A Call to fight Michael Bloomberg and 'No-Fly, No-Buy' DB

Obvious exaggeration is obvious and fails to prove a point. We're talking about a firearm not a weapon of mass destruction that is banned by international agreements.



Nobody ever plans on having their homes invaded, mugged or even killed. I don't plan on having my apartment burn down but, I still have insurance to cover my losses. Isn't that the most basic of logic, to seek a means to protect what you have whether it be people or property? A insurance policy won't protect me from getting killed by an intruder but, a gun will. At least I can keep the intruder pinned down long enough for the police to get there so they can do their jobs. Without that gun I'm at the criminals mercy.



If that is your wish then so be it. I applaud you for having principles and sticking too them. I am not being sarcastic, I honestly respect people who stick to their principles. With that said, your decisions should only apply to you. You don't have any right or claim to deny the rights of others regardless if you agree with them or not.



Grab a history book for me or better yet, a history of military tactics. What do the American revolution, Vietnam, the Cuban revolution, the "Hubel Partisans", Afghanistan and Iraq all have in common?

They have shown us repeatedly that a small lightly armed force CAN defeat a larger, and better equipped standing army. As long as those people have access to semi-automatic weapons even the American military can be defeated.




I have brought up how ineffective gun bans truly are when trying to stop crime and that area's with higher gun possession actually have lower crime. If criminals are cowards like you say they will take the path of least resistance and I know a gun counts as "resistance".

Allow me to direct you to the detailed version of Warren V. District of Columbia.



Now ask yourself this. Would the original rape victim have suffered as long if her two companions had a firearm? Would all three women have been brutally raped and assaulted for fourteen hours if they had that gun? Remember, Marvin Kent and James Morse only had a knife.

This is why gun bans are not only ineffective but, morally wrong. You only remove the guns from the people not inclined to use them for criminal purposes.

IF you wish I can also give you the statistics of the 1997 gun ban in England and how crime rates soared 340% in Both England and Whales. There is a literal mountain of evidence (if it was put down on paper) against the claims of gun grabbers. Please, start seeing the logic.

If I might use a local colloquialism, bollocks. For a start, it has never been legal to own a gun without a licence, which pretty much takes care of that argument, and guns are ridiculously rare (and those found in the big cities are of notoriously poor quality) - owning a gun isn't easy or particularly 'cool'; the people that might want them don't want them to keep at home for protection, they want one to show off, but are afraid of being caught with it. And references?

"In 2005/6 the police in England and Wales reported 50 gun homicides, a rate of 0.1 illegal gun deaths per 100,000 of population. Only 6.6% of homicides involved the use of a firearm. [29]

By way of international comparison, in 2004 the police in the United States reported 9,326 gun homicides.[30] The overall homicide rates per 100,000 (regardless of weapon type) reported by the United Nations for 1999 were 4.55 for the U.S. and 1.45 in England and Wales. [31] The homicide rate in England and Wales at the end of the 1990s was below the EU average, but the rates in Northern Ireland and Scotland were above the EU average.[32]"

Now I know there are also negatives presented on that page; I don't doubt that gun crime has increased in prevalence in the same way that knife crime is now a big issue (copycat American gang culture, ie pathetic turf wars and fist fights which occasionally snowball), but your suggestion that a gun ban is a step towards dictatorship is nothing short of ridiculous. We also haven't had a mass shooting since the laws were enacted, which is a while, and the argument that it's because the UK is a lot smaller doesn't really hold up, seeing as a number of small countries in Europe have had them; and in foresight, whether or not they also have gun bans ours is the most stringent, which is what I'm arguing for. As for needing a gun for safety, protection, peace of mind...I hesitate to say common American anti-Socialist bullshit, but I guess I just did. How about trusting your elected government and its subsidiary services, i.e. THE POLICE, to protect you? I'm not saying it's all rainbows and lollipops here as far as the police are concerned; 'lower classes' still don't appreciate the police presence and meddling, and there have been several documentaries showing the prevalence of racism etc within the force; however, you'd be surprised what community watch, police patrols and a friendly, non-lethally armed figure of authority can do for you. I do appreciate that it is easier to police a more densely-populated country such as ours, but I am convinced that it is not beyond the powers of the most powerful government in the world, as many police forces as there may be, to re-brand and re-configure them in some such way.

