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

[Spartacus FPV]

OK, so how does arming them all fix that?

Allowing someone their 2nd Amendment rights is not arming them.

 

[rocket88]

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



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?



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.

You're going to have to point out to me what it has to do with gun control in the first place...There's a lot of gang violence and if it weren't for gun laws there wouldn't be? That's an awfully big leap, don't you think?

 

[rocket88]

Allowing someone their 2nd Amendment rights is not arming them.

So you support gang bangers having guns?

 

[Spartacus FPV]

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 alon

OK, so how does arming them all fix that?

Allowing someone their 2nd Amendment rights is not arming them.

So you support gang bangers having guns?

Why do you equate minorities with gang bangers?

 

[rocket88]

Why do you equate minorities with gang bangers?

If they're killing other people with guns, then there's not a big distinction.

So answer this -- If you took away every gun law in existence, would that do anything to lower the violence level?

 

[Spartacus FPV]

If they're killing other people with guns, then there's not a big distinction.

Lawful self defense includes killing other people with guns.

So answer this -- If you took away every gun law in existence, would that do anything to lower the violence level?

The gun control in cities like Chicago or Detriot certainly don't help, when DC's handgun ban was removed they finally got their annual homicides under 100 in a year. It would help, but violent crimes are already on the decline most everywhere; less so in high gun control law cities.

Ending the war on drugs, and the power/money that gives to gangs would have a better effect on reducing violence. Especially cartel violence.

 

[Black Dog]

You're going to have to point out to me what it has to do with gun control in the first place...There's a lot of gang violence and if it weren't for gun laws there wouldn't be? That's an awfully big leap, don't you think?

Instead of asking retarded leading questions, why don't you actually read my post? It explains the whole thing. The only big leap here is in your logic, not mine. Maybe if you werent trying like all the rest to avoid answering, you would get someplace.

 

[rocket88]

Lawful self defense includes killing other people with guns.

I meant using a gun to kill another person. I see where I could have phrased it better, though.

 

[BretJ]

If they're killing other people with guns, then there's not a big distinction.

So answer this -- If you took away every gun law in existence, would that do anything to lower the violence level?

Probably not. The same people that are currently obeying the laws would still obey the laws concerning armed robbery, murder, extortion, etc. The same asshats that are killing each other would still be killing each other. The only thing that would lower the violence level would entail changing the whole gangsta thug culture. Changing the whole entitlement culture thing would help as well. Ask yourself this, who is doing what to who?

 

[VanceMack]

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.

Its the ultimate catch 22. The founders built the safeguards into the Consitution. The only way the federal government could usurp those Constitutional rights without the will of the people through the amendment process would be to demonstrate that they have in fact abandoned the constitution and were then no longer the lawful government of the land but rather a tyranny and thus, subject to being ousted by 'the people'.

When people think about 'the people' and a tyrannical government the first image most people have and promote is that of the average citizen with a rake and a hoe (or assault rifle) standing up to the full force of the military. That ignores reality. Each state has a 'militia'...an army made up of citizen soldiers.

I dont think the government is at the point of tyranny but I do think more than a few would agree they have very much overstepped their boundaries. But I also very much doubt the current administration and government is 'thrilled' with the 2nd amendment. Or really...any of the first 10. THIS government didnt put those protections in place.

 

[TurtleDude]

nothing but a personal rant against gun owners.

generally those who hate honest people being armed are those most likely to engage in activity that would cause an honest person to shoot them or one of their lovers

 

[head of joaquin]

Governments have an innate oppressive nature and people need a last defense against despotism in case all other avenues are exhausted. We are closer to despotism then many realize and its all explained here FEAR GOVERNMENT! - YouTube watch and discuss!

Yeah, that's why the NRA and gun owners came to the defense of the Civil Rights movement, when armed government officials attacked them. Wait, they didn't -- they agreed with the segregationists.

But, that's why the NRA and gun owners came to the defense of union organizers against armed government officials. Wait, they didn't, they took the government's side against the commies.

But that's why the NRA and gun owners came to the defense of anti-War protestors when armed government officials attacked them. Wait, the didn't. They took the side of the government against the pinkos.

But that's why the NRA and gun owners came to the defense of environmental activists when armed government official attacked them Wait, they didn't. They took the side of the government against the tree huggers.

You're batting 1000 boys!

 

[TurtleDude]

Yeah, that's why the NRA and gun owners came to the defense of the Civil Rights movement, when armed government officials attacked them. Wait, they didn't -- they agreed with the segregationists.

But, that's why the NRA and gun owners came to the defense of union organizers against armed government officials. Wait, they didn't, they took the government's side against the commies.

But that's why the NRA and gun owners came to the defense of anti-War protestors when armed government officials attacked them. Wait, the didn't. They took the side of the government against the pinkos.

But that's why the NRA and gun owners came to the defense of environmental activists when armed government official attacked them Wait, they didn't. They took the side of the government against the tree huggers.

You're batting 1000 boys!

I thought you big government statists loved government attacks on dissidents

 

[CRUE CAB]

Yeah, that's why the NRA and gun owners came to the defense of the Civil Rights movement, when armed government officials attacked them. Wait, they didn't -- they agreed with the segregationists.

But, that's why the NRA and gun owners came to the defense of union organizers against armed government officials. Wait, they didn't, they took the government's side against the commies.

But that's why the NRA and gun owners came to the defense of anti-War protestors when armed government officials attacked them. Wait, the didn't. They took the side of the government against the pinkos.

But that's why the NRA and gun owners came to the defense of environmental activists when armed government official attacked them Wait, they didn't. They took the side of the government against the tree huggers.

You're batting 1000 boys!

Try keeping it in this century.
The NRA is what stands between the US public and a government bent on taking its guns. Like them or not.

 

[Linc]

Try keeping it in this century.
The NRA is what stands between the US public and a government bent on taking its guns. Like them or not.

Rightie POV's never go to the previous century or two or three or more. Besides, guns and military spending are just too damn important to the economy. Does the NRA control 41 Senators at any given time, or do they speak independently when they filibuster on gun issues?

 

[Master PO]

Rightie POV's never go to the previous century or two or three or more. Besides, guns and military spending are just too damn important to the economy. Does the NRA control 41 Senators at any given time, or do they speak independently when they filibuster on gun issues?

i am sure you have to know the special interest groups from both the left and right, have senators ears.

 

[TurtleDude]

Rightie POV's never go to the previous century or two or three or more. Besides, guns and military spending are just too damn important to the economy. Does the NRA control 41 Senators at any given time, or do they speak independently when they filibuster on gun issues?

if the supreme court had done its job in 1939 we would never have had to deal with the idiots in the senate who want to ban guns for these reasons

1) to show they wanted to do something about the criminals created by the abject stupidity of prohibition

2) to stave off charges that dems were soft on black street crime in the 1960s

3) to punish the NRA for opposing the scumbag Dems tactics of using gun control as a shield against charges that Dems coddled black street criminals

 

[Linc]

Wasn't that SCOTUS Republican, and the one FDR tried to expand to 15? Aren't your stated idiots in the Senate really your actual idiots in the Executive. Enough Dems voted with your team this time around to claim it is bipartisan your way. And more wanted to.

if the supreme court had done its job in 1939 we would never have had to deal with the idiots in the senate who want to ban guns for these reasons

1) to show they wanted to do something about the criminals created by the abject stupidity of prohibition

2) to stave off charges that dems were soft on black street crime in the 1960s

3) to punish the NRA for opposing the scumbag Dems tactics of using gun control as a shield against charges that Dems coddled black street criminals

 

[TurtleDude]

Wasn't that SCOTUS Republican, and the one FDR tried to expand to 15? Aren't your stated idiots in the Senate really your actual idiots in the Executive. Enough Dems voted with your team this time around to claim it is bipartisan your way. And more wanted to.

The 1939 Court was the one that had been *****-whipped into compliance with the illegal threat of a court packing scheme

McReynolds (Dem-Wilson) wrote Opinion

Hughes (Hoover, Rep)

Butler, (Democrat)

Stone, (Republican)

Roberts, (Republican)

Black, (Democrat)

Reed (Democrat)

and Frankfurter (Democratic)

Justice Douglas did not take part in the decision

5 Dems, 3 Republicans

 

[Linc]

1) On prohibition, agreed. Why do we not hear of the ingraining of the 5 WHITE crime familes DUE to prohibition?
Aren't they really the overseers of black/gang crime in "liberal" portions of cities? Prohibition, another smooth move of the Just say No crowd, brought to you by Repubs and southern dems who are now Repubs.

if the supreme court had done its job in 1939 we would never have had to deal with the idiots in the senate who want to ban guns for these reasons

1) to show they wanted to do something about the criminals created by the abject stupidity of prohibition

2) to stave off charges that dems were soft on black street crime in the 1960s

3) to punish the NRA for opposing the scumbag Dems tactics of using gun control as a shield against charges that Dems coddled black street criminals

 

[Linc]

I like being able to trust people's statements without checking, or saying where's my 'linc'? What exactly was this court ******s about? 12 days until we join the rest of the Country with a CCW law. Too bad it is not the same law for all 50 states. To derail, do you believe in getting out of your truck with a holster with a loaded weapon?

The 1939 Court was the one that had been *****-whipped into compliance with the illegal threat of a court packing scheme

McReynolds (Dem-Wilson) wrote Opinion

Hughes (Hoover, Rep)

Butler, (Democrat)

Stone, (Republican)

Roberts, (Republican)

Black, (Democrat)

Reed (Democrat)

and Frankfurter (Democratic)

Justice Douglas did not take part in the decision

5 Dems, 3 Republicans

 

[TurtleDude]

I like being able to trust people's statements without checking, or saying where's my 'linc'? What exactly was this court ******s about? 12 days until we join the rest of the Country with a CCW law. Too bad it is not the same law for all 50 states. To derail, do you believe in getting out of your truck with a holster with a loaded weapon?

that question has too many facts not in evidence to answer

 

[Linc]

Turtle Dude
2) I continue to advocate using the military in our cities, coming home from war and/or peace zones along with those at home, once trained. Just as I do on border patrol and dealing with natural disasters.

If the SCOTUS Corruptus continues to abuse the 10th amendment to help Repubs by denying partial Martial Law with a new Marshall plan at home, we better start thinking about a complete Martial Law that concentrates on the trouble areas if they are so bad. It's not like we're not at war overseas. Then Limbaugh will be happy since he predicted it after the 2008 election and before Obama was sworn in.

 

[YoungConserv]

Turtle Dude
2) I continue to advocate using the military in our cities, coming home from war and/or peace zones along with those at home, once trained. Just as I do on border patrol and dealing with natural disasters.

If the SCOTUS Corruptus continues to abuse the 10th amendment to help Repubs by denying partial Martial Law with a new Marshall plan at home, we better start thinking about a complete Martial Law that concentrates on the trouble areas if they are so bad. It's not like we're not at war overseas. Then Limbaugh will be happy since he predicted it after the 2008 election and before Obama was sworn in.

Don't forget their total abandonment of article 3

 

[Linc]

500 divided by 0 is undefined.

Don't forget their total abandonment of article 3