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.
Then why - Brain - did those folks in Afghanistan and Iraq (pockets of rebels) enjoy a great deal of success holding off our supremely powerful military for so many years in an area a fraction the size of the US?
They were less educated, less wealthy, and had weapons that were about 40 years old.
Why isn't your theory holding up to the facts?
We ran over both countries quite easily. Both were invasions by another country, not tyranny taking over long standing democracies. Your insulting our military.
We ran over Iraq "quite easily"? We spent ten years there, Brain. Ten freaking years. Thousands of military men/women dead. Spent (what will amount to) $3-4 trillion dollars. Al Qaeda - earlier this year - just seized control of two cities in Western Iraq and is gaining ground.
To top it off, Iraq is about a fourth the size of Texas! A fourth!
Please, man. Let's stay grounded in reality here.
Brian - I know you guys say that civilization in the western world is going to be "ok" from now until the distant horizon, but our friends over at NASA disagree. Just wanted to post this story I came across today because it kind of shocked me too:
Civilisation Is Doomed Warns Safa Motesharri's Nasa-Funded Study
I mean, NASA isn't some kook organization. What if a portion of our civilization were to collapse temporarily or long term? Is it a horrible idea to have a shotgun handy to defend your family if need be? Not talking the apocalypse, just saying it's fair to assume a portion (maybe big or small) of the US would experience some sort of catastrophe in the next 50 years.
I don't take chances with my family. What you want to do is your choice, but don't take away my right to defend myself. Please.
A criminal? Are you talking about the guys who can obtain 20 lbs of cocaine; it would make it "harder" for them to obtain a magazine?It would make them much harder and illegal to buy. Similar to the machine gun ban. Those aren't easy to get now are they?
Do you know how expensive it will be to make them with your computer?
Do you really think criminals will bother? They don't really need hi cap to commit crimes, but they use them because they are easy to get now.
We ran over both countries quite easily. Both were invasions by another country, not tyranny taking over long standing democracies. Your insulting our military.
We ran over Iraq "quite easily"? We spent ten years there, Brain. Ten freaking years. Thousands of military men/women dead. Spent (what will amount to) $3-4 trillion dollars. Al Qaeda - earlier this year - just seized control of two cities in Western Iraq and is gaining ground.
To top it off, Iraq is about a fourth the size of Texas! A fourth!
Please, man. Let's stay grounded in reality here.
Your talking about policing a foreign country with the limitations of working with their new government. Would a tyrant be so nice? If our military had been told to kill everyone they would all be dead.
A criminal? Are you talking about the guys who can obtain 20 lbs of cocaine; it would make it "harder" for them to obtain a magazine?It would make them much harder and illegal to buy. Similar to the machine gun ban. Those aren't easy to get now are they?
Do you know how expensive it will be to make them with your computer?
Do you really think criminals will bother? They don't really need hi cap to commit crimes, but they use them because they are easy to get now.
Machine guns are prevalent not because of the legality but more so they're large, expensive, hard to maintain, and not practical for a gang member. What would they need a machine gun for? The 1980's action movies were not a good representation of reality, despite what some might like to think. A hand gun is much more "handy"
Expensive to print now? Yes. In 10 years? No.
A desktop computer once cost a fortune; now you can get one dirt cheap. 3D printing is the way of the future and will likely be a household staple in just a few years.
Does anything in there say lots of guns lowers crime? Cause that is what the NRA has been pushing. Please direct me to that section of the article.
I don't give a shit about the NRA.
Banning guns will not decrease violent crime.
Period.
I guess it doesn't say more guns decrease crime then. Thanks. One less lie for the gun debate.
We ran over Iraq "quite easily"? We spent ten years there, Brain. Ten freaking years. Thousands of military men/women dead. Spent (what will amount to) $3-4 trillion dollars. Al Qaeda - earlier this year - just seized control of two cities in Western Iraq and is gaining ground.
To top it off, Iraq is about a fourth the size of Texas! A fourth!
Please, man. Let's stay grounded in reality here.
Your talking about policing a foreign country with the limitations of working with their new government. Would a tyrant be so nice? If our military had been told to kill everyone they would all be dead.
Why do we have to be up against a psycho murdering tyrant? Why can't it be just an unfair, oppressive government trying to exert its force over the people (which is the much more likely scenario)?
I don't give a shit about the NRA.
