Self defence situatio

[now disabled]

We have Freedom of Speech in the USA though. And the 2nd Amendment to back it up.

Oh dude please we have freedom of speech here too and we don't have a constitution or want one lol so please don't start that please

 

[now disabled]

We have Freedom of Speech in the USA though. And the 2nd Amendment to back it up.

Can you actually quote the second amendment and I don't mean just the bits you want but all of it ,,,,,I do have a reason to as seen as you wanna bash the UK (who in truth stands squarely behind ya and at times puts the breaks on when things are gonna get outta hand )

 

[pdg]

Oh dude please we have freedom of speech here too and we don't have a constitution or want one lol so please don't start that please

We sort of do, only it's not distilled into a single document.

 

[now disabled]

We sort of do, only it's not distilled into a single document.

We don't need it in a document lol

 

[pdg]

The official number of Illegals is 11-12 million, estimated in year 2000 and then again in 2006. How does that even make sense that it stayed about the same in the span of these 6 years and was the SAME figure quoted in the last Presidential Election of 2016; which was another 10 years later, totaling a span of 16 years that this 11-12 million figure didn't change.

It's possible it didn't change enough to nudge a million - it's called turnover, some in, some out.

You keep saying this, but don't post any numbers. What are the number of immigrants being allowed into the UK each, especially in the last 5 years?

I don't keep saying it, I said it once.

Figure for the US is officially 13.5%, UK is about 12% (first figure I found).

You mean you want us to be like your healthcare system where many people die while waiting for treatment?
Record numbers dying while waiting for hospital appointments

And get crappy healthcare to boot? No wonder that those Brits who are rich, often comes here for their serious operations and treatments. We already know what crappy Govt' operated healthcare systems can do, as we already have the VA here, where our Veterans commit suicide by a rate of about 20 per day.

The VA is in no way comparable to the NHS, nor is medicaid.

If our system is so bad, why is our suicide rate something like half yours?

Oh so you complain about our weak, elderly, etc. having no healthcare, but now you want to take away their rights to be armed to protect themselves too? Isn't that making it even worse? What next, break 1 of their legs to make it even more challenging for them? Haha, nice try though. Oh, and we do have Medicaid for them.

Nothing like a bit of bias is there?

I didn't say take anything away, I implied giving them healthcare.

Which, if you pause and think, is exactly the opposite.

 

[pdg]

Oh, and honestly...

I'll take 'free' healthcare with a bit of a waiting list over zero healthcare because my insurance doesn't cover every single day of the week.

With a cash/insurance based healthcare system my dad would have died 3 years sooner than he did - that's 3 extra years my kids had with their grandparent, thanks to the 'terrible' NHS.

 

[pdg]

And I forgot to mention...

I'm out of this discussion unless the subject changes a bit - it's a bit too close to political, even for me.

 

[dvcochran]

What island would that be? And the point was, the USA is vastly greater than the other guy's giant island of Australia = we have a lot more $$$$ problems if we were to give everyone free $$$ to get out of poverty.



No, I meant like at a gun range. But you don't have to be polite if you didn't want to.



Well yeah, that's where the Stand Your Ground law is most helpful to people who are weak and elderly living in bad areas. Why do you think that there are many people packing heat in the 'hoods of Detroit?

But if people want to conceal carry in rich neighborhoods, then that should be their right also.

I am glad I live in TN where we have a stand your ground law. What I looked at said there are 23 states with the law. The others are bound by law with a "duty to retreat". How messed up is that. California does not subscribe to the law and is considered the safest state to live in. I am sure a big part of that equation is that the population is much less dense compared to say, New York.

 

[Anarax]

You don't get to play self defence if you have provoked people. Legally.

And I agree with that concept.

Provoking is a loose term. People coming up and threatening you or your family/friends is one thing. Someone verbally confronting you in a non-threatening manner doesn't give you the right to assault/batter them.

