ISLAMIC INVASION PULLS TRIGGER: EUROPE NOW SCRAMBLES FOR GUNS
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-10-2015, 10:45 PM (This post was last modified: 27-10-2015 10:55 PM by RinChi.)
RE: ISLAMIC INVASION PULLS TRIGGER: EUROPE NOW SCRAMBLES FOR GUNS
(27-10-2015 09:48 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(27-10-2015 09:43 PM)RinChi Wrote:  This statement is wrong on so many levels.... I wish I wasn't so tired right now. I'm sure someone else will educate you though. Be careful, you might fall off the bandwagon.

So the kids WOULDN'T be dead if they lived somewhere else ?
Hahaha
Get real.
BTW. I think for myself. I'm on no one's bandwagon.

Setting aside the Second Amendment, which you are dead wrong on, which by the way the Supreme Courts have reaffirmed. Hell even set aside all the quotes from the various founding fathers clearly expressing the meaning of the second amendment, it's bearing on individual rights, and the responsibility of the people to be ready to revolt against the government. Because all that was in the past, you are all about TODAY, dealing with the problems TODAY. Fine, please tell us what you would have the country do? Take away the rights given by the constitution from 320 million people? If your answer is yes, please explain how exactly this would work.

I'm sure you will cite Australia's wonderful success story, how they took all the guns away and solved thier mass shooting problem in one fell swoop. Unfortunately, that argument is a bunch of overblown bullshit. Australia's buyback at very best got only 1/3 of the weapons from it's citizens, and those are the very best numbers, the actual number is probably more like 1/5th. And who do you think turned over all those guns? Criminals? I think not, law abiding citizens, that's who. Another thing, Australia's gun violence rate had been dropping sharply for 15 years before they even passed the gun ban, by the time the buyback happened the number was so negligible the difference was hardly even statistically relevant. Studies have shown the only kind of deaths it even had an effect on was accidental gun deaths in the home.

So supposing congress somehow managed to pass something like this without a full scale revolt, tell us, how would they go about removing the 300 million guns in the homes of our citizens? Hell, even a fraction? How would they insure the guns they got were from the people who would use them for harm? Let's get practical.

You want to talk about Sandy Hook, okay. Connecticut has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, partial assault weapon ban, clip size limit, no vehicle carry, the works. The shooting was done on school grounds with a no guns policy. Would they still be alive in another country? Maybe, hell, I'll even give you probably. But let's get real here, that piece of trash took guns illegally from a family member, brought them onto a no gun zone, and used them to murder children. Please give me the law that would have stopped that.

If you want to blame something, lets try blaming the real causes of shit like this. How about the mental health system that piece of shit Ronald Reagan gutted in the 80s? How about the culture of complacency that has permeated America over the last few decades. The fact that no one looks out for each other anymore. People are so obsessed with thier own personal bullshit that they fail to notice even the most obvious warning signs right under thier nose.

I'm all for fixing the problem, but lets actually fix it and not let ourselves be fooled and become sheep for an anti-gun lobby who just wants the government to take away another of our freedoms. This nanny state shit needs to stop.

Edit: I forgot to mention that I am certainly no gun nut, I own 2 handguns and a rifle that are stored in a double locked vault in an exterior storage room. I strongly dislike guns to be honest, but I will never support anything that attempts to remove the liberties granted to us by the constitution. It's there for a reason, and on this specific point, a very very good reason.

Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty. -Thomas Jefferson

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. -David Hume
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RinChi's post
28-10-2015, 12:27 AM
RE: ISLAMIC INVASION PULLS TRIGGER: EUROPE NOW SCRAMBLES FOR GUNS
I'm so happy to hear stuff like this from an American news site. My own national news hasn't even picked up on it.
Funny how that is. I think last time I heard anything about a more loose gun-law here in Denmark was about five years ago. And it had noting to do with Muslims but was about freedom.

So thanks you American right-wing news for stupid "news" like this. Beside how many countries did the article mention, three?

BRAAAA-VO
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2015, 01:09 AM
RE: ISLAMIC INVASION PULLS TRIGGER: EUROPE NOW SCRAMBLES FOR GUNS
Of course the 'news' article never mentioned that Austria is one of the most racists countries in Europe.

But hey, it's not one small mountainous country in a continent full of different countries, cultures and languages. Europe is one whole country according to most Americans.

It's like referring to all the South American countries, Cuba, Mexico, North America and Canada as a single country called 'America'.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mathilda's post
28-10-2015, 03:50 AM
RE: ISLAMIC INVASION PULLS TRIGGER: EUROPE NOW SCRAMBLES FOR GUNS
(27-10-2015 09:57 PM)jabeady Wrote:  ...
What was it Franklin said about sacrificing liberty for safety?
...

It was 'security' not 'safety'. And he was wrong.

If no one every traded liberty for security no one would ever get married.

(28-10-2015 01:09 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  Of course the 'news' article never mentioned that Austria is one of the most racists countries in Europe.

But hey, it's not one small mountainous country in a continent full of different countries, cultures and languages. Europe is one whole country according to most Americans.

It's like referring to all the South American countries, Cuba, Mexico, North America and Canada as a single country called 'America'.

I thought Europe was a suburb of Queensland in the Austrian state of Brisbane

Laugh out load

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
28-10-2015, 04:01 AM
RE: ISLAMIC INVASION PULLS TRIGGER: EUROPE NOW SCRAMBLES FOR GUNS
(28-10-2015 03:50 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(28-10-2015 01:09 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  Of course the 'news' article never mentioned that Austria is one of the most racists countries in Europe.

But hey, it's not one small mountainous country in a continent full of different countries, cultures and languages. Europe is one whole country according to most Americans.

It's like referring to all the South American countries, Cuba, Mexico, North America and Canada as a single country called 'America'.

I thought Europe was a suburb of Queensland in the Austrian state of Brisbane

Laugh out load

There's just America, and Notamerica. Rolleyes

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like EvolutionKills's post
28-10-2015, 05:32 AM
RE: ISLAMIC INVASION PULLS TRIGGER: EUROPE NOW SCRAMBLES FOR GUNS
(27-10-2015 08:09 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The Second Amendment provides for the arming a "well regulated militia". It does not provide for individuals to own guns. If the current level of gun deaths in the US is "reasonable' then interpreting the 2nd Amendment in a way that promotes the current level of gun violence, then yeah, thank your lucky stars we have what we do. The fact is if the parents of the kids at Sandy Hook lived in any other country, their kids would still be alive.

Context my friend -- context.....

When the Second Amendment was written - "Militia" meant all able bodied men between 18 and 45 years of age. This was the standard until after the Civil War. It does NOT mean "The National Guard" as some would ask you to believe.

So yes -- militia does mean individuals.

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like onlinebiker's post
28-10-2015, 06:17 AM
RE: ISLAMIC INVASION PULLS TRIGGER: EUROPE NOW SCRAMBLES FOR GUNS
(27-10-2015 09:04 PM)jabeady Wrote:  Wrong. The 2A provides for a pool of armed citizens from which a militia can be drawn. Militiamen were required to supply their own weapons, therefore the 2A does, in fact, protect an individual's right to possess firearms. As virtually every SCOTUS decision on the subject has held.

I'm running out the door for work and don't have a lot of time right now, but this statement is factually incorrect. There is very little jurisprudence on the 2nd Amendment as compared to most of the other amendments, but the Supreme Court only very recently recognized a private right to gun ownership. It wasn't until 2008 and the Heller decision that the Court actually said that is what it means, and even that decision allows for restrictions on weapons. So, the statement that this has been the law of the land for 200+ years is flat out, unequivocally wrong.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes BnW's post
28-10-2015, 06:18 AM
RE: ISLAMIC INVASION PULLS TRIGGER: EUROPE NOW SCRAMBLES FOR GUNS
(28-10-2015 05:32 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  
(27-10-2015 08:09 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The Second Amendment provides for the arming a "well regulated militia". It does not provide for individuals to own guns. If the current level of gun deaths in the US is "reasonable' then interpreting the 2nd Amendment in a way that promotes the current level of gun violence, then yeah, thank your lucky stars we have what we do. The fact is if the parents of the kids at Sandy Hook lived in any other country, their kids would still be alive.

Context my friend -- context.....

When the Second Amendment was written - "Militia" meant all able bodied men between 18 and 45 years of age. This was the standard until after the Civil War. It does NOT mean "The National Guard" as some would ask you to believe.

So yes -- militia does mean individuals.

It also was the purposefully because there was to be no National Guard or standing army force at all. That's why that war and other previous engagements made that whole notion swapped around.

The desired and idealized concepts didn't all last for long and some don't last in other contexts with the situations change over centuries. That's one thing that was significantly recognized by key folks at those various times.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2015, 06:30 AM
RE: ISLAMIC INVASION PULLS TRIGGER: EUROPE NOW SCRAMBLES FOR GUNS
(28-10-2015 06:18 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(28-10-2015 05:32 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  Context my friend -- context.....

When the Second Amendment was written - "Militia" meant all able bodied men between 18 and 45 years of age. This was the standard until after the Civil War. It does NOT mean "The National Guard" as some would ask you to believe.

So yes -- militia does mean individuals.

It also was the purposefully because there was to be no National Guard or standing army force at all. That's why that war and other previous engagements made that whole notion swapped around.

The desired and idealized concepts didn't all last for long and some don't last in other contexts with the situations change over centuries. That's one thing that was significantly recognized by key folks at those various times.

The Constitution does indeed not provide for a standing army -- but it does, a standing navy.

Why??

Again -- context -- at the time the Constitution was written Armies were seen as an OFFENSIVE force - whereas a Navy was seen as a DEFENSIVE force.. (The logic being a navy can't march it's boats into another nation's capital....)

So -- they gave Congress the authority to raise money and an army -- but, for a period of no more than two years.. (After which time the army would be stood down) ....

The reason??? If the only tool you have is a hammer -- all problems begin to look like nails.

If you have a standing army -- you find it too easy to use it for any reason at all....

If you have to get the whole of Congress to agree that you've got a problem that needs military intervention -- it's much harder.... If it's REALLY a problem - you won't have so much problem convincing everyone to go along..............We'd only fight wars that need fighting.

Gee --- I wonder if that would have worked after September 11, 2001?????

Smart guys, those founding fathers.....

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes onlinebiker's post
28-10-2015, 06:38 AM
RE: ISLAMIC INVASION PULLS TRIGGER: EUROPE NOW SCRAMBLES FOR GUNS
Ironically, it wasn't until Muslim slavers from North Africa started fucking with our shipping lanes that we finally decided to build a state controlled military. The European solution to the same problem, at the time, was to pay tribute to the Barbary Coast in an attempt to appease them. Sometimes it worked, sometimes they'd raid ships and coastal cities regardless.

The line in the Marines' Hymn referencing the shores of Tripoli refers to the Barbary War, when we attacked and captured the Tripolitan city of Derna, marking the first time the U.S. flag was raised on foreign soil, and taking back by force the Americans being held there.

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: