The British have something to say to us Americans!

page: 15
77
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by THELONIO
reply to post by ConservativeJack
 


you should listen to yourself, you sound like an idiot, i am not saying you are an idiot, you are just sounding like one, america sounds like a lovely place to live, i wish you well, over and out


hypothetically

if we were arguing

aren't Britain Gun Crimes up 40 percent since the weapon ban?

that sounds counter productive

Think about it

If I am a robber and I know the other guy doesn't have a gun, I'm feeling good.

Why are you throwing in little jabs at me that is hilarious and pretty internetish.

[edit on 27-1-2009 by ConservativeJack]




posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ConservativeJackaren't Britain Gun Crimes up 40 percent since the weapon ban?

that sounds counter productive

Err?

"People are being charged more as the boundaries of what is legal shrink shocker!"



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by jBrereton

Originally posted by ConservativeJackaren't Britain Gun Crimes up 40 percent since the weapon ban?

that sounds counter productive

Err?

"People are being charged more as the boundaries of what is legal shrink shocker!"


what?



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 06:00 PM
link   
If the US ever makes gun laws like the Brits have I WILL NOT! WILL NOT! give them my guns. Its my right and the goverment can go screw themselves if they think they can take them from my cold dead hands.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ConservativeJack
what?

If you tighten laws, you will get more cases brought to court as people still comply with the old system rather than the new one. There we go.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 08:17 PM
link   
IMHO gun laws should be left to states and municipalities. I grew up around guns I have no fear of them and support the 2nd amendment in the way I wish you gun maniacs would support the 4th amendment! I believe every homeowner should have the right to protect themselves and their property.

What I do not promote are fully or semi automatic rifles which can easily be converted to fully automatic. I believe carrying concealed weapons in a metro area should be a felony with a severe punishment. It is a good way to separate the bad guys from the good guys.

I do not wish to return to the days of the Wild West with showdowns at "High Noon"! I support hunting game and target shooting. However the US has the highest rate of incarceration in the civilized world in no short measure due to the unbelievable amount of fire arms.

Personally I prefer a shotgun for home defense but I realize it is not the best choice for the ladies.

I also believe every gun owner should be trained and licensed to own and carry a firearm. If you need a license to drive a car you should be required to be trained and licensed to operate a firearm.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I have fired many guns and will defend myself and my property with the same regardless of who they claim to be. If you are uninvited then stay out.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 08:53 PM
link   
I live in the UK and some of our laws here are odd to say the least. There have been more than a few cases that made the news here involving home owners who confronted a burgular in their house, had a struggle and then ended up breaking the burgulars ribs....and then got jailed for it!
Im sure one of the homeowners was once this poor old ex soldier something who was in his 70's or 80's!

I dont believe anyone has the right to just shoot a stranger who is in their house, but if they dont leave when confronted you should def have the right to defend your house.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheDarkNight


Since we are on a conspiracy site: would it not be plausible the killer in question was an under cover "mind controlled" agent?

It would be naive to think this as silly. MK Ultra was a declassified psych ops run by a three letter agency in the nineteen fifties and sixties.

It is still thought, by some, as active today under a different code name. Who's to say that chaotic random shootings happening in the the US (the Beltway Sniper, Columbine and many others)
[edit on 26-1-2009 by TheDarkNight]



....... remember Ted Kaczynski ?

aka ... the UnaBomber.

He was "recruited" from his freshman psychology class Harvard, in the 1950s to "participate" in MK~ULTRA "experiments."



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Tentickles
 


you only have the rights your government allow you to have.
if they decide to take away that right then you no longer have it.
regardless of your own thoughts on the matter, those in power can give them to you or take them away. if you loose that right then it is gone.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 09:12 PM
link   
Watch as the liberals destroy the entire world. Everything they say is a lie. Everything they do is a failure. But America just voted them all back into office plus more. Way to go, people.

You want more rights? More freedoms? Lower taxes? Lower prices? Vote for the most conservative, libertarian people you can.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by optyk phyba
 


Sure, if the laws exist at "royalties pleasure."

In America, however, our government is meant to bow to the Constitution, not the Constitution bow to the politicians, and if they fail to, they are the criminals.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ChocoTaco369
 


It was a Republican this last time that gutted our freedoms by playing to our fears with the Patriot Act.

I did vote the Constitution party. Pretending that the Republicans care any more about our Constitution than the Democrats do is unreasonable as I see it. Actions speak louder than words.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 

Funny, I don't remember saying the word 'Republican' anywhere in my post. Bush was a very liberal politician. He wasn't anything close to conservative. I said vote for the CONSERVATIVE. Not the Republican. Not the Democrat. The CONSERVATIVE. Didn't like Bush? Then you should have voted for a different Republican during the primaries.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


neither the us magna carter or constitution is set in stone and both can be legally changed. arent there at least 12 amendments to the constitution so far? your rights and freedoms can also be suspended (regardless of the constitution) under marshall law and things like the patriot act.
its still up to the people in power, and people still kill people.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ChocoTaco369
 


You are right. You didnt say "Republican." You will have to forgive me, I missed the memo indicating that "liberal" now officially stands for anyone you personally disagree with. Last time I checked, it was being applied most frequently to the Democrats by what was formerly known as the "conservative" Republican party.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by optyk phyba
neither the us magna carter or constitution is set in stone and both can be legally changed. arent there at least 12 amendments to the constitution so far?


There is a procedure put in place by the Constitution for the amendment of the Constitution.

en.wikipedia.org...




Originally posted by optyk phyba
your rights and freedoms can also be suspended (regardless of the constitution) under marshall law and things like the patriot act.


The government does not have the right to willy nilly impose martial law. (just so you know, it is martial, not marshall, as it is commonly phrased in some posts on this board)

www.usconstitution.net...


Resoundingly, the Court said no. The Court stated what is almost painfully obvious: "Martial law ... destroys every guarantee of the Constitution." The Court reminded the reader that such actions were taken by the King of Great Britain, which caused, in part, the Revolution. "Civil liberty and this kind of martial law cannot endure together; the antagonism is irreconcilable; and, in the conflict, one or the other must perish."

Did this mean that martial law could never be implemented? No, the Court said. The President can declare martial law when circumstances warrant it: When the civil authority cannot operate, then martial law is not only constitutional, but would be necessary: "If, in foreign invasion or civil war, the courts are actually closed, and it is impossible to administer criminal justice according to law, then, on the theatre of active military operations, where war really prevails, there is a necessity to furnish a substitute for the civil authority, thus overthrown, to preserve the safety of the army and society; and as no power is left but the military, it is allowed to govern by martial rule until the laws can have their free course. As necessity creates the rule, so it limits its duration; for, if this government is continued after the courts are reinstated, it is a gross usurpation of power. Martial rule can never exist where the courts are open, and in the proper and unobstructed exercise of their jurisdiction. It is also confined to the locality of actual war."


Last time I checked our courts were operating in all of the states.

And, our legal system requires that a court decide on the Constitutionality of a law, if it is challenged, and there is a process that must be undertaken through the courts for this to happen. Parts of the Patriot Act have been found to be un-Constitutional;

en.wikipedia.org...


In 2004, FBI agents used this provision to search and secretly examine the home of Brandon Mayfield, who was wrongfully jailed for two weeks on suspicion of involvement in the Madrid train bombings. While the U.S. Government did publicly apologise to Mr. Mayfield and his family,[207] Mr. Mayfield took it further through the courts. On September 26, 2007, judge Ann Aiken found the law was, in fact, unconstitutional as the search was an unreasonable imposition on Mr. Mayfield and thus violated the Fourth Amendment.[51][52]



Another group, the Humanitarian Law Project, also objected to the provision prohibiting "expert advise and assistance" to terrorists and filed a suit against the U.S. government to have it declared unconstitutional. They succeeded, and a Federal Court found that the law was vague enough to cause a reasonable person to guess whether they were breaking the law or not. Thus they found it violated the First Amendment rights of U.S. citizens, and struck it down.[149][150]




Originally posted by optyk phyba
its still up to the people in power, and people still kill people.


And that is exactly the reason many of us support the Second Amendment.

en.wikipedia.org...


Leading up to the ratification of the Second Amendment,[5] English and American political writers stated that society and government rests upon the popular possession of arms,[6] that arms are the primary means by which individuals affirmed their social power and political participation,[7] that arms are necessary for an individual to protect himself from vicious fellow citizens and corrupt authorities,[8] that citizens must be able to defend themselves against rulers[9] and that the possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave.[10]


A person in power is the one who can defend their freedom if need be. Force of arms has historically been the measure of power between a people and a ruling class. Giving up the right to bear arms assures one thing above all. That you will have no power against your rulers should their rule become unbearable. Having the personal right to bear arms does not assure that you will win the fight, if there is one. But I, personally, would rather have a small chance at defending my freedom than none at all.



