PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Jet Blast (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast-16/)
-   -   A USA gun thread. That won't be controversial, will it? (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/549775-usa-gun-thread-wont-controversial-will.html)

con-pilot 24th Oct 2014 22:50


Con, by the time he comes back with an answer, that makes sense, you will start to like Brussels Sprouts.
Murch, gerbb, gran, smack, gulp.

Sorry, was eating popcorn.

Now I need a beer.

Hmm, if you're correct, most likely I'll not give him that much time. :p



Oh, are we Tag Team Trolling? As I'm not too sure just what that is, I want to be careful. :ooh:

Dushan 24th Oct 2014 22:57

I think TTT is now defined as two people posting in agreement with each other on any given subject, unless both ask a question "who started the Korean War?"

BOING 25th Oct 2014 01:25

Well, just for fun let's throw some useless facts into the pot. By the way, I do not think for a minute that anyone would use military force on the mainland and if they tried it would be awfully quiet on the bases.

Area of the US, 3,794,000 square miles.
TOTAL number of US military personnel including all regular forces plus the National Guard and reserves. 2,266,883 (how many are combat capable I don't know).
Therefore, in controlling the other approximately 310,000,000 million people in the US, assuming everyone came to the party, there would be one military person per 1.7 square miles. Great odds for glory seeking hoplites but not exactly the odds most soldiers would appreciate.


.


.

galaxy flyer 25th Oct 2014 01:41


Quote:
During the Obama administration, Congress has failed to provide the necessary funding for the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). NICS is the database checked during gun purchases to ensure individuals with criminal records & mental illness aren't allowed to purchase guns.
Gee, that's funny, it was used for my purchases pretty consistently these last 6 years. Maybe it's only funded for me.

GF

John Hill 25th Oct 2014 01:52


I think TTT is now defined as two people posting in agreement with each other on any given subject, unless both ask a question "who started the Korean War?"
Here is a quote from one of our junior tag team trolls boasting of how well the tactics work for him


Originally Posted by 'Dushan"
El. G, have you not seen the posts by John Hill? Seems like the two of you have similar thoughts when it comes to defending communist/totalitarian regimes. So give it a try. Tag team tactics may work for you. They seem to work for us,


BenThere 25th Oct 2014 02:25

Wassamatta, JH? Can't tag up?

Back to the subject matter. The federal government can't control the armed population without their consent. That's the Constitution working.

rh200 25th Oct 2014 02:55


Tag Team Trolling
So much more boring than the other tag team sport:E

con-pilot 25th Oct 2014 17:02

Still waiting John.

But, as I posted prior, no rush as I've plenty of popcorn now, I just wanted you to know I have not forgotten about you. :ok:

John Hill 25th Oct 2014 17:12

As I posted...

Originally Posted by John Hill
Somewhere along the line words like 'militia' and 'regulated' have been cast aside as inconvenient.


Mr Chips 25th Oct 2014 17:17

Actually John Hill, Con took issue with this...


Con-pilot. the US Supreme Court amended the sacred Amendment? How could that be?
Feel free to answer the right point. Or sue me for libel. Whatever.

BenThere 25th Oct 2014 17:25

To answer John Hill, 'militia' and 'regulated' are still part and parcel of the 2nd amendment, which was ratified by the states concurrent and as part of the original Constitution.

The philosophy anyone who has studied the Federalist papers to any degree, which is where you have to go to understand the intent and arguments of the Founders, was that marksmen citizens were a vital resource for the militia, who might be called upon to defend the country, while at the same time serving as and being a check on potential tyranny, which was a palpable fear among the Founders.

mixture 25th Oct 2014 17:28


The federal government can't control the armed population without their consent. That's the Constitution working.
Maybe the constitution is not quite working as intended and requires revising.

I see you've had yet another shooting (Marysville-Pilchuck High School) ... quite frankly difficult to feel sorry for anyone when it gets covered in the news ... you get battle-hardened against it and start to expect that sort of news from the US !

BenThere 25th Oct 2014 17:30

Actually there were dozens of shootings. You just didn't hear about the ones in Chicago and Detroit and such places that happen every day.

We have an armed and dangerous criminal class that many of us choose to be armed against.

KBPsen 25th Oct 2014 17:34


I see you've had yet another shooting (Marysville-Pilchuck High School)
A regular occurrence. I haven't seen much public protest or condemnation, which, around here, apparently equates to tacit approval.

mixture 25th Oct 2014 17:46


We have an armed and dangerous criminal class that many of us choose to be armed against.
In other words, you guys enjoy fighting fire with fire ... taking the interpretation of the old saying to a whole new level. :cool:

Spaghetti Western

goudie 25th Oct 2014 18:30


In the U.S., there are (approximately) 82 gun deaths per day, 88 auto deaths per day, and 102 drug-related deaths per day.
Drug toll oupaces gun deaths but is largely ignored - phillyburbs.com: Guest Opinions

Guns are not, it seems, the real danger in USA

KBPsen 25th Oct 2014 18:34


Guns are not, it seems, the real danger in USA
Because there can only be one real danger. :rolleyes:

John Hill 25th Oct 2014 18:42

I disagree with any contention that the modern American gun culture is "well regulated".

con-pilot 25th Oct 2014 18:47


As I posted...

Originally Posted by John Hill

Somewhere along the line words like 'militia' and 'regulated' have been cast aside as inconvenient.
No, I was not referring to that and you know it, this was what I asked you to prove;


Originally Posted by John Hill

Con-pilot. the US Supreme Court amended the sacred Amendment? How could that be?
And, I'm still waiting for your proof of your statement.

If you were going to ask me, you would have posted this; 'Con-pilot, did the US Supreme Court amended the sacred Amendment?'

Not; "Con-pilot. the US Supreme Court amended the sacred Amendment?"

And by the way, no the Supreme Court did not, as they cannot amended the Constitution.

Supreme Court 1 - John Hill -1,000 and still counting. :p

But not to fear, I've still plenty of popcorn.

John Hill 25th Oct 2014 18:54


"Con-pilot. the US Supreme Court amended the sacred Amendment?"
There is a question mark indicating this is a question.

perthsaint 25th Oct 2014 18:54

The question mark indicates it is not a statement but a question.

con-pilot 25th Oct 2014 19:09


The question mark indicates it is not a statement but a question.
So he accidentally put a period (full stop) where a comma should have gone and/or forgot to add a space and capitalized the 'The', then did he?

Or as I thought accidently posted a question mark instead of a period (full stop).

So he made three or four mistakes as you suggest and it really was a question, or just one mistake as I had thought?

However, if he wrote what he posted the way he wanted it to be posted, it was cleverly constructed, with intentional errors and was meant to be misleading.

Just to instigate a reaction, not to establish or add any meaningful discussion.

In other words, what trolls do.

Seldomfitforpurpose 25th Oct 2014 19:31

Has the 2nd amendment ever been amended?

John Hill 25th Oct 2014 19:35

Seldomfitforpurpose, technically no, practically yes. IMHO.

con-pilot 25th Oct 2014 19:45


Has the 2nd amendment ever been amended?
No. ................................

John Hill 25th Oct 2014 19:51

Maybe not amended in theory but in practice....

Somewhere along the line words like 'militia' and 'regulated' have been cast aside as inconvenient.

KBPsen 25th Oct 2014 20:55


So he accidentally put a period (full stop) where a comma should have gone and/or forgot to add a space and capitalized the 'The', then did he?

Or as I thought accidently posted a question mark instead of a period (full stop).

So he made three or four mistakes as you suggest and it really was a question, or just one mistake as I had thought?

However, if he wrote what he posted the way he wanted it to be posted, it was cleverly constructed, with intentional errors and was meant to be misleading.

Just to instigate a reaction, not to establish or add any meaningful discussion.

In other words, what trolls do.
Last time I saw something as nonsensical was on a chemtrail site.

con-pilot 25th Oct 2014 21:01


Maybe not amended in theory but in practice....
Okay, now that you are suddenly a Constitutional expert and seem to think that you know the Constitution better than the Supreme Court of the United States of America, please justify your statement.

Thank you.

con-pilot 25th Oct 2014 21:16


Last time I saw something as nonsensical was on a chemtrail site.
Hang around Chemtrail sites a lot do you.

Well, I guess that would explain it. :p

brickhistory 25th Oct 2014 21:26

Sorry, I'm late. Was out earning a living in a non-2d Amendment friendly state. Coincidentally, that state has a very high crime rate, is bleeding respectable (and tax-paying) residents at a very high rate, and has a huge debt building with no sign of the foot coming off the social-services gas pedal.

Is it poor form to talk about the lovely little S&W Model 36 "Chief's Special" I just bought?

LNIB, manufactured around 1960, so older than me yet works like it came off the line yesterday.

Had to put after-market grips on it because the original 'skinny' grips made holding it nearly impossible - kinda like holding some dainty, effeminate tea cup.

Put 50 rounds through it recently at 7 yards. All but one in the '10' ring. With the rear sights being simply a groove in the top of the frame, I'm content with that result.

Lovely blued steel and precision engineering.

I'm sorry...Y'all were saying?

KBPsen 25th Oct 2014 21:26

Me looking at chemtrail sites explains your nonsense?

Your reasoning haven't improved.

con-pilot 25th Oct 2014 21:49


Me looking at chemtrail sites explains your nonsense?
No, it explains your nonsense. :p

And I've yet to see any reasoning from you, only criticism.

Fliegenmong 25th Oct 2014 21:54

If the US is attacked by a nuclear weapon used by Islamic terrorist, I think you can count on Mecca disappearing.

And not before time......should have happened Sept 12....

KBPsen 25th Oct 2014 21:58

Nope, it really hasn't improved at all.

con-pilot 25th Oct 2014 21:59


Nope, it really hasn't improved at all.
I made an exception in your case. :p

con-pilot 25th Oct 2014 22:07


And not before time......should have happened Sept 12....
I think that would have been just a bit over reactive personally.

Hell, I was against Gulf War Two, but if Muslim terrorist sets off a nuclear weapon in the US, I think Mecca should be turned into glass.

Perhaps we should send a nice note first, maybe about 20-30 seconds before the missile hits. :E

BOING 25th Oct 2014 22:16

The Second Amendment has never been amended but the process for any such amendment is laid down in the Constitution. The Constitution has been amended about 16 times (without checking that).

The fact that no-one has ever seriously pushed for such an amendment shows that the politicians do not think it would work. Certainly, if any politician thought there was a serious chance of an amendment they would be pushing it to establish their own fame and glory.


.

Fliegenmong 25th Oct 2014 22:19

I think that would have been just a bit over reactive personally.

Maybe a wee hasty then Sept 12.......I don't think we knew then that 15 of the 19 were Saudi.....Shame you still sell them all that military hardware....but anyway.....

Hell, I was against Gulf War Two,

Someone on here the other day explaining there was no Gulf War Two.....that it was just the flaring up again of the first Gulf War.....

Seldomfitforpurpose 25th Oct 2014 22:32

So the 2nd Ammendment could be ammended?

con-pilot 25th Oct 2014 22:33


Someone on here the other day explaining there was no Gulf War Two.....that it was just the flaring up again of the first Gulf War.....
That could be a valid point I guess, if President George H.W. Bush would have finished off Saddam the first time, there would have been no second need to go back to Iraq. I mean the road was wide open, nothing or no one could have stopped us.

But if horses had wings they wouldn't be frog butts, or something like that. :p


All times are GMT. The time now is 19:46.


Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.