The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / Law  % width posts: 1,615

The right to own guns: would you support such legislation in Poland?


Barney 15 | 1,476
28 Mar 2013 #781
You are probably unaware that the first gun control laws were enacted in the ante-bellum south in the U.S. in order to keep Blacks in their servile status.

It is true that the history of gun control laws is racist the first such laws were passed 1n 1831 after a slave revolt and this continues till today. It was easy to get racist laws passed in the US as there is a fear of the Black and the foreign born.

Now for a modern eg

I've previously given you the facts about minority-on-minority gun murders

Everyone else sees this as American on American gun murders.

I just wish the US could get rid of the black/white thing or the creeping anti Latino thing, more developed countries see this subject as a public safety issue rather than a race issue

The facts are that more guns equals more gun deaths. Pump a place full of guns and you get more mass shootings, accidental shootings and every other type of shooting.

Placing restrictions for all is the best way to go about reducing the appalling shooting record the US has.
sledz 23 | 2,250
28 Mar 2013 #782
Once again, legal gun owners have the lowest crime rate. You and other liberals continue to be immune to facts It is a curious phenomena

So true, I`ve legally owned guns for close to 30 years now, without any incidents.

I've previously given you the facts about minority-on-minority gun murders in Chicago. It didn't seem to register.

I live in Chicagoland area as well and never had to pull out a gun yet.
Although, I choose not to go to the minority drug infested areas to hang out with gangbangers.

I just wish the US could get rid of the black/white thing or the creeping anti Latino thing,

It happens to be a fact, despite what you see on your T.V. set.
The Chicago gun violence is 90% black on black, this rarely happens in white neighborhoods.
ZIMMY 6 | 1,601
28 Mar 2013 #783
How would that feel if some animal outsmarted you and knocked your little gun out of your hand?

I'd say that's one heck-of-an-animal- quick reflexes and brains. I wonder if I could teach it Polish.

it was very peaceful during communist era,

Ah yes, the good old days. Peace under the government gun is a wonderful thing.

you wouldn't be smart if you faced the animal who you decided to hunt without your little weapon of death,

I did stare down a squirrel once.

not much of hero then huh?

You haven't seen me in my Superman costume have you?

do you need to hunt,

How else am I going to put baby seal meat on my table?

the animals you hunt want to live too

I only kill animals that are contemplating suicide (anyway)

How would that feel if some animal outsmarted you

I once lost a spelling bee contest to a coyote.

Now, you want to introduce guns to Poland

A country should be prepared to defend itself. The people of that country should also be wary of the government or to put it in other words; the government should fear the people instead of the other way around.
newpip - | 140
29 Mar 2013 #784
A country should be prepared to defend itself. The people of that country should also be wary of the government or to put it in other words; the government should fear the people instead of the other way around.

Defend itself against what?? America has already invaded--what else do we need to protect ourselves from? This is such bulsh!t American propaganda. Keep it in America. Poles have had enough of violence. And contrary to what the majority of Americans think----NOT EVERYBODY WANTS TO BE AMERICAN.
Polson 5 | 1,771
29 Mar 2013 #785
A taser requires me to get closer to an armed assailant or other threat than I'd like to be and tasers are not legal in all states.

Technical issue, I'm sure they'll manage to make better tasers, sniper ones, kinda ;)
Laws change.

How would we guarantee that criminals would not still get guns off a black market?

Of course we can't do that.

Your and Adolph Hitler agree on that one. Oh, and Joseph Stalin, Fidel Castro, Pol Pot, Mao, etc also agree with you.

I guess you wanted to add Barack Obama and Donald Tusk at the end of this list. No comment.

Oh, the anti gun people will guarantee it, otherwise what is the point of gun bans?........right? (liberals rarely take their solutions to logical conclusions)

You're a logical man, right? Then I guess we should also legalize all drugs. Cuz there's a black market for drugs too, and it's not fair than only bad junkies can get their sh!t, when good people just stay home clean and depressed.

I only kill animals that are contemplating suicide (anyway)

That's another subject, but I see guns are not just good for defending yourself. It's also a game ;)

These facts,

legal gun owners have the lowest crime rate

, are still debated I heard. You believe in which facts you want to believe. That's what you told me the last time you answered me.

Maybe those crimes are commited in states where there's a gun control because gun owners got their guns freely in a state where there's no such control, and then do their crimes in states where they have more chances to find unarmed people. We can debate on that but I'm afraid it's a never ending discussion, since it's pretty hard to prove anything.
ZIMMY 6 | 1,601
3 Apr 2013 #786
You're a logical man, right?

