Conquer Club

black elk speaks wrote:
another factor that grants americans the right to bear arms that most people don't seem to consider is that we also consider it our responsibility to overthrow our own government if it should be considered corrupt. i don't guess that your constitution or equivelant document addressed that issue. personally, I think that such action is long overdue in this country but it would surely be destined to fail since the population at large is lethargic and largely ignorant.

Although, that amendment was written in relation to "A well regulated Militia..." (emphasis added).

I've never been clear on how individuals carrying concealed deadly weapons constitutes a well regulated Militia, nor how the ease with which individuals can acquire powerful weapons (like assault weapons) constitutes a well regulated Militia.

Here's a list of weapons legally available to pretty much any American if they're committed enough to get them:

(copypasta from this source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_We ... ct_of_2007 )

Rifles

* AK
* AKM
* AKS
* AK-47
* AK-74
* ARM
* AR15
* AR10
* MAK90
* Misr
* NHM 90
* NHM 91
* SA 85
* SA 93
* Vepr
* AR-10
* AR-15
* Bushmaster XM15
* Armalite M15
* Olympic Arms PCR
* AR-70
* Calico Liberty
* Dragunov SVD
* Dragunov SVU
* Fabrique National FAL
* Fabrique National LAR
* Fabrique National FNC
* Hi-Point 995 Carbine
* HK 91
* HK 93
* HK 94
* HK PSG-1
* Kel-Tec Sub Rifle
* M1 Carbine
* Saiga
* SAR-8
* SAR-4800
* SKS with detachable magazine
* SLG 95
* SLR 95
* SLR 96
* Steyr AUG
* Sturm, Ruger Mini-14
* IMI Tavor TAR-21
* Thompson M1
* Thompson 1927
* Thompson 1927 Commando
* Uzi
* Uzi Sporter
* IMI Galil
* Galil Sporter
* Galil|Galil Sniper Rifle (Galatz)
* Any semiautomatic weapon that has a detachable magazine and any of the following,

1)A folding or telescopic stock
2)A threaded barrel
3)A pistol grip
4)A forward grip
5)A barrel shroud

* Any semiautomatic rifle with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds with exception to an attached tubular magazine capable of firing only .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.
* A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use.
* A firearm that, based on the design is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes determined by the Attorney General. In making said determination, there will be a presumption that any firearm procured by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes.

Pistols

* Beretta
* Browning Hi-Power
* Calico M-110
* CZ
* Heckler & Koch
* MAC-10
* MAC-11
* MPA3
* Glock
* Kimber
* Olympic Arms OA
* Para Ordnance
* TEC-9
* TEC-DC9
* TEC-22 Scorpion
* AB-10
* M1911
* Ruger
* SIG Sauer
* Smith & Wesson
* Springfield Armory, Inc.
* Uzi
* Walther

Shotguns

* Armscor 30 BG
* Armsel Striker
* Benelli M1
* LAW 12
* Remington 1100
* Remington 11-87
* SPAS 12

LOL i love the 'we can overthrow our guvmint' thing. A drooling retard cheats his way into power by ignoring the will of the electorate and what happens? Where are the well-armed militias rising up to right this calumny and prevent all the pointless wars and spiralling national debt? Er... watching American idol no doubt. We're just as apathetic over here, by the way. Actually our democracies could probably both do with a couple of good hard civil wars.

heavycola wrote:LOL i love the 'we can overthrow our guvmint' thing. A drooling retard cheats his way into power by ignoring the will of the electorate and what happens? Where are the well-armed militias rising up to right this calumny and prevent all the pointless wars and spiralling national debt? Er... watching American idol no doubt. We're just as apathetic over here, by the way. Actually our democracies could probably both do with a couple of good hard civil wars.

The biggest problem with the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution (and it's present day interpretation) is that it was authored prior to the Federalist Papers #10 changed much of the way the federal government functions in relation to the states and local governments.

Also, it was authored at a time prior to the National Guard, which has supplanted the need or even real reason for the militias extant at the time of the Bill of Rights' composition.

pimpdave wrote:

heavycola wrote:LOL i love the 'we can overthrow our guvmint' thing. A drooling retard cheats his way into power by ignoring the will of the electorate and what happens? Where are the well-armed militias rising up to right this calumny and prevent all the pointless wars and spiralling national debt? Er... watching American idol no doubt. We're just as apathetic over here, by the way. Actually our democracies could probably both do with a couple of good hard civil wars.

The biggest problem with the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution (and it's present day interpretation) is that it was authored prior to the Federalist Papers #10 changed much of the way the federal government functions in relation to the states and local governments.

Also, it was authored at a time prior to the National Guard, which has supplanted the need or even real reason for the militias extant at the time of the Bill of Rights' composition.

and yet it is written into the constitution. until the constitution is amended to overturn the second amendment, it stands legal. you have to consider that the propose of a "well regulated militia" which can be formed at the last minute cannot be formed if the men / women that form it are not armed. this is the purpose of it. unfortunately for the US, the vast majority of us couldn't give a shit about their rights so long as we are permitted to double size our value meals and keep gas prices down.

for those of you that continue to criticize the american constitution from across the pond, know that your opinion in these matters don't amount to piss over here. For those of you on this side of the pond, you know the phrase, from my cold dead fingers! the day that law makers make the attempt to take guns from the hands of law abiding citizens that actually give a shit about their constitution, there will be backlash against the government that will cost many lives.

black elk speaks wrote:the day that law makers make the attempt to take guns from the hands of law abiding citizens that actually give a shit about their constitution, there will be backlash against the government that will cost many lives.

You continue to expect too much from the American people. Lots of people talk a big game, but something tells me that the actual number of people who would kill others (and likely themselves considering the likely reaction to being shot at) over a killstick is much lower.

Frigidus wrote:

black elk speaks wrote:the day that law makers make the attempt to take guns from the hands of law abiding citizens that actually give a shit about their constitution, there will be backlash against the government that will cost many lives.

You continue to expect too much from the American people. Lots of people talk a big game, but something tells me that the actual number of people who would kill others (and likely themselves considering the likely reaction to being shot at) over a killstick is much lower.

there are currently 4 million members in the NRA. these folks are vastly comprised of "gun nuts" and I think that a pretty good number of them would see a change to the second amendment as the beginning of the end with regards to the constitutional rights we have been born and raised with. there would be blood shed.

black elk speaks wrote:

Frigidus wrote:

black elk speaks wrote:the day that law makers make the attempt to take guns from the hands of law abiding citizens that actually give a shit about their constitution, there will be backlash against the government that will cost many lives.

You continue to expect too much from the American people. Lots of people talk a big game, but something tells me that the actual number of people who would kill others (and likely themselves considering the likely reaction to being shot at) over a killstick is much lower.

there are currently 4 million members in the NRA. these folks are vastly comprised of "gun nuts" and I think that a pretty good number of them would see a change to the second amendment as the beginning of the end with regards to the constitutional rights we have been born and raised with. there would be blood shed.

Sure, NRA blood.

Frigidus wrote:

black elk speaks wrote:

Frigidus wrote:

black elk speaks wrote:the day that law makers make the attempt to take guns from the hands of law abiding citizens that actually give a shit about their constitution, there will be backlash against the government that will cost many lives.

You continue to expect too much from the American people. Lots of people talk a big game, but something tells me that the actual number of people who would kill others (and likely themselves considering the likely reaction to being shot at) over a killstick is much lower.

there are currently 4 million members in the NRA. these folks are vastly comprised of "gun nuts" and I think that a pretty good number of them would see a change to the second amendment as the beginning of the end with regards to the constitutional rights we have been born and raised with. there would be blood shed.

Sure, NRA blood.

Yeah seriously, that sounds like it'd be Ruby Ridge Part 2. A bunch of untrained paramilitary NRA members up against even something comparatively small, like ESU? No contest. ESU would squash them. (Although if the NRA members were up against SWAT -- what LA calls their ESU -- the NRA militia would probably be victorious, but that's just because SWAT is inferior to ESU by pure virtue of it not being from NYC).

Certainly nothing to hope for, but 4 million people in a nation of 300 million? And all spread out across the nation? Maybe a few loons would go off, but I doubt they'd actually all band together and form a standing army...

Honestly, the 296 million of us who aren't in the NRA could use a break from the results of all the pro-gun rhetoric. Also, BES, how do you resolve the conflict of the "well regulated Militia" clause with individuals carrying concealed weapons, or being able to purchase high powered assault weapons? (I'm honestly asking you. And to be absolutely clear, I do not support ever repealing the 2nd Amendment, just that we have to adapt our laws to the present day, and need more and stricter controls on these weapons.)

Are you completely against gun control? Because based on the language in the 2nd Amendment, it seems to me that the Federal government has every right, nay compulsion, to tighten up on the types of weapons available to Americans. If these hot shot Senators and Congressmen would just come spend a couple nights in the violence torn neighborhoods of American cities, instead of tuning out the violence with their private jets and NRA lobbyist money, they might actually understand where the gun control side of the debate is coming from, and understand why it's imperative to stem the tide of weapons.

pimpdave wrote:

Frigidus wrote:

black elk speaks wrote:

Frigidus wrote:

black elk speaks wrote:the day that law makers make the attempt to take guns from the hands of law abiding citizens that actually give a shit about their constitution, there will be backlash against the government that will cost many lives.

