Food for thought; Newtown

You weren't? because according to your first response to my initial post you stated the following.

"Seeing how there's no evidence that supports your claims that banning

certain weapons puts people in MORE danger and that while during the

Assault Weapons Ban (yes we had a ban that is almost identical to the

one currently being proposed and guess who ended it in 2004?) assault

weapons used for a crime decreased by well over 50% and that gun-related

murders decreased by almost 7%. Even though assault weapons are used in

a very small percentage of crimes, with handguns and extended clips

being the majority (the new bill would ban any clips over 10), it would

still make a difference based on EVIDENCE, whereas your opinion is based

on the OPINIONS of pundits/politicians. Oh yeah I don't know if you saw

this popular talking point but the new ban doesn't affect 2,500 fucking

firearms."

^That is the post I am referring to. According to many studies there was no significant reduction in violent crime but yet your statistics say so? I find that hard to believe.

If the Assault Weapons Ban wouldn't have prevented Sandy Hook or Aurora, then what purpose does an Assault Weapons Ban and a limit on magazine capacity have? If its for public safety and these two mass shootings could not have been prevented, and there was no statistical evidence to support a reduction in violent crime during 94-04' then I don't see any logical argument to be had here?
 
Well if you could comprehend the English language...

"Even though assault weapons are used in a very small percentage of crimes, with handguns and extended clips being the majority (the new bill would ban any clips over 10), it would still make a difference based on EVIDENCE..."

- That means that there was a quantifiable difference before and after the ban, stated in my post, google it, bitch. I never claimed otherwise. You somehow thought I did. Also the new proposed bill, if you actually knew what the fuck you were talking about, would ban all magazine clips over 10 rounds, which are involved in way more gun-related crime than assault weapons. You also left out the part about how there was over a 50% reduction of assault weapons being used in crimes AFTER the ban was initiated... nice. The initial ban was one that unfolded over time and all the laws associated with it never came into play because Bush Jr. go rid of the ban, for no reason whatsoever.

I'll restate this because you obviously have not looked into this but the reason the initial ban wasn't concluded as to having a clear affect on gun violence was because

- The ban never went into full action because it was scrapped by Bush Jr. before it could

- the number of assault weapons used in crimes, generally speaking, is very minor and the ban didn't affect the extended clips that were most widely used

Google it you stupid bitch. I'm over trying to educate you, I don't have a degree in early childhood development or in special education.

Maybe that's why you kids are saying unrelated shit like, "If the Assault Weapons Ban wouldn't have prevented Sandy Hook or Aurora, then what purpose does an Assault Weapons Ban and a limit on magazine capacity have?"

Yeah the purpose of the bill and why it's being pushed isn't to prevent or as a solution to mass shootings, you jackass. The mass shootings just create more backing for trying to push the bill through.

 
How old are you 12? You clearly can not have an open debate without saying you're a fucktard or you stupid bitch if you don't agree with me. If you don't like guns go live in a country that doesn't have them but don't infringe upon my rights to buy Semi-Automatic firearms.

I don't see why a reduction in Assault Weapon Related shootings during a

gun ban is surprising? Its as if you ignore all violent crime

statistics but focus ONLY on how many crimes were committed using AR-15's or magazines over 10 rounds. But since you feel so drawn to ban a gun used in .20 percent of overall gun crimes lets look at magazines on the other hand. Since you didn't read my link I will give you the facts.

The average number of rounds fired in the course of a criminal shooting involving a semiautomatic pistol is between 3.2 and 3.7 rounds. This falls well below the arbitrary 10 round limit imposed during the AWB and is even less than the capacity of an ordinary revolver. If the average rounds fired during a crime is around 3.5 then how would a limit on magazines do anything to curb violent crime? While there is no clear statistic that shows the percentage of illegally obtained guns that were used in crimes, most crimes are committed with illegal guns. Therefore your legislation is not going to do anything to curb crime since criminals don't follow laws. Your legislation only limits the extent to which law abiding citizens can defend themselves against criminals who will be more heavily armed. Once again your solutions make us less safe and less armed.

You ask for stats and when I give them to you, you reject their validity. Clearly a case of Confirmation Bias at its finest.

If the Assault Weapons Ban is not a proposed solution to mass shootings then what is the point of banning them? There is no logic behind banning a gun that is used in .20 percent of violent crimes? GIVE ME ONE GOOD REASON!!!! There is no justification for the public servant police to be more heavily armed than the law abiding public they serve, unless the government's intention is to be more powerful than the people. While I am not asking to have Automatic Weapons and Grenade Launchers, banning Semi-Automatic weapons is the beginning step to ultimate gun confiscation at the hands of the Anti-Gun Legislators aka Feinstein and Schumer.

It blows my mind to think that you can blame the gun as the source of the

problem. There is murder and violent crime across the globe, guns or

no guns. The US is 1st in gun ownership but is 28th in gun homicide.

We have a societal problem not a gun one.

Please enlighten me as to how an Assault Weapons Ban or a Magazine limit is going to stop a criminal from committing a crime with a gun. The only way to reduce violent crime is by actually enforcing the laws on the books and making punishment more strict on criminals.

 
"actually enforcing the laws on the books and making punishment more strict on criminals." Strong gun control as well as banning assault rifles does not stop the proliferation of violent crime. I believe as a nation we have to further examine existing gun laws and address the plain fact that these laws in act are not being enforced. Besides, the assault rifle ban can only have a minute effect on total gun murders, as these banned weapons were involved in such a small fraction of the whole of gun murders. In any case, it seems that our governmnet is banning guns for a much differnet reason. They pass laws that allow drone strikes on US citizens with out the dire necessity of due process. If you are suspected of a terrorist, you could be killed. The government has purchased almost 30,000 drones to use in America. A havard graduate, advocated and infomed the masses that we are on the verge of an economical collapse as well and that it is inevitable. The governmnet is getting ready.Homeland sucurity also purched 1.6 billion, billion rounds of bullets. History is your friend.
 
Amen!

The founding fathers gave us the 2nd Amendment for a well armed militia to overthrow a tyrannical government. Passing legislation which allows drone strikes on US Citizens without due process and the purchasing of 1.6 Billion rounds of ammunition is an abuse of power and is setting up for something we don't know about. To give you some idea of how much that is during the height of the Iraq War the US Army was going through 6 million rounds/month. At that rate, 1.6 billion rounds is enough to sustain 6 million rounds/month for 20+ years on US soil. Our government is passing legislation extending their power over us but at the same time they are wanting to disarm US citizens through gun bans, and magazine limitation. A well armed militia is the only thing that can keep our government in check. Some are going to say "oh that could never happen to us here in America" Oh really? Check your history books.
 
So we should just roll over and do whatever the government says? Why should we accept that our own Government who is suppose to be serving We The People can legally blow you up with a drone if they feel you are a threat? You don't feel this is a bit outrageous?
 
You're not even talking about the point I was making.

But for what it's worth, yes, I do see a problem with it.
 
It is all inner connected. I am no shit disturber, I am just sick of gun grabbing legislators trying to hold me liable for some wack jobs shooting spree. Is there no accountability for your own actions in this country? Obviously not. People are the ones who are causing the violent crime, not the guns. Instead of addressing the real problem of people in society, we blame the guns that they are the source of the problem removing any accountability.

If you don't want to own a firearm, that's fine, then don't. Law abiding citizens shouldn't have their rights stripped because of the illegal actions of criminals and psychos.

I read your article and if complete gun bans work then shouldn't those countries have lower Murder rates? From the article posted below.

For example, Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western

Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate. In contrast, Holland's

murder rate is nearly the worst, despite having the lowest gun ownership

rate in Western Europe. Sweden and Denmark are two more examples of

nations with high murder rates but few guns.

http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/
 
The point I got from your post was US Citizens holding their bold action 30-06 or their Semi-Auto Rifle don't stand a chance against the weapons of the military Tanks Drones and other high powered weapons. Would we win? No. However my point was why should we do nothing about our government overstepping its boundaries?
 
I exercise my right to vote, however I never thought it could come this far. I support candidates such as Rand Paul who bring these issues to light but unfortunately there aren't enough good politicians to vote for who see a problem with this, otherwise it would've never passed.
 
I don't really think anybody is saying we should ban all guns. I've shot a couple guns over my life and they are fun. I also dont think anybody's saying we need A gun to keep the government in check. that is also wrong that's not why you need it gun. However there is a huge problem in America that you can just walk into a store wait 10 days and come out with a gun. I think we need to regulate it a little more because right now the laws are way too easy and not enforced. That seems to be the real problem at hand. Banning all guns won't fix the problem but allowing everybody to have a gun won't fix it either.
 
I think there should be a waiting period. Im not sure how many dudes rage, buy a gun then fuck shit up in the span of an hour but im sure it happens. Id be more than happy to wait a few days to prevent an incident like that.

Thats about the only gun law i would change. That and Id also like a moonraker
 
Exactly, multitudes of individuals are uniformed and choose not to look at what's occurring behind their backs. They amply accept the spewing of biased information imposed by the MSM. In any case, people need to be aware of what is about to come whether it be 2 years, whether it be 10 years, history tends to repeat itself and the government is getting ready for something big and brutal. The facts are all there, it is just a matter of accepting them. . People nowadays do not want to genuinely gain knowledge of something but would rather obtain answers immediately without any extent of thought, hence tell-lie-visions. This ideology is further and further becoming implanted in today’s society, one reason why is because we can obtain answers immediately, and will keep doing so as technology modernizes. Likewise, many individuals watch the news to obtain answers rapidly and of short time believing it so because of a hypothetical acceptance that the liberal agenda is better than that of the conservative agenda or vice versa. The real enemies are our own government. They are disarming us, passing unconstitutional laws that create a power-hungary government. Moreover, the Rothschild family is slowly but surely having their Central banks established in every country of this world, giving them incredible amount of wealth and power. I believe JFK informed the public about these dangerous entities, however he was later assassinated. Nevertheless, in a couple of years the economy will implode, and 99% of population could live in poverty, as it is statistically possible and is happening at this very moment. The federal reserve has to be wiped off the face of this planet, they control America and they are destroying this beautiful world. Just remember history tends to repeat itself and never trust the MSM. If the story changes a dozen times, don't rust it. If the MSM knows most details about a story minutes after it happened, don't trust it. If obvious questions are not answered and people ridicule you for questioning , oppose it.
 
Guns allow civilians to stand a fighting chance. Imagine how different the Holocaust could've been had the Jews had access to firearms to form a militia.
 
and imagine if the Polish, Belgians, Dutch, French, Luxembourgers, Russians, and British all had firearms and militias.

 
Did Hitler ban gun ownership?

June 16, 2000

Dear Straight Dope:

I've seen references to, and bumper stickers stating, that Hitler took all the guns away from law abiding Germans in 1936. The inference is that this led to the disarming of the populace and its fall into a dictatorship. I've read extensively about the Third Reich and have never seen a mention of this. Did he effect total gun control in Germany, or is this a bit of modern fiction to lend weight to the gun-lover crowd?

— John Greenwood, Jacksonville, Florida

The quote you are talking about is something along the lines of the following:

This year will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!

The reference is usually given as a speech by Adolf Hitler--alternatively, some say it was in Mein Kampf, but that is easily checkable and proven false--with citation information as follows (all parenthetical material in the original):

"Abschied vom Hessenland!" ["Farewell to Hessia!"], ['Berlin Daily' (Loose English Translation)], April 15th, 1935, Page 3 Article 2, Einleitung Von Eberhard Beckmann [Introduction by Eberhard Beckmann].

I've seen this quote pop up many times, from political discussions to gun shows, where a friend told me he'd found it emblazoned on signs. I don't think anybody knows the origin of it, but several have tracked it back and found it to be completely false.

The talk.politics.guns FAQ (http://rkba.org/research/rkba.faq), which is pro-gun, includes a number of such false quotes in its "Pious Frauds" section and, to its credit, refutes them. The discussion there is based in large part on research done by Clayton Cramer for his book, Firing Back (currently out of print). Cramer is also a gun supporter, making his work in this area highly credible--and creditable.

The FAQ entry, which is duplicated in the archive of urbanlegends.com (http://www.urbanlegends. com/politics/hitler_gun_control.html), notes the main problems with the supposed quote. First, the quote itself has changed over the years. Some versions start by saying, "This year will go down in history!" Others say, "1935 will go down in history!" (The former still has a 1935 date attached as a supposed reference.) That, in and of itself, doesn't prove anything, but it's a warning sign.

Another warning sign is the way the citation is generally messed up. The reference date isn't even close to a major public speech by Hitler. Furthermore, the texts of Hitler's various speeches have been checked, and no sign of this quote can be found.

An examination of the Berliner Tageblatt (reasonably close to "Berlin Daily") for the cited date shows that the page referred to was the paper's arts and culture page. There was no reference to a Hitler speech anywhere in the paper that day, or on days close to it.

The name given, Eberhard Beckmann, doesn't seem to correspond to anybody who was in a position to write introductions of this nature. While a person of that name was found, and he did indeed write introductions, said introductions were for photography books and he worked for a German broadcaster after World War II.

OK, so the quote and cite are screwed up. What about the supposed law itself? Well, as described in the FAQ, 1935 "has no correlation with any legislative effort by the Nazis for gun registration." (Nor, for that matter, does 1936, the year you mention in your question.) Indeed, there was no need for the Nazis to pass a law like that, because the earlier Weimar government had already passed gun registration laws. When I asked Cramer about his research, he said, "The laws adopted by the Weimar Republic intended to disarm Nazis and Communists were sufficiently discretionary that the Nazis managed to use them against their enemies once they were in power." In other words, they didn't need to pass additional laws. The Nazis did pass a weapons law in 1938, but that only added restrictions to the previous law, especially for Jews and other "non-citizens."

Cramer also told me that since the publication of Firing Back, the quote has morphed again (more indication of it being an urban legend, not reality) and now has a more detailed date and location cite. He asked a friend in Germany to check out this new (mis)information. As we might have expected, the quote was not to be found.

Cramer further noted that although gun control laws helped the Nazis suppress political dissidents and round up German Jews for extermination, "they weren't the major part of the process." Later, when they invaded Eastern Europe, Cramer says the Nazis did indeed benefit from the inability of their victims to fight back. But that is tangential to the (un)reality of this quote.

Some gun proponents like this quote because it compares current gun control attempts to those of the Nazis. But as the pro-gun FAQ cited above freely concedes, "This quotation, however effective it may be as propaganda, is a fraud." Instead of propagating a falsehood, Cramer says he encourages people to read a book by Jews for Preservation of Firearms Ownership on "the curious parallels between the U.S. Gun Control Act of 1968 and the 1938 Nazi weapons control law." But that's another issue altogether.

(Anybody who is interested may find Mr. Cramer's web site at http://www.ggnra.org/cramer/.)

FURTHER THOUGHTS

It occurred to me, with the help of a sharp-eyed member of the Teeming Millions, that I didn't completely answer this question, but instead focused on the part about the quote. I did this because the quote had been circulating for so long and provoked Mr. Greenwood's question. However, he and the Teeming Millions deserve a fuller answer.

Most of the answer can already be found above. Hitler didn't need to impose gun control because gun laws were already in effect (ironically, those original laws were in part designed to disarm the Nazis). Gun control helped the Nazis keep weapons out of the hands of their enemies, but as Cramer notes, it wasn't a major factor in Hitler's success.

