Your given the option to have the Constitution of The United States of America, weird for word except where nations concern, be adopted as your government framework.
Do you take it?
>>52095816
You're*
Word*
No I won't have
>be australian
>get shot
>>52095951
Reasoning?
>>52096020
2nd amendment is outdated
Would that mean we would have to become a Republic, because if so no deal.
No, I like our "unwritten constitution" with its adaptability and its laws going back 800 years to the magna carta
>>52096074
>can your society not handle firearms responsibly
And
>would you have the power rest solely in the hands if the government
>>52096136
Titles of nobility cannot be granted.
Probably. Our hate speech laws are good compared to the rest of Europe (Defined as 'abusive or threatening'. They got rid of 'insulting' a few years ago) and you're allowed to be a total fucking nazi if you really want. Still could be better though.
I think in order to own a gun you ought to be able to pass the standard background checks as well as practical and theoretical tests in marksmanship, maintenance, storage and safety and you should keep it in a safe whenever it's not in use. But other than that, I don't think there's anything wrong with people having guns if they know what they're doing with them.
>>52096074
Banning guns only works if your country has a strong white majority.
>>52095816
No, you fucking Commie
>>52096350
Written ones with amending processes are far better.
>>52096404
>commie
U wot
>>52096352
1. Every society will have psychos that use guns to harm innocents rather than """""""""protection""""""""
2. My government (and yours) isn't a single entity. There is the separation of power.
I'd like to keep our privacy laws and monarchy. I also think it's good our constitution gives the instruction to our government to ensure people have housing, education and so on.
But I would accept the American constitution yes. The Dutch constitution has too many exceptions on every rule.
>>52095816
Yeah, probably.. Just add some common sense, and it should be fine.
>>52095816
>Buck 119
Top pleb.
>>52095816
With or without amendments?
>>52096498
>1. Every society will have psychos that use guns to harm innocents rather than """""""""protection""""""""
The opposite is also true, and to a greater extent. Thus also ignores that criminals are non-law abiding.
>2. My government (and yours) isn't a single entity. There is the separation of power.
There is clearly a distinction between the governed and the governing, even with consent.
>>52096405
Yeah, because it's not like it often renders your President useless (Katrina) or makes them break the constitution.
Ffs! Read some Joseph de Maistre. The world is not America and your attempt at a one-world constitution is inherently unworkable.
You are an anomaly - a non-country.
>>52096618
>Buck 119
>not the American God-knife
Shiggydiggydo
![1280px-Magna_Carta_(British_Library_Cotton_MS_Augustus_II.106)[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/k7nYWYr.jpg "1280px-Magna_Carta_(British_Library_Cotton_MS_Augustus_II.106)[1].jpg")
>>52096405
The UK constitution is the story of the UK and England before that, all the way since 1215. It's so much better than a static text codified at a single point in time. Why would I want to swap our living constitution, the summation of the Parliaments representing this country through history, for the ideas of some foreigners. That would be a crime.
No. No. No.
>>52096651
Word for word
>>52096074
>2nd amendment is outdated
>>52096485
Technically compared to what the British have the Constitution is very liberal because it would require that the monarchy and other traditional establishments step down.
>>52096743
Are all these laws still followed, ones that haven't been officially done away with?
>>52096676
Where the hell did you get this from
>>52096792
It's true, a step from right to center-right is a step to the left.
>>52096836
Yeah. Most of the older laws aren't followed because they get revised, replaced or removed. But there's a common thread of laws from the very beginning that you can trace from time. The oldest is one of the most important:
>NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.[227]
The right to due legal process in England. Set down in 1215. Still active as part of the UK constitution in 2015.
>>52096953
That's pretty dope.
I guess the US Constitution is only the oldest if you look at it in the most non-abstract manner.
>>52096792
In addition to this, the UK is technically a theocracy because their head of state is also the head of the Church of England, that's another institution that would change if the UK adopted the Constitution.
>>52095951
>no right to free speech, hate speech laws out the ass and you can easily get arrested for it
>downright draconian gun laws
>air rifles are banned
>airsoft is banned
>LASER pointers are banned
>need a helmet to ride a fucking bicycle
>plain packaging on cigarettes
>absurdly high taxation on alcohol and tobacco, most c uckfailians have to drink shitty goonbags because it's all they can afford
>many violent games and movies banned
>video games are expensive as shit
>no self defense
>>52096792
So do ... communists.
I think he's on to something.
Liberty IMPLIES you have the right to choose whether those establishments should step down or not.
If they are forced to step down, well, that's not very libertarian now is it?
>>52096743
The Dutch constitution can only be changed if the King + ministers + more than 2/3th Parliament + more than 2/3th of the Senate agrees.
Then we get reelections so the parliament and ministers can piss off.
And we get a new vote by the new politicians who also have to agree with a 2/3th majority.
So our constitution still changes quite often, but it's also quite hard to change it. It's usually done around election time.
I think if you can simply overrule a constitution with a regular 51% vote then it's not more than a set of legal principles. Not a real constitution.
