*JPP bomb thrown*

evince said:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Where in here does it say you get the same arms the militia gets?
Click to expand...

311. Militia: composition and classes
How Current is This?
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

During the revolutionary war and the writing of the constitution/bill of rights, people that were not regular military were considered the militia. well regulated meant well equipped and organized, meaning that they had well functioning weapons and knew how to fight together.

It was the founding fathers belief and intentions that the citizens of this nation had the strongest held interest in their liberty and that having felt firsthand the oppression that a standing army could impose at the orders of a central government, believed that in that interest of freedom and liberty, the people should be as well armed or better than the standing army.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
why should it bother me? The problem with you brits and the liberals here is that you're terrified that a person could even have the potential to destroy others with weapons. I have a news flash for you. The potential to destroy is innate in human nature and NOTHING you do can eliminate it. It is the inherent right to freedom and self preservation that demands that all people have the ability to repel said force with equal or stronger force. It is not the duty or responsibility of government/police to provide personal individual protection, nor are they the 'only ones' professional enough to do so.
Click to expand...

That's fine, mate. You don't see a problem with a flame-thrower in the High Street whereas i do.

I have no desire to regulate your usage of weaponry. I just prefer our way of weapons control that's all. As long as neither of us seeks to impose it on the other, i'm all for live and let live.
 
charver said:
I'm not getting into your weapons laws, as it's none of my business, but would you be comfortable with people walking down the street with flamethrowers?
Click to expand...

All it takes is a can of aerosol and a lighter... trying to regulate items because of what some nut 'might' do is a bit ridiculous.

It is like drugs... if people want them, they can get them. Banning the substances or the types of guns isnt going to stop those who want them from getting them or using them.

Telling responsible people that they cannot own a type of weapon simply because someone else might go nuts with it is idiotic. That would be like saying, no one can drive a car because someone might get behind the wheel drunk and drive through a crowded mall.

You target and go after those that use the weapons in a way that causes harm to others. Same for drugs. Same for alcohol.
 
charver said:
That's fine, mate. You don't see a problem with a flame-thrower in the High Street whereas i do.

I have no desire to regulate your usage of weaponry. I just prefer our way of weapons control that's all. As long as neither of us seeks to impose it on the other, i'm all for live and let live.
Click to expand...

good to hear. I have a question for you though, in regards to your way of weapons control......

how has it been working for you? who's more disadvantaged? the peaceful citizen or the yob?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
good to hear. I have a question for you though, in regards to your way of weapons control......

how has it been working for you? who's more disadvantaged? the peaceful citizen or the yob?
Click to expand...

Well, first off we start from vastly differing places. The UK has never had a gun culture of any note. It has always been a tiny minority who held handguns or automatic weapons in their own homes or in gun clubs. Hence when the gun ban came in it affected very few people and was, in comparison to the same action in the US, relatively uncontroversial.

Seeing as people didn't really use guns as a means of self-defence or property defence it hasn't been missed.

Generally our yobs are mainly pissed up blokes fighting outside pubs after having a skin full. Gun crime is thankfully small and usually occurs in certain pockets of the country. The vast majority of the population just would recoil in horror if offered the chance to buy and carry a gun. For whatever reason, we just have completely differing attitudes to weaponry.
 
charver said:
Well, first off we start from vastly differing places. The UK has never had a gun culture of any note. It has always been a tiny minority who held handguns or automatic weapons in their own homes or in gun clubs. Hence when the gun ban came in it affected very few people and was, in comparison to the same action in the US, relatively uncontroversial.

Seeing as people didn't really use guns as a means of self-defence or property defence it hasn't been missed.

Generally our yobs are mainly pissed up blokes fighting outside pubs after having a skin full. Gun crime is thankfully small and usually occurs in certain pockets of the country. The vast majority of the population just would recoil in horror if offered the chance to buy and carry a gun. For whatever reason, we just have completely differing attitudes to weaponry.
Click to expand...

then how about general all purpose self defense? has that culture been wiped away from you guys yet?
 
Does anyone agree we as individuals should not be allowed to own and possess nuclear ICBM's?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
then how about general all purpose self defense? has that culture been wiped away from you guys yet?
Click to expand...

