Why do Americans like guns so much?

The strategy is simple; make a cocktail of M1A1 Abrams cruising up their street and add a dash of helicopter gunship to taste. Stir in a healthy portion of artillery and F16 and you'll soon see how many fat, disorganised armchair warriors crap their pants and run away. Your faith in the military taking your side is naively touching. See, they don't take their orders from Joe Six-gun.

- - - Updated - - -

Yep, 10,000 gun deaths versus 35 (thirty five, count them), in Britain. Guess who feels safer?

 

Is that really what they taught you in school?

They also had to fight off Indians and marauding bands of outlaws and other criminals and other threats.

It was probably more pervasive then than now.

 

That is no strategy it is ignorance. The WH and all other government buildings would be over run before deployment became possible. And you presume they would attack.

And I said safer. The UK has a higher crime rate and is more dangerous, But I guess you speak a different english than I do.

 

The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html#ixzz2IMamT2RA

Yes who feels safer?

 

Interestingly, you are wrong.

From your own news agency:

"But the US does not have the worst firearm murder rate - that prize belongs to Honduras, El Salvador and Jamaica. In fact, the US is number 28, with a rate of 2.97 per 100,000 people"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list

And can you please tell me how my gun crimes go unreported in the UK?

 

Oh dear god, not the bloody Daily Mail again! That rag is the equivalent of the National Enquirer, and well known for lies, distorted figures and outright deceptive practises.http://tabloid-watch.blogspot.co.uk/2010/05/spite-of-daily-mail.html

 

Once the government starts dropping heavy ordinance on the "pissed off" armed citizens, resistance will fade rather quickly. It would be a shame that so many would have to die like that, but every so often the exteme element show's its head and needs to be slapped down.

 

Tell me, do you get your 'facts' from the National Enquirer, or do you prefer serious journalism as opposed to a comic?

 

Yes, the framers of the constitution wanted the citizens of America to be carpet bombed every 200 years or so.
Says right on the back of the document in invisible ink, according to MSNBC.

 

Some people may not like it, but it eradicates the problem.

 

I guess Obama really is a God if his followers are willing to exterminate entire populations of left, right and center just on his say so.
Now that I know about people like you, i'm loading up more ammo tonight.

 

There's nothing shameful about natural selection.

 

In the country of the armed the fastest and most accurate will be king.

 

Lets say that the extreme element decides to start setting off car bombs.

I think I read about pretty much the whole east coast losing power because of a tree branch.

Im not even going to start making a list of things to disrupt, but it would not take that many people to just overwhelm the ability of law enforcement to investigate.

And if the extreme element is not so easy to find and bomb?

Its going to be way better you guys dont get this started somehow.

 

Dude some LE and governors have said they will not support bans.

 

Whenever I find a large Hornets nest not attached to the house. I'll use a 12 guage with bird shot on it for quick erradication.
Only a liberal would think the Hornets that were not decimated would flee.
I know this because one of my neighbors (liberal) thought my method was cool and tried it himself. Took days for the swelling in his face to go down.

 

And you think that it FUNNY?

You think that comes under "all is fair in love and war"?

I do think it probably indicates more about the person pulling a stunt like this than the person they have "tricked"

 

I'd suggest that the early post-colonial sentiment would reflect the quite natural distrust of the phenomenon of the standing army as it was used in Europe and to a lesser extend in Britain at the time in 1788. In Europe, although Europe was a collection of states and principalities, not like it is now, standing armies were used to deal with external and internal enemies alike. The nascent United States saw itself far removed from Europe and probably not facing an immediate threat from the superpowers of Europe, Britain and France, who were, as always, at each other's throats.

The English yeomanry model, where (prior to Cromwell) local aristocrats maintained armed subjects who could be called upon to enter the local aristocrat's service or be lent to the monarch (for payment or for other consideration) meant that armed force was dispersed and not immediately available to the monarch. This was a situation that suited the aristocrats whose forebears had taken on King John and whose actions produced the Magna Carta which specified the interests of all parties. This also reflected the decentralisation of political power in Britain at that time (I'm thinking prior to the English Civil War). A standing army under the authority of the monarch would have unbalanced that decentralisation of power. If you look at the history of the British Army you'll see the origins of many of the former regiments of the line (most of them have now been subsumed into only a few regiments) whose names reflect the yeomanry (or militia) origins - e.g. the Green Howards and even the Coldstream Guards which, while one of the premier units of the Guards was given its name from the location where it was raised.

The English Yeomanry model and Cromwell's New Army and the beginning of the post-Protectorate era army would have been known to the colonists in 1788. They saw there was no need, indeed no capacity, for a standing army. They regarded themselves as a group of states, federated for self-interest rather than a nation occupying a huge part of North America, the idea of a militia for each state sufficed. And the militia, like the yeomanry, was drawn from the citizenry. They even elected their officers, reinforcing the temporary nature of the militia, disbanded until it was required and men were "called up" to rally around the flag.

So the essence of the argument the people must be armed to be able to form a militia is defeated the moment that Congress authorises the establishment of the United States Army.

What you are relying on is an outdated interpretation of the reason for the existence of the Second Amendment. But in practical terms that doesn't matter because the US Sup Ct has interpreted the Second Amendment to favour the ownership of firearms by individual citizens. But be aware that even that august body has not said that the right to bear arms is unrestricted. That being so then it is entirely possible that laws can be passed which accord with the current interpretation of the Second Amendment which impose reasonable restrictions on the individual right to bear arms. Just as the First Amendment is no licence to untrammelled speech so the Second Amendment is open to approving laws which reasonably restrict the right to bear arms and all the overblown rhetoric in the world won't change that.

 

Thats your interpretation? Seriously?
I tricked no one. I did not suggest he do it. I did not know he was going to do it.
Besides even that. How could any grown man (woman for that matter) be stupid enough to stick their face in a hornets nest you just shot up?
Your thought patterns are seriously crossed.

edit But Yes, I laughed my ass off
And Yes he was and still is a good friend of mine.

 

International comparisons are odious, reporting methods including definitions are not taken into consideration. Go to the various sources and see what I mean.

 

You're essentially arguing for guerilla warfare. An interesting argument that actually deserves its own thread.

- - - Updated - - -

Good luck next time you need a neighbourly favour

 

Lack of rebutal noted

The figures, compiled from reports released by the European Commission and United Nations, also show:
The UK has the second highest overall crime rate in the EU.
It has a higher homicide rate than most of our western European neighbours, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain.
The UK has the fifth highest robbery rate in the EU.
It has the fourth highest burglary rate and the highest absolute number of burglaries in the EU, with double the number of offences than recorded in Germany and France.
But it is the naming of Britain as the most violent country in the EU that is most shocking. The analysis is based on the number of crimes per 100,000 residents.
In the UK, there are 2,034 offences per 100,000 people, way ahead of second-placed Austria with a rate of 1,677.

The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 92 and South Africa 1,609.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html#ixzz2IMy7t11R
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

The premise of your argument just got torpedoed.

 

Someone gave me a copy of "The Turner Diaries" to read, its about american extremism. I guess. I read some of it, it was talking about
doing stuff like I said. Fighting the government for trying to take the guns away. That is where I got those ideas.

When I got to the part about how people like me who have polluted the white race are to be hung from light posts, I quit reading it.

I didnt actually throw up but I was getting nauseated.

 

My biggest question would be, Why do we have so many Brits sticking their noses in Americas business?

PS Congratulations on the Princes first kill.