An aviation student from Saudi Arabia sounds familiar for some reason.
I heard that about the Pearl story, so maybe there's some mix up in details.1 - a handgun was identified as the weapon used - the suspected shooter opened fire... with his M4 service rifle then used his M9 service pistol
You dance divinely, and your side-step is beautiful. You took Pipeline's comment about two very real issues and somehow construed it to mean he is only concerned about the 1%.
I don't see Trump doing anything about this.This won't end well. The shooter today was apparently a member of the Saudi military.
The second amendment isn't the problem. Nothing in it ....
<Bla bla and blather removed>
Mikeymikec brought up the 2A back in post #3, stating that shootings like these might be the price we have to pay for having the 2A. Kind of like a blood sacrifice, I think he said. Implying that we have blood on our hands for refusing to surrender our 2A rights, IMHO.Dude was Saudi military Lieutenant on a US military base, possibly acting on orders from home. What the farfegnugen has the second got to do with this story?
Mikeymikec brought up the 2A back in post #3, stating that shootings like these might be the price we have to pay for having the 2A. Kind of like a blood sacrifice, I think he said. Implying that we have blood on our hands for refusing to surrender our 2A rights, IMHO.
Sorry if I responded with too many words for you.
It's emotional posting 101.You should be sorry considering you had a meltdown and said you'd no longer respond at all on here because people refuse to act logical while you do everything you claim others do. I can't repeat what I told you back then but my feelings on your manner of posting about guns and the 2nd Amendment hasn't changed because you still do the same shenanigans while claiming its everyone else being irrational.
He likes the way they treat reporters.Why is Trump educating Wahabbi jihadis at US military schools? Did Kushner arrange this?
The second amendment isn't the problem. Nothing in it allows folks to commit murder. The fact that we have a "free" society where our constitution forbids the government from infringing on the natural right of the people to keep and bare arms is overall a good thing. The overwhelmingly vast majority of gun owners do so safely and legally, using their guns for hunting, sport shooting and self-defense. And, on the very remote chance of a tyrannical government, it gives the people the ability to at least fight back.
Unfortunately, there will always be a tiny minority who choose to do evil. They don't obey laws, including the vast number of current gun control laws already on the books. Proof of this is that the The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Act of 1994 (which prohibited the manufacture, transfer, or possession of semiautomatic assault weapons) expired on September 13, 2004 precisely because there was zero evidence that it did anything to reduce gun violence during it's 10 years in effect.
You can claim gun owners won't compromise, but we have a very long history of accepting gun control already. And when anti-gunners say "compromise" they really mean additional restrictions (leading to a complete ban on all guns if we get our way.) There is no compromise in the anti-gun agenda whatsoever.
But, say there was. Would you trade stricter background checks for nationwide concealed-carry reciprocity? Isn't the goal of stricter background checks to vet people who are safe to carry? If so, why not allow those we've vetted to carry nationwide? Or is the stricter, national background checks, which would require a national gun registry, just an excuse to create that registry?
The current background check is supposed to be "instantaneous" but it was agreed upon the last time we compromised that if there was no answer one way or the other given within 3 working days that the sale could proceed. This was to keep the government from dragging it's feet and defacto depriving citizens of their 2A rights without due process.
So, why are democrats today demanding that it be extended to give the FBI 10 working days to reply, then another 10 working days if you file a protest over no response? That's 20-21 business days the FBI can sit on your background check if they choose to do so, or are just too damn inefficient to get it done. Now, think, could it be that somewhere between seven and nine months in a year have fewer than 21 business days, and that after 30 days, including weekends, an application to purchase a gun expires and a buyer has to start over? If we "compromised" and allowed those laws it would in effect give the government the power to pocket veto every single gun sale.
And how about the compromise we agreed to when the age limit on handgun purchases was raised to 21. The compromise was that long guns age requirement would be left at 18 so those legal adults under 21 could enjoy their constitutional rights, too, but now age restrictions are going up to 21 for long guns in many states. And calls for national age restriction to be raised to 21 as well.
And how about the National Firearms Act of 1934 when we gave up fully automatic weapons, short-barreled shotguns and a bunch of other stuff and were assured in the compromise that we could keep semi-auto weapons? Now we are being asked to give those up too. I can only assume that if anti-gunners outlaw semi-autos that they will be after revolvers, pump-shotguns and bolt action rifles next, as that fits their M.O. of pursuing a total ban in incremental steps.
And how about California Prop 63 which restricts the sale of ammunition to anyone who hasn't registered their weapon with the state and passes an additional $1-$19 eligibility check? What did California compromise to achieve that? And I'm sure California is so much safer for it now, as are all the states with the strictest gun control laws.
And what will the law abiding, gun owning public be asked to give up next if we agree to this round of "reasonable" gun restriction and they don't achieve the lofty goal of ending gun violence? Does the pro-gun control crowd have any concern for the 2A or the natural right of the law-abiding having the means to defend themselves? If your idea of compromise is that I give up some of my rights so that you let me keep the rest, all while ignoring the compromises of the past, all while knowing this is just the next step towards a complete ban, then I have to put my foot down and say "no."
Anti-gunners keep asking us to "compromise" but in the words of Inigo Montoya "I do not think that word means what you think it means."
Can't be God as the Ten Commandments tell us not to kill.Did God give it to us, or was that evolution?
Mikeymikec brought up the 2A back in post #3, stating that shootings like these might be the price we have to pay for having the 2A. Kind of like a blood sacrifice, I think he said. Implying that we have blood on our hands for refusing to surrender our 2A rights, IMHO.
Sorry if I responded with too many words for you.
Rights are referred to as "natural" or "god-given" specifically because they are supposed to be implicit and universal - not granted by any government, institution, or individual. That wording was intentional. If governments define what our rights are, governments can take them away.How is the right to own firearms a "natural" right? Did God give it to us, or was that evolution?
Rights are referred to as "natural" or "god-given" specifically because they are supposed to be implicit and universal - not granted by any government, institution, or individual. That wording was intentional. If governments define what our rights are, governments can take them away.
- not granted by any government, institution, or individual.
Maybe you didn't realize...Looks at 2nd amendment...- not granted by any government, institution, or individual.
Looks at post...
🤨
... this was a Saudi military attack against US military personnel on a US military base inside the US.Maybe you didn't realize...
Don't have one. Never had one. Never wanted one.... this was a Saudi military attack against US military personnel on a US military base inside the US.
Hush with your gun totin' hullabaloo.