100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: 2nd Ammendment, NRA and Obama-care are one | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
This thread makes about as much sense as carrying a pocket full of rocks. or perhaps a head full of rocks, which is why you can't answer the question as if you believe that the 2ND amendment gives you and your neighbors or any other "irresponsible" person the right to have nukes ...that question seem to have popped you back into reality All responsible citizens don't go around killing innocent folks like yer messiah. my Messiah is greasy food and al-co-hol the beer god, and he only kills when people drink him Is he not a mass murderer? hell yes he's a mass murderer ....that's why restrictions were place on al-co-hol the beer god, for example..you can't drink the blood of alcohol the beer god and drive but anyway...are you "willing2"(no pun intended) answer the question? .... THE QUESTION: do you believe that the 2ND amendment gives you and your neighbor and any other "irresponsible" person the right to bear nukes? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For years I have advocated that the Second Amendment be mandatory in that everyone regardless of Race, colour, creed or mental condition be required to have guns. I have also advocated that the general population have access to equal weapons of the armed forces, just in case they are told to act against their own people by order of the govt. Let's keep the 'playing field'(aka 'the killing fields') level.It's all a matter of trust and if people cannot trust their government, why trust their military...never mind the police. "Traumer"....if you are truely an advocate that the general population have equal weaponry to that of the armed forces, then that would entail that you are an advocate that everyone should have nukes including the "irresponsible" or as you put it "any mental condition" why would the government have any fear of it's citizens if the only weaponry it's citizens have are guns and the government has nukes I suppose if the government launch a nuke and if all the citizens fired the supposed 300 millions guns at the nuke they probably can bring it down, unfortunately bringing it down was the exact purpose it was launched to wipe out everyone that was shooting at it so unless you are going to start advocating that everyone including those with mental illness have nukes which will clearly make all the News channels, then pay note to what Obama is trying to with placing in restrictions since the government has nukes, Obama has no need to protect the government from you...the restrictions are to protect you from your crazed or irresponsible next door neighbor |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
nukes, with rare exceptions are not Guns. the 2nd amendment gives it's citizens the right to bear arms...do the term "arms" only refer to guns ... I remember when there were a nuclear "arms" race between the USA and the USSR nukes are arms |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This thread makes about as much sense as carrying a pocket full of rocks. or perhaps a head full of rocks, which is why you can't answer the question as if you believe that the 2ND amendment gives you and your neighbors or any other "irresponsible" person the right to have nukes ...that question seem to have popped you back into reality All responsible citizens don't go around killing innocent folks like yer messiah. my Messiah is greasy food and al-co-hol the beer god, and he only kills when people drink him Is he not a mass murderer? hell yes he's a mass murderer ....that's why restrictions were place on al-co-hol the beer god, for example..you can't drink the blood of alcohol the beer god and drive but anyway...are you "willing2"(no pun intended) answer the question? .... THE QUESTION: do you believe that the 2ND amendment gives you and your neighbor and any other "irresponsible" person the right to bear nukes? it's a simple yes or no question everyone choose to believe that the NRA is fighting for the 2ND amendment...The NRA is fighting for the right to sell it's products which are guns rifles and ammo to the general public and using the 2nd amendment to do so so if you believe that the 2nd amendment gives "all" it's citizens including the irresponsible and those with mental illinesses the right to bear arms "without any restrictions"....then all you have to do is answer "yes" to the question |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Drivinmenutz
on
Sat 01/26/13 09:03 AM
|
|
I agree with the notion of providing mental health care completely. This is where the whole debate needs to focus, in my opinion. This would theoretically separate who you are calling "irresponsible" citizens from the "responsible" ones. A means of directing the energy to the source of our violence instead of casting blanket policies that limit that power and rights of the public as a whole.
However where i disagree is with the need for new gun control measures, as the measures already in place would potentially prevent a mentally dysfunctional person from obtaining said firearms (from legal means). For instance; the background check given to anyone buying a new firearm already checks for things like restraining orders, violent histories, and previous felony charges. It is still any medical professional's responsibility to report any statement made by a client (or anyone by the matter) that would lead him/her to believe this person intends to do harm. This is then made accessible to any law enforcement agency. Maybe an awareness campaign to enforce rules in place? There are always back doors to obtaining these firearms, whether by theft, or by borrowing them friend friends/relatives. This is difficult to regulate without taking away from those who are "responsible" as well. Even then, there is no indication, or information that can support the hypothesis that new restrictions would even help achieve that goal. Under those realizations i cannot condone (or even understand) any further restriction on the general populace. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For years I have advocated that the Second Amendment be mandatory in that everyone regardless of Race, colour, creed or mental condition be required to have guns. I have also advocated that the general population have access to equal weapons of the armed forces, just in case they are told to act against their own people by order of the govt. Let's keep the 'playing field'(aka 'the killing fields') level.It's all a matter of trust and if people cannot trust their government, why trust their military...never mind the police. There is an interesting quote concerning the last sentence that i know you will appreciate. "Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question." -Thomas Jefferson |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This thread makes about as much sense as carrying a pocket full of rocks. or perhaps a head full of rocks, which is why you can't answer the question as if you believe that the 2ND amendment gives you and your neighbors or any other "irresponsible" person the right to have nukes ...that question seem to have popped you back into reality All responsible citizens don't go around killing innocent folks like yer messiah. my Messiah is greasy food and al-co-hol the beer god, and he only kills when people drink him Is he not a mass murderer? hell yes he's a mass murderer ....that's why restrictions were place on al-co-hol the beer god, for example..you can't drink the blood of alcohol the beer god and drive but anyway...are you "willing2"(no pun intended) answer the question? .... THE QUESTION: do you believe that the 2ND amendment gives you and your neighbor and any other "irresponsible" person the right to bear nukes? it's a simple yes or no question everyone choose to believe that the NRA is fighting for the 2ND amendment...The NRA is fighting for the right to sell it's products which are guns rifles and ammo to the general public and using the 2nd amendment to do so so if you believe that the 2nd amendment gives "all" it's citizens including the irresponsible and those with mental illinesses the right to bear arms "without any restrictions"....then all you have to do is answer "yes" to the question |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with the notion of providing mental health care completely. This is where the whole debate needs to focus, in my opinion. This would theoretically separate who you are calling "irresponsible" citizens from the "responsible" ones. A means of directing the energy to the source of our violence instead of casting blanket policies that limit that power and rights of the public as a whole. However where i disagree is with the need for new gun control measures, as the measures already in place would potentially prevent a mentally dysfunctional person from obtaining said firearms (from legal means). For instance; the background check given to anyone buying a new firearm already checks for things like restraining orders, violent histories, and previous felony charges. It is still any medical professional's responsibility to report any statement made by a client (or anyone by the matter) that would lead him/her to believe this person intends to do harm. This is then made accessible to any law enforcement agency. Maybe an awareness campaign to enforce rules in place? There are always back doors to obtaining these firearms, whether by theft, or by borrowing them friend friends/relatives. This is difficult to regulate without taking away from those who are "responsible" as well. Even then, there is no indication, or information that can support the hypothesis that new restrictions would even help achieve that goal. Under those realizations i cannot condone (or even understand) any further restriction on the general populace. "Mental Health" will be the route that the government and the NRA will take to control the 2nd amendment..... guns are obsolete, and are no longer required to fight a war.. which was learned in Hiroshima and Nagasaki ..if you go to war...why send ground troops when you can simply drop a nuke the guns laws that are being place in today is to steer society and it's citizens into a direction of being responsible for the guns they have and to weed out the ones that can't or refuse to do so before technology evolve the 2nd amendment into a form of Eugenics |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This thread makes about as much sense as carrying a pocket full of rocks. or perhaps a head full of rocks, which is why you can't answer the question as if you believe that the 2ND amendment gives you and your neighbors or any other "irresponsible" person the right to have nukes ...that question seem to have popped you back into reality All responsible citizens don't go around killing innocent folks like yer messiah. my Messiah is greasy food and al-co-hol the beer god, and he only kills when people drink him Is he not a mass murderer? hell yes he's a mass murderer ....that's why restrictions were place on al-co-hol the beer god, for example..you can't drink the blood of alcohol the beer god and drive but anyway...are you "willing2"(no pun intended) answer the question? .... THE QUESTION: do you believe that the 2ND amendment gives you and your neighbor and any other "irresponsible" person the right to bear nukes? it's a simple yes or no question everyone choose to believe that the NRA is fighting for the 2ND amendment...The NRA is fighting for the right to sell it's products which are guns rifles and ammo to the general public and using the 2nd amendment to do so so if you believe that the 2nd amendment gives "all" it's citizens including the irresponsible and those with mental illinesses the right to bear arms "without any restrictions"....then all you have to do is answer "yes" to the question the government is only trying to restrict the type of weapons you can kill your neighbor with... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Drivinmenutz
on
Sat 01/26/13 11:19 AM
|
|
I agree with the notion of providing mental health care completely. This is where the whole debate needs to focus, in my opinion. This would theoretically separate who you are calling "irresponsible" citizens from the "responsible" ones. A means of directing the energy to the source of our violence instead of casting blanket policies that limit that power and rights of the public as a whole. However where i disagree is with the need for new gun control measures, as the measures already in place would potentially prevent a mentally dysfunctional person from obtaining said firearms (from legal means). For instance; the background check given to anyone buying a new firearm already checks for things like restraining orders, violent histories, and previous felony charges. It is still any medical professional's responsibility to report any statement made by a client (or anyone by the matter) that would lead him/her to believe this person intends to do harm. This is then made accessible to any law enforcement agency. Maybe an awareness campaign to enforce rules in place? There are always back doors to obtaining these firearms, whether by theft, or by borrowing them friend friends/relatives. This is difficult to regulate without taking away from those who are "responsible" as well. Even then, there is no indication, or information that can support the hypothesis that new restrictions would even help achieve that goal. Under those realizations i cannot condone (or even understand) any further restriction on the general populace. "Mental Health" will be the route that the government and the NRA will take to control the 2nd amendment..... guns are obsolete, and are no longer required to fight a war.. which was learned in Hiroshima and Nagasaki ..if you go to war...why send ground troops when you can simply drop a nuke the guns laws that are being place in today is to steer society and it's citizens into a direction of being responsible for the guns they have and to weed out the ones that can't or refuse to do so before technology evolve the 2nd amendment into a form of Eugenics I do see a point in what you are saying. No weapon in the world can compare to the power of a nuke. Yet, we have had many, many wars since world war 2, on many different fronts. Nukes were used in none of these. I have a question... Assuming that you are talking about the gun laws being proposed, How would they influencing society into being any more responsible? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I do see a point in what you are saying. No weapon in the world can compare to the power of a nuke. Yet, we have had many, many wars since world war 2, on many different fronts. Nukes were used in none of these. how many of those wars did both sides have nukes? I have a question... Assuming that you are talking about the gun laws being proposed, How would they influencing society into being any more responsible? guns laws are put in place to protect society from itself |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Drivinmenutz
on
Sat 01/26/13 12:26 PM
|
|
how many of those wars did both sides have nukes? To Quote number 1. Both sides having nukes are irrelevant to the statement you made of "Why send in troops when you can just drop a nuke?". Only because we did send in troops, and did not drop a nuke. This also where the assumption of guns being obsolete gets knocked down a peg or two in my opinion. If they were truly obsolete wouldn't our law enforcement, military, and secret service have turned them over long ago? guns laws are put in place to protect society from itself And concerning quote number 2. How did we reach that conclusion? Statistically gun control has never had any control over gun-related crime. Not in the U.S. anyhow. So who are we protecting? And to revert back to the previous Thomas Jefferson quote; If we (the people in our society) are not fit to look after ourselves, then how can we (law enforcement members chosen from the same society) look after others (again meaning people from our society)? Or are the enforcers of these new laws "for our protection" going to come from elsewhere? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To Quote number 1. Both sides having nukes are irrelevant to the statement you made of "Why send in troops when you can just drop a nuke?". Only because we did send in troops, and did not drop a nuke. This also where the assumption of guns being obsolete gets knocked down a peg or two in my opinion. If they were truly obsolete wouldn't our law enforcement, military, and secret service have turned them over long ago? wherever ground troops were sent the other side didn't have nukes ..that's a fact ...in war, guns are now obsolete...law enforcement etc. have them because they are not there to have a war with society but to help protect society from itself And concerning quote number 2. How did we reach that conclusion? Statistically gun control has never had any control over gun-related crime. Not in the U.S. anyhow. So who are we protecting? And to revert back to the previous Thomas Jefferson quote; If we (the people in our society) are not fit to look after ourselves, then how can we (law enforcement members chosen from the same society) look after others (again meaning people from our society)? Or are the enforcers of these new laws "for our protection" going to come from elsewhere? you keep mentioning Thomas Jefferson....did he say those same quotes to his slaves? but anyway...it's not about taking away your right to have a gun...it's about protecting you and society from your gun ..... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Drivinmenutz
on
Sat 01/26/13 01:51 PM
|
|
Still not sure what you meant about the nukes, and war as it would be easier to send nukes then ground troops in either confrontation... But we can move on from that. (The fault may be of my own)
Either way, there are two very big assumptions you seem to make with your statements. #1 being that law enforcement are all responsible people, have never done, and will never do any harm to the populace (despite the fact that they came from the same population). #2 That gun laws have a direct correlation to gun violence. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 British thought they were bad too! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Think about it! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For years I have advocated that the Second Amendment be mandatory in that everyone regardless of Race, colour, creed or mental condition be required to have guns. I have also advocated that the general population have access to equal weapons of the armed forces, just in case they are told to act against their own people by order of the govt. Let's keep the 'playing field'(aka 'the killing fields') level.It's all a matter of trust and if people cannot trust their government, why trust their military...never mind the police. Sorry but I have no reason to trust you or any other joe blow not kill my children or grans with a automatic rile. So no, every joe blow cannot have them. There is no way at this point the citizenry can compete with the force of the government or the police for that matter when it comes to fire power, it is too late for equal ground. That has to be accepted. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
AndyBgood
on
Sat 01/26/13 03:14 PM
|
|
Alrighty then, let us say hypothetically I was exposed to something that gave me fantastic powers, one of them being I can set off fantastically huge blasts at will with the equivalent force of 5 megatons from my person and far greater if infuriated. Now lets say in the course of figuring out just how powerful I can be I set off into the desert at the test grounds where nukes were let off before and let off a 6 megaton blast becasue I felt good that morning. And then proceed to dig a real deep hole in the ground letting off multiple blasts one after the other until every satellite, earthquake monitoring station, and natural disaster specialist are freaking out at a volcanic eruption potentially where it does not belong. Now the military will be all over that like stink gravy on a pile of poop!
Now s a what if, what of my rights possessing that power especially when I make it clear I am not for hire and I want and demand to be left alone? I think the military would not take the warning well the first time and not gt the hint. NOW Upon returning home after learning just how big of a blast I can unleash I get hit with a law suit charging that I am a dangerous weapon and need to register myself. Well, here is how I see it. I personally would not want to be the bastard known for just setting a nuke off and killing thousands if not millions of people for a dumb reason! I do have reason to question the other guy having that kind of power. Would he show any restraint? I know I would be SOOOOOO tempted at times just to walk into a crowd of demonstrators and go off just because the demonstration was a bunch of dumb retards demanding something stupid from society! Or better yet, got some cop trying to give me a ticket and vaporizing his car or cop bike and giving him the look that says leave or perish. Well a gun does not grant that kind of power. But in all reality a Fuel Air Bomb can be JUST as devastating. It has the nickname POOR MAN'S NUKE. And knot head with basic chemistry skills can set one up. Any building can be made into a huge Claymore mine. We have that kind of power at our fingertips but people are not running around handing people's ***** on a day to day basis with bombs. Like anything this is a matter of personal responsibility! Not taking guns away! Liberals like to think in terms of WHAT IF and ignore the WHAT REALLY IS! Now if I did wake up tomorrow with fantastic powers I assure you, I would take over. I would take over with no hesitation becasue I cannot stand the way things are run now. And hide behind an army? I think showing up in S Korea and marching alone across the DMZ and handing the entire N Korean military their azzes would let the rest of the world in on the fact there is a NEW GOD IN TOWN! BRING ME VIRGINS! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Think about it! It is too late for that to be a worry. We have already passed the time when the citizenry can fight against the government in a bloody battle and win. just the facts as they are But I will not have my grans killed by you or your friend who lost their mind and killed them in school in under a minute with an automatic rifle regardless to the non acceptance of the fact that there is no equal to firepower between the government and citizenry anymore. |
|
|
|
|
