Please stop assailing us with your drivel. You are completely out of your mind. Physically you may be in a country as civilized as Switzerland of 21st century but mentally you seem to be about hundred-fifty years behind the times stuck somewhere in Deep South, in the middle of plantations during the American Civil War where lawlessness was rampant and people without guns were afraid to stay out at night.

I think you're lost too. It's not drivel I am assailing you with, its the written law. And you are trying to pile up drivel on top of it, from the other side of the world. It doesn't apply, as I said. But keep dreaming and imagining if you'd like. I am just presenting you with reality.

It is hilarious how you guys are having trouble coming to grips with it..

Could you give me the name of your Church and dates please

Got off this thread because discussing with a total nutter is such a waste of time- but I'd like to see you preach- just the once.

Apart from that- I think the best thing for others to do on EF is to totally ignore this guy and never respond to his bigot red-neck **** - what't the point of even trying ???

I think you would need some basis in logic to understand anything, if I were to even preach.

I became a Christian at 15 - having been brought up by Atheist/Agnostic parents, and was at a school founded on Theosophical principles. The idea that all Christians are brainwashed, and that no-one of intelligence or the ability to think would become (or remain) a believer is an Atheistic wet-dream, but not borne out by the facts.

I don't buy a gun, not because I have nothing worth protecting, but because I don't think that having a gun will enhance their security and so would be a waste of money. For the same reason, notwithstanding local laws, I wouldn't have anti-aircraft batteries mounted on my garage roof.

You're usually better at arguing than this. Frankly, I'm disappointed.

__________________
Down with racism. Long live miscegenation!

Thats fine. People buy guns for different reasons. For those who buy it for the protection of something dear to them, I don't care if anyone in some other part of the world doesn't like it. I'll honor their right and choice to do so over someone else's opinion that is of no relevance to them.

Dont want a gun, dont see a sense in having one but its a right in America, not a privilige. Its not a difficult concept to understand.

Phos, let's be clear about this: you are the one in this debate who demonstrably has serious issues with "coming to grips" with the situation. This is, as I said, a debate -- a discussion, a (reasoned) argument, a presentation of ideas and contrary opinions. It is not a concerted effort to change the law in the United States. I doubt any of the contributors to the gun control side of this discussion have any intention to drive through legal changes in the U.S. We don't live there, most of us aren't American, we mostly don't care if Americans can't see the problems around them, as long as those problems don't spill over and affect us here outside the U.S.

But we have every right, resident as we are here in Switzerland, to express our opinions and ideas for improvement. Just as some of us offer our opinions on what sort of team Chelsea should field in the English Premiership this weekend, or on whether Australia should pick the same wicketkeeper for limited overs as well as Test cricket, or on the rise and probable fall of the far right wing of French politics, we are also entitled to present our opinions on the problem of gun violence in the United States, and to argue our side -- just as I would argue endlessly with any fool who maintains that foreign hunters should be allowed to visit Africa and shoot endangered wildlife. No matter how much I might like it to, my opinion on all of those matters that I listed above has not the tiniest effect on the issues. But I still argue about them, because it's fun to engage in intelligent debate.

And then there's you. Your theme throughout this whole discussion is "it's the written law. And you are trying to pile up drivel on top of it, from the other side of the world. It doesn't apply". You're stating that the law in the U.S. allows citizens to bear arms, to buy, carry (in many cases) and use guns, so that's that -- you won't tolerate any discussion of the matter. You appear to be totally brainwashed and in fear of the U.S. government singling you out, should you step away from the herd (that same herd of which you are so dismissive). Does the U.S. government oppress opposition now? Has the right to an opinion been rescinded? Following the logic evident in your statements, presumably you refused to allow discussion of gay marriage -- "the reality", "the written law" was that marriage was between a man and a woman, so any dissenting opinion "doesn't apply". But look what happened: people spoke out, expressed their opinions, engaged in debate, provided compelling reasons for change and lo and behold, change has occurred. Why do you refuse to allow discussion on gun control?

I'll tell you why: you know that you have no valid arguments, save "it's the written law" -- and that's no position to take in a debate about changing the law. Sticking your head in the sand just doesn't work.

Unfortunately, it's not hilarious how you are having trouble coming to grips with the simple concept of debating a topic. It's just sad. But it's also what we've come to expect of you.

Finally, because I'm fairly confident that you won't have read all the above or if you did, you won't have retained any of it, I'd like to underscore the fatal flaw in your post that I quoted above: the fact that a law is in place doesn't automatically mean that the law is just. People are entitle to debate it, and with discussion may come change. Furthermore, anyone is entitled to join in that discussion, and here on EF, you're not entitled to tell them that they may not.

Its a choice, and its arguably a wiser way to live without one. I'm certainly not prescribing everyone to get one. The laws exists to provide that choice. The gun control troll group on this thread is having trouble recognizing it, and seem to think it is my personal opinion

Well, its a bit long. I almost didn't read it. But you guys are full of conjecture. Now I am a religious redneck bigot with guns up the yin yang. That is hilarious. You seem bent on trying to convince me of your opinion. Except, there is no basis for it. I mean, I couldn't even subscribe to your drivel if I tried.

