To his credit, the other thread is more active. Maybe because people who don't have him on ignore like to argue with him.
Exactly what he was doing. If you've seen any of the pictures of the crowd, fish in a barrel isn't even appropriate, unless you're talking about a barrel completely full of fish. Pretty hard to shoot in that direction and not hit somebody. The degree of sickness it would take to do this is something I can't really wrap my mind around.
In which case they wouldn't have gone in, and couldn't say they saw no sign of this. They would say the DND sign was up, and they didn't go in.
Yeah, that's kind of what I meant, fish in a barrel completely full of fish. Also, that's why it's so concerning that this might not even be terrorism. I mean, I feel like we should be able to figure out why someone did something this horrible and "because I felt like it" simply won't do.
Gonna play devil's advocate, and answer your question from that perspective. Why was the second amendment put in place? Because the British government would go around and confiscate guns to prevent an armed uprising against them. It is there to ensure that the citizenry has access to weapons for armed military conflict against the government, or another government (if called up as militia). If you are fighting against the military, you need weapons like this. That being said, I don't have issues with laws restricting/banning these types of things. Just providing the counter argument, because there actually is one. But they certainly seem to go against the ban against automatic weapons...it is difficult to see what the real difference between guns with these devices and automatic weapons is.
Indications are that he may well have been planning on making a getaway, so crashing the plane doesn't allow for that. No, it doesn't make sense. I hope we figure out the 'why'. But that isn't always the case. The similar shooting at the top of the tower at U.T. comes to mind.
Is there any argument that isn't grounded in 18th century warfare? The thought that a modern day militia of armed citizens would be able to stand up to the United States military is laughable at best.
Well yeah, I said that before the reports of him planning a getaway were known. At the time I thought that he planned on it being a suicide run, if he had hopes of escaping, it makes sense why he wouldn't do a kamikaze with one of his planes.
Oh yeah? I'm pretty sure there's a group of cave dwelling goat f***ers in Afghanistan that has been doing just that for 16 years now.
Exactly. Keep in mind scale. How many hunters are there? 40-60 million? Guerilla warfare can be highly effective...we've never seen it where the guerillas outnumber the military 10 to 1. I don't think the military would relish such a conflict at all, to Bobby's point. Whether that were our military, or any other. Nice one, B-bob!
Then you're equating the gun rights activists as terrorists against the military in this made up scenario that'll never happen. That means those so deeply centered on defending their 2nd amendment rights would have to be willing to do all the other atrocities we hold against terrorists across the globe. Is that how far you wanna go in defending your right to bear arms? If say sometime in the future, guns are banned in the United States (a made up scenario that is unlikely to ever happen as well), do you expect some Fallout type Civil War to emerge because of it? Do you think that's how far guns right activists are willing to go?
So say a ban against all guns were to happen tomorrow. Are you expecting some civil war to erupt where this made up scenario happens that you have to plot against our military? And you're happy at the thought of that? That's a good thing to you?
The difference between freedom fighters and terrorists quite often comes down to little more than what side of the fence you are on.
So, we're preserving our optionality to have a Syria-style civil war where 15 competing factions all brutalize one another?
Understand that. My question to you is do you think guns rights activists would be willing to plot against our military should a ban on guns ever happen? As someone that would think a ban on guns is unconstitutional and irrational, do you think it'd be a good idea if a civil war emerged over the right to bear arms? To you, would you say it's freedom fighting or terrorism?
I think the gun nuts fail to recognize that the United States spends more on the military than the next seven countries in the world combined. The Syrian military wouldn't last a week vs the US military and neither would a bunch of geared up militiamen.
Are you really this ignorant of our country's history? It is how our country formed...so not only has it happened, it happened right here, to us, and was fundamental to our country existing. Which is why they made an amendment for it in the Constitution.
Straw man much? Where did I say I was happy at the thought, or that it was a good thing? Classic liberal argument...don't bother with facts, or history, and by all means paint the other side as some evil people. Yep, you checked all the boxes! Congratulations, your status as liberal tool is intact!
You could just answer the questions instead of calling me a libtard. The argument is the 2nd amendment is present in case our government becomes tyrannical. As a libtard that's unhappy with Trump, I still do not view this nation as though it's run by a tyrant. That said, in the made up scenario I described where Trump pulls a 180 and does a ban of firearms. Would you support a civil war? Would you consider that a good thing? Are those who would engage in a civil war freedom fighters or terrorists in your eyes? Could you personally support this nation even if it did something you personally consider unconstitutional and irrational like banning all firearms? Where would you side? From one wise conservative as yourself with all your vast wisdom, I'm dying to know. Educate this libtard please on these hypotheticals.
