• 🇬🇧󠁿 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
    European & African
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • EADD Moderators: Shambles

Where are the firearms at?

RLP said:
Two more dead in a school shooting.

It's time we (like Pagey, I find myself in this awkward half American berth) armed school teachers to give them a chance. It's all very well and good the holier-than-thou British claiming that making a simple amendment and introducing gun control will do the trick, but this is the constitution - a part of American history - and the second amendment is steeped in the very foundation of the nation. You can't just change such things like that.

Not to mention that guns are everywhere already. What sort of effect do you think gun control will achieve? The honourable and law-abiding will be the ones who lose out as they sacrifice their protection to criminals, crazies and paedophiles.

No, America is a very different country to here and the right to arm bears is a liberty that cannot be sacrificed in the face of mindless thuggery.

Drop the no-gun zones in schools. Allow teachers to protect their children.
Click to expand...
+ 1
 
Droppersneck said:
And we own guns as a collective peoples to uphold the constitution and protect this great nation from the threat of a tyrannical government. Nobody is taking on a tank with an AR15, but I would consider an AR to be the most basic tool in possible conflict. They could be used to obtain real weapons and such.
Click to expand...

What utter bollocks. Please don't tell me you actually believe that.

Why don't you uphold the constitution just now then? Take your assault rifle and march to Washington. Or is it only to uphold it when someone is literally in your face taking a piss on the bill of rights?


Edit - In reality the right to bear arms is the only part of the constitution you really care about upholding, init?
 
Last edited:
Droppersneck, despite taking savage beating you have hung in there which shows commitment if nothing else. The answer you gave about arming yourself as a collective still seems kind of dubious to me though. Its not that I don't think its possible its just that I don't think that's what is going on. The history of politics in america just doesn't give the impression of government stepping around on tip toes in fear of a potential uprising from its citizens. Bush's two terms in power along with the financial meltdown that came as a result of deregulation that he put in place himself was as brazen an assault on civil liberties as you are likely to see in a quasi democratic state.
 
parttime crackhead;11902907]What utter bollocks. Please don't tell me you actually believe that.

Why don't you uphold the constitution just now then? Take your assault rifle and march to Washington. Or is it only to uphold it when someone is literally in your face taking a piss on the bill of rights?


Edit - In reality the right to bear arms is the only part of the constitution you really care about upholding, init?
Click to expand...


i think what he means is if and when the constitution came under significant attack, they would then use the weapons to fight the government


obviously, this is flawed logic. for two reasons, firstly as has been pointed out, by swarm i believe - the constitution has already been altered/suspended in the past, post 9/11 for example. yes, this could be considered an emergency, but the likelihood is any future suspension would also be cloaked within a real or imagined or fabricated similar event. there are documents proving the u.s government has in the past considered and planned false flag attacks on it's own people/troops in order to provoke war, in that particular case with cuba



secondly, and more importantly. it would be near impossible to organise mass rebellion on a scale needed to topple the government. remember the riots over here... online channels were monitored to such an extent that the authorities knew exactly where, when and how many people these groups would contain. ringleaders were arrested extremely quickly
now imagine this in america, in a state of emergency. the government would know exactly what level of response was needed, where to go and would be legally entitled to shoot armed groups by the thousand. perhaps this wouldve been possible pre internet/mobile phone age - now, the government hold all the cards

as i mentioned before, a couple thousand people with assault rifles is a force to be reckoned with on a county/state level. youd probably give the police and even state home guard a run for their money. but as soon as the federal machine swung into action, that would be brushed aside with impunity. you can't fight tanks and air support with small arms fire. even grenades would be unlikely to trouble modern heavy battle tanks like the m1 abrams. it would be a massacre, followed by a ruthless, digital manhunt of those involved who managed to escape. but whatever gets you to sleep at night i guess
 
^ Spot on, really.

BlindHelperMonkey said:
i think what he means is if and when the constitution came under significant attack, they would then use the weapons to fight the government
Click to expand...

I know. My point was that his constitution has been, and is, under serious attack - without Billy Bob's Militia saying a word (except when it comes to gun control). I think you agree, but I don't think you realised that's what I meant.


Why do Americans get so rabid about the constitution anyway? It's like "I'LL DIE FOR THE CONSTITUTION!" "Y'ALL CAN"T CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION! I'LL DIE BEFORE I LET THAT HAPPEN! Except from all those times when amendments were made, kind of like the second one that lets me wave this gun about".

Can the constitution never be wrong? Can times never change so that certain parts of that constitution aren't quite the right thing any more? If we had a similar document in the UK I don't think people would be so single minded THAAA CONSTAAATOOTUN MUST BE DEFENDED!!!! I think they would look at individual parts on their own merits and decide if they should be defended or not based on logical arguments that aren't just "BECAUSE IT'S IN THE CONSTITUTION!"

I mean, dude's argument isn't really "We need guns to defend our homes, to defend our children, to defend our badgers" it's literally "We need them to defend the constitution" why are you so desperate to defend these rules? Aren't there better things to defend?
 
Last edited:
aye, i will. seen a couple others, the scottish star trek cracks me up. it's gold cos though they'm ripping the piss out them/yourselves, for the size of the country, i doubt there's anywhere on the planet that's contributed more to the world. pretty much everything of consequence today was invented by a scot






but enough of that shit, more big man!


flattery's like pish in the pool to the big man

 
parttime crackhead said:
Why do Americans get so rabid about the constitution anyway? It's like "I'LL DIE FOR THE CONSTITUTION!" "Y'ALL CAN"T CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION! I'LL DIE BEFORE I LET THAT HAPPEN! Except from all those times when amendments were made, kind of like the second one that lets me wave this gun about".
Click to expand...

That's a great point.

And props on the history knowledge BlindHelperMonkey. Was curious if you just knew about astronomy or not (am 90% certain it was yourself that helped me out with some planet names on a thread about six months back).
 
unfortunately, swarm.. as has always been the case with me, i will study voraciously any specifc subject that interests me. but cannot muster similar motivation for those that do not. which is why i have no qualifications or subject spanning knowledge, a jack of all trades and master of none, as it were.


however, i am versed on astronomy at a very basic, non mathematical level (and of course, maths is the foundation of astronomy) but im hesitant to take credit where it's not due, though admittedly i have a shocking, mdma-ravaged memory, so i couldve forgot. it wasn't in relation to ceres was it..? the celestial body, not mythological figure or eadd member :D




edit - just googled it, it was the ceres thing
 
Last edited:
one of the things i find pretty funny when it comes to the uk is use of supressors (silencers, as stated by the batf, which is inaccurate as they dont silence, just make it more quiet. in the us you have to jump through a bunch of hoops and pay a 200$ tax fee and basically you have it for life as its a pain to sell. in the uk its almost poor manners to shoot outside without one lol, try that over here and ppl would think you are a wannabe hit man. where in reality you just want to be polite to others hearing as well as your own. so from what i hear supressors are pretty easy to get in the uk. when i was in irl a few years back, i was surpised to see in the smaller towns the coppers only carried cs and a folding baton. in dublin was pretty different as i saw police with what im guessing were select fire weapons. saw a bunch of mp5s, lot of hk stuff now that i think about it. but these guys just were standing around with their guns.

as far as im concerned if you come against someone trying to break in and cause serious bodily injury to you and your family, a sawed off 12ga is about the most bang for your buck. in the us the barrel length has to be 18" or else is classified as an AOW (any other weapon) like serbus super shorty which im sure is not friendly to shoot. plus a 12 gives you some options as for as ammo too, you could make dust filled shells, wax slugs, or go with the trad 00 buck and make meatloaf out of anyone unfortunate enough to be on the business end. if you are in a confined area that ar10 is probably going to over penetrate walls and possibly injury innocent bystanders.
 
BlindHelperMonkey said:
unfortunately, swarm.. as has always been the case with me, i will study voraciously any specifc subject that interests me. but cannot muster similar motivation for those that do not. which is why i have no qualifications or subject spanning knowledge, a jack of all trades and master of none, as it were.
Click to expand...

I think that feeling torn between learning and formal education is a common dilemma, for anyone that has genuine intellectual curiosity at least. It also seems to afflict both sides. Many professors complain that they are administrators and you get guys like James Lovelock who quit their jobs and set up labs in their homes because they 'couldn't get any science done working in science'. I found it easier to get grades when I was younger but as I got older I chilled out more as well as started learning more and more for my own interest. Getting high also sesems to facilitate my going off on tangents as well. :-)
 
BlindHelperMonkey said:
i think what he means is if and when the constitution came under significant attack, they would then use the weapons to fight the government


obviously, this is flawed logic. for two reasons, firstly as has been pointed out, by swarm i believe - the constitution has already been altered/suspended in the past, post 9/11 for example. yes, this could be considered an emergency, but the likelihood is any future suspension would also be cloaked within a real or imagined or fabricated similar event. there are documents proving the u.s government has in the past considered and planned false flag attacks on it's own people/troops in order to provoke war, in that particular case with cuba



secondly, and more importantly. it would be near impossible to organise mass rebellion on a scale needed to topple the government. remember the riots over here... online channels were monitored to such an extent that the authorities knew exactly where, when and how many people these groups would contain. ringleaders were arrested extremely quickly
now imagine this in america, in a state of emergency. the government would know exactly what level of response was needed, where to go and would be legally entitled to shoot armed groups by the thousand. perhaps this wouldve been possible pre internet/mobile phone age - now, the government hold all the cards

as i mentioned before, a couple thousand people with assault rifles is a force to be reckoned with on a county/state level. youd probably give the police and even state home guard a run for their money. but as soon as the federal machine swung into action, that would be brushed aside with impunity. you can't fight tanks and air support with small arms fire. even grenades would be unlikely to trouble modern heavy battle tanks like the m1 abrams. it would be a massacre, followed by a ruthless, digital manhunt of those involved who managed to escape. but whatever gets you to sleep at night i guess
Click to expand...

Okay so let me do a response where I agree with you. Because not having basic weapons would help so much more in the case of a tyrannical government. Oh it is so silly to think those weapons could be used to obtain larger weapons. The fact that people that live in mud huts held off the US army for a decade using soviet era weapons and basic guerrilla tactics was a fallacy made up by the NRA! All should be lost since Bush implemented the patriot act; there is no use we should just throw the constitution out! After Bill Clinton deregulated the banks and we went into financial collapse we officially began our campaign of admirable helplessness as a people just like the Brits did years ago. Okay I will stop/

I dont know who mentioned the NRA but the truth is they only have about 4 million members most people like myself find them to be unattractive and not representative of their own views. The fact of the matter is citizens from the UK are so defeated as a people that they lack the foresight/ ability to even analyze the American way of thinking. That one idiot thought I was talking about wanting to fight the government right now by myself for no reason until somebody clued him in. Also never forget we beat you guys b/c at our very core we had a different mindset: while you guys were prancing over here in bright red uniforms we were digging our heels in the mud sniping people off decked out in Camo.

-I would say the first through 10th amendment and the separation of church and state is what defines us as a nation in a nutshell.
 
Droppersneck said:
Okay so let me do a response where I agree with you. Because not having basic weapons would help so much more in the case of a tyrannical government. Oh it is so silly to think those weapons could be used to obtain larger weapons. The fact that people that live in mud huts held off the US army for a decade using soviet era weapons and basic guerrilla tactics was a fallacy made up by the NRA! All should be lost since Bush implemented the patriot act; there is no use we should just throw the constitution out! After Bill Clinton deregulated the banks and we went into financial collapse we officially began our campaign of admirable helplessness as a people just like the Brits did years ago. Okay I will stop/

I dont know who mentioned the NRA but the truth is they only have about 4 million members most people like myself find them to be unattractive and not representative of their own views. The fact of the matter is citizens from the UK are so defeated as a people that they lack the foresight/ ability to even analyze the American way of thinking. That one idiot thought I was talking about wanting to fight the government right now by myself for no reason until somebody clued him in. Also never forget we beat you guys b/c at our very core we had a different mindset: while you guys were prancing over here in bright red uniforms we were digging our heels in the mud sniping people off decked out in Camo.

-I would say the first through 10th amendment and the separation of church and state is what defines us as a nation in a nutshell.
Click to expand...

pew_pew_murica-266795.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top