Liberal Fantasy
Criminals approve.
Lay some of that Clive jive on me, brother.
Haven’t the majority of places that so-called mass shootings have occurred in the last half century been “Gun Free Zones?” So, Jive Clive, you’re fifty years too late with your suggestion and it’s worked out to be a multiplier of murder not a reducer.
The places where mass shootings happen already run that way.
Off topic:
I have read every single headline on the latest articles page. You wanna know how many of them are relevent or newsworthy or of importance to any but wee few are?
NONE. Not a damn one worth a comment or worth even a second thought. Banging your head off a stone wall because it feels so good when it stops doesn’t work anymore.
Do we really need any more examples of how stupid anti-gunners are? Do we really care what some Pierce Morgan wanna-bee thinks?
And thus didst start the foundation of our modern gun grabbing liberals. I really don’t think that would have worked out very well, but to be generous to our dear liberals, if they can produce evidence the disarming of the honest actually DID work, versus the outlaw who would just carry it in (no metal detectors at that time), I’d reconsider.
Poorly written column. I was never sure what country he was talking about.
The topic is a good one because there is always a need for a “basic standard” for most things or there would be anarchy. However, in England, people are “blown” away on buses and subways, so there should also be a standard on who is allowed to have explosives, n’est pas?
I know that the last sentence was nonsensical, but it follows the illogic of the writer. He never explains what a “standard” is and how it would have to be defined re “gun control or licensing”.
By the way, parts of England have “no go” zones for police unless there are 2-3 of them, often armed. Gee, Merry Old England isn’t so merry anymore, is it?
Hey stoopit.
Why not have a uniform standard for the first amendment as well.
Prove you are capable of associating with other citizens and we’ll let you off the reservation.
Prove you are capable of associating with “Correct Citizens”.
Prove your religious beliefs, the sect you belong to and your are “reasonable, common sense and absolutely not injurious to anothers feelings.
Prove your penmenship, thoughts expressed in writing are those of a “Correct Citizen”.
On the 3rd amendment:
A “Correct Citizen”would wholly support their nation and armed forces.
As such, why wouldn’t you allow federal, state and local agent access to your domicile for the purpose of housing, feeding and providing facilities to maintain hygene?
You are an American, aren’t you?
On the 4th amendment....
You get the idea?
Your rights are sacrosanct and “the right of the people, shall not be infringed”.
The Bill of Rights presumes your God given rights are immune from government oversight, license or restriction until or unless you prove otherwise incapable of excersising those rights without violating natural law or the rights of others.
The 2nd amendment protects the right of citizens from a despotic or even democratic form of government, which will always seek greater power and control of the citizen, while centralizing their authority through an ever growing government.
What you are proposing is insane.
We’ve seen your movie before and I cannot bear to ever watch “Schindlers List” again.
You seek a perfect solution in an imperfect world.
The only realistic way to enforce your ideal would be a complete eviseration of the Bill of Rights, as your proxies(government agents) go door to door and search, by threat of force, every house, business, farm, wharehouse and automobile to remove any and all weapons.
You are wrong.
Depotic rule became passe July 4th, 1776 and Fascism was also proven time and again an anethma to humanity and an utter failure.
Gun grabbers gun free zones entice the criminals. Double koolaid for everyone.
Historical note (not as far back): Marshal Matt Dillon in “Gunsmoke” would take the guns from people in Dodge City based on just his own concern, both on the radio show and on TV. I don’t know if law enforcement actually did that, but even when I was young it bothered me. I wonder if the writers were working even back then to delegitimize firearms in private hands. I’d have to check a lot to see if that happened often in real life.
People names Clive should only be allowed to comment on British law...
;-)
Liberal Fantasy
The truth of the old West was that by the time a town was large enough to have two streets, it would divide into the good side of town and the bad side of town. And the larger the town got, the greater the contrast between these two sides.
Gunfights were almost exclusively in the bad part of town. The typical gunfight was of a drunk challenging a bartender to come out on the street. For his part, the bartender would grab a shotgun, leave by the backdoor and emerge behind the drunk, to the drunk’s detriment.
And while towns went to great lengths to keep people from having guns, the same result happened that exists today in places like Chicago. Only the honest people would surrender their guns.
We already have firearm standards, SAAMI
They used to tell the newspapers what to print too.
Maybe Clive wants to give up his lappy-top when he hits the city limits. ‘Course we’d have to check the websites he visits, any secrets he might be harboring, just whom he has been emailing and why. His phone too, for that matter.
We’ll treat the 1st Amendment as carefully as the 2nd.
