water cannon

[unreasonable]

Note how some US contributors to this thread have changed the argument (and I have summarised rather than respond to specific posts because there are so many):

- The main point at issue has been whether restrictive gun laws, in the UK, are, on balance, a good thing, given the context of the recent youth riots.

- Generally US contributors have said that the UK laws are not a good thing, since they mean that good citizens are limited in their ability to defend themselves against bad citizens, or against tyrannical government.

- Generally UK contributors have said that the UK laws are a good thing, since they prefer to be unarmed, which is an increasingly untenable position in an armed society, and they believe that the threats of crime and tyranny are better addressed through the normal workings of constitutional monarchy.

So far so reasonable.....

- There has been no comment from Euro contributors (that I have noticed), about the right of US citizens to decide their own gun laws, own guns in the US, or the desirability or feasibility of the US moving to a gun law system similar to that of the UK.

- In contrast, some US contributors have held up the specific premises of the US political system as though they were universal truths: in particular the premises that disarming the people must necessarily lead to tyranny, and that democracy is always just mob rule.

In my view this point of view fails to take into account the specific history, culture and background of different societies. Just because something is "self-evident" to you, it does not make it "self-evident" to everyone else, or for that matter " a fact". But at least these issue should be capable of being addressed by rational discourse with a minimum of rhetoric.

- And yet some US contributors (if the cap fits, wear it) have reacted angrily as though their own rights are under attack in their own country, and resorted to extraordinary vitriol, questioning the age, motivations, courage and and knowledge of those voicing contrary views through a barrage of ad hominem attacks and smears by association. Shame on you!

[ruggbutt]

Originally Posted by unreasonable

- And yet some US contributors (if the cap fits, wear it) have reacted angrily as though their own rights are under attack in their own country................Shame on you!

What hasn't been discussed and I feel is every bit as important is the surveillance the British people are under. You can't walk 20 feet w/out government cameras watching..............IMHO that's even worse than them being unarmed. Brits can't be trusted, their government's actions say this with it's actions. There's a huge difference in our two cultures but I have to agree that the England of two decades ago isn't the same country. The people seem more "beat down". That was my impression anyway.

[Vengeanze]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

Apologies, I thought you were from the UK, didn't look at the top to see where you are from. And Brits, I do like your country, I've been there long ago (1972) and totally fell for the place, but I probably would not recognise it now.

I still wonder why you feel freedom as granted in our Constitution is out of date though? Times may change but basic human rights do not.

That's why we tossed Mad King George and his rented German thugs out in the first place.

We all have made our choices, and we all have the right to keep them as we see fit. Europeans are used to living in societies where power is exercized from the top down, because of centuries of conditioning being ruled by kings.

We rejected that right from the start and are used to power deriving from the people, and having founding fathers that understood that protecting the people from their government is the single most important aspect of civil life.

But enough of this banter, time for something completely different.

Bad spelling, posts about swedish bikiniteam and polarbears, socialist pov. And I thought I really stood out as a swede.

2nd amendment is not about freedom as a hole but freedom to bear firearms. A major difference there. When talking to pro-guns I get the feeling that they think I want to severely limit their freedom which is totally wrong - just a tiny bit of it.
Reason I highlight the year the 2nd amendment was adopted is because life was different back then. People needed guns to hunt and protect them selfs from wild animals plus that the lawenforcement system was more or less non existing compared to today.
I totally support the right to bear arms in 1791 and actually I support it for people who live lifes similar to back then (like some distant places like Alaska). However, I can't see the need for a gun when living uptown Dallas (as an example).

[BadAim]

Originally Posted by Vengeanze

Bad spelling, posts about swedish bikiniteam and polarbears, socialist pov. And I thought I really stood out as a swede.

2nd amendment is not about freedom as a hole but freedom to bear firearms. A major difference there. When talking to pro-guns I get the feeling that they think I want to severely limit their freedom which is totally wrong - just a tiny bit of it.
Reason I highlight the year the 2nd amendment was adopted is because life was different back then. People needed guns to hunt and protect them selfs from wild animals plus that the lawenforcement system was more or less non existing compared to today.
I totally support the right to bear arms in 1791 and actually I support it for people who live lifes similar to back then (like some distant places like Alaska). However, I can't see the need for a gun when living uptown Dallas (as an example).

Actually only the polar bears would really distinguish you from a Brit.

As for the second amendment, I'm afraid you are missing the context. The second amendment was certainly about freedom as a whole, as a matter of fact it's the second amendment that ensures all of the others.

You have to remember the context, mate. We had just tossed out the Brits by force of arms for infringing on our freedoms, of course the second amendment was about freedom. The founding fathers held as a given that free men had the absolute right to defend themselves, and that free communities had the right to band together to defend their communities (the militia), that's why the bill of rights was added later......it was simply unfinished business. (business that the original framers considered self evident).

You may disagree, but I certainly don't feel like we live in a safer world than they did. The majority of the framers of the constitution were rarely in danger of bear attacks, and I doubt many of them hunted except for sport. The predators they were concerned about were the two legged kind, both the typical dark alleyway variety and the political oppressor type. None of that has changed, if anything it has gotten worse.

I happen to like a lot of you guys, even if I think that your political views are divorced from reality. I don't believe that guns are the answer to all of your problems, but I don't believe they are the cause of any of them.

[Vengeanze]

Originally Posted by BadAim

Actually only the polar bears would really distinguish you from a Brit.

As for the second amendment, I'm afraid you are missing the context. The second amendment was certainly about freedom as a whole, as a matter of fact it's the second amendment that ensures all of the others.

You have to remember the context, mate. We had just tossed out the Brits by force of arms for infringing on our freedoms, of course the second amendment was about freedom. The founding fathers held as a given that free men had the absolute right to defend themselves, and that free communities had the right to band together to defend their communities (the militia), that's why the bill of rights was added later......it was simply unfinished business. (business that the original framers considered self evident).

You may disagree, but I certainly don't feel like we live in a safer world than they did. The majority of the framers of the constitution were rarely in danger of bear attacks, and I doubt many of them hunted except for sport. The predators they were concerned about were the two legged kind, both the typical dark alleyway variety and the political oppressor type. None of that has changed, if anything it has gotten worse.

I happen to like a lot of you guys, even if I think that your political views are divorced from reality. I don't believe that guns are the answer to all of your problems, but I don't believe they are the cause of any of them.

Makes sense.

[MD_Titus]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

You are living in a dream world if you believe that sir.

And why add the date of adoption of the US Constitution? Are you implying that somehow our freedoms are out of date?

If so you deserve the cess pool that your country is turning into.

and that's a bit strong el, i'm surprised you've said that really.

*is disappointed*

[nearmiss]

Originally Posted by nearmiss

So what's your take on the patriot act?

It is unconstitutional

...or perhaps when gun regulation makes it near impossible for villains to obtain a gun.

There are still states in the US where you can buy and trade guns at local guns shows without government paperwork.

You can buy semi-automatic weapons as well.

This thread is getting very close to political discussion, re-read what you are posting. Or... this thread may have run it's course for the topic.