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.
Hi mudinyeri,
I'm more of a believer who understands that this isn't my home. I have my understandings of how things might work better, but it really isn't my job to go out and change them for the temporary time that I am visiting here.
If by "truth" you mean only "the conclusion that I, Ted, have arrived at," I understand, even though I think it's a little much to demand that what one person thinks is the truth must be agreed to by everyone else. But be that as it may, here's what I read:Hi albion,
Well, there is a truth here that needs to be determined and that I have proposed.
I believe it is true that tough limitations on ownership and possession of firearms by the general public does reduce homicide firearms deaths.
I have provided supporting evidence that seems to show that this position is true. So, yes, there is a matter of what is the truth that we need to determine. Whether we do anything about it or not isn't at issue as far as the claim being true or not true.
There's a lot of "God's on my side" mixed in with simply saying "I think I've proved my case about gun deaths," if you ask me.Truth is often not a popular thing. Jesus said that few there be that find the way to eternal life. Even though we (born again believers) know it's the truth, there apparently won't be many to follow it.
Well, I see a lot of people walking around with guns on their hip (it's legal here ),They don't trust you, the community you not any one in particular, to have a gun.
There's a lot of "God's on my side" mixed in with simply saying "I think I've proved my case about gun deaths," if you ask me.
A number of people here seem to think it's not true, and I am not at all persuaded that you can take some Australian statistics and slap them on the American situation. Not at all, especially when the states and cities which have the most stringent anti-gun laws already have not experienced a solving of the problem. Maybe more important, there are so many variables that it is impossible to say with any certainty what doing away with the second amendment would produce.Hi albion,
No! Absolutely not. I'm not so fickle as to think that I'm always right or that only I know the truth. Jesus said there would be few that find the way to eternal life, not just one. So, I know that there are others who know the truth. And by the use of the word 'truth', I mean to say what is the reality of what is.
As I wrote in the post that you are responding to, there is a truth in this matter. It doesn't matter what I believe or what you believe or what anyone else believes; there is a truth. Is it true that such restrictions as are being discussed here do reduce firearms homicide deaths or is it not true?
It IS either true or not. The fact is, however, that we do not know which one it is.All I'm saying is that there is a truth to the claim of whether or not strict firearms restrictions reduce homicide by firearm. It is either a true statement or it is not.
... I am not at all persuaded that you can take some Australian statistics and slap them on the American situation.
Well, I see a lot of people walking around with guns on their hip (it's legal here ),
and I don't know that I trust any of them .....
But how many of these people have shot at you or anyone else?
I asked WHICH one does that? Can you name one that is sold which handles 50 rounds in one loading? I have never seen any thing over 30 that is legal to sell on the civilian market. We are not talking about something that requires special licenses just something the average person can purchase.
Preferably bad guys.....So it can only blow people away 30 bullets at at a time? Oh, well then. These guns still have absolutely no purpose but to shoot and kill people. . .
Seriously. Automatic or semi-automatic guns are designed for active combat, and of course blowing crowds of innocent people away quickly in clubs and colleges, mass murdering people in theaters or killing lots of children in schools. What possible legitimate use would they have? Keeping them on hand to kill the government with seems a little premeditated, not to mention paranoid.Explain.....
But if the bad guys have them why should I only be allowed a muzzle loader? Why should I legally be forced into a disadvantage?Seriously. Automatic or semi-automatic guns are designed for active combat, and of course blowing crowds of innocent people away quickly in clubs and colleges, mass murdering people in theaters or killing lots of children in schools. What possible legitimate use would they have? Keeping them on hand to kill the government with seems a little premeditated, not to mention paranoid.
To try and protect the rights of someone not to be shot, by removing the right to bear arms, ultimately undermines the rights of everyone not to be shot.
"Oh, there is a protest we don't like... let's just shoot them!" If a government sufficiently controls the police and military, this can happen. We see it around the world.
Yet if the local population is permitted to bear their own arms and form their own militias, it is a thornier situation for government to shoot and abuse its constituency. Doing it when they bear arms can lead to civil war, and so the government remains answerable to some degree because of the threat of civil war.
The whole liberal mindset only makes sense if we assume our government is always beneavolent and they can always successfully bear arms for the population.
They assume government would never be that corrupt.... but what about people like Donald Trump? Why can't he just appoint himself dictator after replacing all the high ranking generals in the military? If the military wants that sort of coup even, then you have a huge problem. Yet if you have armed citizenry, or even armed state militias, it's a much more problematic issue because you have to deal with policing your own country heavily before coups can just unilaterally be enforced.
Oh, I don't know about that. The Vietnamese did a pretty good job of doing just that. They continually chipped away until we gave up and left......We have been in the ME for about 15 years.....still fighting the same people.The US boasts the most powerful military force in the world, funded & supported by our tax dollars. There is simply no possible way a handful of states or "good guys with guns" will stop or deter the US military machine. It's just not possible, & it's too late to go back.
Oh, I don't know about that. The Vietnamese did a pretty good job of doing just that. They continually chipped away until we gave up and left......We have been in the ME for about 15 years.....still fighting the same people.
Since you're talking about taking away my natural rights, I'm forever grateful.
Another claims that there are no 50 round magazines and then does a mea culpa that, oops, oh yes there is.
You see, that's another thing I don't get. You guys in the 'I want my firearm' camp throw around, what seems to me, a bunch of lame ideas and excuses to support your position.
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?