You're right, you should go tell the people fighting the US military in Afghanistan right now that they are wasting their time fighting the US military in their pickup trucks with AK-47s. We have drones and stealth bombers, they have no chance. We'll have that thing won in a month!
So you don't want the government to regulate your gun ownership, but you are fine with it locking you up if it deems you to be mentally ill and possibly dangerous.
You need to be really clear on this...
I don't want the executive branch to regulate my gun ownership...
I do want the judicial branch to be able to lockup the mentally ill after a court hearing where the medical doctors are allowed to present their evidence for both sides and you're allowed a defense.
There is a mile of difference between those two...
No, but then people would actually know something about what they're talking about.
I have found that a lot (not all, but many) of the anti-gun people frankly don't know crap about guns, and thus aren't qualified to discuss the subject.
At least with training and safety classes, they'll learn something.
No? Frankly, you should NEVER allow college students carrying guns. You expect too much on college students being responsible. Being an adult is not equal to responsible.
I see...
Then why do we allow college students to:
Take out credit... Buy a house... Get married... Have kids... Join the military... etc.
If they aren't responsible, then they shouldn't be doing those things either.
If you're grown up enough to get married, have kids, buy a house on credit, and join the military, then you are by far responsible enough to have guns.
While that is all true, you might ask the Syrians how well all the firepower works for them...
There are plenty of cases in the 20th century where poorly armed civilians rose up against evil governments and outnumbered them.
Tanks and bombers are useful, but they can't be everywhere.
After all, while we crushed the Iraqi military in 2003, how well did the occupation go after that? How effective is all our military power in Afghanistan against people in pickup trucks armed with AK-47s?
Stealth bombers are great, when bombing large, specific targets. They are useless against 3 million angry civilians in NYC, unless of course you plan to blow up the whole city.
But even as WWII and Vietnam showed, bombing cities flat doesn't crush civilians either.
Our military is really, really good... at crushing other militaries... they are a really crappy police force...
I dont believe guns are in any way, useful for defence.
You may not, but you'd be wrong.
I know someone who had to defend himself with a gun and he is likely here today because of it. Such events often don't make the news because they don't support the agenda of the media, but they do happen more than you'd think.
You say "yanks", then refer to the BBC, so can I assume you're from England?
You do know we have the 2nd amendment because of your country, right? You know, that whole revolutionary war for independence against your King George III.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It isn't for hunting rights, it is because government can never be fully trusted and an armed population is much harder to control than an unarmed one.
Wow that is a great attitude to have. Good on ya./notsarcasm
Thank you.
The US is so lucky to have a licensing system in place that guarantees all gun owners have the same do no harm philosophy and basic competency in handling firearms. Oh wait, I'm thinking of the license required to cut hair (http://www.beautyschoolsdirectory.com/faq/state_req.php).
Well in fairness, that is a licencing system, not a "guarentee" of anything much.:)
Pretty much anybody not recently incarcerated can have as many guns as they want in the US which is why we need our politicians to spend so much time and effort fighting gun control./sarcasm
I get that feeling, and I understand the point of view that comes behind it...
On the other hand, you should consider the reasons behind the 2nd amendment and why we have it (and hunting wasn't it). The far right doesn't trust our government, and frankly it shouldn't, no one should. The US government has done many of the things that people complain about third world countries doing, including spying on its own people.
If you allow the US government to register all guns, it isn't much of a step to this:
So what is the answer? That is a good question, all I can say is that many of the problems the US faces aren't the same as faced by nation states such as France or Germany (but that might change if they keep letting people in). We also don't have a unified public care system, either in benefits or healthcare, which is not the case of any other first world nation.
In some respects, the USA is the richest third world nation on the planet (unless you have money, then it is wonderful!)
My point was, "if someone is not emotionally stable enough to own a gun, why do we let them drive?"
Now the trick is figuring out who the stable ones are... some people want to ban guns from all, because of a few. That same logic would ban cars from all, because of a few.
Deal with the problems of the few, rather than the rights of all.
you decided to trample my First Amendment rights
Lord that has nothing to do with your first amendment rights... I am not the government, I have nothing to do with those rights...
Slashdot Mirror
I see, and if we do that, then those 30K+ car related deaths in the US will go away, right?
After all, almost every death in a car is from a licensed driver,...
oh wait... I think I found the problem...
---
Driving a car is not a right... owning a gun is... you keep forgetting that...
You don't need a licence to practice free speech, now do you?
Then explain to me how kids brought guns to school 50 years ago without any problems?
Guns in schools used to be a normal thing, yet they didn't have these issues.
What has changed? It isn't access to guns, we had them then and we have them now. It must be something else.
Address that, and you'll find your solution. More guns, less guns, has nothing to do with it.
How many people with a driver's licence kill someone while in a car in your country?
Licencing gun owners isn't going to solve anything, other than to make it easier for the government to take all the guns.
Correction... quite a few of the shooters have been on drugs...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
A small handful of people given antidepressant drugs go nuts on them, they are serious drugs given out like candy.
A basic income would be easier to administer and would be far more fair.
Everyone gets it, no applying, limitations, exclusions, or anything else.
Even the rich get it, but of course they get less than they are paying in taxes, so it isn't a big benefit, but you need to make it across the board.
In return, all food stamps, welfare, unemployment, etc. all goes away.
It probably wouldn't even cost much more, if anything, if done right.
You're right, you should go tell the people fighting the US military in Afghanistan right now that they are wasting their time fighting the US military in their pickup trucks with AK-47s. We have drones and stealth bombers, they have no chance. We'll have that thing won in a month!
There were founding fathers who wanted to abolish slavery in the constitution from day one, but others had large businesses dependent on slavery.
It was a topic discussed at length at the time, but they couldn't reach a compromise.
The world was already slowly waking up to slavery being wrong, it just wasn't quite ready.
Today, in the 21st century, your average citizen still has the right to keep and bear arms, as it should be.
So you don't want the government to regulate your gun ownership, but you are fine with it locking you up if it deems you to be mentally ill and possibly dangerous.
You need to be really clear on this...
I don't want the executive branch to regulate my gun ownership...
I do want the judicial branch to be able to lockup the mentally ill after a court hearing where the medical doctors are allowed to present their evidence for both sides and you're allowed a defense.
There is a mile of difference between those two...
No, but then people would actually know something about what they're talking about.
I have found that a lot (not all, but many) of the anti-gun people frankly don't know crap about guns, and thus aren't qualified to discuss the subject.
At least with training and safety classes, they'll learn something.
No? Frankly, you should NEVER allow college students carrying guns. You expect too much on college students being responsible. Being an adult is not equal to responsible.
I see...
Then why do we allow college students to:
Take out credit...
Buy a house...
Get married...
Have kids...
Join the military...
etc.
If they aren't responsible, then they shouldn't be doing those things either.
If you're grown up enough to get married, have kids, buy a house on credit, and join the military, then you are by far responsible enough to have guns.
There are no gun control laws that would stop these shootings, other than a total ban, and even that wouldn't stop all of them.
And thus we get to the crux of the problem. You don't want rational gun control, you want a ban.
Why? Oh, because you'll ask for a little bit, it won't work, you'll ask for a little more, it won't work, you'll ask for more, it still won't work.
So you'll come to the conclusion that only a ban will work. It won't, but you'll try it, and then it'll be too late.
While that is all true, you might ask the Syrians how well all the firepower works for them...
There are plenty of cases in the 20th century where poorly armed civilians rose up against evil governments and outnumbered them.
Tanks and bombers are useful, but they can't be everywhere.
After all, while we crushed the Iraqi military in 2003, how well did the occupation go after that? How effective is all our military power in Afghanistan against people in pickup trucks armed with AK-47s?
Stealth bombers are great, when bombing large, specific targets. They are useless against 3 million angry civilians in NYC, unless of course you plan to blow up the whole city.
But even as WWII and Vietnam showed, bombing cities flat doesn't crush civilians either.
Our military is really, really good... at crushing other militaries... they are a really crappy police force...
I dont believe guns are in any way, useful for defence.
You may not, but you'd be wrong.
I know someone who had to defend himself with a gun and he is likely here today because of it. Such events often don't make the news because they don't support the agenda of the media, but they do happen more than you'd think.
Times change, but government's don't. The reasons for the second are still valid, these shootings not withstanding...
And frankly, banning guns won't fix the problem because the guns aren't the problem.
^ You deserve 1,000 mod points...
That is exactly the point and the problem... the "reasonable gun control" that the left wants... isn't... it is total outright bans on guns...
^ I really wish I could give you a thousand mod points...
You say "yanks", then refer to the BBC, so can I assume you're from England?
You do know we have the 2nd amendment because of your country, right? You know, that whole revolutionary war for independence against your King George III.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It isn't for hunting rights, it is because government can never be fully trusted and an armed population is much harder to control than an unarmed one.
*Looks at England*
Wow that is a great attitude to have. Good on ya. /notsarcasm
Thank you.
The US is so lucky to have a licensing system in place that guarantees all gun owners have the same do no harm philosophy and basic competency in handling firearms. Oh wait, I'm thinking of the license required to cut hair (http://www.beautyschoolsdirectory.com/faq/state_req.php).
Well in fairness, that is a licencing system, not a "guarentee" of anything much. :)
Pretty much anybody not recently incarcerated can have as many guns as they want in the US which is why we need our politicians to spend so much time and effort fighting gun control. /sarcasm
I get that feeling, and I understand the point of view that comes behind it...
On the other hand, you should consider the reasons behind the 2nd amendment and why we have it (and hunting wasn't it). The far right doesn't trust our government, and frankly it shouldn't, no one should. The US government has done many of the things that people complain about third world countries doing, including spying on its own people.
If you allow the US government to register all guns, it isn't much of a step to this:
http://thefederalist.com/2015/...
http://www.nationalreview.com/...
So what is the answer? That is a good question, all I can say is that many of the problems the US faces aren't the same as faced by nation states such as France or Germany (but that might change if they keep letting people in). We also don't have a unified public care system, either in benefits or healthcare, which is not the case of any other first world nation.
In some respects, the USA is the richest third world nation on the planet (unless you have money, then it is wonderful!)
Unless Apple expects a 30% cut of all in-app sales.
If you have a data cap, then streaming video is probably not for you.
The point was you need different Internet service.
I would ask why iTunes isn't an app on FireTV...
I have stuff in my iTunes account that I don't watch/use because there is no app for it and we have FireTV already...
I might be inclined to use it more if there was an option to do so.
What app revenue cut? The Prime Video app is free.
Oh, you mean "in-app purchases"? That makes sense for Candy Crush, but no sense for Prime Video.
Amazon is not going to give Apple 15% of that income any sooner than Apple would do the same in reverse.
Does the FireTV have an iTunes app?
Wonderful. The solution to shootings, is to have more guns.
Question... what is the first thing unarmed people do when faced with a shooting?
Answer... call the people who have guns to come and deal with it.
No, I understood what you meant...
My point was, "if someone is not emotionally stable enough to own a gun, why do we let them drive?"
Now the trick is figuring out who the stable ones are... some people want to ban guns from all, because of a few. That same logic would ban cars from all, because of a few.
Deal with the problems of the few, rather than the rights of all.
you decided to trample my First Amendment rights
Lord that has nothing to do with your first amendment rights... I am not the government, I have nothing to do with those rights...
I have 70Mbps high speed cable it but has a 350Gb cap
I found your problem...