It's not a failing of language that prevents you understanding this stance, which is shared by my countrymen in this thread, it's a failing of logic.
That you continue to debate this, and draw in irrelevant examples such as jealousy (!) of car owners just goes to further to illustrate the fatal flaw. Guns, in the wrong hands, kill people. The wrong hands may have been the right hands yesterday. Doing everythjng within the UK governments power to prevent that is, in the eyes of the majority of citizens of the UK, a Good Thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brando
" A bit of military or para-military discipline never did any harm to anyone."
Leaving aside the IRA. UDA. PIRA. UVF. RIRA. RHD. and various other para-military groups who did an awful lot of harm to the peaceful citizens of their country?
Or maybe consider the cross-border flow of drugs for guns across the Rio Grande?
But it's really no use talking to a person whose gun fetish outweighs his compassion....
|
+1
Indeed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II
I'm still talking facts here man, get your facts right then tell me about yours..
|
You keep on ignoring a really huge one, so why should we?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hood
That goes both ways doesn't it.
|
Quite.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hood
You take responsibility? I presume you have a cape to twirl whilst you dish out punishment in your vigilante alter ego?
I presume that you know that the "right to bear arms" has different interpretations, and that it was formulated in the late 18th century? By people who had to support the idea of armed insurrection as that is what they had just done?
I don't have to defend my nation as my government does that on my behalf, and I trust them to do so. Owning a gun wouldn't help me defuse an IED in Afghanistan, or stop a terrorist attack. How do you defend your nation by owning a gun? Owning a gun doesn't empower you to do anything at all; that's what the rule of law does.
It really doesn't bother me that the USA allows the right to bear arms. It's your country and your politicians and if you vote for them and they let you have what you want then that's fine. If you disagree with your government by all means form a militia and march on Washington. It'll make great TV whilst it lasts.
However, don't criticise another country's peoples and laws just because you do not agree with them. If you're not a citizen then it's really none of your business. That goes for the whole guns are great/bad argument.
Giggle away.
|
Cracking post. Although the image of Stern as big daddy (Kick-Ass) is bkth amusing and disturbing...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II
then you must live in some remote part of the UK and you don't watch TV news. Seriously? That's pure denial.
cos every man there is asked to defend his country, just like when you had the territorial Army here during the war. Maybe that's why you are against guns, you watched too many re-runs of Dad's Army..
it's off topic, but I'd be genuinely interested to know why, feel free to PM me about it.
that's a somehow romantic view, guns can be used to defend yourself when you'd be easily overcome by someone stronger or in greater numbers than you. It's a battle leveller: if everyone has the same offensive potential, everyone stays calm. It's what our governments do with nuclear weapons: they don't use 'em, but they're there, just in case..
yeah, but that was a bit over the line here.. as you know banjos are Luthier's fav instrument 
|
I find the depths of your delusion disturbing.
News reports make it seem every street has it's own paedo, crack dealer, terrorist cell and serial killer. "if you don't read the newspapers you're uninformed, if you do read them you're misinformed".