Britain leaves the European Union today

[Spaz]

This is an absolute truth. The more time in the field, the sharper your senses get. Really good post @Spaz

Remember that you are speaking Greek when saying that stuff. The biggest danger they face is a wreck going to work. Their base survival is virtually guaranteed.

They dont understand the methodology of hunting using range weapons vs close up weapons such as spear/sword thrusts.

And that's why it easy to talk.

 

[thinker]

@Spaz the U.S. cities with the highest rates of murder and gun violence are the once with the strictest gun laws. The reason why an armed man is a free man is because he can protect himself , his property, his loved once and his freedoms. I am originally from Cuba, when the socialists first took over they confiscated all firearms. This made it impossible for anyone that didn't agree with the government to do anything about it, remember only the government had guns. When the socialists started arresting, torturing, and disappearing anyone who didn't agree with them their was nothing that could be done. The reason why dictators such as fidel castro and adolf hitler take the guns away is so that they can't be opposed.

 

[Spaz]

@Spaz the U.S. cities with the highest rates of murder and gun violence are the once with the strictest gun laws. The reason why an armed man is a free man is because he can protect himself , his property, his loved once and his freedoms. I am originally from Cuba, when the socialists first took over they confiscated all firearms. This made it impossible for anyone that didn't agree with the government to do anything about it, remember only the government had guns. When the socialists started arresting, torturing, and disappearing anyone who didn't agree with them their was nothing that could be done. The reason why dictators such as fidel castro and adolf hitler take the guns away is so that they can't be opposed.

Everybody knows Cuba is a shiethole that doesn't practice democracy.

The citizens there has no choice nor freedom.

But in America you do.

U r free to choose which government you want.

That government is the expression of the peoples will.

Having strict gun laws but still allowing gun ownership doesn't help much does it? You already admit as much.

Having no guns like in many other countries not only helps alot but they also have almost ZERO fatalities due to gun violence.

 

[Spaz]

And, in England where there are strict gun laws, they have psychopathic migrants(forced upon them by the EU...to bring this thread back on topic), riding nuts-to-butts on scooters, and slashing and splashing the natives, and raping women in their own doorways, which could be discouraged by arming the natives...not by simply deputizing more RESPONDERS, who do nothing but accuse the natives of "racism," for daring to complain.

If you arm a population to deal with those migrants you create a whole set of other problems.

It is not a sustainable solution.

A more sustainable solution is stop bringing in low end migrants or as being done below;

In some Asian countries, for centuries there's always many movement of migrants, mostly the lowest of the low but they have in place draconian measures that quietly surpresses them into hiding a quite life - no schooling, constant deportation, constant visits by the police (who enjoys getting bribes), etc, you name it - it's done just to surpress em all.

But at the same time there's also a way out, if their local employer level up those migrants, meaning not only provide them with work permits but also educate them with recognised qualifications, this ensures those hard-working, clean, with roughly good virtues can attain permanent residency and even citizenship in their host country.

While the rest who can't cut it will be continously surpressed, too afraid to even cause much of a problem.

Meanwhile the citizens live a relatively safe environment without needing guns.

 

[Spaz]

Yeah, well, I'm more of a survival-of-the-fittest kinda guy, anyway; so, I wouldn't be entirely opposed to an all out shootout, to cull the herd of the most miscreant elements...but, that's just me.

The kinder and gentler we get with the freaks, the more the freaks breed like rats. And, just as rats are never content to live among themselves, the freaks have an annoying tendency to infest civilized society. Time for some Old West Justice in Europe?

But, hey, I'm just an American "gun nut"; so, what do I know about it...

I trust you realise that solutions that's reflective of the seasonal flavour of the masses doesn't actually yield sustainable long term solutions nor benefits.

A man must always think with profits to be had in his mind.

How does culling a herd of humans profitable to you or ur immediate surroundings, that's a question you should ask urself.

 

[user43770]

How does culling a herd of humans profitable to you or ur immediate surroundings, that's a question you should ask urself.

Too many humans on the planet is resulting in mass ecocide via deforestation, climate change and overfishing/hunting. So there's that.

 

[user43770]

Gun violence in America mostly takes place in urban areas and the vast majority of shootings are black on black. Many of these areas already have strict gun laws.

It's like EyeB said, unless you can make all guns disappear in an instant, it makes sense for us to carry for our own protection.

Also, nobody has mentioned the benefits of women being able to carry guns. They can't exactly go hand-to-hand with potential rapists etc. So unless you plan on making them have a male chaperone, like some countries...

 

[EyeBRollin]

I believe the original intent was the standard weaponry issued to an infantryman.

Wrong. The original intent was to put down slave revolts, as the master was always thoroughly outnumbered.

 

[Spaz]

Gun violence in America mostly takes place in urban areas and the vast majority of shootings are black on black. Many of these areas already have strict gun laws.

It's like EyeB said, unless you can make all guns disappear in an instant, it makes sense for us to carry for our own protection.

Also, nobody has mentioned the benefits of women being able to carry guns. They can't exactly go hand-to-hand with potential rapists etc. So unless you plan on making them have a male chaperone, like some countries...

That's exactly what I meant, banning guns = getting rid of all ownership of it.

A man has no business carrying it in cities unless he's law enforcement.

As for rape, it'll happen regardless. Has not been reduced in any American cities.

 

[EyeBRollin]

@Spaz the U.S. cities with the highest rates of murder and gun violence are the once with the strictest gun laws. The reason why an armed man is a free man is because he can protect himself , his property, his loved once and his freedoms. I am originally from Cuba, when the socialists first took over they confiscated all firearms. This made it impossible for anyone that didn't agree with the government to do anything about it, remember only the government had guns. When the socialists started arresting, torturing, and disappearing anyone who didn't agree with them their was nothing that could be done. The reason why dictators such as fidel castro and adolf hitler take the guns away is so that they can't be opposed.

False. New York City is the safest large city in North America. Try bringing a gun here.

All the states with strict gun laws have lower incidents of gun homicides, domestic homicides, and suicides.

 

[EyeBRollin]

Per the 2nd amendment...can you own a working cannon? How about a warhead? I've always wondered what the limits are to "arms." The Constitution mentions militia but not game hunting.

The second Amendment was inserted for slave rebellions as a compromise to appease slave states.

 

[Spaz]

Too many humans on the planet is resulting in mass ecocide via deforestation, climate change and overfishing/hunting. So there's that.

You don't need to, nature has a way to effectively cull humanity.

As with everything, a balance will be enforced one way or the other.

 

[user43770]

That's exactly what I meant, banning guns = getting rid of all ownership of it.

A man has no business carrying it in cities unless he's law enforcement.

As for rape, it'll happen regardless. Has not been reduced in any American cities.

Banning guns gets rid of all legal ownership. It won't stop criminals from obtaining guns.

I fail to see the problem with a law-abiding citizen carrying a gun in the city.

And rapes will continue to occur, that's why women should be able to protect themselves.

 

[Spaz]

Banning guns gets rid of all legal ownership. It won't stop criminals from obtaining guns.

I fail to see the problem with a law-abiding citizen carrying a gun in the city.

And rapes will continue to occur, that's why women should be able to protect themselves.

Of course it won't stop criminals from obtaining guns.

But it will significantly reduce it.

And I've not heard of criminals shooting up school kids yet...

 

[Spaz]

That was supposed to be a not-entirely-serious mic drop, to discourage further derailing of what is supposed to be a congratulatory thread, soluting the Brits on their newly reclaimed national independence.

Don't get me wrong. I have plenty of passionate and evolved opinions on the matter of gun rights and personal protection, but it isn't really my place to dictate to Brits how they should govern their nation, since I'm not a Brit and this thread is supposed to be about them.

If someone cares to start a different thread on this topic, I'm happy to throw down, over there.

In the meantime, congratulations, again, Brits!!!

Consider it as an evolution of the thread.

 

[Xenom0rph]

The second Amendment was inserted for slave rebellions as a compromise to appease slave states.

You twist every discussion to fit your racism narrative, even discussions that had nothing to do with race.

I think it's safe to assume that most members (and society in general) have developed apathy towards these racism accusations because people on the left keep crying wolf....it's becoming a comedy routine at this point.....

 

[Xenom0rph]

The irony of EBR's position is that a better argument could be made that the American history of gun control has its roots in racism; whereas the 2nd Amendment, universally applied, makes men more equal:

The Racist History of Gun Control | Mises Institute

The first attempts at gun control were aimed at disarming minorities. This has continued throughout American history.

mises.org

So, there ya go, EBR. If you must have a racist would view, at least this one will make you look less like a sucker.

This is a solid post and I wish i had researched this angle more....

....yes you're right. Gun control can be viewed as a form of racism as it seeks to strip the right to self-defense from vulnerable communities...

 

[EyeBRollin]

You twist every discussion to fit your racism narrative, even discussions that had nothing to do with race.

I think it's safe to assume that most members (and society in general) have developed apathy towards these racism accusations because people on the left keep crying wolf....it's becoming a comedy routine at this point.....

Who said anything about race?

Lean some base American History. The Brits were offering freedom to escaped slaves during the revolutionary war if they fought on behalf of the Brits. The right to bear arms was about slavery, specifically patrols (which operated as light militia) used to hunt escaped slaves. Facts don’t give a damn about your discomfort or feelings.

 

[EyeBRollin]

That must be because of Stop-n-Frisk??

No.

Increasing economic prosperity mixed with strict gun laws.

 

[EyeBRollin]

None.

The arguments for and against each of the original 10 Amendments in the Bill of Rights are contained in 'The Federalist Papers' and 'The Anti-federalist Papers', but almost no-one bothers to actually read them.

Instead, we are treated to nonsense explanations of the 3/5 compromise, as a supposedly dehumanizing effort by Southern slave-owners, when they actually wanted their slaves to be counted 100% towards representation, instead of 60%, because it would give the South greater representation in Congress and in the electoral college. Heck, the South would have counted their slaves as 5/3, if the North would've let them get away with it. Instead, the North argued that slaves should count as 0% toward representation, and they compromised on 3/5.

We keep hearing stupid s hit, though, because people don't bother to think and read.

This level of ignorance it’s maddening. The south only wanted to count slaves as people as it pertained to representation. Slaves were strictly considered property in every other sense. Don’t try to push your pro-slavery propaganda.