FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Knife wielding maniac at Buckingham Palace

Knife wielding maniac at Buckingham Palace

(0:45) Large crowds of tourists had gathered for the 'Changing of the Guard' outside Buckingham Palace, the Queen's abode in London, when a crazy man appeared brandishing a knife. Within 10 seconds, police were on the scene.

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Your Nan (1720 days ago)
And this is how you handle law enforcement. USA take note.
ReplyVote up (101)down (73)
Original comment
And this is how you handle law enforcement. USA take note.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1720 days ago)
reading the comments cenglando answer is he is a threat and the best action is shoot to kill lucky for him in the uk this didnt happen the truth is this guy has a mential problem and was only trying to get a letter to the queen to ask her for help with a debt problem. this is a man who s only crime is to cry for help in a very wrong way the world needs to look at the problems caused by mod living and less on removing the tools of harm
ReplyVote up (101)down (80)
Original comment
reading the comments cenglando answer is he is a threat and the best action is shoot to kill lucky for him in the uk this didnt happen the truth is this guy has a mential problem and was only trying to get a letter to the queen to ask her for help with a debt problem. this is a man who s only crime is to cry for help in a very wrong way the world needs to look at the problems caused by mod living and less on removing the tools of harm
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1720 days ago)
You misunderstood my comment. I do not advocate shooting someone first. Shooting is last resort. Please re-read my comment and let me know if you have any other questions.
ReplyVote up (155)down (91)
Original comment
You misunderstood my comment. I do not advocate shooting someone first. Shooting is last resort. Please re-read my comment and let me know if you have any other questions.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1720 days ago)
it was wrong of me to make out that it was your view sorry but if this had of happened in the usa he would have been shot if he had tried to use this method to get a letter of help to your leader and the fact of his mential heath your system would mean him being shot would be high man needs to start to think more and act less on gut reactions
ReplyVote up (101)down (77)
Original comment
it was wrong of me to make out that it was your view sorry but if this had of happened in the usa he would have been shot if he had tried to use this method to get a letter of help to your leader and the fact of his mential heath your system would mean him being shot would be high man needs to start to think more and act less on gut reactions
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Blong Blong (1721 days ago)
Shocking!
ReplyVote up (101)down (99)
Original comment
Shocking!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: trucker9900 (1721 days ago)
Good job!
ReplyVote up (131)down (135)
Original comment
Good job!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1721 days ago)
They should ban all knives in the UK so this doesn't happen again.
ReplyVote up (179)down (184)
Original comment
They should ban all knives in the UK so this doesn't happen again.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1721 days ago)
I guess youwould rather have sprayed a hail of bullets in his general direction, killing a few inocent bystanders and possible hitting this poor sick fellow. After all if we had somehing like your good old 2nd amendment we could have had ourselves a right good olde US style massacre
ReplyVote up (157)down (167)
Original comment
I guess youwould rather have sprayed a hail of bullets in his general direction, killing a few inocent bystanders and possible hitting this poor sick fellow. After all if we had somehing like your good old 2nd amendment we could have had ourselves a right good olde US style massacre
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1721 days ago)
Not saying you should own guns. Leave that to responsible countries like America. However, there was a knife incident in the UK as evidenced by this video so why not ban them all? At least make everyone register their knives, go through background checks, limit the size to 3 inches (7.62 cm for you UK people), and allow each person to only have one. Also, no knives are allowed to have sharp edges or have any pointed tips. Anyone ever committing any crime such as speeding, drugs, or murder can never own a knife for the rest of their life. If you've been to a hospital for mental issues, are on any kind of drug for anxiety or depression, you cannot own a knife. All citizens wishing to own a knife must go through a 3-day training course on safety.
ReplyVote up (162)down (168)
Original comment
Not saying you should own guns. Leave that to responsible countries like America. However, there was a knife incident in the UK as evidenced by this video so why not ban them all? At least make everyone register their knives, go through background checks, limit the size to 3 inches (7.62 cm for you UK people), and allow each person to only have one. Also, no knives are allowed to have sharp edges or have any pointed tips. Anyone ever committing any crime such as speeding, drugs, or murder can never own a knife for the rest of their life. If you've been to a hospital for mental issues, are on any kind of drug for anxiety or depression, you cannot own a knife. All citizens wishing to own a knife must go through a 3-day training course on safety.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Shazzam (1721 days ago)
Bet you have been to a hospital for mental issues.
ReplyVote up (211)down (172)
Original comment
Bet you have been to a hospital for mental issues.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1721 days ago)
UK laws concerning knives are actually quite strict: It is illegal to sell a knife of any kind (including cutlery and kitchen knives) to anyone under 18. It is illegal to carry a knife in public without good reason - unless it's a knife with a folding blade 3 inches long (7.62 cm) or less, eg a Swiss Army knife. It is illegal to carry, buy or sell any type of banned knife (the list of banned knives is quite long). It is illegal to use any knife in a threatening way (even a legal knife, such as a Swiss Army knife). Lock knives (knives with blades that can be locked when unfolded) are not folding knives, and are illegal to carry in public. The maximum penalty for an adult carrying a knife is 4 years in prison and a fine of £5,000. Source: LINK
ReplyVote up (152)down (156)
Original comment
UK laws concerning knives are actually quite strict: It is illegal to sell a knife of any kind (including cutlery and kitchen knives) to anyone under 18. It is illegal to carry a knife in public without good reason - unless it's a knife with a folding blade 3 inches long (7.62 cm) or less, eg a Swiss Army knife. It is illegal to carry, buy or sell any type of banned knife (the list of banned knives is quite long). It is illegal to use any knife in a threatening way (even a legal knife, such as a Swiss Army knife). Lock knives (knives with blades that can be locked when unfolded) are not folding knives, and are illegal to carry in public. The maximum penalty for an adult carrying a knife is 4 years in prison and a fine of £5,000. Source: LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1721 days ago)
So what you're saying is that this guy was carrying a gun in public and that was illegal? It sure looked longer than 3 inches. So how in the world did this happen if it's illegal. That should be impossible right? As you can tell, I'm using this as an example about gun control. Making guns illegal will not stop people from getting them and using them. All you would do is disarm the law abiding citizens. Same with this knife guy. He did it anyway even though it was illegal to do so.
