[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Bang / Guns Title: Another alien universe heard from: Guns "should be illegal for all but properly constituted, trained and controlled agencies of governments."
In discussion of the atrocity in Norway last week, there is one subject which has been notable by the almost total silence about it: guns. In response to recurring massacres in American high schools and British villages, in response to footage from Africa and Afghanistan showing ragged, untrained young men brandishing automatic small arms, in response to a man coolly murdering dozens of youngsters in an hour-and-a-half, funfair-like shooting spree on a Norwegian island, where is the outrage at the fact that the world is awash with small arms, that people are making money legally and without blemish to their reputations out of the manufacture and sale of instruments purposely designed to kill? KENT STATE? Huh? Think what you will about what happened there, the arms at Kent State were certainly under "strict official control." ![]() Kent State: An example of the absence of "strict official control" of firearms? The befuddled professor continues: Our world stands on its head in most things, but in nothing more so than the fact that a crazy person can buy a gun, an extremely dangerous device, in an American or Norwegian shop, but "drugs" are prohibited and policed at vast expense to society. Indeed, the ironies are still greater: because drugs (excluding some of the most dangerous and harmful, such as alcohol and nicotine) are criminalised but the gun trade is not, the gangs who smuggle the drugs shoot each other with the guns, and not infrequently shoot the policemen who chase them also. This is a stark example of the irrationality of our arrangements. Ban guns and put heroin under the same licensing regulations as alcohol 51; fools will continue to abuse both, harming mainly themselves: the abuse of guns harms others, and too often too many others 51; and at a stroke billions of dollars and thousands of lives (think Mexico) would be saved. Evidently Grayling has not heard of the U.S. government's Gunwalker plot to fuel the Mexican cartels' wars. Guns should be the subject of worldwide outrage. Their manufacture and sale should be a human-rights abuse, on which we pour vilification and horror. They should be illegal for all but properly constituted, trained and controlled agencies of governments, provided of course that the governments in question are themselves properly constituted and controlled by democratic means in a society where the rule of law obtains. ![]() Srebrenica Massacre Victim: Bosnian Muslim trussed, blindfolded, and shot by Serbian government forces while UN "peacekeepers" stood by and did nothing. The arms at Srebrenica were certainly under "strict official control." Uh, huh. Yes, we've seen how well the UN protects human rights in places like Bosnia and Rwanda. And for those functions such as reducing animal populations? Grayling has an answer for that, too. There are easy ways to deal with the need by farmers to control rabbits, and game-park keepers to cull overpopulated herds: if there are genuinely no alternatives to the use of guns in such cases, a small range of suitable guns could be borrowed, under strict licence and for short periods, from the authorities for the express purpose in hand, but not allowed to remain in the community otherwise. If we can legislate for car-seats for children, we can legislate to keep highly dangerous killing instruments out of public hands. All right-thinking people must cower before the immanent force of such logic. ![]() Now here's an example of the "strict official control" of firearms. Americans with views not too far removed from those of Anders Behring Breivik say that they "need" their guns to "defend their freedoms", meaning against the tyranny of government and federal taxes. They should be reminded that it is the ballot, not the bullet, that is meant to do that job for them. Here's another example of the "strict official control" of firearms. Yes, well, here's the email I sent to Herr Professor Grayling: -----Original Message-----(5 images) Subscribe to *Extended Clip Progressives* Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Srebrenica Massacre Victim: Bosnian Muslim trussed, blindfolded, and shot by Serbian government forces while UN "peacekeepers" stood by and did nothing. The arms at Srebrenica were certainly under "strict official control." The Bosnian Muslims were armed. They lost the battle. Are all Americans this stupid? "Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs. #2. To: Godwinson (#1) No, YOU are. I'm beginning to think that you aren't a "Progressive" at all, just a stupid little SHEEP willing to let the WOLVES of "Progressivism" decide whats for DINNER in accord with the "Progressives'" Georgia Guidstones. Guns may be designed for killing but so are GUN LAWS!!! Only GUN LAWS are designed to kill on a much greater scale (Like the Aemenian Genocide, The Holodomer (Ukraine under Stalin), the Holocost, ect, ect, ect, ect).
#3. To: Godwinson, *Extended Clip Progressives* (#1) Bosnian Muslim trussed, blindfolded, and shot by Serbian government forces while UN "peacekeepers" stood by and did nothing The union lost the battle in Wisconsin, should they be executed too, or just the muslims? You've joined the Knights Templar. Are all Greeks this stupid?
Obama's watch stopped on 24 May 2008, but he's been too busy smoking crack to notice. #4. To: hondo68 (#3) (Edited) The union lost the battle in Wisconsin, should they be executed too, or just the muslims? You've joined the Knights Templar. The Bosnian Muslims of Srebrenica had an actual army with guns - supplied by the CIA and Iran and Saudi Arabia. They were not as well armed or trained as the Serbs and lost. So this claim of being armed somehow will stave off death by the big bad enemy is false because the armed Bosnians were still killed. I know you want to buy into this myth that your guns keep you free but it is BS. A civilian armed is a civilian dead by the hands of professional armed forces unless those civilians get outside military help - see Libya. Also, how the fuck are you comparing that with a Union/trade dispute? Fucking Republican douchebags. "Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs. #5. To: Coral Snake (#2) (Edited) Guns may be designed for killing but so are GUN LAWS!!! Only GUN LAWS are designed to kill on a much greater scale (Like the Aemenian Genocide, The Holodomer (Ukraine under Stalin), the Holocost, ect, ect, ect, ect).
