Discussion about gun laws.

[genocidal]

And because of that attitude, your empire is at the beginning of the end.

Yeah right, if we go down we're taking the entire world as well. Plus our economy just won't let it happen anytime soon.

[Kolar]

My point is that each State itself has its own laws aside from the Federal laws in purchasing a Legal firearm. I still think that in most cases, the problems stem from illegally obtained guns and not from those that purchase these legally and obey the laws.

That's a bad way of looking at the problem to me. Wouldn't it be more sensible to figure out how people like the murder at VT are obtaining weapons through legal means with the intent to kill? and clamp down on illegal trafficking and possession at the same time. Illegal firearms will always exist and be a problem but you can not say that legal gun owners do not play a part in this. They have a responsibility to secure, register and maintain those weapons, and clearly some reasonable limits have to be in place on where you may have them readily accessible. The systems in place for obtaining legal firearms is also corrupt, useless and powerless and a lot of people want it that way. The 'right' to bare arms like any other constitutionally afforded right comes with some responsibilities and limits.

We will never be able to ban firearms, not here in Canada and definitely not in the United States. Figures, stats and studies are so biased one way or another there's no point in using any in a debate. That's one of the reasons nothing will change and why this topic is often emotionally charged.


Edit: And Jerome, Worldnetdaily is on level with or worse than Fox News.

[Spider]

Because being an avid gun owner myself, forcefully in favor of my rights, I'll say quite plainly: That should never have been allowed to happen. And it needs fixed.

People elsewhere in the world don't talk like this. "forcefully in favor of my rights" That kind of language is a result of my afformentioned irrational ideological attachment to weapons that you (or 95% of the country's population, anyway) don't even use anyway. It's also representative of your rights v wrong, america v the world, war on terror/war on communism, the state is oppressive, republicans v democrats polarized political culture which stiffles actual debate and replaces it with sound clips like "he is against my rights and therefor unamerican" or "do you want the terrorists to win? Are you an apologist for the terrorists?" tell me if you've ever heard those nuggets before. In other parts of the world people don't talk like that. I'm not sure if that surprises you or not.

There is no rational debate in a democratic society when you start throwing around words like rights. That doesn't make sense anyway. Rights are always a 2 edged sword. Do you have a right to stuff a handgun down your pants? Or do 30 people have a right to not die because some fanatic shot them all. Also nevermind the fact that the Patriot Act took a bunch of your rights away and you likely don't even know which ones.

You guys seriously believe that the civilian populace needs to be armed (ie a militia) to overthrow the government if it becomes oppressive. That's idiotic for a list of reasons that would take me hours and hours to compile. That's why you've been raised to say things like "I HAVE A RIGHT TO GUNS!" Do you understand that? It's not just because the NRA all of a sudden grew up from nowhere and brainwashed you all. That's the origin of your belief that you have a right to guns. You should evaluate that belief and see if it stands up to modern realities.

1: Back in the day when the idea of a militia to overthrow the oppresive government was formed American's had litterally just done that by overthrowing the British Monarchy. Also they were afraid of a king or someone like that trying to take over America, possibly even from within. Back then every country had a king. Now no countries are run by dictators except the little ones that don't matter anyway and will eventually be democratic someday. So would anyone today now suggest we need a militia? No. The reasons for it went away over the past 200 or so years. You guys are still living in the stone age.

2: Back in the day it was actually possible to overthrow an oppresive government. Now it isn't. You and 35 buddies from around your block all have a hand gun. Great. Back in the day the army was similarly armed, the weapons you used to hunt were roughly the same as the guns the standing army used. Now-a-days the army has giant tanks and planes that could bomb you before you knew they were there even if you did have an expensive radar system in your basement (which you don't).

3: More than likely if the government did become oppressive you wouldn't mind and wouldn't put up a fight anyway. More than likely your militia would hunt down elements in society who opposed the status-quo, and the status quo would likely be to support the government. So you'd just be helping it along. Take Nazi Germany for example. There were huge amounts of popular support. Now consider how willing the American populace is to have their rights taken away (not gun ownership but the ones that actually matter) by the Patriot Act. Recall how during the Iraq/Afghanistan wars anyone who suggested they were bad ideas were jeered as being un-American for some reason you people can't even explain in words.

[genocidal]

Uh Americans aren't willing to give their rights away. It always happens during wartime (just look at history, in any country). We'll get them all back soon enough, swear it'll never happen again, and it probably won't until the next war.

[404 Not Found]

I am still am waiting to hear as to my initial question to be answered, as I am curious to the laws in Europe on guns. Does the EU have one law that is comprehensive to every participating country in the EU? If not, how then is it different from the U.S. having this done on a State by State level?

[Galleleo]

I am still am waiting to hear as to my initial question to be answered, as I am curious to the laws in Europe on guns. Does the EU have one law that is comprehensive to every participating country in the EU? If not, how then is it different from the U.S. having this done on a State by State level?

I am not sure about this, as I don't really keep up with the European laws..

But, how is it different then done State by State? Europe doesn't consist of states but of countries? U.S. is a country, Europe is just a term for a bunch of countries. Seriously, I highly object the United States of Europe, fuck that shit. I am Dutch and I want to remain Dutch in a Dutch country, not just live in one of Europe's states. If that ever happens, I am leaving Europe. European Union is great for Economics and shit, but we don't need to become one country.

[Jerome Scuggs]

I am not sure about this, as I don't really keep up with the European laws..

God, I really wish someone else had said this so I could go on a tirade about hypocritical Americans, but Gall has yet to say one thing about US Gun laws in this thread.

You blueballing sumbitch.

But, Gall: The difference between our Unions aren't really that different. For instance, most Euro countries might have provinces or 'areas'. And each state in the US is definitely a unique snowflake. I'm from Louisiana, a gun-toting, brother-fucking, beer-guzzling, off-roading, god-fearing, tobacco-chewing, high-falutin' state. Louisiana is very, very different from alot of other states. Hell, we're the only one with 'parishes' (as opposed to 'counties')

Functionally, I think the US gubmint and the European Union are the same - the unifying authority to a bunch of independent areas.

Keyword: Functionally. I'll bet you Euros never had to jack your drinking age up to 21 because your fucking "European Union" promised you free funds... ooonnnlllyyy if you raised the drinking age. Seriously, fuck our government.

But yeah. The EU and the USA are similar in their distributed governing, though I think in the end the EU is more of a confederation.

[Galleleo]

I don't think they are that much the same yet.. European law isn't that big yet and is mainly only focused on economic laws. Besides that, among the European countries there tend be way bigger differences between it's inhabitant compared with other countries than is the case in the States. For instance, in Spain people eat towards 10pm in the evening and the whole evening is about dinner, people have Fiesta's (sleeping in the afternoon) etc. Compared to other countries where they have their dinner in the afternoon and lunch in the evening. And that's just something very superficial. There are vast amounts of differences in the cultures between the countries, how Italians are like compared to the French for instance.

Up to now, the whole Europe thing is mainly Economic. And, at least in the Netherlands (I can't speak for other countries) things like gun control, or criminal law, etc. are all arranged on National level, not province level. Though I do understand that a state is a bit different from a province. But now, I don't think the Europe is the same as the U.S., people might want to move that way, but it isn't yet.

Edit: And in relation to gun laws, in general: My view is: Basically guns should be illegal, and to own 1 legal you need to go through a shitload, and I mean a shitload of red tape to get one. Testing, backgrounds, reasons, bureaucratic nonsense. It has to be such a pain in the arse that you really, really want and need that gun for something functional to go through all that shit. Besides that, IF anyone gets a gun it should be for a specific reason: Hunting (though I am not a fan off it, but ok) Working in the security business. Not just to be able to protect yourself. This also extends to the manufacturing of guns, no one needs uzi's, m-16's (Army only), etc. You either produce hunting rifles or handguns for Police/Security/Etc. (And I do believe in the Netherlands, most Security guys don't even have guns, in fact, I think only Police is allowed to carry guns on the street, etc). And if you really, really wanna shoot guns at a range. Make it so the guns are not allowed to leave the range. They get locked up there, you can receive it when you come shooting and hand it in when you're done. But, I would rather that it is just illegal in total.

