Jump to content
socks

Shootings In Las Vegas

Recommended Posts

Tragic, I'm pro guns but I think the NRA has got to tighten up regulation, if law abiding , mentally stable citizens can access weapons and prove competence then it's not really affecting their civil rights.

I don't agree mate, give regulation an inch and it will take a fecking mile......as the UK has proven time and time again ;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, how many people got stabbed to death last week........dangerous things in the wrong hands them knives you know ;)

alot more got killed with an idiot behind the wheel of a motor car i susspect ;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't agree mate, give regulation an inch and it will take a fecking mile......as the UK has proven time and time again ;)

 

Agreed. If only mentally stable citizens are allowed guns then only the government will be allowed to determine who's mentally stable enough to own one. Maybe if the UK had the 2nd Amendment they'd still have the 1st Amendment? :thumbs:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is all assuming the shooter legally bought the weapon and the thousands of rounds of ammo he had. Might just as easily been bought out of a car boot in some car park. I don't believe for a minute that the law stating whether or not you can bear arms makes a jot of difference to a psycho who wants to kill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ffs its the intent of the person not the object used to carry out that intent, that is the problem.

Edited by beamish78
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is all assuming the shooter legally bought the weapon and the thousands of rounds of ammo he had. Might just as easily been bought out of a car boot in some car park. I don't believe for a minute that the law stating whether or not you can bear arms makes a jot of difference to a psycho who wants to kill.

 

Agreed, mate. I immediately want to know what was in his bloodstream and what was on his devices in the last 12 months.

Edited by ChrisJones
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ffs its the intent of the person not the object used to carry out that intent, that is the problem.

 

yeh ok,,,,,guns dont kill people,,,people do,,,,,but that object wasnt a handgun yoused for protection was it,,,,,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

ffs its the intent of the person not the object used to carry out that intent, that is the problem.

 

yeh ok,,,,,guns dont kill people,,,people do,,,,,but that object wasnt a handgun yoused for protection was it,,,,,

 

By that same reasoning tho surely there would be less deaths by motor vehicle if we all used SAFER public transport an gave up the right to own a potential deadly weapon, or maybe mopeds are the future??

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

ffs its the intent of the person not the object used to carry out that intent, that is the problem.

 

yeh ok,,,,,guns dont kill people,,,people do,,,,,but that object wasnt a handgun yoused for protection was it,,,,,

 

neither were the lorries used by ISIS to slaughter innocent people going about their business, should we ban lorries?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if the 2a is to protect their freedom for government, what would be the outcome if the government decided to impose Marshall law, cut internet communications and roundup anyone they cared to, demanded all weapon amnesty . I don't see it as anymore than a symbol on what their country was founded on? Is it still an effective form of maintaining democracy? Is their country any more democratic than ours? Ie couple of parties vote red or blue alternate every decade or so and change nothing of importance whilst focusing on expanding the capitalist wheel , globalisation, etc etc god I bored myself writing that one. Lol

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if the 2a is to protect their freedom for government, what would be the outcome if the government decided to impose Marshall law, cut internet communications and roundup anyone they cared to, demanded all weapon amnesty . I don't see it as anymore than a symbol on what their country was founded on? Is it still an effective form of maintaining democracy? Is their country any more democratic than ours? Ie couple of parties vote red or blue alternate every decade or so and change nothing of importance whilst focusing on expanding the capitalist wheel , globalisation, etc etc god I bored myself writing that one. Lol

I have never visited the USA mate much less lived in it but now I live in Ireland I have noticed how lots of things here are VERY similar to the little I know of how things work in the USA.

And what I will say is that Ireland is a MUCH more free society than the UK, it's people matter MUCH more at a local level that's for sure.

If it indeed the same in the USA then that is well worth preserving because in comparison the U.K. Don't even come close.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1984 big brother and all that, all in the name of public protection. thats what 2A is there to stop.

Edited by beamish78

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if the 2a is to protect their freedom for government, what would be the outcome if the government decided to impose Marshall law, cut internet communications and roundup anyone they cared to, demanded all weapon amnesty . I don't see it as anymore than a symbol on what their country was founded on? Is it still an effective form of maintaining democracy? Is their country any more democratic than ours? Ie couple of parties vote red or blue alternate every decade or so and change nothing of importance whilst focusing on expanding the capitalist wheel , globalisation, etc etc god I bored myself writing that one. Lol

 

The 2A is really simple it reads...

 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

The whole point is that Americans have the capacity to resist invaders and if the government decided to impose its will on the people (tyranny) the people are constitutionally protected if they resist. The power remains with the people, not the government.

 

It's hard to say whether it's an effective form of maintaining democracy but both China and North Korea ban firearms from private citizens. It's certainly an effective form of maintaining power.

Edited by ChrisJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm of the opinion that who but the military needs access to fully automatic weapons....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the US government turned tyrannical in such a way the likes of the 3 percenters and oath keepers would go to f***ing war! I'd put money on a large number of servicemen supporting them too. The US military really is seen as the duty of the patriot in the states, they could not be counted on to be a tyrants enforcer.

 

2A doesn't make the US more democratic, just gives the people the tools to protect democracy if it is threatened.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×