The 2nd Amendment

I'm aware of that spin.

 

What 'spin'?

 

The one I'm pretty sure you're wanting to apply. I didn't click on the link, but I assume you mean the focus of attention to how the change being promoted from outside would benefit those locally, which admittedly has to contain at least some basis of truth.

Not correct? Then please tell me as I have too many tabs open already.

 

The LGA (local government association) is the national voice of local government. We work with councils to support, promote and improve local government.

We are a politically-led, cross-party organisation that works on behalf of councils to ensure local government has a strong, credible voice with national government. We aim to influence and set the political agenda on the issues that matter to councils so they are able to deliver local solutions to national problems.

We are a membership organisation. In total, 412 local authorities are members of the LGA for 2012/13. These include English local councils, Welsh councils via the Welsh LGA, and fire, national park, passenger transport and police authorities, plus one town council.


Public service reform
Councils are at the centre, and seen to be at the centre, of public service reform and delivering more effective services for local people.

Growth, jobs and prosperity
Councils are recognised as central to economic growth.

Funding for local government
Reform of the public sector finance system so councils raise more funds locally, have confidence their financing is sustainable and fair, and greater ability to coordinate local public services.

Efficiency and productivity
Councils dramatically reduce costs in ways which minimise the impact on the quality of life for their residents.

Sector-led improvement
Councils are the most improved part of the public sector, and local politicians and senior managers lead the transformation of local places.

 

I thought his meaning was true and clear: corporations have the title to (or own) congress.

What's so hard to comprehend about that?

 

That may be your view, but which of them can I go to and view their tanks, stinger missiles, M60's, land mines or drones?

And in what way is this relevant to the 2nd amendment and the right of the people to keep and bear arms, which was the original topic?

 

Take your pick:

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?Ind=D

You asked the question:

 

Since when have our domestic issues become your problem? Let me just remind you that you live ACROSS A FUCKING OCEAN!!

We are not your country. If you want to ban all guns in your country - fine. But that is not happening here. And that is not "selfish", or whatever you might think.

Summerhill, you are ridiculous. Gun deaths are far lower than car deaths, alcohol/tobacco deaths, and prescription drug deaths. Besides, why punish the responsible gun owners over a few idiots that don't know how to handle them?

Second of all, there is absolutely no right to kill outside of certain situations of self defense. You are so biased against guns it is insane.

Just because I own guns doesn't mean I'm not a peaceful and loving person, it just means I'm able to protect those ideals against others who might bring violence or oppression into the picture.

 

deviate

I will try to explain a little clearer.
You posted a video relating to the UK, and asked me what I thought of it.
I told you what I thought of it.
You said: 'Well, regardless if it was slanted or not, there are a lot of people upset about it.' then said: 'Exactly, which makes me think even further that the English are weak pushovers.'
Which was a bit of a U-turn and/or a not very clear idea what the protest was about.
It seemed as if you were suggesting there is a big ground swell of a movement who hold massive protests in relation to gun ownership - which has never been the case.
To be fair, I wasn't 100% clear about the point you were trying to make with that ancient video.
That was the sum total of the debate regarding the video.
Then what happened?: 'We won't give up our guns - for any reason'.
Did I ask if you would?
What has that got to do with the video?
You seemed a little uninterested in talking about the video/UK, and prefered to revert back to talking about the U.S - which seems to be the case for many U.S citizens.
Another e.g would be the 'The Arms Trade Treaty' - what's the reaction of many Americans?: They're comin' after our guns'.
I think that's called self-absorption.

Make sense now?

 

No, it doesn't. This entire thread is about the US and our 2nd amendment.

I simply said that regardless of this video being slanted/propagated, there were still quite a few people protesting a gov't regulation relating to firearms. You and Bal have painted the picture that basically nobody in the UK owns or feels the need to own guns.

And you can refer to my concern with my own country self absorption all you like. You know what I consider you foreign nationals so passionately concerned about our domestic policies? Not minding your own damn business.

 

Well, I tried : /

I wasn't talking about the entire thread. Obviously that is about the U.S, and it would be a little bizarre to discuss it with out mentioning the U.S.

It is quite low. I think under 2%. However, I have no idea how many people would want want one if it was lawful to own a gun for self defense.

I counted 1 person. I Googled: uk gun ownership protests
...guess what cropped up? I'll give you one guess

More people are likely to protest not being able to kill foxes or having to pay there TV licence.

 

TV license? What is that?

 

A television licence is required for each household where television programmes are watched as they are broadcast, irrespective of the signal method (terrestrial, satellite, cable or the Internet). A licence is not required, however, if you use your television only to watch DVDs or play video games, or you only watch programmes on your computer after they have been shown on TV.
The licence fee is used almost entirely to fund the BBC's domestic radio, television and internet services. The money received from the fee represents approximately 75% of the cost of these services with most of the remainder coming from the profits of BBC Worldwide — a commercial wing of the corporation which sells programmes and runs stations overseas (such as BBC World News), as well as other business allied to broadcasting such as publishing


https://www.youtube.com/user/NB51

 

And I thought I had heard of just about everything.

 

I would suggest the words "my" and "mine" being inappropriate in discussing politics, and should instead reflect that the country does not belong to any one individual or group of individuals but to all legal citizens who reside. Our, and ours would be much more applicable. I will assume the words were chosen with no malice intended.

 

The UK isn't the only country that has a 'TV tax'. And it still has commercial TV, too.
I guess the BBC (and whom ever else receives a slice) could go 100% commercial, and have adverts every ten minutes - but would have to cater for the lowest common denominator.
The BBC does produce some of the best TV in the whole world - something I'm proud of.
Although, paying for it, and it being a criminal offence not to, is a little bit fascist

As always the U.S has to do things 10 times more complicated:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licence#United_States

Meagain, thank you, but do you seriously think I'm not going to add my 'input' because of Deviate's bluster?

I'm sure some would call that Internationalism (which, thankfully, is common place), and is a dangerous step towards a 'NWO' etc etc blah blah blah.
A direct threat to......America................ofcourse.

 

[FONT=&quot]Indie [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]LOL - It’s not being defensive its being frustrated at you constant evasion. As to you fake righteous indignation I take it with the large dose of salt it deserves.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Oh hell man we have been through this hundreds maybe thousands of times, you were unable to defend your ideas from criticism then and I’m guessing you will not be able this time.

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]At its foundation slavery continued and the right to vote was limited. So it depends here on what your interpretation of the ‘people’ is (with only about 10% having a vote) and what you mean by ‘freedom’ and ‘liberty’ as slaves had neither.

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In 1786 the most common form of transport beyond one’s own feet was by horse and had been for most of human history it meant that effectively communication was limited to the speed of a horse. Boats could be faster but they were limited to sea or waterway. We then got the train but again limited, then came the telegraph and the telephone and then the internet and now people in Britain can talk in real time with someone in New Zealand.

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]I think your problem is that your view of the world is stuck in the 1780’s (this could be why so much of your thinking is so irrationally out of date) but you really need to start thinking in 21st century terms. [/FONT]

 

[FONT=&quot]Deviate[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]So simply put, you would have no qualms about killing police officers going about their lawful duty.

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Ah the fear factor once more.

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Oh the American exceptionalism argument, the problem being that Americans are not exceptional.

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]I mean what do you mean by ‘still tough’ for example in fitness you’d have to consider that the US “is the most obese country in the world with 34% of the adult population classified as obsess”.

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]As to “we still love our freedom” I’d ask from when? If as you seemingly imply from pre-war of independence, I’d have to point out about slavery and the killing of Native Americans, do you just mean white male property owners still love their freedom?

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Then we come to “kicked you guys out” First I’d ask what guys? The Britain of today is far, far removed from that of the 1770-80’s or 1812. ‘Us guys’ didn’t get universal suffrage until the around about 1928 when women got equal voting rights, it seems a bit silly to blame us of today for something we had nothing to do with. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Second I’d point out that it could be argued that the French ‘kicked the British out’ without the help of French support it is very likely that the rebellion could have been crushed or at least not had the impact it did. [/FONT]