Gun Control

Shipman was convicted in 2000...

After his trial, an inquest decided that there was enough evidence to suggest that Shipman had killed a total of 215 people, mostly women. His youngest victim had been a 41-year-old woman. Some sources have suggested that Shipman may have killed over 400 people.
 
I'm generally opposed to strict gun regulation, but that's a big pile of nonsense you're talking right there.

Individuals in the UK are no more oppressed than those in the US.

Yeah, we have a lot of CCTV here... so what? They're all in public places, if you're doing something in public that can be seen by CCTV, it can just as easily be seen by a live witness.
 
People are watched in public all the time. The UK isn't the only city with CCTV.
There are traffic cams in most major cities. Around any Federal Reserve there are any number of streets that are on CCTV camera. Banks often have similar arrangements. Man intersections in many cities have CCTV cameras of some sort.

Don't backpeddle... watched or oppressed... you basically meant the same thing.
 
I don't know where to start with this. It almost sounds like the V for Vendetta movie.

There is a huge cultural difference between the US and most of Europe over guns and I believe it is largely due to when guns became readily available and feudalism. Due to feudalism, hunting has not been as popular in Europe because the land was owned by the nobility and only they could hunt on it. When guns became popular, most of Europe was fairly well populated and wars and defense were purely military affairs.

In the US, hunting was a primary means of acquiring food and it was predominately with guns. In the US, people also had to defend themselves when they lived on the frontier.

There is probably some truth to the fact that our guns guarantee us some freedom. It has been mentioned in several threads that there is a historical trend of guns being confisicated before a totalitarian government takes over or solidifies control. However, there are also cases where guns were banned and did not lead to such issues.
 
I must disagree. Hunting was not the reason the 2nd amendment was included in the constitution. By reading any of the founders papers, you'll understand why we were given the right to keep and bear arms.

As for your first comment, Plato said these things long before V-for Vendetta. Read "Republic" and you'll see why a pure democracy is pure tyranny. The US is a democratic Republic not a democracy. We keep and bear arms to keep it that way.

Also I'd like to have some historical examples of an unarmed populace maintaining control in government. The Europe of today is still in question. Centuries of war don't often times end for more than a few generations. I'd be willing to bet that tyranny finds a place to take root in Europe within this century.
 
Watched leads to oppression. You can submit to being watched and not see where its leading. My point was that those in the UK have given up their right to privacy. Many cities in the US are following suit, but it started in the UK. Chicago is probably the US city which is farthest along the UK path, but don't be deceived, it started in the UK. The UK has been a social testing ground since the end of WWII and remains so to this day. When the British lie down and take oppressive domestic policy it can be assumed that Americans will do the same.
 
I didn't say hunting was the reason it was included in the constituion. I said it was part of the cultural difference. The 2nd amendment was based, at least in part, on a reaction to the abuses of the British. The militia issue is a lot more complex than you want to make it.


Plato talked about cctv? The UK is a pure democracy? Where did you get the idea that we keep and bear arms to keep us a democratic republic rather than a democracy? I have a gun for myself and for my wife, because I like to shoot and for home defense. I don't do it to protect our country.
 
Oh my.. what a total load of pap that is.

Americans and the right to bear arms doesn't anymore have to do with the US remaining a democratic republic than chocolate mousse dessert has to do with a steaming pile of dog turds on the sidewalk.

Can you point to even one instance that Americans bearing arms has stopped some sort of tyrannical imposition of some other form of government on Americans since the Constitution was drafted?
 
Never said that the UK was pure democracy. Also, by owning a gun you do protect your freedom by taking responsibility for your own safety rather than relying on the police, AKA the government.
 
Try the Texas war for independence?? Citizens standing up to the Mexican army to free themselves from it.

Give you life and freedoms over to another and see where it gets you. Nobody is looking out for you but yourself.
 
Which is a fallacy at best. Any incident where you end up using your gun you're going to have to involve the police at some point anyhow.

I could almost guess from your post what part of the US you live in.
 
ROTFLMAO!!!!

Try again.

Texas wasn't part of the US at that point... it was part of Mexico... specifically it was known as Coahuila y Tejas. It was merged with Coahuila when Mexico became a republic under the Constitution of 1824. Texas wasn't even annexed by the US until 1845... a full 10 year later when it became the 28th United State.

So nope... that doesn't exactly wash.
 
Nonsense. By having a gun at home, I am taking a step to keep me safe. That's it. I still rely on the police. The only case where I have ever had a potential break in, we did not draw a weapon. When the home security alarm went off, we called the police. The guns are only for life and death situations where other options are not available.
 
It may not have happened but the statement has more to do with the original intent of the 2nd amendment at the creation of the constitution. the founders had no idea how society and weapons would evolve. In there minds they were enabling the people to rise up in the event that the government tried to go back to the policies of King George. It is less relevent today for it's original pupose for sure but, the ideal has been so ingraned in the American view point by now that it is more a way of life, a thing taken almost for granted, guns have been so intertwined into the fabric of everyday life here that it is doubtfull even if laws were passed that they would ever be able to get rid of them. An example of this is the number of firearms that exist from pre gun registration days. Judging just from myself and friends in my little town there must be at least as many as there are people in the US and none of these are registeredanywhere as these things were not required when they were purchased so any attempt to eliminate guns in the US would fail miserably cause I know none of the people in this town would turn em in.
 
If you would rely on the police for protection, than you'd be let down. A recent Supreme court decision stated that the public has no right to protection by the police. DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (109 S.Ct. 998, 1989; 489 U.S. 189 (1989))
 
I think it does. This is a case where an armed populace stood up to fight tyranny. Look to all the major revolutions in history and tell me would the revolution have been needed if the people had already been armed and a threat to their government?
 
No it doesn't.
Texas was not an American state at that point in history. It was part of Mexico.
Basic history will tell you that. Sorry it still doesn't wash. If you're going to try and use history to support your points it helps if you have the history down correctly.

If it wasn't a part of the America then it hardly is an answer to the question I asked you.
 
Back
Top