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.
I think my topic was turning a corner and finding two sacks of s--t hacking an officer to death. It is pretty clear who I would shoot.
Yes, ONE RARE incident.
What about the other possible scenario's. Remember Gabrielle Giffords and how someone almost shot the wrong person, and that is one of the few stories that you hear where someone actually tried to intervene.
I'm okay with the principal having a gun (provided he is mentally stable) but I still say laws are needed to prevent the wrong types from getting access.
Whats always left out is one important fact. The columbine shooters along with the sandy hook shooter were all taking anti depressant medication. This seems to be one commonality thats always left out. I would be surprised this nut case was on them as well.
This is funny and very American. Your guns agains tanks, jet fighters etc. Ya, that's going to work. At best you will be holed up like in Waco, Texas...eventually....
Also this attack on Liberals, as if they are the only ones for saner gun laws. I'm sure there are many people from all political stripes that favour gun control.
Most Liberals are for gun control, while most Conservatives are not. Very American? Why thank you, third generation Swede and thankfully integrated. There are many, many guns in this country and it will not be a simple matter to remove them. Your countrymen have been castrated by your government, ours have not.
This is funny and very American. Your guns agains tanks, jet fighters etc. Ya, that's going to work. At best you will be holed up like in Waco, Texas...eventually....
Our laws make that illegal also.
Quote:
Also this attack on Liberals, as if they are the only ones for saner gun laws. I'm sure there are many people from all political stripes that favour gun control.
If the election was tomorrow I'm voting for Sanders. Sanders is maybe the most liberal candidate running......he supports the 2nd Amendment. Not that you could vote for or against him for that reason.
This is funny and very American. Your guns agains tanks, jet fighters etc. Ya, that's going to work. At best you will be holed up like in Waco, Texas...eventually....
Also this attack on Liberals, as if they are the only ones for saner gun laws. I'm sure there are many people from all political stripes that favour gun control.
Jesus H Christ it's the same tired arguments! Those jets, and tanks are doing a wonderful job in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, and they did such a bang up job in Vietnam too! We have the most powerful military in the world, and still couldn't win in Vietnam, and our troops still can't get a lid on things in Iraq and Afghanistan! Ask the Russians how well the Soviets and their Red Army worked against Afghanistan? 10 years of trying to occupy that nation, in what ended in a complete failure. Let's look at the American Revolution. The colonists fought against superior forces, and weaponry, and yet were still able to defeat the British. You also assume that those in the military would go along with any legislation amounting to a mass gun grab. Sure some would follow along like sheep, but quite a bit would tell the feds to stick it and side with the American citizens as they took an oath to protect us from enemies foreign and domestic. And let's face it a government that would side step the Constitution in such a power grab would indeed become rogue and an enemy to the people, because it goes against the very ideals of what the Founders of this nation envisioned. Then of course you have the many ex-military personnel who would side with the people, not to mention a lot of police officers. History has shown time and again that superior forces can and have been defeated.
What about the other possible scenario's. Remember Gabrielle Giffords and how someone almost shot the wrong person, and that is one of the few stories that you hear where someone actually tried to intervene.
Oh just wait! With all of those refugees coming over there in droves, and many already causing problems, I expect to hear more of that type of stuff going on over there! It's too bad that citizens in European countries (as well as your country) are restricted in having the means to defend themselves.
What about the other possible scenario's. Remember Gabrielle Giffords and how someone almost shot the wrong person, and that is one of the few stories that you hear where someone actually tried to intervene.
Charlie Hebdo? Parliment Hill in Ottawa? Seriously, I am thumbing through my mail and I can come up with these off the top of my head without trying! But I do agree with you, if a person cannot take the time to responsibly assess a situation they should not be firing a gun.
So does this mean that we are still going to open our doors to 100,000 Muslim fugitives from Syria? Our President wants to stop these killings; but it will not help to pour more fuel on the fire. Let him explain to the US citizens how they can be sure there are no extremist in the group of refugees. Of course; with the increased acts of terror, committed after this new invasion, the WH can call on more legal citizens to give up our rights!
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.
We have the most powerful military in the world, and still couldn't win in Vietnam, and our troops still can't get a lid on things in Iraq and Afghanistan! Ask the Russians how well the Soviets and their Red Army worked against Afghanistan? 10 years of trying to occupy that nation, in what ended in a complete failure. Let's look at the American Revolution. The colonists fought against superior forces, and weaponry, and yet were still able to defeat the British. You also assume that those in the military would go along with any legislation amounting to a mass gun grab. Sure some would follow along like sheep, but quite a bit would tell the feds to stick it and side with the American citizens as they took an oath to protect us from enemies foreign and domestic. And let's face it a government that would side step the Constitution in such a power grab would indeed become rogue and an enemy to the people, because it goes against the very ideals of what the Founders of this nation envisioned. Then of course you have the many ex-military personnel who would side with the people, not to mention a lot of police officers. History has shown time and again that superior forces can and have been defeated.