Sorry if that came across as aggressive, but what with the ridiculous healthcare reform saga, I'm pumped for this kind of argument. :P

Time.Uk

What's that colloquialism, oh yeah, bollocks. (Mine didn't come from wiki OR the "home office")



I guess reading is a bit different across the pond but, gun bans open the door. A dictator can't take control of an armed populace. They very absence of guns in the hands of the general population make it easier. All it takes is one president to simply say "I'm not stepping down" and what can a disarmed population do? Send the lapdogs..err police to remove him?

As for trusting the police. Go back and read Warrens V. D.C. That shows you why we have no trust in our police. Every day the police are abusing their power and they are protected by the courts. Several cops gun down an elderly black woman down in Atlanta and the cops get desk duty. Despite they broke into the wrong house and shot a woman and her dog. Everyday the police and Courts convict innocent simply on the testimony of a cop. I'm treated as a second class citizen when it comes to any disagreement between police and the citizens. Beating the shit out of people who aren't even resisting. Even when they are caught red handed beating people like elderly women or teenagers the police aren't even disciplined.

Police arrest people daily for not even breaking the law. I've personally been threatened with arrest for exercising my constitutional right of Free Speech. They have no incentive to protect me or my family. Most are so overweight that they couldn't be of use in an emergency anyways. Trust, the police? I say fuck the police!

As for our Representatives in the Government. I won't go so far as to say all but, damn near every single house member, senator is corrupt. Starting at State level (Pennsylvania & Illinois) all the way up to the Federal level. They don't give a fuck about the country, they only care about pleasing their donors like Unions or Big Businesses so they'll get re-elected. They don't campaign like people think they should on issues. They are merely buying the votes of the less intelligent. Promising more hand outs if they vote for them or spreading fear that party X will take away benefit Y if they don't get elected.

Want an example? Democrats claim every election that if Republicans are elected they'll take away the Social security benefits of the elderly. While Republicans pull the "if democrats get elected they'll make American unsafe against terrorism.

Should I also go into the trillions of fraud and waste of the last ten years? How about the violations of the civil rights by the Government in the last ten years? How about the efforts of the Federal Government to "fix" things only to cause more problems than they started with of the last thirty years? What about the numerous politicians who have been caught with bribes or other illegal activities of the last twenty?

The American political system is rotted to the core but, not quite rotted to the point the maggots won't survive like some governments. The cancer is already spreading throughout the body and it's people like you who claim "why don't you trust them?" are the reason those corrupt bastards can keep their seats and continue to lead the country into ruin.

I'm not one of those people who claims doom and gloom at every turn but, political kickbacks, back room deals, under the table negotiations, large influence of special interests making sure they get their slice of the pie, uncontrolled spending by both parties,etc are going to destroy this country and I want that cancer removed, now.

Sorry, few edits I had made:

"For a start, it has never been legal to own a gun without a licence, which pretty much takes care of that argument, and guns are ridiculously rare (and those found in the big cities are of notoriously poor quality) - owning a gun isn't easy or particularly 'cool'; the people that might want them don't want them to keep at home for protection, they want one to show off, but are afraid of being caught with it.

We also haven't had a mass shooting since the laws were enacted, which is a while, and the argument that it's because the UK is a lot smaller doesn't really hold up, seeing as a number of small countries in Europe have had them; and in foresight, whether or not they also have gun bans ours is the most stringent, which is what I'm arguing for."

Now, point 1 -

Pretty much sums it up; I trust the government far more than that swine.

Point 2 -

Even if gun ownership is increasing, people generally don't want or intend to kill Like I say, mainly show-offs, people who panic in committing crimes, and accidents.

Point 3 - like I said, I honestly think that the US police forces could be changed through image, tactics and community co-operation. Retrain them to act in a positive manner or they're out.

