Easier to Kill w/ a Gun Than W/out a Gun

[Cockney_Blue]

Rainjack

Why is the sky blue? It just is. Why is your idea stupid? The Second Amendment guarantees me the right to keep and bear arms. Why would the government criminalize a right expressly granted to me in the Constitution?

That right there is utter stupidity. Sorry if you don’t agree, but that’s all the defense I need to have of my position.

If that is not a statement of faith, I don’t know what is. No Strawman here.

Thank you for the quotes, there were some interesting ones that I had not seen before.

Here are some for you

“?the matter of personal or individual self-defense, whether from wild animals or modern-day predators, does not fall within, nor is it dependent on, the Second Amendment rubric. Nothing in the history, construction, or interpretation of the Amendment applies or infers such a protection. Rather, legal protection for personal self-defense arises from the British common law tradition and modern criminal law; not from constitutional law.” Robert Spitzer

Another from him “the Second Amendment pertains only to citizen service in a government-organized and regulated militia”.

So are you a member of a militia?

[quote]Uh…then what about your idea that anyone caught holding a pistol should be tried for attempted murder?
[/quote]

Carrying a handgun in a shopping mall is a bit different from having a hunting rifle on a hunting trip.

My position that I have been pretty consistent with across various threads is that Americans are conditioned to feel that a gun is a an essential part of self defence and that they are at high personal risk.

And that both of these feelings are exagerations brought on by the environment that Americans are brought up in.

Finally that this leads to an actual increased risk of harm to Americans in the US and dangerous attitudes in global politics.

[Cockney_Blue]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Seinix wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

In an ideal world everyone should be allowed to do whatever they like. In theory, Anarchy is the best political system.

Problem is, that doesn’t seem to work in practice.

Anarchy is more of a principal than a political system. Anarchy is all about survival of the fittest, and consequently adaptability. Adaptability is the key here. You see, in fact, government is a manifestation of anarchy. 100,000 years ago, when homo sapiens first emerged, you might consider their primitive society as close to anarchy as humans have ever gotten. Why is it then, that we have complex governments today?

Because, as dictated by darwinism, by constantly rejecting what is useless and keeping what is useful, humans have over time developed the governments that we live under today.

Thus, anarchy is NOT the best political system. The political systems we have now are the best, until something better emerges, due to darwin’s principal. If anarchy truly were the best political system, humans would be living in it now. Conversely, if our modern governments are worse than anarchy, then they would have never emerged.

You got it backwards. There is no real “best”. There is only nature and understanding how it works. All animals live in an anarchic state where they are left to their own devises to pick and choose their own means of survival. Anarchy is just the state that exists when people realize there are no real means to bring about a controlled way of organization. It is the antithesis of an all consuming socialist State – i.e, communism. Liberal government is a closer reflection of living in a real anarchist society and this is because individuals are generally free to live to the best of their nature given abilities.

All organisms “organize” – hence they can be called “organisms”. Anarchy is just the way things really organize under naturally, chaotic processes and every other “system” that tries to thwart those processes are just illusions of control.[/quote]

Sorry, you are right, for best read most natural.

[Cockney_Blue]

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
For rainman and the various other people on the Justin Eilers thread who have a real hard time understanding a basic point.

In an ideal world everyone should be allowed to do whatever they like. In theory, Anarchy is the best political system.

Problem is, that doesn’t seem to work in practice. If there had been no guns in Justin Eiler’s murderer’s houes, there is a good likelihood that no-one would have died. the root cause of the problem was drink and aggression, the gun turned a bad situation into a nightmare.

Pure speculation.

I would suggest that the gun laws in the US have nothing to do with people being able to protect themselves and are more to do with a small but influential group of people who use scare tactics to promote their own selfish agenda.

Who are these people and what is their agenda?

Your average NRA member is not affected by the terrible problems that easy access to guns cause in underprivilaged communities in the US and what’s more, they couldn’t care less.

So, you do not know the basic composition of the NRA, let alone their individual concerns or mindset, and you would like to assume to understand such specifics as this?

OK, lets see if people can respond to this without the need to resort to name calling, offensive language or straw man arguments.

Since there is no statement of fact here, just supposition and assumption, what is there to resopnd to?

Lemme guess! You’re one of those high minded intelectuals who makes assumptions based on conclusions drawn from previous assumptions, Huh?

Tail chasing ninny. No wonder you ended up in mexico.

[/quote]

Of course it is speculation about Eilers, I was not there and we have no chance to replay the scenario diferently.

I have repeatedly stated that I don’t understand why their a are groups of Americans who feel that they need powerful guns for self defence, I have speculated but would imagine that you might have a better view on this than me.

What there is to respond to is the speculation, you can agree or disagree putting up support for your arguments. It’s called debating a point. It’s what discussion forums are built on.

Making a set of assumptions then investigating through argument whether there is support for those assumptions or not is a pretty standard philisophical method. It has nothing to do with why I am in Mexico.

[rainjack]

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Rainjack

Why is the sky blue? It just is. Why is your idea stupid? The Second Amendment guarantees me the right to keep and bear arms. Why would the government criminalize a right expressly granted to me in the Constitution?

That right there is utter stupidity. Sorry if you don’t agree, but that’s all the defense I need to have of my position.

If that is not a statement of faith, I don’t know what is. No Strawman here.[/quote]

Then you obviously don’t know what a statement of faith is. And yes, it is a straw man.

And seeing as how you are not native to the US, the first two sentences, “Why is the sky blue? It just is” are quoting from the movie, “Joe Dirt”.

[quote]Thank you for the quotes, there were some interesting ones that I had not seen before.

Here are some for you

“?the matter of personal or individual self-defense, whether from wild animals or modern-day predators, does not fall within, nor is it dependent on, the Second Amendment rubric. Nothing in the history, construction, or interpretation of the Amendment applies or infers such a protection. Rather, legal protection for personal self-defense arises from the British common law tradition and modern criminal law; not from constitutional law.” Robert Spitzer

Another from him “the Second Amendment pertains only to citizen service in a government-organized and regulated militia”.

So are you a member of a militia?[/quote]

You are using the opinion of a political scientist as proof? Girlfriend, that’s like me using quotes from Wayne LaPierre. When I say proof - I mean objective proof. But, you should go and search Youtube for Wayne LaPierre debate videos. You might learn something.

Carrying a handgun in a shopping mall is a bit different from having a hunting rifle on a hunting trip.

Who does this? I mean besides criminals and some law enforcement?

You ignorance of what goes on in the US is astounding.

[quote]My position that I have been pretty consistent with across various threads is that Americans are conditioned to feel that a gun is a an essential part of self defence and that they are at high personal risk.

And that both of these feelings are exagerations brought on by the environment that Americans are brought up in.

Finally that this leads to an actual increased risk of harm to Americans in the US and dangerous attitudes in global politics.[/quote]

This last section is just too full of baseless opinion to even deserve a reply.

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
I have repeatedly stated that I don’t understand why their a are groups of Americans who feel that they need powerful guns for self defence…
[/quote]

See the post about my parents. There only immediate form of defense is themselves.

[Cockney_Blue]

[quote]hedo wrote:
Doubtful. Most crimes don’t immediately escalate to lethal force. Why would you think they would?

Your speculations to support your argurments are becoming absurd. Simply choosing to act more sheepishly when attacked being stalked by a wolf doesn’t deter it. Being more wolf like does. Then the agressor needs to make the very real choice of dying or fleeing. The presence of a weapon in the hands of the target helps that decision making process considerably.

[/quote]

This doesn’t make sense to me? People claim to need a gun because they are in mortal danger, now you are saying that they are not in mortal danger however everyone should carry guns so that the criminals are scared into behaving.

Wouldn’t it just make them more likely to carry a gun and more likely to use it? Who is more likely to shoot first, someone who has already crossed the line into being a criminal or the law abiding person?

Simply because you can’t imagine a situation where you would have the courage to defend yourself with lethal force doesn’t mean those with less fear of confrontation should be penalized.

Why am I a coward if I am not afraid to walk around without a gun? Surely the person who is in such fear that they need to get a gun just to feel safe is more the coward.

The world is divided into sheep, wolves and sheepdogs. The sheepdogs don’t generally take fighing advice from the sheep. Back to your flock now.

No it is not, don’t be so patronising, childish and simplistic. Life is not a western movie, it’s not about good guys and bad guys.

[Sifu]

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Instead of calling the idea stupid, try explaining why. Are you seriously telling me that large numbers of criminals from Texas and Florida are packing up shop and moving to other states because they are worried about being shot? Would they not be more likely to just go and buy a gun and get a concealed carry permit? [/quote]

Cockney Blue I have read your posts and I have to say that given your screen name and your views you sound like a typical British Twat. But I see you are in Mexico. So are you a Mexican or are you a British Twat?

Your latching onto the Eilers case is a typical example of British twats thinking. You completely ignore the fact that what happened was a case of domestic violence and the very important fact that such cases are notoriously violent in all countries with all manner of deadly weapons used.

So it’s not just guns because knives and bats can be used just as readily. But that doesn’t matter to twats like you. All you care about is grabbing any excuse you can to justify your bullshit agenda.

Another example of just how much of a twat you are is how you can talk so much shit while living in Mexico of all places. Mexico has one of the highest murder rates in the world. Mexico’s murder rate is several orders of magnitude greater than Texas. Even though Mexico has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world. In Mexico the only people who are allowed to own guns are violent, drug dealing gangs and the military and police who work for them.

Then there is Britain which is a jacker’s paradise thanks to cunts like you! Here is a good example of the mess that your kind have made.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/4208455/Son-of-village-postmaster-shot-dead-in-armed-robbery--in-Worcestershire-Bromsgrove.html

This article is another good example of the mentality of British twats. Because the version that was posted earlier today said that this crime was the latest in a string of armed robberies of businesses in the area that has been going on for some time. Obviously the cunts at the Telegraph must have realized that piece of information showed how useless the police are in deterring armed robbers and that people who have a demonstrable need for a means of self defense are denied it.

[quote]
rainjack, there is no strawman in the argument you comment on, I chose the word cowboy deliberately because I thought it would resonate with you given that you are from Texas, why would my foot be in my mouth? I assumed that you were a redneck rooting tooting cowboy type from your previous comments, and you are now agreeing that it was a correct assumption. [/quote]

You chose the term cowboy because it is a prejudicial term used to conjure up a mental image of a dumb redneck country fuck. This is a common rhetorical tactic used by British cunts to denigrate American gun owners so you can pretend that gun control represents some kind if intelligent urban enlightenment.

[quote]
The second amendment is totally outdated. It’s something that was written down a long time ago for a different set of circumstances. [/quote]

Another British cunts argument. You are full of shit. The passage of time has not changed the human condition. The second amendment is every bit as relevant today as when it was written. You know damn well circumstances have not changed otherwise you would not make such a vague statement without substantiating it by explaining just how circumstances have changed.

[quote]
When people wonder why the UK has no written constitution, this is the point that they are missing. If you write down a constitution you risk it being taken totally out of context by people either with an agenda or a basic lack of understanding a number of years later. This is exactly what has happened. [/quote]

Bollocks. The right to keep and bear arms is derived from the British bill of rights. Having a written constitution gives the people a means of holding the government to established rules of conduct. Without a constitution the government can do as it pleases and make laws up as it feels like it.

[quote]
How is me asking you what a word that I don’t know means correcting you? You seriously do come across as very touchy.

What are you all so scared of that you cannot intelligently debate gun control? Why the hysteria?

And if you are trying to get a rise out of me by attacking the failings of Mexico then you are aiming at the wrong person. There are a huge number of things to love about Mexico but there is also a shit load wrong with it. I live here out of choice, not because I have to. [/quote]

Ah so you are not a Mexican you are a British cunt. That explains a lot. You are not trapped in the fucked up situation that average Mexicans are in because you can leave any time. It will serve you right if you get jacked by some of the corrupt policemen that Mexico is notorious for. Maybe then you will get to see the other side. The side of a people who are defenseless against crime or governmental corruption and tyranny.

[Cockney_Blue]

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Rainjack

Why is the sky blue? It just is. Why is your idea stupid? The Second Amendment guarantees me the right to keep and bear arms. Why would the government criminalize a right expressly granted to me in the Constitution?

That right there is utter stupidity. Sorry if you don’t agree, but that’s all the defense I need to have of my position.

If that is not a statement of faith, I don’t know what is. No Strawman here.

Then you obviously don’t know what a statement of faith is. And yes, it is a straw man.

And seeing as how you are not native to the US, the first two sentences, “Why is the sky blue? It just is” are quoting from the movie, “Joe Dirt”.
[/quote]
A statement of faith is saying something is just because it is just because I believe it to be so. Which is exactly what you did.

Sorry I missed the reference, haven’t seen the movie. Is it worth watching?

You are using the opinion of a political scientist as proof? Girlfriend, that’s like me using quotes from Wayne LaPierre. When I say proof - I mean objective proof. But, you should go and search Youtube for Wayne LaPierre debate videos. You might learn something.

I will, thank you. I find the debate interesting. You were using quotes from politicians and famous thinkers who were advancing their personal agenda, not much difference there.

Actual proof is, you are right, very hard to come by. All of the studies are obviously heavily biased by who is carrying them out and why.

Carrying a handgun in a shopping mall is a bit different from having a hunting rifle on a hunting trip.

Who does this? I mean besides criminals and some law enforcement?

You ignorance of what goes on in the US is astounding.

Several people here are saying that concealed carrying of weapons at all times would decrease crime. Would they not be carrying when they go to the mall? Do no muggings happen at the mall?

This last section is just too full of baseless opinion to even deserve a reply.

That is a cop out and you know it. I proposed a theory as to why the situation exists, if you do not feel capable of putting a counter argument then fine.

Do you really think that attitudes to guns in the US are not linked to conditioning from upbringing?

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
hedo wrote:
Doubtful. Most crimes don’t immediately escalate to lethal force. Why would you think they would?

Your speculations to support your argurments are becoming absurd. Simply choosing to act more sheepishly when attacked being stalked by a wolf doesn’t deter it. Being more wolf like does. Then the agressor needs to make the very real choice of dying or fleeing. The presence of a weapon in the hands of the target helps that decision making process considerably.

This doesn’t make sense to me? People claim to need a gun because they are in mortal danger, now you are saying that they are not in mortal danger however everyone should carry guns so that the criminals are scared into behaving.

Wouldn’t it just make them more likely to carry a gun and more likely to use it? Who is more likely to shoot first, someone who has already crossed the line into being a criminal or the law abiding person?

Simply because you can’t imagine a situation where you would have the courage to defend yourself with lethal force doesn’t mean those with less fear of confrontation should be penalized.

Why am I a coward if I am not afraid to walk around without a gun? Surely the person who is in such fear that they need to get a gun just to feel safe is more the coward.

The world is divided into sheep, wolves and sheepdogs. The sheepdogs don’t generally take fighing advice from the sheep. Back to your flock now.

No it is not, don’t be so patronising, childish and simplistic. Life is not a western movie, it’s not about good guys and bad guys.[/quote]

When you ban guns, doesn’t violence with knives and clubs become easier and less risky?

I have no problem with you walking around without a gun. I have no problem with you thinking it’s best and safer that way. I have a problem with you telling me what’s safer for me.

Maybe you don’t see the value of exercising freedom of religion. Maybe you are atheist and think religion is silly and harmful to society. But I’ll be damned if you are going to try to tell me or any of my countrymen how to believe or act religiously.

I have a 12-gage at home. I feel that I am safer with it in my house. You should have to keep one in your house too.

[rainjack]

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
That is a cop out and you know it. I proposed a theory as to why the situation exists, if you do not feel capable of putting a counter argument then fine.[/quote]

Because of your ignorance of US society. You are so full of insulting sterotypes that it is painfully obvious to even - what did you call me? - a redneck rooting tooting cowboy type that you have no idea what you are talking about when you attempt to insult the citizenry of the US and the rights enumerated to them by the Constitution.

[quote]
Do you really think that attitudes to guns in the US are not linked to conditioning from upbringing?[/quote]

Do you really think you can paint a nation made up of bastards from all the other nations with one brush?

Good luck with that one. I don’t presume to be a bigot of that magnitude.

[Sifu]

[quote]FormerlyTexasGuy wrote:
tom63 wrote:
BTW, I’m 45, own a business and have been a life member of the NRA for 20 years. I’m upper middle class, go deer hunting and I’m very politically conservative.

I’m very well trained and very safe with guns. My kids are well trained and enjoy hunting ( 14 year old twins, boy and girl). I do not seeing how limiting our rights would help people living in an urban area.

The crack dealers didn’t have a 3 day wait or background check before they got their crack. Urban crime has more to do with other factors than with the availability of guns.

I live in an urban area, grew up in suburban area and love going out of town during hunting season with my guns. I don’t see how taking my hunting rifles helps criminals who will get guns anyways.

And if people start coming after my fishing poles too, they will have fillet knives thrown right between their eyes. [/quote]

Nobody in their right mind, who has read your posts would ever think to fuck with you, your family or your shit.

[rainjack]

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Nobody in their right mind, who has read your posts would ever think to fuck with you, your family or your shit. [/quote]

Are you for real?

[Sifu]

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
It is strange to me that when I try to discuss whether people in the US need guns to the extent that they feel that they do people react as if I am trying to cut their dick off.

I am not a US citizen, my opinion is insignificant when it comes to US law and any changes to it, I am just asking questions about why people feel the way that they do and I get a stream of anger and insults. [/quote]

Bollocks. A few years ago a bunch British cunts from amnesty international managed to put a gun control law to a vote in Brazil. When they rejected it by a two thirds majority amnesty tried to blame their loss on lobbying by the gun industry rather than accept that the Brazilians have a legitimate need for guns.

People like you are a threat, so stop trying to play coy.

[quote]
I have repeatedly stated that I don’t see any problem with people having guns for hunting or for sport shooting if kept in a proven responsible manner. I have even stated that I don’t think that tightening gun control laws would actually make much difference. [/quote]

Hunting and other sports are irrelevant. Americans have the right to keep and bear arms so they can protect themselves.

[quote]
What I have tried to understand is why people in the US think they are in such danger that they need to carry a gun for defence (or have one in their house) when people in places with worse crime statistics do not feel this need. [/quote]

Try telling that to my neighbors in Detroit.

[quote]
I think it comes down to the conditioning that is received from birth, through school and beyond. People spend so much time jumping up and down about the defence of their rights under the constitution that they don’t ever question the constitution, why it was written or even what is written in it. [/quote]

You are the one who is not questioning. You have been filled full of British liberal swill and now you are spewing it at us without thinking.

This feeling of being American and what it entails seems similar to Mexican Catholicism. There are lots of people here who will scream on about religion but you try to talk to them about the real wording and contents of the Bible and the reason that it was written and they have no idea.

To say that everyone has the right to bear arms because it says so in the second amendment is not an argument, it is an article of faith, the same as saying you shouldn?t work on the Sabbath because it says so in the ten commandments.

Again you are very wrong. Americans are raised to not put blind faith and trust in the government no matter how wonderful they may think it is. Rod Blagojevich shows that this healthy distrust of government is as relevant today as it ever was.

Americans also are very supportive of individual freedom and independence. Unlike the British who want people to be as dependent upon the government as possible.

Today Europe and Britain in particular are a slow motion train wreck. The reason why you all want to talk so much trash about the US is because it is easier to point out faults in others than it is to admit to your own problems and deal with them.

[Doug_Adams]

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Nobody in their right mind, who has read your posts would ever think to fuck with you, your family or your shit.

Are you for real? [/quote]

Easy killer. He’s complimenting one of the allies.

Let’s point you back in the direction of Cockney Blue.

Ready? Go get 'em!

Lol…

[Cockney_Blue]

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue I have read your posts and I have to say that given your screen name and your views you sound like a typical British Twat. But I see you are in Mexico. So are you a Mexican or are you a British Twat?
[/quote]

British twat though possibly in the future I will have dual nationality which would make me both.

Your latching onto the Eilers case is a typical example of British twats thinking. You completely ignore the fact that what happened was a case of domestic violence and the very important fact that such cases are notoriously violent in all countries with all manner of deadly weapons used.

I guess you have not read all of the posts, fair enough there are a lot, I have repeatedly stated that the gun was not the root cause and that drink and anger where just as much to blame.

So it’s not just guns because knives and bats can be used just as readily. But that doesn’t matter to twats like you. All you care about is grabbing any excuse you can to justify your bullshit agenda.

This has already been addressed. Feel free to do some catch up reading.

Another example of just how much of a twat you are is how you can talk so much shit while living in Mexico of all places. Mexico has one of the highest murder rates in the world. Mexico’s murder rate is several orders of magnitude greater than Texas.

Even though Mexico has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world. In Mexico the only people who are allowed to own guns are violent, drug dealing gangs and the military and police who work for them.

A permit to carry is actually pretty easy to get here in Mexico and you are totally backing up my point. People here in general do not feel the need to buy guns even though the murder rate is higher. My question is why?

Then there is Britain which is a jacker’s paradise thanks to cunts like you! Here is a good example of the mess that your kind have made.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/4208455/Son-of-village-postmaster-shot-dead-in-armed-robbery--in-Worcestershire-Bromsgrove.html

This article is another good example of the mentality of British twats. Because the version that was posted earlier today said that this crime was the latest in a string of armed robberies of businesses in the area that has been going on for some time.

Obviously the cunts at the Telegraph must have realized that piece of information showed how useless the police are in deterring armed robbers and that people who have a demonstrable need for a means of self defense are denied it.

This story makes a national paper just because it is so unusual that it sells papers. Why would the telegraph have any vested interest in painting the police in a good light? The papers try to sensationalise where possible, more likely the revision was due to fact checking.

You chose the term cowboy because it is a prejudicial term used to conjure up a mental image of a dumb redneck country fuck. This is a common rhetorical tactic used by British cunts to denigrate American gun owners so you can pretend that gun control represents some kind if intelligent urban enlightenment.

unlike you who wants to portray anyone who wants to have an intelligent discussion about gun ownership as being of a lower manliness or intelligence.

Another British cunts argument. You are full of shit. The passage of time has not changed the human condition. The second amendment is every bit as relevant today as when it was written. You know damn well circumstances have not changed otherwise you would not make such a vague statement without substantiating it by explaining just how circumstances have changed.

So by your definition the US is currently a newly emergent republic which has just thrown off the shackles of control from a powerful British Empire which has a serving militia in each of its states. The majority of the population of course needs to hunt in order to get it’s daily dietary needs and lives in very real risk of attack from dangerous animals.

There has been no change in the US since 1776. And you call me a twat?

Bollocks. The right to keep and bear arms is derived from the British bill of rights. Having a written constitution gives the people a means of holding the government to established rules of conduct. Without a constitution the government can do as it pleases and make laws up as it feels like it.

Actually it was based on the English Bill of rights a 1689 document that (amongst other things) gave Protestants colonists the right to bear arms.

I am not arguing that the US should tear up it’s constitution, what I am stating is that there are statutes on the books in both the US and the UK that are now outdated.

[quote]
Ah so you are not a Mexican you are a British cunt. That explains a lot. You are not trapped in the fucked up situation that average Mexicans are in because you can leave any time. It will serve you right if you get jacked by some of the corrupt policemen that Mexico is notorious for. Maybe then you will get to see the other side. The side of a people who are defenseless against crime or governmental corruption and tyranny. [/quote]

You obviously don’t have a very good understanding of what is going on in Mexico.

Yes there are a lot of problems but the country has come a long way in a short time and I am proud that I am able to be part of the group working towards a better future for the country.

[PRCalDude]

[quote]Doug Adams wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Nobody in their right mind, who has read your posts would ever think to fuck with you, your family or your shit.

Are you for real?

Easy killer. He’s complimenting one of the allies.

Let’s point you back in the direction of Cockney Blue.

Ready? Go get 'em!

Lol…[/quote]

LOL. RJ needs to start counting to 10 before hitting “submit.”

[Cockney_Blue]

[quote]rainjack wrote:

Because of your ignorance of US society. You are so full of insulting sterotypes that it is painfully obvious to even - what did you call me? - a redneck rooting tooting cowboy type that you have no idea what you are talking about when you attempt to insult the citizenry of the US and the rights enumerated to them by the Constitution.
[/quote]
the rootin tootin cowboy was a wisecrack, sorry if it offended you (I doubt it actually did.)

Why am I insulting people by questioning their beliefs? If there is a strong basis for the beliefts based on fact it should be easy to respond.

Do you really think that attitudes to guns in the US are not linked to conditioning from upbringing?

Do you really think you can paint a nation made up of bastards from all the other nations with one brush?

Good luck with that one. I don’t presume to be a bigot of that magnitude.

So is that a yes or a no?

[hedo]

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
hedo wrote:
Doubtful. Most crimes don’t immediately escalate to lethal force. Why would you think they would?

Your speculations to support your argurments are becoming absurd. Simply choosing to act more sheepishly when attacked being stalked by a wolf doesn’t deter it. Being more wolf like does. Then the agressor needs to make the very real choice of dying or fleeing. The presence of a weapon in the hands of the target helps that decision making process considerably.

This doesn’t make sense to me? People claim to need a gun because they are in mortal danger, now you are saying that they are not in mortal danger however everyone should carry guns so that the criminals are scared into behaving.

Wouldn’t it just make them more likely to carry a gun and more likely to use it? Who is more likely to shoot first, someone who has already crossed the line into being a criminal or the law abiding person?

Simply because you can’t imagine a situation where you would have the courage to defend yourself with lethal force doesn’t mean those with less fear of confrontation should be penalized.

Why am I a coward if I am not afraid to walk around without a gun? Surely the person who is in such fear that they need to get a gun just to feel safe is more the coward.

The world is divided into sheep, wolves and sheepdogs. The sheepdogs don’t generally take fighing advice from the sheep. Back to your flock now.

No it is not, don’t be so patronising, childish and simplistic. Life is not a western movie, it’s not about good guys and bad guys.[/quote]

It may not make sense to you but whether you have the perspective to understand the argument is of no regard to me. Your lack of perspective simply doesn’t allow you to make an informed judgement to support your political bias, the real point of your argument by the way.

You may infer that you are a coward from my post but that assumption is your own and is due to your own self esteem. Should you chose not to carry a gun, when it is legal and practical to do so, simply points out that you are naive or have a fear of inatimate objects.

Most people are naive with regard to confrontation and self defense. They are called sheep. Blissfully unaware or prepared…you choose.

And yes it is rather easy to divide the wolves from the sheep and the sheepdogs. Sorry to burst your bubble. I broke it down simplisticly because you seem to be having trouble with the concept. Unfortunately I can’t make it any more simplistic for you.

By the way the “West” was far more rational and rough then you would be comfortable with. “Life” may not be a western movie but the value of self reliance remains just as relevant today as it did then.

[Sifu]

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Rainjack

Why is the sky blue? It just is. Why is your idea stupid? The Second Amendment guarantees me the right to keep and bear arms. Why would the government criminalize a right expressly granted to me in the Constitution?

That right there is utter stupidity. Sorry if you don’t agree, but that’s all the defense I need to have of my position.

If that is not a statement of faith, I don’t know what is. No Strawman here.

Thank you for the quotes, there were some interesting ones that I had not seen before.

Here are some for you

"?the matter of personal or individual self-defense, whether from wild animals or modern-day predators, does not fall within, nor is it dependent on, the Second Amendment rubric. Nothing in the history, construction, or interpretation of the Amendment applies or infers such a protection.

Rather, legal protection for personal self-defense arises from the British common law tradition and modern criminal law; not from constitutional law." Robert Spitzer

Another from him “the Second Amendment pertains only to citizen service in a government-organized and regulated militia”. [/quote]

Spitzer is not a legal expert, he’s a goddamn psychiatrist. In the Heller case the US Supreme Court ruled that owning a gun for self defense is a second amendment right. So Spitzer doesn’t know what he is talking about and neither do you.

No the Second Amendment does not say a government run militia, it specifically says that forming into trained militia is a right of the people.

Additionally if you read the First Amendment you will see that the last part of that amendment guarantees “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The First guarantees the right to assemble, while the Second expands upon that right because it guarantees the right to assemble armed. This is a right of the people not the government.

[quote]
So are you a member of a militia?

Uh…then what about your idea that anyone caught holding a pistol should be tried for attempted murder?

Carrying a handgun in a shopping mall is a bit different from having a hunting rifle on a hunting trip. [/quote]

It depends what you are hunting or more importantly what may be hunting you while you are out in the wild or in your local mall. Mall parking lots are a jackers hunting ground, because there are people with money, purchases or both.

[quote]
My position that I have been pretty consistent with across various threads is that Americans are conditioned to feel that a gun is a an essential part of self defence and that they are at high personal risk. [/quote]

Guns are an excellent tool for self defense. Not as high of a risk as people in Britain where people are conditioned to believe that only their betters deserve to have such protection while commoners should only be allowed to defend their worthless lives with their bare hands.

[quote]
And that both of these feelings are exagerations brought on by the environment that Americans are brought up in. [/quote]

The environment here in America is better than the one in Britain. It’s a lot safer.

[quote]
Finally that this leads to an actual increased risk of harm to Americans in the US and dangerous attitudes in global politics.[/quote]

You are talking out of your ass. The British have way worse attitudes in global politics than Americans. Just look at how vulnerable Britain’s are to being attacked on the high seas by pirates. You don’t see American ships being taken by Somali pirates.

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
orion wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
When people wonder why the UK has no written constitution, this is the point that they are missing. If you write down a constitution you risk it being taken totally out of context by people either with an agenda or a basic lack of understanding a number of years later. This is exactly what has happened.

When our founders spoke of their frustration with Parliament and the Crown they often referred to how the British Constitution was being violated as were their rights as Englishmen. The problem was that no one could exactly put their finger on exactly what those rights were. Why? BECAUSE NO ONE WROTE IT DOWN!

Consider Germany. They do not have a first amendment. In the same country holocaust denial is a crime. Many on the left here have spoken out to make global warming denial a crime in America. But so long as we have our first amendment written down you can always put your finger on exactly what that right is (although even that is often flaunted).

Rights are not malleable. You cannot redefine them at will to meet with evolving norms. Yet without it put to stone you can always justify an infringement.

Our rights are under attack now as strongly as ever before. The right to bear arms sees to it that you respect my rights or else I will fucking kill you. To fail to support a vigorous defense of individual rights is to deny the existence of any rights altogether.

mike

Artikel 5

(1) Jeder hat das Recht, seine Meinung in Wort, Schrift und Bild frei zu äußern und zu verbreiten und sich aus allgemein zugänglichen Quellen ungehindert zu unterrichten. Die Pressefreiheit und die Freiheit der Berichterstattung durch Rundfunk und Film werden gewährleistet. Eine Zensur findet nicht statt.

(2) Diese Rechte finden ihre Schranken in den Vorschriften der allgemeinen Gesetze, den gesetzlichen Bestimmungen zum Schutze der Jugend und in dem Recht der persönlichen Ehre.

(3) Kunst und Wissenschaft, Forschung und Lehre sind frei. Die Freiheit der Lehre entbindet nicht von der Treue zur Verfassung.

Article 5, German constitution.

Artikel 10.
Recht der freien Meinungsäußerung

(1) Jeder hat Anspruch auf freie Meinungsäußerung. Dieses Recht schließt die Freiheit der Meinung und die Freiheit zum Empfang und zur Mitteilung von Nachrichten oder Ideen ohne Eingriff öffentlicher Behörden und ohne Rücksicht auf Landesgrenzen ein. Dieser Artikel schließt nicht aus, daß die Staaten Rundfunk-, Lichtspiel- oder Fernsehunternehmen einem Genehmigungsverfahren unterwerfen.

(2) Da die Ausübung dieser Freiheiten Pflichten und Verantwortung mit sich bringt, kann sie bestimmten, vom Gesetz vorgesehenen Formvorschriften, Bedingungen, Einschränkungen oder Strafdrohungen unterworfen werden, wie sie im Gesetz vorgeschrieben und in einer demokratischen Gesellschaft im Interesse der nationalen Sicherheit,

der Aufrechterhaltung der Ordnung und der Verbrechensverhütung, des Schutzes der Gesundheit und der Moral, des Schutzes des guten Rufes oder der Rechte anderer, um die Verbreitung von vertraulichen Nachrichten zu verhindern oder das Ansehen und die Unparteilichkeit der Rechtsprechung zu gewährleisten, unentbehrlich sind.

Article 10, European Convention of Human Rights

Care to fill me in there Orion?

mike[/quote]

Article 5

(1) everyone has the right to express his opinion in word and spread writing and pictures freely and inform themselves unhindered with generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and the freedom of reports by broadcast and film are ensured. Censorship will not take place.

(2) these rights find their barriers in the regulations of the general laws, to the legal regulations for the protection of the youth and in the best interest of personal honour.

(3) art and science, research and teachings are free. The freedom of the teachers does not relieve one from truth to the subject.

Article 10.

(1) everyone has the right to free expression of opinion. This right includes the freedom of opinions and the freedom to receive and report messages or ideas without interference of public authorities and without consideration for national borders. This article does not exclude that the states subject broadcast, airwaves or television enterprises to a licensing procedure.

(2) the practice of these freedoms, obligations and responsibility are indispensable and bring with it certain formal requirements, conditions, restrictions planned by the law or punishing threats be subjected,

like prescribed in the law and in a democratic society in the interest of national security, the keeping of order and crime prevention, the protection of health and morality, the protection of the good reputation or the rights of others, in order to prevent or ensure the spreading of confidential information to reputation and impartiality of the jurisdiction.

Though my German is rusty.