I just found this article which I thought was interesting. It goes over much of the same information as the first but also makes some attempts to quantify deaths due to crime vs deaths do to genocide. Among other comments I thought were interesting was questioning what American’s might have done to the the Japanese American in their internment camps had the WWII gone bad for us.
As before I would like to hear from the the anti-gunner crowd if they have any specific criticisms, particularly on matter of fact claims, history, etc.
No it’s a message board where people are free to express their opinion. That includes those who try to shout others down.
So we’ll dispense with the ivory tower insults and go to the facts. Membership is up with the NRA because of hypocrites like Feinstein who go after guns with the same elitist attitude. There is your “You go brother” with the backing of millions of NRA supporters.
The fact that you proudly support bumper-sticker mentality like that says more about whatever side you’re on than anything I could possibly respond with.
So during the power outage in Toronto did you use your gun to repel neighbors who wanted food? Or maybe you used it to seize food from your neighbors by force.
Of course natural disasters happen. Rational people prepare for them by having extra food and water in the house, purchasing generators, or stocking up on firewood. I’m sure it’s fun to have dystopian fantasies about being Mad Max, but it’s kinda silly isn’t it?
aww, you poor thing. didn’t like having your boorish behavior shoved back in your face. Well that’s just too bad.
Feinstein is a hypocrite who is using a tragedy for political fodder. She’s perfectly happy to protect herself while providing no protection for children.
Your position of gun control is a knee-jerk reaction that helps nobody and hurts everybody. The school shootings will continue until all the states adopt the positions of the early adopters and take an active role protecting the children.
I wouldn’t. I know a bit about firearms…but I’m certainly not enough of a scholar of arms, law and history to be futzing with something of that magnitude, and I doubt there are more than 3 or 4 posters on this message board than come close to having that level of understanding.
You’re just not getting it, are you? I would like people who know what the fuck they are talking about(definitely not me, and almost certainly not you) to get together and create a clear definition of “arms” that all (including the Supreme Court) could agree upon. Once that definition is established, all arms that fall within that definition are legal, and those that don’t aren’t.
