Chat Forum
It is currently Fri Aug 23, 2019 11:24 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 734 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 5:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5706
Location: LOL! WISDOM!
Quote:
It is illegal to knowingly communicate an implied threat to cause an incident or condition involving danger to life or cause fear that a condition existed involving danger to life.


That alone should at least see all publicly owned combat weapons banned, surely?
Arguably does away with threatening people with guns as a method of self defence too.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2019 5:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20932
bessantj wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
I just CAN'T with these idiots:

Image

Apparently he didn't say that.

With the new posts I thought there had been another shooting.



Fair enough if it was wrong. I can't say anyone still defending guns in the USA deserves a change of opinion however.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 14, 2019 7:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 18547
AlanBengio wrote:
Bokkom wrote:
So tell us again why you think that being able to own a semi-automatic, rapid-fire weapon designed for combat use along with ammunition for it, is a good thing for society as a whole?

I have to say, growing up with hunting rifles and being a hunter since the age of 7, this is also the crucial question for me.
What the fudge is the purpose of having items resembling military hardware in your home?


When did became “acceptable” in US - ie owning combat use rifles.
I mean - was that common (for example) owning for the common US citizen in the 30ies the same machine gun used by gangsters (ie the one we see on Al Capone movies style - do not remember the name now?)
Or it is only a “recent update”?[/quote]
The right to own weapons of mass killing of unarmed civilians was a central tenet of the founding fathers.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1220
If you could go back in time and show the founding fathers the result of their words. I wonder if they would of included them in the constitution


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:51 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 48264
Location: Dirty Leeds
msp. wrote:
If you could go back in time and show the founding fathers the result of their words. I wonder if they would of included them in the constitution

They didn't, it's called an amendment because it wasn't there originally.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 14, 2019 10:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17353
Location: End of the road, turn right and first house on the left
earl the beaver wrote:
msp. wrote:
If you could go back in time and show the founding fathers the result of their words. I wonder if they would of included them in the constitution

They didn't, it's called an amendment because it wasn't there originally.



yeah but it was so soon after the constitution was written you could quite rightly say it was the same minds creating both. The strange part is that the reason for it was to "support" the state, not to act against them if they went rogue.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 14, 2019 10:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1220
earl the beaver wrote:
msp. wrote:
If you could go back in time and show the founding fathers the result of their words. I wonder if they would of included them in the constitution

They didn't, it's called an amendment because it wasn't there originally.

It was added when America was a young country and the founding fathers where still around.. it was ratified by Thomas Jefferson. My understanding the thought behind adding it was that if ever in future there was a government that was opposed to by the "people", The people could overthrow the government like they did to the British (this would also keep the government in check). However it not worked out like that..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 14, 2019 10:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4349
Enzedder wrote:
earl the beaver wrote:
msp. wrote:
If you could go back in time and show the founding fathers the result of their words. I wonder if they would of included them in the constitution

They didn't, it's called an amendment because it wasn't there originally.



yeah but it was so soon after the constitution was written you could quite rightly say it was the same minds creating both. The strange part is that the reason for it was to "support" the state, not to act against them if they went rogue.


and it was written because their was no appetite in the newly formed Republic, to form a large, standing army, especially after the effect they'd seen of such an army being turned against it's own citizens.

The only logical solution was to have a citizenry that was kept ready at all times to form a defensive army, in times of external aggression; i.e. if you don't have an army, you need to be able to raise one quickly in times of attack, & have their own weapons already.

Now square that; with a 21st century nation that spends more on it's armed forces, than the rest of the world combined; still retains the ability to turn on the draft; & has the ability to destroy; not just any enemy's nation, but the entire planet, several times over !


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 14, 2019 10:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5591
Seems to be a shooting situation in Philadelphia at the moment.

Thoughts and prayers.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 15, 2019 3:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2016 5:04 am
Posts: 7742
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 15, 2019 3:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3990
Slim 293 wrote:
Sonny Blount wrote:
Another one of those good guys with a gun that never happens:

https://twitter.com/HeatherLewisTV/status/1159598279375695872



Nope...

Quote:
Armed man who caused panic at Missouri Walmart said he was testing his rights

New York: A heavily armed man who frightened shoppers and employees at a Walmart in Missouri told the police he was testing his Second Amendment rights when he recorded himself entering the store, according to a prosecutor, who charged him on Friday with making a terrorist threat.

The man, Dmitriy Andreychenko, 20, of Springfield, Missouri, was carrying a tactical rifle slung across his chest, a handgun and 100 rounds of ammunition Thursday when he caused a panic at the store, the police said.

Pictures taken by a witness showed that Andreychenko was wearing a bulletproof vest.

"This is Missouri, I understand if we were somewhere else like New York or California, people would freak out," Andreychenko told a police officer, according to an arrest report.

He was taken into custody without incident after another shopper held him at gunpoint, the police said. It was not immediately clear if Andreychenko, who was being held at the Greene County Jail with bail set at $US10,000, had a lawyer.

The episode happened less than a week after 31 people were killed in two mass shootings, the first last Saturday at a crowded Walmart in El Paso, Texas, and the second early Sunday near a bar entrance in Dayton, Ohio.

"Missouri protects the right of people to open carry a firearm, but that right does not allow an individual to act in a reckless and criminal manner endangering other citizens," Dan Patterson, the Greene County prosecuting attorney, said in a statement on Friday.

Andreychenko told the police that he had bought a rifle and body armor because of the recent shootings and the fatal stabbings of four people in Orange County, California, on Wednesday, according to the arrest report.

He shared his plans beforehand with his wife and sister, both of whom were questioned by the authorities and said they had warned Andreychenko that he would cause alarm, the police said.

"He said he wanted to see if the Walmart manager would respect his Second Amendment rights," the arrest report said.

Angelice Andreychenko, his wife, told him "it was not a smart idea," according to the arrest report. "She told him that people were going to take this seriously due to the recent events."

Andreychenko tried to enlist his sister Anastasia Andreychenko to film him entering the Walmart, the police said, adding, "He called it a social experiment on how his Second Amendment right would be respected in a public area."

She declined, and he used his phone to record video, according to the report.

In explaining the charge of making a terrorist threat in the second degree that was brought against Andreychenko, Patterson, the prosecutor, drew a parallel to First Amendment rights, saying that a person is not allowed to yell "fire" in a cinema.

It is illegal to knowingly communicate an implied threat to cause an incident or condition involving danger to life or cause fear that a condition existed involving danger to life.

If convicted, Andreychenko could face up to four years in prison.

New York Times


https://www.theage.com.au/world/north-a ... 52ftk.html

And he is married, and will probably start breeding soon.
God bless America.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 15, 2019 3:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 32185
Location: Planet Rock
bessantj wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
I just CAN'T with these idiots:

Image

Apparently he didn't say that.

With the new posts I thought there had been another shooting.


Statistically it's very unlikely there hasn't been another mass shooting :(


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 15, 2019 3:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 32185
Location: Planet Rock
Quick google. This current situation is officially the 10th since Dayton

Quote:
Philadelphia shooting: Six police officers shot and injured in ongoing stand off with gunman

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 59061.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7944
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 734 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 15, 16, 17, 18, 19

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bindi, Crazy Ed, Cruz, Dan54., diarm, earl the beaver, Fat Old Git, Flametop, Floppykid, frillage, Google Adsense [Bot], Podge, Saint, Seez, terangi48, Tussock and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group