When I switch on the radio to listen to the news I feel a sense of anti-climax if there's not a story about Drumpf sounding off.
Off Topic The Politics Thread
- Thread starter ForestHillBilly
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
- Status
SuperChrissyisfantasticPardswasatrocious
Well-Known Member
Just coming back from the heartland of the American uprising, it did annoy me with all the British bashing that there is in their history. They overly sell that when they defeated the British, they won liberty, justice, rights and freedoms for "ALL." Having a chat with them I argued that they already had liberty, justice, rights and freedom, stipulating that they only won self-governance, the rest they had.
And what did they do with that self-governance... Underpinned their whole entire economy on the slavery of people! Hardly liberty, justice and freedom for all!
And what did they do with that self-governance... Underpinned their whole entire economy on the slavery of people! Hardly liberty, justice and freedom for all!
They also won the right for the mentally unstable to legally own a gun ..... it would be discriminatory not to .... to be fair!
Being mentally ill doesn't make someone a killer. Most killers are declared sane of mind.
I've suffered from severe mental illness for almost thirty years, yet I like to think I am more responsible than half of those with gun licences in this country and abroad.
That's not to say I wouldn't mind shooting a few carefully chosen targets; I just wouldn't slaughter innocents for the sake of it.
I've suffered from severe mental illness for almost thirty years, yet I like to think I am more responsible than half of those with gun licences in this country and abroad.
That's not to say I wouldn't mind shooting a few carefully chosen targets; I just wouldn't slaughter innocents for the sake of it.
I don't think anybody has suggested that, but the majority of mass shooting incidents are by mentally unstable people.
Do you not believe there should be any restrictions on firearm sales?
PEA, the revoked law didn't ban the Mentally Unstable from owning a firearm, it just said that checks with professionals (Doctors etc) were required prior to a firearm being sold .... it seems this requirement was a restriction too far for the Republicans
Aside from professional experts, I don't think any civilian should bear arms.
Mass shootings are often committed by individuals with a grudge or fundamental belief system. These reasons are far removed from what we describe as everyday mental illnesses.
In the same vein, perhaps the mentally ill should be banned from driving motor vehicles, for surely a car is a ready made weapon of mass destruction?
The purpose of a car isn't to kill. Like a hammer or a knife, it's just a tool that can be used to inflict severe injury/kill. As you know, a gun only has one use - killing.
The gun, the knife or the car will be used to kill, regardless of the tool's intended purpose. It's the person utilising the tool that matters. Most homicides are committed by spouses, yet there is no ban on spouses owning weapons of any kind. Demonising the mentally ill is highly offensive.
But if someone does want to go on a killing spree they'll do a lot more damage if they've got a gun, especially a Kalashnikov.
I'm going out on a limb and say most mass shootings are committed by people who have access to guns. After Dunblane in the U.K. we made it harder to obtain access to guns, we've had no mass shootings vs. 285 last year in the US. Australia has only had one since, and New Zealand are on the same number as us.
That's not to say we've had no shootings, these are ones that are defined as "MASS."
Guns really should not be readily available to the public. There's only a couple of times that they should be:
- invasion of a foriegn power, arming the people as militias to protect their families, friends and neighbours (none of this for Queen bullshit)
- act of protection for when democracy fails and government acts against the will of people and they need to be forcibly removed from power
- if it is your soul livelihood is dependent on a gun, such as a bear catcher, or that you hunt with the soul purpose of it being your means to food and feeding your family.
Other than that, guns should not be in public possession.
That's not to say we've had no shootings, these are ones that are defined as "MASS."
Guns really should not be readily available to the public. There's only a couple of times that they should be:
- invasion of a foriegn power, arming the people as militias to protect their families, friends and neighbours (none of this for Queen bullshit)
- act of protection for when democracy fails and government acts against the will of people and they need to be forcibly removed from power
- if it is your soul livelihood is dependent on a gun, such as a bear catcher, or that you hunt with the soul purpose of it being your means to food and feeding your family.
Other than that, guns should not be in public possession.
Not always, FHB. One man with a gun can be brought down easier than a man in a lorry. A group of gun-wielding fanatics is another matter.
Oh no, not another story about benefit scroungers sponging off the taxpayer while contributing nothing to society. I'm fed up reading about the House of Lords.
- Status