It’s Time for Gun Confiscation in America

page: 3
159
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimmiec
reply to post by seabag
 


That age group increasingly looks to be the age group that snaps and commits these mass murders. I was actually generalizing but there is some underlying problem that causes them to kill when things go badly for them. I don't know what that is, i have my suspicions but the age group that is committing these horrendous acts is more and more evident. I don't really think raising the age limit would have any effect. It was more a statement to identify the age group that seems to be snapping in violent ways.


I think that the violent tendencies for males of this age group also coincides with the increase of SSRI drug consumption. I see children being raised with labels that are none too flattering, and then watch mom and dad agreeing with a diagnosis made by a total stranger. The smallest of normal growing pains and confusions has turned into dirty little labels for the sake of lazy parents and a buck for the experts. When the kid finally snaps he is then paraded about by the media demons Ken and Barbie, and political whores exploit him further for their own little sinister agendas or repayment to some corporate lobby.




posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 03:23 PM
link   
Brilliant thread! S&F!

Agreed 100%.

Still, the odds of us taking their guns are about as likely as them taking ours. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try, though.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 



You're so polarized you can't see straight. You can't actually see that I'm on your side.


Shellshock…..that’s the word…..not polarized.





What I mean by the type of arms is, unless you can take out a predator drone, tank, war jet... your current arms are useless against an overt tyrannical push.


Then why have all the tyrants in history sought to disarm their citizens if resistance is futile?




So let's, to use your words, stop sugar coating under the guise of defense against tyranny. You want them because you want them... plain and simple... and you should have them.


I want them because I want them and because it’s my God given right as an America. If you’re suggesting that I wouldn’t use them for the purpose of defending my country then I guess I’ll have to really get under your skin and remind you ONCE AGAIN (wait for it….I know you love this part)….I spent 8 years active duty in the Marine Corps. My willingness and ability to take up arms isn’t in question and I don’t need to “play hero to the republic” as you so eloquently suggested.


Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But, the Marines don't have that problem.
Ronald Reagan, President of the United States; 1985

edit on 13-1-2013 by seabag because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


S&F. Just came back from a gun show nearby at the Kane Co. fairgrounds. The place was packed.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


Brilliant thread, and I love your down to earth common sense commentary.

Keyboard warriors are just as valuable as any other warrior in this challenge.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by JMech
reply to post by seabag
 


S&F. Just came back from a gun show nearby at the Kane Co. fairgrounds. The place was packed.


Thanks!

How was the gun show? Was it you and 10,000 others there? That's how it was last month when I went here in Texas.




posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by seabag
 

What I mean by the type of arms is, unless you can take out a predator drone, tank, war jet... your current arms are useless against an overt tyrannical push. So let's, to use your words, stop sugar coating under the guise of defense against tyranny. You want them because you want them... plain and simple... and you should have them.


While I agree that people should be able to have guns simply because they want to have them, small arms have proven to be more than capable weapons against modern armies. I think there is a misconception that wars are won by drones and tanks nowadays. They aren't. They're won by men on the ground. Look at the current war in Afghanistan to see what angry people will small arms and a little ingenuity can do.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by DirtyD

I don't think the death penalty deters squat. I hardly think criminals stop to think about the consequences of their actions.


I've gotta say that while I agree that might be true some or even most of the time, I know it's untrue part of the time. Freshman year in college I had to read a Supreme Court case about this kid who murdered someone just because he was underage and couldn't be executed. What was really annoying was having to read the Supreme Court explain to the state (who tried him as an adult and were going to execute him anyway) about how kids did not think about things like that--despite the fact that this kid obviously had.
edit on 13-1-2013 by StalkerSolent because: Cosmetics!



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by StalkerSolent
 


If the intention of the war was to win it in terms we recognize, it would have been won in months.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by StalkerSolent
 


That's right Stalker. And everyone fails to mention that as our guns quietly rust away in their lockers, they are STILL deterring prospective oppressors by just being there. And that's the way most of us like it. The day that we must use them to defend our freedoms from our own will be a sad day for all.
edit on 13-1-2013 by wormtongue because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by StalkerSolent
 


If the intention of the war was to win it in terms we recognize, it would have been won in months.


Perhaps you could elaborate on that, but I think I have to disagree. While I agree that we're fighting a pretty futile fight, I'm not certain that the enemy is centralized enough (or sane enough) to enter into terms in a meaningful way.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


No manufacturers, just independant dealers and owners but ok. As far as the crowd goes, crazy crowded. If I don't get the flu in the next few days, I'm probably immune.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by StalkerSolent
 



Perhaps you could elaborate on that, but I think I have to disagree. While I agree that we're fighting a pretty futile fight, I'm not certain that the enemy is centralized enough (or sane enough) to enter into terms in a meaningful way.


With regards to the situation in America, the war has been conducted in the legal system, the educational system, and in the media. This most recent attempt at disarming the citizens through changes to the 2nd amendment is just the latest tactic. It is a necessary action if they hope to completely impose their will. We've seen this happen in many tyrannical regimes.

Who would fight against the armed American people on the side of the government? Who will do the governments bidding with blood and bullets? It would take significant numbers against a heavily armed population.

Police and military members all have family and friend among us. I’ve asked several and I haven’t found one willing to follow orders to attack me in my home or come after my guns.


edit on 13-1-2013 by seabag because: to elaborate



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacedog1973
I think the idea of protecting freedom on the end of a barrel is foolish.


If the Allies had that attitude in World War II, we would now be posting in German about the greatness of The Fuhrer. That is, those of us deemed racially pure enough to survive.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by StalkerSolent
 


Long term destabilization as opposed to getting the enemy.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by VictorVonDoom
 


Exactly. How else would one defend freedom? By "playing" dead?



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 04:11 PM
link   


Originally posted by DirtyD I don't think the death penalty deters squat. I hardly think criminals stop to think about the consequences of their actions. I've gotta say that while I agree that might be true some or even most of the time, I know it's untrue part of the time. Freshman year in college I had to read a Supreme Court case about this kid who murdered someone just because he was underage and couldn't be executed. What was really annoying was having to read the Supreme Court explain to the state (who tried him as an adult and were going to execute him anyway) about how kids did not think about things like that--despite the fact that this kid obviously had. edit on 13-1-2013 by StalkerSolent because: Cosmetics!
reply to post by StalkerSolent
 



Emotionally I want nothing more than to see murderers and rapists killed on the spot, but morally I believe it's wrong. I just found it ironic that someone would suggest granting the government more power to kill people via the death penalty in a forum which condemns government violence.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by DirtyD



Originally posted by DirtyD I don't think the death penalty deters squat. I hardly think criminals stop to think about the consequences of their actions. I've gotta say that while I agree that might be true some or even most of the time, I know it's untrue part of the time. Freshman year in college I had to read a Supreme Court case about this kid who murdered someone just because he was underage and couldn't be executed. What was really annoying was having to read the Supreme Court explain to the state (who tried him as an adult and were going to execute him anyway) about how kids did not think about things like that--despite the fact that this kid obviously had. edit on 13-1-2013 by StalkerSolent because: Cosmetics!
reply to post by StalkerSolent
 



Emotionally I want nothing more than to see murderers and rapists killed on the spot, but morally I believe it's wrong. I just found it ironic that someone would suggest granting the government more power to kill people via the death penalty in a forum which condemns government violence.


It would be ironic if true.

You do realize that the government doesn't impose the sentence....a jury does.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimmiec
It is starting to look like they should raise the age to buy a gun, at least in northern states. Reading through many stories it would appear that a certain age group think that a gun is only for killing people in mass. In the south we are taught gun safety and are taught that they are tools for filling the freezer. I am generalizing of course. I am positive the northern states do the same,at least in rural areas that hunt with them. The 20-30 generation are increasingly painting targets on their foreheads as potential terrorists. Take it easy, i am generalizing. The fact that 99% of them are fine does not negate the fact that this age group is the one playing Charles Manson.


You have to stop and think that only just over 1% of Americans are fanatical enough about their guns to actually become members of the NRA, who's membership is about 4 million out of about 315 million Americans.

They're a VERY loud minority, that's all. The vast majority of Americans are responsible gun owners who think that the NRA and their ideas are just what they are - complete nonsense.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 04:17 PM
link   
If you'd spent as much energy ensuring accountability for ALL people who serve the public, rather than building up your own personal armouries which were pale imitations of the ones you'd allowed your govt and private corporations to build, you wouldn't have the problems you have now.





new topics
top topics
 
159
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join