Politicians React To Mass Shooting At Navy Yard

well cancer is now have an answer
apparently for what went wrong in the navy or shooting a jason Chaffetz is going away in
hyères basically a tea party a conservative in
congress says Navy Yard a if security clear stories are true it
is infuriating government-wide problem 2pc lacks a big pic perspective too
politically correct was at me politically correct how in what direction now Joe Wilson the guy
who famously shell out you lie to the president a during one of his a address the
congress he’s a Republican from South Carolina he
says that he agrees is too too much political correctness for what I I don’t quite understand now of course
he mission to Fort Hood attack when the dollar sign I’ve heard a lot from ca service at
least I understand it they say all while the Act the moslems political correctness we don’t you know
exclude all Muslims with the military we don’t torture tax on them we don’t you know we treat them like all
other americans political correctness we respect the
Constitution political correctness but in this case
there’s no suggestion and Alexis is Muslim is that political correctness
because he’s black book are you kidding me mean should enormous senator military’s
african-american and I didn’t realize african-americans were big threat to do
shootings on our own troops are on are in our own
military salacious the event till all civilians in this case out in fact is usually the white guys doing the mass
shootings too politically correct how what are you talking about and if
you told me about not doing enough mental background
checks is cetera well we totally agree this is a
politically correct about that will progressives are in favor of more
checks mental health checks background checks
we don’t want people just carry around weaponry willy nilly you guys are the
ones that want that so if there’s a political correctness
well it’s your fault because I don’t go together but who’s
buying a weapon don’t check up no I’m I feel is the
right winger would be so hard if you check anybody who was gonna buy a
weapon I want alderman to be able to buy as much weaponry is possible as often as
possible and now you told us about political correctness
political correctness how well these two asshole republican
congressman please explain themselves what know what
do they mean by political correctness

Author Since: Mar 11, 2019

  1. You bring up a good point. I think what we need to talk about is mental health, I know, seems off topic right? But we can't deny that mental health plays a part in a lot of these crimes. To your point though, yes we do have a higher homicide rate, but it's not just with guns…it includes everything. As compared to other countries, or violent crime rate extremely high, but no one wants to talk about that. Our violent crime rate has nothing to do with guns, it has everything to do with people.

  2. You bring up a good point. I think what we need to talk about is mental health, I know, seems off topic right? But we can't deny that mental health plays a part in a lot of these crimes. To your point though, yes we do have a higher homicide rate, but it's not just with guns…it includes everything. As compared to other countries, or violent crime rate extremely high, but no one wants to talk about that. Our violent crime rate has nothing to do with guns, it has everything to do with people.

  3. You bring up a good point. I think what we need to talk about is mental health, I know, seems off topic right? But we can't deny that mental health plays a part in a lot of these crimes. To your point though, yes we do have a higher homicide rate, but it's not just with guns…it includes everything. As compared to other countries, or violent crime rate extremely high, but no one wants to talk about that. Our violent crime rate has nothing to do with guns, it has everything to do with people.

  4. I am a voluntaryist/anarchist, not a right winger whatever that is. And you my friend, are completely off topic. I could have sworn I addressed your statement about guns being domestic accidents waiting to happen. Do you even know anything about firearms, or are you simply a keyboard warrior trolling to make yourself feel better?

  5. If you control for all variables you will find that crime rates remain fairly consistent across all races. For example, poor white people in crowded urban areas commit crime at similar rates to poor black people in crowded urban areas.

  6. Well, there we have a miscommunication on my part, then. When I refer to "extended clips", I'm talking about, for example, the non-standard 30-round types for handguns, such as the type which enabled Jared Lee Loughner to accrue the amount of damage he did. I agree that addressing mental health is a HUGE factor, and that gun control in and of itself will will not solve any problems. Thank you for being civil and patient with me, and I apologize for falling back on media oversimplification.

  7. It is a TYT straw man (heard them say it quite a few times), or a liberal one, when applied literally.

    Guns do save lives, statistically, and prevent violent crimes. That does not mean doubling the amount of guns in the hands of criminals you'll get less crimes.

    After all, look at who has the guns in North Korea, then look at their insane murder rate.

    Keep in mind also, that the vast majority of U.S crime occurs in just 12 cities.

    Don't turn incredibly complex sociological issues into jokes

  8. Not the best reading comprehension, I see.

    This guy was no doubt crazy, to the point that if he had psychological help, this entire tragedy could have been avoided.

