# The Second amendment and the koolaid drinkers



## miketx (Jan 4, 2016)

Second Amendment and the koolaid drinkers

by Paul Howe


I have quietly watched and evaluated the in pouring of e-mails reference the liberal’s intent to seize guns and crush the second amendment.  I want to add a few of my own thoughts on this issue as I have worked in and around all the people who could be tasked to seize your guns.

*WHO’S COMING TO GET THEM?*

*United Nations (UN)*
We are the UN.  Other countries mostly join the U.N. to secure money, funding and training and few have any offensive combat capability. Most serve as guards at static locations and have no will to fight.  America is the enforcement arm of the U.N.  We have the money, equipment, personnel and lift platforms to get the job done.

If the president ever let the U.N. in this country, it would be a foreign invasion and armed Americans would stand up and crush them in a day. Our government would break down and the president would be ousted for letting foreign militaries invade our country.

*Federal Government Military*
Having served over 20 years in our military, I know that most soldiers would refuse the order to take part in the confiscation of weapons. First, the president would have to give the order, which is an “Illegal Order” in violation of the constitution.  I don’t believe that service members would go back into the communities that raised them and conduct raids on good Americans in violation of the constitution.

Remember, these forces would have to come from a military base that is surrounded and supported by American communities.  Civilians would simply cease to support the bases and they would fold in a short time.  Cut of the fuel, food, electricity on bases and this would stop the silliness.  Also, many, many service members live in the communities and they would have to travel from their houses to base unless they were locked down.  In that case, their families would still be in the community and people would not be too friendly to those supporting these actions.

*Federal Government DHS or TSA*
The Federal government is not large enough or talented enough to seize guns.  If they were to do 5-8 raids a day seizing guns, they would be physically and mentally exhausted and need a break.  Physically conducting raids is exhausting.  After the first few raids, the word would get out and Americans would start to fight back.  It would take one good ambush from a house or along a travel route to decimate a tactical force or make it combat ineffective

Next, most Federal Agencies work out of a fixed location centrally located in a community.  Also, their personnel live in those communities along with their families.  Once the word got out that they were doing raids in violation to the constitution, they and their families would be at risk.  If they were to start raiding houses, kicking in doors and breaking in windows looking for legally owned guns, their homes would be subject to the same treatment by Americans rising up to defend themselves.  They would shortly find themselves without a place to live.

*State Law Enforcement*
The Governor would have to order State and Local Law Enforcement to either:


Seize guns
Ignore the Federal Orders
If they ignore the Federal Orders, things would be tense, but people would be civil. If they started to seize guns, they only have limited people and assets to do this. Much the same consequences would take place as with the Federal Government.

*Local Law Enforcement*
Local Police and Sheriff Departments are the backbone of who protects American Citizens.  A Sheriff or Chief of Police would have to give the order for his people to begin to seize weapons.  Their people would either comply or see it as an illegal order and refuse.

Remember, Chiefs and Sheriff’s also have to live and work in the same communities they serve. As I described with the Federal Government, local Tactical Teams could probably only do 8-10 hits in a day and then need a break. So they hit ten houses and seize their guns, the word would get out and now they are subject to living in the same community as those they are attacking.  It would not go well.  Also, after one or two determined Americans or combat vets fought back, the team would lose many to death or injury and they would have made a decision whether to continue to push the fight.  Remember also, they have to sleep sometime.  Their homes and families would be at risk.  It is an ugly scenario at best.

*Nation of Combat Veterans and Patriots*
Having been at war for over 10 years, we have a nation of combat vets and contractors that have seen more action than many of our WWII vets.  It has been said that only a small percentage of Americans stood up to the British War machine in the Revolutionary War.  Americans are better armed and trained today than at any time in our nation’s history. Think about what would happen if just our nation’s veterans stood up. People have been buying more guns and ammunition in the past five years than any time in my life. The guns and ammunition are out there along with the talent to use them.

*Kool-Aid Drinkers*
Kool-Aid Drinkers is the term I use to describe the Jonestown voluntarily massacre where the Peoples Temple Agricultural Project, a dedicated community western Guyana by the Peoples Temple led by cult leader Jim Jones intentionally drank poison Kool-Aid.  Over 900 people died.

