No one is on the other side of the Jim Crow laws, so it isn't a wedge.
We solved racism in this country while having this conservation? Awesome!
And if you use those as litmus tests, and a reasonably large number would choose the other way, then it is a wedge issue
I'm a bit unclear as to the purpose of this conversation. Are you bemoaning so-called "wedge issues" or just pointing out that they exist? Interestingly enough you've yet to make any argument and seem determined to split-hairs with me over the definition of terms like "wedge issue" and the wisdom of starting discussions with premises that hold no relevance in the real world.
like no politician has a published stance on Jim Crow, but then you are the one bringing up fantasy land examples, while bashing mine
*shrug*, my only point was that one man's "wedge issue" is the issue that decides another man's vote. You may consider gun rights to be a "wedge issue" and bemoan the fact that people decide their votes based upon them but as stated numerous times I consider them to be a civil liberty and vote accordingly. I suspect that if you are honest there are a few issues that would be deal-breakers for you as well in the voting booth.
They really need to build that big laser/water cannon to blast this stuff out of orbit
I didn't read the article the other day (being/., why would I bother?) but wouldn't the water cannon wind up leaving ice particles floating around up there? Wouldn't re-supplying it be a PITA?
I still haven't figured out how the hell that happened. I lost interest in that game as soon as I ran out of creative ways to kill the characters. WTF is the appeal in a game that replicates the boring monotony of daily life? If I wanted to pay my bills and clean my house I wouldn't be sitting in front of the computer......
It's the flashy, pop-culture references and glitzy, trendy looking artwork that give games replay value...
Huh? The game that I've found to have the most replay value is Civ2, hardly known for it's "glitzy trendy looking artwork". I've also found that DOSBox and Snes9x are two of the coolest pieces of software ever written. To each their own I guess.....
So, by that reasoning, we should try to be the worst possible person we can, because perfection is unobtainable. I disagree.
No, by that reasoning we should ground our arguments in reality and not in fantasy land. It has little to do with being the best possible person that you can.
So you'd happily vote for someone that had "I will take all guns" as a platform? No? Then it is a wedge issue.
If that's your definition of "wedge issue" then I guess civil rights is also a wedge issue if I wouldn't vote for someone who wanted to bring Jim Crow back. There are varying issues that I consider when deciding who to vote for. Supporting and upholding the constitution is number one on that list. If you are going to gut any part of the Bill of Rights then I'm not going to vote for you, regardless of whatever other redeeming qualities you may profess to have.
Well, then you'll never have a useful discussion with me on this topic. Because I see that reasoning as perfectly valid, since it is true. That doesn't mean that extra-marital sex (any sex outside marriage, not just pre) should be banned, or even frowned upon, but that it is true that without it there would be no STDs and no babies born out of wedlock.
That reasoning clearly isn't valid if the underlying statement refers to something that will never be achievable in the real world. The statement itself may be true but how useful is it as a talking point if it can never happen in the real world? You'll clearly never be able to prevent all sex outside of marriage or confiscate all firearms, thus those that claim doing so would solve some societal problem aren't operating in reality.
That takes us back to you ignoring facts because you find them inconvenient.
If that "fact" refers to something that is impossible to achieve in the real world then that "fact" isn't worth anything and deserves to be ignored.
That's the reason we get crap politicians for life. Just bring up abortion or taxes or guns in any election, and people almost completely ignore the person running and just vote on whatever issue polarized them most.
Abortion, taxes and guns are the reason we get crap politicians for life? Some would regard those are wedge issues that will drive single issue voters but I always thought the reason we got crap politicians for life had more to do with gerrymandering and our two-party first-past-the-post system.
Personally I don't regard guns as a wedge issue. I regard them as a civil liberties issue. I view those that would seek to impose gun control in the same manner as I view those that would seek to listen to my phone calls without a warrant or restrict my right to free speech.
This is the DHS, which means they usually don't try people, they "detain" people. No trial necessary.