>>52096575
So...rewrite most of it?
>>52097220
Don't be rude.
>>52097030
The US is the oldest codified constitution. Nearly all of the world's constitutions are codified, so that's still impressive.
The UK's constitution is uncodified (it IS written, but not all in one place, and some of it is literally tradition that's not written anywhere), which is very rare. Hardly any countries do this. The reason why it can work in the UK is this country's exceptional stability, possibly the UK is the most stable country in the world
>>52097086
So politicians can't just change the constitution in their favour, as there will be reelections before it's approved.
>>52097220
>>52096575
>>52097487
>possibly the UK is the most stable country in the world
Sure mate. Ever seen a map of Europe from 1900? Your stable country looks quite different now, doesn't it? Didn't you recently have a vote if Scotland should leave as well?
>>52097514
*tips väiski*
Oh fuck no that would be a disaster
![Walter_Bagehot,_The_English_Constitution_(1st_ed,_1867,_title_page)[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/fHy77Vc.jpg "Walter_Bagehot,_The_English_Constitution_(1st_ed,_1867,_title_page)[1].jpg")
>>52097086
>I think if you can simply overrule a constitution with a regular 51% vote then it's not more than a set of legal principles. Not a real constitution.
It's true that the constitution changes with each Act of Parliament. But the UK constitution is more than mere Acts of Parliament. It is also made up of 'constitutional conventions', treaties, even books that people have written about the constitution later became part of the constitution. Such as "the English Constitution" by Bagehot:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_English_Constitution
>>52097650
I was referring to the absence of revolutions, civil wars, conquests which have left government institutions in London unchanged for a very very long time.
The last civil war ended in 1651
The last pitched battle on British soil was in 1746
The institutions of government have remained the same while every other major country has seen them change since that time.
Yes we did have a referendum for Scotland. That was a mark of the incredible confidence the British government has in the stability of the Union. Italy, Spain, France, the USA - none of these democracies would dare to allow such a referendum on secession in their countries.
>>52097980
So how would you call the Irish independence war then? That was pretty much a civil war.
>>52097980
>Italy, Spain, France, the USA - none of these democracies would dare to allow such a referendum on secession in their countries.
Most of our devolution referendum (Corsica and Guadeloupe in 2003 for example) are voted down (as in, the people there say "no, we do not want a unitary assembly in our region") one after the other.
>>52098234
That wasn't a civil war, I've never seen it described as one either. It's not described as a civil war in this article, for example
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_War_of_Independence
It was an independence war but it was contained in a particular region, civil wars engulf the country.
More importantly regarding my point, is that the establishment of the Irish Free State left the institutions in London intact. It did not bring the government down or change those institutions. They continued to run as they always have, just with fewer MPs in the Commons.
If you look at the rest of the major countries, they've either been invaded by a foreign power, experienced a civil war, or some sort of revolution that changed the institutions of government
>>52098309
Yeah that happened here as well in the English regions, the public often refuse another layer of government. Our current government has basically pushed through a process of devolution by making offers so good (transferring powers) that the local authorities couldn't refuse it. In return for more power, they must commit to have an elected mayor. That will improve accountability in the city-regions
>>52098475
Well, after hearing your points I do agree the UK is quite stable, as your government (type) hasn't been overthrown or changed in quite a while.
But the only reason why your government has never been taken over by a foreign power (since the glorious revolution) is because you live on an Island. So I wouldn't really take that into account. If anything, if a country like France is taken over by Germany and after the war they return to their old form of government, then that is a true sign of stability. But we all know Frenchies love their revolutions.
>>52098844
>because you live on an Island
Not saying geography isn't a crucial factor, but it's a lot bigger than that.
>>52098844
>But the only reason why your government has never been taken over by a foreign power (since the glorious revolution) is because you live on an Island.
That's not really a fair point. What about the other islands that HAVE been taken over by a foreign power or had their institutions changed in some way? In fact most of the world's island countries have been less stable than the UK.
Japan.
Philippines.
Indonesia.
Sri Lanka.
Iceland.
Many more I can't think of right now. Being on an island doesn't mean much, you need to win your wars as well. In addition to winning again and again, you have to foster an environment stable enough such that internal forces don't bring you down. Internal revolutions are what did for Russia and France, after all!
>>52098948
Napoleon and Hitler would never have been able to march into the Netherlands if we were just floating around like Iceland. It gives a huge defensive advantage that would require lots of investments to overcome.
yes, for no reason other than the right to bear arms
>>52099091
Maybe I just need to get learned, but wouldn't boats fix this? On a clear day you can see across the English channel I hear.
>>52099165
You are an American.
>>52099091
>Napoleon and Hitler would never have been able to march into the Netherlands if we were just floating around like Iceland
>floating around like Iceland
You DO know what happened to Iceland in WW2, right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Iceland
>>52099179
In the Netherlands we can flood areas to create defensive canals across the country in case of an invasion. Then we position our forces behind those canals and shoot everything that tries to cross.
It has stopped by invasions, even during WW2 the Nazi's got stuck on them, because you can just fire artillery across. Which is why the nazi's threatened to flatten our cities from the air. And after Rotterdam was bombed we surrendered. Because we were heavily outmatched by Germany anyway so according to the estimates we would have lasted a month. So it was a fight we couldn't win.
But my point is, a bit of water does miracles.
>>52099422
>But my point is, a bit of water does miracles.
Iceland was invaded with a few hundred Royal Marines! Most island nations that exist today have been colonised or otherwise taken over, or experienced revolutions, in the past two hundred years
There is no magical water shield. The water is a road for enemy ships to come and fuck you up.
>>52099545
moats>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>massive unguardable seashore you retard. netherlands can use moats. islands like iceland and ireland cant.
>>52099545
Iceland has a population of 330k and no army. But with a population like yours or mine it would be highly defensible against countries two, three or four times our size..
>>52099631
Have you tried reading the thread m8?
The Dutch poster's argument is that being an ISLAND offers protection. Read his/her post >>52098844
>the only reason why your government has never been taken over by a foreign power (since the glorious revolution) is because you live on an Island.
>>52099722
You couldn't support a population like that on Iceland.
What about Japan? The US wasn't four times their size (by population) back during WWII. Japan is an island nation and they lost. Other densely populated island countries have been taken over and colonised.
It's very hard to protect a largeish island from invasion. Before England/Britain built up a strong navy, these island were regularly invaded by all sorts, including smaller countries!
>>52099722
That's different than 746 Royal Marines vs 60 officers.
>>52099238
not an american citizen and dont identify as american therefore not americlap to be honest
guns are great tho
>>52096352
>can your society not handle firearms responsibly
Americans CLEARLY can't handle firearms responsibly. There are other countries with a high rate of gun ownership (Switzerland comes to mind; hell, my home country, Serbia, is actually #2 - right behind the US, and we've NEVER had a school shooting) that don't pull the shit that happens in the US daily.
American gun culture is fucked up. If there's any nation that SHOULDN'T have a 2nd Am. because its citizens clearly aren't responsible enough for it, it's the US.
>>52099944
Where are you? And why?
I'd have to actually read the US constitution before making a comment on that and I'll be perfectly honest with you: I really can't be fucked.
>>52099899
Japan surrendered to the first nuclear bombs. Any country would have done that.
We don't know what would have happened if the USA tried to invade Japan, but I expect it would have been quite troublesome, especially logistically.
>>52096743
>for the ideas of some foreigners
Just overseas British people who were very fond of the English Bill of Rights.
>>52097081
lolwut
>>52100095
chicago, because my mam moved here tee bee haich
>>52100059
Nuts go and kill people, there's no stopping that. On a 300 million people nation, it'll have a higher frequency.
So what really needs to be addressed is where society comes into play. This must squarely resides in the black community, where the crime rate is so outrageously higher. To fix this, you need to fix the community, not try and prevent legal firearms ownership (like that would even work).
It's simple when you think about it, crime is a societal and cultural problem, not a firearms problem.
>>52100113
Troublesome but it would have happened. Besides, so what if they surrendered to the nuclear bombs. Japan couldn't stop enemy nuclear bombers flying OVER their territory and unloading said bombs. Their enemy was bombing them with impunity.
Despite being an island, which according to you offers protection. They were being bombed to hell.
Sorry but I don't buy this argument. All it means if you're an island, is that you keep a strong navy and win your naval battles, otherwise it is game over. There is no default protection from being surrounded by water.
>>52100115
>Just overseas British people
Not British after they rebelled
>>52095816
your Constitution is based on our XVIIth century laws. We ended being buttfucked by Russians and Krauts.
>>52095816
Yes.
Would personally fund a brazilian version of NRA too. No joke.
No, and I'm favour of the UK actually having a constitution.
>muh tradition
>muh magna carta
Fuck off, Scotland will leave in 10 years if don't sort this shit out. It's probably already too late.
>>52100548
We have a constitution
>Scotland will leave in 10 years
Haha, sure
>>52100326
During the Dutch disaster year the Dutch navy was very strong and defeated both the French and British fleets who tried to land. We managed to stop the Germans from east. And then the French just walked in from the south. Only the Dutch canals (the water lines) kept the French from taking over entirely and making the war too expensive to push on, so we could negotiate peace.
I just don't buy it. Especially since being an Island allows strategies like focusing on navies, while your mainland opponent has to take multiple forms of war into account to defend themselves.
>>52100256
I'm sorry
>>52100706
Just look at this what a bit of water can do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rampjaar#The_Waterline
>>52100295
>It's simple when you think about it, crime is a societal and cultural problem, not a firearms problem.
You're right, but blaming this on "the black community" is disingenuous. Yes, the black-on-black murder rate is incredibly high, but that's not what causes outrage among Americans and non-Americans. It's the school shooters and mass killers (pretty much EXCLUSIVELY white), and the cops who believe that their first, last and only response to dealing with a suspect is shooting him. This doesn't happen in other countries.
This doesn't happen in Western Europe, this doesn't even happen in RUSSIA.
By your "higher frequency" logic, the US is only the site of so muhc gun violence because of its size. Okay. Extrapolating statistics, if there have been roughly 350 mass shootings this year, that means there's about a mass shooting per million people.
That means France, Norway and England should get about 66, 5 and 64 every year. Instead, they've each seen at most a handful over the last decade.
The "there's a lot of us" argument is literally false. The problem is in American culture, not the size of the population. You have to deal with the higher crime rate among African-Americans, yes, but you also have to reform the police force, change your gun laws to enable background checks so that people with mental disorders can't fucking buy AK-47s, and stop fetishizing firearms and treating shooting people for minor offenses like it's no big deal. This is real life, not Call of Duty.
>>52100706
That is one example, other times the Netherlands was conquered with ease.
>I just don't buy it. Especially since being an Island allows strategies like focusing on navies, while your mainland opponent has to take multiple forms of war into account to defend themselves.
Sorry what? When you focus on the navy you have a much weaker army. Any country that defeated the Royal Navy would have a very easy time of conquering the UK once they landed here. Your mainland opponent doesn't need a strong navy, the Germans and French conquered many countries over land while losing at sea, over and over again.
And as the example of Britain and Japan during WW2 shows, air power is very important to island countries AS WELL AS mainland countries.
Your entire argument is flawed m7
>>52100795
Nice paintings desu.
>>52100833
Not him but I don't give a shit about a few dead kids. It's statistically insignificant and nowhere near large enough of a problem to justify taking away the rights of hundreds of millions of people.
>>52101012
>other times the Netherlands was conquered with ease.
When was that? Only Hitler and Napoleon ever managed to take hold here.
England never managed to take us, despite multiple attempts. You know why? There is this little piece of water between us.
>>52101032
Clearly not a parent; also barely human with that level of empathy.
>my right to indiscriminately kill other people is more important than their right to live
Nobody is saying ban all guns, just that we should enact sensible laws that should make it harder for people who aren't sensible enough to own a gun to actually be able to own a gun.
![The_British_Empire_Anachronous[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/vQis4iZ.png "The_British_Empire_Anachronous[1].png")
>>52101123
>Only Hitler and Napoleon ever managed to take hold here.
>Only
Yes the Netherlands has been conquered, and Hitler did take it very easily.
>England never managed to take us, despite multiple attempts. You know why? There is this little piece of water between us.
What a dumb argument. You see pic related? Britain never managed to any of those in red, because it's seperated from the UK by large pieces of water.
Hmm. Damn that magical water shield!
>>52100833
>. Okay. Extrapolating statistics, if there have been roughly 350 mass shootings this year,
Most of the "mass shootings" on that list involved zero deaths, and most of them were criminal or gang related. NOT a lone gunman randomly shoots innocent people on public.
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/number-of-us-mass-shootings-greatly-exaggerated-in-media-acclaimed-researcher-states-7872731
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/12/07/mass-shooting-fbi-statistics-sanbernardino-terrorism-column/76892404/
>>52101288
>Britain never managed to any of those in red, because it's seperated from the UK by large pieces of water.
As much as I despise the dutch, there is a difference between them and savages
>>52095816
Fuck no. That piece of shit is retarded.
>>52100833
>>52101302
Furthermore, "muh assault weapons" and all rifles are used in less homicides than knives, fists, and blunt objects every year.
>muh background checks
The vast majority of public mass shooters passed background checks to get their guns. What the fuck do you propose? Mandatory psych evaluations before you get a gun?
>>52101288
Anyone can invade a shithole. But you didn't have to fear much from your European rivals. And your European rivals didn't have to fear much from the UK. Your map supports that.
>>52101302
Even if there are only twenty lone gunmen (and that's very generous), that's still roughly 19-20 more than in the vast majority of other countries.
I don't think this can even be in dispute - the lone gunman shooting up people is pretty much a uniquely American problem. The few times in happens in Europe people lose their shit. We still talk about Breivik, five years later. In the meantime, the US has had dozens of lone gunmen like him shooting people up for no reason.
>>52101478
You've changed your tune. This is what you were saying earlier:
>the only reason why your government has never been taken over by a foreign power (since the glorious revolution) is because you live on an Island.
And if our European rivals "didn't have to fear much from the UK", why did both Napoleon and Hitler plan to invade Britain?
>>52100833
>Yes, the black-on-black murder rate is incredibly high, but that's not what causes outrage among Americans and non-Americans. It's the school shooters and mass killers (pretty much EXCLUSIVELY white),
Then they're full of shit since that's what's killing people the most.
>and the cops who believe that their first, last and only response to dealing with a suspect is shooting him.
Not a 2nd Amendment problem, additionally a societal problem
>This doesn't happen in other countries.
>This doesn't happen in Western Europe, this doesn't even happen in RUSSIA.
>making these generalizations
>By your "higher frequency" logic, the US is only the site of so muhc gun violence because of its size. Okay. Extrapolating statistics, if there have been roughly 350 mass shootings this year, that means there's about a mass shooting per million people. That means France, Norway and England should get about 66, 5 and 64 every year. Instead, they've each seen at most a handful over the last decade. The "there's a lot of us" argument is literally false. The problem is in American culture, not the size of the population. You have to deal with the higher crime rate among African-Americans, yes, but you also have to reform the police force, change your gun laws to enable background checks so that people with mental disorders can't fucking buy AK-47s, and stop fetishizing firearms and treating shooting people for minor offenses like it's no big deal. This is real life, not Call of Duty.
You're correct, but a little wrong. You focus too much lone nuts, and not whats really killing people. Adam Lanza stole his firearms, and shootings have been stopped by armed law-abiders. If you look at violent crime rates per 100,000, all of the west is on basically equal levels because our cultures are good.
What you say is true, but firearms restriction simply won't fix these things, societal reform will. We thankfully mostly agree.
>>52101498
Mass shooting deaths are 50-100 a year in a country of 324 million.
Statistically insignificant as shit. That's the price we pay for our rights. I am content with it.
>>52101401
Less than your country committing cultural and ethnic suicide by letting in hundreds of thousands of mudslime shitskins, Sven. I bet a ton of white Swedes want guns against this onslaught.
>>52101571
Alright, tell us about those valiant defensive battles you fought against Hitler and Napoleon, repelling their forces.
>>52101413
>all rifles are used in less homicides than knives, fists, and blunt objects every year
That's because most people who were involved in non-gun homicides either didn't own a gun or didn't have on nearby. Do you really think anyone, ever went "Well, I'm going to kill this guy, but I won't use my gun, that wouldn't be proper gun etiquette!" That's not an argument. Hell, if anything, it's the argument for restricting guns - if people are able to kill themselves using fists and crude tools, we don't need to make it easier for them to kill each other, because then they're only be more efficient at it.
>Mandatory psych evaluations before you get a gun?
You say that like it's unreasonable.
>how are you insane and/or homicidal? yes? no guns for you.
If we can restrict felons from exercising their right to vote (which you have to really be a gun nut to claim is less important/essential than the right to bear arms), then we can absolutely place these restrictions on gun purchases.
>>52100833
http://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/comparing-death-rates-from-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/
>>52101657
During WW2 your forces literally withdrew from the mainland from Dunkirk France so they could hide on their Island where they were safe.
>>52101657
>Alright, tell us about those valiant defensive battles you fought against Hitler and Napoleon, repelling their forces.
Look up the naval battles against both. There were some impressive defensive land battles against Napoleon during the Peninsular War. Regarding Hitler, see the Battle of Britain.
>>52101787
France was overrun, of course we would withdraw the army to Britain. Are you a child or something?
>>52101740
>That's not an argument. Hell, if anything, it's the argument for restricting guns - if people are able to kill themselves using fists and crude tools, we don't need to make it easier for them to kill each other, because then they're only be more efficient at it.
You don't understand what he's saying. If guns aren't the culprit of crime, restriction won't effect it much.
>by the end of the eighth day, a total of 338,226 soldiers had been rescued by a hastily assembled fleet of over 800 boats.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunkirk_evacuation
And thus Britain was saved. They managed to reach their Island. God save the queen.
>>52101578
Seems like we do. Huh.
Yeah, I do focus on lone nuts, just because that's the most disturbing aspect here - I can pretty much stay safe from general gun crime because I don't live in a dangerous neighborhood and don't associate with dangerous people, but the notion that someone can just walk up to a city square or school and open fire is terrifying to me.
>>52100587
>We have a constitution
No, you don't, not in the sense that a constitution should be separate, comprehensive, supreme legal text.
>>52101868
Why wouldn't you evacuate a force from a hopeless position?
>>52101929
Well, we can't. Because we're not an Island. If we're in a hopeless position we either win or lose.
>>52101904
You're not aware of how the word "constitution" is defined, let me help you:
>A constitution is a set of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is governed.
Note this part:
>or established precedents
Note also that the definition doesn't say the constitution has to be codified
>>52101895
>Yeah, I do focus on lone nuts, just because that's the most disturbing aspect here - I can pretty much stay safe from general gun crime because I don't live in a dangerous neighborhood and don't associate with dangerous people,
Be careful, some would call you callous
>but the notion that someone can just walk up to a city square or school and open fire is terrifying to me.
Which will be a societal problem, kills FAR fewer people, won't be fixed with gun legislation, and since >>52101754, is more a problem elsewhere, where they have less guns.
>>52101235
>Nobody is saying ban all guns
https://newrepublic.com/article/125498/its-time-ban-guns-yes-them
http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/the-view-said-obama-should-ban-all-guns-dr-carsons-response-silenced-them-all/
>>52101754
Not that anon but
>posting barely-sourced data from a clearly biased website
The first three books in the sidebar are about how guns are awesome.
>>52101740
No you fucking idiot.
It means "muh salt weapons" are impractical as shit for most homicides. Rifles are hard as fuck to conceal.
Despite MUH 500 ROUND AR 15s being so readily availiable, they are used in so little homicides. They just are not practical.
They are not more deadlier than a regular handgun, retard.
>you say like it's an unreasonable thing
It's a massive infringement on the second amendment libshit. Fuck off.
>>how are you insane and/or homicidal? yes? no guns for you.
That's not how psych evaluations work, idiot.
>>52101983
During our WW2 our government fled to England. So I guess retreating was a possibility, to an Island.
>>52101983
>Well, we can't. Because we're not an Island. If we're in a hopeless position we either win or lose.
The BEF was in another country you idiot. Dunkirk is NOT part of the UK. If the Dutch Army was fighting in Norway, and it was a hopeless position, you could withdrew via the sea and go back to the Netherlands.
Your butthurt is clouding your mental faculties
>>52101895
You are a tard who worries about something extremely statistically improbable. Not my fault. Go MUH FEELANS elsewhere.
>>52102101
>withdrew via the sea
Yes, I guess a sea could save them yeah.
>>52101895
>Yeah, I do focus on lone nuts, just because that's the most disturbing aspect here - I can pretty much stay safe from general gun crime because I don't live in a dangerous neighborhood and don't associate with dangerous people, but the notion that someone can just walk up to a city square or school and open fire is terrifying to me.
And people call gun owners paranoid.
>>52102148
Why are you making fun of us for withdrawing our forces from a foreign country then? I do not understand this at all. It's bad because we had somewhere to withdraw to?
If France, Germany or the Netherlands was fighting somewhere abroad, such as in the UK, THEY could do something similar. Except that hasn't happened for a very long time, because you guys have been unable to win naval battles for a very long time.
Do you understand how this works now. While you laugh at the withdrawal you totally forget the significance of the fact that the BEF could go and fight on various foreign continents.
>>52102101
During the cold war our troops were assigned to defend Germany. If they would have lost we would have nuked Germany. Because the Russians would just drive into our country otherwise. That's what having land borders is like.
>>52102087
Notice I never said assault weapons. I'm talking about 'guns' in general in pretty much all my posts (except the one time I mentioned AK-47s, but that was a random example of a weapon, you could switch it out with a Smith and Wesson and the point remains). But you're clearly not in your right mind.
Making sure someone is not homicidal/a psychopath before they obtain a firearm is a massive infringement on the second amendment? Jesus fucking Christ you're literally frothing at the mouth.
I assume you're also mad at police brutality and Guantanamo ("no cruel and unusual punishment"), prisoners having many of their rights revoked (against the spirit of multiple amendments guaranteeing equality), NSA spying and using this information against the citizens (First Amendment), etc.? But you're probably not because for people like you the Constitution starts and ends with the rights to bear arms.
>>52102282
now only if we can pass lightening conductor legislation, then this will all be fixed.
sucks to be a midwesterner i guess.
>>52101895
Yeah, I do focus on lone strikes, just because that's the most disturbing aspect here - I can pretty much stay safe from general lighting strikes because I don't live in a stormy neighborhood and don't associate with storm chasers, but the notion that a storm can just come up to a city square or school and send down lightning is terrifying to me.
>>52102206
>People commit mass murders on an almost daily basis
>being afraid of that is not paranoia
>the government has never even remotely come close to mass confiscation of guns, and it never will due to widespread opposition
>so being afraid of that IS paranoia
Pretty simple.
>>52102337
>During the cold war our troops were assigned to defend Germany
So were ours
>That's what having land borders is like.
And they would have nuked us despite having no land borders with the continent.
Do you think the magical water shield blocks missiles as well? What the hell?
>>52102338
>massive infringement on the second amendment
its "shall not be infringed" not "shall not be massively infringed". if you want to amend the Constitution, that's one thing.
>I assume you're also mad at police brutality and Guantanamo ("no cruel and unusual punishment"), prisoners having many of their rights revoked (against the spirit of multiple amendments guaranteeing equality), NSA spying and using this information against the citizens (First Amendment), etc.? But you're probably not because for people like you the Constitution starts and ends with the rights to bear arms.
irrelevant, but nice job stereotyping and putting words in his mouth
>>52102363
... Are you trolling?
You do realize that one is caused by humans (aka preventable) and one is caused by nature (not preventable).
>>52102437
The point is if we were an Island it we could just retreat and fight another day.
>>52102417
>>People commit mass murders on an almost daily basis
irrelevant to guns
>>the government has never even remotely come close to mass confiscation of guns, and it never will due to widespread opposition
now that's simple ignorance. this has happened almost any time the government can do it. see New Jersey, Hurricane Katrina, and many more.
>>52102455
If somebody puts words in my mouth and uses slurs in every single sentence I reserve the right to make assumptions about his character.
And it's absolutely relevant - he's talking about a law that would supposedly violate the constitution. I named multiple other practices that might also violate the constitution yet are also law. That's why we have the Supreme Court, to interpret these things.
>>52102578
well if you want to play the "well he did it too" game, that's between you two.
>>52102514
No, not if your navy loses. You're crazy, you're assuming you automatically will have naval superiority. You don't. It has to be won.
When island countries lose the naval war they lose everything.
You're an idiot because you seem to think battles only happen on land. That's a fantasy. Battles happen in the sea. In order to win naval superiority, Britain had to win battles against the combined forces of France, Spain and the Netherlands. Against much larger fleets. This is easy mode to you?
Get a grip
>>52102637
I don't, I'm saying it's ridiculous to call me out on something when he did the exact same thing in his post, first. If somebody punches you, and you punch back, it's dumb as shit for a third party to just call you out.
>>52102705
fair enough. childish nonetheless, both of you.
>>52102769
True. I just get annoyed when I'm having a rational, argument-based discussion with sensible anons and someone walks in spewing ad hominems and insults and completely ignoring the conversation chain. I guess it's the nature of 4chan.
>>52102873
its how it works here
>>52102667
>When island countries lose the naval war they lose everything.
Ah yeah, for a moment I thought you could still fight on the beaches, fight on the landing grounds, fight in the fields and in the streets, fight in the hills; and not instantly surrender
Sea battles are just a phase of war. A big obstacles which helps preventing land battles from even occurring.
>>52103020
>Ah yeah, for a moment I thought you could still fight on the beaches, fight on the landing grounds, fight in the fields and in the streets, fight in the hills; and not instantly surrender
That is a little thing called rhetoric
If you make a landing in England it's a very easy country to conquer over land, there is no geographic help for the defenders.
Furthermore if the Royal Navy is defeated, the enemy navy can blockade us and that would destroy the UK by starving it of vital trade.
Once that happens it is over.
>>52103111
Let's just leave this discussion as it is. Otherwise we're still here tomorrow.
>>52102338
It is a massive infringement.
I need to go through a psych evaluation to own a gun? Ok. Let's make sure you pass a test before you can vote so we won't have retarded niggers voting for somebody because he's black.
>>52095816
No
Why would we need that piece of shit. Prefer having no consitution at all
>>52103182
Just look up how much food and other stuff the UK imports, if that's cut off it's all over. That's why the Royal Navy can't allow itself to lose.
>>52098309
I was going to say I don't think any region in France would leave if given the option. Spain, Italy, USA... I wouldn't be surprised if a region would gladly leave
>>52100256
>haich
>>52103820
In Italy and Spain there are strong movements for Veneto and Catalunya respectively. They're not being allowed referenda
>>52103820
>autralia
>real country
An important thing to note is that most countries, unlike the US, are unitary (i.e., not federal), so the 10th amendment, as well a lot of other things regarding states, wouldn't make sense.
Fuck yes I do
but repeal 15th, 16th and 19th amendments
>>52099899
Do you honestly think if England wasn't joined by land to France, napoleons wouldn't have marched on you and possibly taken over, let alone hitler.
That's all the Dutch poster is saying, that that is the main reason the UK never changes, sure you have had stable governments, but that's an after thought compared to this point, also those government have been stable partly because being on an island makes it harder for ideas like revolution to spread to Britain.
>>52097072
This hasn't anything to do with the constitution you fat fuck.
>>52104308
it has everything to do with the constitution you fag. hate speech and gun bans wont happen under the us constitution unless a 3/4 vote
>>52104276
If England was joined by land to France than the UK wouldn't have ever existed and all of history would be different
>That's all the Dutch poster is saying, that that is the main reason the UK never changes,
But that's an invalid point because all the other island nations have experienced change. The UK hasn't.
>>52095816
No.
Your electoral system is absolute shit 2bh.
>>52104176
Like, actually
>No states can merge without consent of both and Congress, no interstate alliances, etc.
>lol What's a state?
Probably the biggest culture shock tbqh.
Hell no! I dont want to import an outdated constitution in this country and fuck it up even more. Our 1991 constitution is fine, thank you very much.
>>52103985
yes, the eight letter of the alphabet
wheres the problem
>>52100722
youd better be
make a better fucking city next time
>>52104783
>not aitch
lol
>>52104034
Exactly my point.
>>52104514
>If England was joined by land to France than the UK wouldn't have ever existed and all of history would be different
That's the point.
But even if say, land had just risen up from the ocean during any of those times, and the UK as a country existed up to that point, you wouldn't have lasted. It's extremely well known if it wasn't for the fact you have the English Channel, napoleons would have gone after you full force and would have lost just like everyone else.
>But that's an invalid point because all the other island nations have experienced change. The UK hasn't.
No it's a valid point, it doesn't change the fact that in the UKs case, being an island has greatly helped them.
Besides being an island has only really become a disadvantage to defend since aerial combat had been a thing, which has only been a very recent thing. You're comparing yourself to 3rd world shitholes and fucking Iceland and trying to use that as proof, come on dude.
The whole reason NZ even exists as a country and not as just another state of Australia is because we are an island. I'm not naive in thinking it's because we are some super culture of stability compared to other Aussie states. like you seem to think about the UK compared to Europe
>>52105794
>Besides being an island has only really become a disadvantage to defend since aerial combat had been a thing
That's bullshit and the history of England proves it. We were invaded by ALL of our neighbours multiple times. It's impossible to defend when you lose the naval war, because the enemy can land anywhere.
