Posted on 09/06/2002 7:14:34 AM PDT by Nat Turner
Well folks so much for the anti-gun shill on "gun locks" and no guns for citizens....
by the way this is how we do it in the Peacthtree State :)
That one does. As a player for many years I have heard the ol' "punch 'em in the ear" story sure gets mileage. Your fear and ignorance of guns is showing.
Ok, I'm going to wait for confirmation from Mad Ivan on this. I'm a bit skeptical. My brother certainly didn't need air conditioning. He's skinny as a rail and even during hotter weather wore thermals under his clothes.
What she is saying is partially true - yes "Doritos" and tortillas are common, and Oreos are becoming more common here as of late. As for the appliances being bigger, I wonder what planet she is on - I visit family in America and the appliances are huge in comparison to ours. The only place you can get, that I am aware of, American sized appliances is at Harrods, where you can get American appliances converted for British electricity. Which, as you might imagine, are extremely expensive. So either she is not telling the truth, or she is very rich, in which case she's one of these champagne socialists who can't be taken seriously anyway.
Regards, Ivan
Please note cubic feet dimensions - this is what you find in most British homes.
There are a few US style fridges on the site, but note the price on the "side by side":
As you might imagine, most people choose not to pay that much for a fridge. As I say, she must be pretty well off.
Regards, Ivan
He was certainly not at all well off (and he's not well off here, if it makes a difference).
We live less well off than you lot do, in general. But overall in terms of convenience and services I think we are better off than the Continent, in spite of what GDP figures may say.
Best Regards, Ivan
After you've looked John Lott up on the web, see if you can buy his book(or check it out of the library), "More Guns, Less Crimes". I bet you'll be quite surprised how often his critics misquote, misrepresent, and selectively rearrange his underlying research in their arguments. There is a question I always refer back to when analyzing a situation: "If a person has to lie or distort the arguments of his adversary, does that not suggest that he is afraid that his arguments cannot stand on their own merits?"
I think most of us who support the 2nd amendment certainly would defend your right to choose not to own guns. Our problem is when our right to choose such a method of defense is restricted by others. Why shouldn't I be allowed to make what I believe to be the best decisions in how to defend my family? As to concealed weapons, there has never been a murder committed by someone with a legal conceal/carry permit(only self-defense deaths of attackers).
Such potential restrictions can't be viewed just in the context of our current societal norm, but allow for a myriad of possibilities for social change. What if for some reason there was a substantial rise in lawlessness, civil disorder, or insurrections? Less than 20 years ago Yugoslavia was considered a pretty civil area. IIRC, one can parallel a continued rise in crime in both England and Australia to the outlawing of guns. How much of this is coincidental or directly related can be debated, but it is something to consider.
While I don't favor Iraq or Libya obtaining weapons of mass destruction, one thing bothers me....why is it OK for the UK and the USA to have them and it's not ok for Iraq or Libya? For that matter, why is it ok for Israel to have nuclear weapons and it's not ok for Iraq to have them, since they're square in Israel's range?
Good questions. As to the US and UK, we have a long-standing record of responsible safeguarding of such weapons, and a history of reserving them for defense. We don't completely rule out using them offensively in a war, but we also have not in recent history entered war as the aggressor, but rather the defender. Kosovo was entered at the request of the UN. The Gulf War was in response to Iraq invading our ally, Kuwait. Vietnam was entered to support an ally who was being attacked by both internal rebels and outside supporters(Russia and China). Yes we did nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but that was to save 2 years and millions of lives(on both sides) to end a 4 year war not started by us.
On the other hand, Iraq has attacked a neighboring country, used chemical weapons against not only Iran, but also its own countrymen in massacres. Iraq has repeated threatened to attack neighboring countries, and has trained and supported terrorist mercenaries to export a hidden war to Europe and America. In fact in the next few weeks you'll probably see Bush and Blair come out with even more direct evidence of the latter. As to Israel, like the UK and US, it has a history of defensive wars. While it did enlarge its borders in some wars in order to better defend itself, those wars were started by Arab aggression. Israel has never sworn to destroy any of its neighboring countries, while most of its neighbors have at one time or another(and some to this day) stated that the destruction of Isreal is its goal. Hence Israel's possession of nukes is defensive.
...but anytime you deny WMD to a country that's in the firing line of a nuclear-capable country, how can we logically say that we're allowed to have them and they aren't? Isn't that kind of a double standard?
Perhaps, but it goes back to the history/tendency of country as to aggressiveness or defensiveness in nature and policy. Maybe there is some unfairness, but I think most would agree that proliferation of WMD is something to be resisted. And I wouldn't parallel it to guns. A gun's destructive power is basically limited in nature. The collateral damage and harm to innocents/civilians is exponentially greater with WMD. All the major countries which currently possess WMD's have a history of restraint in their use. Almost all 2nd Amendment supporters would argue that guns do NOT belong in the hands of those who have proven irresponsible in handling them(criminals, the insane, etc.). Should not a much larger weapon with a pandora's box of destructionbe restricted where possible from those countries with a wreckless history and demeanor? Yes that is subjective, and perhaps unfair(especially in the view of moral relativists!), but it seems the most reasonable approach. To ignore proliferation just increases the dangers for all.
I'll try and restate my last point of the previous thread. Were a country(say Iraq) to directly attack another country(say the US) the odds of a military response is quite high, and thus attacking carries great risk of much destruction. But if that country(Iraq) wishing to attack can hire a mercenary(terrorists) to deliver the bombs, etc., then it may become much harder to clearly trace blame and prove that such country(Iraq) actually hired the terrorists. And if the political climate is such that retaliating without solid proof is unlikely, then the risks for the aggresive country(Iraq) is greatly lowered. So if they can hire the terrorists and have plausible deniability that would prevent suffering a retaliatory attack, isn't attacking(via terrorists) much more tempting? Or put another way, if a unethical person thinks there is a much smaller chance that they will be held accountable for a misdeed, doesn't the temptation to commit the misdeed increase greatly?
FWIW, check your history books since it is obvious your language curriculum contained nothing about the Bay of Pigs (Fidel Castro) or the cold war between Communist Russia and the United States.
As for Iraq and Libya, I am in total agreement with prohibiting tinhorn dictators, whose regimes are founded on armed suppression of its citizens, from having weapons of any kind at all. These political regimes merely serve as a reminder of government out of control and the need for citizens to be armed.
The mere fact that you question why we are so vehemently against Iraq and Libya obtaining nuclear weapons is frightening beyond belief. I would strongly suggest you read up on the history of Libya before you ever again suggest that they have as much right to nuclear weapons as the United States!!!!!!!!!
I know what you would have done.
You would have died like dogs. I assume that is OK with you, but don't presume to force other people into that circumstance.
At least you wouldn't have to clean gore out of the carpet, because the gore would be your own.
If it was I, who lived in that area. I'd keep two handguns in the event the cops took my first one as 'evidence'.
I heard a girl at a gun show, call it the Nike automatic. It sort of looks like it has a swoop on it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.