I'm as staunch of a civil libertarian as anyone but this statement still annoys me. To the best of my knowledge DHS is just another bloated ineffective Federal bureaucracy more interested in justifying their existence than anything else. The actions of our intelligence agencies and military are another matter altogether but do you have any evidence that DHS has started detaining people without trial?
Actually the best example of hypocrisy is the fact that both Senators Feinstein and Schumer have (or had) concealed carry permits. I guess the rules are different for the connected elites than for us mere citizens.....
Just to play devil's advocate... it's called "lend-lease" and "naval blockades." Continue.
Neither of which started until 1941. Destroyers for bases actually predated both of those in 1940 which is why I mentioned it. You'll note that the war started in 1939. So once again, please explain to me how America influenced the outbreak of WW2.....
when USA is the most common attacker or influencer on all wars from World War II and later.
How was the USA the "most common attacker or influencer" in WW2 when we remained completely neutral until 1940 (destroyers for bases) and didn't actually enter the war until attacked (Pearl Harbor)?
Be careful, some of our more extremist friends on the left want to take that freedom away from you too. We should tax gasoline until it's $5/gal and force everybody to ride mass transit that may or may not exist, don't you know?
So? Just because you think it stupid does not make it so.
Yes it does, because my UID is lower than yours, so there! Err, wait, no it's not. Well it's cooler than yours:P And what the hell your nickname includes the letters 'AK' so you should be pro-gun anyway;)
Wait, so I'm wrong because I'm probably right, but that the conditions I gave can't be met. Sounds a whole lot like you think I'm right, but that you can't agree with something that you think to be the premise of someone that disagrees with you.
What, you want me to agree that if we could create your magical fantasy land with no guns that there would be no gun violence? I'll stipulate to that if you stipulate to the fact that I could kill you with my magic missiles if the AD&D spell book worked in the real world.
Otherwise, you just think of me as a sounding board for your platitudes
Actually I think a lot less than that about you once you upgraded your "yapping dog" insult to "bigot".
Premises do not bother with such questions. It's a premise
Your premise is irrelevant because it's based on something that can't be achieved.
That you are incapable of accepting any premise I present indicates that you are a closed minded bigot that doesn't listen to anything anyone says
Bigot? Really? Pretty big word to pull out. Try this on for size: I used to be a card carrying Democrat/ACLU member until I realized the hypocrisy of fighting for every single civil liberty except the right to keep and bear arms. I've been on the side of the fence that you are arguing from and found it lacking.
but likes phrases like "my cold dead hands."
That phrase about sums up my feelings on the subject. It's bombastic but then political statements usually are. Is "my cold dead hands" any worse than "my body, my choice"? Is it any worse than those that strip naked to protest some action of government? It's political speech and if you don't agree with it then fine but it seems folly to insult those that do.
Wah. You are sad that I made fun of you for being incapable of discussing something
Amused would be a better word to use:)
You should stop being an idiot if you don't want people to call you that
Ah, more insults. A sure sign of someone whose intellectual quiver is empty.
You asked a question that you didn't want an answer to. I answered it. You pretty much said "you are wrong" without anything but a flawed opinion that didn't even address anything I said
You are wrong, because your answer is based on a state of affairs that can't be achieved. It's the same argument that the religious conservatives use when they say "If there was no pre-martial sex there would be no babies born out of wedlock or STDs" The statement might technically be true but the underlying premise would never happen in the real world. As a result I'm not inclined to take people who would argue such points seriously.
Try again. Maybe you'll get it next time.
I hope your next response will be better thought out or that you'll come up with some original insults (really, "idiot" and "bigot"? I could do better than that) to amuse me;)
Well if it's criminals killing other criminals then who cares how they go about doing it? Yeah, that's cold, but I don't condone taking rights away from the citizenry because of the actions of those who refuse to follow it's rules......
It would just have meant that we'd have had a bunch of sensational shootings instead. I'm sure that would have been a real improvement.
