Capt Frogman
Brit Pack (Troop Commander)
If that's the case, why do they give so much money (bribes?) to politicians then? I'm not talking about small amounts of money either.
Shootings
If that's the case, why do they give so much money (bribes?) to politicians then? I'm not talking about small amounts of money either.
Capt Frogman
Brit Pack (Troop Commander)
Well a lot of the weapons used in the mass shooting massacres aren't the short of weapons used for hunting. They also tend not to be the sort of historical gun one would collect.
But most importantly, with all of these weapons everyone has, not one of them as actually used them to defend "one's self, family & country"?
It's all well and good being armed to the teeth, it's a completely different scenario to actually have the mental strength, physical ability and marksmanship to confront and/or shot dead another human. That takes balls.
regulated meant trained back then, to have a well trained Militia, doesn't say anything about being a member. As I already said, the Fed. Militia act of 1790 says all males on military age are in the fed. militia. As originally written it required purchase of a long arm similar to that in use with the Army. The act was changed a couple weeks later after a lot of protest that the average person (who probably made 10 cents a day back then) couldn't afford to buy a $12 musket. The anti-gun types target guns at all levels, with sights on short or long term victory. They know that all guns will eventually wear out, so if they can put the gun makers out of business they'll eventually win. Same as these people say that the 2nd. guarantees the Right to own guns but doesn't say anything about owning ammo. Intellectually bankrupt. Obama put pressure on banks & financial institutions to stop offering credit or money processing to the industry to bankrupt them. So to defend the 2nd ad. they have to defend the makers as well. As far as lack of empathy we know that only the antis want incidents to happen so they can push the agenda forward. I would be great to have these shootings end w/o violating 350 million people their Rights.
Both sides make contributions
https://mic.com/articles/64663/5-pe...-and-it-probably-saved-their-lives#.ase084xEO
https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/03/14/8-times-law-abiding-citizens-saved-lives-ar-15/
https://www.quora.com/How-many-times-has-an-AR-15-been-used-in-self-defense-in-America
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/oklahoma-man-uses-ar-15-kill-three-teen-home-intruders-n739541
https://gunowners.org/defensive-use-of-ar-15-man-kills-two-wounds-one-of-three-attackers.htm
A quick Google search shows otherwise.
The problem is not the guns, I3. And I am as serious as a heart attack.
The problem is two fold. First is the parents. The second is the schools.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
Explosives aren't a problem either but I am sure no one is going to let you wander onto an aircraft or into a public building with a bag full and in most cases buying them requires registration and identification.
Cars don't crash themselves so they arent the problem either but you do need a license to drive one and the appropriate certifications to ensure the car is safe to be on the road.
Guns are the tools mass killers prefer and as such can and should be regulated along the same lines as any other dangerous tool.
There is no doubt that the problem is the mental state of the individuals carrying out the attacks but the difference between the USA and almost every other civilised country on the planet is that we dont just hand over the tools.
Intriguing because the only information I can find on it says'''
Militia members, referred to as "every citizen, so enrolled and notified", "...shall within six months thereafter, provide himself..." with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, ¼ pound of gunpowder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack. Some occupations were exempt, such as congressmen, stagecoach drivers, and ferryboatmen.
I dont see anything there about owning an AR-15 in fact it specifically says musket.
Last edited:
I've seen both, that the purchase requirement exists & was used to justify the mandated purchase of ObamaCare or other health insurance, or that the provision was repealed as an economic hardship. At the time a musket was just a military grade shotgun, so requiring a military grade shotgun negates owning a civilian gun that looks like a military one? Also it seems kinda brain dead to think that everything would be frozen at what was available in the 1780s. Freedom of the press would be limited to local newspapers, speech limited to spoken words delivered in person, Govt mandated health care would be blood letting with Leeches, shall we go on? The Puckel Gun was patented, even though apparently not produced, Volley guns & bridge guns seem to have existed, innovation was going on back then.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
Yet you seem to believe that the 2nd Amendment IS frozen in time.
The reality is that most countries have countless laws and "founding documents" that simply no longer apply in modern life and most of those countries simply let those things die a natural death, yet when it comes to firearms America puts a foot in any passing basket it can to justify keeping them unrestricted.
The reality is that any government could place controls on firearms and still adhere to the 2nd amendment simply by invoking all of its requirements as a prerequisite to owning a gun but it won't happen because the NRA has bribed all the politicians it needs to keep the status quo.
Capt Frogman
Brit Pack (Troop Commander)
“A 3-year-old cannot defend itself from an assault rifle by throwing a Hello Kitty pencil case at it,” Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) adds. “Our founding fathers did not put an age limit on the Second Amendment.”
Former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott and former Republican congressman Joe Walsh (Ill.) also appear in the ad endorsing the program.
“In less than a month, a first grader can become a first grenader,” Walsh says.
But perhaps the most damning and ridiculous lines were given to gun lobbyist Larry Pratt, who recited them verbatim after expressing his staunch support for such an idea.
“Toddlers are pure ― uncorrupted by fake news or homosexuality,” Pratt says. “They don’t worry if it’s politically correct to shoot a mentally deranged gunman. They’ll just do it. The science behind this program is proven. At age 4, a child processes images 80 percent faster than an adult meaning that essentially, like owls, they can see in slow motion.”
https://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entr...ing-pre-schoolers_us_5b4bb30de4b0e7c958fc5b92
Some are even open to the suggestion of arming 3 and 4 year olds and allowing them to shoot people.
What the hell is wrong with some people!
Former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott and former Republican congressman Joe Walsh (Ill.) also appear in the ad endorsing the program.
“In less than a month, a first grader can become a first grenader,” Walsh says.
But perhaps the most damning and ridiculous lines were given to gun lobbyist Larry Pratt, who recited them verbatim after expressing his staunch support for such an idea.
“Toddlers are pure ― uncorrupted by fake news or homosexuality,” Pratt says. “They don’t worry if it’s politically correct to shoot a mentally deranged gunman. They’ll just do it. The science behind this program is proven. At age 4, a child processes images 80 percent faster than an adult meaning that essentially, like owls, they can see in slow motion.”
https://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entr...ing-pre-schoolers_us_5b4bb30de4b0e7c958fc5b92
Some are even open to the suggestion of arming 3 and 4 year olds and allowing them to shoot people.
What the hell is wrong with some people!
Expected this to be from "The Onion". Not everyone is a genius. Haven't heard of Trent Lott since he retired back in '07.“A 3-year-old cannot defend itself from an assault rifle by throwing a Hello Kitty pencil case at it,” Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) adds. “Our founding fathers did not put an age limit on the Second Amendment.”
Former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott and former Republican congressman Joe Walsh (Ill.) also appear in the ad endorsing the program.
“In less than a month, a first grader can become a first grenader,” Walsh says.
But perhaps the most damning and ridiculous lines were given to gun lobbyist Larry Pratt, who recited them verbatim after expressing his staunch support for such an idea.
“Toddlers are pure ― uncorrupted by fake news or homosexuality,” Pratt says. “They don’t worry if it’s politically correct to shoot a mentally deranged gunman. They’ll just do it. The science behind this program is proven. At age 4, a child processes images 80 percent faster than an adult meaning that essentially, like owls, they can see in slow motion.”
https://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entr...ing-pre-schoolers_us_5b4bb30de4b0e7c958fc5b92
Some are even open to the suggestion of arming 3 and 4 year olds and allowing them to shoot people.
What the hell is wrong with some people!
Capt Frogman
Brit Pack (Troop Commander)
Nice to see the pro-gun people having their unhealthy obsession exposed. These people are deadly serious as well.
https://youtu.be/QkXeMoBPSDk
https://youtu.be/QkXeMoBPSDk
BritinBritain
Per Ardua Ad Astra
They also ignore incidents where a legal firearm owner has saved lives, which are very rarely reported if ever reported.
They happen all the time, just rarely mentioned on TV news. Often make it into local newspapers. One anti-gun Lawmaker who also owned a Newspaper claimed that if a gun was used to prevent a crime he'd put it on the front page. A few hours later the NRA showed a copy of his paper with that very type of story in it, but buried deep inside.
I3BrigPvSk
The Viking
I provoked you lot pretty good when I started this thread. My purpose was to get the forum going.
This is gonna be a bit long....
Too bad they aren’t here so we could ask them.
Nor did we have the internet and cable TV (or ANY TV for that matter), so if we use the time frame to justify gun control it also control the media.
On Dec. 13th 1898 in Charleston West Virginia, 6 people were shot and killed during a school performance. ("Virginia Hoodlums". The Herald, Volume 26, Number 74; Los Angeles, California. December 13, 1898. p. 3.)
Nah, if anything we should give out free hunting passes so we can quell the incestuous journalist-heathens!
Well, you don’t exactly hear about Southern Baptists or Mormons gang raping 3 year old disabled kids, either, now do you?
Of course. How often do you hear of the media appreciating the truth?
Nope. Actually it’s telling the government to keep their cruddy little claws off our guns. No, they don’t listen any, like little children. And likewise we should beat the living snot out of the liberals!
The reality is, the US quit giving a crap about what other countries thought back in 1776....
When BossHogg told me you were just another flithy agent provocateur from Greenland, I shoulda listened to him! :cheers:
I3BrigPvSk
The Viking
To bring up the guns and the debate about them can activate the Americans here. If I were living state side, and being an American, I would probably have an AR-15. Not for safety though. I would have it only for having fun at a shooting range. I like Barrett's REC7. I would never buy me a handgun. I really dislike them, they are too small and i don't really know how to handle them in a safe way. We were never issued any when I was in the army. The Swedish army had two types, but they were very old and when they had a tendency to blowup in the hands of the shooters, the handguns were removed from the standard issued firearms.
How many of you Americans here are hunters? Many hunters here buy the Remington 700 for hunting. It is a cheap and reliable rifle. Or maybe I shall say it is not so expensive as German and Finnish rifles.
Dusty....never listen to what the Limey's are saying
How many of you Americans here are hunters? Many hunters here buy the Remington 700 for hunting. It is a cheap and reliable rifle. Or maybe I shall say it is not so expensive as German and Finnish rifles.
Dusty....never listen to what the Limey's are saying
Capt Frogman
Brit Pack (Troop Commander)
Well of course, as outsiders we haven't been brainwashed by the NRA.
Capt Frogman
Brit Pack (Troop Commander)
No you don't hear about because the media doesn't report it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
FYI - Mormons have been sexually abusing children:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_abuse_cases
Capt Frogman
Brit Pack (Troop Commander)
Well they very rarely save lives in the mass shootings where there's great loss of life.
BritinBritain
Per Ardua Ad Astra
Where is your evidence? Again you are talking nonsense.
When there are people in the vicinity who are armed and trained, thev prevent loss of life, thats fact. There is a shite load of evidence out there, but you wont look for it because it doesnt suit your agenda.
Just one example:-
On Defensive Gun Uses And How They Outpace Gun Deaths
Posted at 4:00 pm on July 10, 2018 by Tom Knighton
Anti-gunners love throwing numbers around. They like big numbers and to present them without context. They’ll tell you how many people were killed by firearms last year, a big enough number that people will balk and start thinking, “Maybe we should do something.”
Of course, they fail to note that most of those are suicides. If it’s pointed out, they’ll pretend it doesn’t matter, that they should still be included, but it does nothing to defend the disingenuous nature of the numbers as presented.
Something else they tend to do is fail to note that “gun deaths” are still a drop in the bucket compared to defensive gun uses.
Thankfully, the data is on their – and our – side, and this is far from an outlier event. In an age where we’re told that firearm-related homicides are skyrocketing, we are actually experiencing a marked decline from a high point of seven per 100,000 people in 1993 to around half that. The Washington Post in 2015 noted the decline but attributed it to every possible factor, from the police using computers to an improving economy to lead removal, but leaves out the fact that the statistics exist despite more and more guns being produced and owned by Americans. They also conveniently leave out the hundreds of thousands of instances of defensive gun use.
Just how many times do Americans use weapons to defend themselves every year? It’s a tough number to nail down for a variety of reasons, but depending on the source it’s anywhere from upwards of 2 million per year to the Washington Post’s “more reasonable” (read: lowball) estimate of 100,000. But either way, it’s more than fair to say that more lives are saved by guns used in self-defense than are taken by the criminals who use them for nefarious purposes. And if you count homicides and not suicides, we’re talking about around 10,000 deaths per year, or one tenth of the Post’s lowball estimate.
Even if you don’t exclude suicides for some reason, the number of defensive gun uses still outpaces gun deaths by a rate of three to one.
In other words, guns save a whole lot more lives than they supposedly take, even with these “more reasonable” numbers. However, that number is far below what the Centers for Disease Controls found in their own study, one that went unpublished because it apparently failed to advance the narrative.
The CDC found that almost 2.5 million people used a firearm defensively within a 12-month span. That’s well beyond what the Washington Post claims, and I trust the CDC’s resources more than even a large newspaper’s.
Despite this fact, anti-gunners continue to peddle the nonsense that guns are somehow responsible for all of these deaths. The truth of the matter is that most, if not all, of these deaths, would likely still have occurred if the weapon were something different. Someone who wants to kill another will find a way. You can’t make people behave simply because you made it difficult to use one particular tool.
Last edited: