Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Lord Umbarger

Obamas New Attack On 2nd Ammendment

445 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Lord Umbarger

How many times have we all been told by the far Left that Obama wasn't anti-gun and would never be a threat to the Constitiutional right of American citizens to self defence? How many times have we heard from the Right that he is a far Left wing looney that would make every effort, honest and other wise, to rid Americans of firearms?

Well, sorry Lefites! Looks like the Right wingers were right again! Here is a video of him babbling about how he wants the Congress to ratify a new treaty that would take our rights and even set up a registry that other countries would share and could use to prosecute U.S. citizens!

There are 197 countries on the Earth and Obama want's to do this because 29 of them think it's a good idea. Sheesh! Well, we were stupid enough to elect the joke even after he claimed that small town Americans clung to G-d and guns out of fear and ignorance. Well, teh fear seems to have been justified adn the ignorance seems to have been on the part of the ones that were silly enough to elect him!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES

What are the odds that the only ones with guns who will be regulated are the good citizens and not the criminals?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76
What are the odds that the only ones with guns who will be regulated are the good citizens and not the criminals?

Id say about 100%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SRCivic98

the odds of the people with guns being regulated is 100% or either that, with things going the way they are, the people with guns and believing in true freedom and a right to bear arms and anything else that this new administration believes then we'll be considered the bad guys or rebels. Mainly because people, like me and many others, will end up fighting back against them and trying to keep our freedom the way it's meant to. The veterans are getting pounded more too because many of them are now on a terrorist watch list or have weapons. but I'm trained for battle and I'm ready but this isn't how freedom needs to be won, but sometimes the only way around the mine field is to go through it. get ready to say good bye to democracy and hello communisim. The battle has begun and is soon to reveal it's self.

All warfare is based on deception - Sun Tzu

Cry Havoc and unleash the dogs of war - Julius Cezar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
conspiracybeliever

That will never happen. If anything could make people in this country get off their asses and do something, take a stand, it's their right to bear arms. We'd really have war in the streets then. Yes we'd sit by and watch them rape and murder our neighbor and their child, but take away their guns...it's not going to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Umbarger

I don't know that we would see a lot of folks getting together and standing up to fight all at once or anything but, I could see an issue where the government would be going door to door and taking on people one at a time like thousands of little Wacos. I know that I probably wouldn't be of any use in an all out armed conflict but, if someone tries to come to my house and take what I have, there will be shots fired. Gov or not. I'm just an *** like that.

The real issue for Obama is does he want to pass a law that will put him at gun firing odds with roughly a third of the U.S. citizens? I figure that it would be about that number who would actually buck the "no guns law". There are far moer than own guns but, I'm guessing that about one third would refuse to bow down. That would make it a little over 100,000,000 armed Americans with all kinds of oddball and non-uniformed training that they would have to deal with. Of course, if there is anyone that would go so far out of the way to destroy the US, it would have to be Obama. No one else would be so hateful of the American way as he so far seems to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
conspiracybeliever

Well I think you're wrong about Obama. Why would he try to destroy America? He's in charge. At this point wouldn't it be like trying to destroy a company when you're the CEO? What would be his motive? And how many times have we heard this from government officials through the history of this country. I don't think that's his plan. It's just not going to happen...ever!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo
How many times have we all been told by the far Left that Obama wasn't anti-gun and would never be a threat to the Constitiutional right of American citizens to self defence? How many times have we heard from the Right that he is a far Left wing looney that would make every effort, honest and other wise, to rid Americans of firearms?

Well, sorry Lefites! Looks like the Right wingers were right again! Here is a video of him babbling about how he wants the Congress to ratify a new treaty that would take our rights and even set up a registry that other countries would share and could use to prosecute U.S. citizens!

There are 197 countries on the Earth and Obama want's to do this because 29 of them think it's a good idea. Sheesh! Well, we were stupid enough to elect the joke even after he claimed that small town Americans clung to G-d and guns out of fear and ignorance. Well, teh fear seems to have been justified adn the ignorance seems to have been on the part of the ones that were silly enough to elect him!

Or maybe it's just time for the American Right to grow up?

No-one said having principles for peace were easy, Lord U, and maybe such a move as regulating gun ownership will focus the American public on the real threat - criminals - rather than whining about their Government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AROCES
Well I think you're wrong about Obama. Why would he try to destroy America? He's in charge. At this point wouldn't it be like trying to destroy a company when you're the CEO? What would be his motive? And how many times have we heard this from government officials through the history of this country. I don't think that's his plan. It's just not going to happen...ever!

True, Obama does not want to destroy America. He just wants America to be a socialist country, taking away it's greatness and instead a country that appease to expectations of other countries including those who does not agree with our way of life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76
Or maybe it's just time for the American Right to grow up?

Just remember who you backed when they take something you hold as a freedom.

No-one said having principles for peace were easy, Lord U, and maybe such a move as regulating gun ownership will focus the American public on the real threat - criminals - rather than whining about their Government.

Who is at war??? War is being waged on gun owners, who will no longer be able to protect themselfs from criminals. Yea, thanks for nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo
Just remember who you backed when they take something you hold as a freedom.

Who is at war??? War is being waged on gun owners, who will no longer be able to protect themselfs from criminals. Yea, thanks for nothing.

It so happens I am older than 5 years old. The spectre of the boogeyman no longer frightens me.

As for freedom, tell me what is free about the circle of violence unregulated gun-ownership spawns? I hear a lot of puerile arguments like "But the criminals have guns, why shouldn't we?" But we should be beyond such school-yardish sulks.

It is not freedom to have to have a gun to protect yourself, it is freedom to be able to walk through any city without having to carry a gun, to not have to have a gun in your house in case a violent intruder should break-in.

The American pro-gun lobby are fighting the wrong war. The war you should be fighting is on those who own guns for criminal purpose, not a war for the right for everyone to own a gun.

As I said, it is not easy living a life with principles of peace and freedom. The American pro-gun lobby simply want to take the 'easy out' rather than actually try to improve their society.

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Umbarger
No-one said having principles for peace were easy, Lord U.....
Really? Of course it should be a lot easier than it sometimes is . Of course, when the peace ovement is chock full of the peace-at-all-costs crowd, it gets pretty hard to take them seriously. Of course I am for peace but, not at the cost of giving up that which makes us uniquely American.

...and maybe such a move as regulating gun ownership will focus the American public on the real threat - criminals - rather than whining about their Government.
I don't see how taking MY guns and making ME a criminal will focus the Amreican publics attention on murderers and rapists. By the grace of G-d, I have never been arrested in my life and have even worked in law enforcement. Would I not be the kind of person that you'd want as a gun owner? In what way woudl the U.S. benefit by making me and others like me into felons? Rather than attack those of us with weapons, why not attack the bicycle riders! I mean, think about it, if you outlaw bikes then there will be less bike vs. car accidentsw which usually kill the bicyclists! It lalso means that we won't have to see those G-d aweful speedos wearing bikers in the McDonalds while we are on the way to work! LOL!

OK, that was mostly in fun but the point is pretty valid. Why attack one segment of the law abiding population? If the gun owners, why not the campers, bicyclists, scrap bookers, any other silly group? Is it that gun powners are a real and serious threat to the country? It seems to me that there are a lot of other things that are far more destructive and tasteless than me and my ilk sitting in our living rooms cleaning guns! LOL! What about those that drive cars with super loud speakers in them? Don't they bother you more than the gun nut guy next door that is minding his own business?

True, Obama does not want to destroy America.
Neither did Hitler or Stalin adn we see how well they worked out for the people.

He just wants America to be a socialist country, taking away it's greatness and instead a country that appease to expectations of other countries including those who does not agree with our way of life.
Instead of chaning the U.S. and making us more like the countries that we support, why not make them more like us so that they can support us for a while? (Marshall Plan, billions of dollars in forign aid,.....). You know, we are n't a perfect country, none are but, all things being equal, we're a lot better than any other place that I can think of and I can't think of anyone that has been to other countries for any length of time, like military personel, that want to retire out side the US. Personally, I do think that we are the best country on Earth, (Yeah, I root for the hometeam), and in my opinion, I think that it is a serious mistake tostart fiddling with the document that allowed for us to become the people that we are.

A friend of mine that I lost touch with about 15 years ago recently came back into my life the other week. Not a bad looker either! Anyway, she asked me "what is so bad about socialism?". The only thing that I could think of to tell her was: "Look how well it worked out for the Russians". The only places where socialism has worked out at all have been in the client states fo the USSR and the USA. In both cases, they were proped up for years by our two countries and they didn't have to worry about spending money on thier own defence. Hemce, they had mpore money to spend on social programs. How many of those goodie goodie programs would be in effect if not for the forign aid that we send them? How many could afford all those free health care programs if we were not footing the bill for their national defence?

Nope, talk all you want about how wonderful Obama, the General Secretary of the U.S. Soviet, is in your mind but, as for me, I can read. I know my history. I don't buy it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Unseen
*SNIP* Edited by Lilly
completely inappropriate remark removed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo
I don't see how taking MY guns and making ME a criminal will focus the Amreican publics attention on murderers and rapists. By the grace of G-d, I have never been arrested in my life and have even worked in law enforcement. Would I not be the kind of person that you'd want as a gun owner? In what way woudl the U.S. benefit by making me and others like me into felons? Rather than attack those of us with weapons, why not attack the bicycle riders! I mean, think about it, if you outlaw bikes then there will be less bike vs. car accidentsw which usually kill the bicyclists! It lalso means that we won't have to see those G-d aweful speedos wearing bikers in the McDonalds while we are on the way to work! LOL!

OK, that was mostly in fun but the point is pretty valid. Why attack one segment of the law abiding population? If the gun owners, why not the campers, bicyclists, scrap bookers, any other silly group? Is it that gun powners are a real and serious threat to the country? It seems to me that there are a lot of other things that are far more destructive and tasteless than me and my ilk sitting in our living rooms cleaning guns! LOL! What about those that drive cars with super loud speakers in them? Don't they bother you more than the gun nut guy next door that is minding his own business?

So, it's a right for each country to have its own nuclear deterrent then? A right which America should not try to deny them?

After all, all those countries can simply keep their nuclear warheads in safe storage areas, occasionally clean them etc. I mean, they only have them to deter other countries who also have nukes from using theirs, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Umbarger
So, it's a right for each country to have its own nuclear deterrent then? A right which America should not try to deny them?

After all, all those countries can simply keep their nuclear warheads in safe storage areas, occasionally clean them etc. I mean, they only have them to deter other countries who also have nukes from using theirs, right?

The sane ones, sure! I mean, the UK, France, Israel among others have had nukes for years and there have been no problems. The problems comes when you let lunatic nations like Iran have them.

When it comes to gun ownership, we limit people already. We insist that crazy folks should not be allowed to own them, folks convicted of violent crimes can't own them, people with a history of a variety of crimes are prohiobited from having fire arms. Each State has it's own laws regarding firearms ownership so, there is no way that I could give a conclusive list of the restrictions here. Personally, I have no problem with doing a decent background check. Where I do have a problem is in a registry. In a sense, that is like saying that I can have a gun but, they want to be able tosupervise me. It's also a step towards confiscation too. If they have a list of who owns whyat, it will be all that much easier to find them and take the firearms.

The left has long been working at disarming the free world. This is just another small bite of the pie. There is an old adage from Hindu history of a man asking how to eat an elephant. The answer is, one bite at a time. Mark my words, if he gets this small step, it won't be long before he want to take another one, then another one. If Americans don't stand up and say "Hands the hell off!", then, eventually, we won't have anything in the way of self defence at all.

Lord Umbarger is crazy? Did you know that some martial arts practitioners are already required to register themselves? It's true! If you are a high level in some arts such as Akito, (spelling), you have to register your self in my state as well as a number of others.

It's all about controlling the population and leaving us defenceless. They know that there will never be a day when 100% of gun owners stand up and say "no more". That isn't the plan. It's to slowly turn up the heat and the frog will allow itself to be cooked to death. In the end, it's about reducing the populations ability to resist. If they want to haul two thousand off to a camp for slave labor, it's easier to do that if there isn't twenty or thirty shooting at them. If they want to shut up someone that is reporting on "Un-American" activities, well that is easier to do if they don't get on the news for being shot at by an armed group of Patriots. If they want to open the border with Mexico, that would work out better if there aren't armed Americans down there shooting at the illegals.

Long story short, and to avoid being bogged down. If we allow them to start violating the Constitution on this, where does it end? What's to stop them from modifying some other aspect of it? Legally speaking, once there is a precedent, it might as well be law. It's refered to as the "Slippery Slope". Allowing this Yahoo obama to start tampering with the 2nd ammendment is as foolish as installing screen doors on a submarine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KRS-One
*SNIP*

*SNIP*

*Please leave the moderating to the moderators.*

Edited by Lilly
removed quote and comment

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Umbarger

Why do I feel like I just missed something entertaining?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KRS-One
Why do I feel like I just missed something entertaining?

I quoted a person using a racial epithet and the mods rightfully pulled all of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Umbarger

Ah! O.K.! See what I get for missing staff meetings? LOL!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo
The sane ones, sure! I mean, the UK, France, Israel among others have had nukes for years and there have been no problems. The problems comes when you let lunatic nations like Iran have them.

Sane?

Are all Iranians insane then, Lord U? Do the people of Iran not have the right to have a deterrent against a nuclear threat because you think they are insane?

What about that people who see why this so-called "right to own a gun" is insane, does that mean those people have the right to take all the guns away?

You are simply arguing for your view of morality to be imposed as the only 'right' way. If your view of morality is that you are not insane for wanting to own a gun, that other people/nations are insane because they do not think as you do, and then this view gives you the right to impose your conditions on others, then why is the same not true of those who think differently than you? Surely those people have the right to impose their conditions on you?

When it comes to gun ownership, we limit people already. We insist that crazy folks should not be allowed to own them, folks convicted of violent crimes can't own them, people with a history of a variety of crimes are prohiobited from having fire arms. Each State has it's own laws regarding firearms ownership so, there is no way that I could give a conclusive list of the restrictions here. Personally, I have no problem with doing a decent background check. Where I do have a problem is in a registry. In a sense, that is like saying that I can have a gun but, they want to be able tosupervise me. It's also a step towards confiscation too. If they have a list of who owns whyat, it will be all that much easier to find them and take the firearms.

The left has long been working at disarming the free world. This is just another small bite of the pie. There is an old adage from Hindu history of a man asking how to eat an elephant. The answer is, one bite at a time. Mark my words, if he gets this small step, it won't be long before he want to take another one, then another one. If Americans don't stand up and say "Hands the hell off!", then, eventually, we won't have anything in the way of self defence at all.

Lord Umbarger is crazy? Did you know that some martial arts practitioners are already required to register themselves? It's true! If you are a high level in some arts such as Akito, (spelling), you have to register your self in my state as well as a number of others.

It's all about controlling the population and leaving us defenceless. They know that there will never be a day when 100% of gun owners stand up and say "no more". That isn't the plan. It's to slowly turn up the heat and the frog will allow itself to be cooked to death. In the end, it's about reducing the populations ability to resist. If they want to haul two thousand off to a camp for slave labor, it's easier to do that if there isn't twenty or thirty shooting at them. If they want to shut up someone that is reporting on "Un-American" activities, well that is easier to do if they don't get on the news for being shot at by an armed group of Patriots. If they want to open the border with Mexico, that would work out better if there aren't armed Americans down there shooting at the illegals.

Long story short, and to avoid being bogged down. If we allow them to start violating the Constitution on this, where does it end? What's to stop them from modifying some other aspect of it? Legally speaking, once there is a precedent, it might as well be law. It's refered to as the "Slippery Slope". Allowing this Yahoo obama to start tampering with the 2nd ammendment is as foolish as installing screen doors on a submarine.

You speak on the one hand of how the population is so law-abiding, that the feeble regulations already in place deter those who want guns for the wrong reasons from obtaining them, but argue that you need to own a gun to protect yourself from these very people? Do you not see how this argument is nonsensical?

Lord U, it is because guns are so easily obtained in the US that you have such a problem with gun crime. I am not speaking of that criminal element that obtain guns illegally - that would happen regardless - I am speaking of the weapons that are legally obtained then used in horrific crimes.

Please read this...

METHODS: Health officials in high-income (HI) and upper-middle-income countries (UMI) with populations greater than one million were asked to provide data using ICD-9 codes on firearm-related homicides, suicides, unintentional deaths and deaths of undetermined intent, as well as homicides and suicides for all methods combined. Thirty-six (78%) of the 46 countries provided complete data. We compared age-adjusted rates per 100 000 for each country and pooled rates by income group and geographical location.

RESULTS: During the one-year study period, 88 649 firearm deaths were reported. Overall firearm mortality rates are five to six times higher in HI and UMI countries in the Americas (12.72) than in Europe (2.17), or Oceania (2.57) and 95 times higher than in Asia (0.13). The rate of firearm deaths in the United States (14.24 per 100 000) exceeds that of its economic counterparts (1.76) eightfold and that of UMI countries (9.69) by a factor of 1.5. Suicide and homicide contribute equally to total firearm deaths in the US, but most firearm deaths are suicides (71%) in HI countries and homicides (72%) in UMI countries.

source

Yes, the study is from 1997, here are some gun-related death statistics from 2004:

New Zealand - 5 people murdered

Sweden - 37 people murdered

Australia - 56 people murdered

England and Wales - 73 people murdered

Canada - 184 people murdered

USA - 11,344 people murdered

source

You should also note that your very own National Criminal Justice Reference Service uses the 1997 Oxford study as its baseline for the ongoing statistical analysis for gun-related crime.

By comparison, organisations like the NRA compare the level of crime in general to the level of gun control in a country when comparing other countries against the US. This is a false comparison as the argument for/against gun control is about how gun ownership and the strictness/laxity of control thereof contribute to gun-related deaths and crime. The NRA of course has a vested interest in keeping gun control lax, being backed as it is by the weapons manufacturers themselves.

Gun control is not about 'keeping the population defenceless', its about allowing your society to grow out of its Revolutionary mentality. The Amendment was passed into the Constitution in the aftermath of a Revolutionary War when, obviously, special security measures were required to ensure the integrity of the emergent Nation. These conditions no longer apply in American society yet that society has not evolved out of the mentality that was forged by them - why?

Lastly, why is gun ownership a sign of "Americanness"? Or is this an emotional (and false) plea to preserve a selfish want?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76
Sane?

Are all Iranians insane then, Lord U? Do the people of Iran not have the right to have a deterrent against a nuclear threat because you think they are insane?

What about that people who see why this so-called "right to own a gun" is insane, does that mean those people have the right to take all the guns away?

You are simply arguing for your view of morality to be imposed as the only 'right' way. If your view of morality is that you are not insane for wanting to own a gun, that other people/nations are insane because they do not think as you do, and then this view gives you the right to impose your conditions on others, then why is the same not true of those who think differently than you? Surely those people have the right to impose their conditions on you?

You speak on the one hand of how the population is so law-abiding, that the feeble regulations already in place deter those who want guns for the wrong reasons from obtaining them, but argue that you need to own a gun to protect yourself from these very people? Do you not see how this argument is nonsensical?

Lord U, it is because guns are so easily obtained in the US that you have such a problem with gun crime. I am not speaking of that criminal element that obtain guns illegally - that would happen regardless - I am speaking of the weapons that are legally obtained then used in horrific crimes.

Please read this...

source

Yes, the study is from 1997, here are some gun-related death statistics from 2004:

New Zealand - 5 people murdered

Sweden - 37 people murdered

Australia - 56 people murdered

England and Wales - 73 people murdered

Canada - 184 people murdered

USA - 11,344 people murdered

source

You should also note that your very own National Criminal Justice Reference Service uses the 1997 Oxford study as its baseline for the ongoing statistical analysis for gun-related crime.

By comparison, organisations like the NRA compare the level of crime in general to the level of gun control in a country when comparing other countries against the US. This is a false comparison as the argument for/against gun control is about how gun ownership and the strictness/laxity of control thereof contribute to gun-related deaths and crime. The NRA of course has a vested interest in keeping gun control lax, being backed as it is by the weapons manufacturers themselves.

Gun control is not about 'keeping the population defenceless', its about allowing your society to grow out of its Revolutionary mentality. The Amendment was passed into the Constitution in the aftermath of a Revolutionary War when, obviously, special security measures were required to ensure the integrity of the emergent Nation. These conditions no longer apply in American society yet that society has not evolved out of the mentality that was forged by them - why?

Lastly, why is gun ownership a sign of "Americanness"? Or is this an emotional (and false) plea to preserve a selfish want?

Exactly. They want us to lay down and take tyranny up the ***. The threat of revolution is a powerful tool, and one we wont be handing over willfully.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They're Here

What exactly is in this proposal that you guys are opposed to? It seemed to me when I read it over, it was just a bunch of provisions for illicit firearms. Illicit meaning illegal. Are you guys really sure this proposal/bill/whatever is going to effect you? It seems like you may be just jumping to conclusions based on what some CNN newscaster said. Please point out the exact reference in the proposal you disagree with or that you think is going to effect you. If you have a problem with illicit firearm control, maybe you should have brought this up sooner. Like before they became illegal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They're Here
Gun control is not about 'keeping the population defenceless', its about allowing your society to grow out of its Revolutionary mentality. The Amendment was passed into the Constitution in the aftermath of a Revolutionary War when, obviously, special security measures were required to ensure the integrity of the emergent Nation. These conditions no longer apply in American society yet that society has not evolved out of the mentality that was forged by them - why?

I would argue that the people being well-armed is our last deterrent against a tyrannous government, which is a real worry. Unfortunately, our military is just too well-armed. They would smoke us. But I would never support disarming the American people and taking away their last hope. They might need them two months from now or two hundred years from now. Once you give them up you never get them back. I wouldn't want our children's children to wonder why we let them take our guns away and leave them hopeless while they are living under a tyrannous government. Did you ever read Nineteen Eighty Four? Want to see a vision of the future? It's a boot stomping on a human face -- forever. That's what it will come to if they ever fully disarm us. I wouldn't want to let that happen. Unfortunately, the reason we're in the mess we're in now is because people are too uneducated about the world. They are so caught up in sports, television entertainment, mainstream news, video games, they keep voting for these same ignorant politicians who don't give a rat's *** about their constituents or the constitution. The press is supposed to hold our politicians to the fire but we are not holding their feet to the fire so they've been allowed to run amuck. They all sold out the American people. If people would wise up we could vote the scum out of government, but it's not going to happen. People are getting dumber and dumber and we are very close to becoming an idiocracy. So unfortunately when we fall under tyranny it will be mostly our own damned faults. And that's about the sad truth of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cradle of Fish
I would argue that the people being well-armed is our last deterrent against a tyrannous government, which is a real worry. Unfortunately, our military is just too well-armed. They would smoke us. But I would never support disarming the American people and taking away their last hope. They might need them two months from now or two hundred years from now. Once you give them up you never get them back. I wouldn't want our children's children to wonder why we let them take our guns away and leave them hopeless while they are living under a tyrannous government. Did you ever read Nineteen Eighty Four? Want to see a vision of the future? It's a boot stomping on a human face -- forever. That's what it will come to if they ever fully disarm us. I wouldn't want to let that happen. Unfortunately, the reason we're in the mess we're in now is because people are too uneducated about the world. They are so caught up in sports, television entertainment, mainstream news, video games, they keep voting for these same ignorant politicians who don't give a rat's *** about their constituents or the constitution. The press is supposed to hold our politicians to the fire but we are not holding their feet to the fire so they've been allowed to run amuck. They all sold out the American people. If people would wise up we could vote the scum out of government, but it's not going to happen. People are getting dumber and dumber and we are very close to becoming an idiocracy. So unfortunately when we fall under tyranny it will be mostly our own damned faults. And that's about the sad truth of it.

Yeah, there was one spree killing in Australia and we banned guns immediately and our country just slipped into an Orwellian nightmare. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hetrodoxly
What are the odds that the only ones with guns who will be regulated are the good citizens and not the criminals?

Gun crime has increased 10 fold in the UK since they banned legally owned handguns, criminals never had licences anyway?

a more intelligent approach would have been a minimum 10 year jail sentence for illegal gun ownership, there was no reason to punish law abiding citizens, the problem is we don't have any intelligent MP in the UK, and people on the left who want to ban everything that doesn't effect them personally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.