    But you said 100% of all mass shooters had mental issues of some sort. My point was that their mental issues aren't always significant enough to chalk it up to madness. Some people are just plain evil.

  9. I think bluesrockfan36 said it best. It's not like gun violence is sweeping the country from State to State, city to city. We know were the gun crime is happening and I can personally speak about it since I grew up in one of the areas that's the worst. It's not whites going around killing whites, most of the gun crime is in impoverished areas, that just so happens to be large concentrations of minorities. I can say that a gun ban won't do anything for that. Illegal arms easily obtained in those

  10. I completely understand. I personally do not own any extend or high capacity 27-33 round (depending on handgun caliber) magazines but I can tell you that most people who own them do not go on shooting sprees or commit mass murder. But banning a magazine that was the standard size because someone says "it's enough" will do nothing. Someone who is going into a situation that they know they are going to die or kill themselves usually do not struggle with stress and in turn can change a magazine qu

  11. ikly. California has implemtened "bullet buttons, magazine size restrictions", and other measures but they still lead the country (just ahead of us (Texas)). The banning won't stop anything, it's the people that live in the areas and the FBI doesn't break the crime down by race but I can tell you who are the data represents and it has nothing to do with the US "Gun Culture". Most legal gun owners don't really get into problems…the problem is the illegal guns and their owners. That you will not

  12. As far as TheLibertarian4life. You're right to some degree…but it has nothing to do with just blacks and everything to do with the environment they (people on poverty) live in.

  13. What we've learned… extreme poverty makes people do crazy shit. The majority of Americans live in just 12 cities. What studies are you citing that show that guns stop guns? Do you expect everyone to agree as long as you say oh yeah there's this one study and statistics? Whereas countries like Australia and Japan had immediate drops in firearm related homicides as soon as they banned them.

  14. Once again, someone who does not understand the negative correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, as well as the distinction between violent crime and gun violence.
    Let me fill you in: Violent crime is an all encompassing term that includes all crimes that involve violence, including baseball bat beatings, stabbings, AND gun violence.
    To the negative correlation: where there is less gun ownership, there is more overall violent crime. Gun ownership deters violent crime.

  15. The navy should have never given Aaron contract work, they should have reported his mental illness, he should have lost his guns after 2 incidents with police, he should have been dishonorably discharged. I thing "right wingers" are saying that his blackness made him exempt from all these should haves because navy was afraid of being racist. I say if the government already ignored 3 laws that would have stopped this shooting why the fuck do u want more laws they can ignore…

  16. No that's the thing… with the exception of Philadelphia, none of the major populated cities make the the top 12 of crime rates/murder rates.

    Also only 24.5 of 314 million Americans live in the most populous 12 cities. Not the majority.

    And guns do save lives, police use guns for a reason. Guns used in self defense (to prevent crimes) number from 500,000 to 3 million occurrences a year, according to the CDC.

    We're not Japan, nor Australia.

  17. Guns aren't the problem, our social decay, drug wars, increasing gang violence in specific cities are.

    New Orleans alone, had more murders than the entire nation of Canada!, and one of the worst murder rates in the world (4th actually).

    There's also a city called Kennesaw, in Georgia where guns are MANDATORY.

    Their murder rate, their rape rate has been 0 for almost a decade now. Their crime rate overall is incredibly low (3x below average).

    Clearly, guns are not the problem nor the cause.

  18. Bullshit, what the hell gave you the idea that the UK is banning knives? It is illegal to carry them around in public, has been for years, but that's it.

  19. The violence you support: not terrorism.
    The violence you don't support: terrorism.
    So you see, your argument is already invalid before it has even begun.
    Besides which, even the koran clearly states "There shall be no hostility except against those who practice oppression", so islam has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Is this getting through to you?

  20. Of the 20 most recent mass shootings in the US, 8 of the perpetrators have been non-whites. 10 if you count Hispanics as non-white. Please explain to me your logic that they are mostly committed by whites…

  21. Oh come on… can you be more disingenuous?.

    Let me quote the full verse:
    "And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. BUT if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong doers".

    Al-Bakara 193.

    Pretty sure that passage actually disproves your point, since it DEMANDS violence, until the unfaithful are converted.

    Religious fundamentalists are so silly.

