[Oblivion437]

Originally posted by Larry_OHF: That is not the point of this particular debate, however. I think it is a chance for the voice of the whole European collective to try and teach the US that there is a better way.

Not too long ago, somebody had a certain, um, Revolution, yes it was a Revolution, where we overthrew the influence of imperious European powers and their highly disagreeable policies gun control among them. You can talk about a better way, but until you shake your near absolute dependancy upon benevolent dictatorships, without the use of violence, I'm afraid that you're going to not have much to say. After all, it's because of force of arms that you're not currently translating this point from German...

The US will be having its stand to defend its choices outside of the rest of the world.

And Europe will have to defend its, and excuse this from a "rugged individualist" standpoint, apparently childish, and downright delusional decision to hope that momma knows best, and momma will do no wrong...

As I recall, Europeans have a problem with a momma that likes the "Sadistic abuse for the simple pleasure of it" school of parenting.

America had enough of that back in '76, and we decided that the government would be the people's whipping boy, not the other way around.

I heard this woman talk about the stand point of England and Australia, and the reasons behind what their rules incorporate, and I gotta admit that she is a strong advocate for her point of view.

Was she able in some capacity to justify through result these legislations? In the US, result wouldn't be enough anyways, not that result justification even exists. On the contrary. Just ask John Stossel.

In the past, the US has been able to use the second admendment to protect its pro-gun stand, but that will not work in this debate.

Oh? The highest standing law in this country is the Constitution. We can't go pissing on that. That's a combination of things that just begs the people to revolt and overthrow the government. I know Europeans have a tradition of not doing this even well after their rights have been grossly violated.

I really hope somebody here will let me know how it goes.

Excuse my candor, but to quote George Carlin:

"It's about as exciting as watching flies ****!"

I'm about as interested in a European politician's opinion on Domestic policy in my country as I'm certain you're interested in Pat Buchanan's position on your Domestic policy. Let America solve its own problems, or stop complaining when we act like a self-appointed policeman.

Originally posted by Davros: So are you saying Stratos that we should not worry about going on holidays and getting wasted in another part of the world where the event night not have happened if there had been gun control?

First, I ask, no I challenge you, as men are challenged to duels, to prove that gun control has in some fashion reduced crime, anywhere, or that gun control would prevent a single murder, anywhere. Good luck.

Furthermore, if you don't like the US's gun policies enough that you're worried about getting shot, well, don't come here. You have no particular right to be here above and beyond citizens of this country. And since I wholeheartedly object to Australian gun policy, I won't go there. Not like I have any business there anyways.

Having said that though, it is very clear that gun control will remain a national issue rather than an international one. Change has to come from within - if it was imposed then them there militias are gunna start putting the wagons in a circle and digging in for a scrap .

Now that just pisses me off. It's downright rude, condescending and it is several levels below any civilized debate. You may think you're being real funny, but you're treading on some damn sensitive ground right now, with some very sharp cleats. I could start taking a giant piss on certain elements of Australian culture and history, but that would be wrong.

There are too many of the "cold dead hands" brigade standing ready to put up the barricades and wave some muzzles to protect their current rights. They oppose change from within most vociferously, and change from without stands as much chance as those school children at Columbine did.

The Simpsonian law of Heuristics strikes again! BfC isn't a reliable source on anything about America, least of all Moore's non-hometown Flint Michigan.

To say that a couple of Nazi Psychopaths (they were both) like they are an honest representation of the Second Ammendment foundationalist types is a beyond unreasonable and downright myopic way of looking at the situation.

You ought to read the Nazi platform for starters...

I suppose if you're afraid of people voting from the rooftops, you think the .50 ban in California was a good idea. Then you found out I hope that despite the lack of crimes committed with .50BMG loaded rifles, that the law passing process in California worked something like this:

1)Watch action movies with such rifles
2)Assume such rifles are used a lot by criminals
3)Plan to do research
4)Stay up partying all night staring at naughty zoo and drinking S'mores Schnapps
5)Don't do research
6)Put bill on floor anyways
7)Vote
8)Fail to pass
9)Put up again
10)Fail to pass
11)Put up again
12)Knowing it will fail, vote (illegally) in presence of nonpresent state assemblymen

I forgot the step inbetween steps 5 and 6, acquire (through political connections at the top of state government) Concealed Carry Weapon permit while saying that they shouldn't be allowed. Well, this rule only applies if you're Dianne Feinstein or a scumsucking elitist rat-bastard. If any disparity exists between the two however, it's news to me!

BTW, I would agree with those that would fight to the bitter end an imposed change from without because I agree it is a national issue. International opinion is going to be listened to the same amount as was some of those kids pleas not to be shot in the cafeteria.

That's ambiguous, you admit that and agree with the sentiment that international opinion is not relevant to the issue as it affects individual nations, but then you go back on the BfC thing at the end, totally rendering the statements in ambiguity. This is even crazier than a John Kerry speech.

So summing up Larry - I hope the Aussie girl kicks NRA butt - but whether she does or not - status quo is inevitable for many years to come.

I seriously doubt she will. She'll call him a cowboy a few times, mention George Bush, maybe even call him a right-wing fanatic or an extremist. She might even call him something even ruder and more condescending. He'll cite some statistics, she'll continue frothing. That's if it's anything like a VPC/NRA debate...Have they ever debated eachother? That's a real "Grinch at the top of Mount Krumpet" moment for us all...

[ 10-13-2004, 09:36 AM: Message edited by: Larry_OHF ]