Point 4 - voter apathy and dissatisfaction is also incredibly high here, perhaps even more so than in the US (although much of that is people who honestly don't know or care about politics, and remember that we don't share the mad levels of US patriotism). Turnout at the last two general elections was below 60%; the introduction of the postal vote, making it easier to do so, raised it by about a percent on the previous year. This isn't to mention the recent scandal in which a majority Members of Parliament were revealed to have misused their public allowance, buying home improvements, gardeners, food, even porn...no-one here trusts any politicians any more, but we trust the institutions - police, NHS etc. Being so distinctive and being (largely) ruled from within/regulated by independent bodies (as well as constantly scrutinised), they are detached from the government to the extent that people trust one and not the other. The image and reputation that they have for helping people for free has lingered; perhaps this is what you guys need to instil.

The U.k also has a large benefit of geographical location. You're, an island compared to a large country with a group of corrupt & inept countries to your south (Columbia, Peru, Mexico).You guys have...France. Though I'm not sure which is worse, the French Attitudes or the Mexican Mafia.

The U.K. doesn't have am open boarder problem where drug cartels can sneak huge amounts of drugs and weapons across the boarder. Not only can they smuggle those but, the cartels have even hired the Mexican military to cross into American territory which any other country would consider a declaration of war.

When can't solve the open boarder policy due to the desperate need the Democrats have for the Hispanic vote. Then the Republicans tend to show only apathy towards the issue as businesses "donate" to them for cheap labor.

This is another reason why I can't trust the Government. They can't even be bothered to secure the boarders and sovereignty of our country. Nor do they listen to the pleas of the citizens when drug cartels are kidnapping people from cities as far from the boarder as Atlanta and Nashville.

With the open boarder, even if the American Government succeeded in stripping the second amendment from it's people. The guns would still flow freely as the Cartels would bring them in from the south. This also doesn't really solve the problem as even our ports are so open with the sheer volume of containers that go unchecked at our ports that experts believed biological weapons or even radioactive material could be smuggled into the country in one or more of those containers.

It would take every country in both North and South America to ban firearms and be effective with it in order for guns to reach the levels in the U.K. I highly doubt that they will effective in even one country, let alone all of them.

Long story short, American's desire for drugs,along with political problems are fueling the very problems that lead to a lot of gun violence. Everyday we hear stories of some guy getting shot by a gang and people immediately grab for guns to try and take them away but, why are they trying to take guns out of the hands of people who aren't using them for illegal purposes? Why not keep them out of the hands of criminal instead? Why does the hunter, sportsman, law abiding citizen have to suffer for the actions other others?

How about changing the gun laws so if you use a gun in a violent crime (rape, assault, murder), robbery or a B&E then you lose the right to own a gun permanently. If the gun was used to harm someone in the illegal action then you go to jail, permanently. Most gun crime is committed by repeat offenders. Remove the repeated part and crime will go down sharply.

You make a good, fair point on border control; but have I misunderstood, or are you saying that violent criminals can currently legally own guns? If true, that's just mad.

Yeah, that was the point. Your argument failed to prove your point too.

Not only have we reached a cultural impasse, we are arguing each other's exact language, comprehension skills, and personal beliefs.

ON TOPIC: The Terrorist Watchlist doesn't need evidence which I would consider sufficient enough to warrant a confiscation. Because of uncensored posting style, reading habits, and general demeanor I am probably on the watchlist. I have done nothing that suggests giving me a firearm would be a danger to anybody, but this law sets a precedent which states that I can be deemed a danger at a whim.
--------------------------------
OFF TOPIC:
America began with a revolution, the country was set up under the assumption that it would eventually go sour. When it does, there are provisions in place to re-start it.

doswillrule: Stop believing what they feed you. Privately owned news sources are forced to be competitive. If they are not the "least biased" or, in effect, factual, then the company will be discredited and go under. Getting news or opinion from one source is dangerous, especially when the source could be the perpetrator.

FPoD: They don't get it. You are stating and re-stating, but the audience seems to be too.....satisfied.

Tsurayu: I am staring at your latest post. Allow me:

Firearms allow individual citizens to counter forceful oppression with forceful resistance.
It's like saying "Oh, get the fuck out."

I suppose that's one point, but there is also the point of taking justice into your own hands. To point a gun at the person trying to kill you is one thing I suppose. I can't really argue with that, but there are also morons who try to take justice into their own hands, which isn't right nevertheless most probably wouldn't have the competency to do as such.

I'd rather there be no guns so no one could do anything stupid or think they are righteous enough.

Vigilante justice isn't nearly as bad as you make it sound. Methinks you took 'Law Abiding citizen' and 'Deathwish' a bit too seriously or something. It's very rare that you have someone get a gun and think "Du'oh, whell I'm going to go out and gun-me down some bad-guys." That's almost never the case. You don't have the angry father going after his daughter's rapist, you don't have people looking to kill the person that mugged them. And if you're using school shootings as a reference...well then TBH, fuck you.
And your wish to take guns away from people just so the few who do stupid shit...let's work on refining the screening process first. And besides, by that logic, we should also outlaw automobiles, kitchen utensils, construction supplies, and children.
People don't buy guns to feel righteous, plain and simple. where the heck do you get vigilantism?

And I leave with this quote from a wise member of THR:

Gun Control: The right for a 110lb woman to fistfight with a 210lb assailant.

First, you left out a large majority of people who like to hunt - nothing wrong with that at all. Second, criminals will get guns rather they are illegal or not. There will be arms dealers on street corners, and just like the argument to have legallized weed, at least we can better regulate their distribution. Next, there are cops without guns. They are called mall cops and everyone hates them even more than regular cops. Last, despite all this "Fuck the police!" police officers job's have a fairly high prestige attached to them.
Majority of people still see police as good guys - and the majority of police are.

Also FPoD, Fuck the police? Seriously? There aren't all one giant evil enitity. They don't get paid enough too put up with people bullshit, so there is some level of caring with the majority of police officers. They act like jerks sure, but thats becuase the guy they just pulled over can have thousands of dollars in drugs in their trunk. They don't really have time to be nice to the dozens off people they pull over during the day - especially when everyone hates you despite you just trying to do your job.

The contempt of modern police in America hasn't grown because these men were doing their jobs. The problem and the source of the festering hatred is that they are NOT doing their job.

Next time you are out driving around, look for the cop that is driving well above the speed limit for no reason other than "just patrolling". There is no reason for a trooper to drive 100+ just because. If he was on a call to assist another officer or if he was chasing down a speeder he'd have his lights on. The reality is they are just speeding because they can get away with it. Who is going to pull them over? The other cops?

I've seen police using their lights just so they can blow a red light because they didn't feel like stopping and No, it wasn't an emergency, they were at the red light ahead of me and the officer flipped his lights on, drove through the intersection and then once across he turned them off.

Or next time you open a news paper or turn on the news. keep in mind next time a cop is being "punished" with paid leave or desk duty for assaulting someone who wasn't a threat. Like the elderly black woman and her dog that was shot like I mentioned before. It took protests in the black community before the officers were actually punished. Oh, I forgot to mention the cops also planted pot on the 92yr old woman. I can provide an article if you wish.

How about two Toledo police officers beating the piss out of a 14yr old boy? Why did they beat the boy into a bloody mess? Because they claimed he kicked one of them.



How about the 5 NYPD officers who were charged with sodomy assault...with a police radio antenna?

I could go on for much, much longer but, I believe you'll see my point. These incidents are not isolated, they occur every day but, since you don't hear about it all the time it's not in the front of your mind.

I say fuck the police simply because the corruption is so blatantly rampant all across the country and yet, the "good" cops do nothing to stem the tide. Yes, there are good men in uniform who do honest work and honestly want to help protect people but, their existence alone doesn't remedy the sins of their comrades in uniform. They stand by and do nothing so in my eyes their hands are just as dirty, save for their clean conscience for not actually committing the deed.

