|
|
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 1474057)
With what guns? The confiscated ones?
Originally Posted by Lokiel
(Post 1474115)
Mahatma Gandhi didn't need them to start a revolution that freed his people - ironically it was a gun that killed him!
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 1474144)
you know what you sound like?
: Also, you used the wrong flag, South Africa, in the following picture:
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 1474144)
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.mia...281af509dd.jpg Zimbabwe |
Originally Posted by Lokiel
(Post 1474236)
A historian stating facts?
Hogg wants the gov't he hates and blames, to take away his freedoms and rule over him more. It's a pretty insulting analogy. Hogg has no problem rounding up > 300 million legal guns from legal gun-owners who don't use them in crime. no sweat. no big deal. meanwhile: “It’s unnecessary, it’s embarrassing for a lot of the students and it makes them feel isolated and separated from the rest of American school culture where they’re having essentially their First Amendment rights infringed upon because they can’t freely wear whatever backpack they want regardless of what it is,” Hogg said. When it was suggested he have to wear a clear backpack, he cried and said it infringed on his 1st amendment right. DERP. ironic. He calls cops racist, yet he wants people to rely more heavily on police to protect them, even when in this case it was the local police who systematically failed them. DERP. |
|
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 1474240)
and what exactly are the snowflakes going to peacefully fight for? few them to stop killing themselves because they were mean to each other? do you need a revolution for that?
This would be achieved by having the Second Amendment either repealed or significantly curtailed, then encting laws when take advantage of this to limit (or eliminate) the right to civilian firearm ownership, and then to utilize force to to remove said firearms from circulation within the general public. Also that backpack is exclusionary; it does not show Twilight Sparkle, and thus reflects a cultural bias against alicorns. I consider that photochop to be a micro-aggression, and am quite offended by it. https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.mia...36c3d48afc.png (Seriously, what happened to the says when snowflakes were content to just be offended by stuff?) |
Wait i thought middle aged men and women were using children as a platform to promote their political agenda...
Man i've got it all wrong. |
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 1474245)
If I understand correctly, their aim is to eliminate access to certain tools which they feel are instrumental in enabling mass-killing.
hogg is the instrument of the left. nothing he's saying is actually his thoughts or words. meanwhile, the vast majority of convicted gun crimes are done-so by the left and non-nra members. if the left simply stopped shooting each other, gun murders in this country would stand to reduce by 70%. but since the left has no morals, and apparently doesn't really care about law and order... |
Just give it time. The Facebook posts will stop, people will move on, and we can get back to posting funny cat photos until the next mass-homicide whips us all back up into the same frenzy.
As the Old Man Hybrid proclaimed, https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.mia...7910c1f16c.png "All of this has happened before, and it will happen again, and again, and again..." |
We can talk about utopia: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nati...50449.html#fmp
|
https://www.google.com/amp/www.mcall...story,amp.html opinions? Don't be jerk offs. Seriously read this, evaluate, provide genuine well thought out opinion. |
Originally Posted by thirdgen
(Post 1474265)
https://www.google.com/amp/www.mcall...story,amp.html opinions? Don't be jerk offs. Seriously read this, evaluate, provide genuine well thought out opinion. Seems to me that there are several fundamental principles to embrace that basically boil down to waiting until a good guy with a gun shows up. Throwing rocks goes one of two ways... and both of them involve the bad guy already inside the classroom shooting... either it makes no difference because kids have no aim and they're killed anyways, or it does work and the shooter moves on... which bides time other classrooms to get their shit together, but MOSTLY for the good guy to show up. Makes way more sense to me to just install some bad-ass doors in classrooms... they look and act like normal doors until a teacher swipes their card through a slot, and then they piston dead-bolt shut. It's all about biding time. All that being said, according to the reviews of Stoneman, the resource officer could have been on-scene in well under a minute if he had bothered to respond. Also, the conspiracy theorist in me says that the recent move in NYC to remove cops from schools is simply a ploy to actually invite a mass-shooting there... which would be very advantageous to advancing the anti-gun agenda. |
Serious question for those who have strong opinions either for or against the idea of curtailing the second amendment, or the notion that placing additional legislative controls on the purchase and ownership of firearms will / will not have a net-positive effect on society as a whole:
Which of these two scenarios is worse, and why?
