Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 19420812)

didn't come from an email, it's what he said during the debates when they wrote the amendment, it's not vague at all, it was meant for all people, but hey, you can argue all you want, the supreme court sided with the framers of the constitution as they read the same thing I did.

Use Google, learn , then argue

Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 19420720)

I.... Never thought of it this way.

I honestly believe the 2nd amendment is hopelessly outdated. It was written during a time when law enforcement was non existent, our military was non existent, and we feared the wildlife - bears and what. All of the reasons we have the 2nd amendment no longer exist - We now have law enforcement that responds in minutes instead of days, we have the strongest military in the world, and we have animal control to deal with bears and whatnot.

The purpose of the 2nd amendment was also to protect the government - by suppressing insurrection, repelling invasion, and creating a milita...

I'm forty-four years old and not once have I had to defend my house from an intruder. The house across the street was robbed in broad daylight by three large Mexican construction workers - They thought the house was empty but they were scared off by a scrawny fifteen year old boy in his boxer shorts who was sleeping.

I've finally figured out my stance on gun control. I want new laws that bans the sale of any firearm ever for any reason. I have my firearms, and the rest of you are fucking insane.

Originally Posted by crucifissio (Post 19420763)

this statement does not include people that went against eastern european governments but it mostly goes for the 99% that did not screw around: they actually had more freedom than any western european

-no taxes...ok in some places, for the few rare private enterpreneurs, there was some tax but you did not really have to pay it...the tax was really low and their version of the IRS did not really give a shit...in the USA the IRS will rape your life if you do not pay...this is not freedom...not saying there should be no taxes but many countries got by on waaaaaay less than what you are being taxed for...

-completely free education and healthcare that is mostly better than in the USA...cuba has a smaller rate of infant mortality than the USA and their system is free just by comparison...you are not a free man if you have to pay for education and hospital...you are a slave to money that is needed to keep you alive...you should not have to pay for basic stuff like healthcare and education...fuck everybody who may say its utopia...shit stain, decades under sanctions cuba has free health care that is up to par with US...your Iphone healthcare is just a scam Ihealthcare LOL

-no serious crime...no gangs period...hard crime like murder and robbery was extremely rare...the US is not a free society...you are not free if you are afraid...the level of fear is the USA is directly proportional to the level of guns...contrary to popular opinion freedom is not liked to guns...if you need a gun in the first place something is very wrong



I honestly do not know why the USA considers itself the land of the free...nothing is free and nobody is really free...your government is oppressive in many ways...your "Freedoms" are silly (no disrespect just a comment) like gay marriage and right to carry guns while they have tanks and drones and WMD and ICBM-s and Bio and Chemical and Microwaves...they stole your houses and money for christs sake...robbed you blind...

why do you think you a free-er? what can you guys do that we can not?

not trolling, I'm genuinely curious as to why you consider this "Freedom"

Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 19420798)

My Daughter has a carry permit. I trained her on how to shoot. Fuck regulations

this was taken when I gave her a new pistol
https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphot..._8098073_n.jpg

Originally Posted by BlackCrayon (Post 19420828)

lets hope she never ends up in an abusive relationship. stats say access to guns increase 'intimate partner homicide' more than five times than instances when there are no guns in the home. on the plus side she could always use it on an abuser but again, stats show that men are more likely to resort to such violence than women, despite the situation.

Originally Posted by DWB (Post 19420820)

Lets think a few generations down the road. History has show us time and time again that governments can and do turn against their people in a tyrannical manner. It may never happen in the USA or it may happen to your children, or your grandchildren, there is no way to tell. Wouldn't you want to keep the 2nd Amendment in place for those who may actually need it someday? You and I will probably be long gone, but what if it is needed 100 years from now and we let it just slip away because we didn't think it was no longer relevant? I hope that day never comes, but it may, and if it does I hope every American can defend themselves properly, and if that means with assault weapons so be it.

I believe the founding fathers knew exactly what was at stake, even if it sounds outdated now.

Originally Posted by Minte (Post 19420831)

No headshots on that target. Shooting into kevlar won't get the job done. :thumbsup

Originally Posted by tony286 (Post 19420837)

I think there is one by his nose.

Originally Posted by Minte (Post 19420838)

nah...that's a mole.

Originally Posted by vdbucks (Post 19420727)

The context of the 2nd Amendment was updated and ruled on by the supreme court in 2008 and 2010...

Originally Posted by tony286 (Post 19420842)

They put moles are targets? I didnt know that lol Vend was it a shot or a mole?

Originally Posted by DWB (Post 19420820)

Lets think a few generations down the road. History has show us time and time again that governments can and do turn against their people in a tyrannical manner. It may never happen in the USA or it may happen to your children, or your grandchildren, there is no way to tell. Wouldn't you want to keep the 2nd Amendment in place for those who may actually need it someday? You and I will probably be long gone, but what if it is needed 100 years from now and we let it just slip away because we didn't think it was no longer relevant? I hope that day never comes, but it may, and if it does I hope every American can defend themselves properly, and if that means with assault weapons so be it.

I believe the founding fathers knew exactly what was at stake, even if it sounds outdated now.

Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 19420846)

It sure was, wasn't it. Yet oddly enough forty years ago... The 2nd Amendment wasn't considered about gun rights at all, it was a law about having a standing army.

Read your history!

Originally Posted by BlackCrayon (Post 19420828)

lets hope she never ends up in an abusive relationship. stats say access to guns increase 'intimate partner homicide' more than five times than instances when there are no guns in the home. on the plus side she could always use it on an abuser but again, stats show that men are more likely to resort to such violence than women, despite the situation.

Originally Posted by Minte (Post 19420831)

No headshots on that target. Shooting into kevlar won't get the job done. :thumbsup

Originally Posted by BlackCrayon (Post 19420817)

the quote was also part of a pro gun email forward making the rounds lately and now suddenly everyone is quoting it. my apologies for assuming you did the same.

Originally Posted by Vendzilla (Post 19420902)

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.

Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 19420861)

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.

Originally Posted by tony286 (Post 19420835)

Thats like the fantasy. There is too much money and business here for that to ever ever happen, this isnt Somalia. Also, its also been said time and time again and I posted a whole article about it. It was to protect the gov and the country. Not to rise up against the government.

Originally Posted by Dirty F (Post 19420926)

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!

Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 19420861)

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

Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 19420950)

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.

Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 19420950)

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.

.

Originally Posted by shimmy2 (Post 19420971)

today's newspaper in dominican republic. granny got extendoooooooooooooos

http://3rdworldgirls.com/wp-content/...1/granny21.jpg

Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 19420896)

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.

Originally Posted by vdbucks (Post 19420929)

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...

Originally Posted by DWB (Post 19420963)

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.

Originally Posted by DWB (Post 19420963)

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.

Originally Posted by DWB (Post 19420963)

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.

Originally Posted by DWB (Post 19420963)

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.

Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 19420950)

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.

Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 19421064)

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".

Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 19421070)

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.

Originally Posted by tony286 (Post 19420967)

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.

Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 19421070)

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.

Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 19421082)

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.

Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 19421082)

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.

Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 19421082)

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

Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 19421082)

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.

Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 19421082)

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.

Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 19421082)

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.

Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 19421141)

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~

Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 19421097)

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.

Originally Posted by vdbucks (Post 19421187)

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?