Showing 141 to 156 of 156
141. Posted: Mon 27th Jul 2009 20:28 BST
I think the UK form of government has many downsides compared to the US, but one advantage is the seperation of political leadership & symbolic figurehead. So you can criticise the Prime Minister's policies & conduct, but still support Queen & country. This is especially useful in times of war, as the monarch is technically head of the armed forces, so you can attack the PM's decision to go to war, but still support the Queen & the troops. Whereas in America it seems to be that many view criticism of the President as unpatriotic, especially in times of war. The queen is also the UK's tourism industry, but I digress terribly.
Very much agreed, the fact that The President is often regarded as above criticism in times of war when he's the one leading the charge seems unhelpful. I'm looking forward to Charles taking the throne. The fact that he has opinions seems to upset political leaders, but I find it quite refreshing even if I don't always agree with him.
I have taken The Oath by the way (British Citizenship), and whilst I wouldn't say I'm a monarchist I definitely would be against the UK becoming a republic. I do support Scottish independence, but that's a separate issue!
Edited on Mon 27th July, 2009 @ 20:29 by Sean_Aaron
BLOG, mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Nintendo ID: sean.aaron
142. Posted: Mon 27th Jul 2009 20:36 BST
A lot of the fear of changing the Constitution is that no one wants people to get there hands on it and really whack away at it. If you repeal the 2nd Amendment that easily, what's to stop the flood of nut jobs rushing in with their own agendas? Look at those whom want a Constitutional ban on same sex marriage or a ban on abortion. Not matter your stance on the issue, changing the Constitution for a hot button topic of the day is foolish.
I'd also like to reiterate that I'm not calling those who oppose gay marriage and abortion nut jobs, just those looking to sneak their worldview into the Constitution.
"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
Treaty of Tripoly, article 11
143. Posted: Mon 27th Jul 2009 20:41 BST
We already are here is a simple laser gun made from a xbox 360 laser. http://www.5min.com/Video/XBOX-360-Laser-Pistol-83523720
144. Posted: Tue 28th Jul 2009 08:06 BST
I do support Scottish independence, but that's a separate issue!
It will happen soon enough, when the North Sea oil runs out & Andy Murray turns 31.
145. Posted: Tue 28th Jul 2009 11:53 BST
changing the Constitution for a hot button topic of the day is foolish.
Doesn't really seem knee-jerk to me; you're just talking about a change in weapon licensing laws. The problem in America is that any change is somehow a Constitutional violation. You could argue that removing access to fully automatic weapons violates the amendment; it just depends on the mindset of the priest -- I mean Supreme Court justice -- hearing the appeal. Restricting gun ownership simply isn't on par with say detention without due process; unfortunately everything regarding Constitutional changes becomes a "slippery slope" argument with teh result that no change is possible.
Abortion is really a side issue, but indicative of the same problem: it's legality is based upon the flimsiest of interpretations and as long as the legislature is unwilling to risk political capital on a proper statute, it can be rendered illegal at any time. Constitutional amendments don't really come into it, but relying upon some vague notion of privacy law implied in some passage therein is more perilous and subject to the whim of an individual (in this case a judge) than actually sitting down and writing a law, whether a Constitutional Amendment or otherwise.
146. Posted: Tue 28th Jul 2009 11:53 BST
No, and thank god for that!
practise my stabbing!!
147. Posted: Tue 28th Jul 2009 19:51 BST
Let's say there were a scenario in which guns were banned in America:How do you figure it would work?How would all the guns be collected, and what happens to all the guns floating around?What about the concerns of jump starting an even large black market?
It's one thing to say that guns should be banned, but I'm curious about the follow through here.
148. Posted: Tue 28th Jul 2009 20:45 BST
The thought of the US citizenry surrendering their lawfully owned arms to the Government is downright laughable. And never more so than currently.
Ex cineribus resurgoWii / Speak / Music: 3991 9961 5576 0184 · · · · Mario Kart Wii: 3609 8999 1445· · · · · · · ·Alien Crush: 1934 4006 9660The Conduit: 2622 0458 3119· · · · · · · · · · · · · · Water Warfare: 4726 5832 1608· · · · · · · Onslaught: 0388 6842 8268
149. Posted: Tue 28th Jul 2009 21:20 BST
I see no point in owning a gun for fun reasons, if want to have some fun shooting fire guns, just go to a shooting range and use them guns.
150. Posted: Wed 29th Jul 2009 15:44 BST
I would like to own a gun.
151. Posted: Wed 29th Jul 2009 15:56 BST
What, those guns with off-center sights, stressed parts and 300% markup on ammo?Going in the country and shooing them is more fun anyway.
