Just a matter of time. EU expands so rapidly eastwards (no matter the consequences or geographical issues) that I expect australia to become a member by 2020 :mrgreen:
That late? :mrgreen:
In what way do your questions actually relate to my statements? It’s still just a composite list that may or may not have any basis in truth.
In fact, you still don’t really know my opinion regarding the assault rifle ban, you just meander on with blanket statements and over-generalizations, and it’s getting old.
Again sir, QUOTE ME DIRECTLY and refer ONLY TO WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN when supposedly presenting my arguments!!
Please be specific, and quote my statement, then begin your interrogation.
Otherwise, you’re on thin ice…And yes, this is a warning as I think your precariously engaging in a form of harassment trolling rather than debating…
The above is actually quite an issue to those more astute over here, as the conservative elites in the executive branch want to install “radical libertarians” as judges under the guise of getting rid of “liberal activist” judges. These social Darwinist extreme (rightist) libertarians (BTW, I consider myself to be a progressive libertarian as being somewhat philosophically anti-gov’t is certainly not the exclusive purview of the right and many people that claim to be libertarians are just seething hypocrites that are selectively libertarian when it suits their agenda) want almost an extremist interpretation in order to invalidate much of the US federal gov’t and the New Deal legislation. Of course, the US Air Force and the CIA, which are also not expressly mentioned in the US constitution, get to stay. 
This is because radically conservative people tend to be two-faced self-serving hypocrites with an agenda that effectively wipes out a US welfare state and promotes a rigid class strata and polarization of wealth. 
Granted, the previous sentence is a bit of a conspiracy theory promoted by various liberal/progressive intellectuals in the US, but it is one I am increasingly adhering too with the rise of the Wal-Mart*'s and the unquestioned outsourcing of middle class US jobs in production. Effectively, this would return the US to a more feudal like system as a plutocracy (if we aren’t already) and lead to a perceived social stability making the plebeians all the easier to rule and prolong the USA’s position as a superpower…
LOL…How much more specific can I be?? Ill keep it to only one.
#1. Do you have any facts to back up your statment.that it is easier to buy a gun than it is a car?
#2 WARNING??? Kinda like the chicken rancher judging the chicken thief don't you think? Look nick..if you want to ban me for having a difference of opinion and questioning some of your statements..then do it. Remember the little stink RS had a while back with a mod threatening him? I will not back down to un deserved threats!!!Locked overnight to let things cool off a bit. I’ll reopen this tomorrow morning my time.
Mike: If you really want to be a martyr we can oblige, but I’d much rather you didn’t. Cool it down a bit, OK?
Nick: See my comments in your thread in the war room.
Wow 13 pages of the same old circular gun owning Vs not owning arguments.
Why would I need a gun? From a personal point of view, I dont, so I dont really care about banning them or not. I do think that other things notwithstanding or standing or not that easy access to guns does indeed lead to more deaths by guns.
I’m not interested in owning a firearm, why would anyone want to? Dont get me wrong, Ive fired quite a few in my day and often enjoyed it but at the back of my mind I think its just something strange to want to have a Gun collection. The same way I feel about guys who collect stamps or train numbers, its a wee bit silly.
I dont buy into all this protection and self defence stuff, guys who like guns just like guns. The less the merrier I say…
If this makes me a liberal wishy washy commie loving Taliban lover, then some people here need to re-appraise other societies attitudes towards issues and not just their own.
OH and to reinforce my last, England is part of the UK, the title should read is it too late for the UK.
That’s a good attitude for you to have considering where you live.
I wouldn’t say Taliban lover…LOL But seriously, that just means you have a different opinion and that’s cool.
You see, I never actually made that “statement.” …And I have no idea what your point is. It’s difficult to discuss things with people when your analogies go over their heads since you fail to grasp what the cars and guns analogy was actually about.
The point is that there are far more restrictions and controls on the driving automobiles in most states than that are for guns. You need to register at the DMV, have proof of insurance, proof of instruction, a license to drive, and the car has to be inspected by an accredited garage. It is quite a bit easier for me to in fact buy a gun where I live since all I need is a license (to operate a car, not a gun) to walk into a gun shop and pick out a .357 Magnum, whereas if I buy a Volkswagen R32 242hp, I have to do all of the above and pay a “luxury tax” on top of all that and report any cash amounts about $10,000 to the IRS. There are in fact far more restrictions to driving in many parts of the United States than there is for buying a gun, especially if one goes into a gunshow…
#2 WARNING??? Kinda like the chicken rancher judging the chicken thief don’t you think? Look nick…if you want to ban me for having a difference of opinion and questioning some of your statements…then do it. Remember the little stink RS had a while back with a mod threatening him? I will not back down to un deserved threats!!!
I never wanted to ban you, otherwise I would just have done it. And I don’t think RS* was ever threatened with banning, he was threatened with demerit or whatever…
And see the above answer as to why I got pissed. You attribute a “statment” to me, yet fail to actually quote it. You distill my arguments into nonsensical rambling points that I am not actually making…
I agree the automobile really has nothing to do with Gun control, here in California there is a 14 day waiting period before you can take home the weapon after its bought, no matter where it is bought, gun shop or gun show. Maybe all states should adopt that idea and I have no problem with that. I have always though it kinda weird that all states don’t play by the same rules…that’s why some states you can carry concealed or own a machine gun…others you cant.
Your talking about when you do things legally with your auto…I’m sure you will agree that a car can be bought and driven without having a license, insurance or registration.
Im a pro guns supporter and i feel you should have to have some kind of background check
And plus the waiting period in Nc is 3 days
If this makes me a liberal wishy washy commie loving Taliban lover, then some people here need to re-appraise other societies attitudes towards issues and not just their own
No, it just make you silly.