Banning guns will not decrease violent crime.
Period.
I guess it doesn't say more guns decrease crime then. Thanks. One less lie for the gun debate.
If gun bans do not decrease violent crime then why would you want to ban them and deny people the right to protect themselves?
And I never said guns decrease violent crime so do not make shit up.
Look if you don't want a gun then don't get one I don't care because it's none of my business. And you shouldn't care if I have 1 or 100 because it's none of your business.
I guess it doesn't say more guns decrease crime then. Thanks. One less lie for the gun debate.
Sometimes people with an agenda tend to oversimplify a complex issue. Society plays a greater role than they are willing to admit. Set up the optimum conditions and crime, with or without guns, is automatic. Increase poverty, drug addiction, bigotry, lack of communication between races and economic classes and you have a powder-keg of violence waiting to happen.
Why is most of the gun violence in black neighborhoods and in inner cities? Why has every mass shooting in the last several years involved a student, a Muslim, a clinically insane individual, or a minority? Why is it we get nothing but division and hatred from the left?
Because they want guns in the hands of the wrong people so they can take them from the rest of us.
I remember after Sandyhook the left wanted to treat all gun owners the same way they treat anyone who doesn't believe in same-sex marriage, like pariahs. That blew up in their faces in Colorado. People remember this, and will punish Democrats come November.
Much of what you say is correct. I think inequality is the main problem. Unfortunately the right ignores that problem. But taking the guns isn't the only option. Magazine limits, background checks for all sales, and gun registration wouldn't take guns from a single law abiding owner. Would slow the mass shooter though and make it harder for criminals to get guns.
A criminal? Are you talking about the guys who can obtain 20 lbs of cocaine; it would make it "harder" for them to obtain a magazine?It would make them much harder and illegal to buy. Similar to the machine gun ban. Those aren't easy to get now are they?
Do you know how expensive it will be to make them with your computer?
Do you really think criminals will bother? They don't really need hi cap to commit crimes, but they use them because they are easy to get now.
Machine guns are prevalent not because of the legality but more so they're large, expensive, hard to maintain, and not practical for a gang member. What would they need a machine gun for? The 1980's action movies were not a good representation of reality, despite what some might like to think. A hand gun is much more "handy"
Expensive to print now? Yes. In 10 years? No.
A desktop computer once cost a fortune; now you can get one dirt cheap. 3D printing is the way of the future and will likely be a household staple in just a few years.
Why would criminals bother when you can commit crimes without a hi cap magazine? The fact is nobody needs them so nobody would bother.
I guess it doesn't say more guns decrease crime then. Thanks. One less lie for the gun debate.
If gun bans do not decrease violent crime then why would you want to ban them and deny people the right to protect themselves?
And I never said guns decrease violent crime so do not make shit up.
Look if you don't want a gun then don't get one I don't care because it's none of my business. And you shouldn't care if I have 1 or 100 because it's none of your business.
Never said ban guns. But we need to do things to keep them from criminals and psychos.
Sometimes people with an agenda tend to oversimplify a complex issue. Society plays a greater role than they are willing to admit. Set up the optimum conditions and crime, with or without guns, is automatic. Increase poverty, drug addiction, bigotry, lack of communication between races and economic classes and you have a powder-keg of violence waiting to happen.
Why is most of the gun violence in black neighborhoods and in inner cities? Why has every mass shooting in the last several years involved a student, a Muslim, a clinically insane individual, or a minority? Why is it we get nothing but division and hatred from the left?
Because they want guns in the hands of the wrong people so they can take them from the rest of us.
I remember after Sandyhook the left wanted to treat all gun owners the same way they treat anyone who doesn't believe in same-sex marriage, like pariahs. That blew up in their faces in Colorado. People remember this, and will punish Democrats come November.
Much of what you say is correct. I think inequality is the main problem. Unfortunately the right ignores that problem. But taking the guns isn't the only option. Magazine limits, background checks for all sales, and gun registration wouldn't take guns from a single law abiding owner. Would slow the mass shooter though and make it harder for criminals to get guns.
Do you have any idea what it takes to get a CC permit?
In my state it's 8 hours of classroom instruction, firing range instruction, a full police background check and my fingerprints are on file with the state police.
I have had my checks all I should need to buy a gun is to show my CC permit.
A criminal? Are you talking about the guys who can obtain 20 lbs of cocaine; it would make it "harder" for them to obtain a magazine?
Machine guns are prevalent not because of the legality but more so they're large, expensive, hard to maintain, and not practical for a gang member. What would they need a machine gun for? The 1980's action movies were not a good representation of reality, despite what some might like to think. A hand gun is much more "handy"
Expensive to print now? Yes. In 10 years? No.
A desktop computer once cost a fortune; now you can get one dirt cheap. 3D printing is the way of the future and will likely be a household staple in just a few years.
Why would criminals bother when you can commit crimes without a hi cap magazine? The fact is nobody needs them so nobody would bother.
If criminals don't use High Capacity magazines, then why do you need to ban them anyways?
Much of what you say is correct. I think inequality is the main problem. Unfortunately the right ignores that problem. But taking the guns isn't the only option. Magazine limits, background checks for all sales, and gun registration wouldn't take guns from a single law abiding owner. Would slow the mass shooter though and make it harder for criminals to get guns.
Do you have any idea what it takes to get a CC permit?
In my state it's 8 hours of classroom instruction, firing range instruction, a full police background check and my fingerprints are on file with the state police.
I have had my checks all I should need to buy a gun is to show my CC permit.
There are things that could be made easier. But unless your a selfish turd a few days to save lives shouldn't be a problem.
A criminal? Are you talking about the guys who can obtain 20 lbs of cocaine; it would make it "harder" for them to obtain a magazine?
Machine guns are prevalent not because of the legality but more so they're large, expensive, hard to maintain, and not practical for a gang member. What would they need a machine gun for? The 1980's action movies were not a good representation of reality, despite what some might like to think. A hand gun is much more "handy"
Expensive to print now? Yes. In 10 years? No.
A desktop computer once cost a fortune; now you can get one dirt cheap. 3D printing is the way of the future and will likely be a household staple in just a few years.
Why would criminals bother when you can commit crimes without a hi cap magazine? The fact is nobody needs them so nobody would bother.
If criminals don't use High Capacity magazines, then why do you need to ban them anyways?
Why would criminals bother when you can commit crimes without a hi cap magazine? The fact is nobody needs them so nobody would bother.
If criminals don't use High Capacity magazines, then why do you need to ban them anyways?
magazine size is a red herring just like "assault " rifle bans. it's a feel good knee jerk off reaction that will do nothing in reality.
I guess it doesn't say more guns decrease crime then. Thanks. One less lie for the gun debate.
Sometimes people with an agenda tend to oversimplify a complex issue. Society plays a greater role than they are willing to admit. Set up the optimum conditions and crime, with or without guns, is automatic. Increase poverty, drug addiction, bigotry, lack of communication between races and economic classes and you have a powder-keg of violence waiting to happen.
Why is most of the gun violence in black neighborhoods and in inner cities? Why has every mass shooting in the last several years involved a student, a Muslim, a clinically insane individual, or a minority? Why is it we get nothing but division and hatred from the left?
Because they want guns in the hands of the wrong people so they can take them from the rest of us.
I remember after Sandyhook the left wanted to treat all gun owners the same way they treat anyone who doesn't believe in same-sex marriage, like pariahs. That blew up in their faces in Colorado. People remember this, and will punish Democrats come November.
Much of what you say is correct. I think inequality is the main problem. Unfortunately the right ignores that problem. But taking the guns isn't the only option. Magazine limits, background checks for all sales, and gun registration wouldn't take guns from a single law abiding owner. Would slow the mass shooter though and make it harder for criminals to get guns.
Why would criminals bother when you can commit crimes without a hi cap magazine? The fact is nobody needs them so nobody would bother.
If criminals don't use High Capacity magazines, then why do you need to ban them anyways?
They use them now because it's the norm obviously. Probably harder to buy a gun with lower capacity.
If criminals don't use High Capacity magazines, then why do you need to ban them anyways?
magazine size is a red herring just like "assault " rifle bans. it's a feel good knee jerk off reaction that will do nothing in reality.
No, shooters are stopped when they reload frequently. Take the Giffords shooting for example.
If criminals don't use High Capacity magazines, then why do you need to ban them anyways?
They use them now because it's the norm obviously. Probably harder to buy a gun with lower capacity.
Are high capacity magazines the norm? I would suspect they're involved in very few homicides annually.
