- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 281,619
- Reaction score
- 100,389
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Civilian - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A civilian under international humanitarian law (also known as the laws of war) is a person who is not a member of his or her country's armed forces or other militia.
it is why the department of defense calls the FBI, the DEA and the US Marshalls CIVILIAN LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
How many times can a guy be proven wrong in gun debates before he slows down with the ignorant tripe?
How many times can a guy be proven wrong in gun debates before he slows down with the ignorant tripe?
i have seen his angry posts but none which serve to convince us why restrictions on the owning and using of arms are unreasonableNo, he's already explained ad infinitum.
yes. what does that have to do with this discussion?You keep bringing up the same debunked talking points as if the discussion never happened. Have you been around firearms much in your life? Ever changed a magazine on the fly, cleared a jam?
being able to charge the perp, isn't that a good thing?Most firearms restrictions are nonsensical and only come into play after the crime. The government doesn't typically know when you buy a unlicensed firearm from an unlicensed dealer, and that happens every single day. Same with ammo. The restrictions only serve to restrict those who follow the rules and allow us to add on charges when we catch the perp with an unlicensed firearm.
i have seen his angry posts but none which serve to convince us why restrictions on the owning and using of arms are unreasonable
yes. what does that have to do with this discussion?
being able to charge the perp, isn't that a good thing?
seems to be quite effective where they have tried it, such places as england and japanBeing completely ineffective is reason enough.
so does my personal ownership of arms since age nine and my military experience give me legitimacy to ask these questions?Well to persist with debunked tripe rather than admit ignorance is tiresome. Also, inexperience with firearms combined with ignorance makes one's position quite irrelevant.
but you presume the perp committed assault/armed robbery. nothing establishes that was the circumstance. maybe his violations consisted of violating laws restricting the possession/use of armsNot if you think the current laws on the books regarding armed robbery/assault are enough.
seems to be quite effective where they have tried it, such places as england and japan
so does my personal ownership of arms since age nine and my military experience give me legitimacy to ask these questions?
but you presume the perp committed assault/armed robbery. nothing establishes that was the circumstance. maybe his violations consisted of violating laws restricting the possession/use of arms
seems to be quite effective where they have tried it, such places as england and japan
so does my personal ownership of arms since age nine and my military experience give me legitimacy to ask these questions?
but you presume the perp committed assault/armed robbery. nothing establishes that was the circumstance. maybe his violations consisted of violating laws restricting the possession/use of arms
None of that addresses the matter of need, which was your baseless claim to which my 1st post on this thread contradicts.
Please learn the difference between needs and wants, its a big distinction.
I asked you to quote me saying I needed one, which you failed at so you chose to quote the vote. But that vote reflects a want, just as I don't need one for sport but would like one.
EDIT: By the way, what was my lie? I'd love to hear you nail this one down.
Look dude, you were the one that chose "Yes, for self defense" rather than "Yes, for recreational use". If you want to change your vote, you might try pleading your case to a moderator. Until then, you are stuck with the public record of your choice at the top of the page.
stop lying-They sure are
If that is the case, why do they have different weapons restrictions?
it is why the department of defense calls the FBI, the DEA and the US Marshalls CIVILIAN LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
Because they are charged with enforcing civilian law.
what exactly are you doing here when you already admitted you don't feel a need to own such a weapon?
can you prove they are not civilians
I didn't think so
the claim is moronic
Have you not read the choices in the poll?
I already have by pointing out that the police are not bound by the same weapons restrictions as civilians are.
because of statist stupidity
what is your purpose here
Not a believer in the rule of law "counselor"? I have no interest in your unsubstantiated far right opinions that do not adhere to the rule of law.
Uh duh and I have said that is wrong
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?