 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Anyone defend US gun law?
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Rapparee Date: 01 Sep 14 - 06:40 PM How about Stephen Decatur's quote? Note the qualification. 'Our country! In her intercourse with foreign nations, may she always be in the right; but our country, right or wrong.' |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Greg F. Date: 01 Sep 14 - 09:04 AM OK, Rap, but Schurz was responding with his "revised" version to the prevalence of the "un-revised" version of the saying at the time (1872). Unfortunately, most U.S. folks using the phrase today aren't referencing the Schurz version. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Bill D Date: 31 Aug 14 - 11:29 PM It can be very difficult and awkward to get OUT of one's own country if it has problems.... like Carl Shurz says, it's better to fix it. Trouble is, so many things in this 'modern' age have created an atmosphere where is looks like Sisyphus & King Canute had it easy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Rapparee Date: 31 Aug 14 - 09:10 PM "My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Carl Shurz |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Greg F. Date: 31 Aug 14 - 03:44 PM You mean the attitude of nationalists everywhere. If not, you're applying a double standard. If he is so applying, does that render the American attitude of My Country Right or Wrong correct and morally justifiable? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Lighter Date: 31 Aug 14 - 03:11 PM > the American attitude of My Country Right or Wrong You mean the attitude of nationalists everywhere. If not, you're applying a double standard. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Greg F. Date: 31 Aug 14 - 02:59 PM The Democratic candidate Bruce Braley seems to have a reasonable agenda, from a brief read. Wanna bet he loses to one of the wingnut assholes in a landslide, Bill? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: GUEST Date: 31 Aug 14 - 11:16 AM I think there is a serious risk the American attitude of My Country Right or Wrong could cause civil war in the UK, now the FBI is helping in Heathrow. True, we saw a first step in allowing the French to run their border controls at St Pancras for Eurostar, but none the less. The point is that in the UK, we neither love nor trust our police and security services, not least as a direct consequence of the incessant spin telling us that we do. There is nothing more guaranteed to make a Brit question what's going on than telling him what he has to think or believe, something which has not yet penetrated the noddles of our politicians. On occasion, we respect our armed forces, but as guarantors of the peoples freedom and not as our rulers. The Army first overthrew Parliament in 1648, might have done so again in 1848 (special political measures were undetaken), 1919 (Spanish Flu blocked it) and did for certain in 1945, in General Election. The aftermath of that rumbles on in the South Yorkshire child abuse case, where people complaining were fankily not only given the bum's rush, but gagged and discredited into the bargain, and in the King case, where a British citizen has ended up under arrest without breaking the Law, simply because he disagreed with the NHS - a clear breach of Article 5 of the Convention on Human Rights and Articles 1, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 45 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. By contrast, OldDude considers the population are a form of militia, right behind the Armed Forces. He may be, but many aren't, even in the US: if they were, better provision would be made for the Veterans Administration, which cares for those who have paid the butcher's bill the hard way. Worse, organisations like Homeland Security (and how oxymoronic that last word is, Insecurity more like) trade in it, demolishing the reputation of their country elsewhere. He just doesn't get how seriously we disagree with that fundamental Might Is Right approach, because it plays straight into the hands of the less reputable business interests of the US. As it is, there is now, I think, every likelihood of a Labour government being elected in nine months time, as people have had enough of the economy recovering but the population still being made to suffer. If we're damned if we do and are damned if we don't, then we might as well go down with people doing something to help rather than hinder. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Bill D Date: 31 Aug 14 - 11:01 AM *sigh*... that particular senate race has 2 crazies running. We can only hope they split the vote. That "man of the people" has reason to be angry, but his message is just beyond the pale. It is quite common for wing-nuts to use an election they have no hope of winning to attract attention to their 'cause'. The Democratic candidate Bruce Braley seems to have a reasonable agenda, from a brief read. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Lighter Date: 31 Aug 14 - 09:55 AM Man of the people?: http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/09/iowa-senate-hopeful-will-use-his-glock-to-blow-your-balls-off/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Musket Date: 31 Aug 14 - 09:32 AM Who gets the bed, winner or loser? (An aside. When I do a wee bit of teaching, medical students mostly and management trainees occasionally, I tackle the thorny subject of paying for The NHS. I demonstrate the business model of over trading as a problem. I then ask them to guess which was the first year The NHS over traded, (did more than it was given money to do.) 1948/49. And ever since. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Big Al Whittle Date: 31 Aug 14 - 08:49 AM perhaps they're more advanced than us. its a sort of check on over population. Apparently Jeremy Paxman doesn't think we've paid for the health service or the old age pension. it could the way forward - give everyone a gun when they get to pensionable age. let them shoot it out for a hospital bed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Lighter Date: 31 Aug 14 - 08:44 AM > Most don't care who is banging who in Hollywood. Which, as we know, is far more important. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Musket Date: 31 Aug 14 - 03:21 AM The history is one thing. The advances in society compared to Dumbfuckistan? Priceless. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: olddude Date: 31 Aug 14 - 02:42 AM Same to you michael by the way Cambridgeshire is a lovely place. If recall SIS had an office near by beautiful area I actually love great Britain so much history |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: MGM·Lion Date: 31 Aug 14 - 02:40 AM No, thanks, Dude. Do not wish to become embroiled in private correspondence on topic on which we start at two such different points. What, after all, could we find to say which can't be said here on the thread -- which it probably has already been anyhow? But would draw attention yet again to my views on our national differences in this topic, which I copied from posts on previous thread, above on this thread on 20 Aug at 0100 am. Best regards nevertheless ≈M≈ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: olddude Date: 31 Aug 14 - 01:58 AM Any time you would like to discuss this personally I would be happy to oblige just drop me a line michael and be there |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: olddude Date: 31 Aug 14 - 01:55 AM Yes you are but I can give you a quarter to call someone who gives a shit |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: MGM·Lion Date: 31 Aug 14 - 01:51 AM "Because in America that is the only thing that keeps this nation free". .,,.,. How pathetic! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: olddude Date: 31 Aug 14 - 01:42 AM That is way of life. Can't type. Anyway my service is done it is now up to younger people to understand the nature of what it takes to keep a nation strong and it ain't folk music. It is up to them to gather the information and protect and defend the constitution. Because in America that is the only thing that keeps this nation free. And up to our military to act on threats in a decisive manner That all starts at a civilian level. And yes jack I am a crazy son of a Bitch and I am proud of it |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: olddude Date: 31 Aug 14 - 01:26 AM Really I think most Americans don't give a rats ass what the British or any other country thinks Most don't care who is banging who in Hollywood. But firearms, that Is political suicide for political leaders that is why we get laws that don't make sense. However no one is forced to visit I been all over the world and ya know what guns exist everywhere. Even in your country. It is naive to think otherwise. Maybe your news media doesn't have an agenda other than news. Ours now is a rag magazine. So guns is a high sensational value to them. The world is an unsafe place. Your naive views are not real world. People kill people people want to harm others and their way of love. It is sad but true. Burying your head in the sand only gets your ass kicked. Freedom is not free. Go to Langley and look at some stars on the wall or go to Arlington. You are talking here because someone else picked up a weapon to allow youto talk. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: olddude Date: 30 Aug 14 - 11:42 PM Rap at that age she could have been on rumspringer or however it's spelled that would explain fb and photos, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Rapparee Date: 30 Aug 14 - 10:55 PM Not just the picture, but how did she get to Facebook? The Amish I'm familiar with wouldn't be on FB, although they might use electricity if it came with a farm they were working for someone else because it wouldn't be "right" to insist that it be removed to satisfy their beliefs. Hey, I still read "The Budget" when I can get a copy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: olddude Date: 30 Aug 14 - 06:40 PM Very true Ebbie. Here they are very conservative. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Lighter Date: 30 Aug 14 - 06:07 PM Maybe daddy encouraged her to post. Good for the ol' self-esteem, wot? And will her friends ever be jealous! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Ebbie Date: 30 Aug 14 - 05:52 PM I gathered that she was in Florida, Dan, a place where the Amish let their hair down, so to speak. PLus, judging by her 'covering', she is not one of the more conservative Amish orders. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: olddude Date: 30 Aug 14 - 05:46 PM Ebbie my best Amish friends will absolutely notaallow their pictures to be taken.. Graven image etc. Hmmm wonder where she is from |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Ebbie Date: 30 Aug 14 - 05:36 PM I got a nasty shock a few minutes ago on Facebook. A little Amish girl- 16-17, I would guess - stands with a rifle slung over her shoulder. Her caption: Daddy bought me a gun today! so happy!:) It is a 44mag, she said, her father got it at a swap meet and she is going to use it to hunt deer. Now, mind you, the Amish are a frugal people, active, outdoorsy, independent. They grow and hunt much of their food. So I'm not objecting to that. I just think that five years ago there is no way she would have stood in that boastful, strutting way and in a public place. It seems to me that today's climate of 'stand your ground', 'open carry', "I can take it anywhere' has infected even the Amish. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: olddude Date: 30 Aug 14 - 05:04 PM So true Greg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Greg F. Date: 30 Aug 14 - 05:01 PM Seriously no cia operative or supervisor would say that statement. But that don't stop millions of eejits from believing it, Dan. Just like the Jack-Booter Storm Troopers of th'Gummint gonna come and take away their guns. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: olddude Date: 30 Aug 14 - 04:51 PM But you can buy a Russian icbm launch key on ebay if you want one. I suppose the icbm is sold off ebay. But they do have them on there |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Bill D Date: 30 Aug 14 - 04:50 PM " I'm thinking not of "the country as a whole" but of the majority of our state and federal legislators..." Oh well, if you want to be that specific, you shoulda said so! I can't much argue with that- I can only describe the various reasons most of them act that way.... mostly fear of losing their jobs to someone further right - along with $$$$$ from contribution from the NRA and their related sycophants & alter-egos. "Does it makes sense? It doesn't even have to!" Nope.. it doesn't have to. Like the famous business explanation: "There's no particular reason for it; it's just our policy." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: olddude Date: 30 Aug 14 - 04:48 PM Seriously no cia operative or supervisor would say that statement.. But people can publish anything. Any way forget guns a tactical nuke solves all problem . But sadly we can't own one even with the 2nd admendment |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: olddude Date: 30 Aug 14 - 04:43 PM Lol ok see your road is protected.. Grreat |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: MGM·Lion Date: 30 Aug 14 - 04:38 PM "How many roads does a man walk down... As many as he wants with the right firearm" Not down my road here in Cambridgeshire, he doesn't, Dude. Shouldn't try it if I were you! Best Regards ≈M≈ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Lighter Date: 30 Aug 14 - 04:22 PM > "won't" implies much too strongly that a fairly common attitude can be extrapolated to apply to a class (the 'country' as a collective noun). I disagree, at least to the extent that I'm thinking not of "the country as a whole" but of the majority of our state and federal legislators, who would have to pass any new gun laws. So far, those individuals, as a group, show not the least inclination even to close the gun-show loophole, an incomplete but simple remedy. For the oft-repeated reasons, their attitude is "No New Gun Laws." Period. It may well be possible to close the loophole one day, but that day seems far off. One reason is that preventing a seemingly unknowable but (some will assert) small number of shootings is a less attractive option politically than to do nothing while saying, "I support the Constitutional rights of responsible citizens to own and bear arms!" My pessimism comes also from a belief that, with millions of guns in existence, the rate of gun homicides cannot be significantly reduced by any new law that I've heard of that has even the faintest chance of being passed. But maybe I'm wrong. Any reduction would save some lives at the price of inconveniencing gun dealers and buyers. Are they ready for that inconvenience? The NRA and plenty of our leaders say no. And getting back to comparisons with Australia and Canada, my impression is that despite their "frontier heritage," Australians and Canadians have never fixated on firearms (pistols especially) as an emotional symbol as we have. (Consider Oldie's recent post about "roads.") For many Americans, firearms bring pleasantly to mind history, individualism, nonconformity, personal skill and power,the romance of the West, the thrill of the hunt, freedom from tyranny, and the ability to defend oneself and one's family against otherwise unstoppable aggressors. You don't even have to get Freudian to see what a heady mixture that is! Does it makes sense? It doesn't even have to! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Bill D Date: 30 Aug 14 - 03:31 PM I revise my own conclusion: "Why" is answerable by looking at the capability of we 'civilized' human beings to rationalize and lie to themselves. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Bill D Date: 30 Aug 14 - 03:17 PM So much to respond to.... "Bill if you live there do you want to use one of my handguns. I got lots" Dan..no thanks *grin*... had one once, in Kansas. a .22 5 shot pistol. The rules fro ownership were pretty lax. (I was about 26) I fired it ONCE way out in the desert ..just to see if it worked. I loaned it to a lady who thought she had prowlers. Someone broke in and stole the gun. It was pawned. The pawn shop notified the police, who wrote me and said that if I wanted, I could redeem it by paying the pawn shop $35 that he had taken it in for. HA! I never ever came near having one again, and have never needed one. ------------------------------------------------------ Lighter.." And I stand by my use of "induction." The premises reasonably suggest a conclusion but do not prove it. (did you ever teach 'abduction'? I still can't quite cope with that one.) well then my explanation was unnecessary, though your answer is part of my point,,,'won't' is one possible inductive conclusion, but in such cases, the one a person chooses may be highly subjective. I happen to think that "won't" implies much too strongly that a fairly common attitude can be extrapolated to apply to a class (the 'country' as a collective noun). ---------------------------------------- This "From: Backwoodsman - PM Date: 30 Aug 14 - 02:53 AM" is harder to reply to, though I have answered almost everything in it several times. "if you have a political system that,....has been constructed in a way that prevents modernisation and carefully-debated adjustment to that system, then it is seriously flawed." Yes.. what's to dispute about that? But it BECAME flawed because of the changing times & technology. No one in 1789 could have foreseen AK-47s. We had a frontier society with wilderness and danger as it expanded to the West. (No matter what one says about the crimes inflicted on the Native Americans). By the time mass-produced, standardized weapons were common, after the Civil War, the idea of owning a firearm was taken for granted, and much of the West was still 'wild' until about the end of that century. The really serious problem of easy access to guns was not big news until the 1920s and prohibition and Al Capone and such having sub-machine guns. By then the basic idea of there being guns everywhere was pretty much set. Not everyone had one, but every farmer & cowboy and trapper did. "Yet the sane 75% allow the minority-gun-nutters to control the situation!" There's another word... "allow". The LAW allows.... I have explained how difficult is is to change any law that many 'like' and most think IS okayed by the Constitution. No one NEEDED to misinterpret the 2nd amendment until recently...it just 'was'. By the time it became obvious to many that it was "seriously flawed" due to its references having morphed, "militia" and "keep & bear arms", too many guns and too many owners were entrenched! And some of them WOULD shoot you if you tried to disarm them! "That is what we find so hard to understand - why do the huge majority allow their lives to be threatened by a comparatively small minority? I can only guess it's because of apathy on the part of non-gun-owners, and an acceptance that guns are somehow 'normal' in your society. " "Apathy" fits a few... but 'awareness' is the word that seems to fit most... awareness of what the status is! If the law says folks can have guns, and "states rights" allows local jurisdictions, with all their prejudices, to control those laws, and the NRA's propaganda clouds the issue, any degree of frustrated inaction may look like apathy from the outside. There ARE groups working VERY hard to change things, and some of the recent sad tragedies have given the movement some traction. They have fairly wide support in polls, but revising the 2nd amendment require either a very tedious (almost impossible) political process...OR... a Supreme Court which will strike down and revise the interpretation of that awkward phrase. Right now there are just too many (Obviously, we need a series of Democratic presidents to outlast the idiots and appoint sane judges. We shall see... I have hopes.) I keep trying to answer your "whys", but no answer, no matter how clear & accurate, can be satisfying. The word is full of frustrating 'whys' these days.... the Middle East, Ukraine, N. Korea..etc... a few years ago it was 'why' in Northern Ireland, and they mostly used bombs, I think. It appears the sides just got weary of the carnage... I don't remember them having to revise the laws to quit killing. I hope that a multi-pronged attack on the situation will help... gun show laws being revised, more help for the mentally disturbed, more cameras in certain areas, better checks on gun purchases, more education, fewer TV shows & movies glorifying weapons...etc. But 'why' is still only answerable by pointing... "there! See?