Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Frazzled wrote:


1. So, I was right. You're only permitted fowling shotguns, and "historic" pistols whatever the hell that is. Webleys? We don't even count muzzle loaders as guns here (seriously).

2. There is a major difference between being a citizen and being a subject. My ancestors killed your ancestors over that difference, and it is a substantial portion of our culture. DOn't feel bad, we killed each other too, and at a much higher rate. Fortunately the guys in blue won.

1. No, bolt action rifles are legal, cartridges don't just mean shotgun cartridges and what would be the point of a rifled shotgun? Of course muzzle loading weapons are guns, what else would they be?

2, In the real world there is no difference unless you live in somewhere like Bahrain. The British monarchy is nothing more than a figurehead with theoretical powers that have never been used and if they were attempted the monarchy would topple. We no longer live in the 17th century.

One of the biggest problems with a federal firearms ban (besides the whole removal of citizens' constitutional rights and property, assuming some sort of British or Australian-style gun amnesty) is that life in the US varies immensely depending on where you live.

It's a lot easier for someone who's lived in an urban or suburban area all their life to claim that the second amendment is an antiquated "right" that has no meaning in the modern world than it is for someone living in a rural area with wolves, bears, mountain lions, and coyotes running around, with livestock to protect, and police who are 20+ minutes away (or more) on a good day.

1. No, bolt action rifles are legal, cartridges don't just mean shotgun cartridges and what would be the point of a rifled shotgun? Of course muzzle loading weapons are guns, what else would they be?

Your quote only noted muzzleloading rifles.
Muzzleloading firearms are not classed as firearms in the US. They are legal, like toys, because they are.

2, In the real world there is no difference unless you live in somewhere like Bahrain. The British monarchy is nothing more than a figurehead with theoretical powers that have never been used and if they were attempted the monarchy would topple. We no longer live in the 17th century.

We have the Bill of Rights. You don't.

Frazzled, I can see that you are being your usual self so there really is no point in talking to you is there?

 Palindrome wrote:
Frazzled, I can see that you are being your usual self so there really is no point in talking to you is there?

Nope. Now that you lost, back to the haggis mines for you!

Frazzled wrote:We have the Bill of Rights. You don't.

England has had a Bill of Rights for almost a hundred years prior to the USA being a noun.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:We have the Bill of Rights. You don't.

England has had a Bill of Rights for almost a hundred years prior to the USA being a noun.

But is it actually codified in law? (genuine question)

I know it limited the power of the monarch...

EDIT: google-fu'ed it... yeah, it's still appllicable:

The main principles of the Bill of Rights are still in force today - particularly being cited in legal cases – and was used as a model for the US Bill of Rights 1789.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:We have the Bill of Rights. You don't.

England has had a Bill of Rights for almost a hundred years prior to the USA being a noun.

Do you have freedom of speech - speech codes, government just put in control over your press.

Do you have freedom of religion - someone screams hate speech then its no way josey.

No Second Amendment.

No Bill of Rights.

Frazzled wrote:Do you have freedom of speech - speech codes, government just put in control over your press.

Care to specify?

Frazzled wrote:Do you have freedom of religion - someone screams hate speech then its no way josey.

Our highest court has ruled that restrictions on hate speech do not compromise the freedom of speech; I agree fully. Just about the only people who were in favour of USA-style free speech amendments were white supremacists.

Frazzled wrote:No Second Amendment.

Yah, we like to keep the mentally incompetent away from guns and ensure only those who have passed safetry training can handle deadly tools. Guns are a privilege just like driving a car is.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Do you have freedom of speech - speech codes, government just put in control over your press.

Care to specify?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/19/newspapers-uk-press-deal_n_2905736.html

 azazel the cat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Do you have freedom of religion - someone screams hate speech then its no way josey.

Our highest court has ruled that restrictions on hate speech do not compromise the freedom of speech; I agree fully. Just about the only people who were in favour of USA-style free speech amendments were white supremacists.

