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.
Speaking on the military being human and not robots, that is your militia then. They will use the military grade weapons, which would include the highest tech, to fight against the government. Why do you need highly powered rifles to fight, which wouldn't do much of anything anyway? The truth is you don't need them, but simply want to own highly powered, high ammunition guns. I'm more afraid of the scenario of rioting citizens with semi-automatic turned automatic weapons rampaging through the streets, than I am of a rouge government. Especially as a black man who knows the history of all the race riots. Imagine that, with today's weapons.
Now you say according to the founding fathers, people have a right to all military weapons. Does that include jets, stealth aircraft, and laser guided missiles?
You're in luck then. The only groups who are prone to rioting seem to be liberal groups, and they tend not to carry AR15s. I guess we should all be glad that guns are expensive because that means gun owners have to work and don't have time to indulge in rioting.
Especially as a black man who knows the history of all the race riots.
Do you also know that the NRA played a huge part in the civil rights movement by standing with black organizations against the KKK and the Democrats?
The so called "assault weapon" is more or less a scary looking sporting rifle. There are other rifles that are more powerful then the typical AR15 that the Left is looking to ban.
It is a bit ironic that the Left wants to ban something just because of the way it looks.
Don't they know that "Black Guns Matter" ??
1) Because statistically, AR15s and similar firearms account for a minuscule number of firearms deaths. They don't even have their own category on the charts, the number is so low. They are included in the category of rifles, and that category accounts for less than 4% of firearms deaths in the United States.
2) Because it won't end with AR15s. It has been proven over and over again by the anti-gun crowd that they prefer to nibble at gun ownership rather than take huge bites. It will start with AR15s, and when that doesn't stop firearms deaths (which it won't, as has already been proven by previous laws) they will move on to the next "evil" group of guns, and the next, and the next. The term "give them an inch and they'll take a mile" is a perfect descriptor of the liberal plan for gun control.
3) Because it is nobody's business how many guns or what type of guns I, you, or anyone else owns. The government is not authorized to, and in fact is strictly forbidden from, pass any law which infringes upon the right of the citizenry to own firearms. This was done purposefully by the people who wrote the 2nd Amendment, and it was done for the purpose of ensuring that the citizenry could, if necessary, produce a viable defense in the case of invasion or unconstitutional government action.
In short, for those of us who actually pay attention and educate ourselves on the subject, the idea of placing a limit on the number of firearms that can be owned by an individual is not only ridiculous but is about one step away from fascism. In case you missed it, the vast majority of gun owners tend to be slightly on the conservative side simply due to the fact that owning firearms has been deemed anathema by the progressive left. Unlike liberals, and contrary to recent media spin, conservatives tend to dislike fascism.
So by default, countries with strict gun control laws are fascist? I think that is way over the top, and isn't the definition of fascism at all.
Oxford
"An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization."
1 often capitalized :a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 :a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
early instances of army fascism and brutality —J. W. Aldridge
WELL, so much for honest discussion for it seems you already have decided what the answer should be and if it was not that, then the person must be nuts.
That is what makes horse races and thank you for your time.
No , I actually hadn't. I did have some hope though that we would find that if you thought " yeah, if my neighbor has his garage stacked to the ceiling with AR15s and keeps buying as many as often as the law allows then we might have a problem that needs looking into" , then we would be on the same side of the fence , even if our numbers were far apart.
But the answer that there is no number of AR15s a guy could buy that would get you to wondering about him is, as I said, mind boggling. Not a pre determined conclusion at all. One arrived at solely by your answer .
Merriam Webster does a better job at keeping a political leaning out of it and describes what it actually is.
Definition of fascism
1 often capitalized :a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 :a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
early instances of army fascism and brutality —J. W. Aldridge
I'll take Oxford over Webster's any day. Taking the political meaning out of a political word, is disturbing.
Regardless, implying that countries that have strict gun control are therefore fascist is ridiculous.
Speaking on the military being human and not robots, that is your militia then. They will use the military grade weapons, which would include the highest tech, to fight against the government. Why do you need highly powered rifles to fight, which wouldn't do much of anything anyway? The truth is you don't need them, but simply want to own highly powered, high ammunition guns. I'm more afraid of the scenario of rioting citizens with semi-automatic turned automatic weapons rampaging through the streets, than I am of a rouge government. Especially as a black man who knows the history of all the race riots. Imagine that, with today's weapons.
Now you say according to the founding fathers, people have a right to all military weapons. Does that include jets, stealth aircraft, and laser guided missiles?
If you think a rag tag army can't take on the great military forces of the world you're wrong. The Russians never were able to defeat the Mujahideen. The Russians gave up and went home defeated. And that war wasn't that long ago. Take the time to read the article. The tenacity of the Mujahideen to fight back with old outdated weapons is very noteworthy.
That's about enough of this endless argument for me. Bye.
You guys are in an endless loop;
you are in a maze of twisty passages;
sign on wall reads, "2nd amendment is not going away."
So by default, countries with strict gun control laws are fascist? I think that is way over the top, and isn't the definition of fascism at all.
Oxford
"An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization."
Liberals, who are leading the charge for more gun control laws, have already shown that they are perfectly fine with fascist behavior. All you really have to do to see this fact is look at the recent idiocy involving the KKK, BLM, and Antifa. All three of those groups are despicable to most rational thinking people, but only the KKK is subject to censure by the left because they don't embrace liberal philosophies. Progressives seem to have no problem with resorting to unprovoked violence in order to shut them down, and even praise the groups that start the violence. So yes, in the case of gun control, especially when that gun control is pushed by liberals, it is one step away from fascism.
I'll take Oxford over Webster's any day. Taking the political meaning out of a political word, is disturbing.
Regardless, implying that countries that have strict gun control are therefore fascist is ridiculous.
Of course you will. And of course it is a political word that can be applied to any political movement or view that follows the listed ideologies in the definition. The fact that you can't (or won't) understand this is disturbing and/or disingenuous.
And me typing "leaning" was not an accidental mistype. I meant "leaning"
Last edited by redwood66; 10-07-2017 at 12:09 PM..
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.
