Grab the guns while we still can

[bigburpco]

But the day an authority comes to try and take away my legally owned firearms you bet your ass I am blasting on those mother****ers.

Are your rights really so important?

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Are your rights really so important?

You're making a joke right? If so my bad for not catching your sarcasm but if you're serious re-read your own post and think about what you're asking. If you don't see anything wrong with your post I pity you.

The instant resorting to violence, armed and deadly violence, is 'slightly worrying'.

It's not at all instant. Someone coming to round up firearms is extreme I don't think it'd happen soon in this nation. It'd be a long road to that- years ahead (if it would happen in the first place). The moment it came though I guarantee you violence will erupt. So it's in no way "instant violence."



"Molon Labe!"

I honestly think it must be the American attitude that equates the right to bear arms with security, because here in Australia I really don't equate the two.

I said if it makes one feel MORE secure to have LESS liberty than they will get neither.

 

[Pesmerga]

I feel that some people have become too comfortable with their current lives that they no longer realize the importance of fundamental rights. It's a natural progression of the wealthy and powerful to control the poor and weak through whatever means necessary- it's a "blind" trend that has no master planner nor evil villain behind it.

The US Constitution provides its citizens with the most obvious, just, and fair human and legal rights. The right to bear arms, while perhaps in need of tighter stipulation, is a right nonetheless. What happens when the population believes that the freedom of press is an antiquated right? Speedy trials? Freedom from quartering soldiers?

The United States will be a different place in the future than it is today. Taking away freedoms will no longer incite so much conflict like it does today- it'll have precedent and become academic.

This is, obviously, not the only argument to allow citizens small arms. It's not alarmist, it's historically proven. Look at the destruction of the Senate in the Roman Empire- Emperors coming to power because of political power moves made by up and coming Emperors. Caesar and Augustus radically changing Roman democracy to a one man rule- dictatorship, with hundreds of years of ignoring human rights (when the beast was finally allowed to be destroyed with the introduction of Emperor Constantine and several thousand Gaul and Goth nations at his doorsteps).

Taxing of American merchants and citizens beyond reason by the British Monarchy. French separation of economic classes led to a corrupt government that began to brutalize their own population, allowed to do so under the rich monarchy and clergy (who had no regard for proletariat rights). American civil rights is a good example- here we saw the US states enacting terrible civil rights laws that prohibited blacks from drinking in white designated water fountains. No biggie, right? They can use their own water fountain, I'm sure some of you'd have said. Thank god we had NAACP lawyers to actually combat these insane people, because I'm really not sure how else these Jim Crow laws would have been fought otherwise.

Taking away our guns is taking away our liberties. Do whatever you need to do to minimize the illegal gun trade, but let it not include the absolute outlawing of private small arms else we hand our liberties to false governments.


Note: As an aside, all these people saying they feel perfectly safe in their no-gun country, let it be known that I live in a relatively poor neighborhood, right next door to an even poorer one. I have yet to hear a single gun shot not fired at a gun range. We're not the wild west. Gun crime in this country is atrocious, obviously, and something needs to be done to curve the problem.

 

[leib10]

Agreed. The confiscation of firearms is just one more thing to add to the list of our slowly dwindling rights.

 

[CptStern]

funny how the right to own guns will galvanise most americans into "dont trample my rights" mode yet the bush administration trampled on a shitload of individual freedoms from privacy rights to right to protection from search, seizure and detainment etc and most americans didnt bat an eyelash

http://www.scribd.com/doc/185259/Bush-Administration-vs-the-US-Constitution-Scorecard
http://www.aclu.org/images/asset_upload_file266_37395.pdf

what most americans dont realise is that the world gets by just fine without arming ourselves to the teeth, we recognise that legal gun ownership is a self perpetuating vicious circle entwined with the very crime they wish to prevent. So while you americans find new and more creative ways of killing each other the rest of us will look on with horror and shake our heads at the self fulfilling destiny that many americans create for themselves

 

[Ridge]

The Patriot Act is a pile of crap, and everybody knows it. It is invasion of privacy disguised as a law to protect the people. Everybody knows that. Nobody is happy with that. DOHS is a huge joke in the government, second only to the TSA...

 

[Eejit]

So why didn't your militias rise up?

 

[CptStern]

they were fooled by the word "patriot"?

 

[No Limit]

So why didn't your militias rise up?

lol

...

 

[Ridge]

Because contrary to your crazy insinuations about people in the US, we dont jump up and begin killing politicians because they pass a law we dont like. We protest the same way you guys do, by taking 4 day work weeks and sending the college students to riot in the capitol...we are le tired.

 

[CptStern]

please people in colorado dont protest ..unless it's against guns or laws against marrying your cousin/sister

 

[Ridge]

Marrying your cousin/sister???

This is Colorado, dumbass, not Kentucky...

At least we arent protesting the mormon church because the gays cant get it on...

 

[Eejit]

Because contrary to your crazy insinuations about people in the US, we dont jump up and begin killing politicians because they pass a law we dont like.

Well dear me, if you aren't going to do that you're missing the whole point of the second amendment, and it's a bit hypocritical to complain about the possibility of it being changed or removed!

 

[CptStern]

Marrying your cousin/sister???

This is Colorado, dumbass, not Kentucky...

colorado, kentucky, buttfcuk idaho, what's the difference?

At least we arent protesting the mormon church because the gays cant get it on...

who? you cant mean canada because a. same sex marriage is legal in canada and b. there's no morons in canada I mean mormons or if there are, they're smart enough not to talk about it

 

[Eejit]

colorado, kentucky, buttfcuk idaho, what's the difference?

Oh I know the answer to this one!

They're in geographically distinct locations!

And the names are different!


Do I get points?

 

[CptStern]

you forgot to say "they're all places in 'MERICA" <fires gun in air>

- 2 points

 

[Ridge]

Well I can see that the median IQ of this thread took a nosedive today, so Im taking this opportunity to cut my ties to it...BUCK OFAMA!

 

[CptStern]

Well I can see that the median IQ of this thread took a nosedive today, so Im taking this opportunity to cut my ties to it...BUCK OFAMA!

you know, that works in real life too ..when you're tired of liberal biased reality you can cut ties from the rest of humanity by retreating to your fortified bunker, putting on your tin cap, throwing another can of beans onto your hotplate as you contemplate your fate to the sad strains of Bob Crosby emanating from your old turn crank victrola

 

[No Limit]

Well I can see that the median IQ of this thread took a nosedive today, so Im taking this opportunity to cut my ties to it...BUCK OFAMA!

Wait, the guy that defends the second amendment by saying that the second amendment is crazy is questioning the IQ of someone else? How ironic.

 

[Ridge]

Wait, the guy that defends the second amendment by saying that the second amendment is crazy is questioning the IQ of someone else? How ironic.

Thats bullshit and not what I said at all. What I said is that the 2nd Amendment doesnt say that if we dont like a law, that means we can run around blowing away the politicians who passed it.

 

[Kinslayer]

People who suggest that the American military is this all powerful, un-beatable machine has no idea how modern war is waged.

In the scenario of a full blown civil war, differing ideologies means that even people in the armed forces would take sides. 50 million armed Americans, organized in environments they know (fighting for a cause they have to love to betray the US Constitution), is not easily squelched. You're likely looking at a very large number of the Armed forces (whole battalions) betraying their superiors. Generals are likely to side against the Government- Generals who know how to arm, train, and organize a militia and know their own tactics.

Large scale bombing will likely be unauthorized, as it's American cities they'd be bombing, they'd soon lose support among their own constituents.

A military simply cannot wage war against 50 million Americans without a proper industrial sector and likely an unwillingness in foreign nations to assist (depends on how bad the US Gov. has to get before full civil war is waged). It's not like you have to completely eliminate the opposing side before you win- you just have to cripple your enemy's will to continue. I'm not saying a civilian militia will have an easy time with it, but it's going to be better than a hundred million unarmed civilians.

