1
   

FREEDOM MARCHES ON !!!

 
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2003 02:51 pm
NeoGuin wrote:
Montana:

Find the article in "Rolling Stone" and check out "Public Eye". And it may give you a glimpse.

The problem is that they should be in fear of what the NRA's "Buddy" John Ashcroft is doing--
but wait, he has the NRA "Seal Of Approval"



Truth be told,
I am not satisfied with Ashcroft's work.
He cud have been and HE SHUD HAVE BEEN much more aggresive in ending all "gun control" laws in America.

He only came out with one watered down opinion
that cud have gone much further than it did. He does not get a high grade.
He shud be ASHamed of himself.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2003 03:07 pm
Grand Duke wrote:
This whole thing about guns baffles me completely. Here in the UK the only people who have guns are the police, farmers for pest control (under strict licence) members of shooting clubs (who I believe have to leave the weapons at the club) and a handful of drug-dealers (who mainly use them to shoot each other in turf wars). I assume that the US is too far down the path of public gun-ownership to change now, but it's a real shame that you're all stuck with them forever. I hope the UK never has general public gun ownership.


Your Highness,
Permit me to explain it simply:
Occasionally, one may fall victim to the violent depredations
of criminals or of animals.
In such situations survival can depend upon swift access to effective emergency equipment,
because it is imperative that the victim have MORE power than
(or at least EQUAL power to) the predator.

Innocent, unarmed people have been eaten, while they live.
Man has gained dominion over his environment by TOOLMAKING.
When faced with an emergency, one needs the requisite tool.
Its ABSENCE can result in a painful end.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2003 03:12 pm
Oh joy, another Abuzz veteran joins A2K. Welcome, Dave!
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 15 Sep, 2003 03:25 pm
Thanx, D'artagnan !
0 Replies
 
Grand Duke
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2003 02:43 am
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Your Highness,
Permit me to explain it simply:
Occasionally, one may fall victim to the violent depredations
of criminals or of animals.
In such situations survival can depend upon swift access to effective emergency equipment,
because it is imperative that the victim have MORE power than
(or at least EQUAL power to) the predator.

Innocent, unarmed people have been eaten, while they live.
Man has gained dominion over his environment by TOOLMAKING.
When faced with an emergency, one needs the requisite tool.
Its ABSENCE can result in a painful end.


1) There are no wild animals in the UK capable of eating any person larger than a new-born baby. Hence, no guns needed.
2) If the vast majority of criminals in the UK don't have guns, why do the public need them? The reason burglars here don't have guns is because they don't need them. They can break into a house and threaten the residents effectively with knives or bats, as the residents themselves don't have guns, because the crimanals don't have them - do you see how it works? We've managed so far to avoid the spiral of gun ownership that you lot have got yourselves into for that very reason.
3) The correct way to address a duke is "Your Grace", or "My Lord Duke". "Your Highness" would be used for a prince or princess.

If you had the chance of removing ALL guns from society - police, criminals, terrorists & the general public - would you take it? Or would you prefer things the way they are?
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2003 04:25 am
Those people that got shot by the sniper a few months ago. What good would a magnum in their pocket have been? But if the sniper hadn't been able to get a long range weapon specifically designed for the purpose of killing human beings, they'd still be here. But lets not let the truth interfere with the gun lobby's view of the world.
0 Replies
 
NeoGuin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2003 06:05 am
Wilso:

But OmSig and his ilk would say that eveyone shuld be able to get on of those rifles.

And you little sipral goes on!
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2003 07:25 am
Wilso wrote:
Those people that got shot by the sniper a few months ago. What good would a magnum in their pocket have been?
But if the sniper hadn't been able to get a long range weapon specifically designed for the purpose of killing human beings, they'd still be here. But lets not let the truth interfere with the gun lobby's view of the world.


1. The fact that a gun is not a panacea for each n every concievable ill
does not mean that they r devoid of value.

2. I personally don't favor magna;
too much power produces overpenetration, a waste n dangerous.
I have only 1 magnum; not a fighting gun.

3. U assume, in error, that people can't make their own guns
(nor steal them, nor buy them from blackmarket gunsmiths).
I made them, as a child, tho we had quite a few commericially
manufactured guns; ez, fast & fun to make (tho not as fast as a
backyard bomb).

