Gun Question

[Elbow]

I've recently started hearing more and more people say they "need" their assault rifles to protect themselves against the government.

Do many people feel this way? I laughed pretty hard at first and then saw someone was being serious.

How would your assault rifle protect you and why would the government take over? This isn't Nazi Germany, it's the United States in 2013. There's not even a valid reason for the government to "take over."

I could care less what's banned, just curious as to the reasoning behind this government protection.

[Sinfix_15]

The 2nd amendment is what secures all other amendments. If the 2nd falls, they all can fall. If ever you were going to trust a government, why would you trust them now? Nowhere in history did a people ever think to themselves "this is going to lead to our government turning on us, lets go ahead and do it anyways" nobody ever thought it could happen to them. We have an entire world history to look back on and let us know this is a bad idea.

"There's not even a valid reason for the government to take over"..... it's not like theyre going to storm our houses and put us all in chains....... why would they? when people like you are so willing to lay down for them. Funny you mention Nazi Germany as your example..... actually, this is a lot like Nazi Germany. You see, Hitler's best weapon wasnt a gun, wasnt a tank, wasnt a plane.... wasnt a bomb.... it was propaganda. This is the United states in 2013....... and there's a full fledged war going on right now.... every time you turn on your television. A government that could be trusted wouldnt ban guns.

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb arguing over what's for dinner. When you put down your gun, you're the lamb.

[Elbow]

So who exactly is Obama going to use as the "bad guy" and who will follow him since most seem to hate him? Just in terms of Hitler talk.

[Elbow]

Oh and unless you have a VERY large stockpile of weapons and some training, how would a citizen hold off the US military?

HUGE HUGE HUGE difference in the US in 2013 and Germany during Hitler's time. I can't believe people even compare the two.

If we're going to change something lets edit freedom of speech and deport people who speak stupidly about things.

[Sinfix_15]

So who exactly is Obama going to use as the "bad guy" and who will follow him since most seem to hate him? Just in terms of Hitler talk.

Do you watch the news? The "bad guy" is clearly the republican party, which he attacks every time they put a mic in front of him.

he doesnt need anyone to "follow" him..... he's not assembling an army of liberals... lord knows you pussies are no threat to anyone. These guys follow him.
http://how2becomeanfbiagent.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Police-Officer.jpg

[Elbow]

I was looking for legitimate answers from knowledgeable people, you've done nothing, thanks for your time though.

What you said:

-Obama is like Hitler
-The bad guy is the republicans

You somehow think it's a war of democrats versus republicans?

[Sinfix_15]

Oh and unless you have a VERY large stockpile of weapons and some training, how would a citizen hold off the US military?

HUGE HUGE HUGE difference in the US in 2013 and Germany during Hitler's time. I can't believe people even compare the two.

If we're going to change something lets edit freedom of speech and deport people who speak stupidly about things.


speaking theoretically, why assume that 100% of the US military would unite vs it's people?

[Sinfix_15]

I was looking for legitimate answers from knowledgeable people, you've done nothing, thanks for your time though.

What you said:

-Obama is like Hitler
-The bad guy is the republicans

You somehow think it's a war of democrats versus republicans?

I hate this country.

you're right..... i'm just a dumb ass, no intelligent person would ever agree with me....

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." - Thomas Jefferson


"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.-Thomas Jefferson

Most bad government has grown out of too much government.-Thomas Jefferson

What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?-Thomas Jefferson

Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases.

[Sinfix_15]

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
- George Washington

[Sinfix_15]

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson

[Sinfix_15]

"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason

[Sinfix_15]

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe."
- Noah Webster

"The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms."
- James Madison

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams

[Elbow]

I don't understand your quotes. I've read them all before.

I just don't see that as a valid reason for owning a gun. Self protection against criminals seems like a far more likely reason you would ever need a gun than fighting off your own government.

I also am willing to bet that guns will NEVER be banned in the US (completely banned) as I replied to in your PM.

I cannot take anyone serious that plays the democrat versus republican game or compares modern day America to Nazi Germany.

If the government took over today, what would happen? Citizens may fight back, some may surrender, and other countries would probably get involved. If they came knocking at my door I'd shoot myself before I shot a bullet at them though. It's not even worth thinking about though because there's no indication or reasoning behind it happening.

Other countries have a ban on weapons and they do just fine. Do I think weapons should be banned? No. I believe in more control but definitely not a ban on guns. I've yet to meet anyone that does, even the most liberal people I've met don't believe in a total ban.

These types of things happen after every man made disaster. After 9/11 it was Bush who did it, FEMA camps were being setup four US citizens, kill camps, etc. It was all about the New World Order and all this BS just as now after shootings fingers are pointed and conspiracies are made although when you sit back for a second and think rationally half of what you read online is just so stupid.

[Sinfix_15]

I cant take anyone serious who says they would shoot themselves before defending themselves.

[Browning151]

I don't understand your quotes. I've read them all before.

I just don't see that as a valid reason for owning a gun. Self protection against criminals seems like a far more likely reason you would ever need a gun than fighting off your own government.

If you can't understand those quotes then you need to study some history. Put very simply; One man with a gun can control 100 without one. What mechanism do you have to stop your gov't if the public is disarmed? The ballot box? Ha, that won't exist anymore once the public is disarmed. The FEAR of a public uprising keeps gov't in check, just like the fear of jail keeps most citizens in check.



I also am willing to bet that guns will NEVER be banned in the US (completely banned) as I replied to in your PM.


An outright ban on guns? No, probably not. Will they put restriction upon restriction until it is beyond practicality to own one? If they continue with the current logic that's where we're headed.

[.blank cd]

If you can't understand those quotes then you need to study some history. I'm pretty astute when it comes to history and I recognize that most of these quotes are either taken out of context or otherwise irrelevant. Additionally, the comparison between Modern day US government and any kind of übernationalist dictatorial regimes; be it Hitlers Nazi Germany or Stalin's Soviet Russia is simply far from historically accurate. It's like comparing apples to chicken


Put very simply; One man with a gun can control 100 without one.This is laughable at best.


The FEAR of a public uprising keeps gov't in check, just like the fear of jail keeps most citizens in check. ...and yet the percentage of incarcerated people continues to rise, to the point that we have the highest number of prisons per capita, and the highest number of incarcerated people per capita in the world


Will they put restriction upon restriction until it is beyond practicality to own one? If they continue with the current logic that's where we're headed.No. We aren't headed that way.

[Browning151]

I'm pretty astute when it comes to history and I recognize that most of these quotes are either taken out of context or otherwise irrelevant. Additionally, the comparison between Modern day US government and any kind of übernationalist dictatorial regimes; be it Hitlers Nazi Germany or Stalin's Soviet Russia is simply far from historically accurate. It's like comparing apples to chicken

Put them in context for us so that we may properly understand.


This is laughable at best.

How so? An armed individual can't assert a disproportionate amount of control over unarmed people? BTW that quote is attributed to Lenin, you know, that communist (or marxist, whichever you prefer) guy. A gov't can't assert supreme control over an armed populace. Am I saying that our current president or gov't is communist in nature? No, but there are plenty of people out there that would like to see us headed that way, and baby steps with small regulations are the best way for them to get there. The first step is getting the camels nose under the tent.


...and yet the percentage of incarcerated people continues to rise, to the point that we have the highest number of prisons per capita, and the highest number of incarcerated people per capita in the world

......and your point is? What would we look like without the fear of repercussions when breaking the law?
(BTW, how many of those people are incarcerated for non violent drug offenses? I disagree with most of the war on drugs mentality and that would curb a lot of the incarceration rate.)


No. We aren't headed that way.

Once again, get the camels nose under the tent. If you do things in such small increments that most people don't notice what your end game is you can accomplish nearly anything.

At what point do you say enough is enough with regulation? High cap magazine regulations? Ok. Then the next tragedy comes along and they say we need to limit the number of magazines a person can own since this guy had 52 magazines on him. They were all legal but he had too many. Ok, new law limiting the number that you can own. Then the next tragedy comes along, the bullets he had were too powerful we must limit personal firearms to nothing more powerful than a .22 magnum.......and so on, and so on until they regulate them out of existence without actually banning them. If you think things can't be accomplished this way just look at coal fired power plants for an example, they haven't outright banned them but they've regulated them so heavily that they are becoming increasingly difficult to operate and are being shut down. Think they can't approach gun control the same way?

[Sinfix_15]

I'm pretty astute when it comes to history and I recognize that most of these quotes are either taken out of context or otherwise irrelevant. Additionally, the comparison between Modern day US government and any kind of übernationalist dictatorial regimes; be it Hitlers Nazi Germany or Stalin's Soviet Russia is simply far from historically accurate. It's like comparing apples to chicken

This is laughable at best.

...and yet the percentage of incarcerated people continues to rise, to the point that we have the highest number of prisons per capita, and the highest number of incarcerated people per capita in the world

No. We aren't headed that way.

Look around the world at every tyrant dictator in power....... then realize that even those people have supporters.

In america those supporters look like this....
http://www.thenation.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/slideshow/slideshows/ObamaYouth/15_ObamaSupporter_AP_slide.jpg



The irony in the matter is that the people who should be most warned about an oppressive government are those who are most willingly volunteering more power to their government.
http://www.national-awareness-days.com/images/anti-slavery-day.jpg

[.blank cd]

Put them in context for us so that we may properly understand. I'm at work at the moment, but if you'd like me to break down every one of those quotes into historical context, I'll have to do it when I get home.



How so? An armed individual can't assert a disproportionate amount of control over unarmed people?Control is only psychological.


Am I saying that our current president or gov't is communist in nature? No, but there are plenty of people out there that would like to see us headed that way, and baby steps with small regulations are the best way for them to get there...
...If you do things in such small increments that most people don't notice what your end game is you can accomplish nearly anythingare you suggesting its in the US governments best interest to take baby steps to full on communism?


At what point do you say enough is enough with regulation?

Have you looked at any successful private civilian gun regulation in the past 10-20 years?

[.blank cd]

Look around the world at every tyrant dictator in power....... then realize that even those people have supporters.

In america those supporters look like this....
http://www.thenation.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/slideshow/slideshows/ObamaYouth/15_ObamaSupporter_AP_slide.jpgYou make it increasingly difficult to take you seriously. In political discussion, you are the equivalent of a fundamentalist Christian.

[Sinfix_15]

You make it increasingly difficult to take you seriously. In political discussion, you are the equivalent of a fundamentalist Christian.

Christians argue with fairy tales....... our country's history is not a fairy tale. The fairy tale is that gun laws will somehow prevent crime. What Bible are you reading THAT from? Chicago's murder statistics?

[Sinfix_15]

Crime rate is higher in every place that has an elevated population of african americans. Lets ban african americans!!!!!!

I use this as a sarcastic example of the argument against guns..... but in reality, my sarcastic argument holds more truth than the one being applied to guns.

[Vteckidd]

I've recently started hearing more and more people say they "need" their assault rifles to protect themselves against the government.

Do many people feel this way? I laughed pretty hard at first and then saw someone was being serious.

How would your assault rifle protect you and why would the government take over? This isn't Nazi Germany, it's the United States in 2013. There's not even a valid reason for the government to "take over."

I could care less what's banned, just curious as to the reasoning behind this government protection.
Its a baseless argument the Right uses to push their agenda, much like banning guns solves crime problems which the left pushes.

I dont think anyone can make a rational argument that they need an AR15 to combat a tyrannical govt. That war was lost 70 years ago

[Vteckidd]

IMO

The argument needs to stick to the FACTS, the facts are that Banning or restricting guns solves NOTHING in regards to gun violence. NOTHING. There is study after study after study that proves it. Columbine happened during the AW Ban, it happened with low capacity mags IIRC, Newtown was committed by a person who STOLE a gun from a LEGAL owner. The laws they are proposing will not solve anything.

When you start arguing this "Need to protect my from da guberment" crap, 1) its not believable 2) it makes you sound like a conspiracy theorist 3) You lost that fight years ago when the govt invented Nukes and Drones and MOTHERFUCKING JET PLANES.

You have to convince an irrational portion of people that youre right, STICK TO RATIONAL PRACTICAL FACTS.

[Sinfix_15]

Its a baseless argument the Right uses to push their agenda, much like banning guns solves crime problems which the left pushes.

I dont think anyone can make a rational argument that they need an AR15 to combat a tyrannical govt. That war was lost 70 years ago

Where does it stop? What do you do when you cant make an argument for or against something?

why do we need cars that go over 55? why do we need portions of food bigger than 500 calories? why do we need yards bigger than a 1/2 acre? why do we need more money? More people drown a year than they do from AR15 fire, do we ban swimming? Do we ban sports on account of injury? Most wars are fought over religious beliefs, ban religion? ban sky diving? ban drinking? The 2nd amendment is so important because it's the foundation of all amendments.

"i prefer dangerous freedom to peaceful slavery" - Thomas Jefferson.

[Vteckidd]

Where does it stop? What do you do when you cant make an argument for or against something?

why do we need cars that go over 55? why do we need portions of food bigger than 500 calories? why do we need yards bigger than a 1/2 acre? why do we need more money? More people drown a year than they do from AR15 fire, do we ban swimming? Do we ban sports on account of injury? Most wars are fought over religious beliefs, ban religion? ban sky diving? ban drinking? The 2nd amendment is so important because it's the foundation of all amendments.

"i prefer dangerous freedom to peaceful slavery" - Thomas Jefferson.
you missed my previous post or didnt read it.

I never said we should ban or outlaw anything, what im saying is youll NEVER win that argument, and if you think about it rationally, there is ZERO chance the military decides to go door to door to take arms and we end up back in 1776.

Seriously.

I equate an all out arms ban or needing an AR15 to defend myself against the govt to about the chances i have at winning the lottery twice in the same month. It just simply WONT happen. its not even close. States would secede from the Union FIRST before that even happened. Military is historically PRO GOP, the ban would go toward the SC first, etc. So many checks and balances. To me it sounds like the whole NWO conspiracy theory, its just not based in reality.

The fact are that banning or restricting guns doesnt solve anything, leave it at that. I am in favor of the current restrictions we have like no auto weapons to the public without Class 3, no grenades or munitions, etc. No need to go past that.

To answer your other argument, if the founding fathers had a constitutional amendment that said "thou shalt never have thy right to go 300 mph infringed upon" then you could make a case against speed limits. Currently , no one NEEDS a 500whp GTR, but we sell one, and we regulate its emissions, and its speed on the roads via traffic laws.

you also have to realize that the founding fathers worst enemy was a musket that could maybe fire 2 shots a minute, not the 100 rounds per second guns we have now. They designed the constitution to be a living breathing thing that evolves with the times, i think our current restrictions are in line with that thinking

[Browning151]

I'm at work at the moment, but if you'd like me to break down every one of those quotes into historical context, I'll have to do it when I get home.

Knock yourself out.


Control is only psychological.

Up until the point someone resists and is met with a bullet from said armed individual.


are you suggesting its in the US governments best interest to take baby steps to full on communism?

It is in any gov'ts interest to gain as much power as possible, and also what leads to nearly every gov'ts eventual demise.


Have you looked at any successful private civilian gun regulation in the past 10-20 years?

Have you seen some of the statements being made lately toward gun control?

[Vteckidd]

why do we need cars that go over 55? why do we need portions of food bigger than 500 calories? why do we need yards bigger than a 1/2 acre? why do we need more money? More people drown a year than they do from AR15 fire, do we ban swimming? Do we ban sports on account of injury? Most wars are fought over religious beliefs, ban religion? ban sky diving? ban drinking? The 2nd amendment is so important because it's the foundation of all amendments.

If people started stealing corvettes and driving through classrooms to murder 30 people at a time, or started kidnapping people and wholesale drowning them in backyard pools, then yeah, im sure people would try to ban or restrict that stuff.

Sports is voluntary, if you dont want to get injured playing basketball you dont play basketball. if you dont want to get fat, dont eat 500 calories worth of candy.

