If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
You do realize that part in bold makes no sense whatsoever right?
"Hey Maurice, we can't buy these illegal guns, their lethally index is too high." Said no criminal, ever.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
There's a case to be made for limiting the AVAILABILITY of weapons that exceed a certain LETHALITY index. Not because people don't have sense enough to realize that available weapons will continue to be acquired by criminals. It's because they realize that even criminals will have a difficult time acquiring such weapons if they weren't so readily available.OAW
"Hey Maurice, we can't buy these illegal guns, their lethally index is too high." Said no criminal, ever.
I'll just note that the part I highlighted in your statement was about AVAILABILITY. So why BS strawman? The point being if the supply is severely limited there isn't much of a pool to acquire such weapons from even on an illegal basis. But you seem inclined to argue a point that's not in dispute so carry on.
I'll just note that the part I highlighted in your statement was about AVAILABILITY. So why BS strawman? The point being if the supply is severely limited there isn't much of a pool to acquire such weapons from even on an illegal basis. But you seem inclined to argue a point that's not in dispute so carry on.
There will never be an availability problem, ever, there can't be. Why? Because there's money to be made, either legally or illegally. There aren't availability issues in Europe or the UK or Australia, and unless you lock a country down (China, NK) they will come in. I could get a gun, Glock w/ 12 shot mags, AR15, AK47 (lots of those) within an hour of landing at Heathrow and I didn't even know anyone. We have a more firearm-focused society, for sure, it's ingrained into our DNA as a country because it's a protected right, and it's a protected right because our founding fathers knew how tyranny starts and how to keep it at bay.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
There will never be an availability problem, ever, there can't be. Why? Because there's money to be made, either legally or illegally.
To quote Jim Jeffries in the video you refused to watch, 'In Australia an illegal assault rifle will cost you about $34,000. If you can afford $34,000, you don't need to be a criminal. You're a good little saver."
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
There aren't availability issues in Europe or the UK or Australia, and unless you lock a country down (China, NK) they will come in. I could get a gun, Glock w/ 12 shot mags, AR15, AK47 (lots of those) within an hour of landing at Heathrow and I didn't even know anyone.
And you know this how exactly? Anyone capable of providing this for you would likely prefer to drive you somewhere secluded, put the gun to your head and clean out your accounts.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
We have a more firearm-focused society, for sure, it's ingrained into our DNA as a country because it's a protected right, and it's a protected right because our founding fathers knew how tyranny starts and how to keep it at bay.
Knew. Past tense.
And yes, you are a 'firearm-focused society'. Probably the only one. I'll wager most of the countries in open warfare are less firearm-focused than you guys.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
Here, let me Google that for you! Hope that helps!
Some have gone up, interesting.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
To quote Jim Jeffries in the video you refused to watch, 'In Australia an illegal assault rifle will cost you about $34,000. If you can afford $34,000, you don't need to be a criminal. You're a good little saver."
This isn't Australia.
And you know this how exactly? Anyone capable of providing this for you would likely prefer to drive you somewhere secluded, put the gun to your head and clean out your accounts.
I know this because it happened to me, they're easy to get there, and nearly everywhere else. The difference is, you guys have been trained to not want firearms.
Knew. Past tense.
And yes, you are a 'firearm-focused society'. Probably the only one. I'll wager most of the countries in open warfare are less firearm-focused than you guys.
It hasn't changed, you still can't take over or oppress a country with an armed citizenry.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
I don't always agree with TFM, but he completely smashes this one over the fence.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Personally, I'd be pissed if the gov't presumed to think I was inferior and that I needed help with every facet of my life.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Oh thats right, you're ****ing special. America is God's favourite. It says so in the bible.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
I know this because it happened to me, they're easy to get there, and nearly everywhere else. The difference is, you guys have been trained to not want firearms.
It "happened" to you?!
Unless you went to a sanctioned arms dealer trade show, you didn't just stumble out of Heathrow and get offered and AK-47 by a guy in a trench coat. Shit they don't even do that in Amsterdam where they can safely shout about cocaine for sale as long as there are no cops in earshot. Or could 20 years ago.
If on the other hand you went into a shady looking pub and asked to buy one, maybe you never met a cockney wheeler dealer before. If you had asked for a football helmet full of cream cheese, naked pictures of Bea Arthur and a tactical nuke, he would have told you he can get all that no problem and then worried about actually getting it later. They do that, and they're remarkably charming so they often get away with it too.
Why the **** would you try to buy a gun in England? In all likelihood they'd only have labelled you a dumb yank and deported you but still, thats not a clever idea.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
It hasn't changed, you still can't take over or oppress a country with an armed citizenry.
You don't need to take over if you already got elected into power.
Either you're all already being oppressed by Obamacare and people who don't like being shot by cops for no reason, or you're about to vote in the new wave of Nazis who want to round up the Muslims in camps and probably help the cops to shoot even more of you for no reason.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
Oh thats right, you're ****ing special. America is God's favourite. It says so in the bible.
Oh good, you ate your fiber this morning. (Who peed in your corn flakes?) Different cultures react differently to various situations; just because something "works" there, doesn't mean it will work here. In fact, our studies show otherwise, more gun control leads to more gun violence. New Study Demolishes Almost Every Gun Control Myth | Mediaite
It "happened" to you?!
Yes, I was offered firearms, have been several times on my stays there (we own a home in Scotland), but I declined. One, because there were already several guns in that home, and two, because I didn't want to break the law. You guys have more guns over there than you think you do.
You don't need to take over if you already got elected into power.
Just because you're an elected official doesn't mean you can automatically "reign" over your constituency, firearms are prevention against a gov't becoming tyrannical. An armed citizenry is a dictator's worst nightmare.
Either you're all already being oppressed by Obamacare and people who don't like being shot by cops for no reason, or you're about to vote in the new wave of Nazis who want to round up the Muslims in camps and probably help the cops to shoot even more of you for no reason.
That's a particularly retarded non sequitur.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
This is Shaddim/CTP we are talking about. A house in Scotland? How convenient. Need I say more?
I don't say these things lightly, because I believe in free speech for all, even the folks I disagree with, but do STFU.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
There will never be an availability problem, ever, there can't be. Why? Because there's money to be made, either legally or illegally. There aren't availability issues in Europe or the UK or Australia, and unless you lock a country down (China, NK) they will come in. I could get a gun, Glock w/ 12 shot mags, AR15, AK47 (lots of those) within an hour of landing at Heathrow and I didn't even know anyone. We have a more firearm-focused society, for sure, it's ingrained into our DNA as a country because it's a protected right, and it's a protected right because our founding fathers knew how tyranny starts and how to keep it at bay.
This tyranny thing is a pretty dumb argument.
The pentagon spent nearly $700 billion dollars in 2011. If you want to prevent tyranny, maybe we should start here?
The pentagon spent nearly $700 billion dollars in 2011. If you want to prevent tyranny, maybe we should start here?
Says you? Right.
Non sequitur.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
The second amendment was probably not about protecting Americans from the American government, it was probably about Americans defending from foreign invaders, and even if you disagree with this surely the founding fathers had no concept of spending this amount of money on technology that exists today, and even if you disagree with this your guns are no match for the military power of the government anyway.
This is just one of the oft-repeated arguments nicely summarized below. The bottom line is that people like you just like having guns.
The second amendment was probably not about protecting Americans from the American government, it was probably about Americans defending from foreign invaders
"All threats, foreign and domestic. Domestic threats are not foreign, by definition.
, and even if you disagree with this surely the founding fathers had no concept of spending this amount of money on technology that exists today, and even if you disagree with this your guns are no match for the military power of the government anyway.
The military would lose to the citizenry pretty quickly, even with the far fetched assumption that elements of the military would join the citizens. The supply chain would fall so fast that the military would be reduced to small arms and artillery outnumbered 500-1 or more. Our advanced military requires our advanced economy, and that would be the first thing to go if widespread conflict erupted in the US. Each helicopter, fighter, bomber, tank, etc requires tons of maintenance hours for each operational hour, and the amount of gas they use is absurd. Every advanced weapon we have would be useless junk without the massive support operations in place today.
The citizens would beat the US military easily, though not without great human loss.
This is just one of the oft-repeated arguments nicely summarized below. The bottom line is that people like you just like having guns.
No, the bottom line is the 2nd amendment is crucial to the survival and prosperity of our nation. That's why they put it second only to freedom of speech & religion.
You don't need to take over if you already got elected into power.
Either you're all already being oppressed by Obamacare and people who don't like being shot by cops for no reason, or you're about to vote in the new wave of Nazis who want to round up the Muslims in camps and probably help the cops to shoot even more of you for no reason.
Just for the record, it was Franklin Roosevelt (D) that rounded up Japanese, German , and Italian citizens and placed them in camps during WWII.
Yes, I was offered firearms, have been several times on my stays there (we own a home in Scotland), but I declined. One, because there were already several guns in that home, and two, because I didn't want to break the law. You guys have more guns over there than you think you do.
While one obviously can't prove a negative, this is so far beyond believable that it falls squarely into the 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof' category. I am an American who has been living in the UK for 10 years. I have been around guns in the UK substantially more than I ever was in the states thanks to 'country pursuits' - beating on pheasant shoots, having a son that competes or has competed with air pistols, air rifles, and clay pigeon shooting, and being friends with lots of farmers. Never ONCE have I been proactively offered a gun, legal or otherwise, or spoken to anyone who has. I've also managed to spend a good bit of time in Scotland- even the mean streets of Glasgow- without having been offered a gun.
The 'details' of your claim also make me question your veracity. Within an hour of landing at Heathrow? A genuine frequent, non-EU traveller to the UK would know that to get through immigration within an hour of landing is a minor miracle. Randomly happening upon an illegal firearms dealer in one of the most policed zones in Europe moments later? Really? Also, you originally asserted
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
and I didn't even know anyone
And now you own a house here? How did you manage to buy and, I assume, visit a property without meeting anyone? Just doesn't seem credible.
Your view of gun crime in the UK seems to come more from Guy Ritchie films than experience or reality. Let me quote some statistics:
Originally Posted by The Office of National Statistics
• In 2012/13, the police recorded 8,135 offences in which firearms were used, a 15% decrease
compared with 2011/12.
