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.
Who ever said you need to be armed every time you step out of the house? You don't do your arguments any favors when you build lame strawmen.
Asking why people need guns is an illegitimate question. It's irrelevant why they need them or if they need them. This isn't a dictatorship. It's not up to you to justify a reason for needing your possessions. It isn't up to the government to decide what items you need and what items you don't. Unless there is a compelling reason to forbid someone from owning something, then that person can own it if they choose. That's how a free country works. If you are a law abiding citizen of sound mind and body there is no compelling reason to deny you the ownership of a firearm.
That's the flaw in your reasoning: there is a compelling reasons to outlaw guns - it's called public safety.
Who ever said you need to be armed every time you step out of the house? You don't do your arguments any favors when you build lame strawmen.
Asking why people need guns is an illegitimate question. It's irrelevant why they need them or if they need them. This isn't a dictatorship. It's not up to you to justify a reason for needing your possessions. It isn't up to the government to decide what items you need and what items you don't. Unless there is a compelling reason to forbid someone from owning something, then that person can own it if they choose. That's how a free country works. If you are a law abiding citizen of sound mind and body there is no compelling reason to deny you the ownership of a firearm.
Do yourself a favor and read the posts before you accuse someone of lying...
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeywrenching when I lived in Wisconsin and before CCW was passed there, I always opened carried. better to have something than to be at the mercy of the criminals and the cops.
Personally I think that anyone who carries a gun everywhere openly is putting themselves more at risk than if they had no gun....It is an idiotic thing to do in my opinion.
There is no definition of "law-abiding citizen" in law. Even the people who haven't been convicted before, commit crimes and suffer mental problems. Most mass murders were by your definition law abiding citizens until they started shooting innocent people. People walking the streets with guns are a common sight in Afghanistan but not in England, Canada or any other civilized country. Are you trying turn America into a third world country? Why? Overall, big fail on your part.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattCW
A law-abiding citizen by definition is not a threat to public safety. Try again.
By definition we can't be a third world country since a first world country was allied with NATO (I guess we could withdraw) second world countries were allied with Warsaw Pact countries, and third world was everything else (Iran, South Africa, Morocco are first world, China, Vietnam, Somalia are second world, and Sweden, Switzerland, and Finland are third world to give some examples).
But I digress. The law can't judge a person until they commit an act. The police can't pull over every car because they *might* commit a crime. So we shouldn't prohibit gun ownership and carrying just because someone *might* commit a crime either. If you don't like our legal system, you can go live somewhere without that if you want, that's your choice.
Technically speaking I have no problem with open carry or CC and I am a supporter of the 2nd ammendment, but these guys strike me the same way as those gay people who dress up like freaks and get in peoples faces saying "We're here! We're qu eer!" and snap their fingers and just wait for the smug satisfaction of the shocked expression on your face reacting to their existence. Only less gay.
Since you just categorized some of the richest countries on the planet (yes, that's the actual criteria) like Sweden and Switzerland as third world countries, I suspect you're either still in kindergarten or finished your education at that level, hence there no discussion is possible here. Have a nice life lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattCW
By definition we can't be a third world country since a first world country was allied with NATO (I guess we could withdraw) second world countries were allied with Warsaw Pact countries, and third world was everything else (Iran, South Africa, Morocco are first world, China, Vietnam, Somalia are second world, and Sweden, Switzerland, and Finland are third world to give some examples).
Since you just categorized some of the richest countries on the planet (yes, that's the actual criteria) like Sweden and Switzerland as third world countries, I suspect you're either still in kindergarten or finished your education at that level, hence there no discussion is possible here. Have a nice life lol
He's using the old, original meaning of the terms.
As the US and USSR began dividing the world up in various mutual defense treaty organizations and pacts (NATO, SEATO, Warsaw, et cetera), Jawaharlal Nehru coined the "numbered world" terminology and defined them that way in explaining his guiding of India away from the Western "First World" and Communist "Second World." He declared that India would be the leader of the "Third World." Thus, the original concept was political, not economic.
But the meaning has changed for all intents and purposes to be a description of economics and industrialization rather than politics.
Since you just categorized some of the richest countries on the planet (yes, that's the actual criteria) like Sweden and Switzerland as third world countries, I suspect you're either still in kindergarten or finished your education at that level, hence there no discussion is possible here. Have a nice life lol
HA! And yet, I'm not the one that obviously failed history and doesn't know what the proper terminology is, rather than the modern converted use.
Disrespectful losers who haven't gotten over their teenage lust for power. "Second amendment" my ass, they only want to feel powerful.
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.
