I would differ actually. As long as the government refuses to solve the problem of illegal crime in this country ,and illegal gun ownership in this country, instead of turning it's attention to trying to over regulate the innocent when it comes to protecting themselves I consider that to be tyrannical. Right now it's up to the citizens to defend themselves against criminal activity. Until that problem gets solved and the government lays off of the free and innocent..yep tyrannical.
poor you, you are so oppressed
you can have a gun. but you don't need a modern day military style killing machine though.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
I would differ actually. As long as the government refuses to solve the problem of illegal crime in this country ,and illegal gun ownership in this country, instead of turning it's attention to trying to over regulate the innocent when it comes to protecting themselves I consider that to be tyrannical. Right now it's up to the citizens to defend themselves against criminal activity. Until that problem gets solved and the government lays off of the free and innocent..yep tyrannical.
poor you, you are so oppressed
you can have a gun. but you don't need a modern day military style killing machine though.
On your second point about what a citizen needs....says who?
...and poor me. So you are basically saying then the US doesn't have an illegal gun issue?
They also included it because of what the British Government was doing to their own people. Witch hunts, etc..They came from that, it's why many boarded the ships to the new world, to get away from the worst of it..It's not the only thing they included in the Constitution, because of how the British Government treated their own people, either..
And they couldn't imagine it, really? Um..DaVinci dreamed up the helocopter and robot surgery and machine type weapons with heavy caliber..yes, I think the old men back in the day had enough intelligence to dream up such a weapon. DaVinci did..why not other brilliant forward-thinking inventors of the time?
ok i'll ask you then. who would any militia have to fight today? the answer is clearly not the federal government or the us military because it would be waco all over again.
they had a king in britain. he ruled by decree, so things happened as the king wished.
none of davinci's sketched helicopters and stuff ever flew.
i have a hard time believing that 230 plus years ago anyone was imagining the guns we have today. and the right is there to allow people to possess weapons so they can show up as part of the militia when/if ever needed because back then the government did not supply the weapons, and they did not have community armories either.
where are these militas today anyway?
I don't believe the Government is out to get us, but then..people didn't believe that of folks like Hitler..there is always a slight chance someone will come along and think they can do the same..
We aren't discussing if they flew, we were discussing their ability to imagine it. He did. As did some of the Founding Fathers..If they didn't think ahead and invent we wouldn't have some things. Why is it so hard to think of them as envisioning things like that. Do writers, and filmmakers, and inventors of today not do the same with the laser weapons they dream up for their futuristic stories?
And actually inventors and scientists today took some of DaVinci's drawings and built them and they do work. Including the robot surgery. That wasn't a coincidence, they specifically got together to bring his vision to life.
Don't mercenaries qualify as militia groups? If so, we have several in the US..
And in re to what you said about the other poster not needing a modern day military style killing machine..Again..AR's..AK's..they are just rifles. They are not modern day military style. Black plastic does not make them fire faster or harder than the wooden rifles. They aren't fully automatics. They are just rifles.
Actually there is a group that has come along and actually thinks they'll be able to pull off a Hitler, come to think of it...the Zetas..they've been training their people with our military experts. Loading up on weapons, spreading out across the US. Some day they will make a failed attempt at taking control..They'll be squashed like little bugs, but they'll try..between our military, our mercenaries, and our gun owners (of which I am actually not), they don't got a chance..but they'll sure try. You see, you never know when that amendment would come in handy.
. that is what the military does. they are supposed to have the arsenals, not the average joe citizen.
Our Constitution and the feelings of the majority of US citizens feels quite differently.
the 2nd amendment does not state that you can have an ar-15. what about the well regulated militia part? you gun rights folks always leave that part out.
*sigh*
gimme i know you know my view on this.. but for those who dont...
a well regulated militia.. this is what i always think about when i consider the 2nd amendment and the context in which it was written. A WELL REGULATED MILITIA... you all had just defeated the brits.. the most formidable military apparatus of the time. and of course what you had to fear back then was their return.. so of course you wanted people armed and you wanted them trained... as a well armed militia... so that if the brits decided to retake their colony there would be hell to pay... and rightly so. what i fail to see here in the 21st century is someone coming to get you all. if all you pro 2nd amendment people could explain that to me what it is you are arming yourself against id be truly thankful... cause im sure as hell certain it aint the brits comign to reclaim their colonies..
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
It also doesn't state that we can't. In a land of the weapons the US government possesses I would think that at least a semiautomatic rifle would give a militia somewhat of a chance.
who would the militia be fighting against? the us military?? BWAHAHAHA...
You obviously have never read the Constitution.
i have read your constitution and i would be more than willing and able to debate it with you.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
They also included it because of what the British Government was doing to their own people. Witch hunts, etc..They came from that, it's why many boarded the ships to the new world, to get away from the worst of it..It's not the only thing they included in the Constitution, because of how the British Government treated their own people, either..
And they couldn't imagine it, really? Um..DaVinci dreamed up the helocopter and robot surgery and machine type weapons with heavy caliber..yes, I think the old men back in the day had enough intelligence to dream up such a weapon. DaVinci did..why not other brilliant forward-thinking inventors of the time?
seriously really?? witches??? thats your defence??? oh my. :roll:
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
because most rational people understand it's not a singular issue. just bans on guns won't work, absolutely correct. there needs to be a major culture shift, better access to mental health care and de-stigmatization of mental health problems, and several other factors that the pro-gun crowd ignore, and that won't be easy. but saying "ah, it won't work, so let's not bother" is just plain irresponsible and stupid.
In 30 years there have been 61 mass shootings. Not all of them were mentally ill. Just sick. The only thing common among them, as I've said before, is they all had bloodthirst and no empathy for their victims. You are focusing on something responsible for just 61 occurances..30 years. Meanwhile, gang bangers and other similar criminals shoot people everyday and are responsible for the vast majority of the 10,000 annual deaths. Why are you talking about the mentally ill? What they do is a freak occurance. And also as I've said elsewhere. If you want to deal with the real source of gun violence, it's poverty you need to focus on. Not gun ownership. There is no correlation between number of guns and high gun crime. The states with the highest number of gun owners also have the lowest crime rates. The correlation is between poverty and crime. The poorer the area, the higher the crime rate.
In my eyes the answer is quite simple. It's easy for politicians to push this stuff to make it look like they are actually trying to solve the problem. They aren't and it won't, but it sure makes them look good while trying.
you think the answer is simple? and you are applauding a post that completely ignored the point? it just boggles my mind that you folks can't agree it's a multi-faceted issue. I didn't concentrate my argument on the mentally ill. this thread isn't just about the mass shootings. It's about all deaths from guns.
the american problem is not just about poverty. calling it a singular issue is naive and just closes your eyes because of your selfish wants and paranoia. there's poverty and gun ownership all over the world. but you just don't see the kind of gun violence you see in the US.
FACT.
You cannot dispute that.
NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT NUMBER OF GUNS.
NO ONE WANTS TO TAKE AWAY YOUR RIGHT TO PROTECT YOURSELF.
can you people stop focusing on that since no one here is arguing with you on that? just the caliber of guns and the culture of gun violence.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
gimme i know you know my view on this.. but for those who dont...
a well regulated militia.. this is what i always think about when i consider the 2nd amendment and the context in which it was written. A WELL REGULATED MILITIA... you all had just defeated the brits.. the most formidable military apparatus of the time. and of course what you had to fear back then was their return.. so of course you wanted people armed and you wanted them trained... as a well armed militia... so that if the brits decided to retake their colony there would be hell to pay... and rightly so. what i fail to see here in the 21st century is someone coming to get you all. if all you pro 2nd amendment people could explain that to me what it is you are arming yourself against id be truly thankful... cause im sure as hell certain it aint the brits comign to reclaim their colonies..
I have also asked this question directly a number of times and it either gets ignored or the answer is "a tyrannical american government".
pass the tin foil please. I need to search youtube for an instructional video to make a hat.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
gimme i know you know my view on this.. but for those who dont...
a well regulated militia.. this is what i always think about when i consider the 2nd amendment and the context in which it was written. A WELL REGULATED MILITIA... you all had just defeated the brits.. the most formidable military apparatus of the time. and of course what you had to fear back then was their return.. so of course you wanted people armed and you wanted them trained... as a well armed militia... so that if the brits decided to retake their colony there would be hell to pay... and rightly so. what i fail to see here in the 21st century is someone coming to get you all. if all you pro 2nd amendment people could explain that to me what it is you are arming yourself against id be truly thankful... cause im sure as hell certain it aint the brits comign to reclaim their colonies..
I have also asked this question directly a number of times and it either gets ignored or the answer is "a tyrannical american government".
pass the tin foil please. I need to search youtube for an instructional video to make a hat.
They weren't just worried about the Brits. Our founding fathers were rather bright men who weren't so short-sided as to include something that would only be applicable to one country trying to return to control of the US.
It doesn't say that the only reason to keep and bear arms is a well regulated militia, it says that a well regulated militia is necessary for a free state. and because of that fact, the right to keep and bear arms is necessary.
You may trust the government of today, you may also think it would be pointless to fight our military when and if that is necessary, some others don't. And those others, the ones that are stock piling weapons due to the 2nd amendment and the threat, however unlikely, of a tyrannical gov't aren't really the ones you have to worry about getting assault rifles. They work with heavier weaponry when they try to provoke...meaning they blow shit up. When we focus on the tools and not on the people we will lose sight of what will really help. Does anyone think that gun ownership is what separates our murder rates from other countries? is that the only factor?
Clear and present danger test. That is what should limit the ownership of weapons. What poses the more clear and present danger, a person with murder on the brain, or an inanimate object that may actually never get fired depending on who owns it?
The need angle that people take is rather spurious to the discussion. Needs and wants are so often misunderstood it isn't worth trying to figure out what someone else needs and wants. And for that matter, figuring out what a militia would fight today isn't worth trying to wrap our heads around either, you either believe they are necessary or you don't.
Needs and wants...it seems this whole world is decided on what someone else believes should be your own needs and wants.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
. Does anyone think that gun ownership is what separates our murder rates from other countries? is that the only factor?
no, as most of us have already stated numerous times.
right, so then doesn't it make more sense for us to focus our gun control law efforts on people rather than the guns themselves?
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
. Does anyone think that gun ownership is what separates our murder rates from other countries? is that the only factor?
no, as most of us have already stated numerous times.
right, so then doesn't it make more sense for us to focus our gun control law efforts on people rather than the guns themselves?
it makes more sense to look at it from all angles. not just one. more guns = easier access to guns for people who shouldn't have them. too many guns is PART of the problem.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
it makes more sense to look at it from all angles. not just one. more guns = easier access to guns for people who shouldn't have them. too many guns is PART of the problem.
yep,,need a weapon to do the crime...seems more easy to control that,than people
"...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
it makes more sense to look at it from all angles. not just one. more guns = easier access to guns for people who shouldn't have them. too many guns is PART of the problem.
yep,,need a weapon to do the crime...seems more easy to control that,than people
Let me correct that for you. You need an ILLEGAL weapon to do the crime.
0
81
Needing a ride to Forest Hills and a ounce of weed. Please inquire within. Thanks. Or not. Posts: 58,276
it makes more sense to look at it from all angles. not just one. more guns = easier access to guns for people who shouldn't have them. too many guns is PART of the problem.
yep,,need a weapon to do the crime...seems more easy to control that,than people
no, as most of us have already stated numerous times.
right, so then doesn't it make more sense for us to focus our gun control law efforts on people rather than the guns themselves?
it makes more sense to look at it from all angles. not just one. more guns = easier access to guns for people who shouldn't have them. too many guns is PART of the problem.
You may be right, but I would rather them start by limiting who can buy weapons first. More thorough checks and balances in that regard would be more successful than an out right assault weapon ban.
our first inclination shouldn't be to take away from the vast majority because the slim minority can't use something responsibly.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
it makes more sense to look at it from all angles. not just one. more guns = easier access to guns for people who shouldn't have them. too many guns is PART of the problem.
yep,,need a weapon to do the crime...seems more easy to control that,than people
maybe, let's ask the DEA how that line of thought it going? banning the products has worked swimmingly
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
0
81
Needing a ride to Forest Hills and a ounce of weed. Please inquire within. Thanks. Or not. Posts: 58,276
You may be right, but I would rather them start by limiting who can buy weapons first. More thorough checks and balances in that regard would be more successful than an out right assault weapon ban.
our first inclination shouldn't be to take away from the vast majority because the slim minority can't use something responsibly.
any start would be a productive one.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
You may be right, but I would rather them start by limiting who can buy weapons first. More thorough checks and balances in that regard would be more successful than an out right assault weapon ban.
our first inclination shouldn't be to take away from the vast majority because the slim minority can't use something responsibly.
any start would be a productive one.
agreed.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
it makes more sense to look at it from all angles. not just one. more guns = easier access to guns for people who shouldn't have them. too many guns is PART of the problem.
yep,,need a weapon to do the crime...seems more easy to control that,than people
clearly fire should be banned
its Molotov bombs that create that fire..there are banned in my country ...from my country this foto is taken
"...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
They weren't just worried about the Brits. Our founding fathers were rather bright men who weren't so short-sided as to include something that would only be applicable to one country trying to return to control of the US.
It doesn't say that the only reason to keep and bear arms is a well regulated militia, it says that a well regulated militia is necessary for a free state. and because of that fact, the right to keep and bear arms is necessary.
You may trust the government of today, you may also think it would be pointless to fight our military when and if that is necessary, some others don't. And those others, the ones that are stock piling weapons due to the 2nd amendment and the threat, however unlikely, of a tyrannical gov't aren't really the ones you have to worry about getting assault rifles. They work with heavier weaponry when they try to provoke...meaning they blow shit up. When we focus on the tools and not on the people we will lose sight of what will really help. Does anyone think that gun ownership is what separates our murder rates from other countries? is that the only factor?
Clear and present danger test. That is what should limit the ownership of weapons. What poses the more clear and present danger, a person with murder on the brain, or an inanimate object that may actually never get fired depending on who owns it?
The need angle that people take is rather spurious to the discussion. Needs and wants are so often misunderstood it isn't worth trying to figure out what someone else needs and wants. And for that matter, figuring out what a militia would fight today isn't worth trying to wrap our heads around either, you either believe they are necessary or you don't.
Needs and wants...it seems this whole world is decided on what someone else believes should be your own needs and wants.
youre right, they werent just worried about the brits... that was me simplifying things. and thank you for answering a question i (and others) have asked many times.
at the moment im reading an interesting trilogy by john birmingham about what would happen if america disappeared. by that i mean the entire population of the lower 48(except a small corner of washington state around seattle) being vapourised. the action begins in march 2003 on the eve of the invasion of iraq. a large swatheof canada and most of mexico as well as a whole lot of cuba is 'disappeared' as well. there are free booters and pirates everywhere and out of the chaos of rebuilding the country(including the entire executive branch) repatriating those americans who were overseas at the time of 'disappearance' back to their country is the question of security. one of the things that is somewhat saving the new united states of america is their military and their willing ness to pull no punches. what has this got to do with the gun issue? maybe nothing considering their are maybe 2 million people left in the US and tbh the issue of gun ownership hasnt come up cause theyve got more important things to worry about... but i figured if ever you need a well regulated militia, defending your country after losing almost your entire population would be one of them.
i also have to say the most interesting thing ive read so far in these books is when someone said america is an idea. and i think thats right. its an idea that can be defended even if the physical nature of your country is shaky or practically non existant.. its everything the US stands for.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
sure guns are made to kill. people have this thing called addiction they get hooked on shit easily, some easier than others. it is a proven fact alcohol kills more people than guns.
people wanna drink & drive. this = good chance of killing folks & many do just that daily.
from my personal life long experience... alcohol kills more people in my family than guns & we have both, guns & booze. however, currently i have neither whiskey nor a gun.
No disagreement here. But that still doens't take the fact away that guns were made to kill. You can also die from prescription drugs. All these comparisons say nothing about the reality that someone with some serious issues can walk into a classroom and start shooting sixty rounds to innocent children. That what this is about. People die of various reasons. Most often accidental. But the aim of guns is to kill...
Let's ignore guns for this post. Pretend they have been banned long ago.
Presription drugs make people get better from a sickness. They have purpose. What is alcohol's purpose, and what would society be like without it (besides having hundreds of more thousands alive)?
So far you have not explained why we should have alcohol legal when it does not serve a legitimate purpose, but yet kills hundreds of thousands of people. People on here think it is a ludicrous comparison, but lets just look at alcohol only and the positives and negatives. Do the positives of alcohol justify the negatives?
This is a legitimate question. I am not a fringe Republican that hunts every weekend or thinks Obama was born in Kenya. I don't own a gun. I would be for assault weapons bans.
