Storming downstairs to clear your living room is exactly the reverse of what SWAT does. Except they have a 6-man team with rifles, ballistic shields, full body armor, and flash grenades. Sure a shotgun is good choice for home defense--great for school shootings too--but a rifle has its advantages. Do we as "civilians" have to justify our choice to an elite government class? Not if this is still the USA.
Bullets are too expensive for genocide. Once the populations of undesirables are disarmed they can be rounded up in an orderly manner and efficiently disposed of.
The Mexicans are in no position to bring up anything that goes south across the border as long as hundreds of thousands of intruders and millions of pounds of drugs are allowed to go north.
I look at it that without firearms enthusiasts in the debate, even I may lose the rights that I have enjoyed if those who go off-the-deep-end keep representing the side of firearms enthusiasts.
Right, the people trying to stop your rights from being taken away are the ones taking away your rights. Propaganda has spun your mind, and you have already lost everything when you lost the will to be free.
If firearms enthusiasts take a good look at the ills that come from firearms ownership and themselves suggest limits, then they can craft what happens.
A losing game. Imagine arguing over which books should be burned, and thinking you had won a victory by saving a certain title until the next bill introduced to burn it. If the Court continues to prioritize government interests over the interests of the people at some point we're going to have nullify these laws in a more direct way.
Teachers carrying guns would make planning harder, and present more opportunities for failure of the plan. Of course those kids made bombs that could have killed hundreds if they hadn't malfunctioned, so there is only so much that can be done...
You can't understand because you don't accept the principles of freedom or armed self-defense. And don't pretend like you do, when you end by admiring the Chinese, whom I believe now ban certain knives, since many kids have in fact been killed in knife rampages.
For Feinstein, Obama, Biden, et al. isn't it though? The people writing the legislation have no tolerance for private ownership. It's like negotiating dinner with a vegan. Mental screening is perhaps something that could be looked into, but people who have been committed are already blocked by the law. What kind of reasonable proposal could have stopped Lanza? Maybe gun regulations are not answer, which is something a gun ban activist will never accept.
Let's say that the feds get their shit together long enough to go to every home that has a gun registered to it to take these weapons. Right now, in my home, I have six unregistered, and completely legal firearms.
Are you willing to go to jail for many years because of these old guns if the police search your house or car for drugs or something? Or even if you are forced to shoot a home invader? Maybe you'll take the risk and turn down the buyback money, but someday grandpa with his grandfathered guns will die. Either your heirs will just want to dump the guns, or they too will have to risk prison to hold onto what will be to them historical artifacts.
Theoretically speaking a gun is going to wear out long before a hammer. Practically, a serial killer with a hammer could kill hundreds, while a mass shooter is going will not have such luck. Absolutely, a gun is a better weapon for self-defense, but then again self-defense is the right we are talking about. Dangerous is good in that context.
And, yes, gun control is about banning guns. Preventing access to guns produces the same result as taking them away: no guns. Or is this too obvious? Not that confiscation isn't entirely possible, since there is after all a gun registry. Or is that too obvious?
Why not store them in military arms depots where they are really secure? Sure, we can hold parents liable for letting their kids get killed, but the primary effect of your proposal is to limit the freedom to bear arms. There are plenty of other ways kids accidentally die that you wouldn't think of regulating because it would too be intrusive. But in your mind firearms are a privilege, while a swimming pool is an unquestionable entitlement. And what enormous benefit to society are you talking about? If the supply of stupid kids is that critically low, why not remove them from their parents and raise them in controlled environment?
The OP's logic is roundabout, but if the content is banned it has essentially been appropriated by the government, and fulfilling any moral obligation to the producers of the content has indeed been blocked by force.
It's a different story with DRM or exploitative pricing, since those are implemented by the producers.
How is OK for her parents to neglect their child to such an extent? Unless they were deceived through extraordinary means they should be arrested too. Of course these girls continue in adulthood to get unconscious in public, so the problem remains unsolved.
The point of "girls' night out" in a bar is to pickup or at least flirt with men, whatever your girlfriend says to you, chump. Girls don't go to bars to watch sports.
It is well known that women do not go to bars to get laid; they go to bars to have fun>
The only "fun" they're going to have is by dangling sex in front of the males, therefore they are in fact going out to get laid. All resistance, all cock-blocking, is either token or part of the selection process.
Girl must have thought parties are for studying algebra
drugged her
Girl apparently mistook drugs for vitamins
Not to say that a crime didn't happen, but using language casting it as some sort of genius criminal plan confuses the safety warning for girls that used to be common sense, but going out unsupervised with boys and getting shitfaced on illegal substances is now considered an inalienable freedom for even little girls.
Maybe they should just have an Organic Plus category for people like you. Seeds sustainably collected from virgin rainforest. Fertilized with only the purest unicorn manure. No insects harmed during production.
Has normal food been proven safe yet? Selecting for yield has produced nutritionally questionable freaks of nature, and large-scale farming is never ecologically good.
Because it's a waste of time? If companies want to declare that their products are "GMO-free" or "organic" they can do so. No need for the government to require everybody else to change their labeling
It barely matters if those teams win or lose...and of course blacks eventually proved themselves through talent. But women seem to require an infinite amount of regulations and subsidies.
I don't really want my daughter falling in to the trap that most girls in HS seem to get in to and ending up with a BA in English Lit because "i'm dumb at math"
So girls get the benefit of single-gender in their weaker subjects, while boys' weaker subjects like language continue to be co-ed to stunt their development...
Slashdot Mirror
Storming downstairs to clear your living room is exactly the reverse of what SWAT does. Except they have a 6-man team with rifles, ballistic shields, full body armor, and flash grenades. Sure a shotgun is good choice for home defense--great for school shootings too--but a rifle has its advantages. Do we as "civilians" have to justify our choice to an elite government class? Not if this is still the USA.