• Firearms continue to be used in a small and diminishing proportion of total police recorded crime
(0.2%).
• There were 30 fatalities in 2012/13 which resulted from offences involving firearms; 12 fewer
than the previous year and the lowest figure since the National Crime Recording Standard
(NCRS) was introduced in 2002/03.
• People aged between 15 and 29 made up 62% of seriously or fatally injured firearm victims,
while the same age group constitute 20% of the population as a whole
Common sense and a passing relationship with reality would lead one to believe you created specious fiction because it fit your world view.
Again, I can't prove you are lying, but to anyone else reading this, please know that his claim should be taken with the same large grain of salt you would need to swallow that areas of London and the entire city of Birmingham are 'no-go' zones for non-muslims.
The second amendment was probably not about protecting Americans from the American government, it was probably about Americans defending from foreign invaders, and even if you disagree with this surely the founding fathers had no concept of spending this amount of money on technology that exists today, and even if you disagree with this your guns are no match for the military power of the government anyway.
This is just one of the oft-repeated arguments nicely summarized below. The bottom line is that people like you just like having guns.
Besson. Get medical help. You STILL think you "Know the Minds" of others? YOU DON'T. Your stupid idiotic assumptions and stereotypes fictional scenarios and such automatically make you look like a buffoon.
I too own guns. They are not my most prized possessions, or even on the list. They are just another hobby/distraction for me. Originally purchased out of curiosity. I've been to the firing range about 4 times. I've never even fired my 22 rifle. So you don't KNOW anything, but just ASSume.
The second amendment was probably not about protecting Americans from the American government, it was probably about Americans defending from foreign invaders...
Is this claimed because the amendment refers to militia? The first article of the Constitution gives the government explicit authority to arm militia.
Why would the Second Amendment be needed for defending against foreign invaders when the Constitution already grants authority to arm the militia, and form a standing army?
Is this claimed because the amendment refers to militia? The first article of the Constitution gives the government explicit authority to arm militia.
Why would the Second Amendment be needed for defending against foreign invaders when the Constitution already grants authority to arm the militia, and form a standing army?
Kinda redundant, eh?
It's also incredibly redundant needing a militia to prevent government tyranny when simple democracy ought to do fine. Not only that, but the entire system of government is designed to not give any government too much power.
This whole concept of overthrowing government is so incredibly remote in possibility to begin with, and redundant, surely a reasonable person would agree that maybe if the cost of this complete far-fetched edge case is the problems we are dealing with that surely some revisiting the precise limits of the amendment is at least conversation worthy?
It's also incredibly redundant needing a militia to prevent government tyranny when simple democracy ought to do fine. Not only that, but the entire system of government is designed to not give any government too much power.
You are assuming that elections would take place to somehow fix things? What if the President called an illegal marshal law and implemented press restrictions, confiscation of businesses and cut off the internet. He then states no elections for 2 years. WHAT THEN?
The US Gov't was originally designed to limit the power of Gov't, and state had rights too. Not so much anymore. Incremental erosion has happened. Now we have a shitty house and senate who aren't doing their do diligence and a president who wants to govern with his iPhone and exec orders, and neither house or senate wants to reign him in for fear of being labeled racist by the propagandists in the main stream media.
Originally Posted by besson3c
This whole concept of overthrowing government is so incredibly remote in possibility to begin with, and redundant, surely a reasonable person would agree that maybe if the cost of this complete far-fetched edge case is the problems we are dealing with that surely some revisiting the precise limits of the amendment is at least conversation worthy?
"A reasonable person" ?? After its happened, you still think revisiting it would be possible without a shotgun taped to someones forehead? Perhaps in your dreamworld.
It's also incredibly redundant needing a militia to prevent government tyranny when simple democracy ought to do fine. Not only that, but the entire system of government is designed to not give any government too much power.
This whole concept of overthrowing government is so incredibly remote in possibility to begin with, and redundant, surely a reasonable person would agree that maybe if the cost of this complete far-fetched edge case is the problems we are dealing with that surely some revisiting the precise limits of the amendment is at least conversation worthy?
While one obviously can't prove a negative, this is so far beyond believable that it falls squarely into the 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof' category. I am an American who has been living in the UK for 10 years. I have been around guns in the UK substantially more than I ever was in the states thanks to 'country pursuits' - beating on pheasant shoots, having a son that competes or has competed with air pistols, air rifles, and clay pigeon shooting, and being friends with lots of farmers. Never ONCE have I been proactively offered a gun, legal or otherwise, or spoken to anyone who has. I've also managed to spend a good bit of time in Scotland- even the mean streets of Glasgow- without having been offered a gun.
The 'details' of your claim also make me question your veracity. Within an hour of landing at Heathrow? A genuine frequent, non-EU traveller to the UK would know that to get through immigration within an hour of landing is a minor miracle. Randomly happening upon an illegal firearms dealer in one of the most policed zones in Europe moments later? Really? Also, you originally asserted
And now you own a house here? How did you manage to buy and, I assume, visit a property without meeting anyone? Just doesn't seem credible.
Your view of gun crime in the UK seems to come more from Guy Ritchie films than experience or reality. Let me quote some statistics:
Common sense and a passing relationship with reality would lead one to believe you created specious fiction because it fit your world view.
Again, I can't prove you are lying, but to anyone else reading this, please know that his claim should be taken with the same large grain of salt you would need to swallow that areas of London and the entire city of Birmingham are 'no-go' zones for non-muslims.
As I alluded to earlier ... Shaddim/CTP is well-known around here for making outlandish and ultimately unprovable claims. That's his M.O.
While one obviously can't prove a negative, this is so far beyond believable that it falls squarely into the 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof' category. I am an American who has been living in the UK for 10 years. I have been around guns in the UK substantially more than I ever was in the states thanks to 'country pursuits' - beating on pheasant shoots, having a son that competes or has competed with air pistols, air rifles, and clay pigeon shooting, and being friends with lots of farmers. Never ONCE have I been proactively offered a gun, legal or otherwise, or spoken to anyone who has. I've also managed to spend a good bit of time in Scotland- even the mean streets of Glasgow- without having been offered a gun.
The 'details' of your claim also make me question your veracity. Within an hour of landing at Heathrow? A genuine frequent, non-EU traveller to the UK would know that to get through immigration within an hour of landing is a minor miracle. Randomly happening upon an illegal firearms dealer in one of the most policed zones in Europe moments later? Really? Also, you originally asserted
Just because you say it's an extraordinary claim doesn't mean it is, and I've not gone through main immigration in quite a while, I'm often out of the airport in 10 minutes.
And now you own a house here? How did you manage to buy and, I assume, visit a property without meeting anyone? Just doesn't seem credible.
I posted a link, I'm guessing in your lather and outrage you missed it.
Common sense and a passing relationship with reality would lead one to believe you created specious fiction because it fit your world view.
Again, I can't prove you are lying, but to anyone else reading this, please know that his claim should be taken with the same large grain of salt you would need to swallow that areas of London and the entire city of Birmingham are 'no-go' zones for non-muslims.
You're equating gun crime w/ gun availability, as I said before, most Brits have been indoctrinated into not even wanting guns, they wouldn't buy them if they could. That doesn't mean they aren't available.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
As I alluded to earlier ... Shaddim/CTP is well-known around here for making outlandish and ultimately unprovable claims. That's his M.O.
Yeeeeah, just avoid where I've previously talked about having a house in Scotland. Run along now.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Just because you say it's an extraordinary claim doesn't mean it is,
No, it really is. I know you are assert that you are very clever, wealthy and powerful, but I actually live here. I know the society better than you do. It's an extraordinary claim that does not line up with reality.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
and I've not gone through main immigration in quite a while, I'm often out of the airport in 10 minutes.
Are you inferring private jets and Heathrow VIP service? Was it the Heathrow staff, immigration officials, or vetted chauffeur that offered you an arsenal?
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
I posted a link, I'm guessing in your lather and outrage you missed it.
I don't think I displayed either lather or rage. Can you point it out to me? But in any case, I'm not questioning whether or not you own a house (your displayed ignorance of British society would make this seem unlikely, but who knows?), I questioned how you managed to purchase and visit a home without getting to know anybody. Maybe your hermetic lifestyle explains your misconceptions about life here?
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
You're equating gun crime w/ gun availability, as I said before, most Brits have been indoctrinated into not even wanting guns, they wouldn't buy them if they could. That doesn't mean they aren't available.
So the Brits have been 'indoctrinated' not to want guns, wouldn't buy them if they could, don't use illegal guns in crime, yet the island is awash with them. How odd. Or... maybe it's actually not? Do you have ANY evidence to support this other than your experience with a security-cleared arms dealer that accosts strangers at Heathrow arrivals to sell them guns?
Do you really not have the self awareness to recognise how ridiculous this all sounds? Again, for the record, I feel no rage nor am I producing lather, it's really just amusement. It's reminiscent of some of the wild stories and excuses my kids used to tell when they were younger- it's so silly it's hard to get mad.
No, it really is. I know you are assert that you are very clever, wealthy and powerful, but I actually live here. I know the society better than you do. It's an extraordinary claim that does not line up with reality.Are you inferring private jets and Heathrow VIP service? Was it the Heathrow staff, immigration officials, or vetted chauffeur that offered you an arsenal?
I was picked up from the airport and my host offered to get me setup with personal defense, by his calm demeanor it seemed to be a common practice for him. I declined; one, because I didn't want to break any laws, and two, because the groundskeeper where I was going said the home came several firearms already on the property. (Though they were in a poor state and I spent some time cleaning and getting them back into proper order.)
I don't think I displayed either lather or rage. Can you point it out to me? But in any case, I'm not questioning whether or not you own a house (your displayed ignorance of British society would make this seem unlikely, but who knows?), I questioned how you managed to purchase and visit a home without getting to know anybody. Maybe your hermetic lifestyle explains your misconceptions about life here?
I contacted a broker, visited the grounds, made an offer, negotiated, and then they accepted. It's not hard to do. You think people go around visiting and glad-handing everyone in the neighborhood, just for shits and giggles? For the record, the people in that county have been nothing but sweethearts, very welcoming (if a shade too naive and superstitious). They're a much friendlier sort than most Englishmen I've met online.
So the Brits have been 'indoctrinated' not to want guns, wouldn't buy them if they could, don't use illegal guns in crime, yet the island is awash with them. How odd. Or... maybe it's actually not? Do you have ANY evidence to support this other than your experience with a security-cleared arms dealer that accosts strangers at Heathrow arrivals to sell them guns?
Strawman (another).
Do you really not have the self awareness to recognise how ridiculous this all sounds? Again, for the record, I feel no rage nor am I producing lather, it's really just amusement. It's reminiscent of some of the wild stories and excuses my kids used to tell when they were younger- it's so silly it's hard to get mad.
You're normally this upset and aggressive? Gosh.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
I was picked up from the airport and my host offered to get me setup with personal defense, by his calm demeanor it seemed to be a common practice for him. I declined; one, because I didn't want to break any laws, and two, because the groundskeeper where I was going said the home came several firearms already on the property. (Though they were in a poor state and I spent some time cleaning and getting them back into proper order.)
Your 'host,' calmly offered you illegal guns ("Glock w/ 12 shot mags, AR15, AK47") for 'personal security.' Really? And as for your embellishment about the home you were staying in coming with 'several firearms already on the property,' well that's just not the way things work here. Unless these were air guns, they are licensed to an individual, not a home. In order to get that license, the potential licensee would be visited by a firearms officer to verify that the guns were kept in a locked gun safe and that he (or she), as the keeper, was they only one that had access to or knew the location of the keys to said safe. By law the guns cannot be removed from the safe by anyone other than the licensed keeper, even for travelling Americans to clean. And they come back and do spot checks. Again, I can't prove your story is false, but if it's true, you somehow keep running into folks who flagrantly disregard gun laws with seeming impunity. Every gun owner I have met here understands the laws and the penalties for breaking them. Of course most of them flaunt the rules a bit- their wives probably know where the keys to the gun safe are, but no one just leaves them lying around for guests to come and clean.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
I contacted a broker, visited the grounds, made an offer, negotiated, and then they accepted. It's not hard to do. You think people go around visiting and glad-handing everyone in the neighborhood, just for shits and giggles? For the record, the people in that county have been nothing but sweethearts, very welcoming (if a shade too naive and superstitious). They're a much friendlier sort than most Englishmen I've met online.
My mistake, when you said you knew 'no one,' I didn't realise you meant 'no one but the broker and all the Sottish sweethearts.'
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
Strawman (another).
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
You're normally this upset and aggressive? Gosh.
Again, I'm confused as to where I have shown either upset or aggression. Can you help me out by identifying it for me? I'm simply saying, for reasons I have documented with evidence, that the claims you make are extraordinary, and, therefore, require extraordinary evidence to support. To be clear, the claims you have made that I have issue with:
1. You easily can buy illegal, powerful, weapons in the UK within an hour of arrival without contacts or even knowing anyone in the country.
2. The UK is awash with guns.
3. The new one you added about guns being freely left in homes for the use of guests.
Do you have ANYTHING at all to support these wild claims?
(
Last edited by Paco500; Dec 9, 2015 at 07:27 PM.
)
1. You easily can buy illegal, powerful, weapons in the UK within an hour of arrival without contacts or even knowing anyone in the country.
Yup.
2. The UK is awash with guns.
More than YOU think, that's for sure.
3. The new one you added about guns being freely left in homes for the use of guests.
Yep, there was a cache of weapons on the property, he handed them over to me.
Do you have ANYTHING at all to support these wild claims?
Do you think I'm bothered enough about what you think to care? Hmm... Nope.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
The most honest post you've made in all of 2015, I'd wager. Still not going to address where I've mentioned having a house there, I'm shocked.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
I'm fascinated that the Left can't stay on a thread topic and ultimately just resort to trying to tear down the person they're arguing with. For all the world it looks like they simply can't argue without fully resorting to ad hominems and mischaracterizations (so many in Paco's post I threw up my hands in disgust). Is your position that weak? Hmm.
Again, I'm confused as to where I have shown either upset or aggression. Can you help me out by identifying it for me?
He posts that after having a 2 day tantrum. Geez.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
It is curious how you accuse me of lathers, rages, ad hominems, mischaracterizations, going off-topic, erecting straw men, and possibly worst of all, being on the left, yet you've never addressed the topic at hand, providing evidence for your incredible claims. So let's break this down.
For starters, it may be instructive to define some terms, as it would seem you don't actually understand their proper use in common parlance.
Originally Posted by wikipedia
Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attack on an argument made by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, rather than attacking the argument directly.
Again and again, I have demonstrated that your assertions are extraordinary based on evidence, I have not attacked you. However, you have resorted to name calling and attacks on my character rather than addressing my points. For further clarity, if I had argued 'you are a liar therefore your claims are untrue,' that would be an ad hominem. What I have said is that 'based on evidence your claims are extraordinary.' That is very, very different from an ad hominem attack.
Originally Posted by wikipedia
A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent.
You accused me of erecting a straw man after I restated one of your assertions and asked if you had any evidence to support it. You are misusing this term.
I will not go back and rehash the assertions we have addressed beyond restating that they have been shown to be extraordinary based on evidence and you have provided nothing to back them up.
As for your latest assertion
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
that the Left can't stay on a thread topic and ultimately just resort to trying to tear down the person they're arguing with.
How is it that you see it was I or this nefarious 'left' that is taking things off topic? What new direction have I introduced? All I have done is question extraordinary claims you made in support of your arguments. We headed down no roads without you leading the way. And ironically, once you took us down this road, you have restored to unsubstantiated personal attacks on me. Reality is basically a 180 of your claim.
One last time, I will ask for you to point to evidence or rage or tantrum. You are the only one on our discussion that has resorted to personal attacks and name-calling. I have only addressed your arguments and accusations. So we are clear, I will provide evidence of your attacks and name-calling.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants (demonstrating actual lather and ad hominem attacks)
-I posted a link, I'm guessing in your lather and outrage you missed it.
-Strawman (another).
-You're normally this upset and aggressive? Gosh.
-I'm fascinated that the Left can't stay on a thread topic and ultimately just resort to trying to tear down the person they're arguing with. For all the world it looks like they simply can't argue without fully resorting to ad hominems and mischaracterizations (so many in Paco's post I threw up my hands in disgust). Is your position that weak? Hmm.
-Yep, it's like trying to talk to teenagers.
-He posts that after having a 2 day tantrum. Geez.
Now please don't get me wrong, these are not overly aggressive and you haven't hurt my feelings, it is just to demonstrate that you have been the only one actually engaging in the kind of behavior you accuse me of.
Oh good, you ate your fiber this morning. (Who peed in your corn flakes?) Different cultures react differently to various situations; just because something "works" there, doesn't mean it will work here. In fact, our studies show otherwise, more gun control leads to more gun violence. New Study Demolishes Almost Every Gun Control Myth | Mediaite
Sounds like it was conducted on US data. I've said it before, making someone drive an hour or two to buy a gun isn't going to stop them buying one. It would take a blanket ban across all states and then a long long time to get existing weapons out of circulation because unlike in Australia and the UK, you guys won't hand them in.
It needs to be a federal thing too because even one state holding out is going to become a Mecca for gun enthusiasts.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
Yes, I was offered firearms, have been several times on my stays there (we own a home in Scotland), but I declined. One, because there were already several guns in that home, and two, because I didn't want to break the law. You guys have more guns over there than you think you do.
I feel like you're now deliberately avoiding being specific about what you were offered. Being offered a shotgun when you don't hold a licence is a whole different thing to being offered a handgun or rifle for which you are unlikely to ever hold a licence (unless you are a vet or a wildlife management ranger, I forget the proper title) or a semi/automatic weapon which is illegal under any circumstances unless you are a cop or a soldier and even then you don't get to take them home.
As I understand it, you are actually allowed to own a firearm without a license, but you must leave it in the care of someone who has one. So if anything you got it the wrong way around by declining the purchase but keeping the guns that came with the house. You are in fact breaking the law unless you have a licensed, resident staff member there.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
Just because you're an elected official doesn't mean you can automatically "reign" over your constituency, firearms are prevention against a gov't becoming tyrannical. An armed citizenry is a dictator's worst nightmare.
That's a particularly retarded non sequitur.
I'm just saying that half of you already seem to think you have a tyrant. I don't see that changing if Hillary or Bernie wins. The other half will think you have a tyrant if Trump gets in.
Originally Posted by besson3c
The second amendment was probably not about protecting Americans from the American government, it was probably about Americans defending from foreign invaders, and even if you disagree with this surely the founding fathers had no concept of spending this amount of money on technology that exists today, and even if you disagree with this your guns are no match for the military power of the government anyway.
This is just one of the oft-repeated arguments nicely summarized below. The bottom line is that people like you just like having guns.
Originally Posted by Snow-i
The military would lose to the citizenry pretty quickly, even with the far fetched assumption that elements of the military would join the citizens.
I think you've hit a crucial nail on the head here. A lot of your military personnel seem to have a much better developed idea about the true meaning and cost of freedom than a lot of your citizens do.
I can't see a scenario where the military would unanimously engage in tyrannical activity under anyone, politician or general against their own population.
Originally Posted by Snow-i
No, the bottom line is the 2nd amendment is crucial to the survival and prosperity of our nation. That's why they put it second only to freedom of speech & religion.
Thats a tricky one to back up since you've never had a need to make use of it yet. It was clearly a hot button issue at the time. Nowadays not so much.
Originally Posted by Chongo
Just for the record, it was Franklin Roosevelt (D) that rounded up Japanese, German , and Italian citizens and placed them in camps during WWII.
I don't see how thats relevant to anything I said. For the record though, I like cheese.
Originally Posted by Paco500
While one obviously can't prove a negative, this is so far beyond believable that it falls squarely into the 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof' category. I am an American who has been living in the UK for 10 years. I have been around guns in the UK substantially more than I ever was in the states thanks to 'country pursuits' - beating on pheasant shoots, having a son that competes or has competed with air pistols, air rifles, and clay pigeon shooting, and being friends with lots of farmers. Never ONCE have I been proactively offered a gun, legal or otherwise, or spoken to anyone who has. I've also managed to spend a good bit of time in Scotland- even the mean streets of Glasgow- without having been offered a gun.
The 'details' of your claim also make me question your veracity. Within an hour of landing at Heathrow? A genuine frequent, non-EU traveller to the UK would know that to get through immigration within an hour of landing is a minor miracle. Randomly happening upon an illegal firearms dealer in one of the most policed zones in Europe moments later? Really? Also, you originally asserted
And now you own a house here? How did you manage to buy and, I assume, visit a property without meeting anyone? Just doesn't seem credible.
Your view of gun crime in the UK seems to come more from Guy Ritchie films than experience or reality. Let me quote some statistics:
Common sense and a passing relationship with reality would lead one to believe you created specious fiction because it fit your world view.
Again, I can't prove you are lying, but to anyone else reading this, please know that his claim should be taken with the same large grain of salt you would need to swallow that areas of London and the entire city of Birmingham are 'no-go' zones for non-muslims.
Yeah I'm struggling with this one too.
Originally Posted by BadKosh
I too own guns. They are not my most prized possessions, or even on the list. They are just another hobby/distraction for me. Originally purchased out of curiosity. I've been to the firing range about 4 times. I've never even fired my 22 rifle. So you don't KNOW anything, but just ASSume.
I wish I had that kind of cash to waste. I'm glad you aren't obsessed though.
Originally Posted by BadKosh
Now we have a shitty house and senate who aren't doing their do diligence and a president who wants to govern with his iPhone and exec orders, and neither house or senate wants to reign him in for fear of being labeled racist by the propagandists in the main stream media.
I don't think he wants to govern that way but he wasn't given a lot of choice.
Originally Posted by Paco500
So the Brits have been 'indoctrinated' not to want guns, wouldn't buy them if they could, don't use illegal guns in crime, yet the island is awash with them. How odd. Or... maybe it's actually not? Do you have ANY evidence to support this other than your experience with a security-cleared arms dealer that accosts strangers at Heathrow arrivals to sell them guns?
I'm not sure indoctrinated is the right word. If anything we lack the indoctrination that the Americans get and it simply doesn't occur to most of us to buy guns. Certainly to me.
(
Last edited by Waragainstsleep; Dec 10, 2015 at 08:57 AM.
)
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
As I understand it, you are actually allowed to own a firearm without a license, but you must leave it in the care of someone who has one. So if anything you got it the wrong way around by declining the purchase but keeping the guns that came with the house. You are in fact breaking the law unless you have a licensed, resident staff member there.
This is true. I 'own' a shotgun for my son to use in competition, but as he never shoots without his instructor (but he often shoots without me), it made little sense for me to hold the license.
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep
I'm not sure indoctrinated is the right word. If anything we lack the indoctrination that the Americans get and it simply doesn't occur to most of us to buy guns. Certainly to me.
From my perspective, (legal) gun ownership in the UK is equivalent to other specialised sporting equipment. If you have the desire and means to shoot, recreationally or competitively, you buy a gun. But just as most people would not buy expensive skis, golf clubs, or tennis rackets without the intention of using them, in the UK, they would not buy a gun just to have it. I know a few people who are vehemently anti-gun here, but far fewer than I knew it the states. Here they are viewed as a tool rather than a sacred object.
It is curious how you accuse me of lathers, rages, ad hominems, mischaracterizations, going off-topic, erecting straw men, and possibly worst of all, being on the left, yet you've never addressed the topic at hand, providing evidence for your incredible claims. So let's break this down.
For starters, it may be instructive to define some terms, as it would seem you don't actually understand their proper use in common parlance.
You mean misrepresent the position, right? 3 times in two paragraphs, stunning.
Again and again, I have demonstrated that your assertions are extraordinary based on evidence, I have not attacked you. However, you have resorted to name calling and attacks on my character rather than addressing my points. For further clarity, if I had argued 'you are a liar therefore your claims are untrue,' that would be an ad hominem. What I have said is that 'based on evidence your claims are extraordinary.' That is very, very different from an ad hominem attack.
Again and again, you attack a person (me), and not the subject.
You accused me of erecting a straw man after I restated one of your assertions and asked if you had any evidence to support it. You are misusing this term.
You did erect a strawman, because you conflated what I'd said, distorting it, making it easier to take down. That's very dishonest behavior, similar to what OAW is frequently guilty of. Why do you do that?
I will not go back and rehash the assertions we have addressed beyond restating that they have been shown to be extraordinary based on evidence and you have provided nothing to back them up.
As for your latest assertion How is it that you see it was I or this nefarious 'left' that is taking things off topic? What new direction have I introduced? All I have done is question extraordinary claims you made in support of your arguments. We headed down no roads without you leading the way. And ironically, once you took us down this road, you have restored to unsubstantiated personal attacks on me. Reality is basically a 180 of your claim.
Because you say they're extraordinary doesn't mean they are, bud. Your perspective on what has actually happened here is... creative.
One last time, I will ask for you to point to evidence or rage or tantrum. You are the only one on our discussion that has resorted to personal attacks and name-calling. I have only addressed your arguments and accusations. So we are clear, I will provide evidence of your attacks and name-calling.
You mean other than the current passive-aggressive crying now, and still going after the individual, instead of staying on topic?
Now please don't get me wrong, these are not overly aggressive and you haven't hurt my feelings, it is just to demonstrate that you have been the only one actually engaging in the kind of behavior you accuse me of.
You realize none of that would have happened if you could avoid attempts at character assassination? Right? Now, either stay on topic, or like OAW, I'll place you ignore for being a troll, because all you're doing right now is what we commonly call "thread crapping".
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
You mean misrepresent the position, right? 3 times in two paragraphs, stunning.
Please reference where and how I did this.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
Again and again, you attack a person (me), and not the subject.
Please reference where and how I did this.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
You did erect a strawman, because you conflated what I'd said, distorting it, making it easier to take down. That's very dishonest behavior, similar to what OAW is frequently guilty of. Why do you do that?
I really don't see that I did. Show me where I and how I did this.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
Because you say they're extraordinary doesn't mean they are, bud. Your perspective on what has actually happened here is... creative.
This is the difference between your side of things and mine. I say they are extraordinary because of the evidence I have provided and you have not refuted. Your only argument thus far has been 'because I say so.' If I missed any actual evidence to refute mine, I apologise and would ask you to indulge me by pointing it out.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
You mean other than the current passive-aggressive crying now, and still going after the individual, instead of staying on topic?
Again, please demonstrate where I went after you as a person. I have only and still only refute your claims with evidence. The only topics I have discussed are ones you have introduced, either you initial unsubstantiated claims or you unsubstantiated attacks on me personally.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
You realize none of that would have happened if you could avoid attempts at character assassination? Right? Now, either stay on topic, or like OAW, I'll place you ignore for being a troll, because all you're doing right now is what we commonly call "thread crapping".
Your statement is without merit, and yet another personal attack.
Please reference where and how I did this.
Please reference where and how I did this.
You made the posts, go look for yourself.
I really don't see that I did. Show me where I and how I did this.
I know you don't see.
This is the difference between your side of things and mine. I say they are extraordinary because of the evidence I have provided and you have not refuted.
Your only argument thus far has been 'because I say so.'
Ironic, because that's what you're doing now. You believe gun crime statistics are the same as gun availability, which isn't the same at all.
Again, please demonstrate where I went after you as a person. I have only and still only refute your claims with evidence.
That's what they call in parlance "horseshit".
Example:
My mistake, when you said you knew 'no one,' I didn't realise you meant 'no one but the broker and all the Sottish sweethearts.'
I didn't know anyone. I met the broker at the airport, when he picked me up, and I've come to know my Scottish neighbors since. This is common sense, especially when someone says they "didn't know anyone". However, you chose not to follow logic and instead started acting like an ass.
The only topics I have discussed are ones you have introduced, either you initial unsubstantiated claims or you unsubstantiated attacks on me personally.
Your statement is without merit, and yet another personal attack.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
A 24-year-old activist and former Kean University student has been charged with tweeting threats to black students, faculty and staff at the New Jersey school two weeks ago, prosecutors said.
Authorities said Kayla-Simone McKelvey posted the threats using a campus computer the night she attended a rally protesting racial intolerance on college campuses.
"We are saddened to learn that the person allegedly responsible was an active participant in the rally," Kean University President Dawood Farahi said.
Several anonymous messages posted to Twitter during the Nov. 17 rally threatened to "shoot every black woman and male" at the college.
Surprised? Not even a little bit, the BLM/SJW crowd will pull any trick to get attention. Remember their motto: "The are no bad tactics, only bad targets."
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
The most honest post you've made in all of 2015, I'd wager. Still not going to address where I've mentioned having a house there, I'm shocked.
That's because there's nothing to address. The entire point is that you often make claims that a lot of people around here ... certainly not just me ... eventually begin to question.
I suppose people are just supposed to be OK with this. "Free speech" and all that. The Citadel Minority Alumni association must just be "whining" when they called it out ....
Ghosts of Christmas past? More like specters from the South's racist past.
More than a dozen cadets at The Citadel, The Military College of South Carolina, were in hot water Thursday after photos were posted online of them looking like Ku Klux Klansmen.
"Preliminary reports are cadets were singing Christmas carols as part of a 'Ghosts of Christmas Past' skit," the school's president, retired Lt. Gen. John W. Rosa, said in a statement. "These images are not consistent with our core values of honor, duty and respect."
The students involved were not immediately identified.
Calling it "offensive and disturbing," Rosa said they immediately suspended "those cadets known to be involved" and were going after the others who were photographed dressed all in white — and with white pillowcases covering their heads that looked like KKK hoods.
On the Citadel Alumni Association's Facebook page, there was both anger and embarrassment over the photos.
"The stupid and utterly unacceptable and deeply offensive actions of a few, should not sully a whole college," one member posted on the site. "Shame on those who did this and thankyou (sic) to the college leadership in acting so quickly."
But that sentiment was not unanimous.
"The Citadel is buckling like cowards," another posted.
On the Citadel Minority-Alumni page, the consensus was clearer.
"Why would anyone think that this is ok?" one post read. "Will the administration at The Citadel let this go? This picture is a disgrace and a slap in the face. Who are the cadets in this picture and who is their cadet leadership? We're watching to see how this all plays out..."
Hope that helps!
Different cultures react differently to various situations; just because something "works" there, doesn't mean it will work here. In fact, our studies show otherwise, more gun control leads to more gun violence. 
Top