Gun Control III

I agree of course, most everyone does. The pictures of the innocent victims.....just leaves me without words, frustrating. How about a military, ground invasion of the U.S. by the Taliban, Iran, China, Russia? Did you ever hear about this;

quote:

---

After Pearl Harbor, did the Japanese refrain from invading the mainland United States because they feared there were gun-savvy Americans in nearly every home?

​

That’s the claim of a 20-paragraph post on Facebook that has been shared more than 21,000 times.

---

PolitiFact | After Pearl Harbor, Japanese didn't invade US because they feared armed citizens?As you can see by reading that, "experts" (liberal college professors) fell all over themselves to declare that an armed U.S. citizenry had absolutely nothing to do with an enemy's decision to do, or not do, a mainland, ground invasion of the U.S. Do you believe them?

quote:

---

This post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed.

---

It was such a ridiculous idea that Facebook needed to CENSOR it, to keep as many people as possible from discussing it, or thinking about it? Democrats agree with this censorship of course, while calling Republicans "fascists". This is clearly in the "you-can't-make-this-stuff-up catagory.If you were a soldier, would you rather storm the beach of a country WITH an armed citizenry, or WITHOUT, knowing that most houses you approached posed no armed threat to you?Is there NO CHANCE that a future 9/11 style sucker-punch to the U.S could partly or completely involve a ground invasion? Considering the current state of our southern border? And the tactical leader of an invasion would give NO THOUGHT to the differences between an armed society versus one that has been disarmed by its government?

More so than your right wing gibberish, yes, I believe them.How dumb can you get, marc? Because I once was a soldier I can tell you I wouldn’t want to come up against the military power of our present armed forces. It’s suicide. Go ask the Iraqis. Serious? In this world of overexposure do you really think such a surprise would not be seen miles and years away? You are not keeping touch with the modern world. You can no longer move and harbor those kinds of military resources without someone noticing. Take your blinders off, marc, this is not the 90's.If your grandiose alien armed invasion is like what Russia tried in Ukraine then good luck not getting your teeth kicked in well prior to your d-day. We are not Ukraine.If it is something way less, like what Russia has been forced into, then what is the point? Like Russia, any attempt to pull off any such invasion, will be sending fodder into the awaiting tender mercies of a world-wide American military buzzsaw. No civilians necessary. In fact, if the civilian weekend warriors get in the way they are going to die.Can you bring 15,000 jets and bombers with you? That's how many you will lose the first few weeks. Russia, China, Iran, or heaven forbid, Paraguay wouldn’t stand two weeks in your boogyman rightist fantasy.Yeah, marc, I think there is NO CHANCE that a future 9/11 style sucker-punch to the U.S could partly or completely involve a ground invasion.marc, now is the time to make your wet dream go nuclear. Don’t need armed civilians for that. Might as well give up your puny pea-shooters now before you kill more kids.

Idiot. The Japanese did not give a shit about yahoos with guns. There was never serious consideration of invasion. Just your wingnut wet dreams

I think you need to find and give more weight to knowledgable, experienced and authoritative sources.AbE: The Facebook post linked to by that Politifact article brings you to a page that says, "Sorry, this content isn't available right now."It mystifies me that you're unable to look at a report supportive of what you'd like to believe true and examine it for accuracy and rationality. Just because something is sympathetic to your beliefs doesn't mean it's reliable or even believable.--Percy

​ If that is the only primary reason for keeping it legal to own such a weapon, I would argue that the current risk(random civilian shootings) outweighs the only reward(protecting the US mainland in the event of an invasion). Comments?

quote:

---

I agree of course, most everyone does. The pictures of the innocent victims.....just leaves me without words, frustrating.

---

Maybe you do, but you’re on the same side as those who don’t agree. Alex Jones springs to mind after his coverage of Sandy Hook.

quote:

---

How about a military, ground invasion of the U.S. by the Taliban, Iran, China, Russia?

---

I’d say that means that you want school shootings to go on. None of them are exactly plausible threats. But then I have to remind myself that you are a complete moron who apparently believes utter rubbish if it suits him.

quote:

---

As you can see by reading that, "experts" (liberal college professors) fell all over themselves to declare that an armed U.S. citizenry had absolutely nothing to do with an enemy's decision to do, or not do, a mainland, ground invasion of the U.S. Do you believe them?
​

---

Not being a complete moron, of course I believe obvious truths.

quote:

---

It was such a ridiculous idea that Facebook needed to CENSOR it, to keep as many people as possible from discussing it, or thinking about it? Democrats agree with this censorship of course, while calling Republicans "fascists". This is clearly in the "you-can't-make-this-stuff-up catagory.

---

But you did make it up. And that’s hardly the most ridiculous claim you’ve made up.Facebook didn’t censor it, they flagged it as misinformation. Because it is. And it needed to be flagged as misinformation because unthinking gun supporters didn’t think enough to see that it was utterly ridiculous.

quote:

---

Is there NO CHANCE that a future 9/11 style sucker-punch to the U.S could partly or completely involve a ground invasion? Considering the current state of our southern border? And the tactical leader of an invasion would give NO THOUGHT to the differences between an armed society versus one that has been disarmed by its government?

---

There is no reasonable chance of it, no. Even states better equipped than WWII Japan either have no motive or better things to do with their military than ship it across an ocean to where it can be hammered to pieces. Or risk nuclear retaliation.And I note that you obviously have no respect for the US military. Armed citizens are only a factor if the military can’t stop the invaders. Yet you think that the Taliban could launch a successful invasion of the U.S.?

quote:

---

If that is the only primary reason for keeping it legal to own such a weapon, I would argue that the current risk(random civilian shootings) outweighs the only reward(protecting the US mainland in the event of an invasion). Comments?

---

Of course real threats outweigh paranoid delusions. No sane person could think otherwise. Not to mention that the US has a large and well-equipped military and a National Guard.

Really?Let's be real. The main reason people own assault rifles is because they think they are cool and fun to shoot. There are paranoid nutjobs who think they need to guard themselves from some fever dream fantasy they have, but those are the minority, a very scary minority. If people have anything other than a handgun for home defense, chances are those other guns are either for hunting or for fun.

That wasn't the question. 9/11, and countless other possibilities of U.S mainland attacks don't include the U.S. military. The U.S. military isn't present in every day American life. 9/11 was an attack on everyday American life. The U.S. military wasn't present until it was all over. Sure, like 9/11 was? If on 9/10/01 I would have raised the possibility on that kind of attack, would your reply been something like this? "WHY YOU STUPID MOTHER *)^$%#COCK (%#(&!@ SON OF A GIRL DOG *%!)^%$ WHITE BOY!!!!! ARABS???? TAKING THE CONTROLS OF DOMESTIC FLIGHTS?!?!?1 WHAT IN THE G%@)&%^$$# H*$@ GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO SPEAK FREELY, YOU G)%@*^ )$&^K MOTHER *$@*^%$ FASCIST???? Nope, this is the world of a wide open southern border. Someone's noticing every little thing that's coming over the southern border? No, not like that. More like 9/11. Or anything that could be being planned in Afghanistan right now, with all the U.S. military equipment that Biden gave them. Maybe something to do with chemical / biological weapons. It will be a quick surprise, just like 9/11. A disarmed U.S. public could very well make it easier for them. The American military buzzsaw was not present on 9/11. And if Afghanistan has any plans with chemical / biological weapons, they're smart enough to see to it that the U.S. military won't be present until they're done, and probably dead. Suicide attackers are like that. That's fine, that's what I'm looking for, evidence that hardly any Democrat actually learned something from 9/11.

I realize you're the product of multiple generations of sister fucking but if you think these groups could credibly attempt an invasion of the US you're dumber than I thought. get the goat syphilis treated, it's eating away at what little brain cells you have.

I do agree with a few things college professors say, like their claim that "Argument from Authority" is a logical fallacy. But the link I put up worked! This statement was there;

quote:

---

This post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed.

---

That's what it said! Why should I go down a rabbit trail hoping to find something that contradicts it? It mystifies me that you still seem to be in the fantasy land that Facebook and Twitter don't / didn't censor Republican free speech. Back when Jack Dorsey still ran Twitter, he denied under oath to a question by a congressman that he censored anything by any conservative. Musk's takeover, Twitter files, show that he lied under oath. No reports on ABC World News Tonight.You don't think that an armed populace has anything to do with possible tactics of U.S. enemies? Do you think the Afghanistan occupiers current thoughts and plans take NO consideration of an armed, or disarmed U.S. general public? Would they be indifferent, would they approve of a U.S. gun ban, would they disapprove? How about Mexican drug runners, gun runners? Could those gun runners instantly get new markets each time the U.S. passes new gun laws?

You might want to learn what that fallacy actually means. Cuz, it doesn't mean what you think it means. Provide the facts to back this claim.

I think the cost of each has to be weighed. Safe to say that more children were killed on 9/11 than all past U.S. mass shootings combined. 9/11 was more costly than many people realize - my one-man business insurance went up a few thousand dollars for the next 5 or 6 years before settling back down. The insurance industry has to recover its losses. Those kinds of costs, in addition to many others, (increased security as only one more example) can never be fully recovered, they continue on indefinitely. Contributes to the national debt.How would a "ban AR-15's" law work? Just no new sales (to anyone but government, or a qualified government employee) or a confiscation of existing ones? A name was signed, a background check was done for most all of them in existence. Would every one be mandated to be turned in, in a measured amount of time? "Turn them in on time peasants, if you value the hinges on your front door." Democrats only seek the public outcry to ban, details seem to come later.Did you know that there was a mob of Democrat teenagers in the Nashville state capital building today, chanting for gun control, confronting and screaming at security? A few of them attacked a few non-Democrat demonstrators with a sign that said something about "a good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun", the exact thing that happened in the most recent shooting. They tore the sign up. Fox News had live footage of it on during my lunch break today. No reports of it on ABC World News Tonight.Here's what's going on Phat, the climate change movement is moving, but it's stuck in low gear. The next step to private property inspections / invasions is to first disarm the public. The process is far too slow for Democrats liking. The last thing they need now is any more resistance in addition to the normal conservative resistance. That new resistance is now in the form of the public thinking and discussion about how the second amendment could be an additional benefit, however slight, to U.S. national security. That's why big-tech Facebook is doing its part to suppress references to it. The southern border problem the U.S. has right now is unprecedented. More people than just Republicans realize it, and the danger it poses. I hope you do.

Nope, not on the side of the mass shooting recruiting, sensationalizing news media. The ratings seeking, climate change loving news media springs to mind for me. What logic! This recent, school shooter, even though mentally ill, proved that even someone mentally ill is able to plan and prepare for their moments of notoriety. They can also plan their way around government "bans". I have to remind myself that people who actually claim to think new laws are in any way going to reduce school shootings might have a climate change big government appetite that overcomes their common sense. Oh my bad, they didn't censor it, they FLAGGED it! There must be a major difference, maybe one of your fixers can help you explain it! That's what happened on 9/11 isn't it? it would be impossible for a Pearl Harbor air attack on a U.S. NON military installation, wouldn't it? Swoop down low, bomb it, and fly away long before the U.S. military shows up? Or suicide ram it? A few AR-15's can pick them out of the sky, if someone knows how to use it. A disarmed public cannot. Far fetched I know. So was 9/11. More amazing liberal logic. Can you quote anything I've said that suggests that? Armed citizens can be a factor for any variety of SURPRISE attacks, committed and over minutes, hours, or days before the military can get there. Like 9/11.​

#3, who didn't learn ONE THING from 9/11.