• Democrats to pursue assault weapons ban, as Sandy Hook Elementary 'unlikely to re-open'
    232 replies, posted
Why are they freaking out about assault weapons when HE USED A PISTOL! Jesus Christ
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38856028]Not nationalistic dick-waving. Britain was one of the freest places in Europe at the time (and gave a considerable degree of autonomy to the colonies).[/QUOTE] I don't think we should stray from the main topic of this thread, but it seems like you have not read up on the history as to why the American colonies wanted to secede. Hint: The lack of any real representation in Government back in London; (The representative for the colonies had never lived a day in the Americas) as well as the ridiculous taxes imposed from a nation thousands of miles away that had little to no concern on the individuals there rather the expansion of the empire for King and country.
[QUOTE=Bredirish123;38856101]The lack of any real representation in Government back in London; (The representative for the colonies had never lived a day in the Americas)[/QUOTE] Neither did all the growing industrial cities, plus a lot of power was already devolved to the American colonies. [QUOTE=Bredirish123;38856101]as well as the ridiculous taxes imposed from a nation thousands of miles away that had little to no concern on the individuals there rather the expansion of the empire for King and country.[/QUOTE] The taxes were minuscule compared to what the British citizen paid, the king held no power, expansion of the empire was not a priority, and they gave enough concern to the people that they actually gave them their own assemblies and representation in those assemblies that held considerable power.
-snip- hoax
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;38856041]Honestly, that's all in place still. An assault weapon is a meaningless term that media and lawmakers made up. There's no way to disarm america. America has so many guns prevalent through it's culture, but there's a huge amount of guns already distrubuted throughout the country. These can't be taken away feasibly or without great difficulty that would not be worth the effort. These guns and people who own them can also not be made to go through background checks feasibly(This is what we really need to do though, thorough and complete checks as well as mandatory safety training and what not). And not that even taking the guns away or banning them would help. The high availabilty of guns is the problem but it's not one you can actively deal with that simply. Laws that require guns to be kept locked under bolt and key are good laws, and we need to start treading down this path. We need to start educating people en masse about the dangers of guns and the responsibility that you must carry out when owning one. Sadly though, this will not stop all the shootings or killings because the other problems are the media, and the people who do this themselves primarily.[/QUOTE] A backround check and a couple of days of waiting time is not much of a restriction. It does not matter if there already are alot of weapons. The "density" of guns in society would decrease over a large period of time if there were more restrictions. Gun hobbyist would still be able to get guns, but they would instead have to dedicate time to prove that they are good gun owners. The media rewards the killers and themselves by attracting viewers who can later watch commercials after the news. It is the viewer who have the power to choose if they want to support the channel they are watching. that is easier said than done, so the only logical solution is to not directly limit guns. But instead make sure that guns only finds its way to responsible gun owners and not maniacs.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38852869]the vietnamese were supported by the soviets and chinese in a tiny country with terrain unsuited for the american army[/QUOTE] Yeah, because they totally didn't use guerrilla tactics that defeated what we had on the table, right? They totally didn't do the same thing to us that we did to Britian in 1776, aye? Don't be daft. We lost Vietnam because of piss-poor leadership and tactics that even General Custer wold have laughed at. [QUOTE=Fort83;38852879]Why would citizens need assault weapons in the first place? Hunting rifles and handguns are one thing but there really isn't any real need to own an AK-47[/QUOTE] The only reason I need to own an AK47 is because I like them. That's it. There's no other reason for it. I want to own one, I know how to safely handle and store one, therefore there's no reason I shouldn't have one. No, seriously, I like the AK. It's a beautiful piece of machinery, well designed and incredibly durable. I'd never point it at another person, but I'd enjoy owning one just the same, and I'd spend a lot of time and money at the gun range with it.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38856176]Neither did all the growing industrial cities, plus a lot of power was already devolved to the American colonies. The taxes were minuscule compared to what the British citizen paid, the king held no power, expansion of the empire was not a priority, and they gave enough concern to the people that they actually gave them their own assemblies and representation in those assemblies that held considerable power.[/QUOTE] yeah okay. go get a history book on america completely read it in and out then argue.
[QUOTE=Zarjk;38857001]yeah okay. go get a history book on america completely read it in and out then argue.[/QUOTE] I have. Give me an argument for each of those points as to why I am wrong.
Guys, guys. Can we agree that mental health is a serious issue and a big part of what went down? Sorry for the change in subject, but I think this is the best way to help [url]https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/make-mental-health-national-emergency/DLwvxxzJ[/url]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38857023]I have. Give me an argument for each of those points as to why I am wrong.[/QUOTE] If you studied it correctly, we had very high taxes to pay for the UK's wars.
What a brilliant idea, if this passes we can charge a criminal with murder [b]and[/b] illegal possession of a firearm!
We should also get all drugs off the street, that will work. oh...
[QUOTE=UnidentifiedFlyingTard;38857150]We should also get all drugs off the street, that will work. oh...[/QUOTE] Yeah we should do nothing, and give up on fighting crime too. Let's just stop doing anything good and everything will work out just fine. oh..
[QUOTE=Zarjk;38857090]If you studied it correctly, we had very high taxes to pay for the UK's wars.[/QUOTE] No? [url]http://eh.net/book_reviews/taxation-colonial-america[/url] [quote]Regardless of variations in tax methods and wartime tax levels, colonial tax burdens were typically a very small fraction of what English taxpayers endured. The early tax incentives given to bolster colonial growth conditioned Americans to expect low levels of taxation. The burden of empire rested lightly on Americans. Parliament’s efforts to increase colonial contributions were fiercely resisted. Though taxes were raised during the French and Indian War, British grants buffered Americans from the costly war to ensure colonial support.[/quote] In one regard, keeping the colonies was actually a loss for Britain because they had been practically subsidized. [url]http://history.state.gov/milestones/1750-1775/ParliamentaryTaxation[/url] [quote]In 1763, the British government emerged from the Seven Years' War burdened by heavy debts. This led British Prime Minister George Grenville to reduce duties on sugar and molasses but also to enforce the law more strictly. Since enforcement of these duties had previously been lax, this ultimately increased revenue for the British Government and served to increase the taxes paid by the colonists. The colonial governments of New York and Massachusetts sent formal letters of protest to Parliament.[/quote] Beforehand, America was left very much to its own devices. It only seemed fair that the Empire wanted some income to balance the books (and therefore be able to keep protecting the colonies). There's also the fact they were repealed when it turned out these laws were unpopular. The Boston tea party was done by a bunch of pissed off smugglers who hated that the [b]reduction[/b] in tea duties undercut them.
[QUOTE=CasualJoe;38857192]Yeah we should do nothing, and give up on fighting crime too. Let's just stop doing anything good and everything will work out just fine. oh..[/QUOTE] Because that is totally what I meant, I totally didn't mean that outlawing things never ever works because if people want it they are still going to get it.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38856176]Neither did all the growing industrial cities, plus a lot of power was already devolved to the American colonies. The taxes were minuscule compared to what the British citizen paid, the king held no power, expansion of the empire was not a priority, and they gave enough concern to the people that they actually gave them their own assemblies and representation in those assemblies that held considerable power.[/QUOTE] But the American colonies had no direct representation in parliament. That was one of the key issues.
So they're going to continue circle-jerking about gun control, and treat the dead as statistics, instead of fallen victims, so they can take guns out of the hands of responsible owners such as myself, and leave them in the hands of malicious criminals... Fucking disgusting.
[QUOTE=Moustacheman;38857229]So they're going to continue circle-jerking about gun control, and treat the dead as statistics, instead of fallen victims, so they can take guns out of the hands of responsible owners such as myself, and leave them in the hands of malicious criminals... Fucking disgusting.[/QUOTE] how dare they discuss a controversial issue after something relevant to that issue happens im not for gun bans but to say that they're not allowed to talk about it because of a shooting is just stupid
Alright, at the same time let's take away guns from the regular police force, or at least remove the police from being able to have assault weapons. If we ban them, why would the Police need [b]military grade weapons[/b].
[QUOTE=Bobie;38857260]how dare they discuss a controversial issue after something relevant to that issue happens im not for gun bans but to say that they're not allowed to talk about it because of a shooting is just stupid[/QUOTE] Can't they just fucking wait and give the families some closure, instead of letting their children be some statistic for Pro-Gun and Anti-Gun groups to wave their dicks at each other about?
