Another school shooting in the US

bitslice said:
Nobody stops to consider that we are busily arming chunks of the middle east, a group of people who frequently kill children for ***** and giggles. Nobody calls them crazy or suggests we take their weapons off them.
I think we are directing our anger at the wrong part of the world.
Click to expand...

yes middle east (a backward bunch of loonies that kill each other over different interpretations of the same ******* book) vs a supposedly 1st world country with multiple levels of government designed to get in each others way.

I'm starting to think america was like the Australia but instead of sending the criminals over there, we sent the half-wits
 
Deific said:
source?
Click to expand...

Why would anyone need a source for this?

Just looking back at Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan (Mujahideen), we have armed our enemies more often than not, usually with crappy hardware but still.

Then we have Egypt with a now unfortunate government with a tank force made up mainly of Abrams.

Who knows what else goes on in the black market and hidden military deals (assumption).
 
Deific said:
source?
Click to expand...

Do reading on current affairs.

Gadafi's troops were using Armored Toyota tundra's (click me) that were built by American companies when Libya promised to give up nuclear weapons and co-operate with the west. He was killing his people with guns the west had sold him

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/24/AR2011022407829.html

Likewise Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait using US sold arms that were sold to him to help fight Iran in the Iran Iraq war.

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/01/26/w...s-war-against-iran.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

And then of course we have Afghanistan which was fighting the USSR using arms sold to it by the US in the name if fighting communism

http://ojs.uccs.edu/index.php/urj/article/download/103/91

The same arms of course that the Taliban are now fighting the US and UK with now.

It's well known the s will sell arms to anyone when it fits their agenda
 
Last edited:
bitslice said:
If they want to control guns then the 2nd amendment has to be removed, so the government can stop pretending they serve the people but that the people serve them (which used to be the only thing that made their democracy unique).
Click to expand...

Removed? - That makes as little sense as your last post I'm afraid...

There are already regulations in place in the US - ie: They don't just have a free reign to own what they want, when they want, and carry it when ever they like. This has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment.

What is being discussed by some people is adjusting these rights. eg: Quantity/nature of guns that can be owned. eg: Does it make sense that an individual can own dozens of guns? How does that protect their rights any more than one or two? Does in fact risk the rights of people to be safe by simply introducing yet more and more unecessary fire arms into circulation?
 
Exactly.

Americans already accept they cannot own a minigun or a 105mm howitzer as they shouldn't be allowed to own such lethal weapons.

A line is already drawn, we are just calling for it to be moved slightly
 
bitslice said:
"Why do some people"
His stance is an attack on their constitution, something they came up with and something that according to their founders shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...

Well it's not like they haven't made adjustments to it in the past. I'm not sure why we are so vocal about it, but I don't see the problem in bringing it in line with out system. It's not illegal here to own a gun here anyway.
 
NeilFawcett said:
Removed? - That makes as little sense as your last post I'm afraid...
Click to expand...
Sorry, not responsible for your comprehension skills, if you'd like to quote the confusing bits then I can remove a few syllables or something to help you out?
Sorry, but I'm bored with this style of posting now, have something to say? just say it.
There are already regulations in place in the US
Click to expand...
The various Firearms Acts? Just because they were passed doesn't mean they weren't opposed as incrementally restrictive. I think it came down to 'reasonable use' or something, I'm not familier with the reasoning.
What is being discussed by some people is adjusting these rights.
Click to expand...
This is the point really, either something is a "right" or it is a "privilege" which can be withdrawn at the whims of the state. Normally 'rights' are not altered, that's why they are called 'rights'

eg: Does it make sense that an individual can own dozens of guns?
Click to expand...
Depends if you believe two guns are more dangerous than one, they look like tools to me. I used to have two cars, I could only drive one at a time though.
How does that protect their rights any more than one or two?
Click to expand...
It's their right to buy what they want if someone will sell it to them. Are crazy people less dangerous with only one gun?
Does in fact risk the rights of people to be safe by simply introducing yet more and more unecessary fire arms into circulation?
Click to expand...
Is there something in the constitution that says people have the right to be immunue from the antics of crazy people?

It doesn't appear to matter what the government allow normal people to buy, most killings are done with unlicensed weapons anyway. I think it's the same case in the UK.
 
Last edited:
MrLOL said:
Americans already accept they cannot own a minigun or a 105mm howitzer as they shouldn't be allowed to own such lethal weapons.
Click to expand...
Yes they can, a class III license required for a minigun.
And they probably won't sell you the ordnance for the howitzer unless it was a civil war era version and used black powder.
 
Shocking with the firefighters and a policeman was killed also on a routine traffic stop.

Still the sale of guns is increasing and the NRA insist more guns are the answer to the problem of over 9000 gun deaths a year.

Will they ever learn.
 
This is what the right to bear arms is supposed to protect against:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=7XcPnss5uKU#t=251s

"you must surrender your weapons".

What happened next:

What if instead of a tiny group of muslims having access to smuggled weapons, every household already had an AK? What if for every serb sniper there were 50 muslim civilian counter-snipers. Yes many people would have still died, but would the serbs have been able to march 10s of thousands of people in to the woods and execute them?
 
Of course someone will say "well rifles are no match for heavy weapons".

Would NI still be in the UK if there were 100,000 armalites in private hands instead of 1,000 over there? 1,000 got a NI assembly with sinn fein holding 1/3 of it.

Would you volunteer to fight for the government in a NI insurgency, knowing that every other house had an armalite? Not just volunteering yourself as a target but your family too?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom