[Ryda King]

QUOTE

Was it? What's your definitive source for this enlightening piece of information? Some conspiracy hack? Some third-rate "investigative" journalist whose sole presence is an outspoken radio show or internet blog? Your own whims? Care to provide some evidence to support this frankly ludicrous assertion?

You can see it all around. You don't need some journalist to see it because it's everywhere. TSA being allowed to do what they do, bills being put in place to restrict guns (UN Gun Treaty), and several cases of people being disarmed. It's not like they're hiding it.

QUOTE

Can you give one reasonable explanation for why military-pattern semi-automatic assault weapons are perfectly legal in the United States despite the fact they are nigh-on identical in almost every imaginable way to outlawed fully automatic rifles? There isn't one- it's an idiotic half-measure in a country where "firearms control" consists of a brief waiting period and absolutely no obligation to actually demonstrate training or reasonable understanding, or even in many cases sound mental state? Tell me, why is it considered sensible and prudent under US law to outlaw semi-automatic shotguns from Europe like the SPAS-12, which have as far as I know never been implicated in any kind of criminal activity to speak of, whereas make perfectly legal semi-automatic military rifles like the FN FAL which have not only a far higher threat potential in terms of hypothetical damage (20 rounds of hollow-point or soft-point 7.62x51 NATO fired by a competent marksman is likely to produce 15+ deaths and serious injuries at any range out to about 300m- try doing that with #9 birdshot or even 00 buck from a 6/8 round magazine shotgun) but also in their use in actual criminal activity?

Because our fore fathers gave us that right. The right to bear arms. However the Government seems to believe they have the right to take that away. It doesn't matter how powerful a shotgun or rifle is, it's still a gun and we have the right to own and keep them to defend ourselves from whatever threat may come.

QUOTE

Have they? Exactly when has the government successfully disarmed or attempted to disarm honest, law-abiding citizens in the United States with no clear justification or mandate to do so?

That's not what I meant and you know it.

QUOTE

Usually because your arguments consist not of logic, sources and intelligent discussion, but of shouting and being confrontational. If people of your persuasion were more prepared to discuss the issues properly (and I'm not accusing you of failing to do this) then perhaps people would hold more respect for your views?

Shouting and being confrontational? The only time I'm ever like that is when no one listens to me when I am calm and try to explain things. I tried to explain the Olympic attack rumors (and I, again, said I don't even know if it's true or not), I was called a conspiracy theorist and so on and so forth. Apparently trying to help people is "f*cking stupid".

QUOTE

Not at all. If you are willing to demonstrate, with reasonable evidence, rational analysis and quality sources that your views are indeed worthwhile and substantive, then I and others would be inclined to listen and weigh in with our own views.

I have given evidence, a rational analysis and quality sources. I posted the video of the guy who was in the Sikh temple and no one said a damn thing about it other than "he may have been confused because SWAT guys blah blah".

QUOTE

Generally because it lacks veracity and sources. But that said, I think its unfair to accuse others of failing to listen to what you say, just because they fail to believe it or dismiss it as tripe. That's no individual they haven't listened, but merely one that they don't agree.

I give sources every time I can. And no, I don't accuse others to fail to listen to me because they don't agree, it's because they actually don't listen to me. If you disagree, that's fine. But let's try to discuss the subject without childish name calling and dismissing me as an idiot. Like we're doing now.

QUOTE

The onus does not lie on the sceptic to disprove the believer. If that were the case, I could quite legitimately claim that all the water on this planet was born from the rectum of a giant, blue, inflatable whale, which tours around the solar system sh*tting out glorious life-bearing fluids onto otherwise desolate planets. If you honestly believe these things, then tell us why- explain why its rational to believe them and back up your assertions with sources and evidence.

Again that's not what I meant and you know it. I meant if I am wrong and you have a credible source of proof to disprove me, by all means show me. I won't be insulted by being more informed of a situation.

Keep in mind, the stuff I post without sources are rumors going around. I never said they are fact. But if it does concern a possible disaster, like the Olympics attack, I said you might wanna get out of there. Every other time I do post sources when I can. Like the Sikh temple witness who claimed to have seen 4 white males dressed in black, instead of the single nutjob the media claims did it.