You continue to expect too much from the American people. Lots of people talk a big game, but something tells me that the actual number of people who would kill others (and likely themselves considering the likely reaction to being shot at) over a killstick is much lower.

there are currently 4 million members in the NRA. these folks are vastly comprised of "gun nuts" and I think that a pretty good number of them would see a change to the second amendment as the beginning of the end with regards to the constitutional rights we have been born and raised with. there would be blood shed.

Sure, NRA blood.

Yeah seriously, that sounds like it'd be Ruby Ridge Part 2. A bunch of untrained paramilitary NRA members up against even something comparatively small, like ESU? No contest. ESU would squash them. (Although if the NRA members were up against SWAT -- what LA calls their ESU -- the NRA militia would probably be victorious, but that's just because SWAT is inferior to ESU by pure virtue of it not being from NYC).

Certainly nothing to hope for, but 4 million people in a nation of 300 million? And all spread out across the nation? Maybe a few loons would go off, but I doubt they'd actually all band together and form a standing army...

Honestly, the 296 million of us who aren't in the NRA could use a break from the results of all the pro-gun rhetoric. Also, BES, how do you resolve the conflict of the "well regulated Militia" clause with individuals carrying concealed weapons, or being able to purchase high powered assault weapons? (I'm honestly asking you. And to be absolutely clear, I do not support ever repealing the 2nd Amendment, just that we have to adapt our laws to the present day, and need more and stricter controls on these weapons.)

Are you completely against gun control? Because based on the language in the 2nd Amendment, it seems to me that the Federal government has every right, nay compulsion, to tighten up on the types of weapons available to Americans. If these hot shot Senators and Congressmen would just come spend a couple nights in the violence torn neighborhoods of American cities, instead of tuning out the violence with their private jets and NRA lobbyist money, they might actually understand where the gun control side of the debate is coming from, and understand why it's imperative to stem the tide of weapons.

its the law abiding citizens that would suffer from banning of hand guns and such. if i have a gun, why should i not be allowed to conceal it if i have a permit? the cops know who i am. I was pulled over for expired tags a while back and the officer asks up front "are you carrying today?" the premise of innocent until proven guilty should apply here. i have been found guilty of no crime, therefore you cannot infringe on my rights to bear arms. having never shown to be a danger to myself or any other, i should be free to defend myself should the case arise.

it doesn't matter. the law is currently in my favor in this case. frankly i am tired of trying to explain to you all what it means to be totally responsible for your own safety.

black elk speaks wrote:
its the law abiding citizens that would suffer from banning of hand guns and such. if i have a gun, why should i not be allowed to conceal it if i have a permit? the cops know who i am. I was pulled over for expired tags a while back and the officer asks up front "are you carrying today?" the premise of innocent until proven guilty should apply here. i have been found guilty of no crime, therefore you cannot infringe on my rights to bear arms. having never shown to be a danger to myself or any other, i should be free to defend myself should the case arise.

it doesn't matter. the law is currently in my favor in this case. frankly i am tired of trying to explain to you all what it means to be totally responsible for your own safety.

I don't want to pester you then, but I don't see the reconciliation here between the dichotomy of a well regulated militia with an individual having a unilateral right to bear arms.

I'm not disputing the right to bear arms, just the unilateral entitlement to bear any kind you wish. So, you don't have to answer if you don't want to. Maybe think on it for awhile.

pimpdave wrote:

black elk speaks wrote:
its the law abiding citizens that would suffer from banning of hand guns and such. if i have a gun, why should i not be allowed to conceal it if i have a permit? the cops know who i am. I was pulled over for expired tags a while back and the officer asks up front "are you carrying today?" the premise of innocent until proven guilty should apply here. i have been found guilty of no crime, therefore you cannot infringe on my rights to bear arms. having never shown to be a danger to myself or any other, i should be free to defend myself should the case arise.

it doesn't matter. the law is currently in my favor in this case. frankly i am tired of trying to explain to you all what it means to be totally responsible for your own safety.

I don't want to pester you then, but I don't see the reconciliation here between the dichotomy of a well regulated militia with an individual having a unilateral right to bear arms.

