Minte

Criminals always have moles! There might be a correlation.

Rochard

And... What? The people will rise up and defeat the strongest military power in the world with their little assault rifles?

This is comical - Was the 2nd Amendment created to protect the people from the government, or the government from the people? Was it "deterring a tyrannical government" or "suppressing insurrection". If we decided we had tyrannical government and decided to over throw them, wouldn't "we" become the very insurrection the 2nd Amendment was meant to prevent? There are people out there like Alex Jones that believe we have tyrannical government, and that our government lies to us, and tries to take away our rights - Shouldn't they over throw the government by this point? Isn't Alex Jones and his followers leading the "insurrection" and shouldn't use our firearms to "suppress" him?

I believe our founding fathers had the best of intentions when they wrote the 2nd Amendment. With that said, we didn't have semi automatic weapons then. They had no idea that we would have millions of people armed with semi automatic weapons pointing them each other - and slaughtering innocent school children in bulk.

__________________
“The choice is no longer between right or left. The choice is between normal and crazy.”
- Sarah Huckabee Sanders

YNOT MAIL | THE BEST ADULT MAILING SOLUTION

Robbie

So nobody owned guns 40 years ago...weird, I could have sworn that me and my whole family all had guns. Must of been illegal...no, wait a minute, they were all purchased legally. And in the case of my dad, uncles, and grandfather carried openly on the rifle racks of their trucks.

Guess it was a right to own them 40, 50, 100, 200 years ago.

__________________
-Robbie
ClaudiaMarie.Com

Vendzilla

I was a responsible parent, my daughter can handle herself, an abusive relationship is the last thing she would tolerate. She grew up with guns in the home, she's been shooting since she was 8 I think. She was shooting an M1 Carbine at 12. She'll break the arm of anyone that tries to hurt her. When she gave me a tour of the USS Ronald Reagan, the boys gave her a wide berth, they knew she's not to be fucked with. All coming from what I think is the happiest kid I have ever known!

__________________
Carbon is not the problem, it makes up 0.041% of our atmosphere , 95% of that is from Volcanos and decomposing plants and stuff. So people in the US are responsible for 13% of the carbon in the atmosphere which 95% is not from Humans, like cars and trucks and stuff and they want to spend trillions to fix it while Solar Panel plants are powered by coal plants
think about that

Vendzilla

what I taught her was to shoot for center mass, that's not a 9mm I got her, it's bigger. Even wearing a vest, it will put them down so you can walk up and shoot them in the eye. No bone behind the eye to slow down the bullet.

__________________
Carbon is not the problem, it makes up 0.041% of our atmosphere , 95% of that is from Volcanos and decomposing plants and stuff. So people in the US are responsible for 13% of the carbon in the atmosphere which 95% is not from Humans, like cars and trucks and stuff and they want to spend trillions to fix it while Solar Panel plants are powered by coal plants
think about that

Vendzilla

I know better than to post from the email I get. I use to check snopes till I found out the people that run it had no previous experience before they built the website. Not I just use google to learn. The debates during the writing of the declaration is something I have read, it's very interesting, given how things have changed, yet what they conceived, despite all the shit out government ignores has really stood the test of time.

__________________
Carbon is not the problem, it makes up 0.041% of our atmosphere , 95% of that is from Volcanos and decomposing plants and stuff. So people in the US are responsible for 13% of the carbon in the atmosphere which 95% is not from Humans, like cars and trucks and stuff and they want to spend trillions to fix it while Solar Panel plants are powered by coal plants
think about that

Dirty F

My god. What third world shithole do you live in that you have to teach your daughter such things? I feel very bad for you and hope i can help you guys move to a civilized country. Please let me know. No one deserves to live in such fear like you 2 do!

vdbucks

If you actually think it would be "the people" vs the entire US Military (also part of "the people") then you clearly don't know the difference between government and military...

Oh and the US is far from being the strongest military power in the world...

DWB

It is probably a fantasy in our lifetime, but fast forward 50, 75, 100, or 200 years. There is no way to tell what the future holds. None of us can predict what it will be like, be it good or bad. However, every collapse of a nation or rise of a tyrant started in a place full of people who thought it would never happen, most of them unarmed.

I'm sitting next to two countries right now who both have had this exact thing happen. One used to be one of the jewel of Asia. People would travel from all over the region to go shopping there, it was booming and was going to be the hub of SE Asia. Then the wrong people got into power and the rest is bloody Burmese history. The other county saw the rise of Pol Pot and his group murdered 1/3 of the unarmed population, and that was just 35 or so years ago. Hitler's reign ended only 67 years ago, and I don't believe we've evolved a whole lot in 67 years. The world is full of history lessons exactly like this, all of them happened fairly recently. Shit happens. Keep your guns, you never know who's going to need them. World history has taught us time and time again, those who are unarmed usually end up being victims.

Vendzilla

Did you even read what you are quoting? oh, guess you edited it

__________________
Carbon is not the problem, it makes up 0.041% of our atmosphere , 95% of that is from Volcanos and decomposing plants and stuff. So people in the US are responsible for 13% of the carbon in the atmosphere which 95% is not from Humans, like cars and trucks and stuff and they want to spend trillions to fix it while Solar Panel plants are powered by coal plants
think about that

Robbie

And in my opinion...the biggest concern is the President making another "Executive Order" and putting the Executive Branch above the Legislative Branch.

That's the reason there are THREE EQUAL branches of govt.
Just because Obama decides to politicize a tragedy and use it to try to bend the country to his will on the matter...doesn't mean he is supposed to be able to do that.

It's SUPPOSED to be difficult to get things done like this.

That's why I say repeal the 2nd amendment with a new amendment. And in the new amendment state EXACTLY what a person can own.

Perhaps the amendment could make all handguns illegal and allow all citizens to own a shotgun that holds 5 shells. Also spell out exactly what kind of ammo can be sold (only for the shotgun).

That way the argument is over. The more controversial guns are illegal. No more people trying to reinterpret the 2nd Amendment. And most importantly it's all constitutional.

Gun manufacturers will still be in business as well.

A win/win

The only reason our crooked thieving politicians won't do something like that is because they are ALL getting money from the NRA.

__________________
-Robbie
ClaudiaMarie.Com

DWB

1) I honestly doubt it because American citizens are generally big pussies and as time goes on they will probably get a lot worse. That said, if they do, who wins or loses is irrelevant. If they feel they have the right to try to defend themselves or do whatever it is they are trying to do, they should have that right. Look at what is happening in Syria right now. If the rebels were not armed it would have ended on day 2 and they are fighting the Syrian military and gaining ground.

2) You are assuming the US military would actually fire on US citizens. Maybe the baby killers would, but most of them would not. Using the middle east as another example, many soldiers changed sides and fought with the rebels, and they did this in every country involved in the "Arab Spring." Should that day ever come, and I doubt it will, I can't imagine too many of them following orders.

3) The "most powerful military in the world" can't beat the Taliban, can't get Iraq in order, and couldn't beat the rice farming, poorly trained Viet Cong. While they may be technically superior in every way, that does not mean automatic victory.

4) Those "little assault rifles" kill just the same as any other firearm, but we both know a lot of people have a lot more firepower than that.

Again, I'm not even saying any of this would ever happen, nor do I want it to. I'm saying there is always a possibility and none of us can possibly predict the future of our own lives let alone the lives of our grandchildren or their grandchildren. I prefer not to live by "America is awesome - fuck yea!" and instead would rather stay grounded and learn from world history, which says anything is possible if the conditions are right.

tony286

Obama signed a bill allowing guns in federal parks.Also he isnt running again,so there is nothing for him to politicize. He is in. This isnt first crazy kid shoots up a bunch of people, its becoming a habit so something has to be done. Regardless who was President. I also agree that they all bought and paid for and nothing that means shit will happen.

DWB

I'd support that. It's not going to stop people from owning what they want to own, but at least it will put this debate to rest.

shimmy2

today's newspaper in dominican republic. granny got extendoooooooooooooos

__________________
Make $$$ with Toticos.com! | Email: 1bluemiata@gmail | Joutube: ShimmyCash | Faceberg: ShimmyCash

DWB

Hell yea. Go Granny.

Rochard

Bingo! That's just it.

Why is this a new problem? Why all of a sudden over the past twenty years do we have shootings like this? I mean, they happened before then, but never like this.

Thirty years ago firearms was for hunting or for target practice. Hunting was a rifle, and target practice - for my family - was shooting clays. My step father had beautiful hunting rifles and shotguns; They must have been worth a fortune! Now it's all AR15s and "home defense".

