Clearing the air on guns, anti gun owners start.

[CRUE CAB]

Let the "anti gunners" say first just exactly what it is they have against many of us excersizing our 2A rights.
Is it the Zimmerman type of self defense, not trying to re try the case seeing as its settled law.
Is it just that you dont believe that in 2013 we should be owning such things. Or is it against certian types of firearms?
Moot, Haymarket, Sharon and the rest have the floor. No name calling, no calling out, no assumptions about people you dont actually know.

 

[haymarket]

My position has always been quite clear. I am not anti-gun. I support the Second Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms.

I am anti gun lobby. I am anti NRA.

And there is a difference. Some do not want to see that difference, but it is there just the same.

One of the dividing lines is the claim that we need guns to someday fight in the great right wing moment of jubilee when we rise up against the government in Civil War Redux. That is where I part ways.

You want a gun for home protection? Fine with me.
You want a gun for self defense? Fine with me.
You need a gun for your business? Terrific.
You want a gun to hunt? great.
How about sport like target shooting? Go for it and enjoy.
Collecting? Sure - I am a hard core collector and know what the bug is like when you are into something. for me - its not guns but I have no problem with those that collect guns.

But like John Lennon said about revolution and guns - count me out. Screw that nonsense and it ain't 1776 anymore and the British oppressors are long gone. Anybody who think they are going to outfight the American military has his head somewhere very dark and very much isolated from reality.

Here is my position that I have stated many times:

I have stated this before and I state it again for your benefit: here is my interpretation of the Second Amendment.


The Second Amendment says that the American people have the right to keep and bear arms. The duly elected representatives of the American people may exercise their Constitutional powers to enact legislation controlling and regulating firearms so long as they do not create an environment where the people cannot exercise their right.


That is is. Pure and simple.






Every single legislator who has voted for any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single legislative body who has voted to pass a law for the regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single governor who has proposed a law for any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single governor who has signed into law any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single president proposed a law for any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single president who has signed into law any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single judge or justice who has upheld the constitutionality of a law regulating firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single Court which has voted to uphold the constitutionality of a law regulating firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.


And it is the agreement of all those above with my interpretation which counts in the final analysis.






________________________________


I have repeatedly stated that if the government creates an environment where the people cannot exercise the right to bear arms, then the right has been INFRINGED. To define this in everyday terms of action all you have to do is apply one test. The test is simple and easy and not at all complicated:


If I as an American citizen want to obtain a firearm to exercise my second Amendment rights, am I able to do so? If the answer is YES, then the right is present and is able to be exercised. If the answer is NO, then the right has been infringed and that is prohibited by the Constitution. Of course, the person must be able to bear the gun, or have it available for its use. This is why the decision against DC in the Heller case shows that the government created such an illegal environment.

Thank you for the opportunity CRUE CAB. :2wave:It is appreciated. eace

 

[Dittohead not!]

My position has always been quite clear. I am not anti-gun. I support the Second Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms.

I am anti gun lobby. I am anti NRA.

And there is a difference. Some do not want to see that difference, but it is there just the same.

One of the dividing lines is the claim that we need guns to someday fight in the great right wing moment of jubilee when we rise up against the government in Civil War Redux. That is where I part ways.

You want a gun for home protection? Fine with me.
You want a gun for self defense? Fine with me.
You need a gun for your business? Terrific.
You want a gun to hunt? great.
How about sport like target shooting? Go for it and enjoy.

But when you talk about needing powerful guns for revolution - like John Lennon said - you can count me out.
Collecting? Sure - I am a hard core collector and know what the bug is like when you are into something. for me - its not guns but I have no problem with those that collect guns.

What he said.
The idea that a militia armed with hunting rifles and handguns could take over the government by force is tinfoil hat nonsense.
Better, let's stage a revolution at the ballot box.

But, by all means, let's keep the right to defend ourselves and our property. The government is less and less able to do so all the time.

I'm personally not into hunting. I'd rather be on the stream with a fly rod in hand, but, that's just me. If carrying a rifle through the woods looking for deer is your thing, go for it. Just let's not join the ranks of the idiots who dress in orange to ride in the back of a pickup truck while drinking beer and shooting at roadsigns. There are way too many of that type of "sportsmen" already.

 

[CRUE CAB]

Come on, I know there are more than 2 whole posters that are between very anti gun to somewhat antigun.

 

[cpgrad08]

My position has always been quite clear. I am not anti-gun. I support the Second Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms.

I am anti gun lobby. I am anti NRA.

And there is a difference. Some do not want to see that difference, but it is there just the same.

One of the dividing lines is the claim that we need guns to someday fight in the great right wing moment of jubilee when we rise up against the government in Civil War Redux. That is where I part ways.

You want a gun for home protection? Fine with me.
You want a gun for self defense? Fine with me.
You need a gun for your business? Terrific.
You want a gun to hunt? great.
How about sport like target shooting? Go for it and enjoy.
Collecting? Sure - I am a hard core collector and know what the bug is like when you are into something. for me - its not guns but I have no problem with those that collect guns.

But like John Lennon said about revolution and guns - count me out. Screw that nonsense and it ain't 1776 anymore and the British oppressors are long gone. Anybody who think they are going to outfight the American military has his head somewhere very dark and very much isolated from reality.

Here is my position that I have stated many times:

I have stated this before and I state it again for your benefit: here is my interpretation of the Second Amendment.


The Second Amendment says that the American people have the right to keep and bear arms. The duly elected representatives of the American people may exercise their Constitutional powers to enact legislation controlling and regulating firearms so long as they do not create an environment where the people cannot exercise their right.


That is is. Pure and simple.






Every single legislator who has voted for any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single legislative body who has voted to pass a law for the regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single governor who has proposed a law for any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single governor who has signed into law any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single president proposed a law for any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single president who has signed into law any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single judge or justice who has upheld the constitutionality of a law regulating firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single Court which has voted to uphold the constitutionality of a law regulating firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.


And it is the agreement of all those above with my interpretation which counts in the final analysis.






________________________________


I have repeatedly stated that if the government creates an environment where the people cannot exercise the right to bear arms, then the right has been INFRINGED. To define this in everyday terms of action all you have to do is apply one test. The test is simple and easy and not at all complicated:


If I as an American citizen want to obtain a firearm to exercise my second Amendment rights, am I able to do so? If the answer is YES, then the right is present and is able to be exercised. If the answer is NO, then the right has been infringed and that is prohibited by the Constitution. Of course, the person must be able to bear the gun, or have it available for its use. This is why the decision against DC in the Heller case shows that the government created such an illegal environment.

Thank you for the opportunity CRUE CAB. :2wave:It is appreciated. eace

Tell that to NVA, VC and the Taliban. A smaller inferior Guerrilla force can win against a superior standing army. Just saying.

 

[TurtleDude]

Tell that to NVA, VC and the Taliban. A smaller inferior Guerrilla force can win against a superior standing army. Just saying.

The government loving statists think it would be a few patriots vs the army when in reality it would be several million people killing the government toads who implemented a dictatorship

 

[TurtleDude]

My position has always been quite clear. I am not anti-gun. I support the Second Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms.

I am anti gun lobby. I am anti NRA.

And there is a difference. Some do not want to see that difference, but it is there just the same.

One of the dividing lines is the claim that we need guns to someday fight in the great right wing moment of jubilee when we rise up against the government in Civil War Redux. That is where I part ways.

You want a gun for home protection? Fine with me.
You want a gun for self defense? Fine with me.
You need a gun for your business? Terrific.
You want a gun to hunt? great.
How about sport like target shooting? Go for it and enjoy.
Collecting? Sure - I am a hard core collector and know what the bug is like when you are into something. for me - its not guns but I have no problem with those that collect guns.

But like John Lennon said about revolution and guns - count me out. Screw that nonsense and it ain't 1776 anymore and the British oppressors are long gone. Anybody who think they are going to outfight the American military has his head somewhere very dark and very much isolated from reality.

Here is my position that I have stated many times:

I have stated this before and I state it again for your benefit: here is my interpretation of the Second Amendment.


The Second Amendment says that the American people have the right to keep and bear arms. The duly elected representatives of the American people may exercise their Constitutional powers to enact legislation controlling and regulating firearms so long as they do not create an environment where the people cannot exercise their right.


That is is. Pure and simple.






Every single legislator who has voted for any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single legislative body who has voted to pass a law for the regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single governor who has proposed a law for any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single governor who has signed into law any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single president proposed a law for any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single president who has signed into law any regulation of firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single judge or justice who has upheld the constitutionality of a law regulating firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.
Every single Court which has voted to uphold the constitutionality of a law regulating firearms has taken a position which is consistent with this interpretation.


And it is the agreement of all those above with my interpretation which counts in the final analysis.






________________________________


I have repeatedly stated that if the government creates an environment where the people cannot exercise the right to bear arms, then the right has been INFRINGED. To define this in everyday terms of action all you have to do is apply one test. The test is simple and easy and not at all complicated:


If I as an American citizen want to obtain a firearm to exercise my second Amendment rights, am I able to do so? If the answer is YES, then the right is present and is able to be exercised. If the answer is NO, then the right has been infringed and that is prohibited by the Constitution. Of course, the person must be able to bear the gun, or have it available for its use. This is why the decision against DC in the Heller case shows that the government created such an illegal environment.

Thank you for the opportunity CRUE CAB. :2wave:It is appreciated. eace

translation-if you can own one gun than nothing the government does in the future can be seen as infringing on your rights according to hay market

read one book or make one speech and forever your first amendment rights are intact

that is so idiotic. The second amendment is a prohibition on government action. whether you own a gun or not does not change whether the government is wrong or not

 

[cpgrad08]

The government loving statists think it would be a few patriots vs the army when in reality it would be several million people killing the government toads who implemented a dictatorship

True that, but even then I love it when people think that U.S. Military can't be defeated by a smaller force.

 

[TurtleDude]

True that, but even then I love it when people think that U.S. Military can't be defeated by a smaller force.

YOu don't fight the military, you kill the scumbags running things

 

[cpgrad08]

YOu don't fight the military, you kill the scumbags running things

If a 2nd Revolution comes about in America there are going to be Military forces that stay loyal to the government and they will be protecting those scumbags. So we would have to fight the U.S. Military to a point.

 

[TurtleDude]

If a 2nd Revolution comes about in America there are going to be Military forces that stay loyal to the government and they will be protecting those scumbags. So we would have to fight the U.S. Military to a point.

true but the main targets are the soft ones

 

[cpgrad08]

true but the main targets are the soft ones

True but the soft ones will be surrounded by harder ones.

 

[TurtleDude]

True but the soft ones will be surrounded by harder ones.

might require better marksmanship then

 

[Sisyphus]

Let the "anti gunners" say first just exactly what it is they have against many of us excersizing our 2A rights.
Is it the Zimmerman type of self defense, not trying to re try the case seeing as its settled law.
Is it just that you dont believe that in 2013 we should be owning such things. Or is it against certian types of firearms?
Moot, Haymarket, Sharon and the rest have the floor. No name calling, no calling out, no assumptions about people you dont actually know.

I'm okay with guns, but do tire of those who cannot own one without whining about it.

 

[TurtleDude]

I'm okay with guns, but do tire of those who cannot own one without whining about it.

uh who is that in reference to?

 

[Sisyphus]

uh who is that in reference to?

Quite a few of the gun-loving Right, calling Obama a gun-grabber, which is nonsense, etc.

When anyone of note (authority) advocates removal of 2A rights, be real sure and let me know. K?

 

[TurtleDude]

Quite a few of the gun-loving Right, calling Obama a gun-grabber, which is nonsense, etc.

When anyone of note (authority) advocates removal of 2A rights, be real sure and let me know. K?

a ban on 30 round magazines is an infringement of our rights

same with a ban on guns that cause people like you to become afraid is to

Obama would ban guns if he could He cannot so he incrementally pisses on our rights

 

[Sisyphus]

a ban on 30 round magazines is an infringement of our rights

same with a ban on guns that cause people like you to become afraid is to

Obama would ban guns if he could He cannot so he incrementally pisses on our rights

No; it's not. All manner of weapons are reserved for military use, in today's world. If you wanna go framer intent, can our military (which they feared). Then also have the responsibility to be called up to defend the country, should we need you for a militia. That's what the 2A is: an alternative to a standing army, which the FF feared would lead to coup d'état.

But today we need a military, due to the world moving faster than it did back then, when a war would take months to get under way. So the Supremes took a part of it and applied it in today's world: self defense. And when the SCOTUS determines that 30 rounds is anything but offensive, be reeeeeeal sure to let me know.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

True that, but even then I love it when people think that U.S. Military can't be defeated by a smaller force.

I'm not sure defeated is the right word but Ho Chi Minh and his boys put up a pretty good fight.

 

[TurtleDude]

No; it's not. All manner of weapons are reserved for military use, in today's world. If you wanna go framer intent, can our military (which they feared). Then also have the responsibility to me called up to defend the country, should we need you. That's what the 2A is: an alternative to a standing army, which the FF fear would lead to coup d'état.

But today we need a military, due to the world moving faster than it did back then, when a war would take months to get under way. So the FF took a part of it and applied it in today's world: self defense. And when the SCOTUS determines that 30 rounds is anything but offensive, be reeeeeeal sure to let me know.

that's moronic. Civilian police departments who cannot shoot people under circumstances different than we do have them

 

[Goshin]

I'm okay with guns, but do tire of those who cannot own one without whining about it.

You'd probably be a bit irritated as well, if a third of your elected representatives were trying hard to remove a Constitutional right that you highly valued. Just sayin'... everybody rolls their eyes until it is THEIR personal ox getting gored.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

I'm not sure defeated is the right word but Ho Chi Minh and his boys put up a pretty good fight.

When one is required to fight with both hands tied behind his back, it can make an opponent look a bit tougher...

 

[Sisyphus]

You'd probably be a bit irritated as well, if a third of your elected representatives were trying hard to remove a Constitutional right that you highly valued. Just sayin'... everybody rolls their eyes until it is THEIR personal ox getting gored.

I would indeed. Thankfully that's only happening in your delusional mind.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

When one is required to fight with both hands tied behind his back, it can make an opponent look a bit tougher...

Well there is that but seriously they were a tough opponent.

 

[TurtleDude]

I would indeed. Thankfully that's only happening in your delusional mind.

This sort of comment is not going to go well for you. He is right, many dems have tried to destroy our second amendment rights.