[QUOTE=Valnar;38857228]But the American colonies had no direct representation in parliament. That was one of the key issues.[/QUOTE] They had the different method. They had assemblies, whom passed a law to then be given to the governor of that particular colony. This law would then be given to the monarch to give his royal assent, thus making it law (and the monarch has never refused since the early 1700s). These colonies had a considerable degree of self rule.
[QUOTE=Moustacheman;38857285]Can't they just fucking wait and give the families some closure, instead of letting their children be some statistic for Pro-Gun and Anti-Gun groups to wave their dicks at each other about?[/QUOTE] you could argue the same thing for any social issue that is raised after a tragedy. they're not invading the houses of the victims and screaming "HEY LOOK AT US WE'RE BANNING GUNS NOW", they're using it relevantly. the biggest slap to the face of any victim is to pretend it never happened.
Implying the smugglers were not smuggling it because the prices were not so god damned high. Fucking dick waver.
I think something people fail to realize about the "let's just ban knives/hands/gasoline/the universe" retort is that a gun's primary purpose is to kill or seriously harm someone or something. This isn't a case of banning everything that potentially causes death if used in the right way, this is a case of banning something that is designed to cause death. I'm not saying they should all be banned, I'm just pointing this out.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38857334]They had the different method. They had assemblies, whom passed a law to then be given to the governor of that particular colony. This law would then be given to the monarch to give his royal assent, thus making it law (and the monarch has never refused since the early 1700s). These colonies had a considerable degree of self rule.[/QUOTE] Also the governors were all corrupt, they didn't care. for fucks sake you have no idea of american history, it's all from British sites. there's bias still today.
[QUOTE=Zarjk;38857512]Also the governors were all corrupt, they didn't care. for fucks sake you have no idea of american history, it's all from British sites. there's bias still today.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Zarjk;38857498]Implying the smugglers were not smuggling it because the prices were not so god damned high. Fucking dick waver.[/QUOTE] Fine, I will get wikipedia then. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Act[/url] [quote]In the 1760s and early 1770s, the East India Company had been required to sell its tea exclusively in London on which it paid a duty which averaged two shillings and six pence per pound. Tea destined for the North American colonies would be purchased by merchants specialising in that trade, who transported it to North America for eventual retail sale.[/quote] I.e the British East India company paid a lot of money in taxes, which artificially raised the price of tea. In turn, American retailers took advantage by importing cheap Dutch tea (classified as smuggling) for a handsome profit. Now what did this act do? [quote]The Act, which received the royal assent on May 10, 1773, contained the following provisions: The Company was eligible to be granted licence to export tea to North America The Company was no longer required to sell its tea at auction in London Duties on tea (charged in Britain) destined for North America "and foreign parts" would either be refunded on export or not imposed Consignees receiving the Company's tea were required to pay a deposit upon receipt of tea.[/quote] In other words, they actually increased freedom and reduced state interference in the free market. The company proceeded to export tea to America, undercutting the Dutch tea. The price of tea in the Americas declined, harming American merchants and Dutch merchants whilst giving people in the colonies cheaper tea for a fairer price. (smuggling is risky) The result? The smugglers are pissed off that simple economics outwitted them, and proceeded to protest by dumping tea in the harbour.
atleast you know how to use a site that has people shifting through and edits are made daily. jesus fuck i'm done, i dont see why the fucking hell we need to argue about this. have a nice life, enjoy a block. [editline]16th December 2012[/editline] ps your weird
[QUOTE=Zarjk;38857695]atleast you know how to use a site that has people shifting through and edits are made daily. jesus fuck i'm done, i dont see why the fucking hell we need to argue about this. have a nice life, enjoy a block. [editline]16th December 2012[/editline] ps your weird[/QUOTE] Well ok. I hoped you liked being proved wrong I guess. Like, you kinda needed to provide a source for why X is bad. Or even have a basic grasp of economic history. The American War of Independence wasn't a clearcut black-white issue mate. Varying shades of grey, with some dark ones actually existing on the American side. Cya then?
dont call me mate, you fucking creep
[QUOTE=Zarjk;38857695]atleast you know how to use a site that has people shifting through and edits are made daily. jesus fuck i'm done, i dont see why the fucking hell we need to argue about this. have a nice life, enjoy a block. [editline]16th December 2012[/editline] ps your weird[/QUOTE] you could have just said "I was wrong, sorry" and retained your dignity
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.