100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Why add the assault rifle title to everything? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
FYI I altered my original response. Didn't intent the "goodnight my brothers and sisters" response to sound as pompous as it did. Truthfully it never had anything to do with the rest of my post. Was just trying to bid you all adieu and wish you all happy debating.
SO, again, goodtnight all, and take care 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
as a brit this whole thing makes me laugh. it seems the us has a problem with mental cases getting a gun and killing innocent groups of unsuspecting people. none of you want to relinquish your guns because its your god given right to have protection against these mental murderers who pose a threat because they have guns. so the argument against removeing guns from the us is that you need them to protect yourselves, against people who have guns! obviously you cant irradicate the threat by "removing" the mental cases, as its very hard to know who is a mental gun slinging muderer and who is just from the south. maybe you should give guns to kids so they can also protect themselves. and the anti gun crowd making themselves look stupid by using the wrong names for guns?. yep, dem da stoopid ones. guns dont kill people, people who want to kill people... kill people. you cant remove the insane and angry. but you could make weapons harder to get hold of.   Not even close. Self-defense is only a small part of the usefulness of the right to own arms. The real purpose of this right is to give regular people the means to keep government in check and repel foreign invasions. (the imperial Japanese never invaded the mainland US because they knew there was a "rifle behind every blade of grass") The musket was the assault rifle of the 18th century. Even a simple farmer armed with one or more could protect himself from harassment or assault at the hands of the regime. Say you did take everyone's guns. Now they're sitting ducks for criminals. (real criminals don't care about the law and will get guns if they want them) Since you're a Brit, you ought to familiarize yourself with your countryman George Orwell. Especially 1984. Britain and the US resemble the world of 1984 more and more by the day. One of my favorite Orwell quotes-"if you want a vision of the future, imagine a jackboot stamping on a human face-forever". Maybe you enjoy your police/nanny state, but I don't care for it. You live in the past. Japan did not have nukes. A couple nuke EMP's in our upper atmosphere over the US would throw us back to the stone age. Won't take much to take us down....look at what a few idiots flying jets did to our economy.....what did that cost us in blood and treasure. Wake up. Where were nukes mentioned? Besides, an "assault" rifle with a 30 round mag is far from having nukes. Not to mention only responsible for a very small amount of gun related deaths, and many of them were accomplished with black-market purchases. So why ban them? You're right nukes were not mentioned. But, he did state that the reason Japan did not invade us was because of our small arms possession. Does this still hold true today? Do you seriously think that the right to bear arms would keep some idiot maniac leader in North Korea from attacking us with a nuke? Or China? Or Russia? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
‘Gun control’ has had a long history:- “The people of the various provinces are strictly forbidden to have in their possession any swords, bows, spears, firearms, or other type of arms. The possession of these elements makes difficult the collection of taxes and dues and tends to permit uprising, therefore, the heads of the provinces, official agents, and deputies are ordered to collect all weapons mentioned above and turn them over to the government.” Toyotomi Hideyshi, Shogun, August 29, 1558 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
