When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
And here I'm thinking about how, when we were kids (in Florida, where above - ground pools are commonplace), we used to stuff shredded aluminum foil into glass jars, pour in some hydrochloric acid, seal the lid, shake, stuff into a mailbox, and then run like hell.
What will the children of Britain do without access to acid?
Precisely. It's beyond laughable a bunch of middle-aged people think they would have any kind of impact on the US Military beyond a proverbial fly buzzing around it's head.
My younger brother's friends who are being killed by illiterate goatfuckers in Afghanistan would likely disagree with your hypothesis.
Serious question: are goats sufficiently docile that they respond well to being fucked by humans?
Asking for a friend.
L
My niece used to have a couple goats when she was in 4H. They were not at all docile, they kicked and bit at random.
I once called an international co-worker a "four-eyed goat ******." I think he was offended because I insulted his vision.
My niece used to have a couple goats when she was in 4H. They were not at all docile, they kicked and bit at random.
See, now I'm really curious.
My niece raised chickens in 4H. Had a couple of very handsome roosters. And while I'll freely acknowledge that they possess great comedic value (and also great value as avatars), I never really found myself at all sexually attracted to them. I much prefer eating them in the literal sense than in the suggestively figurative one.
Good point. Then again, that wasn't a common occurrence in your country even before your confiscation, and you have still had mass killings since.
We had, in the preceding years a couple of relatively smaller incidents, and then the big one at Port Arthur which was the catalyst for our move. Nothing to speak of since, as far as I can recall. Can you refresh my memory (we are talking 'spree' style shootings here)?
Originally Posted by Monk
Of course you don't have any solutions. The only thing that "worked" in your country was mass confiscation.
It's the only thing that might make an actual difference here, but even that is highly unlikely.
You might not care that you don't have the right to bear arms, and that's fine. You never had it in the first place.
With 200-300 million guns out there, it certainly looks intractable from a 'confiscation' perspective. Then again, nobody (not me anyway) is suggesting a total confiscation of ALL guns. That didn't happen here either by the way. If you were to go down that path, you might want to start with the ones that can do the most damage in these situations. I know how some will respond, the 'slippery slope'. But, is anything going to convince them? Maybe they just have to be told, like a lot of gun owners here had to be told, that we can't keep going down this path, and if we can't stop the psychos (or however you want to characterise the perps), we can at least try to limit the damage they do?
Originally Posted by Monk
See above. We've had the problem "chipped away at" for decades.
The end goal of any politician who is honest enough to say it is confiscation and an end to our second amendment rights.
This is frightening in a time when those same politicians and their supporters are also keen on limiting our first amendment rights as well.
This takes the argument to the extreme. Who is talking about 'an end to your 2A rights'? Does this give you the right to carry enough gun to have a small war, or a big massacre? If it does, is this something that America can still tolerate, given its consequences? Straw man arguments like this do your case no good.
Maybe the chipping you have done could be done better, more consistently, differently?
Originally Posted by Monk
You are sorely mistaken suggesting that we don't care, and if you said something like that to me in person, I would be very tempted to feed you your teeth.
Of course, I wouldn't because I respect your right to say offensive ignorant things.
Good, but not good enough. You say you care, but not enough to actually do anything about it, to do something that might mitigate the likelihood, or the consequences of another massacre.
You may not live in a place where natural disasters and a subsequent scarcity of resources are common. If you've got the only food/water/fuel/generator and a group of others have done without for 8 days they may decide to come and take your family's supplies. Phones are down. Cell towers have no power. Cops are unable to be signaled. What then?
Before someone says it's my fault for living here:
What about a biological agent or plague-like disease delivered by terrorists or foreign government into the population centers of the northeast as the disaster? People panic and try to evacuate but only cause to spread the contaminant. They run out of fuel in traffic jams. Then they run out of food. Deliveries of fuel and food stop. People don't go to work at the power plant, fire department, and police station. Survivors are desperate and are brutalizing others to feed themselves. Defend your family and your resources with a steak knife.
Or an even easier scenario, an electromagnetic pulse weapon (yes they exist and are not particularly difficult to make) knocks out every electronic device for a couple hundred miles. Most military vehicles are hardened against them because they are a real thing. No power, no communication, no cars, no radios or phones. Most people wouldn't even know what was going on. Walk home from work. Survive days with no refrigerator and no running water. How many days of drinking water do you have at home? Non-perishable food? How long before society devolves? Better grab an ice pick and have the wife and kids stand behind you when the bad guys come.
