Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 8/28/08 05:26 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 8/28/08 03:57 AM, Wooly15 wrote: I live in Australia. We have strict gun laws, we have reletively strict knife laws.

Great! Good for you! But if I wanted to live under Australia style laws...I'd move to Australia.

Well, if Australia style laws are better than US styple laws, why not change to Australia style laws?

At 8/28/08 01:59 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 8/28/08 03:57 AM, Wooly15 wrote: This country (and any other country that outlaws guns) more often than not, gives a shining example as to why people DO NOT NEED GUNS.

people don't need cigarettes, alcohol, luxury furniture, fancy cars, large houses, electricity, running water, sanitation systems, etc...

And you're right, except that people actually need things like sanitation, running water and electricity if they want to live comfortably. Large houses, luxury furniture, alcohol, fancy cars, and cigarettes don't really help you live comfortably; they're more like either an Ego boost or bad habit that help you get through the day, and since a gun isn't needed like common mercies like sanitation and clean, running water are needed, we really DON'T need them.

I think the right to effective self-defense is even more indispensible than PVC piping and drain tile.

At 8/28/08 09:19 AM, morefngdbs wrote: Just because ,not only do they need room in their jails for more violent offenders...It's about the MONEY baby! They can see a real cost avantage/savings by taking/keeping the nonviolent offenders OUT OF JAIL. :)

Yes, but you're not differentiating between crimes, you're focused simply on the availability of the usage of the weapon and hitting people with a 5 year minimum sentence regardless. How long do you think it will take to fill and overcrowd the prisons with people who comitted what would otherwise be considered "minor" offenses, and wind up back at square one when getting busted for possesion of a joint was prosecute the same way?

At 8/28/08 06:04 PM, Saruman200 wrote: Well, if Australia style laws are better than US styple laws, why not change to Australia style laws?

Because guns outnumber people in this country 4 to 1 and getting rid of them all would be fucking impossible? Because there's a dubious sounding clause (to some) in the second amendment that states "Shall not be infringed" which has been supported by the government in practice for the last 225 years and recently upheld by the Supreme Court, thereby cementing it's legal status as a fundamental right in the U.S.?

At 8/28/08 07:17 PM, Proteas wrote:
Because guns outnumber people in this country 4 to 1 and getting rid of them all would be fucking impossible? Because there's a dubious sounding clause (to some) in the second amendment that states "Shall not be infringed" which has been supported by the government in practice for the last 225 years and recently upheld by the Supreme Court, thereby cementing it's legal status as a fundamental right in the U.S.?

I agree, getting rid of guns would be impossible. I was simply saying it's stupid to say that just because someone doesn't like a US law they should be forced to move out of the country just because they like that country's view on a single law better. As for the Consitution, it's not perfect you know. People need to stop pretending that. It has flaws, just like everything else. It's a great document yes, but not perfect, which is why the founding fathers included an amendment system, because unlike many people today, they realized times would change and laws would need to change with it. Of course, in present day we take the easy way out and let the Supreme Court do everything, instead of considering amendments in the federal and state congresses, we let 9 people decide everything. Not that the Supreme Court is bad, but we lose it far too much. The amendment system is there for a reason people.

At 8/28/08 06:13 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote: And you're right, except that people actually need things like sanitation, running water and electricity if they want to live comfortably.

first define "need" and "comfortably". are things we need the basics for life or are they a little more? because i can assure you that people can live "comfortably" without running water and sanitation.
our rights protect more than what will simply keep us alive, but also things that will make our lives more enjoyable according to whatever different standards individuals have. the owning of a gun is an example of something that may be considered a need for some as it provides security of mind as well as enjoyment in exercising its use.

Large houses, luxury furniture, alcohol, fancy cars, and cigarettes don't really help you live comfortably

some would argue that they are necessary in order to live comfortably.

At 8/28/08 08:02 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 8/28/08 06:13 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote: And you're right, except that people actually need things like sanitation, running water and electricity if they want to live comfortably.

first define "need" and "comfortably". are things we need the basics for life or are they a little more?

Things we need are considered the basics for life, yes, such as water and food. Generally speaking, if you have all the basics you need, you're "comfortable." I'm appealing to the status quo, as much as I dislike to, and I'm sure there are people that live without running water and sanitation and are perfectly comfortable.

because i can assure you that people can live "comfortably" without running water and sanitation.

Ok, you can live comfortably without RUNNING water. You can't live with no water at all. I should have specified, but semantical issues are bound to come up anyway. And I guess you can live "comfortably" with no sanitation. I mean, I've never lived without sanitation, so I guess I really have no say regarding it.

our rights protect more than what will simply keep us alive, but also things that will make our lives more enjoyable according to whatever different standards individuals have. the owning of a gun is an example of something that may be considered a need for some as it provides security of mind as well as enjoyment in exercising its use.

I agree, and it does all depend on the individual. I originally meant just having the basics is all we need, without considering all types of hobbies and asthetics.

Large houses, luxury furniture, alcohol, fancy cars, and cigarettes don't really help you live comfortably

some would argue that they are necessary in order to live comfortably.

See my above comment.

At 8/28/08 07:24 PM, Saruman200 wrote: I was simply saying it's stupid to say that just because someone doesn't like a US law they should be forced to move out of the country just because they like that country's view on a single law better.

I hope you weren't referring to the Bill of Rights as those certain laws people shouldn't have to adhere to or be forced to pack.

According to the preamble: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

They go on to list Freedom of Expression and Freedom to Bear Arms as the one-two punch for checking the powers of government against the needs of the people. We are meant to be ensured the means to provide for our own self-defense as prescribed in striving for domestic tranquility, upholding the notion of justice and even providing for the common defense by acclimating people with arms.

We've established that felons aren't granted the rights we as Americans enjoy, but otherwise simply being born here guarantees you all those things that helped our nation grow and prosper in every sort of way imaginable. They've given us the society we have day.

As for the Consitution, it's not perfect you know. People need to stop pretending that. It has flaws, just like everything else.

It has flaws in certain parts, and is even purposely vague. The foundations of the document, however, are sound. A claim which states either #1 or #2 is flawed is flawed itself.

It's a great document yes, but not perfect, which is why the founding fathers included an amendment system, because unlike many people today, they realized times would change and laws would need to change with it.

You raise a decent point, to which I gotta add.... the founding fathers also wrote in supporting texts that if certain amendments or aspects of society were even lawfully breeched (like ratifying an amendment curbing free speech, or repealing the 1st altogether), that act would signify it was time for the people to rise up and reset their leaders proper to represent (again) what this country is all about.

Individual freedom and guns.

Of course, in present day we take the easy way out and let the Supreme Court do everything, instead of considering amendments in the federal and state congresses, we let 9 people decide everything. Not that the Supreme Court is bad, but we lose it far too much. The amendment system is there for a reason people.

It's scary that the decision for an individual right came within one LIBERAL judge of being interpretted entirely out of the law.

The first three amendments to be voted on would be on gay marriage, banning abortions and banning smoking... all three of which have no business in legal decisions.

At 8/28/08 06:04 PM, Saruman200 wrote:

At 8/28/08 05:26 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 8/28/08 03:57 AM, Wooly15 wrote: I live in Australia. We have strict gun laws, we have reletively strict knife laws.

Great! Good for you! But if I wanted to live under Australia style laws...I'd move to Australia.

Well, if Australia style laws are better than US styple laws, why not change to Australia style laws?

1) Australian laws won't work over here...if they really are the cause of a lower crime as Wooly suggests.

2) There are advantages to trading in civil rights...but that does not mean that I view the trade-off to be a good one.

At 8/24/08 02:19 PM, Creek wrote: The right to bear arms is something that made sense 300 years ago (when the amendment was written). but in today's world it isn't. We need to change that, but it's just another old rule on the book that doesn't want to be taken off because of old conservative bastards.

I am a young liberal bastard and gun contol does not make any sense I can think of 2 reasons not to ban guns
1.self defence an eighty year old granny can use a gun to defendthemsevels how can you disagree with that
2 national defence an armed populace cannot be suppressed by an unwanted military force whether they be forien or domestic

At 8/28/08 07:17 PM, Proteas wrote: Yes, but you're not differentiating between crimes, you're focused simply on the availability of the usage of the weapon and hitting people with a 5 year minimum sentence regardless.

;;;;
Quite simply Proteas, the smarter ones will learn from the misfortune of the ones caught.
That in my mind can work for something like carrying a weapon on you when you go outside & wander around. It will never work for Pot just like it never worked for booze .
People like to get a buzz on. Period, people have been getting intoxicated for THOUSANDS & THOUSANDS of years. Almost every human being loves stimulants...we are wired for it.
If we wern't explain the massive appeal of coffee ! Tea !
Of cigarettes .
Of substances we know are damaging to body & health...but do them anyway.
Etc. Etc. Etc.
But carrying & using weapons
Why take a chance of wandering the neighborhood packing, when you know it's 5 years minimum...that type of deterent will work for a lot of the population.

5yrsminimum>being deaded by armed assailant.

Lots of people gamble, too, so 5 years bet against potentially your own life is a great gamble.

You can't measure the worth of somebody's life against anything else they have or could be threatened by. Expecting them to risk their lives by going unarmed or else be thrown in jail wouldn't discourage as many people as you think, and would probably inspire violence in lieu of curbing it.

Like Waco, or Oklahoma City.

At 8/30/08 11:39 AM, morefngdbs wrote: Quite simply Proteas, the smarter ones will learn from the misfortune of the ones caught.

So essentially, you're plan is to make examples of the idiots and drive the smart killers underground.

Explain how giving intelligent killers more reason not to get caught is a good thing.

At 8/28/08 09:41 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote:

what the right to bear arms does for the US, and what it says about the freedoms that the government is willing to allow the people is that the US will be unlike any other nation prior to it. the rights ensured for the people are more than just what they need to live but also that they are free to live however they want. the fact that the government gave its citizens the right to maintain arms was not only because it was essential to survival at the time, or because they were fighting a foreign power but because, like they were doing to Britain, their weapons would allow the people to fight for what they believed in and their freedoms and by letting the people keep their weapons was a statement that this was their land and their government working for them, and if this changed they had the power to right it.
whether or not this would be applicable today is debatable but the basic freedoms that are embodied by the 2nd amendment are still relevant. you may exercise your freedoms however you want as long as it doesn't harm the freedoms of others, as well as defend those freedoms in unity.

At 8/30/08 04:25 PM, Proteas wrote: Explain how giving intelligent killers more reason not to get caught is a good thing.

;;;;
I can see how you could put it that way...but the way I'm looking at it is that many of the problems with the knives is that altercations are happening , fights break out & then the knives come out.
If there were no knives possibly we'd just be hearing about how badly someone was beaten last night as opposed to being knifed.
It is a rare case where you hear of someone just randomly going into a crowd & just stabbing people. but when you read about the knife attacks many of them are being pulled in the heat of the momont as it were.
Reguardless of what I or any of us think, we'll soon (I believe) be seeing the laws change in Britian & carrying a knife will be a serious offense.
I've been busy this past week working several projects & haven't had time to read the papers as much as I do when I'm off.

At 8/30/08 03:07 AM, kraor024 wrote: 2 national defence an armed populace cannot be suppressed by an unwanted military force whether they be forien or domestic

;;;;;
Actually this point above is incorrect.
As put out in an idea from the old Soviet Union , if America was invaded, their plan was for the population to be rounded up & if not possible ,simply killed everyone, no quarter.
Mass Genocide was what they considered to be the only way to be able to take control, of many of the large inner city areas. They were not even going to try to take control...bombing & chemical weapons were their first choice, for these areas.
KILL everyone...let god sort it out.
I believe they came up with the idea from a Marine slogan.

So if an enemy with that attitude was able to invade all the handguns & small arms in the world aren't going to save you. If for Example the U.S. did that in Iraq or Afghanistan...you would be done over there. All you would be doing now is keeping others from attempting to attack & infiltrate through your borders.

At 8/31/08 11:50 AM, morefngdbs wrote: If there were no knives possibly we'd just be hearing about how badly someone was beaten last night as opposed to being knifed.

Knives are not like guns, more, knives are easy to produce, easy to conceal, and the materials are readily available as you can make a knife out of virtually ANYTHING.

Reguardless of what I or any of us think, we'll soon (I believe) be seeing the laws change in Britian & carrying a knife will be a serious offense.

So what's going to replace knife crime in Britain after knives are outlawed, cricket bats? Because that's (similarly) what happened when firearms were outlawed; the intended criminal use of that item went down significantly but use of an item not meant for violence went up, namely, air soft rifles.

At 8/31/08 12:06 PM, morefngdbs wrote: As put out in an idea from the old Soviet Union , if America was invaded, their plan was for the population to be rounded up & if not possible ,simply killed everyone, no quarter.

Even IF an opposing force were able to get this far inland into America, do I not have the right to defend myself from harm if I so choose? If the situation is hopeless either way, why should I just allow myself to be taken willingly?

