toldailytopic: Are there any types of new gun control or firearms restrictions you wo

[This Charming Manc]

Cheers Nice to learn a bit of history,

Our bill of rights has such has been pretty much superceeded, via various law making over the years.

To my best understanding the major difference between the British and american constitution is because the various pieces of legislation which make up our constitution have no particular protection in UK law, any government with a sizeable majority can rewrite our system of government.

Means we have the freedom to 'tweak as we go' but it does leave a very large risk open to us.

Anyway without guns we still pretty much have the same everyday practical freedoms.

Practically our closest thing to the bill of rights is the European Convention on Human Rights, which our laws need to conform to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights

You have a bill of rights that protects the rights of Englishmen.

​

The citizens of the American colonies did not enjoy the same rights as the citizens of the Isle of Great Britain under the government of England under King George III. They were not given the protection of the Bill of Rights that the Englishmen had.

The citizens of the American colonies petititioned the crown many times for redress of greivances. The refusal of the crown to redress the greivances of the American colonies led to the American colonies declaring independence. The Declaration of Independence specifically mentions the lack of some the protections found in the British Bill of Rights as reasons for the declaring independence.

​

The American revolution would not have been possible if the citizens of the American colonies were not able to muster up arms against the crown. It is for that reason the framers of the American Bill of Rights worked to include the right to bear arms so the individual states would be able to use their individual militia to keep the federal government in check.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Anyway without guns we still pretty much have the same everyday practical freedoms.

If you look into the history of the freedoms that Englishmen have, you will find that they were gained by the use of arms against the crown. By the time the American and French revolutions happened, the Englishmen had already secured the rights that the Americans and French were fighting for, but those revolutions helped establish the rights already existant in English law to the point that Englishmen have not needed to bear arms against their government again to regain those rights.

The current gun control debates in America have less to do with owning guns and more to do with the American federal government reinstituting the oppressions upon the American people that resulted in the American revolution. The governments are aware enough of the potential reactions to their increased oppressions to want to disarm the people, and some of the people are aware enough of the reasons the government want them disarmed to speak out against disarmament of the citizens.

 

[Granite]

You are aware that a hammer is a deadly weapon right?

Umm, yeah. Which is why I mentioned it, Del.

If the guy is on the other side of the counter brandishing a hammer you point your gun at him and call 9-11. If he crosses the counter and tries to swing it at your head, yes, of course, you kill him!

Well that's an idiotic attitude towards crime and punishment, plain and simple. It's also sick-minded, twisted, sadistic, short-sighted, totalitarian, and barbaric.

 

[Granite]

And to answer the OP:

Universal background checks, no exceptions.

Nothing else would really have much effect. "Assault weapon" bans are cosmetic, and even restricting the right/ability to own large-capacity magazines won't do much; if a guy can't own a 30-round clip, what's the difference if he owns three 10-rounders?

But background checks, online, at gun shows, wherever else you can purchase a firearm? That's a no brainer.

 

[lightbringer]

Umm, yeah. Which is why I mentioned it, Del.
Well that's an idiotic attitude towards crime and punishment, plain and simple. It's also sick-minded, twisted, sadistic, short-sighted, totalitarian, and barbaric.

Self defense is?

Can't believe you actually said that.

Any fool that brandishes a hammer in a threatening manner while announcing "Give me all your money" needs to be eliminated from the gene pool.

Yes I am a barbaric pagan living within the laws of my land and have no intention to allow any one to remove my right to self defense nor allow any one to just walk in from the street and demand I give up my hard earned property.

 

[Quincy]

Had a guy attack me with a baseball bat once. I took it from him and proceeded to show him how to use it!! I didn't kill him though :idunno: . Seems unnecessary to throw dynamite in a game of rock, paper and scissors :chuckle: .

 

[Granite]

Self defense is?

Can't believe you actually said that.

You shouldn't, because I didn't. I was referring to the proposed penalty, not to the concept of self-defense. Not at all.

For hopefully the last time: I'm a gun owner with a concealed carry. If that doesn't speak to my appreciation for the right to self-defense, nothing will. I really wish you people would take the time to actually read my posts.

Any fool that brandishes a hammer in a threatening manner while announcing "Give me all your money" needs to be eliminated from the gene pool.

...which makes you a short-sighted, tough-talking, ignorant rube. Whatever happened to the punishment fitting the crime? This kind of totalitarianism is alarming and appalling.

 

[lightbringer]

...which makes you a short-sighted, tough-talking, ignorant rube. Whatever happened to the punishment fitting the crime? This kind of totalitarianism is alarming and appalling.

Which makes you a dead fool if you wait for the hammer to make contact with your head.

Self defense is an action taken when you have a perceived threat that makes you fear for your life.

Punishment (self defense) before court appearance allowed to citizens under attack, so you're saying you will wait for the perpetrator to actually strike you with the hammer before drawing your weapon?

You are correct, there is a foolish short sighted individual on this thread, I offer my condolences in advance to your family while hoping you never face a scenario like we are discussing.

You should go ahead and turn your weapon into a paperweight.

Why do you have a CCW again?

 

[Granite]

Which makes you a dead fool if you wait for the hammer to make contact with your head.

Show me where I said you should just take the blow. I'll wait.:hammer:

Self defense is an action taken when you have a perceived threat that makes you fear for your life.

Captain Obvious shoots! He scores!

Punishment (self defense) before court appearance allowed to citizens under attack, so you're saying you will wait for the perpetrator to actually strike you with the hammer before drawing your weapon?

Nope, not at all. Captain Obvious swings! He misses...

If you believe some punk in a convenience store brandishing a tool deserves to be executed (regardless, mind you, of whether or not he even harms anyone) then all I can really say is that the spirit of Javert is alive and well.

The punishment must fit the crime.

 

[lightbringer]

Show me where I said you should just take the blow. I'll wait.:hammer:
Captain Obvious shoots! He scores!
Nope, not at all. Captain Obvious swings! He misses...
If you believe some punk in a convenience store brandishing a tool deserves to be executed (regardless, mind you, of whether or not he even harms anyone) then all I can really say is that the spirit of Javert is alive and well.
The punishment must fit the crime.

:rotfl: You're not here to discuss anything Granite, you just enjoy playing word games.

The tool was a hammer not just any tool so don't try to soften the statement, if you wish to wait to see if his intentions are to strike you that is of course you right.

I take a man at his word and his actions, if that is what he implies by his actions/words, that he will use the weapon to strike me or another in the store I will do what is necessary to stop him.

Question? Do you have some quota you need to fill each day with tossing the little names around in order to feel you've accomplished something?

Each criminal assault from start to finish is fluid and can change from moment to moment, therefore the actions of those involved may change also.

If the threat stops (he drops the weapon or leaves) my actions will change accordingly and the perpetrator may live another day, if not, so sorry.

Again, why do you have a CCW?

As for the thread title, no, there are no new restrictions needed.
We already have what is needed and that system should be used more effectively.

 

[Granite]

:rotfl: You're not here to discuss anything Granite, you just enjoy playing word games.

Well I do like me a good crossword.

The tool was a hammer not just any tool so don't try to soften the statement, if you wish to wait to see if his intentions are to strike you that is of course you right.

I'm the one who used the word "hammer," LB, so I'm not liable to forget it. Just sayin'.:cheers:

I take a man at his word and his actions, if that is what he implies by his actions/words, that he will use the weapon to strike me or another in the store I will do what is necessary to stop him.

I don't dispute that or even oppose it. What I do oppose is disproportionate retribution, which is exactly what you and a few others seem to support.

Question? Do you have some quota you need to fill each day with tossing the little names around in order to feel you've accomplished something?

Of course not...Mr. Poopy Pants.

Each criminal assault from start to finish is fluid and can change from moment to moment, therefore the actions of those involved may change also.

No question. I've seen it in person. It's never pretty. (I was born in Detroit.)

If the threat stops (he drops the weapon or leaves) my actions will change accordingly and the perpetrator may live another day, if not, so sorry.

Well, no, not really--not if you had your way. You support executing offenders who brandish a weapon, let alone use one. Correct? Because that's the hypothetical I posed that you and others responded to. Or maybe you misunderstood the hypothetical I described.

Again, why do you have a CCW?

The reason I gave on my application: "Personal protection and exercise of constitutional right."

As for the thread title, no, there are no new restrictions needed. We already have what is needed and that system should be used more effectively.

Sure. It's been gang busters so far...

 

[rocketman]

More than that, if you're not a citizen, then you should not be here, have a driver's license, or own any kind of property, land, business or otherwise in the USA.

^THIS^

 

[lightbringer]

I'm the one who used the word "hammer," LB, so I'm not liable to forget it. Just sayin'.:cheers:

Didn't say you forgot it, but you do attempt to soften or change some of your statements in order to win the upper hand.

I don't dispute that or even oppose it. What I do oppose is disproportionate retribution, which is exactly what you and a few others seem to support.

Seem to support :chuckle: Ok.

It seems you may have difficulty in reading posts.

Of course not...Mr. Poopy Pants.

For an educated man you can do better.

Well, no, not really--not if you had your way. You support executing offenders who brandish a weapon,

I support self defense to end an aggressive attack.

As far as your word games are considered, you need a reply in order to facilitate your game....so...bye :wave:

:rotfl: Mr. Poopy Pants :rotfl: childish.

 

[Nick M]

:rotfl: You're not here to discuss anything Granite, you just enjoy playing word games.

Pretty much.

 

[Granite]

Didn't say you forgot it, but you do attempt to soften or change some of your statements in order to win the upper hand.

Nope, not at all. I haven't changed a single thing I've said, and stand by everything I've said. Not my problem.

For an educated man you can do better.

It's called sarcasm, bud. Look it up. I got time.:smokie:

I support self defense to end an aggressive attack.

We agree. Seems to me like you're trying to pick a fight when there isn't one to be had.

 

[Ktoyou]

Or maybe that can see a very simple logic you are blind to

less guns = less shootings , more guns = more shootings.

Maybe in the UK; not here, in the USA. :nono:

I bet if you have enough Muslims beating you, because they are more collective and violent, you may wish you had the right to defend yourself, beyond the use of your limbs.

 

[Granite]

Maybe in the UK; not here, in the USA. :nono:

I bet if you have enough Muslims beating you, because they are more collective and violent, you may wish you had the right to defend yourself, beyond the use of your limbs.

It was the Irish.

It was the Italians.

It was the Germans.

It was the Chinese.

It was the Japanese.

Are we a melting pot or a shooting pit?

 

[Nick M]

Universal background checks, no exceptions.

By what standards? Newton, Aurora, Columbine....they passed because they didn't buy retail, or they had no record. Holmes bragged about wanting to kill people.

 

[Granite]

By what standards? Newton, Aurora, Columbine....they passed because they didn't buy retail, or they had no record. Holmes bragged about wanting to kill people.

Well that's good, Nick. With that in mind we should only pass laws criminals will obey.

As the man once said: You can't beat something with nothing.

 

[Nick M]

No, we need to start punishing criminals. That isn't done in the USA. For the most part. I know Texas is getting rid of some of them. But that is just a start.