Defend your right to own a car.

Blank, you avoided answering how you feel if this accusation is confirmed.

» Nobel Peace Prize Nominee: Obama Asks Military Leaders If They Will “Fire On US Citizens” Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

The only reasonable objection im getting about the ability to own assault rifles is basically...

"you dont stand a chance, so why bother"....

You may be right....... but refusing to accept this is why we're not france, it's why you dont have a brittish accent right now... it's why we're not bowing to a king..... it's why im not building someone's castle.... its why there are no shackles on my feet....

The threat is equally as important as a victory. Knowing you will have to be conquered, can prevent someone from attempting to conquer you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinfix_15

Blank, you avoided answering how you feel if this accusation is confirmed.

» Nobel Peace Prize Nominee: Obama Asks Military Leaders If They Will “Fire On US Citizens” Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

---

Because I refuse to lend any credibility to conspiracy theories and unfounded claims

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinfix_15

You can expect whatever you want from your King.

---

Who's my king? Lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinfix_15

you keep saying "Obama publicly stated"...... what weight do you think this carries? Obama saying one thing should only lead you to expect the opposite. You're gonna need to pull your head out of the sand if this conversation is going to get anywhere.

---

Your random speculation with no basis in fact trumps what is publically stated by the person multiple times?
Your beliefs do not dictate his actions, so you need to produce evidence if you wish for your argument to be taken seriously, and not as a truther.

Your head is not in the sand - it's somewhere else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinfix_15

Why do people always interpret it as a US Army vs People pick up game..... like we're gonna break off and pick sides... and Neighborhood C is gonna square off against FT Bennings armory or something. People have the right to be prepared for anything. It's not as cut and dry as "if the gobberment steps out of line we round the troops and march on the white house".....

Just to entertain your curiosity of a scenario in which something more than a 12gauge would be needed.

If someone ever attacked us on our own soil. Things would probably be pretty grim prior to this ever happening to begin with and it would no doubt follow some type of economic collapse. Police/military would be overwhelmed and would probably not be able to adequately maintain their normal duties. Anytime in history that the police are "distracted" or incapacitated in any measure, criminals take advantage. In the event pillagers were roaming around taking advantage of it, i want more than a revolver and shotgun to defend my house.

California is supposedly one of our most prosperous states and it's on the verge of being bankrupt. We already heard about all government employees having their pay reduced to min wage. In this circumstance, those employees were good enough to continue doing their work while protesting it... but what if they went on strike? Same thing as i said before.... hell, our police cant control a city like Chicago when theyre actually trying to.... you think things would control themselves in the absence of police?

If the dollar collapsed or there was any shortage or rationing of supplies. Really, we're conditioned to believe this isnt possible and our world is perfectly unbreakable... the same way any other supreme power from the past felt about themselves, but the reality is... other countries control this fate. If China dumped it's US treasuries that would trigger economic chaos. Something as simple as gas prices could cripple the world as we know it. What if oil import stopped tomorrow. How many things would that effect? farmers, grocery stores, cars, police, fire trucks, hospitals.... ect ect... people arent going to sit around and go hungry, you house is going to turn into a grocery store. If you think in that scenario people are going to unite and help each other.... well, then jesus bless your little heart.



We live in a country that has already gone to war with itself. That once allowed us to own other people....... yet i keep hearing that things like this are impossible. If you want examples of why anyone would want arms, all you have to do is flip through a history book. People who defend the 2nd amendment arent just defending it for tomorrow's "fight", they preserving it for 50 years from now, 100 years from now... 200 years from now. You cant predict what the future brings and you have no right to restrict anyone's ability to adequately defend themselves.

Not to mention, this request comes with no merit. Rifles are the gun used the LEAST in crime and the MOST in sport. Taking them away serves no purpose other than to prove you can take them away. A government that deserved to be trusted would not seek to take them away. Keep saying it will never happen...... good, i hope youre right. But in the event of chaos im not going to sit in and my living room and wonder where David88vert or BlankCD is so that i can say "i told you so". That's the kicker of being prepared for the worst...... if you're right and it never happens.... we're both happy and i have a really expensive paper weight collection. What happens if you're wrong?

---

So first, you said that we need assault style rifles to defend us from our government. When I proceeded to dig into that, you now want to say its to defend ourselves from ourselves in the event of a social and economic collapse - perhaps brought on by a foreign government attack.

Currently, there is no nation even close to prepared to attempt to launch an invasion of the US.

As for China dumping debt, in reality it works the opposite. China has tied its economy to ours, just as many other countries have. IF the US economy failed, then China will face the same economic collapse. Their owning of our debt would be lost revenue to them, and their economic projections would tank.


As for civil unrest, we've seen that in New Orleans after Katrina and in LA during the riots. While assault style rifles make things easy, are you saying that you would be unable to defend yourself with non-assault style weapons in these situations? Are you even in an area like that? Here's some food for thought:
All of these riots and civil unrest where looting and muggins take place appear to be in the cities. Rural areas, such as the Columbus area, historically find people looking to work together to solve issues, such as food, water, etc. YOUR area is not in any danger in the unlikely event, so why do you need an assault rifle? The answer is: You don't need one. You simply want one. Should everyone just have whatever they want?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

Who's my king? Lol.

---

King Obama with his executive orders (decrees). You didn't get the memo?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

Because I refuse to lend any credibility to conspiracy theories and unfounded claims

---

I have to agree on this. No one has corroborated the story, and no named sources were given. More information is necessary to substantiate it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David88vert

Your random speculation with no basis in fact trumps what is publically stated by the person multiple times?
Your beliefs do not dictate his actions, so you need to produce evidence if you wish for your argument to be taken seriously, and not as a truther.

Your head is not in the sand - it's somewhere else.

---

Not going to wait until a gun ban goes through to believe a gun ban can go through.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David88vert

So first, you said that we need assault style rifles to defend us from our government. When I proceeded to dig into that, you now want to say its to defend ourselves from ourselves in the event of a social and economic collapse - perhaps brought on by a foreign government attack.

Currently, there is no nation even close to prepared to attempt to launch an invasion of the US.

As for China dumping debt, in reality it works the opposite. China has tied its economy to ours, just as many other countries have. IF the US economy failed, then China will face the same economic collapse. Their owning of our debt would be lost revenue to them, and their economic projections would tank.


As for civil unrest, we've seen that in New Orleans after Katrina and in LA during the riots. While assault style rifles make things easy, are you saying that you would be unable to defend yourself with non-assault style weapons in these situations? Are you even in an area like that? Here's some food for thought:
All of these riots and civil unrest where looting and muggins take place appear to be in the cities. Rural areas, such as the Columbus area, historically find people looking to work together to solve issues, such as food, water, etc. YOUR area is not in any danger in the unlikely event, so why do you need an assault rifle? The answer is: You don't need one. You simply want one. Should everyone just have whatever they want?

---

Yes. It's called freedom. You can not produce an argument that justifies the banning of assault rifles. They are the VERY LEAST gun used in criminal activity and the MOST used gun in sport.

What history are you basing your opinion of columbus on????????? Columbus is a crime infested shit hole. People carry weapons when they go walking..... You might want to go recheck your history on that one..... here's a hint for you... extend your radius about 20 miles and see if anything interesting pops up on your radar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

Because I refuse to lend any credibility to anything that even remotely sheds a negative light on this president

---

edit

You dont have to worry about any accusations being answered, the Liberal media shares your passion and will be certain to bury anything they can.





Re-edit...

I actually take that back....... As im currently sitting here, i read that the media actually is pressing Obama about a lie he told........ no, not benghazi.... no... not fast n furious.....



about his ability to skeet shoot. Good job media...... but do we really even need to question Obama about lying about his shooting ability? He throws a baseball like a 9 year old girl, i think it's pretty safe to say he doesnt know how to shoot a shotgun. Though i have heard a rumor that he knows what to do with a long barrel, via Larry Sinclair and other members of his former church in which he has paid off people for their silence.

"Chicago is the blue print for gun laws in america" -Barry Santoro

Chicago Homicide Rate 2013 Already At 40 Before End Of January

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinfix_15

edit

---

Pretty sure I had it right when I said conspiracy theories. Lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

Pretty sure I had it right when I said conspiracy theories. Lol.

