Controversial! +13 A brilliant response to 'Anti Gun Control'.

[Ron Tamburrini]

I partially agree with you,but what a firearm gives you, is distance, and not so much up close and personal like a knife.

Thats why we Scots prefer the Dirk , up close and nasty compared with pansys with guns

 

[Helm]

You prefer guys named Dirk you say Ron ?
Steve

 

[Ron Tamburrini]

Red headed Scotsmen commanded by Englishmen, coz we can read an right.

Aye and all Swedes look like this
But the reality is this now

 

[billyturnip]

Aye and all Swedes look like this View attachment 220202
But the reality is this now View attachment 220203

I don't believe you, that could be anyone in there.

 

[Ron Tamburrini]

You prefer guys named Dirk you say Ron ?
Steve

 

[DEL]

View attachment 220203

........ and the front view ..........

 

[tomifune]

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The NRA took this to the Supreme Court to have the preamble disregarded. The founding fathers knew what they were doing in allowing a militia to be armed, it is modern 'influences' that have chosen to misinterpret the Constitution.

Of course, people kill, weapons are but tools. A man with his hands or a hand held rock or bladed weapon might kill one person, but an individual with a modern firearm has the capacity to kill far more. Surely that is the issue, not just the right to bear arms, but the particular arms involved?

Mike

Actually this is not true. Both court cases that addressed the 2nd Amendment were brought by citizens in the localities where local laws were passed with regulations so convuluted that you couldn't own any firearm. For many years the Supreme Court avoided to rule on 2nd Amendment issues.
The issue, District of Columbia vs. Heller 2008, was whether that municipalities went too far with local laws which infringed a citizens 2nd amendment rights. The NRA was involved as a backer in the case and like any court case (remember OJ?), was divided , but decided to go ahead. If you read the ruling, it basically states the second amendment guarantees you the right to a firearm, but the court left it open to what kind of firearm and to states rights to pass laws restricting all use of firearms.
The next decision, McDonald vs. City of Chicago 2010, the Supreme Court ruled without a doubt that states cannot restrict the right to keep and bear arms. The NRA was not involved in this case. The city of Chicago has been charged millions of dollars in fines for dragging their feet changing their gun laws to abide with the court decisions.

Bob

 

[Ron Tamburrini]

........ and the front view ..........
View attachment 220205

Sexy

 

[DEL]

Sexy

How good would that be!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'd turn catholic in a heartbeat

 

[Langenberg]

There is no point discussing this any further guys.

The people who say it is their constitutional right to bear arms say It's to uphold democracy against a Tyranny.

So whilst everyone knows it's not ok to be a dick, and simple commonsense tells normal folks that mitigating disaster by legislating against it and limiting access to dangerous weaponry; Only people with blinkered views cannot see the point.....it's still their right. The fact that they are now in the minority....in a democracy reinforces their blinkered opinion using the contrary view of the democratic opinion of the majority as a potential tyranny.

This cannot change without legislation being imposed.

So in the meantime we can only remind people that it's not ok to be a dick knowing a dick can't listen.

I genuinely understand the views of both sides and write these few words knowing there is no justifyable argument against them and also that any reply will be simpley gainsay and rhetorical hot air.
What a sad world were we refuse to learn from the lessons
offered by incidents around us.

Paul

This is fantastically articulate. Incredibly condescending, but articulate. It contains its own share of rhetorical hot air and definitively proves your theory about dicks.

 

[sd0324]

I thought that political threads were supposedly 'not allowed' from this forum.
We've had some nasty **** happen in other blatant political threads what's different in this one?

But since it's now OK I'd like to add something that intrigues me about this topic whenever it pops up here.

I find my flabber is absolutely gasted by the fact that figure modellers who predominately model armed military figures which portray every known way to kill a person with every kind of instrument of slaughter in every pose of hacking, impaling and shooting can find the topic of guns and violence alarming. Most figure modelling portrays armed violence or armed people of some kind.
The hobby of traditional figure modelling seems to vindicate or advocate ( can't find the right word) the use of weapons.
I've honestly never been able to 'figure' that one out.

Cheers.........be nice and don't slaughter anyone...

Very well said! It has been a mystery to me as well. It usually degenerates into America bashing which is why it is allowed here. It is considered clever and intelligent. LOL.

