SkyDekker

It is interesting to see people rationalize what they previously said would not happen..

That doesn't surprise me in the least.

I thought LEO and military would not carry out unconstitutional orders. I have seen lots of boasting about this lately. Wha happened?

You will never believe anybody who doesn't agree with you.

They should be glad they have the speed and agility to run into the kitchen to make them a sammich. But is she going to be strong enough to bring the sammich to my foxhole? Next thing you know they are going to give rifles to gay black women. The founding father's are all going to turn in their graves.

I think it is a bad idea. How are the men supposed to feel when the woman in their unit is a better soldier?

Interesting you would say that, since normally the argument against banning guns is that people would still be able to get guns illegally.

You do realize the only difference between the "Assault Rifles" they want to ban and other rifles is the way they look right? Educate yourself on the types of weapons they want to ban. We are talking about rights...not privileges. The Constitution does not guarantee anyone the right to a car or any other type of transportation. It does give us the right to own weapons. It also said women weren't allowed to vote and niggers weren't to be counted as a full human being. Clearly the founding fathers fucked up on a couple of things. Women and niggers aren't new technology and they were clearly wrong about them. Yet, they are to be taken exactly on their word when it comes to technology they couldn't possibly foresee. That logic seems a little wonky.

Big deal, we sent it to Ikea.

Fuck

Results are slightly different when you use gun in stead of guns...but you probably alerady knew that

Both are right. Possession in switzerland is high, but that doesn't mean people are allowed to carry them. IE, you are not allowed to take the military issued rifle out to your backyard and start shooting with it. Or decide that you need it with you while grocery shopping. So, in the end, using Switzerland as an example is flawed.

They don't... Just shows the US might be a little misguided as to what is a bigger actual threat to their population. Many have no problem spending hundreds of billions on protection from terrorism based on the fear of what might happen, while arguing that guns should not be restricted out of fear of what might happen.

I can speak my mind. I can say whatever I want. There are no banned words because such would be a “prior restraint” of speech. Perhaps more significantly we don't limit technology which could be misapplied to commit criminal acts and cause civil damages when it has permissible uses. We don't limit the number of subscribers to web sites because it would be a real problem when one like youtube was used to incite millions of followers to commit violent illegal acts. We don't limit word processor file size because they may be used to produce documents like Ted Kaczynski's 35,000 word manifesto. We haven't banned color copiers and printers because they might be used to print counterfeit currency that some people would accept as real. We haven't banned digital recorders that could be used for illegal surveillance or unauthorized duplication of copyright materials. But we have banned drinking with an elevated blood alcohol level, cause you might kill someone. We have banned driving over certain speed limits, cause it may lead to more deadly collisions. We have banned driving through a red light, cause it might hurt some one. We have limited the use of lead, asbestos, mercury, etc cause it could hurt people. You have banned people from entry because they tweeted "3 weeks today, we’re totally in LA p****** people off on Hollywood Blvd and diggin’ Marilyn Monroe up! and for tweeting a friend asking if she was "free this week for a quick gossip/prep before I go and destroy America. x" You have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on fighting terrorism, which has killed less worldwide than Americans killed in gun violence.

It is my gut feeling. If you ask people outside the US to describe Americans...would polite come up? I have been to the US quite a bit and would state that generally Canadians are much more polite than Americans. Lastly, since people on this thread are treating fearfull and polite as being equal, the whole statement might just be flawed from the beginning.

Step aside and let the people with the real docs come through. Could just image being with Schatz and Obomer coming back from Kenya, to prime the pump that inquisitors might come knocking. The ride from HI to DC on the 27th must have involve provocative talks. OWNED. Sealed and delivered and the only person of any threat is Tailiz. No fear, Feb 15 she'll be gone for ever. Do I need a decoder ring with that post?

What I think is ridiculous is that world wide, less people are killed by terrorist attacks, than get killed by guns in America alone. Yet, the war on terror gets billions in funding, but preventing gun violence gets almost no funding. Seems like priorities are completely screwed up...

These days you can go for a walk with more firepower than one of the cannons of that era had. Do you think that would have altered their thinking at all?

How free are you really when you need to be in possession of a tool to ensure freedom?

Wouldn't be the first time that pharmaceuticals had less than desirable side effects. Wouldn't be the first time they were hidding for the longest time either. It isn't about blame, it is about looking for contributing factors.

Ahh so just enough sarcasm that you can twist and turn and hide behind anything. Way to take a stand!

No but we do regulate how and when the computer would be used and install software to try and prevent this from happening. Proper parents would certainly start regulating the usage of the tool used. Very few parents would do absolutely nothing and say: can't blame the computer. The latter case we would probably call bad parenting...

Mainly because civilians are banned from owning scuds.

Wasn't meant as a strawman, just trying to identify what you see as social manipulation.

Isn't allowing the population to be armed to lower crime and prevent a tyrannical government social manipulation as well? Isn't using punishment for crimes social manipulation? Isn't building infrastructure to facilitate commerce, social manipulation? Isn't maintaining a massive military to scare other countries social manipulation? Isn't almost everything a government does a form of social manipulation? I know we are going completely off topic here, but you have many times advocated along these lines, that government should stay out of social manipulation.