 

[drop bear102]

I agree with that too.

Although, there is a little bit of what is classified as provoking.

Shouting, threatening - definitely provocation.

What about "excuse me, but I believe you doing xyz isn't quite right"?

There are nuances. Like me nuances as to what is an assault and what you carry a gun to shoot people for.

I mean Headhunters original situation in Florida could have ended with a body.

 

[drop bear102]

We have Freedom of Speech in the USA though. And the 2nd Amendment to back it up.

We don't. Which means news programs are required to tell the truth. You can't lie in an advertisement. I can't slander or incite violence. And I can't make fun of black people.

And we have an impartial legal system and a democracy to back that up.

 

[drop bear102]

Provoking is a loose term. People coming up and threatening you or your family/friends is one thing. Someone verbally confronting you in a non-threatening manner doesn't give you the right to assault/batter them.

Look I am OK with that. What I am pointing out here is what constitutes gun for self defence.

We hear it is for home invasions and terrorists. But in reality it is for being pushed over a car space.

 

[jks919974]

Folks,
As I'm involved way back at the beginning, consider this a friendly reminder that we don't do political discussion here at Martial Talk. Things get heated enough with style politics, we really don't need to bring national/international stuff in...

 

[JR 137]

I am glad I live in TN where we have a stand your ground law. What I looked at said there are 23 states with the law. The others are bound by law with a "duty to retreat". How messed up is that. California does not subscribe to the law and is considered the safest state to live in. I am sure a big part of that equation is that the population is much less dense compared to say, New York.

NY’s population isn’t very dense outside of the Metro NYC area. Drive from Albany to Buffalo, a straight shot across I-90 westbound that takes about 4.5 hours, and you’ll have a drastically different opinion of our population density. Same for I-87, once you get about 50 miles outside NYC, you’ve got Albany 2.5 hours away from NYC, and practically nothing until Montreal, Quebec. NY state isn’t very densely populated. I wonder what it’s official density stat is if you take out NYC, Long Island, and Westchester County.

 

[JR 137]

Not to dwell on New York State’s population density, but...

New York State total population - 19.85 million
NYC - 8.54 million
Long Island - 7.57 million
Westchester County - 980,000

So 17.09 million people in the NYC, LI, Westchester area. That leaves 2.76 million people for the rest of the state, and it’s a good sized state (27th out of 50). New York is not very densely populated outside the metro nyc area at all. The Albany area has a population of about 1.2 million, leaving 1.5 million people for the rest of the state.

Yeah, my mind is going in odd places. Too much googling.

 

[dvcochran]

Not to dwell on New York State’s population density, but...

New York State total population - 19.85 million
NYC - 8.54 million
Long Island - 7.57 million
Westchester County - 980,000

So 17.09 million people in the NYC, LI, Westchester area. That leaves 2.76 million people for the rest of the state, and it’s a good sized state (27th out of 50). New York is not very densely populated outside the metro nyc area at all. The Albany area has a population of about 1.2 million, leaving 1.5 million people for the rest of the state.

Yeah, my mind is going in odd places. Too much googling.

I didn't mean to offend. Just grabbed New York as an example. I knew there is a lot of farm land up there. Obviously I should of said NYC.
I cannot comprehend the NYC (or anywhere near that dense) lifestyle. Packed in and living vertically. Never quiet. I can go on and on. Funny how we are conditioned to our environment over time.

 

[dvcochran]

Not to dwell on New York State’s population density, but...

New York State total population - 19.85 million
NYC - 8.54 million
Long Island - 7.57 million
Westchester County - 980,000

So 17.09 million people in the NYC, LI, Westchester area. That leaves 2.76 million people for the rest of the state, and it’s a good sized state (27th out of 50). New York is not very densely populated outside the metro nyc area at all. The Albany area has a population of about 1.2 million, leaving 1.5 million people for the rest of the state.

Yeah, my mind is going in odd places. Too much googling.