4. The "truth" is that repeatedly, EVEN IN PRISONS, criminals secretly
make their own guns, discovered when they accidentally have shot
themselves. Some years ago, they even made a fully functional
submachinegun in the prison workshop, one part at a time,
with the guards around. They shot their way out. Got caught
when they drove into a tree, with guards in hot pursuit.
0 Replies
 
Grand Duke
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2003 07:31 am
Out of interest, David, how many guns/rifles do you have?
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2003 07:43 am
NeoGuin wrote:
Wilso:

But OmSig and his ilk would say that eveyone shuld be able to get on of those rifles.

And you little sipral goes on!




I own better, more accurate, and MUCH longer range rifles than that.
Everyone who so desires ALREADY IS fully able to get better
equipment than that (it has ALWAYS been that way),
but in terms of numbers,
not even one percent of the number of people
who were hit by lightning, or the number of people who drowned,
were ever shot by sniper shootings.
Years go by; decades pass, with no sniper shootings. That's Y its news
if it happens. Dog bites man is not news; man bites dog is news.


just got more press coverage; sensationalism
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2003 07:49 am
Grand Duke wrote:
Out of interest, David, how many guns/rifles do you have?



I am not sure. I have not counted them.

Collection is growing, like my old gold coins.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2003 07:54 am
Grand Duke wrote:
Out of interest, David, how many guns/rifles do you have?



I am not sure.

Collection keeps growing, like my old gold coins.
0 Replies
 
Grand Duke
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2003 07:54 am
Just a rough guess - 5, 20, 50? I'm mainly curious as to why you need more than a couple to defend yourself or your property? Don't get me wrong, if you want loads of guns and your country's laws allow you, then have as many as you like.

As I asked earlier, if you could magically get rid of all the guns in the world - including military/police/criminals/anyone, would you do it?
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2003 08:03 am
Grand Duke wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Your Highness,
Permit me to explain it simply:
Occasionally, one may fall victim to the violent depredations
of criminals or of animals.
In such situations survival can depend upon swift access to effective emergency equipment,
because it is imperative that the victim have MORE power than
(or at least EQUAL power to) the predator.

Innocent, unarmed people have been eaten, while they live.
Man has gained dominion over his environment by TOOLMAKING.
When faced with an emergency, one needs the requisite tool.
Its ABSENCE can result in a painful end.


1) There are no wild animals in the UK capable of eating any person larger than a new-born baby. Hence, no guns needed.
2) If the vast majority of criminals in the UK don't have guns, why do the public need them? The reason burglars here don't have guns is because they don't need them. They can break into a house and threaten the residents effectively with knives or bats, as the residents themselves don't have guns, because the crimanals don't have them - do you see how it works? We've managed so far to avoid the spiral of gun ownership that you lot have got yourselves into for that very reason.
3) The correct way to address a duke is "Your Grace", or "My Lord Duke". "Your Highness" would be used for a prince or princess.

If you had the chance of removing ALL guns from society - police, criminals, terrorists & the general public - would you take it? Or would you prefer things the way they are?



I have confidence that u will BECOME a prince.

I prefer that everyone who can lift a gun
and who has learned how to safely handle guns, be well armed;
perhaps legally mandatory, or tax benefits.

Violent recidivistic criminals shud be removed n isolated
from polite society; either in secure prisons,
or the olde Botany Bay principle.
0 Replies
 
Grand Duke
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2003 08:11 am
OmSigDAVID wrote:

I have confidence that u will BECOME a prince.

I prefer that everyone who can lift a gun
and who has learned how to safely handle guns, be well armed;
perhaps legally mandatory, or tax benefits.

Violent recidivistic criminals shud be removed n isolated
from polite society; either in secure prisons,
or the olde Botany Bay principle.


Thanks for the promotion!

The chance of me being shot in the UK is less than the chance of me being run-over crossing the street. I therefore do not need a gun.

The only reason I posted in this topic was because I thought a debate of this nature would be interested in the point of view of someone living outside of a gun culture.

I still maintain that if guns are not needed, why have them? You obviously feel you need them, so have them!

Incidently I have actually made enquiries before about joining a shooting club, as I would like to try sports shooting, but the cost of the rifles put me off. Maybe when I'm rich and old with time on my hands...
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2003 08:18 am
Grand duke, save your fingers some work. There's as little point in bashing your head against a brick wall as there is in trying to talk sense to a conservative (read Nazi). Just sit back and watch the US dissolve under the weight of their greed and violence.
0 Replies
 
NeoGuin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2003 08:27 am
Wilso wrote:
Grand duke, save your fingers some work. There's as little point in bashing your head against a brick wall as there is in trying to talk sense to a conservative (read Nazi). Just sit back and watch the US dissolve under the weight of their greed and violence.
Wilso:

Do you believe this collapse is inevitable?

Or can it be prevented. I believe it can be prevented but it will take work.

One step is breaking the control that OMSig and his ilk, among others, have over this country.

NOTE TO MOD: If this may merit another topic, please PM me!
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2003 08:30 am
Grand Duke wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:

I have confidence that u will BECOME a prince.

I prefer that everyone who can lift a gun
and who has learned how to safely handle guns, be well armed;
perhaps legally mandatory, or tax benefits.

Violent recidivistic criminals shud be removed n isolated
from polite society; either in secure prisons,
or the olde Botany Bay principle.


Thanks for the promotion!

The chance of me being shot in the UK is less than the chance of me being run-over crossing the street. I therefore do not need a gun.

The only reason I posted in this topic was because I thought a debate of this nature would be interested in the point of view of someone living outside of a gun culture.

I still maintain that if guns are not needed, why have them?
You obviously feel you need them, so have them!
=======
THANK U.
=======

Incidently I have actually made enquiries before about joining a shooting club, as I would like to try sports shooting, but the cost of the rifles put me off. Maybe when I'm rich and old with time on my hands...


In America, everyone's chance of falling victim to a traffic accident
is 1OOOs of times greater than of affliction from gunshot wounds
(take it from a retired attorney who's done a lot of personal injury work).

Whenever a citizen falls victim to the attacks
of a criminal or an animal, he needs fine quality emergency equipment
(swiftly).

Because of the drastic increase of crime in England since
guns were banned, I predict that u will have a re-surgence of guns there,
with a resultant "gun culture". The Swiss have no problem with
fully automatic weapons all around. They have a good "gun culture".
0 Replies
 
Grand Duke
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2003 08:40 am
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Whenever a citizen falls victim to the attacks
of a criminal or an animal, he needs fine quality emergency equipment
(swiftly).

* Not sure of the relevance, but I agree with medical treatment of the injured! It's been about 500 years since any man-eating animals stalked these fair lands. *

Because of the drastic increase of crime in England since
guns were banned, I predict that u will have a re-surgence of guns there,
with a resultant "gun culture".


I haven't noticed any drastic increase in crime where I live or indeed anywhere else in Britain. It's true that reported crime is increasing, but these are not murders & armed-robberies but muggings & thefts by smack-heads for drug money. They usually use knives because they would have sold their guns long ago for money to buy smack!

I'm just really really glad to live 2,000 miles away from America.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Sep, 2003 08:54 am
Grand Duke wrote:
Just a rough guess - 5, 20, 50? I'm mainly curious as to why you need more than a couple to defend yourself or your property? Don't get me wrong, if you want loads of guns and your country's laws allow you, then have as many as you like.

As I asked earlier, if you could magically get rid of all the guns in the world - including military/police/criminals/anyone, would you do it?



I wud NOT do it. To the contrary, I wud consider legally multiplying
the tax burden of any person who did NOT arm himself,
after learning the safe handling of guns (n after removing all violent
recidivistic felons from the North American Continent).

Tho the primary value of guns is their functional defensive effectiveness, I must acknowledge their esthetic value.
I have been acosted a goodly number of times at gunnery ranges,
by strangers wishing to see the beauty of my ordnance.
Y do some folks collect stamps ? Shud they have a maximum number ?
Shud I have a maximum number imposed on my gold coin collection ?

Its NOT that my country's laws "allow" me to have guns.
Its that when government was created here, after the minions
of George Hanover were evicted, that government explicitly was NOT
granted any power to control guns; they were put beyond its reach,
such that any exercise of political power over guns is a usurpation
of ultra vires activity.

Because of the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution,
sovereignty is vested in the CITIZENS, not in government.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Friends don't let friends fat-talk - Discussion by hawkeye10
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/24/2022 at 08:48:11