The solution is to arm every person in America

[Tumah]

To arm every person?? Seems expensive.

 

[jeager106]

Who in the $ell said to arm every person in the U.S.?
Just don't violate the right to have and keep arms.
(by responsible & law abiding)

 

[BSM1]

Small detail this, but he instructs people to turn the other cheek. He is the 'god of love' after all. In the old testament several times it refers to turning swords into plowshares.

On the other hand the god of the old testament was a violent tyrant who ordered mass genocide multiple times. So calling on him as the arbiter of all things violent could go either way.

He also instructed his disciples to "...sell their packs and buy a sword..." before they took to the road. Ostensibly for personal protection.

 

[tytlyf]

Who in the $ell said to arm every person in the U.S.?
Just don't violate the right to have and keep arms.
(by responsible & law abiding)

Isn't that what you want? Every good guy with a gun that can pass a background check gets a gun. This way the US will be safer when the good guys outnumber the bad guys. Crime will drop too due to more guns carried by law-abiding citizens.

 

[Underhill]

He also instructed his disciples to "...sell their packs and buy a sword..." before they took to the road. Ostensibly for personal protection.

Sure, and 2000 years ago that may have been good advice. I might have told people in the old west something similar.

But we don't live in the old west.

 

[jeager106]

Isn't that what you want? Every good guy with a gun that can pass a background check gets a gun. This way the US will be safer when the good guys outnumber the bad guys. Crime will drop too due to more guns carried by law-abiding citizens.

Absolutely NOT!
What a ridiculous notion and beneath your intelligence to post such drivel!
( I hope!)

Almost NO ONE that I know who owns guns carries guns.
The FEW gun owners that carry are ones the passed safety tests, written tests about
when one should use the thing and most important when NOT to use it.
*ell I don't even carry any longer though I can due to my status as retired police.
I DON'T WANT TO HURT ANYONE. NOT EVER!
That said how could I become a victim or let some innocent become a victim
of violent crime when I have an obligation and duty and training, to use that kind
of force is absolutely necessary.
That said I have a handgun, well, er, ah, handy, if the need to use one arises.
I don't want to. I'd rather run away if I could.
But I'll be damned if I'll let innocents suffer at the hands of some miscreant intent
bent upon being the doer of evil deeds.
Mind you I'm one who has seen everything that should never happen to anyone that
happened anyway.
Anyone that chooses to carry a concealed weapon had better do so legally and be
aware of the tremendous responsibility doing so carries.
A Temple Hills, Md., couple was fast asleep early in the morning when their dog alerted them to the presence of an intruder. Grabbing a handgun, the male resident went to investigate. When he encountered the burglar, the armed citizen fired at the thief, striking him at least once. The suspect was taken to a nearby hospital with non-life-threatening wounds to his legs. The residents were not harmed. (wusa9.com, Washington D.C., 1/13/16)

In Fort Fairfield, Maine, Mrs. Otis Flannery woke her husband, grabbed a Luger pistol and ran across the street to their store where they surprised two burglars. At gunpoint, Mrs. Flannery forced the pair to lie on the floor until a policeman arrived to take them away to jail. When she discovered two accomplices in a nearby getaway car, they attempted to flee at her approach, but halted and surrender when she fired the gun at them. Mrs. Flannery then held the gun on her two new prisoners and called the police again. (Fort Fairfield Review, Fort Fairfield, ME)

There are literally hundreds of stories such as this one where a legally armed person
stopped a crime and held the criminals for police.
Hundreds.
The liberal media wouldn't dare report these things now would they?

 

[4consideration]

Many have presented this idea, do you think it will work? A $100 billion dollar bill is being needed to make sure people who can't afford guns get a subsidy to make sure they can go buy a gun. The only requirements is to pass a background check.

If you have no criminal history, you qualify. We can't take any chances and we've seen all too often that there isn't a good guy with a gun to stop the bad guy. This will fix that. Additionally, crime rates will drop tremendously due to more good guys outnumbering the bad.

Should this bill pass?

No, it shouldn't pass. It's a dumb idea. Everybody does not want to own a gun. They should not be forced to, even when they are law abiding citizens, of legal age. I support the right to. I do not support a requirement to.

If you believe consenting adults have the right to have sex with whoever they want, does that mean you think the government should force them to have sex? (I'm not sure whether or not you believe people have the right to have sex with whoever they want. I'm just using an example of something I think other people have a right to do, that I also think would be terrible to force on them if they didn't want it.)

Where do you draw the line between thinking someone has a right to chose to do something, or chose not to -- and deciding it's ok to force someone to do something?

 

[Revoltingest]

Who in the $ell said to arm every person in the U.S.?
Just don't violate the right to have and keep arms.
(by responsible & law abiding)

I suppose someone somewhere had said such a thing.
So it doesn't matter that no one here supports it.
It's an easy straw position to attack.

 

[oldbadger]

You live in England where the citizens aren't trusted even with knives.

The U.S. has gun culture and a 2nd Amendment.....
?

I know when you're on the ropes, 'cos you change the subject and start chucking bricks about!
We know all about your Constitution, but you've lost machineguns in most states, and silencers and if the US voters get fed up with mass killings where semiauto's were bought legally, then I afraid you've had your chips. Could be time to buy a bow an arrow soon!!

 

[oldbadger]

I live in the U.S. of God bless America A.
Our forefathers over thew and oppressive government and paid a price in
freedom loving BLOOD to rid the "colonies" of oppression.

View attachment 13425

British involvement in the transatlantic slave trade was, until very recently, a subject often brushed under the carpet. The idea of thousands of African slaves passing through British ports in abject conditions remains unpalatable to most but, according to James Walvin, professor emeritus of history at the University of York, the fact remains that the Caribbean and north African slave trade of the 18th century was effectively a British creation.

Still want to condemn and point fingers at the U.S. of A.?
Having a bit of trouble with a real FREE country are ya?

we ain't pointing fingers. Your own voters are doing that now.
Time to buy a pea shooter for you! ☺

 

[oldbadger]

Sure there is. I enjoy a fine piece of machinery
.

Oh come on! You like machinery? Get a steam engine!
What competition do you need an ar-15 for?

 

[oldbadger]

Same scenario. Although I do not own the type of weapons you seem so afraid of (although I did pass up a chance to buy an Uzi), it, also, would have be on top of the pile. BTW why not have a campaign against over powered cars. More people are killed by speed than bullets.

...

I'm not afraid of firearms. There aren't many about here.
So, basically, it doesn't matter how many times a person can buy a semi auto and go on a killing spree, you want to surround yourself with guns, right?
Your voters may not agree with you, it's just a matter of time.

 

[BSM1]

Sure, and 2000 years ago that may have been good advice. I might have told people in the old west something similar.

But we don't live in the old west.

Lucky you, but I think you missed the point (BTW Roman control in the area probably made that part of the world extremely safe at that time).

 

[BSM1]

I'm not afraid of firearms. There aren't many about here.
So, basically, it doesn't matter how many times a person can buy a semi auto and go on a killing spree, you want to surround yourself with guns, right?
Your voters may not agree with you, it's just a matter of time.

You dodged my question. You probably have many people in your country killed in accidents involving high powered vehicles. Obviously no one needs a vehicle with this much horsepower so why not campaign against these autos and their owners.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Maybe this is the answer:

 

[jeager106]

I know when you're on the ropes, 'cos you change the subject and start chucking bricks about!
We know all about your Constitution, but you've lost machineguns in most states, and silencers and if the US voters get fed up with mass killings where semiauto's were bought legally, then I afraid you've had your chips. Could be time to buy a bow an arrow soon!!

I'm into archery already.
Fully auto rifles, machine guns is the common term, and silencers, called
sound suppressors are absolutely NOT ILLEGAL in the U.S.
I know some collectors that have more than one such weapon and one
fellow has a Viet Nam era grenade launcher.
ANY U.S. citizen that can afford to own and feed one has the right to buy one.
To do this one must apply for a class 3 license, pay a $200 buck tax on
each weapon and store them in a gun safe when not in use.
I can't afford them as they are quite expensive.
An MP5 will set one back at least 5 grand then there is the cost of ammo then
the 6 months wait to get approved to purchase.
Those weapons are tightly controlled but we in the U.S. can own one.

No one, no politician, is advocating confiscating legally owned firearms from
law abiding citizens.
I'm not the least concerned about loosing my few firearms.
IF our government passes laws to confiscate all legal firearm I would comply.
Doubt that will happen in my lifetime.
My firearms are in a metal gun safe and the firing mechanism are removed and
stored separately.
One or two are handy if necessary.
EVERYONE in my immediate family is well trained in firearms safety.

 

[jeager106]

Oh come on! You like machinery? Get a steam engine!
What competition do you need an ar-15 for?

Camp Perry holds a prestigious competition that draws shooters from all over
the world and the AR-15 has place there and in many other places in the U.S.
Mine is a heavy barrel, scoped and wonderfully accurate.
I dispatch varmints with it.
Farmers love me to shoot destructive groundhogs.
I don't use a 30 round magazine. The 5 round is fine.
By the by.
What weapon is more destructive under 50 yards.
Shotgun?
AR rifle?
Handgun?
The shotgun wins hands down.

 

[tytlyf]

Absolutely NOT!
What a ridiculous notion and beneath your intelligence to post such drivel!
( I hope!)

Almost NO ONE that I know who owns guns carries guns.
The FEW gun owners that carry are ones the passed safety tests, written tests about
when one should use the thing and most important when NOT to use it.
*ell I don't even carry any longer though I can due to my status as retired police.
I DON'T WANT TO HURT ANYONE. NOT EVER!
That said how could I become a victim or let some innocent become a victim
of violent crime when I have an obligation and duty and training, to use that kind
of force is absolutely necessary.
That said I have a handgun, well, er, ah, handy, if the need to use one arises.
I don't want to. I'd rather run away if I could.
But I'll be damned if I'll let innocents suffer at the hands of some miscreant intent
bent upon being the doer of evil deeds.
Mind you I'm one who has seen everything that should never happen to anyone that
happened anyway.
Anyone that chooses to carry a concealed weapon had better do so legally and be
aware of the tremendous responsibility doing so carries.
A Temple Hills, Md., couple was fast asleep early in the morning when their dog alerted them to the presence of an intruder. Grabbing a handgun, the male resident went to investigate. When he encountered the burglar, the armed citizen fired at the thief, striking him at least once. The suspect was taken to a nearby hospital with non-life-threatening wounds to his legs. The residents were not harmed. (wusa9.com, Washington D.C., 1/13/16)

In Fort Fairfield, Maine, Mrs. Otis Flannery woke her husband, grabbed a Luger pistol and ran across the street to their store where they surprised two burglars. At gunpoint, Mrs. Flannery forced the pair to lie on the floor until a policeman arrived to take them away to jail. When she discovered two accomplices in a nearby getaway car, they attempted to flee at her approach, but halted and surrender when she fired the gun at them. Mrs. Flannery then held the gun on her two new prisoners and called the police again. (Fort Fairfield Review, Fort Fairfield, ME)

There are literally hundreds of stories such as this one where a legally armed person
stopped a crime and held the criminals for police.
Hundreds.
The liberal media wouldn't dare report these things now would they?

That's what the NRA wants. They don't mind people on the terrorist watch list buying guns if they can pass a simple background check. Additionally, that "under the gun" documentary showed that the ammosexuals don't have a problem with terrorists and felons getting a gun. Are you in favor of stronger background checks and people on the watch list not buying guns?

 

[jeager106]

That's what the NRA wants. They don't mind people on the terrorist watch list buying guns if they can pass a simple background check. Additionally, that "under the gun" documentary showed that the ammosexuals don't have a problem with terrorists and felons getting a gun. Are you in favor of stronger background checks and people on the watch list not buying guns?

Ahhhhhh, that'd be a YES!
Stronger background checks in general are fine.
I shouldn't have any problem with such personally.
Heck. A waiting period is o.k. Say 5 days or so?
Please keep in mind I'm a country boy. Grew up hunting small game and
shooting was a skill.
There weren't school massacres then and radical Islam didn't exist here.
I recall a man in Akron Ohio who was a class 3 dealer in automatic weapons.
He went off his bean and when police responded he shot a few then tried
to shoot his wife and kids.
His own 16 year old son shot & killed him.
I also recall a mentally deranged man that was driving on a 4 lane highway,
crossed the median, hit a van head one, killed a family of 6, and injured 4
more in another vehicle.
One could wonder how many fatal accidents are really accidents.
I dunno.
Let' em pass anti-gun laws all they want.
As long as I have my muzzle loading rifles and archery I'm o.k.
I even have a single shot 12 gauge muzzle loading shotgun and shoot
the occasional rabbit with it.
Don't miss the first time as it take 5 minutes to reload.
Holy black powder is...well, holy.

 

[oldbadger]

You dodged my question. You probably have many people in your country killed in accidents involving high powered vehicles. Obviously no one needs a vehicle with this much horsepower so why not campaign against these autos and their owners.

Love it!
Redirection into vehicle accident stats, meteorite risks, strangulations per 100,000.....!

You just don't seem to get it....... it's not about us, it's about the fact that many Americans are totally fed up with he fact that a terrorist, or nutter, or extremist, or whoever, can walk in, buy a fast firing rifle, and then go killing en- masse.

And since the whole World heard about this incident, (and so many others) we take interest in what we hear Americans are talking about. Your President talks about it. Your Presdential candidates are talking about it.

The fact that you'll feel nakeif if some regulatory method might call in some types of gun is something that you'll have to handle. Better regs now might begin to clear the problem of guns-awash American over the next century or so.

Anyway, you don't actually own any guns. they own you, through your fear of being without them. True?