Is the right to bear arms outdated.
- Thread starter Pete
- Start date
Yes but they are professional models so disregarding the 'vehicle' do you think there are wider ramifications from these kind of 'top level fashion' displays?
All seemingly trivial so-called subliminal events taken in isolation possibly don't add up to much, but if you linked them globally ?
Italy & Germany today - London & New York tomorrow.
Are we heading down a dangerous path?
All seemingly trivial so-called subliminal events taken in isolation possibly don't add up to much, but if you linked them globally ?
Italy & Germany today - London & New York tomorrow.
Are we heading down a dangerous path?
Ok...to anyone who wants to see tougher gun control... Where's the outrage for the FEDERAL laws that I've pointed out that are not being enforced???
Wouldn't enforcing those few laws and penalties that are spelled out keep us safer?? One major talking point by the antigun side says and I agree with them is "we need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals". Well I'm pretty sure that enforcing those couple laws that I have pointed out would lock criminals up... And I'm pretty sure, while in prison there is a 99.999999999% chance that those criminals will not have any guns in their hands... And they won't be out on the streets committing crimes.
So, antigun people... Where is your rebuttal?
Wouldn't enforcing those few laws and penalties that are spelled out keep us safer?? One major talking point by the antigun side says and I agree with them is "we need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals". Well I'm pretty sure that enforcing those couple laws that I have pointed out would lock criminals up... And I'm pretty sure, while in prison there is a 99.999999999% chance that those criminals will not have any guns in their hands... And they won't be out on the streets committing crimes.
So, antigun people... Where is your rebuttal?
That's interesting Larry.
That is exactly the statement of Hollywood and Television Producers when challenged about 'inappropriate or violent content.'
I have always had a problem with the statement because it 'may' (and I use the term advisedly) be happening in a very few places such as in your neighbourhood and to a degree you are inured to it, but what would be the effect on those countries/regions/peoples with zero awareness of this trend to 'violent images'
Are you saying that it's already too late and it would be better for the citizenry to arm themselves - not only the US but anywhere on God's earth?
There certainly does seem to be a rapid escalation in violence on this planet of late - perhaps this would be the right course of action.
That is exactly the statement of Hollywood and Television Producers when challenged about 'inappropriate or violent content.'
I have always had a problem with the statement because it 'may' (and I use the term advisedly) be happening in a very few places such as in your neighbourhood and to a degree you are inured to it, but what would be the effect on those countries/regions/peoples with zero awareness of this trend to 'violent images'
Are you saying that it's already too late and it would be better for the citizenry to arm themselves - not only the US but anywhere on God's earth?
There certainly does seem to be a rapid escalation in violence on this planet of late - perhaps this would be the right course of action.
No...I'm 'saying' what I said! You asked if these shows indicate that "we're heading down a dangerous path". My answer was that we're already there.
But, as to you question about arming the citizenry, I'm all for "the citizenry" having the option to arm themselves on their own if they so desire. I'm totally, completely, and utterly against any move to remove OR RESTRICT that option...or, OTOH, to force people to arm themselves. 'Last thing I want to see is a gun in the hands of a person who is scared to death of it and doesn't want it there.
...and while they're at it, they can explain why "gun-free zone laws" that totally ban any and all firearms from a given area have completely failed to prevent massacres in those areas. Places like V.T., Columbine, and Sandy Hook were ALL "gun-free zones". If "gun control laws" are thee way to prevent gun crime - how is it possible all those people were killed in a 'zone' where 'the law' said guns couldn't be?
So far I haven't found even one anti-gun proponent who'll touch that question with a 40 foot pole.
...as well as gun nuts, right-wing loons, and "a danger to society".
That's just the thing. They're not really interested in laws that might actually work with regard to curbing gun crimes. They're interested in getting guns out of the hands of the citizenry. Period.
Pat
Supporter
In light of the Presidents's message and the recent legislation in New York State, there is hope my 2nd Ammendment friends. I give you Dewalts answer to home protection that doesn't require a registration or license. This nail gun can shoot a 16-D nail through a 2x4 at 200 yards and in case of a home invasion well you can NAIL THEIR ASS to the wall. I'm not saying it wont kill the perp but they wont get away. You can also help build a friends fence 2 blocks away while sitting in your front lawn.
This is truly how you adapt and overcome so Thanks Dewalt. —*Realtalk*
This is truly how you adapt and overcome so Thanks Dewalt. —*Realtalk*
Attachments
I am not 100% anti gun but I do have a 40 foot pole.
The idea of a gun free school zone was not a response to the problem of mass shootings. It was an attempt to limit gang and drug related violence at schools. So we had one type of problem and we tried to address it. Now we have a new problem or at least a problem that is becoming more frequent in mass shootings. Of course we will have to study this problem, adapt, change laws, add new laws, manage mental health issues, and promote cultural changes.
To say that we already have laws, they do not work, and lets not try anything else is not a sufficient response. Guns are too easy to obtain in this country. Its a huge problem and we have to tighten up the regulations. This does not mean guns should be unobtainable. If we can make changes that do not majorly effect the responsible, qualified owners........why would you oppose it?
Its hard to fully enjoy The Bill of Rights when you have to worry about getting shot at your elementary school. Lets not forget about all of the other Ammendments for the sake of protecting just one.
I do not know if I really have a side. I have never said I want to take all guns away from law abiding citizens. I know I am not on your side though. You do not want to do anything at all. Thats what I can't understand. I realize you feel that guns are not at the heart of the problem. They many not be the source, but they are the means and we can not discount their dangers.
Most likely, there are millions of households that currently have at least one gun stored improperly, making it a health hazard, and at risk for theft. I am not sure if we can force the issue with this, but we should be honest about this. And in being honest, we would have to admit that a firearm is more likely to cause unintended harm to a family member than it is likely to stop a crime.
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Larry,
Apparently you were not aware, there were two armed security guards at Columbine and another a Virginia Tech, they did nothing to stop the slaughter!
So much for your theory!
I know what you can do with your 40 ft pole..........
Last edited:
Jim, maybe you should send a note to the NRA too? They must not be aware of very much either.
Your side keeps telling us gun control laws will keep everyone safe...'that they will prevent gun crimes. SO, WHY DIDN'T THE "GUN FREE ZONE" LAW PREVENT THE KILLINGS, SIR???
HOW WERE THE GUNMEN ABLE TO DO WHAT THEY DID WITH THAT LAW IN PLACE? WHAT HAPPENED TO ALL THE "PROTECTION"?
Like I said, there isn't a gun control advocate anywhere who'll touch that question. You just confirmed it.
