ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 2:47 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 40 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Britains gun laws vs Americas: Is one better than the other?
PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2004 4:28 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 8:43 pm
Posts: 1944
Location: In front of the computer, doing things best left undescribed
I think we're all familiar with the gun ownership laws in both America and Britain, at least in passing. The Americans staunchly defend their rights to own firearms and shoot anyone that tries to fuck them over, like muggers, rapists, murderers, communists, etc. The British staunchly defend their blatant socialism and lack of any serious ability to defend themselves with a firearm. Yes, I know limeys aren't completely forbidden to own guns. A Scottish friend of mine owns two shotguns, both single-action, and a bolt-action rifle, while an English friend of mine owns a pistol... that has never been inside his home because he's only allowed to keep it at the shooting range, making it little more than a potentially dangerous toy rather than a tool for defense and providing food.

The question here is, which is better: Letting civilians own whatever firearms they want, barring those made exclusively for military use, or letting your civilians own a small selection of non-banned firearms as a privilege rather than a right, if they're allowed to own any at all? Does it have a serious impact on crime, or is that all just smoke and mirrors? Is it a dangerous trend pointing to a potential Big Brother-style of government sometime in the future? What are the pros and cons of each? And can it even be discussed rationally without personal opinions getting in the way? Should it be?

Discuss.

_________________
Insane_Megalamaniac
Chancellor of Initiations
Image
Pyro: Noun. Practicioner of the ancient and gentle arts of burning shit down and blowing shit up.

DNI'd by actor_au


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2004 6:03 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2003 1:49 pm
Posts: 399
Location: Somewhere else
I think it's more than just "Will it impact crime," but it's more of a "Traditionally speaking..." debate.

It's been a long freaking time since England was "untamed wilds," or even in constant threat of invasion (raider-style -- hitler doesn't count). So, traditionally speaking, the english have had less need of firearms in the recent past than americans. And the laws seem to reflect that.

British law (apparently) allows for weapons in a entertainment fuction (firearms at a shooting range), whereas american laws allow for weapons in a defense fuction (as well as entertainment, of course).

Personally, I don't think that americans will ever (in the forseeable future) have the gun laws changed to limit them to the extent that british laws do, simply because of the traditions involved. Not to long ago, America was a vast, untamed land where use of firearms were required for survival (well, any decently powerful ranged weapon would suffice, but the era was right for firearms), Firearms were needed to repel attacks from the natives (or one could also say 'firearms were needed to defeat native defenders...), as well as protect from the various predators -- big cats, wild dogs and bears. Firearms were also needed to provide food, and employment (trappers, ect). Firearms were regarded as a basic tool for life when the United States was founded, and so the laws view them. 200 years really isn't that long a time, as far as countries are concerned, so it's not suprising that gun laws really havn't changed all that much. Heck, even 100 years ago, guns were a basic tool for many americans (much like the car is now -- sure, those in cities may be able to get along without them, but most people have access to one).

I can't really comment on the british side of things, so I'll let one of you guys deal with that.

_________________
--- This space for let ---


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2004 6:25 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 12:55 am
Posts: 4234
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow
Canada fails. That is all.

_________________
Remember, one always has what they need, nothing more, nothing less. Sometimes, we just don't know what we need.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2004 7:49 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2003 1:30 pm
Posts: 4330
Location: Not a hellish, Onionian future...
What I have to say is: The British must trust the government an awful damn much. Cameras are allowed everywere and firearms almost nowhere. Here in America, when the feds come for you, you have the option of having a long and bloody standoff before being carted off in a bodybag.

It makes sure the government will think long and hard before doing something that the people REALLY don't like.

_________________
actor_au wrote:
Labrat's friends can't run away, as they are only the skins of the people he's drowned in his own semen, carefully stitched together and stuffed with cooking chocolate.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2004 8:31 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 8:43 pm
Posts: 1944
Location: In front of the computer, doing things best left undescribed
Well, there is one case. I wish I could remember the guys name and the location, it was in my 10th grade history book.

