Jump to content

A Point of View


Tribunus

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 158
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Now that is scary, people actually think that? Concealed weapons for civilians, are they crazy? He seems to favour summary justice above all else. What ever happend to due process and the rule of law? 2000 years of mankinds finest philisophy sacrificed on the altar of I-wanna-have-a-gun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Constitution is a great document written by the people, for the people.

The right to bear arms was written into the constitution for one reason.

That the people would always have the means to overthrow the government if it no longer served the people of the United States.

The carrying of concealed weapons is a different thing that I think only makes good people fear other people. Contrary to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

There is something wrong with the justice system but it's the culture of fear that drives all of this. You could blame the Canadians but it probably has more to do with the media.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have professional(s) to deal with the tougher ... jobs, and they require more stringent testing and licensing, as do police.

I have a VERY hard time trusting average people with firearms!

Citizen justice is an absolute last resort.

~S~ Rattler

Mate, have you ever seen an average policeman shoot?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ONE MAJOR THING EVERYONE IS OVERLOOKING IN ALL THIS.

Ditto on most of what DT said. Ted has for decades been heavily involved in the NRA (as me since I was 15 and saw my first Jane Fonda speech on Future America). The 'unlimited' bit should be taken in context. The hoods don't let the law stop them from toting and using weapons.

History and the facts back up most of what he said and DT elaborated on, as armed citizens are far less dangerous than a govt that prohibits such, or the hoods that cause said need. Defending oneself is NOT a violation of due process, BUT his remark about Irate daddies shooting thier daughter's "molesters" illustrates an emotional view that is being exploited by state and federal legislators, passing ambiguous laws that are retro-actively enforced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting debate. It seems if you are from the US you highly value the right to bear arms. If you are from most other places in the world, you believe that guns should be restricted.

I think Delta feelings are closer to mine but in many ways I am envious of guys like Bad Aim and Greenstreaks who have a great collection of weapons.

Don't see much change coming though.

:bg:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to think the world and the political situation in the US has changed substantially in the more than 200 hundred years since the 2nd Amendment came into effect but then, as you say, you know what the politicians are like in the US.

I just can't contemplate the idea of citizens rising up against the Government.

:bg:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the odd occasion that the British have risen up against their Government (last time being the Poll Tax riots in 1990) the violence has been restricted to damage to public property, some arson, and some instances of looting. How it would have played out if the citizenry and the police had been armed doesn't bear thinking about. Just for the record the rising achieved its limited aims and more, leading both to the end of poll tax and the displacement of Margaret Thatcher from her role as PM.

Armed insurrection was of course a key feature of the Irish situation with the Republican cause being supported and supplied by, among others, the Irish community of America. Before anyone flips out, I would like to say that there were many parts of the Republican cause which I sympathised with - the occupation of the six counties being a real survival of the Georgian policies that the Americans revolted against - but the slide into indiscriminate violence, the bombings, the knee-cappings, the roadside bombs, all those things were totally gratuitous and served no cause except the escalation of hatred on either side. It also served to show others how to fight an undeclared civil war, a situation that is demonstrated in the ongoing conflict between the West and Al Quaeda and the Taliban.

To me, arming civilians is a risky business. The existence of legal guns means that most criminals have easy access to them too, ensures that the police have to be heavily armed as well, and allows all those horrific massacres to take place in schools, churches and wherever. I question whether that amount of 'collateral damage' is worth the notional option of 'armed revolution'?

B

Link to comment
Share on other sites

- but the slide into indiscriminate violence, the bombings, the knee-cappings, the roadside bombs, all those things were totally gratuitous and served no cause except the escalation of hatred on either side.

One of the more interesting things about the American Civil War, was that it remained Civil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

most of u all ready know my point on guns.

civilian that must carry a gun or any other person that does not have carrying gun in hes job description probably have a small d**k (still not sure what to think about animal hunters but working on it)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 64 Guests (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online

×
×
  • Create New...