30,000 Drones Over America! Obama's Weaponized Police State! 2012

[CTF]

OMG! The lunatic fringe is now beginning to lose (whatever was left of) their ever loving minds!

It all began after 9/11, and it all began under G.W. Bush43; the Patriot Act, Homeland Security, AND the Democrats signed off on it, along with the Republicans, where it has been reported that no one read ANY OF THE LEGISLATION put forth to create either the Patriot Act, or the Department of Homeland Security.

Seriously?

Someone had to have read it, because "someone" wrote it!

I knew as early as the morning of Tuesday September 11, 2001 that America was about to change, and not for the better.

Here we are; eleven years later.

And like the boy who cried wolf, it's hard to take "conservatives" seriously when many of them are just now realizing the pandora's box that they were all just SO EAGER to open in the days and months after 9/11/01.

Just a reminder folks, the United States Government doesn't "give rights" to it's citizens.

The United States Constitution was originally laid out to limit the rights OF our Government over "We the People."

Divide et impera

But so long as "conservatives" and "liberals," "Tea Party" and "Progressives" are focusing on what divides us as Americans, Uncle Sam will keep circling the nets against us.

“Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”

Benjamin Franklin

[Rolyo85]

I am not sure what your position is here.

The US government still has about ten times less control over its citizens as any European government does, yet the dark blight of fascist dictatorship hasn't reemerged there... Drones change nothing. Even without them, the government already has the man power to enforce anything if it wanted to. But like I said in the gun topic, oppression is unproductive, so the First World has moved past it.

[xbuzzerx]

hold on dodging laz0rs

[CTF]

I like to look at them as $250,000 "skeets."

It's flying over my property, Texas has a "Castle Law" and I'm just defending myself with a 20 Gauge Shotgun, from noisy ass buzzing things flying overhead that I'm fearful of.

[Rolyo85]

It's actually quite hilarious when you look at gun nuts and realize how utterly pointless their frantic attempts to keep their guns are. We are all absolutely helpless if our governments decide to take away our freedoms. Which is why trust is so much better than paranoia. For one, it allows us to live our lives free of fear and thus - far more productively and happily. And also, paranoia feeds on itself and becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy - a government that knows it's hated and suspected, becomes aggressive.

[xbuzzerx]

It's actually quite hilarious when you look at gun nuts and realize how utterly pointless their frantic attempts to keep their guns are. We are all absolutely helpless if our governments decide to take away our freedoms. Which is why trust is so much better than paranoia. For one, it allows us to live our lives free of fear and thus - far more productively and happily. And also, paranoia feeds on itself and becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy - a government that knows it's hated and suspected, becomes aggressive.

In a fascist takeover with chaos running rampant, if you guys saw a picture of me with a loaf of bread under one arm and bottled water under the other, would you caption it "man finds survival supplies" or "man with looted supplies"?

Shortly before I got shot, of course.

[JayHawk]

Rolyo were you alive for Iraq? (I know the obvious Answer)

So do you have any misconception of how difficult it is to subdue a armed and determined populace?

Now it is impossible for European nations to arm up? NOPE if an altercation occurred someone would sell civilians weapons hand over foot... yet that is not necessary in the US. So immediate armed uprising if the people chose to do so.

Finally the ridiculous idea that drones are being used to take away our rights is nonsense. They are being used on the border to secure what is impossible to secure without a tech advantage. They are being used to gather surveillance on things like drug growth operations and could be used to disperse a crowd with tear gas with no possible harm to people. Everyone likes to use the idea of OWS and how brutally they were treated with majority public opinion i might add. Yet lets send those same groups of Cops up against a thousand armed civilians with the idea they are being oppressed. Most of the cops and most of civilians wont go home that night.

[xbuzzerx]

^ Um did you miss the part about how laz0rs are shooting at me?

[White Eagle]

I'm gonna be skeptical for now. You notice that it was Faux news and Obama won the election. It's more fear mongering. I would think Obama's speech about drones was taken out of context.
And besides I think most of that was about NY police and they have been an army for a long time.

[JayHawk]

^ Um did you miss the part about how laz0rs are shooting at me?

Even with " LASER " Beams we are still safe....

[GiancarloC]

Americans tend to complain about everything. This is the country where people bitch and moan about income taxes as being too much government control over their lives. The same people who drive on FREEWAYS AND ROADS. In England there are cameras freaking everywhere... there is more freedom here in America and the court system tends to balance out the other branches. This is one of the few times I do give America credit... in Europe, there is far more control... but you also get far many more services like universal health care. But that's a different topic entirely.

These gun nuts were the same ones supporting republicans who are perfectly fine with encroaching on what people do in their bedrooms... so it's blatant hypocrisy. I don't care what libertarians say anymore. I really don't.

[Rolyo85]

Rolyo were you alive for Iraq? (I know the obvious Answer)

So do you have any misconception of how difficult it is to subdue a armed and determined populace?

Now it is impossible for European nations to arm up? NOPE if an altercation occurred someone would sell civilians weapons hand over foot... yet that is not necessary in the US. So immediate armed uprising if the people chose to do so.

Finally the ridiculous idea that drones are being used to take away our rights is nonsense. They are being used on the border to secure what is impossible to secure without a tech advantage. They are being used to gather surveillance on things like drug growth operations and could be used to disperse a crowd with tear gas with no possible harm to people. Everyone likes to use the idea of OWS and how brutally they were treated with majority public opinion i might add. Yet lets send those same groups of Cops up against a thousand armed civilians with the idea they are being oppressed. Most of the cops and most of civilians wont go home that night.

As far as Iraq, if the US had glassed a few cities, how long would it have taken for the rest to calm down and surrender? If a government is willing to oppress its own people to that point, they wouldn't care how it looked on the outside, which the US HAD to, where the current wars are concerned.

[JayHawk]

I doubt quite sincerely that Nuclear weapons will be used to control a population again by any government. There are too many monitors and too many bad consequences of 100% of the earth rejecting and sanctioning your country. Not gonna happen. Next analogy that may potentially happen?

[rareboy]

You can protect your thoughts from Drones by wearing this high fashion brain wave shield.

[CTF]

I doubt quite sincerely that Nuclear weapons will be used to control a population again by any government. There are too many monitors and too many bad consequences of 100% of the earth rejecting and sanctioning your country. Not gonna happen. Next analogy that may potentially happen?

Yes, but...

Governments aren't going to be the ones "glassing a city."

That technology has now fallen into the hands of ideologues, and a "capitalistic free market global economy."

Even if, and especially if it's "black."

It's technology run amock.

I'm just trying to point out how patently absurd it is for "conservatives" to start screaming "foul" when it's their own policies that made most of this possible in the first place.

[xbuzzerx]

I doubt quite sincerely that Nuclear weapons will be used to control a population again by any government. There are too many monitors and too many bad consequences of 100% of the earth rejecting and sanctioning your country. Not gonna happen. Next analogy that may potentially happen?

So you're describing some theoretical scenario where we're being oppressed by our Federal Government... but they're not actually serious enough about it to use the serious military stuff if threatened. So we just take them over with our handguns.

I don't buy this as a realistic scenario. And if the government refuses to use its awesome military force against us then I fail to see what we'll accomplish in a revolution with lots and lots of handguns that we wouldn't have accomplished without them.

[JayHawk]

Yes, but...

Governments aren't going to be the ones "glassing a city."

That technology has now fallen into the hands of ideologues, and a "capitalistic free market global economy."

Even if, and especially if it's "black."

It's technology run amock.

I'm just trying to point out how patently absurd it is for "conservatives" to start screaming "foul" when it's their own policies that made most of this possible in the first place.

oh I agree they are the ultimate in hypocrites. However Nuclear technology has been around since 1945 and guess what... small terror groups still don't have them or haven't found the courage to use them if they do. Governments WILL NOT. Plain and simple.

So you're describing some theoretical scenario where we're being oppressed by our Federal Government... but they're not actually serious enough about it to use the serious military stuff if threatened. So we just take them over with our handguns.

I don't buy this as a realistic scenario. And if the government refuses to use its awesome military force against us then I fail to see what we'll accomplish in a revolution with lots and lots of handguns that we wouldn't have accomplished without them.

I don't buy nuking america by Americans as realistic. And I didn't describe a unreal future where we have to stand up in such a manner because I don't think that will happen either. However the concept that having an armed versus a disarmed public doesn't require a helluva a lot of consideration before one decides they will impose their will militarily. It is an empty argument anyways.

The government we have now isn't giving up any of its power and the police state we have lived in since the sixties isn't going anywhere either.

[xbuzzerx]

oh I agree they are the ultimate in hypocrites. However Nuclear technology has been around since 1945 and guess what... small terror groups still don't have them or haven't found the courage to use them if they do. Governments WILL NOT. Plain and simple.



I don't buy nuking america by Americans as realistic. And I didn't describe a unreal future where we have to stand up in such a manner because I don't think that will happen either. However the concept that having an armed versus a disarmed public doesn't require a helluva a lot of consideration before one decides they will impose their will militarily. It is an empty argument anyways.

The government we have now isn't giving up any of its power and the police state we have lived in since the sixties isn't going anywhere either.

In a way that's kind of my point.

I'm not sure what you said here other than "well, having or not having the guns hasn't mattered much.... I don't think we'll ever fight our government anyway and our government is here to stay as is its police policies since the 60's."

So our having guns did what exactly to the course of our democracy? I don't think it did anything, it's the gun nuts who swear it's essential to fending off the ever-present threat of government tyranny.

[JayHawk]

I do not think it is essential but I do not think taking them away accomplishes anything either. Stupid people will always find interesting ways to die. So i don't seek to further restrict something I desire for myself since I know that people who are in areas that are rife with violence will simply shift to stabbing one another.


Plus I am not a survivalist but should something happen that was catastrophic to majority of civilization I would be much better off in a country filled with guns and ammo than one not filled with those items.

[xbuzzerx]

I do not think it is essential but I do not think taking them away accomplishes anything either. Stupid people will always find interesting ways to die. So i don't seek to further restrict something I desire for myself since I know that people who are in areas that are rife with violence will simply shift to stabbing one another.


Plus I am not a survivalist but should something happen that was catastrophic to majority of civilization I would be much better off in a country filled with guns and ammo than one not filled with those items.

I've never said "taking them away will improve our freedoms", I have however said that the notion that having a 0.22 will stop some theoretical future fascist U.S. government from oppressing you is every bit as ridiculous as mail ordering a foil hat so that the alien mothership can't track and abduct you.

[Kulindahr]

I am not sure what your position is here.

The US government still has about ten times less control over its citizens as any European government does, yet the dark blight of fascist dictatorship hasn't reemerged there... Drones change nothing. Even without them, the government already has the man power to enforce anything if it wanted to. But like I said in the gun topic, oppression is unproductive, so the First World has moved past it.

That depends on how you define oppression.

It's actually quite hilarious when you look at gun nuts and realize how utterly pointless their frantic attempts to keep their guns are. We are all absolutely helpless if our governments decide to take away our freedoms. Which is why trust is so much better than paranoia. For one, it allows us to live our lives free of fear and thus - far more productively and happily. And also, paranoia feeds on itself and becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy - a government that knows it's hated and suspected, becomes aggressive.

Trust? are you serious?

You know what happens to people who trust the cops? They go to jail. Doesn't matter if they did anything wrong or not, if you trust the cops and let them look around, they'll find something to build a story on and haul you in.

I'll trust the government no sooner than when all the employees have to memorize the Bill of Rights and apply it to everyone they meet the way they'd like it applied to themselves.

[palbert]

Paranoia is a terrible thing to waste. Those drones are to bring rain to your parched ass ....

[Kulindahr]

These gun nuts were the same ones supporting republicans who are perfectly fine with encroaching on what people do in their bedrooms... so it's blatant hypocrisy. I don't care what libertarians say anymore. I really don't.

WTF do libertarians have to do with Republicans???

[JayHawk]

I've never said "taking them away will improve our freedoms", I have however said that the notion that having a 0.22 will stop some theoretical future fascist U.S. government from oppressing you is every bit as ridiculous as mail ordering a foil hat so that the alien mothership can't track and abduct you.

I disagree. Show me where the US government is marching through the streets imprisoning those who don't align with Obama and I will show you a bunch of dead cops and military folks at the hands of armed Americans. Not very likely doesn't mean impossible to occur. Foil hats is impossible to stop anything so a ridiculous assertion or comparison. Likewise giving up our weapons will not change anything excpet what we can do to respond if we should decide with enough Americans to do.

[Kulindahr]

As far as Iraq, if the US had glassed a few cities, how long would it have taken for the rest to calm down and surrender? If a government is willing to oppress its own people to that point, they wouldn't care how it looked on the outside, which the US HAD to, where the current wars are concerned.

I'd expect that if the US had nuked a city in Iraq, every American present in the country would have been dead within the week, along with anyone people thought was an American. The Iraqis wouldn't have worried about casualties, they'd just have attacked and kept coming the way the Zulus did with the British.

[xbuzzerx]

I disagree. Show me where the US government is marching through the streets imprisoning those who don't align with Obama and I will show you a bunch of dead cops and military folks at the hands of armed Americans. Not very likely doesn't mean impossible to occur. Foil hats is impossible to stop anything so a ridiculous assertion or comparison. Likewise giving up our weapons will not change anything excpet what we can do to respond if we should decide with enough Americans to do.

I disagree. Based on the politics of the majority (not all) of gun nuts they'd be the ones cheering lockups by an authoritarian government and probably calling the people resisting it a bunch of unpatriotic criminals who should be sent to Gitmo or deported.

Every single scenario people talk about with the handguns vs. government tyranny always evokes some image of Bostonians shooting from alleyways at the Redcoats. Most enthusiastically politically active gun advocates in this country that I've ever talked to, read about or argued with would be the first one siding with the government against a resistance group. They'd be the quintessential guy from the Elie Wiesel quote about how they were for what the government was doing until it came for them too.

[JayHawk]

Right which is why the 'gun nuts' as you put it empower and support the actions of this government. Hence the source of the power of the United States.

[Kulindahr]

So you're describing some theoretical scenario where we're being oppressed by our Federal Government... but they're not actually serious enough about it to use the serious military stuff if threatened. So we just take them over with our handguns.

I don't buy this as a realistic scenario. And if the government refuses to use its awesome military force against us then I fail to see what we'll accomplish in a revolution with lots and lots of handguns that we wouldn't have accomplished without them.

"Handguns"?

I can't tell if you're trying to be funny or not.

But if you're serious, and really think that having some bullets on your side isn't persuasive, then you must not know what bullets can do.

[xbuzzerx]

"Handguns"?

I can't tell if you're trying to be funny or not.

But if you're serious, and really think that having some bullets on your side isn't persuasive, then you must not know what bullets can do.

Correct. I think 100% of American citizens united firing handguns at U.S. military personnel marching in the streets in redcoats is a war reenactor's wet dream and has utterly no bearing on the reality of "what if the U.S. government really did become an authoritarian regime."

Good solid half+ of those people would be with the authoritarian regime and supporting its every move. If not a good deal more than half.

[JayHawk]

If 150 Million Americas decided they wanted to throw off the rule of American Government then it would not matter how many others stood with the military and the military would have ten million times the bloody conflict they saw in Iraq.

Remember the majority of the Iraq fighters were ideologues who came from other places just to kill Americans. Not Iraqis trying to defend their property.

[xbuzzerx]

If 150 Million Americas decided they wanted to throw off the rule of American Government then it would not matter how many others stood with the military and the military would have ten million times the bloody conflict they saw in Iraq.

Remember the majority of the Iraq fighters were ideologues who came from other places just to kill Americans. Not Iraqis trying to defend their property.

Key phase: if 150 million wanted to throw it off. Not "if enough people with a handgun.."

P.S. a lot of the fighting against us in Iraq was with improvised explosive devices people made at home. Pretty sure you don't need a handgun for that.

[JayHawk]

MOST of the improvised explosive devices were designed and materials were supplied by Iran... who is going to supply us Canada?

[swerve]

I just finished a book a couple of weeks ago called "Kill Decision"...

http://www.amazon.com/Kill-Decision-.../dp/0525952616

It is NOT a TOTALLY unrealistic scenario...

We as a WORLD SHOULD be CAREFUL...

[xbuzzerx]

MOST of the improvised explosive devices were designed and materials were supplied by Iran... who is going to supply us Canada?

We won't need to make IED's because our handguns will shoot right through the tanks. Amirite.

[JayHawk]

Some of the weapons throughout america and in the hands of regular people will shoot through tanks... still not getting it... but we are in fantasy land now...

Drones are going to be used and so will robotic forms of fighting and that will be in our borders and outside....

[xbuzzerx]

Some of the weapons throughout america and in the hands of regular people will shoot through tanks... still not getting it... but we are in fantasy land now...

Drones are going to be used and so will robotic forms of fighting and that will be in our borders and outside....

Correct. Bands of Americans fighting the U.S. military with handguns is fantasy land. I agree.

[JayHawk]

No the idea that handguns will ever be restricted in the United States of America is ignorant and fantastical. Every attempt has failed and resulted in higher crime.

[xbuzzerx]

No the idea that handguns will ever be restricted in the United States of America is ignorant and fantastical. Every attempt has failed and resulted in higher crime.

It's already restricted where I live, lots of things you can't get unless you drive out to Vegas to a gun show.

Where does this make believe land come from for you guys where "NO! Gun restriction can NEVER happen!"? Wishful thinking?

[swerve]

No the idea that handguns will ever be restricted in the United States of America is ignorant and fantastical. Every attempt has failed and resulted in higher crime.

Kennesaw, GA -- a suburb of Atlanta -- YEARS AGO initiated a law that EVERY HOUSEHOLD MUST have a gun...

Crime rates there PLUMMETED...

Not so much TODAY (as the law is no longer adhered to OR enforced) -- but back then -- the law worked...

Somewhat ANTIintuitive...

[Kulindahr]

If 150 Million Americas decided they wanted to throw off the rule of American Government then it would not matter how many others stood with the military and the military would have ten million times the bloody conflict they saw in Iraq.

Remember the majority of the Iraq fighters were ideologues who came from other places just to kill Americans. Not Iraqis trying to defend their property.

Probably a fifth of that. If a day comes when our own military will fire on their own people, America will have already ceased to exist except in name, anyway.

[JayHawk]

It's already restricted where I live, lots of things you can't get unless you drive out to Vegas to a gun show.

Where does this make believe land come from for you guys where "NO! Gun restriction can NEVER happen!"? Wishful thinking?

Voted and enforced gun ban in D.C. -- struck down by Supreme court...

Chicago gun ban -- ended after SCOTUS ruling.

The fantasy land I live in us called the United States of America.

Please name the area that restricts the ownership of guns not just fine details of what you own and I will show you a place on their way to a SCOTUS loss.

[xbuzzerx]

Voted and enforced gun ban in D.C. -- struck down by Supreme court...

Chicago gun ban -- ended after SCOTUS ruling.

The fantasy land I live in us called the United States of America.

Please name the area that restricts the ownership of guns not just fine details of what you own and I will show you a place on their way to a SCOTUS loss.

You're talking about gun bans. That's not gun restrictions. We have waiting/cool-off periods on handguns, various types of banned bullets, various bans on semiautomatics and automatics, and to my knowledge most if not all of the "military grade" stuff is illegal-- AK's, M16's, that sort of thing.

And on the other topic of "bans, crime rates in local area in a bubble", in a greater area/region/state/community which still has plentiful and available guns, that line of argument about "x city banned guns and crime rate went up" is still and remains pointless. It doesn't prove anything. Very likely a city goes to the extreme of a full gun ban in the first place because crime is on the rise, rather than being crime is low and then the ban itself makes crime suddenly shoot up. It would be impossible to prove anyway since someone could simply drive out of the city limit or go to a gun show over the state line and pick up a gun.

The ipso-facto on "one city, crime rate" is still a dumb argument and it doesn't advance you guys' position at all. It is precisely like I said in the other thread, passing air pollution laws in a municipality within mainland China and then measuring the pollution and going "see, pollution laws don't work." It's a soiled sample to gauge anything within a greater surrounding area where the pollution is still ongoing.

[JayHawk]

Guns are still readily available in every neighborhood in America. Restrictions means ban to me. Otherwise I am pefectly fine with determining people possess the mental capacity to own a weapon. I would actually be for training at a high school level on weapons and weapon safety.

[xbuzzerx]

Guns are still readily available in every neighborhood in America. Restrictions means ban to me. Otherwise I am pefectly fine with determining people possess the mental capacity to own a weapon. I would actually be for training at a high school level on weapons and weapon safety.

Then actually we don't disagree at all because to me that's the WORST thing out there is when someone goes off their anti-psychotic meds for a day and just walks into a store and gets a gun straight across the shelf, no questions, no hassles. To me that should never ever happen.

Perhaps I didn't make it sufficiently clear but I thought I said two or three times I'm not an advocate of gun bans. I am however a huge supporter of restrictions because I think ^ scenarios like that one are simply unacceptable. People who live in rural Arkansas may not see how things like that are an issue, in any big U.S. city though there are enough really mentally imbalanced people that just being able to walk into a barber shop or 7-11 and pick up a gun is not a good idea. At all.

[JayHawk]

meh a lot of your objection sounds like the idea that all guns should go away and everything would be fine. I have no issue with training and such... the founding fathers operated with an abundance of caution. If they could have perceived a industrialized world where weapons were not necessary hunting implements known by every man women and child then they might have included a training requirement themselves. Plus you will find very few gun 'nuts' who will claim training is bad. In fact most of them will advocate it. But only on a voluntary basis. Somehow reallly really good information to have about weapons becomes bad if you require it be taught.... that is pure ignorance IMHO.

[xbuzzerx]

meh a lot of your objection sounds like the idea that all guns should go away and everything would be fine. I have no issue with training and such... the founding fathers operated with an abundance of caution. If they could have perceived a industrialized world where weapons were not necessary hunting implements known by every man women and child then they might have included a training requirement themselves. Plus you will find very few gun 'nuts' who will claim training is bad. In fact most of them will advocate it. But only on a voluntary basis. Somehow reallly really good information to have about weapons becomes bad if you require it be taught.... that is pure ignorance IMHO.

I won't be coy.. I do think a lot of the arguments you guys use don't stand up to logical scrutiny, whether it's "fight the government with handguns" or "city x banned guns crime went up y %." That doesn't however mean that everything I say should be taken as I'm trying to get Obama and Oprah to come into your house and steal all your firearms.

However I think what flew in a frontier society or a colonial society, or even in a rural Arkansas society, doesn't work in a massively populated metropolitan society. Rural Arkansas doesn't have a quarter million people on anti-psychotic medications or half a million people going through horribly nasty divorce proceedings on a year in year out basis, it doesn't have road rage inspired from constant, never ending 10-lane gridlock where it takes you 2 hours to go 30 miles, etc. So I do think we need sensible gun restriction particularly in the department of checks/waiting periods. Training/certification required would be even better imho.

And not to take a jab at Kul but I just don't buy that the gang bangers with prison records as long as your arm can make guns at home. I just don't give them that much credit. When they get them illegally I think 9 times out of 10 what they're doing is getting them at gun shows where I have no idea how the law works regarding gun shows or how they are selling things that are 'ordinarily' illegal in the given state or county, but that's what I hear all the time. "Oh you can't get that here, you gotta go to a gun show for that." With more regulation that wouldn't be such an obvious/easy avenue for criminals.

[JayHawk]

Um... what does Obama and Oprah have to do with the price of shit in shitistan? Or are you just used to comparing anyone who supports guns in America to the other side or of lacking mental capacity. lol

I agree in restrictions that amount of background checks. I have no idea why you keep explaining that part... we agree. Cool got it. BTW people who allow themselves to solve their issues with psychotic medications I think we should arm more and allow them to thin out. In fact I think we should give all folks who would rather text than drive a corvette. Oh and since we are on the topic of choosing to live up the ass of 4 million people I would point out America is a bit bigger than that and more jobs are in the middle these days... so they can suck up the traffic.



Yeah I don't know the gun show issues too much either. However if your previous statement was you gotta go to a 'Vegas' Gun show... well then states have different laws. Marijuana is a completely separate issue BUT if the cartels are bringing up to 39 Billion in drugs to the US then do you even think for half of two seconds that should the supply dry up here that there wont be guns? That is why I am behind the legalization of MJ... lets take a good portion of that 39 billion and put it into our state and city taxes...

[xbuzzerx]

Um... what does Obama and Oprah have to do with the price of shit in shitistan? Or are you just used to comparing anyone who supports guns in America to the other side or of lacking mental capacity. lol

I was making reference to how gun people lump everyone else into a kumbaya circle with Oprah and Ellen and some hippies and steal your guns. Not all of us do. lol. When I talked about restrictions I meant restrictions. i.e. if you're batshit crazy you can't go get five automatics and cross the street and go into a theater or whatever.

I agree in restrictions that amount of background checks. I have no idea why you keep explaining that part... we agree. Cool got it. BTW people who allow themselves to solve their issues with psychotic medications I think we should arm more and allow them to thin out. In fact I think we should give all folks who would rather text than drive a corvette. Oh and since we are on the topic of choosing to live up the ass of 4 million people I would point out America is a bit bigger than that and more jobs are in the middle these days... so they can suck up the traffic.



Yeah I don't know the gun show issues too much either. However if your previous statement was you gotta go to a 'Vegas' Gun show... well then states have different laws. Marijuana is a completely separate issue BUT if the cartels are bringing up to 39 Billion in drugs to the US then do you even think for half of two seconds that should the supply dry up here that there wont be guns? That is why I am behind the legalization of MJ... lets take a good portion of that 39 billion and put it into our state and city taxes...

I don't appreciate 'thinning out' the psychotic population if it means we give them guns and let them go on shooting sprees first and suicide by cop after maiming and killing 20 people. lol. Probably most people who live in cities with a large population on mental health services wouldn't.

[JayHawk]

No i doubt most people in big cities would agree. But hey there are options to living on top of a million assholes...

http://www.uhaul.com/

[White Eagle]

Paranoia is a terrible thing to waste. Those drones are to bring rain to your parched ass ....

Storms eventually run out of rain.