Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

[frigidweirdo]

I have posted articles quoting European law enforcement saying that guns are easily acquired...it isn't me saying it. and Europe is still less violent, except Britain, they just don't choose to use guns in their crime......they easily get guns....Europe is awash in guns...

Yeah, European law enforcement saying European criminals are getting guns "easily".

So, where's the comparison with the US? What a European Law Enforcement person thinks is "easy" might a lot different to what a US Law Enforcement person thinks is "easy".

Are you catching the drift here? Making basic sentences and expecting people to just accept something when it doesn't make much sense isn't going to help you.

Europe is less violent except Britain.

Have you even been to Britain, because you write like all you know is what you read, and what you read is done by just simply accepting what you read without actually thinking that there might be issues you need to think about before you decide they are actually true or not.

Again, for the third or fourth time, violent crime statistic vary from country to country, it depends what is in those statistics, that will determine what number you get out at the end, it depends how they're counted, it also matters how willing people are to come forward and report such statistics.

Murder statistics are much easier to compare between countries. A dead body is a dead body. Okay, people die in different ways, it's not always murder or homicide or whatever, and sometimes it is and isn't counted so. However it's far more reliable than violent crimes statistics. Do you understand this? Are you going to carry on telling people stuff that simply isn't true?

From leftwing politifact...Britain is 2 times as violent as the U.S.


Social media post says U.K. has far higher violent crime rate than U.S. does PolitiFact


For England and Wales, we added together three crime categories: "violence against the person, with injury," "most serious sexual crime," and "robbery." This produced a rate of 775 violent crimes per 100,000 people.

For the United States, we used the FBI’s four standard categories for violent crime that Bier cited. We came up with a rate of 383 violent crimes per 100,000 people.

This calculation suggests that there is a higher rate of crime in England and Wales, but the discrepancy is not anywhere near as wide as the one cited in the meme.

Murder statistics are much easier to compare between countries. A dead body is a dead body.

Sorry, you are wrong...in Britain, the don't count a murder a murder till the criminal has been prosecuted for murder and has run their appeals.....we count murder as soon as the cause of death is determined to be murder......so no, you are wrong.

So, where's the comparison with the US? What a European Law Enforcement person thinks is "easy" might a lot different to what a US Law Enforcement person thinks is "easy".

These countries have extreme gun control laws...as shown in my threads on how easy it is to get guns in Europe....they don't have gun stores like we have in the U.S., they have long processes for simple hunting shotguns, and you cannot own fully automatic rifles in Europe...and they get those easily...

So dodge, duck and weave, you are still wrong.

Are you reading ANYTHING I'm writing? Seriously? Jeez this is becoming a head bang wall situation right here.

Every time I tell you WHY Britain's crime statistics are higher, and I keep telling you it isn't necessarily because Britain's crime is higher, and all you do is report back that Britain's crime rate is higher.

You think using your brain and knowledge is "dodge, duck and weave" huh? Just so you can peddle your nonsense to other people and people take in your crap that is based on nothing more than what you decide is true.

No wonder the US is turning into such a mess. People who vote don't have a clue what's going on around them, they simply make a view of what they want the case to be.

 

[frigidweirdo]

and good teachers can open schools and can do it because the poor in their community can afford to pay them....instead of having to work in government schools controlled by the education wing of the democrat party who graduate students at a rate of 50%. vouchers are also wanted by inner city parents...who know just how crappy public schools are.

And how often do good teachers choose to stay in poor areas?

Do you have any evidence at all that what you're suggesting has happened in any way shape or form?

Look, you want solutions....vouchers are the solution...then when we suggest vouchers you say, no, they won't work....you are the problem.......you don't really want to give poor parents a way out for their kids......vouchers give them that......and you are against them.....you want principals to share information...that and pixie dust will keep graduation rates at 50%......

Again. You're talking total crap and you just keep repeating the same total crap over and over and over again. The only solution school vouchers solve is the solution of how to take money away from poor schools and put it in the pocket of rich people. But then again this is probably the problem you were looking to solve in the first place.

You have shown absolutely nothing to show that vouchers work. You made some comment about how they can help poor kids, but not even an example of one kid who has been helped, let alone a whole host.

And you never will prove it. Why? Because it didn't happen.

 

[2aguy]

I have posted articles quoting European law enforcement saying that guns are easily acquired...it isn't me saying it. and Europe is still less violent, except Britain, they just don't choose to use guns in their crime......they easily get guns....Europe is awash in guns...