QUOTE

In short, I would sum up my disagreements with you as thus- 1) I don't believe that instances you refer to as being conspiratorial are anything of the sort, and what's more I feel that implying a conspiracy where there is none and no evidence to demonstrate one is actually counter-productive to what could on your part be quite an intelligent argument. By making the fundamental mistake of appealing to the more controversial and conspiratorial aspects of your ideas you damage your own credibility and turn sceptical individuals away from listening to your beliefs.

Really now, are you intentionally ignoring all the stuff I've listed or what? YOu don't need to be a rocket scientist to see what's going on. THe TSA, the drones, the UN Gun Treaty bill, the riot police, etc.

QUOTE

2) I don't think there's any evidence to substantiate the belief that the government in the United States is trying to entirely disarm the citizenry.

...Are you serious?

QUOTE

If so, the most logical place to start would be either the weapon implicated in the most criminal actions- the semi-automatic pistol, or the one that could pose the most serious tactical threat to any Federal attempt to subdue the population by force- high-powered hunting rifles. What's more, I don't see a logical connection between the assertion that semi-automatic military-pattern rifles and carbines should not be in the hands of untrained and inexperienced civilians (an assertion I'm inclined to agree with and a situation that exists solely (at least in the developed world) in the United States, and one that I believe has a great contributing factor in why the firearm-derive homicide rate in the United States is the equivalent of more 40 times per individual weapon higher in the United States than it is in somewhere such as Switzerland- that is to say every weapon in the US is more than 40 times as likely to be involved in a murder than in Switzerland, which has the highest ratio of assault-pattern weapons to citizens of anywhere in the world) and believing that all weapons should be outlawed- it's a logical step too far.

Yeah, screw our Fore Fathers. Screw our rights.

Seriously, you sound like the people who are trying to convince us we don't need guns. And if that's the case, I have no desire nor will to debate this any longer. If you refuse to read between the lines and look at the evidence around you regarding the Government and seriously say that you see no evidence supporting the claim of Government wanting to disarm people, I am done.

So as I've said, I don't think I'll be posting anymore about this stuff since no one listens and it really goes nowhere but back and forth arguments with walls of text like this.

This post has been edited by Ryda King on Wednesday, Aug 8 2012, 14:58

[Captain VXR]

4 guys dressed in black sounds like a swat team going in to find the murderer.

As Sivispacem said on the previous page, the UN arms treaty only concerns the international trading of guns and won't stop you from getting your next over-compensating AK-35856849398.2694 with enriched uranium tipped exploding bullets.

I really cannot be arsed to debunk any more, as it'll likely go in one ear and out the other.

Anyway I'm off to report you to my overlords at the illumunati, and a delegation of FBI and MI6 agents will be on their way to have a 'chat' soon.

[EscoLehGo]

QUOTE (Captain VXR @ Wednesday, Aug 8 2012, 16:55)

Anyway I'm off to report you to my overlords at the illumunati, and a delegation of FBI and MI6 agents will be on their way to have a 'chat' soon.

The reptilian council will not be pleased about this.

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (Ryda King @ Wednesday, Aug 8 2012, 15:55)

You can see it all around. You don't need some journalist to see it because it's everywhere. TSA being allowed to do what they do, bills being put in place to restrict guns (UN Gun Treaty), and several cases of people being disarmed. It's not like they're hiding it.

I've already covered the UN treaty elsewhere. It has absolutely nothing to do with the legal domestic trade in firearms and anyone who interprets it as such is, in my esteemed view, an idiot; it's purpose is to prevent the illegal trade of firearms outside of existing national legislation and predominantly in contravention of existing UN arms embargoes. As for the TSA and cases of individuals being "disarmed", please provide some evidence in the case of 1) to substantiate the assertion that their activities go beyond their federally agreed remit and 2) that any disarmament of individuals is an illegal and unjust action in relation to existing federal and state laws.

QUOTE (Ryda King @ Wednesday, Aug 8 2012, 15:55)

Because our fore fathers gave us that right. The right to bear arms. However the Government seems to believe they have the right to take that away. It doesn't matter how powerful a shotgun or rifle is, it's still a gun and we have the right to own and keep them to defend ourselves from whatever threat may come.