Oh well.

Steve

 

[sd0324]

Just a little note about guns and the Amendment .
As I understand it; it was written when guns were muzzle loaded and a good marksmen might get off 3 or 4 rounds per minute .

Do you think it would still be passed given a hand held assault rifle can fire 3.000 rounds minute and you can buy one over the counter in the US or a twenty MM canon . Things have moved on a bit and we also have police forces today

What will happen when small hand held lasers and nukes become available and somebody gets upset and feels his honour has been infringed when he gets overtaken on the highway

Not knocking your gun laws but it is worth a thought

LOL. OK, this is what I meant, my first point in red...our Founders knew exactly what was in the Amendment and why, they saw places like Scotland and Ireland subjugated and decided that would not happen to us. Difference between Citizens and subjects. The second point in red illustrates your ignorance on the subject....you cannot buy automatic weapons and cannons "over the counter" here. (Or on the internet without background checks) LOL. So continue to gain your knowledge and straw man arguments from Jim Carey. But at least get your facts straight. We will never change each others minds on this. In your world weapons are only the right of the Royals and the rich, not in ours. This has been fun and the video has caused my disarming. Let us paint and bash America! It is sport for you fellows here. I would be more concerned over not having a Navy or Air Force than guns in America, but whatever.

Cheers!

Steve

 

[sd0324]

Well here we are, the usual nationalistic paranoia.
As far as I can see nobody has bashed America, merely commented on the clear and indisputable problem of virtually open access to guns in America. This is fine if it's a nation of balanced people but like every other country it has its share of nut jobs who unlike those in most other countries can legitimately be armed.
Mark as to your point what we model is a place and time in military history and it is not the actions of soldiers being discussed here but rather the actions of demented individuals who have the opportunity to access weaponry way way beyond that deemed necessary for self protection.
Paul your contribution was articulate and well balanced but when someone chooses to be part of the problem rather than the solution what do you expect.
I can't see anywhere in this thread where anyone has said that Americans shouldn't have their guns but simply that it would be sensible to have better controls and then perhaps .... just perhaps fewer innocents would be arbitrarily shot ....... the right to bear bigger and bigger guns!!!!! ......... maybe it's a compensatory thing

My word what a condescending post. Of course you do not see it. LOL.

Cheers!

Steve

 

[DEL]

My word what a condescending post. Of course you do not see it. LOL.

Cheers!

Steve

....... and that's the point you reacted to .......... what can I say

 

[DEL]

Excellent I think you've just confirmed what a lot of people think.......if that's the level of your response it simply adds weight to my points.
Also I'm neither drunk nor a pensioner.

 

[sd0324]

Excellent I think you've just confirmed what a lot of people think.......if that's the level of your response it simply adds weight to my points.
Also I'm neither drunk nor a pensioner.

Well then, you can dish but not take. Lol. And IDGAF what people think anymore. PC is not for me I guess.

Cheers

Steve

 

[DEL]

Well then, you can dish but not take. Lol. And IDGAF what people think anymore. PC is not for me I guess.

Cheers

Steve

You're the one who chose to personalise it. I felt I was making broad points and at no time disputed Americans constitutional rights. Although the IDGAF attitude is maybe at the root of many of our problems.

 

[sd0324]

You're the one who chose to personalise it. I felt I was making broad points and at no time disputed Americans constitutional rights. Although the IDGAF attitude is maybe at the root of many of our problems.

Lol, you knew exactly what points you were insinuating. You poked and prodded until you got a response that you were trolling for. PC is not for me.

Later dude.

Steve

 

[Langenberg]

I think I'll just leave this here...

(image deleted due to complaints of offensive content)

Seems appropriate

 

[DEL]

I think I'll just leave this here...View attachment 220235

Seems appropriate

Seems entirely inappropriate......FFS that has got to be the most disgustingly offensive post I've seen on this site........unbelievable. I'm sure the kid and his family were as proud as anything.
Probably didn't expect some arsehole to turn his moment in the sun into something as despicable as this........can't imagine why anyone would post this.
I can think of at least 3 highly respected modellers on this site who have kids with disabilities. These kids are full of value, love and joy. Personally I would like to think the moderators would remove the image.