Fear not, the UK police has got its priorities straight.
Punishing thought crime is apparently more important in the UK than punishing actual crime now.
The only solution for an individual and his or her family is to seek a place where guns are rare and, more importantly, where Death hasn’t yet infected the populace with a taste for blood and mayhem.
There is no government or organized group on Earth that I would trust to decide just who should or shouldn’t have guns.
And the ones who most loudly demand gun control are the ones I distrust most intensely.
If we were talking about denying a small minority of people access to guns for reasons of mental incompetence, I might perhaps trust the vast majority to make the right decision regarding that small minority. But typically we see the reverse. That’s a recipe for tyranny, folks.
My litmus test: if they will firmly and in perpetuity guarantee full gun rights to 95% of the adult population, I will at least consider their calls to deny it to the other 5%. But they’d better have a damn good reason even then.
Because I guesstimate better than 95% of people don’t commit mass shootings. And if they won’t settle for 5% that’s proof positive that the gun grabbers’ intentions are NOT benign.
Firmly and in perpetuity: I want a Constitutional amendment that expands upon the Second with a broad definition of well organized militia, and a clarification that the militia may be defending against an enemy within that operates under the color of government. Let that amendment also enshrine the Castle doctrine, and no national gun registry. Why? Because I don’t trust these people down the road. If they won’t commit to locking these rights in, it’s because they don’t mean what they say, and are planning to take back the freedoms they offer at their earliest convenience.
I’d allow a national registry of those forbidden to have guns - because that’s the best way to enforce the 5% limit. Count the entries in the database, compare to the last census, and if it’s over 5%, void the most recent additions to bring down to 5%. If they fuss and holler, tell them it’s their own damn fault for going over the limit.
Never believe someone who says he only wants reasonable gun control unless he proves his sincerity by agreeing to such an amendment.
Beware those who aspire to be in the 5% who are armed when 95% are helpless before them.
That’s all they can get away with saying.
In their unguarded moments, they reveal their true thinking. Not “mainstream” but dead serious. No, we will never, ever believe or trust them.
The first thing a gaslighter does is tell you how reasonable he is and how unreasonable you are.
And this is why the Second Amendment democratizes militias. The National Guard argument is pure bullshit.
Ask them what they’ll do when the ChiComs invade.
I’ve always supported the idea that Taiwanese should have the ability to arm themselves due to the circumstances with the PRC. I take their threats very seriously and I strongly feel that it might be the last stand against a forced occupation of the island.
You mean you want a constitution that facilitates insurrection and replaces due process with an algorithm? Let us know how it goes!
Btw how’s your No Fly List doing these days? (Canada’s is still quite a mess, infants regularly being denied boarding and so on…) Would you support a 5% cap for that? Or how about a 5% cap on denial of driver’s licenses?
The Taiwanese have no interest in owning guns for the most part. Make it legal and still the majority won’t buy one.
It would be just more terrifying on the roads here. Cut someone off and instead of chasing you with a metal pipe or a watermelon knife, they be comin’ at you with a 45
After the invasion by the Japanese and KMT, I wonder why Taiwanese didn’t want to take actions to defend themselves.
I have no problem with militias, but that doesn’t conflict with having sensible gun control measures.
Well with the Japanese, they actually did improve things and invested a lot into the island like schools, roads, bridges, hospitals and made things more safe. So the average Taiwanese who lived in more populated areas benefited as long as they went alone with things. But obviously they did oppress Taiwanese culture like not allowing people to speak Taiwanese. And people did fight back, mostly aboriginals who were rightly sick of people coming here.
I feel that people here have become to comfortable counting on the status quo and expecting the US to help us. The PRC is growing, XI is grabbing more and more power and the US may not be able to keep up with their military expenditures. People need to wake up and realize that even though nothing probably will happen right now. But the PRC isn’t going to let taiwan go anytime soon. The USs protection isn’t something we will also be able to bank on, and even if they do, how much are they really willing to fight for the island?
228, cough cough.
Unfortunately in that case, the KMT was better armed. It’s what happens when citizens no longer have the means to fight back.
No people should entirely trust their government, it never works out well for the people.
Take from someone who has been in a civil war: the ones who win are not the ones with the means to keep fighting, but the ones who have nothing to lose. Civil wars are wars of attrition. And to win, you need outside intervention to tip the scales back to fair justice. And that does not mean guns for everyone, but rather respect for law and order.
228 was a massacre because the population had been safe and hence, sitting ducks for the wolves. To keep a population in a constant state of fear was what followed. No leadership, no means to communicate with te outside, cultural and social bulldozing. … until outside intervention force dthe hand towards democracy. Then there were no more bodies floating down the rivers.
I wouldn’t say that the Japanese invaded the island. It was a war prize. Granted, it was a war they started, but a prize none the less.
I think he prefers a loose collection of various warlords governing things their own way, and nurturing a perpetual armed struggle between the various groups. Kinda Trotsky-ish in a way.