New Muslim congresswoman will seek to allow religious headwear in the House

Yes indeed the lives of your children are not worth giving up any rights or any limits on firearms and the UK had made others chooses an therefore lack any freedoms in your reality if not in mine.

 

Here's more:

 

I hope you're right. Time will tell.

 

yes because you see no problem with giving up freedoms and liberties for the greater good
torn right out of the pages of the communist manifesto
yes communism the political ideology that mass murdered over 140 million last century for the "greater good" they too were duped in believing it was a good trade
as a result of that trade a large majority of those that were mass murder had no means to defend themselves

 

There are rights and rights an the right to have your children and grandchildren not being at high risk of being gun down by some nut with a gun in their classrooms seems to out weight the right to have no limit on the ownership of firearms in my opinion.

Footnote how many millions of unarmed Englishmen had been killed in the last century by their government?

 

no one that believes in giving up their liberties and freedoms for the greater good believe it will result in their oppression and murder other wise they wouldn't do it
the old nonsense of "that couldn't ever happen here" as history proves them wrong over and over
remember the saying those that don't learn from history is bound to repeat it

just quick reminder there are a few things most authoritarian oppressive regimes have in common
first they disarm its population second they take away free speech and freedom of the press
so tell me doesn't that closely describe what's happening in the UK

 

LOL I had been known from time to time to read a few history books an off hand I can not remember one time where an armed population had stop a out of control government from ruling by force and murder.

So maybe you would be kind enough to name a few nations where an armed people had limit an out of control government.

Hmm there was time that the arm farmers of PA decided not to paid taxes on the alcohol they was producing when the nation was young and weak an Washington and Hamilton just move troops in.

After a few hangings that was the end of the matter.

 

then you must not have read how the lightly armed Veit Cong kept at bay the American army or the Afghan mujahedeen defeated the Russian army two of the most powerful militaries in the word
then of coarse we have the rag tag untrained mostly civilian colonial army kicked your ass one of the most powerful militaries at the time in the revolutionary war but I wouldnt expect that to be taught in school over there in England
history is riddle with battles and wars won by much less armed opposition

 

No head wear of any sort should be allowed. This includes whatever the weird thing is atop Trump's head, when he shows up for the State of the Union.

 

So the Viet Cong was freedom fighters and the US army was doing mass murders of the Vietnam people that was only stop by an arm population an not just a small part of the cold war between the west and the commie.

An privately own guns have anything to do with it????

 

The American Colonials, Viet Cong, Afghans and others did in fact begin their wars with the arms they had around. This was essential to their victories. What happens along the way is outside nations come to their aid, begin supplying the rest of what is needed to achieve victory.

The Americans were aided considerably by France, the Netherlands and Spain.

The Viet Cong were aided by the Soviet Union and China.

The Afghan Mujahedeen were aided by Pakistan, the USA and Saudi Arabia. But this one is different, as the great bulk of money to buy weapons came from private donation across the Muslim world. Even so it was American help that taught and equipped the Afghans how to destroy Soviet armor on the ground and helicopter gunships in the air. So in this case, it is a mixed bag.

The point in all this is the privately held arms began these wars, sustained them long enough and showed adequate progress such that more powerful nations came to the aid of the insurgents and revolutionaries.

I very much doubt this will ever happen again in the United States. If it did, privately held arms would be a far greater force than they were in the revolution that founded our country. There would also be regular armed forces both supporting and opposing against whatever tyranny had taken root.

But again, I strongly doubt such a scenario will ever again occur for the USA. The substantial private ownership of small arms is one reason why this is so. The brilliance of the Founders in their system of divided power, checks and balances, is unlikely to be so challenged as to require an armed civilian uprising to restore Liberty once again.

 

That 'diversity of religious belief' doesn't seem to apply to visible cross or Christmas decorations in the public square but a symbol of female subjugation seems to be okay, by leftists. in the US Congress.

 

You should familiarize yourself with the history of the American revolution.

 

LOL the revolution used firearms that for the most part that was control by the governments of the colonies not private weapons along with weapons seized from the British stores and on the battlefields and later weapons ship from France and other nations.

See the British seizing in the middle of the night gunpowder and the rifles and even small cannons in the armory of Williamsbury that was design to defend VA from the french and their Indian allies.

Sorry personal arms and more to the point personally own arms only play a small secondary role in our revolution way way behind the arms and powders from other sources.

 

You're*... but please do go on about your intellectual superiority.

 

when you are losing the argument you resort to correcting grammar

 

...or when your intelligence is being insulted by someone who can't spell simple words.

 

there is over 350 million guns in private ownership in America that's 700 times more then we have serving in the army
no army would conceder going up against a civilian force armed with 350 million guns it would be a blood bath on both sides
only way a government would ever become authoritarian here in America they first would have to disarm the population

 

if a misspelled word insults your intelligence the problem is with you not the misspelled word

 

A third of Americans own guns. Only a small fraction know how to operate as part of a military unit.

Not much of a threat

 

Based on what rationale? Or does reason not enter into the picture here?

 

if a had to choose who I would rather fight with by my side I would pick a hunter over some private in the army any day
and yes I served in the military 8 years in the army

 

And while you are taking aim at one guy several others are calling in a drone strike on your position. Lol

 

and you don't think a hunter can go undetected? you must have never been deer hunting and actually killed one
how do you think the Viet Cong were so effective how they won the war it wasn't because they engaged in large scale military operation with battle field tactics they won because they picked off American soldiers one by one an ambush here sniper there till they just wore the American army down

 

He gets one shot. Then the military takes out the neighborhood.


You clearly never served