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, for one, believe the old adage: "better to have a gun and not need it, then not have a gun and need it". I own a handgun and a rifle. Whether it's banning assault rifles and high load magazines or doing extensive background checks including mental health evaluations before someone is allowed to buy an AR something needs to be done. If any of you lost someone in one of these mass shootings you might have a different opinion.
Most if not all of the mass shootings in recent times were completely preventable, had the FBI simply done its job.
If I had lost someone in the Parkland shooting, I would be suing the sheriff and the FBI for gross incompetence and corruption. Both knew about this kid, were even warned that he wanted to be a school shooter. The deputies actually had orders not to go into the school until it was safe. The FBI had received multiple warnings on the tip line, and just dropped the ball.
The FBI has a lot of blood on its hands. And the fact that the liberals would rather talk about banning guns than the obvious issue of law enforcement's utter incompetence is awfully suspicious.
It's like the fact that most gun homicides are black-on-black in Democrat-ruled cities. The Democrats have tried to strictly control guns and have failed miserably. Meanwhile, the carnage continues.
And this is why many of us are angry with Dick's and several other cowardly companies that are simply going along with this misguided propaganda. After the Parkland shooting, the sheriff angrily proclaimed that it was the NRA's fault. And the liberals lapped it up. Unbelievable!
At least the FBI is good for investigating Presidents over bogus charges of Russian collusion. Good to know they have something to fill their days and look busy.
Well of course they British sought to confiscate the arms stores of potentially rebellious militia. But you said “King George tried to confiscate all firearms” which is sheer nonsense.
For one thing the British didn’t intend to confiscate all firearms and for another the decision to confiscate the arms of the potentially rebellious militia was made by the British authorities in Boston, not by the British government in London and certainly not by King George, who lacked the authority to make policy.
This is what really happened. George III definitely set policy.
Quote:
The Americans petitioned to the King to intervene with the Parliament. However, George ignored the pleas and instead labeled the rebel leaders traitors. What ensued was a year of fighting. In 1776, the colonies declared their independence and made a list of their grievances to the King. At the same time, the American revolutionaries were asking support from the populace.
George was always accused of trying to keep his nation at war with the American revolutionaries. He did not heed counsel from his advisors. According to George Trevelyan, a Victorian author, George had a strong determination not to acknowledge the American independence. He wanted to punish their contumacy by indefinitely prolonging a war which he promised to would be ongoing for eternity. George wanted to keep the rebels poor, anxious and harassed until the day comes when their disappointment and discontent were transformed into remorse and penitence.
I'm glad that I don't have a king. I'm glad that I'm a citizen, not a subject.
Just a word of warning to the preppers, who actually belong here:
You are trying to use facts to educate the political trolls who
come here to spew their hatred for Constitutional rights.
While they are not actually violating terms of service, so we
can't ban them, don't bother arguing or even answering them.
They have no interest in facts.
Just a word of warning to the preppers, who actually belong here:
You are trying to use facts to educate the political trolls who
come here to spew their hatred for Constitutional rights.
While they are not actually violating terms of service, so we
can't ban them, don't bother arguing or even answering them.
They have no interest in facts.
As someone said earlier: Trolls should starve.
I'm not a prepper; I'm a survivalist. I won't let false statements stand because I don't intend to let children and others be led astray.
This is what really happened. George III definitely set policy.
When you get down to the nitty gritty Parliament set policy. George took an active role in determining policy but lacked the authority to set it, actually setting policy was the realm of Parliament and it’s ministers. Parliament could be persuaded by the King but was not obliged to follow his notions.
I suggest this book which studies the British point of view from political, social, economic and military (army, navy and logistics) perspectives.
The British never tried to or intended to confiscate all firearms in the American colonies, that assertion is utter nonsense. ....
I doesn't matter if he was trying to take all of their firearms, he didn't have the authority to take any, except as allowed by due process and a jury trial.
Quote:
It’s amusing to see people in this thread accusing big time capitalists of being communists and socialists. It’s also alarming.