Gun laws were tougher in old Tombstone Back then, Tombstone had far stricter gun control than it does today. In fact, the American West's most infamous gun battle erupted when the marshal tried to enforce a local ordinance that barred carrying firearms in public. A judge had fined one of the victims $25 earlier that day for packing a pistol. "You could wear your gun into town, but you had to check it at the sheriff's office or the Grand Hotel, and you couldn't pick it up again until you were leaving town," said Bob Boze Bell, executive editor of True West Magazine, which celebrates the Old West. "It was an effort to control the violence." "Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs. #6. To: Godwinson, Coral Snake (#5) It was an effort to control the violence Proving that gun grabbers were just as stupid back then, and that they haven't learned anything since. Molan Labe, you "Christian Socialist Democrats" and other Mutha F'ers!
Obama's watch stopped on 24 May 2008, but he's been too busy smoking crack to notice. #7. To: hondo68 (#6) (Edited) Proving that gun grabbers were just as stupid back then, and that they haven't learned anything since. At the "The Gunfight at the O.K. Corral" the gun grabbers won and America was a better place for it. "Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!" - Various Tea Party signs. #8. To: Godwinson (#5) (Edited) I see that you are telling the same LIE here again. Tombstone's ordinence number 9 was NOT a "Progressive" gun law like the New York Sullivan Law and the gun laws thaqt cane after it. It DID NOT prohibit catalog mail order sales of guns. IT did NOT license gun ownership by town citizens based on "special needs" requirements and it did NOT even permanently confiscate the guns that were "checked". It merely barred carrying guns in public unless one was entering or leaving town, PERIOD. You had better quit LYING about Tombstone Ordinence Number 9 or your growing nose just might reach PLUTO.
#9. To: Coral Snake (#8) I see that you are telling the same LIE here again. Tombstone's ordinence number 9 was NOT a "Progressive" gun law like the New York Sullivan Law and the gun laws thaqt cane after it. Did I mention the world "progressive"? Or compare it to New York's law? State's rights kook like you should be OK with different laws for different states. In any case the Earps would arrest you NRA faggots on sight for carrying guns in their city. With the economy still in the dumper -- maybe permanently? -- and full-time jobs becoming as scarce as rain during a drought, huge percentages of Americans have had their (misplaced) faith in the American dream shaken, the upper-middle-class consumerist lifestyle is exposed as a mirage for anybody who plays by the rules. Capitalism and the America that embraced it as a way of life is now and forever more a failure. It does me good to know that the generation that voted in Reagan and his ideology will see their America die from that ideology before their very own eyes and knowing they had a hand in its destruction. #10. To: Godwinson (#9) (Edited) I am NOT a States Rights person where it concerns ANY right enumerated in the federal Constitution. In my view those restrictions on government apply to EVERY JURSISDICTION of government and did even before the 14th amendment. I do believe that there can be some regulation of guns due to the Militia clause of the 2nd amendment just not those that infringe on the 2nd amendment right (such as "may issue" licensing based on "special needs" clauses in the law like with the New York Sullivan Law, any information gathering that can be used for future door to door confiscations and gun bans themselves. However I have nothing against laws banning the purchase and possession of firearms by known dangerous people like convicted VIOLENT felons, convicted VIOLENT misdemenor criminals (like wife, husband and child beaters), certified insane people and drug addicts, and competency based "must issue" licensing like the state of California currently practices. (A California handgun license called a Handgun Safety Certificate requires a test on the knowedge of basic handgun safety rules and competency in safely loading and unloading the firearm.) I also believe that historic or antique firearms should be exempt from all but the prohibited persons parts of gun laws. (historic or antique firearms meaning those at least 100 years old or older and all percussion cap, wheel lock, flintlock and matchlock firearms regardless of age. I feel that the current 1898 cutoff on antiques is now obsolete due simply to the things that can happen to a piece of metal detereration wise against the ever increasing breech pressures of modern ammunition after 100 years no matter how "modern" it may look.) I believe that there should continue to be exemptions for air guns (including airsoft guns) and that there should be a law exempting deactivated firearms which can partially function but not as long range lethal weapons (even the United Kingdom has this last exemption and you know how strict they are on "gun control"). In order to clarify what I really believe on this subject I will be posting what I think a model gun law should look like soon.
#11. To: Godwinson (#9) (Edited) And as for the Earps so WHAT. They were nothing but a gang of cheating Faro banks and pimping whoremongers only a micrometer more virtuous than the Clantons they shot up. This is the truth. Whyatt Earp was arrested at least once for running a cat house and he did run a Faro bank as a "moonlighting" job with his marshalling (probably dishonestly as that was the ONLY way a Faro bank could profit at that game. That's why you don't see it in Las Vegas, Atlantic City or on any Native American reservation with gambling today.)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|