ReplyVote up (152)down (160)
Original comment
So what you're saying is that this guy was carrying a gun in public and that was illegal? It sure looked longer than 3 inches. So how in the world did this happen if it's illegal. That should be impossible right? As you can tell, I'm using this as an example about gun control. Making guns illegal will not stop people from getting them and using them. All you would do is disarm the law abiding citizens. Same with this knife guy. He did it anyway even though it was illegal to do so.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1721 days ago)
Are you saying there should be no laws because someone is bound to break them?
ReplyVote up (228)down (169)
Original comment
Are you saying there should be no laws because someone is bound to break them?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1721 days ago)
Laws are there so people will be punished appropriately if they break them. We must have laws to deter crime because if there were no penalties, crime would go rampant. What I am saying is that people will get guns regardless if it's illegal or not. So the citizens still need to protect themselves from those criminals attempting to rape you, kill you, or hurt you. We cannot rely on the police to protect us from criminals and I'd rather protect myself with a gun than a 3 inch knife. This is regarding the defense reason for owning a gun, not regarding other legitimate reasons such as hunting and creating an organized militia.
ReplyVote up (164)down (173)
Original comment
Laws are there so people will be punished appropriately if they break them. We must have laws to deter crime because if there were no penalties, crime would go rampant. What I am saying is that people will get guns regardless if it's illegal or not. So the citizens still need to protect themselves from those criminals attempting to rape you, kill you, or hurt you. We cannot rely on the police to protect us from criminals and I'd rather protect myself with a gun than a 3 inch knife. This is regarding the defense reason for owning a gun, not regarding other legitimate reasons such as hunting and creating an organized militia.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1721 days ago)
If you can't rely on the police to protect you, surely the better approach is to improve your police service - after all, that is their job. Apart from making it easier for deranged people to get guns, arming the nation increases the risk of accidental gun deaths. Compare US accidental annual gun deaths (over 30,000) to the UK's, 51 gun related deaths in 2010. Whether you like it or not, the stats are not on your side. Opinion should develop after facts, not before.
ReplyVote up (153)down (169)
Original comment
If you can't rely on the police to protect you, surely the better approach is to improve your police service - after all, that is their job. Apart from making it easier for deranged people to get guns, arming the nation increases the risk of accidental gun deaths. Compare US accidental annual gun deaths (over 30,000) to the UK's, 51 gun related deaths in 2010. Whether you like it or not, the stats are not on your side. Opinion should develop after facts, not before.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1721 days ago)
What do you mean the stats are not on my side? You hand picked the UK which is known for having one of the lowest gun murder rates in the world; however, the UK has one of the highest rates of violent crime. There are other countries you can compare and I've done this before but you throw those out for some reason. Mexico and Columbia is illegal but the rate is higher than the US. Israel is legal and the rate is lower than the US. So it's not if the guns are legal or illegal that is the problem. However, we do find that in rural areas where people own more guns, the violent crime is lower than in the city where fewer people own guns. Coincidence? I think not.
ReplyVote up (155)down (168)
Original comment
What do you mean the stats are not on my side? You hand picked the UK which is known for having one of the lowest gun murder rates in the world; however, the UK has one of the highest rates of violent crime. There are other countries you can compare and I've done this before but you throw those out for some reason. Mexico and Columbia is illegal but the rate is higher than the US. Israel is legal and the rate is lower than the US. So it's not if the guns are legal or illegal that is the problem. However, we do find that in rural areas where people own more guns, the violent crime is lower than in the city where fewer people own guns. Coincidence? I think not.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: dumb ass (1721 days ago)
you are, as always, talking utter shite,...............don' t feed the troll, he's sitting at home with his pants round his ankles, pulling his pud, and wondering why he cant get a girl/boy friend
ReplyVote up (162)down (154)
Original comment
you are, as always, talking utter shite,...............don' t feed the troll, he's sitting at home with his pants round his ankles, pulling his pud, and wondering why he cant get a girl/boy friend
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1721 days ago)
The UK may have one of the highest rates of violent crime, but it's better to be bruised than dead. Mexico and Colombia have ineffective gun control in the midst of a violent drug war, that's why a direct comparison to the US makes no sense. Of course it is not just a lack of gun control that creates the high deaths in the US. History, culture and the arms industry all play important roles. The question is - in the US, would more gun control reduce deaths? Like it or not, overall, stats from around the world suggest yes.
ReplyVote up (162)down (164)
Original comment
The UK may have one of the highest rates of violent crime, but it's better to be bruised than dead. Mexico and Colombia have ineffective gun control in the midst of a violent drug war, that's why a direct comparison to the US makes no sense. Of course it is not just a lack of gun control that creates the high deaths in the US. History, culture and the arms industry all play important roles. The question is - in the US, would more gun control reduce deaths? Like it or not, overall, stats from around the world suggest yes.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1720 days ago)
Depends on what gun control you're talking about. We already have gun control in America. What more is needed? Sure there is that loophole where you can buy a gun at a temporary gun show without a background check and I agree that should be stopped. However, all the other changes recommended will not stop the crime. For example, allowing clips of a maximum 10 bullets will not do much to prevent gun murders. Just as an FYI, my clips come standard with the ability to hold 16 bullets for a standard 9mm gun but I only load 8 bullets in each clip. I do this to avoid putting the maximum stress on the springs in the clip because they can weaken in time. Every one of my friends and family that has the same category of gun does the same thing. So, if I got a clip that can hold 10 bullets, I'd probably only put 5 or 6 bullets in it and I don't like that option at all. It would just cause me to buy more clips and I can change to a new one in about 1.5 seconds. So what other gun control are you thinking we need to have that we do not already have?
ReplyVote up (164)down (165)
Original comment
Depends on what gun control you're talking about. We already have gun control in America. What more is needed? Sure there is that loophole where you can buy a gun at a temporary gun show without a background check and I agree that should be stopped. However, all the other changes recommended will not stop the crime. For example, allowing clips of a maximum 10 bullets will not do much to prevent gun murders. Just as an FYI, my clips come standard with the ability to hold 16 bullets for a standard 9mm gun but I only load 8 bullets in each clip. I do this to avoid putting the maximum stress on the springs in the clip because they can weaken in time. Every one of my friends and family that has the same category of gun does the same thing. So, if I got a clip that can hold 10 bullets, I'd probably only put 5 or 6 bullets in it and I don't like that option at all. It would just cause me to buy more clips and I can change to a new one in about 1.5 seconds. So what other gun control are you thinking we need to have that we do not already have?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1721 days ago)
As for your 'city vs rural coincidence', I think without further investigation, you are jumping to conclusions. I suspect that the guns owned per person in rural areas is much higher than in the city, and it is that that distorts the numbers.
ReplyVote up (155)down (164)
Original comment
As for your 'city vs rural coincidence', I think without further investigation, you are jumping to conclusions. I suspect that the guns owned per person in rural areas is much higher than in the city, and it is that that distorts the numbers.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1720 days ago)
Israel? Very low violent crime? Presumably you are excluding acts committed by the IDF and the mad-dog zionist settlers in the West bank then?
ReplyVote up (165)down (131)
Original comment
Israel? Very low violent crime? Presumably you are excluding acts committed by the IDF and the mad-dog zionist settlers in the West bank then?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1720 days ago)
We are talking about crimes committed by civilians that own guns. Not the military. And, your comment about the IDF is an opinion others disagree with. Israel defending themselves is not murder but self defense. They have an eye-for-an-eye philosophy so if they are bombed, they will then bomb the people who did it with equal damage. You will not find Israel doing preemptive attacks without just cause. They attacked Egypt in 1967 after Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran. Today, they might attack Iran if Iran completes their nuclear weapon. But as you can see, it is always a counter measure from something the other country did first. I asked some of my friends about Israel and how they got the land they have today and they did attack to get it; however, you need to read the whole story. It was their land before then when they were chased away and made into slaves. They came back and wanted their land back. Is there a problem with that? Besides, that was a long time ago. America took land from the Indians. England took land from too many countries to list here. They still own some of North Ireland, right? At least Israel took back what was theirs to begin with.
ReplyVote up (188)down (132)
Original comment
We are talking about crimes committed by civilians that own guns. Not the military. And, your comment about the IDF is an opinion others disagree with. Israel defending themselves is not murder but self defense. They have an eye-for-an-eye philosophy so if they are bombed, they will then bomb the people who did it with equal damage. You will not find Israel doing preemptive attacks without just cause. They attacked Egypt in 1967 after Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran. Today, they might attack Iran if Iran completes their nuclear weapon. But as you can see, it is always a counter measure from something the other country did first. I asked some of my friends about Israel and how they got the land they have today and they did attack to get it; however, you need to read the whole story. It was their land before then when they were chased away and made into slaves. They came back and wanted their land back. Is there a problem with that? Besides, that was a long time ago. America took land from the Indians. England took land from too many countries to list here. They still own some of North Ireland, right? At least Israel took back what was theirs to begin with.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1721 days ago)
It's not coincidence but fact. Nobody knows who owns all 300,000,000 guns in America but it's expected, that since that's close to our population, several people own multiple guns and some people do not own any. So even if the rural citizens own multiple guns, that still means there is a higher percentage of people owning guns in those areas and the violent crime is less than what it is in the cities where gun ownership is lower. This is proof that the number of guns owned can deter crime. If you were a criminal, which house would you rather break in? A house where you're 90% sure the tenant has a gun or a house where you're 5% sure a gun is owned? And in your previous comment, you talk about Mexico and Columbia not having effective gun control in the midst of a drug war. The US is also in the middle of a drug war so banning guns would have the same issues as Mexico and Columbia. You never commented on Israel having a high percentage of gun ownership but very low violent crime. Again, just because the UK has a low gun murder rate (but very high violent crime rate) does not mean our murder rate will decrease with the banning of guns. In fact, my evidence of rural versus city statistics prove gun ownership does deter violent crime and violent crime would probably increase with the removal of guns.
ReplyVote up (146)down (148)
Original comment
It's not coincidence but fact. Nobody knows who owns all 300,000,000 guns in America but it's expected, that since that's close to our population, several people own multiple guns and some people do not own any. So even if the rural citizens own multiple guns, that still means there is a higher percentage of people owning guns in those areas and the violent crime is less than what it is in the cities where gun ownership is lower. This is proof that the number of guns owned can deter crime. If you were a criminal, which house would you rather break in? A house where you're 90% sure the tenant has a gun or a house where you're 5% sure a gun is owned? And in your previous comment, you talk about Mexico and Columbia not having effective gun control in the midst of a drug war. The US is also in the middle of a drug war so banning guns would have the same issues as Mexico and Columbia. You never commented on Israel having a high percentage of gun ownership but very low violent crime. Again, just because the UK has a low gun murder rate (but very high violent crime rate) does not mean our murder rate will decrease with the banning of guns. In fact, my evidence of rural versus city statistics prove gun ownership does deter violent crime and violent crime would probably increase with the removal of guns.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1720 days ago)
Numbers may be facts, but causation and interpretation most certainly aren't. Trawling through stats from various sites and trying to come to any meaningful conclusion is beyond me. For example, your claim that violent crime in rural areas is less than in urban areas - regurgitated on many sites, but I could not find what those stats actually measured (maybe you can point me to your source) - except for a study in Canada - which also found the same results, until you measure per capita rather than incidents. LINK Other economically successful cities have far fewer gun-related deaths compared to the US (overall) at 10.2 per 100,000 (Hong Kong - 0.19, Singapore 0.24). Violent crime is measured differently in Europe compared to the US which has the bar as to what constitutes 'violent', set higher. LINK
ReplyVote up (161)down (152)
Original comment
Numbers may be facts, but causation and interpretation most certainly aren't. Trawling through stats from various sites and trying to come to any meaningful conclusion is beyond me. For example, your claim that violent crime in rural areas is less than in urban areas - regurgitated on many sites, but I could not find what those stats actually measured (maybe you can point me to your source) - except for a study in Canada - which also found the same results, until you measure per capita rather than incidents. LINK Other economically successful cities have far fewer gun-related deaths compared to the US (overall) at 10.2 per 100,000 (Hong Kong - 0.19, Singapore 0.24). Violent crime is measured differently in Europe compared to the US which has the bar as to what constitutes 'violent', set higher. LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1720 days ago)
Sorry but I don't have a specific source that I can quote you. I did not look that up when I stated it. I just know this from watching several documentaries and reading articles. I'm sure the information must be collaborated somewhere on the web but I never looked it up.
ReplyVote up (181)down (137)
Original comment
Sorry but I don't have a specific source that I can quote you. I did not look that up when I stated it. I just know this from watching several documentaries and reading articles. I'm sure the information must be collaborated somewhere on the web but I never looked it up.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1720 days ago)
Two quotes from a BBC opinion piece on gun violence I thought were interesting - they show mindset differences between countryfolk and urbanites in the US LINK Rural: "In the countryside of south Louisiana, nearly everyone has guns. Many people hunt, and if you don't hunt, it's still completely normal to have at least one gun in the house." Urban: "My wife grew up in Dallas, and, as is typical for urbanites, also developed a fear of guns. But hers is the more conventional kind: near-terror at the sight or thought of them. Because few if any people in her urban life hunted or had real need for guns, she associated them with criminals. Still does."
ReplyVote up (192)down (154)
Original comment
Two quotes from a BBC opinion piece on gun violence I thought were interesting - they show mindset differences between countryfolk and urbanites in the US LINK Rural: "In the countryside of south Louisiana, nearly everyone has guns. Many people hunt, and if you don't hunt, it's still completely normal to have at least one gun in the house." Urban: "My wife grew up in Dallas, and, as is typical for urbanites, also developed a fear of guns. But hers is the more conventional kind: near-terror at the sight or thought of them. Because few if any people in her urban life hunted or had real need for guns, she associated them with criminals. Still does."
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1720 days ago)
I agree that Rural people might own firearms for hunting more so than urban people. However, those are usually rifles and not handguns. If you own a rifle, I suspect you also own a handgun (different tools for different purposes) and therefore that might account for the reason people own multiple guns. I also believe people in the rural areas expect the police to take longer to get to their location so they feel more responsibility to protect themselves.
ReplyVote up (181)down (158)
Original comment
I agree that Rural people might own firearms for hunting more so than urban people. However, those are usually rifles and not handguns. If you own a rifle, I suspect you also own a handgun (different tools for different purposes) and therefore that might account for the reason people own multiple guns. I also believe people in the rural areas expect the police to take longer to get to their location so they feel more responsibility to protect themselves.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1720 days ago)
This is obviously a complicated issue where causation can be argued from almost any angle. So let me ask you - if you take either extreme, a world where no one can walk around freely with a gun, or where everybody can walk around armed, which would you prefer to live in? I suspect you would favour 'everybody armed' because it fits your libertarian ideal that individuals should have the freedom to do WTF they liked. I prefer a world where no one walks around freely armed, because I feel safer, and statistically I'm less likely to be shot. I'm not worried about civil war, I think education, the political process (without corporate influence) and a free press are the way to prevent that.
ReplyVote up (239)down (127)
Original comment
This is obviously a complicated issue where causation can be argued from almost any angle. So let me ask you - if you take either extreme, a world where no one can walk around freely with a gun, or where everybody can walk around armed, which would you prefer to live in? I suspect you would favour 'everybody armed' because it fits your libertarian ideal that individuals should have the freedom to do WTF they liked. I prefer a world where no one walks around freely armed, because I feel safer, and statistically I'm less likely to be shot. I'm not worried about civil war, I think education, the political process (without corporate influence) and a free press are the way to prevent that.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1720 days ago)
First, to be clear, I do not agree with your statement that everyone should be able to do WTF they liked. We have laws and punishments set in case someone breaks those laws. I do not have a problem with responsible people carrying guns. In fact, I'd rather the law be changed to allow people to openly carry instead of requiring them to be concealed. That would be more of a deterrent if you are planning on robbing a bank and you see several customers with guns in holsters. Our political process is a good one but it's possible someday in the future (and it may be after I'm long gone) that it may become an oppressed society with a tyrannical government. It is then that the people will want to fight back. The people who drafted the 2nd amendment and the states that ratified it agreed that was a possibility. Remember that we came from a country (England) that was oppressive and we did not want that to happen to us again. You cannot stop a tyrannical government with simple words from a free press. You cannot defend yourself with simple words from a free press. Guns are a necessary tool to prevent bad things from happening to you. You're not worried about civil war because your country is already a nanny state and you have no problems with that (Note that "nanny state" terminology originated in Britain). In America, we do.
