“The first prerequisite to any morality is understanding that actions originate within individuals. The Left is hopelessly immoral because it believes that actions originate within external social conditions. It insists that murder is caused by the social conditions of capitalism, the gun industry or poverty. It justifies its own massacres as attempts to remedy the social conditions of capitalism by force.
That’s why murder thrives under leftist governments, whether in Venezuela or Chicago.
If we want to stop mass killings, we have to restore a moral society based on individual responsibility. The alternative is living in one giant progressive prison with the killers, the psychos and the terrorists.
Either we control the criminals or we lose all control over our own lives.“
Key words: “Most of the weaponry available to civilians today.”
To your last statement … obviously very little. There are almost no (compared to the genre of full auto assault weapons on the whole) high caliber fully automatic assault rifles in existence. Off the top of my head, I can’t think of any other than the BAR of WWII fame (and Clyde Barrow infamy) and the M14. There probably is some others, but they are all rare.
Your first sentence cannot be supported by any known fact.
Your citation is in reference to combat where when you’re under attack or even suspect enemy movement you can literally fire blindly into the dark. Doing so in self defense is likely to only result in very long prison terms.
Your article also fails to show that the use of a shotgun was actually responsible for higher casualties.
In most cases in Vietnam the VC would drag their casualties away in the dark so the casualty counts were at best “estimates” and usually highly inflated estimates at best.
It’s obvious you’ve never been in a fight, much less a close in fight and I seriously doubt you’ve ever met anyone who has.
Did you see the video’s of the incident while it was ongoing? There were 200-400 cops on the scene for more than 12 hours to keep it “contained” and provide a secure permimeter.
If only 10% of gun owners were willing to resist confiscation there would not be enough resources in the country to even begin to deal with them.
Of course they would by necessity which would make it even harder for them to succeed and very likely greatly increase the casualties on the side of those trying to seize the weapons as a result.
Generally you need at least a 10:1 numerical advantage when you are on the assault against a determined subject in a hardened or fortified position and even then odds are high of very high casualties on the side of those doing the assaulting.
Grow up troll?? If I don’t answer your questions it’s because A) I’m quite aware that you’re not liking what I say about your precious guns in terms of availability, and B) because you sprinkle your posts with technical details of firearms, which I’ve already admitted I know almost nothing: And why would I, when we don’t have your small-minded machismo gun obsession over here? Neither of them render my opinions invalid though.
. [quote=“max-webster, post:345, topic:4359, full:true”]
he sounds like a moron and he is trying to pass off to us he is knowledgeable and a republican
LMFAO.
I almost thought it was that Jitts guy pulling our leg
[/quote]
Lookee here mate - if you have anything to say about me then say it to me, and not to your gun-buddies.
Whoever it was you’re quoting obviously lives in cloud-cuckoo-land - probably a liberal flake. For example, what’s the point of asserting If we want to stop mass killings, we have to restore a moral society based on individual responsibility. but not going on to explain how?? It’s totally meaningless.
Totally meaningless to you perhaps! Also your assumptions are completely wrong about the author, then again that doesn’t surprise me coming from you! Also there is a link to the article that I am quoting in this thread, put a little effort in it and you will find it!
If you think it makes sense then tell us how it can be done? Don’t just sit there trashing everything I say, and ending it with an ad hominem. I get enough of that from @Samm lol So how do we restore a moral society based on individual responsibility.? How would you do it?
No need to. Others who read it said it was an excellent article and that is enough for me!
If you really want to have a meaningful dialogue, then the burden of defining a moral society would be on you! Why don’t you tell us what you think is a moral society in your definition! And leave out your anti gun bullshit narrative while doing it!
When you go out of your way to pontificate on a subject you know so little about you’re bound to keep slamming into brick walls when you attempt to lecture those who understand the subject matter.
As you know - or should do after the times I’ve repeated it - my posts aren’t about what kinds they are or how they work/what they can do, they’re about whether they should be around at all, and what a better place the world would be without the fucking things. Now just shutup ffs!