• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The 2nd amendment is to protect against tyranny! This is why you should fear..

No, your pathetic guns are nothing to the US military and just a minor concern to the police. That is a fact though you have deluded yourself into thinking you are Rambo. Also, we have seen a number of reductions to our freedoms and tyrannical actions and yet gun owners do not take up arms against the government. The miniscule number who have have met with death and arrest. Congress and the president o not even bother to ask themselves if gun owners would become violent if they pass a law against the people. It does not even cross their minds. That means the fear you inspire is a delusion that exists in your mind.

Oh, and I would not think so greatly of myself if I was not constantly responded to with this level of counter argument. if you want to tarnish my opinion of myself you will need to step up from your BS rhetoric and crappy one liners and make an actual argument or rebuttal.


more of a personal montage of unhappy personal words against anyone who bares a firearm.
 
just because i did not quote it does not mean my post did not apply to it.

Why don't you address this...

Mainly the war on drugs allowed gangs an easy way to make money. Crack is highly addictive and when people get hooked, they are hooked. Add in a lack of fathers and to many mother only families on welfare and it is a recipe for disaster. Now add our economy which is slowly recovering but not anywhere close to what it was and you have gun crime in the inner cities shooting up the gun statistics.

No one seems to want to talk about minority on minority crime in the inner city but 70%+ of our gun crime comes from that alone. Everytime I mention it, it get's ignored. If you took away suicides and inner city crime from our overall statistics (adding suicide is just dishonest as it is not a crime) our gun crime rate even with mass shootings is about the same as any industrialized nation with or without strict gun laws.

The problem is nobody wants to hear that. They would rather rage about assault rifles and mass shootings (which are rare). Then pass laws that have no effect on either and pat themselves on the back. Then it happens again and they want even more laws that do nothing but disarm or make it harder for law abiding citizens to own guns.

That is how it got this way. We don't want to address the causes of said crime. We would rather pass more laws to make ourselves feel good. Until as I said, it happens again.


No person wanting stricter gun laws has made any attempt to address the real root causes of gun crime, real crime at all. You would be the first!

If fact anyone? Haymarket? Threegoofs? 66Gardens? common anyone?
 
really the government does not fear the armed american?

no, they do not because you are not a threat. perhaps an individual cop or military person might have some fear if they have to directly confront an armed person, but you are not going to take down the government, or even offer up a fight against it with your gun.
then why have the senate had hearings on militia groups and the arming of american citizens.

because they want to destroy their voices which criticize. An organized group of people with some funding can do far more damage in a democracy with their voice presently than with their firearms. Therefor it becomes adventageous to make them criminals so others disregard what they say and you can pidgeonhole them into the violent wacko category for the public. Why do you think no one does a snowden on Alex jones? if they really feared alex jones he would be in prison. Instead he trashes his own reputation by being a wacko and tarnishes the credibility of every gun owners so it is good for them to let him speak.
as for Waco, i didnt see the people of do anything but stay holdup in a building.

That is what defending yourself with deadly force is when you are so outgunned you don't stand a chance.
sounds as though you dont love your fellow man, if he disagrees with you, and government can do anything to him they desire.

Really? Why should I love a guy who tells me he is my hero protecting me from government tyranny who would be too afraid to look out his peephole if the police were beating me slowly to death in the street? I will leave the unconditional love thing to jesus. Seriously, when did love become letting delusional people continue deluding themselves?
 
Why don't you address this...

Mainly the war on drugs allowed gangs an easy way to make money. Crack is highly addictive and when people get hooked, they are hooked. Add in a lack of fathers and to many mother only families on welfare and it is a recipe for disaster. Now add our economy which is slowly recovering but not anywhere close to what it was and you have gun crime in the inner cities shooting up the gun statistics.

No one seems to want to talk about minority on minority crime in the inner city but 70%+ of our gun crime comes from that alone. Everytime I mention it, it get's ignored. If you took away suicides and inner city crime from our overall statistics (adding suicide is just dishonest as it is not a crime) our gun crime rate even with mass shootings is about the same as any industrialized nation with or without strict gun laws.

The problem is nobody wants to hear that. They would rather rage about assault rifles and mass shootings (which are rare). Then pass laws that have no effect on either and pat themselves on the back. Then it happens again and they want even more laws that do nothing but disarm or make it harder for law abiding citizens to own guns.

That is how it got this way. We don't want to address the causes of said crime. We would rather pass more laws to make ourselves feel good. Until as I said, it happens again.


No person wanting stricter gun laws has made any attempt to address the real root causes of gun crime, real crime at all. You would be the first!

If fact anyone? Haymarket? Threegoofs? 66Gardens? common anyone?

When was the last time you roamed around town shooting drug dealers and fighting that war? When was the last time the NRA marched armed people into the streets to confront armed gangs? But in the end even if you did that you still are not willing to protect against tyranny. There is a big difference between a street gang and the police and military forces of the US. Changing the argument is not rebutting it. Try to learn that one for next time.
 
no, they do not because you are not a threat. perhaps an individual cop or military person might have some fear if they have to directly confront an armed person, but you are not going to take down the government, or even offer up a fight against it with your gun.


because they want to destroy their voices which criticize. An organized group of people with some funding can do far more damage in a democracy with their voice presently than with their firearms. Therefor it becomes adventageous to make them criminals so others disregard what they say and you can pidgeonhole them into the violent wacko category for the public. Why do you think no one does a snowden on Alex jones? if they really feared alex jones he would be in prison. Instead he trashes his own reputation by being a wacko and tarnishes the credibility of every gun owners so it is good for them to let him speak.


That is what defending yourself with deadly force is when you are so outgunned you don't stand a chance.


Really? Why should I love a guy who tells me he is my hero protecting me from government tyranny who would be too afraid to look out his peephole if the police were beating me slowly to death in the street? I will leave the unconditional love thing to jesus. Seriously, when did love become letting delusional people continue deluding themselves?



i cant even answer this.

because its just to stupid to respond to.
 
because they want to destroy their voices which criticize. An organized group of people with some funding can do far more damage in a democracy with their voice presently than with their firearms. Therefor it becomes adventageous to make them criminals so others disregard what they say and you can pidgeonhole them into the violent wacko category for the public.

Damn that 1st amendment getting in the way of your tyranny!
 
When was the last time you roamed around town shooting drug dealers and fighting that war? When was the last time the NRA marched armed people into the streets to confront armed gangs? But in the end even if you did that you still are not willing to protect against tyranny. There is a big difference between a street gang and the police and military forces of the US. Changing the argument is not rebutting it. Try to learn that one for next time.

In other words not only do you not understand what was asked. You have no response that makes any real sense at all.

It is not even in the same universe for a response.
 
you are aware the first amendment is not the second, and is presently far more powerful.

So far you are 3 for 3 at completely and utterly failing to understand what was written.
 
The 2nd Amendment says they don't.

i meant they proactively use that force. everything a government does is with force unlike a free market or religious establishment
 
In other words not only do you not understand what was asked. You have no response that makes any real sense at all.

It is not even in the same universe for a response.

No, gun owners have made the claim their presence prevents tyranny and now you are claiming it fights crime. Since you do not stand against tyranny and make no effort to fight crime it is a total lie that you have guns for that purpose. Police go out and fight crime. You may argue they do not do it much or as well as you like, but they do it which is something the gun community really does not do. If crime trips over them and effects them directly with no escape or when they overpower it they may do something, but they certainly are not a deterrent for gang violence like you have claimed because they do not actually confront it. If you are going to make the claim you will need to live up to it somewhere outside of your imagination.
 
No, gun owners have made the claim their presence prevents tyranny and now you are claiming it fights crime. Since you do not stand against tyranny and make no effort to fight crime it is a total lie that you have guns for that purpose.

Please point out where I said gun ownership fights crime? I am also an ex police officer, so yes I have stood directly in the line of fire against crime. I also never claimed I have guns for other than shooting at the range and self defence, I put in my time even though I work in security now because I am retired.

Police go out and fight crime. You may argue they do not do it much or as well as you like, but they do it which is something the gun community really does not do.

No one has said that is something the gun community does except, well you. It is not expected of the gun community as that would be vigilantism which is illegal. So you are suggesting gun owners go out and break the law?

I was the police, I know exactly what they do. We do not really fight crime. We do however enforce the law which in essence fights crime but not like you are trying to portray. I mean really, how does being a physical presence "fight crime?" We are not super hero's out fighting our arch enemy's in some comic book. We do have particular task forces that really do fight crime... Gang, organized, vice, internal affairs... so we have some. They are however a small percentage of officers. Most are just street cops maintaining a presence to deter crime and enforce traffic laws.

