Gun control for dummies

[video=youtube;sLS3RGesIFQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLS3RGesIFQ[/video]

 

"Dat was Crinta Eastwoo"!!!!

 

Rather it's how to use your body as a weapon.

 

"Boot to the head"

 

A return trip to Arizona from Alaska would require 4 border crossings. And a whole lot of moose crossings...Could run into some grief with officials or beasts if packing heat.

 

I step on Alaska Airlines in Kodiak and step off in Las Vegas (after 2 plane changes). No heat, well, except for desert heat. When you carry a gun on the airlines you just lock it up in a case inside your locked luggage and declare it when you check in. They hand you a little form with about two lines to fill out. None of the casinos on the strip bar guns, so you can carry anywhere as long as you don't drink. Nobody cares. It's the same in Arizona and doubly so in Alaska. Even a Canadian like yourself could carry a concealed weapon (or an openly carried weapon for that matter) in Alaska without a permit or a problem. You don't have to be an Alaska resident to carry a gun.

 

Gentlemen...When i said i wasnt judging you, i meant it. I was judging your world by the way i was brought up...Stating that i just couldnt live with visible weapons about...thats obviously my upbringing and my location...I do however, think both your overly defensive responses says perhaps more than you realise...perhaps.

 

Ok, but I'm not seeing the connection?

Edit; I think I see it now. In the UK you are allowed to defend yourself as long as you use "reasonable force". There's no legal definition of this, it's up to the respective lawyers to prove the response to an attack was reasonable or otherwise. I would imagine a martial arts practitioner would have a harder job proving that he only used reasonable force than Joe Bloggs.

 

OK, got it - finally...

 

You should choose a "better" government then...

The politicians are elected by ordinary citizens. It is not possible, that ordinary citizens would do the law making by themselves, since there are just too many of them and many of them would not have enough information - or interest to get it - to know what they were deciding about.

It was the very few politicians who defined the Bill of Rights in the first place - not every possible ordinary citizen. In all countries where there are millions of people one needs the representatives of the citizens to do the governing. It is not possible to listen the petty wishes of EVERYbody, nor the hole country to operate like a small village.

Every even half-decent country has a healthcare for all of its citizens...

Again - the legislators are elected by the citizens to do the decisions. The ordinary citizens should use their votes wisely, when electing the legislators.

 

It should have been "enterprises" - sorry...

I have never felt that I would have needed or wanted a gun to protect myself personally. To protect my country yes, but that is a different thing.

I'm not an expert on this, but one could think that those gun free zones do not work as long as the hole country is "free gun" zone...

Of course there should be clear laws about how the guns are stored.

Yes, I do. Sometimes I feel that the Americans have a certain paranoia about their own government. I understand that maybe that is a legacy of the British Empire, but that was over 200 years ago...

Yes, there are surely problems when deciding the "nut cases", but personally I think better be safe than sorry. Owning guns should not be a basic right for everybody but a privilege for those, whose backgrounds do not rise ANY concerns. (Oh boy, am I not getting the flak for that comment...!)

Somehow it seems, that a lot of people seem to have those automatics. Maybe it's just a wrong image. Anyway clearly something substantial should be done!

 

Interesting...

So one should think, that because not ALL of the causes of deaths have not been dealt with with sufficient measures one should not do anything to deal with the gun problem either...? Somehow I'm not buying that line of thinking. I think that all problems should be dealt - individually. Whether one makes progress with one problem or not is not an excuse to not to search for solutions for other problems.

Yes, the H2 is a pointless gas guzzler and extremely bad for the Environment. One H2 is not that bad, but thousands of them are very bad, since one could have much better cars with a lot less consumption - for off-roading and posing too...
Yes, we should cut the use of energy everywhere, but acting foolishly at home does not make acting extremely foolishly outside any better or more justified.

I'm not against America of Americans - quite the contrary - but the American way of consuming, especially the energy consumption, is fastly destroying the Earth. I wish you or anybody else, myself included, did not have that "freedom" or "personal choice"!

No, the gun freaks (that doesn't mean all gun owners) are the egoistics who are only interested in their own amusement - not the safety or well-being of the society. Law-abiding citizens obey the laws, those who do not are criminals. One can not choose which laws to obey and which not to.

"Open fire" against the officers...?! I sincerely hope that was a joke...!

 

Karjala,

You should examine many of your points and see if they are based on facts, or on a global media point of view that is based on... almost nothing.

Automatic weapons are very uncommon, very expensive and very difficult to own. The use of rifles (ALL rifles, not just military style rifles) in murder is also quite rare - rarer than murders with fists, feet or hammers. In fact, over twice as many people are killed by bicycles every year than by rifles (of all types), but nobody is calling to ban these "two-wheeled death machines."

As for Americans destroying the earth by over-consumption, I simply don't believe it. It's a twisted statistic based on a reflexive anti-Americanism that has been repeated so often that it has become truth. Americans, per capita, don't consume more than Canadians or other nations with a similar demographic and climate. The average American earns about the same as the average western European. He doesn't have extra money to waste on ostentatious displays of consumerism (energy waste). He heats his home, he puts gas in his car (which he needs because it's a big spread out country where public transportation won't work in most areas) and he tries to put a little money in the bank for his kids college and his own retirement. Energy is money and he doesn't have any extra to waste.

The H2 may be a gas guzzler, but if you were to come to the states you'd see very few on the roads. Not everyone is a hip hop music mogul. In urban areas people tend to drive small cars, and in rural areas people tend to drive pickup trucks, while in areas with heavy snow people drive 4 wheel drive vehicles. People here, just like everywhere else, tend to drive what's practical and affordable.

You should come to the states and see the reality for yourself.

 

It's more complicated than that. With the 2nd Amendment in place, how many will obey an unconstitutional law? And in such a case, who would the law abiding be - the guy who refuses to obey on constitutional principles or the person who complies with an illegal act and turns in his guns? How many law enforcement officers would refuse to enforce such a law? How many states would defy such a law? Then what - do you call in the military and force them to choose between disobeying their constitutional oath and obeying the order?

In any permutation of the above, you're going to have civil disorder on a widespread scale.

 

Lets try to keep this on subject, resource's, and their consumption and conservation, is a valid topic...in its own thread and not here.

Carry on.

 

I'd consider an order to seize personal weapons of law abiding citizens whose rights to do so is guaranteed by the second amendment to be an unlawful order. No jawohl is coming out of me on this one.

 

I think this comes down to perceptions and differences in lifestyles in each others countries...Forget the figures, the Daily Mails and the Times or the Seattle chronicle or whatever....I am not perturbed about going anywhere in the UK, anywhere..At any time. The streets of the UK are not out of bounds to me or Historian...Perhaps I am not yet wiling purely because of my own history to walk around Belfast at the moment, but no where wlse in the British Isles, holds any fear for me or my family. There are no no go area for us. I have never felt in danger anywhere. There are dangerous folk in most places, but as to don't go there or that place is crime ridden...it just is not that way here...or I would think in Finland Australia or all the places I have been in mainland Europe. I would however take care in the East, but purely because I have never been to Eastern Europe. I have no need to carry a knife apart from a small one to cut rope and string on farm, I have no need or fear to necessitate me carrying a gun unless to protect sheep from foxes or badgers..I have no need to carry mace spray...tasers...or a truncheon..or baseball bat...Why on earth would I? Or for that matter Historian in Scotland. There is simply no need. I can't see any reason for carrying a pistol even if allowed on the off chance I might get stuck in a town in the one in a million time that some nutter runs around with a gun. It just does not happen on a daily, weekly or monthly basis here...unless you wish to be scared by the Daily Mail