I'm not disputing the right to bear arms, just the unilateral entitlement to bear any kind you wish. So, you don't have to answer if you don't want to. Maybe think on it for awhile.

i don't think that the second amendment says "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed with the exception of modern firearms that enable them to actually be of use, no rather they should be reduced to fighting with buck shot and muzzle loaders in the face of an invading enemy nor shall they be able to carry a pistol outside of plain view." can't see how that version was the one that the states ratified. it actually says that the right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I think that this means enemies both foreign and domestic. an enemy of the state is just as much one who would perpetrate violent crimes against its citizenry as it is an invading army from across some border.

face it, its a violent world that we live in and i for one want to have the tools available to me that can make sure that when push comes to shove, i can match what ever comes my way. i hope that you never have to change your mind and find yourself in harm's way wishing that you had something better than your empty hands to defend yourself against some raging lunatic with a hammer. apparently, this sort of thing happens.

black elk speaks wrote:i am tired of trying to explain to you all what it means to be totally responsible for your own safety.

Given that your explanation appears to be "Being totally responsible for your own safety is allowing every man, woman and child access to efficient instruments of bloodshed, then hunkering down in fortified bunkers while a suburban arms-race ensues, and civil law-enforcement agencies are put in the position of having to deal with armed criminal militias on a daily basis" I'd suggest that you might not quite have thought about the concept hard enough to be in a position to explain it to others yet.

comic boy wrote:

black elk speaks wrote:

Nickbaldwin wrote:In the UK handguns are illegal, rifles and shotguns are legal for sporting/hunting use, although I don't know how long it takes to get a license. I do know that you need a clean criminal record.

so judging by this post, illegal means banned. thanks nick.

comic boy, if you can clarify what you wish to accomplish by posting in this thread, please do. don't you mean do suggest that hand guns should be banned here in the states as they are there in Brittan?

Hand guns are restricted in Britain not banned, you can own one for a legitimate purpose only such as being a member of a shooting club, its quite a popular sport and we often win medals at the Olympics. Can an individual carry a handgun for protective purposes only, not unless you are a trained member of the security services, this would include some but not all policeman. Do I think there should be greater restrictions in the USA, why not as it would cause less deaths. Clearly though change could not happen overnight as there needs to be a culture change for it to work as it does in Britain, here we see them as an occassional neccessary evil wheras in the US many view them as sexy.
As for what I mean to achieve the answer is I am simply responding to the notion that more guns make for a safer environment, the fact that statistics show that since we started arguing 100 Americans have likely died or been seriously injured by firearms is surely a sobering thought .

Handguns are banned, GBR Olympians have to train in NI or overseas. That's my knowledge anyway, and these are the restrictions I have faced while looking for shooting clubs.

Dancing Mustard wrote:

black elk speaks wrote:i am tired of trying to explain to you all what it means to be totally responsible for your own safety.

Given that your explanation appears to be "Being totally responsible for your own safety is allowing every man, woman and child access to efficient instruments of bloodshed, then hunkering down in fortified bunkers while a suburban arms-race ensues, and civil law-enforcement agencies are put in the position of having to deal with armed criminal militias on a daily basis" I'd suggest that you might not quite have thought about the concept hard enough to be in a position to explain it to others yet.

its not really like that over here. you are putting words in my mouth. thankfully, we are not under brittish rule.

black elk speaks wrote:

Dancing Mustard wrote:

black elk speaks wrote:i am tired of trying to explain to you all what it means to be totally responsible for your own safety.

Given that your explanation appears to be "Being totally responsible for your own safety is allowing every man, woman and child access to efficient instruments of bloodshed, then hunkering down in fortified bunkers while a suburban arms-race ensues, and civil law-enforcement agencies are put in the position of having to deal with armed criminal militias on a daily basis" I'd suggest that you might not quite have thought about the concept hard enough to be in a position to explain it to others yet.

its not really like that over here. you are putting words in my mouth. thankfully, we are not under brittish rule.

Very true and the world has benefited from your growth. As has British philosophy; we are a little like the grandparent who can't act any longer, being too wrinkly and knackered but who can critique the actions of the young.
Like the grandparent we have learned through our own life though what we have learned is not always relevant.

I do not mean that quite as patronisingly as it sounds, our nation has directly learned much from yours.

You say: "i am tired of trying to explain to you all what it means to be totally responsible for your own safety."

And this alludes to one of Mustards initial posts outlining the polarisation of culture. (he was objective but could not resist falling into the partisan line eventually)
At the most intellectual level, your right to bear arms is one of the basic securities in the balance of power. The gun is a symbol of your independence from all governance; extraneous but very certainly a protection from corruption within.

this high-minded safeguard has become something more instinctive for the masses though! it reflects the defence of everyday struggles; meeting the ultimate question in kind. Giving the little guy power on their own terms, like John Wayne with his Winchester - you only need yourself and your repeater! "what?".. I said!: "you only need yourself and your... "

We on the other hand, have less immediate symbols to act in the balance of power. Principles no less but without the ease of identification to all, which the gun holds.
That is a little off-topic as we do not have a place for the gun ingrained in our social consciousness.

