Frothers Unite! UK

Posted: **Fri Jan 18, 2013 3:47 am**

Condottiero wrote:Stuff.

Interesting, maybe. I hope you weren't expecting me to read the 147 page dissertation?

Tits would have been a better off topic item.

Posted: **Fri Jan 18, 2013 4:14 am**

Goldwyrm wrote:
Condottiero wrote:Stuff.

Interesting, maybe. I hope you weren't expecting me to read the 147 page dissertation?

Tits would have been a better off topic item.

Encyclopedia of Lesbian Movie Scenes

Posted: **Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:50 am**

The king of cunt & paste

Posted: **Fri Jan 18, 2013 12:00 pm**

Goldwyrm wrote:And here's what my state's legislature introduced today, 18 potential new gun bills:

A-3645/S-2476 Requires ammunition sales and transfers be conducted as face-to-face transactions.

A-3646/S-2474 Establishes a regulatory system to govern the sale and transfer of ammunition.

A-3653 Criminalizes purchasing or owning weapon if person has previous conviction of unlawful possession of weapon.

A-3659 Revises definition of destructive device to include certain weapons of 50 caliber or greater.

A-3664 Reduces lawful maximum capacity of certain ammunition magazines in New Jersey.

A-3666/S-2465 Prohibits mail order, Internet, telephone, and any other anonymous method of ammunition sale or transfer in New Jersey.

A-3667 Requires mental health screening by licensed professional to purchase a firearm.

A-3668/S-2467 Prohibits investment by State of pension and annuity funds in companies manufacturing, importing, and selling assault firearms for civilian use.

A-3676 Requires psychological evaluation and in-home inspection as prerequisite to purchase firearm.

A-3687 Disqualifies person named on federal Terrorist Watchlist from obtaining firearms identification card or permit to purchase handgun.

A-3688 Requires mental health evaluation and list of household members with mental illness to purchase firearm.

A-3689 Requires security guards who carry weapons to wear certain uniform, including identification card.

A-3690/S-2430 Declares violence a public health crisis, recommends expansion of mental health programs, recommends federal adoption of gun control measures, and establishes ?Study Commission on Violence.?

AJR-89 Urges President and US Senate to ratify Arms Trade Treaty proposed by United Nations.

AR-133 Expresses support for creation of task force on gun control led by Vice President Biden.

S-2464 Regulates sale and transfer of rifle and shotgun ammunition.

S-2475 Reduces maximum capacity of ammunition magazines to 10 rounds.

SR-92 Urges Congress to strengthen gun control laws.

The Presidential executive orders are the tip of the iceberg. Lots of stuff still to come through the legislative branch, and via individual states passing laws such as what's occurring in NY.

None of this affects most of you, so I don't expect you to have half the details. But I've posted some of this here already (see above).

I've addressed most of the questions with what I feel are reasonable answers and perspective. That has been mostly reciprocated with emotional bluster and condescension.[/quote]

But...AGAIN...nothing in that list is stopping you from purchasing a perfectly reasonable home defence weapon? This is the bit that confuses me with all the bluster from Americans - okay I should have used semi-automatic in my description but it still stands in that context - Do you NEED a semi automatic rifle with a 30 round magazine of armour piercing ammunition to defend your home or hunt deer?

Nothing I have read here or anywhere else online suggests that there is any proposal to take away your guns!!!

all it is is reasonable and sensible proposals for ensuring that access to highly lethal tools is regulated properly.

Posted: **Fri Jan 18, 2013 1:44 pm**

Goldwyrm wrote:
What government in the last 70 years has confined citizens to internment camps, performed illegal medical experiments on its citizens, waged foreign wars without declaring them through its congress, engaged in illegal surveillance, detained people indefinitely without process, tortured, and assassinated?

The USA.

Posted: **Fri Jan 18, 2013 1:48 pm**

redzed wrote:
Goldwyrm wrote:
What government in the last 70 years has confined citizens to internment camps, performed illegal medical experiments on its citizens, waged foreign wars without declaring them through its congress, engaged in illegal surveillance, detained people indefinitely without process, tortured, and assassinated?

The USA.

That was the answer that came to me too, but I don't think it was the intent!

Posted: **Fri Jan 18, 2013 1:59 pm**

Colonel Kane wrote:
redzed wrote:
Goldwyrm wrote:
What government in the last 70 years has confined citizens to internment camps, performed illegal medical experiments on its citizens, waged foreign wars without declaring them through its congress, engaged in illegal surveillance, detained people indefinitely without process, tortured, and assassinated?

The USA.

That was the answer that came to me too, but I don't think it was the intent!

Maybe it was, I don't think Goldie trusts 'Big Government'

He has said he is a Libertarian and any restrictions are the thin edge of the wedge.

I can understand where Goldie, Tom and others are arguing from
I personally don't agree with their philosophy, I believe an individual must give up some liberties/freedoms for societies as large and as complex as ours to survive.
'The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few' and all that

Posted: **Fri Jan 18, 2013 2:12 pm**

Steders wrote:'The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few' and all that

except in this particular discussion most of the things that people are proposing should be regulated are WANTS not NEEDS

Posted: **Fri Jan 18, 2013 2:19 pm**

DemonEtrigan wrote:
Steders wrote:'The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few' and all that

except in this particular discussion most of the things that people are proposing should be regulated are WANTS not NEEDS

Totally agree, was trying to empathise

Posted: **Fri Jan 18, 2013 2:29 pm**

I personally don't agree with their philosophy.

I have been arguing about the argument, saying both sides make sense not putting forth my own view - except that my view is both sides make sense. Which view you prefer is in my opinion a philosophical question which some people try to disguise as a practical one because if they admit it?s philosophical they?ll just have to shrug their shoulders and say ?well we?ll just have to disagree? and they are far too excited to do that.

My own view on guns is you have an inalienable right to self-defense, how could it be otherwise? The question then is what constitutes reasonable means to exercise that right. It?s no good having a right if the allowed means to exercise it are so restricted as to negate it. If you have free speech but only when no one can heard you then you don?t really have it at all.

So the question is what is reasonable and that is something with a lot of latitude depending on circumstances. The problem in the U.S. as I see it is there are two radicalized camps, one which would like to ban guns completely and the other which in reaction resists reasonable regulation because they fear it?s just incrementalism to a ban. We have a history of incremental circumvention of legal principle (e.g. the abuse of the commerce clause) so they unfortunately have grounds to be suspicious.

Frothers Unite! UK

Shooting rampage master thread