- Joined
- Jul 4, 2011
- Messages
- 33,023
- Reaction score
- 14,666
- Location
- Near Seattle
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Medical helicopters were turned away at Marysville shootings
Twenty-five minutes after Friday’s shooting at Marysville-Pilchuck High School, two air ambulances hovered near the campus, prepared to transport the critically wounded to the region’s highest-rated trauma hospital.
.
"Registration systems also create accountability for firearm owners and discourage illegal sales.
Firearm registration laws can lead to the identification and prosecution of violent criminals by helping law enforcement quickly and reliably “trace” (identify the source of) firearms recovered from crime scenes. Firearm registration laws create comprehensive records of firearm ownership, which include a full description of each firearm and identify the owner. Comprehensive registration laws also require a firearm to be re-registered whenever title to the firearm is transferred, and law enforcement to be notified whenever the weapon is lost or stolen. As a result, registration laws help law enforcement quickly and reliably identify the owner of any firearm used in a crime."
...
I honestly can not see why this is such a hassle to you
its a relatively simple procedure
...but then again I'm not the paranoid type
see you proved my point and you probably are unable to understand why
I own a MIAI-and I didn't buy it for deer hunting
You are when it comes to mean and nasty guns.
Regardless, that is not the point.
Has human nature changed?Have men become angels? The world of men (and women) has not changed. There are tyrants today just as there were tyrants then. There are wannabe tyrants now just as there were then. Fortunately there remain a small number of patriots today just as then to fight the wannabe tyrants and the rest of the authoritarian statists. You, and people like you, who believe as you believe, are clear examples of how nothing has changed. The patriots must be armed as long as the authoritarian statists and fellow travelers are with us.
This is absolutely not true. A few tens of millions of armed citizens can utterly destroy the military.
I don't think they would shun people defending themselves anywhere in the nation though. They didn't have police forces. Hell Alexander Hamilton went heels with Aaron burr. Clearly the founders were not reticent of firearm.
I'm a practical fellow. It is the point.
I have no doubt, to you, it is. To the Founding Fathers and the Constitution, it isn't.
Sure. they were practical fellows as well, and proven willing to change the document. Remember the Constitution was the second effort. They proved themselves adaptable to changing circumstance and needs.
.Reeducation CAMPS!!!!??!!!! You might as well be creating internment camps. Seriously? Did you even read this anti freedom bill?
But the right to bear arms was so critical, after addressing the right to voice an opinion, they secured the method to defend it. Quite practical, as you suggested.
.
am I?
again what is the purpose of having a "mean and nasty gun" for hunting bambi?
or that fact why full auto?
has bambi learned to shoot back?
.
mean and nasty belongs in wars...are you planning your own personal one soon?
do you need "mean and nasty" to get the point across "please stay out of my house"?
one does not use a sledge hammer to drive a finishing nail
Was is the key word. There is no argument about "then" at all. But weapons and things have advanced so much, that what you suggest is impractical today. what was practical then isn't now. And to think that the founding fathers would have been deft, dumb and blind I find laughable. They would change as anyone would. Just as we would have to change to live then.
.
"3. Reeducation: Convicted offenders found to be in possession of a scheduled firearm, shall be transported to a reeducation camp for instruction in the community's expectations.
.
"Convicted offenders "
nothing anti freedom in that
unless you figure your prisons for the convicted are also along the same lines
It's only impractical to those who want to suggest it.
To add. You think the Founding Fathers would take up the matter of protecting the right to voice an opinion, but eliminate the means to defend it because weapons and things have advanced so much? That absurd.
.Dude. Listen to the wording. And then consider the REASON these people are being sent to "reeducation" camps. Because they possessed something that is likely to be owned by law abiding citizens now. Something that is used in almost 0 crimes.
Like I said, you better have a plan B. Not much you can do dead. yes, we don't have access to fighter jets, nukes, and like. You can't fight government this way. And you don't have millions behind you for the faux tyranny often presented on these pages.
Right. We just have people who want to change Constitutional protections because "times have changed". Rather interesting how clairvoyant the Founding Fathers were.
Adjust maybe to reflect the real world, maybe. And that's only a maybe. But let's not pretend that the world is the same. And let's not pretend that anyone, even the founding fathers, wouldn't change as times change.
.
they would be sent 'cause they are convicted criminals
you'll get no agreement from me that you have every right to possess an illegal scheduled firearm
we up here have different classes of weapon as well and for good reason
ya don't need a fully automatic to go hunt bambi
the only reason one might feel they need such an animal is for the purposes of insurrection
do you not find it terribly ominous that other than war torn countries Americas firearm related deaths
is one of the highest?...
and only going higher
and why?
cause you refuse the simple task of registering?
that you need that howitzer for smokey the bears cousin?
.
I thought you guys were suppose to be civilised?
There is no question the Founding Fathers anticipated change, for they made provision to address it. However, there is little doubt the Founding Fathers were suspect of the lure of power and control, and intended to provide the means to speak out against it, and the means to defend against it.
What you write of, the overwhelming power of government, so no reason to have a means to defend against it, is the very same attitude the British had when the Founding Fathers risked all to secure our future. The Constitution doesn't have means tests.
Still be suspect, not delusional mind you, but suspect. I merely say you need to plan effectively and not based on myth.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?