If the victims of those "sensational shootings" were criminals that got shot by the citizens they tried to attack then I'd call that a real improvement.
Please tell me where I stated that it was my suggested method of solving crime. I "suggested" nothing. I stated one reason
And I pointed out the utter stupidity of that reason, namely that taking away rights from the populace should not be regarded as an acceptable way to tackle crime.
Actually, getting rid of barriers to prosecution would increase crime, as there would be more people successfully prosecuted, and thus more criminals.
I don't even know how to respond to that. So what makes one a criminal in your mind isn't the act of violating the law but the act of being successfully prosecuted for it?
If anything is stated that you don't like (not even necessarily disagree with, since you haven't ever actually posted why someone is wrong)
You want to know why you are wrong? Let's start with the fact that it would be utterly impossible to take away all guns. Even occupying forces with zero regard for human rights have never been able to successfully disarm an entire population. How do you purpose to secure the >200 million guns in the United States without shredding the Bill of Rights? If you accept the fact that guns will still exist then it seems illogical to assume that all gun-crime will go away. It might go down as they become less available but it won't go away, other crime will take it's place and the populace will be less equipped to defend itself against that crime.
I'm simply stating a fact that is an important one to consider for some of the arguments on crime.
Your "fact" is based on a state of affairs that to my knowledge has never been achieved in the course of human history. Weapons have always existed. The criminal element has always managed to gain access to them. Do you have any examples of a society where this wasn't the case? I could make the statement "If people wouldn't kill each other the murder rate would be zero" and call it a "fact", but that doesn't mean it will ever happen in the real world.
However, you treat this as an abuse session
Until then, you are a yapping little dog that should have a muzzle on it because you say nothing useful
Pot, kettle, black? I may be an opinionated asshole but I haven't insulted anybody yet.
I just find the argument that more guns equals more safety to be a poor one and not the best defense of the right to bear arms.
In the ideal world I wouldn't have to "defend" my rights. Remember that it's a Bill of Rights and not a Bill of Needs.
For example, suppose you have a home invasion robber in the US and one in the UK. The UK criminal can safely assume his victim is unarmed. If he encounters the home owner while robbing him, he figures he can run away. The US criminal knows his victim may be armed, so he makes sure he has a gun and if he encounters the homeowner he will shoot first because he doesn't want to let the homeowner shoot him before he has a chance. He may even decide to make the fear moot and kill the homeowner in his bed before he has a chance to wake up and arm himself.
While this argument makes a lot of assumptions
It does make a lot of assumptions. If you want to play the assumptions game I could throw this one at you: In the UK the robber doesn't care if you are home or not because he knows you are unarmed. In the US he's going to make the extra effort to find an unoccupied home so he doesn't have to upgrade his robbery to murder or run the risk of being shot himself. There are actually some statistics that support this -- the UK has a higher rate of "hot" burglaries (i.e: the residents were home) than the US does.
In a society where everyone is armed, everyday encounters become more ominous.. everyone is on edge because anyone can kill anyone else at any time
Then why isn't everybody on edge in the 38 US States that have "shall issue" concealed carry laws? In those states if you meet the criteria (generally no criminal record, history of mental health issues and some safety training) they HAVE to issue you a carry permit. Vermont takes it step further -- you can carry a handgun openly or concealed without a permit. None of those states have turned into the Wild West. How do you explain that?
The rational response in a situation like this is to make sure that if a shootout is going to happen, you better be the one to shoot first.
Actually the rational response is not to get involved in a situation that might escalate into violence in the first place. Go find someone with a carry permit and talk to them face to face. Virtually all of them will tell you that carrying a gun has made them less likely to allow a confrontation to escalate. Very few people want to shoot someone. Deadly force of any kind is a last resort, reserved for when your life is in mortal danger.
This guy trying to pick a fight with me at a bar has a gun... while he probably only wants to fistfight, you never know.. better pull that gun first.
