Political Crossfire Forums

leftneckredwing · Joined: 13 Nov 2004 Posts: 32350 Location: North America

britboy wrote: leftneckredwing wrote: You may mever have to save a life either, but should that prevent you from learning CPR?

It's fact that a certain percentage of people will require the use of someone who has been trained for CPR, within our nation. That is the difference.

Then it's a truly wonderful thing there are no murders in UK. Congrats on achieving that level of perfection.

A country not in need of individual self defense is truly a marvel.

britboy · Joined: 02 Jun 2006 Posts: 3571 Location: London

leftneckredwing wrote: britboy wrote: leftneckredwing wrote: You may mever have to save a life either, but should that prevent you from learning CPR?

It's fact that a certain percentage of people will require the use of someone who has been trained for CPR, within our nation. That is the difference.

Then it's a truly wonderful thing there are no murders in UK. Congrats on achieving that level of perfection.

A country not in need of individual self defense is truly a marvel.

There we have it! We have a winner! He has gone off at a complete tangent. An absolutely classic way of trying to divert attention away from the debate because you can't think how to retort .. change the debate to something else! Brilliant.

Leftneck -- who on earth mentioned murder? We are not talking about murder here in this thread. We are NOT talking about self protection from criminals here. We are not talking about how much people like hunting. We're not talking about how much you like your Colt and will never give it up. We are not talking about crime rates. This topic is about something completely different (as you know) Either tackle the subject of debate precisely, or please humbly move on to a different thread![/i]

TNBiologist · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 962 Location: Tennessee

britboy wrote: I've never had to fight against my government trying to repress me.

nor did my parents, or my grand parents, or THEIR grand parents!

If we'd worried about this happening, it would have been hundreds of years of wasted worrying! Millions of people learning to use guns that wouldn't have needed to because they never used them.

Billions of pounds spent on guns to defend us from our government, which would have been a complete and utter waste of time owning (as, we now know, the government hasn't tried to oppress us into slavery once in, er, well, at least 200 years!). Millions of hours wasted down the gun range as everyone has to learn to shoot a gun to save them from the government, even though they are not remotely interested in guns. Mrs Smith from number 32 who would MUCH rather have spent the money on more clothes for her grandson and hates guns -- but nope -- instead she has to learn to shoot a handgun just in case her government wants to repress her. So do millions of other housewives across the country. But they haven't spent the money on this. They chose in the UK to live gun-free .. AND our government is still working for us, not against us! Amazing eh? Generations after generations have decided to NOT pointlessly learn how to shoot government representatives, buy all the equipment etc. Boring, expensive, time consuming, accident prone and PROVED to be absolutely pointless. It'd have been a total waste of time. Thank goodness we have avoided that one (so far!)

Thank goodness we trust our government and our trust was correctly placed. Meanwhile, you US better start teaching your kids how to defend you freedom. while you do that, and spend money taking your teenagers down the range even though they hate guns, for that day when your government tried to enslave you (!!) I'll be down the pub spending MY money on partying or perhaps giving my kids a new school uniform instead! I don't need to defend myself against my government.

Deep down, to be honest, I think the US government is trying to actually do the best for the American people as well (SHOCK HORROR)! and the 'we must defend ourselves from those nightmare hell-hound government officials' is just a load of silly paranoia

No I have not had to fight against my government but my great-grandparents did in the Civil War. They lost but still fought for what they thought was right agianst the government.

No one in the US is forced to learn how to shoot a gun or to spend money on guns. Those that want to are are protected to do so by law but no one is forced to attend gun safety classes or to spend money buying a guun if they don't want to.

leftneckredwing · Joined: 13 Nov 2004 Posts: 32350 Location: North America

britboy wrote: leftneckredwing wrote: britboy wrote: leftneckredwing wrote: You may mever have to save a life either, but should that prevent you from learning CPR?

It's fact that a certain percentage of people will require the use of someone who has been trained for CPR, within our nation. That is the difference.

Then it's a truly wonderful thing there are no murders in UK. Congrats on achieving that level of perfection.

A country not in need of individual self defense is truly a marvel.

There we have it! We have a winner! He has gone off at a complete tangent. An absolutely classic way of trying to divert attention away from the debate because you can't think how to retort .. change the debate to something else! Brilliant.