---

Here i am.... inside a thread where im being asked in detail to defend myself in theoretical situations and you refuse to answer a simple question. Im not asking you to validate the accusation. Simply asking what you will think IF it is true. If my wife cheats on me, i will divorce her. Answering that question does not validate that i think my wife has cheated on me.

You always avoid these questions and the reason you do so is because you do not want to be bound by your answer. The same way you avoided them when the questions revolved around economics.

You dont want anyone to be able to go back and say " you said you would do this ".... ultimately, you have to leave your escape route open. You will never trap yourself into NOT supporting Obama.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinfix_15

Yes. It's called freedom. You can not produce an argument that justifies the banning of assault rifles. They are the VERY LEAST gun used in criminal activity and the MOST used gun in sport.

What history are you basing your opinion of columbus on????????? Columbus is a crime infested shit hole. People carry weapons when they go walking..... You might want to go recheck your history on that one..... here's a hint for you... extend your radius about 20 miles and see if anything interesting pops up on your radar.

---

Only that my family has been there since the land was settled, and I still have a farm there, and my cousin still lives there. I go down just past Columbus all the time to the farm. I've never needed an assault rifle to walk the streets anywhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinfix_15

you keep saying "Obama publicly stated"...... what weight do you think this carries? Obama saying one thing should only lead you to expect the opposite.

---

So your evidence for his plan to ban all guns is that he says he doesn't want to ban all guns. C'mon you have to do a little better than that if you want people to take your argument seriously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David88vert

King Obama with his executive orders (decrees). You didn't get the memo?

---

Do Lincoln's or any other presidents executive orders make them kings or just Obama's? Again, which of those 23 executive orders he signed in response to the Newtown shooting do you disagree with?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinfix_15

Not going to wait until a gun ban goes through to believe a gun ban can go through.

---

You can believe whatever you want but until Diane Feinstein becomes supreme dictator of America, you need more evidence to convince others that an all out gun ban is even remotely possible any time soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bu villain

So your evidence for his plan to ban all guns is that he says he doesn't want to ban all guns. C'mon you have to do a little better than that if you want people to take your argument seriously.

---

That's what I have been trying to get across to him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bu villain

Do Lincoln's or any other presidents executive orders make them kings or just Obama's? Again, which of those 23 executive orders he signed in response to the Newtown shooting do you disagree with?

---

I was being sarcastic. The 23 executive orders are fine, only one questionable is "Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence." If you remember 1993-1994, you would remember their very public stance on gun control and the outcome of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bu villain

You can believe whatever you want but until Diane Feinstein becomes supreme dictator of America, you need more evidence to convince others that an all out gun ban is even remotely possible any time soon.

---

Agreed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinfix_15

Here i am.... inside a thread where im being asked in detail to defend myself in theoretical situations and you refuse to answer a simple question. Im not asking you to validate the accusation. Simply asking what you will think IF it is true. If my wife cheats on me, i will divorce her. Answering that question does not validate that i think my wife has cheated on me.

---

Heres my answer: It's actually theoretically possible for your wife to cheat on you.

Quote:

---

You always avoid these questions and the reason you do so is because you do not want to be bound by your answer. The same way you avoided them when the questions revolved around economics.

You dont want anyone to be able to go back and say " you said you would do this ".... ultimately, you have to leave your escape route open. You will never trap yourself into NOT supporting Obama.

---

I avoid questions like these cause they don't make any sense. I'm not the kind of person that would give any kind of credence to crackpot conspiracy theories, straw man arguments, and the general amalgam of logical fallacies disguised as conservative patriotism. It has nothing to do with an exit strategy and everything to do with me not taking a position in the left-right paradigm that exists on this forum.

More gun crimes happen in gun buffer zones and areas with more strict gun laws. That's a fact. I hate that so few even make this a problem for us law abiding citizens. Good thing I always stayed stocked up on ammo. Also recently bought an AR by S&W and 10 hi-cap mags for it. Do I need it, nope, haven't even shot it yet. Why do I own it? Because it is my right. There is no difference between my right to own a firearm (handgun or AR) legally and go to whichever church I want or not go to church.

