On 11/26/2013 12:24 AM, LizR wrote:
On 26 November 2013 17:47, meekerdb <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:Where is the glamorization of genocide?? The U.S. fought WW2 to defeat practitioners of genocide, when it could have just defended its borders and let the Nazis have Europe and Japan take China. And now you accuse us of glamorizing genocide!? I was referring to westerns.
You mean killing indians in fights? I can't think of a western that glamorizes genocide? On the contrary they generally depict the settlers and cavalry as more restrained and humane than they were.
The lesson was that an armed citizenry could defend their rights against an army. So the proper application of the 2nd Amendment is to guarantee to citizens the righttrumps a centuries-old revolution with no current relevance?)own guns equivalent to the army's - in this case that would be assault rifles. In terms of banning guns to reduce homicides, rifles are used in only fraction of a percent of killings in the U.S. Almost all gun homicides are by handgun. If people only had rifles I suspect that ratio would change.
Sure, all gun homicides would be by rifle or shotgun. But would there be as many? Handguns are much easier to conceal and to carry around routinely. You have to plan to carry a rifle.
Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
