UK gun crimes or lack there of
- Thread starter The Dude
- Start date
You asked the question, I answered it.
Now you want to apply your purely emotional based conditioning to the groups, awarding your own measure of legitimacy to their actions?
Would an organization like the US NRA, consisting of armed British subjects openly questioning and resisting government action, be allowed to exist in the UK?
Well, the only thing that sentence proves is that your opinions can be dismissed as emotionally driven, detached from reality, utterly worthless hyperbole.
Really, if you can't discuss this topic without resorting to hyperbole, name calling and emotional rhetoric, then you have already lost the debate.
(Assuming reasoned debate is means to achieve the goal, persuading people to your side)
Last edited:
Awww...you got me on a spelling error; yay you vagina man.
Dear shit-for-brains; he was responding to your moronic claim: Us NRA is responsible for 10,000 gun murders annually
Only an incredibly stupid unthinking uneducated moron would make such a claim. But alas, you are a stupid unthinking uneducated moron; how can we expect you to comprehend your glaring ignorance.
Coming from a dunce who can't distinguish "your" from "you're", "too" from "to" or "two" and living in a gated trailer park in redneck land, I will file your opinion under "who gives a shit".
Yes dunce, you really are THAT stupid and repugnant.
The NRA advocates the US federal government and subordinate governments act only within the powers granted to them, in accordance with their respective constitutions.
What you characterize as "reasonable gun laws" are, with rare exceptions, demands for governments to act in an extra-constitutional manner.
Advocacy for constitutional government is not "blood lust", especially when one understands that the failure of governments to exercise and enforce those powers they have been granted to impact criminal's misuse of firearms, is not a mandate to give them new powers that only impact those who don't commit crime.
Not only is such thinking indefensibly anti-constitutional, it is illogical and even immoral.
Last edited:
You might very well have an education that was very intensive, time consuming and expensive to obtain . . . Problem is, it did not inform you on anything pertaining to the US Constitution and the origin and nature of rights and that fact is plainly evident in everything you post.
Excellent post; but do not mistake the idiot you are responding to as caring about facts, the truth or believe that he is honest.
But you will learn soon enough why we never argue with such idiots; we merely point at them and laugh at what dishonest idiots they are.
But bravo nonetheless; it’s refreshing to see people who are honest and “get it.”
BINGO. It also did not teach him to comprehend the difference between "your" and "you're" or "too" from "to" or "two".
Must have been one of them mail order degrees; he needs to demand a refund.
What's not in the Constitution?
LOL.
I remember when that idea was first floated back in 1998. It made nary a ripple in the waters of 2nd Amendment legal or historical discussion. You need to understand that back then (mid to late 90's) anti-gunners in both law and academia were apoplectic, throwing everything they could against the wall in a useless attempt to refute / dilute the deluge of individual right scholarship and to delay the inevitable invalidation of the various permutations of the "collective right" interpretations that were then holding on by their fingertips in the lower federal courts.
The theory was recently raised from the dead by Thom Hartmann, who has his own goofy beliefs about the 2nd Amendment. You should look into him, he could provide you with retarded constitutional arguments for quite a while.
Back to "the slave controlling second amendment" theory being revived last year . . .
With the racial angle it created some incendiary commentary in hair-on-fire in the loopy-leftie agenda blogosphere and was certainly good fodder for the political message boards, especially among Obamabot Gen-Xer's who didn't know the theory's provenance. It again was pretty much ignored by anyone with even Cracker-Jack prize credentials in the anti-gun movement except for one surprising exception . . .
Amazingly the Hartmann piece was taken apart by a protege of the original 1998 piece's author (Carl Bogus) and a strong "collective right" advocate in his own right (and thus a darling of the left), Paul Finkelman, Ph.D.:
"Recently Thom Hartmann published an essay on Truthout titled "The Second Amendment Was Ratified to Preserve Slavery." Hartmann, who is described on the Internet as a radio host, author, former psychotherapist and entrepreneur and a progressive political commentator, said the amendment to the U.S. Constitution was intended, in part, to protect slave-patrol militias.
If Hartmann's political goal is to argue for reasonable firearms regulations, then he and I are in the same camp. I have long argued that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual's right to own firearms, and that the purpose of the amendment was purely to guarantee that the states could maintain their own militias. I have also written a great deal on how the Constitution protected slavery (see my book Slavery and the Founders: Race and Liberty in the Age of Jefferson), and I am not shy about pointing out how the founders protected slavery. Indeed, my most recent public comment on slavery and the founding was an op-ed in the New York Times on Jefferson and slavery titled "The Monster of Monticello."
Still, however committed one may be to a political outcome, it serves no purpose to make historical arguments that are demonstrably wrong, misleading and inconsistent with what happened. Hartmann does not serve his cause well by purporting to write history when his version of history is mostly wrong, and very misleading. . . . "
If Hartmann's political goal is to argue for reasonable firearms regulations, then he and I are in the same camp. I have long argued that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual's right to own firearms, and that the purpose of the amendment was purely to guarantee that the states could maintain their own militias. I have also written a great deal on how the Constitution protected slavery (see my book Slavery and the Founders: Race and Liberty in the Age of Jefferson), and I am not shy about pointing out how the founders protected slavery. Indeed, my most recent public comment on slavery and the founding was an op-ed in the New York Times on Jefferson and slavery titled "The Monster of Monticello."
Still, however committed one may be to a political outcome, it serves no purpose to make historical arguments that are demonstrably wrong, misleading and inconsistent with what happened. Hartmann does not serve his cause well by purporting to write history when his version of history is mostly wrong, and very misleading. . . . "
So, again you demonstrate just how shallow your knowledge and understanding is and how easily you are swayed by stupid bullshit just because you think it conforms to your anti-gun / anti-liberty / anti-Constitution agenda.
And your racial, cultural and class prejudices are quite evident and serve to negate any cognizant point you might make (assuming you have one in you).
Last edited:
Airstrip One
Completely Effed
Cajun Brits killed thousands of Americans when we resisted your tyranny. Can we get an apology, Top?
Alas, no. They shot themselves, I think, when they discovered George 111 was dead.