Actually if he's trying to pick a fight then you'd better leave. Why would you want to get involved in any sort of fight (fistfight or gunfight) except as a last resort to defend your person, life or that of a loved one?
restrict who can own guns, where they can carry them, and what types of weapons they can own. Not perfect, but as fair as we have come up with so far.
The only problem is it's blatantly unconstitutional. What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
Don't get me wrong, British society has plenty of problems, not least with its government what with all of the CCTV and the war in the Middle East and the economic issues etc. but the gun policy we have here works for us and I don't really think you should be so disdainful about it.
I hope you appreciate the irony of being upset about the CCTV but not being upset about your government taking away a right that you had for hundreds of years. Eventually I think that the British people will relearn the lesson that if you give your government an inch they are going to take a mile. I only hope that you manage to relearn it before you wind up in a full-fledged police state and not afterwards.
As for being disdainful that's not going to change. Your country gave us the Common Law and the Magna Carta, both foundations for all the rights that I enjoy as an American citizen. It hurts me to see how far you've fallen and that's the source of my disdain. Wake up now before it's too late.
For one, every criminal was at one time a non-criminal. So if you ban guns from getting in the hands of non-criminals, then you are banning guns from getting in the hands of all first-time criminals as well
So your suggested method of solving crime is to take away my civil rights? Why not get rid of those pesky jury trials and burden of proof while you are at it? That would probably also be effective at bringing down crime.
If the law abiding citizens don't have guns, then the guns can't be stolen to be used in crimes
So when the criminals switch to using knives instead are you gonna take those away too?
Slashdot Mirror
No one is on the other side of the Jim Crow laws, so it isn't a wedge.
We solved racism in this country while having this conservation? Awesome!
And if you use those as litmus tests, and a reasonably large number would choose the other way, then it is a wedge issue
I'm a bit unclear as to the purpose of this conversation. Are you bemoaning so-called "wedge issues" or just pointing out that they exist? Interestingly enough you've yet to make any argument and seem determined to split-hairs with me over the definition of terms like "wedge issue" and the wisdom of starting discussions with premises that hold no relevance in the real world.
like no politician has a published stance on Jim Crow, but then you are the one bringing up fantasy land examples, while bashing mine
*shrug*, my only point was that one man's "wedge issue" is the issue that decides another man's vote. You may consider gun rights to be a "wedge issue" and bemoan the fact that people decide their votes based upon them but as stated numerous times I consider them to be a civil liberty and vote accordingly. I suspect that if you are honest there are a few issues that would be deal-breakers for you as well in the voting booth.
They really need to build that big laser/water cannon to blast this stuff out of orbit
I didn't read the article the other day (being /., why would I bother?) but wouldn't the water cannon wind up leaving ice particles floating around up there? Wouldn't re-supplying it be a PITA?
I'd bittorrent that.
Fixed that for you
The Sims is the best selling PC game of all time
I still haven't figured out how the hell that happened. I lost interest in that game as soon as I ran out of creative ways to kill the characters. WTF is the appeal in a game that replicates the boring monotony of daily life? If I wanted to pay my bills and clean my house I wouldn't be sitting in front of the computer......
It's the flashy, pop-culture references and glitzy, trendy looking artwork that give games replay value...
Huh? The game that I've found to have the most replay value is Civ2, hardly known for it's "glitzy trendy looking artwork". I've also found that DOSBox and Snes9x are two of the coolest pieces of software ever written. To each their own I guess.....
so they can use the name "Harry Potplant" or whatever it is.
I always knew the Harry Potter franchise was missing something..... ;)
So, by that reasoning, we should try to be the worst possible person we can, because perfection is unobtainable. I disagree.
No, by that reasoning we should ground our arguments in reality and not in fantasy land. It has little to do with being the best possible person that you can.
So you'd happily vote for someone that had "I will take all guns" as a platform? No? Then it is a wedge issue.