In every law enforcement, government and military agency or branch, there are a small number of Kool-Aid drinkers who would blindly follow orders.  They would either be purged internally by their co-workers or people they attacked would stop their gene pool.

Also, at the police tactical team level, all members “volunteer” for the job and they can have the individual integrity to terminate their team service at any time if their profession becomes corrupt or misguided.  I know many a good officer that has done that in the past.

Finally, there would be a certain number of American Kool-Aid drinkers that would turn in their weapons if asked.  I believe it would be a small percentage as there are always those that do not have the will to resist or fight and they are not needed should thing get tough.

*History of “Gun-Free Zones”*
Our nation’s history is filled with examples of “gun-free” zones failed.

The Aurora Colorado movie massacre and the recent Connecticut shooting are two that come to mind.  Also, remember the Fort Hood massacre where an Islamic extremist Major Nidal Malik Hasan killed 13 soldiers because our military bases are gun free zones.  Combat trained soldiers had to be rescued by a security guard.  That is embarrassing.

Evil came to all of these places and everyone was disarmed and not ready to fight back because they were gun free zones.
Think what would happen at a national level if the American people were disarmed.  Another evil would come along either from inside our country or outside of it and resulting in our downfall.

*How about others in recent history:*
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

*Solutions*
Write your state representatives and let them know how you feel about this issue. I would like to think that most states would refuse the order.

Next, at the local level, talk to your Sheriff or Chief of Police and ask them if they would allow or support the federal government in their confiscation of firearms.  Put them on the spot now and hold them accountable. I like to think that most states would refuse the order.

Should firearm confiscation begin, solutions are simple.  If they cannot live in a community, they cannot work in a community. If their house goes away while they are at work confiscating guns, so be it.  Allow them to leave with their family and what possessions they can pack in their car.  Point them to California and let them know all the Hollywood types would be happy to financially support them in the fantasy land they wish to live in and that they are not welcome in Free America.

In the end I believe that guns are the glue that hold our country together. Guns keep the government in check and the individual American safe and free.  Remove guns and the government will no longer be controlled by the people. The government will control the people.

Finally, it is claimed that the Battles of Lexington and Concord, in 1775 were started because General Gage attempted to carry out an order by the British government to disarm the population resulting in the “Shot heard round the world.”

*About the Author*
Paul R. Howe is a 20-year veteran and former Special Operations soldier and instructor. He owns Combat Shooting and Tactics (CSAT), where he consults with, trains and evaluates law enforcement and government agencies in technical and tactical techniques throughout the special operations spectrum. Seewww.combatshootingandtactics.com for details.

2nd Amendment And The Kool-Aid Drinkers by Paul Howe


----------



## Eaglewings (Jan 4, 2016)

It seems like every time that there is an election the "Their coming to take your guns" story that rolls around, sorta like the code orange fear tactic


----------



## miketx (Jan 4, 2016)

Eaglewings said:


> It seems like every time that there is an election the "Their coming to take your guns" story that rolls around, sorta like the code orange fear tactic



You are absolutely correct! But they call for more and more gun control EVERY year. If you and the rest of the libtard collective would pay attention to anything other than little boys, you would know this.


----------



## petro (Jan 7, 2016)

Miketx... good post and very good points by the Author.


----------



## Elvis Obama (Jan 22, 2016)

There are only two reasons why anyone would want to confiscate your guns. 

1- A wedge for tyranny. This is silly. Paranoid nonsense.

2- A desperate attempt to reduce gun deaths. If the opponents to reasonable efforts to reduce gun violence weren't so fanatical, their opponents wouldn't be forced to take extreme, and unwise, counter measures.


----------



## miketx (Jan 22, 2016)

Hey elvis, there's a building that needs leaving. It looks like this:


----------



## Elvis Obama (Jan 22, 2016)

miketx said:


> Hey elvis, there's a building that needs leaving. It looks like this:


Extremism is met with extremism. It's lunatics who push this issue to the edge. Lunatics like.... YOU! Morons who believe they're upholding important principles by being cowards. 

No! You leave the country! No!! YOU leave the country. Childish ass.


----------



## PredFan (Jan 22, 2016)

Eaglewings said:


> It seems like every time that there is an election the "Their coming to take your guns" story that rolls around, sorta like the code orange fear tactic



They ARE coming to take our guns. Only a fool thinks otherwise.


----------



## PredFan (Jan 22, 2016)

Elvis Obama said:


> There are only two reasons why anyone would want to confiscate your guns.
> 
> 1- A wedge for tyranny. This is silly. Paranoid nonsense.
> 
> 2- A desperate attempt to reduce gun deaths. If the opponents to reasonable efforts to reduce gun violence weren't so fanatical, their opponents wouldn't be forced to take extreme, and unwise, counter measures.



Garbage.


----------



## Elvis Obama (Jan 22, 2016)

PredFan said:


> Elvis Obama said:
> 
> 
> > There are only two reasons why anyone would want to confiscate your guns.
> ...


A well reasoned reply. About what I'd expect from a fanatic.


----------



## Elvis Obama (Jan 22, 2016)

PredFan said:


> Eaglewings said:
> 
> 
> > It seems like every time that there is an election the "Their coming to take your guns" story that rolls around, sorta like the code orange fear tactic
> ...


One can only laugh at paranoiacs. Sad little frightened children imagining scary monsters in their closet. Who's coming for your pathetic popguns, Chuckles? The UN? Them Libtards!! 

Grow a pair.


----------



## PredFan (Jan 22, 2016)

Elvis Obama said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Elvis Obama said:
> ...



Meh, that's all it deserved. It wasn't a well thought out post.


----------



## PredFan (Jan 22, 2016)

Elvis Obama said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Eaglewings said:
> ...



ZZZZZzzzzz.....your idiotic attempt to insult me is as ineffective as your opinions are. Who is coming after our guns? The left is.

Only a fool thinks otherwise....fool.


----------



## Eaglewings (Jan 22, 2016)

PredFan said:


> Elvis Obama said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



Unless if we had a hitler come house to house , how are they going to get them?...There are way tooooooo many guns out there. We would be up in the hills ready for a war ,if that happened.


.


----------



## PredFan (Jan 22, 2016)

Eaglewings said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Elvis Obama said:
> ...



It is quite simple and is already in progress. 

Some idiot kills people with a gun.

The left demands a "sensible gun control measure to stop gun violence. But gun control doesn't work so...

Some idiot kills people with a gun.

The left demands another "sensible gun control measure to stop gun violence. But gun control doesn't work so...

Some idiot kills people with a gun, and on and on until one of several things happen:

No one can buy a gun, and/or buy ammo.
No one can afford a gun or ammo.
Manufacturers are run completely out of business.

They don't have to physically take them away to make them nothing but paper weights. Thus effectively disarming us.


----------



## miketx (Jan 22, 2016)

Elvis Obama ate a weenie, shaped like a great big ole honking gun! He liked it.


----------



## Elvis Obama (Jan 22, 2016)

PredFan said:


> Elvis Obama said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...


Ahhh, the left, the organized, ultra-effective left! And all you have to protect you is the constitution. Too bad you have no faith in it. Coward.


----------



## Elvis Obama (Jan 22, 2016)

miketx said:


> Elvis Obama ate a weenie, shaped like a great big ole honking gun! He liked it.


Yep, all us gun grabbers iz faggots! Another brilliant reply. 

Sick, pathetic weasels sitting behind their keyboard with their dicks in their hands fantasizing that they are the protectors of LIBERTY! Personally, I fear nothing. Unconstitutional laws? Geeze, don't we have a supreme court for that?


----------



## Elvis Obama (Jan 22, 2016)

PredFan said:


> Eaglewings said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...


You are an idiot. A paranoid fool. 

If 30,000 people a year weren't getting wacked by guns, no one would give a shit about your useless toys. You could stick them up your ass for all anyone would care. If you really cared about your gun rights, you'd be trying to do whatever you could to bring down the gun death rate. Then you'd be left alone, to pathetically cling to your guns.


----------



## PredFan (Jan 22, 2016)

Elvis Obama said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Elvis Obama said:
> ...



Again your lame assed attempt to insult me plus your stupid and repetitive posts do nothing but bore me.


----------



## miketx (Jan 22, 2016)

Elvis elvis! Calm down! My hand is not on my weenie, yours is! 

Look what I bought last month!


----------



## PredFan (Jan 22, 2016)

Elvis Obama said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Eaglewings said:
> ...



You are such an idiot that you can't even see how you just supported my argument.

Now go play in the street, retard.


----------



## PredFan (Jan 22, 2016)

miketx said:


> Elvis elvis! Calm down! My hand is not on my weenie, yours is!
> 
> Look what I bought last month!
> View attachment 60734


What is that next to the AK?


----------



## miketx (Jan 22, 2016)

Rossi .357


----------



## miketx (Jan 22, 2016)

Someone tell eagletard hitler is dead.


----------



## PredFan (Jan 22, 2016)

miketx said:


> Rossi .357



Sweet. I bought a Henry in .357 about 6 months ago.


----------



## miketx (Jan 22, 2016)

I was torn between the Henry and the Rossi. I got the Rossi because I would not have wanted to shoot Henry much for fear of scratching it up. It's too pretty.


----------



## PredFan (Jan 22, 2016)

miketx said:


> I was torn between the Henry and the Rossi. I got the Rossi because I would not have wanted to shoot Henry much for fear of scratching it up. It's too pretty.



All of my weapons are business looking. I wanted at least one of them to look good.


----------



## Eaglewings (Jan 22, 2016)

miketx said:


> You are an idiot. A paranoid fool.
> 
> If 30,000 people a year weren't getting wacked by guns, no one would give a shit about your useless toys. You could stick them up your ass for all anyone would care. If you really cared about your gun rights, you'd be trying to do whatever you could to bring down the gun death rate. Then you'd be left alone, to pathetically cling to your guns.





PredFan said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> > Rossi .357
> ...



I am thinking about getting a small gun, but with my hot temper I may shoot my husband...lol

*miketx*: you don't have to be so nasty to PredFan to get your point across, it discredits your point really.


.


----------



## PredFan (Jan 22, 2016)

Eaglewings said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> > You are an idiot. A paranoid fool.
> ...



Wrong guy, that bit of impotent nastiness was posted by elvisobama.


----------



## miketx (Jan 22, 2016)

Yeah, I thought I was being nasty to Elvis peter blogger.

Eaglewings,
Well, if you are that unbalanced then you should never get a gun. If you are just kidding, get a gun. It may save your life.


----------



## Eaglewings (Jan 22, 2016)

Elvis Obama said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Eaglewings said:
> ...





PredFan said:


> Eaglewings said:
> 
> 
> > miketx said:
> ...



Oops...lol sorry miketx...

*Elvisobama: *: you don't have to be so nasty to PredFan to get your point across, it discredits your point really.


.


----------



## Eaglewings (Jan 22, 2016)

miketx said:


> Yeah, I thought I was being nasty to Elvis peter blogger.
> 
> Eaglewings,
> Well, if you are that unbalanced then you should never get a gun. If you are just kidding, get a gun. It may save your life.



The guy across the street from me killed his son and then himself after his wife left him..very wealthy man too.

Now that my boys are grown I may get a small gun, because I may RV travel on my own across county. 

.


----------



## miketx (Jan 22, 2016)

Get a powerful enough caliber to stop an attacker. Also, and it's a big also, If you live in a state where can get a concealed carry license, get it. You don't have to carry everywhere but it's a great thing. Also, and this is an even bigger also, Before you go state hopping, make sure you know what the gun laws are concerning traveling in that state with a handgun. There's lots of commie states.


----------



## PredFan (Jan 22, 2016)

Get this one. It has a grenade launcher on it too!


----------



## depotoo (Jan 22, 2016)

Show me criminals that would give up their gums?  Make sure to get a background check..
You are fooling no one.





Elvis Obama said:


> There are only two reasons why anyone would want to confiscate your guns.
> 
> 1- A wedge for tyranny. This is silly. Paranoid nonsense.
> 
> 2- A desperate attempt to reduce gun deaths. If the opponents to reasonable efforts to reduce gun violence weren't so fanatical, their opponents wouldn't be forced to take extreme, and unwise, counter measures.


----------



## miketx (Jan 22, 2016)

Those are my daily carry.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jan 22, 2016)

About the Author

Paul R. Howe is an ignorant fear-monger, delusional tinfoil hat wearing loon, and a liar. 

The nonsense he writes is as ridiculous as it is wrong – government may not 'take' or 'confiscate' guns, to attempt to do so would violate the Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution; any law, ordinance, or measure enacted 'authorizing' gun 'confiscation' would be subject to an immediate court challenge, enjoined from being enforced, and struck down as un-Constitutional. 

