 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Lighter Date: 26 Sep 14 - 06:35 PM Of course the hero of the tale was a police deputy and not Joe Blow: http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/26/us/oklahoma-beheading/index.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Greg F. Date: 26 Sep 14 - 05:59 PM So where's Rap & Dude complaining about Q-zer insulting those who served, eh? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Jeri Date: 26 Sep 14 - 04:41 PM Man, it's gonna take a jackhammer to get some people's shorts outta their asses... (That's a joke. There is just so long being offended/outraged is gonna be fun, then what are ya gonna do?) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Greg F. Date: 26 Sep 14 - 04:32 PM So Q'zer- what the fuck is your problem? I should think that seeing them in 1968 would be more than enough for you. You think that the ± 58,220 U.S service personnel killed, the ± 153,303 wounded and the the and the ± 430,000 South Vietnamese civilians killed in that U.S. clusterfuck are SOMETHING TO MAKE FUCKING JOKES ABOUT? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 26 Sep 14 - 04:14 PM Some nice tours offered of the tunnels and fields of battle in Vietnam. I take it Greg F has no interest in taking one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: olddude Date: 26 Sep 14 - 12:36 PM Police department do not give back weapons they destroy them I guestion this. Rap is correct you insult all those who served I also won't post |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Wesley S Date: 26 Sep 14 - 12:07 PM Own a piece of history. Remember Charles Whitman the Texas Tower shooter at the U of Texas in Austin back in 1966? Hard to believe but his actual rifle used in the shooting is up for sale. Full story here "Bids are starting at $25,000 for the sale of the rifle used by Charles Whitman during his deadly 1966 sniper rampage from atop the University of Texas clock tower that killed 16 people and wounded dozens more. The bids are being accepted on the website of Texas Gun Trader. Donald Weiss of Dallas tells the Houston Chronicle he's helping the unidentified owner of the Remington 700 to sell the weapon. Weiss says there's a pending offer of more than $25,000 from a man in the Southeast Texas town of Orange. Weiss says the owner obtained the rifle from Whitman's estate." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Greg F. Date: 26 Sep 14 - 10:44 AM I find the responses insulting to US veterans and the National Guard Well, that's on YOU then, Rap, since no one has insulted U.S. veterans or National Guard personnel except in your imagination. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Rapparee Date: 25 Sep 14 - 10:36 PM I don't think I'll post here anymore. I find the responses insulting to US veterans and the National Guard -- of which I was a member in 1968, when the unit was activated and ended up in Vietnam. Ya'll keep keep your heads down now. (Bill D., you and a few others aren't included in the above. Rationality and reality isn't a strong point here.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: olddude Date: 25 Sep 14 - 07:34 PM naw bill they didnt count the illegals ...my bad |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: GUEST,Rahere Date: 25 Sep 14 - 06:54 PM As someone whose mush appears in God only knows how many STASI border shots from the late 70s doing something real to persuade the bearers of real AK47s they didn't want to try it, I have a dim opinion of a Nation which allows people to fantasize like that, "WWIII reenactment" indeed. You actually managed to find a lower notch on my scale of contempt, I didn't think possible. And that he should be holding an entire town in fear and trepidation, Police and Troopers and National Guard, Oh My! You're off to see the Wizard, the Wonderful Wizard of Id... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Greg F. Date: 25 Sep 14 - 05:18 PM My youngest nephew is a Vietnam War re-enactor...Are you saying that those of us who served during the VN Era or in VN are "sick"? No, as one who served, I'm saying that anyone who wants to replay that fucking useless and idiotic sausage grinder is sick. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Bill D Date: 25 Sep 14 - 04:02 PM 313.9 million (2012) "percent wise probably no more than other countries" It just makes some of them work harder with bigger guns. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: olddude Date: 25 Sep 14 - 03:56 PM There is more than 400. Million people in the USA. Yes you will get killers but percent wise probably no more than other countries this size |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Rapparee Date: 25 Sep 14 - 03:19 PM My youngest nephew is a Vietnam War re-enactor. He also re-enacts WW2. He's no more dangerous than anyone else. Are you saying that those of us who served during the VN Era or in VN are "sick"? If so, drop around. I'll introduce you to some of them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 25 Sep 14 - 02:03 PM Dangerous shithead out there, with an AK-47 and a .308. Now on FBI Most Wanted List, and so far, $175,000 offered in reward money. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Greg F. Date: 25 Sep 14 - 11:44 AM http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/accused-state-trooper-shooter-eric-frein-surfaces-vietnam-war-reenactment-video-article-1.1949607 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Lighter Date: 25 Sep 14 - 09:33 AM Actually he was a World War III in Europe "re-enactor." He liked to play Soviet soldiers. Means nothing. None of his pals are murderers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Greg F. Date: 25 Sep 14 - 09:30 AM He was a historical re-enactor, He was a VIETNAM WAR re-enactor, Rap - which makes him a pretty sick puppy to begin with. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Rapparee Date: 25 Sep 14 - 09:21 AM 1. There is no indication that the guy who ambushed the cops in PA was a member of anything other than his own delusions. 2. He was a historical re-enactor, a hobby found pretty much worldwide -- including the UK -- where they carry rifles and pistols and swords and lances and all sorts of things. Some of them work! 3. The town of Canadiensis is still in lockdown and shelter in place. 4. He's not a particularly good example of a woods-wise person...he's let himself be seen. 5. I predict he will kill himself rather than be taken by the police -- a final gesture of defiance and hate. 6. In any case I seriously doubt that he will be taken alive; if he is he will spend the rest of his life in hospital. 7. If you can find it, see the new FBI report on mass shootings -- it came out this very morning. Try to understand what it says. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: MGM·Lion Date: 25 Sep 14 - 07:46 AM No idea what you are on about Guest. How can I be a member of your NRA from here in Cambridgeshire? - which is in England in case you didn't know. Now just save your spleen for someone with the remotest idea of what you are on about, eh! Please read my post, my first at the top of this thread, which reproduces some on a former post of the X to the power of n threads we have had on the topic to fond out where I stand on the whole issue of the dysfunctionality of US law on this entire topic. And then leave me alone, please. I wasn't talking to you, so don't dare respond in that patronising fashion, you ashamed-to-identify-yourself nonentity. ≈M≈ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 25 Sep 14 - 06:03 AM No-one shouts at you silly. They only have to disagree with your supposed wisdom on something to set you off. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Musket Date: 25 Sep 14 - 03:27 AM I get bollocked for being offensive with good cause Rahere... It adds to the fun when those shouting at me are little boys with pea shooters. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: GUEST,Rahere Date: 25 Sep 14 - 03:00 AM Last one in this whack-a-mole was me. Oh, what the heck Martha Washington's Recipe for Apple Pie Ingredients 1 firearm 200 bullets 1 idiot 100 victims Method Mix and wait. After all, what can be more American? And yes, I am being rather offensive, because these defenders of the indefensible are indistinguishable from any other members of the candidates for the Den Haag Prize for Crimes Against Humanity, such as Islamic Fundamentalists, the Roman Catholic Church, the SchutzStaffel and America's own home-brewed Militias. After all, you have an entire community in Pennsylvania under lock-down last week after some militia member turned Rambo using the weapons you defend, didn't you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Backwoodsman Date: 25 Sep 14 - 02:51 AM MGM is British and lives in England, AFAIK. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: GUEST Date: 25 Sep 14 - 02:23 AM How many times do I have to repeat it, MGM, the founding legislation the Amendment was based on excludes ammunition, and so you are word-twisting! A bullet on its own cannot hurt anyone. A bullet is NOT a firearm, you cannot kill someone just by carrying a bullet around. You need to have a gun, ammunition and an idiot to come together to make these things happen. Keep them apart and the problem disappears. I don't give a flying fuck what the idiots of the NRA, which evidently include you, surmise what your nonsense Law says, you have a biased agenda. Law has to deal with real people, and people change. What was suitable while there were Sioux taking scalps is no longer necessary once the problem's resolved. But no, it doesn't suit you to speak plain English and to apply English to the Law, does it? Sure, you need ammunition to make your firearm fire, but the Amendment doesn't provide for firing it, all it provides for is the right to carry a weapon around like an umbrella. Why not extend the logic further and say the right logically allows you to shoot anyone you like? After all, if you can't shoot someone, there's no point in carying it around, is there? Oh yes, the little question of premeditation in murder conspiracy. Loading your weapon is usually considered sufficient proof of intent, as the most an unloaded weapon can be is a menace or club. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Bill D Date: 24 Sep 14 - 08:01 PM ",,the opinion of the vast majority of sentient beings that have been paying attention for the last century" My ...you have access to databases I never imagined! Or did you conduct the polls? Of course I am aware of global warming/global climate change. And the over-population issue... and the renewable energy issue... and the high price of tea in China. Fortunately, those are about 63.982 times more quantifiable and scientifically verifiable than your sweeping generalization about global world opinion on already subjective concerns. (look up 'subjective') |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Greg F. Date: 24 Sep 14 - 07:35 PM Right now it is YOUR opinion. No, Bill it is hardly MY opinion. It is the opinion of the vast majority of sentient beings that have been paying attention for the last century. That, of course, leaves you out. QUERY: do you also "believe" that there's no such thing as global warming/global climate change?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Bill D Date: 24 Sep 14 - 06:18 PM Ersatz buggering in process.... but we hafta get 'em to hold still. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: MGM·Lion Date: 24 Sep 14 - 05:21 PM In semantic & conceptual fairness: it doesn't mention 'guns' -- it sez "keep & bear arms": "arms" must subsume the ammunition as well as the actual firearms. Bugger it! ≈M≈ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Bill D Date: 24 Sep 14 - 05:09 PM "And stop being so bloody negative about it.." *sigh* What I do is positive... You are reading in 'negative' as a knee-jerk response to my explaining my pragmatic understanding of what we are facing. It is necessary to understand both history and culture in order to deal with it! I SAID I am working at it when I can... and I have lobbied every human I know when the topic comes up... including many on Mudcat. My own state's legislators are already on the side of sanity, and I can't afford to go stumping in Texas and Montana. I watch & recommend to other the media that make the most sense. I read Change.org... and Huffington Post and Rachael Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell and keep up with what billionaire ex-NY mayor Bloomberg is doing (now THERE's a campaign!) (and yes... making bullets harder to get would be a help in the long term, but the same basic legislative issues are involved. Didn't I recently post about the obvious constitutional question involved..IF our citizens are allowed guns, denying bullets would invalidate that right.) Now... off on Friday to a music weekend. I may not have time to reiterate it till I get home... ☺ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Musket Date: 24 Sep 14 - 03:52 PM Britons? C'est ce c'est? Somewhere to put the guns? Sell 'em to a right wing guerrilla militia in Latin America. That's what you usually do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: GUEST,Rahere Date: 24 Sep 14 - 01:55 PM You have a petitioning system, get using it. Change.org can show you how. Stop copping out, if the NRA can lobby, so can you. We did it. It's not just guns, we go after anything which kills. As I type, there's complaints into a cover-up of a midwife who didn't give a damn, it came out after two mothers and babies died. Another case, a police firearms officer with two minority elements to her background, won her case for discrimination against the Met, and is now back for more after they then released data of a case they were preparing against her in substantiation for the discrimination, which therefore collapsed. We've stopped taking it, the UK is changing, and the Machine has to too. The difference is we DO hold our representatives to account. Not just by petitions, but we actually vote some of the buggers out - and that has included Ministers, too. And stop being so bloody negative about it, you've defeated yourselves before you start. The UK has had huge numbers of weapons after WW1, we handed them in after Dunkirk because they were needed for the wellbeing of the country. And still you miss the other point, a gun without ammunition is just a lump of metal. Leave them their blasted dick compensation symbols, go for the ammo. No rounds, no problem. You have a new Presidential Campaign starting soon, get onto the candidates who might and start asking for commitments. Get onto your Convention delegates and start telling them to. You have a voice, stop being mice and start kicking arse. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Lighter Date: 24 Sep 14 - 01:47 PM > all those millions (hundreds of millions some say) of guns are out there! The UK didn't have THAT problem when it passed those sane laws That's a key observation, since the UK didn't have to require the turning in of something like 300,000,000 guns that already in private hands. (In our politics, the phrase used would undoubtedly be "seize unconstitutionally and without due process.") Since few Britons (presumably including criminals, though I wouldn't be too sure about that) had the guns, they didn't feel so great a need to protect themselves from all those others who also owned guns. Why should I turn in mine if I have no reason to expect "Knuckles" and "Beast" down the street to do the same? And, of course, British criminals too are unlikely to have turned in their own firearms. Or do you have a better class of criminal as well in your more civilized and happier land? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Bill D Date: 24 Sep 14 - 11:46 AM "What would you like to discuss?" Any of those are fair game individually, Greg, as possible candidates for stupidity, political expediency, or just bad guessing about whether an honest attempt at doing a good would go terribly wrong. (You left out the Bay of Pigs) But you miss the point.... making a list of bad choices, sometimes by flawed leaders, does not demonstrate a 'policy', and only a much longer list comprised of relevant people who agree with you, could define a 'consensus'. I could compile a list of those who heartily approved of some of our excursions..... but it proves nothing except that it ain't easy to know ahead of time what the best path is. I repeat "... imperialistic, self-righteous, gunboat diplomacy foreign policy of the U.S. .." is an OPINION about events. Right now it is YOUR opinion. That it is a consensus is also only your opinion. You made the claim that it is a fact. Write a book... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rahere: " That is all it needs, for a Nation to make up its mind, and to do that, it needs to be led by the influencers of the mores. " Sounds very high minded and inspirational.... and some well-known people are working at it. But what the UK did after Dunblane was possible because the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997, (and others) could BE passed as a restriction on the country as a whole. Many people petitioned, the legislation was introduced, and a law was passed...voila! Lovely! I do not understand why it is so hard to see that we do not have that luxury. I would LOVE to see a march..like the Civil Rights era... and resulting consensus in Congress followed by a similar wide ranging restriction on guns. I approve of the idea! I would march, I would vote, I would applaud when done. It-just-don't-work-that-way! But you don't have a system where Sussex, Lincolnshire, Rutland, etc. can resist sweeping reform.... or where attempts at legislation can be amended, held in committee, debated into oblivion, and not even allowed to come to a vote by House or Senate leaders! You make clear, sensible proposals.... for a different legislative system. Our system, which worked fine in 1795, or 1853, and pretty well in 1945, has awkward details which are studied and thoroughly exploited by the NRA and highly paid lawyers & lobbyists. And the sad fact is.... all those millions (hundreds of millions some say) of guns are out there! The UK didn't have THAT problem when it passed those sane laws. We probably have only a small % of firearms registered and in any easily available database. Too many are sold 'privately' or are flatly bought illegally. And those who hold the most weapons...legal & illegal... USE the very idea to defend their own guns as a protective measure against OTHERS with guns...and against any attempt by the government to pass laws restricting them! And many of them vow to USE their guns to defend their supposed 'right' to keep them! (We have had census takers shot by rural folk who didn't even want to answer questions about who they are! Who would take the job of going about collecting recently banned weapons?) Yes... it is an untenable situation. No, that doesn't mean I or millions of sane people have given up. There are small steps being made. Your country is a thousand or so years old, and relatively 'compact'. Ours is big, diverse and barely adolescent, and was created partly as a rejection of being ruled by yours. Our Constitution & law reflect that. It will take awhile to unravel the tangles. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: GUEST,Rahere Date: 24 Sep 14 - 09:40 AM Now, I agree our politicians in the UK are a useless bunch of oojits, from the Leader of the Opposition who just forgot we've got the debt problem his mates bequeathed us last time round, to a PM who considers ostriches are a close-run thing. We can do something about them, and may well do so. But htis ain't what the meme is about, it's about people who say they are doing something when nothing changes. In the UK, we got rid of the guns after Dunblane, simply by deciding to do so. That is all it needs, for a Nation to make up its mind, and to do that, it needs to be led by the influencers of the mores. Folk and country is at the cutting edge of that in the States, the talking heads on the box will follow if someone leads. If you got together with people like Bill Hare, in a Folk Against Dead Kids, then you could lead the way and force the Government to act. Now is the time to prepare, and the next massacre - and there will be one, sure as God made little children - the trigger for it. You have a week's window of opportunity after it, contact people like Dolly Parton and Oprah, they'd not dare to be seen not to help. And JFDI. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Rapparee Date: 24 Sep 14 - 09:23 AM A statesman is a dead politician, and God knows we need more statesmen. As for Abe Lincoln, he was a pretty good shot. He tested fired several rifles right outside the White House during the Civil War. Nearly got himself arrested, too, for discharging firearms inside the city. Today the name of the town [Dodge City] that flourished as a Texas cattle market from 1876 to 1885 is widely employed as a cultural metaphor for homicide, anarchy, and depravity. Yet only fifteen adults died violently in Dodge during its cowboy years. In two livestock seasons and probably a third, no adults died violently, and only once did the annual number reach as high as five. But before becoming a cattle town Dodge had served as a center for the buffalo-hide trade. During its first year its governmental organization was tied up in court. Lacking formal law enforcement, Dodge suffered sixteen to nineteen violent deaths. By mid-1873, however, its county had been organized and a sheriff elected. Not until 1878 is another adult homicide known to have occurred. By then lawmen headquartered there consisted of a deputy U.S. marshal, a sheriff, an undersheriff, as many deputy sheriffs as needed, a city marshal, an assistant marshal, as many policemen as needed, and two town constables. This formidable deployment and the enforcement of gun control largely explain the low body count. --Encyclopedia of the Great Plain (online) Then there's this. Like olddude, I fully support well-considered, equally applied, and well-enforced legal control of firearms ownership. Always have. It's safer for everyone. If half the money spent on scare tactics, not only in the US but around the world, were put into mental health we'd all be better off. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Greg F. Date: 24 Sep 14 - 09:16 AM LOLOL.. and if we can find a consensus saying you are full of it? Now, there ya go again, Bill - "I'M" not saying it. What would you like to discuss? The Mexican-American "War"? Nicaragua? The Phillipines & Cuba? Santo Domingo? Vietnam & the Khmer Rouge? Salvador Allende & Chile? Grenada? El Salvador? The Shah of Iran? The Mujahideen? Or any of the other thousand examples? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Musket Date: 24 Sep 14 - 02:43 AM Unhinged people can get guns here too if they are really driven to find them. It's just that they aren't sold in the aisle next to breakfast cereals. Making them harder to own, restricting the types and uses.. We have guns. Quite legitimately. A friend has an impressive collection of small bore rifles and takes them to Bisley and other ranges, came close to getting in the Olympic team a few years ago. I have a man keep the rabbit population in check in some fields I have for that matter. But a few lines in the sand seem to make our situation comfortable for me. They are not for self defence. No pistols or any other small arms that can be concealed. Evidence of one of three broad categories; hunting / land control, organised sport and collecting antiques. The latter still precludes working models of banned categories. Kept in certified locked containers, subject to police registration and inspection and applications to own include searches, character references and interview by police officers. I genuinely think many US firearm owners would easily fit in that definition, or at the very least something just as sensible. I reckon the self defence idea is at best a statement of failure of community safety and at worst a dangerous illogical concept. There are many things The USA do better than here, but guns don't fit in the list. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Bill D Date: 23 Sep 14 - 09:06 PM LOLOL.. and if we can find a consensus saying you are full of it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Greg F. Date: 23 Sep 14 - 08:09 PM If it ain't yours, why state it as if it were? 'Cause its the consensus, Bill. Do go and read some more - this time for comprehension. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Bill D Date: 23 Sep 14 - 07:05 PM Your premise was "... imperialistic, self-righteous, gunboat diplomacy foreign policy of the U.S. down to the present day.." That is an opinion about history, not a fact in and of itself. And 'consensus' needs to define its referents. And 'many' is not 'consensus'. If it ain't yours, why state it as if it were? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Greg F. Date: 23 Sep 14 - 05:33 PM Tell me, if you can, why yours is to be chiseled in stone? It ain't MINE, Bill. You've just proved despite your protestations of erudition that you HAVEN'T studied or read widely in U.S. history. Also, pick up your dictionary and look up "consensus". And RE: "interpretations", there's also such a thing as historical fact, which seems to have eluded you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Bill D Date: 23 Sep 14 - 03:20 PM "Which USA are you most proud of?" They're not separate. If I had Gates' billions, I'd divide my spending a bit differently. What he has done is commendable.... but that is his choice out of many needy projects. "politicians can't even stop unhinged disturbed people from polishing their guns that politicians allow them to own." Of course they can't stop them after the fact! *I* have said in many posts that there is and will be an endless supply of crazies, most of whom can't be identified until they "go off". *I* have said that laws need to reduce the 'opportunity' for crazies to get NEAR guns... which can ONLY be done is a significant way by limiting access to guns for everyone who cannot show...directly... that they need access. So? I agree... now what? Once again, you describe the problem.. as if the very form should cause all voters and the politicians they vote for to "see the light". Too many do-not-care what shows up in the light. "No skin off MY nose, and besides, if I vote against guns, I don't get re-elected!" Have I mentioned that none of this means that I, or many others, are giving up? ANY progress is better than NO progress.. and maybe the horse will learn to sing... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Lighter Date: 23 Sep 14 - 03:16 PM > some talking points on how they made the public safer Both sides say this. So they agree on something. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: olddude Date: 23 Sep 14 - 03:11 PM Even people I know like myself that support the 2nd admendment scream give us laws that make sense we will support you. But we only get smoke up our ass |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: olddude Date: 23 Sep 14 - 03:07 PM The only thing that is even remotely good is we put our sins in the windows for everyone to se. NNow if we could stop the talking heads on capital hill and get something done it may stop but in the 61 years I been alive nothing has changed except ineffective laws that only give the political guys some talking points on how they made the public safer and declare victory over the violence. They never at any time listened to law enforcement or sportsmen who know what they are talking about. For 40 year'sppeople have been screaming about gun shows nothing changed but the body count |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: GUEST Date: 23 Sep 14 - 02:56 PM "Inaction is not the problem.... there are plenty of actions going on as we speak type. Some are kicking alligators in the snout; some are banding together to identify the weakest pile of alligators; some are yelling for the swamp to be refilled; some are running like hell; some are frozen in fear (is that an action?)...." Bill D Bill is right. It just occurred to me that we are already doing what you in the UK are saying that we should do. It just hasn't worked yet. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Musket Date: 23 Sep 14 - 02:52 PM Try thinking first Bill before criticising. Nobody is a prophet in his own land. Statesmen tend to be fawned abroad, but never at home. You dont need someone who has the statesman look about them. You need someone with domestic balls. Statesmen cut their teeth abroad. A bit of a bugger when Bill Gates can prevent deaths measured in millions by privately funding health programmes in third world countries but a country stuffed with politicians can't even stop unhinged disturbed people from polishing their guns that politicians allow them to own. Which USA are you most proud of? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Bill D Date: 23 Sep 14 - 02:23 PM working backwards: "Guess you haven't read or studied much U.S. history, then, Bill." Oh, but I have... and still do... and I see as many interpretations of the nuances of history as there are interpretations of Genesis. Tell me, if you can, why yours is to be chiseled in stone? "First they have to find a statesman." I don't think that really deserves comment. It could be discussed only if you referred to individual cases. As is, it is merely sarcasm.... "..., the question is, what are you going to do about it? Spout platitudes to justify continued inaction? " 'Justify' is YOUR false take on my metaphorical description of a situation. Inaction is not the problem.... there are plenty of actions going on as we "And it's irresponsibility from your entire political system, both sides, and the presumption you only need two political parties." "Irresponsibility" happens in every system...even yours. You just don't care to even look for 'responsible' actions and individuals when you don't see your definition of progress & solutions! I could (given a few hours and better typing speed) show dozens of quite reasonable, sane and responsible examples of both. As to political parties... we have many, but I DO agree that the system makes it difficult for a 3rd party to do much beyond splitting the vote and allowing insanity to prevail..(witness Ralph Nader in 2000 taking Florida away from Gore and giving us Bush). We NEED to abolish the outmoded Electoral College and allow national majority vote, which would automatically help minor parties help each other rather than interfere with each other. Why don't we? You realize which current party the current system favors? You realize that they will truck in alligators from neighboring swamps if anyone tries to initiate the constitutional changes necessary? You have any idea who owns most of the trucks?... and do you see why I get livid at supercilious finger pointing when someone publishes data on alligator bites and says "you're just not trying!"? |