|
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 1474275)
Serious question for those who have strong opinions either for or against the idea of curtailing the second amendment, or the notion that placing additional legislative controls on the purchase and ownership of firearms will / will not have a net-positive effect on society as a whole:
You have to start the conversation with whether or not a person believes in the premise of the 2A. This usually involves a history lesson about how the USA is both a republic and a democracy. People don't make the laws, they elect people who make the laws, including the President. We are not a country of "majority rule", otherwise over time would have become the "United States of Urban VS. Rural". This also turns into a discussion about the origin of the republic, including the original 13 colonies, the Declaration of Independence, and the subsequent "battle" between the colonies to create the Bill Of Rights. I would say that far less than 1% of the population of this country has any clue about how long and fierce the Bill of Rights was debated. Our founding fathers did not take their responsibility lightly, and many constitutional scholars will say that had they known how the language of the 2A would be manipulated over time, that they would have chosen a far more plain verse. Basically, the Constitution guarantees the people the right to own firearms for collective defense against whatever threat there may be... this premise has never really been up for debate. Yes, there are nuances, but Constitutional scholars have decided time and time again that that's what it means. You will rarely find a person who will disagree with that basic premise. Even the staunchest of gun-haters won't try and argue it, they'll just rely on the old stand-by answer of "a guy with an AR15 can't win against tanks and fighters", which is self-defeating. If my own government was going to send tanks and fighter aircraft to bomb my neighborhood, don't you think that's what those guys in 1791 were talking about when the wrote the fucking thing? The fact that I actually can't shoot down a plane with an AR15 is no reason not to own one. In fact, it's a huge reason to own far bigger guns and for my HOA to have SAM batteries. And since very few people actually disagree with the premise of the 2A when presented with actual thought, what tactics do liberal politicians use to advance the basic tenets of socialism that start with disarming the populace, which requires complete abandonment of the meaning of the 2A? They cheat, steal, and lie to convince enough non-gun-owners that the only guns those other people should be allowed to own are the ones for hunting deer, because that's really what the 2A means. The classic wood-grained bolt-action rifle is the only true "safe" gun to own in the eyes of so many. This is what politicians mean when the say "We're not coming for your guns", but we should have "common sense laws" that protect children. WHAT THEY REALLY MEAN is that they want to ban every single firearm there is except a single-shot wood-grain bolt-action. PERIOD. Try this one on... remember Cliven Bundy, the asshole rancher who was grazing his cattle on public land and not paying for it? The guy who ignited an armed standoff in Nevada? When people start talking about what the 2A is for... this is a recent example that we haven't really talked about yet. Granted, my personal opinion is that the Bundy's were dead wrong, but the fact that they had a shit-ton of people with a shit-ton of guns meant that "the gubmint" was forced to decide between killing them or backing off. They backed off mostly because they knew that they had time on their hands, and secondly because they would have lost bad in a firefight. https://www.hcn.org/articles/public-...ille.jpg/image |
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 1474275)
Serious question for those who have strong opinions either for or against the idea of curtailing the second amendment, or the notion that placing additional legislative controls on the purchase and ownership of firearms will / will not have a net-positive effect on society as a whole:
Which of these two scenarios is worse, and why?
the 2nd, because you've described an acceptable liberal in-city life. |
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 1474275)
Serious question for those who have strong opinions either for or against the idea of curtailing the second amendment, or the notion that placing additional legislative controls on the purchase and ownership of firearms will / will not have a net-positive effect on society as a whole:
Which of these two scenarios is worse, and why?
|
|
Originally Posted by Ryan_G
(Post 1474319)
We won't even bother to exclude the 60% of those deaths that are suicides.
Since 1993, the United States has seen a drop in the rate of homicides and other violence involving guns, according to two new studies released Tuesday. Using government data, analysts saw a steep drop for violence in the 1990s, they saw more modest drops in crime rates since 2000. "Firearm-related homicides dropped from 18,253 homicides in 1993 to 11,101 in 2011," according to a report by the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics, "and nonfatal firearm crimes dropped from 1.5 million victimizations in 1993 to 467,300 in 2011. There were seven gun homicides per 100,000 people in 1993, the Pew Research Center study says, which dropped to 3.6 gun deaths in 2010. The study relied in part on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49 percent lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation's population grew," according to the Pew study. "The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75 percent lower in 2011 than in 1993." All of that is good news — but many Americans don't seem to be aware of it. In a survey, the Pew Research Center found that only 12 percent of Americans believe the gun crime rate is lower today than it was in 1993; 56 percent believe it's higher. gun control isn't about gun control, it's about right control. read that as controlling the right, or controlling your rights -- all the same. |
|
|
Originally Posted by samnavy
(Post 1474433)
We here in Chicago have worked hard to get our violent crime rate back up after years of lagging behind St. Louis and Detroit. |
The following should not be construed as indicating that I support or oppose any political opinion or public figure. It's just a funny picture of a chicken:
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.mia...b18d7129b0.png |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:39 PM. |
|
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands