The British Army today has tactical nuclear weapons. I want one to defend myself too. I promise to be well-regulated.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The Founding Fathers had firearms that were matched to that of the British Army.
The AR-15 today, is compatible with my grand daddy's flintlock.
That noise by your ear was not a live round. It was the point whizzing by.It's not the law abiding citizens that are killing kids.
How do you figure? I don't know the numbers, but how many guns are there in this country? The people committing crimes with guns are a tiny percentage compare the millions who gave guns and never hurt anybody. I would guess that most people who own guns responsibly, you would never know own any at all. That's because they don't talk about it. They enjoy their guns in private, or with friends and at shooting ranges.I'm starting to get to the point where it's like yeah......People can't be trusted with certain firearms. Take them away except for double-barrel shotguns, bolt, action rifles, and 6-shooters. No more assault rifles, Glock 17s, Tec-9s etc.
It’s an obvious smokescreen. They don’t want anyone taking their guns because they care more about their individual wants than the greater good. I know this because I’ve gotten the gun loving faction of my family to actually admit it. The same “good, conservative Christian” faction that today discussed the shootings in Texas using phrases that I wouldn’t dare repeat here.None of these quotes answer the question of why we are sacrificing over 40,000 lives a year just on the off-chance that we might need our arsenal of privately held guns to overthrow a tyrant. How many tyrants have been overthrown by means of privately-held small arms in any highly developed nation ever in the history of highly-developed nations? It is a fiction. Either the need will not ever arise, or if it does arise, the power of small arms in the hands of the public will be of no use against a tyrant with air power and tanks. In the history of the US Constitution, that particular need has never arisen.
See post #15. Do the math.
BTW, guns save more innocent lives then they take in the U.S. Lott proved it. For that matter, in most cases, deadly situations are diffused without a single shot being fired.
Lott proved nothing of the sort, but keep the fantasy if needed. The bogus claims of the NRA's favorite social scientist, debunked
How about a nuclear bullet for your flintlock.The British Army today has tactical nuclear weapons. I want one to defend myself too. I promise to be well-regulated.
But you can responsibly regulate.You don't punish everybody for the actions of criminals.
Because some people drive drunk, I can’t drink a Modelo on my way home from work.How do you figure? I don't know the numbers, but how many guns are there in this country? The people committing crimes with guns are a tiny percentage compare the millions who gave guns and never hurt anybody. I would guess that most people who own guns responsibly, you would never know own any at all. That's because they don't talk about it. They enjoy their guns in private, or with friends and at shooting ranges.
You don't punish everybody for the actions of criminals.
What regulation would have prevented the shootings?But you can responsibly regulate.
They must’ve picked up your vibe. I had no more problems with that site than I do here. Sorry that it wasn’t in something you might trust like Truth Social.I read Lott's scholarly work. The evidence is clear; and it's statistical analysis of our government's own records.
I tried to visit your Left-wing propaganda site; but I had to give them permission to write scripts to my computer, and to let them track me, in order to read their propaganda.
Of course, I declined their invitation.
Yes it’s terribly difficult. The Shooter in Texas had an awful time getting his.What regulation would have prevented the shootings?
Have you ever purchased a firearm? It's not like buying a gallon of milk or something.
No, post #15 doesn't prove a thing. It is only pure speculation that all those who were victims of tyranny would have been saved if their country had had something like the 2nd amendment.
And, not, Lott did not prove anything of the sort. It is more speculation based on number of times a gun was used. What is needed is a count of the number of times a life was certainly saved by some citizen having a gun
It's in his book.and that is exactly what we do not have.
But we do have statistics on the number of children killed by guns.
he 2nd amendment was the worst mistake the founding fathers made. But I understand why they made it. They were still thinking about how useful guns owned by citizens was in the revolutionary war. But they could not imagine a day when all highly-developed nations would have air power and tanks belonging to the government. There is no way small arms in the hands of private citizens can counter that.
I’m giving you another link on Lott. Maybe your firewall can handle this one.Again, can you name one fully armed people, throughout history, that was reduced to the slavery of Tyranny?
That's in the states in his book. You would do weel to read the book before presenting you unfounded opinion of what's in it.
It's in his book.
You might do well to look at all of the statistics concerning firearms, Like Lott did.
You could save some legwork, and just read his book.
You would do well to study history and to study war. Did you know that a city that has been reduced to rubble by tanks, is harder to take, than if the city was left standing?
Eventually those guys need to come out of their tanks. Guess who wins when they are outnumbered by an armed people, whose homes were just destroyed by tanks.
I'm starting to get to the point where it's like yeah......People can't be trusted with certain firearms. Take them away except for double-barrel shotguns, bolt, action rifles, and 6-shooters. No more assault rifles, Glock 17s, Tec-9s etc.
That's the wrong question. In deciding on the value of the 2nd amendment, we need to do a cost/benefit analysis. The cost is the lives lost because there are so many guns. The benefit is the probabilistic estimate of the number of lives the 2nd amendment has saved or will save. The fact is the people with the most guns are also the people with most gun deaths. The correlation is striking.Again, can you name one fully armed people, throughout history, that was reduced to the slavery of Tyranny?
What you quoted didn't prove your point. If there is something else in the book that does prove your point, then why not quote that?That's in the states in his book. You would do weel to read the book before presenting you unfounded opinion of what's in it.
I have looked at many statistics. For example, this one:You might do well to look at all of the statistics concerning firearms, Like Lott did.
And trust just one biased source? No thanks. I'd rather do the legwork and read several reputable sources.You could save some legwork, and just read his book.
Thank you very much for the advice, but I'm good.You would do well to study history and to study war.
“We must abolish the filibuster and pass gun-safety legislation now,” said Sen. Bernard Sanders, an independent and self-described socialist from Vermont. “No one in America needs an AR-15. How many more children, mothers and fathers need to be murdered in cold blood before the Senate has the guts to ban assault weapons and take on the NRA?”
Schumer admits gun-control push will fail, hopes for bipartisan compromise
“I’m sick and tired of it,” Mr. Biden said. “We have to act. And don’t tell me we can’t have an impact on this carnage. I spent my career as a senator and vice president working to pass common-sense gun laws."
Biden demands lawmakers ‘stand up to the gun lobby’ after Texas school shooting
Then there is this riotous stunt:
It was difficult to understand Mr. O’Rourke, who was not wearing a microphone, but his comments included: “This is totally predictable” and “You are doing nothing.”
Those on stage pushed back, telling him to sit down and accusing him of pulling a political stunt.
“You are out of line and an embarrassment,” said Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick.
Beto O’Rourke crashes governor’s press conference on Texas school shooting
Gun worshippers don't want to sacrifice anything to save lives. They're too terrified the government will take away all firearms because politicians have spoonfed this lie to win elections for decades. I remember when assault rifles were banned for a short period and gun deaths went down. The good old days when Americans actually cared about their neighbors and children. I wish we cared as much for our nine year old living children as much as we care about an unborn fetus growing in a stranger's womb.But you can responsibly regulate.
Democrats with abortion blood on their hands, really have room to talk about, the killing of children.
I’m giving you another link on Lott. Maybe your firewall can handle this one.
John Lott, the NRA’s Favorite Gun ‘Academic’, Is A Fraud
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?