Well, did the forefathers see the dilemma of whether to legalise or prohibit automatic shotguns and 600+ round per minute assault rifles? I think not. The Second Amendment is a vaguely absurd idealistic dream at best. If it were adhered strictly and to the letter, civilian ownership of nuclear weapons would not be prohibited. There are absolutely no caveats in the amendment and therefore it falls to the legislature to interpret. That right is the preserve of the legislature and as such it will stay; if they agree that something is illegal is is not unconstitutional unless decreed so by a majority in exactly the same circumstance at a later date. In other words, existing firearms restriction laws are not unconstitutional, and if identical laws were passed through the legislative branch they would be self-evidently constitutional too.

QUOTE (Ryda King @ Wednesday, Aug 8 2012, 15:55)

That's not what I meant and you know it.

Well that is, word-for-word, what you said. If you want to use exaggeration and hyperbole to emphasize a point, please ensure it is sufficiently ridiculous to prevent you from appearing sincere.

QUOTE (Ryda King @ Wednesday, Aug 8 2012, 15:55)

Shouting and being confrontational? The only time I'm ever like that is when no one listens to me when I am calm and try to explain things.

Like I said, I never directly accused you of such actions. The general behaviour of conspiracy theorists, or as I like to call them, "rationality denialists", is such. I've debated with you in a logical and sensible manner as that is the manner in which you engaged me.

QUOTE (Ryda King @ Wednesday, Aug 8 2012, 15:55)

I have given evidence, a rational analysis and quality sources. I posted the video of the guy who was in the Sikh temple and no one said a damn thing about it other than "he may have been confused because SWAT guys blah blah".

I fail to see how one YouTube video of an individual claiming that they saw something other than the story as explained in the public media is of any relevance in your augment that this is some kind of conspiracy. Even if the testimony of the individual concerned was credible- which isn't necessarily the case, as eyewitness statements are intrinsically unreliable, especially in high-trauma, chaotic situations- that's no indication of a greater conspiracy. In short, you haven't actually provided any evidence that substantiates your assertions.

QUOTE (Ryda King @ Wednesday, Aug 8 2012, 15:55)

I give sources every time I can.

I haven't seen a single source you have provided which substantiates the idea that the federal government in the US are trying to entirely disarm the citizenry. If these exist, please provide them.

QUOTE (Ryda King @ Wednesday, Aug 8 2012, 15:55)

Again that's not what I meant and you know it. I meant if I am wrong and you have a credible source of proof to disprove me, by all means show me. I won't be insulted by being more informed of a situation.

That's the point. Why is it my job to disprove what is without merit? If that was how debates worked, then I could claim whatever unsubstantiated and nonsensical crap I wanted. It's nigh-on impossible to disprove something that doesn't exist because there's no evidence either for or against it.

QUOTE (Ryda King @ Wednesday, Aug 8 2012, 15:55)

Keep in mind, the stuff I post without sources are rumors going around.

A rumour is almost certainly valueless. If it was allowed to exist, by your logic, it would be common knowledge; and if not, then it's probably a lie and therefore pointless. I've extensively studied things like 7/7 at postgraduate and soon doctoral level- any conspiracy other than the ineptitude and technical failures on the part of the security apparatus is entirely untrue, and that's a categorical fact. This is the issue with conspiracy theories- they always fall apart under rational observation by subject experts. Of course, the response by the conspirator is to allege these people are directly involved, but that's downward spiral and eventually the entire world's population will be against them if they "dig" deep enough.

QUOTE (Ryda King @ Wednesday, Aug 8 2012, 15:55)

Really now, are you intentionally ignoring all the stuff I've listed or what? YOu don't need to be a rocket scientist to see what's going on. THe TSA, the drones, the UN Gun Treaty bill, the riot police, etc.

If you can provide a reasonable, referenced and intelligent source, ideally in something subject to peer review, that any of those aspects not already covered above are anything nefarious, then I will listen. Otherwise, you are descending into conspiratorial hearsay.

QUOTE (Ryda King @ Wednesday, Aug 8 2012, 15:55)

Yeah, screw our Fore Fathers. Screw our rights.

I don't think you understand the context in which the bill of rights was written. I'm no American, but I'm pretty sure given the evolution of weapons in the modern era, some caveats were indented with a "right to bear arms".

QUOTE (Ryda King @ Wednesday, Aug 8 2012, 15:55)

Seriously, you sound like...

...A rational, outside observer? I have no affiliation with the US; I'm an impartial outsider.

