Discussion in 'World Events' started by Saint, Feb 19, 2018.
Beautiful bit of tail chasing there.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Do you mean the slaves, just say 'the slaves' if that is what you mean. If the slaves had been armed there would have been no south to begin with.
Oh oh do you mean the non-slave owning poor whites of the south? They were armed.
Enough this is moronic, it has nothing to do with today, you won't even define your words correctly, back to the topic: tell me again what is wrong with universal background checks?
There are many categories of disarmed peasantry - the close association of disarmament with serfdom, indentured servitude, transportee of one kind or another, etc, is a general feature. No point in introducing extraneous and likely confusing features.
And the South would have existed without a disarmed peasantry oppressed by their government. Not as we know it, of course - almost certainly better.
And they were closely involved in disarming others, as direct witnesses of means and consequences, including during the century after formal slavery had been ostensibly ended - which in my opinion partly explains the intransigence of their direct descendants when faced with any hint of being disarmed themselves.
Just as the Scotch-Irish in 1780 did not want what had been done to them by central government past to be done by central government new, and what they had done to deliberately disarmed people by being armed themselves done to them, white people in the US do not want what they did to black people - right up to modern times, and residually continuing - to be done to them, to put it simplistically.
And they know how it was done. They have firsthand knowledge, family knowledge, heritage and experience informing their culture.
The reason I have been advocating for universal background checks so consistently for years on this forum is that I don't see much wrong with them. That's probably why almost all Americans favor them, as well.
And you use the term in a general fashion. Obfuscation alert.
Avoiding confusion, would be the motive.
Too late, apparently.
When I bought my latest rifle, I had to wait while they did a background check.
What concerns me is the word universal.
Would a father have to run background checks on his children before gifting them a rifle or shotguns? Would you insert the government bureaucracy between a father and son?
Would an uncle have to have checks run on nephews and nieces before gifting them rifles or shotguns?
Would an older sibling or cousin have to run checks on the person who he/she gifts a gun?
If someone leaves me a firearm in his/her will, would the executor have to run a check on me before turning it over?
Certain skill sets are best learned at certain ages of development.
I suspect that because I learned to shoot while young---10 or 11, I became a crack shot.
(the uncle who sold me the single shot .22 rifle[ for 10 cents--he was Serb] guided me in safety and target acquisition) With a single shot, one learns rather quickly to make that one shot count.
Had I not had those early experiences would I have been able to acquire the skill set later in life?
The NRA was founded by an ex officer of the civil war because he witnessed first hand how bad most recruits were at hitting their targets.
A major in ww2 did a forensic study of the dead on a battlefield and discovered that only 1 in ten soldiers were actually hitting the "enemy".
(he thought that it was psychological---and influenced basic training to make it more psychologically brutal)("break down the mind of the civilian and rebuild it as that of a soldier"---a killer of men)
then came the m16 and the spray and pray mentality -----------------leaving the results of the training in doubt
It's a serious event, it's taken seriously.
And - assuming the interested parties participated and reason held sway in setting up - it would take less than a day. There would even be a "checked" list available - like the "fly" list the W administration never got around to establishing after 9/11: one could become a licensed gun buyer (at no or minimal cost and inconvenience, of course, and entirely voluntary, by C Right).
Have we sunk so low that we think that the only way to have something "taken seriously" is through government intervention?
And we have no government intervention, here - presuming the niece or nephew is not a formally diagnosed and currently incarcerated paranoid schizophrenic with a juvenile conviction for animal cruelty, or the like, the government is not "intervening" at all. It's not even recording the transfer.
Yeah, using it wrong was the first clue.
I used it correctly. You are wrong again, as with the strawman bs etc.
You are 0 for 3 or 4, in your mistaken objections. And they are irrelevant, to boot.
Why not deal with the communicated facts and argument, easily understood, instead of attempting trivial corrections that would be irrelevant if they were valid?
Most such skills can be acquired later in life, at the cost of much greater expenditures of time and effort - but they are not learned the same: the changes in the brain are different, and less stable. Musical instrument skill, for example, has been acquired by adults - but it's not the same brain modifications as the same skill from childhood.
Difficulty in skill development is a strange and poorly understood feature of adulthood. There are a couple of instances of brain damage releasing musical skill development in listening and recalling, and in one case playing the piano. It's possible the adult brain suppresses the ability to learn, actively.
You're never, ever wrong. Got it.
What are you, twelve years into a second childhood?
You allowed yourself to be misled by bad motives to make a series of avoidable mistakes, wrongfooting yourself in the middle of a discussion - it won't do you any good to drop the mistakes if you keep the motives.
- - - -
There are some obvious reasons sane gun control is so difficult in the US. The 2nd Amendment is not one of them. The preferences of the citizenry for good government are not among them. The history of gun control by central governments is among them. The legacy of Black and Red oppressions is among them. The increasing mistrust of ordinary US government and media inculcated in White Americans (the primary gunowners) by the rise of fascist politics since the mid-1960s is among them. The simple technological history of gun development and economics of firearm ownership in America is among them. There are reasons for this unique situation.
Surely there should at the very least be age limits to the type of gun a child could buy , through out the US ?
Why is that question addressed to me?
If you give us a boy of 7 we can make a knight of him, after 18, never.
that being "said"
Age in and of it'self is a poor indicator. Some people assume responsibility early in their lives, while some avoid it as long as possible.
One olympian and medalist started shooting in a 4h youth program when she was 8
Why not take that approach with science education and critical thinking so they don't grow up to be racist fundamentalist retards? Mandatory 4 hour daily science and technical instruction, so they can stop complaining about losing their jerbs to machines that move up and down over and over again. Maybe we can also teach them what a calorie is, so they won't grow obese on diet of unlimited apples and then blame it on genetics.
Or no, let's instead go full retard and raise a nation of warriors trained to fight last century's wars. We should require everyone aged 6 and up to spend 4 hours a day in flying lessons so we have the best pilots possible in our fighter planes (don't want only 1 in 10 hitting their targets, after all), and you should be licensed to drive and operate an M1A1 Abrams before you're allowed to own your first car.
I suggest you start your kids/nephews/grandkids holding up weights with their less dominant arm all day, that way if they also grow tall enough, they'll be outstanding longbowmen in a decade. And don't get me started on the ninja training...
Of the top 3 individual donors to the NRA over the last decade, one was a computer programmer and another was a microsoft engineer.
And how did the NRA distribute political contributions?
The NRA ain't really very rich. Many sport franchises have higher annual incomes.
They spend most of their money on training programs and their publication(s)
So the pittance they can contribute to politicians is most likely well below 1/10 of a percentage of all political donations.
Separate names with a comma.