This says much about England.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:No Second Amendment.

Guns are a privilege just like driving a car is.

Unless you live in the USA. Here, driving is a privilege but gun ownership is, in fact, a codified right. Gun usage, however, is quite heavily regulated.

 azazel the cat wrote:
Yah, we like to keep the mentally incompetent away from guns...

Did you know that in the United States, as well as all possessions and territories, it is illegal to transfer possession of a firearm to someone who has been adjudicated mentally incompetent? True fact.

Breotan wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Do you have freedom of speech - speech codes, government just put in control over your press.

Care to specify?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/19/newspapers-uk-press-deal_n_2905736.html

 azazel the cat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Do you have freedom of religion - someone screams hate speech then its no way josey.

Our highest court has ruled that restrictions on hate speech do not compromise the freedom of speech; I agree fully. Just about the only people who were in favour of USA-style free speech amendments were white supremacists.

This says much about England.

I'm confused. What country do you think I'm from?

I think you're from Canada

 Alfndrate wrote:
I think you're from Canada

The Canada is a lie.

Canada aka Britain Maple Flavored edition.

Or Commie Light!

Still, we have this from Canada:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/02/27/hate_speech_ruling_antigay_pamphlets_broke_law_supreme_court_of_canada_says.html

I really liked the part about, "...crossed the line into “harmful” discourse..." What a subjective phrase that is. I also liked the part where the ruling was defended as only prohibiting certain types of "public" speech and not "private" speech.

I swear, none of this would be an issue had William Hull been born a man.

 Palindrome wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

I will also offer up this. If you ever find yourself in Kentucky, I will gladly take you to a local range, on me, and show you why we love our guns. Ammo, rifles, pistols, I'll provide everything. To be honest, there's probably no way you can understand our side of the argument otherwise.

I wasn't talking about this specific ban, as I have already said, nor was I trying to undermine US democracy by making a forum post. Just imagine if forums did have that much power, imagine a world ruled by 4chan.
The only reason I posted in this carbon copy of a thousand other threads is that I saw an erroneous post which I then pointed out and which various people then misinterpreted.

I grew up around firearms, my dad taught me to shoot when I was in primary school and I went stalking with him for years before that. I have owned my own in the past (2 hunting rifles and 2 shotguns) and as I am in the military I have recieved a lot of firearms training and I come into weekly contact with military issue small arms. They are a tool, nothing more. The problem is that they are an incredibly dangerous tool both to the users and to the general public, especially when the users are not trained or properly vetted. They have also developed a really unhealthy mystique which I find dangerous and worrisome (such crazy talk as using civilain firearms as a deterrent against a country that spends 40% of the global defence budget is utterly deluded).

I dont advocate a blanket ban on firearms as they do have legitimate uses but I do favour heavy regulation and the banning of all semi automatic weapons (including handguns) from privtae ownership unless they are secured in registered armouries and used in registered ranges, in other words the UK system. I am fully aware that this will never happen in the US but then US citizens will simply have to live with the consequnces in the name of an antiquated 'right' which has lost all meaning in the modern world.

Alright well if you're telling the truth, my bad. Most of the times when a brit enters one of these threads, he knows little to nothing about firearms, and assumes every redneck walks around with a fully automatic AK 74 across his shoulder, so that's what I figured was going on here. Sorry to assume you were uninformed, but we're just going to have to agree to disagree at this point. My country rebelled against yours for a reason after all, so its natural that we would look at the other and go "what the hell are they thinking?"

I still believe the 2nd Amendment is one of the most important rights we have as American citizens, and I will do everything in my power to protect it. The government has slowly been eroding several other amendments (especially the 1st thanks to all the panic over terrorism) so naturally, gun owners in the US have a good reason to hate these bans and fight them. If we don't draw the line here, it doesn't just mean our guns could be taken away. It shows that Americans believe that the Constitution is a "guideline", rather than an inalienable right, something we can pick and choose where it's applied, where it's "appropriate", by our government. And when the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were put in place specifically to STOP the government from picking and choosing our freedoms by will, it becomes very alarming to Americans that all of the sudden the government wants to curb those rights.

Lets say we let the AWB pass. Down the line, somebody could say "well, we determined back in 2013 that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to all weapons (several other acts and bans could be referenced here obviously, just keeping it simple), so why should the 1st Amendment allow our news agencies to speak ill of the government? How about we pass a law that let's us pick and choose exactly what the news can say? Not like it hurts anything, and after all, it's what's best for the American people." That may not sound like a big deal where you're from, but here, that's considered a major overstepping of the government's boundaries.

As for the whole "we could never rebel against the government" bit, our "greatest military in the world" has been fought to a stalemate by dirt farmers with beat up AK's and RPG's for 11 years in Afghanistan, and we still show no sign of winning (no disrespect to our vets) If they can't beat a couple hundred thousand insurgents on another soil where they've got more freedom in terms of engagement, how do you think they would do against a million firearm owners, in their own country, many who have been trained by the military, are in reserve with the national guard, or who serve in law enforcement? How well do you think they would do with all the red tape that applies to fighting in their own cities, with US soldiers being ordered to fire on US citizens, perhaps even people they know? How many would refuse their orders, or outright defect? It would be against long odds, but it's not the first time we've rebelled against the most powerful super power on Earth (hint, 1776) Just because the 2nd Amendment is "antiquated", doesn't mean it isn't still relevant. Granted, I highly doubt another rebellion would happen unless things REALLY went tits up, but Americans have this option if it becomes necessary. Your country wouldn't. I realize we're not going to come to an agreement here, just trying to explain why I think this way.

Either way, I think this thread is about tapped out. People for gun control are going to keep wanting gun control, and people against are still against it. This is just one of those topics where people just have to agree to disagree. Everybody is so settled into their viewpoints that by now it's almost impossible to change someone's view. All I'll say is that I'm glad the AWB was shot down here, but to all those who are against it, keep mailing your senators and representatives and remind them that the democrats WILL try to sneak it in with some other, essential bill like the budget or something. This fight is far from over.

Breotan wrote:Still, we have this from Canada:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/02/27/hate_speech_ruling_antigay_pamphlets_broke_law_supreme_court_of_canada_says.html

I really liked the part about, "...crossed the line into “harmful” discourse..." What a subjective phrase that is. I also liked the part where the ruling was defended as only prohibiting certain types of "public" speech and not "private" speech.

I swear, none of this would be an issue had William Hull been born a man.

Again, the court has determined that a restriction of hate speech does not impede a person's right to free speech; a sentiment that I agree with. The differentiation between public and private speech is to uphold that right to free speech: you can say whatever vile things you want, you just cannot broadcast them. It's a very thin, but important distinction. As to what "harmful" discourse refers to, yes it is ambiguous, and all the better for it. It requires each case to be considered on its own merits, rather than allow black-letter-law technicalities to crop up.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Breotan wrote:Still, we have this from Canada:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/02/27/hate_speech_ruling_antigay_pamphlets_broke_law_supreme_court_of_canada_says.html

I really liked the part about, "...crossed the line into “harmful” discourse..." What a subjective phrase that is. I also liked the part where the ruling was defended as only prohibiting certain types of "public" speech and not "private" speech.

I swear, none of this would be an issue had William Hull been born a man.

Again, the court has determined that a restriction of hate speech does not impede a person's right to free speech; a sentiment that I agree with. The differentiation between public and private speech is to uphold that right to free speech: you can say whatever vile things you want, you just cannot broadcast them. It's a very thin, but important distinction. As to what "harmful" discourse refers to, yes it is ambiguous, and all the better for it. It requires each case to be considered on its own merits, rather than allow black-letter-law technicalities to crop up.

hate is a point of view.

Frazzled wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Breotan wrote:Still, we have this from Canada:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/02/27/hate_speech_ruling_antigay_pamphlets_broke_law_supreme_court_of_canada_says.html

I really liked the part about, "...crossed the line into “harmful” discourse..." What a subjective phrase that is. I also liked the part where the ruling was defended as only prohibiting certain types of "public" speech and not "private" speech.

I swear, none of this would be an issue had William Hull been born a man.

Again, the court has determined that a restriction of hate speech does not impede a person's right to free speech; a sentiment that I agree with. The differentiation between public and private speech is to uphold that right to free speech: you can say whatever vile things you want, you just cannot broadcast them. It's a very thin, but important distinction. As to what "harmful" discourse refers to, yes it is ambiguous, and all the better for it. It requires each case to be considered on its own merits, rather than allow black-letter-law technicalities to crop up.

hate is a point of view.

It's a point of view that's been determined to infringe on others' right not to live in fear. In other words, be hateful in your own home. In a public forum, it's in the same category as inciting violence.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Yah, we like to keep the mentally incompetent away from guns and ensure only those who have passed safetry training can handle deadly tools. Guns are a privilege just like driving a car is.

Maybe in your country its a privilege. Over here its a fundamental right, and for many citizens a necessity.

Attempting to take it away is just as vile as trying to take away freedom of speech.

Yeah, I'm not really some up in arms ... well anything, about much of anything... but I can't agree that the courts and/or 'common folk' agreeing that some type of speech is so mean that it should be illegal is a good thing. Differences in outlooks and whatever platitudes are due, but it still seems bad to jail someone because someone else is offended by what they say.

Bromsy wrote:Yeah, I'm not really some up in arms ... well anything, about much of anything... but I can't agree that the courts and/or 'common folk' agreeing that some type of speech is so mean that it should be illegal is a good thing. Differences in outlooks and whatever platitudes are due, but it still seems bad to jail someone because someone else is offended by what they say.

Like, say, distributing pamphlets and erecting billboards that suggests all Jews should be beaten to death on sight, to such an extent that anyone of Jewish descent is terrified to live in their own neighbourhood after driving past signs like that?

Tell me how that's a good thing. I'll wait.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grey Templar wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Yah, we like to keep the mentally incompetent away from guns and ensure only those who have passed safetry training can handle deadly tools. Guns are a privilege just like driving a car is.

Maybe in your country its a privilege. Over here its a fundamental right, and for many citizens a necessity.

Attempting to take it away is just as vile as trying to take away freedom of speech.

I understand your point of view, just as I hope you understand mine when I say an equally vile act would be to allow someone mentally incompetent to have a gun in a populated area.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Bromsy wrote:Yeah, I'm not really some up in arms ... well anything, about much of anything... but I can't agree that the courts and/or 'common folk' agreeing that some type of speech is so mean that it should be illegal is a good thing. Differences in outlooks and whatever platitudes are due, but it still seems bad to jail someone because someone else is offended by what they say.

Like, say, distributing pamphlets and erecting billboards that suggests all Jews should be beaten to death on sight, to such an extent that anyone of Jewish descent is terrified to live in their own neighbourhood after driving past signs like that?

Tell me how that's a good thing. I'll wait.

It would illustrate clearly to the entire community what complete scumbags the people who distribute those pamphlets and erect those billboards really are. Although I don't see a lot of those kinds of billboards, to be honest, so I'm not sure going out of our way to make it illegal would do anything than provide those kind of hate groups with an excuse to start claiming that their rights are being infringed upon. I doubt there are many billboard companies who would agree to put up that kind of sign, and if someone wants to erect a sign on their own property, that's their business. It just let's everyone else know how much of a jerk they are.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grey Templar wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Yah, we like to keep the mentally incompetent away from guns and ensure only those who have passed safetry training can handle deadly tools. Guns are a privilege just like driving a car is.

Maybe in your country its a privilege. Over here its a fundamental right, and for many citizens a necessity.

Attempting to take it away is just as vile as trying to take away freedom of speech.

I understand your point of view, just as I hope you understand mine when I say an equally vile act would be to allow someone mentally incompetent to have a gun in a populated area.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
In order to converse with his equal, an Irishman is forced to talk to God.

For a German to converse with his equal he is forced to fill out these forms in triplicate.

]

For a Frenchman to converse with his equal he must look in the mirror.

 Bromsy wrote:
Yeah, I'm not really some up in arms ... well anything, about much of anything... but I can't agree that the courts and/or 'common folk' agreeing that some type of speech is so mean that it should be illegal is a good thing. Differences in outlooks and whatever platitudes are due, but it still seems bad to jail someone because someone else is offended by what they say.

Look up Defamation and Assault

Our country has something very similar to it. You can be arrested for undermining someones life with false information.
You can be sued and you can have your rights taken away for defamation or assault. Assault is not classified as touching of someone, but the defense had the will to act on it. YOu may of not had the will to act, but if the person who accused you said you did. You would be fined.

Our country has a policy of saying you can say ANYTHING YOU WANT. Just know the consequences of what you say will offend someone.

There have been many accounts of this. I'll look them up when i have time.

*Please note you can be sued for assault or defamation, but it doesn't mean that it won't be thrown out of a court immediately when they see something.

 captain collius wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
In order to converse with his equal, an Irishman is forced to talk to God.

For a German to converse with his equal he is forced to fill out these forms in triplicate.

]

For a Frenchman to converse with his equal he must look in the mirror.

we need to keep this going!

 azazel the cat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Breotan wrote:Still, we have this from Canada:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/02/27/hate_speech_ruling_antigay_pamphlets_broke_law_supreme_court_of_canada_says.html

I really liked the part about, "...crossed the line into “harmful” discourse..." What a subjective phrase that is. I also liked the part where the ruling was defended as only prohibiting certain types of "public" speech and not "private" speech.

I swear, none of this would be an issue had William Hull been born a man.

Again, the court has determined that a restriction of hate speech does not impede a person's right to free speech; a sentiment that I agree with. The differentiation between public and private speech is to uphold that right to free speech: you can say whatever vile things you want, you just cannot broadcast them. It's a very thin, but important distinction. As to what "harmful" discourse refers to, yes it is ambiguous, and all the better for it. It requires each case to be considered on its own merits, rather than allow black-letter-law technicalities to crop up.

hate is a point of view.

It's a point of view that's been determined to infringe on others' right not to live in fear. In other words, be hateful in your own home. In a public forum, it's in the same category as inciting violence.

By banning hatespeech you're just banning speech that is not PC.

 Frazzled wrote:

By banning hatespeech you're just banning speech that is not PC.

This is one of the most ridiculous statements you have ever made.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

By banning hatespeech you're just banning speech that is not PC.

This is one of the most ridiculous statements you have ever made.

Not exactly it is probably poor worded. I can say that anyone who says anything good about communism is hateful because my Family lost at least 10 cousin to Stalins purges. Does that make Marx's works Hateful.... no. They are just misguided because they rely on Humans to be Honest and perfect which is pretty much impossible.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Bromsy wrote:Yeah, I'm not really some up in arms ... well anything, about much of anything... but I can't agree that the courts and/or 'common folk' agreeing that some type of speech is so mean that it should be illegal is a good thing. Differences in outlooks and whatever platitudes are due, but it still seems bad to jail someone because someone else is offended by what they say.

Like, say, distributing pamphlets and erecting billboards that suggests all Jews should be beaten to death on sight, to such an extent that anyone of Jewish descent is terrified to live in their own neighbourhood after driving past signs like that?

Tell me how that's a good thing. I'll wait.

Thats the extreme. What if someone says Islam is a religion of murderers. Is that hate speech? What about if someone says gays are abnormal? Is that hate speech? If you call someone a Fascist is that hate speech? The moment someone can arbitrrarily assign something criminality as "hate speech," you've lost the your right to free speech.