«12. . .1,1971,1981,1991,2001,2011,2021,203. . .2,1812,182»
Political boundaries work similarly and are possibly even more onerous as consumers are also ultimately producers--and vice versa. Tariffs are largely a relic of the past and have served their purpose. Political boundaries are also a relic of the past but have not yet outlived their usefulness.
Until the welfare state and extreme poverty is abolished the need for borders will continue.
Read All About It!
- Updates from The LCRUA Times
- Happy Birthday SCUT...
- ...as Force leaves
- Three Bears find a den that's just right
Play the 🍒🍓🍋🍍SLOTS🍈🍐 🍇🍑! It's a week of fruity fun at the Sands.
Highest disposable income gets a thumbs up from me.
46566, The united oman, and Okla-texas
Big News!
_________________________
For citizens of our glorious region we have a complete, and uniform method of applying for a spot on the map and participating in regional roleplay! You can now view the Roleplay Factbook and browse around looking at what the requirements are and what spots are available. Please check it out and think about applying.
Chief Editor and Minister of Foreign Affairs for Capitalist Paradise
Oh, hello there! I'm new here!
The united oman, Brillnuck, and Ohioan territory
Welcome.
If gun control/law actually worked, cities like Chicago would be the safest places in the nation. No, we MUST focus on the person and not the tool used.
I mean, if a drunk driver kills someone, we blame the car? Nope! We blame the person. I'd rather not have America turn into Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, or Communist China.
Actually we do regulate cars very strictly and allow only models complying with all safety regulations on the streets. We also regulate sale of alcohol (and, for that matter, do not sell it to people of the latest shooter's age). Banning, for example, semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines would be more akin to banning cars without seat belts or with brakes installed only on rear wheels than to turning America into Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia or Communist China.
Also, plotters against Hitler actually had access to the just invented assault rifles, fighter jets, ballistic missiles etc. And they still failed. Russian peasants were very well armed (it was not uncommon for a village to have a heavy machine gun, apart from the military rifles that individual peasants had) at the time the Commies were consolidating power. Still, the Commies just blasted them from armored trains, poisoned them with gases and took their families hostage.
Metacrisis, The united oman, and Brillnuck
Cars were invented as a method of transportation, guns were invented to kill.
It is my right to defend myself.
Self-preservation is a right. A person should not have to be licensed to carry.
Property ownership is a right. A person should not have to be licensed to take ownership of what that person has created.
Life is a right. People should not be licensed to live.
Driving is a privilege, not a right, that is why licenses are required and safety inspections are reasonable before a person can drive on public roads.
When people commit unjustified acts of violence (or state that they intend to) they should be put away or put down to protect society from suffering at their hands in the future. Taking knee-jerk reactions that are not likely to lower overall violent crime rates and that limit any single law-abiding citizen to the rights he or she is afforded by the US Constitution isn't the answer.
There is little connection between mental health problems and violence. There is a link between race/gender and violence but no one in their right mind would consider taking a racist act like saying all of one race cannot defend themselves or women may carry but men cannot so why do we do that to the mentally ill? The mentally ill don't choose to be the way that they are, and statistically, they are really not much more likely to commit a violent crime than people who don't suffer from mental illness, certainly not so likely as all men when compared to all women.
A history of unjustified violence or verifiable statements that show intent to commit unjustified violence are the only criteria that should be used to deny a citizens constitutional right to bear arms.
If you want to increase the likelihood that your children will not be killed in a mass shooting/stabbing/bombthreat then tell your schools to arm and train the adult staff. If you are concerned about your own safety then take weapon safety and self-defense courses and go to the shooting range a few times a year and vote for unlicenced open carry laws in your state.
The reality of the situation for the present and the foreseeable future is that some people will do evil things and there is no step you can take that will ensure that you are not caught up in it (though the likelihood of being caught up in it is minuscule). You can increase your chances of avoiding death at the hands of an evil person by learning to defend yourself.
Neither you nor society are justified in infringing on my right to bear arms no matter how many votes you take, no matter how many mass shootings occur.
Neither self-defense nor property are unlimited rights. Society can and does restrict them and infringe on them for the greater good. In fact, without that you do not have a civilization.
Speaking specifically of your right to bear arms (just for the record, I am a Benefactor Member of the NRA - that's the highest membership level), society already infringed on it over 80 years ago by virtually banning automatic weapons. Precisely after too many mass shootings with Tommy guns occurred. And this ban is universally accepted by anybody, including the NRA. Furthermore, while the Supreme Court has affirmed that the Second Amendment right indeed applies to individuals, it has also affirmed that the right is not unlimited and can be restricted for the sake of public safety.
Lots of policies are enacted by people in power throughout history for "the greater good" in moments of crisis. Is it because of the position that those people hold that make the policies correct or "good"? I am sure that you and I would agree that what is "the greater good" is subjective and many atrocious policies have been enacted in the name of the greater good. I do not accept your universal ban as justified and so it is no longer universal if it ever was.
I agree that it's subjective. But the fact is there's no organized opposition to the automatic weapons ban, there have been no attempts to repeal it, and in my decades of NRA membership I did not see a single argument against it anywhere. That is, until I saw your post that I'm quoting.
Real quick, when the last time Australia had a mass shooting? Oh yeah, 1996, when they banned guns.
Did a ban on guns really stop mass killings in Australia? Here is some data from Wikipedia. Remember when reading this that Austrailia has less than 1/10th the population of the US and that statistically speaking the number of guns in the US doesn't seem to correlate with the amount of violent crime but generally speaking "gun free zones" have been the targets of much of the violence in the US. That is not to say that guns have no correlation with the crime but if there is correlation it is difficult to find. The only thing that is sure to happen with a ban on guns is that people that obey the laws will have no guns.
28 June 1997 Richmond, Tasmania
Peter Shoobridge cut the throat of his 4 daughters whilst they slept then took his own life with a rifle after cutting off one of his hands with an axe.
8 October 1999 Adelaide, Australia
Hell's Angels feud
23 June 2000 Childers, Queensland
Arson attack by Robert Paul Long, which killed 15 international backpackers
21 October 2002 Melbourne, Victoria
Mass shooting attack by Huan Yun "Allen" Xiang
7 February 2009 Churchill, Victoria
Arson attack by Brendan Sokaluk that killed 10 people, during the Black Saturday bushfires period
18 July 2009 North Epping, New South Wales
Blunt instrument attack that killed 5 members of the Lin family
29 April 2011 Hectorville, South Australia
Siege attack where Anthony Carbo murdered 3 people and injured 3 more including 2 police officers.
18 November 2011 Sydney, NSW
Arson attack by Roger Kingsley Dean, a nurse, which killed 11 people
4 September 2014 Rozelle, New South Wales
Arson attack by Adeel Khan which killed 3 and injured another
9 September 2014 Lockhart, New South Wales
A Mass shooting and Familicide by Geoff Hunt who killed his wife and three children before turning the gun on himself
15 - 16 December 2014 Sydney, NSW
Siege. A lone gunman, Man Haron Monis, held hostage ten customers and eight employees of a Lindt chocolate café located at Martin Place in Sydney, Australia. The NSW Police Tactical Operations Unit shot Monis dead, after he executed a hostage. In the exchange one person was hit by Police bullet fragments, causing accidental death to one of them. known as the 2014 Sydney hostage crisis it was a 16-hour siege.
19 December 2014 Cairns, Queensland
Stabbing attack and Familicide. 8 children aged 18 months to 15 years killed. Thirty-seven-year-old woman also found injured. The woman, Raina Mersane Ina Thaiday, was later charged with the murder of the children, 7 of whom were hers, plus her niece.
20 January 2017 Melbourne, Victoria
Vehicular attack. Dimitrious Gargasoulas drove a Holden Commodore into Bourke St Mall, resulting in the deaths of 6 people and injuring 30+ others.
Nobody here is making the claim that banning guns will stop mass killings with other weapons.
The idea that a young man who ignored 36 visits by the police to his home (the local police were called for various reasons by neighbors and others - at least the local police turned up, unlike the FBI who ignored the warnings) and then murdered lots of people, would respect "Gun Control" regulations is absurd. As are "Gun Free Zones" - oh I was going to murder lots of people, but I have just seen a sign saying "Gun Free Zone" so I am going to put my firearm down...... In reality the young man would just have bought the firearm illegally - as young men do in Mexico (it is often forgotten that towns on the Mexican-Texas border, equally hispanic on both sides of town, have a vastly HIGHER murder rate on the Gun Control side of town).
The AR 15 rifle is not special - it just "looks scary" and banning firearms because of their looks does not make sense. Nor was there any reduction in firearm violence after Switzerland introduced "Gun Control" in 1999 (it had been virtually nonexistent before 1999 - anyone could buy a firearm and and half of the Cantons allowed open or concealed carry) - in fact gun crime went UP in Switzerland.
So are people really proposing that a 19 year old man be forbidden to own a firearm - if that firearm looks scary? What if he bought a non scary looking rifle - the people he killed would be just as dead. What would have been better is if a teacher or security guard had SHOT HIM (if they were allowed to be armed - teachers used to be normal people who went hunting and so on, not the raving SJWs that so many of them are today). Or if this young man had had a FATHER at home - a male role model, or had found some moral and spiritual guidance in his school community.
Before broken homes were the norm and before boys and young men were not given powerful medical chemicals rather than moral guidance school shootings were almost unknown. And how come that these mass shootings do not tend to occur at private or church schools - why is it nearly always STATE schools?
The left never explain why government schools are failing (all they do is demand more money) - and nor do they address what has happened with the undermining of the family and community, leaving broken homes with young males with (essentially) no male role models and given powerful medical drugs rather than moral guidance and a sense of community.
Of course the idea that "banning guns" would stop shootings is demented - this is the government that can not stop people selling drugs all over the country, and lunatics think it can ban guns. Collectivists please note - many people can actually MAKE firearms (and it is getting less and less difficult to do so). Your idea of "banning guns" in America or only making sure that servants of the government have firearms (and since when have the left been in love with that idea - what about "Black Lives Matter") is absurd. If you want to help then legally carry and train (training is important) and be ready to defend people if they are attacked.
Stop putting your faith in government - it is government schools that are often moral wastelands, and it is government policies (from the 1960s onwards) that have undermined the family and other cultural institutions and created a vast number of young men with no real fathers (other than in a crude biological sense) and without moral guidance.
Not much of a point then. Restricting guns prevents mass shootings. Look at murder rates for any country in Europe, and the majority of them have more restrictions on guns or ammo, and fewer overall gun related crime (including mass shootings).
No, Serbia, the UK, Russia, Switzerland, Estonia and other European countries give citizens the right to bear arms (though countries have various levels of gun control).
«12. . .1,1971,1981,1991,2001,2011,2021,203. . .2,1812,182»
Advertisement
