Pages: 1 … 32 33 34 35 36 … 64

Topic closed

2011-01-12 04:54:41
presidentsheep
Back to the Fuhrer
+208|6220|Places 'n such

lowing wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:

lowing wrote:


don't recall John blaming you. He merely point out the fact that your govt. has disarmed you as a society, relieving you of your right to defend yourselves or your homes. Then he points out how advantageous that disarming is to your govt.
Not really, it's not too hard to get a gun here. It's tightly regulated but there's nothing stopping your average citizen owning one.
The government doesn't care if the population is armed, we have this wonderful system called "democracy" whereby we can change how the country is run by this stuff called "voting". It's a simple but effective means of getting stuff done, you should possibly suggest it to your local politician.
tightly regulated.....you want to explain how tight the regulation is?

You mean England's definition of "getting stuff done" is going from the most powerful and influential nation on earth to an island in the Atlantic that turns toward the US's leadership? No thanks, I just as soon NOT follow England's way of "getting stuff done". Doesn't sound too "effective", unless lap dog was the "effect" you were looking for.

Our govt. is designed to fear the people not the other way around. We have drifted from that philosophy but hopefully the people are regaining its footing.
The regulation is apply at a police station, they do some background checks and you have to provide a reason to own the gun. I'm not too familiar with the rules as I've never felt the need to own a gun as no-one is going to start shooting at me.
No ones bringing foreign policy into this, I'd love to see how you make the connection with tighter firearm regulation and Britain's decline as an empire, personally I believe its to do with loss of trade during world war one and two. Would love to hear your interpretation though, something i'm sure will be well referenced and balanced.
I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.
2011-01-12 04:58:58
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6365|eXtreme to the maX

lowing wrote:

Our govt. is designed to fear the people not the other way around.
In practise the govt only fears random crazies who threaten or kill politicians because they're inadequates with mental problems - not because the politicians have done anything in particular.

I'm not sure how this is of benefit to the political process.

Given the US has been a two-party state for the last 200 years and which works rather harder for corporations than for democracy I'd say the govt isn't really in fear of the average citizen at all.
Maybe some individual politicians are but then they'll just use your tax dollars to hire more bodyguards - how big is the President's security detail? Remind me who pays for it? I somehow doubt he's scared of anyone or anything barring a direct nuclear strike.
"Fear the people" LOL
Fuck Israel
2011-01-12 05:06:08
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6910|USA

presidentsheep wrote:

lowing wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:


Not really, it's not too hard to get a gun here. It's tightly regulated but there's nothing stopping your average citizen owning one.
The government doesn't care if the population is armed, we have this wonderful system called "democracy" whereby we can change how the country is run by this stuff called "voting". It's a simple but effective means of getting stuff done, you should possibly suggest it to your local politician.
tightly regulated.....you want to explain how tight the regulation is?

You mean England's definition of "getting stuff done" is going from the most powerful and influential nation on earth to an island in the Atlantic that turns toward the US's leadership? No thanks, I just as soon NOT follow England's way of "getting stuff done". Doesn't sound too "effective", unless lap dog was the "effect" you were looking for.

Our govt. is designed to fear the people not the other way around. We have drifted from that philosophy but hopefully the people are regaining its footing.
The regulation is apply at a police station, they do some background checks and you have to provide a reason to own the gun. I'm not too familiar with the rules as I've never felt the need to own a gun as no-one is going to start shooting at me.
No ones bringing foreign policy into this, I'd love to see how you make the connection with tighter firearm regulation and Britain's decline as an empire, personally I believe its to do with loss of trade during world war one and two. Would love to hear your interpretation though, something i'm sure will be well referenced and balanced.
You are the one spouting off about how great and "effective" your govt. is and how "voting" is how you "get stuff done". I merely was curious how or why you would "vote" your way into the lap of the US because it doesn't sound very "effective" being a lap dog .

Now, back to guns: Am I to assume I can tell your govt. I want a concealed carry permit for self defense, and if  I pass a back ground check I will be issued one and I can then purchase a concealed carry pistol? For the sake of your argument, I hope so.
2011-01-12 05:13:59
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6365|eXtreme to the maX

lowing wrote:

Now, back to guns: Am I to assume I can tell your govt. I want a concealed carry permit for self defense, and if  I pass a back ground check I will be issued one and I can then purchase a concealed carry pistol? For the sake of your argument, I hope so.
If you can convince the home secretary that you're under a real threat of being assassinated then he'll either supply you with a Police protection detail or a firearm for self-defense.

Otherwise he'll tell you you're crazy and should get a life instead of obsessing over imaginary threats.
Fuck Israel
2011-01-12 05:16:57
presidentsheep
Back to the Fuhrer
+208|6220|Places 'n such
No one voted into the lap of the US, it was a variety of economic and political factors dating back the last hundred or so years, foreign policy is dictated by the government of the time who have been elected. Seems a fairly simple concept to grasp in my opinion. The government who backed the US are no longer in power, due partly to their unswerving loyalty to US aggression. That seems like democracy in action to me...
Sometimes following another powers decision is more "effective", you don't necessarily have to be the one making the decisions to hold power, this idea is evident the fact that we removed the previous government by voting, they made decisions the populace didn't agree with therefore they're now not in power, a process which required no one to shoot anyone else.

Great, back to guns. Funny enough you can't carry a concealed pistol, because there's no need to. A point which I've continuously tried to make. no-one is going to shoot you. Our gun laws are there so that anyone who wants to own a gun for a real, functional, purpose; can. They're also in place to stop people going around with handguns hidden about their person and killing indiscriminately. Which coincidentally since the law banning pistols has been put in place, hasn't happened.
I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.
2011-01-12 05:18:06
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6910|USA

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

Our govt. is designed to fear the people not the other way around.
In practise the govt only fears random crazies who threaten or kill politicians because they're inadequates with mental problems - not because the politicians have done anything in particular.

I'm not sure how this is of benefit to the political process.

Given the US has been a two-party state for the last 200 years and which works rather harder for corporations than for democracy I'd say the govt isn't really in fear of the average citizen at all.
Maybe some individual politicians are but then they'll just use your tax dollars to hire more bodyguards - how big is the President's security detail? Remind me who pays for it? I somehow doubt he's scared of anyone or anything barring a direct nuclear strike.
"Fear the people" LOL
try quoting all of my post. I said it was designed to fear the people. IE we have the right and a duty to over through our govt. if it gets too powerful. Our govt. has moved away from that passing laws that further enable govt. and not the people. I also said hopefully we are moving back toward the way our govt. was intended. Power to the people.


Our Declaration of Independence states: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...”


it also states: “... That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness.”

So I am really not sure what you find so amusing.
2011-01-12 05:19:19
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6910|USA

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

Now, back to guns: Am I to assume I can tell your govt. I want a concealed carry permit for self defense, and if  I pass a back ground check I will be issued one and I can then purchase a concealed carry pistol? For the sake of your argument, I hope so.
If you can convince the home secretary that you're under a real threat of being assassinated then he'll either supply you with a Police protection detail or a firearm for self-defense.

Otherwise he'll tell you you're crazy and should get a life instead of obsessing over imaginary threats.
Well then so much for your argument about being able to defend yourself in England.
2011-01-12 05:20:11
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6365|eXtreme to the maX

lowing wrote:

try quoting all of my post. I said it was designed to fear the people. IE we have the right and a duty to over through our govt. if it gets too powerful. Our govt. has moved away from that passing laws that further enable govt. and not the people. I also said hopefully we are moving back toward the way our govt. was intended. Power to the people.


Our Declaration of Independence states: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...”


it also states: “... That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness.”

So I am really not sure what you find so amusing.
I still don't see how random crazies going postal and shooting random politicians is part of the system of government.

I'm reasonably confident its not what the founding fathers had in mind, maybe I'm wrong.
Fuck Israel
2011-01-12 05:20:55
presidentsheep
Back to the Fuhrer
+208|6220|Places 'n such

lowing wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

Now, back to guns: Am I to assume I can tell your govt. I want a concealed carry permit for self defense, and if  I pass a back ground check I will be issued one and I can then purchase a concealed carry pistol? For the sake of your argument, I hope so.
If you can convince the home secretary that you're under a real threat of being assassinated then he'll either supply you with a Police protection detail or a firearm for self-defense.

Otherwise he'll tell you you're crazy and should get a life instead of obsessing over imaginary threats.
Well then so much for your argument about being able to defend yourself in England.
There's nothing stopping you defending yourself in England, only difference is that we won't have to defend ourselves against some crazy with a gun.
I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.
2011-01-12 05:21:03
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6365|eXtreme to the maX

lowing wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

Now, back to guns: Am I to assume I can tell your govt. I want a concealed carry permit for self defense, and if  I pass a back ground check I will be issued one and I can then purchase a concealed carry pistol? For the sake of your argument, I hope so.
If you can convince the home secretary that you're under a real threat of being assassinated then he'll either supply you with a Police protection detail or a firearm for self-defense.

Otherwise he'll tell you you're crazy and should get a life instead of obsessing over imaginary threats.
Well then so much for your argument about being able to defend yourself in England.
It wasn't my argument, but yes you're allowed to defend yourself in England.
Most people really don't need a gun to defend themselves, hence they don't get one.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-01-12 05:23:32)

Fuck Israel
2011-01-12 05:22:50
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6910|USA

presidentsheep wrote:

No one voted into the lap of the US, it was a variety of economic and political factors dating back the last hundred or so years, foreign policy is dictated by the government of the time who have been elected. Seems a fairly simple concept to grasp in my opinion. The government who backed the US are no longer in power, due partly to their unswerving loyalty to US aggression. That seems like democracy in action to me...
Sometimes following another powers decision is more "effective", you don't necessarily have to be the one making the decisions to hold power, this idea is evident the fact that we removed the previous government by voting, they made decisions the populace didn't agree with therefore they're now not in power, a process which required no one to shoot anyone else.

Great, back to guns. Funny enough you can't carry a concealed pistol, because there's no need to. A point which I've continuously tried to make. no-one is going to shoot you. Our gun laws are there so that anyone who wants to own a gun for a real, functional, purpose; can. They're also in place to stop people going around with handguns hidden about their person and killing indiscriminately. Which coincidentally since the law banning pistols has been put in place, hasn't happened.
ok so stop trying to pass of your govt. as willing to let you own guns. You are not allowed to defend yourself in a life threatening situation. Which by the way, doesn't need to come in the form of someone pointing a gun at you
2011-01-12 05:24:15
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6910|USA

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:


If you can convince the home secretary that you're under a real threat of being assassinated then he'll either supply you with a Police protection detail or a firearm for self-defense.

Otherwise he'll tell you you're crazy and should get a life instead of obsessing over imaginary threats.
Well then so much for your argument about being able to defend yourself in England.
It wasn't my argument, but yes you're allowed to defend yourself in England.
really? how so, With someone breaking into your house. Oh I forgot, innocent people are never murdered in England.
2011-01-12 05:24:34
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6365|eXtreme to the maX

lowing wrote:

You are not allowed to defend yourself in a life threatening situation.
Yes you are.
Oh I forgot, innocent people are never murdered in England.
Funny, the US has triple the murder rate of the UK - why aren't all those guns helping?

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-01-12 05:25:57)

Fuck Israel
2011-01-12 05:26:18
presidentsheep
Back to the Fuhrer
+208|6220|Places 'n such

lowing wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:

No one voted into the lap of the US, it was a variety of economic and political factors dating back the last hundred or so years, foreign policy is dictated by the government of the time who have been elected. Seems a fairly simple concept to grasp in my opinion. The government who backed the US are no longer in power, due partly to their unswerving loyalty to US aggression. That seems like democracy in action to me...
Sometimes following another powers decision is more "effective", you don't necessarily have to be the one making the decisions to hold power, this idea is evident the fact that we removed the previous government by voting, they made decisions the populace didn't agree with therefore they're now not in power, a process which required no one to shoot anyone else.