Bullets are too expensive for genocide. Once the populations of undesirables are disarmed they can be rounded up in an orderly manner and efficiently disposed of.
The Mexicans are in no position to bring up anything that goes south across the border as long as hundreds of thousands of intruders and millions of pounds of drugs are allowed to go north.
I look at it that without firearms enthusiasts in the debate, even I may lose the rights that I have enjoyed if those who go off-the-deep-end keep representing the side of firearms enthusiasts.
Right, the people trying to stop your rights from being taken away are the ones taking away your rights. Propaganda has spun your mind, and you have already lost everything when you lost the will to be free.
If firearms enthusiasts take a good look at the ills that come from firearms ownership and themselves suggest limits, then they can craft what happens.
A losing game. Imagine arguing over which books should be burned, and thinking you had won a victory by saving a certain title until the next bill introduced to burn it. If the Court continues to prioritize government interests over the interests of the people at some point we're going to have nullify these laws in a more direct way.
Laws forcing people to wear seat belts are still unjustified.
Teachers carrying guns would make planning harder, and present more opportunities for failure of the plan. Of course those kids made bombs that could have killed hundreds if they hadn't malfunctioned, so there is only so much that can be done...
You can't understand because you don't accept the principles of freedom or armed self-defense. And don't pretend like you do, when you end by admiring the Chinese, whom I believe now ban certain knives, since many kids have in fact been killed in knife rampages.
Actually if they loved him they should feel relieved that he was able to avoid 30 years in jail. Legal liability is irrelevant.
It's not about banning guns
For Feinstein, Obama, Biden, et al. isn't it though? The people writing the legislation have no tolerance for private ownership. It's like negotiating dinner with a vegan. Mental screening is perhaps something that could be looked into, but people who have been committed are already blocked by the law. What kind of reasonable proposal could have stopped Lanza? Maybe gun regulations are not answer, which is something a gun ban activist will never accept.
Let's say that the feds get their shit together long enough to go to every home that has a gun registered to it to take these weapons. Right now, in my home, I have six unregistered, and completely legal firearms.
Are you willing to go to jail for many years because of these old guns if the police search your house or car for drugs or something? Or even if you are forced to shoot a home invader? Maybe you'll take the risk and turn down the buyback money, but someday grandpa with his grandfathered guns will die. Either your heirs will just want to dump the guns, or they too will have to risk prison to hold onto what will be to them historical artifacts.
Eliminating freedom improves safety. This is true, but some of us would rather have freedom.
Theoretically speaking a gun is going to wear out long before a hammer. Practically, a serial killer with a hammer could kill hundreds, while a mass shooter is going will not have such luck. Absolutely, a gun is a better weapon for self-defense, but then again self-defense is the right we are talking about. Dangerous is good in that context.
And, yes, gun control is about banning guns. Preventing access to guns produces the same result as taking them away: no guns. Or is this too obvious? Not that confiscation isn't entirely possible, since there is after all a gun registry. Or is that too obvious?
Why not store them in military arms depots where they are really secure? Sure, we can hold parents liable for letting their kids get killed, but the primary effect of your proposal is to limit the freedom to bear arms. There are plenty of other ways kids accidentally die that you wouldn't think of regulating because it would too be intrusive. But in your mind firearms are a privilege, while a swimming pool is an unquestionable entitlement. And what enormous benefit to society are you talking about? If the supply of stupid kids is that critically low, why not remove them from their parents and raise them in controlled environment?
The OP's logic is roundabout, but if the content is banned it has essentially been appropriated by the government, and fulfilling any moral obligation to the producers of the content has indeed been blocked by force. It's a different story with DRM or exploitative pricing, since those are implemented by the producers.
Not "justified", enabled. Don't feed the rapists!
How is OK for her parents to neglect their child to such an extent? Unless they were deceived through extraordinary means they should be arrested too. Of course these girls continue in adulthood to get unconscious in public, so the problem remains unsolved.
The point of "girls' night out" in a bar is to pickup or at least flirt with men, whatever your girlfriend says to you, chump. Girls don't go to bars to watch sports.
It is well known that women do not go to bars to get laid; they go to bars to have fun>
The only "fun" they're going to have is by dangling sex in front of the males, therefore they are in fact going out to get laid. All resistance, all cock-blocking, is either token or part of the selection process.
lured the girl to a party under false pretenses,
Girl must have thought parties are for studying algebra
drugged her
Girl apparently mistook drugs for vitamins
Not to say that a crime didn't happen, but using language casting it as some sort of genius criminal plan confuses the safety warning for girls that used to be common sense, but going out unsupervised with boys and getting shitfaced on illegal substances is now considered an inalienable freedom for even little girls.
Maybe they should just have an Organic Plus category for people like you. Seeds sustainably collected from virgin rainforest. Fertilized with only the purest unicorn manure. No insects harmed during production.
Has normal food been proven safe yet? Selecting for yield has produced nutritionally questionable freaks of nature, and large-scale farming is never ecologically good.
Because it's a waste of time? If companies want to declare that their products are "GMO-free" or "organic" they can do so. No need for the government to require everybody else to change their labeling
It barely matters if those teams win or lose...and of course blacks eventually proved themselves through talent. But women seem to require an infinite amount of regulations and subsidies.
I don't really want my daughter falling in to the trap that most girls in HS seem to get in to and ending up with a BA in English Lit because "i'm dumb at math"
Then don't pay for it!
So girls get the benefit of single-gender in their weaker subjects, while boys' weaker subjects like language continue to be co-ed to stunt their development...