__________________
“The choice is no longer between right or left. The choice is between normal and crazy.”
- Sarah Huckabee Sanders

YNOT MAIL | THE BEST ADULT MAILING SOLUTION

Rochard

I am former military; I know exactly what the military is. I understand that a percentage of the military will "defect". Those who do defect will leave the military, return home, mostly empty handed, and two weeks or a month later will be armed with a assault rife if he's lucky and going up against tanks and planes - that can kill hundreds from miles away. Keep in mind those in the military are sworn to defend the constitution and the office of the President, not attack it.

Oh, and yes, the US is the strongest military in the world. The only country who comes close is China, and they don't even have a white water navy so that makes them utterly worthless. Perhaps you missed what the US military has done in the past twenty years - We invaded countries and QUICKLY removed entire governments with very small losses.

__________________
“The choice is no longer between right or left. The choice is between normal and crazy.”
- Sarah Huckabee Sanders

YNOT MAIL | THE BEST ADULT MAILING SOLUTION

Rochard

I honestly doubt American citizens would ever have the need to rise up against it's government. Two hundred years later we are spoiled little bitches and have no idea how good we've got it.

What's happening in Syria is most interesting. The "rebels" have been very slowly gaining ground, but it's costing a lot - with the Syrian military, the rebel's losses, and the civilian population - and I'm wondering if they can pull it off. However, it's not fair to compare Syria to what could happen in the US. The US military is vastly different from Syria's.

Dunno.

But when US citizens are armed and firing on the military, I am guessing the military would fire back.

Vietnam was a very different time and is most interesting to study from a historic point of view. I have a book called "The Thin Grey Line" which details the journey of a small group of people through West Point and then Vietnam - and the aftermath. The government failed to support the military, the public was against both the military and the government, and the military itself was at it's low point with lots of drug use and violence.

As for the Taliban and Iraq, well, seems to me both the Taliban and Saddam were both QUICKLY removed from power. Saddam promised us the "mother of all battles" and what a let down that was. What's happening now in both Afghanistan and Iraq is failed country building, not a failure on the part of the US military.

This seems to be part of the problem in Syria. The "rebels" are poorly armed and are fighting a military of tanks and jets. Originally the rebels didn't have anything other than small arms - assault rifles. Slowly they started getting anti aircraft weapons, and god only knows what else.

__________________
“The choice is no longer between right or left. The choice is between normal and crazy.”
- Sarah Huckabee Sanders

YNOT MAIL | THE BEST ADULT MAILING SOLUTION

Rochard

That's not a bad idea really. Seriously.

__________________
“The choice is no longer between right or left. The choice is between normal and crazy.”
- Sarah Huckabee Sanders

YNOT MAIL | THE BEST ADULT MAILING SOLUTION

vdbucks

Here's a hint... it's not the guns. Ever consider that - I don't have the actual stats offhand - most probably 500% or more people are on some form of anti-psychotic anti-depressant or w/e medication now than they were 40 years ago?

vdbucks

Yeah, umm.. I see things playing out a lot differently than that if/when something like that were to ever occur... it wouldn't be military personnel going home empty handed, that is for certain...

Robbie

Tony this isn't about Baby Jesus Obama and how "nice" he is and how much you like him or not.

It's about the way our govt. is set up. It was a HUGE mistake to let Bush get away with executive orders.

And it's a mistake to let Obama do them as well.

Our govt. is set up with checks and balances for a very good reason.

Right now, you and the Democrat Party are all gung-ho for Obama to bypass Congresses power.
Just wait until the next election when a crazy ass fuck like Rick Santorum somehow wins the Presidency and decides to use executive orders to outlaw abortion or ban pornography.

Executive Order is NOT the way to do things.

__________________
-Robbie
ClaudiaMarie.Com

vdbucks

invading countries with less total population than our military does not equate to us being the military superpower you seem to think we are. We couldn't even find 1, nope, not 1, WMD in Iraq. We couldn't protect our own people in 2001 from cave dwellers, and we still haven't sorted the mess that is Iraq/Afghanistan... to name a few.

Robbie

I think Rochard is confusing how much MONEY we spend on the military as opposed to the actual strength of it.

When you start figuring in all those $100 hammers and $200 toilet seats and useless nuclear weapons that we can't use...