Leftneck -- who on earth mentioned murder? We are not talking about murder here in this thread. We are NOT talking about self protection from criminals here. We are not talking about how much people like hunting. We're not talking about how much you like your Colt and will never give it up. We are not talking about crime rates. This topic is about something completely different (as you know) Either tackle the subject of debate precisely, or please humbly move on to a different thread![/i]

The 2nd is what you wish to murder. And that you cannot deny either. And it isn't even your country or anything you have to worry about. Yet you presume to be the expert and official spokesperson for namby pamby little wussies.

Murder is indeed what we are talking about. Witness the murder of manhood in Europe. You are an emasculated species.

Without being able to confine your narrow view to narrow parameters based solely on tiny specifics and meaningless minutiae, you have no case.

Move on yourself, there's a hemmorhoid commercial you need to protest.

Rhoades · Joined: 24 Jun 2005 Posts: 1169 Location: Pennsylvania

britboy wrote: I've never had to fight against my government trying to repress me.

Cameras on every street corner, trackers in your cars. Sounds like real freedom right there! So your basically saying that because (you would like to believe) the government isn't, or won't repress you, guns are never needed? Are you ignorant of history? Just think what would have happened if people were allowed to own guns in Nazi Germany. How much more convinient would it be for a Dictator to take over a country in which the citizens are not allowed to own guns?

Rhoades · Joined: 24 Jun 2005 Posts: 1169 Location: Pennsylvania

britboy wrote: leftneckredwing wrote: You may mever have to save a life either, but should that prevent you from learning CPR?

It's fact that a certain percentage of people will require the use of someone who has been trained for CPR, within our nation. That is the difference.
What makes you think its different with Guns? If Guns were outlawed, criminals would have guns anyway, because they're criminals, leaving the law abiding citizens defenseless. Thats real good logic right there!

ATrow · Joined: 28 Jul 2006 Posts: 114 Location: Colorado

Rhoades wrote: britboy wrote: leftneckredwing wrote: You may mever have to save a life either, but should that prevent you from learning CPR?

It's fact that a certain percentage of people will require the use of someone who has been trained for CPR, within our nation. That is the difference.
What makes you think its different with Guns? If Guns were outlawed, criminals would have guns anyway, because they're criminals, leaving the law abiding citizens defenseless. Thats real good logic right there!

It's the difference between a total ban and having them available at home. In England the knives aren't banned, they are just not allowed on the streets. you can still get your hands on them. If guns were outlawed, it would be very hard to get your hands on them.

Onevote · Joined: 18 Sep 2004 Posts: 1688 Location: Tampa, Florida

britboy wrote: I've never had to fight against my government trying to repress me.

nor did my parents, or my grand parents, or THEIR grand parents!

If we'd worried about this happening, it would have been hundreds of years of wasted worrying! Millions of people learning to use guns that wouldn't have needed to because they never used them.

Billions of pounds spent on guns to defend us from our government, which would have been a complete and utter waste of time owning (as, we now know, the government hasn't tried to oppress us into slavery once in, er, well, at least 200 years!). Millions of hours wasted down the gun range as everyone has to learn to shoot a gun to save them from the government, even though they are not remotely interested in guns. Mrs Smith from number 32 who would MUCH rather have spent the money on more clothes for her grandson and hates guns -- but nope -- instead she has to learn to shoot a handgun just in case her government wants to repress her. So do millions of other housewives across the country. But they haven't spent the money on this. They chose in the UK to live gun-free .. AND our government is still working for us, not against us! Amazing eh? Generations after generations have decided to NOT pointlessly learn how to shoot government representatives, buy all the equipment etc. Boring, expensive, time consuming, accident prone and PROVED to be absolutely pointless. It'd have been a total waste of time. Thank goodness we have avoided that one (so far!)

Thank goodness we trust our government and our trust was correctly placed. Meanwhile, you US better start teaching your kids how to defend you freedom. while you do that, and spend money taking your teenagers down the range even though they hate guns, for that day when your government tried to enslave you (!!) I'll be down the pub spending MY money on partying or perhaps giving my kids a new school uniform instead! I don't need to defend myself against my government.

Deep down, to be honest, I think the US government is trying to actually do the best for the American people as well (SHOCK HORROR)! and the 'we must defend ourselves from those nightmare hell-hound government officials' is just a load of silly paranoia Rose colored glasses, my friend! I'm glad that no where in the UK or in Europe in general could a Government turn on it's people. After all it's been what, a few hundred years since the last time that happened.