If that's your definition of "wedge issue" then I guess civil rights is also a wedge issue if I wouldn't vote for someone who wanted to bring Jim Crow back. There are varying issues that I consider when deciding who to vote for. Supporting and upholding the constitution is number one on that list. If you are going to gut any part of the Bill of Rights then I'm not going to vote for you, regardless of whatever other redeeming qualities you may profess to have.
Well, then you'll never have a useful discussion with me on this topic. Because I see that reasoning as perfectly valid, since it is true. That doesn't mean that extra-marital sex (any sex outside marriage, not just pre) should be banned, or even frowned upon, but that it is true that without it there would be no STDs and no babies born out of wedlock.
That reasoning clearly isn't valid if the underlying statement refers to something that will never be achievable in the real world. The statement itself may be true but how useful is it as a talking point if it can never happen in the real world? You'll clearly never be able to prevent all sex outside of marriage or confiscate all firearms, thus those that claim doing so would solve some societal problem aren't operating in reality.
That takes us back to you ignoring facts because you find them inconvenient.
If that "fact" refers to something that is impossible to achieve in the real world then that "fact" isn't worth anything and deserves to be ignored.
That's the reason we get crap politicians for life. Just bring up abortion or taxes or guns in any election, and people almost completely ignore the person running and just vote on whatever issue polarized them most.
Abortion, taxes and guns are the reason we get crap politicians for life? Some would regard those are wedge issues that will drive single issue voters but I always thought the reason we got crap politicians for life had more to do with gerrymandering and our two-party first-past-the-post system.
Personally I don't regard guns as a wedge issue. I regard them as a civil liberties issue. I view those that would seek to impose gun control in the same manner as I view those that would seek to listen to my phone calls without a warrant or restrict my right to free speech.
This is the DHS, which means they usually don't try people, they "detain" people. No trial necessary.
I'm as staunch of a civil libertarian as anyone but this statement still annoys me. To the best of my knowledge DHS is just another bloated ineffective Federal bureaucracy more interested in justifying their existence than anything else. The actions of our intelligence agencies and military are another matter altogether but do you have any evidence that DHS has started detaining people without trial?
In the annals of hypocrisy, this is a doozy!
Actually the best example of hypocrisy is the fact that both Senators Feinstein and Schumer have (or had) concealed carry permits. I guess the rules are different for the connected elites than for us mere citizens.....
Just to play devil's advocate... it's called "lend-lease" and "naval blockades." Continue.
Neither of which started until 1941. Destroyers for bases actually predated both of those in 1940 which is why I mentioned it. You'll note that the war started in 1939. So once again, please explain to me how America influenced the outbreak of WW2.....
when USA is the most common attacker or influencer on all wars from World War II and later.
How was the USA the "most common attacker or influencer" in WW2 when we remained completely neutral until 1940 (destroyers for bases) and didn't actually enter the war until attacked (Pearl Harbor)?
Give me the freedom/comfort of a car any day.
Be careful, some of our more extremist friends on the left want to take that freedom away from you too. We should tax gasoline until it's $5/gal and force everybody to ride mass transit that may or may not exist, don't you know?
So? Just because you think it stupid does not make it so.
Yes it does, because my UID is lower than yours, so there! Err, wait, no it's not. Well it's cooler than yours :P And what the hell your nickname includes the letters 'AK' so you should be pro-gun anyway ;)
Wait, so I'm wrong because I'm probably right, but that the conditions I gave can't be met. Sounds a whole lot like you think I'm right, but that you can't agree with something that you think to be the premise of someone that disagrees with you.
What, you want me to agree that if we could create your magical fantasy land with no guns that there would be no gun violence? I'll stipulate to that if you stipulate to the fact that I could kill you with my magic missiles if the AD&D spell book worked in the real world.
Otherwise, you just think of me as a sounding board for your platitudes
Actually I think a lot less than that about you once you upgraded your "yapping dog" insult to "bigot".
Premises do not bother with such questions. It's a premise
Your premise is irrelevant because it's based on something that can't be achieved.
That you are incapable of accepting any premise I present indicates that you are a closed minded bigot that doesn't listen to anything anyone says
Bigot? Really? Pretty big word to pull out. Try this on for size: I used to be a card carrying Democrat/ACLU member until I realized the hypocrisy of fighting for every single civil liberty except the right to keep and bear arms. I've been on the side of the fence that you are arguing from and found it lacking.
but likes phrases like "my cold dead hands."
That phrase about sums up my feelings on the subject. It's bombastic but then political statements usually are. Is "my cold dead hands" any worse than "my body, my choice"? Is it any worse than those that strip naked to protest some action of government? It's political speech and if you don't agree with it then fine but it seems folly to insult those that do.
Wah. You are sad that I made fun of you for being incapable of discussing something
Amused would be a better word to use :)
You should stop being an idiot if you don't want people to call you that
Ah, more insults. A sure sign of someone whose intellectual quiver is empty.
You asked a question that you didn't want an answer to. I answered it. You pretty much said "you are wrong" without anything but a flawed opinion that didn't even address anything I said
You are wrong, because your answer is based on a state of affairs that can't be achieved. It's the same argument that the religious conservatives use when they say "If there was no pre-martial sex there would be no babies born out of wedlock or STDs" The statement might technically be true but the underlying premise would never happen in the real world. As a result I'm not inclined to take people who would argue such points seriously.
Try again. Maybe you'll get it next time.
I hope your next response will be better thought out or that you'll come up with some original insults (really, "idiot" and "bigot"? I could do better than that) to amuse me ;)
Well if it's criminals killing other criminals then who cares how they go about doing it? Yeah, that's cold, but I don't condone taking rights away from the citizenry because of the actions of those who refuse to follow it's rules......
It would just have meant that we'd have had a bunch of sensational shootings instead. I'm sure that would have been a real improvement.
If the victims of those "sensational shootings" were criminals that got shot by the citizens they tried to attack then I'd call that a real improvement.
Please tell me where I stated that it was my suggested method of solving crime. I "suggested" nothing. I stated one reason
And I pointed out the utter stupidity of that reason, namely that taking away rights from the populace should not be regarded as an acceptable way to tackle crime.
Actually, getting rid of barriers to prosecution would increase crime, as there would be more people successfully prosecuted, and thus more criminals.
I don't even know how to respond to that. So what makes one a criminal in your mind isn't the act of violating the law but the act of being successfully prosecuted for it?
If anything is stated that you don't like (not even necessarily disagree with, since you haven't ever actually posted why someone is wrong)
You want to know why you are wrong? Let's start with the fact that it would be utterly impossible to take away all guns. Even occupying forces with zero regard for human rights have never been able to successfully disarm an entire population. How do you purpose to secure the >200 million guns in the United States without shredding the Bill of Rights? If you accept the fact that guns will still exist then it seems illogical to assume that all gun-crime will go away. It might go down as they become less available but it won't go away, other crime will take it's place and the populace will be less equipped to defend itself against that crime.
I'm simply stating a fact that is an important one to consider for some of the arguments on crime.
Your "fact" is based on a state of affairs that to my knowledge has never been achieved in the course of human history. Weapons have always existed. The criminal element has always managed to gain access to them. Do you have any examples of a society where this wasn't the case? I could make the statement "If people wouldn't kill each other the murder rate would be zero" and call it a "fact", but that doesn't mean it will ever happen in the real world.
However, you treat this as an abuse session
Until then, you are a yapping little dog that should have a muzzle on it because you say nothing useful
Pot, kettle, black? I may be an opinionated asshole but I haven't insulted anybody yet.
Gun ownership has never been widespread in Britain and most people would prefer to keep it that way
Also known as the tyranny of the majority.
I just find the argument that more guns equals more safety to be a poor one and not the best defense of the right to bear arms.
In the ideal world I wouldn't have to "defend" my rights. Remember that it's a Bill of Rights and not a Bill of Needs.