QUOTE (Ryda King @ Wednesday, Aug 8 2012, 15:55)

So as I've said, I don't think I'll be posting anymore about this stuff

Good for you. But you were the one who claimed it was so hard to instigate intelligent debate. Why shy away from it now?

[Captain VXR]

Ryda King - £50 says that if the UN treaty passes, you'll still be able to buy guns just as easily in the USA. You up for it?

[Ryda King]

QUOTE (Captain VXR @ Thursday, Aug 9 2012, 00:04)

Ryda King - £50 says that if the UN treaty passes, you'll still be able to buy guns just as easily in the USA. You up for it?

QUOTE (UN Gun Treaty Article 15)

Article 15 International Assistance In fulfilling the obligation of this Treaty, States Parties may seek, inter alia, legal assistance, legislative assistance, technical assistance, institutional capacity building, material assistance or financial assistance. States, in a position to do so, shall provide such assistance. States Parties may contribute resources to a voluntary trust fund to assist requesting States Parties requiring such assistance to implement the Treaty. States Parties shall afford one another the widest measure of assistance, consistent with their respective legal and administrative systems, in investigations, prosecutions and judicial proceedings in relation to the violations of the national measures implemented to comply with obligations under of the provisions of this Treaty. Each State Party may offer or receive assistance, inter alia, through the United Nations international, regional, subregional or national organizations, non-governmental organizations or on a bi-lateral basis. Such assistance may include technical, financial, material and other forms of assistance as needed, upon request.

Even if it doesn't happen right away, it's going to happen down the road. I'm done trying to wake people up to this. I try to give a helpful warning, I'm called an idiot. I try to speculate that these mass shootings could be staged, I'm called a conspiracy theorist. If no one will listen, best of luck to you in the future.

QUOTE (sivispacem)

Well, did the forefathers see the dilemma of whether to legalise or prohibit automatic shotguns and 600+ round per minute assault rifles? I think not.

It doesn't matter. How many times must I say this? Guns are guns. They all do the same thing, no matter the bullet, mechanism or way it's built. And as such, they fought and died to give us the right to bear them to protect ourselves and our families. Just because a crazy person with a gun kills people does not make the gun bad, it makes the person wielding it bad. We've just had numerous stories of people with guns stopping potential mass murders and robberies because of their 2nd amendment.

QUOTE

The Second Amendment is a vaguely absurd idealistic dream at best.

Yeah, I'm done talking to you. You just insulted our forefathers who fought and died for us and for this country, yet you're not even from it.

[Chunkyluva53]

QUOTE (Ryda King @ Wednesday, Aug 8 2012, 12:59)

QUOTE (Chunkyluva53 @ Wednesday, Aug 8 2012, 11:27) The elite probably don't even want tighter gun control they would be loving it that these acts keep the masses is fear and distrustful of he world around them. Makes the masses easier to control. They still don't want armed revolution. That's why they're disarming people. Because they know that enough people wake up and realize what's going on and what the future is the way things are going now, it's going to be like the London riots times 10. You have to be a complete moron to not see what's going on here. Riot police being called in? Drones being made and going to be deployed (armed ones as well)? TSA being set up everywhere, in addition to the horrible stories that come out and them not being punsihed for it? Disarming the American people? The recent (newest) GSK scandal and the Government just happened to ignore it? F*cking GSK just agreed to pay $3 Billion in fraud charges and they don't even care and in addition to that, THEY'RE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE THEIR BUSINESS!

Yep it's a sad road we're heading dowm Ryda King. It's amazing how a small group at the top can tear down everything around us. That's at least one thing I respect some arab countries for, they riot if their leaders step on them. The problem is that in Western countries especially the USA this very same elite group control the big three: Government, Mainstream media and Hollywood which fool the public into giving up it's liberties without even knowing it.

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (UN Gun Treaty Article 15)

Article 15 International Assistance In fulfilling the obligation of this Treaty...

At which point I stopped reading. All you've done is post a list of who and how the treaty obliges states to assist each other. The basic remit of the proposed legislation is to draft up a set of international regulations for the international trade of firearms, in particular trying to target the illicit trade by providing legislative teeth for enforcing arms embargoes, and the circumstances of prohibited transfer are relatively specific. No trade or sale if there is substantial risk of 1) use in violation of human rights; 2) use in the facilitation of terrorism, violent or organised crime; 3) violation of existing UN Charters or arms embargoes or 4) serious potential for diversion from state authorities to non-state actors outside of existing national legislation. I fail to see how any of this inhibits the ability for law-abiding US citizens who currently pass all the reasonable criteria for permitted ownership to possess firearms.

QUOTE (Ryda King @ Thursday, Aug 9 2012, 02:07)

Even if it doesn't happen right away, it's going to happen down the road. I'm done trying to wake people up to this. I try to give a helpful warning, I'm called an idiot. I try to speculate that these mass shootings could be staged, I'm called a conspiracy theorist. If no one will listen, best of luck to you in the future.

What on earth makes you think you are "waking people up"? This attitude of assumed precognition- the idea that you somehow "know more" than everyone else and are trying to do them a good by informing them of your beliefs is totally absurd and what I find most exasperating about this kind of discussion. Your insistence that people are "calling you an idiot" and ignoring your sage advice is equally as exasperating- I've tried to engage you in an intelligent discussion- an intelligent discussion you actively requested, no less- and at every opportunity you've tried to bring an end to that.

You've still not provided any sources saying this is going to happen.

QUOTE (Ryda King @ Thursday, Aug 9 2012, 02:07)

It doesn't matter. How many times must I say this? Guns are guns. They all do the same thing, no matter the bullet, mechanism or way it's built. And as such, they fought and died to give us the right to bear them to protect ourselves and our families. Just because a crazy person with a gun kills people does not make the gun bad, it makes the person wielding it bad. We've just had numerous stories of people with guns stopping potential mass murders and robberies because of their 2nd amendment.

Actually, it does matter. The text of the Second Amendment is very vague. It refers to the "right to keep and bear arms" and nothing else. Now, "arms" is merely an abbreviation for "armaments", which is a general term referring to all weapons, not just firearms. If you are to hold the constitution in the highest esteem and protect it word-for-word, civilians have not only the right to possess any firearm they choose but any weapon at all. Can you imagine that? A civilian population legally permitted to possess ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads? How utterly absurd. And that's before I get onto the fact that the job of interpreting the Second Amendment falls to the judiciary, not the layman. You may believe that "it doesn't matter" but the people in charge of upholding an interpreting the constitution disagree. See, there's already legislation which has been upheld outlawing automatic weapons in civilian hands. There's legislation outlawing "destructive devices" including firearms with a bore of over .50 inch, and plenty of state level firearms regulations which prohibit certain weapons of certain kinds (California with the .50 BMG, various states with compulsory registration, et cetera) which have all been declared constitutional.

I'll say again, I have absolutely no desire to see the civilian ownership of firearms be made totally illegal in the US. I don't think anyone does really. The judiciary have decided that being entitled to defend one's self under the Second Amendment is not a reasonable justification for the ownership of fully automatic weapons or a variety of other kinds of firearm, and if you disagree with that as a statement; well, that's an issue you have with the judiciary- the body given the power to interpret the constitution itself- and not with me.

QUOTE (Ryda King @ Thursday, Aug 9 2012, 02:07)

Yeah, I'm done talking to you. You just insulted our forefathers who fought and died for us and for this country, yet you're not even from it.

Not at all. In its most literal interpretation it permits civilian ownership of nuclear weapons, VX and Sarin nerve gas and just about whatever you wish. The American forefathers had no idea that such weapons were to come about in the future, and the amendment was codified at a time when such inventions were mere figments of imagination. In 1791, I have absolutely no doubt that civilian ownership of every weapon of all kinds was seen as good and proper, but times change and so do interpretations. It was (and is) absurd and idealistic to expect a piece of legislation written concerning the weapons of more than two hundred years ago to be equally as applicable in a modern context without some kind of reinterpretation.

My place of origin is of absolutely no significance. On the contrary- not having been indoctrinated with any kind of pro-American, nationalistic ideology, and having the ability to address the issues at hand as an impartial and entirely external observer should in theory make my views on the issue more poignant. What interest do I personally have in seeing an end to civilian ownership of weapons in the US?

This post has been edited by sivispacem on Thursday, Aug 9 2012, 08:52

[Ferocious Banger]

This is not humane.This is just sick(no pun intended).