Wolverine · Joined: 15 Jul 2005 Posts: 11048 Location: Podunk, Colorado

ATrow wrote: Rhoades wrote: britboy wrote: leftneckredwing wrote: You may mever have to save a life either, but should that prevent you from learning CPR?

It's fact that a certain percentage of people will require the use of someone who has been trained for CPR, within our nation. That is the difference.
What makes you think its different with Guns? If Guns were outlawed, criminals would have guns anyway, because they're criminals, leaving the law abiding citizens defenseless. Thats real good logic right there!

It's the difference between a total ban and having them available at home. In England the knives aren't banned, they are just not allowed on the streets. you can still get your hands on them. If guns were outlawed, it would be very hard to get your hands on them.
It would be very hard for the law abiding to so, not so much the criminals.

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 15424 Location: Florida

Onevote wrote:

Deep down, to be honest, I think the US government is trying to actually do the best for the American people as well (SHOCK HORROR)! and the 'we must defend ourselves from those nightmare hell-hound government officials' is just a load of silly paranoia Rose colored glasses, my friend! I'm glad that no where in the UK or in Europe in general could a Government turn on it's people. After all it's been what, a few hundred years since the last time that happened.[/quote]

Several million Jews would disagree that it's been several hundred years since a government turned on it's people.... That was a little more than 60 yrs ago.

TNBiologist · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 962 Location: Tennessee

ATrow wrote: Rhoades wrote: britboy wrote: leftneckredwing wrote: You may mever have to save a life either, but should that prevent you from learning CPR?

It's fact that a certain percentage of people will require the use of someone who has been trained for CPR, within our nation. That is the difference.
What makes you think its different with Guns? If Guns were outlawed, criminals would have guns anyway, because they're criminals, leaving the law abiding citizens defenseless. Thats real good logic right there!

It's the difference between a total ban and having them available at home. In England the knives aren't banned, they are just not allowed on the streets. you can still get your hands on them. If guns were outlawed, it would be very hard to get your hands on them.

Do a little research on that. Compair it to drugs, cocaine is outlawed in the US, not easy to make at home but if I want some I can find it.

Lucky Luke · Joined: 28 Oct 2005 Posts: 8662 Location: Scotland

TNBiologist wrote: ATrow wrote: Rhoades wrote: britboy wrote: leftneckredwing wrote: You may mever have to save a life either, but should that prevent you from learning CPR?

It's fact that a certain percentage of people will require the use of someone who has been trained for CPR, within our nation. That is the difference.
What makes you think its different with Guns? If Guns were outlawed, criminals would have guns anyway, because they're criminals, leaving the law abiding citizens defenseless. Thats real good logic right there!

It's the difference between a total ban and having them available at home. In England the knives aren't banned, they are just not allowed on the streets. you can still get your hands on them. If guns were outlawed, it would be very hard to get your hands on them.

Do a little research on that. Compair it to drugs, cocaine is outlawed in the US, not easy to make at home but if I want some I can find it.

What kind of law abiding citizen would make such a comment?

:-D
:-D

Onevote · Joined: 18 Sep 2004 Posts: 1688 Location: Tampa, Florida

ATrow wrote: Rhoades wrote: britboy wrote: leftneckredwing wrote: You may mever have to save a life either, but should that prevent you from learning CPR?

It's fact that a certain percentage of people will require the use of someone who has been trained for CPR, within our nation. That is the difference.
What makes you think its different with Guns? If Guns were outlawed, criminals would have guns anyway, because they're criminals, leaving the law abiding citizens defenseless. Thats real good logic right there!

It's the difference between a total ban and having them available at home. In England the knives aren't banned, they are just not allowed on the streets. you can still get your hands on them. If guns were outlawed, it would be very hard to get your hands on them. Kinda like drugs! Hard to get.

Onevote · Joined: 18 Sep 2004 Posts: 1688 Location: Tampa, Florida

Lucky Luke wrote: TNBiologist wrote: ATrow wrote: Rhoades wrote: britboy wrote: leftneckredwing wrote: You may mever have to save a life either, but should that prevent you from learning CPR?

It's fact that a certain percentage of people will require the use of someone who has been trained for CPR, within our nation. That is the difference.
What makes you think its different with Guns? If Guns were outlawed, criminals would have guns anyway, because they're criminals, leaving the law abiding citizens defenseless. Thats real good logic right there!

It's the difference between a total ban and having them available at home. In England the knives aren't banned, they are just not allowed on the streets. you can still get your hands on them. If guns were outlawed, it would be very hard to get your hands on them.

