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.
Saddam made it believed that he had WMDs. In fact he wanted the whole world to believe he had 'em because as to not, meant weakness. George W. Bush is guilty of --- falling for a bluff. Saddam expressed this in his interviews with the FBI.
The 2nd amendment isn't about WMDs, but about keeping people honest instead, be they local or foreign.
When airplanes can be taken and used as weaponry, you're right, this isn't 1945 anymore, as people are for more creative now, than they ever were ... if they get past the military and land on your doorstep, what are going to do? Throw a sock at 'em and tell 'em to go away? Nope, you're going to go find that pea shooter you got locked away in the closet, or you're going to wish you had one.
The world is a dangerous place and filled with dangerous people --- funny people believe their government should keep them safe by taking away their protection from ---- their government. However, this isn't about safety, but about honesty instead. That's what the 2nd amendment is there for ... to keep 'em honest.
So you think using a nuke would be acceptable? How are you going to contain the retaliation without escalating the situation into one that would literally threaten all life on the planet?
Horse puckey. I have owned guns since 1958 and worked as a gunsmith for four years. I was an avid deer and hog hunter for 45. I am still well armed against intruders.
My experience in dealing with the public in a gun sales situation is that people will talk when they feel like they are in a safe place. I would estimate that one out of ten people who I sold guns to shouldn't even be able to look at them in a museum.
If I had my way, there would be no semiautomatic firearms in the hands of the public. There is no reason for any such guns except in a combat situation. I also would restrict the carrying of firearms to what it used to be when you had to have a reason to get a permit. Those were most often issued for people carrying in the line of duty, and those who dealt with large sums of physical cash or other valuables as a consequence of their jobs.
You really shouldn't paint with so broad a brush. I can assure you, there are a lot more armed Liberals out here than you would ever believe.
You say "horse puckey" and then proceed to tell us that you're a liberal who wants to bans guns.
haha. "I shouldn't paint with such a broad brush!" even. What the?
So no semi-automatics eh? We all just have to carry bolt action rifles and revolvers, right? That's what you're saying?
Meh, I think you are being way to kind to them. It's really about tyranny.
I don't think the average democrat/anti-gunner is a tyrant. I think they are just terrified of having to do something like defend their own lives. They think the government should do that for them.
At the highest levels of Democrat politics, then yes, they want unfettered tyranny so that they have a permanent underclass that has no choice but to vote for them.
05-28-2022, 11:29 AM
xd4t5gv
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuebald
Do you have a link to any commentary from God about that...?
Exactly: Last I checked the 1st Amendment and the 1st Commandment don't quit mesh. And rights were founded in one's ability to, well, stand upright upon ones property - to stand ones ground and/or have standing in legal matters. God was just a religious sprinkling on top of this.
05-28-2022, 11:32 AM
xd4t5gv
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuebald
The last available specs I could find were from 2020. 20,000 murders or "accidental" deaths, 25,000 suicides.
So it would seem that the vast majority of gun incidents are such and thus those stats are hiding some important aspects to the political issue on gun violence, particularly upon others with intent, being such a problem.
There is no reason for any such guns except in a combat situation.
And that is exactly what you've got when a piece of trash breaks into your home. And those cops that you defunded won't be there for ten minutes if you were lucky enough to get the 911 call off. Good luck defending yourself against a Glock-armed, drug-crazed slimebag with your blunderbuss and kitchen butcher's knife.
Quote:
Originally Posted by paracord
So no semi-automatics eh? We all just have to carry bolt action rifles and revolvers, right? That's what you're saying?
No, he is saying that when a criminal breaks into your home with a semi-auto AK or semi-auto pistol, he wants you to have a matchlock muzzleloader from about 1500 by your bed to defend your family. If even that. He'd probably whine if you were carrying a good sized hunting knife. And a sword would be out of the question. He wants you to be defenseless, basically.
is it Mexico or Canad that will invade? we have giant oceans protecting us that Ukraine does not...
ignoring the firepower of our military and thinking private citizens can over throw it seem awfully like fantasy to me
We are being invaded at the southern US border. Ranchers and land owners carry AR-15s and other firearms to protect themselves and their property from the invaders. Yet another reason we need to retain the right to bear arms. The government can't be everywhere, to protect everyone.
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.
