If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   Meanwhile, in the gunless utopia of Britain   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 71
    More: Scary, Britain, samurai sword, samurai  
•       •       •

25117 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Dec 2012 at 1:57 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-12-25 12:04:31 AM
11 votes:
Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting - 26 victims

I don't know how you can reconcile the fact that guns are far more lethal on a per-incident basis than any other weapon.
2012-12-25 02:09:59 AM
7 votes:

KrispyKritter: ignorance is bliss, subby. folks in Britain can have firearms, they just use them for hunting animals as they are intended.


Except the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.
Noah Webster

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson
2012-12-25 02:22:33 AM
5 votes:
Ok... here is the thing that is being missed. Just like I don't understand the people that say "I don't like abortion and it should be illegal", I don't get the people who say "I don't like guns and they should be illegal".

No one is forcing you to have abortions or own guns. Let the people who want to do or own legal things do things.

Its like getting mad at me for buying a donut because you are on a diet.
2012-12-25 02:14:20 AM
4 votes:

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.


And guns aren't going to do a damn thing about it. If a government is bent on killing its own civilians in mass numbers, there's fighter jets and nukes and mustard gas and submarines and aircraft carriers etc. etc. etc.
2012-12-25 02:14:09 AM
4 votes:

fusillade762: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Injured. Not killed, even.


Really? Do you guys know what IED means? Anyone can build a bomb with a trip to Home Depot and $20.

And if the FBI is watching: God bless America.

Outlaw something that already exists and you get a black market where only the worst have access.

Not unlike abortion. It's sad and awful. And it has to stay legal and safe. Good people shouldn't lose rights because of the dregs. And if it isn't obvious, I'm pro-choice because women deserve the right.
2012-12-25 01:12:03 AM
4 votes:
i.dailymail.co.uk

In a monarchy, this is the limit of allowable technology in private hands. Doesn't matter whether you're the monarch of North Korea or Britain; the peasantry needs to be kept as defenseless as possible.
2012-12-25 12:10:49 AM
4 votes:

AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim


Injured. Not killed, even.
2012-12-25 02:17:15 AM
3 votes:

phrawgh:
Driving is a privilege, not a right.



So is voting, but last I checked, there were some pretty hefty restrictions on exercising that right.

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: KrispyKritter: ignorance is bliss, subby. folks in Britain can have firearms, they just use them for hunting animals as they are intended.

Except the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.


The Second Amendment was written in a time when hastily summoned militias had a hope of weapons parity and training with regular soldiery. That time has long passed. As has the time when we have to worry about a foreign power restricting our rights - we aren't a colony any more.
2012-12-25 02:16:46 AM
3 votes:

12349876: TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.

And guns aren't going to do a damn thing about it. If a government is bent on killing its own civilians in mass numbers, there's fighter jets and nukes and mustard gas and submarines and aircraft carriers etc. etc. etc.


But it gives you a chance to at least fight. Look at Lybia...
2012-12-25 02:04:00 AM
3 votes:
ignorance is bliss, subby. folks in Britain can have firearms, they just use them for hunting animals as they are intended.
2012-12-25 01:37:01 AM
3 votes:

AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting - 26 victims

I don't know how you can reconcile the fact that guns are far more lethal on a per-incident basis than any other weapon.


Yet neither the gun nor the sword committed these crimes.
2012-12-25 04:30:06 PM
2 votes:

clyph: DuncanMhor: The UK has never had a gun culture in the way that the US does, so is it the gun culture in the US that is the issue?

Unlikely. It's ghetto/gang culture that is the issue. Depending on municipality, between 60% and 90% of murder victims have criminal records and/or known gang affiliations.

The vast majority of murders are committed by blacks, against other blacks.

[bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov image 274x226]

[bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov image 278x238]

FYI, you don't see a lot of blacks at "gun culture" events (hunting, shooting matches, etc).


More than 3/4 of firearms deaths in 2009 were non-blacks.

So are we pretending that homicide is the only gun problem or are you just a racist prick?
2012-12-25 04:26:12 PM
2 votes:

DuncanMhor: The UK has never had a gun culture in the way that the US does, so is it the gun culture in the US that is the issue?


Unlikely. It's ghetto/gang culture that is the issue. Depending on municipality, between 60% and 90% of murder victims have criminal records and/or known gang affiliations.

The vast majority of murders are committed by blacks, against other blacks.

bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov

bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov

FYI, you don't see a lot of blacks at "gun culture" events (hunting, shooting matches, etc).
2012-12-25 02:10:43 PM
2 votes:

feckingmorons: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting - 26 victims

I don't know how you can reconcile the fact that guns are far more lethal on a per-incident basis than any other weapon.

Yet neither the gun nor the sword committed these crimes.


And yet you would draw the line somewhere, I suppose, right? I mean, you don't want sixth graders carrying loaded AK's, or guns in movie theaters or grenades on public transportation, right? Everyone believes in some form of gun control, and you're no different.

It's commonplace to regulate ownership of dangerous things. You want laws on the books preventing your neighbor from producing Sarin gas, or planting land mines in his backyard. I'm sure we disagree on where to draw the line, but pretty much everyone believes that there is a line somewhere. Lethal weapons kill. That's what they're designed to do.

I understand the desire to own something dangerous, and I'm OK with that. But don't even try to convince me that guns aren't very dangerous. And it's never the sober and well adjusted person that stockpiles an arsenal in their basement.

I understand that the 2nd Amendment is considered a bedrock American right, though I disagree with the pro-gun interpretation.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,..."

Leaving off the first part of the sentence is disingenuous, as it is fairly specific. "Well regulated" does not describe our current situation, IMHO.
2012-12-25 11:50:58 AM
2 votes:
One person hurt vs. 26 people dead? Clearly those Brits have a lot to learn from America (i.e. guns are a much more efficient weapon to use for mass killings)

I love these recent spat of stories that are being used to try and establish how the nuts going on a rampage phenonmen is a worldwide issue even though this story (and the one about the recent attack on China) actually support the position of gun control advocates. Nutcases are dangerous but nutcases with easy access to guns are deadly
2012-12-25 07:17:37 AM
2 votes:
i.dailymail.co.uk
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-E u rope-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

The only category we outdo anybody in are deaths(USA, USA, USA!). And the drug war spilling over from Mexico easily accounts for that, which is why the drug legalization movement is snowballing. Granted, the data is whopping THREE WHOLE YEARS OLD, so I'm sure there's been a miracle happen since and the UK really is the gunless utopia of legend. America is the more violent society. Absolutely. Totally. For sure and for realsie.
2012-12-25 03:09:23 AM
2 votes:

JSam21: Enigmamf: Terrifying how he was able to kill 26 helpless school children before being subdued, with narry a semiautomatic military-style rifle in sight.

Wait, he wasn't? So... How many DID he kill?

Oh... none?

Huh.

May I ask what makes a rifle or any weapon "military style"


Some guns are meant to kill ducks. Some quail. Others kill deer, elk, bears. Some are designed mainly to kill humans in large numbers. Those are military style weapons. Normal folks don't hunt with AR15s with 100 round magazines.
2012-12-25 02:35:26 AM
2 votes:
Switzerland, where the government passes out Sig Sauer pistols and machine guns to the citizens, has a much lower murder rate than the UK with the UK murder rate being about 50% higher. So much for guns causing murders.
2012-12-25 02:18:36 AM
2 votes:

12349876: TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.

And guns aren't going to do a damn thing about it. If a government is bent on killing its own civilians in mass numbers, there's fighter jets and nukes and mustard gas and submarines and aircraft carriers etc. etc. etc.


You think the US is going to nuke itself?? Please stop the crazy talk. And just look at how well Afghanistan has fought back since 1979 against Russia and now against the United States. Small arms DO make a difference.

Flappyhead: TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: KrispyKritter: ignorance is bliss, subby. folks in Britain can have firearms, they just use them for hunting animals as they are intended.

Except the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.
Noah Webster

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson

Obama isn't coming to have sex with your wife, calm down.


Why do anti-gun people make everything about sex??
2012-12-25 02:14:46 AM
2 votes:

kmmontandon: feckingmorons: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting - 26 victims

I don't know how you can reconcile the fact that guns are far more lethal on a per-incident basis than any other weapon.

Yet neither the gun nor the sword committed these crimes.


Therefor, no one convicted of a DUI should have their driver's license suspended.

After all, the car didn't commit the crime.


Correct but you also don't need a license to purchase a car only to legally operate. And a suspended license doesn't forfeit the vehicle just means you can't legally operate it. And if a car didnt have a driver it would just sit there... just like a gun. So your line of reasoning makes no sense.
2012-12-25 02:05:47 AM
2 votes:

feckingmorons: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting - 26 victims

I don't know how you can reconcile the fact that guns are far more lethal on a per-incident basis than any other weapon.

Yet neither the gun nor the sword committed these crimes.


They did make the crimes heck of a lot easier to accomplish, though.
2012-12-27 12:27:56 AM
1 votes:
Keizer_Ghidorah:
The difference here is that most people killed by cars die in accidents, while most people killed by guns are deliberately murdered.


Depends on whether you are talking all intentional deaths by gun or if you exclude suicides... Because since suicide doesn't count as 'murder' legally, then you would be wrong. At least in 2011.

Total number of deaths in 2011: 2,512,873
Total number of deaths by firearms in 2011: 32,163 (1.28% of deaths in 2011)
Total number of homicides by firearms in 2011: 11,101 (34.5% of firearm deaths in 2011, 0.44% of total deaths in 2011)
Total number of suicides by firearms in 2011: 19,766 (61.5% of firearm deaths in 2011, 0.79% of total deaths in 2011)

More people die of Alcohol induced cirrhosis (16,634) than gun homicides. Maybe we should ban alcohol... wait. We tried that, and it made things worse.

The 'children' argument is a fallacy as well, and at best an emotional appeal.
Total number of children (age 0-15, since that is the closest age cutoff to 18) deaths in 2011: 33,523

Now, since children under 1 years of age usually die of things unrelated to guns, lets remove them. The ones that might have died from guns are so small as to be statistically insignificant, and will be picked up in the children in the other age groups.

Total number of children deaths 1-15 in 2011: (33,523 - 23,910): 9,613

I did a little independent research on all mass shootings in 2011, and only found 3 children killed (out of 24 total deaths, incidentally, the youngest was 11 years old, and all the children deaths fall into the age range above).

Total number of children deaths 1-15 by mass shootings in 2011: 3

So, that kind of blows a hole in the 'do it for the children' argument over so-called 'assault weapons'.

Banning guns, or even just scary ones, is not the answer. The deaths are rare enough to be statistically meaningless. We should work instead on preventing the deaths and massacres through education and improving the mental health care in this country. That would do FAR more for the safety of the countries citizens (as well as possibly preventing other types of deaths not related to firearms) than banning guns, magazines, ammo, or whatever.

(source for most of the data I used is here)

Calling for banning/heavy restrictions on firearms is an emotional response to a problem that has a more logical solution. Solutions should never be emotional when it comes to rights.
2012-12-26 04:00:19 PM
1 votes:
Please read through, the first statement might mislead you.

1. Because there are a lot of guns in the US, there is more gun violence. If you got rid of all the guns, fewer people would be killed. It's much harder to kill someone other ways. Gun-rights supporters need to acknowledge this.

2. Because there are a lot of cars in the US, many people die in car crashes. If you got rid of all the cars, it would save lives--but we accept automobile-related deaths as part of the cost of having the freedom to own cars. Far fewer people die from guns than cars in the US.

3. Even if the federal government banned all guns today, there would still be plenty of guns around fifty or a hundred years from now. This is because there's already 200 to 350 million here, and if they were banned most people wouldn't turn them in. Plus, people would just buy them illegally. Drugs are illegal too, but that hasn't stopped drugs from being available.

So, even if we agree that gun violence is bad and that removing all guns would save lives, we should be able to see that we can't remove all guns and even if we could, it seems an arbitrary removal of freedom to ensure some small increase in safety.

Bottom line, we need to look at why people become mass murderers and how we might be able to prevent some of these rampages in the future by identifying and treating the mentally ill before they go off the deep end.
2012-12-26 01:47:13 PM
1 votes:

Kit Fister: mbillips: Kit Fister:

It is not disingenous at all. The intent of the 2nd Amendment has changed over the years. So go ahead and disagree with the pro-gun interpretation all you want, it will not change the fact that the Supreme Court has issued rulings that support the current pro-gun interpretation.

Except that all of the contemporary writings support the pro-individual-right standpoint, which people conveniently ignore...

The Constitution itself states that the purpose of the militia is to "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress (emphasis added) Insurrections and repel Invasions." So the idea that an individual right to own guns exists in order to SUPPORT insurrection is nonsense. That an individual right to "bear arms" in self defense exists is arguable, and is the current court position, but extending that to a right to resist the government is ridiculous.

Except that TJ and many other founders repeatedly stated in writings that a government that no longer represents the people should be cast off, and supported the notion.

So, you apparently fail to read historical texts and references.


Thomas Jefferson frequently talked out of his ass, and he had almost nothing to do with writing the Constitution; he was in France at the time of the convention. Sure, there were some inflammatory statements at the time we were forming a republican government about an expectation of future tyranny that would require revolution to overthrow, but 200 years hence, with no such tyranny extant, we can kind of discount that as guys speculating on the future and being wrong.

e.g., Madison said this:

"In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people." - Speech at the Constitutional Convention, June 29, 1787

Whargarble. We've had a sizable standing army since 1812, and a massive one since 1940, yet still rightly consider ourselves a free people.

Tyranny, btw, is ACTUAL TYRANNY. LIke, with a dictator and political prison camps. It's not having to pay your taxes and fill out government paperwork before you can add on to your house.
2012-12-26 10:45:44 AM
1 votes:

OscarTamerz: Sorry about the long post.


Oh, no need to apologize, it was very entertaining.
But it doesn't change the fact that your comparison between Switzerland and the UK is meaningless, just like mine between Japan and Switzerland.
If you want to look at the effect of banning guns in the UK, this is the kind of stats you need:
img.photobucket.com
2012-12-26 12:41:20 AM
1 votes:

ibsalamander: I propose we scrap the 2nd Amendment. Let's re-write it the way we want it, then put it to a vote.

New Amendment:

The right of the people to own firearms shall not be infringed.

Period.

I'm pro gun-control, but all this dancing around the interpretation of a text is kind of silly to me when we all know, regardless of the actual text in question, that the issue is whether American citizens should be allowed a Constitutional guarantee of private gun ownership.

So let's have that debate rather than the semantic brawling.


What constitutes people? What is a firearm? What is infringement?
2012-12-26 12:22:10 AM
1 votes:
Gotta love how everyone thinks that better regulations on deadly weapons equals, and ONLY equals, "THE GOVERNMENT IS TAKING AWAY OUR FREEDOMS TO MAKE US ALL SLAVES!" or some other conspiracy theory idiocy.

Then they whine about how every other offered solution costs too much, takes too long, won't work, or "Fark them". Or say that "If they don't have guns, they'll just kill people with everything from homemade nuclear bombs to lightsaber-wombats, so why bother?".
2012-12-26 12:07:07 AM
1 votes:

HoratioGates: TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: KrispyKritter: ignorance is bliss, subby. folks in Britain can have firearms, they just use them for hunting animals as they are intended.

Except the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.

Noah Webster

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson

Except guns don't stand up to tanks well, the two most disarmed nations in the world, Japan and England, are monarchies in name only, and Jefferson had little reason to expect that we'd get 200+ years of peaceful transfers of power under our belts. He also didn't predict our ability to sue to overturn unjust laws.


You are assuming a revolution would occur in a vacuum and there would be neither any support from other nations (like the first American Revolution) and no one from the military would side with the rest of the American population.
2012-12-25 05:28:40 PM
1 votes:

clyph: DuncanMhor: The UK has never had a gun culture in the way that the US does, so is it the gun culture in the US that is the issue?

Unlikely. It's ghetto/gang culture that is the issue. Depending on municipality, between 60% and 90% of murder victims have criminal records and/or known gang affiliations.

The vast majority of murders are committed by blacks, against other blacks.

[bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov image 274x226]

[bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov image 278x238]


You are reading that top graph wrongly, which may be understandable, since it's extremely misleading.
What it is actually illustrating is that out of 100.000 blacks about 25 comitted homicide in 2005, while out of 100.000 whites about four committed homicide. And since there are more than five and a half as many whites as blacks, it works out to approximately the same number of black and white killers, as the lower graph shows.
2012-12-25 04:01:32 PM
1 votes:

fusillade762: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Injured. Not killed, even.


Thanks to an unarmed cop willing to risk his own life going hand-to-hand against a sword-wielding maniac. Besides being unbelievably courageous, it's extremely good fortune that a) he was there, b) willing to do what probably 99.9% of the rest of us wouldn't, and c) wasn't killed himself. That one incident used up a lot of the universe's store of luck.
2012-12-25 03:07:59 PM
1 votes:

ibsalamander: feckingmorons: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting - 26 victims

I don't know how you can reconcile the fact that guns are far more lethal on a per-incident basis than any other weapon.

Yet neither the gun nor the sword committed these crimes.

And yet you would draw the line somewhere, I suppose, right? I mean, you don't want sixth graders carrying loaded AK's, or guns in movie theaters or grenades on public transportation, right? Everyone believes in some form of gun control, and you're no different.

It's commonplace to regulate ownership of dangerous things. You want laws on the books preventing your neighbor from producing Sarin gas, or planting land mines in his backyard. I'm sure we disagree on where to draw the line, but pretty much everyone believes that there is a line somewhere. Lethal weapons kill. That's what they're designed to do.

I understand the desire to own something dangerous, and I'm OK with that. But don't even try to convince me that guns aren't very dangerous. And it's never the sober and well adjusted person that stockpiles an arsenal in their basement.

I understand that the 2nd Amendment is considered a bedrock American right, though I disagree with the pro-gun interpretation.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,..."

Leaving off the first part of the sentence is disingenuous, as it is fairly specific. "Well regulated" does not describe our current situation, IMHO.


How about this prarphasing of it, then: The right of the people to own and become familiar with firearms will not be infringed, because it may become necesary to call up a citizen levy.
2012-12-25 02:34:00 PM
1 votes:

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: See my above post. As a civilian you CAN own fighter jets and tanks.


It's still irrelevant. Most of the action would be with ground troops keeping order. If our government changed or was conquered by a force that sought wholesale slaughter, yeah, we're screwed depending on how ignorant the government manages to keep the troops. (would be no easy feat in this era of communication)

If it involves a dictator that wants to maintain a workforce, or only wants to slaughter a specific portion, it would have to be done with different means. Soldiers prodding the sheeple at gunpoint to get them to do what you want them to do.
2012-12-25 02:09:11 PM
1 votes:

Louisiana_Sitar_Club: JSam21: 12349876: TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.

And guns aren't going to do a damn thing about it. If a government is bent on killing its own civilians in mass numbers, there's fighter jets and nukes and mustard gas and submarines and aircraft carriers etc. etc. etc.

But it gives you a chance to at least fight. Look at Lybia...

Yeah, look at Lybia. They're livin' the high life now!
Anyone who truly thinks that every gun nut in the country combined would stand any kind of chance against the U.S. armed forces is a fool.
This is one of the many reasons people laugh at you.
This is one of the ways that we know you're incapable of reading a situation and coming to a realistic conclusion.
Your inability to understand such basic concepts is why you're not taken seriously.
You have every right to voice your opinions but be aware that airing such drivel tips off the rest of us to the fact that you're idiots and your opinions simply don't count.


Your inability to understand that in an American Revolution it would not be 100% of the military vs 100% of the people is why everyone laughs at you. You don't think there will be large factions of the military siding with the people?
2012-12-25 01:32:34 PM
1 votes:

Wayne 985: TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: KrispyKritter: ignorance is bliss, subby. folks in Britain can have firearms, they just use them for hunting animals as they are intended.

Except the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.
Noah Webster

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson

If you're concerned with national security, how many American civilians has the US government killed compared to the collective likes of Adam Lanza or the Columbine killers?


76 men, women, and children were killed at Waco.  The Trail of Tears killed thousands.
2012-12-25 01:04:06 PM
1 votes:
Amusing that this hasn't turned into a cop hate thread. Let me try:

US cop: needs a gun to feel like he has authority and to compensate for the lack of fitness tests a cop has.

UK police officer: Wrestles a sword wielding maniac to the ground armed with only a pair of handcuffs.
2012-12-25 12:43:49 PM
1 votes:
Functional difference between semi-auto versions of post-WWII military rifles, and semi-auto hunting rifles. (WWII and before military rifles pretty much ARE hunting rifles).

Hunting rifle. Stock is below the line of the barrel, to make a comfortable sight plane and keep optics more compact and less likely to catch on brush. Fixed magazine of five rounds (sometimes limited by hunting laws to three). No flash suppresser because unneeded. Generally a high-powered cartridge if intended for large game, such as .30-06, .308 or 7mm Magnum.

ohiohuntingproperties.com

Military-style rifle. Stock is in line with barrel to reduce muzzle climb. Pistol grip allows the stock to be this high. Flash suppressor/compensator makes it hard to spot shooter, aids in night-time shooting, and reduces muzzle climb. Detachable magazine holds 20-30 rounds, and allows up to 100-round drumbs. Smaller cartridge such as 5.56 NATO or 7.62X39 Russian allows shooter to carry more reloads, and further reduces recoil, allowing very high rates of fire.

upload.wikimedia.org

It's not cosmetic; there's a large difference.
2012-12-25 12:39:21 PM
1 votes:

kmmontandon: phrawgh:
Driving is a privilege, not a right.


So is voting, but last I checked, there were some pretty hefty restrictions on exercising that right.

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: KrispyKritter: ignorance is bliss, subby. folks in Britain can have firearms, they just use them for hunting animals as they are intended.

Except the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.


The Second Amendment was written in a time when hastily summoned militias had a hope of weapons parity and training with regular soldiery. That time has long passed. As has the time when we have to worry about a foreign power restricting our rights - we aren't a colony any more.


As a gun owner I wish the 2nd amendment drum beaters would see this flaw in the whole "protect ourselves against tyranny " argument. IF that argument held true, you and I should be legally allowed to buy and arm an F22 and an M1 Abrams and all types of helicopter gunships and surface to air missiles.....
Do we really think that civilians owning current military hardware is the right thing to do? Because that is what it would take to achieve weapons parity with the US military.

I don't think I need a tank and I DO NOT think the 2nd amendment applies to our day and times. It needs to be rewritten. ( I also don't think that banning guns will stop crazy people from doing awful things nor will arming elementary school principals. Bans on firearms are not the answer)
2012-12-25 12:22:35 PM
1 votes:

OddLlama: In all the gun threads I've read lately, there are those who insist that the second amendment is to insure protection for citizens against tyrannical governments. What I have never heard addressed is the army commanded by that government.are these people implying that our soldiers would take up arms against their families and friends in order to give power to a few in Washington? Do they not trust and support our troops? Why have I never heard this addressed?


Agreed to in one of our (U.S.) trilateral agreements with Canada and Mexico - if one country has severe domestic unrest - military from the other two countries will be used to 'subdue' it.
This was put in place because soldiers shouldn't be expected to draw arms against their countrymen.

So yeah. It's been addressed.
2012-12-25 11:51:14 AM
1 votes:

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: KrispyKritter: ignorance is bliss, subby. folks in Britain can have firearms, they just use them for hunting animals as they are intended.

Except the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.
Noah Webster

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
- Thomas Jefferson


Cherry-picked quotes are cherry-picked.

1. The Constitution did not include a poison pill that preserved the right to revolution against Constitutional government. The right to "bear arms" (e.g. serve in the ranks of the militia) was preserved so that the federal government couldn't prevent the states from keeping their own bodies of troops to prevent/put down slave rebellions. Notice that nearly all the quotes about counterbalancing standing armies come from Virginians and other Southerners.

2. The founders WERE worried about standing armies becoming a political force that could be misused by a tyrant. We got less and less worried about that over the decades and centuries. Today, the standing army is absolutely powerful, and no civilian uprising or rebellion by state troops could do more than annoy it a little. Fortunately, the standing army has been kept well clear of politics.
2012-12-25 11:38:41 AM
1 votes:
OMG. All those weapons! What a horrible thing to happen!

His alleged victim, who suffered stab wounds to the legs arms and face is said to be in a serious but not life threatening condition in hospital.

Somehow that doesn't sound the same as "several killed, several injured in gun spree."

Fark has become nothing but a troll site. Everyone of us manipulated daily by these kinds of headlines so Drew can make more money. Merry Christmas, Drew.
2012-12-25 10:04:14 AM
1 votes:
British people love disarmed peoples.

They loved poorly armed Indians, Africans, Arabs, and Asians.

They did not enjoy the company of well armed Americans.
2012-12-25 10:03:08 AM
1 votes:

BeSerious: Triumph: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x422]

In a monarchy, this is the limit of allowable technology in private hands. Doesn't matter whether you're the monarch of North Korea or Britain; the peasantry needs to be kept as defenseless as possible.

Oh, like your guns will protect you from what this government has.

Good call.


A handful of hapless farmers against the might of the Royal British Empire?  Hmphh...

www.mnartists.org
2012-12-25 09:29:51 AM
1 votes:

Elzar: fusillade762: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Injured. Not killed, even.
if the woman had been packing heat, there would have been zero injuries... This is what a country gets when thy give up their right to bare arms. Thanks a lot obummer...


If she had been carrying a gun, that implies that there would be a lax gun law.

So there would have been thousands of victims.

---

Also she might have shot that dude, but he had it comming.
2012-12-25 09:11:45 AM
1 votes:
www.barnrunner.com
2012-12-25 05:15:39 AM
1 votes:

CthulhuCalling: James F. Campbell: Meanwhile, in the gunless utopia of Britain:

[home.comcast.net image 600x460]

What a hellhole. Truly.

have you tried their cuisine?


Countries that sell spray cheese in a can and yogurt in a tube aren't allowed to criticise other countries' food.
2012-12-25 04:45:10 AM
1 votes:

log_jammin: all I said was that the AR line was designed from the ground up as human killing device, and claiming that one variant makes for an OK deer gun doesn't change that fact.


guns are efficient killers regardless of what you think they were 'intended' to kill. Take for example my Remington 700. It's a pretty reliable and standard target/deer rifle. Add a Harris bipod, a Leopuld scope, exchange the stock for a Kevlar one and you have an M-24 sniper rifle. My Mossberg 590 FLEX goes from being a tactical room broom to a game gun in about 30 seconds.
2012-12-25 04:34:03 AM
1 votes:

OscarTamerz: Switzerland, where the government passes out Sig Sauer pistols and machine guns to the citizens, has a much lower murder rate than the UK with the UK murder rate being about 50% higher. So much for guns causing murders.


The difference is that Switzerland is one of the richest countries of the world with an extremely stable economy, low unemployment, very good education for all, highly democratic, and extremely cohesive social structure, a long history of anti-militarism and neutrality, and little problems with crime, poverty or other social issues. There is no other country quite like Switzerland.

The Swiss are with almost no exception, very nice, well-educated, and extremely boring people.
2012-12-25 04:03:12 AM
1 votes:

Pointy Tail of Satan: No one needs a semi-auto assault rifle that besides killing an intruder, can just as easily shoot through a wooden wall and kill your neighbour three houses down, or the kid walking down the street. PIstols on the other hand make some sense, at least for home defence purposes..

And speaking of the 2nd amendment, I wonder how many US gun fanatics are really part of a "well regulated Militia", and not just latent thugs.


You really do not know a lot about guns, do you?

You do realize that the type of gun from which a bullet is fired has absolutely real impact on force of the bullet, right? You can find semi-automatic civilian hunting rifles that fire the exact same ammunition as these semi-automatic military style rifles. So, fire that bullet from an AR-15 or from a Ruger (either the 5.56x42mm or the .223 Remington) and they will, for the most part, behave the same way. There will be some minor variations in performance, but not enough to make a difference in your ridiculous example of shooting through your neighbor's houses. The main difference between a military style and a civilian semi-automatic rifle is visual. That is it. There might be some minor differences as in better gas feed system, less recoil, etc., but these will vary from gun to gun. Against some civilian rifles and in some categories the military style will do better. In others it will not. Seems to me that you and so many other people are afraid of these guns simply because of the way they look. And that is irrational.
2012-12-25 03:19:37 AM
1 votes:

simkatu: CthulhuCalling: simkatu: Except most citizens don't have assault rifles. Those things usually cost upwards of $20,000 a piece.

Sig Sauer M400 is an AR-15. Sells for $897 at Wal-Mart. The Colt version of the AR-15 sells for $1100 at Wal-Mart. No waiting period required in my state. Not a felon? Pick one up today, guaranteed.

Neither of them are assault rifles. Hint: a characteristic of an assault rifle includes select-fire operation.

Depends on who you ask. Most folks include a bunch of other characteristics that you didn't mention. These used to be banned under assault weapons ban of 1994. Bushmaster became popular by avoiding most of the characteristics.


You're describing an 'assault weapon', which is a political confabulation. An assault rifle is a completely different beast, but used interchangeably by the media and politicians to muddy the waters.
2012-12-25 03:13:04 AM
1 votes:

simkatu: JSam21: Enigmamf: Terrifying how he was able to kill 26 helpless school children before being subdued, with narry a semiautomatic military-style rifle in sight.

Wait, he wasn't? So... How many DID he kill?

Oh... none?

Huh.

May I ask what makes a rifle or any weapon "military style"

Some guns are meant to kill ducks. Some quail. Others kill deer, elk, bears. Some are designed mainly to kill humans in large numbers. Those are military style weapons. Normal folks don't hunt with AR15s with 100 round magazines.


