You guys keep acting like a semi automatic rifle is the problem. Very, VERY few people are killed each year by so called "assault rifles". Will you anti-gunners feel better when we're burying the dead that were blown up by fertilizer bomb laden vehicles or handguns? You're misplacing your anger towards the tool, and banning it will achieve nothing, as similar "assault weapons" bans have achieved in the past. Once again, only law abiding citizens will lose rights, and the anti-gun left will cheer as we lose freedoms.
As previously mentioned "A well regulated militia" is the noun clause, by definition a subject.
"This is trivial to verify: A nominative absolute can be removed without affecting the sentence's grammatical correctness, whereas removing a noun clause renders the sentence ungrammatical. Let's see what happens:"
"being necessary to the security of a free state, ... ".
Also previously mentioned this is pedantry meant to highlight yours. The original subject/predicate illustration is a simplified analogy of relationships in a sentence; it makes no difference there to call it absolute/independent or predicate/subject instead except be unnecessarily confusing.
I'm sure you're glad the inconsequential parts are now resolved while nobody else has any idea wtf is going on.
It's not absolute. It's just unlikely in the extreme due to the nature of this government and the people it serves. Do you imagine the members of the military turning on the average people of this country willingly? Unwillingly?
When does caution tip the scales into paranoia? And where is the wisdom in channeling resources (time, money, etc.) into preparation for very unlikely events?
Do you have an asteroid bunker these days? Do you advise people to invest in those places that want to build and supply them for people?
It's not absolute. It's just unlikely in the extreme due to the nature of this government and the people it serves. Do you imagine the members of the military turning on the average people of this country willingly? Unwillingly?
When does caution tip the scales into paranoia? And where is the wisdom in channeling resources (time, money, etc.) into preparation for very unlikely events?
Do you have an asteroid bunker these days? Do you advise people to invest in those places that want to build and supply them for people?
Sigh.
Your logic is flawed.
Poor legislation is the reason the previous bans didn't achieve anything. It left enough loopholes that the gun industry drove new and adjusted guns to their customers right through them. A properly written ban on assault weapons could have actual impact.
The nonsense that criminals would still get them... has been covered many many times. If you dry up the supply demand will shift to other easier-to-get options, like handguns or shotguns. Those options are dramatically less likely to be used to kill 50 people inside of a few minutes by a crazy lone gunman.
The more impedance we add to those who want to carry out violence and terrorism, the less likely those acts will be carried out. People are rarely so determined to do anything that they will overcome a great number of barriers to their impulses.
Here's the thing. After the Oklahoma bombing its much harder and tracked who buys large amounts of fertilizer. Funny thing is like guns nearly everyone agreed something had to change it was too easy to build a big bomb. Things changed, can't make the same statement for guns.
It's not absolute. It's just unlikely in the extreme due to the nature of this government and the people it serves. Do you imagine the members of the military turning on the average people of this country willingly? Unwillingly?
It hasn't stopped you from channeling resources into restrictions designed ostensibly for the very unlikely event of mass shootings. Even people trying to make the mass shooting phenomenon seem as big as possible (see link below) came up with 869 dead in mass shootings since 1966, or 17 persons/year. If you plotted "mass shootings" in the tables of Leading Causes of Death it probably wouldn't reach the top 1,000 or maybe even 10,000th most frequent cause.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/mass-shootings-in-america/
That will happen when civilization crumbles and falls away. Being alive during that time period will be unpleasant in the extreme. It truly is silly trying to "prepare" for such a thing. It is beyond unlikely to occur in our lifetime barring an unimaginable catastrophe.
Ban all Gun shows and make people sell guns only through brick and mortar gun dealers with surveillance cameras.
Ban all Gun shows and make people sell guns only through brick and mortar gun dealers with surveillance cameras.
So the obvious thing to do is make guns illegal, got it.
Which knives do you approve for me to own? I really like my carving knife, but like my guns, it hasn't killed anyone, but in the name of public safety I should surrender it.
It may have not killed anything but has served it a single useful purpose for you? That is a serious question. If you didn't have a gun, how would that really affect your life? Would your life be less rich without a gun? Your happiness and contentment is really dependent on a gun? Doesn't that strike you as a little sad?
It may have not killed anything but has served it a single useful purpose for you? That is a serious question. If you didn't have a gun, how would that really affect your life? Would your life be less rich without a gun? Your happiness and contentment is really dependent on a gun? Doesn't that strike you as a little sad?
All the guns shows I've been in the Houston area only allow dealers with FFLs to be in the venue. They even patrol the parking lots to ensure no private sales are taking place.
All sales where I live are required to go through a background check, if your state doesn't do it, write your state representative.
There is no "gun show loophole" even in states that allow unregulated private sales.
So, have you sold your guns?
Got rid of my S&W Chiefs Special .45 caliber. The other two are hunting rifles. I will get rid of them when they pry my cold dead....... oops... actually I have no plans of getting rid of them. If the government requires me to get rid of them, I will. It will hurt a little because the Remington .700 is worth about $2k with the Leupold scope. It really is a magnificent gun.
The gun shows around here aren't like that. Maybe it is my state's laws, I don't know. I've seen and been part of private sales, two strangers exchange cash for a gun, no background check.
Got rid of my S&W Chiefs Special .45 caliber. The other two are hunting rifles. I will get rid of them when they pry my cold dead....... oops... actually I have no plans of getting rid of them. If the government requires me to get rid of them, I will. It will hurt a little because the Remington .700 is worth about $2k with the Leupold scope. It really is a magnificent gun.
Since you seem to not be a very big fan of guns and I live close to you, I'll be happy to take that off your hands so you can have a safer gun free home.
It's not absolute. It's just unlikely in the extreme due to the nature of this government and the people it serves. Do you imagine the members of the military turning on the average people of this country willingly? Unwillingly?
When does caution tip the scales into paranoia? And where is the wisdom in channeling resources (time, money, etc.) into preparation for very unlikely events?
Do you have an asteroid bunker these days? Do you advise people to invest in those places that want to build and supply them for people?