i will leave form, grammer, insults and other trivial matters to you as you have a special talent for such things; and instead worry over substance rather than form. Speaking of such, I have had enough of trivial matters and shall now log out for the day. Have fun you'llQuote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
I am honestly not trying to insult you on this point; rather, to make you realise the problem I and, it seems, other more internationally-minded individuals here have with your views on other countries. This is very definitely a matter of substance, in that such errors make us doubt your depth of knowledge of nations other than the USA.Quote:
Originally Posted by markabilly
You don't need to. Cromwell did in 1642. Then after the restoration there was a thing called the "Glorious Revolution" as a result of which the Bill of Rights Act in 1689 was passed, limiting the power of the monarch and granting rule to the monarch only with the express consent of the parliament.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Then again markabilly doesn't appear to know this aspect of history.
I absoultely believe in the rule of law, and I abide by it, however a significant portion of society does not. Law in and of itself does not protect me, nor does it deter many.
Are you irrational for not choosing to use a firearm to protect yourself? Not at all, however that is YOUR choice, not mine. You can sit back and rely on the police to respond to your call for assistance after the fact. You admit, you have not lived anywhere where YOU felt the need to arm yourself. I have, and that was NOT irrational. The fact is, criminals have guns in this country and that will not change. I will therfore continue defend myself against that reality as I am allowed and fight for the right to do so where it is currently restricted. I do not accept that I should sit back and allow that to occur and merely rely on police to react to an event after it has happened.
I'll be clear here, I am not a proponent of totally unregulated gun ownership,
The discussion is about the right and freedom to do so if one should so choose. There are many places in this country where that need to protect ones self IS a distinct reality, as unfortunate as that may be. There are many places where break-ins, physical assult, etc, is an every day occurence.
There are also many places in this country where the ability of law enforcement to provide "protection" from those that do not choose to abide by the law is not immediate or timely. In general, we are not a "police state". In many jurisdictions, the extent and presence of law enforcement is deliberately minimal BECAUSE there is an expectation and or a desire of the populace to provide a level of self-protection. MANY people abhorr such a government presence, and hold little faith in the governments' ability to provide that protection in the first place. Personally, I tend to fall in the middle.
It is not. PERIOD. I live here, you do not. I see what happens where people cannot defend themselves in this country. They frequently die. It is fact. Within walking distance of the US capitol, not the wilderness of Alaska.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
I have two close relatives that were car-jacked at gunpoint by A repeat violent offender in Houston. Their assalant IS dead. My family members are not. They defended themselves with a legally carried firearm. The LAW did not defend them. AM I biased? You're effin right I AM and in this country I have a RIGHT to be, just as I have a RIGHT to defend myself.
This is all symptomatic, surely, of a much wider malaise. Still, gun crime exists in both my home country, the UK, and the country where I currently live, and still I would consider it an over-reaction to possess a gun.Quote:
Originally Posted by nigelred5
I do not.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Again, this tells me there are wider societal problems at play, and I consider it genuinely sad that you feel this way — not, absolutely not, because one would wish to live in a police state, but because if you really feel the need to be armed, this is something to worry about, not to celebrate as a demonstration of 'freedom' as many seem to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by nigelred5
Yes, though frankly this doesn't concern me for one moment, because the possibility of a situation arising where being armed would be an advantage is statistically extremely remote, and given that it's a risk I'm prepared to run.Quote:
Originally Posted by nigelred5
And I would never be prepared to live somewhere where those means were replaced by gun-wielding civilians. Frankly, the attitudes displayed on this board tells me that those most enthusiastic about gun ownership (and I don't, yet, include you in this category) are the sort of individuals I would least like to mete out justice as they saw fit.Quote:
Originally Posted by nigelred5
In general, neither are those nations in which gun ownership is not permitted in this way police states. Do you consider them — the UK, France, Germany, etc — to be? I do hope you won't say 'yes' based purely on the fact that we don't have widespread gun ownership. I think what we do in Europe is have a healthy disregard for the authorities at the same time as having a stronger disregard for the notion of gun-wielding civilians dispensing justice as they see fit.Quote:
Originally Posted by nigelred5
So you believe we would all be better off being armed in Europe?Quote:
Originally Posted by nigelred5
That's where we differ. I feel it's my RIGHT that the government protects me and provides me with a safety net if things go bad and I will continue to do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by nigelred5