  22. Actually, i think you're failing to factor in a pretty huge variable. In 2009 there was 5800 gun related crimes committed by blacks and 5200 by whites..The problem and the variable you failed to factor is in there's 9 times more blacks than whites in this country. That is an epic problem to the point it becomes a demographic issue, an issue that isn't being acknowledged because it is not politically correct.

  23. I read something about banning knifes, it was CERTAIN KNIFES I can't remember which type. Anyways either way that is very sad. UK has the highest Crime out of any country and the UK allows not gun and no knife. Damn do they expect you to fist fight your way out of 4 gang members? You see IN THE UK Criminals Don't have to KILL YOU WITH GUNS…. why? Because all the people are defenseless so they are going to do what the fuck the criminal says. I'm glad I live in the USA where I don't have to beg

  24. Basically I am saying this. If I take a murderer psycho and lock him in a cage with YOU I will give him two things. I will give him a hammer and a gun. He will probably try to kill you with the gun first, so idiots will say ban the gun. Well you see then he will still fucking murder you with the hammer. But yet you won't ban the hammer? Please explain the logic to me. Dead = Dead, thats why the UK has a shit load of crime and stabbings now since gun ban happened

  25. NO HITLER SURVIVE EVER WAS IN FAVOR OF GUN CONTROL : true fact, I wonder why… maybe because you sick people think it will never happen, you sick people spit on the HILTER SURVIVORS WHO WARN YOU TO KEEP YOUR GUNS. Maybe they will take your guns and you will not see tyranny in YOUR LIFETIME, but how fucked up would it be your legacy gets your future grandchildren killed because you took their power away. Maybe 150 years later our president like hilter decides its time to enter his rule.

  26. No kidding. I am making fun of this Tea Party NRA "Real American ©" for having a gun designed and probably made in the USSR.

  27. The context:
    Fight in the way of Allah AGAINST THOSE WHO FIGHT AGAINST YOU but don't transgress, for Allah does not love transgressors
    Kill them whenever you confront them & expel them FROM WHERE THEY EXPELLED YOU. For wrongful persecution is worse than killing. Don't fight against them near the Holy Mosque unless they fight against you; but if they fight against you kill them, for that is the reward of such unbelievers.
    Then if they desist, know that allah is ever-forgiving, most compassionate.

  28. I'm against an all-out gun ban, but your argument makes little sense. Yes, in the analogy banning the gun wouldn't save you either way, but we don't live in a box. Guns kill people FAR easier than hammers. If a psycho is chasing you with a hammer, you can possibly outrun him and maybe even disarm him. If he's chasing you with a gun, well… good luck.

  29. What are you? Twelve?

    Just saying that "The Paid Propagandist Known As Cenk" holds a position on gun control, which parallels exactly with that of the Ottoman's you so adeptly refer to.

    I really didn't need the help, but thanks anyway?


  30. It's a mistranslation, the word 'persecution' does not even appear in that verse.

    It talks about an offensive war to drive off Meccans out of their own city.

    No one in their right mind can read that and say it's a verse advocating peace.

    Transgression in that verse is accomplished by simple disbelief in Allah.

    It's nonsense, and you're desperately cherry picking, just like Christian fundamentalists.

  31. If theres 9 time mre blk ppl then whites in ur country, the answer is simples. Marry ur own kind n start fucking lol… Just messing peace

  32. How can it be about the Meccans "own city" when it clearly states, in all known translations, "fight in the way of allah against those who fight against you" and "expel them from where they expelled you"?

    How can you make a jump from this to driving Meccans out of their own city? There is no possible logical connection there.

    I'm talking about the words themselves – it's even irrelevant whatever was supposed to have happened – propaganda or not.

    There's no cherry-picking

  33. Here is my thinking. EVEN IF by banning guns you saved 8,000 lives I would still be against it. Why? Because you may guarantee THOSE 8,000 peoples safety but you don't GUARANTEE MY SAFETY. If banning guns worked then the government should ENSURE EVERYONES SAFETY. If its never going to happen to me than I want to SUE the gov. for saying I will NEVER GET SHOT. If they CANNOT ENSURE MY SAFETY then I will NEVER be for a gun ban plain and simple. I care ABOUT MY LIFE your life is second to mine

  34. And your gun ensures your safety? Excuse me while I laugh at you.
    First, who is talking about banning guns? I haven't seen one group push for a gun ban. I see groups pushing for stricter background checks, but that's not even remotely close to a ban.
    Second, no one, not you, the government, or whatever god you believe in, can guarantee your safety.
    Third, your attitude of "my life is important" is why none of you cowardly gun owners ever intervene when something happens.

  35. There is no recorded history of Meccans ever initiating aggression against the Muslims.

    There Muslims were never under persecution during this period of time (when the sura was narrated).

    It is a verse inpsiring warfare. Just like our stupid politicians who say they 'hate us for our freedom'.

    It's just one more asshole saying "that land is ours, because X God gave it to us. Now lets take it back from the "aggressors"". When in fact, they committed no aggression.

    Learn some history.

  36. Looky we have a dumbass here, THERE ARE TONS of bill being pushed that will ban ALL SEMIAUTOS and EVIL FEATURES OF A GUN based on things like pistol grips. You are a idiot. They WANT TO BAN IT. You dumb fuck they even clearly SAY IT. Do you want me to post the videos of it or are you too retarded to see it yourself? Also your a dumbass, guns stop 2mil crimes per year and that is data off the street. Also YOUR LIFE is NOT MY RESPONSIBLITY and its not the cops either, COPS ARE NOT FORCED TO SAVE U

  37. If you choose to not own a gun and die one day THATS YOUR FAULT. I have no duty to protect you and NEITHER DO THE COPS. Cops have NO DUTY to risk their lives for you. If a cop knows he will die HE DOESN'T HAVE TO RISK HIS LIFE FOR YOU. Your one of those dumbasses that believes cops HAVE TO DO THAT, its writen down that COPS HAVE NO DUTY TO PROTECT YOU. Fienstiens bitch ass DOES WANT TO BAN SHIT, you are an idiot if you think she doesn't. IF GUNS DON'T MAKE YOU SAFER WHY DO COPS OWN THEM IDIOT!!!

  38. Sorry,I didn't know I was talking to an escaped mental patient. Cops don't have a duty to protect the public? Really? And firemen don't have a duty to put out fires? How about doctors? Do they have a duty to try to keep their patients healthy?
    I know you don't have a duty to protect anyone other than yourself. My point had nothing to do with duty. Had to do with the balls to do it. You obviously don't. If gunfire is heard, you can be found cowering under a car somewhere with soiled underwear.

  39. I'm not talking about the historical context, I'm talking about the words themselves, which is the reference point for islamic fundamentalists (not muslims, there's a difference). Even if the islamic fundamentalists believed that they were driven out when they never were, it still only says to fight against people who drive you out and fight against you, and to stop and be merciful if they ever stop (most forgiving, most compassionate, "in the way of allah").
    You're propagandized.

  40. Its simple scrub, I will be the one shooting back because I have a gun, you will be the one begging like a bitch with tears in your eyes.
    Or another example, I will be the guy in the mall who stopped the shooter and you will be the people in the movie theatre free bait.
    The difference between you and me is I PERFER TO HANDLE MY SHIT YOU PERFER TO LET 911 HANDLE YOUR SHIT. That makes you the bitch. Don't reply I won't reply back.

  41. Don't reply back. That's fine. But I said you'd be the one in the mall cowering. Hiding. Too afraid to pull your gun, because that means now you are an immediate threat to the shooters, and we both know your testicles shrivel up in fear in a scenario like that. Or, you're more likely to shoot your own foot off in the process. Training people in these types of situations go a long way to help them handle them properly. Shooting paper targets is different. See ya later paper hero.

  42. So you're ignoring the historical context on which that verse was mentioned, as a call to arms against the Meccans due to the peaceful and lawful banishment of Muhammad?.

    That verse was used by your dear prophet as a call to war, not peace.

    It is not a verse advocating peace, it's a verse advocating war unless the muslim conditions are met… (i.e whatever they feel a transgression is).

    Want to read a peace verse?: Matthew 5:39.

    Reading about history makes me propagandized?. ROFL!.

  43. I'm ignoring the historical context because it is irrelevant when it is being interpreted by people in the 20th & 21st centuries, who don't know what actually happened (and neither do you, at least not for certain), but are able to read the words themselves, which clearly only call for fighting against people who fight them and instruct them to stop otherwise.
    I'm actually an atheist myself.
    You're propagandized because you believe there's any "islamic fundamentalism" to going after non-muslims.

  44. You know why historical context is important?. It lets you understand a passage's meaning, in spite of the awful mistranslations you're using.

    1. The word 'persecution' actually appears as 'fitna' which means tumult (of disbelieving).
    2. The passage says you should not initiate violence ONLY in the 'sacred mosque', but wait to be attacked. After the invasion starts.
    3. The passage is directly contradicted in just a few verses later, read (2:216).
    How it argues that fighting is good.

  45. The idea that a so-called "sacred text" would contradict itself is not surprising at all. A "fundamentalist" can pick out any part of it and twist it to his/her agenda. My point though is that there is no explicit instruction within the koran to simply seek out non-muslims and just kill them on site.
    Instead, every muslim murderer has always cited injustices that really happened, and simply holding the people they're attacking responsible for those injustice, rightly or wrongly, every time.

  46. Yes, but no on the same chapter written by the same author (of the chapter).

    So either your interpretation is wrong, or the author is contradicting himself in just a paragraph of distance.

    Injustice is such a broad and undefined term. Is a woman showing an inch of an ankle an injustice to one's sensitivities?. Some say yes and flog them.

    There are countless of verses in the Quran advocating the initiation of conflict. Muhammad was after all, a war leader and conqueror. Not a hippie.

  47. Yes, but no on the same chapter written by the same author (of the chapter).

    So either your interpretation is wrong, or the author is contradicting himself in just a paragraph of distance.

    Injustice is such a broad and undefined term. Is a woman showing an inch of an ankle an injustice to one's sensitivities?. Some say yes and flog them.

    There are countless of verses in the Quran advocating the initiation of conflict. Muhammad was after all, a war leader and conqueror. Not a hippie.

  48. No, "fighting" does not in itself mean initiation of conflict, so you're wrong even about that.

    The point, though, is that human beings always have a reason to do what they do beyond simply "a book told me so". And the suffering caused to muslims by the sanctions in iraq (500,000 increase in child mortality) from 1991-1998 and onwards was the reason for the so-called "jihad" statement by Bin Laden in 1998 & so on. Get it? Islam isn't the cause, it's coincidental.

  49. When did I ever say fighting = initiation of conflict?, and when was I proven wrong to begin with?.

    You have a silly way of arguing. It's called using straw mans, and now red herrings.

    We're talking about whether the Quran does or does not advocate for violence.

    It clearly does, it was a religion founded by a war leader after all.

    Care to explain how the U.S sanctions caused the violence between Shia and Sunni?.

    Or the dreadful treatment of women and girls?. Those are U.S sanctions too?.

  50. Obvious dumbass is obvious. Funny how liberals start whining and crying when one of these awful shootings happen, but when the other 32,000 people are killed by hand guns, nobody gives a flying fuck.

  51. Just using a single incident to demonize all gunowners and the 2nd amendment as a based argument for GUN CONTROL!

    Google: Gun-ban Chicago: Nearly 15,000 murders since 1990
    Google: Chicago Public School Students Shot This School Year Highest Since 2008
    Google: 25 Years Murder Free in Gun Town USA
    Google: As Gun Sales soar, Crime Plummets; but Americans still think its up

    2nd amendment win in the end, bitches!

    USA! USA! USA!

  52. Americans love their guns and use them a lot. Be wary of groups that wish to turn the school situation into encampments with armed guards. Be very careful of who labels who crazy enough to not be able to have a weapon.

    How is this sanity checking going to be accomplished? Surveying state public health records?

    Should inalienable rights be denied by a doctors report? This is the root of the question. These rights are said to be inalienable and part and parcel of being a creature.

  53. Gun control made the people in the Navy Yard defenseless. The people at Fort Hood were also defenseless because of gun control. The teachers at Sandy Hook were defenseless because of gun control. The people at Virginia Tech were defenseless because of gun control. The teachers at Columbine were defenseless because of gun control. The people in the Aurora Co. movie theater were defenseless because of gun control. Gun control gets people killed. We need to repeal gun control laws now.

  54. if hes chasing me with a firearm, and i have a firearm, i have a better chance of defending myself, argue with me all you want, thats how i want it, if he had a hammer and was coming at me, or just his fist and bad intent! like it or not, thats the way it is, and if anyone ever tries to do serious harm to you or yours, with or without a firearm, i hope you know how to save yourself!

  55. What they mean by political correctness is that there is too much bureaucracy in firing members in the military or with clearances so it is easier to shunt them off to a place where they won't do anything and there contract will expire and they will not be rehired.

  56. Or if someone else has a gun and is well trained. He might not even consider going on a rampage because he will know that there would be armed people. Most people who go on rampages assume that no one else will have a gun in these locations. It is the fact that gun free zones do nothing except endanger the people from those who don't care about laws and are there to kill because no one will shoot back.

  57. US murder rate 4.7, UK murder rate 1.2, Americas 15.4, Europe 3.5. Guns vs No Guns. Or maybe you just have more psychos in America.

  58. 0.7 The people who have guns are part of the swiss army, after training they are given the option of keeping their firearm where its not allowed out of their house unless they're taking it to a firing range. They are not allowed to keep ammo. Only special rapid deployment and military police are allowed to store ammunition at home. Also they have 1 of the most stable economies in the world so theres next to no poverty which means less crime in general. maybe if 'merica sorted its self out…….

  59. funny how nothing you said could make a come back of why OWNING A GUN is any different.

    I don't rely on other countries and homo ass statisitcs, I rely on common sense. Common sense should tell YOU that your 11000% stupid if you think I'm going to say HERES MY GUN TAKE IT to anyone on earth.
    Go and ban it all you want, I been had guns before I was legally allowed to own them 😀 Hows them laws workin, yep and banning weed works too! Just ask all the people who smoke it, its hard to get!

  60. you didn't ask that, you asked about switzerland presumably how they have guns and have a lower murder rate. I gave you the answer, they have major gun control, people who are allowed to own guns are inscripted into the army where they receive professional training and they're not allowed to store ammo at home. They don't just let any idiot like most of the american population have access to guns and ammo.

  61. No they got shot cos any dumb cunt in america can get access to guns. They need to cut the mass production of guns and sales and then slowly the amount of firearms within the population will decrease till eventually there are next to no guns and then there will be next to no shootings. Alternatively do what they do in Switzerland where those who have guns aren't allowed to have ammo, and the only time you can use your gun(aside from military work) is for fun at a firing range.

  62. Guns are not the problem, just look at gun shows. There has never been a mass shooting or even a murder at a gun show because guns are not the problem.
    The places in the US with the most gun control are the most dangerous places in the country, and first came the gun control then came the high crime rates. Washington D.C. and Chicago are the poster childs of gun control. The mass shootings are also happening in places with strict gun control. People there are defenseless because of gun control.

  63. there may not have been any mass shootings or murders but there have been deaths and injuries. and you're right, its not guns its the people and so its a problem when people can get hold of a gun, hence gun control! Else by your logic, everyone should have tanks and apache helicopters cos there are people out there with those and anyone who doesn't have them is defenceless against those people!

  64. Tanks and heavy arms are for revolutions against the government. Which is the main purpose of the 2nd Amendment because every government eventually goes bad.
    Whether there's very little gun control or very strict gun control, criminals have guns either way. The difference is whether good people have guns or not. When there's strict gun control; good people are defenseless and mass shootings happen. When there's little gun control; good people have guns and mass shootings don't happen.

  65. Criminals are "good people" before they brake the law aren't they? Who shoots first, the good guy with a gun or the bad guy with a gun? Someone shoots a loved one of yours, you shoot the shooter. Your loved one's dead but atleast you still have your gun right? Also the 2nd amendment was written just after a war if i'm not mistaken also when natives were still being cleansed from their lands and bears, wolves and stampeding bovines roamed wild before animal control existed.

  66. By what magical virtue does government deserve to have what We the People cannot?
    "Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry" -Thomas Jefferson

  67. 1. If you didn't have a gun in that situation you'd also be dead along with a loved one. And if you have a gun there's a good chance you can prevent the criminal from shooting your loved one.
    2 Part of human nature is, power corrupts. The Founding Fathers made it very clear that the 2nd Amendment is so the people have arms, so the people have power over the government, so that the government works for the people. Once the government have power over the people; you won't have freedom for long.

  68. having or not having a gun has nothing to do with virtue anyway, it was a non nonsensical question to begin with. The statement you quoted doesn't mean every little detail. "government" has the right to walk onto any military base it wants and go to restricted areas. Should any citizen be allowed to do that? course not. What it means is things like all this bs spying that the nsa have been doing recently when everyones privacy is supposed to be respected. Which is why they're now under scrutiny.

  69. Saying it's a nonsensical question means you've missed the point entirely. The question is based upon whether public exclusion is an ethical design. No one can argue to me that the people keeping and bearing arms is wrong, because it's a doomed argument from the beginning.

Related Post