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.
That's not a 2nd Amendment argument, that's a pragmatic argument. So why aren't people who want to talk pragamatically about universal background checks, or bans on certain types of firearms or magazines without you jumping up and screaming about the 2nd Amendment? Once again, you don't get to call yourself a strict-constructionist if you only strictly construe when it's beneficial to you.
learn to quote properly.
Amnesty will not happen,
And bans and expending background checks have not reduced crime, why would expending them help? It will not, all it will do is strip the people of the best means of protection and defend of their property, liberty and their lives, from criminals or a tyrannical government.
Funny how are you going to call me a opportunist of a strict constructionist view when you don't give a damn about the the Constitution at all.
And bans and expending background checks have not reduced crime, why would expending them help? It will not, all it will do is strip the people of the best means of protection and defend of their property, liberty and their lives, from criminals or a tyrannical government.
lol
Tell that to the countries with gun control laws and low rates of gun violence.
And your guns won't protect you from a government that uses drones to kill with impunity and will probably develop robot soldiers over the next 2-3 decades.
Funny how are you going to call me a opportunist of a strict constructionist view when you don't give a damn about the the Constitution at all?
Spin, spin, spin. Can't defend your inconsistency so you spin and deflect.
I already know why individuals aren't allowed to own nuclear and chemical arms, because common sense and pragmatism dictate that they shouldn't be. The fact is that in agreeing to that, you've already agreed to compromise on a literal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, which makes the question about where we draw the line. The 2nd Amendment isn't absolute, it isn't to be taken literally and that means you don't get to scream "2nd Amendment!" every time we talk about gun control, you're being disingenuous by refusing to enter into a discussion about the merits of any particular proposal.
Tell that to the countries with gun control laws and low rates of gun violence.
And your guns won't protect you from a government that uses drones to kill with impunity and will probably develop robot soldiers over the next 2-3 decades.
Spin, spin, spin. Can't defend your inconsistency so you spin and deflect.
I already know why individuals aren't allowed to own nuclear and chemical arms, because common sense and pragmatism dictate that they shouldn't be. The fact is that in agreeing to that, you've already agreed to compromise on a literal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, which makes the question about where we draw the line. The 2nd Amendment isn't absolute, it isn't to be taken literally and that means you don't get to scream "2nd Amendment!" every time we talk about gun control, you're being disingenuous by refusing to enter into a discussion about the merits of any particular proposal.
Immigration reform will not happen, and it sure as hell will not happen in this current economical down grade.
They have lower gun crime, but have far higher rates of violent crime, you are aware of this right?
Really? well the Taliban have been doing a great job of the last 12 years. and you assume we would be able to afford such costly "robot soldier" we are 17,000,000,000,000 in debt and growing faster and faster.
Did I ever say they should be?
I am not be disingenuous, I am seeing the track record of statist and how they always take and take and take the power and rights of the citizenry all the name of "the common good" or "public safety" We are not compromise any more, deal with it.
Any nation that would its army, and drones on its own people by default has lost and all moral and legal authority to govern.
They have lower gun crime, but have far higher rates of violent crime, you are aware of this right?
Absolutely false. First, there is no internationally recognized method of categorizing "violent crime." Politifact has already pointed this out in a takedown of a Daily Mail story claiming the UK had a higher violent crime rate than the US (it doesn't). Intentional homicides are however, easily compared on an international scale and the US has a higher intentional homicide rate than any country in Western Europe (and most of Eastern Europe) and Japan.
Really? well the Taliban have been doing a great job of the last 12 years. and you assume we would be able to afford such costly "robot soldier"
First, we seem to spare no expense when it comes to the armed forces. Can you really look at their bloated budget and say otherwise? Second, it's estimated that in the coming decades, veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan war will require nearly $700 billion in medical care. Robots won't need that. The government is going to jump all over that, then they get to make war and few get angry about it.
The Taliban (like the Iraqi insurgency) is an area awash in higher-grade military weapons. It's not really comparable to the situation in the United States. The only hope an armed rebellion in the US would have, would be if some foreign power pumped military weapons into the country (which is highly unlikely since it could lead to escalation by the US government).
Did I ever say they should be?
I am not be disingenuous, I am seeing the track record of statist and how they always take and take and take the power and rights of the citizenry all the name of "the common good" or "public safety" We are not compromise any more, deal with it.
But you've already compromised. Saying you get to take an absolute position after you've already compromised is disingenuous.
Any nation that would its army, and drones on its own people by default has lost and all moral and legal authority to govern.
Perhaps, and it's not likely the US government would ever do that, they don't really have to, which makes your argument that you need certain weapons to defend yourself against the government seem pointless and more a reflection of your own fantasies than having any basis in reality.
You're kidding? Nothing compares to the verbal abuse that is tolerated towards Sarah Palin.
I think Hillary would be the first one to make fun of herself, as she actually has a pretty good sense of humor and, in addition, she's not running for Miss America, so making fun of her looks is a bit off topic. On the other hand, Sarah Palin takes herself so very seriously and puts herself out there pretending to make very germane statements about political topics which are in fact usually either wrong or just very dumb statements. I've actually heard people laugh out loud at her comments. Do you get the difference? One more time--Hillary is not pretending that she is slim, young or beautiful. But Sarah is pretending that she is insightful, intelligent and relevant.
Really confused, why exactly is the house controlled by the GOP then? Or the majority of governors?
You are just as delusional as the conservatives that declared the democrats dead in 2002.
The American people are starting to see just how crappy the democrats are, then they will elect republicans, then the American people will be reminded how crappy the republicans are and then elect democrats again, and so on.
Why is the house controlled by the GOP? Gerrymandering. Democrats got more votes and fewer seats.
What is the argo journal. I doubt it's a significant poll
LOL. I googled it and there is a list of polls for different states with totally different results in each state. He only posted Colorado. Cruz is not so popular in Fla.
They have lower gun crime, but have far higher rates of violent crime, you are aware of this right?
Absolutely false. First, there is no internationally recognized method of categorizing "violent crime." Politifact has already pointed this out in a takedown of a Daily Mail story claiming the UK had a higher violent crime rate than the US (it doesn't). Intentional homicides are however, easily compared on an international scale and the US has a higher intentional homicide rate than any country in Western Europe (and most of Eastern Europe) and Japan.
Really? well the Taliban have been doing a great job of the last 12 years. and you assume we would be able to afford such costly "robot soldier"
First, we seem to spare no expense when it comes to the armed forces. Can you really look at their bloated budget and say otherwise? Second, it's estimated that in the coming decades, veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan war will require nearly $700 billion in medical care. Robots won't need that. The government is going to jump all over that, then they get to make war and few get angry about it.
The Taliban (like the Iraqi insurgency) is an area awash in higher-grade military weapons. It's not really comparable to the situation in the United States. The only hope an armed rebellion in the US would have, would be if some foreign power pumped military weapons into the country (which is highly unlikely since it could lead to escalation by the US government).
Did I ever say they should be?
I am not be disingenuous, I am seeing the track record of statist and how they always take and take and take the power and rights of the citizenry all the name of "the common good" or "public safety" We are not compromise any more, deal with it.
But you've already compromised. Saying you get to take an absolute position after you've already compromised is disingenuous.
Any nation that would its army, and drones on its own people by default has lost and all moral and legal authority to govern.
Perhaps, and it's not likely the US government would ever do that, they don't really have to, which makes your argument that you need certain weapons to defend yourself against the government seem pointless and more a reflection of your own fantasies than having any basis in reality.
If you wish to trade you liberty and freedom for safety and security fine, leave, why should we all suffer? You have the right to live your life, do we not have the same right?
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.
