CNN’s Piers Morgan Signs Off With Final Blast At U.S. Gun Laws

Leonidas

rock427

Foreigners cant really comprehend american culture or our laws and rights. You people cant seem to comprehend the fact that we the people hold all the power...that our government is only there to serve us....not to be our masters and tell us what we can and cant protect ourselves with. That was power never given to our government...something made clear in the constitution and the bill of rights.

That is the case in every stable democratic nation on earth.

Democracy and the right and duty to speak up against government is part of the culture and constitutions of most democratic countries of the world - if not all.

Constitutions in Democratic nations enshrine human rights, including the right to free speech and the right to complain and speak ill of the government - ( including the Royal Family in Britain, fyi).

Free speech is not a "foreigner" concept.

The mythology that surrounds the Constitution of the United States seems to have the effect of making some people believe that it's contents are somehow unique to America.

Actually your country does not support "hate speech". Canada, England, France, Germany, the Netherlands, South Africa, Australia and India all have laws or have signed international conventions banning hate speech. Hate speech is tolerated in the US. the problem with hate speech laws is the vague interpretation that qualifies as "hate" speech.

rock427


Not entirely certain....but isnt hateful speech banned in your country? I know that it is in canada.

Sort of. Not something I entirely agree with. But the UK is a Democracy and thats what the majority want. But hate speech is really extreme stuff like threats to ones life or to commit crimes ect. Not insulting those in public office. Again its a grey area and one Im not comfortable with. But its a far cry to be sent to the gulags for insulting dear leader..

rock427
....the modern day sparta if you will.

I dont think Sparta had the worlds worst obesity problem

crazyewok

rock427


Not entirely certain....but isnt hateful speech banned in your country? I know that it is in canada.

Sort of. Not something I entirely agree with. But the UK is a Democracy and thats what the majority want. But hate speech is really extreme stuff like threats to ones life or to commit crimes ect. Not insulting those in public office. Again its a grey area and one Im not comfortable with. But its a far cry to be sent to the gulags for insulting dear leader..

Yea I just looked it up. I personally am put off by that. I think speech of all kinds should not be banned, as that just creates more issues than it otherwise would. Things might eventually come to that point here though. I can see us having the same debate about the first amendment that we are currently having about the second amendment right now.

I dont think Sparta had the worlds worst obesity problem

lol thats probably correct...but if I can brag for a second..im 27 6'4" 248lbs and sub 10% bodyfat. Im a personal trainer and a firefighter/EMT. Im a VERY masculine man! I also invest in stocks....so im not all bronze either. So while we might have our fair share of fat slobs here, there are those of us who go through a great deal to take care of ourselves.

crazyewok
I dont think Sparta had the worlds worst obesity problem

And neither does the US... Mexico

I know this is not going to earn me many friends but before all you Americans rush to tell me how wrong I am just hear me out.

I kind of get where Piers it coming from.

This guys is a outsider, he got a job (rightly or wrongly) that involved the discussion topics pertaining to current affairs in America.

That includes guns.

Now for a outsider looking on on America's fascination with the gun, things do look a little odd, if you think about America like a big greenhouse, everyone in the greenhouse has guns, every now and then we on the outside see a school full of kids gunned down or a cinema theater shot up as we look through the glass. In short its just crazy to the rest of us that you let Joe public run around with AR-15's and other weapons that to the rest of us really only belong in the hands of soldiers when we start seeing this stuff as we gaze through the windows. Then when we challenge you guys on this, and ask why you's don't make gun regulation a little stricter we get some quote form a document that is over 200 years old and something about how it is to do with your "culture".

Now not to disrespect the American constitution but I do think that if your forefathers knew that one day the Second Amendment one day enable someone to walk into a school and kill a bunch of kids or folk out enjoying a movie they might have worded it slightly different.

Furthermore, saying that guns are part of your culture is also a little odd, especially to us Europeans where culture is synonymous with art, history, fine food, literature the works of the finest thinkers of human history and so on. Then when Americans say to us that a key aspect to their culture includes the humble semi-auto, we have a bit of a hard time accepting that you's would consider a tool which is fundamentally used for killing and has all the eloquence and artistic sophistication of a pig in a dress as part of your culture.

As such from the perspective of a individual looking inside this greenhouse that is America, the rest of the developed world has a tough time accepting that because of a 200 year old document and some perverse idea of "culture" that you cannot take steps to have stricter gun regulation.

Therefore, as much as i can appreciate that this really has nothing to do with me and that for some Americans guns are a important part of life, when Piers says that

I assumed that after 70 people were shot in a movie theater, and then, just a few months later, 20 first-graders were murdered with an assault rifle in an elementary school, the absurd gun laws in this country would change,

I can kind of get what he is saying.

Additionally I think a lot of Americans, especially on ATS, need to accept that this is a multicultural site (it was found by a Brit) and that we have just as much right to wade in with our opinion on gun contorl matters in the states without all this rubbish about how we fear our government or need them to protect us or whatever other insults you want to chuck across the pond.

It just so happens that much of our opinions come form the perspective of individuals peering into America from the outside and for many of us what we see, when it comes to how you lot deal with guns, is quite frankly utterly crazy.

"Hate Laws" in Canada and Britain are an extension of Libel and Slander prohibitions.

The rule of the majority, the rights of the minority.

The people, not the Government, pushed for better protection for minorities from persecution.

The Government and Royal Family are free game.

One of the reasons Canada doesn't have hateful news channels on either extreme side of the political spectrum is that we require the news to be true.

WE asked for it, and we got it.

Just like Canadian voters made the government stop a Federal Gun Registry. We DIDNT want it, and got rid of it before they could put it together.

rock427


lol thats probably correct...but if I can brag for a second..im 27 6'4" 248lbs and sub 10% bodyfat. Im a personal trainer and a firefighter/EMT. Im a VERY masculine man! I also invest in stocks....so im not all bronze either. So while we might have our fair share of fat slobs here, there are those of us who go through a great deal to take care of ourselves.

Don't worry I was only having a joke.

rock427

Leonidas

rock427

Foreigners cant really comprehend american culture or our laws and rights. You people cant seem to comprehend the fact that we the people hold all the power...that our government is only there to serve us....not to be our masters and tell us what we can and cant protect ourselves with. That was power never given to our government...something made clear in the constitution and the bill of rights.

That is the case in every stable democratic nation on earth.

Democracy and the right and duty to speak up against government is part of the culture and constitutions of most democratic countries of the world - if not all.

Constitutions in Democratic nations enshrine human rights, including the right to free speech and the right to complain and speak ill of the government - ( including the Royal Family in Britain, fyi).

Free speech is not a "foreigner" concept.

The mythology that surrounds the Constitution of the United States seems to have the effect of making some people believe that it's contents are somehow unique to America.

Actually your country does not support "hate speech". Canada, England, France, Germany, the Netherlands, South Africa, Australia and India all have laws or have signed international conventions banning hate speech. Hate speech is tolerated in the US. the problem with hate speech laws is the vague interpretation that qualifies as "hate" speech.

The Prohibition is not against "Hate Speech", but "Hate Propaganda", "that advocates or promotes genocide".

We don't think that is such a bad thing. And it was voted on, not imposed.

rock427


Actually your country does not support "hate speech". Canada, England, France, Germany, the Netherlands, South Africa, Australia and India all have laws or have signed international conventions banning hate speech. Hate speech is tolerated in the US. the problem with hate speech laws is the vague interpretation that qualifies as "hate" speech.

Absolutely. It's funny these people can talk about having free speech when their government's ban anything that offends anyone. You don't need the right to speak if nothing you say bothers anyone. Eventually, they'll get to political speech. "Hate speech" is the foot in the door.

Leonidas

rock427

Leonidas

rock427

Foreigners cant really comprehend american culture or our laws and rights. You people cant seem to comprehend the fact that we the people hold all the power...that our government is only there to serve us....not to be our masters and tell us what we can and cant protect ourselves with. That was power never given to our government...something made clear in the constitution and the bill of rights.

That is the case in every stable democratic nation on earth.

Democracy and the right and duty to speak up against government is part of the culture and constitutions of most democratic countries of the world - if not all.

Constitutions in Democratic nations enshrine human rights, including the right to free speech and the right to complain and speak ill of the government - ( including the Royal Family in Britain, fyi).

Free speech is not a "foreigner" concept.

The mythology that surrounds the Constitution of the United States seems to have the effect of making some people believe that it's contents are somehow unique to America.

Actually your country does not support "hate speech". Canada, England, France, Germany, the Netherlands, South Africa, Australia and India all have laws or have signed international conventions banning hate speech. Hate speech is tolerated in the US. the problem with hate speech laws is the vague interpretation that qualifies as "hate" speech.

The Prohibition is not against "Hate Speech", but "Hate Propaganda", "that advocates or promotes genocide".

We don't think that is such a bad thing. And it was voted on, not imposed.

I personally hate the multiquote feature of this site...anyways...your hate speech laws are vague...a canadian magazine talked about islamic extemism a few years back and was chided on grounds of hate speech by muslims in the country. The government reviewed the article and made the magazine pay for emotional damages to the muslim community and a rewrite up of the actual article to appear more fair and politically correct. Anyone who is offended by any kind of speech is protected under your hate speech laws.

Leonidas

rock427

Leonidas

rock427

Foreigners cant really comprehend american culture or our laws and rights. You people cant seem to comprehend the fact that we the people hold all the power...that our government is only there to serve us....not to be our masters and tell us what we can and cant protect ourselves with. That was power never given to our government...something made clear in the constitution and the bill of rights.

That is the case in every stable democratic nation on earth.

Democracy and the right and duty to speak up against government is part of the culture and constitutions of most democratic countries of the world - if not all.

Constitutions in Democratic nations enshrine human rights, including the right to free speech and the right to complain and speak ill of the government - ( including the Royal Family in Britain, fyi).

Free speech is not a "foreigner" concept.

The mythology that surrounds the Constitution of the United States seems to have the effect of making some people believe that it's contents are somehow unique to America.

Actually your country does not support "hate speech". Canada, England, France, Germany, the Netherlands, South Africa, Australia and India all have laws or have signed international conventions banning hate speech. Hate speech is tolerated in the US. the problem with hate speech laws is the vague interpretation that qualifies as "hate" speech.

The Prohibition is not against "Hate Speech", but "Hate Propaganda", "that advocates or promotes genocide".

We don't think that is such a bad thing. And it was voted on, not imposed.

I personally hate the multiquote feature of this site...anyways...your hate speech laws are vague...a canadian magazine talked about islamic extemism a few years back and was chided on grounds of hate speech by muslims in the country. The government reviewed the article and made the magazine pay for emotional damages to the muslim community and a rewrite up of the actual article to appear more fair and politically correct. Anyone who is offended by any kind of speech is protected under your hate speech laws.

rock427
a canadian magazine talked about islamic extemism a few years back and was chided on grounds of hate speech by muslims in the country. The government reviewed the article and made the magazine pay for emotional damages to the muslim community and a rewrite up of the actual article to appear more fair and politically correct. Anyone who is offended by any kind of speech is protected under your hate speech laws.

Um...

In December 2007, the Canadian Islamic Congress filed a complaint about hate speech against Maclean's Magazine. The substance of the complaint was that Maclean's was publishing articles (a column by Mark Steyn) that insulted Muslims. The Congress filed its complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal and the Ontario Human Rights Commission.[14] The Ontario Human Rights Commission ruled that it did not have the jurisdiction to hear the complaint. The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal dismissed the complaint 10 October 2008.[15] The Canadian Human Rights Commission dismissed the complaint on 26 June 2008.

This is the only case I can find that includes a magazine...and the courts dismissed the case.

You don't happen to have an record of the case you are using as your example, do you?

rock427

Leonidas

rock427

Leonidas

rock427

Foreigners cant really comprehend american culture or our laws and rights. You people cant seem to comprehend the fact that we the people hold all the power...that our government is only there to serve us....not to be our masters and tell us what we can and cant protect ourselves with. That was power never given to our government...something made clear in the constitution and the bill of rights.

That is the case in every stable democratic nation on earth.

Democracy and the right and duty to speak up against government is part of the culture and constitutions of most democratic countries of the world - if not all.

Constitutions in Democratic nations enshrine human rights, including the right to free speech and the right to complain and speak ill of the government - ( including the Royal Family in Britain, fyi).

Free speech is not a "foreigner" concept.

The mythology that surrounds the Constitution of the United States seems to have the effect of making some people believe that it's contents are somehow unique to America.

Actually your country does not support "hate speech". Canada, England, France, Germany, the Netherlands, South Africa, Australia and India all have laws or have signed international conventions banning hate speech. Hate speech is tolerated in the US. the problem with hate speech laws is the vague interpretation that qualifies as "hate" speech.

The Prohibition is not against "Hate Speech", but "Hate Propaganda", "that advocates or promotes genocide".

We don't think that is such a bad thing. And it was voted on, not imposed.

I personally hate the multiquote feature of this site...anyways...your hate speech laws are vague...a canadian magazine talked about islamic extemism a few years back and was chided on grounds of hate speech by muslims in the country. The government reviewed the article and made the magazine pay for emotional damages to the muslim community and a rewrite up of the actual article to appear more fair and politically correct. Anyone who is offended by any kind of speech is protected under your hate speech laws.

It is quite specific about Hate Propaganda promoting Genocide.

We dont consider that a bad thing, because we have done some pretty awful things to groups in the past. Canada has concentration camps and genocide in our history.

I am not saying the American way is wrong. Far from it. But I also think that having a mechanism that we can use against a person who advocates genocide is a good thing.

America is great, I spend half the year there. So are the most Americans I know.

I am not saying America should do something to to stop people that advocate genocide, I am just saying Canada did.

JohnFisher
reply to post by OatDelphi

 

The only discussion topics piers Morgan stimulated were about British tabloid scandals and the lack of ethics in journalism.

You do realize you entered a thread in which the topics being conversed were "stimulated" by his very show. A thread that up to this point has 5 pages of very active and needed open discussions, and yet you make that statement.

Ya Okay...

peter vlar

SaturnFX

Gun restrictions have been loosened...

Interesting perspective. I don't suppose you could give some examples or citations show just how they've been loosened, I'd love to see them since where I live they have redefined what constitutes an "assault rifle" and outlawed magazines l
Tat hold more than 10 rounds and its illegal to have more than 7 rounds in it.

Citation 1
citation 2
If you want more, I recommend google as a search engine..mostly because of the algorithm
Google

You're neglecting the fact that there are more ex military infantrymen in the US currently than there are current members of all the branches of service combined.

Means nothing. unless you somehow convince all the ex military to become rebels (traitors unless you win), then at best, you can ignore the numbers there..but chances are, in a full blown uprising, there would be (best case scenario for the rebels) a 50/50 split of the troops.
As far as tactics are concerned, tactics mean nothing in the face of highly advanced technology. You can learn how to crawl under wire as much as you want...unless your troops can yank satellite directed smart bombs, then it simply is lopsided.

I am simply saying anyone thinking they can grab their gun and topple the government is delusional and/or extraordinarily stupid. We topple through influence. The founding fathers doesn't want a minority of people to revolt simply because they personally don't like how the country doesn't suit their desires...we the people decide through elections, and to revolt against duely elected officials without clear cut evidence of fraud is not some noble agenda, it is actually becoming a domestic enemy (the constitution also remarks of that)

how many US military would be prepared to fire on their own countrymen and how many would be refusing orders?

Some may refuse, most wouldn't..traitors trying to destroy the gub-ment that hate our freedoms and such is how it would be sold, understood, etc.
Unless the government actually did go into full Nazi movements with genocide and all sorts, then it would be a losing battle for the rebels, not just from a tactical hardware stance, but also philosophical and propaganda stance. the rebels would be seen as a bunch of crazed wannabe tyrants whom are trying to push their unpopular views on the people through violence. Every single shot soldier or officer would be played over and over through the media until the average joe would see the rebels as demons. people would be joining up whom otherwise are generally anti-military simply to show these rebels the country is united against them.
Gotta deal in reality...closing your eyes and demanding your bb guns can totally change the states into some ayn rand utopia is simply nonsense. If it isn't, then why hasn't it been done yet? Pretty sure Tim McVeigh tried that with his militia...and that went as well as expected...and what is the legacy of that move? oh..right..militia is crazy, must be stopped, and the people will cheer loudly for execution of the traitor.

Basically, if you can't talk it through, if you cant use the system in place, then your already off to a bad start. We are long past the days of a non-standing federal military and muskets / swords being the arms of the day. The new wars and rebellions are done in the mind and through things like twitter and facebook...that's the even battlefield.

He's right.

Many many Americans would rather blame Obama or some other such thing for these shootings than admit that yes, their gun laws are archaic and their "rights" are not at risk by relinquishing certain fire arm types.

But everyone outside the U.S knows this.

* Legal Fire arms owner here.

The waves of violence have diddly squat on a cracker to do with gun laws. If laws were the cause for the effect, then the Midwest would be awash in blood while the East and West coasts, where restrictions have traditionally been tightest since the early 90's, should be markedly more peaceful. Precisely the opposite is actually true. There are big cities that make the exception to the rule and neither Chicago nor St. Louis are among the top places to call home for peaceful quiet living ...but a matter of miles outside either is rural life again and normal folk.

Additionally, when the Los Angeles riots happened, I can tell you California was not near the anti-gun leader of the nation that they are today. Gun stores were at least as common as they are now, if not more so and what was IN them was as good as any Midwestern gun show stocks now. All that went onto the street in numbers they're probably still picking up guns from crime scenes with.....but it didn't cause a blood bath at the time. Everyone who wasn't armed going into the riots, sure as heck came out of them that way if that was a goal of someone ...but the armed camp among the people aspect had an odd impact, as I recall..

It got quiet after the last day of open unrest there and the LAPD's big Suburban fleet had restored order ahead of actual marines at Camp Pendleton who weren't idle at that stage.

If I recall, and it's been a year or two without looking it all up for numbers, crime actually dropped a bit for awhile. Everyone was perfectly capable of erasing everyone else and everyone knew it. It makes for polite folks, by lack of choice, if not by decency..and the nation watched it play out, without commentary to highlight it, during that riot and the aftermath.

----

We have crazy people. Honest to God, crazy people. Crazy people don't follow laws, and any of the shootings started with a string of felony crimes in the preperation and transportation to wherever the things happened. None of those serious laws and crimes slows them and the ultimate crime on any books back to Moses and his tablets...Thou Shalt Not Kill...is ignored as if it were actually an invitation to do that very thing.

We once had a mental health system that may not have been stellar, but it tried, and it had something to try with. We no longer have that and Obamacare overlooked that minefield of P.C. language entirely...sadly...to the loss of society and ultimately, more lives.

By NO means is everyone with a developmental disorder or challenge, crazy. Not even a good %. (We'd all be in trouble if that weren't true, as being self evident). However, those who are? Rarely get the screening, attention and help....or isolation in some cases...they need and DID get at one time.


Help the people who can't be safe in the same society as dangerous objects ...not the society that proves daily, they aren't dangerous to everyone.

canucks555
He's right.

Many many Americans would rather blame Obama or some other such thing for these shootings than admit that yes, their gun laws are archaic and their "rights" are not at risk by relinquishing certain fire arm types.

But everyone outside the U.S knows this.

* Legal Fire arms owner here.

edit on 29-3-2014 by canucks555 because: (no reason given)

If the legislation bring proposed were actually about the power and functionality of the weapon you might have a point. But that's not the case at all. The new restrictions that are now law in states like NY and Connecticut focus solely on aesthetics, not functionality or how much damage a particular firearm can do. In NY I can have a CCW to conceal carry a handgun. Unless I'm going through a metal detector, nobody would be the wiser for it and I could bring it into places like bars and movie theaters wherever. With long guns, I can't buy an AR-15 which is a medium caliber medium power carbine but I can but a .50 caliber or a Lapua .338 without anyone blinking an eye and with a little training you can hit targets a half mile out, with some really good training you can double that distance. I've got a 12gauge shotgun that I changed the barrel out to a rifled barrel. The rifled barrel only fires slugs. These slugs will go through the engine block of your car no problem. To give it a little perspective, a 30.06 which is used for big game hunting weighs approx. 150 grains whereas the slugs I use are roughly 383 grains yet the AR which fires a 5.56 or .223 round is really an over glorified .22 that looks mean with the extra hardware. The same comparison can be made between an SKS and an AK-47 semi auto. They both fire a 7.62x39 round. One looks like the Russian military rifle known world wide, the other looks like a more benign hunting rifle. aesthetically they look very different but I could swap the parts out on either of them with the other and they would both still work just fine. There is no common sense to the legislation and consequently little common sense on the side of the majority of Anti-Gun people I've spoken to because they really have no clue how these firearms actually work let alone the embarrassing jumbles they make with the terminology associated with these rifles. It's a case of the blind leading the blonde.

rock427


I personally hate the multiquote feature of this site...anyways...your hate speech laws are vague..

Not really.

I'm allowed to go as far as saying 'I think this person should be killed' as that's a personal opinion however if I said 'kill this person' then it would constitute hate speech as it's inciting murder, the 'I' makes the distinction between legal and illegal. At absolute worst, all hate speech laws do is make people be polite to each other with the benefit of sparing groups from being attacked or allowing organisations like the KKK to run riot. The price of me not being able to order the murder of someone is minuscule compared to the benefit it grants others.

Libel laws are pretty terrible over here but at least we don't have US systems where companies conduct trials in secret, overrule US law, democracy, the courts and the people if they object to a companies' actions as part of free trade agreement Investor-State Dispute Settlements.

SaturnFX
If you want more, I recommend google as a search engine..mostly because of the algorithm
Google

Wow ...I never dun seed a surcz enjun befurr Just an FYI, no need to be snarky. You made the claim, the onus is upon you to provide backing citation. It's not my job to verify your data for you.

Means nothing. unless you somehow convince all the ex military to become rebels (traitors unless you win), then at best, you can ignore the numbers there..but chances are, in a full blown uprising, there would be (best case scenario for the rebels) a 50/50 split of the troops.
As far as tactics are concerned, tactics mean nothing in the face of highly advanced technology. You can learn how to crawl under wire as much as you want...unless your troops can yank satellite directed smart bombs, then it simply is lopsided.

You are aware that as far as the federal govt. is concerned, all former military are potential terrorists and that the vast majority of us are beyond pissed at the treatment we receive from the military, the govt and especially the VA. I can say with a fair degree of certainty that the numbers would be vast and that's just trained former infantry, not getting into other retired or disabled vets or the civilian population. By the way, I know plenty of guys who haven't served who would embarrass some of the guys I was in with out at the rifle range. Crack shots is a massive understatement. I'm in no way promoting violence against anyone let alone the government, I'm simply pointing out a different perspective that should be taken into consideration.

I am simply saying anyone thinking they can grab their gun and topple the government is delusional and/or extraordinarily stupid. We topple through influence. The founding fathers doesn't want a minority of people to revolt simply because they personally don't like how the country doesn't suit their desires...we the people decide through elections, and to revolt against duely elected officials without clear cut evidence of fraud is not some noble agenda, it is actually becoming a domestic enemy (the constitution also remarks of that)

You're assuming its only a minority of people who are unhappy with the direction the US government is going the past few decades. I don't disagree with you though that if it were a small minority that they would be seen as anti government nuts particularly compounded if it were done with no due evidence of fraud or misdeed by the elected officials. I'm certainly not for every redneck getting in their pickup truck, loading in the 12 gauge blaring some Skynyrd as they go around shootin' stuff up. The crux of my point was that its insane to think that an under trained, inferior force couldn't hold off a well trained standing army. The Iraqi's and the Taliban have proven this to be so over the past decade.

Some may refuse, most wouldn't..traitors trying to destroy the gub-ment that hate our freedoms and such is how it would be sold, understood, etc.
Unless the government actually did go into full Nazi movements with genocide and all sorts, then it would be a losing battle for the rebels, not just from a tactical hardware stance, but also philosophical and propaganda stance. the rebels would be seen as a bunch of crazed wannabe tyrants whom are trying to push their unpopular views on the people through violence. Every single shot soldier or officer would be played over and over through the media until the average joe would see the rebels as demons. people would be joining up whom otherwise are generally anti-military simply to show these rebels the country is united against them.

There are too many variables for this scenario. How many people are willing to take up arms against the govt. , WHY are they doing so? the answers to those questions can sway ands alter the potential outcome of the scenarios you describe. Americans enlisting to hunt and kill other Americans would be a really big deal. The last time it happened it was wholesale slaughter for 5 straight years.

Gotta deal in reality...closing your eyes and demanding your bb guns can totally change the states into some ayn rand utopia is simply nonsense. If it isn't, then why hasn't it been done yet? Pretty sure Tim McVeigh tried that with his militia...and that went as well as expected...and what is the legacy of that move? oh..right..militia is crazy, must be stopped, and the people will cheer loudly for execution of the traitor.

BB guns huh? I'm only asking so I can better understand your replies but, are you American and are you a gun owner or do you own firearms? Personally, I love shooting. But please keep me as far away from an Ayn Rand utopia as possible!!! No thank you bob! As for McVeigh... My response would be somewhat different depending on whether you believe the OS or believe oin one of the many conspiracies surrounding Tim and the OKC bombing.

Basically, if you can't talk it through, if you cant use the system in place, then your already off to a bad start. We are long past the days of a non-standing federal military and muskets / swords being the arms of the day. The new wars and rebellions are done in the mind and through things like twitter and facebook...that's the even battlefield.

That's a really nice sentiment and 24 years ago when I enlisted I would have been screaming it from the tops of buildings. I was a naïve fool who truly believed in "The System". Unfortunately I grew up and having been inside that system I can assure you it is categorically broken, irreparably so. You cant work within a broken system. You have to either fix it or reboot it.