Man, you got me started too.
Tennessee total population 2018 - 6.78 million
Nashville (middle of state & capital) - 660,000
Memphis (west state border) - 652,000
Knoxville & Chattanooga
(east before the state line tapers north/northest) - 363,000
So only about 1.8 million live in the major cities. The rest is mostly still zoned agricultural. In our area the only way a building lot can be less than 1 acre is if there is an existing premise with a living family member who deeds space for a building site. That is the scenario where manufactured homed are common. Legislation has change to eliminate people setting up campers as permanent living spaces and it is very difficult to set up a single wide trailer.
I have traveled to every state except Hawaii & Alaska. I enjoy visiting, but place like LA really give me the creeps. I won't go into details but a guy tried to mug me there. He was not successful.

 

[JR 137]

I didn't mean to offend. Just grabbed New York as an example. I knew there is a lot of farm land up there. Obviously I should of said NYC.
I cannot comprehend the NYC (or anywhere near that dense) lifestyle. Packed in and living vertically. Never quiet. I can go on and on. Funny how we are conditioned to our environment over time.

I didn’t take any offense to it, it just seems like everyone thinks the entire state is like NYC. The numbers were more my own curiosity to be honest.

I live right outside of NYC and worked in NYC for about 8 years. It would be fun living in Manhattan for a few months, but that’s about it.

There is a very big allure to living in or near NYC - there’s always something going on. Any day, and any time. You can get whatever you want, whenever you want. There’s no shortage of options to amuse yourself.

 

[oftheherd1]

Hey steady on my friend

Don't go bashing the NHS (no it not perfect) and the rich Brits as you put it well that is there choice, As for waiting times don't put all your faith in what the press says (they do have a bit of a habit of well making the most out of things), And for your info in case you do not know the NHS is not free like you may think before you start yelling that.

As for immigration there is a illegal problem here just as in the states (no where as big ) it just they have to be a bit more creative getting here due to the big lump of water that surrounds us. They do however.

You seem to be coming at this all charged up and the rest. I have had friends who have had medicaid and it did not cover all by any means

There is always going to be a difference of views on medical care between stateside and here.

I had a friend who is dead now who was a MD and I once asked him his opinion on why he thought there was a difference in approach and this is what he said paraphrased and shortened

The second war hit both the US and the UK badly in terms of soldiers lost (I include airmen and sailors marines too before you jump on that) however he said the states did not suffer the infrastructure hammering that we did and the civilian losses so he said the UK had to rebuild and had to look to how it could do that as it had many that were going to require long term care and people that had lost everything and could not pay for anything let alone medical care, So the view was taken cradle to grave in the UK (argue all you like but any UK subject -note I do not say citizen as technically were are not citizens - can go to a doctor or present at a hospital and not have to concern themselves as to can they afford it or is their health insurance going to cover it, also north of the border scripts are free so again if Doc prescribes people can get). He said that the states didn't see the need to do that (cradle to grave ) as he said the civilian population and infrastructure had not been hit in the same way , so they went down the insurance route and that as it had gone on so long it was never going to change or be permitted to change due to the money to be made.

That was what he told me and well there is more to it but I def could see the logic

OK, I've stayed away from this up to now. Note that I have taken the precaution of putting on my flame suit and decided to post this from just outside my nuclear defense bunker.

I think a lot of the differences between us and our British cousins (including many of the commonwealth nations) has to do with our history. In much of Europe and England, for a very long time, there were kings and the king's appointed people. Sometimes good and sometimes not so good, but the King was the owner of most of the territory, with the exception of whatever parts he gave to those below him who were nobles or supported the king sufficiently to get royal grants. So there were owners and serfs. They expected that whatever good things they got (or not), would come from the landowners or nobles. That got to be a way of life. The state provided what you got for working the land or being allowed to be a merchant or craftsman. If I am way off base please post to let me know.

