"Right to bear arms" should mean ... (page 39)

james_woods

And, I might add a casual observation: The English form of law not only does not have the right to bear arms, but it also lacks the right to free speech.

Relevant? I think so, for anyone who can consider the consequences...

ALL of that info is backed by the appendix. Did YOU read it? You think stats and numbers used by the anti gun folks have more clout than the ones written by folks trying to support and defend their rights? If you do, you're a fool.

cedars

james_woods

I repeat my earlier comment. It is really quite irrelevant for the British to criticize the American rule of law on gun ownership.

And I repeat that it sounded like you were attempting to speak on behalf of all Americans.

What you refer to as criticism is actually abject horror at the thought of innocent civilians being gunned down when the whole thing is demonstrably preventable .

Cedars

sammielee24

That's pretty funny. Politicians in the USA use the British healthcare system as some sort of hated, death panel, mismanaged form of health services and Americans have NO qualms about handing out their opinions, fabrications, manipulation of the truth about any systems other than theirs - in regards to ANYTHING. Other countries have laws, rule of law, constitutions that Americans feel free to denigrate when they feel the ideology doesn't suit their agenda - and you actually think nobody has a right to say anything about the USA and guns? Please. sammiesw

Low-Key Lysmith

Aren't you Canadian, Sammies?

sammielee24

I"m a human being. sammies

cedars

Low-Key

Bullshit, cedars.

ALL of that info is backed by the appendix. Did YOU read it? You think stats and numbers used by the anti gun folks have more clout than the ones written by folks trying to support and defend their rights? If you do, you're a fool.

Now you're just being mean. I can use naughty words too, but I'm not as emotionally invested in this issue as you are - only to the extent that I feel sick to my stomach to learn of 20 kids being killed in their classroom in part because their country cannot (or refuses to) get a grip of its gun laws, seemingly under the illusion that it is still living in the Wild West era.

As to your copy-and-paste info, if you go back and read my post, I never actually said I would read it. Frankly, I don't have the time to read such voluminous information from a blatantly biased source. If you could do what Besty did and break the info down into something more concise and meaningful that would be one thing, but you haven't. You've simply gone to a website that supports your views, and dumped its information on this forum expecting us to wade through it for you.

james_woods

The English form of law not only does not have the right to bear arms, but it also lacks the right to free speech.

Where'd that come from? Are you saying I live under a dictatorship? Sounds like you're trying to throw up a smokescreen.

And we do have the right to bear arms - so long as we are not whack jobs, and jump through hoops to prove that we can "bear arms" responsibly.

Cedars

james_woods

What I was saying, (quite simply, Cedars) is that the English form of law put people in jail for "hate speech" because they held up posters against Scientology. Such a thing would be unconstitutional in the United States.

I usually support you on all counts, my friend:

But, you do have to understand that we are not going to give up our guns here in Texas.

Regards,

James

Low-Key Lysmith

And yet you decry it as "biased", due to the source. Weak.

cofty

English form of law put people in jail for "hate speech" because they held up posters against Scientology

Really? Do you have a source for this?

"Right to bear arms" should mean ...

Share this