Non - Can This Bloke Become President Of The United States?

Druss_the_Legend said:
No, they would be illegally owned firearms...that's how changes in the law works. It was done in the UK, it was done in Australia... apparently you don't think it could be done in America?
Click to expand...


it won’t be done as most don’t want a ban it’s as simple as that. Legally the government couldn't do it. Make criminals out of 80million people who up until then were law abiding citizens and done nothing wrong. It’s not happening over here and won’t for the foreseeable future. Maybe they will get some
Kind of ban on assault rifles in time but people have many other serious concerns atm
 
Druss_the_Legend said:
No, they would be illegally owned firearms...that's how changes in the law works. It was done in the UK, it was done in Australia... apparently you don't think it could be done in America?
Click to expand...

Once again check and reread the US Constitution and Bill of Rights and research how difficult it is to change an amendment to the Constitution. Drugs are highly illegal, yet they are flooding America , drink driving is also illegal.

Do you think your alleged Rednecks especially in some rural American states are going to just let you take their means of protection away, Dream on Druss !
 
I know some countries like Oz have seen a decrease in gun crimes after bans. but those along with other western countries never had huge gun and violent crime rates like the USA has in certain cities and a blanket ban simply won’t be effective here the dynamics are different. The amount of drug gangs in cities is massive and they are the cause for the majority of crimes and are fueled by Mexican cartels. Class A drugs are banned yet these same gangs manage to smuggle them in. If there is a demand the various criminal organizations will Meet that demand
 
Druss_the_Legend said:
Because you've picked something not designed to kill and used it to compare to guns. You could then have used swimming or playgrounds or food all of which kills kids every year...the ultimate end of your example is for us not to have kids. Now if you want to discuss ownership of items whose only purpose is to kill things then your argument might have traction.
Click to expand...

No that is not the ultimate end of the example. It's bizarre that it needs to be pointed out but owning an object that can result in the deaths of children is not comparable to biological reproduction.

Look I'm not here to justify gun ownership, I've stated my opinions on that. But you trying to infer that gun owners are ok with children being killed is disingenuous and hypocritical. The typical US gun owner is no more likely to kill a child with their gun as you are with your car. The fact that you are trying to claim some moral high ground when you willingly jump in your car every day despite the risks to others is laughable.
 
SlowDownDerek said:
No that is not the ultimate end of the example. It's bizarre that it needs to be pointed out but owning an object that can result in the deaths of children is not comparable to biological reproduction.

Look I'm not here to justify gun ownership, I've stated my opinions on that. But you trying to infer that gun owners are ok with children being killed is disingenuous and hypocritical. The typical US gun owner is no more likely to kill a child with their gun as you are with your car. The fact that you are trying to claim some moral high ground when you willingly jump in your car every day despite the risks to others is laughable.
Click to expand...

Once again, its a fact. You might not like it but it is. Gun ownership in the US costs the lives of 1000s of people every year who would be alive if they banned them. Your argument against that is the equivalent of...look over here, Kinder eggs kills...so lets ban chocolate. Its beneath even you. A guns only reason to exist is to kill...yet people act surprised it kills things and banning them would mean less things are killed.
 
sam adams said:
Once again check and reread the US Constitution and Bill of Rights and research how difficult it is to change an amendment to the Constitution. Drugs are highly illegal, yet they are flooding America , drink driving is also illegal.

Do you think your alleged Rednecks especially in some rural American states are going to just let you take their means of protection away, Dream on Druss !
Click to expand...

Ive never in my life used the team redneck.

If us citizens wanted change it would change.

So explain to me why drink driving is illegal. Explain why the law is in place...if you can comprehend why, it might help you understand gun restrictions should be in place.
 
Druss_the_Legend said:
Once again, its a fact. You might not like it but it is. Gun ownership in the US costs the lives of 1000s of people every year who would be alive if they banned them. Your argument against that is the equivalent of...look over here, Kinder eggs kills...so lets ban chocolate. Its beneath even you. A guns only reason to exist is to kill...yet people act surprised it kills things and banning them would mean less things are killed.
Click to expand...

Lol, I don't know what jacks is referring to as a straw man argument but it's pretty funny that you agree with him then in the next post deliberately mischaracterise my argument. I absolutely have not argued against gun control. What I have done is point out the hypocrisy of you trying to suggest that gun owners don't care about child deaths because they don't do something that could reduce them. You could do something to reduce child deaths but you don't. I agree with your stance on guns (albeit I don't know why you bother getting so worked up about the laws in another country) but your moral guilt trip argument about child deaths was disingenuous, hypocritical and silly.
 
https://amzn.eu/d/fjPrVo9

Cracking book, which I've mentioned on here before.