That said, and a bit tangential to this question (but I'd hate to leave something out AGAIN), Cramer says the Nazis did benefit significantly from gun control in Eastern Europe in terms of "the inability of their victims to fight back." He cites The Holocaust, a book by Leni Yahil (translated by Ina Friedman and Haya Galai, Oxford University Press, 1990), which has a chapter discussing armed resistance by Jews, including rebellions with just a few firearms and a lot of courage. In addition, he talks about Israel Guttman's book, Resistance: The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, which discusses the difficulty the Jews faced in obtaining weapons.

Cramer believes that "if the population of Eastern Europe were as well armed as the average American, the Nazis would have lost much of their military capacity attempting to implement the Holocaust." I'm not sure I'd go that far, but it's certainly difficult to have an uprising without weapons.

What about Germany proper? According to a review by David B. Kopel of the book Lethal Laws, by Jay Simkin, Aaron Zelman, & Alan M. Rice, and available from Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, the law already in place required a permit to obtain guns or ammunition, and another to carry a gun. (This was not the book referenced by Cramer above--that one is Gun Control: Gateway to Tyranny, J.E. Simkin & A. Zelman, 1992, also available from JPFO.) Guns were required to have serial numbers, and anybody owning one without a serial number had to have one stamped on it. Permitting was mostly left up to the police. Permits were only given to people of "undoubted reliability" who demonstrated a "need" for a gun. The law made it easy for Hitler to make sure his opponents couldn't get permits and thus had no access to firearms.

Did gun control, then, pave the way for the Nazi rise to power? If guns had been readily available, would the people have risen against their oppressors? That seems dubious. The Nazis had a great deal of popular support. Much of their campaign of intimidation involved old-fashioned strongarm tactics, not guns. Had opponents of the regime been armed, and had there been a tradition of armed resistance in Germany, the Nazis might have had a tougher time of it. But that gets us into a pretty speculative realm.

When the Nazis enacted their own law in 1938, they added restrictions aimed at Jews, such as not allowing Jews to work in any business involving guns. They also prohibited those under eighteen from buying guns, added yet another permit for handguns, and banned silencers and small hollow-point ammunition. Of course, Nazi officials were exempted from all gun permits. Later that year, after "Kristallnacht," Hitler forbade Jews to possess pretty much any weapons.

To summarize, Hitler did "effect total gun control," but only for the Jews, and only after his regime had been in power for several years. For the rest of the population he relied on laws already in place.

To focus exclusively on gun control is to lose sight of the larger picture. The Nazis controlled EVERYTHING. If you went through the Bill of Rights you'd find that most of them were abridged in Hitler's Germany. Did the loss of one particular right have more impact than the others? That's a question we here at the Mailbag can't answer. I doubt anybody can.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1791/did-hitler-ban-gun-ownership
 
Of course we aren't exempt, but when has a country with as many checks and balances in its government system ever been overthrown by a dictator? The reason our government is so often so ineffective and slow is because of all the measures put in place to ensure that no one person will ever get enough power to bring our democracy down.
 
Sure we do have a lot of checks and balances but where is our right to Due Process in being blown up by a drone? This drone legislation combo'ed with gun control that doesn't address the real issue of stricter punishment on criminals. However, just because we have checks and balances doesn't mean we couldn't see the government over stepping their boundaries (which they are). If the checks and balances were enough to stop the government from becoming too powerful then the founders wouldn't have included the second amendment.
 
I never said for the entire German Population, I said imagine if the JEWS had access to firearms in Germany during Hitler's regime.
 
Yeah and we're not exempt from an alien invasion but that doesn't make your "point" any less pointless. It's scary the number of politicians that use the logic of, "this CAN happen to you!" in order to fear monger people to do what they want.

So let me ask you, what's more of a threat to freedom; not having assault weapons because of an imaginary president that want's to start a genocide of... whoever, or a political party that uses baseless claims and fallacies in order to create fear among the people so they act accordingly to the party's wishes?

 
You want to compare an alien invasion to the history of tyrannical governments in the world? I honestly cannot believe you are trying to make that comparison to aliens which exist only on the SciFi channel.

It is people like you who shouldn't be voting because you are unable to use a drop of common sense, or maybe you never had any to begin with. I guess possessing the right to safely own an AR-15 is so much more of a threat than our own government purchasing 30,000 drones and 1.6 Billion bullets to have against its own citizens is no threat, you are right.

What is it about banning AR-15's that gives you a hard on? You clearly have no experience with firearms otherwise you would be pursing banning shotguns because of the lethal damage they can cause close range where most of crime encounters happen. Should I remind you that a shotgun was used in Aurora but all you want to focus on is how little AR-15's are used that they must be the source of the problem.

Why can't we have a real discussion regarding gun control and that is holding criminals accountable for their actions with stricter sentences. This would be too easy though, and people aren't the source of the problem, guns must be because they load and pull the trigger themselves. Yep your right!
 
Many objects other than guns when misused can kill someone very easy, (guns, knives, bats, you get the idea). I understand your point that guns make it easy to kill someone if that is your intention, but lets be realistic if you have that bad of intentions your going to kill someone anyways, guns or not. If convicted murderers were given more punitive sentences (I personally) see the violent crime rates in the US dropping. Would they disappear, absolutely not, but criminals would (1) think twice if they knew they were going to prison for life if convicted (2) These people are off of the street not causing crime anymore (3) The people who help testify against criminals wouldn't have to worry about them coming for revenge if ever released.

I get your point that guns are dangerous if misused but so are cars if the driver is drunk and so is your girlfriend with a knife if she finds out you cheated on her, just kidding. All joking aside your never going to fix society so you might as well allow those who are good honest citizens to defend themselves against someone who wants to cause harm against them who are probably armed with an illegal firearm or weapon (Gun ban or not).

I find it interesting that when your in a dangerous situation or when trouble happens, you call the people with the guns to come protect you. Why not just bypass that step and protect yourself? Owning guns is a responsibility and people need to be held accountable for their actions. Because people are violent isn't a good enough reason for me to give up my right to own a firearm and I would rather assume the risk that a criminal could be armed because they usually are anyways (gun ban or not).
 
Are citizens being blown up by drones left and right? The founders included the second amendment because, at the time, there had never been a successful long standing democratic government before. They thought the checks an balances would be enough to stop the country falling back into an autocracy type of government, but no one had ever tried it before so they put the second amendment in just in case it turned out they were wrong.
 
I agree. But a lot of people seem to think the founders foresaw technology advancing the way it did. They seem to think that, because the founders didn't specify "muskets" that they were intentionally including things like tanks, fighter jets, and bombs.
 
No this was just a recently passed legislative bill but the fact that they still can doesn't make it ok. We elect officials to serve "We The People" not blow us up at their discretion.

Just because the weaponry has improved doesn't change the concept behind the 2nd Amendment.
 
I agree, I don't think it should have been passed, but it seems to be taking it a bit far to say that it is proof our government is secretly tyrannical.

You don't think it does? You think average citizens with no military training should be allowed access to tanks, fighter jets, and nuclear bombs?
 
actually this is a good point, i do think the citizens should have access to everything our government has access to in terms of weapons, if not more. BUT it would have to be through a militia, where all those weapons are controlled through the militia, citizens/soldiers would only have access to those weapons through the controlled environment of the militia. basically another branch of the military, but run by the people rather than government. i sure as hell would trust that over a government run military organization.
 
i personally believe the U.S. Americans are unable to do so because,somepeople out there in our nation don't have guns, and i believe that our education like such as South Africa and the Iraq everywhere like, such as and I believe that they should, our education over here in the U.S. should help the U.S.,should help South Africa and should help the Iraq and the Asian countries, so we will be able to build up our future for our country.

 
I am saying I don't like the direction our country is headed with all this drone legislation and gun control. I think the gun laws we currently have are appropriate I am in no way lobbing for Automatic Weapons to be legal for anyone to own. However if something is going to be done regarding gun violence its make penalties for criminals more strict. But regarding my take on the 2nd Amendment, there is nothing wrong with owning a Semi-Auto firearm.
 
But what about more dangerous weapons? Do you think there is a limit to what the public should have access to?
 
Without proper training and how many uneducated people there are in the world I don't think anyone should be able to own any weapon they choose. To own an Automatic Firearm you have to obtain a class III firearm license and go through extensive background checks, interviews etc and I feel the laws and background system we have works just fine. I don't think joe schmoe should be able to have a grenade launcher just because he feels like it, because if he does not know how to safely and properly use it he can accidentally cause tremendous harm.
 
Agreed. The problem is that the second amendment, the way it is currently written, makes it easy to argue that any laws preventing people from buying whatever weapons they want is unconstitutional. I think "arms" should be defined a little more specifically than it currently is.
 
Yeah but the chances of America becoming a tyranny, especially from something as fucking stupid as extended clips and assault weapons being banned. Being invaded by aliens is about as logical as saying Obama's administration is trying to turn us into Nazi occupied Germany, with death camps and all and that these laws are the first sign of that happening.

That's what you said when you tried making the point that the first thing Nazis did was take away all gun rights from the Jewish people so THAT must be what's happening now. You sound like fucking Rush Limbaugh.

And I'm not for one party or the other. I think if you're completely dedicated to one side or the other, you're an uneducated fuck.
 
One last thing... this is the best part of anything you've said so far, hahaha.. my god. OK... here we go.

You want to keep assault weapons and extended clips because you say the government is a major threat to us, the citizens of the government, because they purchased 30,000 drones and 1.6 billion bullets to have against it's own citizens (which isn't true at all but for now, let's assume it is), and you honestly believe having assault weapons and longer magazines is going to make you any safer??? If the government ever wanted you dead, you'd be fucking dead no matter what kind of guns you kept in your closet. They've taken down fucking countries with armies. What makes you think a stupid little militia of rednecks with AR-15s are going to do up against 30,000 fucking drones?

Again you're logic, a.k.a. every conservative pundit's logic, is so flawed that anything I read from you I HAVE to imagine it written in crayon. It's the only way for me to make sense of how someone could be such a fucking puppet.
 
The fact that you aren't a bit alarmed when legislation passes that says the government can blow you up at their discretion, and when they purchase 1.6 Billion rounds along with 30,000 drones to go along with that legislation, and you aren't asking why are they doing this? Pretty naive to me.

Its not true that the government purchased 1.6 Billion rounds? Really?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2013/03/11/1-6-billion-rounds-of-ammo-for-homeland-security-its-time-for-a-national-conversation/

I already addressed this topic in an earlier post but I will say it again. Could the US Citizens take down the military and that answer is unanimous no. I never claimed we could take them head on, nor should we. However the US Military is comprised of US citizens so I have a hard time seeing US soldiers taking orders to go attack their own citizens and actually following through on that. I would hope that could never happen but our society is pretty fucked as it is so who knows?

 
My 6th grade teacher was killed at newtown and my friend in my edits (ben, blue jacket) lives in newtown and ya'll are goin wayyyyy more crazy about this than we are.
 
Hahaha, there you go making assumptions again. I wasn't saying it wasn't true of how many rounds they were buying or drones, I've read the stories. I'm saying there's zero proof to back the assumption that it's for shooting our own people when they turn the country into a Nazi Germany. That's stupid and paranoid. Just because other people prefer to use logic based on facts instead of jumping to absurd conclusions and agreeing with you, that doesn't make them naive.

And there was zero legislation passed to allow the government to kill their own citizens on U.S. soil. That's what the major issue is currently. There is no due process or oversight, that I'm aware of right now, that details the regulations to which the government can use deadly force by drones. All we have is their word.

You are one uneducated and dense puppet. Maybe you should get the facts instead of taking everything the pundits or .com websites say at face value. That'll allow you to spend time on actual fucked up issues dealing with our government and not on ones derived from paranoia and the imaginations of lobbyists/politicians. All you're doing is fulfilling the wishes of the party you blindly follow which most of the time impedes on passing laws that are good for our country but bad for companies that will be affected by them.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top