Do a little research on that. Compair it to drugs, cocaine is outlawed in the US, not easy to make at home but if I want some I can find it.

What kind of law abiding citizen would make such a comment?

:-D
:-D One that knows what reality is and isn't.

Onevote · Joined: 18 Sep 2004 Posts: 1688 Location: Tampa, Florida

perdidochas wrote: Onevote wrote:

Deep down, to be honest, I think the US government is trying to actually do the best for the American people as well (SHOCK HORROR)! and the 'we must defend ourselves from those nightmare hell-hound government officials' is just a load of silly paranoia Rose colored glasses, my friend! I'm glad that no where in the UK or in Europe in general could a Government turn on it's people. After all it's been what, a few hundred years since the last time that happened.

Several million Jews would disagree that it's been several hundred years since a government turned on it's people.... That was a little more than 60 yrs ago.[/quote] :bnghd: I was being facetious! And that first quote isn't from me. I personally think things are slowly going in the crapper right here in the good ol' USA.

ATrow · Joined: 28 Jul 2006 Posts: 114 Location: Colorado

TNBiologist wrote: ATrow wrote: Rhoades wrote: britboy wrote: leftneckredwing wrote: You may mever have to save a life either, but should that prevent you from learning CPR?

It's fact that a certain percentage of people will require the use of someone who has been trained for CPR, within our nation. That is the difference.
What makes you think its different with Guns? If Guns were outlawed, criminals would have guns anyway, because they're criminals, leaving the law abiding citizens defenseless. Thats real good logic right there!

It's the difference between a total ban and having them available at home. In England the knives aren't banned, they are just not allowed on the streets. you can still get your hands on them. If guns were outlawed, it would be very hard to get your hands on them.

Do a little research on that. Compair it to drugs, cocaine is outlawed in the US, not easy to make at home but if I want some I can find it.

Ah yes. But it is a little harder to smuggle this:

than this:

Onevote · Joined: 18 Sep 2004 Posts: 1688 Location: Tampa, Florida

ATrow wrote: TNBiologist wrote: ATrow wrote: Rhoades wrote: britboy wrote: leftneckredwing wrote: You may mever have to save a life either, but should that prevent you from learning CPR?

It's fact that a certain percentage of people will require the use of someone who has been trained for CPR, within our nation. That is the difference.
What makes you think its different with Guns? If Guns were outlawed, criminals would have guns anyway, because they're criminals, leaving the law abiding citizens defenseless. Thats real good logic right there!

It's the difference between a total ban and having them available at home. In England the knives aren't banned, they are just not allowed on the streets. you can still get your hands on them. If guns were outlawed, it would be very hard to get your hands on them.

Do a little research on that. Compair it to drugs, cocaine is outlawed in the US, not easy to make at home but if I want some I can find it.

Ah yes. But it is a little harder to smuggle this:

than this: It's smuggled like this! Do you really think a few guns cant get through?

Blinky · Joined: 18 Mar 2006 Posts: 2574

leftneckredwing wrote: britboy wrote: leftneckredwing wrote: britboy wrote: leftneckredwing wrote: You may mever have to save a life either, but should that prevent you from learning CPR?

It's fact that a certain percentage of people will require the use of someone who has been trained for CPR, within our nation. That is the difference.

Then it's a truly wonderful thing there are no murders in UK. Congrats on achieving that level of perfection.

A country not in need of individual self defense is truly a marvel.

There we have it! We have a winner! He has gone off at a complete tangent. An absolutely classic way of trying to divert attention away from the debate because you can't think how to retort .. change the debate to something else! Brilliant.

Leftneck -- who on earth mentioned murder? We are not talking about murder here in this thread. We are NOT talking about self protection from criminals here. We are not talking about how much people like hunting. We're not talking about how much you like your Colt and will never give it up. We are not talking about crime rates. This topic is about something completely different (as you know) Either tackle the subject of debate precisely, or please humbly move on to a different thread![/i]

The 2nd is what you wish to murder. And that you cannot deny either. And it isn't even your country or anything you have to worry about. Yet you presume to be the expert and official spokesperson for namby pamby little wussies.

Murder is indeed what we are talking about. Witness the murder of manhood in Europe. You are an emasculated species.

Without being able to confine your narrow view to narrow parameters based solely on tiny specifics and meaningless minutiae, you have no case.

