2nd amendment supporters

But I did "Thomas Jefferson said..." What does that mean to you?

Where are you from? I know it was slightly different 200 years ago (not much.) and at the time we had the fastest communication through the colonies and better weapons. That was my point- that weapons can be used to protect your family from bad governments (like ours)

The religions were exact the same, and the Muslims were still fighting Christians and jews.

 

They used the word 'Arm's' because it means ANY weapon from a pitch fork to a Sherman tank. One shot musket or 100 round cylinder under a AK or Thompson, They are all 'Arms'.

This is also for bombs, S.A.M.'s, Thump gun etc they are all under one label, Arms.

No matter what you can get or own, The government already has a thousand used ones and the new prototype(s) are already being used. They have the upper hand every time so there is no reason for them to try and tell me a 30rd mag is too much.

I do hope it comes down to a knock down drag out fight so the government gets their bill that's way past due. Nothing but a bunch of pussies who on one hand want to 'ban', But on the second page these same libtards are buying said guns on the 'ban' list. Kinda odd if you ask me, But then again, They want you to do as they say, Not as they do.

 

http://gunssavelives.net/category/self-defense/

Self Defense Counter


939 Self Defense Stories »

 

Well you sure changed your tune.

If you didn't grow up around guns, how do you know what you advocate?

Sounds to me like the classic fear of the unknown. Sort of like everyone who is afraid of pitbulls until they spend time around the breed.

And how do you explain this?

http://www.delmarvapublicradio.net/post/virginia-gun-sales-gun-related-crime-down

Guns deserve respect, no doubt. But they are a crucial element of our society. And stop blaming the manifestations of the ills of our society on guns. There are plenty of other issues to address.

Furthermore, the great thing about the 2nd amendment is that as soon as your 'ban' goes into place, there are going to be 100 million pissed off Americans with 300 million guns saying come and get them motherfuckers.

:sunny:

 

So in other words, you want your freedoms but want to strip the rights of others?

You are stuck in the incredibly hypocritical republican/democrat paradigm. Just like many others.

Regardless, I am hopeful. I feel our generation consists of many true liberty minded people and they are influencing others to see things the same way. I see it all around me all the time.

 

yawn.




sorry can't help just thinking "THIS same old debate again...."

...................

 

They weren't part of my culture, but I've HELD one, have been around the occasional gun loving person. No, I never went out with my father hunting or shot tin cans off of a fence. That doesn't mean I don't know anything about guns. I'm not really stuck in any paradigm, in fact it was the other users who kept pulling the political party card, not me. I never brought it up until they started it. And if they WERE part of your culture that is fine, but doesn't that make you just as biased as me?

And Yes--if it means that someone mentally unstable is stripped of their right to have a gun, that is alright with me. Give it back to them when they are well enough to use it responsibly. For the rest of us, who can handle this great power with responsibility and maturity, that is a different story. Just because I don't like guns doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to have them.

I'm not really sure why you are calling my close minded, it's not like YOU changed your mind either. It's not like I'm calling for an outlawing of guns, at all. I don't think it would hurt to make them harder for unstable people to get. As someone who works with the mentally unstable I can attest to the dangers of that power in the wrong hands. I'm trying to show other people that maybe THEY aren't looking at all of the facts.

But then again, you are just attacking ME, making up things about ME--close minded, freedom-sucker. These are gut reactions, not opinions based on any sort of FACT.

 

What is unstable to you? If someone is gay is he not stable cause his brain chemistry is different? If you said "Hell no" (and I'm sure you did) you should be able to see the hypocrisy in supporting background checks, only if people have a chemical imbalance such as depression or bipolar!?

People who believe in freedom are not suckers- people like you who accept the government Lording over the rest of us, are the suckers

 

Every fascist government in history began by "identifying" some "undesirable" and restricting their rights and freedoms in the name of "public safety".

So who is to determine who/what qualifies as "unstable"? As STP points out, many people, even in the medical/psychiatry fields still think homosexuality is an abnormal disorder.
So who gets to decide?
When you start giving authority to any governing body to determinations about the "fitness" of it's citizenry, it's just asking for abuses of that authority.

You seem to be forgetting history here.


Banning semi-auto weapons is silly. Semi-auto or single action, the gun can still only fire rounds as fast as you can pull the trigger.

The fastest shot/draw in the world uses single action revolvers and can draw, put two shots on two different targets and holster his gun, all faster than a machine could register the sound of the separate shots.

That is faster than all semi-auto's on the market and as fast as many full-auto guns.
I think they calculated that he was firing at a speed that would equal like 600 rounds a minute.

So banning on the basis of being semi-automatic is silly and just belies the fact that you don't know much about guns or the details concerning the differences between types.

 

Where are you from?

I grew up 20 min from the White House. I'm not some podunk redneck. I've never been hunting in my life, or shot tin cans off a fence. And I'm not biased in this arena.

My old man's the grounded entrepeneur, my mom's the liberal historian. Between the two of them I was taught street smarts and common sense, and open minded critical thinking. I spent as much time in the Kennedy Center as I did shooting ranges growing up.

There is no way you can make guns harder for unstable people to get without infringing on the rights of everyone. And anyone who values freedom should be willing to take the bad with the good as far as that goes, yet work on solutions to help people who are mentally unstable.. feel more stable. Question why are there so many unstable people in this society, yet a place like Peru has 100 psychiatric beds for the entire country.

The entire premise of this country is self accountability, self sufficiency. Now I am all for helping others and improving things, but to advocate removing that ability of self preservation for people runs in the face of what this country was formed on. This place has never been for the weak and never will. There are endless options here, you can be weak and survive, but policy based on catering to that is absurd and will never happen.

You say you aren't calling for the outlawing of guns. How do you define a ban on semi automatics? Apart from pump shotguns, that would clear me out.

 

Sure, self accountability and self sufficiency are great, until you meet people who are not capable of either. Some people just aren't. A history of instability? Violent behavior in the past, people who have attempted murder, rape, assault and battery, domestic abuse including child and spousal abuse. Those who have a history of violence towards animals (this often leads to violence against others). My boyfriend walked into a Wal-Mart in Alabama and purchased a gun, no ID checked, no questions asked. I don't think that is acceptable. He could have been anyone.

Your puritan-like ideas about America are a bit crazy: "This places has never been for the weak and never will" It's interesting how the statue of Liberty was given the inscription:

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"


Tell the parents of the Columbine shooters and victims, the parents of the Newtown children and all of the other victims of violence that: "and anyone who values freedom should be willing to take the bad with the good as far as that goes." I'm sure they could explain why that is fucked up better than I could.

And yes, we need to work on understanding why there is so much mental illness in this country, why the murder rates are so high. In the mean time we should take care to make sure we don't make it any easier for them to climb higher by putting deadly weapons at the disposal of the insane.

 

the statue of liberty was a gift from the french...they were probably hoping those people came here and didnt go or stay there.

almost all of the parents who had a child killed in Newtown owned a gun so i cant imagine they can defend an anti gun law as well as you think they can.

 

I'm aware it was a gift from the French, but we accepted it and chose to display it in a prominent place, not to mention relate to it as a national emblem.


And hmmm

http://www.wcvb.com/news/local/metro/newtown-parents-fight-for-stricter-gun-control/-/11971628/20497556/-/fb0qtdz/-/index.html
interesting.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/newtown-parents-high-capacity-magazines-guns-191541761.html

Here is another man who is pro-grun AND pro reform:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/05/09/dad-newtown-survivors-gun-reform-debate/2148815/

So I'm not sure you did your research. There might be one or two parents who still don't want the laws change, but I think they are minority.

That doesn't matter as much, I was reponding more to his statement: "and anyone who values freedom should be willing to take the bad with the good as far as that goes."

There ARE people who want to be responsible gun owners yet realize that guns are too easy to obtain.

 

you free me, I think you have issues. Again, police/soldiers can go crazy and rape,rob, murder and, pillage! Then where is our protection from them? To you trust anyone in uniform? or is it because they took an oath to a document that you see as irrelevant?

Do you see where I'm getting at? You're jumping on the bandwagon, thinking this whole country is violence and needs the government to Lord over us. I see people everyday here in GA peacebly carrying arms everyday (it was strange coming from NY) but I realized it's about protection from tyranny, and even crazies who can just as likely attack with a chair or barstool (or obtain illegal guns) You support lumping everyone into one catagory, then demonizing them and say anyone who excersizes the second Amendment is a criminal, I mean, I don't think America would agree at all. Is no freedom what you want? We have a little bit of freedom left, and you're working to end it and thusly the constitution. (which is the reason the Revolution was fought.) The people will not take it Lying down!

 

I don't trust people in uniform. See my "Military" thread for reference. You know, the thread where I talked about thinking the military (and authority in general) was a brain wash scheme that was dangerous to free thinkers. Ya know. I leave authority alone and they leave me alone. I don't need weapons and if they didn't leave me alone then I would do something (NON VIOLENT) about it.

You seem to have trouble reading and understanding what I say because you are twisting my words and making assumptions that aren't true and jumping to conclusions about me that make no sense and freaking out over anecdotal evidence of something you don't seem to understand. None of your statements made any sense nor accurately portrayed anything I believe.

 

I'm not though, you're contending to me that you don't trust military, yet you seek to expand their power and chance of their presence in this country, because a very small number of people die from guns? That's why i brought up the 2nd Amendment. I was only trying to converse, not offend you and I'm sorry if I did. I have said before I do think you believe in peace; the only step you wont take, is trusting other individuals with freedoms you don't agree with.

Moreover, it seems to me in that way you support the current government. You believe police and military should be more powerful than citizens, but citizens became military to protect the colonies from tyranny. I feel in the same way, the government is corrupt, and any support for/from them is usually bad. The same way the government shouldn't be able to tell one who they can marry, or what drugs they can use; But if you support freedom that includes the Right to bear Arms, most individuals with guns are peaceful and just want to live their day-by-day, We shoot at targets, practice scenerios- and that's not to cause violence, but to protect our country from overbearing government which has disregarded our Human Rights, that our founders told us doesn't come from government!

Therefore, I'm not blowing this out of porportion- you are! Look at your "gun death chart" then think about 1 million dead in Iraq; so who's the biggest terrorist? Guns, or the person behind the gun?

 

Look. My "gun death chart" represents something that you have totally failed to provide during this debate. Evidence. Facts. Proof that you researched something.

I hope you read a little more into the subject and look for facts before forming an opinion. Facts come before opinion. You are letting opinion get in the way of facts and resorting to personal insults (saying I have problems, trust authority, etc.). I'm a little offended that you would try to convince me using this sort of language rather than showing my some actual evidence to the contrary. I'm open to different opinions but so far no one has given me a reason to trust anything they say.

 

We've provided plenty of evidence, including evidence that this type of government trust leads to tyranny.

“I’m just stating the fact that history is very important — people need to understand what happened. Different countries around the world have tried to disarm their citizens, and then have tried to exterminate their own now-unarmed citizens,”citing Turkey, Russia and Germany as examples.“In 1911, Turkey established gun control,” Wurzelbacher says in his video, while obliterating fruit with shotgun blasts. “From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were exterminated. In 1939, Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945, six million Jews and seven million others, unable to defend themselves, were exterminated.”

I'm sorry if I offended you; But I stand by the fact you trust government. Because if I can't protect myself, who will? I don't have a cop with me everyday, furthermore, cops can take hours to come to a call. Do you suggest I should run/hide terrified for HOURS until police finally show? Plus this allows for total government control, and that's why they are symbolically burning the constitution, in their actions, and the fact you support that is upsetting, cause I was hoping we were past that.

Guns will never be illegal; there are more guns in the USA than citizens.If guns were made illegal, I could garauntee, we'd have the people rising in revolt against the government. The whole problem with what your saying is that you want to punish everyone for the actions of one or two, and it's no better than government, you're actually begging government to impose your will unto me. This is never truly just, (esp when it violates the Rule of law,) and I hope you open your eyes and see that the prohibition you advocate for gun owners, is the same that the government imposed on drugs; What do drugs and gun ownership have in common? Both are non violent actions, which people have accept the government to initiate violence on. Generally, I'm not insulting you, but you're saying you don't advocate these things, when you do. We're progressing to the destruction of our Rights, today it's the 2nd Amendment, tomorow is the 1st...

 

I don't think you've read my posts at all.

Also: "We've provided plenty of evidence, including evidence that this type of government trust leads to tyranny."

I haven't read any evidence from you. Just things you've come up with, which don't count as evidence. I can do that too, watch:

Pigs are a type of fish.

See, I typed that out, but that doesn't make it true. You can say I trust the government, that also doesn't make it true. See how that works?