Your paranoia is not my problem.In liberal-speak, "some" always means "all". You can't trust the left to put restrictions on my right to defend myself.
Your paranoia is not my problem.In liberal-speak, "some" always means "all". You can't trust the left to put restrictions on my right to defend myself.
You couldn't be bothered to specify the thread -- expecting me to go hunting for it instead. It sounds like you're the one being lazy.Try guns are a cultural issue lazy man
You don't, perhaps, but a nearly total ban is certainly the goals of the Violence Policy Center, which would be the NRA's counterpoint if the VPC had anything like the grass roots support of the NRA.I don't want an outright ban, so the premise of your question is false right off the bat. As for what would prevent what happened in Vegas, I'm not sure we can say in certain terms.... it's more of a probabilistic question. What's the over/under death toll for an attack like that? That's going to depend on the weapons used. If a future attacker of that sort finds it harder to get his hands on an automatic weapon (or a device for making a semi-automatic have an effective rate of fire similar to an automatic), then the likely death toll goes down. If a future attacker of that sort finds it easier to get his hands on something allowing an even deadlier attack (e.g., a light machine gun, or -- possibly -- a suppressor), then the likely death toll goes up. The regulations we choose won't make future mass killings impossible. But they will alter frequencies and probable death tolls.
Some are. But most criminals aren't particularly ingenious or motivated. They're low-IQ, low-motivation types. So, it's about playing the odds. Why are murder rates so much lower in other wealthy nations than in the US? Why are mass shootings so much less common? Certainly attacks can and do happen no matter how hard it is to get your hands on guns (or on automatic weapons, or whatever level of massively destructive arms you care to name). But the easier you make it, the more such incidents you'll see. The difficulty acts as a filter. Some stuff will make it through the filter, but some stuff won't.If a future attacker can't get semiautos, he'll modify something else, or use IEDs. Unfortunately, the essential elements of the universe are volatile, and the violently insane are ingenious.
Thankfully, the Bill of Rights exists to protect us from people like you.Some are. But most criminals aren't particularly ingenious or motivated. They're low-IQ, low-motivation types. So, it's about playing the odds. Why are murder rates so much lower in other wealthy nations than in the US? Why are mass shootings so much less common? Certainly attacks can and do happen no matter how hard it is to get your hands on guns (or on automatic weapons, or whatever level of massively destructive arms you care to name). But the easier you make it, the more such incidents you'll see. The difficulty acts as a filter. Some stuff will make it through the filter, but some stuff won't.
Question: What's the square root of negative one?
Answer: A Trump voter who isn't sub-human scum.
You mean you forgot?You couldn't be bothered to specify the thread -- expecting me to go hunting for it instead. It sounds like you're the one being lazy.
As I said before but you refuse to comprehend:I see the problem.
↑
How about banning SOME weapons?
That's OK.
So...you see the word some and read all.
. No. If you told me which thread and then I didn’t know, that would be forgetting. If you were simply too lazy to specify it in the first place, there was nothing to forget. Obviously.You mean you forgot?
Once they have finished their sentence, let them do what they want. They do anyway....So, would you agree to any infringements on the right to bear arms? For example, it is OK to deny prisoners access to firearms? Is it OK for government to have rules preventing private ownership of nuclear arms?
How about while they’re in prison? Is it Ok for the government to infringe on the right of an individual to keep and bear arms in prison?Once they have finished their sentence, let them do what they want. They do anyway....
Who gave the gov't the right to tell someone they can't own one? Show me where we the people signed over that authority.
Yes. That's how you keep them there.How about while they’re in prison? Is it Ok for the government to infringe on the right of an individual to keep and bear arms in prison?
How about when a known terrorist enters the country? Is it okay for the government to infringe on the right of a terrorist to keep and bear arms?How about while they’re in prison? Is it Ok for the government to infringe on the right of an individual to keep and bear arms in prison?
Many freedoms are forfeited when one is incarcerated.How about while they’re in prison? Is it Ok for the government to infringe on the right of an individual to keep and bear arms in prison?
The remote control for instance....Many freedoms are forfeited when one is incarcerated.
I hear they don't allow pizza deliveries, either.The remote control for instance....
You just have to pay off the guards on shift, but that will be one damned expensive pizza. Now the TV room, they keep the remote in the guard pod.... because guys will shank you over that shit.I hear they don't allow pizza deliveries, either.
I don't know if this is true or not, but a friend who has been inside told me a carton of cigarettes grosses $5,000 inside. One cigarette becomes five, each going for $5. I bet there's a few guards happy with this system. How could the guards not be get getting at least $500 to $1,000 for a carton?You just have to pay off the guards on shift, but that will be one damned expensive pizza. Now the TV room, they keep the remote in the guard pod.... because guys will shank you over that shit.
Just establishing that we all agree that it's Ok for the government to infringe on the individual right to keep and bear arms in some ways. The disagreements come with the details -- which particular infringements are OK and which aren't.Yes. That's how you keep them there.
Duh....
I know what they meant. They meant to prevent the growth of a standing army, by instead ensuring that white men would be able to arm themselves with muskets, so that the states would be able to have well-regulated militias to defend them. They were legislating for a different era. Translating that to the modern era is where things get problematic.Put your thinking cap on and try to figure out what the founders meant
Not really, because a loss of freedom is the sentence in the case of a prisoner. What gives gov't or anyone else the authority to restrict the rights of free men?Just establishing that we all agree that it's Ok for the government to infringe on the individual right to keep and bear arms in some ways. The disagreements come with the details -- which particular infringements are OK and which aren't.