Hey, his favourite Daily Sexpress paper are *still* flogging that Nibaru doom planet we're all going to die next week thing. It's been like 4 months now, nearly every day on the google news front page, "science" section.
-- John Devereux
does the US government do that?
"Russia Today" is probably as trustworthy as most news sources, i.e. not very much
Cursitor Doom likes it, so it has to purvey a particularly toxic version of the kind of nonsense that appeals to lame-brained right-wingers.
There is a distinction between news sources that concentrate on disseminating the news, and "news sources" whose primary interest is in keeping their favourite - peculiarly gullible - customers locked in.
"Russia Today" is more a propaganda organ than a news source, and Cursitor Doom is a depressing example of the kind of twit they try to suck in.
-- Bill Sloman, sydney
No. Just another leftist lie.
+1
Please explain to me why weapons are stored in armories on military bases? By your logic these highly trained people should all be carrying loaded, concealed, weapons ALL the time.
Oddly enough the military take weapons away from their soldiers when they are not actively defending or attacking.
Ships have armories, very few - carefully selected - people walk around armed on ships.
So, if the military are cautious with easy access to weapons, why would civilians be better off fully armed?
I am dying to hear your justification for the military using armories and disarming their own soldiers while on base (obviously war zones are different)...
John
No reason soldiers shouldn't be allowed to protect themselves either.
There is no justification, other than they be kept in working order.
No, but there's a thing called the "Equal Protection Clause" in the Constitution which theoretically governs how the states are supposed to treat their citizens, which historically the Federal government has been good at shrugging their shoulders about enforcing should you have the audacity to publicly mention that what you do in your bedroom isn't what the religious whackjobs who run your state government would prefer.
Um, for starters - those military weapons do not BELONG to the soldiers. Big difference -- that is, if you're trying to foist your analogy on citizens.
And then of course, there are the practical reasons for warehousing military weapons: inventory, maintenance, and the obvious fact that fewer overall weapons are needed (since they can be issued on a shared basis).
John Larkin wrote on 11/6/2017 10:13 AM:
Just as long as it's the right people... isn't that the philosophy?
-- Rick C Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms, on the centerline of totality since 1998
Above you said everyone currently has guns. Now you are saying if everyone had guns it would be a deterrent. So why isn't it working?
-- Rick C Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms, on the centerline of totality since 1998
Canadians are pretty much unarmed and the number of mass shootings here is a tiny fraction of the US record. By your logic we should have mass shootings nearly every day. However it is not dead Canadians who are in the news day after day. We had one police officer murdered while on duty today, that is so rare that it gets front page news and talked about on the radio all day long.
Don't you get tired of reading of innocent children getting murdered by lunatics with rifles which should never have been legal for private ownership in the first place?
Hunting rifles are one thing, but semi-automatic weapons??? Get real, animals don't shoot back when you are hunting them, so a semi-automatic is hardly 'sporting'. What possible justification is there to own these armed forces level weapons?
John
I said nothing of the kind. You need a checkup from the neck up.
Don't worry. You get more with the Central Americans moving up there, spoiling your lilly white country.
You clearly don't know what you're talking about. No surprise.
There is a proportion of Americans who would like to stone you if the person joining you in your bedroom is the wrong gender. There is an even bigger proportion that think it is kind of okay as long as nobody knows and you keep it secret - but standing up in front of your community and declaring your love is against the rules of their loving god.
And so there is a large number of American politicians who pander to this.
Any source of news and information should be treated with a bit of scepticism - but RT is /way/ down on the list of reliable news sources.
Precisely.
For that reason I try to get information from various opposing points on the political spectrum, especially the Grauniad, the Torygraph, and the BBC.
I wish everybody on this group did something similar, rather than ranting loudly in their own echo chamber.
Sounds like a good idea, BUT.. a) anyone less than(say) 5-years old? NO. b) Anyone not trained how to SAFELY handle a gun? NO. c) Any druggie? NO. d) _ANY_ "christian"? NO. (maybe a few, tho) e) Any bible-tumping Klaner? NO.
One can go on like this....
Oh, and don't forget "going through a messy divorce", "had a mini-stroke", "with a fevourishly high temperature", "showing signs of dementia", etc.
Um, the population of Canada is also a tiny fraction of that in the US. Roughly 35 Million vs. 323 Million.
Did you account for that in your analysis?
Or you can just limit it to anyone who can't aim, and leave it at that. :)
Aiming isn't difficult. Keeping the gun aimed while you squeeze the trigger is the tricky bit.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.