The media keeps telling me Biden is going to win so why are cities and businesses boarding up as if they expect a Trump victory and all hell to break loose.

3 minutes ago, LiamB80 said:

The media keeps telling me Biden is going to win so why are cities and businesses boarding up as if they expect a Trump victory and all hell to break loose.

All hell will break loose if Biden wins. No way trump will accept the result and the Proud Boys are standing by.

 

 

2 minutes ago, LiamB80 said:

The media keeps telling me Biden is going to win so why are cities and businesses boarding up as if they expect a Trump victory and all hell to break loose.

What media?  Fox News? ????

29 minutes ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

A majority of Americans were against interracial marriage <snip>

Yeah . . . no. Gotta call you on that one.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_marriage_in_the_United_States#:~:text=A 2018 YouGov%2FEconomist poll,and 15% of Hispanics opposing.

6 minutes ago, J Town said:

Yeah . . . no. Gotta call you on that one.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_marriage_in_the_United_States#:~:text=A 2018 YouGov%2FEconomist poll,and 15% of Hispanics opposing.

Your own citation makes my point...when the S-Ct. overturned state missegenation laws in 1967, the majority of Americans were still in favor of them (i.e., in favor of laws against interracial marriage). From the chart, it looks like somewhere between 60-70%. As late as 1986, 33% of Americans still opposed mixed-race marriages and it was only in 1994 when half of Americans were okay with it.

 

Public approval of interracial marriage rose from around 5% in the 1950s to around 80% in the 2000s. Historically, interracial marriage in the United States was subject to great public opposition, especially among whites. According to opinion polls, by 1986 only one third of Americans approved of interracial marriage in general. It was only in 1994 when more than half of Americans approved of such marriages in general. (Wikipedia)

22 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

According to these statistics they are not...

 

https://fullfact.org/crime/robbery-uk-world-leader/

 

The UK overtook the US in 2017.

 

But in any case you could try banning guns in the US. Good luck with that.  If even 10% of people refused, you would still have millions of firearms in circulation, and I can guarantee that more than 10% of gun owners would refuse.   So realisticallly another solution is needed. 

 

The whole gun banning thing didn't work out too well in Australia when they tried after a mass shooting. There is little evidence that it had any effect other than to disarm the population.

Maybe they should ban ammunition, no more to be sold in the USA. 

36 minutes ago, PatchinExPat said:

Maybe they should ban ammunition, no more to be sold in the USA. 

Oh I should imagine the nut jobs ( I beg your pardon, I meant constitutionaly permitted militia organisations) will have tons of the stuff stashed away in their fortified log cabins up in the hills!

2 minutes ago, herfiehandbag said:

Oh I should imagine the nut jobs will have tons of the stuff detached away in their fortified log cabins up in the hills!

Not just in their log cabins.

 

        

12 minutes ago, polpott said:

Not just in their log cabins.

 

        

 

Typical Ken and Karen Trump supporter. ????

3 hours ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

What are you saying...stupid people should control the rights of others? I might also suggest acquiring a better class of acquaintances (or at least wear body armor around them) ????????????

I grew up in the deep south Bible belt, I didn't have much control over who lived next door and who I went to school with.  Almost every adult owned guns.  This is the area that is solid Trump country now.

3 hours ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

Not necessarily...nothing about mandatory training in the Second Amendment. It's certainly a good idea and I would encourage any gun owner to have it, however.

Nothing in the Second Amendment precludes training, and its mention of "a well regulated militia" leaves the door open for requiring people who carry dangerous weapons to have some training and pass minimum competency tests.

3 hours ago, Tounge Thaied said:

You're clearly hanging out with the wrong crowd. ha ha!!

See my post above.

7 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Nothing in the Second Amendment precludes training, and its mention of "a well regulated militia" leaves the door open for requiring people who carry dangerous weapons to have some training and pass minimum competency tests.

It also states the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Any conditions or requirements placed on an enumerated constitutional right may be construed as an "infringement." This is an issue for the courts to decide. And the current law is that the right isn't absolute.

5 hours ago, Tug said:

Trigger locks they aren’t in a safe I keep the glock ready to go safely tucked away in the nightstand drawer it gets locked when we have company we are responsible most folks have no idea we have them it’s not something we talk about or obsess about 

Good idea to be discrete about owning a gun.  Only idiots advertise the fact that they have something valuable a thief can easily carry and easily sell for cash with no questions asked.  Though there are a lot of idiots like that.

7 minutes ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

It also states the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Any conditions or requirements placed on an enumerated constitutional right may be construed as an "infringement." This is an issue for the courts to decide. And the current law is that the right isn't absolute.

Correct, the right isn't absolute.  Reasonable restrictions can and have been placed on the right, such as denying convicted criminals the right to own weapons and requiring a special license to own a fully automatic weapon.  I seriously doubt that the courts would object to a reasonable requirement for training prior to being allowed to own a gun.

22 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Correct, the right isn't absolute.  Reasonable restrictions can and have been placed on the right, such as denying convicted criminals the right to own weapons and requiring a special license to own a fully automatic weapon.  I seriously doubt that the courts would object to a reasonable requirement for training prior to being allowed to own a gun.

It all depends on how "reasonable" is defined and implemented bn the states. Texas may define it as a half day course on gun handling and safety, with no test, while California may define it as a 6 month course, with written and marksmanship tests at the end. Many would consider that excessive. Enacting rules and regulations that effectively make "bearing" a gun untenable or functionally useless (requiring guns be unloaded in public, storing ammo separately, etc.) basically eviscerates the right.

1 hour ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

It also states the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Any conditions or requirements placed on an enumerated constitutional right may be construed as an "infringement." This is an issue for the courts to decide. And the current law is that the right isn't absolute.

It is with the current Supreme Court.

9 hours ago, heybruce said:

My post said nothing about a "gangster invadion" or a gangster invasion.  It questioned how often gangster raids happen.

If I was the victim once would be too many,however we,'re talking about possible future scenarios of riot and civil unrest.

Multiple off-topic, bickering and trolling posts have been removed, along with replies to them.

 

5 hours ago, kingdong said:

If I was the victim once would be too many,however we,'re talking about possible future scenarios of riot and civil unrest.

Do you think guns will make riots and civil unrest better?

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

Do you think guns will make riots and civil unrest better?

Would make me feel better knowing I could defend myself.

9 hours ago, heybruce said:

Do you think guns will make riots and civil unrest better?

Bigger guns, more guns, faster guns, shinier guns, louder guns.........got to be the way forward surely?.....what civilized society could cope without everyone being armed to the teeth...

6 hours ago, car720 said:

The whole home defense thing is a sign of the fear of today.  I can recall when we slept at night with windows and doors wide open.  Now everything is barred with cameras and sensors everywhere.

Not for me in Thailand, nor was it before in the UK.

19 hours ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

It all depends on how "reasonable" is defined and implemented bn the states. Texas may define it as a half day course on gun handling and safety, with no test, while California may define it as a 6 month course, with written and marksmanship tests at the end. Many would consider that excessive. Enacting rules and regulations that effectively make "bearing" a gun untenable or functionally useless (requiring guns be unloaded in public, storing ammo separately, etc.) basically eviscerates the right.

I'd be good with a half day course, provided it was taught by serious professionals (retired military small arms instructors or the equivalent) and it was explained that safe, responsible gun handling isn't just a good idea or a suggestion, it's the law. 

 

Just as safe driving is backed up with legal penalties for reckless driving, safe gun ownership should be backed up with legal penalties for irresponsible gun ownership.  The excuse "I didn't think it was loaded" should be taken as an admission of criminal negligence, and carrying a weapon under the influence should be prosecuted with penalties similar to driving under the influence.

 

I'm not against civilians owning guns.  I'm against unqualified and irresponsible civilians being dangerously irresponsible with guns.

Very good move. The Second Amendment is looking more ridiculous all the time. Only America would  arm a mob using a constitutional provision that was originally intended to put down slave rebellions.

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

I'm not against civilians owning guns

Yes...because experience shows us your average civilian is a level-headed, considerate and responsible citizen unlikely to get riled, drunk or do something stupid so why not let them carry a lethal weapon......oh! wait....

4 minutes ago, KhunFred said:

Very good move. The Second Amendment is looking more ridiculous all the time. Only America would  arm a mob using a constitutional provision that was originally intended to put down slave rebellions.

...and now they have an 'originalist' on the Supreme Court.....god help them.

I dare say 95% of those with guns are unqualified and irresponsible.  And when put in an active shooter situation, would either shoot themselves, someone else, or stand there not knowing what to do. 

4 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

...and now they have an 'originalist' on the Supreme Court.....god help them.

I should add that I am American, but I have never owned a gun nor felt that I NEEDED one.

5 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

Yes...because experience shows us your average civilian is a level-headed, considerate and responsible citizen unlikely to get riled, drunk or do something stupid so why not let them carry a lethal weapon......oh! wait....

I've known a large number of gun owners.  Most only carried their guns when going hunting or to a shooting range. 

 

However there were a few who worried me.  For example, the "Jesus is coming" Christian who kept a loaded AR-15 in his bathroom.  I don't know if that was in anticipation of Jesus or because of a really bad cockroach problem.