In a country where folks do not have the right to own guns, talk of gun ownership and the effects of increase, is moot.Hobbes' Choice wrote: ↑Sun Oct 08, 2017 9:17 pmhttps://www.facebook.com/68423381833753 ... =3&theater
Obviously what we want is a lot more guns
Re: Obviously what we want is a lot more guns
- vegetariantaxidermy
- Posts: 13983
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
- Location: Narniabiznus
Re: Obviously what we want is a lot more guns
That doen't mean anything. Please translate.Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Oct 09, 2017 7:51 amvegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Oct 08, 2017 10:36 pm And what about that thing those idiots love to say, 'guns don't kill people, people kill people'. No, but guns make it a heck of a lot easier. 'Nuclear bombs don't kill people--it's the people who drop them that kill people'.
Frankly I don't give a rat's arse what their gun laws are. The more the merrier
Ok. So this is considered normal in the ' home of the deranged and land of the intellect-free':
https://vimeo.com/201901344
Right.
Weapons are necessary but not sufficient for weapons to kill people.
Human killers and weapons are together necessary and sufficient for killing by means of weapons.
The minds of many Americans are passive victims of NRA propaganda.
Re: Obviously what we want is a lot more guns
That's exactly what it says with the phrase, "Shall not be infringed."vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Oct 08, 2017 6:22 pm Oh please. The constitution doesn't even say that. In fact it's pretty difficult to decipher exactly WHAT it's saying. It certainly doesn't look to me like it's saying every individual can own as many guns as they want, plus, their definition of a gun is hardly comparable to the tools for mass murder that you idiots collect like other people collect dolls and coins. And when was it written? You might as well say that because cavemen did something then it's ok for us to do it too.
With the constitution as the basis of legality, if one has the means, one can own a tank.
*
Guns are now restricted by regulation, not law.
Changing the constitution is the only way to legally ban guns.
Propaganda is likely the only way to change the constitution and ban guns, since the rules are so stringent about the consensus of agreement.
However, in this day and age, we don’t need no stinking rules.
The last presidential election, where Hillary Clinton rigged the primaries to defeat Bernie Sanders, is proof of that.
Without rules, desire is sufficient rationale, and in an age of granting all desires for oneself, if the rules prevent what we want, then the rules are wrong.
- vegetariantaxidermy
- Posts: 13983
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
- Location: Narniabiznus
Re: Obviously what we want is a lot more guns
As far as I can tell, it means a collective--not individuals. That said, I don't actually care. Have all the guns y'all want. Why should anyone else give a shit?Walker wrote: ↑Mon Oct 09, 2017 9:24 amThat's exactly what it says with the phrase, "Shall not be infringed."vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Oct 08, 2017 6:22 pm Oh please. The constitution doesn't even say that. In fact it's pretty difficult to decipher exactly WHAT it's saying. It certainly doesn't look to me like it's saying every individual can own as many guns as they want, plus, their definition of a gun is hardly comparable to the tools for mass murder that you idiots collect like other people collect dolls and coins. And when was it written? You might as well say that because cavemen did something then it's ok for us to do it too.
With the constitution as the basis of legality, if one has the means, one can own a tank.
*
Guns are now restricted by regulation, not law.
Changing the constitution is the only way to legally ban guns.
Propaganda is likely the only way to change the constitution and ban guns, since the rules are so stringent about the consensus of agreement.
However, in this day and age, we don’t need no stinking rules.
The last presidential election, where Hillary Clinton rigged the primaries to defeat Bernie Sanders, is proof of that.
Without rules, desire is sufficient rationale, and in an age of granting all desires for oneself, if the rules prevent what we want, then the rules are wrong.
''A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people (not 'persons') to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.''
Re: Obviously what we want is a lot more guns
Sorry. It takes both weapons and people to kill people. The National Rifle Association, the American gun lobby, is economically and politically powerful and its propaganda appeals to many religionists.vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Mon Oct 09, 2017 9:23 amThat doen't mean anything. Please translate.Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Oct 09, 2017 7:51 amvegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Oct 08, 2017 10:36 pm And what about that thing those idiots love to say, 'guns don't kill people, people kill people'. No, but guns make it a heck of a lot easier. 'Nuclear bombs don't kill people--it's the people who drop them that kill people'.
Frankly I don't give a rat's arse what their gun laws are. The more the merrier
Ok. So this is considered normal in the ' home of the deranged and land of the intellect-free':
https://vimeo.com/201901344
Right.
Weapons are necessary but not sufficient for weapons to kill people.
Human killers and weapons are together necessary and sufficient for killing by means of weapons.
The minds of many Americans are passive victims of NRA propaganda.
- vegetariantaxidermy
- Posts: 13983
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
- Location: Narniabiznus
Re: Obviously what we want is a lot more guns
Ok?Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Oct 09, 2017 10:16 amSorry. It takes both weapons and people to kill people. The National Rifle Association, the American gun lobby, is economically and politically powerful and its propaganda appeals to many religionists.
Re: Obviously what we want is a lot more guns
Not as powerful as the talking-point asserts, when money talks, as the graphics show.Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Oct 09, 2017 10:16 amSorry. It takes both weapons and people to kill people. The National Rifle Association, the American gun lobby, is economically and politically powerful and its propaganda appeals to many religionists.
Interesting to see who is buying influence.
- vegetariantaxidermy
- Posts: 13983
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
- Location: Narniabiznus
Re: Obviously what we want is a lot more guns
The NRA doesn't need to, the arms manufacturers pay for it. And good acountants can easily hide/disguise funding. I have no idea what most of the other acronyms are.Walker wrote: ↑Mon Oct 09, 2017 5:03 pmNot as powerful as the talking-point asserts, when money talks, as the graphics show.
Interesting to see who is buying influence.
- Hobbes' Choice
- Posts: 8364
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am
Re: Obviously what we want is a lot more guns
Obscene.vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Oct 08, 2017 10:36 pm
Ok. So this is considered normal in the ' home of the deranged and land of the intellect-free':
https://vimeo.com/201901344
- Hobbes' Choice
- Posts: 8364
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am
Re: Obviously what we want is a lot more guns
So keep your musket, that takes 45secs to reload, your bow n' arrows and your sword.Walker wrote: ↑Mon Oct 09, 2017 9:24 amThat's exactly what it says with the phrase, "Shall not be infringed."vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Oct 08, 2017 6:22 pm Oh please. The constitution doesn't even say that. In fact it's pretty difficult to decipher exactly WHAT it's saying. It certainly doesn't look to me like it's saying every individual can own as many guns as they want, plus, their definition of a gun is hardly comparable to the tools for mass murder that you idiots collect like other people collect dolls and coins. And when was it written? You might as well say that because cavemen did something then it's ok for us to do it too.
But i think you might want to grow up and smell the coffee as they say in the land of the stupid.
- vegetariantaxidermy
- Posts: 13983
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
- Location: Narniabiznus
Re: Obviously what we want is a lot more guns
''A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people (not 'persons') to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.''
Where does it say that every individual can arm themselves as they please? Do you know what 'militia' means? Do you know what 'the people' means? If they meant individuals they would have written 'every man', in the style of the day.
- Hobbes' Choice
- Posts: 8364
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am
Re: Obviously what we want is a lot more guns
The men that wrote that were British intellectuals. The people that read it now are morons from the world's foremost idiocracy.vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Mon Oct 09, 2017 8:14 pm''A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people (not 'persons') to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.''
Where does it say that every individual can arm themselves as they please? Do you know what 'militia' means? Do you know what 'the people' means? If they meant individuals they would have written 'every man', in the style of the day.
You can't expect them do understand subtlety.
- vegetariantaxidermy
- Posts: 13983
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
- Location: Narniabiznus
Re: Obviously what we want is a lot more guns
Interesting.
''Winkler, the UCLA professor, said that during the 1970s, a “revolt among the membership profoundly altered the NRA overnight. Since the 1930s, the group had supported restrictions on machine guns and public carry, but angry hardliners took control over the organization in 1977, when moderates wanted to retreat from lobbying work. The group then began a decades-long campaign to popularize its uncompromising positions.''
''Winkler, the UCLA professor, said that during the 1970s, a “revolt among the membership profoundly altered the NRA overnight. Since the 1930s, the group had supported restrictions on machine guns and public carry, but angry hardliners took control over the organization in 1977, when moderates wanted to retreat from lobbying work. The group then began a decades-long campaign to popularize its uncompromising positions.''
Re: Obviously what we want is a lot more guns
Folks have the right to bear arms, but not only for hunting foxes with the hounds, which is a rather bloodthirsty pastime from jolly old England, and hardly sporting.Hobbes' Choice wrote: ↑Mon Oct 09, 2017 8:23 pm The men that wrote that were British intellectuals. The people that read it now are morons from the world's foremost idiocracy.
You can't expect them do understand subtlety.
The meaning of the Constitution is be interpreted in light of the Declaration of Independence.
Whims of fashion or PC don’t interpret the Constitution.
Or, at least they should not.
What’s all the hubbub, anyway?
Just change the Constitution according to the rules.
Thinking outside the box is a loaded weapon when applied to morons or idiots, to borrow labels from your powers of reasoning.
Re: Obviously what we want is a lot more guns
Simple question:
Why did the murderer take so many guns up to the suite?
Why did the murderer take so many guns up to the suite?