106 replies to this topic

[Yamato]

ninjadude, on 31 December 2012 - 10:35 PM, said:

who said anything about government treatment? One aspect of gun control would be all purchasers checked against a no-guns list - maintained by government but reported by health professionals.

Who said anything about government?    Where do you think gun control comes from?   Do you even know what you're asking for?    Again, who determines what "even marginally unhinged" means?   You?  Government?   WHO???

When the government proves itself the least bit capable of treating mental illness with parity to physical illness your argument will just begin to make some sense.   When the government proves itself the least bit responsible for the use of its own guns, your bottomless vessel of trust will just begin to be deserved.

[Yamato]

As long as the Swiss government says it's okay, 420,000 full-auto assault rifles in a nation the size of Switzerland (how many millions of assault rifles would that be for the US, anyone care to extrapolate?) is just fine.   Hypocritically, the US government can't say it's okay (see the 2nd Amendment), and has to ban these guns for Americans.  

The anti-gun spin machine changes its argument every time another point is made ruining their next false pretense for their statist prohibition.  Now we're back to a lack of training, as if that's what mattered in the wake of Sandy Hook.   Maybe they think American humans are less responsible than their Swiss counterparts.   Maybe they don't care what outlying factoid someone clings hold of to support their prohibitionist world where only rapists, burglars and murderers carry guns, just so long as they agree with getting rid of peoples' rights.   Throw as much anti-gun crap on the wall as you can find, deny reality, and see what sticks.   Herp dee derp.

Edited by Yamato, 31 December 2012 - 11:43 PM.

[DieChecker]

ninjadude, on 31 December 2012 - 10:00 PM, said:

Not "a" military. The US military. Those places are not the US where we spend more on the military than nearly all countries on earth combined. Certainly in backward 3rd world countries, citizens with handguns can challenge a military.

You mean like Afghanistan where the Insurgents have been going for over a decade and all they got is small arms and home made explosives? Against the US Military... spending a half trillion over that timespan.

[DieChecker]

Yamato, on 31 December 2012 - 11:33 PM, said:

So the government forcing people to do something makes everything okay?   Is it the lack of training that's really at issue here now? What is the real basis for correctness here anyway?

In my eyes, yes, the difference would be the training. The Constitution provides for people who are trained to bear arms. Even if that is a 2 week course for everyone. I'd like people who are gun owners to be responsible, and to do that they have to be trained in laws and usage.

[The Silver Thong]

DieChecker, on 01 January 2013 - 03:54 AM, said:

You mean like Afghanistan where the Insurgents have been going for over a decade and all they got is small arms and home made explosives? Against the US Military... spending a half trillion over that timespan.

You mean the same people the US sold weapons to and trained for years to fight the soviets.

[DieChecker]

questionmark, on 31 December 2012 - 10:39 PM, said:

The number for Kentucky caught my eye.

Just curious if there is any data on if there are more deaths by firearms in Kentucky also?

Edited by DieChecker, 01 January 2013 - 04:00 AM.

[The Silver Thong]

DieChecker, on 01 January 2013 - 03:58 AM, said:

In my eyes, yes, the difference would be the training. The Constitution provides for people who are trained to bear arms. Even if that is a 2 week course for everyone. I'd like people who are gun owners to be responsible, and to do that they have to be trained in laws and usage.

It still does nothing as to what the constitution intened gun rights to be.  It`s being abused and plays no part in todays world.

[DieChecker]

The Silver Thong, on 01 January 2013 - 03:59 AM, said:

You mean the same people the US sold weapons to and trained for years to fight the soviets.

Yeah them. The point not being that they are trained. Or, were trained 20 years ago. But that they are still resisting using only small arms. Heavy weapons, tanks, aircraft, naval units... are not needed to resist an occupying military. This would apply to the US civilian population just as well as to the Afghans.

[DieChecker]

The Silver Thong, on 01 January 2013 - 04:02 AM, said:

It still does nothing as to what the constitution intened gun rights to be.  It`s being abused and plays no part in todays world.

The Constitution intended that there be privately owned firearms to be used for defense of the nation by trained militiamen. That is basically what I was saying would need to happen for me to promote/stand behind widespread gun ownership of military weapons.

[The Silver Thong]

DieChecker, on 01 January 2013 - 04:04 AM, said:

The Constitution intended that there be privately owned firearms to be used for defense of the nation by trained militiamen. That is basically what I was saying would need to happen for me to promote/stand behind widespread gun ownership of military weapons.

I agree with gun ownership in the us however it has failed as you have failed to use the right for what it was intended. Your government has already been taken over by the banks the very reason for the 2nd amendment. Its to late for it to be relivant anymore.  Act now or that right will be history.

[The Silver Thong]

The day after the us turned it`s banking system over to the fedral reserve was the day the second amendment should have kicked in. Thats when your government screwed you.

Edited by The Silver Thong, 01 January 2013 - 04:12 AM.

[AsteroidX]

Yes and No. The Declaration of Independence IMO spells out better then the 2nd Amendment about under what circumstances it should "kick in". Although its always active I understand what your hinting at.

DoI Link provided:http://www.archives....transcript.html

[The Silver Thong]

AsteroidX, on 01 January 2013 - 04:16 AM, said:

Yes and No. The Declaration of Independence IMO spells out better then the 2nd Amendment about under what circumstances it should "kick in". Although its always active I understand what your hinting at.

DoI Link provided:http://www.archives....transcript.html

Yes and now what the US faught for is back in the bank of London. Its a waste of 200 years. If the 2 nd admendment were to be uses today it would mean killing all the politicians and heads of the banking system. Can Americans do that, no.  The game is over and the banks yet again win.  Theres a famouse quote out there that says I care not of your government but give me control of the banks and I shall rule. Rothchilds or some other d bag said it.

[acidhead]

The Silver Thong, on 01 January 2013 - 04:26 AM, said:

Theres a famouse quote out there that says I care not of your government but give me control of the banks and I shall rule. Rothchilds or some other d bag said it.

hahha......  that was funny

[The Silver Thong]

acidhead, on 01 January 2013 - 04:57 AM, said:

hahha......  that was funny

Im a bit rusty lol