3 dead, including gunman in shooting outside church in Ames, Iowa https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/3...ide-church-in-ames-iowa/ar-AAY1kFo?li=BBnb7Kz
This is a big problem with people trying to regulate things they don't understand. People who don't understand the internet can't competently regulate the internet and people who don't understand guns can't competently regulate guns. They just come off sounding like a idiots... It's a shame the Dems are lowering themselves to giving this loser ammunition against them.
You must watch This. Start @:47 (153) A Marine Corps rifle and pistol coach speaks out. Gun Control Debate Second Amendment Robb Uvalde TX - YouTube
We should have background checks for installing doors. You can't install doors without a background check, and soon, there will be less doors that people with evil intents can get in and out of. Soon, churches and schools and hospitals will have no doors at all and non of the mentally unstable people can come in them and harm the innocents. The problem of course is that so many people sign NDA - and they hold our nation hostage. At the very least, abolish revolving doors which let more people get into places. Sometimes 3 times as much as other doors.
This guy is a fucking idiot. Of course American citizens have more rights to do what they want with their property than marines. Marines aren't allowed to do a lot of things in their barracks that civilians are allowed to do. Like fuck their girlfriend or keep midnight snacks on hand. Or smoke cigarettes and get wasted on alcohol. What an insane and idiotic argument. He knows nothing about the constitution. I've already covered this. "Well regulated" at the time the constitution was written meant to be capable or well functioning. And "militia" meant civilian infantry. So the constitution intended for civilians to be a capable infantry, and have access to own and train with typical infantry weapons to make that possible. Regardless of whether you agree with that right or not, it's pretty clear, unless you deny those intentions.
Nobody has suggested removing doors, and the argument that they have is counterproductive and comes off as dishonest. This kind of behavior costs Democrats the support of the moderate right, and to many people, it makes Dems look no better than the Republicans. Reducing the number of authorized entrances and exits helps administrators keep an eye on things during high traffic times and prevents unauthorized entry at other times. It's a very simple concept and one that has been in use in many schools and other buildings for years without violating safety codes or causing any problems at all. There is no legal ban from arming yourself at most places (other than schools) unless there are armed defenses in place. So pretty much any place with a revolving door you are protected by ample armed security or you are legally allowed to arm yourself for self defense.
“Each generation” should have the “solemn opportunity” to update the constitution “every nineteen or twenty years,” thus allowing it to “be handed on, with periodical repairs, from generation to generation, to the end of time.” - Thomas Jefferson "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as a civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." - Thomas Jefferson
visit a civilian homeless shelter with bunks and you'll find restrictions....and I'm a vet...if you think Marines don't snack or smoke ...you're wrong...nobody is allowed to have sex in exposed group barracks or bus stations or anywhere within view of the public, Marine or not. You're right, the military is not a democracy at all and you sign off your rights but I've been stationed with Marines and this extreme discipline you're talking about only occurs during bootcamp....same with astronauts and many Olympic athletes.....it's not Sparta in the modern Marines
Completely agree that he said that. However, there is not even close to enough political will to do that in the near future. And that wasn't the point that was being made in the video.
Civilian homeless shelters have restrictions, no question about that. It's one the reason they don't work. They are too restrictive. Many not allowing people to enter after 9pm (so if you work swing shift you're sleeping under a bush tonight). Every instance you reference people have to agree to those restrictions and put themselves in position to be restricted. They are not forced into it, and I wouldn't support any democracy which did force all of it's civilians into those kinds of restrictions. Those are authoritarian restrictions. But in a democracy people are free to CHOOSE to be restricted if they want to be. Are you arguing that even the military can't get soldiers to follow restrictions? https://www.dcms.uscg.mil/Portals/10/DOL/BaseCapeCod/forms/pdf/ASCC_Barracks_Regs.pdf
Homeless shelters save lives every winter...they keep many people including mentally ill safe from the streets more often than not..so do halfway houses for people struggling with addictions or trying to reenter life from prisons, etc.....you seem to think these people all have choices? Many are victims of circumstance and because some are not and just choose homelessness for whatever reason is not a good counter for those who are in dire need....especially those with children. You choose to be a marine too...same thing..choices...as to smoking...nobody has ever been allowed to smoke in barracks...they smoke outside the barracks ...of course but if you want to invite homeless families into your home to keep them from dangerous shelters...I support that too...as it is freezing to death in Minnesota isn't a choice people are going to make and those shelters keep people from freezing to death...if that's not working I'm going to debate that point because it is and does save lives every winter. As to arguing....I'm debating a topic...different from having an argument or at least it should be. This is in general terms but I'm sure I could dig up some crime in a homeless shelter just like I could dig up crimes in a marine barracks.
Yes, homeless shelters do save lives. I didn't disagree with that. I'm simply saying that they are incredibly inefficient and ineffective at reducing our homeless population because so many people refuse to use them, or are unable to use them, largely because of the rules. Correct, so this is a choice. It is not a law. So his point is invalid, in that of course the military is required to do more than civilians. That's their job. The job that they chose. They are paid to spend those 2 weeks training. If the US government wants to pay my salary, travel and other expenses, and prevent my employer from firing me I will be happy to spend those 2 weeks per year training. Again, shelters are great for the relatively few people who choose to use them. But they are incredibly inefficient and expensive, and they are a part of our current homeless problem. I have let people live with me to prevent them from being homeless. Multiple times. Completely agree. I meant, your "suggestion" or "your position". But please understand that a definition of "argument" is also : a reason given for or against a matter under discussion
