Welcome to the BDSM Library.
  • Login:
beymenslotgir.com kalebet34.net escort bodrum bodrum escort

View Poll Results: What say you on the United States' new gun control ruling?

Voters
32. You may not vote on this poll
  • The U.S. Supreme Court interpreted the Second Ammendment appropriately.

    22 68.75%
  • The U.S. Supreme Court got it wrong.

    7 21.88%
  • I really don't give a flip what Americans do with their guns.

    3 9.38%
Results 1 to 30 of 98

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    NA
    Posts
    869
    Post Thanks / Like
    So who are Reason and Mr Brown?

    You and I face the problem of an ever expanding and intrusive state. Big Government sticks its hands in our pockets, its eyes in our bedrooms, and nose in our checked-baggage.

    We have to do more than grit our teeth. We have to fight back.

    ...

    Thank you for helping us hold the torch of liberty aloft.
    I think that just about says it all ... if not NRA, then something like it. (Pardon me if my contempt shows.)

    Didn't even bother to google Brown: I'm sure the result will be similar.

    It would take a long time to rebut the highly selective, prejudiced and out-of-date cant you have referred me to: do you really want me to? Would it make a difference? I know your mind is as closed on the subject as mine is.

    But I live in a society that is largely free of guns and relatively free of gun crime (even Reason has to admit that our murder rate was lower than yours, although it then went on to suggest, somewhat unreasonably, in my view, that our guns laws were therefore a failure and USA would be unwise to follow them). You live in a society where guns are seen as virtuous somehow, and in some places it is mandatory to possess them! Who stands the greater chance of being shot? Who is the more likely to shoot someone? What are the chances that the shooting is over something less than a life-or-death situation?

  2. #2
    Just a little OFF
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    2,821
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by MMI View Post
    I know your mind is as closed on the subject as mine is.
    Approaching any discussion with a closed mind is counterproductive.

    But I live in a society that is largely free of guns and relatively free of gun crime (even Reason has to admit that our murder rate was lower than yours, although it then went on to suggest, somewhat unreasonably, in my view, that our guns laws were therefore a failure and USA would be unwise to follow them). You live in a society where guns are seen as virtuous somehow, and in some places it is mandatory to possess them! Who stands the greater chance of being shot? Who is the more likely to shoot someone? What are the chances that the shooting is over something less than a life-or-death situation?
    One point made in, I think, both of those articles was that the crime rates were reported differently in the two nations. Here in the US, apparently, they try to consider every homicide as a murder, regardless of the circumstances, while in the UK, they are much more selective. My understanding of what the articles stated is that, if a person kills another person and then, through legal manipulation, plea-bargains down to a lesser offense, the police apparently reclassify the crime as something other than murder.

    Both of these stands make sense to me! In the US the more liberal sections of the government wish to inflate the statistics, trying to terrorize civilians into giving up their freedoms in lieu of some nebulous safety (see everything which has happened here since 9-11). While in the UK they are trying to pacify their citizens into believing that the crime statistics are much lower than they are, in an effort to justify their loss of freedoms.

    I am particularly disturbed by the concept of people who do defend themselves being treated more harshly than the criminals who attacked them. At least in this country, supposedly, the criminals are responsible for any outcome resulting from the commission of a crime. That means that, if two thugs invade my home and I kill one of them, the other criminal gets charged with murder, since the death of his partner was a direct result of their felonious assault.

    But let's face it, folks. It's much easier to rationalize the loss of your ability to defend yourself by decrying anyone who has the temerity to want to defend him or herself. It's much more difficult to admit, to yourself and the public, that, "Yes, if attacked I will protect myself and my family and even my property, with deadly force if necessary. I won't like it, and won't provoke it, but if it comes down to it, I will shoot to kill. And I will accept the sleepless nights and soul-searching that will come from taking another life. But I will also accept the thanks and love of my intact family."
    "A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Members who have read this thread: 0

There are no members to list at the moment.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Back to top