Woolwich (Terror Attack) UK

cool story.

Cool rebuttal.

Or the ones who would have had guns would have been the guys who went there with knives. It would have been even easier for them, hell they would have been able to flee the scene if prepared properly, even for a short time. Much faster to shoot someone a full round than beheading him.

Good call.

Beheading is overkill, so they were obviously making a statement. You can kill someone just fine with a cleaver or hatchet without taking off the head, thus I find your argument a little pointless.


Anyway, isn't the 2nd Amendment mostly in place as a bulwark against the Government, not for self defense?

Every time I hear this argument, I can't help but think of this quote.

"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding." –Jeff Snyder

The right to bear arms predates the Bill of Rights; the Second Amendment was based partially on the right to bear arms in English common-law, and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. This right was described by Blackstone as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.

Some states have taken it further with castle doctrines that include being able to defend people who cannot defend them selves or property even. Yes, I am aware it happened in the U.K. If they had wanted to use guns they would have. I think they chose to use knives for the brutality and personal nature of it.

My argument was highlighting his narrow minded comment, but your comment is even more narrow minded.

You cannot justify a thing that will impact many scenarios based on a single one. Furthermore, adding guns in the equation adds a lot of possibly worse scenarios just for this one event.

Narrow minded, as I said.

They indeed wanted to show off and given where they come from, guns wouldn't have been an issue on their side, on the side of any other person present there, it's a complete different story.

Now the War Memorials been vandalized.

Seems rather insignificant compared to beheading someone.


Feeding it attention as a "National Tragedy" is just going to encourage the collective population of coagulated dicksnot to go out and *** up other things.

the real *** up thing is the armed police in the UK cant even shoot to kill - or will go through serious disciplinary and possible sacking

if you look at the guy running up to the armed police car - you know if that was anywhere but the UK the guy would of never got up again - just in case he was wearing a suicide vest etc but our guys are to worried about paperwork and *** after

my hats off to you guys on a brave job

Quote from the film "Brazil".

Police Officer: 'This is your receipt for your husband... and this is my receipt for your receipt.'

lol looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool
loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool

oh man thanks for that

I'm sorry they keep disappointing you, over and over again.

I love the way the libs in this thread with their condescending almost paternal attitude towards all Muslims, feel the need to rush to the defense of an entire religion. As if anyone even says that's its all Muslims that are radical terrorists.

Seriously, people feel the need to pray that it's not a Muslim when they hear about a terrorist attack? That's just freeking pathetic. You know the problem if you are at that point. You acknowledge it. You are just afraid to speak the truth.

I pray it's not a Muslim because I know the bulk of the Muslims are good people by far and large, and the bulk of them in the terrorist regions are victims to socio-economic disparity and constantly at the low end of power struggles, and most people are way too god damn ignorant to think beyond the acts of terrorism to associate the terrorism to Islam, rather than those conditions.

Oh so the terrorists are just misunderstood you are saying? Stop making excuses for murderers. It's really pathetic.

Edit: Is it 20,000+ terrorist attacks carried out by radical Muslims worldwide since 9/11 or is my number too low?

Bin Laden was a billionaire.

It doesn't matter if 100,000 terrorist attacks are carried out by Muslims, that does not equate to Islam being a problem and it is deplorable to suggest that.

They are *** murders; there's no denying that.

There's also no denying that that's a gross oversimplification and that the average person stops the conversation at "but, but, terrorist!" rather than wondering what can drive a person to become a terrorist.

And you know what, most terrorists would probably be male; that does not mean that we should start analyzing terrorism as look, patriarchy = terrorism.

It's *** naive.

Deplorable? GTFO deplorable. Only thing deplorable is a bunch of cowards so beaten down by political correctlness that they are afraid they might offend someone by speaking the truth.

Radical Islam is the problem. Political Islam is the problem.

I don't think they wanted to flee. Also gun fire draws more attention than a hatchet. I would argue fleeing would be more difficult, if they even wanted too. Since we are speaking on hypotheticals, I would say if they had guns and a conceal carrier were present, my money would be on the CC. They tend to hold guns right side up and are usually decent marksmen.

You wouldn't use a /ja in ffxi if it made both the mob and your entire party do less damage. *metaphor for the ffxi community*

LOL

You are just afraid to admit that radical Islam is the problem because you think you may sound like you are saying all Muslims are radical and then you might sound like a bigot. Get over your political correctness and start living in reality.

That's something I would agree with, radical anything, particularly when it comes to religion is bad, religion mixing with politics is also equally bad.

People don't want these attackers to be Islam purely because the good, innocent Muslims end up being targeted in revenge attacks which isn't right.

I think 100,000 terrorist attacks might at that point start becoming a cause for concern.

Must be bigotry.

You're an idiot that's too dumb to realize that far more than Muslims are terrorists and that every race, religion, and types of people have produced terrorism.

Hell, go read Buda's Wagon: A Brief History of the Car Bomb. It's written so simply that even an idiot can understand the core premise: terrorist attacks aren't just because of some race and religion, it's because of gross, imbalanced power struggles.

The terrorists are Muslim, they are Christian, they are Jews; they are Irish, Italian, they are Hispanics, they are the Chinese, they are *** everywhere and everyone.

This is basically 90% of the people on this forum, it's really sad.

Amandarius has so conveniently skipped over the part about what the "liberal media" does to portray any negative about an entire group of people due to one *** going off his rocker.

He's also conveniently missed the fact that there are things that liberal-spectrum voters absolutely hate about their own media, as much as they do about conservative media. They report things as they see it, rather than what it is. Which is why i'm actually with Xueye on this. Not only that, but people take the news at face value, and begin to rally, or believe instinctively, because one ***/derpy reported said it, it must be true of the entire group.

Hell, when 9/11 happened, when i was still in grade school, a friend of mine was targeted by nearly everyone in school as a spitbucket for their vitriol towards his religion.

In the minds of many people, they will take out their aggression on otherwise peaceful, and very nice people, because they can't direct it at the person involved personally.

"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." - Socrates