DC Handgun Ban
-
As someone who lives in a country where there are few guns (contrary to what the Daily Mail might have you believe) and where the vast majority of policemen are unarmed and where I have never even considered owning a gun I do not understand the fuss. What, exactly, do you need a gun for?
digital man wrote:
What, exactly, do you need a gun for?
We (human beings) need guns because there are always fools who imagine that *they* know better than us how to run our own lives. And, if as is apparent by the very question you ask, you simply can't understand that, then I am so happy that you are there and not here.
-
As someone who lives in a country where there are few guns (contrary to what the Daily Mail might have you believe) and where the vast majority of policemen are unarmed and where I have never even considered owning a gun I do not understand the fuss. What, exactly, do you need a gun for?
-
digital man wrote:
where the vast majority of policemen are unarmed
Is that still true? I heard that the bobbies were insisting on being armed now - maybe that's true just in London?
digital man wrote:
What, exactly, do you need a gun for?
Remember we have Captain See Sharp running around on the streets stealing to get enough money to buy another bottle of cough syrup. :) Maybe more to the point we have street gangs who do have guns, assault weapons in many cases, and who out number, out weapon, and outspend the police departments. Maybe even more to the point there's never been a dictatorship yet that has not disarmed its citizens as part of its power grab.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Remember we have Captain See Sharp running around on the streets stealing to get enough money to buy another bottle of cough syrup.
Build yet more prisons, put more people in them, when you're all locked up mail the key to the Queen. Thanks.
-
digital man wrote:
What, exactly, do you need a gun for?
We (human beings) need guns because there are always fools who imagine that *they* know better than us how to run our own lives. And, if as is apparent by the very question you ask, you simply can't understand that, then I am so happy that you are there and not here.
Ilíon wrote:
We (human beings) need guns because there are always fools who imagine that *they* know better than us how to run our own lives.
I guess the conversation would go something like: "You think I shouldn't drink this vial of foul-smelling...something...do you? How about...BAM! HOW DO YOU LIKE A BULLET IN YOUR FACE???" I can see how guns would be necessary. [edit] Sorry, it's completely wrong to call it a conversation, as that sort of implies an exchange of ideas, not an exchange of bullets for life. I guess there's something mutually exclusive about holding a gun and holding an intelligent conversation. What's that old saying? Something about a cake...?:confused:
Richard of York gave battle in vain.
modified on Wednesday, March 19, 2008 8:40 AM
-
Oakman wrote:
Remember we have Captain See Sharp running around on the streets stealing to get enough money to buy another bottle of cough syrup.
Build yet more prisons, put more people in them, when you're all locked up mail the key to the Queen. Thanks.
-
According to early reports, it appears as if the DC handgun ban will be struck down as being unconstitutional. If true, this will be a substantial victory for all patriots. For the uninitiated, the 2nd amendment does not *grant* the right to keep/bear arms, it says that the right shall not be infringed, meaning the right already existed as a natural right and thus cannot be taken away. Also, the 2nd amendment does not restrict the types of arms you may keep/bear.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001A simple outsider's view (based on my own arrogant assumptions) is that things that seemed a good idea 230 years ago may not be a good idea today. I'm still astounded that the assault weapon ban was allowed to expire. Why does anyone in a civilised society need to buy weapons that are designed specifically to kill as many people as possible in a short space of time? Those of you who don't buy those weapons should surely be concerned about those who do.
Peter "Until the invention of the computer, the machine gun was the device that enabled humans to make the most mistakes in the smallest amount of time."
-
As someone who lives in a country where there are few guns (contrary to what the Daily Mail might have you believe) and where the vast majority of policemen are unarmed and where I have never even considered owning a gun I do not understand the fuss. What, exactly, do you need a gun for?
Tibet[^] Holocaust[^] Home invasion[^] Not to mention protection from an ever intrusive government.
Mike Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
A simple outsider's view (based on my own arrogant assumptions) is that things that seemed a good idea 230 years ago may not be a good idea today. I'm still astounded that the assault weapon ban was allowed to expire. Why does anyone in a civilised society need to buy weapons that are designed specifically to kill as many people as possible in a short space of time? Those of you who don't buy those weapons should surely be concerned about those who do.
Peter "Until the invention of the computer, the machine gun was the device that enabled humans to make the most mistakes in the smallest amount of time."
cp9876 wrote:
Why does anyone in a civilised society need to buy weapons that are designed specifically to kill as many people as possible in a short space of time?
To protect themselves as many times as possible in a short space of time...
Richard of York gave battle in vain.
-
A simple outsider's view (based on my own arrogant assumptions) is that things that seemed a good idea 230 years ago may not be a good idea today. I'm still astounded that the assault weapon ban was allowed to expire. Why does anyone in a civilised society need to buy weapons that are designed specifically to kill as many people as possible in a short space of time? Those of you who don't buy those weapons should surely be concerned about those who do.
Peter "Until the invention of the computer, the machine gun was the device that enabled humans to make the most mistakes in the smallest amount of time."
cp9876 wrote:
A simple outsider's view (based on my own arrogant assumptions) is that things that seemed a good idea 230 years ago may not be a good idea today.
it isn't an idea, it is a right.
Mike Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
cp9876 wrote:
A simple outsider's view (based on my own arrogant assumptions) is that things that seemed a good idea 230 years ago may not be a good idea today.
it isn't an idea, it is a right.
Mike Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
it isn't an idea, it is a right.
What do you mean? Did this 'right' just materialise out of nowhere?
Richard of York gave battle in vain.
-
cp9876 wrote:
A simple outsider's view (based on my own arrogant assumptions) is that things that seemed a good idea 230 years ago may not be a good idea today.
it isn't an idea, it is a right.
Mike Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Bu twhy do you need that right? What is th epurpose? I could understand if you were bemoaning the right to have children or to choose where you live or go to school. But the right to buy objects the sole purpose of which is to kill other people? Surely that is a right that is just plain wrong.
-
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Also, the 2nd amendment does not restrict the types of arms you may keep/bear.
Which is to say, were normal citizens as absolutist about the 2nd Amendment as the "free speach" preeners are about (their mis-application) of the 1st, then ... well, things would be interesting, wouldn't they?
All of the amendments have their detractors.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
digital man wrote:
where the vast majority of policemen are unarmed
Is that still true? I heard that the bobbies were insisting on being armed now - maybe that's true just in London?
digital man wrote:
What, exactly, do you need a gun for?
Remember we have Captain See Sharp running around on the streets stealing to get enough money to buy another bottle of cough syrup. :) Maybe more to the point we have street gangs who do have guns, assault weapons in many cases, and who out number, out weapon, and outspend the police departments. Maybe even more to the point there's never been a dictatorship yet that has not disarmed its citizens as part of its power grab.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Many policemen would probably like to be armed but that has always been resisted. In terms of London, yes, there are Diplomatic & Royal Protection teams that are armed as are police in high profile places at, for instance, Heathrow Airport. There are some armed response police, whose weapons are on-board their vehicle but locked away in a secure safe, but whose primary duties are as an ordinary policemen. And contrary to opinion, members of our Intelligence service are no more permitted to carry guns than an ordinary member of society - thus the concept of "James Bond 007 Licenced to Kill" never has been true. Street gangs - the weapon of choice here are knives and there have been a number of highly publicised murders in recent times.
-
Smithers-Jones wrote:
'nuff said
Wonderful. The guy quotes Homer Simpson and Stan Lee and actually thinks he's saying something. Maybe you should change your screen name to Donald-Duck?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Ah, i see... no jokes on that subject. So you want to know my opinion on guns? Can't stand them. Never had any interest in them, never wanted to hold one or shoot one... I hate it, when, being in a police control, coppers staying alert pull their guns already halfway out of their holsters. happened quite a few times to me already. Scares me pretty much. I know nobody who owns a gun, and also nobody who ever needed one. I leave the house without locking the door, never lock my car, have never knife nor pepper spray with me, when I am out for jogging. I fell as save as possible. There is simply no need for a gun in my opinion.
"I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." (DNA)
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
it isn't an idea, it is a right.
What do you mean? Did this 'right' just materialise out of nowhere?
Richard of York gave battle in vain.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
What do you mean? Did this 'right' just materialise out of nowhere?
it always existed in the US. The 2nd Amendment to the Constituition codified the position that the government could not take the right away.
Mike Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
cp9876 wrote:
A simple outsider's view (based on my own arrogant assumptions) is that things that seemed a good idea 230 years ago may not be a good idea today.
it isn't an idea, it is a right.
Mike Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
It would seem beneficial if the courts interpreted this right in its historical context and allowed all citizens the right to carry muskets. Can you carry rocket launchers (you may be attacked by a tank), SAMs (attack from the air is commonplace these days), biological weapons (these could be your only defence if an army was forming on your doorstep), ballistic missiles (a preemptive strike capability is often the best defence - I went to school in the cold war) etc, and if not why not.
Peter "Until the invention of the computer, the machine gun was the device that enabled humans to make the most mistakes in the smallest amount of time."
-
As someone who lives in a country where there are few guns (contrary to what the Daily Mail might have you believe) and where the vast majority of policemen are unarmed and where I have never even considered owning a gun I do not understand the fuss. What, exactly, do you need a gun for?
For the very reason the amendment was created - to defend against all enemies, both foreign *and* domestic. I have a wide range of weapons, none of which are semi-autos. I don't feel the need to own an "assault weapon", but far be it from me to say that someone else can't own one.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
Bu twhy do you need that right? What is th epurpose? I could understand if you were bemoaning the right to have children or to choose where you live or go to school. But the right to buy objects the sole purpose of which is to kill other people? Surely that is a right that is just plain wrong.
digital man wrote:
Bu twhy do you need that right?
First, it is an historical right - US citizens have always had it and in today's world, simply because there are bureaucrats that would like to eliminate the right.
digital man wrote:
But the right to buy objects the sole purpose of which is to kill other people? Surely that is a right that is just plain wrong.
not if I use it to defend my family, my home, myself.
Mike Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
All of the amendments have their detractors.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
All of the amendments have their detractors.
Whether or not this is true, do all have their "absolutists?" (The quote marks are necessary, because even the "free speech" preeners are generally *for* actual/real censorship about some things, including the very thing the Amendment's clause is mainly addressing).
-
Oakman wrote:
Is that still true? I heard that the bobbies were insisting on being armed now - maybe that's true just in London?
Indeed it is.
Oakman wrote:
Remember we have Captain See Sharp running around on the streets stealing to get enough money to buy another bottle of cough syrup.
Oh, okay, that certainly is reason enough to arm everyone. :-)
Oakman wrote:
Maybe more to the point we have street gangs who do have guns, assault weapons in many cases, and who out number, out weapon, and outspend the police departments.
Yes, I know that: I'm not saying the problem is easily solvable. I think it is a great pity that people feel the need to carry weapons.
Oakman wrote:
Maybe even more to the point there's never been a dictatorship yet that has not disarmed its citizens as part of its power grab.
But we've never really been armed (not for a long time) and the vast majority of people don't miss it. Our government (as appalling and corrupt as they are) have not yet descended to pushing us around with an armed militia. Besides, the British army is entirely professional and would not back a government coup. I think. I hope. Gulp.
digital man wrote:
Indeed it is.
digital man wrote:
I think it is a great pity that people feel the need to carry weapons.
I know some folks do. However, most of the people I know support the right to carry a weapon if they chose to, which is not the same thing at all. By the way, in case you are wondering, I own four guns: an 1860's Springfield muzzle-loading rifled musket; a pepper-box revolver also from the American Civil War; a Colt Peacemaker from the 1870's and a 1-shot gambler's derringer from the 1880's. None of them are street legal. None of them have been fired for quite some time and the derringer has had the barrel plugged. For defense at home, I have an attack cat named Pixilated. Unfortunately she was born without eyes, so she's not street legal either. But I would react quite negatively to the idea that South Carolina might start telling me I couldn't have a weapon if I wanted one.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
