|
Best Porn Sites | Live Sex | Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Mark Forums Read |
Politics, Current Affairs, Religion Threads Post here for all Politics, Current Affairs, Religion Threads |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
April 22nd, 2014, 01:49 PM | #2251 | |||
_________________________
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,945
Thanks: 38,284
Thanked 234,983 Times in 3,599 Posts
|
Quote:
Quote:
It wasn't until the twentieth century that the first law regulating the use of firearms was passed by Parliament. This was long after the aristocracy had any power in the UK: Quote:
. |
|||
April 22nd, 2014, 05:48 PM | #2252 | |
Vintage Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,736
Thanks: 144
Thanked 14,338 Times in 1,702 Posts
|
Quote:
The formation of a regular army and reserves and a police force removes the requirement and even desirability of having an armed citizenry. Gun crime never was a major problem but the numbers of servicemen bringing back souvenirs from WW1 possibly brought about more restrictions. Since then guns have been more and more closely controlled and by and large the people have felt it to be a good thing that they have. |
|
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to knobby109 For This Useful Post: |
April 23rd, 2014, 02:54 AM | #2253 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,044
Thanks: 24,638
Thanked 34,288 Times in 4,008 Posts
|
|
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to 9876543210 For This Useful Post: |
April 25th, 2014, 12:20 AM | #2254 |
Super Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Santee, Ca
Posts: 60,813
Thanks: 281,805
Thanked 813,742 Times in 60,857 Posts
|
Here is my nickel. America is one of very few countries that were founded in the 1700-early 1800's. Europe and Asia were pretty much defined by this time. They were carved out with sword, spear, and bow and arrow. Fire arms played a major role in the founding of America. Most men (women were unfortunately suborned) had at least some experience with firearms. Either from hunting or some shooting sport. As they expanded westward guns played an even more pronounced role. They were a tool used by farmers and huntsmen. The rifle provided both a way to put meat on the table and as protection if needed. As time passed and more lethal weapons were invented the US civilians still generally used them for defense and food. Then came the so called "Wild West" era. Here you had the glorified time of the so called gunfighter and cowboy. Cowboys carried their short guns as a tool for snakes, run away horses they might have to shoot if their boot got caught in a stirrup,etc. The gunfighter mystic is not true. Most gunfights took place within ten feet. The high noon scenario has never been documented to have happened. The use of guns were glorified and exploited by the Eastern writers. They made some men out to be a lot more than they were. Hickcock, Earp, Buffalo Bill, even Annie Oakley. All this history has led to our so called gun culture.
I own guns and support the Second Amendment. I also support enforcing our existing laws. I support background checks for any sales transaction and I support reporting those who are deemed unstable by professionals. Now days the gang bangers and other outlaws do a lot of the shooting here. Most, but not always, they are using illegal weapons. My personal opinion is that the U.S. does not need to disarm it's citizenry but enforce existing laws. Newton was a tragedy that MIGHT have been prevented if the shooter had been properly reported to the authorities. I don't think there is any cut and dried answer to this discussion but I think both sides need to realistically discuss it. Right now both sides do not want to give an inch. If the gun rights side concedes anything they are afraid the anti gunners will just press for more and more. It is the same for the anti crowd. If they give up anything then they are afraid they will lose ground. Last edited by SanteeFats; April 25th, 2014 at 12:30 AM.. |
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to SanteeFats For This Useful Post: |
April 25th, 2014, 12:34 AM | #2255 |
Super Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Santee, Ca
Posts: 60,813
Thanks: 281,805
Thanked 813,742 Times in 60,857 Posts
|
From Jumbo Prawns: Whats wrong with some responsibility when it comes to the second amendment?[/QUOTE]
Both sides are afraid to give. If the gunners do they are afraid the anti's will push for more. The anti's are afraid to give any thing to the gunners for the same reason |
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to SanteeFats For This Useful Post: |
April 29th, 2014, 01:27 AM | #2256 | |
Super Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Santee, Ca
Posts: 60,813
Thanks: 281,805
Thanked 813,742 Times in 60,857 Posts
|
Quote:
|
|
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to SanteeFats For This Useful Post: |
April 29th, 2014, 10:03 AM | #2257 | |
Vintage Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 597
Thanks: 1,896
Thanked 5,570 Times in 591 Posts
|
Quote:
|
|
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to dethtongue For This Useful Post: |
April 29th, 2014, 02:52 PM | #2258 |
Super Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Santee, Ca
Posts: 60,813
Thanks: 281,805
Thanked 813,742 Times in 60,857 Posts
|
I must disagree. For many decades if not centuries guns were so expensive that only the rich could afford to own one or of course a militant order or nation. After all you wouldn't want an armed peasantry in the oppressive societies of Europe or Asia would you? Guns only became available to the general populace about 300 years or so ago. Which coincided with the rediscovery of the America's. Even then they were extremely expensive but purchased as a necessary tool. I think this was more so in North America as the US and Canada expanded westward and almost everyone (at least the males) felt they must have one for hunting and protection.
|
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to SanteeFats For This Useful Post: |
April 30th, 2014, 05:51 AM | #2259 | |
Vintage Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 597
Thanks: 1,896
Thanked 5,570 Times in 591 Posts
|
Quote:
The Europe of 300 years ago was not the medieval era and didn't have peasants per se. While they might have been more exploited than we in the modern era consider reasonable people coming to America were not usually leaving economic persecution but religious persecution, and arguably the working poor in America were just as oppressed here as we like to paint the Europeans as. We had our own migration and exodus we like to call the Westward expansion for exactly that reason. A gun in that scenario was a tool for the frontier and not for overthrowing "the man". As for the expense of a firearm it would be a relatively sophisticated piece of equipment, but no more so than quite a few farm or homestead implements common to the time and necessary for survival on a farm or frontier area. Most poor people could and would purchase one because it would be a necessary tool. In short a firearm would be a useful thing in a country without infrastructure and communications or immediate government authority. It is a luxury and ego gratifying item in places that have those things. Myself I cant think of a better way of gratifying someone's ego than by proclaiming that by purchasing yet another $500.00 Chinese AK knockoff you are defending Lady Liberty herself. The NRA likes to promote the idea that firearms make us free, and special, and unique. IDEAS make people free, and special, and unique. Sometimes a firearm is needed to purchase or protect that freedom but simply having a firearm is no guarantee that you are free or defending freedom. Just as many armed colonists fought for the British as against them during the American Revolution. Both sides during the Civil War had ready access to guns. One of those sides was most definitely not supporting freedom. Pretty much every terrorist organization on the planet has plenty of brave, heavily armed people, but they are usually not defending freedom...except when they think they are. Sometimes having a gun saves lives. I do not dispute that, but what needs to be examined is how many are taken needlessly and pointlessly relative to how many they save and weigh the two on a scale. When society sees flaws detrimental to the wellbeing of society we try to take steps to correct it for the betterment of all. That is why cars now have seatbelts- despite all the resistance to it initially. That is why we have campaigned against drunken driving- which has lead to a noticeable impact in related deaths, That is why we put surgeons warnings on cigarettes, why we have easy to access fire escapes in buildings, why companies cant dump toxic shit into your drinking water (Except apparently in W. Virginia.) Why your food cant have rat turds in it as one of the ingredients, why airlines cant just embark passengers with two broken engines, etc. etc. Everything but this one issue is subject to rational scrutiny. We can look to Europe for a pretty stark lesson in why our gun laws might be a bit flawed when adding up yearly death relative to population. I would submit each and every country in Europe has its peculiarities and flaws, old shames and the whatnot but they are no less free overall than we like to pretend we are. In many ways they are starting to bypass us on that score even pretty dramatically. The NRA isn't defending freedom. They are defending their preferred way of life, and a notion of American history that they would like to pretend it was. I'm actually trying to be a bit optimistic with that assessment. A cynic or nihilist would simply say the NRA is trying to protect the bottom line of gun manufacturers. Guns in this country are a multi billion dollar industry. Name to me one multi-billion dollar industry in America that doesn't have a powerful lobbying agent behind it...like the NRA, and certainly few that have been active for so long. Like I said: Blomburg has a lot of catching up to do. Last edited by dethtongue; April 30th, 2014 at 06:18 AM.. |
|
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to dethtongue For This Useful Post: |
May 4th, 2014, 10:24 PM | #2260 |
Super Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Santee, Ca
Posts: 60,813
Thanks: 281,805
Thanked 813,742 Times in 60,857 Posts
|
That may be true but what was the cost of a weapon compared to the median income of the time? I think you will find that only rich could realistically afford any kind of firearm.
|
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to SanteeFats For This Useful Post: |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|