Anyone here from Sweden?

[mjohansson]

"I thought you were looking for a debate?"
On a personal level not so much, especially not after talking to some family members yesterday, I can see now it dosnt matter if there is a debate or not anyway, theres never gonna be negotation or anything constructive anyway.

"It does not happen all that often that people flip to the opposite side, but they do move around"
From all youtube videos I have seen, I think that people dont talk to eachoteher, but only of eachother, and its not constructive, people are only solidified in their beliefs, and radicalized. And further more, even when people try to talk to eachother like me here and the ones willing to say anything at all, no solution is brought to the table, only arguments as to who is in the right and not, and no one is gonna change side and both sides think eachother are wrong, so whats the point then anyway?

"You can try to seperate people of different political stances all you want, you'll never build a functional state like that. To do that it is necessary to enforce the one opinion/political course you want everyone in your weird seperatist community to share. Usually that requires violent oppression and a repressive government, such as you claim our democratic governments to be like now."

Im not gonna read through all I said but I cant remember saying our democratics governments to be violently oppressive and repressive. Furthermore sweden is not a democracy, its a representative democracy, you have no say in the legislation process, only the elected representatives does, and they have no legal responsibilty to represent anyone at all, and they are under massive attention of lobbyists, if I got to decide of a system for a nation to run I can tell you this, I wouldnt choose a representative democracy...
I think legislation needs to happen through direct democracy, with an obsenly high percentage needed to vote in a law, and a low percentage needed to cancel a law. We dont need 100 000 laws that nobody even know a fraction of, were the majority seem to be written by lawyers working for big money corporations handed over to the politicians by "lobbyists" and voted through without the politicians even looking through the documentation, and the public are ofcourse not informed of what laws are passed and why and what the consequences will be for the llittle people...
You should be able to build a nation for capitalists with specific rules, and if you are born there and in disagree you should move to a neighbor "middle" or "socialts" or whatever nation. Not all nations must be the same, we need different nations with different systems.



"
Article 1.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."

Well this was interesting, I was not informed that this document excisted and was part of swedish law...
So lets talk about contracts, wich I assume this is. A contract is an agreement between 2 or more partys, is technically functional and in effect as long as all involved partys uphold it. I did not sign this contract, I am not in agreeance with it, and I will not submit to an external partys ownership over me.
Article 1:
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights." sure, we are living creatres with free thought and are by nature soverign individuals. I dont know what dignity is supposed to mean or refer to though... As a sovereign individual I have the right that I take, no one owns me and no one gives me rights, likewise for all soverign individuals who are not me.
Article 2:
"Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration" My mistake, it was not a contract it was a declaration, so the authors mean to enforce it then? Nomatter any opposition?
Article 3:
"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."
Eh ok... Who is suppose to grant me this, the authors of the declaration? How was the victims of jihad granted their right to life and security? I did not make this declaration and I do not stand behind it in agreeance, do I have responsibilty to let muslims come into my country in whatever numbers they come? When I know that with muslims comes jihad attacks? Sure there have been terroist attacks by non muslims, sure there was criminality also, but that was internal matters, if we know people coming in will be criminals I say close the door and fuck any random strangers declaration of absolute nonsens. You dont have the right to enter my home, if you take that right I take the right to defend my home and myself. My country is my extended home.

 

[___]

@mjohansson You have not explicitly said our governments were violently oppressive, but you have made numerous points claiming a debate was not possible because of media censorship and oppressive governments.

Regarding the articles I posted, no worries that you have never seen them, it is only quoted from the single most important document of the 20th century. It is called the "UN charter of human rights" and I am pretty sure Swedish constitution is based on it, just like most other countries constitutions are. Please look up the difference between "law", "contract" and constitution/human rights charter yourself or consult your local elementary teacher. here is a link to wikipedia so you can inform yourself exactly why this is not a contract between two parties:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights

 

[mjohansson]

Fuck no Im not reading through all of that...
"the single most important document of the 20th century."
In your opinion...
"It is called the "UN charter of human rights""
UN is a foreign corporation and of no interest to me, the constitution of sweden is changed every once in a while and I never get to have a say in it, if its only points I agree with then there is no problem, if an external party claims I have responsibilties towards them or anyone else then there is disagreeance, you dont get to order me about, no one does. A nation is upheld by people banding together to protect common interest, law is declaration of retribution, if someone murders me I cant do anything cos Im dead, the people around me declare they will punish the murderer for the crime that was committed.
Theres only so far you can take things, you cant declare its law that all must pay to provide a TV channel only half the counrty use, its overstepping acceptable commitment, when I have no say in the matter its nothing but an act of agression and a crime thats being commited against me. We want fundamental law for declaring retribution for crimes, and thats were legislation needs to end in my opinion.

"debate was not possible because of media censorship and oppressive governments" its correct, all newspapers I heard of activly shut out any opposition to the current immigration. Oppresive government, well yea thats basically correct also, they have made threats to cancel the "freedom of speech" or as they say limit it further. They have passed into law FRA wich is in many peoples opinion questionable surveilance to say the least, Im sure there are many examples that could be described as oppressive.

 

[ZXDunny]

I had no idea the U.N. was a corporation. Well, you live and learn I suppose. I also found this juxtaposition interesting:

"A nation is upheld by people banding together to protect common interest" and "you dont get to order me about, no one does"

What is one, if not the other? Or do you only participate in your society as far as it benefits you, with no desire to benefit anyone else if it doesn't benefit you? I must say, you're coming across as a very, very unpleasant person - even more so than when you were raving madly about muslims.

 

[ible]

well i think we've made some real progress in talking out our differences.

 

[benoitb]

If you get no say in a change of constitution, it means there are not enough people in your voting group (country) who think like you.

If you don't like it you can try a coup and end in jail. You can become a terrorist. You may have more in common than you think with these.

 

[klapse]

Learning about what is really happening won't make you happy.

 

[asdf334]

I can't see how that would be a good thing, really. Large numbers of barely-trained citizens in stressful situations are likely to get trigger-happy or panic, with a generally much greater risk of unwarranted physical injury.

Not at all. In fact any political action now would be 1000x better.

 

[ZXDunny]

<bollocks>

Not at all - we've all seen what happens when your population is given a "right" to bear arms and jealously hangs onto their guns and resists any reasonable means to restrict their use to only those people who are of sound mind. The US keeps banging on about how it's totally impossible to predict or prevent gun violence against large groups of people, yet each month there's a good few mass-shootings...

 

[rygD]

no solution is brought to the table

I brought one. Kill all humans. More realistically, drastically reduce the human population to a more reasonable size. War, as it has been done in the past, is inefficient, so we need to look at other options.

I think legislation needs to happen through direct democracy

Probably not as good in practice as you think it sounds in theory (although I once would have agreed with you). I am reminded of a recent episode of The Orville, so maybe you should check that out. Anyway, down vote for you.

Oh, btw, as a child of Earth, the planet is my extended home...as is the solar system, and the galaxy. Don't give me that bullshit.

Maybe if we outlaw government and you have to fend for yourself your opinion might change (i know, I did it on purpose)..."but no one switches to the other side". Fuck all sides. Trying to be a bigger asshole than those scary people from somewhere else still means you are an asshole. Maybe you could feel them out and try to understand them and make some friends (yeah, that means you have to get out there and interact with them) so you can all help each other out with the assholes, of which you might otherwise be included in. Oh, look, I brought something else to the table, a method that I have seen people from "both sides" do, in person, before. It is a start. Go from there. Don't just say "I think we should do this", get out there and do it. You need knowledge for any sort of democracy to work effectively. If you doubt your news sources, and you should always doubt them, you need to see for yourself. Unless direct democracy is ok, but any other sort of direct involvement with things is a step too far.

You don't want to go out and help them, and you want them to stay away from you...BRILLIANT! Propose that your elected representatives have a wall, or better yet, a bubble, and no one from outside can come in. Enjoy your prison! Unfortunately, if everyone does that and becomes an extremist political state...well, there will be even less moving around, both ideologically and physically. But, hey, you like the way it sounds, so make it happen. If you don't like how things are going in your country, why don't you leave?

Not at all - we've all seen what happens when your population is given a "right" to bear arms and jealously hangs onto their guns and resists any reasonable means to restrict their use to only those people who are of sound mind. The US keeps banging on about how it's totally impossible to predict or prevent gun violence against large groups of people, yet each month there's a good few mass-shootings...

Because only firearms acquired legally are used in crimes?

The funny thing is we are supposed to overthrow our government if it becomes tyrannical. The government made that a crime and will make you go away if you try to overthrow it. But governments are supposed to serve themselves at the cost of the people, right?

The right to bear arms is to protect yourself from aggressive governments*, foreign and domestic, so I need the same kind of stuff they have, if I can afford it.

But, sure, guns cause gun crimes...whatever you say.


*It sure as hell isn't to defend yourself from individuals, as that will land you in prison and paying medical bills, in addition to being sued into the ground in some places.

 

[ible]

https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-r-1820163660

but at least we can overthrow a tyrannical government if necessary. (but what happens if the tyrannical government lines up with what the 2nd amendment enthusiasts want?)

 

[rygD]

Fake news!

 

[ZXDunny]

But, sure, guns cause gun crimes...whatever you say.

Well, guns are kinda the prerequisite for gun crimes, wouldn't you agree?

To be fair, you have to question the sanity of anyone that keeps devices around that are specifically designed and manufactured to kill people, in order that they might one day be able to kill someone.

 

[rygD]

Well, guns are kinda the prerequisite for gun crimes, wouldn't you agree?

The existence of something doesn't mean it will be used for crimes. People cause gun crimes, not guns. People cause all crimes.

To be fair, you have to question the sanity of anyone that keeps devices around that are specifically designed and manufactured to kill people, in order that they might one day be able to kill someone.

True. (I never claimed to be sane. Why else would I have a car, steel toe boots, many knives, large dogs, etc. ) Firearms have always been a massive grey area for me. The ones used for hunting, regardless of if for "sport" or for food and such, don't need the capacity of those used for suppressive fire or mowing down a room full of people. And of course the latter is what it's most popular over here. For target and competitive shooting you don't really need something that can kill. (Long range is a slightly different story, so let's just stick with handguns and short range for now.) Everything that isn't one of those situations is either intended for defence or attacking, with hunting and such also being a firm of attack. Keep in mind that in some areas here we still have large lethal wild animals, so defense, even when not talking about humans, is a real need in some places. Or you can play dead and hope for the best (many times they may leave you alone, so I don't know what is the best choice, but I like the nonhuman better, and would rather it live most of the time). Oh, and shooting wild animals that might go after your domesticated animals, forgot about that. The times when those people would need 30+ rounds of 5.56 or 7.62mm would seem not to exist. Still, for killing paper or cans and bottles I would still like a higher capacity magazine, but that isn't a need.

But I think that most of the firearm owners in the US don't have them with the intent to use them to shoot other humans. Some do have them just in case. I don't see anything wrong with this, as there are many things many sane people have just in case, and some of those are sometimes required (car or health insurance, although I don't know what is going on with health insurance anymore). If you are going to let some people have them, then I feel everyone should be able to have them (talking civilians here, but I don't think I would be comfortable with police having them but not others). If you can have them, why put stupid limitations on them? Just from a recreational point of view, a magazine at full auto of something you can feel is more fun than a single round of .22lr.

I also see no reason to ban something because it could potentially be harm or kill someone. Why not ban cars, or pencils and paper, or unhealthy food, or pets? Cars are the only one of those I feel might deserve tight government restrictions. Give the people their marijuana, too. And all other drugs.

Plus we need guns so we can shoot terrorists.

 

[ible]

remember kids, guns don't kill people, bullets kill people, though more specifically blood loss or loss of major organ functionality does.

but i don't think people would like their bullets regulated, but that's the only way i'd think it's ok to have even semi-auto weapons in a home. you could go to a range to fire off full auto magazine (for the sh?ts), but not have them at home.

i'm all for hunting/animal defense (using hunting rifles), but i don't understand the need for semi/full auto. it's ok for law enforcement to have them, since they are trained and they are accountable to the people in a way that civilians aren't. (a well regulated militia -- regulated meaning trained according to one supreme court ruling, which most civilians aren't, and that's not even something they check for...)

cars can also be weapons, and they are pretty strictly regulated; you need a license to drive, insurance in case you hurt people, etc. that would be a step in the right direction .

 

[rygD]

Many people are trained in the use of semiautomatic firearms, as they are the most common for civilians today. Additionally, many people are trained through classes and such outside of the one on one teaching that I, and many others, received when quite young.

Automatics are another story. Despite what you see in movies, most aren't intended to be fired non-stop. This is the reason why later M16s and M4s intended for average military personnel have three round burst instead of automatic (plus it conserves ammo). Police should NOT have automatic weapons if the citizens don't. You have the National Guard at the state level, and several agencies and the military if it can't be handled at a lower level. I also see no point in police departments having MRAPs and similar military vehicles. Last I checked there weren't a lot of mines and bombs randomly detonating on our streets. Again, there are already people with that equipment that can be brought in if a situation gets to that point.

Btw, a militia is not a standing army. As I recall only the navy was originally called for. The militia that was spoken of was intended to be formed of, surprise, civilians that would be called up when military conflicts required their presence. By having exposure to and familiarity with rifles and how to use them you are already partially trained if you will be using something different. With a standing army as we have (which I could point out the problems with for hours), there is no need for the average civilian to have firearms for that purpose, I suppose.

I see many benefits, not strictly related to people's fear of firearms, of mandatory military service for a short period upon reaching legal adulthood (with the option of civil service for those unable or unwilling to serve in the military). These people would essentially be fulltime reservists, during their period of training, after which they would go on as they currently do. I pair this requirement with granting of citizenship upon completion of service. You can skip all this and still be a tax paying resident, but I imagine that would come with problems of its own.

A quick search tells me that both Sweden and Greece have or recently had mandatory military service, although the Wikipedia page didn't make it very clear to me how they do/did it. Maybe we should combine these two threads. It also mentioned Sweden might be getting it back, although that seemed to contradict something earlier on the page. Scrolling through the page, I also saw Germany listed. I am very interested in more details on how it works or worked in those and other countries. (In other words, please tell me about mandatory military service in your country, people.)

Even I am not stupid enough to say that treating firearms the way we do automobiles is a good idea. Maybe they aren't as strictly related as you think (although my reason for supporting that is environmental impact, but another thread around here tells me that human activity isn't a factor in global warming, so maybe I am worried about nothing). There would be no need for black market find at that point. I bought my first car before I had a license/insurance/etc. (License, registration and insurance are not always required to drive vehicle...I think there are some states that don't require insurance at all.) Paid cash. We're it not for the title, which isn't required in all states, and I didn't get it registered in my name, there would have been no paper trail linking it to me. I strongly suspect many more people are killed with cars and trucks in the US than firearms. Although I think many people are legally driving that shouldn't be permitted to drive, at least it is illegal for certain risky people to have firearms (yet they can own and operate a vehicle?!) and I can agree that there is some logic in that.

I say lighten up on things where the individual is concerned, and impose harsher punishments. An example would be to let the people arm themselves, however if they use them to threaten or harm others they lose many rights and are punished severely with visibly lasting consequences. Punishment for killing another human should be obvious, but why make it humane, quick, or private? Of course I am not totally heartless...accidents happen. If it was intentional or due to the neglect of an individual, yeah, make em suffer, and show everyone. That would also make parents and guardians responsible for their children, within reason.

As with politicians and countries, we won't all agree on this, so maybe we can discuss something more interesting. Like some of the cool stuff that comes from Sweden and other Scandinavian countries (which is what I thought of when I first saw Sweden mentioned). Here's a pic until then:

 

[___]

@rygD I don't think we'll agree about a lot of things concerning militias, gun control, severe punishments and military service.

Mandatory military service in Germany:
In Germany mandatory military service was frowned upon and thusly we abolished it completely. It used to be, that you were offered a choice between serving in the military or doing community service if you refused to do military service. This was introduced because a lot of young people did not want to do service at arms, and refused to support any military organization out of pacifist reasons. So you were forced to write up a statement of why you were unwilling to serve and you had to attend a hearing where you were questioned. It used to be very hard to actually get out of military service but in the 90s this became easier as Germany was dependend on the people actually doing social services. Now that we have abolished it, community services had a hard time recruiting people to do all that work at first (caring for the elderly, assisting nurses, working hospital kitchens and soup kitchens,driving food trucks or transporting disabled people, house visiting seniors etc etc etc.) but have now adapted and the government has introduced the possibility for graduates to volunteer for a year after school (paid of course!) and many people do that to get some experience on how it is to help out sick and needy people.

I and many Germans believe the abolishment of mandatory military service to be a great achievement and we have fought pretty hard and long to achieve it. My parents protested against this when they were young.

Rather than a mandatory military service, I wish we still had a mandatory community service for everyone after graduation. I firmly believe, that people would be less judgemental and more empathetic if this was the case.

Right to bear arms and gun control:
Training a child in using a firearm in Germany would be considered very very troubling and would probably get social services involved to investigate if you are fit as a parent. There are shooting ranges and clubs that train at target shooting traditionally, where kids are allowed to use pellet guns, but I do not exactly know what models exactly. But possession of guns is strictly regulated, you need to be registered and have a number of licenses, you cannot carry a firearm in public under any circumstance except if you are a soldier/cop or if you have a special license as a security guard (which only allows you to carry the weapon on well defined premises such as a company compound).

Anyway my two cents: I see no reason why anyone should be allowed a firearm, except for the parties mentioned above (law enforcement, security on their company premises...). If you were to overthrow your government, I strongly suspect you'll get your hands on weapons somehow anyway, so how is that a reason? Rather than trying to relavate the numbers of gun deaths in the USA by comparing them with car accidents, maybe you could compare the numbers to some countries where guns are not legal at all. Harsher punishments will not deter murderers at all... it doesn't work at all looking at the situation in the US, it actually encourages perpetrators to kill their victims in fear of death penalty (stupid "robberies gone wrong", traffic police getting shot while doing routine checks).

Having no guns will make it more difficult to actually kill someone. Having no militias with guns will definitely reduce the number of crazy morons feeling entitled to climb towers and shoot people out of pseudo patriotic reasons or kill presidents while they are touring the country. Contrary to IS terrorist nut cases the patriotic nutcases feel entitled as the believe the actually save the country from something or other...

 

[Klumpen]

@rygD
Mandatory military service in Germany:
In Germany mandatory military service was frowned upon and thusly we abolished it completely. It used to be, that you were offered a choice between serving in the military or doing community service if you refused to do military service. This was introduced because a lot of young people did not want to do service at arms, and refused to support any military organization out of pacifist reasons. So you were forced to write up a statement of why you were unwilling to serve and you had to attend a hearing where you were questioned. It used to be very hard to actually get out of military service but in the 90s this became easier as Germany was dependend on the people actually doing social services. Now that we have abolished it, community services had a hard time recruiting people to do all that work at first (caring for the elderly, assisting nurses, working hospital kitchens and soup kitchens,driving food trucks or transporting disabled people, house visiting seniors etc etc etc.) but have now adapted and the government has introduced the possibility for graduates to volunteer for a year after school (paid of course!) and many people do that to get some experience on how it is to help out sick and needy people.

It's not as if it was blatantly sexist or anything since it only affected young men.
Well, I guess the reason why you didn't mention that is because next to nobody cared about that fact, which is very sad.

 

[ible]

Many people are trained in the use of semiautomatic firearms, as they are the most common for civilians today. Additionally, many people are trained through classes and such outside of the one on one teaching that I, and many others, received when quite young.

glad you received training, but not everyone does, and it's not mandatory (despite being in the amendment). in the US, there are many deaths at the hands of toddlers with guns.

Automatics are another story. Despite what you see in movies, most aren't intended to be fired non-stop. This is the reason why later M16s and M4s intended for average military personnel have three round burst instead of automatic (plus it conserves ammo). Police should NOT have automatic weapons if the citizens don't. You have the National Guard at the state level, and several agencies and the military if it can't be handled at a lower level. I also see no point in police departments having MRAPs and similar military vehicles. Last I checked there weren't a lot of mines and bombs randomly detonating on our streets. Again, there are already people with that equipment that can be brought in if a situation gets to that point.

well i won't argue that point if you think we need fewer automatic guns in general...

Btw, a militia is not a standing army. As I recall only the navy was originally called for. The militia that was spoken of was intended to be formed of, surprise, civilians that would be called up when military conflicts required their presence. By having exposure to and familiarity with rifles and how to use them you are already partially trained if you will be using something different. With a standing army as we have (which I could point out the problems with for hours), there is no need for the average civilian to have firearms for that purpose, I suppose.

that last line sums up my position exactly .

I see many benefits, not strictly related to people's fear of firearms, of mandatory military service for a short period upon reaching legal adulthood (with the option of civil service for those unable or unwilling to serve in the military). These people would essentially be fulltime reservists, during their period of training, after which they would go on as they currently do. I pair this requirement with granting of citizenship upon completion of service. You can skip all this and still be a tax paying resident, but I imagine that would come with problems of its own.

you'd still have people saying they had bone spurs. also @xnopasaranx makes a good point here.

Even I am not stupid enough to say that treating firearms the way we do automobiles is a good idea. Maybe they aren't as strictly related as you think (although my reason for supporting that is environmental impact, but another thread around here tells me that human activity isn't a factor in global warming, so maybe I am worried about nothing). There would be no need for black market find at that point. I bought my first car before I had a license/insurance/etc. (License, registration and insurance are not always required to drive vehicle...I think there are some states that don't require insurance at all.) Paid cash. We're it not for the title, which isn't required in all states, and I didn't get it registered in my name, there would have been no paper trail linking it to me. I strongly suspect many more people are killed with cars and trucks in the US than firearms. Although I think many people are legally driving that shouldn't be permitted to drive, at least it is illegal for certain risky people to have firearms (yet they can own and operate a vehicle?!) and I can agree that there is some logic in that.

Not sure i understand your point here. guns are dangerous, just like cars. and while cars kill more people each year, we expend more resources to fight terrorism and put people on no-fly lists (and terrorism kills fewer people than guns, maybe because of regulations ). don't see why it's stupid to require gun licenses/insurance, etc. i can't see many companies wanting to insure people for damages, but that's exactly why we need it, so only responsible people have guns.

I say lighten up on things where the individual is concerned, and impose harsher punishments. An example would be to let the people arm themselves, however if they use them to threaten or harm others they lose many rights and are punished severely with visibly lasting consequences. Punishment for killing another human should be obvious, but why make it humane, quick, or private? Of course I am not totally heartless...accidents happen. If it was intentional or due to the neglect of an individual, yeah, make em suffer, and show everyone. That would also make parents and guardians responsible for their children, within reason.

harsh punishments won't work when mass shooters commit suicide. they don't tend to be deterred by that ending...

+1

 

[rygD]

@xnopasaranx, while we may not agree on how to do things, I think we would probably agree on a lot. There is a lot more behind some of my admittedly wacky suggestions. Just a couple points, although not currently actively used, we still have the draft here...I don't want to sidetrack myself, but if you have it I feel everyone should be eligible, however I think military service should be kept voluntary if possible...or maybe just stop having wars.

Regarding severe and capital punishment, what I have in mind would probably cause worse than what you mentioned, as I propose families of the victims be the ones to carry out punishment if they wish (otherwise maybe give them to the public, or specially trained sick individuals, none of which would really be good ideas).

Ideally we would either kill each other off or get over a lot of the petty stupidity that seems to occupy a lot of our attention (maybe I am a fool for thinking such a thing is possible). What I would want to be the end goal is a reduced human population, or moving out of our meatsuits so that we don't need to destroy everything else to sustain ourselves, or if possible we could migrate into space. Maybe all three, or something else.


@ible, many good points. I am not going to write you to respond because I need to go see someone in a few minutes and don't want to fight with this touchscreen.

Whether legal or not, parents and guardians should be held responsible for all harmful things they have around the house that could harm their child. This includes guns, drugs, pools, fire, electrical sockets, pointy furniture, coins, balconies...you get the point. I don't exactly have a way to help the children. Maybe have all children raised in government facilities where they can be prepared to become soldiers!

I don't think we just need fewer automatic weapons, but less tools of war out there, unless they are being used for war. A local police department is not involved in war, and if they are then they are probably supporting military forces. Do I think these things are cool? Yep! Would I want them if I could get my hands on them? Probably. I just don't see local police departments having a need for them. I want to say more on this, but no time.

Where you didn't understand my point, it was mainly me saying I wish they were more restrictive on who is legally permitted to dive cars and trucks. I am pretty sure that is in response to me being disgruntled because of a small number of bad drivers. In a perfect world everyone would be able to have whatever they want and not use it against others (intentionally or not). Since that can't happen, I suppose government had to have their hand in it.

Now if only we can figure out how to get the assholes to kill themselves before trying to kill the rest of us.

I think the reason I am not more in favor of gun control is that I don't trust the government.