Outside of a disaster, what about the gang of thugs that kicks in your back door and comes for your money/drugs/wife/daughter? You going to use your cell phone to thwart them? Better wake up and dial quickly.
Do I need a 30 round magazine? God, I hope not. I hope I never need to fire a shot in defense. Will I buy a 30 round magazine? No. But if there was a violent mob in my front yard that intended to enter my home and do my family harm I would probably wish for one. Or two.
Certainly I can't be the only one that worries about protecting their family like this? I really do worry about home invasions and that sort of thing. I worry about protecting my loved ones.
Remind me to stay away from Tampa Florida, should I choose to visit your wonderful country.
I'm really shocked to see a leftist thinking the only solution to every problem in the world is more laws and restrictions. I've never heard that one before.
That is the thing though. We know the solution that works 100%. Complete and utter prohibition and confiscation of firearms. And, that solution is not acceptable to us.
Anything else is not going to be effective thus why give away rights for something that isn't going to work? It's a stalemate I guess.
See both my comments above re prohibition. We don't have prohibition. We do still have gun crime. Just that we try to strike some sort of balance I guess. The cockies can have their guns for vermin control, the gun club shooters can have theirs, hunters can have guns. You can carry a handgun (but you better have a pretty convincing reason).
Binary solutions are just tools to derail discussions of what a middle ground might look like - whether is what guns are allowed, who can own them, how they can be used/stored, etc.
We should endeavor to keep guns from the hands of violent criminals. I'm looking to sponsor legislation that calls for removal of hands of violent criminals...
What?
I'm just coming at the problem from a different angle.
You can carry a handgun (but you better have a pretty convincing reason).
And that is unacceptable. Who decides who can get one? Oh, sure, bodyguard for some rich ******* (Bloomberg), but god forbid you plebs have one to defend your family. Hillary doesn't get to take my guns but have secret service armed with MP-5 guarding her sorry ***.
One thing I'd like to see is consistent application of laws across the entire population. Health care, gun laws, etc. get applied to EVERYONE. No exceptions (except actual military). I'll give up my high capacity mags when the police and gov't have to. I'll submit to Obamacare when Congress has to buy their health insurance just like I do.
We should endeavor to keep guns from the hands of violent criminals. I'm looking to sponsor legislation that calls for removal of hands of violent criminals...
What?
I'm just coming at the problem from a different angle.
Yeah, I thought that would come to mind pretty quickly.
There's a recidivism law in Florida whereby violent felons who have previously been imprisoned get life sentences.
By the way, I have never understood why attempted murder should be treated any differently than a completed murder. The intention is the same. Competence in the task should have no bearing on the sentencing. Usually people learn from their mistakes and do a better job the second time when attempting most things.
Reminds me of one of my favorite Sideshow Bob quotes:
I am presently incarcerated, imprisoned for a crime I did not even commit. "Attempted murder," now honestly, what is that? Do they give a Nobel prize for "attempted chemistry?"
I like to learn from history. History has proven disarming citizens leads to oppressive regimes. Look at Turkey, China, Russia, Cambodia, Uganda. The homicide rate in your precious penal colony jumped 300% after you were disarmed... The places in the US with the highest gun crimes also happen to be the places with the strictest gun laws.
It don't take a rocket surgeon to see the commonality here. And again, being armed is a Constitutional protected Right in the States. Having rights might seem foreign to you, so I get it, and ill let it pass.
The places in the US with the highest gun crimes also happen to be the places with the strictest gun laws.
To be fair (Devil's advocate), NYC and LA are nearing historic low rates of both gun-involved violence in general, and homicide in particular.
Originally Posted by Braineack
And again, being armed is a Constitutional protected Right in the States.
(Also Devil's advocate): This assertion is commonly disputed by legal scholars, and there is a large consensus which agrees that the part before the comma matters. My own personal opinion is that James Madison wasn't a moron, and didn't write the part about the well-regulated militia just because he was bored.
There's a really good article written by Supreme Court associate justice John Paul Stevens (ret) that I need to dig up...
10-03-2017, 05:22 PM
0
