Regarding the gun rights here

[Dirtyhip]

The amendment reads that we should have a well trained militia.

People who own guns here get no training and are terrible with their weapon handling.  That is a big rub for me and many people that think like me.  These mentally insane people with all kinds of weapons is a horrible scenario.  I am sick of reading about people being accidentally shot, innocents shot on purpose.  You can kill lots of people very quickly with a gun.  Not so much with a pencil or a knife. 

That is all.  

[Wilbur ★]

1 hour ago, Dirtyhip said:

The amendment reads that we should have a well trained militia.

People who own guns here get no training and are terrible with their weapon handling.  That is a big rub for me and many people that think like me.  These mentally insane people with all kinds of weapons is a horrible scenario.  I am sick of reading about people being accidentally shot, innocents shot on purpose.  You can kill lots of people very quickly with a gun.  Not so much with a pencil or a knife. 

That is all.  

I think you run into the technicality of the language.  When I read it, I see that there should be a well trained militia but I see nothing that says those not in a militia can't own guns.  I have no problem with gun ownership.  I do have a problem with the visual impact of people walking down the street with semi-automatic rifles.  They look like they are hunting and not for animals.  My wife refuses to travel to the US anymore because of the gun and mass shooter culture.   

[maddmaxx ★]

I suspect that folks think the problem can be solved by banning guns.  Maybe we should think of more creative solutions such as "the use or possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony shall be a mandatory sentence of life in prison without parole".  While it may not seem to be quite so immediate, it would go a very long way toward convincing folks not to use firearms against others.

[Parsnip Totin Jack ★]

38 minutes ago, maddmaxx said:

I suspect that folks think the problem can be solved by banning guns.  Maybe we should think of more creative solutions such as "the use or possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony shall be a mandatory sentence of life in prison without parole".  While it may not seem to be quite so immediate, it would go a very long way toward convincing folks not to use firearms against others.

Doing nothing isn’t working. 

[Wilbur ★]

43 minutes ago, maddmaxx said:

I suspect that folks think the problem can be solved by banning guns.  Maybe we should think of more creative solutions such as "the use or possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony shall be a mandatory sentence of life in prison without parole".  While it may not seem to be quite so immediate, it would go a very long way toward convincing folks not to use firearms against others.

I think severe penalties will be the only thing that changes the culture.   

[Bikeguy]

2 hours ago, Dirtyhip said:

The amendment reads that we should have a well trained militia

The amendment says;

 “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Nothing there about training. 

That said.. training is a good thing.  

[Bikeguy]

26 minutes ago, Wilbur said:

I think severe penalties will be the only thing that changes the culture.

I agree...

Then again... our state just implemented cashless bail for just about everything.  We will see how that goes.  No penalties or prosecutions for most shootings in Chicago for a while now.  

The wild west was probably safer. 

[Thaddeus Kosciuszko]

35 minutes ago, Bikeguy said:

The wild west was probably safer. 

You'd be right.

In many of the 'wild' west towns and mining camps, there was no official 'government'.  People streamed out west, set up towns and camps, and started living their lives long before statehood or even territory status.

The people held meetings and wrote their own rules, constitutions and by-laws.  Everybody in the community knew the laws, and knew justice was swift.  If a crime was committed, the culprit was quickly found in the small community.  Trials were often held the next day and only lasted a couple of hours, particularly in mining towns.  People who agreed to serve on the juries were giving up valuable prospecting time, so there wasn't any fooling around. 

Miners would leave pans of gold in their tents, and nobody would touch them because they all knew the odds of getting caught were high, and the punishments were swift and severe.  Early western towns and mining camps were generally crime free until courts, lawyers, lawmen, and government regulations and processes took over what the people had established.

[Dirtyhip]

1 hour ago, maddmaxx said:

I suspect that folks think the problem can be solved by banning guns.  Maybe we should think of more creative solutions such as "the use or possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony shall be a mandatory sentence of life in prison without parole".  While it may not seem to be quite so immediate, it would go a very long way toward convincing folks not to use firearms against others.

One major problem here is that or prisons are full.  We are an incarceration nation and many of the jails/prisons are like "No vacancy."  

I am all for mandatory training certificates in order to lawfully own a firearm.  Confiscation of said guns if found with someone with no registration or training certificate or license to own.  I also think we should severely limit guns with large magazines.  This could help.  I am not in the mind that they would eliminate all the gun danger, because people will buy them illegally.  Illegal guns should be melted down and recyled.  My .02

[maddmaxx ★]

1 minute ago, Dirtyhip said:

One major problem here is that or prisons are full.  We are an incarceration nation and many of the jails/prisons are like "No vacancy."  

I am all for mandatory training certificates in order to lawfully own a firearm.  Confiscation of said guns if found with someone with no registration or training certificate or license to own.  I also think we should severely limit guns with large magazines.  This could help.  I am not in the mind that they would eliminate all the gun danger, because people will buy them illegally.  Illegal guns should be melted down and recyled.  My .02

Without teeth none of that will help.  I've got no problems with another prison or two for mandatory life.  They don't have to be nice places.

[Rattlecan ★]

3 minutes ago, Dirtyhip said:

One major problem here is that or prisons are full.  We are an incarceration nation and many of the jails/prisons are like "No vacancy."  

This is why I think a complete rethink of the purpose of prison is in order. It should be a place to house dangerous offenders that need to be kept away from the rest of the population for public safety.

White collar criminals and non dangerous offenders require more creative punishment and deterrents that require them to contribute to society while not causing a financial drain on the system.

I think indigenous people might have a few things to teach us about that.

[groupw]

The problem with harsher penalties is they mean nothing to those who plan to die while committing their atrocities. Look at all the videos and manifestos posted by mass shooters. Most don’t expect to survive. 
We need to do a better job of getting people help before they make that awful turn. We need to turn down the fear and anger that trigger these events. Prevention instead of retribution. 

[Randomguy]

1 hour ago, Bikeguy said:

The amendment says;

 “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Nothing there about training. 

That said.. training is a good thing.  

Lots of folks seem to think or act like those amendments can't be modified.  Modify 'em, something needs to change, you may have noticed that things are actually different now than at the nation's founding.

People need guns to hunt delicious bubbling crude or protect from villainous bears and such, it is clear that there is such a need.   That said, I see nothing wrong with requiring psychological evaluations and criminal checks and loooong waiting periods before assault type weapons could be purchased, as well as written and range safety/competency tests, plus a requirement to maintain insurance and yearly rechecks, plus registration fees, inspections, and the like.  No reason dangerous weapons should be easier to own than cars.  

The NRA seems a criminal gang in cahoots with a criminal gang because neither can or even want to stop messed-up folks from acting like enraged toddlers when they get upset or disillusioned or jealous or mad or jittery or drugged up or butthurt.   I like guns, and think if you go through some shit financially and song-and-dance-wise, those hoops you jumped through will at least make you think a bit before you go and shoot up people's kids at a the nearest school.

It isn't hard, it is 'we the fucking people with backbone', of which there is a severe shortage amongst people elected to actually represent us and make things better.   'Vote every bastard out' is a good phrase to remember when you have folks in office who don't want to actually do any of the work that is slightly difficult in any way.  

[maddmaxx ★]

18 minutes ago, groupw said:

The problem with harsher penalties is they mean nothing to those who plan to die while committing their atrocities. Look at all the videos and manifestos posted by mass shooters. Most don’t expect to survive. 
We need to do a better job of getting people help before they make that awful turn. We need to turn down the fear and anger that trigger these events. Prevention instead of retribution. 

We hold up to the light the methods used in some other countries that have better results with gun violence.  Perhaps we should also pay attention to how they do it.

In the UK, it is an offence to possess a firearm with intent to endanger life, carrying a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. It's also an offence to carry a firearm with intent to commit an offence or resist arrest.

This is how you put a crimp on gun culture.

[Dirtyhip]

10 minutes ago, Randomguy said:

Lots of folks seem to think or act like those amendments can't be modified.  Modify 'em, something needs to change, you may have noticed that things are actually different now than at the nation's founding.

People need guns to hunt delicious bubbling crude or protect from villainous bears and such, it is clear that there is such a need.   That said, I see nothing wrong with requiring psychological evaluations and criminal checks and loooong waiting periods before assault type weapons could be purchased, as well as written and range safety/competency tests, plus a requirement to maintain insurance and yearly rechecks, plus registration fees, inspections, and the like.  No reason dangerous weapons should be easier to own than cars.  