At 8/31/08 12:34 PM, Proteas wrote: Even IF an opposing force were able to get this far inland into America, do I not have the right to defend myself from harm if I so choose? If the situation is hopeless either way, why should I just allow myself to be taken willingly?

;;;;
Proteas, someone would be prying either my shotgun or one of my rifles out of my dead hands ,hopefully I will have taken some of them with me....becasue I agree with you & others 100% about the protection of family & property from outside threat, even to & including deadly force.

At 8/31/08 12:30 PM, Proteas wrote: Knives are not like guns, more, knives are easy to produce, easy to conceal, and the materials are readily available as you can make a knife out of virtually ANYTHING.

;;;
sharpen the end of a stick...& you have the ability to stab.
harden the 'point' in a fire & it will penetrate even easier.

Reguardless of what I or any of us think, we'll soon (I believe) be seeing the laws change in Britian & carrying a knife will be a serious offense.

So what's going to replace knife crime in Britain after knives are outlawed, cricket bats?

I really don't know...probably blunt force trauma type offenses.
It will be interesting to see.
In todays BBC news a 14 year old boy a was murdered by knife there & a young girl hurt as well.

At 8/24/08 02:19 PM, Creek wrote: The right to bear arms is something that made sense 300 years ago (when the amendment was written). but in today's world it isn't. We need to change that, but it's just another old rule on the book that doesn't want to be taken off because of old conservative bastards.

So lets change the whole Constitution. What good is that old peice of lambskin anyway, its only the base of our entire government. The Nazi's took away peoples guns, right before they murdered 40 million people. Start taking away some rights and pretty soon you'll have no rights.

The Constituion doesn't change...period. There are Admentments and that is necessary, but it doesn't change to actual Constitution.

The Second Admendment made sense back then, and it still does today. People still have a right to protect themselves.

At 8/28/08 12:34 AM, thedo12 wrote: and you think there not going to be carrying guns also?

That's the beauty of a gun. EVEN MORTALLY WOUNDED, one man could still retaliate effectively against multiple attackers.

also the whole aguement about defending yourself from the governemnt is bullshit, the governemnt has much higher tech weapons then any civilian, jets, tanks, nuclear weapons ect:
you would stand no chance, if anything the peoples greatist weapon is economics, imagine everyone just quitting their jobs on the same day to protest a new law or something , the governement would have no choice but to gie in to your demands, or else the whole countrys economy would go down to shit.

Oppressed people should stay oppressed because they're oppressed? You're a real liberal, there, with all your "freedom". Fuck that. I want to live in a world where the oppressed can STOP allowing themselves to be oppressed whenever they want with enough effort.

If the workers in sweat shops randomly blew the head off of the owner of said sweatshop, I think they'd be treated better. Too bad they can't afford guns when they can barely afford to eat, eh?

If we all got rid of guns, then people who like to shoot other people would be most upset for not being able to shot people, while people who often get shot will be most pleased that they will no longer have to be shot.

The people who like to shoot other people will have to find a new hobby, and that new hobby will be just like their old hobby, but instead of shooting people, they will hit people with live chickens. Though hitting people with live chickens is not as bad as being shot, it is certainly worse for the chickens who had no part in the hobby of people who shot people and people who get shot.

So by getting rid of guns, you in fact put chickens at a very peculiar place.

At 8/31/08 10:58 PM, frigi wrote: So by getting rid of guns, you in fact put chickens at a very peculiar place.

;;;
Not really most people don't have access to live chickens, so the alternative would be to go to your local Supermarket & buy frozen dead chickens (Which is the only kind there are...all attempts to freeze & restore live chickens has resulted in their deaths).
So your concerns for the chickens are really unwarranted, plus frozen chickens in my opinion will make a far more deadly weapon that a live one.
Hopefully no one will stab anyone in the eye with the few live chickens that do get used.

At 9/1/08 11:13 AM, morefngdbs wrote:

At 8/31/08 10:58 PM, frigi wrote: So by getting rid of guns, you in fact put chickens at a very peculiar place.

;;;
Not really most people don't have access to live chickens, so the alternative would be to go to your local Supermarket & buy frozen dead chickens.
So your concerns for the chickens are really unwarranted, plus frozen chickens in my opinion will make a far more deadly weapon that a live one.

I am not sure which will make a more effective weapon, a live or dead chicken. However, live chickens are readily available to the American public. You can buy fertilizied chicken, duck and even goose eggs from any feed store. A styrofoam incubator, feed and some chicken-wire...and you're all set. Does not really require any special knowledge to raise poultry.

Damn city slickers, don't know nuttin'!

At 8/31/08 12:06 PM, morefngdbs wrote: As put out in an idea from the old Soviet Union , if America was invaded, their plan was for the population to be rounded up & if not possible ,simply killed everyone, no quarter.
Mass Genocide was what they considered to be the only way to be able to take control, of many of the large inner city areas. They were not even going to try to take control...bombing & chemical weapons were their first choice, for these areas.
KILL everyone...let god sort it out.
So if an enemy with that attitude was able to invade all the handguns & small arms in the world aren't going to save you. If for Example the U.S. did that in Iraq or Afghanistan...you would be done over there. All you would be doing now is keeping others from attempting to attack & infiltrate through your borders.

Sure it would.

In the peak of the USSR's power, they were unable to put down an armed rebellion in Afghanistan from backwards jihad monkeys. The Russians suffered insane loses. There's no way they'd be able to take over a country of armed people, many of which have the best military training in the world.

Plus, there's also this thing that, if Russia invaded us, we'd bomb the shit out of them.

So in a situation that will never happen, you argue that we couldn't beat an enemy that only faced unarmed forces....and then claim your case is made....

Wow.

Well, if your planning to have the Murdering career (Or any other criminal career) you can just get guns and knives off the black market. It isn't hard if you know the right people. In fact, it's even worse, cause with gun control, the only people you are taking them away from is innocents. And there goes self defence.

At 9/2/08 02:21 AM, WolvenBear wrote: In the peak of the USSR's power, they were unable to put down an armed rebellion in Afghanistan from backwards jihad monkeys. The Russians suffered insane loses. There's no way they'd be able to take over a country of armed people, many of which have the best military training in the world.

;;;;
I laughed my ass off at your Afghanistan comments.
THe U.S. at the height of it's military Power cannot control Iraq after 6+ years of trying.
Afghanistan is being occupied by U.S. forces along with their NATO allies...& still those backward Jihadist monkeys are killing and infiltrating & bombing unstopped.

The jihadist problem is becoming larger in Pakistan as well.
Somalia is a un Governed quag mire.
None of this has anything to do with Britian attempting to confront their growing knife related violence.

WOW ! keep your head firmly inserted up your ass ,You obviiously like the view from there ! But never forget, the USSR didn't try to kill everyone in Afghanistan. Neither are the U.S. & NATO troops kill everyone in sight.
My comments of the USSR, were IF <======see the little word IF? IF in a conventional attempt to invade & hold territory in the U.S. killing the civilian population was the only solution, because there are so many guns.
THAT was what the consenses was by the USSR high command of what it would take to occupy the U.S. your ability to bomb the shit out of them is not based in reality...you see if you do it to them...they'll do it to you & you'll both be HUGE smoking holes in the crust of this planet.
And then, there will be absolutely no need to invade a highly radioactive wasteland !
Nothing will be left, & then what will you do with your so called "right to inflict violence on each othe"...sorry I mean" right to bear arms" . ;)

It's called "We have the H-Bomb", which is over ten times stronger than a Fission (AKA Nuclear) bomb.

At 9/2/08 09:27 AM, CoeurdeLion wrote: Well, if your planning to have the Murdering career (Or any other criminal career) you can just get guns and knives off the black market. It isn't hard if you know the right people. In fact, it's even worse, cause with gun control, the only people you are taking them away from is innocents. And there goes self defence.

;;;;;;;;;;
If <=========there's that little word again !
If you had read the start of this thread you might have checked out KNIFE crime in Great Britian they are attempting to cut down the amount of stabbings etc that are happening all over that Nation. They are NOT attempting to make knives illegal. They are attempting to make LAWS that will make it a very serious crime to have a Knife in public. So you may not have done anything except be in public with a knife & you can look forward to a much tougher sentence.
They already have a much tougher Gun registration & Gun Control laws than Canada does... now they are looking to attempt to curb the amount of people on the streets carrying knives.
Many of the crimes are not being commited by 'criminals' they are just people who may get in a fight at a pub & the knives come out...& then someones dead. The criminals as you like to discribe anyone who wishes to commit a crime or is driven by a need to commit a crime, if they are found in public armed with a knife, these are problems the Gov. seems to think they can cut down by making the fact of just being in possesion of a knife you've commited a serious crime.