And I think we can all see that throwing money at something doesn't make it "better". Just look at our education system. No matter how much money we put in it...it just gets worse.

__________________
-Robbie
ClaudiaMarie.Com

vdbucks

How good do we have it exactly? I'm pretty sure the US has more debt than any other country in the world... oh, you mean we have it good because the general public focus on the nonsense and have zero care about the real problems our country has if it means interrupting their tv shows and facebook time?

What's happening in Syria could very well happen in the US. The only major difference being that a lot of Americans will simply submit to the gov demands and then go back to stuffing their fat mouths, watching tv and posting on facebook.

I can't imagine any scenario where it would really b the US military vs it's citizens. More like it'll be "private security" (mercenaries basically) vs the citizens and it's military. Sure, some branches might stay 'loyal' to the gov.. but I highly doubt the bulk would.

If we should have learned anything from Vietnam, it's that the US government should stop putting it's noses in everyone else' business.

Saddam was anything but quickly removed from power. Dubya Jr's dad spent his entire campaign going after him, as did Dubya Jr spent most of his...

And I wouldn't exactly call Bin Ladins killing quick either... A solid 10 years for a cave dweller is quite the feat... 10 years for a cave dweller who just happened to be the only "terrorist group" who ever successfully attacked the US.

I mean, that is, if you believe the 'official' story and ignore all the facts.

Once again, I cannot foresee a scenario where it would be the US military in full force going up against the citizens, considering all of it's military are citizens themselves... And the politics behind it all are a far cry different than what's going on in Syria, so even trying to compare what's going on there to what would happen in the US is laughable at best.

Robbie

I don't know vdbucks...after reading some of the things that are posted here, I do believe that all these disciples of King Obama in this thread would fire on their own citizens in a heartbeat as long as it means Obama "wins". lol

So there is the possibility that we could have a military of Obama-Maniacs who would follow him and do whatever His Lordship asks them to without question.

Of course it wouldn't be the military we have now...they don't really like Obama.

But it would be a new military comprised of Michael Moore, Rochard, Nacy Pelosi, etc. all led by General GrantMercury. lol

And yes...they would gladly shoot other Americans in the holy name of Obama ~amen~

__________________
-Robbie
ClaudiaMarie.Com

vdbucks

Oh, no matter how you look at it, it would be a blood bath. That is for certain. My only point was that it wouldn't be "the people" vs the US Military... not by a long shot imho.

But yeah, I could see a bunch of Obama supporters all of a sudden going up in arms against those who are fighting for our freedoms in "the people" vs "the government" war... I mean, with the promise of Obamacare and no guns after they finish killing everyone with... guns... who among the Obama supporters could refuse?

tony286

Executive orders have been issued since the beginning of this country.I know the pundits dont talk about that and just calling Obama Baby Jesus. lol

tony286

People fight when they got nothing to lose. If you have things youre not going to give that all up. When people compare to the middle east, they have been fighting on some level for 1000's of years. There hasnt been a war on US soil in a long long time.
The we are going to fight and win fantasy goes away real quick. When someones head gets blown off. Also regulating isnt banning, they regulate booze you can still drink.

If the military is getting shot at, I guarantee you they would shoot back.

tony286

It has to blind worship it couldnt be facts. lol No facts only come from the pundits.

Rochard

I won't argue with that. There's a large number of reasons we have this issue. You can blame it on the pills we take, our diet, our "I am better than everyone else" attitude, our gun culture, the violent movies, and the violent video games.

__________________
“The choice is no longer between right or left. The choice is between normal and crazy.”
- Sarah Huckabee Sanders

YNOT MAIL | THE BEST ADULT MAILING SOLUTION

Rochard

No, they would be going home empty handed. Do you honestly think they'll just sneak out driving an AMTRAC?

This is exactly what happened in Syria. People who were in the military suddenly got up in the middle of the night and left, or while no one was looking. You don't "break out" of a military base with a tank when there is one hundred tanks behind you AND an air wing.

__________________
“The choice is no longer between right or left. The choice is between normal and crazy.”
- Sarah Huckabee Sanders

YNOT MAIL | THE BEST ADULT MAILING SOLUTION

Rochard

I have no idea who you are - I've never heard of you or your program. I'm not going to argue with you all night because I have better things to do. But I will comment on what you said about Saddam.

The second invasion of Iraq was a two month affair that removed Saddam from power and destroyed one of the largest armies in the world in less than two months. It took us three weeks to get to Baghdad, at which point both the military and the Iraqi government went into hiding and was never seen or heard from.

Anyone who understands military tactics knows you need a ratio of 3-1 or 4-1 to destroy an attacking force. The Iraqi military had 600k men under arms, another 1.2 million in reserves, and they were attacked by 250k and destroyed in three weeks....

That was, by far, the biggest embarrassment in military history.

__________________
“The choice is no longer between right or left. The choice is between normal and crazy.”
- Sarah Huckabee Sanders

YNOT MAIL | THE BEST ADULT MAILING SOLUTION

vdbucks

Look man, if the end all be all event were to occur, sides will have been chosen long before the shooting starts. And I'm pretty sure the military personnel would go anywhere. National Guard units would mobilize for one side or the other, as would pretty much every other military installation.

I can't imagine why, but you seem to be as pro government as it gets. You sound like the kind of person who stands for nothing, other than the "beliefs" they formed by watching too much Fox news.

vdbucks

Typo correction from above... And I'm pretty sure the military personnel wouldn't go anywhere

Who I am is irrelevant to this discussion, as is the program I run. I'm not sure why you would even bring up either in a debate about gun control. I don't know you from a hole in the wall either, but it hasn't stopped me from engaging you in the debate because quite frankly, I don't need to know who you are.

Oh, right... it's the age old "who are you?" line when one side of a debate has all but lost and is trying to diminish the other side in one last hopeful attempt to come out of said debate on top.

As far as Saddam goes, he wasn't simply dealt with in a matter of months. The end result of what finally happened is irrelevant because it still doesn't change the fact that Dubya Sr. spent the better part of 2 terms going after Saddam.

Not to mention, I don't know where you get your info, but we first invaded Iraq - for the second time - in 2003. And regardless of whether or not in only took 2 months to get Saddam this time... we spent the better part of a decade fighting a senseless war there, all in the name of finding those pesky WMD's; which to this day, not a single one was ever found. So your example of the 2nd Iraq war as a backing point for your claim that America is the biggest super power in the world, is extremely flawed.

As far as what the biggest embarrassment in Military history was, I'm pretty sure I can go through and find far more embarrassing moments than a country "losing" a war to a far better armed and trained military. It's akin to sending an entire SEAL team after a national guard brigade; and once again your attempt to use this as an example of the "power" of America is.... extremely laughable.

DWB

Two words: Psychotropic Drugs

Zoloft, Prozac, Paxil, and so on.

You are probably correct about that, and most don't know how good they have it.... today. That's why I say fast forward 50 or 100 years, we don't know how good or bad it will be then. However, in terms of fighting someone, it may not be the federal government that is the issue. Could be a local government, or even a state after it succeeded from the union. Could be invading troops from Mexico. We really have no idea what possibility could play out in the future. Could be those pesky Koreans like in Red Dawn.


Yes, but again, your statement holds true today.

I don't think (or want) anything will happen in our lifetime. It's the future I'm thinking of. The USA is a new country, just over 200 years old. That's nothing. 50 - 100 more years could bring another civil war or complete poverty. No country stays the same forever. The USA will change for the better or for the worse, flip a coin. And then it will happen again and again.



Hope we never live to see that day to find out. American forces may not be so trigger happy, but UN forces or private contractors... that is another story. No way to know how something like that would be play out and who would be involved.

That's just my point. Even though the leaders were quickly removed from power in the case of Taliban and Saddam, we can not secure either nation. Both of those places are still a mess. Then add the Vietnam conflict to it, and my point is you can not beat people who are fighting for their own freedom on their own land. They can prolong the event and wear you out for decades, killing you off 1 at a time if they have to. Home court advantage.




Exactly. The entire "Arab Spring" was an incredible thing to watch, and I doubt it's close to over. If you would have asked any of them 5 years ago if they thought that was going to happen, I'd guess the answer would be no. Whatever the true reason is for their uprising, it has been impressive to watch. If they can handle the transition is another story. Egypt looks like it is being held together by a thread.

JP-pornshooter

According to the presidents speech and interview today:
1. Yes, some sort of executive order is coming on gun control.
2. Hunters and sportsmen etc do not have to worry that the federal government will take your guns away, we all believe in the 2nd amendment.