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Greg F. Date: 30 Aug 14 - 02:12 PM And then, there are plenty of assholes who actually believe preposterous shit like this: CIA now admits that President Obama is a radical Islamic enemy of America August 28, 2014 Today, a former CIA agent bluntly told the newspaper, World Net Daily, that America has switched sides in the war on terror under President Obama. Clare Lopez was willing to say what a few members of Congress have said in private, but declined to say on-the-record. Clare M. Lopez is the Vice President for Research and Analysis at the Center for Security Policy and a Senior Fellow at The Clarion Project, the London Center for Policy Research, and the Canadian Meighen Institute. Since 2013, she has served as a member of the Citizens Commission on Benghazi. Also Vice President of the Intelligence Summit, she formerly was a career operations officer with the Central Intelligence Agency, a professor at the Centre for Counterintelligence and Security Studies, Executive Director of the Iran Policy Committee from 2005-2006, and has served as a consultant, intelligence analyst, and researcher for a variety of defense firms. She was named a Lincoln Fellow at the Claremont Institute in 2011. Lopez said the global war on terror had been an effort to "stay free of Shariah," or repressive Islamic law, until the Obama administration began siding with such jihadist groups as the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates. Lopez believes that the Muslim Brotherhood has thoroughly infiltrated the Obama administration and other branches of the federal government. One of the most outrageous of those appointments is Mohamed Elibiary, a senior member of the Department of Homeland Security Advisory Council. According to a report by the Center for Security Policy, Elibiary supports brokering a U.S. partnership with the Muslim Brotherhood terrorist group. Two months ago, a firestorm erupted online after Elibiary tweeted that a "Caliphate" is inevitable and compared it to the European Union. Ms. Lopez also believes Obama had essentially the same goals in the Mideast as the late Osama bin Laden: "to remove American power and influence, including military forces, from Islamic lands." The former CIA operative's perspective affects her prescription for what the U.S. should do about the terror army ISIS, as she called for caution and restraint. While there has been a sudden chorus of politicians and military experts calling for the immediate elimination of the terrorist army after it beheaded American journalist James Foley last week, Lopez believes the U.S. should have an overall strategy in place before fully re-engaging in the Mideast militarily.Any military action would be further complicated, she told WND, if it were not clear which side the U.S. is on, either in the short term or in the overall war on terror. Lopez felt it was impossible to understand why the president and some of his top appointees, such as CIA Director John Brennan, who is believed to be a Muslim convert, "consistently seem to apologize for Islam, even in the face of such atrocities as the Foley beheading," adding, they "take pains to assure the world they don't think IS, (or the Islamic State, also called ISIS) or whichever perpetrator it was, has anything to do with Islam. How can they possibly believe that genuinely when everything these jihadis do tracks directly to the literal text of Quran, hadiths and Shariah?" "In any case, and for whatever motivations, there is no doubt this administration switched sides in what used to be called the Global War on Terror," she said. http://www.examiner.com/article/cia-now-admits-that-president-obama-is-a-radical-islamic-enemy-of-america |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: olddude Date: 30 Aug 14 - 12:57 PM How many roads does a man walk down... As many as he wants with the right firearm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Greg F. Date: 30 Aug 14 - 12:09 PM Oh, and don't forget the massive Republican-sponsored funding cuts to U.S. education across the board from pre-school thru university of the past 35 years now bearing toxic fruit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Greg F. Date: 30 Aug 14 - 12:06 PM Probably very true Greg...But there are 400 million of you, enough to kick serious ass. So one would think, but when up against political lobbies like the National Rifle Asassination and their affiliated State "clubs" with unlimited funds to spend on purchasing legislators, carrying on disinformation campaigns and influencing legislation PLUS individual arseholes with an agenda and unlimited funds like the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson (Addle-son?) doing the same in contravention of the democratic process, it becomes a bit more problematical. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Janie Date: 30 Aug 14 - 12:04 PM "The times, they are a'changin'" All over this very crowded globe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Stu Date: 30 Aug 14 - 11:48 AM " I can only guess it's because of apathy on the part of non-gun-owners, and an acceptance that guns are somehow 'normal' in your society." I would say it's the other way around. The sort of libertarian that supports gun ownership in the civilian population is an idealist, not a rationalist. This is an issue science comes across often and it's no coincidence that libertarians also tend to be climate change deniers etc. Like climate change deniers, the pro-gun lobby are happy to impose their views and their guns on the rest of the population; if your idea of freedom is living in a world where ordinary folk don't carry deadly weapons, then you're fucked, and those with the weapons don't care that they're fucking you; they are increasing the risk of you being shot simply by having a gun and being willing to engage in a gunfight. Collateral damage? Acceptable, it appears. Evidence is ignored or dismissed; if the evidence is presented to them that they are over 5 times more likely to be shot by simply carrying a gun (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/) they will simply deny it, call it a hoax, suggest the study is flawed without presenting evidence why (in which case they can respond to the study formally - it's free) or start sneering about academics and real life. What this means is that gun owners are imposing their ideology on others without their consent. The freedoms of these people is utterly irrelevant. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Backwoodsman Date: 30 Aug 14 - 11:44 AM Probably very true Greg, but those of us lucky enough not to live there don't necessarily hear of, or 'get', all of the nuances and influences at play in the US governmental system. But there are 400 million of you, enough to kick serious ass - bloody hell, your gun-crackpots claim to be a 'well organised militia', armed to the teeth in order to prevent being fucked-over by the establishment and its supporters. So why aren't they doing it? Well, don't answer that, I already know - because the 2nd Amendment means diddly-squat, and it's just a convenient excuse for dick-heads to claim they 'need' their prick-enhancer-firearms in order to protect their (apparently, according to your above post) non-existent 'freedoms' |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Greg F. Date: 30 Aug 14 - 10:41 AM Bill, if you have a political system that, if not 'set in stone', has been constructed in a way that prevents modernisation and carefully-debated adjustment to that system, then it is seriously flawed. There are those who are under the misapprehansion that the U.S. of A. is a functioning Democracy. And since Corporations beame "people", Buckley v. Valeo decided that money is speech and the Citizens United court decision it is even less of one. Democracy in the U.S. is being deconstructed as I type. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker Date: 30 Aug 14 - 10:06 AM When my fairly close relative commited suicide by legally owned shotgun. It may well have been the only gun death in the entire county in that entire year ??? Another close relative attempted several unsuccessful suicides by Paracetamol. A far more prevalent statistical trend, perhaps due to the widespread unavailability of privately owned guns. Even so, Paracetamol is now becoming more tightly controlled at point of sales in high street shops. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Musket Date: 30 Aug 14 - 09:47 AM But lighter... In The UK, it is only criminals and a very few specialist police who carry guns on the street. Hence a far safer, saner place. Those who need them for target sport in licensed premises or hunting in controlled areas / agricultural pest control don't carry them in the street. I don't know why Hollywood is obsessed with wild west as something different to now, I don't feel safe when in the Dumbfuckistan states or even the safer parts of USA. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker Date: 30 Aug 14 - 09:17 AM This is the biggest gun headline news story in the UK at the moment: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-28986319 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Anyone defend US gun law? From: Lighter Date: 30 Aug 14 - 09:12 AM > US sceriptwriters would have to write a proper plot for their cop dramas. So true. As as often been pointed out, American policemen almost *never* fire at anyone. Ever. That's why it's big news when they do. And when they do, there is an administrative review and every shot must be explained and accounted for. Nor do I see any real-life reason to believe that US police are any more "heavy-handed" than their UK counterparts. Crime is crime, police in a democracy are police. |
