Non-Americans In The 2A Debate

[ABNARTY]

I love this girl. I wish I had the same ability to articulate my thoughts and feelings. The 1st Amendment is an amazing thing. I salute the founding fathers for their hindsight and wisdom. 

"Check yourselves before you insert yourselves like tampons into Americans business" 

[Ninurta]

Surely people living in foreign lands are entitled to their own opinions, same as any American is.

And, just as certain as that is, also in compliance with the rights of Americans, they are certainly NOT entitled for me to have to listen to their opinions on that subject, nor are they entitled that I should have to give any weight to their low information opinions. No more than I have to give any weight to low-information American opinions.

Yes, "low information". It's not their fault, they are merely being misinformed, and - not living in the grease of it as many American have to do - they have no basis of comparison to evaluate the information they are being fed.

.

[ABNARTY]

Surely people living in foreign lands are entitled to their own opinions, same as any American is.

And, just as certain as that is, also in compliance with the rights of Americans, they are certainly NOT entitled for me to have to listen to their opinions on that subject, nor are they entitled that I should have to give any weight to their low information opinions. No more than I have to give any weight to low-information American opinions.

Yes, "low information". It's not their fault, they are merely being misinformed, and - not living in the grease of it as many American have to do -  they have no basis of comparison to evaluate the information they are being fed.

.

Yes. I think she had two targets. First, was foreign. If you live in Denmark, please feel free to discuss Denmark. I have no idea so I will keep my mouth shut on the matter. Second, was an American audience. 

There are many Americans who are so uninformed or ill-informed on the matter. It's obvious they have zero concern for understanding anything about the country and our history. Like the video's of asking the "man of the street" simple questions. They cannot name the President, who fought in the Civil War, or how many states there are. And then they laugh about how dumb they are. 

I am really taken aback by so many of my fellow citizens who do not care about their rights or the rights of others. Astonishing. Call me paranoid but I do not trust them. Not in the sense they are out to get me but in the sense they are a huge liability. They have no idea of the scope of their responsibility and do not care. The cannot be counted on to counter anything harmful.

[Raggedyman]

While i struggle to listen to some lady rant at me for my opinion re US gun rights, pretty hard to argue with her synopsis
Yes its your decision, your choice and your problem
Dont see to many opinions of the foreign masses re Middle Eastern issues, problems with African societies or some of the government committed crimes in Asia
But they are not Western societies, havnt set a global standard like the US and have a media system that is all intrusive, a media almost begging that other countries/societies get involved in your politics

And my opinion, the US has so many weapons that it cant be turned back, cant stop the criminals owning and using guns so, protect yourselves. And to protect yourselves from what can only be described as a rising inhouse rogue government

[MarioOnTheFly]

I'm a non American. I can see pros and cons on this debate. I dont think it's really a gun issue. Probably more a culture issue from my perspective. But when I say "culture"...this is so complicated that the word doesnt do it justice. 

On one hand, I completely understand Americans for wanting to own guns for their own protection, be it from unchecked government or crazy individuals. On the other hand, it certainly provides easier access for these nuts. Would a gun ban reduce these mass shootings....? If I had to bet on it...I would say probably NO.

[gordi]

I love this girl. I wish I had the same ability to articulate my thoughts and feelings. The 1st Amendment is an amazing thing. I salute the founding fathers for their hindsight and wisdom. 

"Check yourselves before you insert yourselves like tampons into Americans business" ...

meh.

[NightskyeB4Dawn]

I'm a non American. I can see pros and cons on this debate. I dont think it's really a gun issue. Probably more a culture issue from my perspective. But when I say "culture"...this is so complicated that the word doesnt do it justice. 

On one hand, I completely understand Americans for wanting to own guns for their own protection, be it from unchecked government or crazy individuals. On the other hand, it certainly provides easier access for these nuts. Would a gun ban reduce these mass shootings....? If I had to bet on it...I would say probably NO.

I don't think the gun ban has anything to do with mass shootings. I think far less people die in mass shootings, than if other methods are used, if they were just about killing as many people as they can.

Mass shootings I believe is about notoriety, their minutes of fame, a legacy for a life of perceived rejection, a life perceived to be lacking in attention, lacking in value, and lacking in love.

Then there are on shootings that are about hate, revenge, money, women, madness, or an agenda. 

Removing guns from the average citizen will not change any of that, because the acts are not about the guns. It is about the hurt. They don't need guns to make us hurt.

[ABNARTY]

I love this girl. I wish I had the same ability to articulate my thoughts and feelings. The 1st Amendment is an amazing thing. I salute the founding fathers for their hindsight and wisdom. 

"Check yourselves before you insert yourselves like tampons into Americans business" ...

meh.

Got it. One vote for "meh". 

[ABNARTY]

While i struggle to listen to some lady rant at me for my opinion re US gun rights, pretty hard to argue with her synopsis
Yes its your decision, your choice and your problem
Dont see to many opinions of the foreign masses re Middle Eastern issues, problems with African societies or some of the government committed crimes in Asia
But they are not Western societies, havnt set a global standard like the US and have a media system that is all intrusive, a media almost begging that other countries/societies get involved in your politics

And my opinion, the US has so many weapons that it cant be turned back, cant stop the criminals owning and using guns so, protect yourselves. And to protect yourselves from what can only be described as a rising inhouse rogue government

Sure. She is ranty but that's her schtick. 

IMHO, the media is simply an arm of the globalists. As a US citizen, I want the US to get out of other countries business. We have problems here which need attention and dollars. Other countries are more than able to sort out their own issues. 

I agree with the 'rising inhouse rouge government.' Good way to put it.

[ABNARTY]

I'm a non American. I can see pros and cons on this debate. I dont think it's really a gun issue. Probably more a culture issue from my perspective. But when I say "culture"...this is so complicated that the word doesnt do it justice. 

On one hand, I completely understand Americans for wanting to own guns for their own protection, be it from unchecked government or crazy individuals. On the other hand, it certainly provides easier access for these nuts. Would a gun ban reduce these mass shootings....? If I had to bet on it...I would say probably NO.

I agree. It is a culture issue and very complex. 

In the US, there are about half a dozen (or so) urban areas that make up the vast majority of the 'gun crime.' It just so happens that those urban areas have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country. Many argue it's because they get guns from neighboring states with less strict gun laws. Well then why don't those states have any where near as high a 'gun crime' rate? I don't know.

[ABNARTY]

I'm a non American. I can see pros and cons on this debate. I dont think it's really a gun issue. Probably more a culture issue from my perspective. But when I say "culture"...this is so complicated that the word doesnt do it justice. 

On one hand, I completely understand Americans for wanting to own guns for their own protection, be it from unchecked government or crazy individuals. On the other hand, it certainly provides easier access for these nuts. Would a gun ban reduce these mass shootings....? If I had to bet on it...I would say probably NO.

I don't think the gun ban has anything to do with mass shootings. I think far less people die in mass shootings, than if other methods are used, if they were just about killing as many people as they can.

Mass shootings I believe is about notoriety, their minutes of fame, a legacy for a life of perceived rejection, a life perceived to be lacking in attention, lacking in value, and lacking in love.

Then there are on shootings that are about hate, revenge, money, women, madness, or an agenda. 

Removing guns from the average citizen will not change any of that, because the acts are not about the guns. It is about the hurt. They don't need guns to make us hurt.

I heard a statement the other day. These shooters would rather be dead and infamous than alive and anonymous. 

Once guns get involved, the issue is too far gone. Where was the village prior-to that point? That's where the problem is.

[Ninurta]

I'm a non American. I can see pros and cons on this debate. I dont think it's really a gun issue. Probably more a culture issue from my perspective. But when I say "culture"...this is so complicated that the word doesnt do it justice. 

On one hand, I completely understand Americans for wanting to own guns for their own protection, be it from unchecked government or crazy individuals. On the other hand, it certainly provides easier access for these nuts. Would a gun ban reduce these mass shootings....? If I had to bet on it...I would say probably NO.

You're right, it's more of a culture problem than a gun problem.

And a "gun ban" might reduce the number of mass shootings, but it will not reduce the number of mass killings because it does not address the root causes of the problem. The de-socialized and alienated folks will just find other, more creative, means of lashing out at their targets.

The very notion that "gun crime" is somehow more heinous or destructive than the root cause of "crime" is a symptom of the insanity taking hold here. Dead is dead, and the deceased do not care that it was a gun that took them out instead of a bomb, a knife, or a crowbar. They are just as dead, either way. Until we disabuse ourselves of the stupid notion that the implement is causing the crime, and address the root causes of the crime instead, it will continue.

"Hate crime" is another, equally meaningless, label they are applying. If one man kills another, it can be fairly well ascertained that he didn't much love the man he killed, so why tack on a meaningless qualifier, like "HATE crime" or "GUN crime"? They do it to muddy the waters, to shift the focus away from the root causes which they themselves are generating, crime itself, towards another track that can never be adequately controlled - in these examples, "guns" and "hate". It frames it into an unsolveable problem, which will give them generations of fear-fodder, an inexhaustible supply of it. The very coining of those phrases is an attempt to make the populace feel more vulnerable and afraid... and it misdirects their fear away from what should be scaring the crap out of them. It is simple misdirection and misinformation at it's finest.

If we take Canada as an example, they illegalized something on the order of 1500 types of what Trudeau calls "assault-style weapons", whatever the hell that is, a couple of years ago. Instead of reducing "gun crime", it rose. Now he is agitating to do more of the same by illegalizing hand guns across Canada. If the first bans didn't work, what makes him think more of the same will suddenly start working? Isn't doing the same thing over and over again and always expecting a different result one of the definitions of insanity?

Why do they steadfastly refuse to address the root causes, instead focusing on mere inanimate objects?

Because that IS what they are doing, ignoring the roots while addressing the wind. I'm certain they are NOT doing it for "our" protection, the protection of the people. I'm equally certain they do not care about the rise of batshit crazy folks committing these atrocities, because they continue to manufacture them and ignore their increase, while at the same time dismantling our defenses - "defunding" police and the like - and putting ever more wolves into the sheepfold to attack us. The only conclusion I can reach is that they are intentionally promoting these horrid events in an effort to disarm the populace altogether, because a disarmed populace is an eminently terrorizable and controllable populace. They are focused on protecting and expanding their OWN power, and give no shits about us peons under their thumb. If it were otherwise, their efforts would reflect that.

Should they get a total gun ban in place, there would still be guns being smuggled in by criminals, FOR criminals. It would only be the average Joes that would be disarmed and at the mercy of all comers. It would leave The People defenseless in the face of attacking wolves. Not totally defenseless, of course. We can be just as inventive when it comes to mayhem as the next guy. Just because we are peaceful does not mean we are harmless if pushed. For example, if I were utterly disarmed, but felt myself to be at threat, I can ring this place with layers of defenses and destructive devices that would decimate any interlopers indiscriminately with nothing more than a knife, a hank of paracord, maybe some fishing line and a folding e-tool shovel, and what nature provides beyond that. It would then be a VERY dangerous proposition to approach my house, more so because all those devices would be on auto-pilot and kill whatever moved, not making a decision behind a set of gun sights as to threat level. Those devices would not even care if the interlopers did or did not have any guns - they would simply function with no fear, remorse or emotion.

If I can do it, it's a sure bet there are more out there capable of the same.

Is that really a better solution than just letting us remain "armed" and more discriminating in evaluating visitors? Why not just leave us alone in peace, and instead go after the perpetrators and reduce their numbers by stopping the manufacture of them?

.

[Ninurta]

I'm a non American. I can see pros and cons on this debate. I dont think it's really a gun issue. Probably more a culture issue from my perspective. But when I say "culture"...this is so complicated that the word doesnt do it justice. 

On one hand, I completely understand Americans for wanting to own guns for their own protection, be it from unchecked government or crazy individuals. On the other hand, it certainly provides easier access for these nuts. Would a gun ban reduce these mass shootings....? If I had to bet on it...I would say probably NO.

I agree. It is a culture issue and very complex. 

In the US, there are about half a dozen (or so) urban areas that make up the vast majority of the 'gun crime.' It just so happens that those urban areas have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country. Many argue it's because they get guns from neighboring states with less strict gun laws. Well then why don't those states have any where near as high a 'gun crime' rate? I don't know.

That, sir, is an excellent and insightful observation. I wish I had thought of it, but since I didn't, I'm going to blatantly steal it and make use of it myself!

.

[Ninurta]

This just dropped a little less than an hour ago. TV is still broke, so I didn't see it when it aired between 8 and 9, but YouTube picked it up.




A few observations:

Some folks are beginning to ask questions about the financial arrangement that allowed these purchases by a kid. You can bet your ass that we will never know the real answers, so don't let them just blow smoke up your ass and gaslight you.

His purchases, according to the most recent information presented here, were significantly larger than my estimates. According to this report, he purchased 60 magazines rather than the 7 previously reported being carried with him. 60x an average price of 15.00 per magazine comes out to 900.00 just in magazines. A lowball figure of 10.00 per magazine still yields a 600.00 expenditure just on magazines. The report also states that he had bought 1600 rounds of 5.56 ammo. I won't even begin to estimate what that would cost at today's prices, because I don't really know. The last I bought was probably 2018 or before, and prices have significantly increased since then - over 300% for 9mm ammo. I will say I have seen 5.56 going for 1.25 to 1.50 PER ROUND, but I won't pretend to know what the average price is - those could have been cases of price gouging and profiteering.

So the purchase cost of all the arms and equipment this kid bought in just a few days is far in excess of what I previously estimated - where did he get that kind off money? He sure as hell did not save it up from part-time work at a Wendy's drive-through window.

Joe Biden's statement that a 9mm "will blow the lung out of the body" is a flat out lie. He's trying to gaslight you. I've seen a number of 9mm wounds to the chest. In not a single one were any lungs removed from the bodies by the bullet.

Joe Biden's statement that "you couldn't buy a cannon" at the time the Constitution was written is also a flat out lie, an attempt to gaslight you. At that time, a majority of cannons were owned by private citizens, in particular "privateers" aboard sailing ships. The citizens of Boonesboro Kentucky made their own cannon out of an oak log bound with iron bands during a British and Indian siege in 1782. No one there was ever arrested for "manufacturing weapons of war", because it was not illegal. Many of the revolutionary soldiers took their military issue muskets home with them after the war. During Dunmore's War in 1774, I have records from the war's paymasters of sales of military muskets to private citizens - if you're wondering, the price of a military grade musket in those sales was 20 shillings. Those records are housed in 5 volumes at the Library of Virginia, and I have copies of every page of them. There were, in fact, NO weapons that the military could have that were banned from civilian possession in those days.

Biden is lying to you, and hopes you won't know any better.

Since Biden, and indeed nearly all Capitol Hill Democrats, know absolutely nothing about firearms or even firearms laws - and have demonstrated their ignorance over and over again - why should they be allowed to make law regarding... firearms?

Would you let a roofer or a mason perform your open heart surgery? Why not? He has as much, and perhaps more, medical knowledge than Biden has firearms knowledge. What could possibly go wrong?

.

[ABNARTY]

This just dropped a little less than an hour ago. TV is still broke, so I didn't see it when it aired between 8 and 9, but YouTube picked it up.




A few observations:

Some folks are beginning to ask questions about the financial arrangement that allowed these purchases by a kid. You can bet your ass that we will never know the real answers, so don't let them just blow smoke up your ass and gaslight you.

His purchases, according to the most recent information presented here, were significantly larger than my estimates. According to this report, he purchased 60 magazines rather than the 7 previously reported being carried with him. 60x an average price of 15.00 per magazine comes out to 900.00 just in magazines. A lowball figure of 10.00 per magazine still yields a 600.00 expenditure just on magazines. The report also states that he had bought 1600 rounds of 5.56 ammo. I won't even begin to estimate what that would cost at today's prices, because I don't really know. The last I bought was probably 2018 or before, and prices have significantly increased since then - over 300% for 9mm ammo. I will say I have seen 5.56 going for 1.25 to 1.50 PER ROUND, but I won't pretend to know what the average price is - those could have been cases of price gouging and profiteering.

So the purchase cost of all the arms and equipment this kid bought in just a few days is far in excess of what I previously estimated - where did he get that kind off money? He sure as hell did not save it up from part-time work at a Wendy's drive-through window.

Joe Biden's statement that a 9mm "will blow the lung out of the body" is a flat out lie. He's trying to gaslight you. I've seen a number of 9mm wounds to the chest. In not a single one were any lungs removed from the bodies by the bullet.

Joe Biden's statement that "you couldn't buy a cannon" at the time the Constitution was written is also a flat out lie, an attempt to gaslight you. At that time, a majority of cannons were owned by private citizens, in particular "privateers" aboard sailing ships. The citizens of Boonesboro Kentucky made their own cannon out of an oak log bound with iron bands during a British and Indian siege in 1782. No one there was ever arrested for "manufacturing weapons of war", because it was not illegal. Many of the revolutionary soldiers took their military issue muskets home with them after the war. During Dunmore's War in 1774, I have records from the war's paymasters of sales of military muskets to private citizens - if you're wondering, the price of a military grade musket in those sales was 20 shillings. Those records are housed in 5 volumes at the Library of Virginia, and I have copies of every page of them. There were, in fact, NO weapons that the military could have that were banned from civilian possession in those days.

Biden is lying to you, and hopes you won't know any better.

Since Biden, and indeed nearly all Capitol Hill Democrats, know absolutely nothing about firearms or even firearms laws - and have demonstrated their ignorance over and over again - why should they be allowed to make law regarding... firearms?

Would you let a roofer or a mason perform your open heart surgery? Why not? He has as much, and perhaps more, medical knowledge than Biden has firearms knowledge. What could possibly go wrong?

.

I was wondering the same thing. He used Daniel Defense models. Two of them. They run around $2k a piece. It's a good platform. Many alphabet agencies use them (Hmmmm...). He bought them days before this all happened. 

I echo your question: where did he get the money?

I agree the puppets in DC (and Ottawa for that matter) are simply running off of a script handed to them. They do not give two squats about dead Americans other than it provides a trigger for reducing the rights of citizens. 

Ever notice every single "solution" they come up with involves a forfeiture on the part of the citizen. Never does it involve giving up an iota of their position or wealth?

[ABNARTY]

I'm a non American. I can see pros and cons on this debate. I dont think it's really a gun issue. Probably more a culture issue from my perspective. But when I say "culture"...this is so complicated that the word doesnt do it justice. 

On one hand, I completely understand Americans for wanting to own guns for their own protection, be it from unchecked government or crazy individuals. On the other hand, it certainly provides easier access for these nuts. Would a gun ban reduce these mass shootings....? If I had to bet on it...I would say probably NO.

I agree. It is a culture issue and very complex. 

In the US, there are about half a dozen (or so) urban areas that make up the vast majority of the 'gun crime.' It just so happens that those urban areas have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country. Many argue it's because they get guns from neighboring states with less strict gun laws. Well then why don't those states have any where near as high a 'gun crime' rate? I don't know.

That, sir, is an excellent and insightful observation. I wish I had thought of it, but since I didn't, I'm going to blatantly steal it and make use of it myself!

.

Feel free.

[NightskyeB4Dawn]

Of course they are lying to us. It would be truly unusual if they didn't.

The inconvenient, ugly truth, is that our government is a corrupt cesspool of greedy, lying, self centered, tools of a system that don't really care about us.

Want to hear a song about it? Here it goes.


We are not alone. They are hitting us from all sides at this point. They are making it so we can't help each other, and so we can't get help from other countries. It is a full on blitz.

They want us to think, "It is every man for himself". Another lie.

[Snarl]

I'm a non American. I can see pros and cons on this debate. I dont think it's really a gun issue. Probably more a culture issue from my perspective. But when I say "culture"...this is so complicated that the word doesnt do it justice. 

On one hand, I completely understand Americans for wanting to own guns for their own protection, be it from unchecked government or crazy individuals. On the other hand, it certainly provides easier access for these nuts. Would a gun ban reduce these mass shootings....? If I had to bet on it...I would say probably NO.

You don't have to be American ... you only have to be brighter than the average IQ guy.  LMAO (good to find your posts on the boards again, Brother)

Can you believe how many crazy people there are on the streets of America today?  People who are just dumb and incapable of anything other than fighting and consuming (one class of bullet sponge).

The gooberment will probably start a gun-grab for the purposes of accumulating more power. Neither side's elites really desire us common-folk owning firearms.  They'll have to kill millions to frighten the rest of us into ceding our freedoms to the tyrants. I don't even see a gun-grab on the horizon.  They're gotta fix this new digital currency and take away our access to petroleum energies to have half a chance at succeeding.

[NightskyeB4Dawn]

Those homes didn't look as bad as I thought they would. Those living on the streets live in less than humane conditions as well as unsanitary conditions, but the majority of them are there by choice.

I often work with those that are victims or homelessness, but a large number are homeless by choice, and will reject any assistance that comes with requirements, or changes in behavior.

There are areas all over America that are considered ghettos but they are very small in comparison to whole. Most areas have programs that offer some kind of help, and those that take advantage of the help, fare well. Unfortunately, the majority are not victims, they are the result of poor judgment, mental impairment, and or substance abuse.

This has been the face of homelessness, but that face is changing rapidly. We are now having a large increase in the number of working poor. I am hoping that the working poor will realize that they are backing the wrong horse, and I hope that they will use their intelligence and buying power to their advantage, instead of just following the crumbs being scattered by government.

Personally I would rather eat tree bark and grasshoppers, than the poop meat, and the soylent green the government is planning for our future. If we have any hope of surviving this insanity and the coming Mad Max Thunderdome, we had better get ready now.

[SimeonJ]

I remember when the Bulgaria entered the European Union and the World bank was very unhappy. They even made a statement "This is very unfair when 85% of the population has their own apartment and/or house". Before the EU you will need to look for homeless in the city, literally.

Homeless is not an individual problem, but afford problem.

Now about the gun problem: Breivik calling the police delta squad "I am done, can I surrender?"