So moving on - Instead, where you talk about protection, the gun in anathema to us. So much so that we asked our policemen not to carry guns and still to protect us until very recent years. We asked them to be responsible for our safety whilst upholding this high-minded principle. - That which says the threat of violence itself begets violence. And that any gun creates the spectre of foreboding which moulds the fabric of everyday life.

Terrorism let guns in through the in the Constabulary back-door sadly!

The point is, I and for many British people are willing to brave the requirements of violence without a gun. We do that in order to hold-out for a better society!

that's a value judgement and is entirely based upon 2 utterly different starting points in the USA and Britain.

black elk speaks wrote:

Dancing Mustard wrote:

black elk speaks wrote:i am tired of trying to explain to you all what it means to be totally responsible for your own safety.

Given that your explanation appears to be "Being totally responsible for your own safety is allowing every man, woman and child access to efficient instruments of bloodshed, then hunkering down in fortified bunkers while a suburban arms-race ensues, and civil law-enforcement agencies are put in the position of having to deal with armed criminal militias on a daily basis" I'd suggest that you might not quite have thought about the concept hard enough to be in a position to explain it to others yet.

its not really like that over here. you are putting words in my mouth. thankfully, we are not under brittish rule.

"It's not really like that over here" - Well it's more like it there than it is over here. Why's that? Because of guns.

"You are putting words in my mouth" - Well that's because you're putting them in ours. Your most recent comment made an unjustified over-polarised representation of the preceeding debate; when you said "I'm not going to explain to you what it means to be responsible for your own safety" you implied that we anti-gunners were somehow not trying to make ourselves safe; that implication is of course complete and unmitigated bollocks. And guess what: you know it.

Imagine if I'd said "Well I'm sick of trying to explain what it means to you to make your society a place where your children are subjected to mass homicide in their classrooms!"... wouldn't that be annoying and misleading? It would you say? Well then why do you think it's fine to do it yourself then get pissy when people tell you where to get off?

Basically BESsie, when you make pissy little "Well you are all against personal safety!!! I'm right and I'm leaving with all my toys!" comments, that you're not contributing a valid or reasoned point, and you're just going to annoy people who will then lampoon and deride you.

"thankfully, we are not under brittish rule" - Oh look, another little catty comment from BESsie... how uncharacteristic of him. Just think how he'd whinge if I interrupted a sensible discussion with "Well thank God American's aren't in charge over here lol!". Strange really, I thought he was the moderator of that civilised discussion forum I've been hearing so much about... that kind of petty trolling and childish bitching wasn't the sort of thing I thought they stood for.

Nick
Yes you are correct,automatic hand guns are indeed banned and one can only use certain single shot weapons at a shooting club. I think that the home secretary has made an exception to the rules though to allow our shooters to practice over here for the 2012 Olympics.

black elk speaks wrote:
for those of you that continue to criticize the american constitution from across the pond, know that your opinion in these matters don't amount to piss over here. For those of you on this side of the pond, you know the phrase, from my cold dead fingers! the day that law makers make the attempt to take guns from the hands of law abiding citizens that actually give a shit about their constitution, there will be backlash against the government that will cost many lives.

Know that on the internet everyone has an opinion, and that by casting your eyes over the words they write, you ingest those opinions and reply with your own (inferior) opinions. That's how the internet works. Yoru opinions about everyone's opinions are what do not amount to piss.

Also, this idea that the only time you will enact your constituionally enshrined right to take arms against your government is when they try to tale your guns off you is laughable. 'Sure mr prezdent, you can take away our freedoms and bomb all those goofy towelheads and take us to war on an outright lie and you can even cheat your way into office - just don't touch my gun.'

heavycola wrote: "...just don't touch my gun.'

In a related story, this is also what every kid told Michael Jackson when spending the night.

it's also what the terrorist said to the pilot when he got uppity. it's a funny old world.

Dude, you don't need a legit reason to pack heat. The very fact that you're allowed to is reason enough.

lol...soccer games are bad. they should be banned.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/s ... topstories

LOL I LUV MAI GUNS. DAY MAIK ME FEEL SO TUFF 'N STUFF. I GO LYK, BAM BAM, AND DAY GO LYK, AGH AGH. DIS FUNNNI DAT IT HAPPENS IN DA UNITED STATEZ OF AMERICUH.

bedub1 wrote:lol...soccer games are bad. they should be banned.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/s ... topstories

30,000 dead and 100,000 seriously injured right