Isn't it time you yanks grew up regarding your gun death epidemic?

[freyasman]

View attachment 340970 View attachment 340971 View attachment 340972

View attachment 340973 View attachment 340974 View attachment 340975

Do I need to go on? When is the last time the military went in with nothing but guns to fight a war?

Look, this is a ridiculous argument, alright, and not one I want to get into, because I know nothing about modern warfare. I have a general idea what our military has and uses. A vet who was active duty just a few years back told me that it is mostly long distance fighting these days. Do you think if our military wanted to subdue us that they wouldn't use some of these weapons?

The days when the newly hatched Americans were equally matched in weapons with enemy armies is long gone. It is a Walter Mitty dream. I can see the logic behind some of the arguments posters here are using, although I don't agree with them. But yours does not fly.

With each post, you prove my point of your idiocy. That you spoke to a vet and you have pictures of weapons means it may not be understandable ignorance; it must surely be idiocy.

Are you expecting the US government to attack its citizens with stealth bombers? Carpet bombing in Oklahoma City? Salt Lake City? Certainly not New York City but any Republican majority city?

I already pointed out that just sheer numbers of protesters in the USSR and GDR defeated their governments. Those governments had very similar weapons to those you showed. Those weapons work great for subduing the people when they're held over the people as a threat but no one is going to use them. When the people quit believing the bluff, those weapons become nothing.

How fucking stupid do you have to be to think that the government would use such weapons on its own people when the people are armed to defend themselves. Just which American soldiers do you think would ever turn those weapons on Americans?

Congratulations on just defeating your own argument. This country does not need AR's and Tactical Rugers in the hands of civilians for ANY REASON. Those rifles are designed to kill as many people as quickly as possible. There is no other use for them. If that were all the US military had, I'd think about it. But it's not.

Fortunately, ignorant people like you don’t get to decide what I feel is necessary to protect myself & my family...What part of “shall not be infringed” is so hard to understand?

We no longer have the justification of a "well regulated militia." That qualifier is in there for a reason.

It was never a justification to begin with. Well regulated means “in good working order”. The militia have always been the People. It’s an individual right. it shall not be infringed. End of discussion. You are wrong.

Well, as fncceo pointed out, the current Supreme Court ruling is that the right of citizens to bear arms is not contingent on being in the militia. So whatever definition you think you have of a "militia" as understood by the Founding Fathers, it is kinda irrelevant. That same case, though, ruled that citizens can keep guns in their homes, for self-protection and the Court made clear that the decision does not mean that restrictions on guns are no longer valid.

D.C. is for the most part a Gun Free Zone. You can own a gun and store it any way you see fit, according to Heller, but in most circumstances, you can't take it outside your front door.

A city full of government employees and none of them have any respect for the fundamental rights of the citizens? What does that tell you about the nature of government itself?

Why the fuck do you think the rest of us stay armed?

 

[OldLady]

Oh Jesus - The constitution doesn't include everything that is illegal. I can't point to anything in the constitution that says you can't own an Abram's Tank or or a Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II fighter jet either. But you can't.

Actually I can own either. Or both.

What the Constitution does include is every power that the Federal Government has along with a handful of explicit limits to the power - limits that are redundant because the Government has only those specifically enumerated powers, limits or not. Even so, one of those explicit limits to the Government's power is: The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

No you can't own both - Please stop lying

I googled it. He can't own either. You can buy an old F16, but not new stuff. Abrams is still in production and the older versions are not currently for sale. But even if you could afford one, were capable of flying it, and went through all the government regulations to own it, good luck trying to buy the ordinance for one. You can't even possess a hand grenade in this country, let alone a bomb or rocket.

Hand grenades are regulated under the National Firearms Act (“NFA”), a federal law first passed in 1934 and amended by the Crime Control Act of 1968. The 1968 amendments made it illegal to possess “destructive devices,” which includes grenades. (26 U.S.C. § 5801.) There’s no doubt that a live hand grenade designed for military combat fits within the law’s provisions—non-military people may not possess them. ..
Under the NFA, the term “destructive device” includes three types of explosives or weapons:
Bombs, grenades, rockets, missiles, and mines (and similar devices). Military grenades fit into this category. How a defendant intends to use the device is irrelevant—mere possession is enough for a conviction.

Is it Legal to Own Hand Grenades?

"Hand grenades" include many more devices besides live military weapons. Often, what constitutes a hand grenade will depend on the view of the court making the decis

www.criminaldefenselawyer.com

You might be able to buy one but there is no way you'll keep it in the air.

Those fighter planes need a lot of maintenance.

And even if you could find someone with the certifications to perform the maintenance and source the needed parts the cost would be astronomical

I found one for sale in Florida, a lot of the cool tech equipment not stripped. It didn't say how much they were asking, but it is being marketed to private air carriers. Flying an F16 must be sort of like driving a Bugatti. Speed. I love that feeling when a plane is taking off--for just a few seconds, you really feel like you're going somewhere. Can only imagine taking off in an F16..

 

[DrLove]

Oh Jesus - The constitution doesn't include everything that is illegal. I can't point to anything in the constitution that says you can't own an Abram's Tank or or a Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II fighter jet either. But you can't.

Actually I can own either. Or both.

What the Constitution does include is every power that the Federal Government has along with a handful of explicit limits to the power - limits that are redundant because the Government has only those specifically enumerated powers, limits or not. Even so, one of those explicit limits to the Government's power is: The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

No you can't own both - Please stop lying

I googled it. He can't own either. You can buy an old F16, but not new stuff. Abrams is still in production and the older versions are not currently for sale. But even if you could afford one, were capable of flying it, and went through all the government regulations to own it, good luck trying to buy the ordinance for one. You can't even possess a hand grenade in this country, let alone a bomb or rocket.

Hand grenades are regulated under the National Firearms Act (“NFA”), a federal law first passed in 1934 and amended by the Crime Control Act of 1968. The 1968 amendments made it illegal to possess “destructive devices,” which includes grenades. (26 U.S.C. § 5801.) There’s no doubt that a live hand grenade designed for military combat fits within the law’s provisions—non-military people may not possess them. ..
Under the NFA, the term “destructive device” includes three types of explosives or weapons:
Bombs, grenades, rockets, missiles, and mines (and similar devices). Military grenades fit into this category. How a defendant intends to use the device is irrelevant—mere possession is enough for a conviction.

Is it Legal to Own Hand Grenades?

"Hand grenades" include many more devices besides live military weapons. Often, what constitutes a hand grenade will depend on the view of the court making the decis

www.criminaldefenselawyer.com

But the constitution doesn't say ANYTHING about hand grenades either. Without a modern fighter jet, an Abrams tank. and a case or two of hand grenades, how will Trumpists ever protect themselves, their bunkers and their arsenals against a hostile government?

Your attitude is indicative of your ignorance and your arrogance.

Just as dumb as ever ... HuH Frey?

 

[freyasman]

Just to clear up various points.

Great Britain stood alone against both Hitlers Nazi psycho's and Imperial Japan, despite Churchill's numerous warnings to Roosevelt America sat on its hands for 2 years until attacked..

Soccer as you call it is the greatest professional game in the world. watched by more people than any other sport – 'The beautiful game'.
American Football is a poor copy of English Rugby, but for some unknown reason american players require crash helmets and shoulder pads. Nobody else bothers to play it as the action is usually confined to 10 second passages before each break – boring!
Baseball in the UK is a minor sport played only by adolescent schoolgirls and called Rounders. How can you have a World Series when only the US and Canada play it?

Yes it is true you can be prosecuted and jailed for carrying a knife in the UK, also a screwdriver, knuckleduster or simple sharpened piece of plastic can land you in court, all clssed as offensive weapons and referred to as 'going tooled up'.

You see men in the UK would view anyone carrying a gun or knife as unhinged and inadequate.
Real men fight with their fists - Queensbury rules, no kicking, biting, hitting below the belt or when a man is down!

Freedom of speech is all very well, but I suppose like us you have race hate laws? You can't use the 'N' word to describe an African American without landing yourself in court. There are over 6 million reasons you should not be allowed to deny Auschwitz, Treblinca, Sobibor. etc.
My personal view of anybody professing to be a Nazi is that they must be detained under the Mental Health Act. If they are found to be of sound mind, they should be sent to a Re-education Centre. If that fails to change their views they should be executed by hanging. In every other circumstance I am totally against the death penalty.

Abortion? I must admit I'm not comfortable with it! Probably partly due to my Roman Catholic upbringing. First of all I think it should be restricted to the first few weeks of pregnancy. Second there has to be a good reason, - a cleft palette, or Downs Syndrome - would not be a good reason Ultimately I think education of young people is the answer though I accept at the end of the day it is a woman's right to choose.!

Detainment, forced re-education, and/or execution for "wrongthink"?


You're a pretty fucked up example of a man, IMO..... I wouldn't allow someone like you around me.



(And Queensbury rules required gloves; London Prize Ring rules were superior in my opinion.)

 

[freyasman]

You see men in the UK would view anyone carrying a gun or knife as unhinged and inadequate.
Real men fight with their fists - Queensbury rules, no kicking, biting, hitting below the belt or when a man is down

We have a former US Army officer who put it very well... “If you ever find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck.” The point of a fight is to WIN, not to play nice. If there are rules it’s a game, not a fight.