A guy was scheduled to show up in court after being arrested for illegal possession of a firearm. He skipped bail and never showed up for court. He was soon discovered to be on a camping trip in the mountains with his family and a friend and his son and was photographed hunting deer. Police quickly went to the area and surrounded it with forty agents wearing full kevlar body armor and carrying automatic weapons. The guy, his friend, and his friends son were walking down the path talking and the police surrounded them, undetected. A dog accompanying the trio noticed the men and started barking. An agent opened fire, killing the dog. The two men ran for it and the teenage boy shot back, getting himself killed in the proccess. The two men made it into their cabin and holed up in there with the rest of the family. At one point the mans wife, holding one of her children in front of her, was shot by a police sniper and killed. It is unknown whether she was using the child as a shield or simply leaving with him/her, and nobody bothered to find out. After a long stand-off, the two men gave themselves up and that was the end of that.

The entire case was handled poorly. Yes, he had been arrested for illegally owning a gun. Yes, when he got bailed out, he decided to go on a hunting trip with his family instead of showing up at court like he was supposed to. He deserved to get his ass imprisoned. And yes, he was armed. I don't think hiding the police/FBI equivelent of the special forces and opening fire before anyone knew they were even there was right though. And while they had every right to keep themselves from being shot by some kid, let's look at it from another perspective: You're a kid walking through the woods with your dad, his friend, and your dog. It's a great day, and you're having fun. Suddenly your dog starts barking and is cut down by automatic weapons fire. A bunch of people carrying machine guns and body armor appear out of nowhere. You're carrying your deer rifle. YOUR FIRST FUCKING REACTION IS TO SHOOT BACK. They could have predicted that. Why not continue to cut off their escape, wait in concealment, and then announce to the guy that he's surrounded and is under arrest and it's a darn good idea to drop his gun? Monumental fuck-up for everyone involved.

Also, thanks to the Patriot Act, anyone suspected of being a terrorist can be arrested WITHOUT BEING CHARGED OF A CRIME, CAN MAKE NO CONTACT WITH ANYONE, and CAN BE HELD FOR QUESTIONING INDEFINITELY. So far as anyone is concerned, these people just disappearred off the face of the earth. This has happened to several people, who are suing for their rights being violated. These are just the people who have been released. Who else has this happened to? When the heck did we become a cross between the Gestapo and McCarthy's black-listers?

And Herb, you do have a good point.

_________________
Insane_Megalamaniac
Chancellor of Initiations
Image
Pyro: Noun. Practicioner of the ancient and gentle arts of burning shit down and blowing shit up.

DNI'd by actor_au


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 15, 2004 11:19 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2003 1:30 pm
Posts: 4330
Location: Not a hellish, Onionian future...
In the old days we just did nasty things to them without the support of a specific law. Nothing is changed except now we have something new to make us not feel bad about it.

Look at what we did to commies, ethnic japanese in WWII, or potential tories in the revolutionary war. Heck, in the Civil War, President Lincoln authorized some unsavory actions.

I rationalize it this way. It is the job of a country as an organism to survive, nothing more. Ethics only factor into it when the scandal from badness is enough to stop people from being elected or threaten the survival of the country as a whole.

_________________
actor_au wrote:
Labrat's friends can't run away, as they are only the skins of the people he's drowned in his own semen, carefully stitched together and stuffed with cooking chocolate.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2004 2:01 am 
Offline
n00b

Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2004 1:44 am
Posts: 1
Location: Republic of Texas
Insane_Megalamaniac wrote:
Well, there is one case. I wish I could remember the guys name and the location, it was in my 10th grade history book.

A guy was scheduled to show up in court after being arrested for illegal possession of a firearm. He skipped bail and never showed up for court.



Randy Weaver. Ruby Ridge, Idaho.

