Trump won’t help Puerto Rico

[PsyOps]

Sure. Let's see how well you do against the greatest army on earth.

Well, why don't we all just hand over our firearms and make it a lot easier for them; all in the name of stopping the killing.

:theirony:

 

[GURPS]

.... they were very general about the language because they knew arms meant arms, and speech meant speech, and not limited to the means of those days.

'Arms' meant any weapon you could purchase

Muskets
Cannons
Gun Boats

tons of black powder

no definition of Flint Locks vs Wheel Locks vs Match Locks

Breech Loaders vs Muzzle Loaders
Rifles vs Pistols
Smooth Bore vs Rifled

 

[This_person]

Then what happened in Australia? It clearly shows you are wrong. The decided that the risks were not worth the reward after an atrocity and the results since then have proven them right and you wrong. They have not had a gun massacre since

Why are we one of the few nations in the world where this happens over and over and one of the nations in the world with the most lax gun control laws?

Actually, Australia had virtually no problem before or after gun bans.

Here's some truthful data:

I researched the strictly tightened gun laws in Britain and Australia and concluded that they didn’t prove much about what America’s policy should be. Neither nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun related-crime that could be attributed to their buybacks and bans. Mass shootings were too rare in Australia for their absence after the buyback program to be clear evidence of progress. And in both Australia and Britain, the gun restrictions had an ambiguous effect on other gun-related crimes or deaths.

When I looked at the other oft-praised policies, I found out that no gun owner walks into the store to buy an “assault weapon.” It’s an invented classification that includes any semi-automatic that has two or more features, such as a bayonet mount, a rocket-propelled grenade-launcher mount, a folding stock or a pistol grip. But guns are modular, and any hobbyist can easily add these features at home, just as if they were snapping together Legos…

As my co-workers and I kept looking at the data, it seemed less and less clear that one broad gun-control restriction could make a big difference. Two-thirds of gun deaths in the United States every year are suicides. Almost no proposed restriction would make it meaningfully harder for people with guns on hand to use them. I couldn’t even answer my most desperate question: If I had a friend who had guns in his home and a history of suicide attempts, was there anything I could do that would help?

You could, theoretically, cut down on all these deaths with a blanket removal of guns from the U.S. entirely — something that is as politically unlikely as it is legally untenable. Barring that, though, policies aimed at reducing gun deaths will likely need to be targeted at the specific people who commit or are victimized by those incidents. And mass shootings just aren’t a good proxy for the diversity of gun violence. Policies that reduce the number of homicides among young black men — such as programs that build trust between community members, police and at-risk youth and offer people a way out of crime — probably won’t have the same effect on suicides among elderly white men. Background checks and laws aimed at preventing a young white man with a history of domestic violence from obtaining a gun and using it in a mass shooting might not prevent a similar shooting by an older white male with no criminal record.

The statistician, mining data to prove gun control works learned exactly the opposite is the truth.

Like all liberal policies, their belief is diametrically opposed to reality. This one just learned it, and that's a good thing.

 

[stgislander]

If it did happen, how many in the armed services do you think would bear arms against the citizens?

Pssst... the jury is still out on the Air Force.

 

[GURPS]

Well, why don't we all just hand over our firearms and make it a lot easier for them ...

Sappy believes in the righteousness of the Gov. always protecting his rights .... [or the rights of Progressives]
... but yet he goes on in another thread goes on and on about of the GOV. Discriminated against blacks as recently as 2000
Gee a GOV with that record I think I'd Like to be able to defend myself

 

[This_person]

Wrong. As usual. the 1st amendment mentions speech which can not be restricted. the means of disseminating that speech is not whats important. Speech is speech whether it is online, in person, in the press or in action such as taking a knee.

the 2nd clearly states "arms" which are the tools and not action

Do you think all the first amendment says is "speech"?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So, freedom of the press, first amendment - that's limited to "press at the time of this writing" just like "arms" refers to "arms at the time of this writing", just like your "logic" states, right?

 

[Kyle]

If it did happen, how many in the armed services do you think would bear arms against the citizens?

Not many.

The actual threat of force would come from militarized, federal police forces.

 

[GURPS]

Not many.

The actual threat of force would come from militarized, federal police forces.

I'd be more worried about what happens when the money machine drys up and it all implodes


Gangs Running Rampant ...
Every county or township becomes a little fiefdom for the police with the weapons ...

 

[PsyOps]

'Arms' meant any weapon you could purchase

Muskets
Cannons
Gun Boats

tons of black powder

no definition of Flint Locks vs Wheel Locks vs Match Locks

Breech Loaders vs Muzzle Loaders
Rifles vs Pistols
Smooth Bore vs Rifled

What gets lost in this whole thing is the founders felt THE PEOPLE would act more responsibly in their own personal AND national security than the government. They had very little trust in a large centralized government. They never intended for a standing army/military. They knew both would become a danger to our liberties; and here we are.

People like Sap don't see the mass killings committed by governments when the people are disarmed. It's because we are so free under and constitution that protects those liberties that makes it impossible for people Sap to see it could actually happen here as a result of being less free, and holding the real power.

 

[Kyle]

I'd be more worried about what happens when the money machine drys up and it all implodes

Gangs Running Rampant ...
Every county or township becomes a little fiefdom for the police with the weapons ...

That would start in the more urbanized areas.

 

[Kyle]

What gets lost in this whole thing is the founders felt THE PEOPLE would act more responsibly in their own personal AND national security than the government. .

Human nature to exploit power to its fullest when there are no consequences.

Plus the mob mentality in erosion of moral center affects government as a group as well.

 

[PsyOps]

Pssst... the jury is still out on the Air Force.

 

[Gilligan]

What gets lost in this whole thing is the founders felt THE PEOPLE would act more responsibly in their own personal AND national security than the government. They had very little trust in a large centralized government. They never intended for a standing army/military. They knew both would become a danger to our liberties; and here we are.

People like Sap don't see the mass killings committed by governments when the people are disarmed. It's because we are so free under and constitution that protects those liberties that makes it impossible for people Sap to see it could actually happen here as a result of being less free, and holding the real power.

Sap's life experiences and world view are so incredibly narrow that two ants couldn't muster through them shoulder to shoulder.

 

[stgislander]

 

[Gilligan]

View attachment 120111

Looks fine to me.

 

[stgislander]

Looks fine to me.

I thought that's where they kept their cigarettes.

 

[PsyOps]

View attachment 120111

Storage.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Yes. Because that is what we have been discussing for the last 33 pages. Is that hard to understand?

You can't claim to only discuss mass shootings then use data from every shooting in this country to back your claims.

Especially when a majority of the shootings in this country involve suicide and murders (outside of mass shootings).

 

[black dog]

Not many.

The actual threat of force would come from militarized, federal police forces.

They would fall way short in numbers to do anything substantial.

 

[black dog]

View attachment 120111

It must be right, they are wearing operator's gloves....