Guns, knives, OC spray, etc.. are all force multipliers. They allow the less physically gifted to survive and win against larger, more well trained opponents. That and they allow those of us who are trained to expend less energy ending the fight quickly and brutally.

These people always mock folks for going armed (smh)....... I have to think they simply want to see others come to harm. There is no other explanation.

 

[freyasman]

Oh Jesus - The constitution doesn't include everything that is illegal. I can't point to anything in the constitution that says you can't own an Abram's Tank or or a Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II fighter jet either. But you can't.

Actually I can own either. Or both.

What the Constitution does include is every power that the Federal Government has along with a handful of explicit limits to the power - limits that are redundant because the Government has only those specifically enumerated powers, limits or not. Even so, one of those explicit limits to the Government's power is: The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

No you can't own both - Please stop lying

I googled it. He can't own either. You can buy an old F16, but not new stuff. Abrams is still in production and the older versions are not currently for sale. But even if you could afford one, were capable of flying it, and went through all the government regulations to own it, good luck trying to buy the ordinance for one. You can't even possess a hand grenade in this country, let alone a bomb or rocket.

Hand grenades are regulated under the National Firearms Act (“NFA”), a federal law first passed in 1934 and amended by the Crime Control Act of 1968. The 1968 amendments made it illegal to possess “destructive devices,” which includes grenades. (26 U.S.C. § 5801.) There’s no doubt that a live hand grenade designed for military combat fits within the law’s provisions—non-military people may not possess them. ..
Under the NFA, the term “destructive device” includes three types of explosives or weapons:
Bombs, grenades, rockets, missiles, and mines (and similar devices). Military grenades fit into this category. How a defendant intends to use the device is irrelevant—mere possession is enough for a conviction.

Is it Legal to Own Hand Grenades?

"Hand grenades" include many more devices besides live military weapons. Often, what constitutes a hand grenade will depend on the view of the court making the decis

www.criminaldefenselawyer.com

But the constitution doesn't say ANYTHING about hand grenades either. Without a modern fighter jet, an Abrams tank. and a case or two of hand grenades, how will Trumpists ever protect themselves, their bunkers and their arsenals against a hostile government?

Your attitude is indicative of your ignorance and your arrogance.

Just as dumb as ever ... HuH Frey?

Do I know you?

 

[Obiwan]

Gun related deaths per 100,000 population.

USA 12.21
UK 0.23

France 2.83
Canada 2.00
Sweden 1.6
Italy 1.31
Germany 1.17
Australia 0.9
Japan 0.6
Spain 0.31

With a population of 333546000 in the USA. That works out at 40,000 gun deaths per annum.

Coronavirus deaths in comparison work out at 98,000,- true that is more than twice as many, but gun deaths happen every year. Considering the lengths gone to, to stop Corona, isn't it time a total ban on guns was taken to bring the USA in line with what we consider to be a civilized society.

I believe the idea of banning guns here in the US has been tried before...

The British got their asses kicked...

 

[Oz and the Orchestra]

Just to clear up various points.

Great Britain stood alone against both Hitlers Nazi psycho's and Imperial Japan, despite Churchill's numerous warnings to Roosevelt America sat on its hands for 2 years until attacked..

Soccer as you call it is the greatest professional game in the world. watched by more people than any other sport – 'The beautiful game'.
American Football is a poor copy of English Rugby, but for some unknown reason american players require crash helmets and shoulder pads. Nobody else bothers to play it as the action is usually confined to 10 second passages before each break – boring!
Baseball in the UK is a minor sport played only by adolescent schoolgirls and called Rounders. How can you have a World Series when only the US and Canada play it?

Yes it is true you can be prosecuted and jailed for carrying a knife in the UK, also a screwdriver, knuckleduster or simple sharpened piece of plastic can land you in court, all clssed as offensive weapons and referred to as 'going tooled up'.

You see men in the UK would view anyone carrying a gun or knife as unhinged and inadequate.
Real men fight with their fists - Queensbury rules, no kicking, biting, hitting below the belt or when a man is down!

Freedom of speech is all very well, but I suppose like us you have race hate laws? You can't use the 'N' word to describe an African American without landing yourself in court. There are over 6 million reasons you should not be allowed to deny Auschwitz, Treblinca, Sobibor. etc.
My personal view of anybody professing to be a Nazi is that they must be detained under the Mental Health Act. If they are found to be of sound mind, they should be sent to a Re-education Centre. If that fails to change their views they should be executed by hanging. In every other circumstance I am totally against the death penalty.

Abortion? I must admit I'm not comfortable with it! Probably partly due to my Roman Catholic upbringing. First of all I think it should be restricted to the first few weeks of pregnancy. Second there has to be a good reason, - a cleft palette, or Downs Syndrome - would not be a good reason Ultimately I think education of young people is the answer though I accept at the end of the day it is a woman's right to choose.!

Detainment, forced re-education, and/or execution for "wrongthink"?


You're a pretty fucked up example of a man, IMO..... I wouldn't allow someone like you around me.



(And Queensbury rules required gloves; London Prize Ring rules were superior in my opinion.)

Arf arf arf........well on second thoughts we would probably commute his sentence to life in prison as we are so totally opposed to the death penalty!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Just to clear up various points.

Great Britain stood alone against both Hitlers Nazi psycho's and Imperial Japan, despite Churchill's numerous warnings to Roosevelt America sat on its hands for 2 years until attacked..

Soccer as you call it is the greatest professional game in the world. watched by more people than any other sport – 'The beautiful game'.
American Football is a poor copy of English Rugby, but for some unknown reason american players require crash helmets and shoulder pads. Nobody else bothers to play it as the action is usually confined to 10 second passages before each break – boring!
Baseball in the UK is a minor sport played only by adolescent schoolgirls and called Rounders. How can you have a World Series when only the US and Canada play it?

Yes it is true you can be prosecuted and jailed for carrying a knife in the UK, also a screwdriver, knuckleduster or simple sharpened piece of plastic can land you in court, all clssed as offensive weapons and referred to as 'going tooled up'.

You see men in the UK would view anyone carrying a gun or knife as unhinged and inadequate.
Real men fight with their fists - Queensbury rules, no kicking, biting, hitting below the belt or when a man is down!

Freedom of speech is all very well, but I suppose like us you have race hate laws? You can't use the 'N' word to describe an African American without landing yourself in court. There are over 6 million reasons you should not be allowed to deny Auschwitz, Treblinca, Sobibor. etc.
My personal view of anybody professing to be a Nazi is that they must be detained under the Mental Health Act. If they are found to be of sound mind, they should be sent to a Re-education Centre. If that fails to change their views they should be executed by hanging. In every other circumstance I am totally against the death penalty.

Abortion? I must admit I'm not comfortable with it! Probably partly due to my Roman Catholic upbringing. First of all I think it should be restricted to the first few weeks of pregnancy. Second there has to be a good reason, - a cleft palette, or Downs Syndrome - would not be a good reason Ultimately I think education of young people is the answer though I accept at the end of the day it is a woman's right to choose.!

“Freedom of speech is all very well, but I suppose like us you have race hate laws? You can't use the 'N' word to describe an African American without landing yourself in court.”

Wrong.

In the United States, hate speech is entitled to Constitutional protections, absent advocacy of imminent lawlessness or violence.

The United States is far superior to the UK and other democracies because we’re not a democracy – we’re a Constitutional Republic.

And in a Constitutional Republic the people are subject solely to the rule of law, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly; that a citizen of the UK can be subject to criminal prosecution for engaging in hate speech is proof of that.

For all of America’s faults and failings – and there are many – I’d rather live in a Constitutional Republic where my rights and protected liberties are safeguarded by the rule of law, and not subject to the capricious whims, fears, and ignorance of the people, as in the UK.

 

[freyasman]

Just to clear up various points.

Great Britain stood alone against both Hitlers Nazi psycho's and Imperial Japan, despite Churchill's numerous warnings to Roosevelt America sat on its hands for 2 years until attacked..

Soccer as you call it is the greatest professional game in the world. watched by more people than any other sport – 'The beautiful game'.
American Football is a poor copy of English Rugby, but for some unknown reason american players require crash helmets and shoulder pads. Nobody else bothers to play it as the action is usually confined to 10 second passages before each break – boring!
Baseball in the UK is a minor sport played only by adolescent schoolgirls and called Rounders. How can you have a World Series when only the US and Canada play it?

Yes it is true you can be prosecuted and jailed for carrying a knife in the UK, also a screwdriver, knuckleduster or simple sharpened piece of plastic can land you in court, all clssed as offensive weapons and referred to as 'going tooled up'.

You see men in the UK would view anyone carrying a gun or knife as unhinged and inadequate.
Real men fight with their fists - Queensbury rules, no kicking, biting, hitting below the belt or when a man is down!

Freedom of speech is all very well, but I suppose like us you have race hate laws? You can't use the 'N' word to describe an African American without landing yourself in court. There are over 6 million reasons you should not be allowed to deny Auschwitz, Treblinca, Sobibor. etc.
My personal view of anybody professing to be a Nazi is that they must be detained under the Mental Health Act. If they are found to be of sound mind, they should be sent to a Re-education Centre. If that fails to change their views they should be executed by hanging. In every other circumstance I am totally against the death penalty.

Abortion? I must admit I'm not comfortable with it! Probably partly due to my Roman Catholic upbringing. First of all I think it should be restricted to the first few weeks of pregnancy. Second there has to be a good reason, - a cleft palette, or Downs Syndrome - would not be a good reason Ultimately I think education of young people is the answer though I accept at the end of the day it is a woman's right to choose.!

Detainment, forced re-education, and/or execution for "wrongthink"?


You're a pretty fucked up example of a man, IMO..... I wouldn't allow someone like you around me.



(And Queensbury rules required gloves; London Prize Ring rules were superior in my opinion.)

Arf arf arf........well on second thoughts we would probably commute his sentence to life in prison as we are so totally opposed to the death penalty!

What sentence?
The imaginary one in your head?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If you're a convicted felon, you have NO right to own a gun. And straw buyers and private sellers at gun shows (legal in over half our states) have NO right to sell you one. It is MY right to make sure your access is greatly restricted.

90% of US voters concur.

Can a convicted felon then buy one from crooks on the street? Yes, but it makes such access riskier and more difficult.

You must have forgotten to include your reliable source and working link to the poll, survey, or whatever you used to support your statement that, "90% of US voters concur" that it is your RIGHT to make sure that my access to a weapon is greatly restricted.

If someone buys and sells guns at a gun show, they must do background checks.

Don't know how to use Mr Googley?

90% of Americans back background checks for all gun sales?

In the first hours after the Las Vegas mass shooting, many leading elected officials in Wisconsin issued statements abou

www.politifact.com

Unless you are a criminal or a kook (latter in question ;-) then nobody is restricting your access.

And NO, private sellers can sell at shows in nearly ALL states with NO obligation to do anything other than confirm you to be an adult.

Gun Show Background Checks State Laws

View a map showing different state gun show laws.

www.governing.com

No firearm regulatory measure is presented as a ‘panacea’ for all gun crime and violence.

Indeed, the issue of gun crime and violence can be successfully addressed only with a multifaceted approach.

UBCs are one aspect of that multifaceted approach; they are effective and do what they are designed to do.

UCBs are perfectly appropriate, warranted, and Constitutional – but UBCs alone will not solve the overall problem.

 

[OldLady]

View attachment 340970 View attachment 340971 View attachment 340972

View attachment 340973 View attachment 340974 View attachment 340975

Do I need to go on? When is the last time the military went in with nothing but guns to fight a war?

Look, this is a ridiculous argument, alright, and not one I want to get into, because I know nothing about modern warfare. I have a general idea what our military has and uses. A vet who was active duty just a few years back told me that it is mostly long distance fighting these days. Do you think if our military wanted to subdue us that they wouldn't use some of these weapons?

The days when the newly hatched Americans were equally matched in weapons with enemy armies is long gone. It is a Walter Mitty dream. I can see the logic behind some of the arguments posters here are using, although I don't agree with them. But yours does not fly.

With each post, you prove my point of your idiocy. That you spoke to a vet and you have pictures of weapons means it may not be understandable ignorance; it must surely be idiocy.

Are you expecting the US government to attack its citizens with stealth bombers? Carpet bombing in Oklahoma City? Salt Lake City? Certainly not New York City but any Republican majority city?

I already pointed out that just sheer numbers of protesters in the USSR and GDR defeated their governments. Those governments had very similar weapons to those you showed. Those weapons work great for subduing the people when they're held over the people as a threat but no one is going to use them. When the people quit believing the bluff, those weapons become nothing.

How fucking stupid do you have to be to think that the government would use such weapons on its own people when the people are armed to defend themselves. Just which American soldiers do you think would ever turn those weapons on Americans?

Congratulations on just defeating your own argument. This country does not need AR's and Tactical Rugers in the hands of civilians for ANY REASON. Those rifles are designed to kill as many people as quickly as possible. There is no other use for them. If that were all the US military had, I'd think about it. But it's not.

Fortunately, ignorant people like you don’t get to decide what I feel is necessary to protect myself & my family...What part of “shall not be infringed” is so hard to understand?

We no longer have the justification of a "well regulated militia." That qualifier is in there for a reason.

It was never a justification to begin with. Well regulated means “in good working order”. The militia have always been the People. It’s an individual right. it shall not be infringed. End of discussion. You are wrong.

Well, as fncceo pointed out, the current Supreme Court ruling is that the right of citizens to bear arms is not contingent on being in the militia. So whatever definition you think you have of a "militia" as understood by the Founding Fathers, it is kinda irrelevant. That same case, though, ruled that citizens can keep guns in their homes, for self-protection and the Court made clear that the decision does not mean that restrictions on guns are no longer valid.

D.C. is for the most part a Gun Free Zone. You can own a gun and store it any way you see fit, according to Heller, but in most circumstances, you can't take it outside your front door.

A city full of government employees and none of them have any respect for the fundamental rights of the citizens? What does that tell you about the nature of government itself?

Why the fuck do you think the rest of us stay armed?

Maybe they're thinking about our fundamental right to STAY ALIVE. Those of us who are living peacefully, not walking around with a war playing in our heads all the time, might prefer NOT to be shot or be forced to shoot when we head to the grocery store or the park. It was passed by the District of Columbia City Council, not the evil federal government. Do you think the people who run our government LIVE in D.C.? They work there. They don't vote there.

 

[Markle]

You might be able to buy one but there is no way you'll keep it in the air.

Those fighter planes need a lot of maintenance.

And even if you could find someone with the certifications to perform the maintenance and source the needed parts the cost would be astronomical

I had a close business associate and friend (killed in a plane crash in Utah as co-pilot) who owned TWO Russian Mig fighters. I know he owned one but not sure about the other. They were identical, painted identically, and were kept in the same hanger at our local airport. He was a retired Navy pilot and fellow REALTOR. I'm sure the cost of keeping his "toys" in the air was astronomical. We have a lot of commercial jetliners who fly here but we're not a fueling stop for them. They had to go to Pensacola or Jacksonville just to refuel.

When I raced motorcycles I always had a couple around for friends to ride. Having a "spare" jet fighter seemed a bit over the top to me.

 

[freyasman]

View attachment 340970 View attachment 340971 View attachment 340972

View attachment 340973 View attachment 340974 View attachment 340975

Do I need to go on? When is the last time the military went in with nothing but guns to fight a war?

Look, this is a ridiculous argument, alright, and not one I want to get into, because I know nothing about modern warfare. I have a general idea what our military has and uses. A vet who was active duty just a few years back told me that it is mostly long distance fighting these days. Do you think if our military wanted to subdue us that they wouldn't use some of these weapons?

The days when the newly hatched Americans were equally matched in weapons with enemy armies is long gone. It is a Walter Mitty dream. I can see the logic behind some of the arguments posters here are using, although I don't agree with them. But yours does not fly.

With each post, you prove my point of your idiocy. That you spoke to a vet and you have pictures of weapons means it may not be understandable ignorance; it must surely be idiocy.

Are you expecting the US government to attack its citizens with stealth bombers? Carpet bombing in Oklahoma City? Salt Lake City? Certainly not New York City but any Republican majority city?

I already pointed out that just sheer numbers of protesters in the USSR and GDR defeated their governments. Those governments had very similar weapons to those you showed. Those weapons work great for subduing the people when they're held over the people as a threat but no one is going to use them. When the people quit believing the bluff, those weapons become nothing.

How fucking stupid do you have to be to think that the government would use such weapons on its own people when the people are armed to defend themselves. Just which American soldiers do you think would ever turn those weapons on Americans?

Congratulations on just defeating your own argument. This country does not need AR's and Tactical Rugers in the hands of civilians for ANY REASON. Those rifles are designed to kill as many people as quickly as possible. There is no other use for them. If that were all the US military had, I'd think about it. But it's not.

Fortunately, ignorant people like you don’t get to decide what I feel is necessary to protect myself & my family...What part of “shall not be infringed” is so hard to understand?

We no longer have the justification of a "well regulated militia." That qualifier is in there for a reason.

It was never a justification to begin with. Well regulated means “in good working order”. The militia have always been the People. It’s an individual right. it shall not be infringed. End of discussion. You are wrong.

Well, as fncceo pointed out, the current Supreme Court ruling is that the right of citizens to bear arms is not contingent on being in the militia. So whatever definition you think you have of a "militia" as understood by the Founding Fathers, it is kinda irrelevant. That same case, though, ruled that citizens can keep guns in their homes, for self-protection and the Court made clear that the decision does not mean that restrictions on guns are no longer valid.

D.C. is for the most part a Gun Free Zone. You can own a gun and store it any way you see fit, according to Heller, but in most circumstances, you can't take it outside your front door.

A city full of government employees and none of them have any respect for the fundamental rights of the citizens? What does that tell you about the nature of government itself?

Why the fuck do you think the rest of us stay armed?

Maybe they're thinking about our fundamental right to STAY ALIVE. Those of us who are living peacefully, not walking around with a war playing in our heads all the time, might prefer NOT to be shot or be forced to shoot when we head to the grocery store or the park. It was passed by the District of Columbia City Council, not the evil federal government. Do you think the people who run our government LIVE in D.C.? They work there. They don't vote there.

Life is fatal. How the fuck do you have a fundamental right to stay alive? That's a dumb thing to say.

You have a fundamental right to try and protect your life, but not by crippling everyone else's ability to do the same.

 

[freyasman]

View attachment 340970 View attachment 340971 View attachment 340972

View attachment 340973 View attachment 340974 View attachment 340975

Do I need to go on? When is the last time the military went in with nothing but guns to fight a war?

Look, this is a ridiculous argument, alright, and not one I want to get into, because I know nothing about modern warfare. I have a general idea what our military has and uses. A vet who was active duty just a few years back told me that it is mostly long distance fighting these days. Do you think if our military wanted to subdue us that they wouldn't use some of these weapons?

The days when the newly hatched Americans were equally matched in weapons with enemy armies is long gone. It is a Walter Mitty dream. I can see the logic behind some of the arguments posters here are using, although I don't agree with them. But yours does not fly.

With each post, you prove my point of your idiocy. That you spoke to a vet and you have pictures of weapons means it may not be understandable ignorance; it must surely be idiocy.

Are you expecting the US government to attack its citizens with stealth bombers? Carpet bombing in Oklahoma City? Salt Lake City? Certainly not New York City but any Republican majority city?

I already pointed out that just sheer numbers of protesters in the USSR and GDR defeated their governments. Those governments had very similar weapons to those you showed. Those weapons work great for subduing the people when they're held over the people as a threat but no one is going to use them. When the people quit believing the bluff, those weapons become nothing.

How fucking stupid do you have to be to think that the government would use such weapons on its own people when the people are armed to defend themselves. Just which American soldiers do you think would ever turn those weapons on Americans?

Congratulations on just defeating your own argument. This country does not need AR's and Tactical Rugers in the hands of civilians for ANY REASON. Those rifles are designed to kill as many people as quickly as possible. There is no other use for them. If that were all the US military had, I'd think about it. But it's not.

Fortunately, ignorant people like you don’t get to decide what I feel is necessary to protect myself & my family...What part of “shall not be infringed” is so hard to understand?

We no longer have the justification of a "well regulated militia." That qualifier is in there for a reason.

It was never a justification to begin with. Well regulated means “in good working order”. The militia have always been the People. It’s an individual right. it shall not be infringed. End of discussion. You are wrong.

Well, as fncceo pointed out, the current Supreme Court ruling is that the right of citizens to bear arms is not contingent on being in the militia. So whatever definition you think you have of a "militia" as understood by the Founding Fathers, it is kinda irrelevant. That same case, though, ruled that citizens can keep guns in their homes, for self-protection and the Court made clear that the decision does not mean that restrictions on guns are no longer valid.

D.C. is for the most part a Gun Free Zone. You can own a gun and store it any way you see fit, according to Heller, but in most circumstances, you can't take it outside your front door.

A city full of government employees and none of them have any respect for the fundamental rights of the citizens? What does that tell you about the nature of government itself?

Why the fuck do you think the rest of us stay armed?

Maybe they're thinking about our fundamental right to STAY ALIVE. Those of us who are living peacefully, not walking around with a war playing in our heads all the time, might prefer NOT to be shot or be forced to shoot when we head to the grocery store or the park. It was passed by the District of Columbia City Council, not the evil federal government. Do you think the people who run our government LIVE in D.C.? They work there. They don't vote there.

 

[Levant]

I googled it. He can't own either. You can buy an old F16, but not new stuff. Abrams is still in production and the older versions are not currently for sale. But even if you could afford one, were capable of flying it, and went through all the government regulations to own it, good luck trying to buy the ordinance for one. You can't even possess a hand grenade in this country, let alone a bomb or rocket.

Hand grenades are regulated under the National Firearms Act (“NFA”), a federal law first passed in 1934 and amended by the Crime Control Act of 1968. The 1968 amendments made it illegal to possess “destructive devices,” which includes grenades. (26 U.S.C. § 5801.) There’s no doubt that a live hand grenade designed for military combat fits within the law’s provisions—non-military people may not possess them. ..
Under the NFA, the term “destructive device” includes three types of explosives or weapons:
Bombs, grenades, rockets, missiles, and mines (and similar devices). Military grenades fit into this category. How a defendant intends to use the device is irrelevant—mere possession is enough for a conviction.

Is it Legal to Own Hand Grenades?

"Hand grenades" include many more devices besides live military weapons. Often, what constitutes a hand grenade will depend on the view of the court making the decis

www.criminaldefenselawyer.com

You googled hand grenades? We were talking about tanks and fighters. Just because the contracts don't allow the manufacturer to sell them to me, that's a contractual restriction, not a legal one. That I can own an F16 absolutely proves I can legally own a fighter and can own an F35 from an 2nd Amendment perspective.

 

[Levant]

No, I don't. I'm not the one promoting taking up our AR's to defend our liberty from the commie pinko fag Nazi government of ours. This whole conversation is just plain stupid.

You're such a liar. No one has suggested taking up arms against the government and no one has called the government commie pinko fag Nazi. Those are the adjectives we used to describe you, not the government.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Gun related deaths per 100,000 population.

USA 12.21
UK 0.23

France 2.83
Canada 2.00
Sweden 1.6
Italy 1.31
Germany 1.17
Australia 0.9
Japan 0.6
Spain 0.31

With a population of 333546000 in the USA. That works out at 40,000 gun deaths per annum.

Coronavirus deaths in comparison work out at 98,000,- true that is more than twice as many, but gun deaths happen every year. Considering the lengths gone to, to stop Corona, isn't it time a total ban on guns was taken to bring the USA in line with what we consider to be a civilized society.

Suicide is not counted as a violent gun crime but you tried

 

[Levant]

Just to clear up various points.

Great Britain stood alone against both Hitlers Nazi psycho's and Imperial Japan, despite Churchill's numerous warnings to Roosevelt America sat on its hands for 2 years until attacked..

Soccer as you call it is the greatest professional game in the world. watched by more people than any other sport – 'The beautiful game'.
American Football is a poor copy of English Rugby, but for some unknown reason american players require crash helmets and shoulder pads. Nobody else bothers to play it as the action is usually confined to 10 second passages before each break – boring!
Baseball in the UK is a minor sport played only by adolescent schoolgirls and called Rounders. How can you have a World Series when only the US and Canada play it?

Yes it is true you can be prosecuted and jailed for carrying a knife in the UK, also a screwdriver, knuckleduster or simple sharpened piece of plastic can land you in court, all clssed as offensive weapons and referred to as 'going tooled up'.

You see men in the UK would view anyone carrying a gun or knife as unhinged and inadequate.
Real men fight with their fists - Queensbury rules, no kicking, biting, hitting below the belt or when a man is down!

Freedom of speech is all very well, but I suppose like us you have race hate laws? You can't use the 'N' word to describe an African American without landing yourself in court. There are over 6 million reasons you should not be allowed to deny Auschwitz, Treblinca, Sobibor. etc.
My personal view of anybody professing to be a Nazi is that they must be detained under the Mental Health Act. If they are found to be of sound mind, they should be sent to a Re-education Centre. If that fails to change their views they should be executed by hanging. In every other circumstance I am totally against the death penalty.

Abortion? I must admit I'm not comfortable with it! Probably partly due to my Roman Catholic upbringing. First of all I think it should be restricted to the first few weeks of pregnancy. Second there has to be a good reason, - a cleft palette, or Downs Syndrome - would not be a good reason Ultimately I think education of young people is the answer though I accept at the end of the day it is a woman's right to choose.!

Just to clear up a few points: You'd be posting in German had not the US come to save your puckered ass. We did it happily for our allies. For our trouble, British people fought and protested against paying the debt that your country agreed to pay - though it was finally paid. For our trouble, we have a bunch British like you that tell us how awful we are and how much better than us you are. If we'd been the sissies that the British and French were, we wouldn't have come in and saved your asses. It was that tough, individualist, macho, gun-toting, hard-assed, crude, uncivilized, American that saved you.

How about laws against science in the UK? This woman was arrested for calling a man a man because the man was pretending to be a woman.

Mother arrested after calling a transgender woman a man

Three officers detained Kate Scottow, 38, at her home in Hitchin, Hertfordshire, before quizzing her at a police station about an argument with Stephanie Hayden on Twitter.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Or this new ruling that preaching the Bible is illegal if anyone hearing the preaching claims offense. As the article says, "Welcome, Sharia Law."

Freedom of Speech in the UK, Now DEAD!

Caldron Pool – 17 Mar 20 WATCH: UK Police warn, preaching the Bible is a criminal offence if someone… 58.4KSharesPolice in the UK have warned a Christian street preacher that it’s now a crimi…

politicalforum.home.blog

And then let's clear up a few things about your tolerance for killing babies that you believe are babies. You wouldn't do it yourself but you agree it's a woman's right to kill a baby for a cleft palate that takes a simple 45 minute surgery to fix?

Home Page

Every year, Operation Smile helps thousands more children living with cleft lip and cleft palate to better breathe, eat, speak and live lives of greater confidence.

www.operationsmile.org

I guess you and those murdering mothers just can't be bothered.... Probably the 45 minutes would be OK but then you add the drive time, gas, etc... Probably have to get lunch. Not worth it; just kill the little fucker. Rip his arms off and then his legs.. and then, cut that cleft head off at the neck..

 

[Levant]

This isn’t open to debate. Again you are wrong.

I wasn't wrong; you're saying the Supreme Court was wrong.

The Supreme Court is often wrong - as demonstrated by the fact that the Supreme Court overturns its own rulings.