What did this family not have that it needed?

[Blind groper]

As I have said time and time again, "rights" are arbitrary, made by humans and changeable. There was a time when royalty considered they could do anything by the 'divine right of kings'. They were just as incorrect in that belief as those who think owning a gun is a human right. How stupid is that belief? Total nuts!

As I said before, there are 195 nations in the world today and only one (count it, one) makes owning a gun part of their constitution. That shows that the majority of the human species knows, as I do, that it is a load of codswallop.

[piscator]

I wonder how many of those nations had constitutions before America gave them the idea?

[Blind groper]

Piscator

The answer is that America did not give them the idea. Many had well established constitutions when the USA was denying the vote to 94% of its population, and many others were copying the example delivered by Britain, France and others.

The USA is a very recent democracy. It denied the vote to more than 50% of its people (women) until 1910. It denied civil rights to many more of its people until the 1960's. Frankly, it has no positive ideas to give.

My country is a far better role model. We gave full legal equality to our native people in 1840. We were the first nation on Earth to give women the vote. We didn't need to fight for independence. We quietly persuaded the British to relinquish control with no bloodshed. Unlike the USA, we have had no slavery since white people came. We have never started a war with another nation.

[NineBerry]

Or "Hi honey, I'm home! I brought you breakfast!"

So, no birthday surprise parties for you.

All my friends know enough to knock and announce and await response in my house because I've told them that if they don't, they're likely to get shot.

You know that they are really friends when they still talk to you.

If you're going to keep a gun for self defense in the home, planning, training and coordination with other family members is absolutely required. Otherwise things like this happen.

Use a smartphone mit GPS and a tracker app that will always tell you where your family members are. That way, before shooting that ugly intruder in the kitchen, you can always first check whether it might not be your significant other.

[AvtomatKalashnikova]

Avro

In spite of the faux Russian, that is one of the smartest things said on this thread.

Faux Russian? Is no Russian spoke here, only English! You are not familiar with language of Russian if think it resembles English! Even alphabet is different!

I totally agree.

Good, good! Now for first Kalashnikov of you, are preferring to purchase from retailer or assemble self for maximum familiarity?

[laklak]

As I have said time and time again, "rights" are arbitrary, made by humans and changeable. There was a time when royalty considered they could do anything by the 'divine right of kings'. They were just as incorrect in that belief as those who think owning a gun is a human right. How stupid is that belief? Total nuts!

As I said before, there are 195 nations in the world today and only one (count it, one) makes owning a gun part of their constitution. That shows that the majority of the human species knows, as I do, that it is a load of codswallop.

Fuck, those goalposts are way out in the parking lot now, not even Beckham could bend one that far. You'd need a pumpkin cannon to reach it. Oh, hang on, no pumpkin cannons!

I agree with you and disagree with Seth - rights are an arbitrary legal construction, at least if "rights" means something the government cannot take away from you. Seth is correct in one way - self-defense is an unalienable right; however, you might be killed for embracing it. Even in the Warsaw ghetto or Treblinka that right existed, but unfortunately individuals didn't have the necessary firepower to enforce that right. The only way to insure your rights is to make them too difficult and expensive to abrogate.

We've gone from restricting gun ownership based on successful suicides to restricting it because most people in the world want it that way. I don't give a fuck what the majority of the human species believes. The majority of the human species believes in Sky Daddy or even multiple Sky Daddies and Mommies. The majority of the human species believes in magic and ghosts and demons. The majority of the human species are stupid, ignorant ground apes and couldn't be trusted with a dull butter knife. Fuck them and the carbon-neutral horse they rode in on.

[Hermit]

The majority of the human species are stupid, ignorant ground apes and couldn't be trusted with a dull butter knife.

Which is why the US citizens among them have the constitutional right to bear arms?
You make sense a lot of the time, lak, but occasionally you shoot yourself in the foot, so to speak. Wanna borrow my butter knife? It's made of rubber.

And yeah, BG's appeal to majority opinion wasn't particularly bright, but then BG isn't particularly bright, so no surprise there.

[laklak]

Lol, I absolutely support gun control for everybody else, just not for me. Like Clint Eastwood said, if there's a gun around I want to be in control of it. Unfortunately I can't get SCOTUS to rule that way, so I have to deal with morons having guns if I want them.

[Blind groper]

The basic principle is simple. Where there are guns, people get killed. Where there are few or no guns, the killing is massively reduced. If, like me, you value human life, you should be in favor of sane gun control.

The whole of the USA has easy access to guns. And 100,000 people each year receive a bullet. Every other western nation has a lot fewer guns, and a much lower kill rate. With the sole exception of Switzerland, which is unusually sane, there is a clear cut relationship between number of guns in the population and the murder rate.

Of course, in non western nations, where murder is 'in their blood', not having guns does not slow them down.

[AvtomatKalashnikova]

The whole of the USA has easy access to guns. And 100,000 people each year receive a bullet.

More likely is much smaller number if people getting bullets all the time! You walking down American street minding own business, is not likely to getting shot! You walking down American street for selling drugs and being gang, is likely get shot in drug or gang business.

Of course, in non western nations, where murder is 'in their blood', not having guns does not slow them down.

Oh.... Avtomat sincerely hoping you not imply that people not from west is killing simply because kill is in blood! Many man have had similar belief about races & blood, is never end well...

[AvtomatKalashnikova]

Lol, I absolutely support gun control for everybody else, just not for me. Like Clint Eastwood said, if there's a gun around I want to be in control of it. Unfortunately I can't get SCOTUS to rule that way, so I have to deal with morons having guns if I want them.

You supporting control of Avtomat's guns?

[Collector1337]

The basic principle is simple. Where there are guns, people get killed.

So what? Even if I buy your bullshit, why should I care? People die. Shit happens. The world is over populated anyway. Protecting those I care about is where my concern lies. It's not my job to worry about everyone else.

Of course, in non western nations, where murder is 'in their blood', not having guns does not slow them down.

You then admit, if someone wants to kill, they will find a way.

That only further proves my own need for firearms for protection, western nation or otherwise.

[laklak]

Lol, I absolutely support gun control for everybody else, just not for me. Like Clint Eastwood said, if there's a gun around I want to be in control of it. Unfortunately I can't get SCOTUS to rule that way, so I have to deal with morons having guns if I want them.

You supporting control of Avtomat's guns?

I would not want to try to take Avtomat's guns. We shall ally andl meet at the Elbe.

[piscator]

I wonder how many of those [195] nations had constitutions before America gave them the idea?

Piscator

The answer is that America did not give them the idea. Many had well established constitutions when the USA was denying the vote to 94% of its population, and many others were copying the example delivered by Britain, France and others.

You take the trouble to type a response to reply to me, then go on to answer a question that has nothing really to do with what I asked? Perhaps you just misunderstood? You could have saved some trouble by just giving an example of one of the many constitutions of the many democratic republics that existed sometime between, say, the fall of Rome and the US Constitution. New Zealand is not an example of that, as you well know, as it is quite lately a colony and has no constitution, per se, having merely benefited from some hard lessons your Crown was taught over the years.

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

No, it's a natural, unalienable right.

In your nation, maybe, but fuck off trying to make it universal...

Too late, it's already universal. That you're comfortable in your chains doesn't change that fact.