One cannot simply choose to NOT get shot its out of your control, which is why its a crime.

Now youre equating choices of lifestyle with crime. Doesnt make sense

[.blank cd]

]Up until the point someone resists and is met with a bullet from said armed individual.If you're faced with 100 capable people and you have fully loaded gun, you are going to lose that battle, my friend. Simple as that.


It is in any gov'ts interest to gain as much power as possible, and also what leads to nearly every gov'ts eventual demise.What do you believe is absolute power in a democratic capitalist society?


Have you seen some of the statements being made lately toward gun control?Yes I have, a lot of people think (falsely) that any measure to further regulate the sale of guns in an effort to lower the staggering amount of gun crime/accidents in the US is equivalent to an outright ban and complete nullification of the 2nd amendment, and that we have some kind of tyrannical oppressive leader and a government system capable of accomplishing something like that. The idea is unfathomable.

[Browning151]

When you start arguing this "Need to protect my from da guberment" crap, 1) its not believable 2) it makes you sound like a conspiracy theorist 3) You lost that fight years ago when the govt invented Nukes and Drones and MOTHERFUCKING JET PLANES.

You have to convince an irrational portion of people that youre right, STICK TO RATIONAL PRACTICAL FACTS.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist by any means, nor do I subscribe to the idea that they are going to come door to door taking weapons and each individual needs to be armed to fight them off, but when a government exerts its power to the point of becoming oppressive how do you stop it? Pitch forks and spades? Do you believe that the gov't of the U.S. can never reach the point of oppression that it needs to be overthrown? I'm not advocating that it needs to be done now, or even in any of our lifetimes, but that time may come sometime in the future and the rights that grant us the ability to do so need to be preserved. It's one of the founding principles of this country.

[Browning151]

If you're faced with 100 capable people and you have fully loaded gun, you are going to lose that battle, my friend. Simple as that.

Taken literally you'd be correct. The idea is that few with guns can control many with none.


What do you believe is absolute power in a democratic capitalist society?

Therein lies the problem, there are many who openly disagree with the capitalist model and want this country to look more like socialist Europe. Change capitalist with socialist and you have an entirely different ball game.


Yes I have, a lot of people think (falsely) that any measure to further regulate the sale of guns in an effort to lower the staggering amount of gun crime/accidents in the US is equivalent to an outright ban and complete nullification of the 2nd amendment, and that we have some kind of tyrannical oppressive leader and a government system capable of accomplishing something like that. The idea is unfathomable.

I don't think that current regulations would be an outright ban and nullification of the 2A, but could it be the first step toward it? Sure. Is it? Maybe not, but I'd rather not find out the hard way if it is or isn't. I also didn't say that we have some tyrannical oppressive leader, but the idea of our government over reaching it's limits is not unfathomable. It may never happen in my lifetime, or my kids, or even my grandkids, but at some point it may happen and the rights to defend against it should be preserved.

[Vteckidd]

any measure to further regulate the sale of guns in an effort to lower the staggering amount of gun crime/accidents in the US is equivalent to an outright ban and complete nullification of the 2nd amendment, and that we have some kind of tyrannical oppressive leader and a government system capable of accomplishing something like that. The idea is unfathomable.

Gun crime is historically falling across the board. Its declined year over year for quite some time. The places that dont have guns like NY and Chicago actually see increased gun violence.

but i agree with the last part of your statement. I think anyone that doesnt even want to discuss some sort of measures, just have the conversation, is being prohibitive

[.blank cd]

Taken literally you'd be correct. The idea is that few with guns can control many with none.Thats completely up to the people being controlled.


Therein lies the problem, there are many who openly disagree with the capitalist model and want this country to look more like socialist Europe. Change capitalist with socialist and you have an entirely different ball game.IIRC, most countries in Europe are pretty capitalist too. They may enjoy other freedoms than you do, but the structure is pretty similar. But then you're also talking about a different culture and way of life. And I'm very hesitant to throw the world socialism around cause a lot of people really don't know what it means. They heard that tax increases on wealthy people and universal health care is socialism from someone on Fox News or some other conservative opinion blog and since 'tax increases' and 'socialism' sound pretty evil, then that's what it must mean.

[.blank cd]

Gun crime is historically falling across the board. Its declined year over year for quite some time. The places that dont have guns like NY and Chicago actually see increased gun violence.it may be falling at some rate, but we're in a developed country that has unprecedented access to guns and extremely lax regulations. What's even more unsettling is the culture that surrounds the issue, the notion that you're absolutely defenseless if you don't carry, and that some people think guns are some kind of efficient everyday problem solver.

[CSquared]

Im a liberal who carries a 9mm. The typical gun owner arguments sound absolutely ridiculous to me. I just want the damn thing to defend my family and property from intruders or anyone else who intends to do me harm. The government (red, blue or otherwise) is not out to get you.

The right to bear arms will not go away... It'll just become increasing hard to purchase (between taxes and additional requirements). For example, in NY the process to qualify for a gun permit was so annoying that I wouldn't have bothered. I think it takes up to 6 months. You should expect the same to become true in GA at some point, and I can't say I disagree with that method of discouragment.

[Elbow]

Im a liberal who carries a 9mm. The typical gun owner arguments sound absolutely ridiculous to me. I just want the damn thing to defend my family and property from intruders or anyone else who intends to do me harm. The government (red, blue or otherwise) is not out to get you.

The right to bear arms will not go away... It'll just become increasing hard to purchase (between taxes and additional requirements). For example, in NY the process to qualify for a gun permit was so annoying that I wouldn't have bothered. I think it takes up to 6 months. You should expect the same to become true in GA at some point, and I can't say I disagree with that method of discouragment.

This.

[Echonova]

Ever notice how laws only affect law-abiding citizens?


Weird.

[Andr3w]

FBI: More People Killed with Hammers, Clubs Each Year Than Rifles | Gun Rights | Fox Nation (http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-rights/2013/01/03/fbi-more-people-killed-hammers-clubs-each-year-rifles)

[Elbow]

How did this turn into a gun rights thread? It was simply asking about the government being the main reason people want assault rifles. lol

[.blank cd]

FBI: More People Killed with Hammers, Clubs Each Year Than Rifles | Gun Rights | Fox Nation (http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-rights/2013/01/03/fbi-more-people-killed-hammers-clubs-each-year-rifles)

Fox Nation. The kings of issue deflection.

[Matt300ZXT]

Whether the government is going to come take us or our guns away 1 by 1 is irrelevant to an extent in my view point. If it does happen, it'd be nice to have some heavier firepower than a bolt action rifle with a 5 round inner magazine offers. However, mostly I'd just want one because it'd be fun as hell to go shoot on the weekends. If they make 30 round mags for it, sure load it up with some rounds and go fuck up some cans in your woods/backyard or at a firing range. My car goes way fast if I want it to, way faster than I need to just get to work or whatever. My guitar amp can get WAY louder than I need for playing guitar in my room. Does that mean I'm not entitled to have these luxuries if I want them?

[Andr3w]

Whether the government is going to come take us or our guns away 1 by 1 is irrelevant to an extent in my view point. If it does happen, it'd be nice to have some heavier firepower than a bolt action rifle with a 5 round inner magazine offers. However, mostly I'd just want one because it'd be fun as hell to go shoot on the weekends. If they make 30 round mags for it, sure load it up with some rounds and go fuck up some cans in your woods/backyard or at a firing range. My car goes way fast if I want it to, way faster than I need to just get to work or whatever. My guitar amp can get WAY louder than I need for playing guitar in my room. Does that mean I'm not entitled to have these luxuries if I want them?

This

[BanginJimmy]

I've recently started hearing more and more people say they "need" their assault rifles to protect themselves against the government.

Do many people feel this way? I laughed pretty hard at first and then saw someone was being serious.

How would your assault rifle protect you and why would the government take over? This isn't Nazi Germany, it's the United States in 2013. There's not even a valid reason for the government to "take over."

I could care less what's banned, just curious as to the reasoning behind this government protection.


