That's what the NRA says.
I'm not the NRA.
And I trust people pretending to be my friends in order to sell me their rubbish even less than I trust teh gubernment.
General / Off-Topic More than 50 killed in Las Vegas terror attack
- Thread starter AluminumAlloy
- Start date
- Status
That's what the NRA says.
I'm not the NRA.
And I trust people pretending to be my friends in order to sell me their rubbish even less than I trust teh gubernment.
Minonian
Banned
They need the second so their right to bear arms cant be taken away because of the government is evil. But this was not the original purpose of the second amendment, but because of the modification you cannot even restrict their rights even when its necessary, and justified and as a result of this america full of guns whom are simply overpowered to civilian use, but at 21th century standards can't even hold a candle in case of real warfare, against their own government, or that highly unlikely scenario america got attacked.That's what the NRA says.
I'm not the NRA.
And I trust people pretending to be my friends in order to sell me their rubbish even less than I trust teh gubernment.
By whom? Fireants maybe, but that's the only kind of invading force they can possibly get. Especially if we consider theirs not only the strongest military at the know world but also a nuclear superpower.
So... America? Please! Shoo shoo!!! Go and brother someone else with this nonsense.
Edit; And i forgot the kind of people whom simply cannot entrusted by this kind of power. It's not just the government whom must kept in check, but also the people. And one of the so called necessary checks and balances to restrict the access of firearms. Because people too can turn "evil" and not just the government.
Last edited:
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
You are being terribly hyperbolic with the whole "powerful military weapons" shtick.
It's still not making any sense.
Minonian
Banned
Issat so?
[video=youtube;i9H50tHiHjs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9H50tHiHjs[/video]
Lets say there are a rebellion in the states, and take an overly simplified scenario which only involves the navy and the aircraft carriers. Do you know what they all need to do? To anchor about a 100 miles from the shores and start to send their planes toward the mainland and within a day or two, the whole states bombed into cinders, while guys like vindelanos can't do anything against it with their semi autos just watch it helplessly as it happens.
My sincere condolences.
And still afghanistan, Iraq and not to forget Vietnam was a mess, you can't beat resistance if the population is against you.
Minonian
Banned
I meant the united states.
But if you interested? i also meant the government is evil so we must overthrow it hypothetic scenario why the second amendment is changed. That's from the eyes of government is a rebellion.
Actually it's the other way around as the current M east situation showed to the whole world they can't beat an army. So much about the overthrowing the government nonsense. Not with crappy firearms, against fighters drones tanks and cruise missiles. All it's necessary to follow the usual american protocol and keep bombing them until the resistance pulverised.
And as Ukraine showed us? They cannot even hold up without 3rd nation support, but as your examples showed? The only way in the 21rd century to win if they are begin supported by another nation because all the cases you mentioned? They had this! Vietnam and Korea had the other communist nations support. And so in iraq they had the support of other nations / terrorist organisations.
Last edited:
Deleted member 115407
D
It was pretty impotent legislation. Just read the details in that article and I'm sure you can think of about 30 loopholes by which the law could be circumvented.
To touch on an earlier point - the mythical "gun show loophole". It doesn't exist. Many States require no background check when it comes to private sales. For instance, in Texas, the burden is on the seller to not transfer the weapon to someone who he knows to be a convicted felon. This is easy enough to circumvent... "Are you a felon?" "No." "OK, sold."
There are arguments regarding the privacy of such sales, though I am not familiar enough with those arguments to present them eloquently. Why the "gun show loophole" myth exists, is just because gun shows put people in a position where private sales are more readily available than they would be otherwise.
Here are a couple of unchecked facts though...
(1) The majority of firearms bought and sold at gun shows are done so by federally licensed dealers, who are required by Federal Law to administer ATF background checks for the sales. I've purchased two or three of my guns at gunshows, and all have been subject to mandatory background checks.
(2) Like Vegas, most of the highly-visible mass-shootings in recent memory have been perpetrated by people who have no criminal record, so a background check would have done no good in the first place.
It's a very tough situation for Americans. On one hand, we want to protect out Second Amendment right to keep an bear arms, as the right of self defense is not only fundamental, but was specifically protected for us by our founding fathers. On the other hand, we need to try to prevent the kind of awful tragedies that we are seeing all-too often, such as the one in Vegas. Unfortunately, we haven't yet stumbled upon the discovery of how to do the latter. The fear is, though, that a revocation of the former could lead to even greater tragedies, and those perpetrated by our own government.
And remember (contrary to the narrative that so many in this thread seem to want to push), it isn't the government of today that we're wary of (well, we are, but we still have a healthy election and voting system). It's the government that could potentially be here two, four, or even 20 years from now.
Last edited by a moderator:
Deleted member 115407
D
What if German Jews had overthrown Hitler's government in 1939? Would that have been self defense?
What about the people of North Korea who live in death camps? If they overthrew Kim Jon Un, would that be self defense?
What about the millions whose corpses were found in the Killing Fields? Had they overthrown Pol Pot, would that have been self defense?
What if Black Slaves had overthrown the United States government in 1861? Would that have been self defense?
Shall I go on?
It's curious, because I keep offering real examples of governments turning against their people, many in the last one hundred years (a relative tick on the historical clock) and yet from you it's "See no Evil, Hear no Evil..."
