- View Full Site
- Forum Tools
- Firearm Resources
- Equipment Exchange
- Guns & Gear Deals
- Build Your Dream Rifle
- Shop AR15.COM
Posted: 3/6/2001 1:24:55 PM EST
I posted this on assaultweb, but thought I'd post it here too. This is the most offensive piece of crap I have ever read. This makes the US media look like a bunch of conservatives.
I say someone should give the tea bag a lesson in respect by giving him a good old fashioned American a$$ kicking.
WTF is that shit doing on the BBC in the UK?
Since when do they have a say in our guns?
Like the time when that Japanese Yoshi dude was blasted with a .44 revolver in VA.
Over in Japan they signed petitions and his parents hand delivered them to Klinton.
I think he's just pissed off that our militia beat them back to their side of the Atlantic...TWICE!!!!!!!!!
"....how would the police go about rounding up the arsenals of weapons in American homes?"
[green]How many guns does it take to make an arsenal? I was just wondering if I had an arsenal.[/green]
I always kinda liked the Brits, until the soccer hooligan thing on the old board and now this. I am slowly beginning to despise them.
I read somewhere before that arsenal consisted of any of the following:
- 1000 live bullets, primers or combo of
- 10 guns or more(any type)
Since then, the media has applied this term very liberally throughout.
Anyone who has more than one firearm constitutes an arsenal in the eyes of the media.
Whoooaaa there fellas,
Am I the only one who actually founf this article amazingly balanced comapred to the American media? Maybe it's because I don't live in the US right now. I always felt it was a given that there were too many guns in the hands of criminals in this country. That is exactly why even an outright ban, even if effective and enforceable, would only disarm the law-abiding.
Heck, the article flat out called Bu!!$hit on Clinton with regard to that 1st grader shooting thing with the gun from the Crack House. I've yet to see an major American news source question Clinton's statement on that.
They did seem to me not advocate anything, simply stated a few positions on various sides of the issue. It is about time someone admitted that the harebrained schemes of america's gun grabbers are pointless to solve the real problem. We simply need to get the guns out of the hands of criminals. That is a given. How do we do that? That is a question pondered by socialists who always look to the government for answers. You should expect that. I do my part by securing my own weapons when I am not at home. Some people just want a solution that gos beyond individual responsibility. Admittedly though, Englans has it's own problems with guns that they really oughta be analyzing.
PS: I too used to bring guns to an inner-city high school to shoot at a range. Many of us did - we never shot anybody. This was only 9 years ago! That school has metal detectors and full time police presence now! The problem is obviously not anybody's access to guns - but stopping this epidemic of nutcases from getting guns - all the while maintaining our rights. You could see how the problem would drive a "govt. is the solution" type person nuts, even if they are less biased than our own media.
A quote from another article on that site
However, on 8 April 1999, anti-gun campaigners celebrated an important symbolic victory when Missouri narrowly rejected proposals to allow the carrying of concealed weapons.
The result, watched by the entire nation, came after high profile campaigning from Hilary Clinton and, on the other side, a $4m NRA offensive.
Campaigners heralded it as a step forward - but amending the constitution is not even up for discussion.
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.