I believe your words are making assumptions your ass can't cash. But that's not for me to decide anyone reading can decide for themselves their personal right or wrong. Nobody has a lock on what some else might think.

If you desire let the government to control everything for you and your country, you my friend are a socialist. (just saying)

Tal seems to believe you have a problem with antisemitism. I urged him to let you respond. I do not believe you have addressed his concerns adequately, just continue your anti-gun tirade, but that's up to you. If you feel this is not the proper forum you could PM him and converse privately. If someone thought I had those tendencies, I know I'd have something to say about it. But that's me.

Liberal...It's funny how many "liberals" hate that term. Sorry it's an accurate description. I'm proud to be a conservative, and you may address me as such any day of the week.

Tolerance, I believe you're mistaken about the level shown here. Until here, I've never seen you booted from an article (and after deliberation Tal reconsidered). I've never seen anyone intimidate anyone into leaving that didn't want to go. If you can't defend your position and want to quit playing and take your ball home, that's your choice, but the guilt trip don't fly here.  As I have stated there are articles that I or other conservatives can't comment on, but I'm not going to lose sleep over it. That said, it is the article's owner job to moderate as they see fit. Most all are very lenient.

There is no rule saying if you have nothing to contribute to the article, that you have to make a comment. Tal made it pretty clear that this was not to be a debate on pro/anti-firearms. So I guess he was within his rights to boot us both. I personally don't comment on the religious threads, and usually leave if they turn in that direction, as I have nothing to add and no real interest to begin with. Somehow I don't think they'll miss me. Give it a try if you feel so inclined.

No, that's a totalitarist. Socialism is an economic belief, not an organisational structure of society that would be akin to democracy, feodalism, etc..

Granted, many socialist sociery have derived into dictatorships, but not all. And socialism isn't the single credo of dictatorships.

I have replied to his tirade in the proper thread. One he cannot lock me out of if the arguments aren't to his liking.

It's not the term, it's how you use it. For people like you and on this forum, you put "liberal" label on anything that is wrong about politics, calling these "liberal" values. The same thing happens in my society about any right-wing idea, going as far to say that "capitalism" is a taboo word in our political culture.

But it isn't. By YOUR definition of liberal, I don't want to be called that, since it's an insult of morality. By the real Liberal's definition of liberal, I don't see anything wrong with that. The way you depict liberals, they are dictator-lovers who can't wait to sign USA's surrender to Iran.

Right. It was simply a thread inviting people to say how great and mighty and just guns are. That's nut. It's a freaking tool, nor good nor evil. I ain't saying that Gun are the Evil.

First, you're trying to make it as if Tal said that all tyrants use gun laws.  His quote is ambiguous BUT he does not say all.

I'll take one of those countries that you listed: the U.K.  Now, before I go any further I will pose some questions.  You constantly state that guns are neither good or bad then you say this 'You claimed that "People kill people". You are right. But you claim that "Gun topples tyrants", and I say you are wrong. "Liberators topple tyrants". Or "People topples tyranny". Not guns.Why should an argument be used to absolve the gun's bad points but cannot be used the same way around? Ultimately, what determine the fate of people isn't what they use, but what they do. A thief killer with a huge knife will still kill you.'

Do you really feel that guns are neither good or bad?  If you do feel that they are neither good or bad then why do you feel the need to persuade some one the counter point (example here some feels guns are good and you're trying to persuade the counter side)? 

Now, if guns are neither bad nor good then why ban them?  You brought up the point of banning guns by listing off those countries so what is the point in banning guns?

Onto the U.K.  I will be getting my information from: http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/sta_index.htm

The total number of firearm offenses doubled from 1998/99 to 2009: 5,209 to 9865.  I will note for 2009 that the number is down from the previous years.  Knife crime has increased as well. Just looking at 2007 and 2006 as examples: 258 to 219.

Should we ban knives or have knife control?  In the U.S., I have heard that areas that have a higher concentration of NRA membership that gun crimes are statistically lower.  I don't have time to build my case for this.  My point is that the NRA teaches people gun safety and persuades people from gun crimes. 

Does that mean that no NRA member uses their firearms in a crime? No.

Do gun controls/bans keep individuals who shouldn't have guns from getting guns? No.  It does make it more difficult usually.

Because if this was an argument about banning guns from a country, and saying how it'd be safer if we totally restricted gun access from the people, I'd be arguing against them. I strive for the balance, and in an environnement such as Joe User, I come out as a freaking totalitarian apparently.

I ain't argumenting for banning gun. But having more restriction around them. Like, you know, proper handling certification and training if you want to buy one. Registration of the gun itself so it's ballistic imprint can be traced back to the owner. There is too  many guns on the black market right now, it'd be a nice thing to see where they come from and be able to arrest the people at the source.

We do it for cars, after all. If you get your car stolen, you report it so it can be brought back to you if we ever find it. If you sell it to a pawnshop, well, you still have to declare to have sold it for you to stop being responsible for its use. Doing the same for guns would go a long way toward protecting honest citizen, both gun-owners and non-gun owners.

Also, it would increase the safety of policemen who have to do intervention in homes (good to know if you have to expect a gun).

I don't agree with everything that is written in Tal's article.  The thing that I don't agree with is non-gun related. 

Even if this issue offended me, I don't need to debate it.  I am very confident in who I am.  I have done research on what I know/believe.  With the combination of the two I don't need to constantly to debate with someone every opportunity to show them how right I am and how wrong they are.

No Totalitarianism is when the government decides to control your life. Socialists ask there government to control their lives. Big difference.

I saw that after my response here, so I'll let you both work it out. I've said all I'm going to say about it.

I agree with your points here.  The people who are going to go through the process of getting their guns register are probably the same people who have gone through the training or are they the ones doing the crimes.

Criminals that use guns usual have a stolen gun or a black market gun so they don't go through with registration.  Gun restrictions usually don't affect the criminal element.  As you can see with the UK and most other countries that have strict gun control.  The criminal elements don't really care and they're going to get guns.

You are right that we need to go to the black market and get to the source.  The black market will always be there.

Finally, the Old West through history we can see it was safer than most major U.S cities at the same time that had ban on guns.  The Old West had for the most part had lose gun laws.  Essentially, nearly everyone had a gun and so if you were going to start something you were taking a chance that you were going to die or get injured.  If you were carrying a gun back then you mostly likely had some training with it.  The way that movies portray the Old West is generally inaccurate.

I like the name Colonel Colt used for one of his weapons. "The Peacemaker" and when a bad person uses it we call it "The Liberal".

For the crooks too!  While this is solely an American phenomenom, statistics show that in communities where gun laws are less strict, so are home invasions, burglaries and robberies.  In fact, all forms of violent crimes are lower.  Perhaps because the bad guys think you DO have a gun makes the difference.

I remember when the UK banned firearms. A year later the stats came out. Everyone expected the murder rate to drop dramatically. In a way it did. Gun crimes dropped like a rock. The murder rated stayed the same the only differences was since people didn't have a gun handy they used spanners, kinves, strangulation and cricket bats. What they found out was people that want to kill people will used whatever is handy. So unless you are going to ban people, you will not save lives only change the cause of their deaths.

I had this argument with a liberal kid that I am helping get his first book published. he argued that the death penalty did not deter violent crimes. I tried to tell him that it was never designed to deter crime only to get rid of the people society could not trust. The same is true with guns, you can't ban guns and think that you are detering crime. Criminals are called that for a reason, they break the law. If you out law guns what makes you think that criminals will suddenly obey one law while breaking all the rest? Murder is illegal, robbery is illegal, rape is illegal,  yet they still happen daily around the world. I don't need a gun or a knife to rob, rape, or kill you. wait it just hit me! All crimes are committed with hands. We should ban hands! I works in the Arab countries, there are no three time losers. 

Don't ban him. I want to see him explain why Israel is obviously evil.

I am thinking it's because it builds houses for Jews. That's one of the bigger crimes currently. Ban Ki-Moon was so upset he didn't even find time to visit Darfur.

But there are still crimes commited by legitimate guns owners. Peoples who weren't criminals but become one. Having their guns registered could go a long way toward preventing these people from getting away.

In Canada, we had a gun registration act. Only policemen could access the database, and every database access was monitored. All policemen were very grateful to have access to it, so they would know what to expect when walking to a home, or they would know if they had to confiscate a gun if they arrested somebody.

Have I said that? No. I merely said that it has its flaws and one shouldn't be afraid of pointing those out in the political establishment without fear of retribution from lobbies.

Israel is a very nice countries, save for a few elements that are quite sad.

Because these house are in palestinian territories. They are going to use these house as an excuse to restrict even more Palestinian's movement, for claim that they have to "defend these settlements", making even more Palestinians to leave the zone, allowing for more Jews to move in, etc..

It's an annexing strategy, which is definetly immoral and provocative.

That doesn't make Israel an evil country, not by a long shot. But it is still something we can be offended about and protest against. The reason we give Israel so much flak compared to Arab countries is because we hold Israel to our own standards. We consider it to be a decent and democratic country like other western societies, and it should act as such. They enjoy diplomatic privileges because of that the arabic countries cannot even dream to acquire anytime soon. Because they are better.

Well, if you are better, then there is some sense when we tell them that "you are better than that".

There are similar laws in the US as well.  It is not like you can pick them up like a can of sardines.  There is the requisite registration and waiting period.  And police have access to the registration list.  But some areas are trying to go further and restrict the ownership (and that is what is being over turned in the courts).  You can be prohibited from owning a gun if you have been convicted of a crime, or are deemed mentally unstable (that is another kettle of fish that we can get into another time).

So it would seem that without the fanfair, Canada has laws similar to the US as far as the ease in which to own a gun?