I dont mean via Congress. I just mean in general. Meta

Guess it depends how you define war

If you're a filthy socialist just existing with more than someone else is war

Well you can't declare battle on someone, you can't declare a skirmish, you can't declare a kerfuffle.

I DECLARE A KERFUFFLE

KERFUFFLE ON YOU, AND ON YOU SIR!

WE SHALL HAVE A ROUSING HULLABALLOO

I SAY NAY GOOD SIR

HAVE AT THEE

Viet Nam was never declared... Nor was Korean for that matter...
But ¿who cares about all that right? They weren't *real* wars...

Virgin Police Action vs Chad Declared War

Because body counts don't matter, only *declaration.* 🙄🙄🙄🙄

Every year the USA sequesters about a quarter billion tons of carbon in landfills.

@Mandatory Carry I mean as I Vietnamese living in Hanoi we just saw that as the US now really valuing the South.

For us uneducated 'mericans, where is Hanoi?

northern part of vietnam

I don't remember which side we were on in the Vietnam war. 😓 I guess it's immaterial compared to all the warfare we did.

hanoi was the commie capitol

if memory serves

In Korea and Viet Nam, the south were the good guys.

In the American Civil War, the south were.................................................................. uuuuhhhhhhhhhhhh

misunderstood?

I thought about making that joke

I was going to say something like 'just remember, the south is alwasy the good side.'

i mean

wouldnt be wrong

@mike1125
That's not unfair. 😒

@MechMage
Find a map of Viet Nam. Find the star, north end of the country. That's Hanoi. We were backing the south.

what is the opinion here on the arms trade act being dropped?

are you talking about the Arms Trade Treaty?

@Fondboy ?

yea that one

I think internationally, as domestically, any attempt to curtail *violence* through centralized control of *weapons* is doomed to fail and is counterproductive.

I'd rather have a robust, open market in arms and a strongly protected individual right to keep and bear arms for self defense and defense of community/state.

so I guess I am predictably against a broad and sweeping ATT

would you make the same argument for those who fail background checks?

ah stopping them here will just make them get one illegally

Basically, you can lose your individual right by proving you can't use it responsibly.

So no, I think it is reasonable to prohibit violent felons from owning guns, although the way we enforce it now makes it worse than nothing.

We shouldn't have laws we aren't willing to expend the effort to enforce; it reduces respect for the law generally.

would you not argue the states barred by the act are the ones that have proven irresponsible?

treaty