Battlezone Forums

AHadley wrote:

Red Devil wrote:the underlying theme in all of this is that it's okay for the police to shoot you whenever they like, but it's not okay to protect your home and family.

The underlying theme from my perspective being that it's not OK to own a gun without first jumping through a ridiculous number of very small hoops. Violent crime is much lower in the United Kingdom than it is in the States, and our gun laws are one of the major reasons. In this country, even former or inactive members of the military do not necessarily have their own firearms, let alone personal assault rifles.

that is what sheeple typically say, which leaves you at the mercy of criminals with guns, who care nothing of gun laws, and the government. the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution was specifically added to protect us from government becoming to oppressive. gun ownership is insurance.

Exactly. Suppose a guy comes along with an illegally got gun, and you find yourself with no means of defending yourself or your family. I suppose you'll just trust in the government for that as well.

The 2nd amendment is a guarantee of personal sovereignty, effective against both criminals and tyrants.

Clavin12 wrote:I suppose you'll just trust in the government for that as well.

Most countries don't have any other choice. We do, for now.

Yes, and I suggest we keep it, rather than give it up in the name of safety.

in fact, the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights effectively established the sovereignty of individuals *over* the government.

over time, that sovereignty has slowly been eroded by an increasingly bloated and power-hungry central government in the form of 'executive orders', legislation, and bureaucratic regulations.

time to hit the reset button.

Red Devil wrote:that is what sheeple typically say, which leaves you at the mercy of criminals with guns, who care nothing of gun laws, and the government. the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution was specifically added to protect us from government becoming to oppressive. gun ownership is insurance.

That doesn't make sense. Gun crime is higher in the US.

Perhaps, but we retain our liberty, and our ability to defend ourselves. In any case there are a thousand other variables that could potentially be the cause of increased gun crime.

Having allot of guns being the main one.
But whatever, there is nothing the US can do about that now so there is little point in discussing it, and for us to suddenly change to a gun owning culture would be madness, we don't have an unwelcome indigenous population that needed slaughtering or any viable threats from abroad that guns would be a solution to at the moment. For us it could only be a disaster and the US really no longer has a choice.

Clavin12 wrote:Perhaps, but we retain our liberty, and our ability to defend ourselves. In any case there are a thousand other variables that could potentially be the cause of increased gun crime.

You act like other countries don't have liberty.

Some don't, I'm sure.

Here's the thing. A perfectly honest and good man has a right to own a gun in order to defend himself and his property if need be.

EDIT: More broadly, he has a right to defend himself and his family and property, and as such the tools to do so should not be taken away from him.

Not quite what I meant.

The way you worded that, it sounded like you believe that AHadley and MTS don't come to the same conclusion as you because they do not experience "liberty."

And yes, while people would still go to illegal means to get guns if we didn't have "The right to keep and bare arms" (Not the entirety of the amendment, but that's all people pay attention to), there wouldn't be as many weapons in circulation if we had firearms control laws as strict as those in the UK.

VSMIT wrote:Not quite what I meant.

The way you worded that, it sounded like you believe that AHadley and MTS don't come to the same conclusion as you because they do not experience "liberty."

And yes, while people would still go to illegal means to get guns if we didn't have "The right to keep and bare arms" (Not the entirety of the amendment, but that's all people pay attention to), there wouldn't be as many weapons in circulation if we had firearms control laws as strict as those in the UK.

All right then. But remember that the reason it was put in the constitution was not just protection against criminals, but the government as well.

split this off from Zeno's topic

Clavin12 wrote:

VSMIT wrote:Not quite what I meant.

The way you worded that, it sounded like you believe that AHadley and MTS don't come to the same conclusion as you because they do not experience "liberty."

And yes, while people would still go to illegal means to get guns if we didn't have "The right to keep and bare arms" (Not the entirety of the amendment, but that's all people pay attention to), there wouldn't be as many weapons in circulation if we had firearms control laws as strict as those in the UK.

All right then. But remember that the reason it was put in the constitution was not just protection against criminals, but the government as well.

No weapon you can buy will protect you from the government.

tell that to Cornwallis :-p

we are rapidly careening towards a one-world economy/currency, government, and probably even religion.

good luck