Up yours.
If you're going to interpret the bill of rights, read some of the writings of those that came up with it and stop spewing wank. It wasn't about armies or fighting off the British at all. It was inspired by the fact that the king was the be-all and end-all of government power and THAT is why they wanted the populace armed. So they could throw off an unjust government.

Drama queen or not, the UK (and the US) is in for some really hard times before all is said and done. Lets review this in 10 years time and see who was closer to the truth.

The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right not limited to just those the government sees fit.

You may not like it and certainly don't have to agree with it and that's fine but to jump to swearing and name calling sort of belittles the point you're trying to make.
(Lurkaloid awarded wanking black belt on, Mon 9 Feb 2009, 17:23, 1 reply)

If I was discussing this with an informed person I might care
I'm not going to get into an entrenched argument about the second amendment, it's about allowing people to be armed to form militias, it has fuck all to do with the right of someone to carry a handgun around on the streets.

"Why should a properly vetted (background checks, etc) citizen (or subject) be prohibited from owning (or carrying for that matter) whatever he wants? Just because you have a pistol/knife/hammer on your person doesn't mean you're going to go mental and shoot/stab/club everyone to death just because you have it."

If you think it is a right to own a gun, then why should any background checking be necessary? In the US you have the right to free speech, you don't only get that following a background check do you.

Also, the only reason guns exist is to kill things. You can use them for sport, which, as I said before, is fine, but you don't need to carry a gun around with you for any reason other than you think at some stage you are going to have to shoot someone.

In the US lots of people have just gone crazy and shot dozens of people. Allowing guns only for sport (or people that actually need them, like farmers) and making them be kept in a locked place will significantly reduce the number of guns around and therefore school children are less likely to die.

Even having a gun in your house doesn't make you more secure. You're far more likely to shoot a member of your family than any intruder.

And please, the country is not going to descend into chaos and anarchy, there is going to be a rise in unemployment, people will suffer, but it will turn around without everyone needing a gun.

If you're that disappointed in what your country has become, then surrender your passport and stay the fuck away.
(Bazongaloid, Tue 10 Feb 2009, 10:42, closed)

The more I read these various posts, the more it seems we're all disagreeing whilst sharing the same viewpoint: Concealed carry is un-neccesary, unrestricted ownership unwise, club ownership acceptable, and historically firearm ownership has balanced (external?) opressive forces.

I think it's a right to own a gun, *if you're responsible*. You see, free speech can't kill someone if abused. A firearm can. And responsible ownership means responsible storage and handling, too.

Background checks are necessary - some people are simply unsuitable. Previous convictions for armed robbery being the clearest example; if they broke the law and endangered others, then they waive one of their rights in exchange for rights of society. People currently suffering certain health problems - like psychiatric disorders affecting impulse control and judgement.

And building on what MichaelS mentioned; Switzerland has seldom been threatened, even in WW2. Now why? Possibly it's becasue every dictator wants an anonymous account in case it all goes arse-up. Possibly it's fear of lederhosen, or fear of the people who would willingly wear them. Possibly it's to avoid all the bloody clocks, chocolate, and cheese.

Or just maybe it's becasue their society (and the landscape) makes an invasion a daunting prospect - there could be active resistance from every hamlet. And it's not just external threats, as far as I'm aware there's no swiss citizens in a swiss Guantanamo, held without charge. No opressive government - theres's no such thing as a Swiss asylum seeker.

As for domesitc shootings, if a possible intruder answers my challenge in a relative's voice; then that'll be a good enough clue for me of an invalid target. I don't intend to shoot at shadows - that would be part of the earlier responsibility I mentioned. This stuff could be taught prior to purchase, just as the military are trained to verify a target.

But all this debate is, in the end, meaningless. It won't alter anything. Can we end the great b3ta gun debate peacefully, and whilst respecting each others viewpoints?
(The Incredible Sulk Finally remembered his password on, Tue 10 Feb 2009, 13:40, closed)

I think in reference to your final point
I can only post this


(Bazongaloid, Tue 10 Feb 2009, 13:53, closed)

Touché!
Sometimes I debate a point without being sure I believe it myself. Thankyou, althegeordie and Musuko, for challenging my position.
(The Incredible Sulk Finally remembered his password on, Tue 10 Feb 2009, 17:22, closed)