But somewhere in there, I think is some admission that you have opinions about this. And that is about right, you have opinions. But thats about it. Given that your opinions about me are flat out wrong, your opinions about Americans are just as wrong, it makes me even doubly sure your opinions about gun ownership in America is just as wrong.

So I don't know what to tell you that I haven't already said. Its not in your purview to make decisions for other people? That suffices no? Is that still not acceptable for you? Or would you like to try to hurl out more personal insults?

I checked your post carefully and concluded that you still have nothing to offer in this discussion. No new information, no rebuttal based on fact, nothing in the least intelligent -- and you still haven't learned that no-one is trying to make decisions for other people here. I'm not a masochist, so I'll leave you to wallow in your 18th century amendments and get on with your Amish lifestyle.

Hey -- are you dictating your posts? The U.S. Constitution doesn't say anything about letting people use electrickery and them new-fangled things, does it?! (Don't bother answering, I'm off to enjoy my evening.)

Gee I don't see him as banning you from commenting. He's saying that there is already a discussion about it happening in the USA and at the end of the day that is where the decision will be made. The majority of Americans reject a ban on assault weapons and an overwhelming majority reject the kind of laws that Australia and the UK/Europe have.

So coming to grips with the situation means accepting that the average American doesn't share your opinion as much as it makes no sense to you


Now, let me just address your straw man argument about gay marriage. First you state there is a law that permits gun ownership. This is false, there is no stated law that permits people to own guns, its stated in the Bill of Rights in the constitution. Thus it is a right, not a privilege. The constitution makes no mention of marriage, thus it is relatively easy to make laws that ban or allow certain types of marriages. Overturning any amendment to the constitution on the other hand is a huge undertaking

*edit This applies to your electricity comment too. Completely unrelated to the current discussion. However, no electricity is not mentioned in the constitution. The 10th amendment states that any powers not listed in the constitution are at the discretion of the state government. So they would decide how it should be used

I think you're imagining your own value to the topic. I'm Amish now? Great, Amish girls are hot. That kind of argument is about as much weight as you've been able to have on the topic. Thanks.

In a predominantly European forum, the only like side a troll will take is that of the gun lobby.

I don't like trolls. In the forums I moderate, you'd be banned by now. Just sayin'

Have a read through all of Phos' posts in this thread (yeah, I agree, it's really not worth the pain), and you'll find multiple instances of him telling those who disagree with them to shut up (I'm paraphrasing, but the effect is the same) and butt out as they have no knowledge of the U.S. (how he "knows" this is not clear) and are impotent to change the law there (his word, "law", not mine).

It's refreshing to see someone adopting an intelligent, debating stance in this discussion. Thank you. Ironic that it's a Kiwi (I'm assuming, I admit) coming to the aid of an American to inject substance into a debate on an American issue. Now, I challenge your assertions that "the majority of Americans reject a ban on assault weapons", and "an overwhelming majority reject the kind of laws that Australia and the UK/Europe have". Could you please provide evidence to back up those two claims?

You're correct that the position that many Americans take on gun ownership is incomprehensible to me. That's why we're having a debate. It usually requires two sides to have opposing views before a debate can form.

I'm reasonably sure that the authors of the amendments to the Constitution didn't foresee automatic assault weapons and the like, either. One can't expect them to have legislated on items that didn't exist in the late 1700s. Like electricity. Sure, the 10th Amendment goes some way to try to salvage that oversight, but it was already kneecapped by the 2nd before it could get going on the subject of gun ownership.

Finally, your statement "First you state there is a law that permits gun ownership. This is false, there is no stated law that permits people to own guns, its stated in the Bill of Rights in the constitution" is in fact false. Article VI of the Constitution states "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land". The Constitution is the supreme law of the United States and the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution) is part of that Constitution.

But hey, I'm not American, so according to Phos I have no right to know anything about the U.S., nor to voice an opinion on anything to do with the U.S.

The topic is the 'States. I'm just telling the truth there is personal choice the US. And if that is bannable, and all the derogatory remarks about Americans and personal insults are admissible, it wouldn't be much of a forum anyway.

Yes, pot.

Glad you point this out. The Constitution (and amendments) is the supreme law of the land. So much so, that many states never enacted any further laws regarding basic ownership of weapons because it was seen as a defacto given right. As some States began to limit aspects of gun ownership (many of which have been challenged as constitutional infringement) such as concealed carry, barrel length, geographic restrictions, etc., the OC movement began.

It is a political statement which visibly exercises the Constitutional right to own and openly carry (bear) a weapon - partly because many states never enacted any law to the contrary, and partly in protest to these increased peripheral restrictions. (Other states restrict or prohibit open carry, but can not restrict ownership to the common citizen).

Unfortunately, the OC movement has been hijacked by Rambo types and the political message is lost to the emotional one.

The point of this is that there are still many states that have no significant laws on the books regarding guns because their constituencies accept the 2nd as written.

Indeed, which is why I feel free to flaunt speeding laws.

Tom