If crime trips over them and effects them directly with no escape or when they overpower it they may do something, but they certainly are not a deterrent for gang violence like you have claimed because they do not actually confront it.

Please point out where I have said gun owners are a "deterrent to gang violence?" I have never made such an asinine statement ever. Here or anyplace else.

If you are going to make the claim you will need to live up to it somewhere outside of your imagination.

And you are going to have to learn to read what is posted so you don't look so utterly freaking stupid, Jesus!
 
Please point out where I said gun ownership fights crime? I am also an ex police officer, so yes I have stood directly in the line of fire against crime. I also never claimed I have guns for other than shooting at the range and self defence, I put in my time even though I work in security now because I am retired.

Ok, so you are now saying you simply own a gun for entertainment purposes and it is not to fight tyranny or to stop crime. I do not need to argue anymore about my point as you have backed yourself right into it.


No one has said that is something the gun community does except, well you. It is not expected of the gun community as that would be vigilantism which is illegal. So you are suggesting gun owners go out and break the law?

So since being a vigilante is against the law any person claiming to be a law abiding citizen who wants guns for the purposes of fighting crime is a criminal. It also cannot be said that we allow arms for people to break the laws against being a vigilante because we make that action illegal. Which would also mean that the purpose of gun ownership to be for the citizens to revolt would also be wrong as we have laws against armed opposition to authority.

Thank you for walking into my point.
I was the police, I know exactly what they do. We do not really fight crime. We do however enforce the law which in essence fights crime but not like you are trying to portray. I mean really, how does being a physical presence "fight crime?" We are not super hero's out fighting our arch enemy's in some comic book. We do have particular task forces that really do fight crime... Gang, organized, vice, internal affairs... so we have some. They are however a small percentage of officers. Most are just street cops maintaining a presence to deter crime and enforce traffic laws.

Actually a strong and obvious police presence does stop crime, or at least pushes it down the road. You are a cop and you drove around. How many people slowed down and obeyed the speed limit simply because you were present? I used to work for gas stations and every one of them really liked when cops came in on the late night shift and would hang around talking. I am pretty sure that was because the obvious police presence deterred robbers rather than the cops conversational skills. Think about what our country would become without police presence. Do you really think things we consider crimes would stay at the same rate without police presence?


Please point out where I have said gun owners are a "deterrent to gang violence?" I have never made such an asinine statement ever. Here or anyplace else.



And you are going to have to learn to read what is posted so you don't look so utterly freaking stupid, Jesus!

You are not even arguing with me anymore. You are completely agreeing with my point here, but your blind rage at anyone who points out the truth about guns has clouded your mind. You did help to deter crime, and probably to catch and punish criminals as a cop. As a gun owner you do not prevent tyranny or deter crime as many gun owners love to portray. You admit it is there for entertainment, which is what target shooting is. That is my point. I do not need to argue further when it is made.
 
Ok, so you are now saying you simply own a gun for entertainment purposes and it is not to fight tyranny or to stop crime. I do not need to argue anymore about my point as you have backed yourself right into it.

No this is not what I said or even implied. Nice strawman. Has literally no value or anything to do with what I said.

So since being a vigilante is against the law any person claiming to be a law abiding citizen who wants guns for the purposes of fighting crime is a criminal.

Except for you, what person has said anything about fighting crime? It has nothing to do with fighting crime, no one has said anything even remotely close.

Another strawman.

It also cannot be said that we allow arms for people to break the laws against being a vigilante because we make that action illegal. Which would also mean that the purpose of gun ownership to be for the citizens to revolt would also be wrong as we have laws against armed opposition to authority.

This does not even make any sense?? WTF?

Thank you for walking into my point.

I am sorry but I make sense. Your quote above in nonsense. I made nothing for you and all you did is damage yourself further.

Actually a strong and obvious police presence does stop crime, or at least pushes it down the road. You are a cop and you drove around. How many people slowed down and obeyed the speed limit simply because you were present? I used to work for gas stations and every one of them really liked when cops came in on the late night shift and would hang around talking. I am pretty sure that was because the obvious police presence deterred robbers rather than the cops conversational skills. Think about what our country would become without police presence. Do you really think things we consider crimes would stay at the same rate without police presence?

This is nothing but useless babble that does not support anything you stated or refute anything I have said.

Thanks for wasting my time.

