Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by MiaBleu, Mar 23, 2021.
You got that bit right
Shall not be infringed is two words? I guess I need another cup of coffee to follow that one....
There must be reasons for why there are those that have to kill others. Those that are killed by these certain killers in almost all cases doen't deserve to die. There is no excuse to kill and I think the reason or onr of them is that the killer is sick in the mind. There may be others but I'm not going there at this time so leave well enough alone for now.
No, that's not the case. the fully auto fires 3 or more rounds in the same time that a semi-auto fires 1. and that is so fast that no weapon can be brought to bear on that many more targets in that amount of time. A fully auto might hit one person 3 or more times (and usually spray several bullets into the air), the semi-auto will hit you once, but both will still kill you.
The military favors automatic fire for close combat (but not for sniping) because you usually cannot aim or sometimes even bring the weapon to bear in close combat
A fully auto gun is useful when there are many targets and you cannot stop to aim, above all on sustained fire it will enable an operator to "spray" bullets, like water from a garden hose; but just because it shoots 4 rounds where the semi-auto shoots one does not mean it has killed 4 people.
It takes seconds for a practiced operator who is not crazed to reload but who knows otherwise. Guns tend to jam quickly if they are not operated properly.
Semi-auto weapons can easily kill several people in just a few seconds. They are more than fast enough that there is no time to react against them and that makes them fully as dangerous as automatic types in most massacres.
No, it's dangerous NOT to red flag people who are dangerous. It shouldn't be done arbitrarily and it should be easily challenged by people who feel it unjustified but guns are DANGEROUS and shouldn't be in the hands of dangerous people.
Our rights to have a gun are important, (though I truly cannot understand why so many gun advocates seem to see them as exceeding life itself) but the right of the public to be safe is even more so and by a good amount
And while we're at it remove the right to be secure in our belongings. It's terrible that the police need a warrant to enter your home when in the name of public safety they should be allowed to enter at any time.
Let's remove the right to a fair and speedy trial. Judge Dredd may have been on to something, judge, jury and executioner. That would clear the prisons in no time.
England banned guns, since then the bad guys have turned to knives. The killings didn't stop, only the weapon changed.
So the government could judge someone unfit, and they would have to prove otherwise? Yes that is a very dangerous slope.
If someone is supposedly deemed mentally unfit, they would have had to been that way in many forms and in many ways. And it is not within the 'government' purview to so judge. Licensed professionals who have had time to evaluate a person over an extended period of time would be a starting place.
It doesn't mean that our gun rights exceed the public's right to be safe. No right exceeds that. It's why we HAVE rights.
Ok, four. Sorry, I thought my point was obvious.
Well, the overall murder rate peaked in 2002 and has been cut to half since then. Could be multiple factors.
Number of knife murders did not change other than usual fluctuations
So your belief that the public's right to be safe, exceeds others Rights, specifically numerated.
Are you applying this same position to chemicals, poisons, vehicles, airplanes and pharmaceuticals?
Sure, but the total number of homicides was reduced. It would be too simple to say it happened only because they banned guns, because the same happened in US without bans. Even in Chicago, the number of murders has been cut to half. Interestingly your chart shows that in US the reduction was specifically in regards to handguns.
Ted Cruz: 'I don't apologize for thoughts or prayers' for shooting victims
Damn, the mental gymnastics you will go through just to be able to blame Biden.
I guess surprisingly Biden must actually be doing a good job since this is what you Trump worshipers are reduced to
So why does the constitution need that much defending?? Is it under that much threat?? and from where?? internal or external ??
Can the constitution be that fragile??
It is always under attack from one side or another. Biden is talking about issuing EOs attacking it.
And yes, it is that fragile, it is only words on a piece of paper without those willing to defend it.
It is not by accident it is the Constitution itself that those in the Military take an oath to defend.
I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
Why not? The left blamed Trump for literally everything. What changed? Is he suddenly not president, and no one told him? Should we be blaming Kamal Two instead? It is so hard to know what lefties want at any given moment. Turns out dude was known to the FBI and yet, they did nothing, even when his rantings started to get violent. And now FB has removed his posts because? Makes the FBI look bad huh. And while we're at it, explain how this brown person shooting up the white folks in the food king isn't racist like when white folks shoot up a church? no need for mental gymnastics here, this is the leftist narrative come to horrifying life.
Yes it is, both the lefties and the righties....partisans are all the same, matters not which side they stand on.
Every time Joe Biden attacks the right of the people to defend themselves with arms declared in the 2nd amendment, he is attacking the fabric of our society and the constitution. It is cute that he believes, as did the minority of the SCOUTS that people don't actually get to defend themselves with arms. I wonder why. Liberal judges have to a person suggested that the police are NOT responsible to protect you the citizens, so who's job is it? Government chooses to both disarm you, and ignore violence against you, and you have no options but to sit there and try not to complain in public, because when you do, off to the cancel gulags with you. Now, explain again why the constitution, in your mind, doesn't need to be defended?
What, your google doesn't work? Or are you only able to know something once someone else tells you about it. Hard to know.
The Boulder, Colorado shooter who opened fire at a grocery store Monday evening was previously known to the FBI, a New York Timesreport revealed.
So, since it is the NYTs that published it, it must be true. Right?
He was previously known to the F.B.I. because he was linked to another individual under investigation by the the FBI.
Do you think that is a good enough reason to deny someone their 2nd amendment rights?
What is it the FBI should have done and how should they have done it?
are you calling my nephew, who earned the bronze star and a purple heart a Nazi? its you gun banners who have far more in common with the Nazis than do people who volunteer for among the most dangerous jobs one can have in the service of their country.
what is really stupid is thinking people are just going to turn their guns in because the nanny state whiners say so. Also what is stupid is thinking that disarming people who have never caused any crime with their firearms, will stop criminals.
Separate names with a comma.