Joey, To bear arms, is the claws in the second amendment. Arms are weapons that can be shouldered. Usually rifles, hand guns. Not artillery. These are not arms. The US Military the greatest in the world at the time lost to a group of Asians who had small arms little to no armor and very limited artillery. So millions of people having arms yes they could put a serious hurt on a military. In open battle no but that is not how a war against tyranny is fought.
Thomasdam
JoinedPosts by Thomasdam
-
84
Is New Zealand right to ban military style guns?
by ThomasCovenant inin response to the recent terrorist attack in new zealand their government is proposing to ban semi automatic and military style weaponry.. do you agree with this idea?.
would they be better off allowing more of these weapons instead?.
would it be better to perhaps allow more of the muslim community for example, to be armed with semi automatic guns to protect themselves at their places of worship?.
-
-
Thomasdam
-
84
Is New Zealand right to ban military style guns?
by ThomasCovenant inin response to the recent terrorist attack in new zealand their government is proposing to ban semi automatic and military style weaponry.. do you agree with this idea?.
would they be better off allowing more of these weapons instead?.
would it be better to perhaps allow more of the muslim community for example, to be armed with semi automatic guns to protect themselves at their places of worship?.
-
-
Thomasdam
Bill your argument is flawed. No one country won over Germany. Without the help of the Soviets The USA and Canada and England could not have made a beach head in France. The resistance gave information, took out railroads and disrupted. So by your thinking if the US military alone could not have won there is no need for them. Its illogical and very sophomoric.
-
17
Dignified Death...Assisted Dying Your Views
by ZindagiNaMilegiDobaara indignity in dying,assisted dying...your views.
the royalcollege of pysicians (rcp) has dropped its 13 year opposition to the concept of helping terminally .
ill patients die.
-
-
Thomasdam
End of life is just hard. There is no good outcome only less bad. Why a person should not have a right to end their life in a dignified and painless way when they have a terminal illness. I have seen people die of brain cancer and organ failure and Alzheimer. There is no good outcome to this kind of illness. In the brain cancer situation she was a sister married for years to an elder. She died wasted away. You would not know who she was if not told. She would curse and scream not knowing what was going on. It was horrible. The organ failure, he died bit by bit. Wasting away till the last couple of days he went into a coma. Alzheimer is horrible, they bit by bit lose who they are till they are needing help to eat and stand in a corner looking at the wall now knowing who they are or where. They know something is wrong for much of this process. To deny it for yourself is your right to deny it to someone else is criminal.
-
84
Is New Zealand right to ban military style guns?
by ThomasCovenant inin response to the recent terrorist attack in new zealand their government is proposing to ban semi automatic and military style weaponry.. do you agree with this idea?.
would they be better off allowing more of these weapons instead?.
would it be better to perhaps allow more of the muslim community for example, to be armed with semi automatic guns to protect themselves at their places of worship?.
-
-
Thomasdam
Montoya Liberals don't think they feel. This is OK if its your mom on you getting beat up at school but very bad for a leader. You can not stop people from killing. From Muslims using truck to run down people to using gas bombs those who want to kill can find ways to do it. You can not use facts or logic on a liberal. They are not able to get past emotion.
-
84
Is New Zealand right to ban military style guns?
by ThomasCovenant inin response to the recent terrorist attack in new zealand their government is proposing to ban semi automatic and military style weaponry.. do you agree with this idea?.
would they be better off allowing more of these weapons instead?.
would it be better to perhaps allow more of the muslim community for example, to be armed with semi automatic guns to protect themselves at their places of worship?.
-
-
Thomasdam
No, New Zealand's PM is an emotional bag of hormones. First off if New Zealanders let her get away with it they are foolish.
Here in the US we have a Second Amendment held in the first 10 called the bill of rights. So we have that holding back the ban nuts.
Next the NZPM shows she has no idea what she like most liberals is talking about on guns. There is no such thing as a military style assault rifle. The Assault rifle was first introduced in the 2nd world war by Germany with the Strumgewehr 44. It was a full battle round the 8mm shortened down to make it smaller. Understanding that most fire fights were under 300 yds they did not need a full powered round. So first off its not a High powered round. Its in fact reduced. Second it was select fire capable. That means you can turn a switch to make it fire semi auto or to fire full auto.
No guns sold in NZ, or the US that the left call assault weapons are in fact assault weapons. The AR15 is a semi auto that fires the 223/5.56 which is not high powered. Its a 22 caliber. I have hunted deer with the AR15 and after using in deer sized animals know why my fellow hunters called it the chaseem gun. I switched to the former US battle rifle ctg. the 3006 and it would drop them where they stood one shot. That was a devastating round. It had much more energy than a 223/5.56 but the left does not care about facts.
Next the AR15 does not work any different than any hunting semi auto. The Remington 7400, 742 Browning BAR ect. It works the same.
Then is the argument that you don't need an AR15 for hunting. Well that may be an argument in NZ but in the US the 2nd Amendment is not for hunting it never was. It was for the citizen to have the same fire power as the military so that they could hold them to account if they went tyrannical.
The second amendment in the US is not a collective right. None of the first 10 are. They are for the individual. This has been affirmed in the SCOTUS.
As far as dangerous yes guns are dangerous, so is a semi in the hands of a Muslim Terrorist who is on a busy street.
Those who say an armed citizen can not resist a military are historically stupid and ignorant. History is full of resistance. Look at all the resistance to Nazi Germany in France, The Netherlands to name but a few. At the time Nazi Germany had the most formidable military in the world.
My own country the United States took a rag tag band of Rebels and fought the most formidable military in the world at that time. .
Then you have the second Amendment was for the Militia not the individual. BS. A liberal will not look past a sound bite they like to understand what is and what is not. If you read the Federalist papers which is the founders thinking on many things. The militia was said to be all the people. We are all the Militia. There was no such thing as a National Gard in the time the Bill of Rights was written.
The Second Amendment was for Muskets. True at the time, but it was for the people to have the same fire power of the Government. If the police and Military had muskets today then we would give up are AR15s and pick up a Brown Bess.
The idea that you can stop criminals from getting guns is Total BS. The Gov. can not stop Cocaine or Heroin or sex trafficking so I know guns if banned would be run in and will be run into NZ an Australia.If you think bans work look at Chicago, LA and Baltimore, places where crime is sky high and guns much more restricted, but the crime is insane.
Then they say Australia has stopped mass shootings. Australia had 2 in 10 years and now 0 in ten years which is statistically insignificant. Their crime rate has been falling the same rate as the USA in the same time frame.
When seconds count, the police are only Minutes away
-
107
The Mueller Report....will it affect Trump negatively?
by minimus inthey say it will be out any day soon.
do you think the report will do major damage to trump?.
-
-
Thomasdam
I don't think they have anything. If they did I believe they would have used it by now.
-
129
Climate Change - True Believer or Skeptic?
by Simon inclimate change ... who doesn't believe it?
crazy fools and science deniers ... right?.
it seems like it's become the new religion, the new orthodoxy, that must be accepted and believed as gospel and preached to all.. is it ok to be skeptical?.
-
-
Thomasdam
Latest seems to indicate polar bears population quadrupedal. Another brick in the GW wall collapses. https://www.thegwpf.org/polar-bear-numbers-could-have-quadrupled/
-
36
Is it OK to teach your children that Homosexuality is wrong?
by Thomasdam ini know a few family's who have left the cult but send their kids to a religious school because of the public schools teaching many times that homosexuality is ok. the bible is clear that its a sin.
there is no just love each other and its all ok. i don't believe in the bible or any religion.
i have a niece who came out as gay and i told her i don't care.
-
-
Thomasdam
Well it goes to the idea that people who believe in the bible may want to teach it to their children. You know that freedom of religion thing. There are a lot of religions from Christian to Isliam that many who adhere to this do not think being Homosexual is OK. If you think just teaching that it is a sin in western countries you should take a look at Muslim countries. It is not tolerated and they are many times killed if found.
-
36
Is it OK to teach your children that Homosexuality is wrong?
by Thomasdam ini know a few family's who have left the cult but send their kids to a religious school because of the public schools teaching many times that homosexuality is ok. the bible is clear that its a sin.
there is no just love each other and its all ok. i don't believe in the bible or any religion.
i have a niece who came out as gay and i told her i don't care.
-
-
Thomasdam
Frank, not true at all. In many cultures Homosexuality was a normal way of life. The ancient Greeks, Egyptians, Polynesia China and Japan to name but a few homosexuality was normal and accepted.American Indians, Mayans and Aztecs all accepted homosexuality. Mesopotamia and Persia. the list goes on.
-
36
Is it OK to teach your children that Homosexuality is wrong?
by Thomasdam ini know a few family's who have left the cult but send their kids to a religious school because of the public schools teaching many times that homosexuality is ok. the bible is clear that its a sin.
there is no just love each other and its all ok. i don't believe in the bible or any religion.
i have a niece who came out as gay and i told her i don't care.
-
-
Thomasdam
I know a few family's who have left the cult but send their kids to a religious school because of the public schools teaching many times that Homosexuality is OK. The bible is clear that its a sin. There is no just love each other and its all OK. I don't believe in the bible or any religion. I have a niece who came out as gay and I told her I don't care. It does not affect my caring for her. But Its also not my place to tell others how to raise their kids.