Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
England in 2012 is a virtual police state where CCTV tracks your every move and being politically incorrect (blasphemy) can land you in prison. If the police knew they would get shot maybe they wouldnt be so slavishly fascistic in being state minions.
If some police got shot by a rights-protecting citizen during the police slavishly carrying out their fascistic orders, what do you suppose they'd do? They'd send more police.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAWS
On the other hand, govt in America is darn agressive and malevolent too. Gun rights havent really held your govt to account. Theyve stolen many rights without an armed resistance. You have unconstitutional laws, taxes, a vile central bank system and fraudulent money despite widespread gun ownership.
Thus, your argument about an armed citizenry preventing government from exceeding its bounds goes out the window.
We have not always had SWAT teams and assault rifle equiped police. At first we thought the idea odd when the police first asked for these weapons. Upon study we found that due to the criminal and drug elements in the USA we did in fact need to upgrade the police weapons to assault rifles. Also the assault rifles allowed the police to be far more accurate in shot placement thus reduce stray bullets. The situation would not be so terrible in these countries if the local police could control the criminals. But the average homeowner is at risk because they did not increase the police presence on the street level as they decreased the ability of the local citizens to provide for their own security.
While I am critical gun nuts, I believe that our government harms more innocent civilians than gun freaks. It amazes me that Obama cries over Sandy Hook, while joking about killing innocent kids with his drone attacks.
Oh for ford's sake, what a load.
How many Brits would that be? 1, 2, 5, 10?
I probably know more Brits than you do, personally, even. They generally don't talk about weapons at all, and if asked think they're a bad idea.
Then again, they're not the paranoid freaks that the US seems to breed.
Unless they are talking about the rates of gun homocides in the U.S.
everyone 'wishes they had a gun' - it's just an ego extension.
and that's not a genuine reason for legalisation.
how often do you hear of madman rampages in UK schools?
I can only think of 1 time, ever. (Dunblane)
This is because guns are totally banned in the UK - it's a very sensible law.
BAN GUNS now!!
Oh really? Ban guns now, eh? But your loony liberal cohorts keep saying "no one wants to ban guns", so much for that lie. And you wonder why gun owners aren't willing to talk compromise with you, it's because everyone knows people like you and the politicians you vote for really want a complete ban. Not "reasonable" (by your definition) gun control, a ban.
I for one am grateful the English no longer have guns... After the 30 years war, the F&I War, Rev War, the War 1812, WW-1 WW-2 they have proven that the English suffer from way to much Jock Itch, and can't be trusted with guns.
I think that Jock itch just drives them mad..
I mean can you image an itch you can't scratch because of the Queen always setting there on the Plug?
Now I ask is that fair? She needs to let others have a turn some time too...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.