By the way, the charges against him were for allegedly selling 2 sawed-off shotguns to an undercover federal agent. The BATF & FBI were trying to 'recruit' Mr. Weaver as an informant against various white supremacy groups (Aryan Nations, etc.) by blackmailing him with the charges. They failed. At the trial (after the standoff), the firearm charges were found to be a case of entrapment. The only crime Mr. Weaver was found guilty of was for not showing up to his original trial (on the gun charges). Despite Mr. Weaver being notified of an incorrect date on that original trial, the Govt. just *had* to get him on something. Mr. Weaver had embarassed the BATF and the FBI a tad too much during the standoff for them to willingly let him go free.

Quote:
Also, thanks to the Patriot Act, anyone suspected of being a terrorist can be arrested WITHOUT BEING CHARGED OF A CRIME, CAN MAKE NO CONTACT WITH ANYONE, and CAN BE HELD FOR QUESTIONING INDEFINITELY. So far as anyone is concerned, these people just disappearred off the face of the earth. This has happened to several people, who are suing for their rights being violated. These are just the people who have been released. Who else has this happened to? When the heck did we become a cross between the Gestapo and McCarthy's black-listers?


When? Well this process has, in my opinion, been going on since at least the 1950's, but it seems to me to have began rapid acceleration in the early to mid 1990's with those 2 famous incidents: Ruby Ridge and Waco. In the USA, our civil liberties have been whittled down to a dangerously low level by passage of the Patriot Act (and other, similar legislation). The bad news is that additional legislation of an even more asinine nature is before Congress this session, and will be when Congress starts its next session (in 2005). I don't see any real way out of this mess. To protest things gets one branded as unpatriotic (or worse, a 'terrorist'). In my opinion, we are screwed no matter which way things go in the upcoming election.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2004 3:59 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 12:55 am
Posts: 4234
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow
Everytime I hear "patriot act" I think "1984, 20 years late".

_________________
Remember, one always has what they need, nothing more, nothing less. Sometimes, we just don't know what we need.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2004 1:36 pm 
Offline
Addict

Joined: Mon May 13, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1294
Location: Middle of goddamn nowhere, Georgia
Okay, my points, just because you know a topic like this is bound to attract me almost as fast as Jordan Kennedy on my bed in lingere making a 'come hither' motion with one finger.

As might be obvious, I like guns. Guns, and weaponry in general, are power in the purest sense. If a government is truly built around giving the power to the people, it's the guns that represent the real power, not the votes. Casting a vote is sort of a proxy for saying "I'd fight to put this person into office." The whole point of the 2nd Amendment is to allow us to back up our political ideals, in case the government goes completely fascist on us.

Now, granted, some restrictions are needed to keep guns out of the hands of irresponsible idiots. The current laws on the books, except for the '94 Assault Weapons Ban(which will hopefully die next month anyways), suffice greatly, if they were only enforced. Making more and more restrictive gun laws accomplishes nothing other than taking guns out of the hands of the people who actually follow the laws, people who wouldn't commit mass shooting spree crimes anyways. The whole point of gun laws is (supposedly) to reduce crime and save lives, but people forget that guns don't cause crimes, people do.

For example, the highly publicized bank robbery in California done with several full auto rifles, including some AKs. Everyone said "wah, wah, more gun laws, OMGZ think of the children!!11!11oneone", but neglected to notice that those rifles were illegal by current laws anyways. Especially California gun laws, those commie bastards, but that's another case entirely.

I agree with background checks on silencers, SBRs(rifles with less than 16in barrels), and full auto weapons, but aside from that, I like general American gun laws as they are. Not counting commie states of course.

But then there's one more reason I really like my guns. If I (Buddha forbid) ever have kids, or move back close to my family and their spawn, I'd like to be able to explain to them, "Don't worry, no bad people will bother us. I have magic wands that turn them into hamburger."

I could go on about how my dad's family hid weapons from the Japanese and the VC back before I was born and that enabled them to survive, but that's just overemphasizing that point. Guns give me a way to deter and react against anything that would harm my family or anyone I care about.

_________________
"My relationship with my SAW[M249 Squad Automatic Weapon] has lasted longer than my marriage did." -One of the guys in my platoon.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2004 2:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2038 9:00 pm
Posts: 3209
Re: Rupert's post. Line 1.

HEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHE.

Re: Rest of Rupert's post.

The one problem I have with viewpoints like this is where do you draw the line? For example, if you can have fully automatic weapons and assault rifles, why can't you have a howitzer? If you can have a howitzer, why can't you have a cruise missile or two? And for that matter, why can't you have an ICBM?

I mean, if your reasoning for allowing gun ownership is to prevent teh creation of a fascist state, why not go all the way and get whatever the government has?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2004 6:47 pm 
Offline
Addict

Joined: Mon May 13, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1294
Location: Middle of goddamn nowhere, Georgia
Re: Baron's post.

The main thing there is that unless the government gets absolute total control over the media and all forms of communication, which I think is impossible in this age, they will not employ howitzers or cruise missiles against their own citizens. Even in the most extreme case they wouldn't, due to massive bad press coverage/scandal, etc. They have SWAT teams and such to do that sort of work, and owning firearms of the sort they have at least puts us on equal footing weapon-wise. Firearms are a rather discriminating weapon, high explosives are not.

And also because only the really rich sods would be able to own howitzers and cruise missiles.

_________________
"My relationship with my SAW[M249 Squad Automatic Weapon] has lasted longer than my marriage did." -One of the guys in my platoon.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2004 7:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2038 9:00 pm
Posts: 3209
Re: Rupert's second post.

Ever hear of China? Little incident at Tiananmen Square?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2004 8:09 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 12:55 am
Posts: 4234
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow
Which, ya know, was TOTALLY covered up successfully.

_________________
Remember, one always has what they need, nothing more, nothing less. Sometimes, we just don't know what we need.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2004 8:19 pm 
Offline
Addict

Joined: Mon May 13, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1294
Location: Middle of goddamn nowhere, Georgia
That was from an already repressive government. This might be a rare bit of optimism on my part, but I don't think that anything like that would ever happen in the US. Riot troops yes, tanks being used against civilians, I doubt it. I think I could take down a fair number of riot troops given enough time for preparation before they managed to tear gas/beanbag shotgun me to unconsciousness.

Seriously, blowjobs make the headlines in the US. (Clinton, etc) How would tanks/howitzers/cruise missiles being used against civilians go over with not only the US, but the rest of the world?

_________________
"My relationship with my SAW[M249 Squad Automatic Weapon] has lasted longer than my marriage did." -One of the guys in my platoon.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 16, 2004 8:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2038 9:00 pm
Posts: 3209
Skjie wrote:
Which, ya know, was TOTALLY covered up successfully.

Whether or not people know about it is insignificant. It can be justified through propaganda (call them all terrorists, etc.).

And yeah, that might be optimistic. Just playing devil's advocate, as you seemed to mix the "protection from other citizens" and "protection from government" arguments in your original post, Rupe.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2004 12:36 pm 
Offline
Addict

Joined: Mon May 13, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1294
Location: Middle of goddamn nowhere, Georgia
Well, we DO need protection from both, don't we? I trust any of my rifles close at hand more than calling 911 and waiting an hour for the police to arrive.

_________________
"My relationship with my SAW[M249 Squad Automatic Weapon] has lasted longer than my marriage did." -One of the guys in my platoon.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2004 9:32 pm 
Offline
Tourist
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2004 9:18 am
Posts: 59
Location: In the hive
Labrat wrote:
What I have to say is: The British must trust the government an awful damn much. Cameras are allowed everywere and firearms almost nowhere. Here in America, when the feds come for you, you have the option of having a long and bloody standoff before being carted off in a bodybag.

It makes sure the government will think long and hard before doing something that the people REALLY don't like.


That's one of the points of the second amendment. It reminds the government that it was created through revolution and it can be overthrown by revolution. A government that wants an unarmed populace fears its citizenry.

As for the protection side of things, I do not live in a city. I live atleast 45 minutes from the Sheriff's department. Even if you live within a few minutes of the nearest police station, those few minutes could mean the difference between life and death. If your sister's deranged son-of-a-serial-murderer ex-husband decides to hunt her down and decides to come to the last place he knows she lived (where I live now), you need to be worried about a few seconds of response time, much less 45 minutes.

Next take a look at gun control laws. If a person is going to violate the law by stealing, raping, or murdering, how can anyone possibly believe that a gun control law will keep a gun out of a person that has complete disregard for the law?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 19, 2004 9:46 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 8:43 pm
Posts: 1944
Location: In front of the computer, doing things best left undescribed
That's the problem with politicians. They have three reasons for making laws that piss off us law-abiding, gun-owning citizens.

1) They see no point to it. They don't own guns. Nobody they know owns guns. And they've never had to use guns. So they don't see why would want to own guns anymore than they do, therefore we don't need guns. If we don't need guns, then there's nothing wrong with taking them away from the populace. It's like a political group trying to pass a law to outlaw treble hooks because they're unneccesary, dangerous, and "cruel". Fishermen everywhere will speak up against it, but they'll be ignored because the politicians already have their preconceived ideas about it and won't listen to anything but their own opinions. This sort of ignorance is one of the most dangerous things to the rights of Americans. So far it's restricted the type and function of the firearms we use, and now I have to register any lab equipment I purchase, even if it's just a stupid beaker or flask. After all, I could be a dangerous person making drugs, explosives, or chemical weapons in my basement. :roll: Now they're trying to ban .50-caliber weapons out of the same ignorance.

2) They think that by removing a tool used to do something, they can keep people from doing that thing. I.E., they have the sort of reasoning "well, if people keep burning their houses down when their chimneys catch on fire, we should outlaw chimneys. If nobody has a chimney, then their house won't catch on fire." This time they're applying the same faulty logic to guns. "If people get robbed or murdered because the criminal has a gun, if we take away the gun then nobody will ever get robbed or murdered". Hate to break it to you guys, but we've been robbing and murdering a LOT longer than guns have been around. Removing the modern and most convenient tool used for that sort of crime isn't going to affect it one bit. And that's assuming you can actually take the guns away from the criminals. Cocaine, marijuana, and LSD are illegal. You can't own it. Period. The cops arrest anyone they find possessing it and confiscate what they had. This hasn't stopped it from coming into or even being made in the country, it hasn't stopped it from being sold, and it hasn't stopped it from being used. True, it's restricted its use primarily to criminals, but they were going to break the law anyway. So by taking guns away from law-abiding citizens, you've only made it EASIER for criminals to rob, rape, murder, and destroy. Now they don't have as much resistance and they still have their guns! If they're going to ignore the laws and code of behaviour our society has established regarding the lives, possessions, and well-being of other people, why would they start obeying another set? The "if there are no ladders to fall off of, nobody will ever fall" mentality is another flaw in the socialist peace-at-any-cost hippie pansy-ass politicians we have in office now.

3) People who can say no to the government and back it up have power. You may have social, economical, or political influence, but let's be honest: violence is the most basic, direct, and universal source of power and influence in the world. You can have all the friends and money you want, but unless you want bad things to happen to you and those friends, you'll do what the people with true power want you to do. That's why the mafia is so effective in its organized crime. Yes, they own many businesses, both legitimate and illegal. Yes, they have social and political influence. But when you get right down to it, everyone cooperates with the mafia because if they don't they'll end up sleeping with the fishes. When the British government heavily taxed their colonists, violated the rights the government had guaranteed them, housed troops in their citizens homes, restricted their trade, committed acts of violence against the citizenry, and basically made world-class assholes of themselves, what did the colonists do? They picked up their guns, stole some cannons, and kicked the limey bastards and their German mercenaries out. When the USSR tried taking over Afghanistan, the people fought back with what they had, mostly stolen from Soviet supplies or in shipments that the US secretly smuggled over the border. Had they not gotten aid and support, they would have been rolled over like they weren't even there. When the Chinese people protested against their government and demanded reform, the government sent in tanks and infantry to slaughter them all. The people couldn't fight back because, for the most part, they were unarmed. Saddam Hussein held Iraq for decades because he had the power of violence and brute force over his people. It wasn't until someone with bigger toys came along to finish the job that he was finally ousted and quit killing his people. So the lesson is clear: an armed populace can fight back and disagree with the government. An unarmed populace can only do what those in charge tell them to do because they are powerless.

Britain, Australia, and other nations with similar restrictive gun laws are going the way of 1984/Brave New World/ARM from Man-Kzin Wars. And there are those in America who would see us do the same.

My question for the debate was, are we really worse off without the guns?

My own opinion: Heck yes. Viva la firepower.

_________________
Insane_Megalamaniac
Chancellor of Initiations
Image
Pyro: Noun. Practicioner of the ancient and gentle arts of burning shit down and blowing shit up.

DNI'd by actor_au


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 19, 2004 7:11 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2003 1:42 pm
Posts: 1793
Location: Still Alaska
Insane_Megalamaniac wrote:
That's the problem with politicians. They have three reasons for making laws that piss off us law-abiding, gun-owning citizens.

1) Politicians aren't normal people.

However, many of them still own guns, from Vice Presidents, to Chief Justices of the Supreme Court.

The ones making the restrictive laws about lab equipment, et cetera, do not seem to be the same ones who are restricting guns.

However, the problem that politicians are not their constitutients is significant. It is, however, not very avoidable. It is enheartening that there is still empathy in this world for people not like oneself, as demonstrated by such famous actions as the ACLU's defence of those damn Nazis.

Quote:
2) If guns are outlawed, criminals will still have them. They are, after all, criminals.

Yet, we still have laws. To say that criminals will get around laws is saying that we might as well hope that everyone is a nice, understanding individual, and not have laws. Yes, law enforcement is not omnipotent. Get over it, and don't try to exaggerate it. Laws, generally, are more effective than not. Just look Japan, for instance. They have more sword deaths than gun deaths. Is this because everyone just prefers swords?

No, laws don't stop bad things from happening entirely. But they stop a lot of instances for so much money to be put into enforcing them.

Guns don't kill people, sure. But they sure as hell make it a whole lot easier. Just look at the gun deaths that come from accidental shootings (that just happen to outnumber the gun deaths that come from lawfully defending one's home).

Also, I do not think, say, Bush is a "socialist peace-at-any-cost hippie pansy-ass politician."

Quote:
3) Without guns, we are powerless.

Now this, is a good reason. But, are you so cynical as to believe that the US functions just like every other backwater?

I counter with the cynicism that should you be right, there's no one with "bigger toys" to put down their citizens than the US. If they really want to do it, there's no way to put the constitution back in place after they've declared "Emergency Powers."

Additionally, I was under the impression that, in Iraq, each household was allowed to have an AK or similar. Is this just a recent (i.e. post-O:IF) law (meaning all these militants, warlords, AKs, and RPGs have just shown up over night), or have these weapons and trained militants (e.g. those who served their compulsory military service in Iraq) been there all along?

Quote:
Britain, Australia, and other nations with similar restrictive gun laws are going the way of 1984/Brave New World/ARM from Man-Kzin Wars. And there are those in America who would see us do the same.

I can't comment for other countries, but in the US I say this is unfortunately true. Problem is, the ones who would see us go the same way, don't seem to be the ones restricting gun use. The ones who had the Patriot Act ready to go at a moment's notice wasn't the Dems who made the Brady Bill, it was the staunch Republicans, led by none other than a Texan.

Quote:
My question for the debate was, are we really worse off without the guns?

My own opinion: Heck yes. Viva la firepower.

I like reason three, but your generalizations just don't seem to pan out.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:14 pm 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2001 5:00 pm
Posts: 5769
Location: Boston, Massachusetts
Abunai! wrote:
Quote:
3) Without guns, we are powerless.

Now this, is a good reason. But, are you so cynical as to believe that the US functions just like every other backwater?

I counter with the cynicism that should you be right, there's no one with "bigger toys" to put down their citizens than the US. If they really want to do it, there's no way to put the constitution back in place after they've declared "Emergency Powers."


This is a very good point. What good is a handgun when tanks are rumbling down street?

_________________
iothera: a science fantasy


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 40 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group