US senate declares the entire usa to be a battleground-The US constitution is gone

[darkwarrior42]

God thats such a silly argument, you cant make policys based on what happens in your life, its about the bigger picture. Guns for everyon=more dead people. In Norway robbers dont kill people cus they dotn have guns and we dont have guns so there is no need.

You're assuming that if guns are illegal, nobody will have them?

Nevermind, I won't waste my time then.

[Flaks]

I love how the article was shot down and brutally beaten on the first page. YAY FOR EDUMACATION.

[blib]

You're assuming that if guns are illegal, nobody will have them?

Nevermind, I won't waste my time then.

Again, look at Norway, Sweden, Germany and so on. Of course someone will allways get them but 90% of the population wont have them and it will make everyone less nervouse when there isnt allways a chance of someone pulling out a gun in every situation. Feel free to not respons, its a good choice when you have fuck all to contribute with.

[Catta]

You're assuming that if guns are illegal, nobody will have them?

Nevermind, I won't waste my time then.

guns are less common, people are less likely to have them - furthermore if only the robber has a gun he wont see you as a threat and nobody needs to get shot

[Zecora]

You're assuming that if guns are illegal, nobody will have them?

Nevermind, I won't waste my time then.

I'm assuming that if guns are easily avaliable, a lot MORE people will have them. Including the crooks, who, if they know that their victim is likely to be armed, is a lot more likely to shoot first.

[Maelstrom51]

God thats such a silly argument, you cant make policys based on what happens in your life, its about the bigger picture. Guns for everyon=more dead people. In Norway robbers dont kill people cus they dotn have guns and we dont have guns so there is no need.

In Norway you can have huge massacres where almost a hundred people are killed all at once because nobody has the means to stop a single person with a gun.

[Tigercat]

I love how the article was shot down and brutally beaten on the first page. YAY FOR EDUMACATION.

Very common, people seem to love sensationalist headlines with little to no actual backing and massive amounts of hyperbole

[Niku]

I'm assuming that if guns are easily avaliable, a lot MORE people will have them. Including the crooks, who, if they know that their victim is likely to be armed, is a lot more likely to shoot first.

Wouldn't the crooks be more reluctant of their activities if they suspect that their targets are armed? That's just an assumption of mine but your last sentence is just as much.

[Catta]

Wouldn't the crooks be more reluctant of their activities if they suspect that their targets are armed? That's just an assumption of mine but your last sentence is just as much.

if they know their victims are armed then they would probably shoot first... If everyone is armed they are gonna rob someone anyway

[Zecora]

Wouldn't the crooks be more reluctant of their activities if they suspect that their targets are armed? That's just an assumption of mine but your last sentence is just as much.

Perhaps, but I doubt it. After all, they are almost certain to run the risk of comming up against the police, who WILL be armed, and that doesn't serve as a deterrence, so...

[blib]

In Norway you can have huge massacres where almost a hundred people are killed all at once because nobody has the means to stop a single person with a gun.

One massacre, where kids got killed at camp, do you sugest arming kids? And its still a lot less persons per capita dying in Norway then america, gun murders happens every day with you, with us it was one time.

[Niku]

if they know their victims are armed then they would probably shoot first... If everyone is armed they are gonna rob someone anyway

I would love to continue this but... it seems a bit off topic don't you think?

[Jaxi]

LOL funny thing is in alaska even the hippies and pacifists are armed. But yeah i'm the suicide type i DESPISE GUNS dishonorable so i'd probably be relying on other methods to fight. Though a bow could be quite useful in some ways stealth among them not to mention the damage they cam do is quite nice just lack rapid fire abilities. Strategy and the like are also my fortes. But yeah to bad it won't happen and am i the only one paranoid enough to suspect that even COMMENTS like this are dangerous these days?

It was a joke, I have no intention of shooting people. All I was implying was that should battlefield America ever happen (again, I don't think it will) then I would not exactly have a hard time getting resources from my gun fearing hippy neighbors.
I'm safe with my guns Sorrior. They are behind a very expensive gun safe, and all the firing pins are removed until I get to the range. I'm an NRA lifetime member, and I took the range officer safety training course. We gun owners are not all rednecks, and most of us take a hell of a lot of precations. So you shouldn't fear me. Only my neighbors...

Edit: Look I wasn't trying to start a debate on guns. If anyone actually read my post they should have picked up that it was a joke about how easy it would be for me (armed) to take resources from my neighbors (unarmed).

[Sorrior]

It was a joke, I have no intention of shooting people. All I was implying was that should battlefield America ever happen (again, I don't think it will) then I would not exactly have a hard time getting resources from my gun fearing hippy neighbors.
I'm safe with my guns Sorrior. They are behind a very expensive gun safe, and all the firing pins are removed until I get to the range. I'm an NRA lifetime member, and I took the range officer safety training course. We gun owners are not all rednecks, and most of us take a hell of a lot of precations. So you shouldn't fear me. Only my neighbors...

Edit: Look I wasn't trying to start a debate on guns. If anyone actually read my post they should have picked up that it was a joke about how easy it would be for me (armed) to take resources from my neighbors (unarmed).

Lol well i tend to be rather oblivious to things like that. Though i never once said i was scared.

[MAGAmobile]

I love how the article was shot down and brutally beaten on the first page. YAY FOR EDUMACATION.

When you challenge people's beliefs and interpretations on things, chances are it will strengthen their resolve and believe that they are right. There's really no point to continue arguing at that point because they'll just beat the shit out of you with experience.

[Snakeseye0]

http://news.yahoo.com/white-house-sa...HRlc3QD;_ylv=3

-"WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House on Wednesday abandoned its threat that President Barack Obama would veto a defense bill over provisions on how to handle suspected terrorists as Congress raced to finish the legislation."

-"House and Senate negotiators announced late Monday that they had modified that provision. They added language that says nothing in the bill will affect "existing criminal enforcement and national security authorities of the FBI or any other domestic law enforcement agency" with regard to a captured suspect, "regardless of whether such ... person is held in military custody."

-"The legislation also would deny suspected terrorists, even U.S. citizens seized within the nation's borders, the right to trial and subject them to indefinite detention."

What do you guys think?

[Niku]

*sweep under rug* *shrug shoulders*

[Maharishi]

Rolling this into the existing thread on the topic.

[Niku]

Rolling this into the existing thread on the topic.

Off topic: Your avatar is cute.

[lmenvs]

I hadn't seen this posted on the forums yet, and I have searched, so I apologize if I just missed it.

Just learned this from a few friends posting on Facebook.

Here are some links regarding it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...=FBCNETTXT9038
http://www.unitedliberty.org/article...a-veto-threats
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/polit...in-us-citizens

A piece from the third article containing a bit of backstory on the controversy of this bill.


"On Wednesday, the White House said President Obama would not veto the controversial National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which would allow the indefinite detention of Americans suspected of terrorism.

At one point the bill contained a provision that would have authorized the U.S. to use military force anywhere there were terrorism suspects, including within the U.S. itself, which would violate U.S. law. That section was removed from the bill in July.

But Section 1021 (c) still remains and states: "The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following: (1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of hostilities authorized by the Authorization to Use Military Force."

So, now that it's official, what do you think is going to happen, and how do you think it is going to affect the US?
Do you think this bill is necessary?

Making this thread so it can be discussed!

I'm really interested in seeing other people's views on the subject matter, as I like to derive my own more when I've seen the whole picture.

I will be editing this post with more links that are relevant to the topic as well.