Obama is Trying to Take Away Even More of Our Freedom

[Zombie Fred]

[Darkmoon]

lulz Darkmoon, you think Germany and Japan could have defeated America. And you know what, sure America did have a few allies that tagged along during WW2 (and WW1), but we were the frontrunner, the fighting force. You get all butthurt because "movies and everyone knows that America won WW2" and it upsets you for some reason, get over it. It's like those "offended" videos we posted in the other thread, nothing happens when you get offended, just move on with your life.

Ladies and gentleman, we have a winner for THIA's yearly 'Utterly Ignorant of History Award.' I want you all to give him a strong, standing ovation.

I suppose I should set a good example and post on topic, somewhat...I actually wouldn't have a problem with this. I've never felt the freedom to carry arms is a good one. Too many people seem to not be able to use them safely, and I'd personally make ammunition illegal (yes, you can have any gun you want. You just aren't allowed the stuff that makes it dangerous. No less against the Constitution of the US than the Patriot Act was) to try and tone them down, somewhat. Honestly, the idea of so many idiots carrying guns worries me.

Another reason I prefer living in my horribly backwards nation, where even the police don't tend to carry them, and it's exceptionally difficult to get hold of them. We tightened our gun laws up a lot when a lunatic walked into a school for 5-6 year olds and opened up. Killing fifteen kids and there teacher, who was trying to save them.

All with fully legal weapons.

So tighter gun laws? All for it.

[Wrathborne]

Honestly, the idea of so many idiots carrying guns worries me.

Me too. But worries me even more is the idea of the government taking away all the guns and then only the idiots and the cops have them. Nothing against the police, but they cant be everywhere, and there are more idiots out there than police.

[Darkmoon]

Very true, and I admit, at this point banning guns in America is impractical. The UK manages because it's never been that simple to get guns here - we've just made it a lot tighter.

I still wouldn't mind some heavier duty gun control in the States, though. I'm not sure how much 'The Right to Bare Arms' can be waved. I mean, obviously, you can't allow kids, violent criminals and the mentally ill to carry guns legally. And I think you need a licence for guns, so not every Tom, Dick and Harry can pack heat. On the other hand, it doesn't seem too hard to get one, and I know the law varies greatly between States.

[Ununoctium]

Me too. But worries me even more is the idea of the government taking away all the guns and then only the idiots and the cops have them. Nothing against the police, but they cant be everywhere, and there are more idiots out there than police.

You see there's the trap. You said that only the idiot criminals and the cops get them, but socialists don't even want the cops to have them. Look at the European Union, their cops don't even have guns. In fact the police officers (and security guards) stationed on the Norwegian island weren't even allowed to carry guns on them and thus unable to stop the Christian fundamentalist with the assault rifle. It's been proven time and time again that gun control only hurts law abiding citizens while helping criminals. All of the facts prove it.

[Darkmoon]

You see there's the trap. You said that only the idiot criminals and the cops get them, but socialists don't even want the cops to have them. Look at the European Union, their cops don't even have guns. In fact the police officers (and security guards) stationed on the Norwegian island weren't even allowed to carry guns on them and thus unable to stop the Christian fundamentalist with the assault rifle. It's been proven time and time again that gun control only hurts law abiding citizens while helping criminals. All of the facts prove it.

Riddle me this, then - why does Britain and other EU countries have less gun related crime, percentage wise, than America?

[Ununoctium]

Riddle me this, then - why does Britain and other EU countries have less gun related crime, percentage wise, than America?

It doesn't have any significantly different number. Though you do have a ruthless dictatorship in charge of you, so you really shouldn't be speaking about how gun control is the greatest thing since sliced bread and that everyone on the planet should trade their freedom for a false sense of security.

"Those who trade freedom for security deserve neither" -Benjamin Franklin
"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it away" -Thomas Jefferson

[Darkmoon]

It doesn't have any significantly different number. Though you do have a ruthless dictatorship in charge of you, so you really shouldn't be speaking about how gun control is the greatest thing since sliced bread and that everyone on the planet should trade their freedom for a false sense of security.

Well, other than the massively higher percentage of gun related crime in America, it isn't that different...35% of violent crime compared to our 3%.

And since you're going the whole, 'Europe is one, giant, socialist non-democratic state of horrors' route...again...I'll just copy and paste my reply. This time, you might wanna read it.

Well, if you insist...

In the US, individuals vote for someone who then votes for them. A person does not directly vote for one candidate or another, and the person voted for is not obligated to vote the same way the people want them to, although there are laws in some States to punish them if this happens. This system is known as the electoral collage, an indirect electoral system.

In the EU (which is not a country or superstate, as it does not control things like economic choices, military decisions, foreign policies and such of it's member states) there are three major bodies;
- The European Council is actively involved in the negotiation of the treaty changes and defines the EU's policy agenda and strategies. It is made up of the Heads of State of the member states of the EU - therefore, voted into office by the public, in whatever method that country favours.
- The European Parliament is the one that debates and passes legislation. Including the budget. Each country votes for it's own MEP's for each region represented.
- The Commission is the part that proposes legislation, and the day to day running of the EU. The Commission is made up of one member for each State, chosen by a President appointed by the Council. He then choose from Candidates chosen by each member state to fill each office and takes this before Parliament - if the Parliament disagrees then he must either re-shuffle who does what job, ask for new candidates or the whole process starts again.

So two out of three sections are directly voted into power by the public - the third is created by those two groups. No worse than the Electoral College system, I'd say.

[Anders]

Me too. But worries me even more is the idea of the government taking away all the guns and then only the idiots and the cops have them. Nothing against the police, but they cant be everywhere, and there are more idiots out there than police.

Has there ever been any case where a "good guy (civilian) with gun" stops "bad guy with gun" from killing?

All of the facts prove it.

The day Ununoctium backs up just a single of his "facts" I'll donate all my shiny goods to the local hospital.

[Mr. Spencer]

Britain's only crime is that it's governed by a nanny state.

[Stu]

Has anyone IP-checked this blatant windup merchant yet?

[Darkmoon]

Yes. Quite regularly.

[Ununoctium]

Well, if you insist...

In the US, individuals vote for someone who then votes for them. A person does not directly vote for one candidate or another, and the person voted for is not obligated to vote the same way the people want them to, although there are laws in some States to punish them if this happens. This system is known as the electoral collage, an indirect electoral system.

In the EU (which is not a country or superstate, as it does not control things like economic choices, military decisions, foreign policies and such of it's member states) there are three major bodies;
- The European Council is actively involved in the negotiation of the treaty changes and defines the EU's policy agenda and strategies. It is made up of the Heads of State of the member states of the EU - therefore, voted into office by the public, in whatever method that country favours.
- The European Parliament is the one that debates and passes legislation. Including the budget. Each country votes for it's own MEP's for each region represented.
- The Commission is the part that proposes legislation, and the day to day running of the EU. The Commission is made up of one member for each State, chosen by a President appointed by the Council. He then choose from Candidates chosen by each member state to fill each office and takes this before Parliament - if the Parliament disagrees then he must either re-shuffle who does what job, ask for new candidates or the whole process starts again.

So two out of three sections are directly voted into power by the public - the third is created by those two groups. No worse than the Electoral College system, I'd say.

Didn't you already use that gigantic wall of text in our PM conversation? The difference is that the electoral college is democratic and is a system that myself and just about everyone else in my country supports. It prevents the people in a state with a lot of people like New York having infinitely more power than a state with only a few people like North Dakota. The EUSSR superstate isn't democratic at all and merely has Barosso and his unelected goons consolidating power for their socialist agenda.

Has there ever been any case where a "good guy (civilian) with gun" stops "bad guy with gun" from killing?

It happens all the time. Has there ever been any case where a "good guy (civilian) without a gun" stops someone like Anders Brevik?

The day Ununoctium backs up just a single of his "facts" I'll donate all my shiny goods to the local hospital.

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

[News Bot]

Completely reasonable. But then...

including public shooting ranges and designated public hunting grounds.

This seems rather counter-productive.

[Ununoctium]

Completely reasonable. But then...



This seems rather counter-productive.

"oh hai guize im gonna let u keep yo guns for now but im gonna make it so u cant peacefully use them for hunting or target shooting, that way u only use them for self defense which is something i am diametrically opposed to. also ill be back later to take your guns away forever once i get elected to my second term, which i know will happen since i'm so arrogant and full of myself" -Obama

You know for someone who says he is completely against the idea of self defense, he certainly does a good job of promoting it. Also every time there is a scare like this from Obama, gun sales always go up. Perhaps he is just saying this stuff so he can get money from the gun lobbyists?