Last edited by a moderator:
Until someone from the unarmed half travels to the armed half, and someone in the armed half is all too glad to sell firearms illegally, and the buyer is all too glad to purchase them illegally, and the return to the unarmed half and massacre with wanton abandon.
But let's look at things from a different perspective - you are the leader of a terrorist organization, and above anything else, you hate the United States. You want nothing more than to burn it to the ground. But you know you cannot attack openly because there are almost four firearms per person in the United States. If you were to launch a full-scale assault, you know that you would be unable to do more than only the smallest amount of actual damage before every one of your followers lie dead in the streets - what police and military forces could not stop, armed private citizens could. So you pray for the disarmament of the citizenry.
As Isoroku Yamamoto, Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Japanese Navy during WWII is commonly believed to have once said, “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.” An invader of mainland USA would be faced with an already armed populace. That's quite a deterrent. Take that away, and the death tolls would approach an Extinction-level Event, and that would not be limited to just the United States - the rest of the world would feel the repercussions in very short order as well.
Global trade would collapse. Terrorist groups would run rampant on a global scale. Chaos in the Middle East would mean an end to oil exports, and with no exports leaving the US, the economies of many other countries would rapidly collapse as well, and the chaos would spread like wildfire. There would be no more 3rd world countries, there would be a 3rd world world. The death toll would be in the billions.
So many jokes are made about America policing the world, but ask yourselves, what would the state of the world be without that?
And when disaster strikes, where does the rest of the world turn with their hands out? Not Canada, not England, Not Germany, Not France, Not Switzerland.
Deleted member 115407
D
So we're to allow government bureaucrats without medical degrees, who work for partisan politicians, to administer psychological evaluations to determine if any given person is fit to keep and bear arms.
You really trust your government that much?
The winds of change blow in all directions. What happens when the side of the aisle that you oppose comes into power, and are suddenly the people administering the evaluations? You still comfortable with that arrangement?
Last edited by a moderator:
One of my daughter's friends got hit in the back. Unclear if it was a riccochet or a direct hit.
She's a nurse. Had her surgery. Good outcome expected.
There's zero reason for that to have happened. No motive offered whatsoever.
I'm not engaging in this debate, because the solution is not only obvious - it is already been adopted by every OTHER country.
The Second Amendment experiment has become a failure, and a greater direct threat to the citizens than all their wars combined since Independence. And we're talking about a country that does a lot of war.
Nobody is copying it. Nobody else wants it where they live. It's dangerous, and Captain Obvious level stupid.
The debate has been over for a long time, outside of US shores.
Edit:
Here's a short piece from a surgeon's perspective. That's the point of view I hold because it's where I'd work.
I had my fair share of this in the 1990 revolution in Trinidad, fought against us with US guns brought in from a gun show.
She's a nurse. Had her surgery. Good outcome expected.
There's zero reason for that to have happened. No motive offered whatsoever.
I'm not engaging in this debate, because the solution is not only obvious - it is already been adopted by every OTHER country.
The Second Amendment experiment has become a failure, and a greater direct threat to the citizens than all their wars combined since Independence. And we're talking about a country that does a lot of war.
Nobody is copying it. Nobody else wants it where they live. It's dangerous, and Captain Obvious level stupid.
The debate has been over for a long time, outside of US shores.
Edit:
Here's a short piece from a surgeon's perspective. That's the point of view I hold because it's where I'd work.
I had my fair share of this in the 1990 revolution in Trinidad, fought against us with US guns brought in from a gun show.
Last edited:
My reaction to some earlier points in this thread. Indeed I found it strange there was the taxi driver video where it showed the muzzle flashing from the 4th floor. Then there's the leaked photos where it's perplexing why the photos were not shown earlier and details such as the audio relaying to police about multiple gunmen. The photo showing the supposed deceased Paddock is conveniently unidentifiable.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-...-shooting-mainstream-media-doesnt-want-talk-a
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-...-shooting-mainstream-media-doesnt-want-talk-a
I understand them thank you very much. Can you confirm why, according to the seventh amendment, that the sum of twenty dollars is so sacrosanct in terms of the guarantee of a jury in your civil court case and why the amendment has no provision for inflation?
I think we all agree on this.
Minonian
Banned
There are many powers who want to take away peoples freedom, they will use whatever means they can, the history books are full of it.
They are many places and we can't always see who is our friends and who is our enemies.
If it would make the world a safer place I would turn my sword into a plow, to use an old expression, but it's not and I don't believe in fairy tales, I know some of you mean well when you say ban the guns and we will all be safe, I'm sorry but I don't see it that way, and that is why we will never agree on that part.
Minonian
Banned
The thunder struck close to us this time. I hope he will be better.
Agreed.
(Nods) No one in his right mind can possibly want anything like this.
Last edited:
That's your alternate reality (the reality where the president is still driving around in an open car in Dallas) reading of the text.
Actually it sais:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"
The NRA's big logo reads:
"..the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Why do they constantly ommit the first part if not in an attempt to re-write the constitution in their interest (selling as many weapons as possible)?
Why do people insisting on the sacrosanctity of the constitution only bring up the parts that suit their agenda? "nono, *this* part has to be taken literally and *that* part is metaphorical and cannot possibly have any meaning".
C'mon.
Last edited:
- Status