[edit on 27-1-2009 by Illusionsaregrander]



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 01:00 AM
link   
Reading these posts I sit and wonder just were do people get the ideas they do. As a gun owner and concealed carry license holder I go through my day the same as anyone else. There is no sense of power or whatever people think comes with carrying a gun. It's not like that. There's a handgun forum I am a member of that posed the question. "After you got your carry permit how did it make you feel when you were out in public?" I did expect at least one of the younger members to say some dumb Rambo stuff but I was happily wrong. What I did hear was things like "It actually made me nicer to people" and "I found myself trying to avoid any situation where I used to get angry" One posted that he used to get angry in traffic but found that where he would cuss at someone that did some dumb thing on the road he just blew it off. I know a whole lot of people that carry and these are the first people to advise others that before they even think about something like that they NEED to take classes. They need to learn how to properly handle a weapon safely. This also means getting your mind right. Because with the ability to use that weapon you have to be sure in what your doing. You have to know when it is and when it's not the right time to un-holster your weapon. You can't act like some thug in the latest movie with bad rap music in it. Many of us train along side law officers. We have to know the laws involving a handgun much more than anyone that does not. The idea that people get a gun then stuff it in their pants and go off looking for a fight or some "high noon" situation is not something we are looking to do.

We choose to have and carry a weapon because there are places out in the world that bad things can happen. although even then we have to be careful. See a woman getting mugged? we can't just whip it out and bust a cap. That will get you arrested or maybe killed.

People like me live out on the country. There are no police here. Sure we can call state police but they will take a long time getting here. when you have to take care of yourself and your family. Well..Then you have to.

I was not aware of just when the UK did their full out ban on handguns and no I did not know that fox hunting was outlawed there. I guess I had my hands full with all that is going on here. what little news I watch just don't have the happenings of the world as much in it. I guess that's my fault for not knowing and makes me one of those people that is just pain dumb. That is if anyone in the UK can tell me..Without research, how much the cigarette tax increase the government is wanting where I live. I'll wager that unless you are somewhere near me you will have no idea. But then why would you know this. You don't live here. It's great when I can get the time to read things here at ATS. And like with MSM I still have to rear read read and then filter out the bias crap.

UK people, I'm sorry that you lost your right to have a handgun, and to hunt fox using one too apparently. Looked to me that many are pretty upset with themselves about it. I would not want to have that happen here. I'm one of those that will become a criminal if they outlaw them here. It wasn't the elected officials that gave the right to me. It wont be them that takes it away.

anyway..Us Barbarian Americans are pretty well known for bucking a government that wants to take our rights away. And we understand that you take away our ability to defend ourselves. The rest gets a lot easier. I wish those of you over there the best. For me it don't matter where I see someones freedoms stepped on. It's still more than a little upsetting.



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by ChocoTaco369
 


You are right. You didnt say "Republican." You will have to forgive me, I missed the memo indicating that "liberal" now officially stands for anyone you personally disagree with. Last time I checked, it was being applied most frequently to the Democrats by what was formerly known as the "conservative" Republican party.

It doesn't matter that the word "liberal" is most of the time applied to the Democrats. That's not what it means. You don't understand the difference between liberal and conservative if you can't grasp that. The term "liberal" is ideology-based. Democrat or Republican is not an ideology - it's simply a platform. There are very liberal individuals running under the Republican ticket. John McCain is a great example of one. John McCain is not even close to being conservative, but he is a Republican. George W. Bush isn't even close to being a conservative, either. He's a very liberal Republican. Someone doesn't have to be as liberal as Obama or Pelosi to be called a liberal. Pelosi and Obama are nutcase fringe liberals. There are plenty of moderate liberals out there, and they can be just as dangerous because they tend to have a lot more credibility. Hacks like Obama and Pelosi have very little credibility and only get into office by removing the competition and buying the election.



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 02:00 AM
link   
reply to post by C.H.U.D.
 


the figures are not quite the same, the uk has a population 7 times bigger than switzerland , thus their figures are 7 times higher than u.k., switzerland only have 7.5 million people, and the majority of the gun owners have to own them by law as it is switzerlands reserve army, a controlled millitia if you like





new topics
top topics
 
77
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum