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.
Yeah I've pretty much given up on gun control in America. Why bother when the Electorate doesn't even care & has done nothing about seeing their own kids massacred in their Schools.
I'm done with the Gun crowd's "Thoughts & Prayers" shtick.
People need guns to protect themselves. SCOTUS says the police have no such obligation.
I dont believe the police should have guns, they have proven to be the most irresponsible when it come to handling firearms. 70% of cops dont need firearms
As long Star Trek is being bandied about - just teach cops the Vulcan neck pinch.
Yeah, that would “accelerate their face into the pavement as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TamaraSavannah
Such attitudes do remind me of a video I saw many years ago, maybe in NYC? Shows a guy just ignoring two small police women, walking away, dragging them by their hold on the waist of his trousers.
Sure, that will happen if you don't hit quick and critically, like doing a foot sweep on them and accelerating their face into the pavement. Needless to say, we are probably looking at a broken nose, teeth, a lot of bleeding. That's the way it is in hand to hand, you only have 5 seconds, if that, to take the fight out of them........it is going to be violent.
Many places with bans on guns do not allow the police to have guns either. This is what most people who want guns banned are shooting for. Pardon the pun.
Yeah I've pretty much given up on gun control in America. Why bother when the Electorate doesn't even care & has done nothing about seeing their own kids massacred in their Schools.
"People disagree with my assessment of what the problem is and the solution to that problem, therefore, they don't care about seeing their own kids massacred in their schools" isn't a very constructive position or argument.
Want to know how it looks from the other side? Too bad, I'm going to tell you anyway.
Beginning with the National Firearms Act of 1934, Americans have been "compromising" on their fundamental human right to self defense.
I put compromising in quotes because there have been no true compromises, where each side get something in return for giving something up. We've only been giving up our rights, and have received nothing in return.
What we're supposed to get in exchange for our rights being slowly eroded is a safer society. Do we have that? No, we don't.
"Compromise" after compromise has been made, but only one party to the compromises has received the benefits which each compromise was intended to bring about.
Now, we have the President of the United States explicitly stating that the sale of nearly all firearms should be prohibited. Where's the justification for that? Where's the data? It doesn't exist. What does exist is a government that's always looking to increase its power and a narrative around guns that's built almost exclusively from emotion. "Think of the CHILDREN!"
Of course we care about our kids. To suggest that we don't is to suggest that we're some kind of inhuman monsters. But we're done with the one-way compromises. They're over. There are alternative approaches to both the underlying problems and potential solutions to them, but you don't want to hear about them. You want the guns, and you're not willing to entertain any other possibilities despite a century of evidence that the positive effects of gun control laws are extremely limited and almost never have the desired effect. The negative effects of these laws are predictable and play out like clockwork, though. Remarkable coincidence, eh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobdreamz
I'm done with the Gun crowd's "Thoughts & Prayers" shtick.
And we're done with your unconstitutional, dictatorial, ineffective and right-infringing laws.
I'm one of those guys who think that if you must carry around an instrument designed for the application of lethal force, you should be required to demonstrate that you're not a danger to those around you. A bit like driving an 18-wheeler - open to everybody competent and qualified.
Flooding the country with firearms hasn't made you safer - ironically, it has even led to the government agents (police officers, in this case) killing citizens at a rate much, much higher than that of other Western nations.
Two points:
1. There is no constitutionally enumerated right to drive or drive a truck. There most defiantly is a constitutionally enumerated right to own firearms.
2. Per the last part our LEOs have an impossible job. Many deal with scumbags and felons on a semi-continuous basis. As we tolerate a large and very violent drug addled underclass our cops are going to use deadly force often.
2.1. Police are violently assaulted ~60,000x per year many times yielding injuries per The FBI.
For a moment try and think what our founders were thinking when they wrote the second amendment. The government, police, militias were the enemy of the colonialists. We had just fought against 'them' to gain our freedom. Those entities would subdue those "insurrectionists" and would have done the bidding of the ruling class-elite's-monarchy-government.
So... the question is... Why would they have written anything to enhance the power of government? A. They wouldn't.
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.
