Bri on a communist rant!

[osopardo]

Puhleeeze!!!

Guns are lethal in the wrong hands and should therefore be banned.

Knives, swords, scythes (kamas) and other blades and pointy (sais) or sharp objects are lethal in the wrong hands and should therefore be banned.

Bows and arrows, are lethal in the wrong hands and should therefore be banned.

Clubs, sticks and staffs are lethal in the wrong hands and should therefore be banned.

Ropes, strings, belts, chains, etc. are lethal in the wrong hands and should therefore be banned.

Expertise in fighting is lethal in the wrong hands and should therefore be banned. (you can indeed have your expertise used against you in a legal proceeding)




Have I missed anything?

Baaa, baaa, baaa!

Oh yeah...

If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
"Support your constitutional right to arm bears!"

[Szczepankiewicz]

I see Brian is not the only one on the rant!

[Thai Bri]

Its strange how the deluded try and win an argument by inventing a new version of what your argument is, and then pointing out how ridiculous it is. But they fail to deal with your version of what your argument is.

[Szczepankiewicz]

Deluded and confused no doubt.

Whatever the hell you're talking about....

[Thai Bri]

How the hell should I know?

[osopardo]

Originally posted by Thai Bri
Thats very true. Our society is much more sedate than yours, as we don't allow our citezens to arm themselves.

OK, I'll try to deal with this more seriously. The above statement seems to indicate that because the citizenry is not permitted to be armed then therefore the society is more sedate.

I don't agree that the two "facts" are necessarily dependent on each other. The problem (here in the U.S. at least) is more complex than that.

Examples of some average person with no criminal history wigging out and getting his hands on a gun and slaughtering a bunch of innocent people makes a strong arguement both for and against disarmament. In such a situation there are those of us (responsible, rational, non-extremist, 9-to-5 workadaddies) who are prepared (with the appropriate weaponry, training, mental attitude and spiritual resolve) to put a quick end to such a situation.

I was born in a country where guns were banned by an oppressive, totalitarian dictatorship and punishment was severe (incarceration, torture, death) not only for owning a gun but also for any other unlawful activity, such as political dissent or refusing to "volunteer" for government work details.

My experience indicates that you give up the right to say no after you give up the means to back up your refusal.

Totalitarian dictatorships (not just communism) will not attempt to take away your rights in one fell swoop, but will erode them away gradually until you are defenseless to mount any kind of resistance. Beware of "logical" reasonings of why you should give up any of your rights for the common good!

[Thai Bri]

Which country was that then?

[osopardo]

Originally posted by Thai Bri
Which country was that then?

Cuba. And I am now grateful and happy to live in the
USA.

[osopardo]

And you know something? Cuba isn't even the worst offender of human rights. I think the Third Reich also banned civilians from owning guns (not really sure).

[Thai Bri]

Thats where the British psyche differs from the Republican American. We don't talk in terms of "Human Rights" when we talk about owning guns.

[osopardo]

It's not so much a human right as it is a means of ensuring human rights. The USA was first founded by a peaceful Declaration of Independence, not a declaration of war. When that declaration was not accepted or honored, the Americans had the resolve (and to a limited extent the armament) to back up their words with actions. The descendents of those rebels are still around and the attitude of "respect my rights or else..." is still around.

Whatever else may happen, the USA will never have a totalitarian dictatorship where political dissent is banned, if only because there are too many tobacco-chewin', beer-bellied, red-necks and cowboys and good ol' boys huntin' in the woods who "just ain't gonna take that kinda sh*t". I'm not one of them and I don't agree with much of their lifestyle but, thank God for them all!

But that's politics. On a personal level, an individual should be allowed to prepare himself to defend himself effectively from any source of harm. And if that means owning a gun or two or ten, then so be it. Make him take the appropriate training, give him a psychological test to prove he is fit and then give him a license that he must renew periodically, same as a driving license. And I know some people who would consider even that to be too much regulating.

[adacas]

That is what I would like to see. Mandatory training. Hell it won't hurt to take it and besides it will improve your gun handling.

[Thai Bri]

"Make him take the appropriate training, give him a psychological test to prove he is fit and then give him a license that he must renew periodically, same as a driving license. And I know some people who would consider even that to be too much regulating."

Yes. the beer bellied red necks you spoke of. Kind of undermines everything you've said, on all levels.

[Toudiyama[NL]]

A majority considered a 3 day waiting period ( to check if the buyer doesn't have a criminal record) a restriction of their rights

[eXcessiveForce]

bri, are you sure you aren't French?