VMI77 wrote:It occurs to me that if these so called weapons of war have no place on American streets then they need to be taken away from the police as well. America is not a battlefield, nor has the Federal government officially designated it so. Let the police go back to revolvers and double barrel shotguns. If the weapons the libs want to ban are only for war zones, since the police don't fight wars, then there is no reason for them to have such weapons.
FYI, I think he might have been doing one of those rhetorical things.
No, not really. "War" has an official meaning, and Obama and his minions have been using THAT meaning to argue that certain weapons have NO PLACE on American streets. The "drug war" is not a war....it's a rhetorical device. When The One talks about weapons of war and says such weapons have no place on our streets he's talking about actual combat involving the military. So if what he says is true, then there is no reason for the police to have these weapons. Now, we all know that he's a liar, a BIG liar, but prohibiting the police from having weapons of war, as well as the rest of us, is the only logical conclusion of his rhetoric. The military fights wars, not the police. So, if the police need these weapons because bad guys have them on our streets, then we need them even more than they do, because the bad guys mostly attack ordinary citizens, not the police.
"Journalism, n. A job for people who flunked out of STEM courses, enjoy making up stories, and have no detectable integrity or morals."
VMI77 wrote:It occurs to me that if these so called weapons of war have no place on American streets then they need to be taken away from the police as well. America is not a battlefield, nor has the Federal government officially designated it so. Let the police go back to revolvers and double barrel shotguns. If the weapons the libs want to ban are only for war zones, since the police don't fight wars, then there is no reason for them to have such weapons.
FYI, I think he might have been doing one of those rhetorical things.
No, not really. "War" has an official meaning, and Obama and his minions have been using THAT meaning to argue that certain weapons have NO PLACE on American streets. The "drug war" is not a war....it's a rhetorical device. When The One talks about weapons of war and says such weapons have no place on our streets he's talking about actual combat involving the military. So if what he says is true, then there is no reason for the police to have these weapons. Now, we all know that he's a liar, a BIG liar, but prohibiting the police from having weapons of war, as well as the rest of us, is the only logical conclusion of his rhetoric. The military fights wars, not the police. So, if the police need these weapons because bad guys have them on our streets, then we need them even more than they do, because the bad guys mostly attack ordinary citizens, not the police.
Okay, I understand what you are saying. I knew you weren't being simply sarcastic about it, but I figured it was a way to illuminate the discussion. My apologies.
mojo84 wrote:The libs seem to like to spout out what we "need" and "don't need". Going their opens up many touchy subjects with unintended consequences.
Beyond a NEED to own them, it is our right to own them if we so choose as the 2nd Amendment says "shall not be infringed". If it is a need based society the liberals are wanting, most people in the country better start preparing to give up much of their posessions. Who How many actually NEED the size home they have, the number of bathrooms they have, the car they have that goes well above the speed limits, number of TV's they have, the number of computers they have, the number of children they have, how about all that money Pelosi has accumolated while in office, etc.? Where do the libs intend to draw the line?
How about the libs focus on addressing the challenges of dealing with the mentally ill people that have a propensity to commit such heinous acts.
I too would like to see TAM's questions answered straight up.
Don't kid yourself....all that is coming if the libs get more power, and the consequences ARE intended. They already talk about it.....of course, our political masters have much greater "needs" than we do, so none of these limitations will ever apply to them.
"Journalism, n. A job for people who flunked out of STEM courses, enjoy making up stories, and have no detectable integrity or morals."
VMI77 wrote:It occurs to me that if these so called weapons of war have no place on American streets then they need to be taken away from the police as well. America is not a battlefield, nor has the Federal government officially designated it so. Let the police go back to revolvers and double barrel shotguns. If the weapons the libs want to ban are only for war zones, since the police don't fight wars, then there is no reason for them to have such weapons.
FYI, I think he might have been doing one of those rhetorical things.
No, not really. "War" has an official meaning, and Obama and his minions have been using THAT meaning to argue that certain weapons have NO PLACE on American streets. The "drug war" is not a war....it's a rhetorical device. When The One talks about weapons of war and says such weapons have no place on our streets he's talking about actual combat involving the military. So if what he says is true, then there is no reason for the police to have these weapons. Now, we all know that he's a liar, a BIG liar, but prohibiting the police from having weapons of war, as well as the rest of us, is the only logical conclusion of his rhetoric. The military fights wars, not the police. So, if the police need these weapons because bad guys have them on our streets, then we need them even more than they do, because the bad guys mostly attack ordinary citizens, not the police.
Okay, I understand what you are saying. I knew you weren't being simply sarcastic about it, but I figured it was a way to illuminate the discussion. My apologies.
No apology necessary.....it is sort of a combination or rhetoric and logic to illustrate a point. OTOH, I'm dead serious: if we don't need these weapons then the police don't need them either.....it can't be both ways. How often do a bunch of thugs invade police stations versus homes? Taking them away from the police might also stop deadly home invasions where the police kill innocent homeowners. The libs are always bringing up the UK....well, the majority of the police there don't carry guns, so if we have the same king of gun free liberal utopia here then why would the police here need to carry guns?
However, in reality, we all know that the rhetoric about weapons of war is propaganda designed to appeal to the emotions of the ignorant and has no basis in fact, so all of us, police and citizens, need these weapons for self-defense. We can't talk about why the crime numbers, including gun deaths, are as high as they are, because that would be politically incorrect. The reality is that two groups are responsible for 80-90% of all violent crime in this country, and the circumstances that help incite that crime and violence are largely the product of about five decades of liberal social engineering. The bottom line is that without the social polices liberal have inflicted on the country we probably wouldn't even be having a discussion about gun control today, because violent crime would be rather unusual instead of endemic.
"Journalism, n. A job for people who flunked out of STEM courses, enjoy making up stories, and have no detectable integrity or morals."
I would argue that we need rapid fire, high capacity weaponry now more than at any time in the past. Especially along the border. But they need to be owned and used by sane people. Somewhere around 1980, some folks decided that if you hand people with problems a bottle of pills, they would take them and all would be just fine. It hasn't worked out too well. The real issue is not guns. It is mental health. You can buy a case of machetes with no background check, and perhaps do more damage than with a Glock. Secondly, in the wrong hands, modern electronic war games have the capacity to desense young people. There are a number of factors that could trigger mass carnage. Yes, guns are a factor, but so are a massive n umber of other things as well. Please, don't blame guns for all the nation's mental imbalances.
Did anyone ever get around to calling this terrorism?
WinoVeritas wrote:Can't speak for my fellow libs, but I'm still here. Still not afraid of my government, or new or reinstated gun laws to surely come or Black Helicopters nor burying my guns in the backyard. Haven't castigated anyone in the past for their fears as I don't care to join the panic and paranoia - to each his own. Whatever is the impact or result of this latest crazy act on gun owners won't happen rapidly and doubt many will be affected, if at all. Regardless, the USA is still the greatest place to live in the world IMHO, warts and all,
I did buy a fire gun safe this week to further assure no crazy friend or relative uses my weapons to do something stupid.
And I don't really see much point to this whole thread except to pick a silly and useless fight. It may make you feel better to vent your spleen, but at best you're only preaching to the choir. There is ZERO possibility of swaying anybody's opinion with this rhetoric. To many with a centric stand it will come across as vitriolic spume. And that is the only place anything will change. The far right is already with you and the far left never will be. Alienating the people amenable in their position is no way to advance the cause.
with both of the above. On the one hand I must apologize for entering this "silly and useless fight," which it really is, and I think you all know it. On the other hand I dare not ignore the taunting subject of the thread lest I be accused of abandoning my principles.
mojo84 wrote:The libs seem to like to spout out what we "need" and "don't need". Going their opens up many touchy subjects with unintended consequences.
Beyond a NEED to own them, it is our right to own them if we so choose as the 2nd Amendment says "shall not be infringed". If it is a need based society the liberals are wanting, most people in the country better start preparing to give up much of their posessions. Who How many actually NEED the size home they have, the number of bathrooms they have, the car they have that goes well above the speed limits, number of TV's they have, the number of computers they have, the number of children they have, how about all that money Pelosi has accumolated while in office, etc.? Where do the libs intend to draw the line?
How about the libs focus on addressing the challenges of dealing with the mentally ill people that have a propensity to commit such heinous acts.
I too would like to see TAM's questions answered straight up.
Don't kid yourself....all that is coming if the libs get more power, and the consequences ARE intended. They already talk about it.....of course, our political masters have much greater "needs" than we do, so none of these limitations will ever apply to them.
Not kidding myself or anyone else. I wasn't just referring to the gun issue as having unintended consequences. I was talking about a "needs" based society. Guns are only the beginning. Obama has already said that wealthy people do not need all the money they have.
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.
mojo84 wrote:The libs seem to like to spout out what we "need" and "don't need". Going their opens up many touchy subjects with unintended consequences.
Beyond a NEED to own them, it is our right to own them if we so choose as the 2nd Amendment says "shall not be infringed". If it is a need based society the liberals are wanting, most people in the country better start preparing to give up much of their posessions. Who How many actually NEED the size home they have, the number of bathrooms they have, the car they have that goes well above the speed limits, number of TV's they have, the number of computers they have, the number of children they have, how about all that money Pelosi has accumolated while in office, etc.? Where do the libs intend to draw the line?
How about the libs focus on addressing the challenges of dealing with the mentally ill people that have a propensity to commit such heinous acts.
I too would like to see TAM's questions answered straight up.
Don't kid yourself....all that is coming if the libs get more power, and the consequences ARE intended. They already talk about it.....of course, our political masters have much greater "needs" than we do, so none of these limitations will ever apply to them.
Not kidding myself or anyone else. I wasn't just referring to the gun issue as having unintended consequences. I was talking about a "needs" based society. Guns are only the beginning. Obama has already said that wealthy people do not need all the money they have.
I opened with what is probably a poor choice of words (just a figure of speech), since obviously, we're in complete agreement.
"Journalism, n. A job for people who flunked out of STEM courses, enjoy making up stories, and have no detectable integrity or morals."
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.
