Not impressed. They are not one with the shaved cat club. Not sure if they are even shaving their armpits to this day.Yeah their womenfolk are ridiculous for no good reason.
Not impressed. They are not one with the shaved cat club. Not sure if they are even shaving their armpits to this day.Yeah their womenfolk are ridiculous for no good reason.
Yeah that's never stopped me.Not impressed. They are not one with the shaved cat club.
They do. They tend follow American grooming trends now that New York is leading the fashion world.Not sure if they are even shaving their armpits to this day.
I saw a meme that perfectly explains the stupidity of the gun crazies.For little Theo.....
When a Population is Disarmed: A Brief History of Tyranny :: 11/05/2017
History has shown us again and again that when a nation is disarmed by their government, tyranny follows. Adolph Hitler famously said, “To conquer a nation, first disarm its citizens.”
Recently, Canadian gun rights activist, Bruce Montague told Rebel media that when he first became aware that the government wanted to disarm law abiding citizens he realized that the government did not trust law-abiding citizens. “And when the government does not trust decent people with guns,” he said, “Decent people can no longer trust their government.”
The United States is not the only country based on classical English liberalism- a tradition that respects the God-given right of the individual to life, liberty, and the chance to pursue happiness. It is, however, the one western nation where this principle is most fully enshrined in law. Freedom of speech and the freedom to bear arms are hallmarks of that fact. We were given a legal right to bear arms by the founders because they wanted to create a lasting union, and they had the first-hand experience with the ways in which power corrupts, and liberty is destroyed. The founders knew that the people are the heart, soul, and substance of a nation and they must each individually have the right to defend their own lives, land, and families from any enemy.
Throughout history, governments have understood this. Every state power has known that in order to subjugate a people, those people must be disarmed. A house, after all, is like a fortification when its occupants are armed. Without arms, the occupants of a home are more like prey in a trap when police descend upon them.
History is full of examples of governments disarming their citizens with the promise that they will be protected by the state only to be brutally betrayed. What follows is a litany of blood that has not been taught in American high schools in nearly one hundred years.
The ancient eastern martial arts are, almost without exception, the creations of people who were deprived of their weapons. Kung Fu, Karate, Judo, and so many more systems of self-defense were created by people desperate to defend their homes and families from tyrannical governments.
- 1911: Turkey; citizens disarmed – 1.5 million Armenians were slaughtered
- 1929: Russia; citizens disarmed – 20 million Russians murdered
- 1935: China; citizens disarmed – 20 million Chinese killed
- 1938: Germany; citizens disarmed – 6 million Jews murdered
- 1956: Cambodia; citizens disarmed – 1 million “intellectuals” killed
- 1964: Guatemala; citizens disarmed – 100,000 Mayan Indians massacred
- 1970: Uganda; citizens disarmed – 300,000 Christians put to death
Here in the United States, we have a democratic republic, which means the government must first manufacture consent before they can take our weapons.
Unfortunately living in a civilized society does not exclude us from this type of unlawful action. After Hurricane Katrina finished wreaking havoc in Louisiana, local governments began forcibly confiscating firearms from everyone, even innocent, law-abiding citizens. One elderly woman was beaten half to death when she attempted to hand over a small revolver to a group of police that forced their way into her home.
As every legal gun owner knows, there are already many laws controlling the sale and movement of firearms. Licensing, controls, varying laws from state to state, and grueling background checks present a high barrier to legal gun ownership. Worse, every legal gun owner has generated paperwork that the government can use to create a list of armed citizens.
The fact that so many false statistics and propaganda are used to try to push anti-gun laws on us is the only proof you need to know that being armed is not a privilege. Responsible gun ownership is the duty of every qualified and capable citizen.
http://americangunnews.com/when-a-population-is-disarmed-a-brief-history-of-tyranny/
Pretty good article except for this bit.For little Theo.....
When a Population is Disarmed: A Brief History of Tyranny :: 11/05/2017
We were given a legal right to bear arms by the founders
I saw a meme that perfectly explains the stupidity of the gun crazies.
A wolf kills a sheep.
The sheep see that the other sheep was killed by teeth, so they remove their own teeth for their own protection.
Same 'logic' that @GatorTheo has.
First world countries with fewer guns have less gun violence. It's obvious but gun fanatics either can't grasp it or are simply unwilling to acknowledge it.Not speaking for Theo but I have some thoughts. Australia and New Zealand has some draconian gun laws. They've grown soft, but they are unique. They don't allow unfettered illegal immigration and their geography is conducive to protecting them from being assimilated by illegals. Europe is bizarre. The Queen is probably ashamed of England. They have plenty of violence but no guns, and they are being overrun by Arab nations. France? Well, it's France. There's no accounting for the French.
Indirectly..yes...God gave us this THROUGH the founding fathersPretty good article except for this bit.
The founders didn't give us shit.
The bill of rights do not bestow rights they enshrine them against the government. The founding fathers would tell you these rights were bestowed by God, not men.
If they hadn't told the government they couldn't pass laws that infringe upon them, we'd still have them.Indirectly..yes...God gave us this THROUGH the founding fathers
Everyone here understands that.First world countries with fewer guns have less gun violence. It's obvious but gun fanatics either can't grasp it or are simply unwilling to acknowledge it.
Everyone here understands that. I DON'T BELIEVE SO.
Everyone here BUT YOU also understands that when you remove the guns from them, they just kill people with another weapon. OTHER WEAPONS ARE LESS EFFECTIVE. THAT'S WHY GUNS ARE THE WEAPON OF CHOICE.
We've covered this ground before. AND WE'LL COVER IT AGAIN.
The shooter is always someone who is mentally ill. MENTALLY ILL/MEAN/ANGRY/WHATEVER. DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT THEY USED A GUN.
The shooter is NEVER an NRA member. SO?
Sheep live to be hoodwinked. YOU GOT THAT RIGHT!
First world countries with fewer guns have less gun violence. It's obvious but gun fanatics either can't grasp it or are simply unwilling to acknowledge it.
I can't think of anything.Is there anything about this debate that you cannot grasp or are unwilling to acknowledge?
Anyone mentioned Twin Towers? I think planes are in for the win!Timothy McVeigh killed almost three times as many people as Stephen Paddock the Las Vegas shooter with a Ryder truck filled with fertilizer mixed with diesel.
That's pretty effective.
Lol you think all crime is spur of the moment?Explosives and planes are extremely rare outliers.
If a criminal doesn’t have a gun handy, he’s not gonna rent a truck.
Of course not but the run-of-the-mill criminal is not just trying to kill the maximum number of people.Lol you think all crime is spur of the moment?
And they will continue to be as long as you take them from the wrong people.Of course not but the run-of-the-mill criminal is not just trying to kill the maximum number of people.
Guns are FAR easier to come by than planes and trucks filled with explosives.
A run of the mill criminal isn't trying to kill anyone.Of course not but the run-of-the-mill criminal is not just trying to kill the maximum number of people.
So guns are actually SAFER because, without them, school shooters would simply fill trucks with explosives and kill far more children.A run of the mill criminal isn't trying to kill anyone.
Criminals that are mentally ill and suicidal like the shooter in Nashville ARE trying to kill the maximum number of people. It always plays out the same way, they shoot as many people as they can till someone shoots them.
Take the gun away from them, and you leave them with the desire to kill people, and no gun to do it with.
Maybe they will decide to grab another weapon and kill fewer people, or maybe they will use a different weapon and kill far more than they would have with a gun.
This is why you don't focus on the weapon, you focus on the person who wants to use a weapon to kill people.
Toddlers can understand this.
Your selective reading is astonishing.So guns are actually SAFER because, without them, school shooters would simply fill trucks with explosives and kill far more children.
That is a perfect example of gun nut ‘logic’!
Thanks!
What's safer is getting the criminal off the streets.So guns are actually SAFER because, without them, school shooters would simply fill trucks with explosives and kill far more children.
That is a perfect example of gun nut ‘logic’!
Thanks!
That was almost 30 years ago. That’s going a long way back to try to make guns not seem so bad.Your selective reading is astonishing.
BTW, McVeigh used diesel and fertilizer. 80 bags worth, but it would not be unusual to buy fertilizer in that quantity or rent a truck to haul it.
If I was a deranged lunatic bent on killing as many people as possible and not being immediately ended by law enforcement, that's the way to go.
I would approve such a plan.What's safer is getting the criminal off the streets.
You're being irrational so I'm being unreasonable.That was almost 30 years ago. That’s going a long way back to try to make guns not seem so bad.
About what am I being irrational?You're being irrational so I'm being unreasonable.
You don't actually think we're having a discussion anymore do you?
Oddly shitbags like Bragg, ones who are hell bent to let criminals walk the streets are the ones who'd love nothing better than taking innocent's guns away. This weekend a looter shot a guy, the guy took his gun away and shot the looter. Bragg charges the innocent for attempted murder. No sane person trusts the government to do the right thing. This is one more shining example.I would approve such a plan.
The 2nd Amendment, the idea that reducing the number of guns in the hands of law abiding people will reduce crime and that anybody in this thread gives a rats ass about how other countries with no second amendment rights deal with guns. For starters.About what am I being irrational?
You guys are terrible about translating what someone says into what you want to hear. I guess it makes it easier to process.The 2nd Amendment, the idea that reducing the number of guns in the hands of law abiding people will reduce crime and that anybody in this thread gives a rats ass about how other countries with no second amendment rights deal with guns. For starters.
You guys are terrible about translating what someone says into what you want to hear. I guess it makes it easier to process.
I've never said reducing guns only in the hands of law abiding people will reduce crime. I've said reducing the overall supply of guns will reduce gun crime.
Bottom line, I don't care what you think, you aren't coming to get my guns and by the time you sway enough people to your way of thinking, I'll be in my grave.Blah blah blah
Leftwing extremists are jackasses. They want to crack down on guns but pamper criminals.Oddly shitbags like Bragg, ones who are hell bent to let criminals walk the streets are the ones who'd love nothing better than taking innocent's guns away. This weekend a looter shot a guy, the guy took his gun away and shot the looter. Bragg charges the innocent for attempted murder. No sane person trusts the government to do the right thing. This is one more shining example.
There's a reason we crossed the pond. Most other countries minions have existed historically under authoritarian rule. We are unique. We codified man's right to defend against tyranny. It's etched in stone now, it's not a suggestion.I've never said reducing guns only in the hands of law abiding people will reduce crime. I've said reducing the overall supply of guns will reduce gun crime.
You guys flip back and forth about other countries. If low gun supplies corresponds with low gun crime, you don't want to hear it but, if someone knifes someone to death in England, you're convinced that it proves guns are good.
Where did I say that? Are you sure you didn't dream it?Yes you have. At least twice.
...
The guns are to protect us from tyrants like Fat Assed Alvin Bragg and his tyrannical rule. When the law doesn't matter, guns do.Leftwing extremists are jackasses. They want to crack down on guns but pamper criminals.
Rightwing extremists want to crack down on criminals but ignore guns.
LOL! I'll be waiting for the next time you all try to use stats from a foreign country (Britain, Russia, Brazil, etc.) to defend your beloved guns.There's a reason we crossed the pond. Most other countries minions have historically under authoritarian rule. We are unique. We codified man's right to defend against tyranny. It's etched in stone now, it's not a suggestion.
The thread I created specifically to argue with your dumb ass. Don't act like you can't recall.Where did I say that? Are you sure you didn't dream it?