Edited on Wed 29th July, 2009 @ 15:56 by The_Fox
152. Posted: Wed 29th Jul 2009 16:58 BST
Let's say there were a scenario in which guns were banned in America:How do you figure it would work?How would all the guns be collected, and what happens to all the guns floating around?What about the concerns of jump starting an even large black market?It's one thing to say that guns should be banned, but I'm curious about the follow through here.
Well, there's already a large black market for guns in the USA (pretty sure I've read many times that the majority of weapons used in crimes were originally legally obtained, but illegally sold on) so outlawing them would only serve to remove the biggest outlet for supplying the black market.
I would think you could have a phased approach: eliminate the concealed carry permits and large-calibre weapon sales, drop handguns; restrict rifle/shotgun sales; eliminate availability of semi-automatic weapons. Expire registrations and have some kind of buyback program to encourage surrender of them for cash; otherwise confiscate if found. I'm not proposing house-to-house searches by armed police here. Clearly many will hold on to them, but with the removal of easily available ammunition and parts (clearly you'd have to strictly regulate any remaining arms makers to ensure they were only selling to authorised bodies, like military/police) over time these would slowly disappear.
They'll never be %100 eliminated, but it can be done in such a way that most of them can be removed from harm's way.
153. Posted: Thu 30th Jul 2009 20:13 BST
@Sean AaronIt sounds simple on paper, doesn't it? I just don't know if the hundreds of millions it would take to implement would pay off.
On the plus side, if guns were banned under your plan, I could make a killing. I can assemble pretty much any rifle from its parts and even cast my own ammo if need be (although handling molten lead isn't exactly the best idea) .
154. Posted: Thu 30th Jul 2009 20:30 BST
@The FoxYour obviously very protective of your right to own a gun and that is all well and good,each to their own and all that.,but what I still can't get my head around is why do you feel that you need to keep a gun on your premises? If you enjoy the act of shooting as sport/recreation why not keep your gun at the range and go on organised shooting/hunting trips. Do you not think that a lot of gun crime,school massacre's, accidental killing's would be avoided this way.Your stance that it would be too difficult an act to accomplish to ban guns seems strange to me. I mean nothing ever changes by staying the same does it. People thought that racial equality couldn't be improved,that women couldn't vote etc but you have to try. Do you really not see the harm that guns cause?How do feel about the glamouristion of guns paticulary in Hip-Hop culture and in general media which is going to have a massive effect on the younger generation, do you see this as a good thing?
What's this bit for again?
155. Posted: Fri 31st Jul 2009 02:01 BST
Wow, that's a lot of questions.A-As for why I feel the need to keep them on my premises, I don't know if I can give you an answer that anyone will understand. I just like collecting them, I guess. And I don't like using the ones at shooting ranges because I've worked with and tweaked my guns until I feel I get the best preformance out of them. I suppose I could leave mine there, but I just really like being able to take them into the county and firing off some rounds without the hassle.
B-The school shootings and accidental deaths are tragic (although shootings don't only happen in the U.S, they are most common here) and you won't find me mincing words on that. Guns are dangerous and they kill people. If you figure 5% of any countries population is bat shit crazy (and I think we can agree that is probably being generous), that means there are a lot of people that should never be allowed near a gun. I wish I had a simple answer, but I don't. Even tougher controls won't stop every whack job from getting one, I admit.
C-I don't know if womens rights and civil rights are really an apt comparison. I mean, those two were really dealing more with a fundamental issue of equality and were societal inevatibilities.
D-As for the glamourisation of guns, there no doubt is some impact. You can say the same with booze, smokes and drugs also, though. People have always been fascinated by guns, from the cinema to books and video games. I'm no sociologist, so I can't really say how influencal it is. I mean, I ordered a Saiga 12 Shotgun recently (you can see demostrations of it on Youtube) after seeing it in a movie and then doing research on it, so maybe my mind has been twisted by Hollywood also. I smell lawsuit!
Edited on Fri 31st July, 2009 @ 02:02 by The_Fox
156. Posted: Fri 31st Jul 2009 07:10 BST
Going to shooting ranges is like having designated smoking areas. I don't smoke, but if I did, I would NOT want to be forced to smoke only in certain areas. I DO own guns, and I DON'T want to have to be confined to a shooting range, where I have to pay 3 times more than I should to shoot at a place I don't want to be. Sure, school shootings could be avoided, but that's more on the parents, and the nature vs. nurture argument, to avoid people going crazy like that. If it's not guns, then the kids will find a way to hurt and terrorize their peers. Bombs are REALLY easy to make...
Edited on Fri 31st July, 2009 @ 07:11 by grenworthshero
PSN ID: grenworthshero
Nintendo Network ID: grenworthshero