The NRA seems a criminal gang in cahoots with a criminal gang because neither can or even want to stop messed-up folks from acting like enraged toddlers when they get upset or disillusioned or jealous or mad or jittery or drugged up or butthurt.   I like guns, and think if you go through some shit financially and song-and-dance-wise, those hoops you jumped through will at least make you think a bit before you go and shoot up people's kids at a the nearest school.

It isn't hard, it is 'we the fucking people with backbone', of which there is a severe shortage amongst people elected to actually represent us and make things better.   'Vote every bastard out' is a good phrase to remember when you have folks in office who don't want to actually do any of the work that is slightly difficult in any way.  

Guns were quite different when this was written and adopted.  You couldn't easily kill lots of people very quickly.  The whole system right now is severly flawed.

[maddmaxx ★]

2 minutes ago, Dirtyhip said:

Guns were quite different when this was written and adopted.  You couldn't easily kill lots of people very quickly.  The whole system right now is severly flawed.

Any amendment written can be unwritten at the will of the voters.  Eventually even the dimmest voters are going to realize how to do that.

[Dirtyhip]

4 minutes ago, maddmaxx said:

Any amendment written can be unwritten at the will of the voters.  Eventually even the dimmest voters are going to realize how to do that.

I have hopes for the future.  We need to vote some people out for good, and term limits should be implemented.  It may affect some that I like presently, but new names will come along. 

[JerrySTL ★]

If you think that the Second Amendment has issues, just look at the First Amendment! There are people saying all kinds of crazy and dangerous things. Some people obviously have no training as there's a lack of proper punctuation and spelling. And if you think that the ownership of weapons is more dangerous than words, remember "The pen is mightier than the sword".

While the First and Second Amendments are important, The Twenty First Amendment is my favorite.

[Dirtyhip]

8 minutes ago, JerrySTL said:

If you think that the Second Amendment has issues, just look at the First Amendment! There are people saying all kinds of crazy and dangerous things. Some people obviously have no training as there's a lack of proper punctuation and spelling. And if you think that the ownership of weapons is more dangerous than words, remember "The pen is mightier than the sword".

While the First and Second Amendments are important, The Twenty First Amendment is my favorite.

Agreed on all points. 

Words are mighty.  I can not believe the crap that our politicians are slinging.  It's absolutely maddening.  Do as we say, not as we do.  Grrr

[Bikeguy]

1 hour ago, Randomguy said:

Lots of folks seem to think or act like those amendments can't be modified.  Modify 'em, something needs to change, you may have noticed that things are actually different now than at the nation's founding

OK... then you need another amendment to pass thru congress and get approved by the states. 

[Wilbur ★]

2 hours ago, Randomguy said:

Lots of folks seem to think or act like those amendments can't be modified. 

They are called "amendments" for a reason.  They are amendments to the original document.  Am I wrong?    That said, they are called "inalienable rights" and those shall not and cannot be amended.  But in reality and in today's political environment, are you going to get both houses to agree?  No. 

Gun laws should be federal and they should be enforced federally with execution as the ultimate penalty for wilful intent to injury or kill with a weapon. Hang a few gangbangers and they will start recognizing laws.  The old west did sa few things right. 

My conclusion:  Y'all are fucked!   

[maddmaxx ★]

18 minutes ago, Bikeguy said:

OK... then you need another amendment to pass thru congress and get approved by the states. 

The tide is turning.  There are a lot of people out there that are tired of the every day shootings and killings.  An amendment revocation or draconian punishments are just two possible outcomes.  I once recommended to the members of a pro gun forum that they get the NRA and it's members in line to make a compromise before it all goes against them.  Of course they laughed but time will indeed tell.

[maddmaxx ★]

2 minutes ago, Wilbur said:

They are called "amendments" for a reason.  They are amendments to the original document.  Am I wrong?    That said, they are called "inalienable rights" and those shall not and cannot be amended.  But in reality and in today's political environment, are you going to get both houses to agree?  No. 

Gun laws should be federal and they should be enforced federally with execution as the ultimate penalty for wilful intent to injury or kill with a weapon. Hang a few gangbangers and they will start recognizing laws.  

My conclusion:  Y'all are fucked!   

They can be called anything you want, but amendments can be added and new amendments can change what is.  Who knows what the house and congress will do someday.  Many of the inalienable rights written there may change given enough pressure.  Some of the amendments are already severely bent and adjusted by various groups.  Much of our current congress critters are attempting to circumvent the 1st.

[Bikeguy]

2 minutes ago, maddmaxx said:

Who knows what the house and congress will do someday.

2/3 of the House and 2/3 of the Senate need to vote for the amendment.   And if that's not difficult enough then 38 states need to ratify the amendment too.  

[maddmaxx ★]

20 minutes ago, Bikeguy said:

2/3 of the House and 2/3 of the Senate need to vote for the amendment.   And if that's not difficult enough then 38 states need to ratify the amendment too.  

This is true.  I wouldn't expect to see it happen tomorrow. Amendments can be interpreted as well.  For example the Supreme Court allows in certain circumstances to limit speech (a modification of the first amendment).  They have also allowed the 2nd to be modified with regard to automatic weapons and those not considered "normal" arms.  Those things can be done by just 5 people.  They've already changed a long standing interpretation of the 2nd that put us in the current situation.

[JerrySTL ★]

25 minutes ago, maddmaxx said:

but amendments can be added and new amendments can change what is. 

This. The 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment. 

[maddmaxx ★]

The 2nd was not held by the courts to allow unrestricted ownership and carry prior to the 2008 Heller case.  That was the first time that the courts found that it was unconstitutional to ban handguns from private ownership without showing special needs to do so.  Before that it was completely legal for the State of New York to ban the registration of handguns and to make it illegal to carry an unregistered handgun.

So you see that things can indeed change, even at the whim of the majority of the supreme court.

[Thaddeus Kosciuszko]

The solution to the problem is not to restrict or take away rights from the majority of law-abiding people.  A law-abiding person will follow the law whether he has a 10 round magazine or a 1,000 round magazine, a single shot 22 or a cannon.  The solution is to deal with the small minority of people who break the law(s), and to convince the people who would think they will get away with breaking the law that it's not worth the chance anymore.

As part of a discussion regarding 'gun rights' I would suggest taking the time to gain an understanding of the reasons why the Second Amendment was placed in the Constitution.  Understanding those reasons provides one with a platform and a basis for reasoned, meaningful, and respectful discussion.

[shootingstar]

5 hours ago, JerrySTL said:

If you think that the Second Amendment has issues, just look at the First Amendment! There are people saying all kinds of crazy and dangerous things. Some people obviously have no training as there's a lack of proper punctuation and spelling. And if you think that the ownership of weapons is more dangerous than words, remember "The pen is mightier than the sword".

While the First and Second Amendments are important, The Twenty First Amendment is my favorite.

Unfortunately alot of people don't take words seriously as much...even if well-crafted. But key constitutional texts last ..well for centuries. Outlives people.

I was in Japan and walked into a Buddhist large and 800 yr. old temple.  I read the text, that next to Buddha was its guardian and looked at this massive 3 storey high wooden statute:  to see surprised, at  the weapon of the guardian:

 

 

[shootingstar]

What is the logic from enforcement and public education side to have many different state level gun legislation?  It sounds like state level historic political influence, not in the best interests of protecting safety and preserving lives, of American public as whole.  Has it always been this fragmented?

 

[JerrySTL ★]

6 minutes ago, shootingstar said:

What is the logic from enforcement and public education side to have many different state level gun legislation?  It sounds like state level historic political influence, not in the best interests of protecting safety and preserving lives, of American public as whole.  Has it always been this fragmented?

Ideally States can do pretty much what they want until they overstep some bounds like interferring with interstate commerce. If you don't like the laws in your State, you can (1) try to change them, (2) move to a different State or even country, or (3) just stay where you are and put up with it. #2 is why some states are losing population and others gaining such as Californians moving to Texas or Illinois peeps moving just about everywhere.

The US federal government has been taking away states rights to a great extent sometimes by law and other times by coercion. One example of coercion is the Fed taking gasoline tax money from people in the states then threatening to withhold that money for things like building highways in the state unless the state follows the federal rules.

[shootingstar]

Get 1-2 dogs, train them for protection. End of story.  I guess the solution is just too simple...but time-consuming to many folks: train, look after dogs and spend money on their health.

