Hmmm luckily I come from a country with one of the strictest firearms restrictions in the world. Attempting to use or using any firearm is a capital offence in Singapore. And just possessing one entitles you to 5-10 years in jail and up to 6 strokes of the cane. :wacko:
This, as an outsider is where I don't and car'nt identify with what drives the strong belief/desire for most Americans to believe they have an inherent right to bare arms,whether that be a pistol, hunting rifle or shotgun.I suppose it very much a culturally driven arguement, given your frontier history and the right for people to bare arm's, as enshrined in the 2nd amendment.. This is very much the antithesis here in OZ, where there are no enshrined rights within our constitution for such purposes As for the argument that disarming law abiding citizens is playing into hands of the crims....well given the lack of uniform national laws restricting gun use, criminals have no real need to find illegal means as existing and ad hock laws would seem to make it quite easy for them to attain them anyhow. Law abiding citizens shouldn't be to concerned with any tighter laws as long as it dosn't restrict their means to get them.... but making it, by any means, more difficult for criminals to attain them should be encouraged .
I agree. People like this should be thrown in jail. School is a place to learn and have fun and a tool of destruction has no place there
Coporal punishment here is never held in public. It's bloody and sick because the canes used are thick. Caning is held within the prison itself. And no, spitting in public places doesn't warrant caning. You get fined S$1000 on your first offence and S$2000 for subsequent offences. But this kinda of stuff is hard to enforce lol, pretty useless law I must say... :wacko:
Okay. I only asked that because I vaguely remember hearing about an Australian citizen who was caught spitting in Singapore and it was reported ...well so I thought, that he was canned for the offense . I'm sure that was the punishment anyhow..
Its so scary to go to school now. u might not know what will happen. next min u might even get shot for no reason.
For starters, that's wrong. The 2nd Amendment doesn't say anything about the type of weapon. A guy can own a Beretta or a guy can own an M4. And why? Why is it that United States Citizens can legally purchase automatic weapons with minimal restrictions to the firing rate of the weapon and no restrictions on the magazine capacity? Perhaps because the majority of them would start whining if they found themselves restricted?
yep, a black kid brought a magnum to my school to kill the abanians and us italians, luckily metal detector got him .
For starters, that's wrong. The 2nd Amendment doesn't say anything about the type of weapon. A guy can own a Beretta or a guy can own an M4. And why? Why is it that United States Citizens can legally purchase automatic weapons with minimal restrictions to the firing rate of the weapon and no restrictions on the magazine capacity? Perhaps because the majority of them would start whining if they found themselves restricted? [/b][/quote] I can't see why the restrictions for the control of firearms doesn't catch people like this.. I know they do pretty thorough searches of peoples backgrounds. Maybe they should start instituting psychological tests for these crazy idiots.
You should probably just say a kid brought a magnum.. what you said could be seen as racist, thats actully how i saw it like you were geralizing his race with it. and to whoever said that if everyone at VT had guns.. It probably would have been worse if you think about it someone could have shot and hit someone then someone else would get mad and 3 different people had guns out so they shoot em all, it would have been worse if you look at it that way. as for my opinion i would say that anyone who brings guns or knives to school is stupid, but there is alot of violence at schools that teachers and security guards dont even notice and one would feel a lot safer with a deadly weapon, i know for a fact that i could get away with alot of stuff at school and no one would ever even know i did it.
For starters, that's wrong. The 2nd Amendment doesn't say anything about the type of weapon. A guy can own a Beretta or a guy can own an M4. And why? Why is it that United States Citizens can legally purchase automatic weapons with minimal restrictions to the firing rate of the weapon and no restrictions on the magazine capacity? Perhaps because the majority of them would start whining if they found themselves restricted? [/b][/quote] Congratulations general dip----. I NEVER stated that the 2nd Amendment stated WHAT type of weapon it allows. I said that we, as citizens, don't care if we aren't allowed to purchase automatics. The 2nd amendment isn't a law; but a guideline for future laws. In this case, it tells the government the restrictions they are allowed to put on us, which would be automatics. We are only LEGALLY allowed to purchase or own a pistol/hunter rifle/shotgun. It IS illegal for us to be more heavily armed then the police, which would be an automatic.
Most nations, if they even allow their citizens to own them in the first place, allow the private owning and use of firearms as a privilege, not a right. There is a fundamental difference. One can be taken away at the whim of the government, as in Australia's case. The other will have riots in the streets if the desire is strong enough. In America, it is a fundamental right; we are guaranteed that right by our second amendment, part of a group of amendments called the Bill of Rights, a significant part of our Constitution. Some may argue, by simple placement of a comma, that firearms are meant for an organization like a National Guard, an organized militia. However, reading a collection of documents called The Federalist Papers, a collection of pamphlets written by the authors of the Constitution, tells a far different story; a well-armed populace is seen as necessary for the preservation of state (in course of an invasion, significant disruption like a natural disaster, etc. etc. etc.) and to keep the government in check. That's a very big difference between the United States and nations like Australia; your government may take and give privileges at its own whim, while ours may not -- if it tries, it knows that blood will flow. This may not seem applicable in 2007, when we're the strongest nation in the world, when nobody has significantly invaded our soil since 1812, and anybody who intends to do so is somewhere close to being completely f**king insane. This may not seem applicable in 2007, when the government seems smart enough to not even consider suspending the right to free speech or the right to peaceful protest. I'll assure you it is, however. Self-defense (show of hands here, how many of you have ever been robbed? Had your house broken into while you slept? Remember that feeling of helplessness when you were held at knife point, wondering if that crazy f**ker was going to spill your guts out for $20.00, or while you lay in bed, listening to somebody coming through the front door, and you sat there wondering if he could be the guy to kill you and your family? I remember both of those feelings from my youth). What about the government? Remember the uproar over the Patriot Act, and its violation of rights that you and I hold dear? If our government wants to take those nice things, things like free speech and freedom of press, the first thing that would need to go would be the guns. Owning an automatic weapon requires (legally) that you obtain a license from the US Department of the Treasury and that you open yourself from random, unannounced searches from the ATF. You must register those weapons, and the documentation is not fun. Very few licenses are granted, and the license to manufacture and sell those weapons is even harder to get. Many states grant Concealed Carry of a Weapon licenses, which allows you to carry a weapon just about everywhere, barring places like schools and post offices. The crime rate among CCW holders is very low -- I haven't heard of a murder committed by a holder in quite some time; the number is somewhere less than ten nationwide since the eighties. I have, however, heard of several situations where that weapon came out and a crime was stopped before anybody got hurt. Had there not been a holder present, what would have happened? At best, a simple robbery; at worst, one or more murders. The police are almost never there when you need them. I can attest to that. Virginia Tech had an outright ban regarding firearms and their campus; drunk frat boys and firearms do not mix. It's pretty hard to get stricter than a ban when it comes to laws. And yet this tragedy happened in a place where it wasn't supposed to; due to the absence of weapons much better than a fork, even the campus police didn't have anything better than a taser among them. Nobody should have died there; it was a gun-free zone, wasn't it? Unfortunately, there are people in this world, people like Cho, who decide that, not only is life not worth living, other people do not have the right to go about their lives. As a result, people like Cho bring completely legal firearms -- a Walter .22 caliber -------automatic pistol and a Glock 9mm -------automatic pistol -- to school, take pictures of themselves, mail them to ABC News, walk into their dorm and open fire. People are f**ked up; we live in a very unsafe world. People are stupid; they do stupid things, often times things that impact not only themselves but the lives of innocents. We have millions of families across the nation without their son, without their daughter, or without their father, and for what? Some idiot seventeen year old coming home from a graduation party? Some random thirty-something alcoholic that couldn't get a ride home from the bar, and probably didn't even try to do so in the first place? Where is the uproar? We're not safe, and that goes for every nation on the planet; crime knows no borders. Are you people pretending that we live in some sort of utopia, where all we have to fear is some nut job with an assault rifle? Define the word 'criminal' for me. Do these people obey the law? Do you think somebody that's hell-bent on blowing his neighbor's head off is going to not want to do that because an 'assault weapon' (also called a 'joke' -- a bayonet lug or a high-capacity magazine makes a weapon no more lethal than a weapon without one) is banned? Do you honestly believe that some desperate nineteen year old won't rob a 7-11 because the law prohibits him from owning a gun? They'll move to something else; look at your own country! You've banned the carry of knives, if I'm not mistaken, because you've got stabbings instead of shootings; several nations across the world, gun-free nations, have seen fit to do the same. I'll guarantee you, though: if I want somebody dead, a gun ban won't stop me. If I want an assault rifle so I can reenact the North Hollywood shootout, a ban on automatic weapons won't stop me. And if the government somehow found a way to take the millions of guns present off the streets, I'd swap to a knife. Criminals do not obey the law; when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Do you honestly believe that, once a gun ban were to be put into effect, criminals (people that, if convicted of a felony, weren't allowed to own guns in the first place) are going to pour out of wherever it is they reside and drop their guns off at the police station? You and I know the answer to that.