Most of this is just whining from people that dont like Obama, no matter what that reason is.

Second is all of the rhetoric coming from both sides. Too many people listening to Glenn Beck and Alex Jones. It doesnt help when there is an obvious coverup from this administration in both the Fast and Furious and Benghazi. Both of those still have glaring questions that the admin has simply ignored or hidden behind executive privilege.

Third, the 2nd Amendment is held very close by a LARGE majority of Americans. Like our cars, its an expression of our individuality. You can 2 Identical stock guns come off the line. The eventual owner then makes it his own with anywhere from moderate to extensive upgrades and tweaks.




Oh and unless you have a VERY large stockpile of weapons and some training, how would a citizen hold off the US military?

The English said the same thing about the rebels in 1776. Instead of the French to backstop and help supply us against King George, we have China stopping funding. Cant buy bullets or pay troops with no money. Desertions within the military would also be monumental. You can look at any civil war in history to see this.


HUGE HUGE HUGE difference in the US in 2013 and Germany during Hitler's time. I can't believe people even compare the two.

A lot more similarities than you think, short the maniacal dictator of course. Think of the stressors within the German population before the war. Lack of a national purpose. Massive debt and a floundering economy. Harsh, partisan political climate. All of these are present in the US right now. What we dont have is the unifying agenda like Hiter's Germany did.


If we're going to change something lets edit freedom of speech and deport people who speak stupidly about things.

I know this was said in jest, but who gets to decide what is stupid?

[Vteckidd]

This.

adding more red tape doesnt solve anything. An AR can kill just as bad as a Glock. Killers will take the path of least resistance, make it harder to get AW, theyll use handguns, outlaw handguns, theyll use knives, outlaw knives, they will use cars.

Cant stop a killer.

We should make it easier for law enforcement to track purchased guns, and we should have the same standards of laws on the purchase of firearms whether used or not. Banning or outlawing or heavily restricting wont do anything. It never has.

Banning Corvettes wont stop speeding.

DUI laws dont stop drunk driving.

The very nature of laws are to give society a line to know what to cross and what not to cross, and to take care of people who cross that line. No laws are designed to STOP a criminal from doing a crime, thats why they are criminals. Making Bank Robbery illegal, doesnt stop bank robbers. It just allows us to lock them up AFTER we catch them. Likewise banning guns wont stop gun related crimes. Guns are here, they arent going anywhere. MILLIONS are sold every year.

[Sinfix_15]

Fox Nation. The kings of issue deflection. That damn fox news.... expecting justification for Obama's unconstitutional executive orders....


We should all just law down and let father government take care us. I'm sure tomorrow when Obama sugar coats his 19 executive orders he'll probably reassure us that we dont need guns, we're as safe as babies in the womb.

[.blank cd]

The English said the same thing about the rebels in 1776. Instead of the French to backstop and help supply us against King George, we have China stopping funding. Cant buy bullets or pay troops with no money. Desertions within the military would also be monumental. You can look at any civil war in history to see this....And then modern technology brought the milita automatic weapons, tanks, planes, and eventually warheads and strike fighter jets and tactical bombers and UAVs. China owns so little of our debt, it wouldn't make a dent in any kind of civil war funding. Desertion wouldn't happen on as large a scale as you think. We've seen as recently as 2011 that police forces have no problem silencing American dissidents.


A lot more similarities than you think, short the maniacal dictator of course. Think of the stressors within the German population before the war. Lack of a national purpose. Massive debt and a floundering economy. Harsh, partisan political climate. All of these are present in the US right now. What we dont have is the unifying agenda like Hiter's Germany did....and a lot fewer than you think. The German empire had literally just collapsed not even 20 years prior. It wasnt like the last president they had systematically made a couple people ridiculously rich and their proletariat payed in the back end. They were annihilated in WW1 and were under a massive reconstructionary period. Germany was still reeling from the Treaty of Versailles. This sparked German nationalism, which was heavy with rhetoric not unlike the far-right wing rhetoric we hear today, add to that Hitlers natural charisma. It also took a shit ton of constitutional circumvention to make him a dictator, vis-a-vis the Enabling Act, or Das Gesetz zur Behebung der Not von Volk und Reichwhich, more or less gave the appointed chancellor unprecedented control over all the branches of government.

So what you're missing is an empirical collapse, reconstructionary period, an übernationalist dictator, and the abolishment of the checks and balance system we know as the legislative, judicial, and executive branch of government. In short, a HUGE HUGE difference between modern day democratic constitutional republic of the US, and Nazi Germany.

Hope that clears things up.

[.blank cd]

DUI laws dont stop drunk driving.But, back when they were enacted with drunk driver awareness programs, they cut drunk driving accidents in half. Give me a minute and I'll give you the numbers.

[.blank cd]

That damn fox news.... expecting justification for Obama's unconstitutional executive orders...Executive orders are very constitutional and have been used since the beginning of time.

Tell me, how do you feel about this executive order?....

http://www.neh.gov/files/news/images/emancipationproclamation.jpg

[Sinfix_15]

But, back when they were enacted with drunk driver awareness programs, they cut drunk driving accidents in half. Give me a minute and I'll give you the numbers.

Cant make the analogy. This would be like the government taking our cars so we cant drink and drive. Right now i can currently own an AR15.... i am aware that it's against the law to shoot up a school with it and am more than willing to abide by that law, the same as 99.9% of the population is. Safety is not this government's agenda.... safety is the guise theyre hiding behind. Tomorrow Obama is gonna have a bunch of children on stage and he's gonna make some BS speech about how it could be your child that got killed ect ect ect ect... and he's going to sell you the idea that gun control makes you safer, even though there's no statistical basis for that argument. Irony.... on the same week Obama secures lifelong government security for his family, he plans to dictate how you protect your own family.

[Sinfix_15]

Executive orders are very constitutional and have been used since the beginning of time.

Tell me, how do you feel about this executive order?....

http://www.neh.gov/files/news/images/emancipationproclamation.jpg

You misread...... executive orders are not unconstitutional.... Obama's executive orders will be.

[.blank cd]

Cant make the analogy.So a measure to enact tougher penalties on DUIs and car crimes, or "Alcohol control" or "car control" if you want to call it that, is not analogous to enacting tougher penalties on gun crime, or "gun control"?


This would be like the government taking our cars so we cant drink and drive.I suppose if you believe the government and all the powers that be, including lobbyists, is interested in some type of all encompassing, unilateral civillian weapons ban, which we're not seeing at all.

[.blank cd]

You misread...... executive orders are not unconstitutional.... Obama's executive orders will be.Ahhh. Ok. The yet-non-existent E.O's. are unconstitutional because you don't agree with them

[Sinfix_15]

So a measure to enact tougher penalties on DUIs and car crimes, or "Alcohol control" or "car control" if you want to call it that, is not analogous to enacting tougher penalties on gun crime, or "gun control"?

[quote This would be like the government taking our cars so we cant drink and drive.I suppose if you believe the government and all the powers that be, including lobbyists, is interested in some type of all encompassing, unilateral civillian weapons ban, which we're not seeing at all.[/QUOTE]

Just because theyre not taking your freedom in one large swoop does not mean theyre not taking your freedom.


I am 1000% in favor of any and every penalty imaginable for people who use guns to commit crime. I think any use of a gun should carry the same sentencing as murder. If you rob a bank occupied with 45 people, dont fire a shot, dont harm anyone..... that should be 45 counts of attempted murder. I support EVERY action to punish criminals......

i support ZERO action to punish law abiding citizens. Especially when you cannot prove that you will accomplish anything by doing so and have no examples to reference. Every city with gun control has a higher rate of crime. Every country with gun control has a higher rate of crime. They keep cherry picking points and ignoring reality......

If you banned corvettes tomorrow because of street racing..... yet every former corvette owner goes out and buys a mustang to continue street racing... you cant say "the streets are clear of corvette street racing" and pretend that's a point to be made. I keep hearing about England's gun violence vs the US..... yeah.... they traded gun violence for rape and robbery.... accomplished nothing.

[Sinfix_15]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=RB4lDYSv_KY

[.blank cd]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=RB4lDYSv_KY
Thank you for that little tidbit from the NRA, the largest gun lobby group in world history. I take their assessment on the situation very seriously













/s


Now stop, your gonna bury my abbreviated yet thorough dissection on post WW1 Germany and Hitlers rise to power.

[Sinfix_15]

Thank you for that little tidbit from the NRA, the largest gun lobby group in world history. I take their assessment on the situation very seriously













/s

You ignore facts based on the source the same way you believe lies based on the source. You keep discrediting sources while at the same time supporting the liar in the white house. It's 2013..... we have the internet.... we have youtube.... you can actually listen to Obama say one thing, click the next video and listen to him say the opposite. If anyone should be discredited, it's Obama. The NRA is fighting for your freedom..... Obama is fighting to remove it. The NRA ad makes a very simple point....... Obama has armed security around his entire family 24/7 and made it a point to secure that armed security for the rest of his life. If Obama supports gun control..... he should put down his own.

[Vteckidd]

But, back when they were enacted with drunk driver awareness programs, they cut drunk driving accidents in half. Give me a minute and I'll give you the numbers.

What stopped DUIs was the penalties and fines. Well it didnt stop it but it deferred it. 40-50 years ago, if you got caught driving drunk, you got a $100 fine and got to go on your merry way. It wasnt a big deal because we werent as mobile as we are now, cars werent as fast, alcohol wasnt as available, list goes on and on and on.

When we started enacted stiffer penalties like $2000-5000 fines and fees, loss of license, employers wont hire you for having a DUI, insurance premiums raising,, etc that forced people to change. That can happen with guns. But what we didnt do was BAN CARS because people drive drunk, or BAN Corvettes because people drive really fast.

See the difference?

[Vteckidd]

The distinction you need to make is there are differences in REGULATING and BANNING.

Im in favor of SMART regulation, im 100% opposed to banning anything.

[.blank cd]

You ignore facts based on the source the same way you believe lies based on the source.I haven't ignored any facts! Present me some unbiased and cold hard facts not in a one sided manner and we might get somewhere. You will not convince me the NRA is anywhere close to being in the business of giving credible and unbiased facts about guns OR economics, I was not born yesterday.

[Bacon]

People are looking way too much into this whole thing.

1. The right to bear arms will not be taken from us. It will likely just become harder to obtain a permit as mentioned previously. Those of us who already have permits may have a little more luck than the general population.

2. Seriously....who the fuck needs an AR anyways? When you boil it down, it's an expensive dinner topic. Yeah they are fun to shoot but are not practical. I will stick with my Glocks.

[Sinfix_15]

People are looking way too much into this whole thing.

1. The right to bear arms will not be taken from us. It will likely just become harder to obtain a permit as mentioned previously. Those of us who already have permits may have a little more luck than the general population.

2. Seriously....who the fuck needs an AR anyways? When you boil it down, it's an expensive dinner topic. Yeah they are fun to shoot but are not practical. I will stick with my Glocks.

that's why they dont call it "the bill of needs"

[Elbow]

Typical, a debate swings into a gun control and Obama sucks thread.

This country has issues.

[Sinfix_15]

Typical, a debate swings into a gun control and Obama sucks thread.

This country has issues.

It is a gun control issue.... you're not asking why i need an assault rifle because you're curious, the question is more directly "why are you resisting an assault rifle ban?"

It's not up to you to decide what i need. Me owning or not owning an assault rifle does not make you any more or less safe than you are now. You're free to defend yourself however you see fit. Until my means of self defense directly harms or effects your life, politely... and with all due respect.... shut the fuck up.

Obama is a gun control advocate. He has been from day 1 aside from during his campaigns where he tells you what you want to hear. It's no coincidence that gun sales skyrocketed when Obama became president or that they skyrocket at even the hint of Obama possibly imposing restrictions. This is not a transparent president. He works behind closed doors, says one thing and does another. Obama does suck..... and people have every right to question him. Obama creates the tension in america. To make it worse you have the constant backdrop of condescending Obama supporters like Blank saying "that will never happen". Ok.... if it never happens..... then i have a $1500 paper weight sitting in my closet.... jokes on me. I would rather be over prepared than not prepared enough.... but its hard to explain that to a legion of people dependent on government who have lost all sense of self reliance.

You're free to live your life however you wish...... our country was founded by people willing to cross an unknown ocean seeking freedom. You've made it perfectly clear that you would have stayed put and shined someone shoes or picked their garden for them to avoid that risk... good for you. Take the money you dont spend on guns, stock up on tie dye shirts and wool hats if thats what makes you happy.

[Elbow]

No, it really was a simple question of why you need an assault rifle. More specifically, asking if it was because of the "government taking over" because that's what I've been hearing lately. I would assume many wouldn't use an assault rifle in say a home invasion, so my question was directed as to government control.

It has nothing to do with the ban, I could care less if they're banned or not. As I've said it's not the gun it's who owns the gun.

Nice try in one again trying to speak for people though, you think you know peoples mindset far too often and that causes you to make false assumptions.

[bu villain]

...and a lot fewer than you think. The German empire had literally just collapsed not even 20 years prior. It wasnt like the last president they had systematically made a couple people ridiculously rich and their proletariat payed in the back end. They were annihilated in WW1 and were under a massive reconstructionary period. Germany was still reeling from the Treaty of Versailles. This sparked German nationalism, which was heavy with rhetoric not unlike the far-right wing rhetoric we hear today, add to that Hitlers natural charisma. It also took a shit ton of constitutional circumvention to make him a dictator, vis-a-vis the Enabling Act, or Das Gesetz zur Behebung der Not von Volk und Reichwhich, more or less gave the appointed chancellor unprecedented control over all the branches of government.

So what you're missing is an empirical collapse, reconstructionary period, an übernationalist dictator, and the abolishment of the checks and balance system we know as the legislative, judicial, and executive branch of government. In short, a HUGE HUGE difference between modern day democratic constitutional republic of the US, and Nazi Germany.

Hope that clears things up.

You forgot to mention that Hitler didn't ban guns, they were already heavily restricted during the Weimer republic and if anything, Hitler eased the gun restrictions.

[.blank cd]

You forgot to mention that Hitler didn't ban guns, they were already heavily restricted during the Weimer republic and if anything, Hitler eased the gun restrictions.Yes. And this. The 1920s Law on Firearms & Ammunition by the Weimar Republic was replaced in the 30s by the more lax Weapons Law, BUT they added a regulation later preventing Jews from carrying. I'm not gonna say that's what caused the Holocaust, but you can take it FWIW.

Fun Fact: Germany's last war reparations payment was only a couple years ago.

[eraser4g63]

How about because I fucking want one, and that's reason a god damn nuff. Why do you need a car that will travel faster than 65 mph? Why do you need a cell phone to surf the web with or text with? Why do you have the right to tell me how I can and can not spend my money? I'll burn my money if I want to fuck you very much!

[.blank cd]

How about because I fucking want one, and that's reason a god damn nuff. Why do you need a car that will travel faster than 65 mph? Why do you need a cell phone to surf the web with or text with? Why do you have the right to tell me how I can and can not spend my money? I'll burn my money if I want to fuck you very much!

...?

[eraser4g63]

...?

The OP asked why I or anyone would want a sporting carbine, That's my answer..

[Sinfix_15]

...And then modern technology brought the milita automatic weapons, tanks, planes, and eventually warheads and strike fighter jets and tactical bombers and UAVs. China owns so little of our debt, it wouldn't make a dent in any kind of civil war funding. Desertion wouldn't happen on as large a scale as you think. We've seen as recently as 2011 that police forces have no problem silencing American dissidents.

...and a lot fewer than you think. The German empire had literally just collapsed not even 20 years prior. It wasnt like the last president they had systematically made a couple people ridiculously rich and their proletariat payed in the back end. They were annihilated in WW1 and were under a massive reconstructionary period. Germany was still reeling from the Treaty of Versailles. This sparked German nationalism, which was heavy with rhetoric not unlike the far-right wing rhetoric we hear today, add to that Hitlers natural charisma. It also took a shit ton of constitutional circumvention to make him a dictator, vis-a-vis the Enabling Act, or Das Gesetz zur Behebung der Not von Volk und Reichwhich, more or less gave the appointed chancellor unprecedented control over all the branches of government.