Move on yourself, there's a hemmorhoid commercial you need to protest.

The 'murder of manhood in Europe'? :lol:
You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel LNRW. Pathetic.
I would venture to suggest that you have never been to Europe or anywhere outside the US. If you had you would know that the above statement is rubbish.
If you had the ability to apply logic you would know that having free access to guns won't prevent the 'murder of manhood' anyway.

Take your medicine like a man - you tried to steer the debate away from where it was for personal gain, and it failed. You were called on that attempt, and now you're indulging in a chest-beating exercise that has even less to do with the original topic. Well done.

leftneckredwing · Joined: 13 Nov 2004 Posts: 32350 Location: North America

Blinky wrote: leftneckredwing wrote: britboy wrote: leftneckredwing wrote: britboy wrote: leftneckredwing wrote: You may mever have to save a life either, but should that prevent you from learning CPR?

It's fact that a certain percentage of people will require the use of someone who has been trained for CPR, within our nation. That is the difference.

Then it's a truly wonderful thing there are no murders in UK. Congrats on achieving that level of perfection.

A country not in need of individual self defense is truly a marvel.

There we have it! We have a winner! He has gone off at a complete tangent. An absolutely classic way of trying to divert attention away from the debate because you can't think how to retort .. change the debate to something else! Brilliant.

Leftneck -- who on earth mentioned murder? We are not talking about murder here in this thread. We are NOT talking about self protection from criminals here. We are not talking about how much people like hunting. We're not talking about how much you like your Colt and will never give it up. We are not talking about crime rates. This topic is about something completely different (as you know) Either tackle the subject of debate precisely, or please humbly move on to a different thread![/i]

The 2nd is what you wish to murder. And that you cannot deny either. And it isn't even your country or anything you have to worry about. Yet you presume to be the expert and official spokesperson for namby pamby little wussies.

Murder is indeed what we are talking about. Witness the murder of manhood in Europe. You are an emasculated species.

Without being able to confine your narrow view to narrow parameters based solely on tiny specifics and meaningless minutiae, you have no case.

Move on yourself, there's a hemmorhoid commercial you need to protest.

The 'murder of manhood in Europe'? :lol:
You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel LNRW. Pathetic.
I would venture to suggest that you have never been to Europe or anywhere outside the US. If you had you would know that the above statement is rubbish.
If you had the ability to apply logic you would know that having free access to guns won't prevent the 'murder of manhood' anyway.

Take your medicine like a man - you tried to steer the debate away from where it was for personal gain, and it failed. You were called on that attempt, and now you're indulging in a chest-beating exercise that has even less to do with the original topic. Well done.

I have been to Asia, even tried to go to Aus, but the 4th was not allowed.

And I live in Canada.

The steering by yourself and others is at least equal.

We're touchy and downright bitchy about our rights.

Yet, it is okay for you and others to steer, veer, dodge and weave. Convenient.

So my guess is you like to guess. But aren't that good at it.

leftneckredwing · Joined: 13 Nov 2004 Posts: 32350 Location: North America

whatnotwho wrote: Do you think the 2nd amendment would be written differently if created today? The weapons available at the time were crude one shot black powder flintlocks.

There were cannons. Single shot yes, but most cannons are.

There's far too many what ifs in that scenario to contemplate with hope of coming to the conclusion of whether it would be or not.

Since we are talking about the 2nd, are we also allowed to include in the scenario, the same men with the same intellect or the simpletons of washington today that have not the courage to engage in what the men of yesterday did. That is to say put their own asses on the line. Because I am 100% positive they would not.

When the War of Independence was fought, Staten Island had the highest standard of living in the world. Much of the rest of America was similar. And the English thought they were responsible for that. Why would men of such wealth choose to go to war when all they had including their very lives, was put at risk?

I dare say if what passes in washington today for statesmen wrote the Constitution, it would not include any rights whatsoever. It would be a series of non sequitirs that would read like bylaws against any kind of Freedom. It would more likely be a vague and nondescript passage defining government and especially presidential powers as whatever might be called for in the next five minutes to be decided at that time.

Free speech would be confined to free speech zones. The only right one would have is the right to say something one sees on a bumper sticker. Vague homilies with little or no meaning that would be in favor of perpetual war. Weapons for those engaged and none for those not engaged.

This is not a government that sees freedom as a necessity but as a burden for them to bear.

I'm not sure they could even string that many sentences together without the aid of a ghost writer or an English major.