No, many people would struggle to tell you how far they could legally go and are frightened by sensationalist tabloid headlines (if someone comes along and mentions Tony fucking Martin i'll scream). However, we do have the right to take any measures which, in the heat of the moment, you deem is reasonable to defend yourself.
 
Jarod said:
Does anyone agree we as individuals should not be allowed to own and possess nuclear ICBM's?
Click to expand...

This is a strawman argument. Not only is there no possible way for a militia man able to carry the ICBM, its use in ground warfare is non-existent, therefore it should not even be considered. However, if you really want to pursue this in your misguided effort to prove that 'reasonable restrictions' apply, then yes, I think anyone that can afford the materials, storage, maintenance, and other aspects can own one.
 
charver said:
No, many people would struggle to tell you how far they could legally go and are frightened by sensationalist tabloid headlines (if someone comes along and mentions Tony fucking Martin i'll scream). However, we do have the right to take any measures which, in the heat of the moment, you deem is reasonable to defend yourself.
Click to expand...

but...but....tony martin? kidding.

let me see if I got this right.....

A person that uses physical violence to detain someone who broke in to their home to steal a tv will NOT face charges of assault?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
but...but....tony martin? kidding.

let me see if I got this right.....

A person that uses physical violence to detain someone who broke in to their home to steal a tv will NOT face charges of assault?
Click to expand...

That depends if the physical force used was "reasonable".

(personally, i'd be in favour of a legal clarification of the law or, at the very least, guidance handed down to the Crown Prosecution Service not to pursue a prosecution in such circumstances as not in the public interest)
 
Threedee said:
I guess this means we won't be seeing anymore cop killer bullets...
Click to expand...

Cop Killer bullets are, for the most part, a myth. Born from the typical media hype and further perpetrated by Hollywood films. Read this:

"Cop-killer" Bullets - By Mike Casey

As the author states at the end: Knowledge is power.


evince said:
You dont need armor peicing bullets.
Click to expand...

"Armor piercing" ammunition is only legally available to law enforcement agencies and to the armed forces. But, if you want to get technical, nearly all conventional rifle ammunition is capable of piercing commonly worn body armor. Would you have them ban rifles?


charver said:
...but would you be comfortable with people walking down the street with flamethrowers?
Click to expand...

Depends on what people we are talking about. I would not worry if we were talking aboute me, my friends, family, or any law abiding citizen. But I would tend to be concerned if we were talking about members of the Bloods, Crips, MS-13, certain motorcycle gangs, or any member of a hate group
 
I agree with the above.......well, with the exception of the motorcycle gangs. I belong to a pretty cool "wild hogs" type of gang. :)
 
charver said:
That depends if the physical force used was "reasonable".

(personally, i'd be in favour of a legal clarification of the law or, at the very least, guidance handed down to the Crown Prosecution Service not to pursue a prosecution in such circumstances as not in the public interest)
Click to expand...

IMHO, shooting 16 year olds in the back as they attempt to flee is 100% in the public interest.

This is just like in New York, four unarmed black men walked up to a racist and asked for money, and he pulled out a gun and shot them. Of course, he wasn't prosecuted.

800px-Americunt_penis_compensate.jpg
 
Last edited:
charver said:
No, many people would struggle to tell you how far they could legally go and are frightened by sensationalist tabloid headlines (if someone comes along and mentions Tony fucking Martin i'll scream). However, we do have the right to take any measures which, in the heat of the moment, you deem is reasonable to defend yourself.
Click to expand...

Tony fucking Martin
 
SmarterThanYou said:
It's not your place to tell me what guns and weapons I can and cannot own or possess, just as it is not my place to tell you what kind of house or car you can own or possess. I have every natural right to own a machine gun, whether you approve or not.
Click to expand...

how about a rocket launcher? how about a howizter? how about a small satchel nuke?
 
maineman said:
how about a rocket launcher? how about a howizter? how about a small satchel nuke?
Click to expand...

How about we put the limit in direct comparison to standard issued weapons to military personel?

They get assault rifles, the populace is able to buy them.

They get standard issued small satchel nukes... then the populace gets to buy them.

They have all weapons removed, the populace has all weapons removed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top