[genocidal]

Besides that, among the European countries there tend be way bigger differences between it's inhabitant compared with other countries than is the case in the States.

How would you know? I doubt you've even been to the US. If so probably only New York.

For instance, in Spain people eat towards 10pm in the evening and the whole evening is about dinner, people have Fiesta's (sleeping in the afternoon) etc.

Fiestas? It sounds like you don't even know shit about European countries. Siestas.

Compared to other countries where they have their dinner in the afternoon and lunch in the evening. And that's just something very superficial. There are vast amounts of differences in the cultures between the countries, how Italians are like compared to the French for instance.

People eat at different times in the US. Where I'm from people at at 5 PM. Up north people eat around 10 PM. So what?

Up to now, the whole Europe thing is mainly Economic. And, at least in the Netherlands (I can't speak for other countries) things like gun control, or criminal law, etc. are all arranged on National level, not province level. Though I do understand that a state is a bit different from a province. But now, I don't think the Europe is the same as the U.S., people might want to move that way, but it isn't yet.

I'm pretty sure the EU has some gun regulations independent of individual countries. Don't quote me on that because I have nothing to back it up but it'd be worth looking into if someone actually cares (I don't) but I definitely heard it somewhere.

[Galleleo]

Obviously I meant Siestas.. omg I mixed up 2 words, someone shoot me now...

I said Europe laws are MAINLY not STRICTLY, no MAINLY Economic.

I said the eating things are very superficial differences.

[404 Not Found]

Massachusettes is very very different from New Mexico. Different accents, even though it's English. Different culture of people and foods.

Even though the U.S. is a country made from 50 states, it may as well be different countries other than a unified Federal Tax. The North and South still fight the Civil War, the original 13 colonies differ from many of the western states, based upon history and the establishment of the U.S.

Vermont had a vote recently to suceed from the Union, of which I would not be opposed to, in fact I would move there if they did that

The U.S. being as large as it is, has so many varied differences, it may as well be looked at as 50 countries representing one unified nation. More people speak Spanish in some areas of the country than English. Innoting that, this also notes cultural differences as you noted in regards to the whole Dinner and Lunch thing.

I just think if the U.S. is to be blasted for gun laws, I would be interested in knowing what the laws in Europe are and if it's not covered in the EU, why is there an EU? What's the point of it...not to say that the gun law is the only reasoning for this, but with a unified monetary system and relaxed borders, it is starting to resemble the U.S. in many ways on an economic and legal basis, regardless of the cultures and various languages spoken.

[Galleleo]

It's not unified monetary yet.. yes we have the Euro, but every country can still chose to use it or not. It's not a: You have to use the Euro if you are part of the EU (Britain, Sweden).

[Jerome Scuggs]

It's not unified monetary yet.. yes we have the Euro, but every country can still chose to use it or not. It's not a: You have to use the Euro if you are part of the EU (Britain, Sweden).

In the US, each state can print its own currency, too. Most (yes, some states have it) choose not too, though.

[Troll King]

Is this another thread where Galleleo says he doesn't know much about a particular topic but then proceeds to act like he does?

[Jerome Scuggs]

Is this another thread where Galleleo says he doesn't know much about a particular topic but then proceeds to act like he does?

TK, I'm just gonna get this off my chest right now: When I see your name in the "Last Post" area of a thread that I recently posted in, a shiver runs down my spine and my asshole tightens up because once TK zings your post, nothing can save you. You can try, but the moment you fight back you only further cripple your own chances of recovering. The black hole that your reputation falls into is almost the same as the existential blackhole formed by the mere existence of this post, as the post realizes that as soon as it is posted, it is open to quotation and one-line-ation by you, TK. Thus the very continuation of my typing is not only completely superfluous, but equally dire, in that it adds mass and volume to the post so when you come along and blow me down, it will seem ridiculous that you were able to tie this entire post up with one mere utterance. Jesus christ why am I still typing seriously, I am only fucking myself over. Why can't I ever LEARN TO LISTEN TO MYSELF I SWEAR TO GOD I WI