>You're comparing yourself to 3rd world shitholes and fucking Iceland
My main comparison was Japan which you're conveniently ignoring
>The whole reason NZ even exists as a country and not as just another state of Australia is because we are an island.
You seriously think Australia couldn't invade New Zealand if they wanted? Come on don't be ridiculous
>>52095816
No? Why would we, we have a constitution jam-packed with rights already... in fact, it has too many fucking rights. Also, US constitution doesn't have monarchy, ours does, therefore ours is better.
>>52106362
Right so suck my dick you fucking faggot
>>52108352
Only if you're attractive.
>>52106362
>the constitution is outdated
>we have a monarchy
this is why most Europeans cant have a government for more than 20 years.
>too many rights
holy shit, this is the cukoldry.
>>52095816
No. 2nd amendment had a point when it was created, now it is absolute madness supported only by far fetched power fantasies.
All the other parts we pretty much already have in our own constitution.
Yes.
>>52110753
>i prefer to have less rights
cukcoldry
>>52110835
That's not what I said jamal. In fact our constitution has things yours doesn't even mention. I also don't want a "right to murder" or the "right to steal", does that make me a cukc?
>>52110753
>not wanting more rights
Lol
>>52110853
and the US Constitution has this?
>>52110835
basically your utopia would be complete anarchy?
>>52110889
Did I say that jamal? Or did I make a point that not all "rights" are inherently a good thing.
>>52110926
the right to bear arms is pretty good
>>52110896
an anarchy cannot protect rights, stop that slippery slope.
>>52110974
>the right to bear arms is pretty good
Say that to your gun murder statistics.
>>52110974
>the right to bear arms is pretty good
but I don't agree
>>52111020
>this argument again
this was already established ITT
its a society problem, not a gun problem
>>52110835
>his constitution doesn't mention "right to live"
how does it feel living in a C U C K O L D state where the death penalty is not unconstitutional?
>>52111038
thats because youre a cuk m8
>>52111076
you do something worth getting killed over, you hardly didnt have it coming.
id change it if i could tho.
>>52111081
nah I just prefer to make decisions based on what makes my society a better place to live now instead of delusional power fantasies about how I will fight off the evil government and protect muh freedum
>>52111122
>trusting the system enough to give them the power to make irreversible decisions such as the death penalty
C U C K
>>52111041
>its a society problem, not a gun problem
Yeah, your retarded society allows those retarded gun laws.
>>52111158
So you're saying your society is so shit, that if you added guns, people wouldn't instantly start harming each other?
>>52111151
You clearly don't understand how our government framework works then.
>>52111267
>So you're saying your society is so shit, that if you added guns, people wouldn't instantly start harming each other?
Well, it wouldn't make it any better that's for frigging sure. Friday night grill lines would be bloodbaths that would make Syria look like first world compared.
>>52111267
we already have one of the highest guns per capita figures in the world without a stupid law like your 2nd amendment
also your argument makes very little sense. I could live in the safest neighbourhood on earth but if everyone decided to stop locking their doors at once the chances of someone getting burglarized would go up
>>52111391
Well then it's your people at fault, not guns
lel nonetheless
>>52111433
But really now, by how much? It would be negligible. Anyone a criminal enough to burglarize would do it anyway. Little would change.
>>52111485
yes but even a little is change for the worse and I literally see no value or positive effects such a law would have
play risk
>>52110366
>>52110366
>>52111588
That's where the 2nd Amendment differs. Now you have unfettered right to arms that can be used for good purposes.
>>52111676
Make me
>>52111691
Or bad purposes, or dumb purposes, possibly both.
>>52111745
Then you should get fixing with your society
Of course
>>52111827
Can't be done without messing genetics of the humankind. Because realistically speaking dumb and mean people will always exist unless we do something kind of radical against that.
>>52111691
but it's already fully possible to get a gun with proper licenses for hunting. there's just a procedure you have to go through. I see nothing wrong with that. just like I see nothing wrong with having to go trough the extensive driver's ed we have in finland. 20 hours of theory classes, 17 hours on the road (~15 of which in traffic) with an instructor. an extensive theory test and a hour long driving test you can't do mistakes during. also a medical exam and a additional driving in darkness and driving on lippery surfaces tests are required. when I'm on the road I'm glad that all these things are required and it makes me feel safe. just like I'm glad there's a thorough process to owning a firearm.
>>52111827
but that makes no sense. you still haven't mentioned a single positive effect such a law would have. you're just saying "well if it makes things worse then the problem is elsewhere" completely missing the point that it doesn't matter where the true problem lies, what matters is the law would make things worse. so why would I want such a law?
it's like if I find some person really obnoxious to be around and you told me "well it's not his fault it's because his mum dropped him on his head as a baby". I'd be like "ok that sucks, but that still doesn't make me want to spend time with him".
Our constitution is an abridged version of the original with some stuff added in back in 1935, 1973 and in 1987
Truly keks
