SHOOTING at the OLYMPICS

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Hood

Next time ask what my beliefs are before jumping to wild assumptions - this is not so much of a laugh as laughable.

Personally I don't think British armed forces should be abroad unless it is to deal with a threat to the country's nationals or interests. If there is a real and genuine threat then deal with it - is this not your own mantra albeit on a personal level?

so you think we should still have armed forces? I mean, do we really need them? Who's gonna attack us?

Talking about semantics, I don't know what you mean by 'government political agenda.' If it's defending the Falklands, then I will support what my government did. If it's about Iraq and Afghanistan then I'd struggle. It will always be that for me the end must justify the means.

the agenda is about disarming civilians to avoid problems or armed uprisings, no matter if good or bad. You really need to have a blind faith in your government and their coherence to be cool with that.. which one did you vote, the conservatives or the lib dems?

I'm ready to stand in front of the graves of people that have died through gun crime and say that I believe that the state of gun law in my country is good.

What would the families of the victims say if you told them that gun laws should be relaxed to allow more widespread ownership? Who knows...

Hood

The gun laws in our country are a political farce. I mean, do you really think that the regulations that are in place now make this country any safer?
The prohibition of pistols or semiauto guns doesn't make the ones that are left any less dangerous, does it? I can still own as many bolt action rifles as I want, and you know how lethal and fast loading a Lee-Enfield can be.
The gun restrictions that were put in place were just a cunning political move to make the best of a national knickers-in-a-twist moment, where once again people didn't think for a minute that maybe the nutjobs that did what they did shouldn't have been issued a license in the first place? No, it was easier to make the best of it, and taking guns off honest people who kept them for sport, hunting, as a family memory (just thinking about all the vets bring backs that had to be destroyed gives me the shivers).
And even when the Cumbria shooting happened, which to me was the evidence that is not a matter of gun ban or not, and proof of the stupidity of the ban, people still blamed the guns, not the shooters and the fact that society didn't do anything to control better and support these deranged individuals.
Yes, if you don't see nor understand this, unfortunately you're just cattle, and the government is your butcher.

[Hood]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

so you think we should still have armed forces? I mean, do we really need them? Who's gonna attack us?


the agenda is about disarming civilians to avoid problems or armed uprisings, no matter if good or bad. You really need to have a blind faith in your government and their coherence to be cool with that.. which one did you vote, the conservatives or the lib dems?



The gun laws in our country are a political farce. I mean, do you really think that the regulations that are in place now make this country any safer?
The prohibition of pistols or semiauto guns doesn't make the ones that are left any less dangerous, does it? I can still own as many bolt action rifles as I want, and you know how lethal and fast loading a Lee-Enfield can be.
The gun restrictions that were put in place were just a cunning political move to make the best of a national knickers-in-a-twist moment, where once again people didn't think for a minute that maybe the nutjobs that did what they did shouldn't have been issued a license in the first place? No, it was easier to make the best of it, and taking guns off honest people who kept them for sport, hunting, as a family memory (just thinking about all the vets bring backs that had to be destroyed gives me the shivers).
And even when the Cumbria shooting happened, which to me was the evidence that is not a matter of gun ban or not, and proof of the stupidity of the ban, people still blamed the guns, not the shooters and the fact that society didn't do anything to control better and support these deranged individuals.
Yes, if you don't see nor understand this, unfortunately you're just cattle, and the government is your butcher.

In order:

I'd rather not have armed forces but it's a deterrent writ large. This does not in my mind justify deterrents on a handgun level.

I didn't vote - I'm an ungulant so I cannot hold a voting paper and pen at the same time. Usually when I see paper I try to chew it.

The agenda to disarm civilians to protect an uprising is a conspiracy theory. Gun law has only recently become stricter and before that time you didn't see armed militia roaming the country.

What you don't understand, is that if it is easier to get a gun, that increases the likelihood of someone using a gun to kill a commit a crime. If you don't understand that, there's no point discussing it further.

About national service, I think it's a great idea but that's another topic entirely.

Hood

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Hood

In order:

I'd rather not have armed forces but it's a deterrent writ large. This does not in my mind justify deterrents on a handgun level.

ironically enough a deterrent might be more needed on a social level than on a national scale. Burglars and thugs commit crimes because they know the chances of being confronted by a bigger threat than they are are virtually nil.

I didn't vote - I'm an ungulant so I cannot hold a voting paper and pen at the same time. Usually when I see paper I try to chew it.

nice, so you don't do your basic duty of voting and still wanna say what's right and wrong? How am I supposed to take your opinion any serious? The extent of self-righteousness of some people is mind boggling..

The agenda to disarm civilians to protect an uprising is a conspiracy theory. Gun law has only recently become stricter and before that time you didn't see armed militia roaming the country.

..are you serious? Have you ever heard of Northern Ireland?!

What you don't understand, is that if it is easier to get a gun, that increases the likelihood of someone using a gun to kill a commit a crime. If you don't understand that, there's no point discussing it further.

I have never said that getting a gun should be easier, I'm just saying that this partial ban on certain guns is ludicrous, and even worse the sign that a government WILL NOT listen to the population, because they didn't even make a referendum for that, they just decided to apply it and that's it. This ban hasn't brought any relevant difference to the murder rates of this country, and if anything it demonstrated that this is not a democratic country. But as you said, you don't even bother voting, why would you care if they take your freedom away bit by bit?

[nearmiss]

Gun controls are bad for a principal reason.

The reason the framers of American constitution created 2nd amendment (gun freedom) for the right to own and bear arms in America wasn't for hunting and sport. The reason was for the people to have the ability to resist and protect themselves from tyrannical government.

Tyrannical government has always been the problem, it's a never ending story.

America is experiencing tyrannical government expansion right now.

That is why gun sales are so high all over the country. The people are getting ready, not to attack...but to protect.

If Hillary Clinton crams gun controls through a United Nations treaty in opposition to the US Constitution she will become the Jane Fonda of this generation.
That isn't a place I think any intelligent person would want to be. Jane Fonda was a traitor and is probably one of the most hated people in America for giving aid and comfort to the Viet Cong, when America was at war in Viet Nam. All the Vietnam vets call her Hanoi Jane, and hate her, the spit on her, and curse her publicly even today. She did that 50 years ago, and the only thing that saved her from being prosecuted as a war criminal was the tremendous influence of her father, Henry Fonda. A man that all America loved.

http://www.1stcavmedic.com/jane_fonda.htm

[kendo65]

Originally Posted by nearmiss

... The reason was for the people to have the ability to resist and protect themselves from tyrannical government.

Tyrannical government has always been the problem, it's a never ending story.

America is experiencing tyrannical government expansion right now.

That is why gun sales are so high all over the country. The people are getting ready, not to attack...but to protect.

"Tyrannical government has always been the problem"

Nearmiss, are you talking about previous US governments here? If so which ones would you describe as being 'tyrannical'? Seriously, are you sure that word is justified? I categorise tyrants or tyrannical regimes as Pol Pot or Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia. It should really be used for murderous regimes - I don't see anything in present day USA that could justify that word.

"America is experiencing tyrannical government expansion right now."

Again. What are they doing that can justify that term?

[nearmiss]

Originally Posted by kendo65

"Tyrannical government has always been the problem"

Nearmiss, are you talking about previous US governments here? If so which ones would you describe as being 'tyrannical'? Seriously, are you sure that word is justified? I categorise tyrants or tyrannical regimes as Pol Pot or Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia. It should really be used for murderous regimes - I don't see anything in present day USA that could justify that word.

"America is experiencing tyrannical government expansion right now."

Again. What are they doing that can justify that term?

Are you aware of the provisions written into the recently passed NDAA bill, already ratified and law of the land?

I don't think you have. Maybe go onto youtube and look it up, let the youtubers explain it to you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2r1J...eature=related

This act was signed into law

[kendo65]

Originally Posted by nearmiss

Are you aware of the provisions written into the recently passed NDAA bill, already ratified and law of the land?

I don't think you have. Maybe go onto youtube and look it up, let the youtubers explain it to you.

This act was signed into law

Point taken nearmiss. Not good.

But a bit short of tyrannical still.

[arthursmedley]

@ Hood, lol. Fantastic m8!! We who are about to be milked salute you!

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by nearmiss

Gun controls are bad for a principal reason.

The reason the framers of American constitution created 2nd amendment (gun freedom) for the right to own and bear arms in America wasn't for hunting and sport. The reason was for the people to have the ability to resist and protect themselves from tyrannical government.

Tyrannical government has always been the problem, it's a never ending story.

America is experiencing tyrannical government expansion right now.

That is why gun sales are so high all over the country. The people are getting ready, not to attack...but to protect.

If Hillary Clinton crams gun controls through a United Nations treaty in opposition to the US Constitution she will become the Jane Fonda of this generation.
That isn't a place I think any intelligent person would want to be. Jane Fonda was a traitor and is probably one of the most hated people in America for giving aid and comfort to the Viet Cong, when America was at war in Viet Nam. All the Vietnam vets call her Hanoi Jane, and hate her, the spit on her, and curse her publicly even today. She did that 50 years ago, and the only thing that saved her from being prosecuted as a war criminal was the tremendous influence of her father, Henry Fonda. A man that all America loved.

http://www.1stcavmedic.com/jane_fonda.htm

No offence but the Tyrranical goverment they had in mind is a throwback to when the British ruled, the USA is all about democracy now, I just find it slightly nonsensical to be so vehmently pro-democracy and pursue it's expansion like it's the most wonderfull thing but keep a gun behind your back in case it all goes wrong.

the Vietnam war was lost, it became communist and the free world didn't implode when it happened, maybe Jane had a point.

I don't believe all guns should be banned, there is good reason for some for hunting and pest control.

[nearmiss]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

No offence but the Tyrranical goverment they had in mind is a throwback to when the British ruled, the USA is all about democracy now, I just find it slightly nonsensical to be so vehmently pro-democracy and pursue it's expansion like it's the most wonderfull thing but keep a gun behind your back in case it all goes wrong.

the Vietnam war was lost, it became communist and the free world didn't implode when it happened, maybe Jane had a point.

I don't believe all guns should be banned, there is good reason for some for hunting and pest control.

You guys in the UK went to sleep at the switch and, while you were sleeping they took your guns. We will now have to wait and see won't we.
I suspect personal crime is already a problem and the crooks do have guns.

Good luck calling the cops, they'll sit down the street and wait for the shooting to stop. Then they'll herd up all the neighbors and anyone in the proximity hoping to get the shooter.

That is what they did in the USA at Columbine and Aurora. The cops sat outside at the most recent massacre in Aurora for over 20 minutes just waiting for the shooter to run out of bullets.

Cops aren't cowards, they are just folks with guns that don't want to get killed. They must figure it's your tough luck to be on the target range of some nut job.

Jane Fonda was a traitor. You need to read the account in the link I posted. She wasn't right about anything. She gave aid and comfort to the enemy. That by definition is a traitor.

The Vietnam could have been won, but the problems came from politicians. America pilots were forbidden to strike SAMs that were being onloaded and stockpiled in Hanoi harbor. Those SAMs would be firing upon our pilots within just a few days. The military were forbidden from striking Michelin rubber plantations and the VC used those plantations as safer harbor. Think on that next time you buy tires for your car. Those are just two examples of the counter-productive way the US government wanted the Vietnam war to proceed.

America had the resources to do the job on Vietnam. It was the politicians and the other rats in our government that caused over 58,000 men to die, not counting those maimed for life. They didn't want to win that war, they wanted to prolong it and keep pumping enormous sums of money into the Military industrial complex. The US was involved in Vietnam over 16 years.

Same story for Iraq, Afghanistan and soon to be Syria or Iran, if they have their way.

Don't be too self assured, it does seem UK politicians get the military involved with US every time in those little skirmishes that last for years and years. Afterall, it is justification for the lousy wars when more than a few countries are involved, even if they each only furnish 40 men to fight.