I cant believe this dumb ass thread is still alive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by On_Her_Face

More gun crimes happen in gun buffer zones and areas with more strict gun laws. That's a fact.

---

Pretty sure that's false unless you can back it up with some data. IIRC, the majority mass shootings may have happened inside buffer zones, but there's WAY too much gun crime outside of buffer zones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

Pretty sure that's false unless you can back it up with some data. IIRC, the majority mass shootings may have happened inside buffer zones, but there's WAY too much gun crime outside of buffer zones.

---

I will have to look it up, however I did a report on it. Such as percentages of shootings in a strict gun area per capita (Chicago or DC's older laws) compared to non strict areas (Kennesaw).

Edit: It is also hard to PROVE to everybody that gun laws do work or do not work since all cities have different demographics and so many variables.

Here is the Kennesaw gun law with some facts if you are not familiar:

http://rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NYTIMES

According to the study, published last year in The Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, European nations with more guns had lower murder rates. As summarized in a brief filed by several criminologists and other scholars supporting the challenge to the Washington law, the seven nations with the most guns per capita had 1.2 murders annually for every 100,000 people. The rate in the nine nations with the fewest guns was 4.4.

---

As for the buffer zones, I do not have an answer to solve this, nor does anybody else. You can try to eliminate guns but criminals will still get them just like people get drugs (not that I'm saying people that smoke pot are criminals in my mind, I am not a user myself either). On the flip side you can get rid of buffer zones and there are people who legally own guns that should not have them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

Pretty sure that's false unless you can back it up with some data. IIRC, the majority mass shootings may have happened inside buffer zones, but there's WAY too much gun crime outside of buffer zones.

---

I believe that this statement is correct. There was a recent report that all of the mass murders in the US since 1950 have happened in gun free zones - except one. That one was when Rep. Giffords was shot in the head.
This is very different than crimes involving guns in general, which happen outside of gun free zones regulary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David88vert

Only that my family has been there since the land was settled, and I still have a farm there, and my cousin still lives there. I go down just past Columbus all the time to the farm. I've never needed an assault rifle to walk the streets anywhere.

---

Please tell me where farm land in columbus is. Columbus is a crime infest shit hole. I live here.... i know what i see when i walk outside.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

Heres my answer: It's actually theoretically possible for your wife to cheat on you.

I avoid questions like these cause they don't make any sense. I'm not the kind of person that would give any kind of credence to crackpot conspiracy theories, straw man arguments, and the general amalgam of logical fallacies disguised as conservative patriotism. It has nothing to do with an exit strategy and everything to do with me not taking a position in the left-right paradigm that exists on this forum.

---

If its such a ridiculous accusation then you should be able to answer easily.

"What if Obama was a robot zombie from space and was here to eat our children" - i wouldnt vote for him.

See, easy.

You guys have shown me the error of my ways. Obama told me he wasnt going to take my guns..... just like Lance Armstrong told me he didnt take steroids. Their word is good enough for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BanginJimmy

I cant believe this dumb ass thread is still alive.

---

with all due respect.... this thread is the shit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David88vert

That's what I have been trying to get across to him.

I was being sarcastic. The 23 executive orders are fine, only one questionable is "Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence." If you remember 1993-1994, you would remember their very public stance on gun control and the outcome of that.

Agreed.

---

Sorry David, shouldn't have quoted you, I was referring to Sinflix who was railing against Obama's decrees but still hasn't said which ones he opposes. I understand we are in agreement over most of this stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by On_Her_Face

I will have to look it up, however I did a report on it. Such as percentages of shootings in a strict gun area per capita (Chicago or DC's older laws) compared to non strict areas (Kennesaw).

Edit: It is also hard to PROVE to everybody that gun laws do work or do not work since all cities have different demographics and so many variables.

---

Your edit is exactly right. There are so many factors why shooting rates would be different in Chicago than in Kennesaw and gun laws are probably far from the top of the list especially when you can simply drive out of Chicago city limits and buy a gun not much differently than in Kennesaw. Trying to turn correlation of shootings to gun laws of the immediate area to causation is misleading.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinfix_15

You guys have shown me the error of my ways. Obama told me he wasnt going to take my guns..... just like Lance Armstrong told me he didnt take steroids. Their word is good enough for me.

---

No one is asking you to take his word for it, we are just asking you to provide evidence of your position. Lance Armstrong isn't guilty of taking steroids because he said he didn't, he is guilty because there is a large number of reputable people who were directly involved with him who give details of his actions. So again, where is your evidence? I'm more than willing to listen to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bu villain

Your edit is exactly right. There are so many factors why shooting rates would be different in Chicago than in Kennesaw and gun laws are probably far from the top of the list especially when you can simply drive out of Chicago city limits and buy a gun not much differently than in Kennesaw. Trying to turn correlation of shootings to gun laws of the immediate area to causation is misleading.

---

The Chicago and Kennesaw comparison was just off the top of my head. The trends do follow at the city, state, and country level per capita. Just people who are anti gun will see it their way and find "loopholes" in my beliefs and visa versa. As somebody else stated that all mass murder shootings but one have happened in gun buffer zones (backing up my previous statement) so why would we expland our gun buffer zone(s)? It just does not make sense to me. Criminals will always get firearms, it might be harder but they will still do it. Then good people will be left hung out to dry.

If you want to compare towns with similar laws, it's not Chicago and Kennesaw - it's Kennesaw and Morton Grove. Kennesaw's law was a political statement against the one that Morton Grove passed in 1981. I remember all of the rhetoric from back then - it was major news, and everyone was claiming that the government was try to ban all guns back then also.

Here's an article that looks back.
http://www.wnd.com/2007/04/41196/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David88vert

If you want to compare towns with similar laws, it's not Chicago and Kennesaw - it's Kennesaw and Morton Grove. Kennesaw's law was a political statement against the one that Morton Grove passed in 1981. I remember all of the rhetoric from back then - it was major news, and everyone was claiming that the government was try to ban all guns back then also.

Here's an article that looks back.
25 years murder-free in ‘Gun Town USA’

---

Good find.. better comparison and seems now both are working decently. I would rather have the option to defend myself than not defend myself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bu villain

Sorry David, shouldn't have quoted you, I was referring to Sinflix who was railing against Obama's decrees but still hasn't said which ones he opposes. I understand we are in agreement over most of this stuff.

---

I comment more so based on what is to come. If you and the others honestly think i'm worried for no reason, well.... we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. Obama is anti-gun. Him not standing up for the 2nd amendment while his democratic friends are seeking to burn it is good enough for me to count him guilty by association. As far as me commenting specifically on the exec orders that have happened so far...

I do not like the connection with healthcare and gun control. My dislike of that is amplified even further by the UN tie with gun control and healthcare. Obama doesnt come through the front door with his policies, he sneaks in the back. You cant take him at face value, you have to dig for the hidden gems and expect surprises. why are you guys acting like its some big secret that liberals are anti-gun?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinfix_15

Obama is anti-gun.

---

He passed legislation that allowed people to carry in parks. So how is he anti-gun again?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

He passed legislation that allowed people to carry in parks. So how is he anti-gun again?

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=HDhDRUrRBF4

how much more fucking clear can this shit be........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinfix_15

how much more fucking clear can this shit be........

---

He PASSED legislation to allow guns into parks. Saying he supports an assault weapons ban and not really doing anything about it doesn't really mean much...

So how is he anti-gun again?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

He PASSED legislation to allow guns into parks. Saying he supports an assault weapons ban and not really doing anything about it doesn't really mean much...

So how is he anti-gun again?

---

Supporting anything that comes out of Feinstein's mouth puts you on the anti-gun moron list. Obama is a puppet that reads whatever speech is put in front of him. He shows his true nature by the company he keeps. What he doesnt say speaks just as much as what he says. If you support an assault rifle ban then you are out of touch with reality. That single point of view alone shows that you are not adequately equip to understand gun issues and are either A: making knee jerk emotional decisions or B: pandering to the anti-gun liberals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinfix_15

Supporting anything that comes out of Feinstein's mouth puts you on the anti-gun moron list.

---

This part is true. Feinstein has always been against the 2nd Amendment.

Here's the interesting part today on Feinstein's bill:
Does Feinstein's 'Assault Weapon' Ban Cover All Semiautomatic Rifles? - Hit & Run : Reason.com