Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Your question and subsequent responses only show your unwillingness to have an open and honest debate.
First, criminals have and will always find a way to get weapons illegally. This is not just a U.S. problem this is a World problem. However, that does not mean that certain provisos would not be prudent concerning personally owed firearms in today's society.
Owning a weapon is part of the U.S. culture, instilled as a necessity to defend oneself and property from since the first arrived on the eastern seaboard to settlers traveling westward. And the U.S. was founded with the idea of having only a small peacetime military. In the 1700's it was NECESSARY for citizens to own weapons in order for states to be able to form militias. The wealthiest citizens even owned cannons, that is why many of the colonial time artillery units were referred to by a name (Hamilton's battery) vice a numerical designation and state (i.e. 5th Maine Infantry Regiment) However, times changes and so must the people that live in them. There are no absolutes in this debate. To think that an all out ban on any type weapon is idiocy. Gun proliferation within the society is too far gone. It is also idiocy and utter stupidity to void any weapons restrictions currently in place. SO........
Require that a person be earn and be issued a firearms license in order to legally buy, own, carry, or use a weapon. Requirement would be to attend a course (much like getting a drivers license) and have to update periodically.
Ban fully automatic weapons (already the case in most of the U.S.) there is absolutely NO NEED for an individual to own/possess and automatic weapon.
As for those that chose to not abide by the enacted laws, they must be dealt with individually and swiftly. Adding additional law/restrictions/prohibitions effectively accomplishes nothing.
Whether I need something or not is irrelevant. You wish to limit what I can do. Explain exactly what these limitations will accomplish and why.
What is it exactly that you wish to do with an automatic weapon? Please explain.
You can't go hunting with it, doesn't make you any safer in defending yourself or your property (unless you consider the impeding zombie apocalypse). The only reason for a person in our current day society would WANT an automatic weapon, is to commit such atrocities like what happened in the movie theater in Denver.
By licensing an individual and including the training of proper use, society as a whole is safer and any violations are more efficiently handled by the authorities.
It's an interesting list of massacres attributed to Leftists.All those quotes in praise of Fascist were made in the depths of the Great Depression. Those who praised Facism were doing so based upon the turnaround of the Fascist economies.All said during the greatest economic calamity since the Dark Ages. A calamity that resulted from unchecked, unfettered Capitalism run amok.The Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China are not examples of "Progressive" countries. They are Authoritarian regimes.
Swing and a miss. Conservatives are such poor students.
Oh, they most certainly are. The leaders of the progressive movement of the 1920's and 30's were famous for extolling the virtues of the fascist regimes. This is all well known history. What is also well known is that before the oppression, and the terror could begin, the people had to be disarmed.
Funny how that works.
Progressives are even poorer students.
- H. G. Wells, one of the most influential progressives of the 20th century, said in 1932 that progressives must become “liberal fascists” and “enlightened Nazis.” Regarding totalitarianism, he stated: “I have never been able to escape altogether from its relentless logic.” Calling for a “‘Phoenix Rebirth’ of Liberalism” under the umbrella of “Liberal Fascism,” Wells said: “I am asking for a Liberal Fascisti, for enlightened Nazis.”
- The poet Wallace Stevens pronounced himself “pro-Mussolini personally.”
- The eminent historian Charles Beard wrote of Mussolini’s efforts: “Beyond question, an amazing experiment is being made [in Italy], an experiment in reconciling individualism and socialism.”
- Muckraking journalists almost universally admired Mussolini. Lincoln Steffens, for one, said that Italian fascism made Western democracy, by comparison, look like a system run by “petty persons with petty purposes.” Mussolini, Steffens proclaimed reverently, had been “formed” by God “out of the rib of Italy.”
- McClure’s Magazine founder Samuel McClure, an important figure in the muckraking movement, described Italian fascism as “a great step forward and the first new ideal in government since the founding of the American Republic.”
- After having vistited Italy and interviewed Mussolini in 1926, the American humorist Will Rogers, who was informally dubbed “Ambassador-at-Large of the United States” by the National Press Club, said of the fascist dictator: “I’m pretty high on that bird.” “Dictator form of government is the greatest form of government,” Rogers wrote, “that is, if you have the right dictator.”
- Reporter Ida Tarbell was deeply impressed by Mussolini's attitudes regarding labor, affectionately dubbing him “a despot with a dimple.”
- NAACP co-founder W. E. B. DuBois saw National Socialism as a worthy model for economic organization. The establishment of the Nazi dictatorship in Germany, he wrote, had been “absolutely necessary to get the state in order.” In 1937 DuBois stated: “there is today, in some respects, more democracy in Germany than there has been in years past.”
- FDR adviser Rexford Guy Tugwell said of Italian fascism: “It's the cleanest, neatest, most efficiently operating piece of social machinery I've ever seen. It makes me envious.”
- New Republic editor George Soule, who avidly supported FDR, noted approvingly that the Roosevelt administration was “trying out the economics of fascism.”
- Playwright George Bernard Shaw hailed Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini as the world’s great “progressive” leaders because they “did things,” unlike the leaders of those “putrefying corpses” called parliamentary democracies.
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1223
The Soviet Union was unfettered capitalism run amuck? Even if that were true, how do you justify the murder of 60 million PEASANTS? They weren't capitalists, they WERE
the ones being oppressed. Luuuucy, you've got some esplainin to doooo.....
That Great Depression occurred due to uncheck, unfettered Capitalism.
They admired the precision and speed with which things were accomplished. When the Collectivization of the Ukrainian farms was underway, with the attendant 3 to 5 million dead that that entailed the progressives hailed it as a necessary act. The KNEW that millions were dying and felt it appropriate. I hate to tell you but mass murder, for any reason is NEVER acceptable, no matter how fucked up your personal belief system is.
The facts are millions were dying, the progressives knew it.....and they APPLAUDED it.
Progressivism has murdered more people in the last 150 years, than all the religions in the world have managed to murder in the last 2,000 years.
Your question and subsequent responses only show your unwillingness to have an open and honest debate.
First, criminals have and will always find a way to get weapons illegally. This is not just a U.S. problem this is a World problem. However, that does not mean that certain provisos would not be prudent concerning personally owed firearms in today's society.
Owning a weapon is part of the U.S. culture, instilled as a necessity to defend oneself and property from since the first arrived on the eastern seaboard to settlers traveling westward. And the U.S. was founded with the idea of having only a small peacetime military. In the 1700's it was NECESSARY for citizens to own weapons in order for states to be able to form militias. The wealthiest citizens even owned cannons, that is why many of the colonial time artillery units were referred to by a name (Hamilton's battery) vice a numerical designation and state (i.e. 5th Maine Infantry Regiment) However, times changes and so must the people that live in them. There are no absolutes in this debate. To think that an all out ban on any type weapon is idiocy. Gun proliferation within the society is too far gone. It is also idiocy and utter stupidity to void any weapons restrictions currently in place. SO........
Require that a person be earn and be issued a firearms license in order to legally buy, own, carry, or use a weapon. Requirement would be to attend a course (much like getting a drivers license) and have to update periodically.
Ban fully automatic weapons (already the case in most of the U.S.) there is absolutely NO NEED for an individual to own/possess and automatic weapon.
As for those that chose to not abide by the enacted laws, they must be dealt with individually and swiftly. Adding additional law/restrictions/prohibitions effectively accomplishes nothing.
What does a license do exactly.....No one who has ever suggested that can point out what that does to stop criminals or mass shooters? Criminals currently avoid all laws pertaining to guns, and mass shooters for the most part obey every law pertaining to guns before they commit their mass murder....or they too steal the weapons or buy them illegally....so what would licensing do exactly?
Who would pay for the course? You cannot require voters to pay a poll tax or take a literacy test since voting is a right and those are infringements on that right so requiring a fee and a test to exercise the right to bear arms would be unConstitutional as well.
It's an interesting list of massacres attributed to Leftists.
1. The communist revolutions in China, Russia, Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba, and South America.
2. The banning of DDT which was saving 60 million lives a year.
3. Abortion on demand
4. The Nazi holocausts
5. Standing by while 800,000 Rwandans are slaughtered.
The number of deaths attributed to the demonic Left reaches well into the hundreds of millions. They have served well their father, the devil.
Your question and subsequent responses only show your unwillingness to have an open and honest debate.
First, criminals have and will always find a way to get weapons illegally. This is not just a U.S. problem this is a World problem. However, that does not mean that certain provisos would not be prudent concerning personally owed firearms in today's society.
Owning a weapon is part of the U.S. culture, instilled as a necessity to defend oneself and property from since the first arrived on the eastern seaboard to settlers traveling westward. And the U.S. was founded with the idea of having only a small peacetime military. In the 1700's it was NECESSARY for citizens to own weapons in order for states to be able to form militias. The wealthiest citizens even owned cannons, that is why many of the colonial time artillery units were referred to by a name (Hamilton's battery) vice a numerical designation and state (i.e. 5th Maine Infantry Regiment) However, times changes and so must the people that live in them. There are no absolutes in this debate. To think that an all out ban on any type weapon is idiocy. Gun proliferation within the society is too far gone. It is also idiocy and utter stupidity to void any weapons restrictions currently in place. SO........
Require that a person be earn and be issued a firearms license in order to legally buy, own, carry, or use a weapon. Requirement would be to attend a course (much like getting a drivers license) and have to update periodically.
Ban fully automatic weapons (already the case in most of the U.S.) there is absolutely NO NEED for an individual to own/possess and automatic weapon.
As for those that chose to not abide by the enacted laws, they must be dealt with individually and swiftly. Adding additional law/restrictions/prohibitions effectively accomplishes nothing.
Whether I need something or not is irrelevant. You wish to limit what I can do. Explain exactly what these limitations will accomplish and why.
What is it exactly that you wish to do with an automatic weapon? Please explain.
You can't go hunting with it, doesn't make you any safer in defending yourself or your property (unless you consider the impeding zombie apocalypse). The only reason for a person in our current day society would WANT an automatic weapon, is to commit such atrocities like what happened in the movie theater in Denver.
By licensing an individual and including the training of proper use, society as a whole is safer and any violations are more efficiently handled by the authorities.
I am guessing that when you refer to an "automatic weapon" you mean an autoloader, not an actual automatic weapon. There was no automatic weapon used in the theater in Colorado. There was only an autoloader, which jammed after firing only a few rounds.
Your question and subsequent responses only show your unwillingness to have an open and honest debate.
First, criminals have and will always find a way to get weapons illegally. This is not just a U.S. problem this is a World problem. However, that does not mean that certain provisos would not be prudent concerning personally owed firearms in today's society.
Owning a weapon is part of the U.S. culture, instilled as a necessity to defend oneself and property from since the first arrived on the eastern seaboard to settlers traveling westward. And the U.S. was founded with the idea of having only a small peacetime military. In the 1700's it was NECESSARY for citizens to own weapons in order for states to be able to form militias. The wealthiest citizens even owned cannons, that is why many of the colonial time artillery units were referred to by a name (Hamilton's battery) vice a numerical designation and state (i.e. 5th Maine Infantry Regiment) However, times changes and so must the people that live in them. There are no absolutes in this debate. To think that an all out ban on any type weapon is idiocy. Gun proliferation within the society is too far gone. It is also idiocy and utter stupidity to void any weapons restrictions currently in place. SO........
Require that a person be earn and be issued a firearms license in order to legally buy, own, carry, or use a weapon. Requirement would be to attend a course (much like getting a drivers license) and have to update periodically.
Ban fully automatic weapons (already the case in most of the U.S.) there is absolutely NO NEED for an individual to own/possess and automatic weapon.
As for those that chose to not abide by the enacted laws, they must be dealt with individually and swiftly. Adding additional law/restrictions/prohibitions effectively accomplishes nothing.
Whether I need something or not is irrelevant. You wish to limit what I can do. Explain exactly what these limitations will accomplish and why.
What is it exactly that you wish to do with an automatic weapon? Please explain.
You can't go hunting with it, doesn't make you any safer in defending yourself or your property (unless you consider the impeding zombie apocalypse). The only reason for a person in our current day society would WANT an automatic weapon, is to commit such atrocities like what happened in the movie theater in Denver.
By licensing an individual and including the training of proper use, society as a whole is safer and any violations are more efficiently handled by the authorities.
I am guessing that when you refer to an "automatic weapon" you mean an autoloader, not an actual automatic weapon. There was no automatic weapon used in the theater in Colorado. There was only an autoloader, which jammed after firing only a few rounds.
No, you guessed wrong. And I didn't say that one was used in the theater shooting.
Your question and subsequent responses only show your unwillingness to have an open and honest debate.
First, criminals have and will always find a way to get weapons illegally. This is not just a U.S. problem this is a World problem. However, that does not mean that certain provisos would not be prudent concerning personally owed firearms in today's society.
Owning a weapon is part of the U.S. culture, instilled as a necessity to defend oneself and property from since the first arrived on the eastern seaboard to settlers traveling westward. And the U.S. was founded with the idea of having only a small peacetime military. In the 1700's it was NECESSARY for citizens to own weapons in order for states to be able to form militias. The wealthiest citizens even owned cannons, that is why many of the colonial time artillery units were referred to by a name (Hamilton's battery) vice a numerical designation and state (i.e. 5th Maine Infantry Regiment) However, times changes and so must the people that live in them. There are no absolutes in this debate. To think that an all out ban on any type weapon is idiocy. Gun proliferation within the society is too far gone. It is also idiocy and utter stupidity to void any weapons restrictions currently in place. SO........
Require that a person be earn and be issued a firearms license in order to legally buy, own, carry, or use a weapon. Requirement would be to attend a course (much like getting a drivers license) and have to update periodically.
Ban fully automatic weapons (already the case in most of the U.S.) there is absolutely NO NEED for an individual to own/possess and automatic weapon.
As for those that chose to not abide by the enacted laws, they must be dealt with individually and swiftly. Adding additional law/restrictions/prohibitions effectively accomplishes nothing.
Whether I need something or not is irrelevant. You wish to limit what I can do. Explain exactly what these limitations will accomplish and why.
What is it exactly that you wish to do with an automatic weapon? Please explain.
You can't go hunting with it, doesn't make you any safer in defending yourself or your property (unless you consider the impeding zombie apocalypse). The only reason for a person in our current day society would WANT an automatic weapon, is to commit such atrocities like what happened in the movie theater in Denver.
By licensing an individual and including the training of proper use, society as a whole is safer and any violations are more efficiently handled by the authorities.
I am guessing that when you refer to an "automatic weapon" you mean an autoloader, not an actual automatic weapon. There was no automatic weapon used in the theater in Colorado. There was only an autoloader, which jammed after firing only a few rounds.
No, you guessed wrong. And I didn't say that one was used in the theater shooting.
So you are addressing the ownership of a weapon that currently requires a more in-depth background check, additional fingerprinting, additional taxes, and more restrictions. But you used an event that had no such weapon involved as an example?
Ok then.
Whether I need something or not is irrelevant. You wish to limit what I can do. Explain exactly what these limitations will accomplish and why.
What is it exactly that you wish to do with an automatic weapon? Please explain.
You can't go hunting with it, doesn't make you any safer in defending yourself or your property (unless you consider the impeding zombie apocalypse). The only reason for a person in our current day society would WANT an automatic weapon, is to commit such atrocities like what happened in the movie theater in Denver.
By licensing an individual and including the training of proper use, society as a whole is safer and any violations are more efficiently handled by the authorities.
I am guessing that when you refer to an "automatic weapon" you mean an autoloader, not an actual automatic weapon. There was no automatic weapon used in the theater in Colorado. There was only an autoloader, which jammed after firing only a few rounds.
No, you guessed wrong. And I didn't say that one was used in the theater shooting.
So you are addressing the ownership of a weapon that currently requires a more in-depth background check, additional fingerprinting, additional taxes, and more restrictions. But you used an event that had no such weapon involved as an example?
Ok then.
OK then, why don't you explain why anyone would need an automatic weapon?
Okay, we're playing with words now. WHY WOULD ONE WANT AN AUTOMATIC WEAPON? And the fact that automatic weapons are not needed is relevant to rights, the rights granted to us by the constitution are NEEDED to ensure our freedoms. Does an individual have the need to own to protect the freedoms enjoyed by the society as a whole? That is the basis for the entire debate about the 2nd amendment, IS IT NEEDED?
I asked a question and you demand proof. Do you speak English as a second language?Are you complaining or bragging about the notorious terrorist record of White American Conservatives?
Do you, by any chance, have any proof of what you just said? We both know you pulled that out of your ass.
Now, have you clicked on the link and find out what the study is actually about? Based on your reply, you haven't. This study doesn't state that anywhere. However, as typical liberal, you had to shitpost something, regardless of knowing it's a lie. This thread calls for an open and honest debate. Why are you here?
Okay, we're playing with words now. WHY WOULD ONE WANT AN AUTOMATIC WEAPON? And the fact that automatic weapons are not needed is relevant to rights, the rights granted to us by the constitution are NEEDED to ensure our freedoms. Does an individual have the need to own to protect the freedoms enjoyed by the society as a whole? That is the basis for the entire debate about the 2nd amendment, IS IT NEEDED?
Whether someone needs it or not is irrelevant when discussing rights.
Why does someone need freedom of speech? Why do we need freedom of religion?
Fully automatic weapons are strictly regulated. They are rarely used in ordinary crimes. And the extraordinary crimes would have them whether they are legal or not.
Your question and subsequent responses only show your unwillingness to have an open and honest debate.
First, criminals have and will always find a way to get weapons illegally. This is not just a U.S. problem this is a World problem. However, that does not mean that certain provisos would not be prudent concerning personally owed firearms in today's society.
Owning a weapon is part of the U.S. culture, instilled as a necessity to defend oneself and property from since the first arrived on the eastern seaboard to settlers traveling westward. And the U.S. was founded with the idea of having only a small peacetime military. In the 1700's it was NECESSARY for citizens to own weapons in order for states to be able to form militias. The wealthiest citizens even owned cannons, that is why many of the colonial time artillery units were referred to by a name (Hamilton's battery) vice a numerical designation and state (i.e. 5th Maine Infantry Regiment) However, times changes and so must the people that live in them. There are no absolutes in this debate. To think that an all out ban on any type weapon is idiocy. Gun proliferation within the society is too far gone. It is also idiocy and utter stupidity to void any weapons restrictions currently in place. SO........
Require that a person be earn and be issued a firearms license in order to legally buy, own, carry, or use a weapon. Requirement would be to attend a course (much like getting a drivers license) and have to update periodically.
Ban fully automatic weapons (already the case in most of the U.S.) there is absolutely NO NEED for an individual to own/possess and automatic weapon.
As for those that chose to not abide by the enacted laws, they must be dealt with individually and swiftly. Adding additional law/restrictions/prohibitions effectively accomplishes nothing.
Whether someone needs it or not is irrelevant when discussing rights.
Why does someone need freedom of speech? Why do we need freedom of religion?
Fully automatic weapons are strictly regulated. They are rarely used in ordinary crimes. And the extraordinary crimes would have them whether they are legal or not.
Unless of course you don't understand the right, which is highly plausible seeing as most people don't.
There's the right to keep arms. Which is ownership. This merely prevents the US govt (and now states) from stopping people from owning arms.
It doesn't stop the US govt from stopping people having certain types of arms. For example, nukes, tanks, SAMs and so on. So the question is, where's the line. If Nukes can be banned, but say, a hand gun, can't be banned then what is the difference?
The difference is generally in what is considered to be "militia weaponry". That doesn't mean weaponry owned by the militia, but weaponry owned by the people that is "common" (what ever that means) in ownership for the potential use in the militia.
Many people will get their knickers in a twist thinking that I'm saying that the militia owns the weapons and all the stuff, note, I did not say that and I don't mean that.
There's also the right to bear arms. This is the right to be in the militia. It has nothing to do with carrying arms.
You have to remember that the Founding Fathers didn't protect every right they assumed to exist. Just certain ones connected with politics.
The 2A concerns the militia. The right to keep arms so the militia would have a ready supply of arms that the US govt could not take away from them, and the right to bear arms so the militia would have a ready supply of personnel who could use those arms.
So, all in all, semi-automatics aren't often considered the sort of weapon that people would own normally and which might be used in the even of the militia being necessary in the future. So, in theory, they could be banned by the US govt without infringing on the 2A.
And the Supreme Court has already validated that understanding. All the gun grabbers have now is old, failed arguments.Whether someone needs it or not is irrelevant when discussing rights.
Why does someone need freedom of speech? Why do we need freedom of religion?
Fully automatic weapons are strictly regulated. They are rarely used in ordinary crimes. And the extraordinary crimes would have them whether they are legal or not.
Unless of course you don't understand the right, which is highly plausible seeing as most people don't.
There's the right to keep arms. Which is ownership. This merely prevents the US govt (and now states) from stopping people from owning arms.
It doesn't stop the US govt from stopping people having certain types of arms. For example, nukes, tanks, SAMs and so on. So the question is, where's the line. If Nukes can be banned, but say, a hand gun, can't be banned then what is the difference?
The difference is generally in what is considered to be "militia weaponry". That doesn't mean weaponry owned by the militia, but weaponry owned by the people that is "common" (what ever that means) in ownership for the potential use in the militia.
Many people will get their knickers in a twist thinking that I'm saying that the militia owns the weapons and all the stuff, note, I did not say that and I don't mean that.
There's also the right to bear arms. This is the right to be in the militia. It has nothing to do with carrying arms.
You have to remember that the Founding Fathers didn't protect every right they assumed to exist. Just certain ones connected with politics.
The 2A concerns the militia. The right to keep arms so the militia would have a ready supply of arms that the US govt could not take away from them, and the right to bear arms so the militia would have a ready supply of personnel who could use those arms.
So, all in all, semi-automatics aren't often considered the sort of weapon that people would own normally and which might be used in the even of the militia being necessary in the future. So, in theory, they could be banned by the US govt without infringing on the 2A.
The militia, as understood by the founding fathers, were armed citizens that could be called upon to defend the nation. It was not a separate entity from the citizenry.
The militia, as understood by the founding fathers, were armed citizens that could be called upon to defend the nation. It was not a separate entity from the citizenry.
And the Supreme Court has already validated that understanding. All the gun grabbers have now is old, failed arguments.
M14, you can never ever have an honest and open debate with Democrats on guns because they have them also, they just don't want you too.Wry Catcher lamented the fact that there was no such debate (see sig) so I thought I would present everyone the same opportunity that I presented him. He ran away from this opportunity; hopefully you will show a little more honesty.
If you have a suggestion for new/additional gun control that (1) prevents criminals from getting guns and (2) does not infringe on the rights of the law-abiding. I'm all ears.
Please proceed.
Be sure to show how your suggestion meets he two points, above.
