you are Hilarious. Obama doesn't believe in Self defense for the common citizen... don't blame it on the NRA.
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Why is it Cool to vote for Obama?
- Thread starter GQ Chris
- Start date
- Status
you are Hilarious. Obama doesn't believe in Self defense for the common citizen... don't blame it on the NRA.If I were an American citizen I would probably vote for Obama even though neither Obama and McCain are the ideal in my opinion. Why isn't there a middle? Its either strong conservative or strong liberal. I wouldn't say that I am completely liberal because I don't believe in abortion.
Upvote
0
I am glad that each and very citizen in England does not bear a gun. if we did then we would have gun crime. But we do have knife crime. :o
Upvote
0
I am sure that he does believe in it. Self defense doesn't have to involve using a gun on the attacker and anyway if no one had guns in the US you wouldn't need a gun to protect yourself.
Upvote
0
She is ageing well but she looks like a psycho IMO. She creeps me out, I wouldn't want to get in her bad books incase she comes running after me with a knive or gun.
Sorry...........
thats just how I feel.
Upvote
0
charlie_hunter
Well-Known Member
i like the UK's 3 party system (not sure if the tories would call it that though!). I think that would work for more countries too. America though, to many international standards dosent have a liberal party. it has the slightly conservative party (Democrats) and the far right, borderline fascist party (Republicans). The Democrats are not really left wing, they just look it when you put them next to the opposition!!!
i like how it is in Australia where you have a center left party and a center right party. not a center right party and a far right party.
Upvote
0
charlie_hunter
Well-Known Member
Exactly, great point!
this is where the pro gun lobby turn their brains off. Believing that only law abiding citizens should own guns is a ludacris belief when the fact is, is every single murderer, rapist etc was at one point in their life a law abiding citizen!!! you only find out they were a murder once they pull the trigger on the gun!
Upvote
0
Sketcher
Born Imperishable
McCain IS the middle, if you go by his record.
That won't happen. There are so many illegal guns out there, full automatics in the hands of criminals - which BTW, are not legal for ordinary citizens to purchase. Furthermore, guns are more of a staple of our society than alcohol, and trying to ban them would be far bloodier than our Prohibition period.
What else could you expect from Chuck Norris's long lost baby sister.She is ageing well but she looks like a psycho IMO. She creeps me out, I wouldn't want to get in her bad books incase she comes running after me with a knive or gun.
Sorry...........
What the anti-gun people don't think about is that making firearms illegal will make sure that the law-abiding citizens do not have firearms to defend themselves against those who have no regard for the law who will acquire (or probably in the case of a ban in the US retain) firearms. Why should only the thieves, murderers, and gangsters have guns. Why shouldn't the hard working men and women who just want to keep their families safe be able to shoot back? Why should a girl who in all likelihood be weaker and in many cases a slower runner than a mugger or a rapist be at such a man's mercy? If you don't like rape, you should be all for concealed carry licenses and compact pistols.
Upvote
0
because that's at the Heart of Liberal thinking... they benefit the Home Invader, or the Terrorist, they don't care about the Safety of the law abiding Citizen.
Upvote
0
charlie_hunter
Well-Known Member
McCain IS the middle, if you go by his record.
That won't happen. There are so many illegal guns out there, full automatics in the hands of criminals - which BTW, are not legal for ordinary citizens to purchase. Furthermore, guns are more of a staple of our society than alcohol, and trying to ban them would be far bloodier than our Prohibition period.
What else could you expect from Chuck Norris's long lost baby sister.
What the anti-gun people don't think about is that making firearms illegal will make sure that the law-abiding citizens do not have firearms to defend themselves against those who have no regard for the law who will acquire (or probably in the case of a ban in the US retain) firearms. Why should only the thieves, murderers, and gangsters have guns. Why shouldn't the hard working men and women who just want to keep their families safe be able to shoot back? Why should a girl who in all likelihood be weaker and in many cases a slower runner than a mugger or a rapist be at such a man's mercy? If you don't like rape, you should be all for concealed carry licenses and compact pistols.
why is it that the pro gun mob seem to think we actually want only 'law abiding citizens' disarmed.......we want EVERYONE to be disarmed, even the rapists! wow! Yes illeagal guns will exist for a short while. but if the police are on the ball, these will decrease. The gun buy back system that happened in Australia after the Port Arthur Massacre (we learn from our mistakes, not blindly repeat them year after year) was a massive success and there was no bloodbath or rapist rampage that happened once the citizens were 'dissarmed'. the opposite happened as was to be expected, gun deaths went down. that's just fear mongering and every single country that has correctly implemented gun control has showed that this is false.
there is absolutly NO basis for an argument that chaos would ensure if disarmament took place. this simply has not happened anywhere. the only argument is one based off assumption, not history and facts. <staff edit>
America has so much of its own blood on its hands from its worship of an antiqudated, outdated and now irrlevent consitution. Its ok for a society to change its laws once they stop working and become obsolete. you donth have to do what some 400 year old dead dudes tell you to do. Come up with some new laws for a new world, instead of clinging dearly to the middle ages.
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote
0
CoachR64
Awesome, with a side order of amazing
- Jul 2, 2007
- 7,292
- 673
- 46
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
When it comes to gun control, what you want and a dollar will get you a cheap cup of coffee.
Twisted is right, criminals will not give up their guns. The only people laws affect are the law abiding citizens who follow them. Criminals by their very nature do not follow the law. Look at the VT shootings. Many law abiding citizens followed the law and kept their guns in their vehicles that day because they were banned on campus. The shooter did not regard the law. He brought his on campus anyways and picked apart a group of people that had no means of protecting themselves.
Gun ownership is not a law. It is an inalienable right recognized (not granted by) the constitution of this country.
Read the book "more guns: less crime." The author of this book was anti-gun and set out to prove that more guns caused more crimes. He poured over years and years of police reports, FBI reports, shooting statistics, etc..... What he found was that firearm ownership saved many more lives than it took. He also found that the areas with the strictist gun control policies and less guns had the highest rates of crime.
If you want to look at crime rates across the globe, many countries with incredibly low violent crime rates require every able bodied male citizen to own and be proficient with the military rifle of that nation. They also have very strict laws (usually immediate death) for people who commit violent crimes. It is not gun control laws that affect the violence in the country, it is the way they deal with those who break the laws.
By the way twisted, I appreciate you standing up for the pro-gun group. However, you are mistaken when you said civilians can not own fully automatic firearms. They were regulated in the 30's and banned from import in the 80s. Since the 30s, citizens could and still can own a firearm that is full automatic by purchasing a $200 tax stamp and going through background checks. There are also rules about storage, moving, transporting, etc.... In the 80s, a ban was put on importing and selling to civilians any fully automatic weapon purchased after the ban date. You can still own one today as long as it was imported and manufactured prior to the ban. Also, because no new ones are being made/imported, they are really really expensive. You can also get suppressors (some people mistakingly call them silencers) and short barreled rifles/shotguns under the NFA rules.
Coach
Twisted is right, criminals will not give up their guns. The only people laws affect are the law abiding citizens who follow them. Criminals by their very nature do not follow the law. Look at the VT shootings. Many law abiding citizens followed the law and kept their guns in their vehicles that day because they were banned on campus. The shooter did not regard the law. He brought his on campus anyways and picked apart a group of people that had no means of protecting themselves.
Gun ownership is not a law. It is an inalienable right recognized (not granted by) the constitution of this country.
Read the book "more guns: less crime." The author of this book was anti-gun and set out to prove that more guns caused more crimes. He poured over years and years of police reports, FBI reports, shooting statistics, etc..... What he found was that firearm ownership saved many more lives than it took. He also found that the areas with the strictist gun control policies and less guns had the highest rates of crime.
If you want to look at crime rates across the globe, many countries with incredibly low violent crime rates require every able bodied male citizen to own and be proficient with the military rifle of that nation. They also have very strict laws (usually immediate death) for people who commit violent crimes. It is not gun control laws that affect the violence in the country, it is the way they deal with those who break the laws.
By the way twisted, I appreciate you standing up for the pro-gun group. However, you are mistaken when you said civilians can not own fully automatic firearms. They were regulated in the 30's and banned from import in the 80s. Since the 30s, citizens could and still can own a firearm that is full automatic by purchasing a $200 tax stamp and going through background checks. There are also rules about storage, moving, transporting, etc.... In the 80s, a ban was put on importing and selling to civilians any fully automatic weapon purchased after the ban date. You can still own one today as long as it was imported and manufactured prior to the ban. Also, because no new ones are being made/imported, they are really really expensive. You can also get suppressors (some people mistakingly call them silencers) and short barreled rifles/shotguns under the NFA rules.
Coach
Upvote
0
CoachR64
Awesome, with a side order of amazing
- Jul 2, 2007
- 7,292
- 673
- 46
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
If I can not own a firearm, who is responsible for protecting me from the bad guys? Seriously, if you want to take the best means for me to protect myself and my loved ones, what are you going to give me to replace this to ensure that myself and my loved ones are protected?
The military? They have no police jurisdiction. They are commanded by the president for the protection and serving the best interests of our nation as a whole. They can not be expected to protect individual citizens.
Private body guards? Who's going to pay for them and what exactly are they going to use to protect my family?
The police? Their job is to serve the greater good of the people in their jurisdiction. They are not tasked with protecting individual citizens. If they were, they could be sued every time a crime takes place. They are there to make arrests and keep the peace, not to protect individuals.
So, again, if you want to take that right away from me, what is going to be done to protect my and my loved ones?
Someone is going to say "you don't need a gun to defend yourself." Half truth. If someone comes after me or my family with fists, a bat, maybe even a knife... yeah, I got a good chance of defending myself without a firearm. When someone breaks in to my house locked and loaded with a firearm, what now? Sure, in fantasy land ALL guns would go away and no criminals would have them. But in reality, the criminals are not going to give up their guns. In the kingdom of the blind, the one eyed man is king. When you take away guns, the man that still has one has all the power.
It becomes like the old saying about taking a knife to a gunfight. I definitely wouldn't want to be the guy with the knife.
I used to collect custom knives. People would always ask me a dumb question about "which of those knives would you take to a knife fight?" My answer was simple: A .308 rifle and 100 yards between me and the other guy.
If you want to take away my guns, I want 100% assurance that there is no possible way that any person could keep or obtain a firearm after the ban. If you can't do that, go away and find another issue to fight.
Coach
The military? They have no police jurisdiction. They are commanded by the president for the protection and serving the best interests of our nation as a whole. They can not be expected to protect individual citizens.
Private body guards? Who's going to pay for them and what exactly are they going to use to protect my family?
The police? Their job is to serve the greater good of the people in their jurisdiction. They are not tasked with protecting individual citizens. If they were, they could be sued every time a crime takes place. They are there to make arrests and keep the peace, not to protect individuals.
So, again, if you want to take that right away from me, what is going to be done to protect my and my loved ones?
Someone is going to say "you don't need a gun to defend yourself." Half truth. If someone comes after me or my family with fists, a bat, maybe even a knife... yeah, I got a good chance of defending myself without a firearm. When someone breaks in to my house locked and loaded with a firearm, what now? Sure, in fantasy land ALL guns would go away and no criminals would have them. But in reality, the criminals are not going to give up their guns. In the kingdom of the blind, the one eyed man is king. When you take away guns, the man that still has one has all the power.
It becomes like the old saying about taking a knife to a gunfight. I definitely wouldn't want to be the guy with the knife.
I used to collect custom knives. People would always ask me a dumb question about "which of those knives would you take to a knife fight?" My answer was simple: A .308 rifle and 100 yards between me and the other guy.
If you want to take away my guns, I want 100% assurance that there is no possible way that any person could keep or obtain a firearm after the ban. If you can't do that, go away and find another issue to fight.
Coach
Upvote
0
Obama, and the rest of these liberal anti-gun Politicians don't have to worry about that, they got people with guns protecting them and their family, but yet they are against it for the average citizen who doesn't have the luxury of the Secret Service, the law abiding citizen gets disarmed, while the outlaws will get access to a gun no matter what, and rape and murder at will, with a greater chance of success with an unarmed household.
Upvote
0
liberals are totally Upside down in their Philosophy with respect to pretty much almost Everything, from not wanting to drill for Oil here and other issues...
Upvote
0
DerSchweik
Spend time in His Word - every day
- Aug 31, 2007
- 70,186
- 161,375
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
And there is absolutely NO basis for an argument that chaos wouldn't ensue. It is important to understand the BASIS and HISTORY for this portion of our constitution before blithely dismissing it as irrelevant.
"Antiquated, outdated, irrelevant constitution????" First, it is not a "middle ages" document - having come some 4-500 years after the middle ages. Second, it is not "some 400 year old dead dudes" that crafted this document. It was in fact written not even 300 years ago. As to it's being "obsolete" - you are in fact greatly and most distressingly and sadly mistaken.
It is in point of fact this brilliant document that has made America the greatest nation on the face of the earth and the envy of so many. True, some view this greatness from a polar standpoint and actually hate America for the greatness we've achieved. But never forget that America's greatness was largely, if not exclusively achieved on the basis of the principles outlined in our constitution. NO NATION - repeat NO NATION on the face of the earth can lay claim to a more noble, moral document than our US Constitution. And the people of ANY nation that has discarded, ignored, or otherwise disavowed these principles has suffered as a result and will never achieve the level of liberty, freedom, or opportunity that continues to exist in America today, despite the fanatical few who hate America for these very achievements - the fanatical fiew who hate liberty, who hate freedom, who hate opportunity.
Our world is not populated with innocent, Pollyanna-like people who, if only they didn't have access to guns would act otherwise like decent law-abiding citizens. Guns are NOT the problem and they have NEVER been the problem - neither are knives, sling-shots, clubs, or stones (where does the logical end to the "anti-weapon" mindset stop - flinging phlegm?). The true problem is the inherent flaw in human nature called "the flesh" that leads some humans to disobedience, envy, jealousy, hatred, thievery, vandalism, murder, and anarchy. And as long as there are those who deny citizens the right to protect themselves from such acts as these, who believe such is the sole right of government, there will be no peace, can be no peace.
Anyone who knows American history will quickly realize these laws, this brilliant document we call a constitution exists BECAUSE of repressive government and the fallen humans who ran it. I so dearly wish those who naively believed in the inherent goodness of people under a pseudo-compassionate but all-powerful government would barricade themselves behind their powerful governmental lords in their utopian fiefdoms and act the serfs they truly are and quit pretending to be the self-righteous arbiters of morality in this fallen world. I don't know if you fall into this category, but be careful your beliefs about what role liberty and freedom play in a truly civilized society that must acknowledge in a very pragmatic way the existence of evil in this world, the need for preparedness to combat it, and the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness it would otherwise destroy.
America is no "mob" to espouse these principles; but I daresay those who do not hold liberty as their foremost banner may be.
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote
0
charlie_hunter
Well-Known Member
ahahahahahahahhahahah......ahhhh.....but no, seriously. A more nobel, moral document?? hahahaha, TRY THE BIBLE. Or if you ment something more contempary and political, try the UDHR (something the Bush government has broken quite a lot), the most nobel political document written in the past 500 years. the consitution was written by a bunch of slave owners still high on a war victory and full of fear about the English comming back. i'm not saying other countries are better. The Australian constitution was written at a time when the government were a pack of rascists that only wanted whites in the country (called White Australia Policy), but we changed out attitudes, why not change yours? countries evolve and develope, holding onto the past blindly is dangerous. you will (and have in many ways) loose your fundamental rights.
America became the 'greatest nation' on the planet, which is wrong as UN research has shown America's standards of living are lower than quite a few other countries (including Australia and some european nations), by being violent, greedy and millatristic. It committed genocide against its native population in its hunger for land, oil and gold, its early economic boom was built on the back of black slavery. It was happy to sit back and in many ways support the Nazi's efforts to wipe out the free world. It takes advantage economically of oil rich countries and infulences the worlds government by threats of force, sanctions and in the past 50 years.......assasinations. It has and will continue to rape South America, the Middle East and ignore Africa for its own benifit.
No worse than what England did or any other European empire. But unlike the empires of old that moved past their quest for world domination, America is still firmly gunning to control the world and be the only superpower. Thanks to conservative rule, you have less freedoms and liberties in your country than we do in ours and that many European nations have. Our countries are lead by those we voted for. your's is lead by corperations who are only interested in profit. there is nothing there, nothing to be proud of at all.
There's a reason a country like Switzerland can have high gun ownership but not have massive gun death toll, but America cannot,
You want to know what makes America different? I'll tell you.....
Attitudes towards Violence. America thinks violence works. it likes it. loves it. hence the free distribution of guns and other weapons of death, hence the aggressive military and the invasions and hence the death penality. America is different because it thinks violence solves problems, other nations believe that violence causes problems.
America thinks violence works because they see it worked in the past. Our independence was granted by the stroke of a pen, yours the squeeze of a trigger. you solved your political problems with violence too (civil war, vietnam war etc). you solve your criminal problems with violence, rather then prevention etc. thats the difference. America is a nation which belives in violence and will defend to the death (ironically) its right to have laws that support this.
Upvote
0
GoodNewsJournalist
An aspiring animator and cartoonist.
Not that I am for Obama, because he's an elite piece of Council of Foreign Relations Filth, who wants to create a para-military force in the United States that has equal funding as the armed forces (Bad News), how much better is McCain and Palin?
Palin was recorded to say that if you don't agree with President Bush, your salvation should be questioned. I saw one of the videos where she said that.
Of course, the several videos where she said that have been taken down from YouTube and Google Video. Wow, freedom of speech lives!
Upvote
0
What works in one culture won't necessarily work in another. Oh, and also, judging a culture by your culture's standards is called ethnocentrism. Every country is guilty of it. Some Brits think their culture is better off than [insert country here] and think they should abide by their standards, some Aussies think their culture is better off than [insert country here] and think they should abide by their standards, some Americans think their culture is better off than [insert country here] and think they should abide by their standards, etc. I could go on and on.
Hey, if gun control works in your country, then awesome. Good for you. However, that doesn't make it right or your right to tell people in another country that their ways are wrong and they should adapt to your ways. Not everyone in America is gung-ho about pushing their values on other people. As an American, I wish we would just back off of other countries, as unrealistic as it sounds, and I wish other countries would treat us with the same regard, again, as unrealistic as it sounds.
I swear, I think Sociology should be a requirement in grade school for this reason, to curb some of this elitism in a lot of people, that their way is the only way and that everyone should abide by their ways. Obviously we can't just get along. \:
Hey, if gun control works in your country, then awesome. Good for you. However, that doesn't make it right or your right to tell people in another country that their ways are wrong and they should adapt to your ways. Not everyone in America is gung-ho about pushing their values on other people. As an American, I wish we would just back off of other countries, as unrealistic as it sounds, and I wish other countries would treat us with the same regard, again, as unrealistic as it sounds.
I swear, I think Sociology should be a requirement in grade school for this reason, to curb some of this elitism in a lot of people, that their way is the only way and that everyone should abide by their ways. Obviously we can't just get along. \:
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