Obviously.
The people who want to take away the right to bear arms are the same people who are allowed to carry them or have armed body guards. They include Hollywood liberals, wealthy liberals and politicians. For example. Chicago aldermen want to take away guns from regular citizens, yet they are allowed to 'conceal and carry' weapons of their choice. Now, what's wrong with that picture? Of course the same is true for Obamacare. Washington government bureaucrats and politicians force it on everyone but they exclude themselves from it and prefer to keep their premium deluxe health care. What's wrong with that picture? Yea, I'd say I make "logical" points!
bluesfan - | 85
3 Apr 2013 #787
The people who want to take away the right to bear arms are the same people who are allowed to carry them or have armed body guards.

I'm not. The right to bear arms was in relation to having an armed, well-regulated militia, and not for ordinary citizens or for abnormal citizens...

Take away the guns and watch the murder rate go down.
Would any sane person support such legislation in Poland? No.
Would anyone want such legislation to be misinterpreted (like it is in the US)? No.
Do unto others as thou shalt wish is done unto thyself... ie: let the murders kill each other... just don't bring that barbaric uncivilised behaviour to Poland, mmmkay..?
Barney 15 | 1,476
3 Apr 2013 #788
Of course the same is true for Obamacare. Washington government bureaucrats and politicians force it on everyone but they exclude themselves from it and prefer to keep their premium deluxe health care.

That is a lie

The reality is that those people already have a public funded health care package. Obama has not outlawed private health insurance, rich people and corporations can continue to buy health care.

Those against a universal health care system are the hypocrites, health care for all provided they are rich....
ZIMMY 6 | 1,601
3 Apr 2013 #789
The reality is that those people already have a public funded health care package.

It's a Cadillac package unavailable to the people who had Obamacare thrust on them. That's a rather important difference. They should have the same package as the rest of us. That seems to be a difficult concept to grasp by those who prefer to be subservient to their new masters. Evidently, liberals believe in a sort of government by royalty. Same goes for those government hypocrites who allow themselves to carry guns but want to take them away from the rest of us. How anyone can support such hypocrisy is beyond me.

Obama has not outlawed private health insurance,

Not immediately, but the long term goal is for a single payer system controlled by government bureaucrats.

he right to bear arms was in relation to having an armed, well-regulated militia, and not for ordinary citizens .....

Yea, it's sad that some people still believe that. They do so without knowing the history and background of why the right to arms was so important to the founding fathers. So they try to reinterpret it to suit their beliefs.

Co-founder of the Second Amendment George Mason stated in 1788, "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

Samual Adams when interviewed in the Philadelphia Gazette in August 1789 noted, "the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; ..."

Thomas Jefferson said, ""Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."

The many comments from the original authors leave no doubt as to what they meant by the "right to bear arms" which liberals are too ignorant of because they are fed pap from their communal leaders and ignorance from the main street media.

I'll leave you with President Washington's thinking, ""Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence"

Back then it was assumed that most households had weapons; and the authors of the Constitution wanted to keep it that way.
AmerTchr 4 | 201
3 Apr 2013 #790
Good responses Zimmy! Hang in there!
Barney 15 | 1,476
3 Apr 2013 #791
It's a Cadillac package unavailable to the people who had Obamacare thrust on them.

That is a lie, the legislation states

H.R. 3590: D) MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN THE EXCHANGE.— (i) REQUIREMENT.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after the effective date of this subtitle, the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are— (I) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or (II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act).

If rich people want to buy health insurance they can as I pointed out above private health care has not been abolished.

No one is talking about disarming Americans, some sensible measures to try and reduce the carnage are being proposed. The usual suspects are opposed to reducing the gun death rate to at least Polish levels.
jasondmzk
3 Apr 2013 #792
No one is talking about disarming Americans, some sensible measures to try and reduce the carnage are being proposed. The usual suspects are opposed to reducing the gun death rate to at least Polish levels.

