The Political Discussion Thread

[Gatefan1976]

it would be helpful then if you stopped talking out of both sides of your mouth

I am not.

you say you don't begrudge people the use of a weapon to defend themselves with but on numerous occasions you have, or appeared to have, rather glowing things to say about the gun buyback and confiscation measures in Australia and elsewhere

You -DO- know that those programs did not "disarm" Australians, right?
I speak to the fact that instead of having to see people with guns everywhere I go (which never happened here as it does in the US), I just don't see guns that much. Not in the public, not by "THE CRIMINALS", there just are not guns everywhere.
Are there illegal guns around?
Of course there are, but as both demand, and supply are low, it is not the issue that you have in the US.
Joe public simply does not need guns, but if they -want- guns, they can get them if they follow some very strict laws, laws that no "law abiding citizen" should be concerned with, because they are law abiding.
It will never work in the US, simply because people have spent more time, effort and money on not just defending, but re-defining the 2nd amendment it is not funny. So, keep your freedom to bear arms, just don't be so damn stupid about it.
Home defence does not need an arsenal, just one gun, and around (20?) rounds?
If you feel you need that, fine.

[SoulReaver]

it would be helpful then if you stopped talking out of both sides of your mouth

you say you don't begrudge people the use of a weapon to defend themselves with but on numerous occasions you have, or appeared to have, rather glowing things to say about the gun buyback and confiscation measures in Australia and elsewhere

then there's one thing you most likely don't know, it's that the aussie bloke who introduced the ban, John Howard, is a capitalist far-right winger (and good friend of the Bush midget)
must be quite a dilemma knowing this now hehe...

[mad_gater]

then there's one thing you most likely don't know, it's that the aussie bloke who introduced the ban, John Howard, is a capitalist far-right winger (and good friend of the Bush midget)
must be quite a dilemma knowing this now hehe...

just because he might label himself as such doesn't mean that that's what he is

[Coco Pops]

But you need an uzi for home defense...

Seriously you just need a gun why would you need an uzi or automatic shotgun for home defense?

[mad_gater]

I am not.

You -DO- know that those programs did not "disarm" Australians, right?
I speak to the fact that instead of having to see people with guns everywhere I go (which never happened here as it does in the US), I just don't see guns that much. Not in the public, not by "THE CRIMINALS", there just are not guns everywhere.
Are there illegal guns around?
Of course there are, but as both demand, and supply are low, it is not the issue that you have in the US.
Joe public simply does not need guns, but if they -want- guns, they can get them if they follow some very strict laws, laws that no "law abiding citizen" should be concerned with, because they are law abiding.
It will never work in the US, simply because people have spent more time, effort and money on not just defending, but re-defining the 2nd amendment it is not funny. So, keep your freedom to bear arms, just don't be so damn stupid about it.
Home defence does not need an arsenal, just one gun, and around (20?) rounds?
If you feel you need that, fine.

or perhaps you don't see guns as blatantly displayed anymore because the more common sense Australians who actually see the sense of the USA's 2nd Amendment have become more adept at concealed storage of their weapons on their person *raises eyebrow Spock-style*

if a person is properly practicing concealed carry....you're not ever in a million years gonna guess that that person is armed

"To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace." - George Washington - bet you would've called him a warmonger if you were alive during that time

[garhkal]

People who rely of FOX news are the most consistently ill-informed people on the planet, even less so than people who don't even sit down to watch a news program but may just hear snippits on the radio. To spread that much BS takes -dedication- to spreading BS.

Fox News:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]41229[/ATTACH]

Biased much? I could say exactly the same thing for those who only watch MSNBC.

Turkey said if a Russian plane strayed into its airspace they would shoot it down.

Guess they were not bluffing.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/1...081519290.html

That might cause friction.

I give cudos to Turkey for sticking to their guns there, but NOT for the later shooting down of the rescue helo that came to get the crew who parachuted out (even though one got killed while he was coming down).

[Gatefan1976]

Biased much? I could say exactly the same thing for those who only watch MSNBC.

Except, you would be mostly wrong.
http://www.alternet.org/media/scienc...st-misinformed
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoz...poll-suggests/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert...l?ir=Australia
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/1...st-Misinformed

Just so I'm not biased
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...news-are-most/
(though, this one is mentioned earlier)
As a follow on to that one though...........
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...tated-edition/

[Falcon Horus]

I have more chance of staying alive in the face of an attack if I am armed than I do if I am unarmed

And an equal amount to not be as you would be perceived as a threat and most likely shot at first. But thanks to your heroism/stupidity the unarmed folks will have a 0.0001% higher chance of making it out alive. But I'm sure they'll remember you with a plaque afterwards.

"To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace." - George Washington - bet you would've called him a warmonger if you were alive during that time

George Washington lived in the 18th century. That was 2 centuries ago, the world has changed a wee bit since then.

[Coco Pops]

So OK what kind of gun do you need to defend your home from burglars or intruders?

[Falcon Horus]

American Muslims providing Trump with a reply to his database-idea. Especially, the tweets about the women wearing their hijabs made me giggle.

[SoulReaver]

just because he might label himself as such doesn't mean that that's what he is

since the equivalent of the Bush midget you might as well say that W jr is also left-wing while you're at it - but many conservatives won't be pleased with that hehe
that fascist POS even passed a more aggressive version of the Homeland Security/Patriot Acts (allowing authorities to use live ammo during riots)

[Annoyed]

George Washington lived in the 18th century. That was 2 centuries ago, the world has changed a wee bit since then.

Human nature hasn't changed all that much in 250 years.

One other thing for you people who want to restrict the rights of the citizenry to look at.

Defense of one's home or property is certainly one of the reasons for gun ownership. And this includes defense against a government out of control. Our founding fathers were quite justifiably fearful of government, and wanted to ensure that the citizens wouldn't have to stand against an overreaching government naked and afraid. They intended that government be fearful of the citizens, not that citizens be fearful of their government. If you ask me, that reason is even more important than defense against common criminals.

[Falcon Horus]

One other thing for you people who want to restrict the rights of the citizenry to look at.

Guns have no place in a home - that has nothing to do with restricting your rights as a citizen. Plenty of citizens prove just as well that one can live happy and free without needing a gun at their side.

[Annoyed]

Guns have no place in a home - that has nothing to do with restricting your rights as a citizen. Plenty of citizens prove just as well that one can live happy and free without needing a gun at their side.

IF the government remains benign.

Consider the origins of the U.S. The citizens decided that their remote control master, the King of England, was not governing in a proper manner. IF the King had managed to confiscate or restrict gun ownership, the revolution to toss the king and his men out on their arses could not have happened.

As far as I'm concerned, THIS is the most important aspect to right to bear arms; so that the citizens can confront an out-of-control government run amuk.

Ever notice that it's always the big government advocates that want to disarm the citizens?

[aretood2]

IF the government remains benign.

Consider the origins of the U.S. The citizens decided that their remote control master, the King of England, was not governing in a proper manner. IF the King had managed to confiscate or restrict gun ownership, the revolution to toss the king and his men out on their arses could not have happened.

As far as I'm concerned, THIS is the most important aspect to right to bear arms; so that the citizens can confront an out-of-control government run amuk.

Ever notice that it's always the big government advocates that want to disarm the citizens?

You're ignoring history. Most revolutions have occurred in nations/states/empires where there wasn't necessarily widespread private ownership of weapons. Most people in the 13 colonies didn't have weapons stored in their houses either. Weapons, especially on the frontiers, were stored in community armories. Thus the British going to the Armories in the first few "battles" of the war. You only ever had guns in your house if you lived in the middle of nowhere were a militia was not readily available. That's why the 2nd amendment mentions a militia. Because it wasn't for individual armed people, but a militia. If you really want to do it the way the founder thought of it. You'd place all of your guns in a town armory to be used only when the militia gets called. In fact, I think that would please a lot of people who want gun control.