http://www.kitv.com/story/32247818/biden-calls-for-civilian-ban-on-assault-weapons

perhaps buy more shotguns?!

Stupid is as stupid does.   Just the tail following the donkey's head.

I believe in leaders leading by setting examples.

Anything else is hypocrisy.

So, once all the rulers and governments of the world lay down and dismantle their arms, I believe it will be time for civilians to do so also.

http://www.kitv.com/story/32247818/biden-calls-for-civilian-ban-on-assault-weapons

perhaps buy more shotguns?!

Yes.  VEPR-12's with 30 round drums.

I believe in leaders leading by setting examples.

Anything else is hypocrisy.

So, once all the rulers and governments of the world lay down and dismantle their arms, I believe it will be time for civilians to do so also.

You don't understand how it works.

Those "leaders" are "leaders" by virtue of their vast superiority compared to the common person/subject, and the selection of the "leader" by the commoner to be "leader" proves that even the lowly subjects recognize that superiority, and want their "leaders" to be treated in a manner befitting their elite status.

No reasonable person would expect the same standards or laws to be applied to such vastly different categories of creatures as the "leaders" and the subjects. That would be like expecting that the same laws be applied to, or similar ethical consideration be granted to humans and, say, black people/slaves. Hey, the Supreme Court of the United States concurred on that one. Okay, how about humans and dogs? Preposterous on it's face, right? (Well, I guess unless someone wants to eat YOUR "pet" dog...). But I digress. Any clear thinking person can see that "leaders" and the rest of us are so dissimilar that the equal application of laws or ethical standards or anything else really, is preposterous on its face.

Ergo: guns for me, but not for thee. QED.

Maybe ban Biden from politics


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You don't understand how it works.

Those "leaders" are "leaders" by virtue of their vast superiority compared to the common person/subject, and the selection of the "leader" by the commoner to be "leader" proves that even the lowly subjects recognize that superiority, and want their "leaders" to be treated in a manner befitting their elite status.

No reasonable person would expect the same standards or laws to be applied to such vastly different categories of creatures as the "leaders" and the subjects. That would be like expecting that the same laws be applied to, or similar ethical consideration be granted to humans and, say, black people/slaves. Hey, the Supreme Court of the United States concurred on that one. Okay, how about humans and dogs? Preposterous on it's face, right? (Well, I guess unless someone wants to eat YOUR "pet" dog...). But I digress. Any clear thinking person can see that "leaders" and the rest of us are so dissimilar that the equal application of laws or ethical standards or anything else really, is preposterous on its face.

Ergo: guns for me, but not for thee. QED.

SMH - Oh now I understand it! So that's why they actually have a rigged election system so we the subjects can have fun playing at voting, but because we are too dumb to pick the right leaders (the ones that keep us subjected) they will pick them for us! And in return for this vital service, we pledge our hard work to support these overlords and make sure they can enjoy the fruits of our labors. I guess it's kinda like the old kings and queens from hundreds of years ago, except they don't call them kings and queens and princes anymore. Well, in some countries they still do, but America is more advanced and less blatant.

Question: When did these modern kings and queens and overlords get into our government? I thought we fought a war to get rid of them?

SMH - Oh now I understand it! So that's why they actually have a rigged election system so we the subjects can have fun playing at voting, but because we are too dumb to pick the right leaders (the ones that keep us subjected) they will pick them for us! And in return for this vital service, we pledge our hard work to support these overlords and make sure they can enjoy the fruits of our labors. I guess it's kinda like the old kings and queens from hundreds of years ago, except they don't call them kings and queens and princes anymore. Well, in some countries they still do, but America is more advanced and less blatant.

Question: When did these modern kings and queens and overlords get into our government? I thought we fought a war to get rid of them?

Now you're catching on! Yes, "the system" (including the "elections" and "voting") is constructed in such a manner that the subjects think (are deluded) they have "free will" and "choice" about  who their overlord "leaders" will be, just like the passengers aboard the Titanic were free to roam the ship as it headed into the iceberg. Any "rigging" of the system is merely to prevent "errors", which might jeopardize the well-being of the "leaders", er, I mean, the wellbeing of the subjects.

I don't think it's so much that we "pledge our hard work to support these overlords" as we pledge to our families to give the overlords whatever portion of our property (aka "money"/"income") they demand in order that we stay out of prison, which is where we would reside if we refused to provide our "contribution" to their cause. Half a loaf is better than none. Or something.

No matter what terminology is used for the "leaders" they still have the power, literally, of life and death concerning those who might want to challenge their authority, though as you say, it might be (sometimes) less blatant.

We fought a war to ATTEMPT to get rid of them. And we did get rid of a specific tyrannical structure and people. But, as is wont to happen when human nature is involved: Hurray for the new boss! Same as the old boss! (See: Ruby Ridge, Waco, LaVoy Finicum, etc. etc. etc.).

Hmmmmm, I guess they didn't give me the instruction book to the New And Improved Invisible Feudal System when I went to school.

Or maybe they handed them out on those days I was outside taking Rifle Class (not!) which later they replaced with Critical Thinking 101 (not!) and elective courses on Uncensored Interpretative History (not!).

They did give us 1984 to read but I was lazy and just used the Cliff Notes. Not really sure what that book was all about.

I guess whoever was designing the Constitution kinda tricked those overlords into adding stuff to give the slaves gun rights and free speech rights, etc. because no slave should actually have those dangerous rights.

Anyway looks like they are fixing those bugs, so I guess all is good!

I guess whoever was designing the Constitution kinda tricked those overlords into adding stuff to give the slaves gun rights and free speech rights, etc. because no slave should actually have those dangerous rights.

Yeah, every once in a while something barely squeaks through the Congress or the Legislatures or the Supreme Court. In this case the slaves were not only granted gun rights and free speech but they also got their own special bathrooms, and drinking fountains, and schools and even special seats on the bus! Weren't they lucky! It finally took the National Guard going in to force them to use the same facilities as white people, but they had a good run.

Sorry I did not mean black slaves only. I meant all of us slaves.

Sorry I did not mean black slaves only. I meant all of us slaves.

Oh. Yeah, I guess as long as we (still) have a few semi-autos, tv and as much beer and other alcoholic beverages as we can drink it's all good. Right? 

I'm sure you know this but posting here anyway:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_circuses

"Bread and circuses" (or bread and games; from Latin: panem et circenses) is metonymic for a superficial means of appeasement. In the case of politics, the phrase is used to describe the generation of public approval, not through exemplary or excellent public service or public policy, but through diversion; distraction; or the mere satisfaction of the immediate, shallow requirements of a populace, as an offered "palliative".

https://www.whitehouse.gov/webform/join-conversation-banning-ar-15-civilian-ownership?utm_source=email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=email613-text1&utm_campaign=wtp

Thanks for that. I can hardly wait to hear Valerie Jarrett's answers to my questions! I think that's really great that they are being so transparent and willing to provide full and accurate data about precisely to what degree AR-15 rifles pose a threat to public safety, including compared to how often they are used for self-defense. I mean, usually they have had a tendency to obfuscate (or just lie) about these things in the past. Great to see such a big change for the better in the White House. Perhaps I'll have to retract several of my previous emails to the White House wherein I explained why I believed that Obama was a "traitor" and should resign if Congress didn't impeach him. I'm holding off on that until I see and hear the clear and accurate answers to my questions.

What is the proposed definition(s) of "assault weapon" this time? How does that definition delineate between actual functionality of a firearm and mere cosmetic features that have never been demonstrated to have a statistically significant effect on the function of the firearm (e.g. bayonet lug, grenade launcher, barrel shroud, flash suppressor, etc.)?

What percentage of total homicides in the U.S. involve AR-15 platform rifles?

What percentage of homicides using firearms use AR-15 platform rifles?

What percentage of all homicides committed using rifles are AR-15 platform rifles? (Excluding "justifiable" homicides and all law enforcement killings.) Since "all rifles" are responsible for 2% of gun homicides, I suspect the number is very small, but please be specific as to both the percentage and total number, which I suspect is less than 100, perhaps fewer than 50).

How many times per year do citizens use AR-15 platform rifles in self-defense (this should include all instances of crimes being averted, including brandishing a weapon where no shots are fired and no criminal is injured or killed by firing the weapon).