What is alarming is that a so called "big time capitalist (actually corporation) would become so brain damaged as to do the bidding of communists.
Quote:
As for militia, the main job of militia in the United States was not fighting off invaders (militia were woefully inept when fighting regular troops when put to that test in our rebellion against Britain and in the War of 1812) but fighting Indians (also much better done by regular troops) and suppressing unpopular political thought and action. If you guys ever have your fantasy rebellion against the United States the state militias (National Guard) will be the first soldiers sent against you.
Nice propaganda piece. Mostly fiction, of course.
Lies, wrapped in a skin of truth.
And of course, the most damaging propaganda are
lies that are wrapped in a skin of truth.
National Guard, for instance, is part of, but
not the whole of, the militia.
And while less effective than an equal number
of regular troops, militia have proven to be the
deciding factor in a number of wars.
When you get down to the nitty gritty Parliament set policy. George took an active role in determining policy but lacked the authority to set it, actually setting policy was the realm of Parliament and it’s ministers. Parliament could be persuaded by the King but was not obliged to follow his notions.
I suggest this book which studies the British point of view from political, social, economic and military (army, navy and logistics) perspectives.
I doesn't matter if he was trying to take all of their firearms, he didn't have the authority to take any, except as allowed by due process and a jury trial.
What is alarming is that a so called "big time capitalist (actually corporation) would become so brain damaged as to do the bidding of communists.
Nice propaganda piece. Mostly fiction, of course.
Lies, wrapped in a skin of truth.
And of course, the most damaging propaganda are
lies that are wrapped in a skin of truth.
Still scared of the communists, eh? Actually many communists are in favor of an armed populace and believe it necessary for the evolution of an industrial society and for the ability of the working class and oppressed minorities to resist right wing authoritarianism. Think Black Panthers.
I think right wing authoritarians who believe with no apologies in the suppression of the working class would be more in favor of gun control. I think the corporate types who control the Republican party’s agenda will rue the day they courted working class gun owners because the economic interests of such gun owners and corporatists are going to clash some day. If the Democrats can work out a program for reasonable gun control and sell it they can then court the economic interests of working class gun owners and get back their vote. Actually I could even favor ditching gun control totally and going back to strictly economic interests even though I think some gun control is needed. But not at the cost of losing elections and thus being unable to get things done.
The gun control crowd **** me off with their ineptness and unwillingness to get down in the dirt and fight nasty. I think if they leaked to the internet the crime scene photos of the little kids in Connecticut blown to bloody smithereens we’d see assault rifles banned (and spare the pedantic and irrelevant definitions of assault rifle, that ship has sailed). Think about MADD.
work out a program for reasonable gun control...
The gun control crowd **** me off with their ineptness and unwillingness to get down in the dirt and fight nasty. I think if they leaked to the internet the crime scene photos of the little kids in Connecticut blown to bloody smithereens we’d see assault rifles banned
Yep, I can see what we have here. No further need to attempt
intelligent conversation, since he has his talking points.
Time to drop him into the ignore bin ... plonk!
We get people from the "politics and controversies" forum stopping
by here to sew discord from time to time, and it is always humorous
when they begin by saying they support the 2nd amendment,
and then go on to show that they either have no understanding of it
at all, or show that they don't support it at all.
The gun control crowd **** me off with their ineptness and unwillingness to get down in the dirt and fight nasty. I think if they leaked to the internet the crime scene photos of the little kids in Connecticut blown to bloody smithereens we’d see assault rifles banned (and spare the pedantic and irrelevant definitions of assault rifle, that ship has sailed). Think about MADD.
I can tell you why the "gun control" crowd won't do that. They're afraid that photos of the same taken in Chicago will get leaked and then the question can be asked of the politicians there how gun control is working for them. It's a Democratic-run city, so it should make for a good discussion.
I also take umbrage at your dismissal of the misinterpretation of the term "assault rifle". That ship may have sailed for you and the ignorant left, but to those of us intelligent and informed enough to know the difference, that ship is still in port.
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.