Basically takes an angle on the 'war on drugs' and gives very compelling arguments on why illicit drugs shoukd be decriminalised/legalised. Interesting theory on why drugs were made illegal in the first place too, which I hadn't heard before...

The amount the current situation costs in terms of lives and money is astronomical, yet still powers go down this unwinnable road, contributing to further devastation.

It also argues that although people will get addicted of course, most would not, for various reasons. In the same way most don't become alcoholics, despite it being readily available.

I guess it begs the question of why do people use these substances in first place. Interestingly, The book points out that pretty much every mammal is drawn to some kind of plant, chemical etc that alters it state of mind.
Humans have used all kinds of substances since dawn of time.why do people use them in such large numbers today still? Isn't it better that if people will always use substances, that they're controlled, regulated somewhat, rather than obtained from gangsters and all the risks that come both directly and indirectly from that? Which is the reason for posting this... as most murders, gun violence, crime etc revolves around drug trade...

Anyway, very interesting, thought provoking book...
 
SlowDownDerek said:
Lol, I don't know what jacks is referring to as a straw man argument but it's pretty funny that you agree with him then in the next post deliberately mischaracterise my argument. I absolutely have not argued against gun control. What I have done is point out the hypocrisy of you trying to suggest that gun owners don't care about child deaths because they don't do something that could reduce them. You could do something to reduce child deaths but you don't. I agree with your stance on guns (albeit I don't know why you bother getting so worked up about the laws in another country) but your moral guilt trip argument about child deaths was disingenuous, hypocritical and silly.
Click to expand...

You dismissing me stating facts as silly its hilarious. Youve always hated facts, i get it.

I worked for a US company for almost 20 years. I have very good friends there. I have my kids friends attending colleges over there. I visit it a lot. Thats why I get worked up over the needless deaths in schools and colleges over there.
 
Druss_the_Legend said:
You dismissing me stating facts as silly its hilarious. Youve always hated facts, i get it.

I worked for a US company for almost 20 years. I have very good friends there. I have my kids friends attending colleges over there. I visit it a lot. Thats why I get worked up over the needless deaths in schools and colleges over there.
Click to expand...

Lol, more straw man nonsense. I thought you didn't like that?

I've not dismissed any facts. It is a fact that gun control would reduce child deaths. It is also a fact that restricting car usage would reduce child deaths. We are all clearly prepared to accept some risk to children for the sake of our own civil liberties. You and I accept the risk/reward trade off in relation to cars but not guns. Many Americans are prepared to accept the risk in relation to guns.

Nobody in any of this is happy about children being killed. This is where your argument is disingenuous and silly.
 
SlowDownDerek said:
Lol, more straw man nonsense. I thought you didn't like that?

I've not dismissed any facts. It is a fact that gun control would reduce child deaths. It is also a fact that restricting car usage would reduce child deaths. We are all clearly prepared to accept some risk to children for the sake of our own civil liberties. You and I accept the risk/reward trade off in relation to cars but not guns. Many Americans are prepared to accept the risk in relation to guns.

Nobody in any of this is happy about children being killed. This is where your argument is disingenuous and silly.
Click to expand...

I get what you're saying, if we're talking about ultimate bottom line of deaths. Could we also bring in junk food, as parents set their kids off on bad diet choices for life on some cases... sugar is addictive too.

Cars provide utility. As others have mentioned, in some (most?) Towns and cities, they are near enough essential, if yku want to function in modern society, with how its setup. Takes kids to school(s), then get to work for 9 in bournemouth... Good luck with that if your house, school and employment isn't within a mile or two of each other.

Despite what some Americans may think, a fire arm is absolutely not an essential utility. I certainly don't have a clue around how strongly many Americans feel its their right and why it shouldn't be changed, so I'm not saying it's easy, as these things tend to be complex on many layers, which without living there, cant be fully grasped/empathised.

To me it strikes me as too much feeling over logic, which is always shake ground for keeping/creating laws... very strange imo, for a so called leader of civilzed, first World countries. A relic from centuries ago, that surely should have been 'amended' along' with many other dubious customs and laws 1st World countries have abolished over time. Demand the Right to hold a firearm in 2023... seriously.
 
Last edited:
SlowDownDerek said:
Agree with most of this. Tbh I only brought it up because druss was trying to suggest pro-gun people are happy to let kids die. A silly point that I felt deserved a silly response.

As I've said I am happy with the relationship we have with guns in this country and think Americans are absolutely crazy to continually try to justify how they do it there but ... it's their country and I don't see why people in the UK get so vexed about it. Obviously in your case this doesn't apply.
Click to expand...

The innocent kids dying would do it. Not sure why it matters that it's in another country, the same way many people get upset about kids dying in famines and wars and trying to cross the channel. Children have no agency, no choice.

The collective ability to turn a blind eye or prioritise an old bit of paper over the obvious solution is borderline psychopathic. That's where the real mental illness begins. Then once you can justify your own kids dying in horrific ways, it's easier to justify all the killing you do on foreign soil. And that's when the UK gets dragged into it.

So that's 2 reasons why people in the UK get so vexed about it.
 
Red Sky said:
The innocent kids dying would do it. Not sure why it matters that it's in another country, the same way many people get upset about kids dying in famines and wars and trying to cross the channel. Children have no agency, no choice.

The collective ability to turn a blind eye or prioritise an old bit of paper over the obvious solution is borderline psychopathic. That's where the real mental illness begins. Then once you can justify your own kids dying in horrific ways, it's easier to justify all the killing you do on foreign soil. And that's when the UK gets dragged into it.

So that's 2 reasons why people in the UK get so vexed about it.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Was going to say about mental illness. It's so f***Ed up and clearly not funny. Listening to mental gymnastics people do to justify. I'm sure it is 'complex'... so we're many other subjects, issues that needed to be and were addressed as they were regarded as things that had no place in 'civilzed' society.

From what others have said, this seems so firmly entrenched in US culture, you make yourself unelectable by championing changes... has to be a smart way of getting people onside over time though....
 
MB1980 said:
I get what you're saying, if we're talking about ultimate bottom line of deaths. Could we also bring in junk food, as parents set their kids off on bad diet choices for life on some cases... sugar is addictive too.

Cars provide utility. As others have mentioned, in some (most?) Towns and cities, they are near enough essential, if yku want to function in modern society, with how its setup. Takes kids to school(s), then get to work for 9 in bournemouth... Good luck with that if your house, school and employment isn't within a mile or two of each other.

Despite what some Americans may think, a fire arm is absolutely not an essential utility. I certainly don't have a clue around how strongly many Americans feel its their right and why it shouldn't be changed, so I'm not saying it's easy, as these things tend to be complex on many layers, which without living there, cant be fully grasped/empathised.

To me it strikes me as too much feeling over logic, which is always shake ground for keeping/creating laws... very strange imo, for a so called leader of civilzed, first World countries. A relic from centuries ago, that surely should have been 'amended' along' with many other dubious customs and laws 1st World countries have abolished over time. Demand the Right to hold a firearm in 2023... seriously.
Click to expand...

You, I, Druss may agree that firearms aren't essential but I'm sure many Americans disagree and think they are required for protection, recreation, etc.

That's not really the point though - the reason they are legal there is not to allow people to kill children (or children to kill themselves, which is the main firearm related cause of the deaths of kids in the US) child deaths is an unwanted byproduct like it is with cars. This is why it is disingenuous and silly to suggest gun owners are nonplussed about child deaths like druss did.
 
Red Sky said:
The innocent kids dying would do it. Not sure why it matters that it's in another country, the same way many people get upset about kids dying in famines and wars and trying to cross the channel. Children have no agency, no choice.

The collective ability to turn a blind eye or prioritise an old bit of paper over the obvious solution is borderline psychopathic. That's where the real mental illness begins. Then once you can justify your own kids dying in horrific ways, it's easier to justify all the killing you do on foreign soil. And that's when the UK gets dragged into it.

So that's 2 reasons why people in the UK get so vexed about it.
Click to expand...

Murdering kids is not legal in America.
 
SlowDownDerek said:
This is why it is disingenuous and silly to suggest gun owners are nonplussed about child deaths like druss did.
Click to expand...

If you bothered to read my posts you would see that some gun owners have literally said they prefer gun ownership over children's lives. That would suggest they are "nonplussed" about it wouldnt you say? You keep throwing the word silly around pointlessly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;