Great, back to guns. Funny enough you can't carry a concealed pistol, because there's no need to. A point which I've continuously tried to make. no-one is going to shoot you. Our gun laws are there so that anyone who wants to own a gun for a real, functional, purpose; can. They're also in place to stop people going around with handguns hidden about their person and killing indiscriminately. Which coincidentally since the law banning pistols has been put in place, hasn't happened.
ok so stop trying to pass of your govt. as willing to let you own guns. You are not allowed to defend yourself in a life threatening situation. Which by the way, doesn't need to come in the form of someone pointing a gun at you
Please get a basic grasp of English criminal law before passing judgement on it.

do a research noob.

Last edited by presidentsheep (2011-01-12 05:32:19)

I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.
2011-01-12 05:32:36
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6910|USA

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

You are not allowed to defend yourself in a life threatening situation.
Yes you are.
Oh I forgot, innocent people are never murdered in England.
Funny, the US has triple the murder rate of the UK - why aren't all those guns helping?
well I don't plan on doing the research because I don't care enough to bother to do it myself. But I am forced to wonder how many of those murders are criminal on innocent victims compared to criminal on criminal. you know gang related, drug related etc....

I would also be interested to know how many of those killings are victim on criminal in the US compared to victim on criminal in the UK.

Last edited by lowing (2011-01-12 05:35:13)

2011-01-12 05:34:30
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6910|USA

presidentsheep wrote:

lowing wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:

No one voted into the lap of the US, it was a variety of economic and political factors dating back the last hundred or so years, foreign policy is dictated by the government of the time who have been elected. Seems a fairly simple concept to grasp in my opinion. The government who backed the US are no longer in power, due partly to their unswerving loyalty to US aggression. That seems like democracy in action to me...
Sometimes following another powers decision is more "effective", you don't necessarily have to be the one making the decisions to hold power, this idea is evident the fact that we removed the previous government by voting, they made decisions the populace didn't agree with therefore they're now not in power, a process which required no one to shoot anyone else.

Great, back to guns. Funny enough you can't carry a concealed pistol, because there's no need to. A point which I've continuously tried to make. no-one is going to shoot you. Our gun laws are there so that anyone who wants to own a gun for a real, functional, purpose; can. They're also in place to stop people going around with handguns hidden about their person and killing indiscriminately. Which coincidentally since the law banning pistols has been put in place, hasn't happened.
ok so stop trying to pass of your govt. as willing to let you own guns. You are not allowed to defend yourself in a life threatening situation. Which by the way, doesn't need to come in the form of someone pointing a gun at you
Please get a basic grasp of English criminal law before passing judgement on it.

do a research noob.
For what? I have you telling you can defend yourself in England, but you won't tell me how you do it, or with what you are allowed to defend yourself against say a knife attack. What are you allowed to do or use to defend yourself against an armed intruder?
2011-01-12 05:35:49
presidentsheep
Back to the Fuhrer
+208|6220|Places 'n such
Fuck it, i'm moving to America and building my own nuclear device to use in "self defence"
I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.
2011-01-12 05:38:20
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6910|USA

presidentsheep wrote:

Fuck it, i'm moving to America and building my own nuclear device to use in "self defence"
there you go again, trying to make an argument with unrealistic rhetoric...

I have made my points using realistic arguments, try doing the same, and answer the question
2011-01-12 05:41:34
presidentsheep
Back to the Fuhrer
+208|6220|Places 'n such

lowing wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:

Fuck it, i'm moving to America and building my own nuclear device to use in "self defence"
there you go again, trying to make an argument with unrealistic rhetoric...

I have made my points using realistic arguments, try doing the same, and answer the question
It's not unrealistic.
"the right to bear arms" I don't see any conditions on it.
Oh, unless your government has limited that? Holy shit! it's control, you're not allowed to nuke someone who threatens you with a knife! You're not even allowed to defend yourself in a life threatening situation!
I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.
2011-01-12 05:42:16
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|6908

Well this thread got popular. Quick summary of the past 10 pages someone?
2011-01-12 05:42:39
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6910|USA

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

try quoting all of my post. I said it was designed to fear the people. IE we have the right and a duty to over through our govt. if it gets too powerful. Our govt. has moved away from that passing laws that further enable govt. and not the people. I also said hopefully we are moving back toward the way our govt. was intended. Power to the people.


Our Declaration of Independence states: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...”


it also states: “... That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness.”

So I am really not sure what you find so amusing.
I still don't see how random crazies going postal and shooting random politicians is part of the system of government.

I'm reasonably confident its not what the founding fathers had in mind, maybe I'm wrong.
That is not my argument or my point, but  I think you know that. My point is, our govt. is designed to get its power from the people, with the people empowered to take it back from the govt. if it proves to be over controlling of the people. I said nothing about "crazies going postal" as a legal avenue for the people.
2011-01-12 05:43:19
presidentsheep
Back to the Fuhrer
+208|6220|Places 'n such

lowing wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

try quoting all of my post. I said it was designed to fear the people. IE we have the right and a duty to over through our govt. if it gets too powerful. Our govt. has moved away from that passing laws that further enable govt. and not the people. I also said hopefully we are moving back toward the way our govt. was intended. Power to the people.


Our Declaration of Independence states: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...”


it also states: “... That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness.”

So I am really not sure what you find so amusing.
I still don't see how random crazies going postal and shooting random politicians is part of the system of government.

I'm reasonably confident its not what the founding fathers had in mind, maybe I'm wrong.
That is not my argument or my point, but  I think you know that. My point is, our govt. is designed to get its power from the people, with the people empowered to take it back from the govt. if it proves to be over controlling of the people. I said nothing about "crazies going postal" as a legal avenue for the people.
Why do you need guns for that?
I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.
2011-01-12 05:46:34
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6910|USA

presidentsheep wrote:

lowing wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:

Fuck it, i'm moving to America and building my own nuclear device to use in "self defence"
there you go again, trying to make an argument with unrealistic rhetoric...

I have made my points using realistic arguments, try doing the same, and answer the question
It's not unrealistic.
"the right to bear arms" I don't see any conditions on it.
Oh, unless your government has limited that? Holy shit! it's control, you're not allowed to nuke someone who threatens you with a knife! You're not even allowed to defend yourself in a life threatening situation!
get back with me when can form a sensible argument answer the previously posted question, and stop with the bullshit.
2011-01-12 05:48:10
presidentsheep
Back to the Fuhrer
+208|6220|Places 'n such

lowing wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:

lowing wrote:


there you go again, trying to make an argument with unrealistic rhetoric...

I have made my points using realistic arguments, try doing the same, and answer the question
It's not unrealistic.
"the right to bear arms" I don't see any conditions on it.
Oh, unless your government has limited that? Holy shit! it's control, you're not allowed to nuke someone who threatens you with a knife! You're not even allowed to defend yourself in a life threatening situation!
get back with me when can form a sensible argument answer the previously posted question, and stop with the bullshit.
Such dazzling rhetoric.
I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.
2011-01-12 05:49:08
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6910|USA

presidentsheep wrote:

lowing wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:


I still don't see how random crazies going postal and shooting random politicians is part of the system of government.

I'm reasonably confident its not what the founding fathers had in mind, maybe I'm wrong.
That is not my argument or my point, but  I think you know that. My point is, our govt. is designed to get its power from the people, with the people empowered to take it back from the govt. if it proves to be over controlling of the people. I said nothing about "crazies going postal" as a legal avenue for the people.
Why do you need guns for that?
Because an unarmed citizenry are at the mercy of any govt.

Topic closed

Pages: 1 … 32 33 34 35 36 … 64

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard