Deleted
Posts: 0
Jul 4, 2024 13:56:44 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2015 19:21:17 GMT
Yeah. That young man is very well spoken and persuasive. I would recruit him for a debating team in a second. Didn't convince me for a second, though, that an armed populace is the solution. I believe there are too many risks to his solution, and there are other explanations about why and how the American media over-publicize mass murders - and all kinds of other things. [His word - "glorification" - is hyperbole. Repeating the word dozens of times doesn't convince me that most media outlets intend to glorify these guys; nor that most Americans glorify them; nor that disturbed young white suburban men of a certain mindset - and access to guns - will be deterred by the idea of a shoot-out. (Especially if suicide is part of the plan, as it often is.)] It may not be their intention to glorify them, (with the exception of Rolling Stone) but continually reporting on them, showing their image and discussing their lives for weeks on end is what these people are seeking. This Charleston guy even let one person live for the exact reason to go out and tell the world what he did. The video makes a good point that you more than likely can't name most of the victims on the spot, or the people that stopped mass attacks, but more than likely you can name more than a few of the murderers. That's the point. Not intention. If they just wanted to commit suicide by gun fire, they'd go into a gun shop and threaten the customers and people working there. Or anywhere that isn't a gun free zone. But they don't do that, because the truth is they are deterred by a place where they know there could be people that can stop them before they get their big body count. They purposely choose a place they can do the most harm before someone with a gun ever shows up. Death isn't the goal, their goal is to harm as many as possible and gain notoriety.
|
|
|
Post by Skypea on Jun 20, 2015 19:25:24 GMT
Well here we are again. Another mass murder. The thread is following the same predictable path as other threads of this type. First you have the ones who come on and say how tragic that it his happened. Then it switches to blame. Then deflection. Then the thread dies. Until the next mass murder and it starts all over again with the same result. And so on and so on and so on........ Yesterday in a speech Hillary Clinton asked the question "How many people do we need to see cut down before we act?" I would like to know. I thought for sure something would be done after Sandy Hook. I mean all those dead children. But no. Just a lot of words and no action. What difference does it really make? just like with Benghazi...
we get a lot of divisive words from the left - continually.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jul 4, 2024 13:56:44 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2015 19:43:38 GMT
Well here we are again. Another mass murder. The thread is following the same predictable path as other threads of this type. First you have the ones who come on and say how tragic that it his happened. Then it switches to blame. Then deflection. Then the thread dies. Until the next mass murder and it starts all over again with the same result. And so on and so on and so on........ Yesterday in a speech Hillary Clinton asked the question "How many people do we need to see cut down before we act?" I would like to know. I thought for sure something would be done after Sandy Hook. I mean all those dead children. But no. Just a lot of words and no action. What difference does it really make? just like with Benghazi...
we get a lot of divisive words from the left - continually.
The only thing I can take from your comments is that you are ok with the killings at Sandy Hook and all the others since then.
|
|
|
Post by anxiousmom on Jun 20, 2015 19:46:59 GMT
Well here we are again. Another mass murder. The thread is following the same predictable path as other threads of this type. First you have the ones who come on and say how tragic that it his happened. Then it switches to blame. Then deflection. Then the thread dies. Until the next mass murder and it starts all over again with the same result. And so on and so on and so on........ Yesterday in a speech Hillary Clinton asked the question "How many people do we need to see cut down before we act?" I would like to know. I thought for sure something would be done after Sandy Hook. I mean all those dead children. But no. Just a lot of words and no action. What difference does it really make? just like with Benghazi...
we get a lot of divisive words from the left - continually.
I am not sure where I fall on the scale-I am not a fan of guns, but grew up surrounded by responsible hunter gather types. I didn't allow play guns in my house when the boys were little but allowed them to go to the gun range with the responsible gun people and learn gun safety. I am still not a fan of first person shooter games-yet I managed to raise a kid who joined the service of which we all know guns are a big part. I think that I am probably not alone living somewhere in the middle ground. I would be willing to bet that without the divisive words about the left and the right and their supposed stances, more of us would be willing to enter the discussion. But a lot of people like me get shouted down because supposedly, we either want to demonize the gun owners (not all of us do) or we are gun toting crazies (which not all people are.) I think there is a middle ground, but until all of our voices are welcome at the table, not a damn thing will get done.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jul 4, 2024 13:56:44 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2015 19:47:40 GMT
What difference does it really make? just like with Benghazi...
we get a lot of divisive words from the left - continually.