You are right on the money. Not a single piece of legislation has been introduced that would punitively take anyone's guns that already has them. And we know why the gun people don't care about saving anyone's life other than their own, thanks to this forum: They care about "taking back their government", not children or other innocents.
ZIMMY 6 | 1,601
3 Apr 2013 #793
So you really believe that Congress will have the same health care as you?
Well, that could be true if their insurance wasn't heavily subsidized by taxpayers. If, the lawmakers didn't get special treatment at Washington's federal medical facilities and access to their own pharmacy and doctors, nurses and medical technicians standing by in an office conveniently located between the House and Senate chambers. You don't have that do you? If, they also had to take Medicare at age 65 like you will have to. You'll never see a Congressman in a seat sitting next to you waiting for his/her appointment with the doctor. Unlike you, they will never be put on a future waiting list for health care attention. The 15 board government panel that will decide what operation you will or will not have will not apply to them. Don't confuse all federal workers who also get generous benefits with Congress.

No one is talking about disarming Americans,

breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/01/Reminder-Sen-Feinstein-Said-She-Wants-All-Guns-Banned

some sensible measures to try and reduce the carnage are being proposed.

I'll speak for Chicago's (and Detroit's) carnage. The minority on minority murders are thug and gang related and the guns are obtained illegally. How is banning guns from legal gun owners going to solve that problem?

Food for thought:

* As to guns, we should b e prosecuted for our transgressions, not for what we own.

*Politicians exempt themselves from gun bans. Do we deserve such an elite citizenship?

*Possessing a weapon to protect your family is prudent. Politicians and journalists and liberals call you a "gun nut".

*Gun control laws have no effect on criminals because they ignore them. Gun control advocates ignore this fundamental fact.

*The concept of gun control is based on the assumptions that underlie all government programs - that more big government means more control over their citizens.
jasondmzk
3 Apr 2013 #794
Gun control laws have no effect on criminals because they ignore them. Gun control advocates ignore this fundamental fact.

So then do automobile laws, since you enjoy comparing the two so often. Does that mean you advocate doing away with driver's licenses?
Barney 15 | 1,476
3 Apr 2013 #795
Zimmy you found someone with an opinion you disagree with, someone who thinks its better to ban all guns. I'm sure there are a few other senators who agree with her just as there are several pro gun nut senators, that's how democracy works. The reality is that guns are not going to be outlawed in the US, no one is proposing to ban guns despite the hysterical formulaic claims.

* As to guns, we should b e prosecuted for our transgressions, not for what we own.

That's a sad little whine full of nonsense, any semi sentient being can see the lies and distortion for what they are.

The reality is that the death rate due to guns in Europe is lower than the death rate in the US. That's the fact that you cannot ignore Everyone in Europe knows this and no one except a few nuts want to adopt the crazy system they have in the US.

I'll gladly debate your false claims (illustrated above) over health care in the appropriate thread.
ZIMMY 6 | 1,601
3 Apr 2013 #796
Does that mean you advocate doing away with driver's licenses?

Nope. I also advocate background checks for guns including access to those who are alleged to be mentally ill.

Zimmy you found someone with an opinion you disagree with, someone who thinks its better to ban all guns

Yep, this "someone" is a powerful (liberal) U.S. Senator with lots of clout. You said, "No one is talking about disarming Americans"

There are more liberal people in Congress who also advocate banning all guns but so far they have not had the guts to say so.

...no one is proposing to ban guns despite the hysterical formulaic claims.

Step by step; these things are usually slippery slopes.

That's a sad little whine full of nonsense, any semi sentient being can see the lies and distortion for what they are.

Yet, you are unable to disassemble them. You merely state your displeasure.

The reality is that the death rate due to guns in Europe is lower than the death rate in the US

That's true. Europeans use other means to kill.
theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive

From the link: "Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).

For example, Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate. In contrast, Holland's murder rate is nearly the worst, despite having the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe. Sweden and Denmark are two more examples of nations with high murder rates but few guns.


"The important thing to keep in mind is not the rate of deaths by gun - a statistic that anti-gun advocates are quick to recite - but the overall murder rate,"
Barney 15 | 1,476
3 Apr 2013 #797
You said, "No one is talking about disarming Americans"

Indeed I did and I stand by that, there are no bills or proposed bills before congress that talk about disarming Americans. Many people have opinions but there are no plans to ban guns to suggest so is more than a distortion of reality its dishonest no matter how much you would like them to do so. There is no slippery slope that's just hysteria.

"The important thing to keep in mind is not the rate of deaths by gun - a statistic that anti-gun advocates are quick to recite - but the overall murder rate,"

The murder rate in Europe is much lower than the US, Gun deaths are much lower in Europe. The countries that you mentioned have very strict gun laws resulting in fewer gun deaths. European countries with liberal gun laws have more gun deaths just like the US.

Yet, you are unable to disassemble them

Do I really have to?

As to guns, we should b e prosecuted for our transgressions, not for what we own.

Prosecutions are for transgressions ie breaking the law

Politicians exempt themselves from gun bans. Do we deserve such an elite citizenship?

As private individuals they don't, perhaps you would like their business dealings opened to public inspection

Possessing a weapon to protect your family is prudent. Politicians and journalists and liberals call you a "gun nut".

Its not, all it does is pump guns into the community upping the ante

Gun control laws have no effect on criminals because they ignore them. Gun control advocates ignore this fundamental fact.

The laws being discussed in the US are targeted at mass shootings and attempting to make them less likely. There are almost no other gun laws of any note.

The concept of gun control is based on the assumptions that underlie all government programs - that more big government means more control over their citizens.

That's just nonsense from someone in favour of private bureaucrat yet enjoys the benefits of government protection.
ZIMMY 6 | 1,601
4 Apr 2013 #798
ZIMMY: You said, "No one is talking about disarming Americans"
Indeed I did and I stand by that, there are no bills or proposed bills before congress that talk about disarming Americans.

There was a bill which was presented by Senator Feinstein to do just that but Senator Reid didn't let it come out of committee. There are lots of liberals who do want to take away all guns but realize they don't have the votes.

The countries that you mentioned have very strict gun laws resulting in fewer gun deaths. E

You should be embarrassed playing your shell game. When Europeans kill others using methods like knives, poison or bats, etc. you don't seem to count them as murders. You only blame gun deaths. When people don't have guns they use other means. You also haven't answered the hypocrisy questions either.

Those politicians who want to ban guns and/or who oppose "conceal and carry" exempt themselves from the legislation they wish to pass. You also failed to specifically address the question of people who want weapons for home protection. You dance around with non sequitur type responses which don't address the direct question posed. Legal gun owners who want to protect their families don't "pump guns" into the community. Your answers wouldn't impress a 5th grader.

The laws being discussed in the US are targeted at mass shootings and attempting to make them less likely.

Really? Give us an example of how the laws will do that. Be specific.
Barney 15 | 1,476
4 Apr 2013 #799
When Europeans kill others using methods like knives, poison or bats, etc. you don't seem to count them as murders

Not true Zimmy As I said above the murder rate (all murders) in almost all countries in Europe is much lower than the murder rate in the US. Murders by gun are much lower. Those stats make your quote

The important thing to keep in mind is not the rate of deaths by gun - a statistic that anti-gun advocates are quick to recite - but the overall murder rate,"

even more ridiculous I pointed that out in my last post which you missed.

Pumping guns into the community, having targets drawn on maps and such only succeeds in upping the ante, people expect everyone to be armed. For every story about some gun nut shooting a burglar I can find a story of someone being shot for ringing a door bell. The only hypocrisy is the desperate attempt of the gun crowd to justify forcing their hobby and associated carnage on the rest of society. Europe doesn't want that, Europeans don't need a gun to feel safe.

Zimmy you expect me to give specific answers to solve the gun problems the US has but refused to answer how you would fight tyranny even denying that the question was asked

It's not my job to solve your problems I do however support attempts to reduce mass shootings. The overwhelming majority of such shootings are carried out using legal weapons by the gun nut crowd which makes your initial point redundant. It's the same as saying that no law is needed because some people will ignore it

More guns mean more gun deaths.
ZIMMY 6 | 1,601
9 Apr 2013 #800
This is the kind of hysteria that the gun control advocates promulgate. It's all based on emotion.

Grammar school children have been suspended for pointing a finger (gunlike) at other kids, or for drawing a picture of a gun. The chicken little gun control nuts are running wild.

Zimmy you expect me to give specific answers to solve the gun problems the US has but refused to answer how you would fight tyranny even denying that the question was asked

I gave you a logical explanation. Tell me what the specific threat is as any resistance to it will be different depending on the circumstances. One size does not fit all.

Again, how will gun legislation remove illegal guns from thugs? That's a specific inquiry which you and others cannot answer. Will the gang bangers throw away their armaments after gun control bills are passed? All the anti gun bills will do is remove guns from law abiding citizens.

As to mass shootings (FBI identifies a mass shooting as killing 4 or more people), the U.S. with a population of 310 million has 1 for every 16 million people. That compares favorably with many European countries. For example, even with its strict gun control laws, the UK has an incidence rate of 1 for every 12 million people. Norway has 1 for every 5 million people. That's the fair way to compare rates, per capita. ...
jasondmzk
9 Apr 2013 #801
It's all based on emotion.