Hint: nobody hunts with 100 round mags. Weapons that are designed to 'kill humans in large numbers' are reserved almost exclusively for the military. An AR15 is a semiautomatic weapon that happens to have a visual similarity to certain military weapons. You're scared of how something looks.
2012-12-25 02:50:17 AM
1 votes:

mediaho: Britain isn't "gunless" and no one is suggesting completely disarming the American populace. So... what was the point?


Gun nuts are overreacting and paranoid.

Also the sky is blue and water is wet.
2012-12-25 02:36:59 AM
1 votes:

JSam21: Mrtraveler01: JSam21: Ok... here is the thing that is being missed. Just like I don't understand the people that say "I don't like abortion and it should be illegal", I don't get the people who say "I don't like guns and they should be illegal".

No one is forcing you to have abortions or own guns. Let the people who want to do or own legal things do things.

Its like getting mad at me for buying a donut because you are on a diet.

I don't like guns, but I don't want to make them illegal outright. I just want to find a way to restrict who can get them.

I would not be happy with a free-for-all, anyone can buy a gun, policy.

There is a way in place now. But most all of the gun laws deal with handguns only. You have to have a background check and be at least 21 years old to purchase a handgun and be 21 to purchase ammo for a handgun.

Now when you get into long guns thats where things become very lax. 18 years old with a valid id and you're good to go. Same with rifle and shotgun ammo.

Background checks should be mandatory for all purchases of fire arms. Reduction of magazine capacity will have zero effect on reduction of victims in an incident.


What makes you think there is no background check for rifles?? And what rational person is arguing AGAINST background check?? Yay for background checks!! I also think there should be more mandatory training (Perhaps annual qualifying??) for concealed permit holders.

No rational gun owner thinks just anyone should be able to buy a firearm without any type of background check.
2012-12-25 02:36:34 AM
1 votes:

OscarTamerz: Switzerland, where the government passes out Sig Sauer pistols and machine guns to the citizens, has a much lower murder rate than the UK with the UK murder rate being about 50% higher. So much for guns causing murders.


This...
2012-12-25 02:33:36 AM
1 votes:
GB has like 36 gun deaths a year to our 15000 our whatever obscene number it is, even though they are 1/6 the size. Gun control works there. Even police are discouraged from carrying. However its too late for the US to institute gun control like that. We have 300 million guns out there. It's not possible to get those returned. There are sensible things we can do to help things, like refusing to sell to just released mental patients or to folks that don't have any training in gun safety.
2012-12-25 02:30:07 AM
1 votes:

Mrtraveler01: TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: kmmontandon: phrawgh:
Driving is a privilege, not a right.


So is voting, but last I checked, there were some pretty hefty restrictions on exercising that right.

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: KrispyKritter: ignorance is bliss, subby. folks in Britain can have firearms, they just use them for hunting animals as they are intended.

Except the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.


The Second Amendment was written in a time when hastily summoned militias had a hope of weapons parity and training with regular soldiery. That time has long passed. As has the time when we have to worry about a foreign power restricting our rights - we aren't a colony any more.

Right. Now the big worry is a domestic power restricting our rights. Good thing those Founding Fathers saw fit to give us a means to not be enslaved by the government they built.

Oh for the love of Christ, do you actually think we're at a point where we need to violently topple the government we currently have in place now.

The one that was Democratically elected?

How are you going to stop this "domestic power restricting our rights" anyway?


The threat of violence quite often makes the use of violence unnecessary.

OddLlama: In all the gun threads I've read lately, there are those who insist that the second amendment is to insure protection for citizens against tyrannical governments. What I have never heard addressed is the army commanded by that government.are these people implying that our soldiers would take up arms against their families and friends in order to give power to a few in Washington? Do they not trust and support our troops? Why have I never heard this addressed?


Some troops would defect. Others won't. I'm not going to just hope that the side I personally support comes out ahead in the numbers game. Why not hedge your bet with some extra support??

And again, the threat of violence often means you don't have to use it.
2012-12-25 02:26:55 AM
1 votes:

OddLlama: In all the gun threads I've read lately, there are those who insist that the second amendment is to insure protection for citizens against tyrannical governments. What I have never heard addressed is the army commanded by that government.are these people implying that our soldiers would take up arms against their families and friends in order to give power to a few in Washington? Do they not trust and support our troops? Why have I never heard this addressed?


http://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war
2012-12-25 02:26:21 AM
1 votes:

JSam21: Ok... here is the thing that is being missed. Just like I don't understand the people that say "I don't like abortion and it should be illegal", I don't get the people who say "I don't like guns and they should be illegal".

No one is forcing you to have abortions or own guns. Let the people who want to do or own legal things do things.

Its like getting mad at me for buying a donut because you are on a diet.


I don't like guns, but I don't want to make them illegal outright. I just want to find a way to restrict who can get them.

I would not be happy with a free-for-all, anyone can buy a gun, policy.
2012-12-25 02:24:26 AM
1 votes:

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: kmmontandon: phrawgh:
Driving is a privilege, not a right.


So is voting, but last I checked, there were some pretty hefty restrictions on exercising that right.

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: KrispyKritter: ignorance is bliss, subby. folks in Britain can have firearms, they just use them for hunting animals as they are intended.

Except the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.


The Second Amendment was written in a time when hastily summoned militias had a hope of weapons parity and training with regular soldiery. That time has long passed. As has the time when we have to worry about a foreign power restricting our rights - we aren't a colony any more.

Right. Now the big worry is a domestic power restricting our rights. Good thing those Founding Fathers saw fit to give us a means to not be enslaved by the government they built.


Oh for the love of Christ, do you actually think we're at a point where we need to violently topple the government we currently have in place now.

The one that was Democratically elected?

How are you going to stop this "domestic power restricting our rights" anyway?
2012-12-25 02:23:53 AM
1 votes:

Ready-set: fusillade762: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Injured. Not killed, even.

Really? Do you guys know what IED means? Anyone can build a bomb with a trip to Home Depot and $20.

And if the FBI is watching: God bless America.

Outlaw something that already exists and you get a black market where only the worst have access.

Not unlike abortion. It's sad and awful. And it has to stay legal and safe. Good people shouldn't lose rights because of the dregs. And if it isn't obvious, I'm pro-choice because women deserve the right.


So grenade launchers and stinger missiles for sale at Wal-mart with no restrictions, permits, or background checks? Or do you believe the Constitution allows us to regulate arms?
2012-12-25 02:21:21 AM
1 votes:

kmmontandon: phrawgh:
Driving is a privilege, not a right.


So is voting, but last I checked, there were some pretty hefty restrictions on exercising that right.

TheyCallMeC0WB0Y: KrispyKritter: ignorance is bliss, subby. folks in Britain can have firearms, they just use them for hunting animals as they are intended.

Except the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and EVERYTHING to do with a violent revolution to topple the government.


The Second Amendment was written in a time when hastily summoned militias had a hope of weapons parity and training with regular soldiery. That time has long passed. As has the time when we have to worry about a foreign power restricting our rights - we aren't a colony any more.


Right. Now the big worry is a domestic power restricting our rights. Good thing those Founding Fathers saw fit to give us a means to not be enslaved by the government they built.
2012-12-25 02:21:16 AM
1 votes:

kmmontandon: The Second Amendment was written in a time when hastily summoned militias had a hope of weapons parity and training with regular soldiery. That time has long passed. As has the time when we have to worry about a foreign power restricting our rights - we aren't a colony any more.


4.bp.blogspot.com

No sense in worrying yourself about encroaching tyranny, citizen.
2012-12-25 02:19:58 AM
1 votes:

Triumph: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x422]

In a monarchy, this is the limit of allowable technology in private hands. Doesn't matter whether you're the monarch of North Korea or Britain; the peasantry needs to be kept as defenseless as possible.


Keep living that fantasy man. And don't forget to contribute to your HOA on time. And remember: no visible clotheslines. You're living in the land of the free, after all. Don't want no washing showing.
2012-12-25 02:16:50 AM
1 votes:

fusillade762: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Injured. Not killed, even.


Done in two.

This is as stupid as the folks saying "Hey look, 12 people got stabbed in China but lived...that's why we shouldn't have any gun regulations".
2012-12-25 02:15:06 AM
1 votes:

ArcadianRefugee: Since when is a gas mask a weapon ?


Well, if you put a scope and a folding stock on it ...
2012-12-25 02:13:08 AM
1 votes:

Triumph: [i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x422]

In a monarchy, this is the limit of allowable technology in private hands. Doesn't matter whether you're the monarch of North Korea or Britain; the peasantry needs to be kept as defenseless as possible.


Oh, like your guns will protect you from what this government has.

Good call.
2012-12-25 02:09:52 AM
1 votes:

KrispyKritter: ignorance is bliss, subby. folks in Britain can have firearms, they just use them for hunting animals as they are intended.


Well in all fairness to the gun-obsessed culture of the US, humans ARE animals.


/Just sayin'
2012-12-25 02:08:06 AM
1 votes:

feckingmorons: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting - 26 victims

I don't know how you can reconcile the fact that guns are far more lethal on a per-incident basis than any other weapon.

Yet neither the gun nor the sword committed these crimes.



Therefor, no one convicted of a DUI should have their driver's license suspended.

After all, the car didn't commit the crime.
2012-12-25 02:04:56 AM
1 votes:

AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting - 26 victims

I don't know how you can reconcile the fact that guns are far more lethal on a per-incident basis than any other weapon.


We prefer our attacks supersized, with cheese.
2012-12-25 02:04:26 AM
1 votes:
Since when is a gas mask a weapon ?
2012-12-25 12:36:52 AM
1 votes:

fusillade762: AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Injured. Not killed, even.

if the woman had been packing heat, there would have been zero injuries... This is what a country gets when thy give up their right to bare arms. Thanks a lot obummer...
2012-12-25 12:11:11 AM
1 votes:

AverageAmericanGuy: Holloway Road sword attack - 1 victim

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting - 26 victims

I don't know how you can reconcile the fact that guns are far more lethal on a per-incident basis than any other weapon.


Not "any" other weapon, but access to planes is well regulated.
 
Displayed 71 of 71 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report