obama just committed political suicide.

[Peace7408]

Correct Gun Control in England Failed

 

[Peace7408]

If you look at England they tried gun control, it actually put the criminals in charge, they didn't have to worry about being shot at

 

[idb]

If you look at England they tried gun control, it actually put the criminals in charge, they didn't have to worry about being shot at

That is wrong.
Try again.

 

[idb]

I would like to know what it's like to be a subject of the crown? I've never known that feeling. gawd save the queen.

I know you can do it yourself, I'm not going to post a link for you!

I already checked out your "constitution" I know that you are a subject to the crown. So tell me how does it feel to be a subject?

You would have noticed that your constitution was based on the Magna Carta then?
No I doubt that you would have got past the first few words...

 

[BrianH]

I know you can do it yourself, I'm not going to post a link for you!

I already checked out your "constitution" I know that you are a subject to the crown. So tell me how does it feel to be a subject?

You would have noticed that your constitution was based on the Magna Carta then?
No I doubt that you would have got past the first few words...

With all due respect, it doesn't matter what it's "based" on. What matter's is what is says. And it says I can own a gun.

There's a little bit of difference between England and the U.S. as far as gun control. The U.S. has FAR more firearms than the U.K. England has traditionally had less firearms considering that it was more of an elite privledge to own and use them. Considering that they started out with little firearms, than it would make sense that controlling them would be much simpler.

 

[Rinata]

Well, let me begin by saying that I live in a rural farming area. One thing we shoot (and plenty of) is wild hogs. They destroy millions of acres of land in my state every year. Try googling the feral hog population and you'll see that they reproduce faster than we can control them. So, for starters, we shoot ALOT of pigs. (they also make great sausage.) You could almost say that I save alot of money by not having to purchase sausage and other pork, cause I can get it for about $10.00(the cost of the bullet and seasoning ingredients)

There are several reasons why we "need" guns. 1. Guns have already been invented, produced, and sold. Not just in this country, but in others. The fact is that criminals already have them and will continue to get them. We need guns to protect ourselves. To pretend that all of the guns can be found and taken away is naive. Even if the government magically forbid people to own guns, people would still get them. I suppose if this argument had begun before guns were invented, then it might have some merit...
2. Hunting- I hunt every year and am able to harvest enough meat to last a long time. Sometimes I have meat from the previous year. I enjoy not having to go buy a bunch of meat when I get get it from the land.

3. Recreation- I love to shoot. I would never want to have to shoot at a person, but it's a skill that I enjoy learning and improving on. There's no maliciousness to it. I don't run around like rambo and just start shooting at things. I like target shooting. It's a controlled and safe environment.

The simple fact, is that without guns, murder would be more gruesome IMO. During medeival times, all sorts of killing and torture machines were invented. In wars people hacked each other apart with swords, axes, and blades. It was a very gruesome thing. Can you imagine what murder would be like if guns had never been invented? People will continue to kill one another without guns. Many people get upset when we have these mass shootings (and we should); however, we have serial killers that kill 50 people in 10 years with a knife and it doesn't make anyone think differently about knives...

I understand what you're saying. But the average person does not have pigs to shoot or wild hogs running around. By the way, don't you have to use a rifle for that?? And I think murder is messy no matter what method of killing is used. There are too many nut cases in this world and too many people with hair trigger tempers to carry around a gun or a knife. Both weapons should be against the law. Hunting and killing animals for food is entirely different.

Actually, I've killed three pigs in the last few years with my pistol. I shot one with my rifle, but one came out of the brush a few yards away while I was on foot. The other two I killed at close range from my truck. Darn things walked out right next to me. They were too close for a rifle. Also, they are VERY mean and will attack you.

As far as "the average person" I feel like I am an average guy. I think anyone who commits a crime with a gun should automatically be sentenced to life in prison. I agree that murder is messy period. As far as being against the law, it's the nut cases with hair tempers that specifically won't follow the law and get a gun illegally and use it for violence. I don't think prohibiting people from owning guns will do much good, considering that the law-abiding citizens are the only ones who will follow the law.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. But I do want to thank you for your civility and for the fact that you answered the question succinctly and intelligently. You're a nice guy.

 

[idb]

I already checked out your "constitution" I know that you are a subject to the crown. So tell me how does it feel to be a subject?

You would have noticed that your constitution was based on the Magna Carta then?
No I doubt that you would have got past the first few words...

With all due respect, it doesn't matter what it's "based" on. What matter's is what is says. And it says I can own a gun.

There's a little bit of difference between England and the U.S. as far as gun control. The U.S. has FAR more firearms than the U.K. England has traditionally had less firearms considering that it was more of an elite privledge to own and use them. Considering that they started out with little firearms, than it would make sense that controlling them would be much simpler.

Fair enough, and I understand all of that.
Bigrednec, though, has stated previously that Commonwealth law does not recognise natural human rights.
He used smaller words but that's what he said.

I am off on a tangent to the thread but I am trying to follow bigrednec's logic and hopefully we will return to the discussion somewhere along the way.

 

[BrianH]

You would have noticed that your constitution was based on the Magna Carta then?
No I doubt that you would have got past the first few words...

With all due respect, it doesn't matter what it's "based" on. What matter's is what is says. And it says I can own a gun.

There's a little bit of difference between England and the U.S. as far as gun control. The U.S. has FAR more firearms than the U.K. England has traditionally had less firearms considering that it was more of an elite privledge to own and use them. Considering that they started out with little firearms, than it would make sense that controlling them would be much simpler.

Fair enough, and I understand all of that.
Bigrednec, though, has stated previously that Commonwealth law does not recognise natural human rights.
He used smaller words but that's what he said.

I am off on a tangent to the thread but I am trying to follow bigrednec's logic and hopefully we will return to the discussion somewhere along the way.

Oh ok... you are right. The American idea of civil liberties stems directly from the Magna Carta and English Common Law

 

[BrianH]

I understand what you're saying. But the average person does not have pigs to shoot or wild hogs running around. By the way, don't you have to use a rifle for that?? And I think murder is messy no matter what method of killing is used. There are too many nut cases in this world and too many people with hair trigger tempers to carry around a gun or a knife. Both weapons should be against the law. Hunting and killing animals for food is entirely different.

Actually, I've killed three pigs in the last few years with my pistol. I shot one with my rifle, but one came out of the brush a few yards away while I was on foot. The other two I killed at close range from my truck. Darn things walked out right next to me. They were too close for a rifle. Also, they are VERY mean and will attack you.

As far as "the average person" I feel like I am an average guy. I think anyone who commits a crime with a gun should automatically be sentenced to life in prison. I agree that murder is messy period. As far as being against the law, it's the nut cases with hair tempers that specifically won't follow the law and get a gun illegally and use it for violence. I don't think prohibiting people from owning guns will do much good, considering that the law-abiding citizens are the only ones who will follow the law.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. But I do want to thank you for your civility and for the fact that you answered the question succinctly and intelligemtly. You're a nice guy.

Sure thing...that's what it's all about!! lol. I can get pretty heated sometimes (especially about the 2nd Amendment), but it's usually because someone else is slinging figurative doo doo everywhere.

Guns just make some people uncomfortable and that's ok. I think it's a cultural thing IMO. Not that we're all that different, but just grew up being comfortable and uncomfortable with different things. My aunt doesn't like guns because they make her uncomfortable. She's never had any experience (good or bad) with them, she just doesn't like them and doesn't want them in her house. I think the same concept goes for other things as well.

 

[idb]

I already checked out your "constitution" I know that you are a subject to the crown. So tell me how does it feel to be a subject?

You would have noticed that your constitution was based on the Magna Carta then?
No I doubt that you would have got past the first few words...

With all due respect, it doesn't matter what it's "based" on. What matter's is what is says. And it says I can own a gun.

There's a little bit of difference between England and the U.S. as far as gun control. The U.S. has FAR more firearms than the U.K. England has traditionally had less firearms considering that it was more of an elite privledge to own and use them. Considering that they started out with little firearms, than it would make sense that controlling them would be much simpler.

I accept that the sheer volume of firearms in the USA would make control very difficult.
And that is one argument of the gun lobby.

The other argument is that it is an explicit constitutional right of citizens to own guns.
That is true too but I ask, if it is so incredibly dangerous now in the USA due to the prevalence of firearms, is it not even worth considering some form of control?
Simply making the unfettered access of firearms available to everyone under a right established over two hundred years ago in very different times doesn't seem to be working.
A ban isn't the only option available when considering control and the total rejection of any sort of control by gun proponents is surely a rejection of any responsibility to the greater good of your nation.

Sure, it would suck having to, for example, re-apply for a licence every few years but that is no different to the requirements for driving.
The only difference shown by the pro-gun lobby is that driving isn't mentioned in the Constitution.
The principle is surely the same though.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I know you can do it yourself, I'm not going to post a link for you!

I already checked out your "constitution" I know that you are a subject to the crown. So tell me how does it feel to be a subject?

You would have noticed that your constitution was based on the Magna Carta then?
No I doubt that you would have got past the first few words...

The U.S. Constitution is also based on the Bible. It has bit's and pieces from governments throughout human history. Does your country's Constitution protect your inalienable rights, or do subjects have rights?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You would have noticed that your constitution was based on the Magna Carta then?
No I doubt that you would have got past the first few words...

With all due respect, it doesn't matter what it's "based" on. What matter's is what is says. And it says I can own a gun.

There's a little bit of difference between England and the U.S. as far as gun control. The U.S. has FAR more firearms than the U.K. England has traditionally had less firearms considering that it was more of an elite privledge to own and use them. Considering that they started out with little firearms, than it would make sense that controlling them would be much simpler.

I accept that the sheer volume of firearms in the USA would make control very difficult.
And that is one argument of the gun lobby.

The other argument is that it is an explicit constitutional right of citizens to own guns.
That is true too but I ask, if it is so incredibly dangerous now in the USA due to the prevalence of firearms, is it not even worth considering some form of control?
Simply making the unfettered access of firearms available to everyone under a right established over two hundred years ago in very different times doesn't seem to be working.
A ban isn't the only option available when considering control and the total rejection of any sort of control by gun proponents is surely a rejection of any responsibility to the greater good of your nation.

Sure, it would suck having to, for example, re-apply for a licence every few years but that is no different to the requirements for driving.
The only difference shown by the pro-gun lobby is that driving isn't mentioned in the Constitution.
The principle is surely the same though.

That is true too but I ask, if it is so incredibly dangerous now in the USA due to the prevalence of firearms, is it not even worth considering some form of control?

Not up for debate out of the question

The only difference shown by the pro-gun lobby is that driving isn't mentioned in the Constitution.

Driving is not a right, it's a privilege.
there's a difference betwen rights and privilege's.
Rights cannot be taken away without due process, privilege's can be taken away or denied.

 

[zeitgeist2012]

Meet Mr. Bocephus the progressive muslime...

http://api.ning.com/files/c7gJjHzcs...61566635640_1129548511_31218262_6560174_n.jpg

EYES.jpg (image)

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Gun control makes sense. If President Obama has the balls to push gun control, more power to him. It is the right thing to do.

What precisely is right about gun control? Gun control in regard to legal ownership will never happen in the United States. Americans by in large understand their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Most of us will never willingly surrender our weapons.

 

[zeitgeist2012]

I found the perfect candidate to fix all that O'BooBoo'Head and his commrads have broken...



More on the progressive parrot mentality...



PJTV - Ground Zero Mosque vs. the London Super Mosque - Sharia & Jihad

 

[idb]

I already checked out your "constitution" I know that you are a subject to the crown. So tell me how does it feel to be a subject?

You would have noticed that your constitution was based on the Magna Carta then?
No I doubt that you would have got past the first few words...

The U.S. Constitution is also based on the Bible. It has bit's and pieces from governments throughout human history. Does your country's Constitution protect your inalienable rights, or do subjects have rights?

So, you're saying "Yes, I'm sorry you are right, universal rights are protected in the Commonwealth and were part of English law before the USA was even invented".

I've paraphrased I know but I think I've nailed it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You would have noticed that your constitution was based on the Magna Carta then?
No I doubt that you would have got past the first few words...

The U.S. Constitution is also based on the Bible. It has bit's and pieces from governments throughout human history. Does your country's Constitution protect your inalienable rights, or do subjects have rights?

So, you're saying "Yes, I'm sorry you are right, universal rights are protected in the Commonwealth and were part of English law before the USA was even invented".

I've paraphrased I know but I think I've nailed it.

I asked you how does it feel to be a subject of the crown?

 

[zeitgeist2012]

Gun control makes sense. If President Obama has the balls to push gun control, more power to him. It is the right thing to do.

What precisely is right about gun control? Gun control in regard to legal ownership will never happen in the United States. Americans by in large understand their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Most of us will never willingly surrender our weapons.

Feinstein Asks President To Tighten Import Restrictions On Semi-Automatic Rifles

NRA-ILA :: Feinstein Asks President To Tighten Import Restrictions On Semi-Automatic Rifles

NRA-ILA :: BATFE Accused Of Fatal Failure To Follow Up On Suspicious Sales

Lugar pushes to renew assault weapons ban - On Congress - POLITICO.com


Gun control advocates

Category:Gun control advocates - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gun Control's Hidden Costs

Gun Control's Hidden Costs - Gun Owners Of America

Gun Magazine Ban Hidden In The FAA Bill?

Gun Magazine Ban Hidden In The FAA Bill?

ObamaCare’s Hidden Gun Control Measures

ObamaCare’s Hidden Gun Control Measures | The Truth About Guns

Mental Health Gun Bill Has Hidden Problems

Josh Sugarmann: Mental Health Gun Bill Has Hidden Problems

Police State legislation, S.3081 introduced by McCain and Scott Brown

Police State legislation, S.3081 introduced by McCain and Scott Brown Conservative Libertarian Outpost

Krayton Kerns: Bills I Haven’t Read Will Cause a Police State!

Krayton Kerns: Bills I Haven’t Read Will Cause a Police State!

Russell Pearce's Police State Bill SB 1070

Russell Pearce's Police State Bill SB 1070 Goes to Committee of the Whole and Third Read Tuesday - Phoenix News - Feathered Bastard

Exectutive Orders: Police State Legislation...

http://www.indianamilitia.org/files/Publications/Exec_Orders_and_police_state_legislation.pdf

Police State: New Legislation Authorizes FEMA Camps In U.S.

Police State: New Legislation Authorizes FEMA Camps In U.S.

POLICE STATE: Senate Bill S510 Makes it illegal to Grow, Share, Trade or Sell Homegrown Food

 

[idb]

The U.S. Constitution is also based on the Bible. It has bit's and pieces from governments throughout human history. Does your country's Constitution protect your inalienable rights, or do subjects have rights?

So, you're saying "Yes, I'm sorry you are right, universal rights are protected in the Commonwealth and were part of English law before the USA was even invented".

I've paraphrased I know but I think I've nailed it.

I asked you how does it feel to be a subject of the crown?

Well, how would I know that?
You love your non-sequiturs don't you?

 

[Dr Grump]

The U.S. Constitution is also based on the Bible. It has bit's and pieces from governments throughout human history. Does your country's Constitution protect your inalienable rights, or do subjects have rights?

So, you're saying "Yes, I'm sorry you are right, universal rights are protected in the Commonwealth and were part of English law before the USA was even invented".

I've paraphrased I know but I think I've nailed it.

I asked you how does it feel to be a subject of the crown?

Fine this end. How does it feel to know that a 'subject of the crown' is more free than a citizen of a republic...