SHOOTING at the OLYMPICS

[Hood]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

I think I brought enough evidence that the gun restrictions applied in the UK haven't had any effect whatsoever. What else do you want me to demonstrate?

What evidence? It is all conjecture as there is no way of proving the impact of regulation. The overall trend in the UK appears to be that gun crime is reducing. I have no idea whether that is related to gun regulation, but I suspect it is more to do with gun availability having been restricted for a long time, not because of recent changes following various massacres.

I don't have any evidence for this, only what I've found via 5 minutes research. There is no point linking to the websites because they're probably part of the government conspiracy.

Hood

[Hood]

Originally Posted by swiss

Did you?

Nope, but I have nothing to prove. I'm content with my masculinity and my (informed) opinions.

Hood

[kendo65]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Doc

I don't know about these other guys because I can't speak for them but I'll raise my hand. I want them. I want'em all available. I want to do what I want to do especially if I am paying for it.

First question. Why would you want an anti-tank missile or a SAM in the USA?

"I want to do what I want to do especially if I am paying for it."
All societies have limits to personal freedom. The right of an individual to do what they want is balanced against the potential harm that that individual doing what they want could cause other people. So, I may want to get totally drunk and then drive home in my car. Society says I can't.

Or I might want to get off my head with a certain cocktail of drugs paid for out of my own hard-earned cash. Society says I can't.

There are lots of limits. None of us is totally free.

Same with the guns (or heavier weaponry) issue. Just because someone WANTS it doesn't mean that it's sensible or desirable from a wider perspective for them to have it.

What about the nukes?

[kendo65]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

not really, I kinda pity you actually, I think that you represent a certain kind of self-righteous individuals who convinced themselves that whatever their government does for/to them it's all acceptable, cos they're too lazy/ignorant/blind to see how they're being deprived of their freedom. Your government is basically telling you "I don't trust you and I'll do anything I can to control you" and you bow to them, and what you get in return is a country that is no safer than what it was in the 80s, more taxes and less rights.. but I'm sure you know better, so keep on living your deluded reality..

Self-righteous Stern? Pot kettle black a little or what?

I'm not happy with the government of this country. I disagree with a whole host of their policies and I don't like the way the country is going. There are many things i would like changed.

Personally I think most of us are little more than serfs now anyway - we get the opportunity to work in order to pay an over-inflated mortgage, while the economy is run primarily so that a bunch of investment bankers have enough chips to enable them to retire on their fat bonuses. But whether or not I own a gun makes absolutely no difference to anything that is really important.

[swiss]

Originally Posted by kendo65

First question. Why would you want an anti-tank missile or a SAM in the USA?

"I want to do what I want to do especially if I am paying for it."
All societies have limits to personal freedom. The right of an individual to do what they want is balanced against the potential harm that that individual doing what they want could cause other people. So, I may want to get totally drunk and then drive home in my car. Society says I can't.

Or I might want to get off my head with a certain cocktail of drugs paid for out of my own hard-earned cash. Society says I can't.

There are lots of limits. None of us is totally free.

You can do all of the above - just make sure you don't get caught.

[Skoshi Tiger]

Originally Posted by tk471138

btw your quote is irrelevant since if your govt imposes mandatory service unto you, then you are not free.....

No one is 'free'. We all live in society and are all bound by the restrictions of our laws, culture and social expectations. Depending upon which system we live under we are given 'freedoms' to pursue our lives in the way we see fit - in limited areas. We call them our rights.

In pre-school children are taught that even though they have their rights, with them come responsibilites. Now even though we hope people will choose to meet their responsibilites if they fail to do so those responsibilities will be forced upon them by the full weight of the systrem (law culture and social expectaions).

Now my original comment was light hearted dig at the youth of today (you can tell by the ) who are all (without exception) G-D Tree Hugging Neo-Hippies and could all do with decent haircuts and a good couple of years in National service.

All your comments merely re-enforce my views.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Hood

Nope, but I have nothing to prove. I'm content with my masculinity and my (informed) opinions.

Hood

your point on masculinity is so puerile... you sure you're not 15?

It's obvious that you have some personal issues with guns, maybe like Bewolf you had some shocking experience when you were young?

I really can't quite understand what sort of twisted, double-standard, denial-based logic one has to apply to be such a contradiction in terms.

Using a war simulator and still thinking that the world is better without guns, go figure!

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by kendo65

Self-righteous Stern? Pot kettle black a little or what?

I'm not happy with the government of this country. I disagree with a whole host of their policies and I don't like the way the country is going. There are many things i would like changed.

Personally I think most of us are little more than serfs now anyway - we get the opportunity to work in order to pay an over-inflated mortgage, while the economy is run primarily so that a bunch of investment bankers have enough chips to enable them to retire on their fat bonuses. But whether or not I own a gun makes absolutely no difference to anything that is really important.

How am I self-righteous exactly? You think that the point I made are not valid?

That the gun restriction that was applied was just a political propaganda job to harvest the favour of the public opinion, whilst the real problem was a totally different one, the fact that there was no solid policy in plan to assign gun licenses whilst making sure that the people who applied didn't have any mental problems? Come on...

We are serfs indeed, and they treat us like we're utter imbeciles, people are not able to take on their responsibilities anymore, nanny-State will take care of us, take dangerous (for them) toys off our hands and let us play their games.. it doesn't take a conspiracy theorist to understand that, you only need to pay some attention to the politics and have some knowledge of history, but both these topics are boring for the majority (and our self-righteous friends here).

The funniest thing is that they really believe in what they say, they really think that nothing bad will ever happen to them, cos it's not possible, and even when the evidence strikes them on the face, like in 2005, it only mattered and had a meaning if you were directly hit by those attacks... sheep, nothing more, nothing less....

[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

[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.