And you just gave my idiocy more attention. You never change. (One would hope socks and underwear at least.)

(February 16, 2016 at 3:04 pm)Gawdzilla Wrote: And you just gave my idiocy more attention. You never change. (One would hope socks and underwear at least.)

And again! Amazing.

(February 16, 2016 at 3:02 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(February 16, 2016 at 2:21 pm)Gawdzilla Wrote: You can hear them for miles. What part of that don't you understand?

I had to use my super-duper zoom lens to take this pic.  Oh, wait, I didn't -- it was 100' from my driveway.  I walked about thirty seconds to take this picture:



What part of that don't you understand?

Probably most of it, judging from the percipience we're seeing on display here.

I could keep you here all day, I think.

31 pages in, does anyone know why americans want more guns -or- why we shouldn't be allowed to have any, yet?

(February 16, 2016 at 6:39 pm)Rhythm Wrote: 31 pages in, does anyone know why americans want more guns

Yes.

Quote:-or- why we shouldn't be allowed to have any, yet?

No.

(February 16, 2016 at 6:39 pm)Rhythm Wrote: 31 pages in, does anyone know why americans want more guns -or- why we shouldn't be allowed to have any, yet?

I thought we established early on that more Americans want guns, not for being the Ted Nugent stereotype, but because many actually need guns, therefore, the urban-dwelling, self-appointed lords should not interfere. It's a matter of relative geography, which we have continued to argue, while ignorant assholes such as 'zilla continue to blatantly ignore. Some people will simply never notice anything over the noise of the drums they beat for their hate-based ideologies.

Well, there's certainly far less need for guns than there are guns.  Even if we both agree that some people need them, or certain situations called for them..that'd still be no less true.  

If I had no need of a gun, I'd still want one, personally. I own a few with no particular need for them, in the sense we seem to be discussing. I'm not sure that need factors into this discussion -at all-, though. What need do we have of press, assembly, or petition? Do we refer to our need of these things when we declare our right to them, or our desire to enjoy that right? If someone could not explain why they personally needed, or if indeed someone simply -did not- need the first or the third amendment (or any other)...or anything not specifically listed but touched upon all the same, would that mean something?

So, let's roll with it, let's say no one in the US -needs- a gun for anything. What now? People will still want them, there's still the second amendment, and there's still no solid grounds to tell them no. Why do these discussions always circle the drain of necessity when it's irrelevant either way we go with it?

(February 16, 2016 at 9:19 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Well, there's certainly far less need for guns than there are guns.  Even if we both agree that some people need them, or certain situations called for them..that'd still be no less true.  If I had no need of a gun, I'd still want one, personally.  I own a few with no particular need for them, in the sense we seem to be discussing.  I'm not sure that need factors into this discussion -at all-.  What need do we have of press, assembly, or petition?  Do we refer to our need of these things when we declare our right to them, or our desire to enjoy that right?

If someone could not explain why they personally needed the first or the third amendment (or any other)...what then?

Need is a pretty good reason, as is the sort of hobbyism which may be absent in Britain. On the other hand, there is no factual relation between gun ownership and gun-related deaths, therefore it's offensive to hold gun owners to any question of need. As for the attempts which certain assholes are making to decide how many and what sort of guns other people should own, this sadly justifies the clamor of the right wing with words such as "totalitarian".