The only thing I can take from your comments is that you are ok with the killings at Sandy Hook and all the others since then. By that logic, you must think Hillary is okay with what happened at Benghazi then.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jul 4, 2024 13:56:44 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2015 19:50:41 GMT
The only thing I can take from your comments is that you are ok with the killings at Sandy Hook and all the others since then. By that logic, you must think Hillary is okay with what happened at Benghazi then. Did you read the Senate Intelligence Report on Benghazi? If yes I will be happy to discuss Benghazi with you. If not I'm not wasting my time.
|
|
mstubble
Junior Member
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Posts: 81
Jun 26, 2014 23:42:13 GMT
|
Post by mstubble on Jun 20, 2015 19:55:38 GMT
Almost every illegal gun in this country started out as a legal gun. Whether it's through burglary, black market sales or gun show sales that are not regulated, a gun that gets into the hands of someone who legally cannot have it has most likely been brought into the situation through our lax and useless gun laws or through crime. You have it backwards, @gajenny. Burglary - someone broke the law. The person robbed shouldn't be punished because someone else is a criminal. Black market sales means someone broke the law. They legally obtained a gun and sold is illegally. The law for that needs to be enforced. Gun show sales - You mean private gun sales. All guns sold by dealers at gun shows REQUIRE AN EXTENSIVE BACKGROUND CHECK. Private gun sales anywhere do not.
|
|
mstubble
Junior Member
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Posts: 81
Jun 26, 2014 23:42:13 GMT
|
Post by mstubble on Jun 20, 2015 20:04:21 GMT
That person's opinion sickens me. In all fairness though, I'm not sure that is the stance of the NRA itself. That would be like if one of us or even the Admin on this site made some jacked-up assholish comment and the world decided that 2peasrefugees should be banned because of it. One gun law I am ALL for is holding the gun owner responsible for any crime committed with a gun they purchased. I think that may make people think twice about being careless with the security of a weapon they purchase. Someone should NOT be allowed to give a gun to someone else as a gift. A background check on the actual owner/possessor should be mandatory. I am also ALL for the tightest background checks possible to absolutely include mental health record investigations. I am not sure what the different rules are state by state. I know that when I purchased my pistol they did run a check with law enforcement, that is in Michigan. Beyond the things I stated above, I am not sure what "new" gun laws would work, but I am all ears to listen to ideas. I also agree that the illegal gun problem is a horrible one. Since many of the guns used in crimes have been legally purchased though, I think the only way to get people to take seriously the security of the guns they purchase is to hold them personally responsible for their guns. Now, if a gun is stolen, say through a robbery, then it should be reported to the police so that owner is not responsible. I would also like to see mandatory gun safety classes for those wanting to purchase a gun, with the point driven home (and backed with ENFORCED law of course) that your gun=your responsibility. I am CCW trained though chose not to apply for the actual permit as I have no desire to carry in public. I live alone and keep a pistol in my home for personal protection. There are four locks to get in my front door and four to get in my back door. By the time someone is able to get through those, my dog will alert me. Although I pray that I will never ever have to use my gun for self-defense, if a person goes through the trouble to break through 4 locks, they are obviously up to something bad and I would not hesitate to shoot them in my home. My husband is an Army Combat Infantryman Veteran and has spent many hours with me at the range teaching me gun safety and practicing with me. I can match or outshoot him every time on the range and he was classified as a sharpshooter and expert marksman at various times in his military career. The thing here is that I think a generic statement of, "We need tighter gun control laws." does nothing to solve the problem. We do need to come up with specifics. When you purchase a gun, the background check conducted is FEDERAL. National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) run by the FBI and is used by all gun dealers (Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) )
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jul 4, 2024 13:56:44 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2015 20:05:20 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jul 4, 2024 13:56:44 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2015 20:39:41 GMT
linkHere is an article about how easy it is to buy a gun in the U.S. The takeaway is in the U.S. A background check is only done in a store. Guns that purchased at a gun show or private sale. After Sandy Hook a bill to require a background check on anyone who purchases a gun was shot down by Congress thanks to the NRA and strong gun lobby in DC. There was another CNN article about how a large % of gun owners actually support additional or tougher laws. But it is doubtful anything will come of this because of the influence of the NRA has on members of congress.
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Jun 20, 2015 21:12:15 GMT
Background checks are done at gun shows in colorado and have for quite some time.
What I find ironic is that gun rights people get pissy about gun free zones, but you can't carry into a gun show ot sporting goods store (cabellas, sportsman's warehouse, bass pro) and they don't have any problems with that.
Edited to change can to can't
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jul 4, 2024 13:56:44 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2015 21:15:10 GMT
By that logic, you must think Hillary is okay with what happened at Benghazi then. Did you read the Senate Intelligence Report on Benghazi? If yes I will be happy to discuss Benghazi with you. If not I'm not wasting my time. There isn't a report in the world that has anything to do with the logic you just applied to Hillary's and SkyPea's comment.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jul 4, 2024 13:56:44 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2015 21:21:18 GMT
Background checks are done at gun shows in colorado and have for quite some time. What I find ironic is that gun rights people get pissy about gun free zones, but you can carry into a gun show ot sporting goods store (cabellas, sportsman's warehouse, bass pro) and Most states checks aren't required for private sales though. That is s huge issue. Every single gun sale should have a background check done. Not sure what you are trying to say with the second part. I personally don't think guns belong in any of those places but that's my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Jun 20, 2015 21:24:17 GMT
Background checks are done at gun shows in colorado and have for quite some time. What I find ironic is that gun rights people get pissy about gun free zones, but you can carry into a gun show ot sporting goods store (cabellas, sportsman's warehouse, bass pro) and Most states checks aren't required for private sales though. That is s huge issue. Every single gun sale should have a background check done. Not sure what you are trying to say with the second part. I personally don't think guns belong in any of those places but that's my opinion. I had to change can to can't in the 2nd part. I meant that they don't seem to have an issue not taking their guns there, but complain about not being able to take their gun into a gun free restaurant
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jul 4, 2024 13:56:44 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2015 21:37:37 GMT
Did you read the Senate Intelligence Report on Benghazi? If yes I will be happy to discuss Benghazi with you. If not I'm not wasting my time. There isn't a report in the world that has anything to do with the logic you just applied to Hillary's and SkyPea's comment. Logic went out the window on this thread after the first post.
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Jun 20, 2015 21:40:04 GMT
![:rolleyes:](//storage.proboards.com/5645536/images/Ui47LhQw2NqWVWNNqtfM.jpg) Just because others have differing opinions does not mean all the posts lack logic.
|
|
|
Post by Peace Sign on Jun 20, 2015 23:32:45 GMT
I am not a fan of guns. I don't understand everyone's reasons for having then. I believe the reason is either rooted in "because the second amendment says so" or the reason is fear. I live alone with my kids in an urban neighborhood that sees its fair share of crime. Even so, I am not inclined to own a gun. I don't get the gun culture at all.
That said, I agree with those who think that sensible gun laws won't change much. However, I don't get why the same people won't support it. How does it affect you if you are a legal gun owner?
It's kind of like the government monitoring citizens' phone calls. Have at it. If you want to hear my call to my mother...go for it. It doesn't affect me.
I am in favor of the gun collection programs that used to happen.
The gun culture in this country needs to change. Not just gang bangers, but the loud gun enthusiasts as well. People have no empathy for others. It's shoot and ask questions later and that is on all sides. How many guns does one need? How are they even helping you if you're storing them safely? I can't see. It's very puzzling.
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Jun 20, 2015 23:59:14 GMT
I am not a fan of guns. I don't understand everyone's reasons for having then. I believe the reason is either rooted in "because the second amendment says so" or the reason is fear. I live alone with my kids in an urban neighborhood that sees its fair share of crime. Even so, I am not inclined to own a gun. I don't get the gun culture at all. That said, I agree with those who think that sensible gun laws won't change much. However, I don't get why the same people won't support it. How does it affect you if you are a legal gun owner? It's kind of like the government monitoring citizens' phone calls. Have at it. If you want to hear my call to my mother...go for it. It doesn't affect me. I am in favor of the gun collection programs that used to happen. The gun culture in this country needs to change. Not just gang bangers, but the loud gun enthusiasts as well. People have no empathy for others. It's shoot and ask questions later and that is on all sides. How many guns does one need? How are they even helping you if you're storing them safely? I can't see. It's very puzzling. I'll bite. As a gun owner who used to absolutely hate even the sight of guns, I think my answer may not be like others, but I'll give it a go. First a little background, I don't hunt. Can't stand the thought of killing an animal myself (I have no problem eating it once it is meat). I cried when I thought I ran an animal over and was very shaken up. I cleaned up the blood and brain splatteer of a friend who was shot buy a friend. The shooter then shot at police as he was determined to commit "suicide by cop." Hated guns with a passion. Couldn't be see them, let alone hear one shoot. Married a hunter who didn't hunt at the time. He loves shooting guns and has passed that onto our children. I've softened, but honestly am still not a huge fan. How many guns does one need? Well it depends on what they use them for. Different hunting seasons have different regulations. You can use a .22 in the fall, but not the spring. You have to use x gun or higher for big game... We have multiple rifles and shotguns. Some are DH's, some are my boys'. I shoot one of theirs if we go to the gun range. They only use them to hunt or to shoot at the gun range. Our rifles are in a locked gun cabinet and the ammo is in a separate locked safe. It would not be useful in protection unless there was advance warning. We also own two handguns. One is DH's grandfathers and I am not even sure if it shoots anymore. The other is in a gun safe in our room. We live rurally and a 911 call is likely to take 30 minutes to reach us. HOWEVER, seeings how I don't shoot often, I am not sure it would do good in that situation. Truth is, it is a fun gun to shoot at the range, has a laser scope, and doesn't recoil a lot. That is really what it is for. What sensible gun laws are you proposing? I know some want all guns to be registered and I know the argument against that is that then the gov't would know where to round up the guns when they want to oppress the people. That reasoning seems silly to me, but I am not sure what registration would help either. Background checks? They are already conducted at stores and gun shows. In Colorado they had passed a law (I don't know if it went into effect) that wanted background checks for private sales, but as there is no registration, there is no way to follow up on that. Please don't think I don't have empathy for others or that gun crimes don't sadden me. I do and they do. I'm not opposed to sensible gun control. I believe in background checks. I would like gun buyback programs (although I don't know if they helped). I personally don't think all the different types are necessary, but it is a personal belief. I don't want you taking our rifles that we enjoy shooting and the kids hunt with, so why do I draw the line there instead of somewhere else.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jul 4, 2024 13:56:44 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2015 0:04:45 GMT
![:rolleyes:](//storage.proboards.com/5645536/images/Ui47LhQw2NqWVWNNqtfM.jpg) Just because others have differing opinions does not mean all the posts lack logic. Actually I wasn't even thinking about opinions when I said this thread quite being logical a long time ago. To me opinions are personal beliefs and more often then not logic has nothing to do with our beliefs because it is how we feel.
|
|
|
Post by Peace Sign on Jun 21, 2015 0:08:08 GMT
That all makes sense to me free Charlie. Not unreasonable. I don't get hunting but I know it's popular.
It doesn't seem like you think the govt is going to use a database to take away everyone's guns. I don't think they will either.
I know there are loopholes in the gun laws you mentioned. I don't know if they help. I don't see how they could hurt. Stricter enforcement would be nice too.
It just baffles me that other countries don't have our problem with guns. They think we're downright crazy. They don't feel "policed" and they don't feel like they have no rights.
|
|
|
Post by marykate on Jun 21, 2015 23:28:08 GMT
I guess I don't really understand opposition to gun registration on grounds that the govt will try to take away everyone's guns. You have to register with a state agency in order to drive a car (driver's license), after all, and then you also have to license and register your car (vehicle registration). Why aren't people up in arms, so to speak, about driver and automobile registration? (and yes, there are databases: if you ever get stopped by police for even a minor infraction, they will run those numbers faster than you can open the glove compartment to search for your papers). Why do we never hear overheated rhetoric about how the govt is coming to take away our cars?
And for those who oppose gun registration: are you willing to apply that same principle to driver and automobile registration?
|
|
|
Post by marykate on Jun 22, 2015 0:21:53 GMT
Communist Germany?! You mean that five minutes or so when Communists almost took over the city of Munich in 1919, and there were pitched battles in the street, before the Communists were decisively, and quite brutally, crushed by right-wing fascist bully-boys?
The genocide that later followed was entirely the plan and project of far-right fascist Nazis, and not at all the fault or aspiration of the Communists. But you already knew that, right?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jul 4, 2024 13:56:44 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2015 0:28:36 GMT
I guess I don't really understand opposition to gun registration on grounds that the govt will try to take away everyone's guns. You have to register with a state agency in order to drive a car (driver's license), after all, and then you also have to license and register your car (vehicle registration). Why aren't people up in arms, so to speak, about driver and automobile registration? (and yes, there are databases: if you ever get stopped by police for even a minor infraction, they will run those numbers faster than you can open the glove compartment to search for your papers). Why do we never hear overheated rhetoric about how the govt is coming to take away our cars? And for those who oppose gun registration: are you willing to apply that same principle to driver and automobile registration? Because I dont know of governments seizing cars, but I do know of governments that seized guns with genocide following. Guatemala. Cambodia. Communist Germany. China. Turkey. Soviet Union. Uganda. Rwanda. There is no way one can compare this country to the countries you have listed above. If you think this country is anything like these countries then we have bigger problems then the NRA rhetoric "they coming to get your guns". Gun owners and paranoia always seem to end up together in a sentence.
|
|
|
Post by jonda1974 on Jun 22, 2015 15:18:23 GMT
To see RACE in everything does. And Foolana makes everything about race. The only way to NOT be racist is to be completely colorblind. Actually, the term color blind shouldn't be what we're striving for. Colorblind implies that I can accept you despite your color (race or ethnicity). We need to be accepting and even celebrate people's colors. Learn. It's interesting. Who on this board has a Muslim friend? Who has a Mormon friend? Who has an English as a second language friend? A black friend? More than one?? Aren't they wonderful? Do you ever ask her about her homelands, or customs, or ethnic foods? Beliefs? Struggles?? That's not to be colorblind...it's to embrace it all. I accept that completely, and is a much better explanation for what I was meaning. I have a very diverse group of friends, within my close social circle, I have friends from Saudi Arabia, Dubai, Kuwait, Phillipines, Puerto Rico, Ecuador, Mexico, Peru, I've got American born friends who are Latino, Black, Asian, Indian, American Indian. I've worked with and been good friends with Atheists, Catholics, Mormons, Christians, Jews, Muslim. And I agree with you completely. That diversity and expansion has broadened my mind and my outlook, and I absolutely celebrate everything that their history and culture bring to the table. I'm a richer person because of that. My issue with Foolana, is the perception that her posts give off that unless you are a minority, then you are racist. Just as gun owners are sick of being lumped together, so are those of us who are not minorities getting sick of the blanket statements of racism. She sees racism and calls out racism where it doesn't exist, and it becomes much like the boy who cried wolf. Pick the hills to do battle on, otherwise your battle cry is going to go unheard. It's quite interesting in fact that our group was out at a fair over the weekend, and I was the only Caucasian in the mix, and I had not even noticed that fact until they brought it up.
|
|
|
Post by foolana on Jun 22, 2015 15:43:41 GMT
That is exactly right; it's YOUR issue, jonda1974. I'm not responsible for the way you view me. I do not believe that unless you're a minority you're a racist. I'm not a minority and I certainly am not a racist. I believe in trying to see the world through the eyes and experiences of others instead of having a narrow view that only comes from my specific experiences. Having a mixed group of friends does not make you understand their particular experiences in life. One has to open their mind and listen for that to happen.
|
|
|
Post by jonda1974 on Jun 22, 2015 15:50:38 GMT
That said, I agree with those who think that sensible gun laws won't change much. However, I don't get why the same people won't support it. How does it affect you if you are a legal gun owner? It's kind of like the government monitoring citizens' phone calls. Have at it. If you want to hear my call to my mother...go for it. It doesn't affect me. I think you make some interesting points, and just wanted to jump in on this part here, and it seems that similar sentiments have popped up in subsequent posts as well. You seem to agree that any changes to gun laws probably won't change much. And you're position is, even so, why not enact them. That is where for me the Libertarian in me kicks in. If a law is not going to have any effect...it's not needed, because individual liberty and freedom from government intrusion stands at the forefront of why our nation was fought for and how it was structured. The only time that my rights as an individual should be superseded is when they infringe on another citizen's rights. Honestly, our federal government is too big. It is too powerful, and it wields way too much control over the states and the individuals. This hasn't happened overnight, but in small unremarkable moments. You say you don't mind them listening in on the call with your mother, my response is...they don't have the right to do so in the first place, because it violates the constitution in my opinion. If the federal government doesn't have a warrant, then anything of that nature is unlawful search and seizure. Big government is bad. It historically has proven to implode, and at the cost of individual liberty. The reason people are leery of gun registration, is because historically it has proven to be used for confiscation. Nazi Germany's first step was de-arming the citizenry. Which made putting their army in the streets much easier. And yes, if that were to happen in the US today, our Army is very powerful, and the federal government has way to much authority, and it would be a bloody massacre, because most people would willingly give up their freedoms and liberty rather than fight, but the 2nd amendment was written for that express purpose. In terms of individual rights versus the rights of the community which many bring up...There is a delicate balance which must be maintained...but should, in my opinion, and in the founding father's opinion, should always be weighted towards individual rights.