Just look at alcohol. It was not made to kill but look at the benefits and the negatives. Cars help people get to work, to see family, to respond to emergencies quickly. I think this benefit outweighs the loss of life in accidents. Does alcohol's beneifts outweigh the negative?
The difference is that I cannot walk into a classroom and kill twenty children with a bottle of liquior. Is alcohol bad? Certainly. Mostly however for the one who consumes it. Most accidents (car accidents aside, but alcohol poisoning or alcoholism) are self inflicting. Besides all that, recent studies have shown that alcohol does have a social importance: stress relief. You could argue that to some guns have the same value. But you don't need a semi-automatic for that.
Behind all the smokes and mirrors and idiotic comparisons, let's not forget what sparked this debate; that twenty children died because someone used a semi automatic riffle. Which he obtained from his mother, who had it legally in her house - for she was a doomsday-prepper. Forget the comparisons and get back to the core.
Behind all the smokes and mirrors and idiotic comparisons, let's not forget what sparked this debate; that twenty children died because someone used a semi automatic riffle. Which he obtained from his mother, who had it legally in her house - for she was a doomsday-prepper. Forget the comparisons and get back to the core.
this says it all
"...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
it makes more sense to look at it from all angles. not just one. more guns = easier access to guns for people who shouldn't have them. too many guns is PART of the problem.
yep,,need a weapon to do the crime...seems more easy to control that,than people
maybe, let's ask the DEA how that line of thought it going? banning the products has worked swimmingly
youre comparing drugs with firearms???
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Comments
you can have a gun. but you don't need a modern day military style killing machine though.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=where+are+the+militias+in+the+US
On your second point about what a citizen needs....says who?
...and poor me. So you are basically saying then the US doesn't have an illegal gun issue?
I don't believe the Government is out to get us, but then..people didn't believe that of folks like Hitler..there is always a slight chance someone will come along and think they can do the same..
We aren't discussing if they flew, we were discussing their ability to imagine it. He did. As did some of the Founding Fathers..If they didn't think ahead and invent we wouldn't have some things. Why is it so hard to think of them as envisioning things like that. Do writers, and filmmakers, and inventors of today not do the same with the laser weapons they dream up for their futuristic stories?
And actually inventors and scientists today took some of DaVinci's drawings and built them and they do work. Including the robot surgery. That wasn't a coincidence, they specifically got together to bring his vision to life.
Don't mercenaries qualify as militia groups? If so, we have several in the US..
And in re to what you said about the other poster not needing a modern day military style killing machine..Again..AR's..AK's..they are just rifles. They are not modern day military style. Black plastic does not make them fire faster or harder than the wooden rifles. They aren't fully automatics. They are just rifles.
*sigh*
gimme i know you know my view on this.. but for those who dont...
a well regulated militia.. this is what i always think about when i consider the 2nd amendment and the context in which it was written. A WELL REGULATED MILITIA... you all had just defeated the brits.. the most formidable military apparatus of the time. and of course what you had to fear back then was their return.. so of course you wanted people armed and you wanted them trained... as a well armed militia... so that if the brits decided to retake their colony there would be hell to pay... and rightly so. what i fail to see here in the 21st century is someone coming to get you all. if all you pro 2nd amendment people could explain that to me what it is you are arming yourself against id be truly thankful... cause im sure as hell certain it aint the brits comign to reclaim their colonies..
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
i have read your constitution and i would be more than willing and able to debate it with you.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
where is this well regulated militia???? do you think citizens owning weapons constitutes a well regulated militia???
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
seriously really?? witches??? thats your defence??? oh my. :roll:
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
you think the answer is simple? and you are applauding a post that completely ignored the point? it just boggles my mind that you folks can't agree it's a multi-faceted issue. I didn't concentrate my argument on the mentally ill. this thread isn't just about the mass shootings. It's about all deaths from guns.
the american problem is not just about poverty. calling it a singular issue is naive and just closes your eyes because of your selfish wants and paranoia. there's poverty and gun ownership all over the world. but you just don't see the kind of gun violence you see in the US.
FACT.
You cannot dispute that.
NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT NUMBER OF GUNS.
NO ONE WANTS TO TAKE AWAY YOUR RIGHT TO PROTECT YOURSELF.
can you people stop focusing on that since no one here is arguing with you on that? just the caliber of guns and the culture of gun violence.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I have also asked this question directly a number of times and it either gets ignored or the answer is "a tyrannical american government".
pass the tin foil please. I need to search youtube for an instructional video to make a hat.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
They weren't just worried about the Brits. Our founding fathers were rather bright men who weren't so short-sided as to include something that would only be applicable to one country trying to return to control of the US.
It doesn't say that the only reason to keep and bear arms is a well regulated militia, it says that a well regulated militia is necessary for a free state. and because of that fact, the right to keep and bear arms is necessary.
You may trust the government of today, you may also think it would be pointless to fight our military when and if that is necessary, some others don't. And those others, the ones that are stock piling weapons due to the 2nd amendment and the threat, however unlikely, of a tyrannical gov't aren't really the ones you have to worry about getting assault rifles. They work with heavier weaponry when they try to provoke...meaning they blow shit up. When we focus on the tools and not on the people we will lose sight of what will really help. Does anyone think that gun ownership is what separates our murder rates from other countries? is that the only factor?
Clear and present danger test. That is what should limit the ownership of weapons. What poses the more clear and present danger, a person with murder on the brain, or an inanimate object that may actually never get fired depending on who owns it?
The need angle that people take is rather spurious to the discussion. Needs and wants are so often misunderstood it isn't worth trying to figure out what someone else needs and wants. And for that matter, figuring out what a militia would fight today isn't worth trying to wrap our heads around either, you either believe they are necessary or you don't.
Needs and wants...it seems this whole world is decided on what someone else believes should be your own needs and wants.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
no, as most of us have already stated numerous times.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
right, so then doesn't it make more sense for us to focus our gun control law efforts on people rather than the guns themselves?
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
it makes more sense to look at it from all angles. not just one. more guns = easier access to guns for people who shouldn't have them. too many guns is PART of the problem.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
Let me correct that for you. You need an ILLEGAL weapon to do the crime.
clearly fire should be banned
You may be right, but I would rather them start by limiting who can buy weapons first. More thorough checks and balances in that regard would be more successful than an out right assault weapon ban.
our first inclination shouldn't be to take away from the vast majority because the slim minority can't use something responsibly.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
maybe, let's ask the DEA how that line of thought it going? banning the products has worked swimmingly
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
or take a drive on teh south side of chicago.
any start would be a productive one.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
agreed.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
youre right, they werent just worried about the brits... that was me simplifying things. and thank you for answering a question i (and others) have asked many times.
at the moment im reading an interesting trilogy by john birmingham about what would happen if america disappeared. by that i mean the entire population of the lower 48(except a small corner of washington state around seattle) being vapourised. the action begins in march 2003 on the eve of the invasion of iraq. a large swatheof canada and most of mexico as well as a whole lot of cuba is 'disappeared' as well. there are free booters and pirates everywhere and out of the chaos of rebuilding the country(including the entire executive branch) repatriating those americans who were overseas at the time of 'disappearance' back to their country is the question of security. one of the things that is somewhat saving the new united states of america is their military and their willing ness to pull no punches. what has this got to do with the gun issue? maybe nothing considering their are maybe 2 million people left in the US and tbh the issue of gun ownership hasnt come up cause theyve got more important things to worry about... but i figured if ever you need a well regulated militia, defending your country after losing almost your entire population would be one of them.
i also have to say the most interesting thing ive read so far in these books is when someone said america is an idea. and i think thats right. its an idea that can be defended even if the physical nature of your country is shaky or practically non existant.. its everything the US stands for.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
The difference is that I cannot walk into a classroom and kill twenty children with a bottle of liquior. Is alcohol bad? Certainly. Mostly however for the one who consumes it. Most accidents (car accidents aside, but alcohol poisoning or alcoholism) are self inflicting. Besides all that, recent studies have shown that alcohol does have a social importance: stress relief. You could argue that to some guns have the same value. But you don't need a semi-automatic for that.
Behind all the smokes and mirrors and idiotic comparisons, let's not forget what sparked this debate; that twenty children died because someone used a semi automatic riffle. Which he obtained from his mother, who had it legally in her house - for she was a doomsday-prepper. Forget the comparisons and get back to the core.
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
youre comparing drugs with firearms???
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I'm pretty sure that, despite the media blurb that conveyed this, the assault rifle was the main weapon used in the massacre.
The media did a horrific job initially detailing events (remember they broadcast that Lanza's mother was a teacher at the school?).