Now in the US, although we came from 'Britain,' once we got here things began to change. We eventually had to fight for the change, specifically on taxation, but we began to learn to do for ourselves. We began to seek out unused land and farm it, or denude it of trees or fauna, to our own individual profit. If there were problems with others, natives or not, we either learned to take care of it ourselves, or with the aid of people we would support if they needed it. Over time, we made our own laws with our own style of government, but it was always with a sense of independence and self-sufficiency.

So a government that provides more things, especially hearth care and protection, fit those who stayed under the British system. Those who came here took up a different paradigm. We didn't want the government into everything, only those things that we specified they could be in, usually confined to a certain jurisdiction; national, state, county or city. National laws for everything would have been anathema to us due to our culture of independence to make as many decisions as we could for ourselves or a jurisdiction.

As an aside, health care is a silly thing as far as I can see. What I never understood, other than as one political party's desire to look protective of their constituency (as they all do), was that we already had health care. All one had to do was go to a hospital emergency room late at night, and watch those who came in and had no money. Federal law denied them the right to turn away non-paying customers. They had to take them and treat them. Oh, and they were reimbursed for providing that care: national health care.

Just some ramblings by me. Nobody has to agree and can feel free to point out anyplace I am wrong. I am always happy to learn. I have no desire to turn this into a political debate, but more looking to what may be a cultural difference from a royal government to a our form of a self-governing government. Granting that both of our cultures (and therefore governments) have migrated more towards each other's over time.

BTW @now disabled, I had never heard your doctor friend's explanation, but there is some sense to it. But I wonder if the culture might have influenced those decisions on both sides as well. What do you think?

 

[pdg]

They expected that whatever good things they got (or not), would come from the landowners or nobles. That got to be a way of life. The state provided what you got for working the land or being allowed to be a merchant or craftsman. If I am way off base please post to let me know.

I think that's a little off. Closer to communism than under a monarchy.

The state doesn't provide as such, it takes a portion and decides what to do with it. That's the basis of taxation. We do have slightly more choice now as to what is done, but no more on an individual level than you.

It's only relatively recently that taxation was used to 'provide' for the population.

Go back a while and unless you got support from something like the church, then if you didn't work or earn you were simply left to starve.

Excepting slavery, there hasn't been a time (to my knowledge) when your occupation was dictated by the state. You could ask permission to work someone's land and in return a portion of your produce (or income from it) was taken as tax. Or, you could work someone else's land and retain a portion of the produce for yourself, or get paid.

We've always had things like wandering tradesmen who sought short term employment wherever they could find it for instance.

As an aside, health care is a silly thing as far as I can see. What I never understood, other than as one political party's desire to look protective of their constituency (as they all do), was that we already had health care. All one had to do was go to a hospital emergency room late at night, and watch those who came in and had no money. Federal law denied them the right to turn away non-paying customers. They had to take them and treat them. Oh, and they were reimbursed for providing that care: national health care.

But does that cover ongoing care of chronic conditions or just emergency treatment?

For instance, here, for most adults dental care isn't available under the NHS (well, it is, but it's discounted rates for limited procedures, not full service type thing).

If I fall over and smash a couple of teeth I can go to an emergency dentist and get it fixed to some degree for "free" (I'll come back to that). Anything further, like dental reconstruction or cosmetic treatment, isn't covered. I have to personally pay for that, or take out dental insurance.

As to "free", it's not free, everyone contributes. Well, everyone who generally pays tax - it's (supposed to be) a separate deduction from income for that specific purpose. The idea being that a small percentage from most provides everyone with a level of care.

Of those who contribute, some never need treatment, and some get treatment that exceeds what would ever be provided were those contributions put into a personal insurance plan.

It's still basically like an insurance scheme (hence being called "national insurance") but without the individual restrictions based on premiums paid. Need more chemotherapy? Fine, have some - there's no "sorry, you've reached your insurance limit, do you have a credit card?"