In all fairness rory, they said that about the redcoats as well - and look who won that one.Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
EDIT: Everyone in this thread, arguing on either side, should watch...
...this
...and all three parts of this.
Yes (U.S citizen)
No (U.S citizen)
Yes (Non U.S citizen)
No (Non U.S citizen)
Re: U.S Citizens right to own a firearm debate
In all fairness rory, they said that about the redcoats as well - and look who won that one.
EDIT: Everyone in this thread, arguing on either side, should watch...
...this
...and all three parts of this.
Last edited by Evil_Maniac From Mars; 04-06-2009 at 21:33.
Re: U.S Citizens right to own a firearm debate
I've seen that video a thousand times. The fact is 1 anecdote=/= policy. This is of course true if someone puts a grieving mother of columbine up.
Instead of posting violent language and emotive arguments we should argue the merits of firearms ownership and how far we are willing to take it.
We know guns kill people just like we know alcohol kills people
There, but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford
My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.
I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation.
Re: U.S Citizens right to own a firearm debate
It isn't her story so much as her explanation of what the Second Amendment is really about. The arguments I like to leave to the second video series.
Re: U.S Citizens right to own a firearm debate
No her argument is about conceal and carry in a private establishment. Not firearm ownership. She owned the gun but could not bring it in to a private establishment. Which if the Lubys decides to make policy they have the right to refuse her service.
There, but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford
My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.
I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation.
Re: U.S Citizens right to own a firearm debate
Only it wasn't the Luby's, it was the State of Texas, correct? Regardless, your point does not disprove mine.
Last edited by Evil_Maniac From Mars; 04-06-2009 at 22:43.
Re: U.S Citizens right to own a firearm debate
Correct, however even under current laws. Lubys still would be within its rights.
There, but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford
My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.
I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation.
Re: U.S Citizens right to own a firearm debate
If you know your history then you should know it was the French that were the key to that victory at Yorktown .i have a pretty decent knowledge of US history. from my knowledge, after Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown, the Brits withdrew. so technically we did beat them, AFAIK.
Re: U.S Citizens right to own a firearm debate
That is the business of Luby's. I don't see how it relates to my point more than slightly, I'm sorry.
Re: U.S Citizens right to own a firearm debate
As far as a democratically elected government has the time to react to excesses imho. If streetgangs have machineguns and the government doesn't have the means to act against it it should step back.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks