F'dup Chapters in American History(The Trump Years) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 29

Status
Not open for further replies.
There is something wrong with this list... why isn't Florida even in the top 10?
 
Hah, so because churches & nightclubs & schools or whatever shouldn't need to have armed security in a better world than the real one, that means it's wrong to even suggest/have the debate over it. :up: 2018, awesome.

Where these NRA types actually have a point is that the only thing stopping a guy with a gun is another gun. Yep, ideally that's going to be cops putting him down, but there aren't enough cops to be everywhere. An 8 minute response time (or whatever the average is) is good, but an awful person can spread a lot of misery in 8 minutes.

That being said, anyone calling for conceal & carry for random civvies in a bar or church or whatever is an idiot. But that's different than the notion that maybe we're at a point where places looking into hiring psych-checked/proficiently-qualified types to protect people is something that should be considered. Companies do it to protect their wads of money, rich Hollywood types do it to protect their precious selves. If some company or church or club wants to do it, provided there's some universal standard of psych analysis and training, go for it. You're still better with that than with nothing.

Yes, we've seen with recent incidents that the scumbags have taken down the security with surprise tactics. Duh, of course that's a possibility. No ****. And without the security they'd just walk right on in anyway, it's not like a barrier to entry is a bad thing.
 
There is something wrong with this list... why isn't Florida even in the top 10?

The population is too high. Makes it a challenge to contend for the crown over the more lightly populated full on gun nut states.
 
The population is too high. Makes it a challenge to contend for the crown over the more lightly populated full on gun nut states.
True. That makes sense.
 
Not seeing how arming even more people with guns is more worthy of debating or should ever be prioritised over discussing/debating passing laws to make sure less of these nut jobs can be armed in the first place. Preventing a lunatic before the act would be a more effective remedy than only possible prevention during the act.

Maybe I'm being naive.
 
Trump said the Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando wouldn't have happened if they'd all had guns.

I've been in nightclubs. It's dark, there's strobe lights flashing everywhere, the music is blasting so loud you can't hear anything.

They wouldn't have been able to tell where the gunfire was coming from. Hundreds of scared and confused people with guns panicking in a dark loud nightclub?
 
In just a few years the biggest instigator of terrorist threats and attacks in the US has gone from the Axis of Evil to Our Garbage President. USA! USA!

Arkansas Man Arrested For “Terroristic Threats” Against CNN

It's bigly irresponsible that even after death threats and a package in the mail from Sayoc, Trump continues to incessantly label CNN "the enemy of the people".
Alt-Right White Nationalists actually are the biggest threat to the country.
U.S. Law Enforcement Failed to See the Threat of White Nationalism. Now They Don’t Know How to Stop It.
 
Trump said the Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando wouldn't have happened if they'd all had guns.

I've been in nightclubs. It's dark, there's strobe lights flashing everywhere, the music is blasting so loud you can't hear anything.

They wouldn't have been able to tell where the gunfire was coming from. Hundreds of scared and confused people with guns panicking in a dark loud nightclub?

Well, according to those 2nd Amendment people once you own a gun you’re automatically proficient with it and you are not deterred by loud music nor darkness.
 
Hah, so because churches & nightclubs & schools or whatever shouldn't need to have armed security in a better world than the real one, that means it's wrong to even suggest/have the debate over it. :up: 2018, awesome.
I'm going to stop you right here. Why are you so willing to just accept this is the real world? No other country has this problem! You seem set on adding more guns to stop gun violence as opposed to any other possible solution.
 
Hah, so because churches & nightclubs & schools or whatever shouldn't need to have armed security in a better world than the real one, that means it's wrong to even suggest/have the debate over it. :up: 2018, awesome.

Where these NRA types actually have a point is that the only thing stopping a guy with a gun is another gun. Yep, ideally that's going to be cops putting him down, but there aren't enough cops to be everywhere. An 8 minute response time (or whatever the average is) is good, but an awful person can spread a lot of misery in 8 minutes.

That being said, anyone calling for conceal & carry for random civvies in a bar or church or whatever is an idiot. But that's different than the notion that maybe we're at a point where places looking into hiring psych-checked/proficiently-qualified types to protect people is something that should be considered. Companies do it to protect their wads of money, rich Hollywood types do it to protect their precious selves. If some company or church or club wants to do it, provided there's some universal standard of psych analysis and training, go for it. You're still better with that than with nothing.

Yes, we've seen with recent incidents that the scumbags have taken down the security with surprise tactics. Duh, of course that's a possibility. No ****. And without the security they'd just walk right on in anyway, it's not like a barrier to entry is a bad thing.

I don't even know what you're babbling about. What people are saying is, with stricter gun laws maybe some of these folks may not have access to guns. Maybe then there would be less gun deaths in the country. Pretty crazy idea huh? Cause and effect type deal. The police were on site in this incident in 3 minutes. That's well inside your 8 minute response time. You know what happened a few minutes after they got there? And officer lost his life. How many lives will it take before we as a country realize that this particular hobby just isn't worth it?
 
Trump said the Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando wouldn't have happened if they'd all had guns.

I've been in nightclubs. It's dark, there's strobe lights flashing everywhere, the music is blasting so loud you can't hear anything.

They wouldn't have been able to tell where the gunfire was coming from. Hundreds of scared and confused people with guns panicking in a dark loud nightclub?

I’m sure the answer is a free pair of night vision goggles with every weapon purchase... :o
 
I don't even know what you're babbling about. What people are saying is, with stricter gun laws maybe some of these folks may not have access to guns. Maybe then there would be less gun deaths in the country. Pretty crazy idea huh? Cause and effect type deal. The police were on site in this incident in 3 minutes. That's well inside your 8 minute response time. You know what happened a few minutes after they got there? And officer lost his life. How many lives will it take before we as a country realize that this particular hobby just isn't worth it?

I honestly can’t tell whether Aximili86 is a troll or terribly mis-informed... It’d probably be better if it was the former.
 
He's a conservative.
 
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

That's all well and good in the 1700's, when the most sophisticated weapon at the time was a musket.

Nowadays, if the American government decided to become a fascist regime with the full weight of its military in tow, or if the United States were taken over by a hostile nation, I don't really think any of the weapons that can be legally purchased in the marketplace are going to make a lick of difference anymore.

A "well-regulated militia." LOL.
 
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

That's all well and good in the 1700's, when the most sophisticated weapon at the time was a musket.

Nowadays, if the American government decided to become a fascist regime with the full weight of its military in tow, or if the United States were taken over by a hostile nation, I don't really think any of the weapons that can be legally purchased in the marketplace are going to make a lick of difference anymore.

A "well-regulated militia." LOL.

EDIT: Not gonna lie . . . I completely rushed through your post and really didn't pick up on the point you're making. So, consider my post below an aside rather than a direct response. :shrug:


What was the most sophisticated method of spreading free speech? What was the most sophisticated method of the press? What was the most sophisticated method of intruding upon people's private property?

If the 2nd amendment is limited to technology available at the time, wouldn't all the other amendments have the same limitations? Or, is the technology reasoning applied on a selective basis that curiously aligns with what we like and what we don't like in the Constitution?

And, if we're limited to people owning only those arms legal at the time of the Revolution . . . how do you feel about private citizens owning working cannon?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"