|
|
|
Post by jonda1974 on Jun 22, 2015 15:54:41 GMT
That is exactly right; it's YOUR issue, jonda1974. I'm not responsible for the way you view me. I do not believe that unless you're a minority you're a racist. I'm not a minority and I certainly am not a racist. I believe in trying to see the world through the eyes and experiences of others instead of having a narrow view that only comes from my specific experiences. Having a mixed group of friends does not make you understand their particular experiences in life. One has to open their mind and listen for that to happen. Actually it is your delivery that makes me view you the way I do. Reading your posts reminds me of reading skybar's posts. You're delivery prevents people from every agreeing with you, and actually causes more harm than good, even if your intent is correct. And they have as much a responsibility to understand my particular experiences in life as I do theirs. That's what it means to be human.
|
|
|
Post by foolana on Jun 22, 2015 15:59:59 GMT
That is exactly right; it's YOUR issue, jonda1974. I'm not responsible for the way you view me. I do not believe that unless you're a minority you're a racist. I'm not a minority and I certainly am not a racist. I believe in trying to see the world through the eyes and experiences of others instead of having a narrow view that only comes from my specific experiences. Having a mixed group of friends does not make you understand their particular experiences in life. One has to open their mind and listen for that to happen. Actually it is your delivery that makes me view you the way I do. Reading your posts reminds me of reading skybar's posts. You're delivery prevents people from every agreeing with you, and actually causes more harm than good, even if your intent is correct. And they have as much a responsibility to understand my particular experiences in life as I do theirs. That's what it means to be human. In your opinion. Are you really daring to speak for everyone here? Your posts reek of someone who thinks they're superior to everyone here and I take offense to that. I often post JMHO in my posts and I'll assume you know what that means. If you don't like my "delivery" feel free to put me on ignore so I don't bother you anymore. I'm certainly not going to let YOU dictate what I do and say here.
|
|
|
Post by jonda1974 on Jun 22, 2015 16:16:33 GMT
Actually it is your delivery that makes me view you the way I do. Reading your posts reminds me of reading skybar's posts. You're delivery prevents people from every agreeing with you, and actually causes more harm than good, even if your intent is correct. And they have as much a responsibility to understand my particular experiences in life as I do theirs. That's what it means to be human. In your opinion. Are you really daring to speak for everyone here? Your posts reek of someone who thinks they're superior to everyone here and I take offense to that. I often post JMHO in my posts and I'll assume you know what that means. If you don't like my "delivery" feel free to put me on ignore so I don't bother you anymore. I'm certainly not going to let YOU dictate what I do and say here. See that's the interesting perspective, because your posts reek the same way to me. You feel you are so superior to everyone else and you condescend anyone who disagrees with you. So I guess we see each other the exact same way....and honestly, any intelligent person doesn't need to read a JMHO to understand that a post, written by an individual, is that person's humble opinion on the matter. If you honestly need to see JMHO to get that...there might be comprehension issues. I'm not putting you on ignore. I've never put anyone, here or at the old bucket on ignore, and I will continue to comment on your posts as I see fit. Don't like it...too bad.
|
|
|
Post by missmiss on Jun 22, 2015 16:26:12 GMT
Do you really think people who own guns will stop the the US Military if the government really wanted to take over? From what I can find there approximately 34% to 43% oh households own some type of firearm. I sure those people do not have an unlimited supply of ammo as well. It would still be a bloody massacre if the government wanted to but their army in the streets as you say.
The military would crush anyone they came in contact with as it is right now. Drones, tanks, missiles, and anything else a civilian would not be able to combat.
|
|