Better schools?What's the alternative? HAve DC protect us, with less cops and an open boarder, which could simply be called an unloading doc now. It's not a boarder.
Better schools?What's the alternative? HAve DC protect us, with less cops and an open boarder, which could simply be called an unloading doc now. It's not a boarder.
It would be urban warfare. Our military seems pretty good at that. If you were to hid in the hills, it'll end worse than Red Dawn.Hmmm...... 300+ million people with guns vs maybe 3 million with military assets?
Who are they going to bomb? Who are they going to take out with a tank? You think the military can hold a city when the population is armed and willing to use small arms?
Did you learn nothing from Vietnam?
I think the threat of removing immunity brings the gun companies to the table. They're part of this, just like Phillip Morris had to be brought to heel.I'm a lot less strident on the subject than you think I am. I've always been for sensible regulation that doesn't keep responsible people from owning guns.
But suing gun manufacturers for crime just doesn't make sense to me, in terms of curbing crime.
They knew their situation and the history to that point. And they'd just come off defeating the British. And many folks still hunted their food And protected themsevles from Indians.I know you think we're crazy for thinking it, but the founding fathers knew human nature and knew governments always overstep their boundaries.
I bet we could do it in China if we stopped sending them.Because no one ever stopped a government over throw with a Marlborough.
WOLVERINE!!!It would be urban warfare. Our military seems pretty good at that. If you were to hid in the hills, it'll end worse than Red Dawn.
I think the threat of removing immunity brings the gun companies to the table. They're part of this, just like Phillip Morris had to be brought to heel.
They knew their situation and the history to that point. And they'd just come off defeating the British. And many folks still hunted their food And protected themsevles from Indians.
None of that happens today. And contrary to seemingly everyone on the right's opinion, the Feds aren't banging down doors ever. Never. We fought a civil war in our history and survived it with little recidivism in the South (in that they didn't start another war). We aren't going to do it again.
No, military has any chance against an armed populace. There are too many people and too much land to occupy and control. It’s just a numbers game. Not to mention, where are you going to get your supplies when you’re trying to kill everyone? Also, not all of the military would side with Government. The military would end up occupying some major urban areas and strategic locations.It would be urban warfare. Our military seems pretty good at that. If you were to hid in the hills, it'll end worse than Red Dawn.
I think the threat of removing immunity brings the gun companies to the table. They're part of this, just like Phillip Morris had to be brought to heel.
They knew their situation and the history to that point. And they'd just come off defeating the British. And many folks still hunted their food And protected themsevles from Indians.
None of that happens today. And contrary to seemingly everyone on the right's opinion, the Feds aren't banging down doors ever. Never. We fought a civil war in our history and survived it with little recidivism in the South (in that they didn't start another war). We aren't going to do it again.
Not to kill you - to control you.No, military has any chance against an armed populace. There are too many people and too much land to occupy and control. It’s just a numbers game. Not to mention, where are you going to get your supplies when you’re trying to kill everyone? Also, not all of the military would side with Government. The military would end up occupying some major urban areas and strategic locations.
To be clear, no, I don’t think our government is coming to kill us.
I agree that it won’t ever happen for the most obvious of reasons. Just like the feds won’t becoming for anyone’s guns or butter.No, military has any chance against an armed populace. There are too many people and too much land to occupy and control. It’s just a numbers game. Not to mention, where are you going to get your supplies when you’re trying to kill everyone? Also, not all of the military would side with Government. The military would end up occupying some major urban areas and strategic locations.
To be clear, no, I don’t think our government is coming to kill us.
You will still have the right to protect yourself.Refuse to protect me with the forced abducted tax dollars and then refuse me the right to protect myself. But Dead people still vote democrat so it'll probably pass.
Sure, but that seems to be averaging right around 38th down the next steps action plane right now.Better schools?
I agree with snarl that our military would struggle mightiliy and it would become a civil war. There's wayyy too many gun owners. Which won't happen b/c we already tried it and it didn't work for the secessionistas.Not to kill you - to control you.
Whoa;..... Can we give them Chitown? Maybe Chicago AND San Fran, call it good and we all turn around? I'm in.The military would end up occupying some major urban areas and strategic locations
So when all I have is a toothbrush, You can make that exact same statement. Right?You will still have the right to protect yourself.
But the govt didn’t do that. I live in Illinois. We were never locked up in our homes. That kind of thing did happen, though, in China.The government just locked us all up in our homes for a year based on faulty information they knowingly lied to us about.
What is the social utility of Everclear? If we have a rash of deaths due to people committing crimes with it (forcibly holding people down and making them drink it until death), should the manufacturer of Everclear be held liable?No gun manufacturer would be liable for the actions of a nut. They are only liable for their own actions. That can include putting into the steam of commerce a product that has no social utility and Is ultra-hazardous. Or a dangerous product that is marketed and distributed in an irresponsible manner.
I see what you did there.What is the social utility of Everclear? If we have a rash of deaths due to people committing crimes with it (forcibly holding people down and making them drink it until death), should the manufacturer of Everclear be held liable?
Oh my god you cannot be serious. I lost my virginity on purple passion. As did most of my friends. Everclear right on that beautiful purple labelWhat is the social utility of Everclear? If we have a rash of deaths due to people committing crimes with it (forcibly holding people down and making them drink it until death), should the manufacturer of Everclear be held liable?
ummm Hey Coach Huggy, you ok to drive?I lost my virginity on purple passion. As did most of my friends.
ummm Hey Coach Huggy, you ok to drive?
If you haven't puked at least once on that crap, you just have not lived.
Southern Comfort was worse.If you haven't puked at least once on that crap, you just have not lived.
Southern Comfort was worse.
So much worse.
It’s been so long but I think problem with purple passion was that it tasted good. Lost your limitsSouthern Comfort was worse.
So much worse.
SoCo was sweet.It’s been so long but I think problem with purple passion was that it tasted good. Lost your limits
No.What is the social utility of Everclear? If we have a rash of deaths due to people committing crimes with it (forcibly holding people down and making them drink it until death), should the manufacturer of Everclear be held liable?
So You were smashed when you should have learned fundamentals. That explains everything.Oh my god you cannot be serious. I lost my virginity on purple passion. As did most of my friends. Everclear right on that beautiful purple label
How many people are killed by AR 15s? Are there any viable alternatives if they are banned? What is the threshold for the government to try and legislate risk in society?No.
I don’t think somebody forcing everclear, or any poison, down a restrained person is the type of foreseeable event that triggers a claim and an analysis of the utility. .
This is to be contrasted with an AR 15 where given recent history indiscriminate use against human beings is foreseeable. My argument is then for the providers of these dangerous instruments to justify them. I’d like to see a discussion of that point, but I haven’t seen one. I don’t see why these weapons must be semi-auto. Why not just bolt or lever actions with smaller magazines?
Legislating risk has always been done pretty well by the market wouldn’t you say?What is the threshold for the government to try and legislate risk in society?
You sidestepped my hypothetical. If the AR-15 rationale is based on recent history of people using it in crimes (making it foreseeable), then if we have a crimes using Everclear, what's the difference?No.
I don’t think somebody forcing everclear, or any poison, down a restrained person is the type of foreseeable event that triggers a claim and an analysis of the utility. .
This is to be contrasted with an AR 15 where given recent history indiscriminate use against human beings is foreseeable. My argument is then for the providers of these dangerous instruments to justify them. I’d like to see a discussion of that point, but I haven’t seen one. I don’t see why these weapons must be semi-auto. Why not just bolt or lever actions with smaller magazines?
You sidestepped my hypothetical. If the AR-15 rationale is based on recent history of people using it in crimes (making it foreseeable), then if we have a crimes using Everclear, what's the difference?
Why must Everclear be 190 proof? Why not just make it 90? It kills faster and more often at 190 than 90 so it must be inherently dangerous.
How many people are killed by AR 15s? Are there any viable alternatives if they are banned? What is the threshold for the government to try and legislate risk in society?
I'm well aware of the ballistics of the .223. Not sure why you're hung up on high velocity when any velocity can kill just as dead.There is a lot of evidence, pictures, etc of what a high velocity round does to a human. Show that to the jury and explain how often an AR 15 is used in mass and school shootings. Then you can explain why that weapon in consumer stream of commerce is not an issue. Then the jury decides.
Who would produce the militarys' food, fuel, medical supplies, ammunition, and all the other things an effective combat soldier needs? Who will repair the bridges and other infrastructure that gets destroyed.Hmmm...... 300+ million people with guns vs maybe 3 million with military assets?
Who are they going to bomb? Who are they going to take out with a tank? You think the military can hold a city when the population is armed and willing to use small arms?
Did you learn nothing from Vietnam?
I can go pull videos of how much freedom Australians had during COVID when their government decided they should no longer have it. Australia was one of the most restrictive governments on the planet. They had internment camps for Pete's sake.But the govt didn’t do that. I live in Illinois. We were never locked up in our homes. That kind of thing did happen, though, in China.
I think the last hundred years of history disprove your underlying sentiment. I’m not sure the people in Europe have lesser democracies or more military rule of their nations than we do. So those quotes you provided, I think, have proven outdated and false in their conclusions on the importance of bearing arms. Ditto recent Australian history.
Also, Illinois and other states had more restrictive gun laws throughout most of my life. I don’t think they had less vibrant democracies during that time than Texas, for example, at the state, municipal, or federal level.
These were. And I can guarantee that if Lanza was only operating with a pistol some of these faces would still be here.
But you need to be ready to take on the "guvernmint'
![]()
Victim Stories Archives - MADD
madd.org
If these folks could have a good time without the booze, these people would still be here...but you gotta have your beer/whiskey/vodka/etc. to have a good time.
What happened to those kids was terrible. Unfortunately having to deal with some people's bad decisions is a byproduct of living in "freedom". Free people don't always make good decisions. I can think of all sorts of freedoms we can yank back if we want to help save children. Alcohol would be near the top of that list. Drinking it has no social utility and it wrecks families and lives. But that's different right.
I don’t own any guns.These were. And I can guarantee that if Lanza was only operating with a pistol some of these faces would still be here.
But you need to be ready to take on the "guvernmint'
![]()
I bought a fake voter drop box with my S&W dividend check. We are organized for 2024.This would be a great thing if the other side wasn’t bought and paid for by the the killing machine industry.