ReplyVote up (166)down (205)
Original comment
First, to be clear, I do not agree with your statement that everyone should be able to do WTF they liked. We have laws and punishments set in case someone breaks those laws. I do not have a problem with responsible people carrying guns. In fact, I'd rather the law be changed to allow people to openly carry instead of requiring them to be concealed. That would be more of a deterrent if you are planning on robbing a bank and you see several customers with guns in holsters. Our political process is a good one but it's possible someday in the future (and it may be after I'm long gone) that it may become an oppressed society with a tyrannical government. It is then that the people will want to fight back. The people who drafted the 2nd amendment and the states that ratified it agreed that was a possibility. Remember that we came from a country (England) that was oppressive and we did not want that to happen to us again. You cannot stop a tyrannical government with simple words from a free press. You cannot defend yourself with simple words from a free press. Guns are a necessary tool to prevent bad things from happening to you. You're not worried about civil war because your country is already a nanny state and you have no problems with that (Note that "nanny state" terminology originated in Britain). In America, we do.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1720 days ago)
I can only think you are joking about open carry. If not, I invite you to Liverpool on a Saturday night, where you can watch and imagine what would happen when holstered up, pissed (drunk), chavs (redneck) clubbers gather in large groups - or if you prefer direct reality, a 2 day vacation in Somalia. Tyrannical regimes need some support to wield power, and they don't appear from nowhere. A free press helps educate people as to what is going on so preventative action can be taken. A war against a tyrannical regime starts well before any shots are fired. The 2nd Amendment is over 200 years old. The world has changed massively since then. We don't fight with muskets anymore, we fight on the internet with social networks, on the streets with protests, economically with purchasing power, and in the ballot box. I can't tell you how things will pan out, but I can guarantee you that the West will not go the way of Syria.
ReplyVote up (177)down (130)
Original comment
I can only think you are joking about open carry. If not, I invite you to Liverpool on a Saturday night, where you can watch and imagine what would happen when holstered up, pissed (drunk), chavs (redneck) clubbers gather in large groups - or if you prefer direct reality, a 2 day vacation in Somalia. Tyrannical regimes need some support to wield power, and they don't appear from nowhere. A free press helps educate people as to what is going on so preventative action can be taken. A war against a tyrannical regime starts well before any shots are fired. The 2nd Amendment is over 200 years old. The world has changed massively since then. We don't fight with muskets anymore, we fight on the internet with social networks, on the streets with protests, economically with purchasing power, and in the ballot box. I can't tell you how things will pan out, but I can guarantee you that the West will not go the way of Syria.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1720 days ago)
Unfortunately I was not kidding about the open carry. I think it was last year that my state of Florida attempted to pass that as law and it did not pass. We can still carry but it must be concealed. Personally, I do not see any difference if there is a pissed drunk in a large group if they have a gun holstered or concealed except people might be more willing to leave the guy alone if they saw that he was armed and might just walk away instead of attempting to pick a fight. Regarding your comment about the 2nd amendment being 200 years old, so what? There are many documents that are older than that. One of the 10 commandments (I'm not religious but it's still in an old document) states we shall not murder. Think that's a bad thing? Regardless of how old it is, it still contains value. Yes the world has changed since then but for the better. We enjoy more freedoms today and equal rights than we did 200 years ago. Our constitution changes with the times by a submission of an amendment and ratification by 3/4 ths of the states. That means the majority of our people need to agree with the change. As it stands now, we have no such amendment to remove the 2nd amendment because the majority of our citizens still think it's valid 200 years later. Regarding fighting over the internet and with free speech, tell that to tyrannical governments like North Korea. Think those citizens can fight back by posting something against the government over the internet? To get rid of that sort of tyrannical government, you need to be willing to die for your liberties and fight for it. Unfortunately, the first thing a tyrannical government wants to do is remove firearms from their citizens so they do not have the ability to fight back and then the oppression can begin without any resistance.
ReplyVote up (182)down (103)
Original comment
Unfortunately I was not kidding about the open carry. I think it was last year that my state of Florida attempted to pass that as law and it did not pass. We can still carry but it must be concealed. Personally, I do not see any difference if there is a pissed drunk in a large group if they have a gun holstered or concealed except people might be more willing to leave the guy alone if they saw that he was armed and might just walk away instead of attempting to pick a fight. Regarding your comment about the 2nd amendment being 200 years old, so what? There are many documents that are older than that. One of the 10 commandments (I'm not religious but it's still in an old document) states we shall not murder. Think that's a bad thing? Regardless of how old it is, it still contains value. Yes the world has changed since then but for the better. We enjoy more freedoms today and equal rights than we did 200 years ago. Our constitution changes with the times by a submission of an amendment and ratification by 3/4 ths of the states. That means the majority of our people need to agree with the change. As it stands now, we have no such amendment to remove the 2nd amendment because the majority of our citizens still think it's valid 200 years later. Regarding fighting over the internet and with free speech, tell that to tyrannical governments like North Korea. Think those citizens can fight back by posting something against the government over the internet? To get rid of that sort of tyrannical government, you need to be willing to die for your liberties and fight for it. Unfortunately, the first thing a tyrannical government wants to do is remove firearms from their citizens so they do not have the ability to fight back and then the oppression can begin without any resistance.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1720 days ago)
I disagree with concealed carry as well, but open carry would be worse because bravado and testosterone would get involved - better to fight with fists than guns. Tyrannical regimes already in power are a different kettle of fish. Interesting that they not only enforce strict gun control, but also strict information control. But I thought we were talking about the US. I would argue that since the 2nd Amendment, the most significant change is the internet - because it makes it so much more difficult for tyrants to develop unseen. The 2nd Amendment should be updated to safeguard the internet against government or corporate control - that would be much more effective against future tyrannical regimes than guns. The idea of "bearing arms with guns" is just a ridiculous fantasy that shows a complete lack of understanding of how civilisation is actually evolving.