Otherwise guns for protection from large wildlife. That's all.

 

[shootingstar]

29 minutes ago, JerrySTL said:

Ideally States can do pretty much what they want until they overstep some bounds like interferring with interstate commerce. If you don't like the laws in your State, you can (1) try to change them, (2) move to a different State or even country, or (3) just stay where you are and put up with it. #2 is why some states are losing population and others gaining such as Californians moving to Texas or Illinois peeps moving just about everywhere.

Well, we have some differences...ie provincial tax or no provincial tax, some nuanced differences how public health care is delivered  in different provinces/territories, etc.

But gun legislation is federal...in Criminal Code of Canada. That's the baseline start.  I'm glad. Our country is much larger, sparsely populated in huge land tracts and some provinces wouldn't have money to  enforce/implement different provincial law anyway.  Forget about municipal level.  I"m glad..we got other problems to better spend our money.

[Bikeguy]

1 hour ago, Thaddeus Kosciuszko said:

The solution is to deal with the small minority of people who break the law(s), and to convince the people who would think they will get away with breaking the law that it's not worth the chance anymore.

This.. 

But... we don't do that very well at all in the US.  It's much worse in Chicago.   Now the entire state of IL has similar bail laws as Chicago.  

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/illinois-set-become-1st-state-eliminate-cash-bail/story?id=95421342   Yeah... that's bad news for the good guys. 

https://wirepoints.org/chicago-2022-arrest-rates-collapse-to-just-5-wirepoints/

And... just because someone was arrested... doesn't mean there was a conviction.  

And to make it even worse... many who were convicted here were actually innocent.  

https://news.wttw.com/2023/05/16/chicago-ranks-no-1-exonerations-5th-year-row-accounting-more-half-national-total-report

[Bikeguy]

34 minutes ago, shootingstar said:

Get 1-2 dogs guns, get training to know when an how to use them for protection.  End of story. 

Fixed it for me.

I'll protect our 2 dogs too. 

[Dirtyhip]

40 minutes ago, shootingstar said:

Get 1-2 dogs, train them for protection. End of story.  I guess the solution is just too simple...but time-consuming to many folks: train, look after dogs and spend money on their health.

Otherwise guns for protection from large wildlife. That's all.

Well, the fully strapped idiots in the grocery store can't bring their mean German Shepherd dogs into the store.  

[ChrisL]

2 minutes ago, Dirtyhip said:

Well, the fully strapped idiots in the grocery store can't bring their mean German Shepherd dogs into the store.  

I shared this story before but I have an adult niece who lives in WA in an area where open carry is legal.  They were in town for a family get together and a discussion came up of theft.  Niece said let them try that shit on me, I’ll show them what for.  I replied what does that mean?  She replied I’d shoot them.  Really, you would shoot someone over a petty theft?  Hell ya I would, just try me… 

Have fun in jail, you do know you can’t kill people over stuff.  I can’t??? OMG…

[Dirtyhip]

2 minutes ago, ChrisL said:

I shared this story before but I have an adult niece who lives in WA in an area where open carry is legal.  They were in town for a family get together and a discussion came up of theft.  Niece said let them try that shit on me, I’ll show them what for.  I replied what does that mean?  She replied I’d shoot them.  Really, you would shoot someone over a petty theft?  Hell ya I would, just try me… 

Have fun in jail, you do know you can’t kill people over stuff.  I can’t??? OMG…

When the BLM stuff was going on, our town was full of conspiracies and a bunch of strapped idiots with body armor set up on one side of the street.  They were posturing and all kinds of threats on social.  The things they were saying was "George Soros is filling vans rented in Portland with ANTIFA protesters. We will not let them ruin our town." These idiots believe anything.  That culture is very gross.  You do not need a gun to buy deodorant at Walmart.  

[shootingstar]

24 minutes ago, ChrisL said:

I shared this story before but I have an adult niece who lives in WA in an area where open carry is legal.  They were in town for a family get together and a discussion came up of theft.  Niece said let them try that shit on me, I’ll show them what for.  I replied what does that mean?  She replied I’d shoot them.  Really, you would shoot someone over a petty theft?  Hell ya I would, just try me… 

Have fun in jail, you do know you can’t kill people over stuff.  I can’t??? OMG…

Alot of people probably think like her... regardless of safety training.

[Bikeguy]

7 minutes ago, ChrisL said:

Have fun in jail, you do know you can’t kill people over stuff.  I can’t??? OMG…

Yeah... training about WHEN you can shoot is needed too.    I learned a LOT in my CCL class.

[shootingstar]

1 hour ago, Dirtyhip said:

Well, the fully strapped idiots in the grocery store can't bring their mean German Shepherd dogs into the store.  

Aside from carrying gun into grocery store and dogs in store,  that is my response about having a dog or 2. And it's not stupid.  I personally know of several different cases of dog owners, where the barking dog prevented a thief from entering further into the home. And for any weaker senior, a dog is good. Dearie's mother in her 80's, had a terrier that yapped/barked at anyone passing by the house.  Dearie never worried about his mother living in another town by herself.

Where I live, approx. 1/4 of the owners own a dog in our building. And you know, we never have problems of dog barking much in the bldg.  I live in quiet bldg.

[Bikeguy]

16 minutes ago, shootingstar said:

Alot of people probably think like her... regardless of safety training.

That's not safety training.   It's training about 'the law' and when you can and more importantly when you CAN'T use lethal force.  

Also... as @Dirtyhip has mentioned... some people are idiots and don't know how to safely handle a gun.  That's safety training.  That's why I don't go to the outdoor shooting range on the weekends... all it takes is one idiot there to do something stupid.  The RSOs don't like the weekends either.

[Thaddeus Kosciuszko]

46 minutes ago, shootingstar said:

Alot of people probably think like her...

And a lot of people don't.

[Bikeguy]

11 hours ago, Thaddeus Kosciuszko said:

As part of a discussion regarding 'gun rights' I would suggest taking the time to gain an understanding of the reasons why the Second Amendment was placed in the Constitution.  Understanding those reasons provides one with a platform and a basis for reasoned, meaningful, and respectful discussion

Yeah that's the part that doesn't get discussed much.  Many prefer we all forget about how people need to protect themselves from government tyranny.  Link 

Take the arms away from the milita and the government tyranny goes unchecked.  

14 hours ago, Wilbur said:

My conclusion:  Y'all are fucked!   

That would suggest that Wilbur.. y'all to the north are beyond being fucked. 

[maddmaxx ★]

This is true.  My saturday night special is the last bulwark of freedom.

[Wilbur ★]

44 minutes ago, Bikeguy said:

Yeah that's the part that doesn't get discussed much.  Many prefer we all forget about how people need to protect themselves from government tyranny.  Link 

Take the arms away from the milita and the government tyranny goes unchecked.  

That would suggest that Wilbur.. y'all to the north are beyond being fucked. 

That is a given.  

[Randomguy]

1 hour ago, Bikeguy said:

Yeah that's the part that doesn't get discussed much.  Many prefer we all forget about how people need to protect themselves from government tyranny.  Link 

Take the arms away from the milita and the government tyranny goes unchecked.  

Government tyranny has been fucking with us for quite a while, even with all the guns the population has.  I think people vastly overestimate their ability to take on whatever they consider to be government tyranny, our military can take any national target here from a distance with relative comfort and ease if they so choose.  I don't think this is much of an argument in this day and age.

[Wilbur ★]

11 minutes ago, Randomguy said:

Government tyranny has been fucking with us for quite a while, even with all the guns the population has.  I think people vastly overestimate their ability to take on whatever they consider to be government tyranny, our military can take any national target here from a distance with relative comfort and ease if they so choose.  I don't think this is much of an argument in this day and age.

Unless the military is complicit.  They don't always side with the sitting government. 

[Randomguy]

23 minutes ago, Wilbur said:

They don't always side with the sitting government. 

Sure, yet normally they do (theoretically).  At any rate, no white supremacy whackadoo fascist gang private citizen group or militia in the states could expect to take on the military (or military tyranny) and succeed in a meaningful way, even with all the firearms the general population has.  The protection against tyranny argument just doesn't hold up.  I am sure it makes some folks feel that way, but realistic people know you can't compete with the US military or whatever tyranny they have in mind for us.

[Dirtyhip]

It is laughable to think that we have any chance of overtaking the military here.  They are strapped, highly trained and have so much tech.  Keep dreaming about uprising., cause that is all it will be. A dream or a fantasy.