North Korea readying rockets to aim at U.S. targets, state media says

Reba said:
Who said no limits? I don't want "crazies" or criminals having access to guns.

You apparently don't know the same conservative people that I know.


No one begrudges the President having Secret Service protection (they are more than bodyguards). Also, it's not just the President. Many liberal politicians and celebrities have their own guns, yet publicly decry private ownership of guns by others.

The President may be the number one target to you but don't our own families deserve adequate protection?


Please explain the statement in bold.

Also, how would that prevent the illegal ownership of guns by the mentally ill?
Click to expand...

You say you believe in limits what are they?
You want to keep guns out of the hands of crazies okay you tell me. I would like to hear what your answer is Reba. I know you are a smart lady. I myself do not have an answer that does not infringe on their constitutional rights.
I do not think our President or any President is my number one target and have not done so at any time in my life.
It is okay for you to say there should be limits as a right wing believer but it is not okay for a left wing believer to say there should be limits? I am not either one so I do not understand.
At no time do I say you should not have adequate protection. What do you consider adequate protection?
I myself think that my constitutional rights are already seriously infringed upon in the matter of guns. I would like a gas power auto 16" quick change barrel 12 gauge shotgun with a ten round clip. I am infringed upon that I cannot have that. I sleep at night anyway.
 
there's always got to be at least one country threatening to blow everyone up! :p
 
goodonya said:
You say you believe in limits what are they?
Click to expand...
The limits should be on the mentally ill people, and those with criminal (felony) backgrounds, not on the guns and accessories.

You want to keep guns out of the hands of crazies okay you tell me. I would like to hear what your answer is Reba. I know you are a smart lady. I myself do not have an answer that does not infringe on their constitutional rights.
Click to expand...
The problem is, who determines whether or not someone is one of the "crazies?" Other than those who are institutionalized or have been certified incompetent by the courts, there is only so much that can be done in that category.

I do not think our President or any President is my number one target and have not done so at any time in my life.
Click to expand...
Your statement: "I figure the guy is the number one target on the planet for a mindboggling number of people."

"To you" means in your opinion, not mine. I never said that he was your target but that it was your opinion that he was the number one target.

It is okay for you to say there should be limits as a right wing believer but it is not okay for a left wing believer to say there should be limits? I am not either one so I do not understand.
Click to expand...
The difference is, I don't expect to be excluded from the limits the way liberals do. I don't say one thing and do another.

Also, liberals want to limit access to weapons and accessories to people who are legally able to acquire them (that is, not criminals or "crazies"). I do not agree with that.

At no time do I say you should not have adequate protection. What do you consider adequate protection?
Click to expand...
It is my right to determine what is adequate for my family. It is not the right of the state. Whatever is adequate for me depends on the circumstances at the time, which can change. I want to be able to make that determination and not be limited by the state judging magazine capacities, grip shapes, etc.

I myself think that my constitutional rights are already seriously infringed upon in the matter of guns. I would like a gas power auto 16" quick change barrel 12 gauge shotgun with a ten round clip. I am infringed upon that I cannot have that. I sleep at night anyway.
Click to expand...
That's up to you, for yourself.
 
CP, nope but what I just realize that it is gonna cost US moola dearly and can bankrupt Uncle Sam, and if that happens. We all will cry and deal with Martial law. Don't you know we have martial law set up in event of Uncle Sam surrender in bankruptcy? If your not prepared, your screwed.

Once NK strikes our debt will fall deeper worse than sinkholes in Florida.
 
Same here, what if Uncle Sam goes bankruptcy after dealing with stupid NK. I don't think Nuclear is going to hurt us, it is gonna be a financial disaster that is gonna hurt us and it can kick in martial law. If you don't have nothing, your as good as dead.

goodonya said:
I myself think that my constitutional rights are already seriously infringed upon in the matter of guns. I would like a gas power auto 16" quick change barrel 12 gauge shotgun with a ten round clip. I am infringed upon that I cannot have that. I sleep at night anyway.
Click to expand...
 
diehardbiker, someone explain to me that if America is bankruptcy and then it will spread to worldwide bankruptcy also. It could be bigger mistake move for N. Korea.
 
Is NK a superpower?
Is US a superpower?

Which got a lot to lose? If both countries declare bankruptcy, to NK it is just laughable because NK don't have much to lose while US has too much to lose.

Lets look at the bankruptcy to give you better idea who would lose the most.

A person had a debt of just $50K and had to file bankruptcy, and owns only a bedroom house, and compact car, nothing else.


Another person had a debt of 10 million dollars, and owns lots of assets valued less than 10 million dollars, including fancy cars and second, or maybe third houses.

Which bankruptcy filers are going lose the most?

Obviously answer is there. It is not the dollar itself, it is the assets that Liability deals with.

PowerON said:
diehardbiker, someone explain to me that if America is bankruptcy and then it will spread to worldwide bankruptcy also. It could be bigger mistake move for N. Korea.
Click to expand...
 
^^that is why China is USING NK...NK not much to loss but China has!
 
come to say, i still reckon China is behind it, just not that much, but maybe encouragement, I just dont trust them
 
'experts' are so called that, to hide what they DON'T know...
 
CrazyPaul said:
North Korea's missile capabilities
Click to expand...

They may not have nuclear capabilities but they can create enough death to get the world's attention. The people are starved, the dictator is crazy and as a country, they have absolutely nothing on Earth to lose by going to a war. If they can starve their own for generations, why's letting them all die in a war going to trouble them?

Laura
 
PowerON said:
Right now, it is April 10th in Korea. :Ohno:
Click to expand...

build your own Redneck style bunker at home. :D

secret-underground-survival-bunker-stash.jpg
 
That is what I am scared of. "Copycats". Once that happens what I would call "The shit has hit the fan" and just image if real shit hits the fan will it be pretty afterwards? "nuff 'xplain"

Especially world economy is gonna going upside down for certain.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/10/world/asia/koreas-tensions/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Grummer said:
good reading here...bits and piece not heavy to read but a good variety of opinions, take a gander...
North Korea's Nuclear Threats Could Trigger Other Countries to get nuclear weapons
Click to expand...
 
Back
Top