- Joined
- Oct 22, 2012
- Messages
- 32,516
- Reaction score
- 5,321
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
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.
just because i did not quote it does not mean my post did not apply to it.
really the government does not fear the armed american?
then why have the senate had hearings on militia groups and the arming of american citizens.
as for Waco, i didnt see the people of do anything but stay holdup in a building.
sounds as though you dont love your fellow man, if he disagrees with you, and government can do anything to him they desire.
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?
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?
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.
you are aware the first amendment is not the second, and is presently far more powerful.
The 2nd Amendment says they don't.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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?
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.
No this is not what I said or even implied. Nice strawman. Has literally no value or anything to do with what I said.
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.
This does not even make any sense?? WTF?
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.
This is nothing but useless babble that does not support anything you stated or refute anything I have said.
Thanks for wasting my time.
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.
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.
So you are saying self defense is not fighting crime? Your words are not matching your statements again.
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?
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.
translation: you do not like being backed into a corner you cannot get out of.
Thank you for agreeing with my argument and supporting it with your own words.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
......
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?