I mean, 183 out of 1.4+ million is pretty small, even if you account for the ones they don't know about.
The problem isn't the small percentage. The problem is that if these people are in the right places, they can cause a lot of damage.
Bare in mind that the 2020 election was saved when a handful of people refused to follow Trump into fascism.
Sure, but again I think you're underestimating just how enormous the US military industrial complex is. It'd take a notable percentage of mid to high ranking individuals to cause a significant amount of damage to the US's military. You also have to consider the military isn't just service members, but also civilians and contractors, so add in another few million people to that number.
Jan 6th wasn't even remotely close to Trump actually succeeding in his half-assed coup attempt. The only real danger during that election was from the conspicuous attempts from Trump to get states to overrule the election results, which has nothing to do with the military.
I'm not saying this particular report isn't concerning, I'm just saying it isn't cause to become seriously worried for the future of the military's allegiance to the constitution and their impact on the democratic process.
I fail to see how doing things like keeping guns out of the hands of mentally ill people and domestic abusers or making it harder to purchase one on the spur of the moment will make anything easier for them. Perhaps you can explain it to me.
yeah, because guns are stupid and never help anyone with anything, except in making unstable people worse.. only morons cling to guns for safety.. guns are for the weak and fearful..
Or you can just think they're cool like a car. Saying something is too dangerous to own is fucking stupid, we sell dynamite commercially and anfo by the ton. Bombings just aren't common because they're are reasonable licensing and registration requirements.
Saying something is too dangerous to own is fucking stupid
they’re are reasonable licensing and registration requirements.
Don't you think the reason there are licensing and registration requirements for dynamite is because it's too dangerous to own?
It's clearly not too dangerous to own, it's dangerous enough to license.... That was my point.
And if you don't have a license, you are not allowed to ___ it?
Purchase or possess, yes.... You're taking a real slow route to a very obvious point.
Register, license and own whatever the fuck you want.
Purchase or possess
So....... own.
Without a license. You're being a dope, I'm for licensing and registration not a total ban. I'm not quite sure why you chose such a sequitous route good such a stupid point.
I'm having a little fun poking at you because you called another poster fucking stupid while missing their point entirely, and you called me dope while being completely unable to see the contradiction I was laying out in front of you.
I'll stop here, but you'll have better conversations online if you engage with people sincerely rather than jumping straight to insults about others' intelligence.
I didn't call anyone fucking stupid I said saying guns are too dangerous to own is fucking stupid. Someone can hold an ideal that is idiotic without being an idiot, don't be so thin skinned on sometime else's behalf. There is no contradiction dude, you were/are being a dope.
That's great advice, you should take it.
My dude, chill out. You'll have better conversations!
I'm trying to figure out your logic here. You seem to be trying to defend an undefendable position. Cars, afaik, typically require a license to actually own one, yet we don't consider them too dangerous for someone to own. Are they too dangerous for an unlicensed individual to own? Yeah, but most people can get a license for one.
On the other hand, anyone can own a sword or a crossbow, or (afaik) build a maser out of a couple microwaves if they want to (or until recently, build and own a flamethrower), so those must be perfectly safe to own. I can pull the electron guns out of old CRTs and build a device pretty much guaranteed to cause melanoma in anyone I point it at. I'm sure the people who end up with skin cancer would be happy to know that the hacked-together cancer-beam I created is perfectly safe because it doesn't require a license to own.
So I'm trying to figure out what your point is. You seem to be trying to say that if something is restricted, then it is "too dangerous to own" but that's obviously not true. Yet for some reason, you're trying to cling to this argument.
Are they too dangerous for an unlicensed individual to own? Yeah
Congratulations. You figured out my point in your first paragraph.
Well I sure feel safe.
I mean, 183 out of 1.4+ million is pretty small, even if you account for the ones they don't know about.
The problem isn't the small percentage. The problem is that if these people are in the right places, they can cause a lot of damage.
Bare in mind that the 2020 election was saved when a handful of people refused to follow Trump into fascism.
Sure, but again I think you're underestimating just how enormous the US military industrial complex is. It'd take a notable percentage of mid to high ranking individuals to cause a significant amount of damage to the US's military. You also have to consider the military isn't just service members, but also civilians and contractors, so add in another few million people to that number.
Jan 6th wasn't even remotely close to Trump actually succeeding in his half-assed coup attempt. The only real danger during that election was from the conspicuous attempts from Trump to get states to overrule the election results, which has nothing to do with the military.
I'm not saying this particular report isn't concerning, I'm just saying it isn't cause to become seriously worried for the future of the military's allegiance to the constitution and their impact on the democratic process.
I like turtles.
I fail to see how doing things like keeping guns out of the hands of mentally ill people and domestic abusers or making it harder to purchase one on the spur of the moment will make anything easier for them. Perhaps you can explain it to me.
yeah, because guns are stupid and never help anyone with anything, except in making unstable people worse.. only morons cling to guns for safety.. guns are for the weak and fearful..
Or you can just think they're cool like a car. Saying something is too dangerous to own is fucking stupid, we sell dynamite commercially and anfo by the ton. Bombings just aren't common because they're are reasonable licensing and registration requirements.
Don't you think the reason there are licensing and registration requirements for dynamite is because it's too dangerous to own?
It's clearly not too dangerous to own, it's dangerous enough to license.... That was my point.
And if you don't have a license, you are not allowed to ___ it?
Purchase or possess, yes.... You're taking a real slow route to a very obvious point.
Register, license and own whatever the fuck you want.
So....... own.
Without a license. You're being a dope, I'm for licensing and registration not a total ban. I'm not quite sure why you chose such a sequitous route good such a stupid point.
I'm having a little fun poking at you because you called another poster fucking stupid while missing their point entirely, and you called me dope while being completely unable to see the contradiction I was laying out in front of you.
I'll stop here, but you'll have better conversations online if you engage with people sincerely rather than jumping straight to insults about others' intelligence.
I didn't call anyone fucking stupid I said saying guns are too dangerous to own is fucking stupid. Someone can hold an ideal that is idiotic without being an idiot, don't be so thin skinned on sometime else's behalf. There is no contradiction dude, you were/are being a dope.
That's great advice, you should take it.
My dude, chill out. You'll have better conversations!
I'm trying to figure out your logic here. You seem to be trying to defend an undefendable position. Cars, afaik, typically require a license to actually own one, yet we don't consider them too dangerous for someone to own. Are they too dangerous for an unlicensed individual to own? Yeah, but most people can get a license for one.
On the other hand, anyone can own a sword or a crossbow, or (afaik) build a maser out of a couple microwaves if they want to (or until recently, build and own a flamethrower), so those must be perfectly safe to own. I can pull the electron guns out of old CRTs and build a device pretty much guaranteed to cause melanoma in anyone I point it at. I'm sure the people who end up with skin cancer would be happy to know that the hacked-together cancer-beam I created is perfectly safe because it doesn't require a license to own.
So I'm trying to figure out what your point is. You seem to be trying to say that if something is restricted, then it is "too dangerous to own" but that's obviously not true. Yet for some reason, you're trying to cling to this argument.
Congratulations. You figured out my point in your first paragraph.
guns are for addle-brained fools who can barely string two thoughts together
Yes yes, bigoted hyperbole solves everything and isn't at a projection of your insecurities.
and unsurprisingly guns are for people who like to defend themselves by projecting
How am I projecting anything? I've not said an ill word about or to you.
you hang onto those guns, son, i'm sure they help you
Oo and you assume I'm younger, want to project a bit more?