And I believe the word “liberal” comes from liberty, cutting off the freedom/liberty of choice ( to have or not a firearm in this case) is not liberal at all.
http://www.wthr.com/Global/story.asp?S=7565465
Bad Guy Stopped By Citizen With Gun ( This reported 1-3-08)
"I can hear it now as the anti-gun liberals get tuned up to sing in chorus: 1 - Well, something bad could have happened, I mean, he may have shot that poor man. They’re right, of course, something bad could have happened. The armed robber could have killed the clerk and any witnesses. But he didn’t. Why? BECAUSE HE NEVER GOT A CHANCE TO. Because somebody else had a gun
2 - That’s the job of the police. Yes, it is. But…there wasn’t one there, was there? Armed robbers are funny like that. They don’t often rob convenience stores with police cars parked outside. He didn’t count on, once again, somebody else having a gun.
The upshot of the story is that when faced with an armed citizen who showed that he had every intent to perforate him, the armed raider surrendered."
Ah, when the examples are rolling in it always tells me to leave the discussion
I always try to explain to people that example are worthless for the evaluation of a big issue. Here in germany usually healthcare or something. When I tell people that the lone old woman who happens to suffer because of a shift of cost of 1 % is irrelevant for the discussion when the overall effect is beneficial they usually look at me like the wolf from the fairytales. But any political decision knows losers.
Probabilities and statistics (cause they deal with large numbers) are the way to go if you want to take a decision for a large group of people or argument about something that effects a large group.
So if you find hundrets of those examples and they are for example more numerous than people killed in an armed robbery cause they tried to draw a gun (which you probably won’t find in the news) then that would support your position.
But to be honest if the loss in this case means that a large bunch of people need to find a different hobby vs. less murder victims (and 1% is a hundret people according to your data for the US) the discussion is basically over, at least for decent people. You’re no longer allowed to smoke in public places because of the negative impact it has on other people afaik, kinda like the same principle.
Aha!
You prove the NRA point, mein freund.
If everybody had a cigarette, nobody else would smoke, for fear of inhaling smoke.
Logical, is it not?
:mrgreen:
Don’t we all decide the liberties we allow ourselves in given groups and societies?
If not, why are there moderators on this site?
Why should anyone take any notice of your or any other mods’ infringements of their liberty to express themselves as they wish, which is rather less harmless than owning guns?
Isn’t the mere existence of mods a disgraceful denial of the members’ liberty?
Why even bother with a police force, if everyone can do what they want and trying to stop them is an infringement of their liberty?
Why do we prohibit adults from having sex with children? Surely that’s an infringement of the liberty of both of them to do what they want? And so on.
All liberties are curtailed in all societies.
The only debate is about where to draw the line.
"There’s a new folklore in the world today. The myth of freedom.
Across the world, there’s a move to ignore firearm owners’ rights as “outdated” or “unreasonable.” Instead, it is argued, we should address the more important rights of speech, religious freedom, and a woman’s right to choose an abortion. There’s a push to increase government services, and raise taxes to support them. Most people either embrace this, or are willing to tolerate it, as long as they have their “rights.”
Let’s look back 2000 years. At it’s height, the Roman Empire controlled the entire Mediterranean region, most of Asia Minor, most of Europe, and scattered holdings elsewhere. Toward the end, inflation was rampant, military morale poor, and the sexual practices of several of the Caesars and many of the Senate were outrageous news. Some things never change. Nevertheless, Rome held together literally until barbarians knocked down the gates, and administration continued for more than a hundred years longer in Britain.
Fundamental to Roman success was their key rule of NEVER interfering with local religion. Any and all gods were allowed and encouraged in the colonies, and Rome would even build temples for them. Many local groups made near-treasonous speeches under the guise of worship, and were ignored by Rome. The only thing outlawed was public degradation of Caesar. With free speech and religion, the barbarian states could be controlled. They paid taxes, were often kept as near slaves, had property confiscated, were abused by the Legions and administrators, and were denied citizenship in most cases. They served as military auxiliaries, staff members, and generally had all the responsibilities of their rulers, but none of the privileges.
Despite all this, there was little rebellion. The barbarians could content themselves with the thought that they still had their religion and the right to speak, therefore they were free. “Free” of course was a slippery term at the time, but few felt compelled to cause trouble. Trouble would result in the government sending troops to exterminate the leaders and their families, seize property, and burn the local area to the ground. This too may sound familiar.
The future of the world is that of oppression. Harken back to the medieval serf, who was worked dawn to dusk to grow food for a master who provided safety–sometimes, justice–when it was convenient, and leadership–to fight the master’s enemies and use his own resources to keep him chained to the fields. In exchange, he could go to church on Sundays and ask the priests to save his soul. As long as people have religion and can complain, they imagine they are free.
It has happened elsewhere; it will happen here. Bit by bit, inch by inch, our rights will disappear. First our guns. Then our elections. Next our right to travel freely. After that, licenses to conduct business will get hard to come by. The revenuers will seize property and violate rights. Cops will kick in doors and shoot people. Taxes will rise above 50%. But we’ll know people are still free, because they’ll be able to complain, write letters, and go to church–the important rights will remain.
The “important” rights of speech and religion are barely relevant. They are superficial layers of the REAL rights a free society has: The right to dissent. The right to replace government officials that act beyond their charters. The right to the means to overthrow a government that won’t abide by its own rules. The right to be trusted.
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms, as our Constitutional framers stated it briefly and eloquently."
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=1618
Is this actually meant serious or is it a sketch or something 
I think something…