Filibuster: Vainglorius or Victorius? - Page 11

Pedigree Database

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

by Noitsyou on 24 June 2016 - 19:06

A big problem I'm seeing is that people are bringing up Australia and pro-gun people have a problem because they think that it means banning guns. It doesn't. Australia did not ban guns. People there can own guns and they do. There are more privately owned guns in Australia than before the laws became stricter. The number of gun owners has gone down significantly over the years but that trend started before 1996 when the laws became stricter so tougher laws don't explain lower ownership rates.

There is the belief that if you ban guns (Australia did not do this) or put more restrictions on them that murderers will turn to other methods. Research has shown this to not be true in Australia.

Obviously the US and Australia are different nations with different dynamics but the main thing is that Australia did not ban guns. The idea that we can't consider what Australia has done because of the belief it banned private ownership is wrong.


by Noitsyou on 24 June 2016 - 19:06

Prager said, "And prime example 9/11 all the terrorists had were box cutters."

No, they had airliners.

Also, the idea that people who want to murder will choose other methods is not correct. Some murderers will use whatever is available but most gun murders would not have happened by another method. Just because some mass murders are committed by something other than guns doesn't mean that those that were committed with guns would have been carried out by other means if guns were not available.

9/11 used planes because they wanted to bring down the Twin Towers. McVeigh used a bomb because he wanted to blow up the federal building. Guns were not an option.

We could just as easily look at the flip side of your argument. Why didn't the Orlando shooter use a bomb since he would have been able to kill more people?

The point is, the terrorists who use bombs are using bombs for a reason. Those who use guns are using guns for a reason. Crazy people are choosing guns because it's about power and killing people up close so you can see their fear. It isn't simply about killing.

Prager

by Prager on 24 June 2016 - 19:06

excuses excuses combined with  convenient  assumptions and clairvoyance. Thanks GOD for founding fathers foresight and giving us 2nd amendment.


by Noitsyou on 24 June 2016 - 20:06

They also left us with slavery and women couldn't vote.

GSD Admin (admin)

by GSD Admin on 24 June 2016 - 21:06

And the genocide of natives.

by beetree on 24 June 2016 - 21:06

The fact that it was the "2nd" and an "Amendment" has always been so obvious to me, that they had other things on their mind more pressing with the writing of the original. Oops, just a tad lapse of "foresight", right there!


Prager

by Prager on 25 June 2016 - 03:06

Geez.

GSD Admin (admin)

by GSD Admin on 25 June 2016 - 04:06

Plus it says militia there intent was states being able to have a militia to fight a tyrannical federal government and NOT so people could walk into a school and kill little kids. I bet our forefathers are rolling in their graves over what has become.

Prager

by Prager on 25 June 2016 - 05:06

Well that is discussed continuously by people much smarter in these matters then you and me.And you are saying "NOT so people"

  "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." 

 I wish that they have had written it more clearly. 


GSD Admin (admin)

by GSD Admin on 25 June 2016 - 07:06

Right but you can't take the second part "right of the people" out of context of the "well regulated militia" because if you do you are messing the meaning of the whole praise. The topic being a "well regulated militia" and you act like it isn't there. You can't take part of it and wish the rest isn't there. What state militia do you belong to?

And to add some facts to this whole thing.

 

"WE CONSERVATIVES HAVE A RIGHT TO BE HYPOCRITES! YOU LIBERALS DON'T HAVE ANY RIGHTS WHERE GUNS ARE CONCERNED AT ALL!"

***I trust you all turned your "sarcasm font alert" volume to red.

Now can we just recognize for a moment:
1. Ronald Reagan banned the residents of California from carrying guns in public and is the Republican's hero. (I believe many of them even pray to Saint Ronnie while stroking their shafts with Grindr and GUN OIL)
2. Mitt Romney signed a state assault weapons ban (like the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence Bill and was the GOP 2012 nominee.
3. Sarah Palin disarmed a militia as governor (ASDF: Alaska State Defense Force) and is considered The Tea Party darling.

 

*** Democratic Black Man enters room... prepare to ‪#‎facepalm‬
Obama says that perhaps you may not need more than a thirty bullet magazine and all you ‪#‎Retags‬ hear is "Oh fuck a duck and commie pink spotted dalmatians -- he's comin' for our guns! I think that's an ‪#‎ObamaDrone‬ over my trailer!!!"

 

Reality Check: Gun sales are way up. Your President isn't coming for the 2nd Amendment. All he wants is what we all want... a safer, more prosperous, peaceful nation.






 


Contact information  Disclaimer  Privacy Statement  Copyright Information  Terms of Service  Cookie policy  ↑ Back to top