News US School massacre

DaGaffer

Down With That Sorta Thing
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
18,516
No. I'm not defending the US legal system at all - I'm simply pointing out that the US consitution *does* have gun-ownership enshrined in it. And provided evidence.

No-one said it didn't. However, a modern interpretation has been spun on it so that instead of a right (and duty) to bear arms for the purposes of a well-regulated militia, the whole militia side of it is conveniently ignored. The Framers obviously had really poor grammar and forgot to put a full stop in the middle of the sentence.

And to reiterate, it still doesn't say that right to bear arms is for the purpose of rising up if the government does something you don't like. In fact, that little theory was tested to destruction in 1861-65, and The Feds won it.

Perhaps it's because freedom from oppression is something worth fighting for? All the US "Founding Fathers" did was give the Americans a fair chance in that fight, should it ever be needed.

No, they didn't; that wasn't intention, which like so many things American, was actually about money. A militia is an army on the cheap.

Besides, its a fantasy. Macho wish fulfillment from dickheads who think they're in "The End Times".
 

throdgrain

FH is my second home
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
7,197
Well the actual text of the constitution doesnt mention the right to bear arms. At no point does it indicate that individuals should have cabinets full of weapons. That comes in later amendments. Whether you approve of amendments or not is something else.

Personally, I quite like guns but I can't really justify them to myself outside of rural settings (in the UK). I'm a stereotypical pyro nutter, I used to light fires in the garden all the time and muck about with making bombs out of stuff, I loved it. I never hurt anyone or anything (except perhaps some trees and insects by accident) doing it. However, in the cold light of day, I recognise that my enjoyment of that kind of stuff (which would easily extend to shooting the shit out of stuff on a range or on my land) needs to be balanced against the easy access to the tools required since they are extremely dangerous.

It's the same as controlling dangerous chemicals. Sure, if you know how to handle them they are safe and useful, but in the wrong hands shit goes wrong rapidly. Exactly like guns. Finding the balance and creating the right social structures to create sensible people who do not think to do these things is the real challenge. I suspect if the US had the same gun laws as the UK there would be fewer school massacres, but it's just my theory and who knows if it's true or not?

We had one school massacre, and a terrible thing too, that goes without saying.

But this bloke, who was known to the police as a sex case of some description, didnt get his licence revoked, didnt get investigated despite running the local scout troop, then goes into a school and murders a whole lot of children with his legally held firearms, and that's the end of pistols for us. Somehow it kinda smells of Jimmy Saville to me, in a way I cant quite describe.

Anyway, they fix a problem that wasnt really there by making the rest of us suffer.

When you put that into the American context, where, unlike here, pretty much everyone is familiar with guns to one extent or another, you can see that there is no way that the American people will put up with this right being removed, whatever the results.
 

Mabs

J Peasemould Gruntfuttock
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
6,869
yes, cos "the rest of us" are clearly "suffering", well spotted throd....cheers for speaking for all the people who live in this country from your correct standpoint devoid of blinkers or an agenda

and really ? JIMMY SAVILLE ? wtf are you on about ? there should be some Godwins Law of sorts for that.
 

rynnor

Rockhound
Moderator
Joined
Dec 26, 2003
Messages
9,353
You seem to be saying that the US populous could rise up against the government and be successful. I am saying that it will not. Sure, there may be a small number of people who get together and become organized enough to resist the military for a short while. Who knows, they may even score some hits. Also, they may get extremely lucky and have some home guard forces or actual units defect to them so they can get some real soldiers in their ranks and then they will get pounded until they give up or are dead. That's not really a success story.

If it happened tomorrow half the armed forces in the US would join the uprising - it only works in syria because the army are all from the same ethnic minority (by design).
 

throdgrain

FH is my second home
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
7,197
yes, cos "the rest of us" are clearly "suffering", well spotted throd....cheers for speaking for all the people who live in this country from your correct standpoint devoid of blinkers or an agenda

and really ? JIMMY SAVILLE ? wtf are you on about ? there should be some Godwins Law of sorts for that.

What I was trying to say was, in the seventies and eighties there was a lot of stuff that went on that was brushed under the carpet.

Oh, and we ARE suffering from a blanket ban on handguns. You might not be, but I am, and many like me. And it's just another law anyway, you never know you might have wanted to take up pistol shooting at some point in your life, but you cant now ...
 

TdC

Trem's hunky sex love muffin
Joined
Dec 20, 2003
Messages
30,925
If it happened tomorrow half the armed forces in the US would join the uprising

hmm good point. so you're saying a million people, gainfully employed by the government as it's standing army hate their situation enough to actively attack said government given half a chance? disturbing!
 

throdgrain

FH is my second home
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
7,197
hmm good point. so you're saying a million people, gainfully employed by the government as it's standing army hate their situation enough to actively attack said government given half a chance? disturbing!

Just as well it's staggeringly unproved conjecture innit :p
 

megadave

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Apr 3, 2006
Messages
11,911
What I was trying to say was, in the seventies and eighties there was a lot of stuff that went on that was brushed under the carpet.

Oh, and we ARE suffering from a blanket ban on handguns. You might not be, but I am, and many like me. And it's just another law anyway, you never know you might have wanted to take up pistol shooting at some point in your life, but you cant now ...
In what way do you suffer?
 

rynnor

Rockhound
Moderator
Joined
Dec 26, 2003
Messages
9,353
hmm good point. so you're saying a million people, gainfully employed by the government as it's standing army hate their situation enough to actively attack said government given half a chance? disturbing!

No because currently they dont have a reason for an uprising either - if you can imagine their armed forces attacking their own citizens then I can imagine them rebelling against the orders - in reality people just leave in the large part.
 

rynnor

Rockhound
Moderator
Joined
Dec 26, 2003
Messages
9,353
Oh my, I don't know how you live with all the suffering

To be fair there were once loads of clubs for firing handguns competitively - it is a sport - overnight we lost all that and now we suck internationally in those events.

It is a dangerous slope to take away rights from the law abiding majority based on the actions of a tiny minority - one that happens a lot in the UK.
 

throdgrain

FH is my second home
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
7,197
Oh my, I don't know how you live with all the suffering

Rediculous thing to say. My rights to pursue my hobbies have been removed by governments that are dominated by the media and for no other reason than to tell me it's for my own good. My right to self defence, that has been somewhat returned to me recently thanks to a Conservative government, are still in my opinion badly hampered by the fact that I cannot use a handgun for self defence, or even own one.

Frankly, this doesnt affect me too badly, I'm quite a big boy, but how about people who arent so big? How about women? Old ladies, whatever? They're not allowed the right of self defence according to your laws, they've just got to dial 999 and hope that somehow the police turn up in time (highly unlikely).
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
36,754
Looks like I just won the thread!

Or rather David Cameron has won it for me:
We continue to encourage political transition from the top and to support the opposition which is attempting to force a transition from below. This should include and will include looking at the arms embargo.

So, what David is saying there is that, in order to overthrow a corrupt and illegitimate government, what the people need is more guns.

/win :)
 

Tom

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
17,358
You're all missing the point. Without gun ownership, a zombie apocalypse would be unwinnable.
 

Tuthmes

FH is my second home
Joined
Jun 18, 2004
Messages
5,495
It is a dangerous slope to take away rights from the law abiding majority based on the actions of a tiny minority - one that happens a lot in the UK.

Like certain people having to sit in the back of the bus? Or cutting away certain body parts of childeren as part of a religious belief?

To add to that. There are over 270mil (registered?) "guns" in circulation in the USA atm. Basically it's like a country just after a (cival) war. Not like a ban will have an effect in the near future anyway.
 

soze

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Jan 22, 2004
Messages
12,508
In practice they just come loaded with more guns so they dont need to reload much - I think they will ban the semi autos but the only way to prevent such tragedies is to secure the targets.
Yes but 1 semi auto AR15 with a 100 round drum magazine would need 7 AR15's with 15 round magazines and they would take a fuck sight longer to fire. It could have a major impact.
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
36,754
Still a lot of people doing this:
Ostrich-man-head-in-sand.gif


To the elephant in the room...
 

opticle

Part of the furniture
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
1,201
A jump to the extreme to justify your position is a sign of weakness, young padawan :)

My elder ???? , I've asked that same question I think four times now. It has been avoided every time - just like you did then.

It's a perfectly valid question and I am interested to hear the answer - that's why I keep asking it. Where are you drawing the line and why ? I'm not using that question to justify my position, I want you to justify your's.

I'm sure there's something witty to saw about using a veiled insult to avoid answering a question.. but meh. :)
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
36,754
I've asked that same question I think four times now. It has been avoided every time - just like you did then.

Actually, I didn't see your question as I actually thought you kept missing the point. I presume you mean this:
So you think the people should be allowed to have grenades, bazookas and working tanks too ? Because they'd definitely help when the revolution comes.. :ninja:

Yep. They would. And it's a good question which I've no immediate answer for (save for the fact that I stand by the need for the US population to be armed).

My answer is - I guess that the level of armament of the US population must pose a realistic threat to the continued existence of the government for it to be an effective deterrant against oppression. Otherwise it's pointless, no?


This is why the current runaway surveillance is a worry. It gives an authoritarian government a means to suppress dissent on the quiet. And with the US and UK government's current proclivity for torture, incarceration without trial and increasing numbers of secret tribunals then people should be seriously worried...
 

DaGaffer

Down With That Sorta Thing
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
18,516
My answer is - I guess that the level of armament of the US population must pose a realistic threat to the continued existence of the government for it to be an effective deterrant against oppression. Otherwise it's pointless, no?

Which it isn't, and hasn't been since 1945 by some reckoning, 1865 by others. I don't even know why you think that's a thing, its not, except in the minds of a bunch of red state lunatics who'd piss their pants if the Feds really came to take their guns out of their cold, dead hands. Gun ownership in America is about profit and nothing more, justified by lobbyists and politicians who are scoundrels who dress themselves up in the flag and wave the Constitution about like it came down from God on stone tablets, while taking back handers from the arms manufacturers.

I used to be an apologist for America, I actually believed in the rhetoric of the Land of The Free, even if it was an aspiration rather than a reality, but frankly as the years go by, I just think they're a bunch of self-obsessed idiots who The Enlightenment passed by. Best thing that could happen is if the whole place was broken up into two sensible countries on the left and right coasts and wall off all the rest in the middle.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom