What do you think DoL means?
Being called a gun nut doesn’t bother me. It alerts me that I’m talking to someone driven by emotion and not knowledge, who is most likely afraid of guns and is trying to make the other side out to be crazy. That way you don’t have to argue the facts that show that you’re wrong. You call people a nut, but offer no evidence of mental deficiency. Both sides believe the mentally deficient shouldn’t have guns.
So, if 2/3 of the 32,000 of the gun deaths are excluded as suicides, rounding to 20,000, that leaves 10,000 killed by gun use, and 322,000 saved by gun use, so the corrected ratio is 32 saved to 1 killed. That is much better than 10 saved to 1 killed.
Thanks
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541-1548)[1] is a federal law intended to check the President’s power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of Congress. The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution; this provides that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or in case of “a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”
The War Powers Resolution was disregarded by President Reagan in 1981 by sending military forces to El Salvador and later the Contras in Nicaragua and by President Clinton in 1999, during the bombing campaign in Kosovo.
All presidents since 1973 have declared their belief that the act is unconstitutional.
Yeah, this says your war powers reference limits the President from sending troops abroad without alerting Congress. And there are people who know a lot more about it than you or me that agree with me.
The President can call up the military that belongs to the states. Where you lose traction is that when the states are telling the Fed that it has overstepped itself and we are disbanding the Fed, they won’t be available to him to call up.
You might well consider all of that unconstitutional – and until the SCOTUS agrees, your opinion is worth its weight in gold.
The fact that I’m the kid saying the emperor has no clothes doesn’t make me wrong. That there is nothing I can do about it doesn’t make me wrong.
Since we are talking DoL, we are talking the Federal Government. Since we are talking the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution, we are talking the Federal Government.
The Whiskey Rebellion was a tax enforcement issue. They weren’t trying to overthrow the government.
The fact that there are a whole bunch of you that are wrong doesn’t make you right.
One step at a time? Like a slippery slope?
You mean, it’s a much bigger and more certain misstatement? I’d agree with that, for the reasons noted in #357.
Actually, you are agreeing with me that the ratio is wrong. That’s progress. Now we just have to think through all the reasoning concerning it being wrong.
Your 32 to 1 ratio requires that the slightly less than half the population who owns a gun is more than 32 times more likely than non-gun owners to be targeted by murderers. I’d be interested to know if you really believe this, and why.
First You can be sure that I’m not for banning ALL GUNS! And to be clear, I’m not much for banning guns itself. ‘My ban’ would be more about some persons.
And ‘huge’ varies. A guy living on the countryside could have several guns for hunting and self defense and there’s no problem with it. But why would a guy who never leaves the city need a rifle? Still I’m not saying he shouldn’t have it, but one might take a closer look to his sanity and lifestyle than that of the farmer.
Do You really think that Finland could get enough guns to beat the Russians? Or that private guns could make any difference? There’s five million people in Finland, Moscow alone has more than ten million!
You seem to keep picking up irrelevant pieces out of the context and distorting the message. You really aren’t making a service to Yourself or to Your side, I can’t trust anything You say.
Didn’t they already do something for tea? And then things got a little out of hand…
Maybe a gun owner is more than 32 times likely to be a criminal than a non-gun owner…?
So for example, you wouldn’t ban AR15s?
Are you aware that rifles are used considerably less often in crimes, and there are considerably less accidents with them? That the famous anti-gun study by Kellerman found those with rifles and shotguns in the home, were at less risk for homicide than those who didn’t?
If you want to talk about guns in the hands of citizens, you should be talking about Switzerland, not Finland.
For some people: absolutely yes. For some people: no - but they have to prove they should have it and that might not be easy. I don’t know why this is so difficult to understand.
1, yes, I’m aware of that. I still don’t see why somebody should need a rifle in a city apartment.
2, no, I wasn’t aware of that, but it makes sense as those having rifles and shotguns tend to live in rural areas where pretty much everyone has a rifle. Correct Me if I’m wrong. ( What it said about pistols? )
Finland or Switzerland have nothing to do with this topic. That was just a slight hijack between You and Me and should be dropped. People in Finland or Switzerland don’t have guns to fight their own government.
Btw. You told how having a gun saved You life. How things would have ended if You BOTH had a gun?
To remind bullies with badges that they are supposed to be public servants, not the biggest and best armed gang in town.
Dammit, you made me come to the defense of BrainGlutton of all people. You’re completely misreading your own citations. The President is the Commander in Chief of the standing armed forces at all times- and the militia when called to federal duty. The Constitution explicitly authorizes a standing army and navy, which are only funded two years at time, and Congress has the authority to declare war; but those are separate provisions, not dependent on each other.
How would they prove they should have it?
The Kellerman study looked at urban regions for both. They found handguns increased the risk for homicide, but less so than having one person in the home who was not a teetotaler. Also handguns guns are used in crimes (urban or not) considerably more frequently than long guns. So why the hate for long guns?
No, I like this subject. Tell me how Switzerland faired compared to other european countries during World War 1 and 2.
Hard to say, but I think probably I would have still won the outcome. With my current training and weapon set up, I most certainly would have. My new bedside weapon is set up almost identical to this:
http://www.wilsoncombat.com/new/slider/demo/images/wilson-shotguns.jpg
You might notice it’s a long gun. What do you think, should it be legal or no?
Personally I don’t know. Satisfied?
You mean other European countries that are located in the mountains like Liechtenstein or Andorra? It wasn’t about having huge arsenals. It was about being too much trouble compared to gain. And in the end, if Germany had won the others, surely You don’t think Switzerland could’ve kept them away.
I’m really, really, really getting sick with this.
No, you should know. It’s your idea.
Historically, you don’t always have to be able to hold out forever, just hold out long enough. And you are right about this it being too much trouble compared to gain. Don’t you think having your entire male populace being both armed and trained improves the “trouble” vs. “gain” ratio?
I don’t know why you are sick of this, you brought up my personal situation. I really want to know if you think my home defense gun is something you think I should be free to own. So what do you think?
The states cannot “disband” the U.S. Do you think this is 1861?! :rolleyes:
How does that follow? Most threats-to-liberty in American history have originated at the state level.
Also since you don’t like rifles in particular, I think due to their use in crime, maybe you could also comment on gun crimes rates in Switzerland.
Switzerland is not defended by guns. Switzerland is defended by banks.
They are also supposed to be the biggest and best-armed gang in town. Career criminals regard the police like the weather – something to be dealt with but never fought. Sometimes you can bribe the police; if not, then you just try to avoid them and escape their notice. What you never, ever consider doing is fighting the police like you might fight a rival gang, because you can’t, the police are just too powerful, more powerful than you and all your friends put together.
You need not look far to see countries where the police are not that, and the results are never good.
What is? Gun control? I don’t know what You mean with this. I never said I’m qualified to valuate who should have a gun. Actually I don’t believe I am. But somebody should do that. It might be NRA for all I care, if they’re doing a proper job with it and not handing out guns for anyone who just happens to ask.
That’s exactly what Finland did. Without D-Day forcing Stalin to focus on conquering East Europe and Germany, We would’ve lost big time.
Yes, it improves it. It also might turn the country into a hellhole that nobody wants to conquer.
You quoted this in the very same post:
And I’m even more puzzled now ( which means that it might not be so easy for You… ).
You really see what You want to see…
“The Swiss military strategy was changed from one of static defence at the borders, to a strategy of organized long-term attrition and withdrawal to strong, well-stockpiled positions high in the Alps known as the National Redoubt. This controversial strategy was essentially one of deterrence. The idea was to cause huge losses to German forces and render the cost of invading too high.”