Yeah, European law enforcement saying European criminals are getting guns "easily".

So, where's the comparison with the US? What a European Law Enforcement person thinks is "easy" might a lot different to what a US Law Enforcement person thinks is "easy".

Are you catching the drift here? Making basic sentences and expecting people to just accept something when it doesn't make much sense isn't going to help you.

Europe is less violent except Britain.

Have you even been to Britain, because you write like all you know is what you read, and what you read is done by just simply accepting what you read without actually thinking that there might be issues you need to think about before you decide they are actually true or not.

Again, for the third or fourth time, violent crime statistic vary from country to country, it depends what is in those statistics, that will determine what number you get out at the end, it depends how they're counted, it also matters how willing people are to come forward and report such statistics.

Murder statistics are much easier to compare between countries. A dead body is a dead body. Okay, people die in different ways, it's not always murder or homicide or whatever, and sometimes it is and isn't counted so. However it's far more reliable than violent crimes statistics. Do you understand this? Are you going to carry on telling people stuff that simply isn't true?

From leftwing politifact...Britain is 2 times as violent as the U.S.


Social media post says U.K. has far higher violent crime rate than U.S. does PolitiFact


For England and Wales, we added together three crime categories: "violence against the person, with injury," "most serious sexual crime," and "robbery." This produced a rate of 775 violent crimes per 100,000 people.

For the United States, we used the FBI’s four standard categories for violent crime that Bier cited. We came up with a rate of 383 violent crimes per 100,000 people.

This calculation suggests that there is a higher rate of crime in England and Wales, but the discrepancy is not anywhere near as wide as the one cited in the meme.

Murder statistics are much easier to compare between countries. A dead body is a dead body.

Sorry, you are wrong...in Britain, the don't count a murder a murder till the criminal has been prosecuted for murder and has run their appeals.....we count murder as soon as the cause of death is determined to be murder......so no, you are wrong.

So, where's the comparison with the US? What a European Law Enforcement person thinks is "easy" might a lot different to what a US Law Enforcement person thinks is "easy".

These countries have extreme gun control laws...as shown in my threads on how easy it is to get guns in Europe....they don't have gun stores like we have in the U.S., they have long processes for simple hunting shotguns, and you cannot own fully automatic rifles in Europe...and they get those easily...

So dodge, duck and weave, you are still wrong.

Are you reading ANYTHING I'm writing? Seriously? Jeez this is becoming a head bang wall situation right here.

Every time I tell you WHY Britain's crime statistics are higher, and I keep telling you it isn't necessarily because Britain's crime is higher, and all you do is report back that Britain's crime rate is higher.

You think using your brain and knowledge is "dodge, duck and weave" huh? Just so you can peddle your nonsense to other people and people take in your crap that is based on nothing more than what you decide is true.

No wonder the US is turning into such a mess. People who vote don't have a clue what's going on around them, they simply make a view of what they want the case to be.

Politifact did exactly what you wanted and cited the stats, they compared what they could of the two systems and came up with the numbers.......of course since that shows you are wrong they are now not a legitimate source...got you.......

 

[2aguy]

and good teachers can open schools and can do it because the poor in their community can afford to pay them....instead of having to work in government schools controlled by the education wing of the democrat party who graduate students at a rate of 50%. vouchers are also wanted by inner city parents...who know just how crappy public schools are.

And how often do good teachers choose to stay in poor areas?

Do you have any evidence at all that what you're suggesting has happened in any way shape or form?

Look, you want solutions....vouchers are the solution...then when we suggest vouchers you say, no, they won't work....you are the problem.......you don't really want to give poor parents a way out for their kids......vouchers give them that......and you are against them.....you want principals to share information...that and pixie dust will keep graduation rates at 50%......

Again. You're talking total crap and you just keep repeating the same total crap over and over and over again. The only solution school vouchers solve is the solution of how to take money away from poor schools and put it in the pocket of rich people. But then again this is probably the problem you were looking to solve in the first place.

You have shown absolutely nothing to show that vouchers work. You made some comment about how they can help poor kids, but not even an example of one kid who has been helped, let alone a whole host.

And you never will prove it. Why? Because it didn't happen.

The poor schools get plenty of money....we pay more for education in these education hell holes and fail students every day......there were poor kids going to Sidwell Friends in washington D.C. on a voucher program...they were succeeding, and the first thing obama did when he got there he cancelled the program...and then when Republicans fought him and the democrats he said the kids in the program now could finish their time their but still ended the program. Vouchers allow poor parents to send their kids to any school they can get their kid into....they don't have to be trapped by the local hell hole school. Poor schools aren't bad because they lack funds, they are bad because they have bad government teachers......who can't be fired because of the democrat controlled unions backed by democrat politicians.....

 

[kaz]

Well regulated Militias of the People (who are the Militia), that is my plan.

Got it, I thought the militias were made up of toasters. So which people are the militia?

"Dick championed the Militia Act of 1903, which became known as the Dick Act. This law repealed the Militia Acts of 1792 and organized the militia into two groups: the Reserve Militia, which included all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45, and the Organized Militia, which included state militia (National Guard) units receiving federal support.[17][18][19][20]

The Dick Act included $2 million for National Guard units to modernize equipment, and permitted states to use federal funds to pay for National Guard summer training encampments. The National Guard in each state was also required to carry out a uniform schedule of weekend or weeknight drills and annual summer training camps. In addition, the War Department agreed to fund the attendance of Guard officers at Army schools, and active Army officers would serve as inspectors and instructors of National Guard units. The War Department also agreed to organize joint Army-National Guard exercises and training encampments"

Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Taken within the context of Art. I, sec 8 clause 15 & 16 you are invited to come to your own conclusion. I've inferred that the reserve militia are those eligible to be drafted into national service, since no funding from the state or federal government is appropriated to train the reserve militia.

Who are the militia isn't up to the government, it's up to the people. Think about that, you're saying government gets to decide who is armed. That is contrary to everything the founding fathers ever wrote about freedom.

Everyone is in the "militia." That is further supported by that if you read the second amendment, the militia is a justification, not a qualification of the right. The right is that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, there is no qualification to that right other than due process, which can limit all rights, but you have to do it with the people's consent, or a jury representing the people. Government alone can't limit rights

You're wrong. Read the Dick Act, read Art. I, read the Selective Service Act and then put your obvious bias aside and think.

Government can limit your rights, it's called the rule of law.

Want to test free speech? Get on a plane and tell the flight crew you have a bomb; want to test freedom of religion, sacrifice a young maiden; want to test driving at 100 MPH, try to on a residential street.

That isn't free speech any more than robbing a bank is freedom to bear arms

 

[kaz]

Sorry, meant the Baltics

I guessed, easy mistake to make. However, the Baltics aren't under threat. There are rumors doing the rounds, but Putin has nothing. He wouldn't have just gone into the Ukraine, he needed a pretext, and a pretext is going to be extremely difficult to find in the Baltics.

So you know they are wrong in thinking they are under threat, huh. Whew, that's a relief. Never mind then

What threat is there? The Ukraine was not a part of NATO, not a part of the EU. The Baltic states are. Putin would know that the Ukraine would be a gamble, but the Baltic states wouldn't be a gamble, troops from the EU, which is much larger would be there in a flash.

Some people seem to have a desire to make it look like Putin would do something he wouldn't dare do, unless of course he was willing to go for all out war, which he isn't.

Putin gets great boosts in his popularity with these small wars which he can hide the human cost of. A full out war is something else.

We had a defense treating with the Ukraine that was ignored, why are the Baltics any different?

 

[kaz]

The People are the Militia.

Which ones? All of them or some of them?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Politifact did exactly what you wanted and cited the stats, they compared what they could of the two systems and came up with the numbers.......of course since that shows you are wrong they are now not a legitimate source...got you.......

Uh hu.

From what you posted

"However, before we put too much credibility on these calculations, we should note that criminologists say there is actually no good way to compare violent crime rates in these two countries."

"Another problem is that aggravated assaults, rapes and robberies are victim-reported crimes, so whether the crime gets reported varies widely, depending on such factors as the victim’s trust in the police. "

"Polling data showed that England and Wales had 2,600 cases of robbery per 100,000 population and 8,100 cases of "assaults and threats" per 100,000. While those figures are even higher than the meme suggested, the U.S levels are also much higher -- 1,100 cases of robbery and 8,300 cases of assaults and threats per 100,000. "

"And the rate of sexual assault is actually about 50 percent higher in the United States than it is in England and Wales."

""Recorded crime data are problematic due to definitional issues, reporting rates and other concerns," said Shane D. Johnson, a professor in the University College of London Department of Security and Crime Science. "There may also be considerable variation across counties, or states.""

"
Our ruling

The meme said "there are over 2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the U.K.," compared to "466 violent crimes per 100,000" in the United States. Our preliminary attempt to make an apples-to-apples comparison shows a much smaller difference in violent crime rates between the two countries, but criminologists say differences in how the statistics are collected make it impossible to produce a truly valid comparison. We rate the claim False."

Did you read this all before telling me what you just said? Really? I mean, this backs up EVERYTHING I have been saying.

I said rape rates in the US were under reported. They suggest that rape rates in the US are higher than the UK. I said other crimes are also under reported, they estimate that assaults and threats are higher in the US than the UK.

So, I'm just wondering how Politifact is showing that I'm wrong. You've used it as a source, it seems to show everything that I said to be true, and yet you're making some silly claim that it doesn't back me up. How?

Let me guess, you read "
Social media post says U.K. has far higher violent crime rate than U.S. does" and thought this backed up your points. It doesn't. This was how they started to make their hypothesis.

You need to read beyond this before you post things claiming stuff it doesn't say.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I don't believe the govt has any power to "control" guns. It's clear that even conservative supreme courts, like this one, believe the government has the power to prevent criminals and the mentally ill from owning weapons

And that's the question:
How does the state prevent criminals, etc, from getting firearms w/o violating the fundamental rights specifically protected by the constitution?
No sound answer to this question has been given.

Both the Miller and Heller decisions affirm the govt has the power to not allow individuals to buy anything they desire, and fully automatic weapons can be "banned."

Both cases are utterly silent on the issue of machineguns and the constitutionally of banning them.

Background checks are imperfect, but they could be improved, and they do not prevent any law abiding citizen from obtaining a legal firearm. The opposition to that cannot be termed rational.

The state may not presume all who choose to exercise their right to arms 'guilty' of doing so illegally and compel them to 'prove' that they are innocent by undergoing an background check;; to presume a citizen 'might' misuse a civil liberty does not warrant the state's restriction of that right.
The opposition, therefore, is fully rational.

Checks would do little to prevent gangbangers and career criminals from obtaining guns, and do little to help crime fighting.

And so there's no rational basis for so restricting the right to arms in such a manner. Thank you,

But if they'd prevent one mass shooting...

If concealed carry by teachers prevented one mass shooting...

We don't even identify all the kids in school who have dyslexia or ADD, let alone identify teenagers who are becoming schizophrenic

Having any of these things, in an of themselves does not legally preclude someone from buying a gun,.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Sorry, meant the Baltics

I guessed, easy mistake to make. However, the Baltics aren't under threat. There are rumors doing the rounds, but Putin has nothing. He wouldn't have just gone into the Ukraine, he needed a pretext, and a pretext is going to be extremely difficult to find in the Baltics.

So you know they are wrong in thinking they are under threat, huh. Whew, that's a relief. Never mind then

What threat is there? The Ukraine was not a part of NATO, not a part of the EU. The Baltic states are. Putin would know that the Ukraine would be a gamble, but the Baltic states wouldn't be a gamble, troops from the EU, which is much larger would be there in a flash.

Some people seem to have a desire to make it look like Putin would do something he wouldn't dare do, unless of course he was willing to go for all out war, which he isn't.

Putin gets great boosts in his popularity with these small wars which he can hide the human cost of. A full out war is something else.

We had a defense treating with the Ukraine that was ignored, why are the Baltics any different?

Er... because Russia didn't invade the Ukraine, officially.

However the Ukraine was a separate entity. The Baltics are part of the EU. Do you see the difference?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Their is an active militia and an inactive militia. The former is the national guard, the latter all men between the age of 18 and 45 eligible for a draft. Middle aged fat guys like M14 running around the woods with guns ain't members.

Right, so in the bill of rights protecting personal freedoms, they decided to ensure that ... government ... can have guns.

How stupid are you?

Militia Act of 1903 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Q. How stupid are you

A. At least two standard deviations above your level

So it does make sense that in the middle of the bill of rights, they decided to protect the right of government to have guns. I get it now, thanks

Cool. As did Scalia in Heller:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/washington/27scotus.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0
Read it carefully, Scalia's opinion DID NOT sustain the belief that the Second Amendment was sacrosanct.

You do not understand anything you read there.
You prove this with every post.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The People are the Militia.

Which ones? All of them or some of them?

Some of them. The ones with balls and a few without balls.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws. I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.

In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want. There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world. So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.

So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade. The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.

Well, I'm not a liberal, but I think overall the best tool has been enhanced sentencing for gun crimes. Still, I've never seen opposition to background check being rational. If it stops 1-100 shootings .... great. And, I don't really know how to do it, but the US is not identifying the truly insane in society as well as we should.

The problem is the gun lovers have no interest in being rational or discussing ways in which to control guns. They simply respond, "nothing will work" and any effort to do so will violate my rights under the Second Amendment.

You've offered zero in terms of rational ways to "control guns." you've only continued to insist that we only focus on restricting guns for law abiding citizens

How have I focused on restricting guns for law abiding citizens?

Every single "solution" you present places a restriction on the rights of the law abiding, and in doing so, violates the constitution.

 

[kaz]

Sorry, meant the Baltics

I guessed, easy mistake to make. However, the Baltics aren't under threat. There are rumors doing the rounds, but Putin has nothing. He wouldn't have just gone into the Ukraine, he needed a pretext, and a pretext is going to be extremely difficult to find in the Baltics.

So you know they are wrong in thinking they are under threat, huh. Whew, that's a relief. Never mind then

What threat is there? The Ukraine was not a part of NATO, not a part of the EU. The Baltic states are. Putin would know that the Ukraine would be a gamble, but the Baltic states wouldn't be a gamble, troops from the EU, which is much larger would be there in a flash.

Some people seem to have a desire to make it look like Putin would do something he wouldn't dare do, unless of course he was willing to go for all out war, which he isn't.

Putin gets great boosts in his popularity with these small wars which he can hide the human cost of. A full out war is something else.

We had a defense treating with the Ukraine that was ignored, why are the Baltics any different?

Er... because Russia didn't invade the Ukraine, officially.

However the Ukraine was a separate entity. The Baltics are part of the EU. Do you see the difference?

Why does EU membership mean we'll honor commitments we make when we don't honor them for non EU countries?

 

[kaz]

The People are the Militia.

Which ones? All of them or some of them?

Some of them. The ones with balls and a few without balls.

Who are you saying the bill of rights doesn't apply to exactly?

 

[frigidweirdo]

The poor schools get plenty of money....we pay more for education in these education hell holes and fail students every day......there were poor kids going to Sidwell Friends in washington D.C. on a voucher program...they were succeeding, and the first thing obama did when he got there he cancelled the program...and then when Republicans fought him and the democrats he said the kids in the program now could finish their time their but still ended the program. Vouchers allow poor parents to send their kids to any school they can get their kid into....they don't have to be trapped by the local hell hole school. Poor schools aren't bad because they lack funds, they are bad because they have bad government teachers......who can't be fired because of the democrat controlled unions backed by democrat politicians.....

Poor schools get plenty of money, and..... money doesn't make good education.

So, some kids were going on a voucher scheme which you haven't shown, and it was pulled, probably because it was a few kids. Getting a few kids into better schools is what? Nonsense, you need to be improving education across the board.

Fine, vouchers allow parents to send kids to any school they can get into. What schools can they get into? Not any school which costs more than the vouchers I would presume.
Also, why not just allow all states schools to be open to ALL PUPILS. Why the hell do you need a voucher that pays out mostly to rich kids' parents in order to make this choice? How is it other countries manage to give choice to the parents and kids without some ridiculous plan which involves funneling money away from poor schools and putting it in rich parents pockets?

Poor schools ARE bad because of teachers and leaders of the school being bad. However to make a good school you need money.

Are you SERIOUSLY trying to make an argument for a scheme which is all about taking money away from poor schools and giving it to rich parents based on the the fact that money doesn't make education, however education without money will be bad education?

You like to twist things massively.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I guessed, easy mistake to make. However, the Baltics aren't under threat. There are rumors doing the rounds, but Putin has nothing. He wouldn't have just gone into the Ukraine, he needed a pretext, and a pretext is going to be extremely difficult to find in the Baltics.

So you know they are wrong in thinking they are under threat, huh. Whew, that's a relief. Never mind then

What threat is there? The Ukraine was not a part of NATO, not a part of the EU. The Baltic states are. Putin would know that the Ukraine would be a gamble, but the Baltic states wouldn't be a gamble, troops from the EU, which is much larger would be there in a flash.

Some people seem to have a desire to make it look like Putin would do something he wouldn't dare do, unless of course he was willing to go for all out war, which he isn't.

Putin gets great boosts in his popularity with these small wars which he can hide the human cost of. A full out war is something else.

We had a defense treating with the Ukraine that was ignored, why are the Baltics any different?

Er... because Russia didn't invade the Ukraine, officially.

However the Ukraine was a separate entity. The Baltics are part of the EU. Do you see the difference?

Why does EU membership mean we'll honor commitments we make when we don't honor them for non EU countries?

Because sometimes that's life. The US govt does things based on the interests of the US. The Ukraine was a little proxy war for supremacy over Russia, the old enemy. It was a little game. The US seems to have lost because Putin actually gets more out of winning than the US does.

The EU is different. The EU is the pet project of the Germans and the French who will do what is necessary to make sure they have the power within the EU. If they let Russia come in and take bits off then the EU would fall apart. Russia in the Ukraine doesn't damage the EU much. The Ukraine was so far away from being an EU member it wasn't worth fighting over.

Also these countries are NATO members, the Ukraine wasn't. NATO is there to defend itself. Perhaps it wouldn't in every case, but against Russia it would because that is exactly why Russia was made. It's be in the interests of EU countries to fight, and possibly the US, seeing as they're sending planes and missiles and things there.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The People are the Militia.

Which ones? All of them or some of them?

Some of them. The ones with balls and a few without balls.

Who are you saying the bill of rights doesn't apply to exactly?

I'm not. I'm not talking about the Bill of Rights at all. The Dick Act specifies who is in the militia. Generally it's men. A few women are in as part of the National Guard.

The point being that the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. Just because you have the right to be in something doesn't mean you are in it. You have to join up to the militia, some are automatically joined up, and they're mostly men.

 

[kaz]

So you know they are wrong in thinking they are under threat, huh. Whew, that's a relief. Never mind then

What threat is there? The Ukraine was not a part of NATO, not a part of the EU. The Baltic states are. Putin would know that the Ukraine would be a gamble, but the Baltic states wouldn't be a gamble, troops from the EU, which is much larger would be there in a flash.

Some people seem to have a desire to make it look like Putin would do something he wouldn't dare do, unless of course he was willing to go for all out war, which he isn't.

Putin gets great boosts in his popularity with these small wars which he can hide the human cost of. A full out war is something else.

We had a defense treating with the Ukraine that was ignored, why are the Baltics any different?

Er... because Russia didn't invade the Ukraine, officially.

However the Ukraine was a separate entity. The Baltics are part of the EU. Do you see the difference?

Why does EU membership mean we'll honor commitments we make when we don't honor them for non EU countries?

Because sometimes that's life. The US govt does things based on the interests of the US. The Ukraine was a little proxy war for supremacy over Russia, the old enemy. It was a little game. The US seems to have lost because Putin actually gets more out of winning than the US does.

The EU is different. The EU is the pet project of the Germans and the French who will do what is necessary to make sure they have the power within the EU. If they let Russia come in and take bits off then the EU would fall apart. Russia in the Ukraine doesn't damage the EU much. The Ukraine was so far away from being an EU member it wasn't worth fighting over.

Also these countries are NATO members, the Ukraine wasn't. NATO is there to defend itself. Perhaps it wouldn't in every case, but against Russia it would because that is exactly why Russia was made. It's be in the interests of EU countries to fight, and possibly the US, seeing as they're sending planes and missiles and things there.

You think the EU is going to fight Russia over the Baltics without the US? Dream on

 

[kaz]

The People are the Militia.

Which ones? All of them or some of them?

Some of them. The ones with balls and a few without balls.

Who are you saying the bill of rights doesn't apply to exactly?

I'm not. I'm not talking about the Bill of Rights at all. The Dick Act specifies who is in the militia. Generally it's men. A few women are in as part of the National Guard.

The point being that the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. Just because you have the right to be in something doesn't mean you are in it. You have to join up to the militia, some are automatically joined up, and they're mostly men.

Right, if you want to know if your personal freedoms in the Bill of Rights are protected, just go to government and they will decide and inform you of their choice. Clearly that's what the Founders intended, I hear you