[quote]Sifu wrote:
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]
really? I am a threat? Wow, I am honored that you think my comments carry so much weight.
Why and from whom?
Do you have a phone number or e-mail address, they won’t hear me shout. By the way, will they not think it strange that I am calling? Maybe you could forewarn them.
I have already freely admitted that my views are the product of my upbringing (and Macguyver.) Oh and if you think Britain is on the whole Liberal, you have not spent much time there. Try reading a copy of the Mirror or the Daily Mail.
[quote]
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. [/quote]
I fully admit the problems in the UK and in Mexico and in my small part do whatever I can to try to improve the situation. And I agree that it is easier to spot fault in others than yourself, actually this is a concept that I have previously mentioned pertaining to the USA.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
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…
LOL. RJ needs to start counting to 10 before hitting “submit.” [/quote]
RJ was thinking perfectly fine. You guys know not of what you speak…
[quote]hedo wrote:
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.
[/quote]
see, I didn’t infer that you called me a coward, you didn’t imply it, you flat out said it, don’t try and weasel out.
[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. [/quote]
You have exaggerated and twisted what he said into something he didn’t say. We don’t need everybody to have guns for gun ownership to be effective.
We just need the uncertainty factor. Case in point, when I worked as a doorman in the ghetto none of us carried guns. But it was such a bad area that people just assumed we were packing, so we didn’t get too many problems. Least ways at the door we didn’t.
[quote]
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? [/quote]
Again you are making wild assumptions. Most jackers use guns so they can get money easy. They usually aren’t eager to kill because that brings a lot of heat.
[quote]
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. [/quote]
Well you do sound like a typical Brit when it comes to guns. For you guns are an object of unimaginable fear. So you unfairly force your fears onto others and cause them to be defenseless.
You should try working as a cashier in a ghetto convenience store sometime or a taxi driver. Maybe then you would realize that it isn’t fear but common sense that some people have a very real and genuine need to be able to defend themselves.
[quote]
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]
Oh yes there are bad people in this world. You obviously have never encountered one.
[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]
Well I was trying to be a little bit humorous.
Seriously though I would not mess with Texasguy. I came to this conclusion about the time he wrote about how he admired the fighting tactics of the baboon and felt they were worthy of emulating. Yes I would most definitely not mess with Texasguy.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
SkyzykS wrote:
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.[/quote]
I understand the use of argumentation as an expository method and to investigate, but that is not what you are doing with this thread. They style of debate you are reffering to usualy starts with several statements of fact, then conclusions or assuptions that differ, at which time the debate begins over the differing opinions.
Your initial statement contained not one single fact, just assumptions.
If it was though, what have you learned?
Anything new or different, or has all of this just confirmed what you origionaly believed?
Or better yet, let me ask you this- Is there any acceptable reason, in you mind, why a civillian or regular citizen should ever be in possesion of the weapons you stand against in an uncontrolled or unregulated environment?
If there is, then what makes one situation acceptable and another not acceptable?
If there is not, then what was the true intention of even starting this thread?
(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.[/quote]
Thanks for the translation. That seems to me to have the same flaws that the French Universal Declaration of Rights has though. It seems to me as if they are basically saying that you have a right to free speech unless we make a law against it.
The is different from the BoR where we say that these are your rights…period. Of course the Constitution is but a paper tiger but I guess that’s why we have the 2A eh?
[quote]Sifu wrote:
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.
You have exaggerated and twisted what he said into something he didn’t say. We don’t need everybody to have guns for gun ownership to be effective. We just need the uncertainty factor. Case in point, when I worked as a doorman in the ghetto none of us carried guns.
But it was such a bad area that people just assumed we were packing, so we didn’t get too many problems. Least ways at the door we didn’t.
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?
Again you are making wild assumptions. Most jackers use guns so they can get money easy. They usually aren’t eager to kill because that brings a lot of heat.
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.
Well you do sound like a typical Brit when it comes to guns. For you guns are an object of unimaginable fear. So you unfairly force your fears onto others and cause them to be defenseless.
You should try working as a cashier in a ghetto convenience store sometime or a taxi driver. Maybe then you would realize that it isn’t fear but common sense that some people have a very real and genuine need to be able to defend themselves.
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.
Oh yes there are bad people in this world. You obviously have never encountered one. [/quote]
What makes you think I am scared of guns? I have already stated on here that I used to shoot in competitions.
I’ve encountered plenty of people that you would probably define as ‘bad’ some of them I have had positive encounters with, some of them negative encounters. I don’t need things to be simplified.
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
I understand the use of argumentation as an expository method and to investigate, but that is not what you are doing with this thread. They style of debate you are reffering to usualy starts with several statements of fact, then conclusions or assuptions that differ, at which time the debate begins over the differing opinions.
Your initial statement contained not one single fact, just assumptions.
[/quote]
Philosophical debate doesn’t normally start from fact, it starts from assumptions or ideas.
Yes, I have got some further reading and youtube videos suggested that I will check out. Other than that I am disapointed that no-one has actually countered a lot of what I have stated, however you do expect that to an extent on an internet forum.
It is far easier to name call than to discuss (I know I was guilty of that with the rooting tootin cowboy jibe)
yes, in a war torn country, or a country with a high risk of physical assault. Though Ideally the response would be to resolve the situation by other means.
Different situations call for different measures. There is no one size fits all solution.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
SkyzykS wrote:
I understand the use of argumentation as an expository method and to investigate, but that is not what you are doing with this thread. They style of debate you are reffering to usualy starts with several statements of fact, then conclusions or assuptions that differ, at which time the debate begins over the differing opinions.
Your initial statement contained not one single fact, just assumptions.
Philosophical debate doesn’t normally start from fact, it starts from assumptions or ideas.
If it was though, what have you learned?
Anything new or different, or has all of this just confirmed what you origionaly believed?
Yes, I have got some further reading and youtube videos suggested that I will check out. Other than that I am disapointed that no-one has actually countered a lot of what I have stated, however you do expect that to an extent on an internet forum.
It is far easier to name call than to discuss (I know I was guilty of that with the rooting tootin cowboy jibe)
Or better yet, let me ask you this- Is there any acceptable reason, in you mind, why a civillian or regular citizen should ever be in possesion of the weapons you stand against in an uncontrolled or unregulated environment?
yes, in a war torn country, or a country with a high risk of physical assault. Though Ideally the response would be to resolve the situation by other means.
If there is, then what makes one situation acceptable and another not acceptable?
If there is not, then what was the true intention of even starting this thread?
Different situations call for different measures. There is no one size fits all solution.[/quote]
How high does the assault rate have to be before you would allow someone to carry? Give me a number.
To give you a politicians answer on that, I would want to have a better view of all available data before answering that question in more detail. We will be forming a working group to look into this and they will report back their findings at which point a decision will be made.
By the way, the word argumentation just seems ugly to me. I know that it is a real word however it just seems ugly.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
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?
British twat though possibly in the future I will have dual nationality which would make me both. [/quote]
I knew it.
[quote]
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. [/quote]
I really didn’t need to because I have seen enough to know what you are going to come out with. Drinking is the cause of most violence.
[quote]
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. [/quote]
Yeah I read what you wrote in the combat sports thread about there being a difference between guns and a bat or a knife in that the latter require adaptation. Which is simply not true. You can grab a knife or a bat and use them right away with no adaptation required. Stab wounds can be deadlier than a bullet.
[quote]
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? [/quote]
CCW licenses are issued but are hard to obtain for anyone not wealthy and without political connections. In the event that an application is denied, the denial may theoretically be appealed at a District Court, but this never occurs in practice.
Prior to 2002, CCW licenses could be obtained authorizing military caliber pistols. However, these CCW licenses were all cancelled, and re-issued to authorize only up to .380 ACP caliber pistolas.
[quote]
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.
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. [/quote]
It is not that unusual. I didn’t say they were trying to paint the police in a good light and I wasn’t trying to imply it either. But that revision of the article is typical of the mentality of many in Britain who are against gun ownership.
When there are armed robbers going around robbing the neighboring stores and the police have been unable to put a stop to it a logical solution is to allow the people working in the stores to arm themselves. The circumstances of this case demonstrate that need and the stupidity of being totally dependent upon the police.
Tony Bliar and Gordon Brown both have firearm carrying policemen as guards at the front door of No 10 Downing street. Obviously they feel that unlike commoners their lives are worthy of being defended with firearms. It is a classic case of do as I say not as I do.
[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.
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. [/quote]
No I have not made any mention of manliness. As a matter of fact I know a good number of women who own and shoot guns. I think one of the things that makes America a truly great country is the fact that a woman can have such a tool to defend herself with, so she doesn’t have to be dependent upon a man to be her “protector”. It is all about independence.
[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.
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? [/quote]
Back there were settlers living on the frontier far away from any law enforcement who needed to be able to protect themselves from Indians and other marauders. Today people still need to be able to protect themselves from criminals so nothing has changed there.
Back during the revolution the Americans had to fight the worlds most powerful military in order to free themselves from a tyrannical government that would not respect their rights. Today if Americans wanted to rebel they would still have to fight the worlds most powerful military. So nothing has changed there.
The human genome hasn’t changed in two hundred years so a government made up of humans can still be just as tyrannical and corrupt as any other that has existed in history. So nothing has changed about us humans. So you are an ignorant twat for pretending that we have.
Hunting is an irrelevant side issue that is not even worth discussing.
[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.
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]
The aspects of the human condition that the second amendment addresses are not going to change because genetically we are still the same. The oft used times have changed now argument is ignorant and fanciful. There are still tyrants, dictators, criminals thugs.
So since that has not changed, laws that are meant to deal with it are not 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.
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.[/quote]
Bollocks. You forget homeboy we live next door to Mexico, we know what is going on there.
Los Zetas is a paramilitary criminal gang that operates as a hired army for the Mexican Gulf Cartel.[1][2][3][4] The group is mostly composed of ex-soldiers now led by Heriberto “The Executioner” Lazcano. U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) advises that these paramilitaries may be the most technologically advanced, sophisticated and violent of paramilitary enforcement groups.
The zetas were originally members of the Mexican Army?s elite Airborne Special Forces Group (GAFE), trained in locating and apprehending drug cartel members. It is believed that they were originally trained at the military School of the Americas in the United States,[6][7].
Also, they were trained by foreign specialists, including Americans, French, and Israelis, in rapid deployment, aerial assaults, marksmanship, ambushes, small-group tactics, intelligence collection, counter-surveillance techniques, prisoner rescues and sophisticated communications.
Not sure what your point is, I can’t understand from your sentence structure whether you feel that drinking is the cause of most violence or that you are attributing that thought to me.
That is not what I meant by adapting. Deadly bullet wounds are just as deadly as deadly stab wounds however killing someone with a gun is easier than killing them with a bat or a knife. This is why the army is not going into Bagdhad waving baseball bats.
you might want to wade a bit deeper than a quick glance at wikipedia to have a true understanding of situations. Weapons licenses are relatively easy to get and illegal weapons are very easy to get. Most people do not carry eather.
Yes it is, yes you did, no it isn’t, in that order.
Great, shootouts in grocery stores between a minimum wage saturday boy and glue sniffing crook. No chance of innocent bystanders getting shot there then.
There are lots of people who want to kill Tony Bliar [sic] (if that was deliberate I applaud it, the guy was odious) and Gordon Brown, that is why they get armed guards. It is not that there life is more worthy of saving, it’s that the risk of the gun being needed is far higher. Also, the armed guards are extremely highly trained and go through extensive screening processes. Something that is not true of the majority of people buying guns in the US.
there have been several references from other people on various threads that not supporting gun ownership for all is in some way not manly.
So you truly believe that your risk of being attacked violently is as high as if you were living in the old west? Seriously? Honestly?
Care to give me any recent examples of people succesfully defending themselves using guns against the US tyranny? We have already mentione Waco, 0 for 1 for the gun club, any others?
Agreed
The second amendment was not about the human condition it was about the geopolitical condition at the time.
[quote]
Bollocks. You forget homeboy we live next door to Mexico, we know what is going on there.
Los Zetas is a paramilitary criminal gang that operates as a hired army for the Mexican Gulf Cartel.[1][2][3][4] The group is mostly composed of ex-soldiers now led by Heriberto “The Executioner” Lazcano. U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) advises that these paramilitaries may be the most technologically advanced, sophisticated and violent of paramilitary enforcement groups.
The zetas were originally members of the Mexican Army?s elite Airborne Special Forces Group (GAFE), trained in locating and apprehending drug cartel members. It is believed that they were originally trained at the military School of the Americas in the United States,[6][7].
Also, they were trained by foreign specialists, including Americans, French, and Israelis, in rapid deployment, aerial assaults, marksmanship, ambushes, small-group tactics, intelligence collection, counter-surveillance techniques, prisoner rescues and sophisticated communications.[/quote]
And your point is caller? I admited the country still has lots of problems. It’s still a lot better off than it was 20 years ago.
Corruption is on the decrease, police corruption and persecution is heavily punished when rooted out. The high profile police vs dug barron shoot outs are being caused by the fact that the government is actually starting to crack down on some of the problems.
The standard of living is steadily increasing. The economy is a lot stronger than it has been in the past. And the weather is great!
Without rehashing every argument on this thread so far, allow me to address some of the main themes.
Yes, it is probably easier to kill with a handgun than without one, all else being equal. Not many people have the skill or determination to kill another person with a piece of wire, a pencil, a chair, a pillow, or one’s bare hands.
This is because whereas all of the above items have been used successfully to kill people, only the handgun has been designed as a weapon.
You’ll notice I didn’t say “designed to kill.” A handgun is conceptually a defensive weapon, designed to stop an unexpected attack that someone else starts. A single hit from a handgun firing a major caliber (.40 or above) will incapacitate an attacker, without necessarily killing him.
It usually isn’t even necessary to wound him. Most attacks that have been foiled through use of a gun have involved the defender drawing down on the attacker, and the attacker fleeing.
So actually, it would be just as accurate to say that, armed with a handgun, it is easier to stop a determined attacker without killing him than it would be without that handgun.
Now to the philosophical question of whether I ought to have that handgun in the first place.
Discussion of the Second Amendment is pretty much moot. I believe that it is just as applicable in 2009 as it was in 1789, inasmuch as governments have become no less rapacious since then, but I don’t claim the Second Amendment as my justification for arming myself.
In fact, let’s discard the entire notion of a right to bear arms, a right to self-defense, or even a right to life. The very notion of a right implies that the right has been granted by someone, which only bogs down the discussion.
Instead, I submit that like all living things, I have a vested interest in protecting my life. As a member of the human species, I have a particular advantage in that I may make use of technology to assist me in this.
I have no idea when, or even whether, my life will be threatened, but I am not so naive as to believe it could never happen.
While it is possible that in such an event I may be able to defuse the situation through diplomacy, or perhaps even stop the attack with an improvised weapon such as a chair or a pencil, I am too fond of my own life to trust it entirely to this less-than-certain strategy.
I hardly expect the police to coincidentally arrive in time to thwart the attack with their own weapons, nor would I presume to expect that they should place themselves in harm’s way on my behalf.
Instead, I choose to arm myself with the most efficient means of stopping an unexpected attack that I may legally and conveniently carry on my person, which happens to be a powerful handgun.
I further believe that my choice to do so is just as legitimate as your choice not to.
I did wonder if you would use that as a comeback.