What would you fight for?

I'd just like to point to this BBC article :

A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned.
[...]
the research clearly demonstrates that it is illegal guns which are the real threat to public safety.
Click to expand...

Unless you're convinced that gun laws will make criminals turn in their weapons, it would appear that they have an averse effect: the criminals know you haven't got one.

Of course, you could still accomplish some good with a gun ban. You can pretend the world is a safe place, because guns have been banned.
 
I think it's interesting that the police in the UK do not carry guns and as it turns out, less criminals in the UK do not carry guns... I just find that interesting... as for a gun ban... i don't think it would work... everything the US does messes up in their face... remember the whole "just say no to drugs"... look how well that worked out
 
Originally posted by TC


What makes me mad are people who condemn the ways of others without taking the time to understand them. In Britain it is not a right to be allowed to carry firearms. It is not a right to defend your property at all costs. I, personally, agree with this. Britain, as a result, has a much lower proportion of firearm related crime. Hell, many of the police in the UK don't carry guns and, quite frankly, don't need to. People in the UK have the right to speak out if they disagree with this. They aren't told to 'shut up' in any way that carries legal backing...
Click to expand...

"Sir, I have messed up."

O.K., I couldnt find the specific reference, I apparently threw the magazine out that had the British press source. But, and due to my limited knowledge about internet stuff it will be ponderous, here is where you can look to see references to lost rights in Britain. I reccommend the "Lost battles, lost rights" story.

http://www.nraila.org/search.asp?ReQuery=1&FormMode=search&keywords=britain

I tried using the http thing but couldnt get it to work.

O.K., I guess it did:confused:

HAH! It even works! I just wish I knew what I did to get it to work...:confused:
 
Gerald Heggstrom was sound asleep early on morning when his wife, Audrey, was startled awake by a loud noise outside. She went to the living room window, looked out and saw a strange man standing at the front door. Because of the hour, she went to get her husband. Heggstrom picked up a .45-cal. pistol and handed it to his wife. "I came to the door and asked what he wanted," Heggstrom recalled. The man asked to see "Katy" and when he was told there was no one there by that name, he walked away. Heggstrom went back to bed, but his wife was too nervous to sleep. "I was watching TV, and the security light on the front porch came on 15 minutes later," she said. "I was in the kitchen and looked out the window, and just then I saw him go into the garage." After being roused by his wife a second time, Heggstrom went out, gun in hand, to confront the trespasser. "It got his attention," he said, adding,"He said he heard voices... and was going to check them out." Heggstrom held the suspect at gunpoint while his wife called the sherriff's office, whose deputies arrived 20 minutes later to take the man into custody.
(The News-Review, Roseburg, OR, 4-19-02)
 
Now, about the "racial profiling" thing. There's a little thing going around in some places called "DWB", or Driving While Black. It comes up when a police officer pulls over someone for no other apparent reason than it is a black person driving a nice car. IF the car and driver matched the description of someone the police were looking for, and THAT'S why he was pulled over this is O.K. If not, then it most certainly is not. It is a violation of the 4th Ammendment of the Constitution. I am opposed to any U.S. citizen having any of their Constitutional rights infringed upon. Therefore, "racial profiling" is not O.K.

Immigrants, however, are not U.S. citizens, and therefore have no Constitutional rights. The U.S. government can process immigrants in any way it sees fit in order to attempt to insure that criminals and terrorists are denied entry. If that means having a closer look at Achmed from Egypt than Helga from Sweden, that's fine with me. And that is not hypocritical. If you want protections of the U.S. Constitution, become a U.S. citizen and you have them.
 
Robot Zanthrax-17 peered around the otherwise unremarkable corner, his light-recieving diodes shining an eerie red in the otherwise pitch darkness. "Bzzzzzt", he broke the silence, "MUST KILL HUMANS". There was, of course, no need for a robot to say such things: his need to kill humans was already well understood by all parties involved. His metallic voice was more of a sadistic joke fabricated by his creators. Suddenly: movement around the corner! A man! "Bzzzzzzzt, HUMANS", Robot 17 spoke again. "Oh no! God no! A robot! A killer robot!", Robert J. Heckinson yelled, "Stay back! Or I'll shoot you! Shoot you with this... GUN!"

I think the point of this little story is clear: you're all horrible idiots for ever even taking part in this stupid argument.
 
Originally posted by Ripper
I am opposed to any U.S. citizen having any of their Constitutional rights infringed upon. Therefore, "racial profiling" is not O.K. Immigrants, however, are not U.S. citizens, and therefore have no Constitutional rights. The U.S. government can process immigrants in any way it sees fit in order to attempt to insure that criminals and terrorists are denied entry. If that means having a closer look at Achmed from Egypt than Helga from Sweden, that's fine with me. And that is not hypocritical. If you want protections of the U.S. Constitution, become a U.S. citizen and you have them.
Click to expand...
And you say you're not a hypocrite? What makes US citizens better than everybody else? Besides, what about the UN declaration of human rights - is that a worthless piece of paper in your eyes?
 
Originally posted by Ripper
Immigrants, however, are not U.S. citizens, and therefore have no Constitutional rights. The U.S. government can process immigrants in any way it sees fit in order to attempt to insure that criminals and terrorists are denied entry. If that means having a closer look at Achmed from Egypt than Helga from Sweden, that's fine with me. And that is not hypocritical. If you want protections of the U.S. Constitution, become a U.S. citizen and you have them.
Click to expand...

I'm not American, so I may not be clear, but I've read the founding documents of a bunch of countries, including the US Declaration of Rights and Constitution. It seems to me that the Constitution doesn't give any rights, but rather recognizes rights that each person has through the mere act of existing. It grants powers to the United States Government and also limits them. Without being given the express power to take away the rights of non-citizens, like killing them in times of war :) , the united states government theoretically has no right to exert powers contrary to each person's rights, citizen or not.
 
Originally posted by Corsair(pilot)


...said the man who just finished calling everyone "horrible idiots for ever even taking part in this stupid argument."
Click to expand...

Oh, sorry, I was telling *you* to stop being a jerk. Not me. My apologies for any confusion.
 
Originally posted by TC


It seems to me that the Constitution doesn't give any rights, but rather recognizes rights that each person has through the mere act of existing. It grants powers to the United States Government and also limits them. Without being given the express power to take away the rights of non-citizens, like killing them in times of war :) , the united states government theoretically has no right to exert powers contrary to each person's rights, citizen or not.
Click to expand...


Yes, that is pretty much right on the money. But a non-citizen does not have to be admitted unless the guvment is satisfied that they are not a threat. No one has a RIGHT to be admitted. And looking at one person more stringently than another for whatever reason isnt violating their rights. An infant, if disease free, poses no threat whatsoever. A twenty five year old man, on the other hand, will require an extensive screening to determine eligibility.
 
Originally posted by Bandit LOAF


I don't think he'll be a problem anymore.
Click to expand...

Is the girly swabbie the temporarily banned rank, and the mop and bucket for permanant banned? Just curious, since a couple of folks have got both since I joined, and the girly ones seem to get to come back, and the ones like Bob Mcdob look to be gone forever.
 
They're interchangable. And haven't we told you before to email us about these things? Would you like a nice new rank?
 
DANG! Not only am I race profiling, Im age discriminating!

God Im a horrible person.:(
 
Originally posted by KrisV
They're interchangable. And haven't we told you before to email us about these things? Would you like a nice new rank?
Click to expand...

Oh. O.K.

Yes. I got no answer.

No, thank you anyway. You answered my question.

On second thought, you could make me a Major.:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top