Right to self defence?

[DVSentinel]

Remember when they told you that Obama was going to take our guns?
Remember when they said there was going to be death panels?
Remember all the other similarly alarmist and paranoid things right wingers said was going to happen that never did happen, were never going to happen, and never will happen?

Same thing.

Obama only had less than 2 years with a liberal majority in congress and never had an absolute left leaning court. Kennedy almost always went against gun control measures, thus unbalancing the court in favor of the 2nd amendment. With the appoint of the next justice, Hillary will have a court that is unbalanced in favor of the leftist agenda instead of the constitution and she is under and will remain under pressure to bring about gun control. Obama was never able to push through that agenda, Hillary will have no problem.

Oh, if she is elected, I can 100% guarantee there will be violence. It is just a matter of what scale it will occur on. If she wins, the day after the election, I will be spending almost all my money on ammunition and range time to practice my long range targeting.

 

[Opopanax]

Oh, if she is elected, I can 100% guarantee there will be violence. It is just a matter of what scale it will occur on. If she wins, the day after the election, I will be spending almost all my money on ammunition and range time to practice my long range targeting.

Who are you going to shoot?

 

[Phys251]

Simply, does the right to self defense apply to defending yourself against government agents?

If an innocent person is confronted by government agents, can they defend themselves, or do they have to comply with the threat of force?

Is government force always right?

If the answer is yes, did that right apply to Eric Garner, Michael Brown, or Freddie Gray?

 

[Phys251]

Obama only had less than 2 years with a liberal majority in congress and never had an absolute left leaning court. Kennedy almost always went against gun control measures, thus unbalancing the court in favor of the 2nd amendment. With the appoint of the next justice, Hillary will have a court that is unbalanced in favor of the leftist agenda instead of the constitution and she is under and will remain under pressure to bring about gun control. Obama was never able to push through that agenda, Hillary will have no problem.

Oh, if she is elected, I can 100% guarantee there will be violence. It is just a matter of what scale it will occur on. If she wins, the day after the election, I will be spending almost all my money on ammunition and range time to practice my long range targeting.

And then do what?

 

[TurtleDude]

And then do what?

become a better marksman obviously. Me I am loading up on 22 ammo, AR 15 mags and other normal capacity magazines that I use for competition because there will be a massive run on these if Bannerrhoid Clinton gets elected. Plus primers for reloading and powder. many people are stocking up on AR 15 receivers-for 50-70 bucks you have the part requires you to fill out the 4473 form which establishes when you bought it So if there is another idiotic federal AWB, you have established you owned the receiver prior to the ban and who is to say when you made it into a full rifle. same with magazines-buy a bunch now and if there is a ban, you have plenty until the idiocy is set aside.

 

[Casper]

become a better marksman obviously. Me I am loading up on 22 ammo, AR 15 mags and other normal capacity magazines that I use for competition because there will be a massive run on these if Bannerrhoid Clinton gets elected. Plus primers for reloading and powder. many people are stocking up on AR 15 receivers-for 50-70 bucks you have the part requires you to fill out the 4473 form which establishes when you bought it So if there is another idiotic federal AWB, you have established you owned the receiver prior to the ban and who is to say when you made it into a full rifle. same with magazines-buy a bunch now and if there is a ban, you have plenty until the idiocy is set aside.

D*mn Good Advice.

 

[Grand Mal]

Simply, does the right to self defense apply to defending yourself against government agents?

If an innocent person is confronted by government agents, can they defend themselves, or do they have to comply with the threat of force?

Is government force always right?

Government force might not alwys be right but it's always there. Don't like it? Move outside it's reach.
Good luck.

 

[Phys251]

become a better marksman obviously. Me I am loading up on 22 ammo, AR 15 mags and other normal capacity magazines that I use for competition because there will be a massive run on these if Bannerrhoid Clinton gets elected. Plus primers for reloading and powder. many people are stocking up on AR 15 receivers-for 50-70 bucks you have the part requires you to fill out the 4473 form which establishes when you bought it So if there is another idiotic federal AWB, you have established you owned the receiver prior to the ban and who is to say when you made it into a full rifle. same with magazines-buy a bunch now and if there is a ban, you have plenty until the idiocy is set aside.