__________________
"Obscenity is whatever gives the Judge an erection." -- Author Unknown

jreg81

If you think the 2nd Amendment is only about "Hunters & Sportsman", than no you do not.

__________________

jreg81

Great example. And in those "Arab Spring" uprisings, which were backed by the Obama admin, the civilian forces rising up against their oppressive governments held exactly the same type of "assault weapons" Obama is so hell-bent on taking from the hands of law-biding Americans.

Ironic, isn't it?

They're not for mere hunting and sporting; they never were. Neither is the 2nd amendment. If you didn't hunt back then in the 1700's, you didn't EAT. Our forefathers were very very specific and intelligent about their reasoning behind the 2nd amendment.

__________________

BlackCrayon

how many bullets per second could a gun shoot when the second amendment was written?

__________________
you don't know you're wearing a leash if you sit by the peg all day..

jreg81

Nearly as many as, and nearly as fast as the bullets in the guns held by the tyrannical oppressive government we rose up against at the time.

They certainly didn't only have sling-shots going up against British muskets. Just like you wouldn't want a mere musket going against M-16's.

The 2nd Amendment is based upon a very clear principle, not based on technological specifications or limitations of the time.

__________________

BlackCrayon

uh huh. from what i've looked up there is nothing that shoots anything near as quickly or as accurately as what we have today. and sure, its a principal but i doubt that when it was written they were thinking about what guns would be like 200 years later. meanwhile more and more people will die to protect your unlikely scenario.

__________________
you don't know you're wearing a leash if you sit by the peg all day..

Tom_PM

I'm not going all Tipper Gore here, but you know you can flip on a TV in the afternoon and see TV stars whipping out guns and inspecting dead bodies on the commercials for the for-some-reason popular prime time drama shows that seem to all revolve around death and violence with plenty of guns in each episode.
I'm not personally interested in the shoot em up tv or movies, but some people are. Why don't people consider the possibility of desensitization from all of this exposure?

Isn't it funny how in countries where cops don't carry guns there is less need for them to carry a gun, and where cops carry heavy weapons the criminals do too? I'm not suggesting any course of action at all, I'm saying it's VERY interesting to look at cause and effect and escalation. In other words, what did anyone expect to happen? Has seeing more weapons toting security and police made gun violence less? No. Figure it out from there.

__________________
43-922-863 Shut up and play your guitar.

jreg81

Unlikely scenario? First of all, it's unlikely BECAUSE of the 2nd amendment. THAT is why our forefathers put it in. To make sure that it remains an unlikely scenario. Read up on history throughout the world. The first thing all of the oppressive and tyrannical governments did was disarm the general population. That's a fact.

Also, just because Americans has lived in a relatively peaceful, stable society, without major civil unrest towards our Gov't does not mean it can never happen. Look around the World man, it's constantly "on fire". It happens a lot.

We're just so conditioned and desensitive to it because we see it all as "3rd world problems", that could never possibly occur here in our safe, democratic, US of A, from our freedom-loving and citizen-loving elected Government.

Americans are fairly ignorant in this regard; we don't realize just how fragile freedom and "civilization" really are. It doesn't take much to throw everything off it's axis.

We've seen it play out on smaller scales (LA Riots, Katrina in New Orleans, etc). Just imagine it on a massive scale, for whatever reason. Do you want the only ones with guns to be criminals and the government? Sorry, I do not. The common, law-abiding man has an inalienable right to protect himself, his family and his country.

About "more and more" people dying. Do your homework and stop believing everything you hear on so-called news agencies like MSNBC. Tougher guns laws have NEVER equaled less violence or death. NEVER. People are always going to kill other people. No matter what. It's in our nature unfortunately. Cars, drugs and hammers all each kill more people a year than guns in this country. It's a fact.

The entire argument for taking away law-abiding citizens' guns is based on EMOTIONAL reactions to specific tragic instances (where the "gun" was not the reason for the deaths), whereas upholding the 2nd Amendment is based on rock-solid principles and facts.

I have a brand new AR sitting downstairs underneath my bed. It's been there about 3 weeks now and hasn't killed anyone. Maybe it's dysfunctional and I should take it back for a refund, no?

__________________

jreg81

Well Tom, in a perfect world, there'd be zero guns and than I'm sure no human being would ever think to kill another human being for any reason.

Mcviegh killed hundreds in 2 seconds with a Ryder Truck full of shit in OKC.

Sand-bunnies with box-cutters killed 1000's in minutes on 9/11 inside 747s.

Humans gonna' kill.

But the FACT is, in places with so-called stricter gun-control "laws", where it's more difficult and restrictive for NORMAL, law-abiding citizens to have guns, the violent crime and murder rates are HIGHER. (i.e. - chicago, NYC and others)

But in the places where it's easier for law-abiding citizens to obtain and maintain guns, those rates are lower. FACT.

And all of these mass-shootings, etw, these people are NOT law-abiding people; they are people who had CLEAR mental problems in their histories, made prior threats and 95% of the time obtained their weapons ILLEGALLY!

So how does making it harder or impossible for normal citizens to have firearms help stop the "bad guys" from having them? It doesn't. Bad guys don't follow the law, now do they?

I don't want to live in a country where only bad guys have guns, or only bad guys and the government have them. The result would mean the common man is at the mercy of criminals and government, with no checks in place. Sorry, I just refuse to be a sheep in the pasture just waiting to be fleeced. And many other law-biding Americans feel the exact same way.

__________________

BlackCrayon

i only think there needs to be more restrictions and more education required to own a gun. i don't want to 'ban' guns. although i do think it should not be legal to just leave a gun sitting 'under a bed'. laws should be in place so that firearms are locked up unless on your person. its just an accident waiting to happen or a perfect opportunity for the gun to be stolen or used by someone other than yourself.

i am also tired of the stupid argument that people kill people, not guns. duh, obviously. people are responsible for everything. inanimate objects can't do anything on their own. this is nothing more than a deflection, and a very uneducated one at that but it doesn't mean that there shouldn't be laws in place to keep certain people away from these inanimate objects.

as for the government becoming 'tyrannical', it would happen so slowly that you wouldn't even notice until its too late. its not like one day you're going to wake up and have to take up arms. this is real life, not the movies. the la riots and katrina have nothing to do with standing up to a tyrannical government. these are just criminals taking advantage of a situation.

also, as i have mentioned before every 'law abiding' citizen is capable of using their legal weapon for criminal acts. the entire argument for keeping things status quo with the gun laws is emotional as well. people think something is being taken from them, this causes fear, which is an emotion. please tell me how the second admendment was built on 'rock solid' principals and facts? that just seems like you put 'rock solid' in there for no reason other than in hopes of no one questioning it. i'd also like to know if you would say this to someone who lost a loved one to a mass shooting incident, sorry but we need are semi autos to keep us safe from possible future government tyranny.

__________________
you don't know you're wearing a leash if you sit by the peg all day..

BlackCrayon

FACT state laws are useless when you can get a gun in another state so easily. its not like they are frisking people at state boarders.

FACT most guns used in mass shootings were legal guns that were used illegally. lanza's mother legally owned the gun. holmes legally purchased the guns. the columbine kids had others legally purchase their guns.. and it goes on.

humans are going to kill but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying to make it harder for them to do so. why not just wipe all laws off the books because they obviously aren't stopping crimes. now doesn't that sound silly? its the same logic.

__________________
you don't know you're wearing a leash if you sit by the peg all day..

jreg81

I don't know. What would you say to someone who just lost their loved one due to a car accident? Or homicide with a hammer or blunt object? Or a knife? Or drug overdose? What do you tell them?

What did they say to the loved ones of 9/11 victims who were lost due to box-cutters and 747s? And to the OKC Bombing victims' loved ones who were lost due to a Ryder truck full of manure?

Did they say we'll bring back your loved ones by placing stricter laws on box-cutters and manure?

No, they didn't. Because people are the problem, not the inanimate objects.

Explain how making it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to obtain and maintain guns makes us all safer? I really want to hear this train of thought effectively explained.

How will it keeps guns from the hands of criminals who break the law anyway? Will it make it harder for them? Maybe, but so do locks on doors and security cameras, yet they still rob, mug and murder, now don't they?

There's zero logic to it. Zero.

You take guns from the good guys and leave them only in the hands of criminals and government, and you have a society full of ready-made victims.

__________________

JP-pornshooter

those were the words of the president, not mine; though he did also mention "those who want a gun for personal protection" as part of the group, that might fall more in line with the 2nd amendment.

__________________
"Obscenity is whatever gives the Judge an erection." -- Author Unknown