I will look at every person hiding behind a badge with utter scorn until they get their damn act together and start obeying the laws and constitution they are charged with enforcing.

I was replying to FPoD's point on increasing UK gun crime, where a very small minority hunt and have licence to do so, something which you could (and probably would) still implement. Arms dealers on street corners seems like a huge exaggeration, as guns are rare here and practically impossible to obtain outside of big cities, but as was highlighted the problem is in border control. I can see why people don't like 'mall cops' seeing as they're a bit of a joke, no real power or authority, something which our police force don't tend to suffer from; and what you're saying about the police image runs contrary to what I've heard, but ok. Still think they could do with an image upgrade though. :]

Alright, time to clean up the mess I have in my head. Regarding the list mentioned in the opening post of terror related or suspected suspects, the first thing that comes into my mind is the general prejudice that most people that I know personally (not via the net) have of Americans: You are paranoid.
I however do think that people where a certain connection is proven and where there is a real need for concern should not be allowed to acquire guns, EVEN if you have the rights to do so by the constitution.
Regarding the hunting argument: Getting a hunting license in Germany is hard. And by hard I mean that you really need to go through quite a lot of learning, tests, police protocols etc. to be allowed to keep the gun(s).
Living in a country where firearms are not as easily available as in the states I can say that I am happy, that I don't have to worry about them as much.
In my opinion the United States are in a deadlock. The access to guns is too easy, thus you need guns to protect yourself.

I am not going to go into the debate of the police in the US, as I just don't have enough reliable input, just personal opinions and news from the mass media (which I barely trust), so I am just going to say that I can understand your concerns regarding the corrupted executive forces.

Gun Bans won't even work at all despite the people mouthing the virtues of it.

Think hard and realize that bad people won't give a damn about your silly laws and they'll just simply get guns from their gangs and such.

If a willing murderer tried to kill a guy but was murdered instead coz the individual had capability to defend himself, then that bad person got his comeuppance from what he thought was gonna be a free kill.

Believe me, I kill when I think I will get a free kill for teh lulz on world of warcraft for example. I've done alot of hit n run ganking.

Retaliation from their intended victims will force them to think hard and be abashed by their own stupidity. Also making your home a better place to live one step at a time XD

Generally they're cowards and brandish their arms against unarmed people because they want power and won't fight someone well armed like a soldier because they're protected.

Protected = Protection no matter how much you put it any other way.

Why haven't I seen any Serial murderers or rapists going after US soldiers? Answer: they're armed and can kick your butt XD

Well, if it stops people from buying guns I agree with Bloomberg.

And to people who say "Well, if guns are banned criminals won't care!"

...

If guns are banned (and I mean BANNED, not you need these pieces of paper to buy one) criminals won't have places to get guns. Also not from their gangs, because they also wouldn't have places to buy guns.

(/europeanperson)

From a less pro-gun ban view, I have to say I'm against Bloomberg's decision from an American point of view: the theory - terrorists don't get guns - is good, but the fact is that it would also prevent a lot of people from owning a gun, even though they are otherwise legally allowed to own one.

Adding something to FPoD's argument, from reliable sources I have learned that LAPD and National guard units that were sent to suppress the Rodney King Riots were instructed to empty their firearms of ammunition. That's right folks, they went in with bayonets (on their Garands) and unloaded pistols. Wow... Seems like some politicians were more concerned over the black vote than protecting the people.

So...if the police won't protect us in the clutch...who will?

True American Heroes, even if the weren't citizens at the time. Defending their property and family when the police couldn't.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VmExQq2gWs

Oh, and FPoD, did I piss you off or have you just forgotten to check your inbox?

Me neither, IMO that was just fuel on the fire beforehand. Still doesn't excuse joining in the looting and mass violence though. ad i would take the 'shooting at anyone and everyone' remark with a grain of salt, it might have been WROL but CA law goes only so far in protecting people [in the situation the Koreans were in].

And in retrospect, American Heroes might have been a stretch, but they were still defending themselves, their property, and family with the 2A.

Fuck yeah I've heard of him!

Check inbox?

anyway...