But take away those small arms, and you have sheep. A small arm gives a citizen more than just a method to kill- it gives them courage. Give a dozen Dachau residents a pistol and you've got a dozen Jews ready to wreak some havoc. Sorry to be dramatic and all, but an armed American is a good American. I believe every American should be trained thoroughly in the use of small arms- and the right to earn a small arm without unreasonable restrictions is one of the most important rights we have.

But then if armed forces take sides, wouldn't that eliminate the need of having weapons to ourselves? The deserted military forces could just supply them in that case, so what's the point of having a handgun or a semi-automatic if the military is going to throw you a fully-automatic rifle? Also, retired generals are more likely to take a side than the currently serving generals, and have no real power over a battalion. Soldiers will, more likely than not, follow their command; and that high command is the Commander in Chief, especially because the current generals most likely reflect the CinC's views, as unless they are retired, they can't speak out against it.

Look up the American Civil War and what Lincoln did to ensure DC did not secede into Confederate hands; He violated Habeas Corpus and arrested representatives that were going to vote for Maryland joining the Confederacy, thereby boxing in Washington DC. Sure, he got permission from Congress almost directly after, but the fact remains; the government will do anything to keep their people in line. Similar things would happen with generals, keeping the army under the CinC's control. The Civil War could have gone very differently had Lincoln not done this, just like a revolution can go very differently based on what the politicians do and how the revolution is constructed; like the Civil War, a separation between the states?

Or like the Revolutionary War? Keep in mind that Britain had a mere fraction of it's available troops in North America; they could have easily brought in more and crushed Washington's army. But they didn't because the colonies were becoming more trouble than they were worth. That's the difference between the Revolutionary War and what a revolution against the government would be like today; they work because they're colonies, not a nation. If the nation is pressed into a corner with nowhere to go, they will fight back with everything they have.

I agree you have a point about the courage factor - but again, what difference does it make whether you already have a weapon or are given one?

I'm not talking about in the case of a full scale revolution, I'm talking about protecting YOURSELF from corrupt government- be it police or federal authorities- if they come to infringe upon your rights.

Secondly, in the case OF full scale revolution it's obvious this would be a guerilla war. How did Afghanistan cause the Soviets to withdraw? How did Iraqi fighters give the US military so much grief in Iraq?

Especially given the vast spread and size of American cities, its well suited for it.

The above poster is dead on. Look at the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising and tell me you think those Jews shouldn't have been armed.

If you shoot a cop, especially FBI, you're going to get arrested and go through a whole bunch of hell, even if the reason was justified.

The Soviets were beating the living hell out of the Afghanis until the Americans began to supply them with weapons, such as Stinger missiles, to take down the helicopters. Tanks, helicopters, and other modern war machines would be weapons of fear in America; we aren't used to things like that, none of us are. If a tank rolls up in your driveway, you aren't going to grab a weapon and start attacking it with your neighbors, you're going to go "Oh shit" and try not to piss off whoever is in the tank even further.

You can't take Iraq as an example; I doubt very many American citizens are willing to strap a bomb to themselves and blow up a military base, nor are they willing to sacrifice the lives of their fellow civilians to kill soldiers, nor do most American citizens even know how to build a bomb (powerful enough to destroy a vehicle at least). Sure, we have our own terrorist groups, but how many of them will the revolutionaries really WANT on their side?

The density of the American cities can be both good and bad; bad because the rebellion most likely could not avoid civilian casualties, good because it'd be impossible to completely flush it out of insurgents.

And the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising - It was eventually crushed with brutal force. Sure, they put up a good fight, but it eventually led to them being burned out. They had approximately 63,000 people defending it. Keep in mind that they didn't really use any heavy weapons to break the uprising, no tanks, only light armored vehicles and eventually flamethrowers.
__________________________

I'm not suggesting that the Second Amendment should be removed, I'm suggesting that we should look at it in modern eyes and shape it in that perspective, instead of seeing it "the old way" and attempting to apply that to modern issues. I have no problem with people carrying around guns, provided that they've passed the background check and aren't mentally insane.

 

[CptStern]

Well I can see that the median IQ of this thread took a nosedive today, so Im taking this opportunity to cut my ties to it...BUCK OFAMA!

Thats bullshit and not what I said at all. What I said is that the 2nd Amendment doesnt say that....

See, you know how to say you're leaving this thread, you just don't know how to *leave* the thread and that's really the most important part of leaving, the leaving. Anybody can just say they're leaving ....

 

[Ridge]

My stupid sense was tingling and I had to investigate.

 

[Pesmerga]

The idiocy and patronizing in this thread is outstanding.

CptStern and Eejit are no longer presenting valid arguments or counter-arguments. Rather they're calling anti-gun-control supporters Hillbillies and gun-toting Buckaroos, which is rather ironic because wouldn't you rather be the sensible and controlled foil to our reckless and irrational fantasy ideologies?

Please, grow up and bring something interesting to the table. If you don't have any further points to make, don't act like a bored ten year old and start picking your boogers then describing them to us.

 

[Ridge]

I suggest viewing...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfObDFVnfp0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnAEvqI6V9E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xS0hKNuS8zU

 

[No Limit]

Thats bullshit and not what I said at all. What I said is that the 2nd Amendment doesnt say that if we dont like a law, that means we can run around blowing away the politicians who passed it.

What you said was that the patriot act went against our freedoms. Eejit then said probably one of the smartest things I've heard in a while, that if what you were saying was true than a people's militia should have stood up to our government which is exactly what the second amendment says. So you came back and said that we don't always follow the second amendment. The only time we seem to follow it is when it suits your needs. Kind of hypocritical ain't it?

 

[Ridge]

The Patriot Act invaded our privacy...it did NOT remove our freedoms.

You twisting my words around doesnt constitute insurrection.

 

[Pesmerga]

What you said was that the patriot act went against our freedoms. Eejit then said probably one of the smartest things I've heard in a while, that if what you were saying was true than a people's militia should have stood up to our government which is exactly what the second amendment says. So you came back and said that we don't always follow the second amendment. The only time we seem to follow it is when it suits your needs. Kind of hypocritical ain't it?

There are times for violence and there are times for fighting bad laws in the courtroom with lawyers and lobbyists and the American people. Are these points really necessary to make? I feel like I'm talking to a child.

 

[Ridge]

Police in Memphis say a gunman firing a pistol beside a busy city street was subdued by two passers-by who were also armed.

No one was hurt during the incident that apparently began with a minor traffic accident, but one passing car was believed hit by a bullet.

Brothers William Webber and Paul Webber told police they stopped their car and pulled their own pistols when they saw a man firing a handgun yesterday.

The brothers said they ordered the man to drop his weapon and then held him at gunpoint until police arrived a few minutes later. Police say the Webbers did not fire their pistols.

Police arrested Dementrius Roberson and charged him with reckless endangerment. Police say the Webber brothers and Roberson have licenses to carry firearms.

Paul Webber says Roberson was firing across traffic and they couldn't tell why he was shooting.

http://www.wbir.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=43109

 

[CptStern]

The idiocy and patronizing in this thread is outstanding.

CptStern and Eejit are no longer presenting valid arguments or counter-arguments. Rather they're calling anti-gun-control supporters Hillbillies and gun-toting Buckaroos, which is rather ironic because wouldn't you rather be the sensible and controlled foil to our reckless and irrational fantasy ideologies?

Please, grow up and bring something interesting to the table. If you don't have any further points to make, don't act like a bored ten year old and start picking your boogers then describing them to us.

self righteous is self righteous ..spare me your new found seriousness/"maturity", you fill every thread you post in with inane shit and you dare call for maturity? lolololol

 

[Ridge]

Pot, kettle.