So what you're missing is an empirical collapse, reconstructionary period, an übernationalist dictator, and the abolishment of the checks and balance system we know as the legislative, judicial, and executive branch of government. In short, a HUGE HUGE difference between modern day democratic constitutional republic of the US, and Nazi Germany.

Hope that clears things up.

how can you say this and take yourself seriously? Obama is the closest thing to a dictator we will probably ever have on american soil. His "charisma" is literally the only thing that got him elected. Everything that comes out of Obama's mouth is rhetoric...... The basis of your party might as well be calling everyone who opposes them racist.

[Sinfix_15]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-cNCyqgTBpX4/TvNwCHuB4HI/AAAAAAAAAZI/0uLex8JC790/s1600/Obama_Kim_Jong_Un_Bobbsey_Twins.jpg

[.blank cd]

how can you say this and take yourself seriously? Obama is the closest thing to a dictator we will probably ever have on american soil. His "charisma" is literally the only thing that got him elected. Everything that comes out of Obama's mouth is rhetoric...... The basis of your party might as well be calling everyone who opposes them racist.

Are you being serious?

[Sinfix_15]

Are you being serious?

What part of it do you not understand?

[Sinfix_15]

hopefully more people follow suit and stand up to this arrogant jackass we have squatting in the white house

Oregon sheriff to VP: I won't enforce any new gun laws | Politics | Eugene News, Weather, Sports, Breaking News | KVAL CBS 13 (http://www.kval.com/politics/Sheriff-to-VP-I-wont-enforce-any-new-gun-laws-187043401.html?tab=video)

[.blank cd]

What part of it do you not understand?

All of it

[Sinfix_15]

All of it

put down the Obama cool-aid, sleep it off... and we'll continue tomorrow.

[chrisshiver]

no im pissed i amdrunkk and will not go to sleep

[Elbow]

How about because I fucking want one, and that's reason a god damn nuff. Why do you need a car that will travel faster than 65 mph? Why do you need a cell phone to surf the web with or text with? Why do you have the right to tell me how I can and can not spend my money? I'll burn my money if I want to fuck you very much!

Oh look, a typical American douchebag that can't read. Did I ask why you needed one? No. I asked how many felt that they needed one to protect themselves against the government and why.

[Andr3w]

I have my guns because it is a hobby of mine and I enjoy shooting them on occasion. As far as protecting myself from the government... well I don't think that will happen personally.

[Sinfix_15]

“And by the way… On health care issues going on in D.C. right now? Be wary when some kind of tie-in occurs; Because it will come up: A tie-in with guns in an attempt to take away our Second Amendment rights under the guise of some new health care plan – You know that this is coming – That the two issues will somehow crop up and they’ll be tied together. So we have to be very wary on this.” ~ Governor Sarah Palin, August 1, 2009 Anchorage, Alaska


Liberal 2009, fantasy land - " come on............ more of this rhetoric? Obama doesnt want your guns, quit being racist fear mongers, this will never happen "

[Elbow]

“And by the way… On health care issues going on in D.C. right now? Be wary when some kind of tie-in occurs; Because it will come up: A tie-in with guns in an attempt to take away our Second Amendment rights under the guise of some new health care plan – You know that this is coming – That the two issues will somehow crop up and they’ll be tied together. So we have to be very wary on this.” ~ Governor Sarah Palin, August 1, 2009 Anchorage, Alaska


Liberal 2009, fantasy land - " come on............ more of this rhetoric? Obama doesnt want your guns, quit being racist fear mongers, this will never happen "

Why do you waste time posting ignorant crap in threads that don't involve it? Make a new thread.

[Elbow]

As far as protecting myself from the government... well I don't think that will happen personally.

Thank you that's all I'm inquiring about.

[Sinfix_15]

Why do you waste time posting ignorant crap in threads that don't involve it? Make a new thread.

is your question as simple as

"what do you do with an AR15? "

[Elbow]

is your question as simple as

"what do you do with an AR15? "

Um no, my question was if you believed that you needed an assault weapon to hold off the government. Do you not bother to read anything before jumping to arguing? You never fail at doing this.

I don't care if people have an AR15, makes no difference to me (although no where did I mention an AR15), if you learned to read or at least comprehend what you read you may be better off.

[Sinfix_15]

You can do anything with an AR15. Look at all these criminals breaking the law with their "assault rifles". The ability to defend yourself against "the worst" is part of the equation but not the entire equation. It's not like when you look in the gun case it's marked "hunting gun" "target gun" "gun for fighting gobberment"

AR15 is nothing more than an effective rifle. Much like this government's economic policies... they punish success. AR15 does what a rifle is suppose to do. The misuse of this gun or any other gun in existence is the criminal. Laws have zero effect on criminals, they dont observe laws. Should we bend the barrels of our rifles and drop them in the dirt just so that theyre less effective? If we're going to accept this mentality, do we apply it to all things? cars kill more people than guns.... do we ban "excessive" cars. You dont need to go over 55... so ban everything that goes over 55. Your race car that you only drive on a track..... ban that too since you could misuse it on the street if you chose. It's the same argument..... dont let perception overtake reality. Perception has caused a lot of harm throughout history. As a "last resort"..... guns are defense against tyranny.... when the constitution was written, the government had muskets and offered it's people muskets.....at the time, that was an equal share of power. In modern day, our government has aircraft carriers, planes, jets, bombs, rockets, drones....... and they tell me "no magazines over 10 rounds"....

http://www.gunandgame.com/forums/attachments/general-military/5974d1189108113-ar15-deer-hunting-upload3.jpg
http://www.oa2.org/Ar15Hunter/images/stories/travis_buck.jpg
http://www.oa2.org/Ar15Hunter/images/stories/Metcalf_wdeer.jpg
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTUZ8E7t5pZ_PnaXIL8yKkKRbUuNyeNs ErK9kILmj6Ukfmo-hlPySfzYvo4
http://www.huntingwith68info.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/68-AR-Deer1-300x224.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_S3FtWvyjIWg/TBk2S5XYe2I/AAAAAAAAAX4/C8ykGyflhIE/s1600/travisbachelor+007.jpg
http://www.ssarmory.com/images/pronghorn.jpg
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/gKSLBWMKaCI/0.jpg
http://www.opticsplanet.com/gearexpert/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Nikon-Competition-Trophies-with-an-AR-15.jpg
http://www.opticsplanet.com/gearexpert/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Kate-with-AR-15-and-M223-2.jpg

[Elbow]

You have to be kidding...

[Sinfix_15]

Um no, my question was if you believed that you needed an assault weapon to hold off the government. Do you not bother to read anything before jumping to arguing? You never fail at doing this.

I don't care if people have an AR15, makes no difference to me (although no where did I mention an AR15), if you learned to read or at least comprehend what you read you may be better off.

if you dont know why im referencing an AR15 specifically then you must not own a fucking television... sometimes i swear you liberal bitches are just reading note cards and not even paying attention to current events.

[Elbow]

if you dont know why im referencing an AR15 specifically then you must not own a fucking television... sometimes i swear you liberal bitches are just reading note cards and not even paying attention to current events.

I know WHY you mentioned an AR15, but that just shows once again you're literally too stupid to process the words in a post as you just showed again. Like I swear you have to just be joking 98% of the time just to have an argument, there's no way anyone that has as much thoughts as you can be as stupid as you portray yourself to be.

Sometimes I swear you republicans never made it out of elementary school. I guess I should jump on the "republican vs democrat" bandwagon around here since you split the country into two.

[Sinfix_15]

I know WHY you mentioned an AR15, but that just shows once again you're literally too stupid to process the words in a post as you just showed again. Like I swear you have to just be joking 98% of the time just to have an argument, there's no way anyone that has as much thoughts as you can be as stupid as you portray yourself to be.

Sometimes I swear you republicans never made it out of elementary school. I guess I should jump on the "republican vs democrat" bandwagon around here since you split the country into two.

ok, let me show you a magic trick.... go back through what i just said.... replace "ar15" with "assault weapon".....

You havnt made a single valid point about anything.... yet you continue to critique my argument. You think your mindset is normal and insult me..........

when you really said "if the government came after me i would shoot myself".....

if you think that thought is either rational or commonly accepted..... GO CHECK YOUR FUCKING DUMBASS INTO A MENTAL HEALTH HOSPITAL!!!!!

[Elbow]

ok, let me show you a magic trick.... go back through what i just said.... replace "ar15" with "assault weapon".....

You havnt made a single valid point about anything.... yet you continue to critique my argument. You think your mindset is normal and insult me..........

when you really said "if the government came after me i would shoot myself".....

if you think that thought is either rational or commonly accepted..... GO CHECK YOUR FUCKING DUMBASS INTO A MENTAL HEALTH HOSPITAL!!!!!

Yeah because I would really shoot myself? lol Why bother having a rational debate with someone that doesn't understand others viewpoints? Although I don't see how you could hold off our military if they came looking for a fight and I personally wouldn't want to shoot people just to then live in turmoil until I die of some other cause. Of course this is so off the wall nobody can really judge what they would do in that situation. If the military tried to "take us or kill us" more than likely you wouldn't have the chance to shoot back.

The question served no "assault weapon ban" question and had nothing to do with indicating that it's stupid to own guns. I had not heard until recently so many people complaining mainly because they felt they wouldn't be able to fight off the US government if a ban or restrictions were put into place and I wanted to see how many actually saw it like that. I'm aware what the Constitution says and how it was written, but I never knew people took it so literal in 2013 that they thought guns may protect them in that sense. So I decided to see some more viewpoints.

Simple. As. That.

You took it as an insult against your precious love for clearly the AR15. You didn't read or think and started attacking me as you typically do with other members as well.

[Sinfix_15]

Yeah because I would really shoot myself? lol Why bother having a rational debate with someone that doesn't understand others viewpoints? Although I don't see how you could hold off our military if they came looking for a fight and I personally wouldn't want to shoot people just to then live in turmoil until I die of some other cause. Of course this is so off the wall nobody can really judge what they would do in that situation. If the military tried to "take us or kill us" more than likely you wouldn't have the chance to shoot back.

The question served no "assault weapon ban" question and had nothing to do with indicating that it's stupid to own guns. I had not heard until recently so many people complaining mainly because they felt they wouldn't be able to fight off the US government if a ban or restrictions were put into place and I wanted to see how many actually saw it like that. I'm aware what the Constitution says and how it was written, but I never knew people took it so literal in 2013 that they thought guns may protect them in that sense. So I decided to see some more viewpoints.

Simple. As. That.

You took it as an insult against your precious love for clearly the AR15. You didn't read or think and started attacking me as you typically do with other members as well.

as a LAST RESORT against tyranny...... LAST RESORT LAST RESORT LAST RESORT.................

This doesnt mean that we should hang "gobberment attack plan" beside the fire escape plan. It's a last resort preparation for the worst. Believe it or not... once upon a time before we became a nation where 1-7 people were on food stamps... we were a nation that was prepared for everything.

Government tyranny.... probable? no.... likely? no..... possible? absolutely... as historical data would prove. During the last 100 years on this planet... more people have been killed by their own governments than any foreign attacker. Right now.... as we speak.... at this very moment.... someone is being fired upon by their own government.



• Under Lenin and Stalin, the Soviet government became
one of the world’s greatest killers. Lenin’s policies in
1921-1922 caused an estimated 4 million deaths and
in 1932, Stalin ordered that the Ukraine be starved to enforce collectivisation policies and to crush
Ukrainian nationalism resulting in the murder of at least 8 million Ukrainians
• Between 1917 and 1953 (the year of Stalin’s death), the Soviet Union executed, in one way or another,
some 40 million people and many Russian and international historians estimate the figure to be even
higher
• In China, under Mao Tse Tung, 2 million dissidents or `class enemies’ were shot and another one
million Tibetans and Turkestani Muslims were `liquidated.’ Between 1950 and 1975, an estimated 30
million people starved to death with another two million dying during the Cultural Revolution. This
amounts to a total of some 35 million people
• Hitler and the Nazis were responsible for the deaths of 12 million civilians, half of them Jews
• An estimated two million German civilians were killed in 1945, and at least 200,000 died in
concentration camps between 1945 and 1953. The Allied forces ‘handed back’ an estimated 2 million
Soviet citizens to Stalin in 1945: half of them were shot and the rest sent to Arctic camps where many of
them died
• During World War I, the Ottoman Empire murdered or starved up to 2 million Armenians, the first
great genocide of the new century
• In the early 1960’s, 600,000 ethnic Chinese were massacred in Indonesia by government-encouraged
mobs and soldiers
• During the Marcos era in the Philippines, 75,000 Muslims were massacred by government paramilitary
gangs
• In 1971, Pakistani troops killed tens of thousands of Bengalis in former East Pakistan. Indian security
forces and police have massacred great numbers of tribespeople in border regions and many civilians in
Kashmir and Punjab
• Between 1975 and 1979, an estimated 2 million people were killed in Cambodia during the regime of
Pol Pot
• In the 1980’s, Ethiopia’s then Marxist regime through a series of policies including forced relocation
caused the deaths of an estimated million people, often through starvation
• 1994 witnessed the slaughter of an estimated 800,000 Tutsis and Hutu ‘dissidents’ at the hands of
Rwanda’s Hutu government
• Serbia’s nationalist regime orchestrated the massacre of 200,000 Muslim civilians in Bosnia between
1992 and 1995.

[Sinfix_15]

CAUTION!!!!! WARNING!!!!! Liberals beware.... especially you Blank, even though you might not think so.... i like you and am concerned about your safety. There are facts in the next post..... i know statistical facts are like silver to a vampire when it comes to liberals, so make sure you guys put on your sunscreen, jackets or whatever it is you wear for protection to keep you head from exploding when you click this next link.




http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jan/18/facebook-posts/facebook-post-says-more-people-were-murdered-knive/

[Elbow]

as a LAST RESORT against tyranny...... LAST RESORT LAST RESORT LAST RESORT.................

This doesnt mean that we should hang "gobberment attack plan" beside the fire escape plan. It's a last resort preparation for the worst. Believe it or not... once upon a time before we became a nation where 1-7 people were on food stamps... we were a nation that was prepared for everything.

Government tyranny.... probable? no.... likely? no..... possible? absolutely... as historical data would prove. During the last 100 years on this planet... more people have been killed by their own governments than any foreign attacker. Right now.... as we speak.... at this very moment.... someone is being fired upon by their own government.



• Under Lenin and Stalin, the Soviet government became
one of the world’s greatest killers. Lenin’s policies in
1921-1922 caused an estimated 4 million deaths and
in 1932, Stalin ordered that the Ukraine be starved to enforce collectivisation policies and to crush
Ukrainian nationalism resulting in the murder of at least 8 million Ukrainians
• Between 1917 and 1953 (the year of Stalin’s death), the Soviet Union executed, in one way or another,
some 40 million people and many Russian and international historians estimate the figure to be even
higher
• In China, under Mao Tse Tung, 2 million dissidents or `class enemies’ were shot and another one
million Tibetans and Turkestani Muslims were `liquidated.’ Between 1950 and 1975, an estimated 30
million people starved to death with another two million dying during the Cultural Revolution. This
amounts to a total of some 35 million people
• Hitler and the Nazis were responsible for the deaths of 12 million civilians, half of them Jews
• An estimated two million German civilians were killed in 1945, and at least 200,000 died in
concentration camps between 1945 and 1953. The Allied forces ‘handed back’ an estimated 2 million
Soviet citizens to Stalin in 1945: half of them were shot and the rest sent to Arctic camps where many of
them died
• During World War I, the Ottoman Empire murdered or starved up to 2 million Armenians, the first
great genocide of the new century
• In the early 1960’s, 600,000 ethnic Chinese were massacred in Indonesia by government-encouraged
mobs and soldiers
• During the Marcos era in the Philippines, 75,000 Muslims were massacred by government paramilitary
gangs
• In 1971, Pakistani troops killed tens of thousands of Bengalis in former East Pakistan. Indian security
forces and police have massacred great numbers of tribespeople in border regions and many civilians in
Kashmir and Punjab
• Between 1975 and 1979, an estimated 2 million people were killed in Cambodia during the regime of
Pol Pot
• In the 1980’s, Ethiopia’s then Marxist regime through a series of policies including forced relocation
caused the deaths of an estimated million people, often through starvation
• 1994 witnessed the slaughter of an estimated 800,000 Tutsis and Hutu ‘dissidents’ at the hands of
Rwanda’s Hutu government
• Serbia’s nationalist regime orchestrated the massacre of 200,000 Muslim civilians in Bosnia between
1992 and 1995.

You could have just posted that and I would have respected that answer.

I do appreciate the legitimate reply though.

[.blank cd]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jan/18/facebook-posts/facebook-post-says-more-people-were-murdered-knive/

Hey, you used politifact. At least it's a start

"OUR RULING:

The post uses data selectively, ignoring the significant role of handguns in gun violence. But the statistics it mentions are solid. FBI data backs up the Facebook post’s claim that in 2011, more people were murdered with knives, "hands or feet" or "clubs and hammers" than with any type of rifle. We rate the statement True."

[Sinfix_15]

Hey, you used politifact. At least it's a start

"OUR RULING:

The post uses data selectively, ignoring the significant role of handguns in gun violence. But the statistics it mentions are solid. FBI data backs up the Facebook post’s claim that in 2011, more people were murdered with knives, "hands or feet" or "clubs and hammers" than with any type of rifle. We rate the statement True."

I read that part....... assault rifles are the ones up for ban..... even though theyre the lowest stat. Explain?

[Elbow]

I read that part....... assault rifles are the ones up for ban..... even though theyre the lowest stat. Explain?

Easy.

The majority of people just hear "gun" and nothing else. They picture guns to be violent and they see all the time on the news how they kill. They hear "assault rifle" and picture a military weapon. They even go by this on looks alone as we have seen. Assault weapon ban means more on board to limit other firearms. It's just an easy tool to use to bring people on board. I don't care if you're an Obama is God fan or what, there's no denying that the actual gun bans/policies don't make actual sense if you really look into it.

At least that's what I see here but hey I'm just a moron.

[Sinfix_15]

Easy.

The majority of people just hear "gun" and nothing else. They picture guns to be violent and they see all the time on the news how they kill. They hear "assault rifle" and picture a military weapon. They even go by this on looks alone as we have seen. Assault weapon ban means more on board to limit other firearms. It's just an easy tool to use to bring people on board. I don't care if you're an Obama is God fan or what, there's no denying that the actual gun bans/policies don't make actual sense if you really look into it.

At least that's what I see here but hey I'm just a moron.

http://onlinecasino-games.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/online-bingo.png


I would buy you a beer for this quality post you just made.

[Sinfix_15]

Small tidbit of black history

Sorry Libs… The NRA Was There to Help Blacks Defend Themselves From KKK Democrats, Not the Other Way Around | The Gateway Pundit (http://ht.ly/gSnhD)

[Echonova]

So the bulk order of magazines I ordered even before Obama's go nowhere speech arrived today. I must say, I'm a little jelly of the ones I got for my wife's pistol.

19 round magazines. Curse you Springfield XD9M, my Smith & Wesson 5906 Tactical only holds 16.

[Sinfix_15]

Poll: 65 percent of Americans see guns as protection against tyranny (http://redalertpolitics.com/2013/01/19/poll-65-percent-of-americans-see-guns-as-protection-against-tyranny/)

[Echonova]

Meh... I don't ever see myself going "Red Dawn" and fending off an Army. Does that mean i don't think I should own what I own??? Absolutely not.



I have a crazy idea.








Let's enforce the laws we already have, with vigor if need be.

Let's take the lady in Loganville that just happened. IIRC she fired 6 shots (emptied the revolver), hitting the man 5 times in the head and neck and he still drove away before collapsing. Adrenaline can do funny things.

But what if there would have been more than one assailant... Under the new NY law she would have one bullet left for (X) number of attackers. If for some reason she had a pre-ban clip and had more than 7 bullets in it... She is a criminal and subject to arrest. Just like the douchebag that just tried to kill her

"Naw OBAMA wood neber let dat happn" you say??

Think again. Liberal utopia has a price... That price only requires you giving up Constitutional rights.


Other than that it doesn't cost you anything.

[Echonova]

I like to think of myself as a "conscious objector".

[Sinfix_15]

anyone else confused?

NBC Admitted: No 'Assault Rifle' Used in Newtown Shooting Independent Journal Review (http://www.ijreview.com/2013/01/30208-nbc-admits-no-assault-rifle-used-in-newtown-shooting/)

Judge puts gag on what police can tell about Sandy Hook massacre | Fellowship of the Minds (http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2013/01/18/judge-puts-gag-on-what-police-can-tell-about-sandy-hook-massacre/)

Here is The Sign Up Sheet for The Sandy Hook FEMA Drill (http://lunaticoutpost.com/Topic-Here-is-The-Sign-Up-Sheet-for-The-Sandy-Hook-FEMA-Drill)

[Sinfix_15]

ive got to have one of these...........................


http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL3E6DE22E2AB0FB54&v=3ciFi-1YYdM&feature=player_detailpage

[Elbow]

ive got to have one of these...........................


http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL3E6DE22E2AB0FB54&v=3ciFi-1YYdM&feature=player_detailpage

Bahahah I love his videos.

[Sinfix_15]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BBGNAL1CYAEsw5R.jpg:large

[Elbow]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BBGNAL1CYAEsw5R.jpg:large

I swear the people that makes those photos are the stupidest individuals alive.

Stop posting them you're starting to look like them.

[Sinfix_15]

I swear the people that makes those photos are the stupidest individuals alive.

Stop posting them you're starting to look like them.

That's the irony of it...... theyre stupid because theyre an attempt to tap into the liberal psyche.... you know, because liberals are stupid.

[.blank cd]

That's the irony of it...... theyre stupid because theyre an attempt to tap into the liberal psyche.... you know, because liberals are stupid.

No they're not. They're a visual logical fallacy designed by some kid who doesn't know anything.

[Elbow]

That's the irony of it...... theyre stupid because theyre an attempt to tap into the liberal psyche.... you know, because liberals are stupid.

You seem to think every liberal believes that if guns are banned, crime stops.

The only liberals that think that for the most part are the made up ones in your mind.

[Sinfix_15]

You seem to think every liberal believes that if guns are banned, crime stops.

The only liberals that think that for the most part are the made up ones in your mind.

Liberals are social parasites. I dont concern myself with their beliefs anymore than i ponder what roaches believe. All i know is the world would be a better place without them.

[.blank cd]

I just want to have it on record that I called Sinfix a caricature of a conservative and I called it weeks ago. He's the equivalent of Stephen Colbert but less funny and more transparent.

[Sinfix_15]

I just want to have it on record that I called Sinfix a caricature of a conservative and I called it weeks ago. He's the equivalent of Stephen Colbert but less funny and more transparent.

Yep, im your stereotypical atheist conservative that supports gays, a woman's right to chose, stem cell research and citizenship for immigrants.


and i would legalize weed.... just like all the other conservatives.

[bu villain]

Yep, im your stereotypical atheist conservative that supports gays, a woman's right to chose, stem cell research and citizenship for immigrants.


and i would legalize weed.... just like all the other conservatives.

I think he means stereotypical libertarian.

[BanginJimmy]

citizenship for immigrants.

Since when are conservatives against immigrants getting citizenship? What you really mean is illegals getting citizenship, which I am against. I am in favor of is a path to legality, but not full citizenship.

Sent from my S3 using Tapatalk 2.