For example, suppose you have a home invasion robber in the US and one in the UK. The UK criminal can safely assume his victim is unarmed. If he encounters the home owner while robbing him, he figures he can run away. The US criminal knows his victim may be armed, so he makes sure he has a gun and if he encounters the homeowner he will shoot first because he doesn't want to let the homeowner shoot him before he has a chance. He may even decide to make the fear moot and kill the homeowner in his bed before he has a chance to wake up and arm himself.
While this argument makes a lot of assumptions
It does make a lot of assumptions. If you want to play the assumptions game I could throw this one at you: In the UK the robber doesn't care if you are home or not because he knows you are unarmed. In the US he's going to make the extra effort to find an unoccupied home so he doesn't have to upgrade his robbery to murder or run the risk of being shot himself. There are actually some statistics that support this -- the UK has a higher rate of "hot" burglaries (i.e: the residents were home) than the US does.
In a society where everyone is armed, everyday encounters become more ominous.. everyone is on edge because anyone can kill anyone else at any time
Then why isn't everybody on edge in the 38 US States that have "shall issue" concealed carry laws? In those states if you meet the criteria (generally no criminal record, history of mental health issues and some safety training) they HAVE to issue you a carry permit. Vermont takes it step further -- you can carry a handgun openly or concealed without a permit. None of those states have turned into the Wild West. How do you explain that?
The rational response in a situation like this is to make sure that if a shootout is going to happen, you better be the one to shoot first.
Actually the rational response is not to get involved in a situation that might escalate into violence in the first place. Go find someone with a carry permit and talk to them face to face. Virtually all of them will tell you that carrying a gun has made them less likely to allow a confrontation to escalate. Very few people want to shoot someone. Deadly force of any kind is a last resort, reserved for when your life is in mortal danger.
This guy trying to pick a fight with me at a bar has a gun... while he probably only wants to fistfight, you never know.. better pull that gun first.
Actually if he's trying to pick a fight then you'd better leave. Why would you want to get involved in any sort of fight (fistfight or gunfight) except as a last resort to defend your person, life or that of a loved one?
restrict who can own guns, where they can carry them, and what types of weapons they can own. Not perfect, but as fair as we have come up with so far.
The only problem is it's blatantly unconstitutional. What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
I can't wait to have that right back!
*shrug*, obviously your government isn't content to stop at taking away that one right.
Don't get me wrong, British society has plenty of problems, not least with its government what with all of the CCTV and the war in the Middle East and the economic issues etc. but the gun policy we have here works for us and I don't really think you should be so disdainful about it.
I hope you appreciate the irony of being upset about the CCTV but not being upset about your government taking away a right that you had for hundreds of years. Eventually I think that the British people will relearn the lesson that if you give your government an inch they are going to take a mile. I only hope that you manage to relearn it before you wind up in a full-fledged police state and not afterwards.
As for being disdainful that's not going to change. Your country gave us the Common Law and the Magna Carta, both foundations for all the rights that I enjoy as an American citizen. It hurts me to see how far you've fallen and that's the source of my disdain. Wake up now before it's too late.
We in the US dream of the day when knives are the deadliest things on the streets
Speak for yourself.
For one, every criminal was at one time a non-criminal. So if you ban guns from getting in the hands of non-criminals, then you are banning guns from getting in the hands of all first-time criminals as well
So your suggested method of solving crime is to take away my civil rights? Why not get rid of those pesky jury trials and burden of proof while you are at it? That would probably also be effective at bringing down crime.
If the law abiding citizens don't have guns, then the guns can't be stolen to be used in crimes
So when the criminals switch to using knives instead are you gonna take those away too?
120 characters? OK, I'll take 30 mages, 10 psionicists, 30 paladins, 20 priests, 20 thieves, 10 multi-class fighter/mag
Got something against Bards do you? ;)
Even if you have no reason to, encrypt everything, because someday it might bite you in the ass.
Like when you forget your encryption key ;)