Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Justice American Style

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by frisco17 View Post

    Knowing that I'm not willing to give up my right to own mine thus I cannot accept the idea of nobody having guns.

    Lethality doesn't come into play because it isn't the goverents job to decide what is too dangerous for me to be trusted with like a hovering parent. As a free citizen I have the right to make that decision for myself, as does everybody else and I should not be punished because some people choose to abuse their right and more than cars should be banned because people choose to drive drunk.
    .
    Lethality and safety comes into play with every other piece of technology. It is exactly the government's job to assess risks, utility and costs. It does it with everything including your car, your medicine and your home.

    Why doesn't the typical car-jacker or gangbanger carry around a M249 SAW or even an MP-5? The black market cost and availability. And what determines these factors is the number generally available in the marketplace.

    Comment


    • #62
      http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/12/12/...ving-accident/

      For most people, conviction for vehicular manslaughter due to drunk driving warrants a lengthy sentence, but not in the case of Ethan Couch, a wealthy young man from the state of Texas.

      The Keller, Tex., 16-year-old has a rare condition that a judge believes is best remedied with anything but dealing with the consequences for causing a DWI wreck that killed four people, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported.

      Couch suffers from “affluenza,” according to his lawyers, a term which means that his wealthy parents pretty much let him get away with everything. The defense saved him from a 20-year sentence; State District Judge Jean Boyd bought it at his sentencing on Tuesday and gave Couch probation instead.

      “He never learned that sometimes you don’t get your way,” Gary Miller, a psychologist assigned to Couch said in court. “He had the cars and he had the money. He had freedoms that no young man would be able to handle.”
      what fing justice when you can use I am rich as a defence.
      you think you a real "bleep" solders you "bleep" plastic solders don't wory i will make you in to real "bleep" solders!! "bleep" plastic solders

      CPO Mzinyati

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by lynelhutz View Post
        Besides if the purpose of the second amendment is to be ready for political violence
        That isn't the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.
        "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
          I'm still waiting for the 2nd amendment folk to back up my constitutional right to weaponized anthrax and nuclear weapons.
          How would you defend yourself with those weapons?
          "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
            How is the average citizen to resist a threat, foreign or domestic, who is armed with nuclear weapons if they're not allowed the same? Wasn't that part of the reasoning behind the 2nd amendment?
            Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution....
            "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Nichols View Post
              How would you defend yourself with those weapons?
              By detonating them, obviously. Who is going to rob the man with the nuclear weapon and the will to use it?

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Nichols View Post
                Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution....
                So then you don't need the 2nd amendment to protect yourself from external threats - the state will do it for you. A lovely protective nanny state for all citizens.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                  By detonating them, obviously. Who is going to rob the man with the nuclear weapon and the will to use it?
                  Where does the Constitution say anything about suicide?
                  "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Nichols View Post
                    Where does the Constitution say anything about suicide?
                    Are firearms not allowed because the shooter may kill themselves with them while defending themselves?

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                      So then you don't need the 2nd amendment to protect yourself from external threats - the state will do it for you. A lovely protective nanny state for all citizens.
                      Actually you do, why do you think they added the 2nd Amendment after the Constitution was written?

                      I recommend that you read up on the Massachusetts Compromise.
                      "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Nichols View Post
                        Actually you do, why do you think they added the 2nd Amendment after the Constitution was written?

                        I recommend that you read up on the Massachusetts Compromise.
                        Which states that if you can commit suicide with a weapon, you can't use it for self defense? It may be odd, but I just don't believe that.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                          Are firearms not allowed because the shooter may kill themselves with them while defending themselves?
                          Are you talking about firearms or nuclear and biological weapons?
                          "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Nichols View Post
                            Are you talking about firearms or nuclear and biological weapons?
                            I'm talking about my constitutionally-protected right to bear arms of any type, as the constitution doesn't differentiate.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Bwaha View Post
                              Actually a 12 gauge loaded with buckshot is considered the optimum home defense gun...
                              Unless the enemy is more than 3 yards away and you are afraid of hitting the people in the house that you actually like.

                              Shotguns are not the ideal weapon for all situations.

                              Originally posted by lynelhutz View Post
                              ...
                              Why doesn't the typical car-jacker or gangbanger carry around a M249 SAW or even an MP-5? The black market cost and availability. And what determines these factors is the number generally available in the marketplace.
                              VERY good point.
                              Criminals have to balance out the cost vs. gain in crime; what they are stealing has to be worth more than the tools they are using to get it.

                              Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                              I'm talking about my constitutionally-protected right to bear arms of any type, as the constitution doesn't differentiate.
                              Hang on, this is getting silly.
                              Do you know what an ICBM costs?
                              5 billion $ for R&D cost without nukes.Multiply by three with basic research and nukes R&D for a country with modern high level diversified civilian industry. Then a 3 nuclear warhead ICBM would cost 50 m$ to procure for a twenty year service life plus price of a silo or mobile lauching ramp (add 15 m$ at least) plus 3 m$ a year minimum to maintain and closely to a minimum 4 adding salaries of soldiers to maintain it. In twenty years for a 60 ICBM force it would be 1,2 billion $ a year.This is a little more to the less than 1 billion $ supposed Israelis spending for a 200 nukes and IRBM. This is based on French and US prices. French spend 2,6 to 3 billion $ a year today after reduction of their nuclear aresenal to procure a 4SSBN and 48 SLBM with 288 warheads plus a hundred air launch supersonic counter force 300 kt missiles.
                              https://www.strategypage.com/militar...tartofcomments

                              So, if you are Bill Gate, maybe.
                              But I think that people at that level have better things to do with their money.
                              Okay?
                              "Why is the Rum gone?"

                              -Captain Jack

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
                                Unless the enemy is more than 3 yards away and you are afraid of hitting the people in the house that you actually like.

                                Shotguns are not the ideal weapon for all situations.


                                VERY good point.
                                Criminals have to balance out the cost vs. gain in crime; what they are stealing has to be worth more than the tools they are using to get it.



                                Hang on, this is getting silly.
                                Do you know what an ICBM costs?


                                https://www.strategypage.com/militar...tartofcomments

                                So, if you are Bill Gate, maybe.
                                But I think that people at that level have better things to do with their money.
                                Okay?
                                Of course it's silly. But that's the point - we use personal and subjective interpretations of the constitution to suit our own needs. All it takes is a change in public opinion and their interpretation of what is or isn't a silly arm and suddenly handguns aren't a protected arm either.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X