[Drlee]

^^

Take History 101. THEN post.

[Baff]

What is History 101?
Is it taught in American comic books by any chance? Or in it's cinema's?

[Baff]

I think an artillery lisence is the next one I'm after.

[bobgnote]

What'll get a "full ban" done is not just Op.FF, copied from pub sting Op.Wide Receiver and Project Gunrunner, during a really stupid, Democratic Party-devised, Republican named drug war, which is always lost, already, but also mass murders, in the US, a land of uneven enforcement and Zionist insanity.

One case which may tell on national gun laws is State v. Zimmerman.

http://newsone.com/2016433/george-zimmerman-drugs/

http://www.taylormarsh.com/blog/2012/05 ... -shooting/

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/sto ... 55061830/1

This case features a complete tweaker, who was prescribed Adderall, an amphetamine, for ADHD, with a couple other dangerous drugs, so after GZ murdered Trayvon Martin, a paramedic found out GZ was on Temazepam, and when the i-net stops swirling, I can find out what his other scrip was, but when a patient stops taking it, it can cause anxiety. I see one article lists "librax," for GI.

Whatever happens in this case, whether self-defense, or SYG, or murder 2 prevail, this shows what happens, when somebody on a long leash, with some kind of OCD gets a firearm and goes a-hunting.

GZ didn't submit to a blood test, even though he acted like a rabid tweaker. Months after this murder, I keep reading "druggie Trayvon" and other slurs, at forums and news threads. I wouldn't want all the crazies who write GZ rants packing, in my area. That just won't do.

Even if GZ gets off, Tracy Martin and Trayvon's mom should be able to sue Bill Lee and whoever else was responsible, for letting a tweaker go around with a gun, try to make a stop, like he's a cop, and then the proven tweaker was not tested for blood effects OR charged, with any sort of efficiency.

People have a right to be protected from tweakers with guns. If a state wants to run a drug war, to keep hemp out of biomass resource markets, we will succumb to global warming, without a fight. But if a state lets tweakers pack, after getting advice, about pit bulls, but along comes this self-appointed watch gig, so it's time to blow a kid away, which was avoidable, SPD persons of interest are responsible.

This responsibility will have long-term effects, on how national gun control plays out. In the long run, I don't anticipate the drug war making it, past 2013, but who knows! Forrest Gump just bought Apple stock and a bigger lawnmower!

All the freaks with guns in the US that use those guns will eventually incite restrictions, on handguns and assault rifles. Local communities will have to leash their watch-geeks, pronto. The days of tweaking watch-cowboys is over, as of GZ's trial.

Of course, if we ever get a leader, instead of 450,000 elected burghers, owned by cartels, to rule the USA, we may have to accept gun control and a sudden end to the drug war.

[Rancid]

Guns should be banned PERIOD!!! FULL STOP!!

[Dr House]

I assert that government has this right on property under its control too. Certainly the right to keep and bear arms does not extend to carrying a concealed pistol on a military reservation or courthouse.

I disagree. The right to bear arms was not meant as a safeguard for personal protection; it was explicitly meant as a bulwark against executive tyranny. This would effectively be rendered meaningless if you don't have the right to be armed in an institution defended by armed government agents.

[Godstud]

Don't ban guns. Force people who don't own guns to purchase them and register them. Why not? Same same. You are forcing a segment of the population who are law abiding citizens and punishing them. You are punishing the legal, responsible gun owners for the actions of those who will get their hands on guns regardless of the legality of it. That's idiotic.

[Drlee]

I disagree. The right to bear arms was not meant as a safeguard for personal protection; it was explicitly meant as a bulwark against executive tyranny. This would effectively be rendered meaningless if you don't have the right to be armed in an institution defended by armed government agents.

What?

I see. You interpret the constitution to read that any citizen should be allowed to carry a gun on a military base because the government might deprive them of their rights?

T