ReplyVote up (173)down (117)
Original comment
I disagree with concealed carry as well, but open carry would be worse because bravado and testosterone would get involved - better to fight with fists than guns. Tyrannical regimes already in power are a different kettle of fish. Interesting that they not only enforce strict gun control, but also strict information control. But I thought we were talking about the US. I would argue that since the 2nd Amendment, the most significant change is the internet - because it makes it so much more difficult for tyrants to develop unseen. The 2nd Amendment should be updated to safeguard the internet against government or corporate control - that would be much more effective against future tyrannical regimes than guns. The idea of "bearing arms with guns" is just a ridiculous fantasy that shows a complete lack of understanding of how civilisation is actually evolving.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1720 days ago)
So you're forgetting a couple points. One, creating a militia is the only reason in our constitution but we also use them for hunting and defense. Two, the internet is not as free as you might think. Remember Wikileaks. Have you heard of the "Great Firewall of China"?
ReplyVote up (149)down (103)
Original comment
So you're forgetting a couple points. One, creating a militia is the only reason in our constitution but we also use them for hunting and defense. Two, the internet is not as free as you might think. Remember Wikileaks. Have you heard of the "Great Firewall of China"?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1720 days ago)
Exactly why the 2nd Amendment should be updated to safeguard the internet. And "creating a militia (translated as arming right-wing nut jobs like Ted Nugent)" is the problem part of US gun control.
ReplyVote up (105)down (104)
Original comment
Exactly why the 2nd Amendment should be updated to safeguard the internet. And "creating a militia (translated as arming right-wing nut jobs like Ted Nugent)" is the problem part of US gun control.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1720 days ago)
How can you safeguard the Internet when it's controlled by a few major corporations? It was supposed to be designed to prevent a single point of failure so each computer is not reliant on a specific route to get information through; however, as an individual, you do not have the ability to connect to the Internet backbone. You must go through an Internet Service Provider (ISP) and they can do whatever they want. For example, my previous ISP blocked port 25. My previous company also had limits on the amount of data I could transfer. I received letters from two of them advising me to cut down my usage or they will terminate my account. If everyone could connect to the backbone and it was free and anyone could use the backbone for anything they wanted then I'd say you have something there. However, until we have real unhindered Internet access in every home, I cannot justify using that as a reason to even consider that as a reason to remove guns. It's not even up for discussion at this point. We are not even allowed to say what we really want to with some claiming state secrets, libel, and slander.
ReplyVote up (99)down (125)
Original comment
How can you safeguard the Internet when it's controlled by a few major corporations? It was supposed to be designed to prevent a single point of failure so each computer is not reliant on a specific route to get information through; however, as an individual, you do not have the ability to connect to the Internet backbone. You must go through an Internet Service Provider (ISP) and they can do whatever they want. For example, my previous ISP blocked port 25. My previous company also had limits on the amount of data I could transfer. I received letters from two of them advising me to cut down my usage or they will terminate my account. If everyone could connect to the backbone and it was free and anyone could use the backbone for anything they wanted then I'd say you have something there. However, until we have real unhindered Internet access in every home, I cannot justify using that as a reason to even consider that as a reason to remove guns. It's not even up for discussion at this point. We are not even allowed to say what we really want to with some claiming state secrets, libel, and slander.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Here we go again (1719 days ago)
SO once again we have Cengland here :) and Once again we bring the comparison here. Why do you keep using outdated ideology of 2nd amendment to modern world, but Wont accept Quaran as ideology to modern world ?
ReplyVote up (106)down (169)
Original comment
SO once again we have Cengland here :) and Once again we bring the comparison here. Why do you keep using outdated ideology of 2nd amendment to modern world, but Wont accept Quaran as ideology to modern world ?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1719 days ago)
Some people do accept the Quaran as ideology to the modern world. I'm an atheist so I don't believe any of that BS. However, there are millions of Muslims that would challenge you on the morals in the Quaran are still valid today.
ReplyVote up (154)down (124)
Original comment
Some people do accept the Quaran as ideology to the modern world. I'm an atheist so I don't believe any of that BS. However, there are millions of Muslims that would challenge you on the morals in the Quaran are still valid today.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: camerica3 (1721 days ago)
Note that he is a foreigner. Tattoo their foreheads with the word "C R I M I N A L" then deport them. They won't find it easy to sneak back into the Country next time.
ReplyVote up (127)down (130)
Original comment
Note that he is a foreigner. Tattoo their foreheads with the word "C R I M I N A L" then deport them. They won't find it easy to sneak back into the Country next time.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1721 days ago)
Out of curiosity, how did you know he was a foreigner? Just because this was a crowd of tourists there were no local people anywhere in town?
ReplyVote up (119)down (121)
Original comment
Out of curiosity, how did you know he was a foreigner? Just because this was a crowd of tourists there were no local people anywhere in town?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1721 days ago)
In my first sentence, I meant knife -- not gun.
ReplyVote up (130)down (136)
Original comment
In my first sentence, I meant knife -- not gun.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Siddubarra Siddubarra (1721 days ago)
''responsible countries like America'' - You are truly funny:)
ReplyVote up (100)down (169)
Original comment
''responsible countries like America'' - You are truly funny:)
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1721 days ago)
what you may have failed to notice was the red police car in the background would have contained armed police, and the fact that he guy was tasered showed a degree of respect for human life that you Americans seem to lack. I guess you woul dhave been happy to see him blasted down in a hail of bullets from police and bystanders, most of which would have missed and hit bystanders.
ReplyVote up (130)down (154)
Original comment
what you may have failed to notice was the red police car in the background would have contained armed police, and the fact that he guy was tasered showed a degree of respect for human life that you Americans seem to lack. I guess you woul dhave been happy to see him blasted down in a hail of bullets from police and bystanders, most of which would have missed and hit bystanders.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1721 days ago)
Just so you know, if you taser a guy that is at a great distance from other civilians who is holding a knife, you can safely disarm him before he hurts someone other than himself. If you taser a person holding a gun, you might end up causing the person to accidentally discharge the weapon killing an innocent person nearby. Besides, who wants to get close enough to a person holding a gun to taser them? A taser is not considered a long range less-than-lethal weapon. So, now that you know these facts, what are your suggestions to disarm someone holding a gun?
ReplyVote up (145)down (117)
Original comment
Just so you know, if you taser a guy that is at a great distance from other civilians who is holding a knife, you can safely disarm him before he hurts someone other than himself. If you taser a person holding a gun, you might end up causing the person to accidentally discharge the weapon killing an innocent person nearby. Besides, who wants to get close enough to a person holding a gun to taser them? A taser is not considered a long range less-than-lethal weapon. So, now that you know these facts, what are your suggestions to disarm someone holding a gun?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1721 days ago)
Suggestion for disarming person holding gun: Do it before necessary with strict firearms laws, background checks, weapons restrictions and other means of responsible policing.... you know...everything you have railed against.
ReplyVote up (124)down (108)
Original comment
Suggestion for disarming person holding gun: Do it before necessary with strict firearms laws, background checks, weapons restrictions and other means of responsible policing.... you know...everything you have railed against.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1721 days ago)
Then the same should be true for knives.
ReplyVote up (134)down (123)
Original comment
Then the same should be true for knives.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
AstroBoy AstroBoy (1721 days ago)
Great point - prevention is better than cure
ReplyVote up (113)down (132)
Original comment
Great point - prevention is better than cure
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1721 days ago)
Another reason for gun control
ReplyVote up (129)down (203)
Original comment
Another reason for gun control
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1721 days ago)
If a person holding a gun is threatening other people, we will shoot them with intent to kill. Police would not usually try to shoot him in the arm or any tactics like that. If you miss, you could make him mad and then he will shoot. People owning guns should know better than to point it at other people haphazardly so the penalty for that is potentially death.
ReplyVote up (122)down (128)
Original comment
If a person holding a gun is threatening other people, we will shoot them with intent to kill. Police would not usually try to shoot him in the arm or any tactics like that. If you miss, you could make him mad and then he will shoot. People owning guns should know better than to point it at other people haphazardly so the penalty for that is potentially death.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1721 days ago)
This real-world scenario demonstrates perfectly why concealed carry is a bad idea. Imagine if that guy was brandishing a gun in a crowd where some members are also carrying a gun. The crowd would panic. You can almost guarantee that at least one person will be killed. It is not hard to imagine that someone from the crowd would try to take matters into their own hands and draw their gun. If the guy brandishing his gun sees that person, he may start shooting. The person in the crowd may not be a great shot, and miss, killing an innocent bystander or three. Other members of the crowd may mistake the vigilante as the crazy with a gun and try and shoot him. In the confusion, more people end up dead. Real life is not so clear and clean-cut as you seem to imagine.
ReplyVote up (124)down (124)
Original comment
This real-world scenario demonstrates perfectly why concealed carry is a bad idea. Imagine if that guy was brandishing a gun in a crowd where some members are also carrying a gun. The crowd would panic. You can almost guarantee that at least one person will be killed. It is not hard to imagine that someone from the crowd would try to take matters into their own hands and draw their gun. If the guy brandishing his gun sees that person, he may start shooting. The person in the crowd may not be a great shot, and miss, killing an innocent bystander or three. Other members of the crowd may mistake the vigilante as the crazy with a gun and try and shoot him. In the confusion, more people end up dead. Real life is not so clear and clean-cut as you seem to imagine.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1721 days ago)
Hypothetical scenario that you presented. So what if the guy had an automatic weapon that was killing hundreds of people. Would it then be acceptable for someone in the crowd that has a pistol to draw their gun to put a stop the the shooting? What if one innocent person was accidentally killed but potentially hundreds of people were saved by his actions? Is it okay then?
ReplyVote up (119)down (178)
Original comment
Hypothetical scenario that you presented. So what if the guy had an automatic weapon that was killing hundreds of people. Would it then be acceptable for someone in the crowd that has a pistol to draw their gun to put a stop the the shooting? What if one innocent person was accidentally killed but potentially hundreds of people were saved by his actions? Is it okay then?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1721 days ago)
Not sure you understood my point. The same scenario in the US would more likely result in deaths if that guy was brandishing a gun rather than a knife.
ReplyVote up (120)down (136)
Original comment
Not sure you understood my point. The same scenario in the US would more likely result in deaths if that guy was brandishing a gun rather than a knife.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1721 days ago)
Not necessarily true. First, the bystanders would have been evacuated. Then, they would attempt to talk to the person. If that didn't work, they have bean bags and rubber bullets that they can shoot at him. They also have gas, dogs, armed vehicles, and other methods. Only if he starts firing or waves it in a threatening manner would it result in return gun fire. Shooting someone is the last option.
ReplyVote up (122)down (121)
Original comment
Not necessarily true. First, the bystanders would have been evacuated. Then, they would attempt to talk to the person. If that didn't work, they have bean bags and rubber bullets that they can shoot at him. They also have gas, dogs, armed vehicles, and other methods. Only if he starts firing or waves it in a threatening manner would it result in return gun fire. Shooting someone is the last option.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1721 days ago)
We're not talking about a movie. I said if guns were involved rather than a knife, deaths are more likely.
ReplyVote up (129)down (145)
Original comment
We're not talking about a movie. I said if guns were involved rather than a knife, deaths are more likely.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1720 days ago)
i would be very surprised if the red car was a ARV most in london are unmarked but with marks on them that the police can tell them out but i do believe a armed reponse would have been their at all times because of where it happened
ReplyVote up (205)down (184)
Original comment
i would be very surprised if the red car was a ARV most in london are unmarked but with marks on them that the police can tell them out but i do believe a armed reponse would have been their at all times because of where it happened
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Trolltrawler Trolltrawler (1721 days ago)
Wise words, as always.
ReplyVote up (74)down (136)
Original comment
Wise words, as always.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (1721 days ago)
I'm surprised how long it was before the taser made him fall over
ReplyVote up (110)down (121)
Original comment
I'm surprised how long it was before the taser made him fall over
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Searchguru Searchguru (1721 days ago)
That's because one of the darts hadn't penetrated the skin. One might have but the other was held away from the skin until his clothes moved, as he moved. Then the circuit was made and he went down,
ReplyVote up (138)down (140)
Original comment
That's because one of the darts hadn't penetrated the skin. One might have but the other was held away from the skin until his clothes moved, as he moved. Then the circuit was made and he went down,
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1716 days ago)
Latest comment: Friend you see the result of not having firearms here in the UK.In the USA this poor sod would have had the living shit shot out of him and most of the crowd as well................. God bless all coppers
ReplyVote up (157)down (178)
Original comment
Latest comment: Friend you see the result of not having firearms here in the UK.In the USA this poor sod would have had the living shit shot out of him and most of the crowd as well................. God bless all coppers
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1721 days ago)
Humm, pretty sure the 2nd amendment does not actually say self defence is justification to own a gun. Pretty sure it is so you can rise up against your own tyranical goverment. But then owning a gun is no use to you when the gov has tanks, rockets, jets etc or are you saying you should be able to own a fully weponised tank? How about a nuke? would that be better?
ReplyVote up (63)down (103)
Original comment
Humm, pretty sure the 2nd amendment does not actually say self defence is justification to own a gun. Pretty sure it is so you can rise up against your own tyranical goverment. But then owning a gun is no use to you when the gov has tanks, rockets, jets etc or are you saying you should be able to own a fully weponised tank? How about a nuke? would that be better?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1721 days ago)
You're right about the wording of the 2nd amendment but our Supreme Court has decided in 2005 and again in 2008 that guns can be owned for defense and hunting despite the original text of the amendment.
ReplyVote up (101)down (68)
Original comment
You're right about the wording of the 2nd amendment but our Supreme Court has decided in 2005 and again in 2008 that guns can be owned for defense and hunting despite the original text of the amendment.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
MissAlanius MissAlanius (1721 days ago)
If the Supreme Court has changed the 2nd Amendment before, then it can do it again. How about allowing guns for hunting, sport and collectors - and leave civil war to political process and rule of law to prevent.
ReplyVote up (130)down (64)
Original comment
If the Supreme Court has changed the 2nd Amendment before, then it can do it again. How about allowing guns for hunting, sport and collectors - and leave civil war to political process and rule of law to prevent.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1721 days ago)
It wasn't changed. The supreme court has the job of interpreting the document.
ReplyVote up (101)down (76)
Original comment
It wasn't changed. The supreme court has the job of interpreting the document.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1720 days ago)
no answer to the 2nd part of the question? I guess that is to be expected from you
ReplyVote up (101)down (94)
Original comment
no answer to the 2nd part of the question? I guess that is to be expected from you
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1720 days ago)
It was obviously a joke that you made so I didn't respond to it. The government is forbidden from using the Army and Air force against the people of the Untied States. Laws have been created to prevent that exact thing. Regarding nuclear weapons, citizens cannot own one and we will also prevent other countries from owning them. Iran is an example. We are watching them very carefully and may take military action if they completely create a nuclear weapon. Israel is watching too. So if we do not allow sovereign countries to have one, of course we will not let our citizens to have one either. Those are in a classification of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and the reason we initially attacked Iraq. We had some bad intelligence that said Saddam had some WMD but once we got there, we didn't find any.
ReplyVote up (101)down (97)
Original comment
It was obviously a joke that you made so I didn't respond to it. The government is forbidden from using the Army and Air force against the people of the Untied States. Laws have been created to prevent that exact thing. Regarding nuclear weapons, citizens cannot own one and we will also prevent other countries from owning them. Iran is an example. We are watching them very carefully and may take military action if they completely create a nuclear weapon. Israel is watching too. So if we do not allow sovereign countries to have one, of course we will not let our citizens to have one either. Those are in a classification of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and the reason we initially attacked Iraq. We had some bad intelligence that said Saddam had some WMD but once we got there, we didn't find any.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
The jaw-dropping art of bull-leaping
The jaw-dropping art of bull-leaping
Scientists turn carbon dioxide into stone
Scientists turn carbon dioxide into stone
Tokyo's incredible underground flood defence systems
Tokyo's incredible underground flood defence systems
Xi Jinping's Chinese Dream
Xi Jinping's Chinese Dream
Why North Korea stands no chance against US
Why North Korea stands no chance against US