Some things should be. Try it, sometime.

how will gun legislation remove illegal guns from thugs?

You wanna think practically? Sans emotion? Because in one hundred years after the last gun is manufactured and distributed, there won't likely be many left.
Barney 15 | 1,476
9 Apr 2013 #802
This is the kind of hysteria that the gun control advocates promulgate. It's all based on emotion

Zimmy your entire post is an emotional reaction. The example you provide is one of many stories that are magnified by those pushing their own particular political viewpoint ie an emotional response. In Britain there are a lot of stories about the EU banning bananas with a curve or classifying carrots as a fruit because the publications don't like the EU, the same is true of your conspiracy site.

Tell me what the specific threat is as any resistance to it will be different depending on the circumstances

Its not for me to give specifics here, the gun lobby always suggest fighting tyranny as a reason to flood the community with weapons (80-90 weapons per 100 residents in the US), you said you would fight tyranny and I simply asked how would you do that. Since I asked that question you have avoided answering.

Reducing the number of guns in the community reduces the chances of someone being shot. It's not difficult to understand.

Again, how will gun legislation remove illegal guns from thugs?

These weapons are not being smuggled into the US it's a home grown problem that gun owners refuse to acknowledge. Their addiction to weapons directly contributes to arming these criminals. Another aspect often overlooked is the potential for the good gun owner to turn bad but that is not what you were asking.

The situation in the US is so screwed up that any measures designed to restrict sales both (private and commercial) and keep guns in cabinets etc will reduce the total numbers being pumped into the community. This will inevitably reduce the amount available on the black market.

Can you provide stats for your mass shootings claim then we can discuss it. If true is cherry picking favourable stats the way forward?
peterweg 37 | 2,320
9 Apr 2013 #803
Again, how will gun legislation remove illegal guns from thugs?

Criminals don't use guns to commit crimes, so obviously having few legal guns makes it difficult and unnecessary to to do so. How are criminals supposed to obtain bullets, its just about impossible.

Will the gang bangers throw away their armaments after gun control bills are passed?

What are gang bangers? people in Poland don't have guns and there is legislation to restrict gun ownership already.

WTF are you talking about?
jasondmzk
9 Apr 2013 #804
WTF are you talking about?

He's talking about blacks and hispanics. "Gang banger" and "Chicago" and "Inner-city" and "Urban" are all right-wing code for "the minorities that threaten our very way of life". Now you know.
peterweg 37 | 2,320
9 Apr 2013 #805
Now you know.

I know that nothing posted on this thread for several pages have anything to do with the subject.

Mods can you please delete all this America political discussion, its irrelevant crap.
TheOther 5 | 3,711
9 Apr 2013 #806
All the anti gun bills will do is remove guns from law abiding citizens.

Too bad that your law abiding citizens all too often become criminals the very moment they use their legal guns.
ZIMMY 6 | 1,601
16 May 2013 #807
"Too bad" you won't want to look at these interesting graphs.

pjmedia.com/blog/the-mystery-of-the-missing-crime-data
TheOther 5 | 3,711
17 May 2013 #808
You know, there are so many different arguments out there...

americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/AmericaUnderTheGun.pdf
nytimes.com/2013/04/03/us/report-links-high-rates-of-gun-violence-to-weak-laws.html
blogs.rgj.com/factchecker/2012/12/22/do-more-guns-lead-to-less-crime
nytimes.com/2013/01/06/sunday-review/more-guns-more-killing.html?_r=0

My personal opinion is that guns are simply not necessary in this country.
Rysavy 10 | 308
17 May 2013 #809
Mods can you please delete all this America political discussion, its irrelevant crap.

too late? ^_^

Though it is an Am-Pole site; this thread should have been steered back on topic minute it went from would you or wouldn't you with a dash of America being the reason/example with dodgy information based on sensational headlines one wouldn't instead of just personal choice

::: to :::
talking about current gun grabs or US administration.. and the politcal insults. I think it was gun nuts first ...then gun grabber and downhill from there.
PolkaTagAlong 10 | 186
17 May 2013 #810
No, that would be shameful. The police will take care of everybody, no one needs to defend themselves. People should hide in the closet and say a prayer when the armed robber or home invader comes in.


Home / Law / The right to own guns: would you support such legislation in Poland?
BoldItalic [quote]
 
To post as Guest, enter a temporary username or login and post as a member.