You are not even arguing with me anymore. You are completely agreeing with my point here, but your blind rage at anyone who points out the truth about guns has clouded your mind. You did help to deter crime, and probably to catch and punish criminals as a cop. As a gun owner you do not prevent tyranny or deter crime as many gun owners love to portray. You admit it is there for entertainment, which is what target shooting is. That is my point. I do not need to argue further when it is made.

Oh my god. OK you just run with that. :lamo

PS I love how you pointed out all the things I said... Oh wait, not one. Nice lies though.
 
No this is not what I said or even implied. Nice strawman. Has literally no value or anything to do with what I said.

Now I have you going in circles. So you are now implying that your gun is there for fighting crime, or tyranny? Could you make up your mind because you just backed way off of that and said i was wrong for going down that road. Perhaps it is not me who has a problem, but rather you who keeps romneying back and forth between contradictory points? As you have said, and I quote: "I also never claimed I have guns for other than shooting at the range and self defence," target shooting is entertainment, and self defense is a security blanket just as I have claimed. Those are your words agreeing with me dude.

Except for you, what person has said anything about fighting crime? It has nothing to do with fighting crime, no one has said anything even remotely close.

So you are saying self defense is not fighting crime? Your words are not matching your statements again.
Another strawman.



This does not even make any sense?? WTF?

you are the one who brought up the reality that being a vigilante and resisting authority with violence are crimes. Now in this thread people are arguing that using a gun to resist the government is the purpose of the second amendment. however, using a gun to resist the government is also a crime. You can own the gun, but you cannot legally use it on police officers to fight against the power. I see you have a problem with making contradictory arguments. Do you really not see that saying guns are for resisting tyranny as defined by our highest legal document and that resisting the government with guns is illegal according to our criminal system are two directly contradictory statements?


I am sorry but I make sense. Your quote above in nonsense. I made nothing for you and all you did is damage yourself further.

Directly contradicting yourself doesn't make much sense. Oh, and i am pretty sure the gun posse cannot think any less of me. I will let you know when i start caring about their opinions. Please feel free to hold your breath if you think that will help your argument.


This is nothing but useless babble that does not support anything you stated or refute anything I have said.

translation: you do not like being backed into a corner you cannot get out of.
Thanks for wasting my time.

Thank you for agreeing with my argument and supporting it with your own words.


Oh my god. OK you just run with that. :lamo

PS I love how you pointed out all the things I said... Oh wait, not one. Nice lies though.

Keep on helping me. I am cool with that. Oh, and thanks again for completely agreeing with what i have said. If you would like to continue showing that guns are not for opposing tyranny and crime fighting and are just there for entertainment and a security blanket have at it.
 
Now I have you going in circles. So you are now implying that your gun is there for fighting crime, or tyranny? Could you make up your mind because you just backed way off of that and said i was wrong for going down that road. Perhaps it is not me who has a problem, but rather you who keeps romneying back and forth between contradictory points? As you have said, and I quote: "I also never claimed I have guns for other than shooting at the range and self defence," target shooting is entertainment, and self defense is a security blanket just as I have claimed. Those are your words agreeing with me dude.

What part of "self defence" do I need to explain? And yes entertainment is absolutely part of it, no law against that now is there?

You are wrong, no one said anything about wanting a gun to fight tyranny except you. An armed populace is a safeguard against Tyranny, but you can't deal with that so you make up what amounts to an elaborate and incoherent lie. Specifically a strawman.

Now please point out what points I have been "romneying" back and forth on?

In fact you still have not shown where I said...

No, gun owners have made the claim their presence prevents tyranny and now you are claiming it fights crime. - Tererun

Ok, so you are now saying you simply own a gun for entertainment purposes and it is not to fight tyranny or to stop crime. - Tererun

but they certainly are not a deterrent for gang violence like you have claimed because they do not actually confront it. - Tererun

So you are saying self defense is not fighting crime? Your words are not matching your statements again.

My words are matching my statements exactly. You on the other hand don't seem to have a real good grasp on much of anything in this conversation.

Self defence is not fighting crime. Self defence is protecting yourself from crime. Fighting crime is proactive, defence is reactive. The fact that I have to even explain the difference says allot.

you are the one who brought up the reality that being a vigilante and resisting authority with violence are crimes.

That would be another falsehood....

Police go out and fight crime. You may argue they do not do it much or as well as you like, but they do it which is something the gun community really does not do. If crime trips over them and effects them directly with no escape or when they overpower it they may do something, but they certainly are not a deterrent for gang violence like you have claimed because they do not actually confront it. If you are going to make the claim you will need to live up to it somewhere outside of your imagination. - http://www.debatepolitics.com/gun-c...nny-why-you-should-fear-4.html#post1061963360

So who brought the subject up of gun owners going out and then "live up to it somewhere outside of your imagination." I wonder what that would be called? Hmmmm?

Now in this thread people are arguing that using a gun to resist the government is the purpose of the second amendment. however, using a gun to resist the government is also a crime. You can own the gun, but you cannot legally use it on police officers to fight against the power. I see you have a problem with making contradictory arguments. Do you really not see that saying guns are for resisting tyranny as defined by our highest legal document and that resisting the government with guns is illegal according to our criminal system are two directly contradictory statements?

Again you are completely missing the point and making a lousy strawman argument that is incoherent at best. Do you understand the difference between vigilantism and armed rebellion? Do you understand the difference between action and deterrent? An armed populace is the best guarantee against tyranny. The founders who had just fought an illegal war against the British crown knew this. So they absolutely wanted an armed populace for defence and a deterrent to tyranny, and if needed take up arms against it. Now please point out how our government has become so bad we need armed rebellion because you seem to be suggesting that we must do this now? But because it is illegal, we should be disarmed?

Vigilantism is a local and state crime, not Federal. Completely different in it's scope and implementation. Yet you seem to think somehow they go hand in hand??? What nonsense.

Directly contradicting yourself doesn't make much sense. Oh, and i am pretty sure the gun posse cannot think any less of me. I will let you know when i start caring about their opinions. Please feel free to hold your breath if you think that will help your argument.

Another lie. I have not made a contradictory statement. You have however confused your own senseless strawman with something I have said as shown above.

translation: you do not like being backed into a corner you cannot get out of.

Translation: Your argument is a circular room, there is no corner to be backed into.

Thank you for agreeing with my argument and supporting it with your own words.

Only someone with the IQ of say a potato, would think somehow my argument even remotely by accident resembles your lunacy. You have not even addressed my post? You just keep avoiding it and ranting about things I never said.

Keep on helping me. I am cool with that. Oh, and thanks again for completely agreeing with what i have said. If you would like to continue showing that guns are not for opposing tyranny and crime fighting and are just there for entertainment and a security blanket have at it.

Until you address this...

Mainly the war on drugs allowed gangs an easy way to make money. Crack is highly addictive and when people get hooked, they are hooked. Add in a lack of fathers and to many mother only families on welfare and it is a recipe for disaster. Now add our economy which is slowly recovering but not anywhere close to what it was and you have gun crime in the inner cities shooting up the gun statistics.

No one seems to want to talk about minority on minority crime in the inner city but 70%+ of our gun crime comes from that alone. Everytime I mention it, it get's ignored. If you took away suicides and inner city crime from our overall statistics (adding suicide is just dishonest as it is not a crime) our gun crime rate even with mass shootings is about the same as any industrialized nation with or without strict gun laws.

The problem is nobody wants to hear that. They would rather rage about assault rifles and mass shootings (which are rare). Then pass laws that have no effect on either and pat themselves on the back. Then it happens again and they want even more laws that do nothing but disarm or make it harder for law abiding citizens to own guns.

That is how it got this way. We don't want to address the causes of said crime. We would rather pass more laws to make ourselves feel good. Until as I said, it happens again.


Or the lie's you said I am responsible for above, you are just peeing in the wind. :2wave:
 
2 problems with the idea that gun ownership protects against tyranny.

1. Your gun is no longer effective. Yes, way back when owning a gun put you close to on par with military forces. Today the government has tanks, planes, armored cars, guided missiles, and drones. That is not to mention the better foot soldier weapons the military has compared to your regular gun owner. They are not concerned about gun owners when they do not have to be local to you and be in range of you to kill you.

2. Gun owners are cowardly for the most part and not heroes. They do not want guns to stand up to someone, they want guns to be above someone. They will not fight if the odds are even or stacked against them. They will never actually stand up to a tyrannical force taking over the country. They are not our heroes saving us from a tyrannical government and protecting our freedoms. They will barely stand up for their own rights with deadly force. In order to inspire any fear you have to be willing to fight. Hot air is not fighting.

gun owners are not patriotic heroes for buying a gun. They are either people seeking an entertainment venue, or scared people looking for a security blanket. It would be nice if people could stick to the honest reasons for owning a legal gun rather than jerking themselves off pretending they are this nation's heroic protectors.

I'm curious, why do you think that you (or other people) have the legitimate authority to tell your neighbor what firearm he may possess? How does one person acquire such authority over his fellow man?
 
It doesn't matter if i wanted it or not. They were well armed, in a compound, and in a large group willing to fight and die for their group. They got steamrolled, and it really wasn't hard for the government to get rid of them. You are not effective or dangerous to the military. You cannot fight an enemy that doesn't even have to give you a shot at them to kill you. You could have full autos with extended clips and if you still cannot fight something you cannot physically shoot. Even the police with their much more limited arsenal are overpowering to you. The government doesn't fear your gun. So go back to the protecting yourself against criminals thing because that at least could happen. It is rare, but it might actually happen.

Clearly you don't get guerrilla warfare. Locking yourself in a compound is different than a full scale nation wide occupation. Ask the Boers.
 
Why exactly is legal sanction required for the tools of an illegal revolution? Not passing judgment on such a revolution by calling it illegal, but all revolutions are illegal, especially if they lose. Assuming that a government would safeguard the means of its own destruction is a really bizarre notion.

Interesting question. Especially since it's already illegal to have an armed rebellion to overthrow the government. So if you followed this reasoning to its conclusion, why does it need to be "legal?" If you're already willing to go down the overthrow route, why does it matter?
 
No one seems to want to talk about minority on minority crime in the inner city but 70%+ of our gun crime comes from that alone. Everytime I mention it, it get's ignored.

OK, so how does arming them all fix that?
 
OK, so how does arming them all fix that?

Who said anything about "arming" anyone? Who is saying arming gang members will fix something?

As soon as you find this mythical person, you let me know, OK?
 
Who said anything about "arming" anyone? Who is saying arming gang members will fix something?

As soon as you find this mythical person, you let me know, OK?

You're the one who's all concerned about gang violence in a Second Amendment thread. Many gang members end up in prison, or with longer terms, because they violated a gun control law that you rail against. So if we got rid of all of those laws, made their guns 100% legal, how does that change the gang violence problem?
 
You're the one who's all concerned about gang violence in a Second Amendment thread.

Among other things the the anti's dodge, yes.

Many gang members end up in prison, or with longer terms, because they violated a gun control law that you rail against.

Well I would love to see the statistics on that? I would also like to see the gun laws I "rail" against while finding those other stats?

So if we got rid of all of those laws, made their guns 100% legal, how does that change the gang violence problem?

Well first off you are going to have to show me what those "laws" are we need to get rid of considering I have said nothing at all about getting rid of any particular gun law. Then you are going to have to point out what my comment about gang gun violence even remotely has to do with the simple minded stupidity of your post.
 
Your gun is no longer effective. Yes, way back when owning a gun put you close to on par with military forces. Today the government has tanks, planes, armored cars, guided missiles, and drones. That is not to mention the better foot soldier weapons the military has compared to your regular gun owner. They are not concerned about gun owners when they do not have to be local to you and be in range of you to kill you.

All this shows is your complete lacking of understanding when it comes to both gun ownership and tyranny.

Gun owners are cowardly for the most part and not heroes. They do not want guns to stand up to someone, they want guns to be above someone. They will not fight if the odds are even or stacked against them. They will never actually stand up to a tyrannical force taking over the country. They are not our heroes saving us from a tyrannical government and protecting our freedoms. They will barely stand up for their own rights with deadly force. In order to inspire any fear you have to be willing to fight. Hot air is not fighting.

Aside from this being a lot of projection on your point, it again shows you know next to nothing when it comes to gun ownership and what freedom is all about.

gun owners are not patriotic heroes for buying a gun.

I doubt you understand being patriotic.
 
......

gun owners are not patriotic heroes for buying a gun. They are either people seeking an entertainment venue, or scared people looking for a security blanket. It would be nice if people could stick to the honest reasons for owning a legal gun rather than jerking themselves off pretending they are this nation's heroic protectors.


You mean like robbing people for crack money or shooting rival drug dealers/gang bangers......that 48% statistic is entirely inconvenient to the left which is why they ignore it like the plague
 
Back
Top Bottom