I'm not worried about the guns themselves. I'm worried about what some people might do with those guns. All the anti-government, pro-revolution talk I've heard over the last few years has me wondering.

Ah well. In part thanks to your boy George W. Bush, if they acted like terrorists, they'd be treated as terrorists.

 

[Henrin]

I'm not worried about the guns themselves. I'm worried about what some people might do with those guns. All the anti-government, pro-revolution talk I've heard over the last few years has me wondering.

Ah well. In part thanks to your boy George W. Bush, if they acted like terrorists, they'd be treated as terrorists.

Maybe you should concern yourself with the causes of it, which btw is not mental illness.

 

[Phys251]

Maybe you should concern yourself with the causes of it, which btw is not mental illness.

Gaslighting is not the winning strategy that you apparently think it is.

 

[TurtleDude]

I'm not worried about the guns themselves. I'm worried about what some people might do with those guns. All the anti-government, pro-revolution talk I've heard over the last few years has me wondering.

Ah well. In part thanks to your boy George W. Bush, if they acted like terrorists, they'd be treated as terrorists.

lots of the Democrats and lefties think anyone who supports the second amendment as it was intended to be interpreted is a terrorist and should be crushed by the government. but at least those types aren't pretending their anti gun hatred is based on a desire to control street crime

 

[Henrin]

Gaslighting is not the winning strategy that you apparently think it is.

People don't talk of revolution if they find themselves happy with their situation. Do you think that's it's possible that they're mad about something that you support?

 

[Phys251]

People don't talk of revolution if they find themselves happy with their situation. Do you think that's it's possible that they're mad about something that you support?

Do factions of people have the right to attack a lawfully elected government simply because they don't get their way?

 

[TurtleDude]

Do factions of people have the right to attack a lawfully elected government simply because they don't get their way?

nope not at all, i believe the other posters are talking about a scenario where the government ignores the constitution and engages in oppression of those who have peacefully exercised their rights prior to the advent of a anti-constitutional government and seek to continue to exercise their rights

 

[Henrin]

Do factions of people have the right to attack a lawfully elected government simply because they don't get their way?

Yes they do.

 

[Phys251]

Yes they do.

Too bad for you that such acts are called terrorism and would be dealt with appropriately.

 

[Phys251]

nope not at all, i believe the other posters are talking about a scenario where the government ignores the constitution and engages in oppression of those who have peacefully exercised their rights prior to the advent of a anti-constitutional government and seek to continue to exercise their rights

That is a spectacularly PC way of saying exactly what I just said earlier.

 

[Henrin]

Too bad for you that such acts are called terrorism and would be dealt with appropriately.

You mean considered terrorism by the government. I hardly think that matters much.

 

[Phys251]

You mean considered terrorism by the government. I hardly think that matters much.

Osama bin Laden would like a word with you.

 

[Caine]

I just don't get that reasoning. Allowing people to capture you, so that you can fight it out in their chains and in their courts isn't logical.

Its called due process.

So what you are basically advocating is anarchy......

 

[Henrin]

Osama bin Laden would like a word with you.

Why? Is he somehow not dead?

 

[Tigerace117]

Yes they do.

Then you can't realistically complain when government squashes those spoiled brats like insects.

 

[Phys251]

Why? Is he somehow not dead?

It was a joke. You said that what the government considers terrorism doesn't matter much. Well, Osama had to find the hard way that such a sentiment was wrong.

 

[TheGoverness]

Yes they do.

Well then, don't be surprised when said individuals are riddled with bullet holes.

 

[Henrin]

Then you can't realistically complain when government squashes those spoiled brats like insects.

Desiring freedom is being a spoiled brat? I wonder how that works.