Yes I am enjoying myself very much and that's not sarcasm. But please explain to me more about how owning a gun is a God given right. I seriously want to hear this.
Printable View
Yes I am enjoying myself very much and that's not sarcasm. But please explain to me more about how owning a gun is a God given right. I seriously want to hear this.
Thanks for the links. I do think that they should've given some kind of idea or hint that a training would be going on sometime in those cities. I understand that maybe they want to keep the integrity of the mission and eliminate any potential interference or chicanery, but by doing this unannounced in the middle of the night, it leads to the conspiracy ideas being espoused.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chef
I know here is also where there is a split on what everyone thinks the government's true intentions are. I think this is where the Occam's razor principle applies, where among competing theories, the one with the least assumptions should be followed.
So is it that because there actually exists terrorist threats across our borders and inside the country, with bigger cities especially vulnerable, that these municipalities should be prepared for all contingencies in case of a bomb/hostage/other terrorist situation, and where these training exercises are good to understand the logistics inside a city center which can't be replicated elsewhere?
Or is it that there is some vast conspiracy involving tens of thousands of people that had been set in motion for many years, where the government is looking for the opportunity to brainwash the populace in order to turn them into a police state, convincing the military and police alike, who would otherwise be extremely loyal to Americans and fight for the citizens and their freedoms over any threat, but suddenly convinced to betray that, and involving other secret leaders who have set to destroy the economy in multiple industries in order to turn this country into financial chaos, disarming them in the meantime, and then being able to have the infrastructure and power to control over 300 million people spread across tens of thousands of square miles...etc...
I just don't get the sinister vibe, even if those in charge are incompetent, arrogant, and prone to delusions of grandeur and infallibility. There is just no way a takeover is possible logically or logistically.
The cops that fired on those innocent victims should have been immediately fired and arrested, if they haven't already. With the truck with the two small women, there were bullet holes on the passenger side. Even if they thought it was Dorner, they shot at a second person not knowing whether they were an innocent hostage and who should otherwise be protected. I think they should be charged with attempted murder - you don't shoot first and ask questions later. They didn't even verify if it was the right truck, or who was inside. I'm disgusted by this quite frankly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chef
Vigilante justice should never be justified, especially not by a government source. I would say that based on percentages, every group, organization, family, etc. has the same percentage of corrupt or antisocial people, including the police, but this does not mean that all policeman or the government condones or accepts such behavior. And if the investigation finds impropriety here, then those involved should be prosecuted to the fullest extent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chef
But for those arguing that "see, if they do it to him, they'll do it to us," I'd say you guys shouldn't worry unless you murder 4 innocent people in cold blood, two of them police officers, and taunt them with a manifesto and media packages you send where you admit to your revenge plot. Because then you increase your chances of your civil rights being violated.
Drugs are really easy to get hold of. Most teenagers in this country can get what they want with three or four phone calls if they have the money and the mind to. It's a big part of the reason why our jails are overflowing. Unless, of course, you mean that by purchasing those drugs they stop becoming law abiding citizens and become criminals. Technically that's true, but I doubt it's what you mean.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chef
that's exactly what i mean. drugs are absolutely illegal, contraband if you will. the only people not buying or selling them are those who are law abiding citizens. guns would work the exact same way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bogg
Which would be a valid point if anyone was arguing that firearms be made illegal and that you could grow a pistol in a foil-lined closet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chef
the argument is precisely that certain firearms be made illegal. therefore, the only folks who would get them would be criminals. it all goes back to the argument that no body in government can tell me how best i choose to defend my life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bogg
Only most illegal drugs still come across the border don't they? Heck, I'd bet it's safer smuggling dope from Mexico over trying to grow weed around here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bogg
My argument's been about focusing on the sections of the law that allow criminals easy access to firearms. If that means the people who own guns legally and responsibly have to fill out some extra paperwork, I'm fine with that. If you think that holding gun owners accountable for the firearms they purchase, instead of allowing weapons to disappear into the ether after initial sale, inevitably leads to the country becoming a weird mash-up of Nazi Germany and Bolshevik Russia then I just flat-out think you're wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chef
It's one of the many, many reasons why drugs and firearms are two entirely different conversations.Quote:
Originally Posted by spectre
then we have figured out the line that neither will cross in a debate. i am just glad that the constitution says "the right to bear arms, shall not be infringed".Quote:
Originally Posted by Bogg
like i said in my very first post, if people don't like it then change the constitution. there is a clear way to do it. passing unconstitutional laws is not that way.
Nobody's taking away your guns. You're making up the argument you want to have instead actually responding. Unless, of course, you think that any law regarding weapons at all is unconstitutional, including placing restrictions on convicted felons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chef
The reality is that unless the "gun rights lobby" helps to come up with some intelligent laws to help curb violent crime, and not just saying that everyone should buy more guns, they're more likely to wind up with ineffectual laws that restrict the wrong people and don't accomplish the intended goal.