 

[Eejit]

Yeah yeah, "black". We remember you saying you're a racist Ridge no need to remind us

 

[Ridge]

Oh, thats cute. You've finally resorted to childish attacks...

 

[Eejit]

What do you mean finally? Did you miss my previous ones?

 

[Ridge]

I mustve, I thought you were a newcomer to this thread...

 

[No Limit]

The Patriot Act invaded our privacy...it did NOT remove our freedoms.

You twisting my words around doesnt constitute insurrection.

You are saying we have a right to privacy from the government. What is that if it's not a freedom?

 

[Ridge]

1. The entire premise of stricter gun laws makes people safe is based on a falsehood that those who break laws will obey this certain law. The entire thinking process of the criminal is based on not getting caught or they wouldn't be committing the crime. The impact of such laws are therefore only to prevent the law abiding from having guns.

The right to self defense is an inalienable right. Its a basic right of nature given to all species. Preventing ownership of guns to the law abiding is paramount to giving the tactical advantage to the lawless or criminal. Its the same thing as putting them on top of the food chain in nature. Its is literally putting the lives of your loved ones in their hands in the hopes they are not evil, however reality is there is evil in the world.

2. Less gun ownership makes society safer once again is based on assumption that less means everyone including the criminal. Since the only way you have to regulate that is laws then its an impossible scenario since the lawless disobey laws. The old saying "Take away the gun and only criminals will have guns" isn't about the average citizen becoming a criminal because he didn't turn his gun in but predicated on the criminal will ignore the law to do so puttying you and yours in harms way.

Actually the opposite is more true that a armed society is a polite society. The firearm is the equalizer a weapon that puts the meek on even grounds with the strong. Its as simple as would a criminal rather break into a home that they know the home owner is armed or unarmed.

3. Limitations are reasonable is the catch phrase for more limitations. Just as a person can not scream "Fire" in a theater neither can one own a nuclear weapon. The real issue is more gun control.

The premise of the 2nd Amendment is not hunting but for the citizens to equally armed against the criminal element or government as we phrase it domestic enemies both foreign and domestic. Just as its reasonable to assume that an average single person is not going to be the target of a nuclear weapon , its unreasonable to think they would not become the target of the criminal element in society.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin.

 

[Eejit]

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin.

Gun nuts seem to like quoting that. Explain again why you deserve liberty or safety given your failure to rise up against the Patriot Act etc?

 

[Saturos]

I doubt there'll be a ban on guns here in the US. It's too much an integrated part of American culture, not to mention our Second Amendment right. If guns are banned, americans should prepare for a riot, Kent University style. Or worse, riots and smuggling similar to those during the US prohibition of alcohol in the 20's.

What'll probably happen is that ammunition prices will skyrocket to the point of people loosing interest in guns altogether, or until many people simply can't afford to buy ammo. That's all the Obama administration can do really without infringing the American constitution.

Bah,it's pointless. Only hunting rifles and little pistols should be legal. Wtf are you going to to with AR-15?

Did you know the Second Amendment wasn't just meant for simple gun ownership and hunting back in the days of the US founding fathers? It was actually designed during the days of civilian militias when the founding fathers wanted citizens to have equal firepower to the military just in case of a government coup of the constitution, like many of you are suggesting the Obama administration might try with the "revised" Second Amendment. lol

But those days are long gone now, and if indeed that's what they wanted, then that would mean fully automatic M-16's, grenades, tanks, anti-air etc should all be made legal so the civilian militias can have equal firepower to today's military! :O

Thankfully though, all that stuff is out of the price range for today's American bloodthirsty civilian militia. People were wiser and more competent back then too though. I'd hate for any common joe to have access to all that stuff today. The world is much more filled with idiots.

 

[Ridge]

Gun nuts seem to like quoting that. Explain again why you deserve liberty or safety given your failure to rise up against the Patriot Act etc?

Why do you keep calling us gun nuts? You are from Ireland, therefore I shall call you a bomb nut because everybody there is in the IRA...