Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Originally Posted by rlchurch Tin we know you never served and I did, so I suggest to you that you are living in LALA land. But it wouldn't be the military that was involved at all. It would be a police matter handled by federal and state authorities.
You should read the Constitution Tin.
Is everyone who hasn't served in la la land? Or just those who call a spade a spade even if he once wore a uniform? I respect men for what they are, not what they wear. You are undeserving of respect for several reasons. Your service might have made up for it but your words prove it doesn't.
That you served I only point out because it serves to show your level of integrity, or lack thereof, having sworn an oath to something you did not believe in for whatever reason you had. Likely an education & pension, certainly not because you wanted to preserve the constitution or protect your country from tyranny.
I imagine I'v read the constitution enough. I know its forbidden for our military to be used for domestic things. I also know that things like the constitution are trod on by our Govt.
What you seem just a tad too handicapped to understand is if its ok for them to ignore the part of the Constitution you dont see a need for, its a short step for them to ignore other inconvenient restraints.
The police probably wouldn't do it for the most part. They are just civilians like the rest of us. The Feds couldn't do it without the local cops. If it ever comes about you can bet that in the end the military will be called upon.
I should remind you that it was you who stated that our military would quickly put an end to any rebellion. Now your saying they cant & it would be the police who were called upon. Not very consistant are we?
i think that we have made it fairly clear why we are speaking out. gun control is a movement in hysteria for the most part. some sort of law needs to be there. but we are years past the point when it became ridiculous.
current gun control direction does nothing to improve the safety of the citizens; in fact, the argument that current gun control ideas make us more vulnerable is solid enough to warrant some serious thought, whether you currently believe it or not.
we speak out because we believe that one of our rights as lawful citizens of this country is in jeopardy of being illegally stripped from us, and that is an alarming concern.
it is disheartening to say the least that so many americans (and the few foreigners that decide to give us their wisdom) are comfortable giving up their rights one after another, and approving of more and more power in the federal government, power that should be a personal issue.
it is even more disheartening to see how many americans are perfectly content being led around by media hysterics and knee-jerk policies.
dogs are another example of good initiative, but baaaaaad judgment. a minority of *humans* out there are doing some horrible things with dogs. what do we do? ban the dogs.
brilliant.
in the end, policies like these do nothing to fix the human element of the problem, infringe in pointless and unsuccessful ways on our rights, and drive media-trusting, big-government-trusting masses to unnecessary heights of ignorant paranoia, to the point where they are willing to surrender their rights in a false bid for temporary security.
I speak out just as the African-Americans, the Latinos and the homosexuals speak out. My rights are at risk of being taken away because of the mindset that you have. We give you scientific studies, in which you very methodically ignore, we give you testimonials in which you ignore. WE SPEAK BECAUSE WE DO NOT WANT OUR RIGHTS TAKEN FROM US.
those who would give liberty for temporary protection deserve neither.
-Benjamin Franklin
A link for RI from a recent "rare" home invasion in his 'hood, it was only the lead local story on all DC TV stations when it happened and the other day at the hearing.
Yeah, really rare. Only a handful during any given year. The fact that it was given such prominence is a measure of how unusual it was.
No, it was prominent because it was in NW, the victims were white, and they were "prominent" in the local community. Check the stats for home invasions in the city sometime-you know, the ones that don't make the news.
This is certainly a long running thread. Lol, lots of opinions on the gun rights issue. It's no secret here on CD thet I'm a proponent of the right to bear arms, and I have seen no arguments from the anti-gun crowd that changes my mind in the least. It's a choice to be armed or not and having that choice is one of our most fundamental rights as Americans. Regulation of legal firearms ownership does nothing to curb crime and that is a proven fact. The military style rifle issue is also a moot point as the problem child is ILLEGAl use of weapons that you can't get at your local gunshop anyway. There are also "legitimate sporting purposes" for the aforementioed military style weapons that ou CAN legally own if you find the sporting purpose argument to be valid. (I , personally don't) I have several of these type of firearm and use them in competitions regularly as well as for casual target shooting. If the time ever comes that they need to be called into service for some type of conflict, well, I have them. Thats a good thing. Well, I'm off to the gun store today! Time fro another new handgun methinks, or maybe more than one.........
No, it was prominent because it was in NW, the victims were white, and they were "prominent" in the local community. Check the stats for home invasions in the city sometime-you know, the ones that don't make the news.
Great please provide us with a tabulation of "home invasions."
Ask and ye shall receive. As usual, the incompetence of the DC government knows no bounds and the figures go only to 2005.
Metropolitan Police Department: City Annual Stats: 93-05 (http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view,a,1239,q,547256,mpdcNav_GID,1556.asp - broken link)
Ask and ye shall receive. As usual, the incompetence of the DC government knows no bounds and the figures go only to 2005.
Metropolitan Police Department: City Annual Stats: 93-05 (http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view,a,1239,q,547256,mpdcNav_GID,1556.asp - broken link)
Where is "Home Invasion"? I see a lot of crimes listed, but no "Home Invasion". It's not burglary, since that includes break ins of unoccupied buildings. It's not robberies, those can occur anywhere. Where are "Home Invasions" listed so that we can see that the District has a very modest number of home invasions.
Interesting that you claim it's DC police incompetence that you can't find the current statistics on their web site. Here Metropolitan Police Department: Preliminary Crime Statistics (http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view,a,1239,q,543329.asp - broken link)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Time fro another new handgun methinks, or maybe more than one.........
