The 2nd Amendment

[CBWx2]

"In Britain, an affray (a public altercation that disturbs the peace) is considered a violent crime, while in other countries it will only be logged if a person is physically injured."

Generally speaking an affray in the UK is a violent act that is more than 2 people having a fight but less than a riot. More often than not it is accompanied with a charge of a section 5 assault which is greater than bruising (black eye etc) but less than serious bodily harm (carted off on a stretcher). Broken nose, drawing blood etc are common evidence of section 5. So, yes it is a violent act.

So is there anything in UK law that would be defined as an affray that would not qualify as a violent crime in the US? The point the officer's quote was making is that an affray can range from a full out bar brawl to a drunk couple involved in a screaming match on the street. If offenses resembling the latter were removed from the equation, I suspect that the number of violent offenses remaining would paint quite a different picture than the 3rd world hell hole you and Durango are implying that the UK has transformed into because they don't have guns everywhere.

[CBWx2]

"Who would have thunk me of all people would be an advocate of European socialism?"

Your words not mine....another self indictment you can't run from.

Who the hell is running from it? Have you been paying attention over the last few years? When have I ever tried to hide from the fact that I was an advocate of liberal socialism? And what does any of that have to do with gun control? You're newly found "they want to turn us into a Stalinist dictatorship!" straw man is the most entertaining yet, and the most pathetic.

[Chief Joseph]

Stalin would have loved you though. Useful idiots are necessary to create a socialist dictatorship.

[CBWx2]

Stalin would have loved you though. Useful idiots are necessary to create a socialist dictatorship.

[Durango 95]

When the thread bare argument starts splitting at the seams the only card left is anger.

He's an angry socialist!

[Durango 95]

When have I ever tried to hide from the fact that I was an advocate of liberal socialism? And what does any of that have to do with gun control?

This one is classic.

**Just remember this isn't a political thing it's about protecting the lives of innocent kids .....except of course when he campaigns drop bombs on their heads.

[CBWx2]

Who's angry? That wouldn't happen to be another one of your straw men, would it Durango? Instead of attacking the argument at face value, you instead retreat to the paranoia of militant conservatism. Any form of gun control is just a slippery slope towards a full out Marxist revolution and Stalinist dictatorship. The one, and only thing stopping us from becoming 1917 Russia is the fact that we irresponsibly allow guns to circulate throughout our society.

You're embarrassing yourself, Durango. That keen intellect you purport to possess has seemingly abandoned you. It's sad, really.

[Durango 95]

Who's angry? That wouldn't happen to be another one of your straw men, would it Durango? Instead of attacking the argument at face value, you instead retreat to the paranoia of militant conservatism. Any form of gun control is just a slippery slope towards a full out Marxist revolution and Stalinist dictatorship. The one, and only thing stopping us from becoming 1917 Russia is the fact that we irresponsibly allow guns to circulate throughout our society.

Good thing you don't want to play the strawman card.

[CBWx2]

Who's angry? That wouldn't happen to be another one of your straw men, would it Durango? Instead of attacking the argument at face value, you instead retreat to the paranoia of militant conservatism. Any form of gun control is just a slippery slope towards a full out Marxist revolution and Stalinist dictatorship. The one, and only thing stopping us from becoming 1917 Russia is the fact that we irresponsibly allow guns to circulate throughout our society.

Good thing you don't want to play the strawman card.

Oh, that isn't a straw man. That's exactly what you're arguing.

There you have it.

Just the first-step towards stripping you of your fundamental liberties.

Liberties to be sacrificed for the socialist's promise of a safer society.

If you don't like this then you won't like what follows.

[Dolorous Jason]

Who's angry?

[CBWx2]

Who's angry?

I'm a Stalinist who wants to murder innocents with drone attacks and kill unborn babies with wire hangers? Boy, who knew I was such a living embodiment of pure evil. Hitler, eat your heart out!

[CBWx2]

Just remember this isn't a political thing it's about protecting the lives of innocent kids .....except of course when he campaigns drop bombs on their heads.

Let's see, that creates about three different straw man arguments in the last hour or so. I created this thread to address the politics of the issue, so I don't recall ever claiming it wasn't about politics. Lets also stop the sham that your position on the issue isn't about politics.

I'm also not a proponent of my position simply to protect the lives of innocent children. I'm a proponent of it because it would protect the lives of innocent people. You, on the other hand, are a proponent of your position because you believe it protects what you've classified as a "fundamental liberty."

You value that perceived liberty over the lives of innocents, which is why despite your claim of wanting to find common sense solutions, you immediately dismiss any and every one that doesn't preserve this perceived liberty, and vilify those who would dare present them. You are perfectly willing to accept no solution that would lessen murder and violent crime over any that would infringe on this perceived liberty.

The level of moral dissonance and rationalization in your position is the same as that which I'm certain is employed by those in the administration who support drone attacks. All for the greater good, right Durango? Pot, meet kettle.

[Durango 95]

Just remember this isn't a political thing it's about protecting the lives of innocent kids .....except of course when he campaigns drop bombs on their heads.

Let's see, that creates about three different straw man arguments in the last hour or so. I created this thread to address the politics of the issue, so I don't recall ever claiming it wasn't about politics. Lets also stop the sham that your position on the issue isn't about politics.

I'm also not a proponent of my position simply to protect the lives of innocent children. I'm a proponent of it because it would protect the lives of innocent people. You, on the other hand, are a proponent of your position because you believe it protects what you've classified as a "fundamental liberty."

You value that perceived liberty over the lives of innocents, which is why despite your claim of wanting to find common sense solutions, you immediately dismiss any and every one that doesn't preserve this perceived liberty, and vilify those who would dare present them. You are perfectly willing to accept no solution that would lessen murder and violent crime over any that would infringe on this perceived liberty.

The level of moral dissonance and rationalization in your position is the same as that which I'm certain is employed by those in the administration who support drone attacks. All for the greater good, right Durango? Pot, meet kettle.

Nice try, kid.

The guy you voted for twice also expanded gun laws in this country.

So whatever utterly ridiculous argument you've conjured through twisted logic that you are now trying to assign to me...The fact is, you are infinitely more responsible for.

You voted for the guy knowing he was killing children and innocents via drone strikes.....AND also knowing he expanded the rights of gun owners.

So, you've tried and failed again to distance yourself from the blood lust you endorse at the voting booth.

Keep trying to wash that blood of your hands CBW.

As you try to drag me into your self-caused cesspool of violence ..

You own the drone strikes and the expanded gun rights.

Lock, stock and smoking barrel.

[CBWx2]

Oh, so you agree that expanded gun rights have lead to more violence? And you support them anyway? Wow. I didn't think you'd make it that easy.

[Chief Joseph]

 "You value that perceived liberty over the lives of innocents"

To term that a perceived liberty is to deny history.