This thread's premise is nothing more than moronic demagoguery.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 22, 2016)

miketx said:


> *History of “Gun-Free Zones”*
> Our nation’s history is filled with examples of “gun-free” zones failed.
> 
> The Aurora Colorado movie massacre and the recent Connecticut shooting are two that come to mind.  Also, remember the Fort Hood massacre where an Islamic extremist Major Nidal Malik Hasan killed 13 soldiers because our military bases are gun free zones.  Combat trained soldiers had to be rescued by a security guard.  That is embarrassing.
> ...



Couple of things:

1) What about all the other first world countries where the whole country is literally gun-free and they don't have the mass shootings the US does.
2) The examples above of countries that have confiscated guns are ALL dictatorships. No mention of France, NZ, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Denmark - I could go on. All have strict gun controls and none have a recent history people being 'exterminated'..


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jan 22, 2016)

PredFan said:


> Eaglewings said:
> 
> 
> > It seems like every time that there is an election the "Their coming to take your guns" story that rolls around, sorta like the code orange fear tactic
> ...


No, only someone ignorant of the Constitution and its case law. 

Or someone who knows very well government may not 'confiscate' guns but propagates the lie anyway for some perceived partisan gain.


----------



## miketx (Jan 22, 2016)

Just how far do you have your head buried in your ass? Look around you. There is a DAILY attack on civil liberties in this country, and fools like you don't see it? You 'bout as blind as a bat, or, more likely, you are part of the problem.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 22, 2016)

miketx said:


> Those are my daily carry.




What a man!


----------



## miketx (Jan 22, 2016)

Dr Grump said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> > Those are my daily carry.
> ...



You like men don't you?


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 22, 2016)

miketx said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > miketx said:
> ...



Says the guy who has an avatar of Obama in drag....


----------



## miketx (Jan 22, 2016)

Says the guy who gets all his gun "facts" from CNN.


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 22, 2016)

miketx said:


> Says the guy who gets all his gun "facts" from CNN.



Last time I watched CNN was 1995....


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jan 22, 2016)

Eaglewings said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Elvis Obama said:
> ...


Government can't 'get them'; again, any law authorizing 'confiscation' of firearms would be prima-facie un-Constitutional.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jan 22, 2016)

PredFan said:


> Eaglewings said:
> 
> 
> > It seems like every time that there is an election the "Their coming to take your guns" story that rolls around, sorta like the code orange fear tactic
> ...



Being a fool, I suppose you have inside knowledge.  So, tell us 
who are they?


----------



## miketx (Jan 22, 2016)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Eaglewings said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



I suppose you imbeciles don't recall all the gun confiscations in New Orleans after Katrina? Oh wait, i'll just tell the UN jack booted thugs at my door that it's unconstitutional. That'll stop them wont it libtards?


----------



## miketx (Jan 22, 2016)

> Being a fool, I suppose you have inside knowledge.  So, tell us
> who are they?



Someone hurry up and get the data for this fool will ya?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 22, 2016)

Elvis Obama said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Eaglewings said:
> ...


21000 are suicides and if you take firearms away you would maybe stop what 1 percent of that? RETARD.


----------



## PredFan (Jan 22, 2016)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Eaglewings said:
> ...



Like I said, only a fool thinks otherwise. And here you are, the biggest fool of all.


----------



## PredFan (Jan 22, 2016)

Wry Catcher said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Eaglewings said:
> ...



And look here, another fool shows up
on que.


----------



## Elvis Obama (Jan 22, 2016)

PredFan said:


> Elvis Obama said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...


Oh, too bad, you're really entertaining to me! My repetitive posts? You've made 24,000 posts. You post so much because you never THINK about anything so say. You just spew the same crap, over and over.

Guns are fine. They're silly toys, but there's nothing wrong with them. The problem is stupidity and paranoia in the same redneck pea-brain. It makes your little weenie hard to think you're fighting for a great cause. You ain't. No one gives a shit about your guns. You like to think people pay attention to the issue because guns are such a "threat" to power. If there wasn't so much preventable death, you'd be completely forgotten, left alone in your empty states to screw your cousins and continue to pop out half-wits.


----------



## Elvis Obama (Jan 22, 2016)

miketx said:


> Elvis elvis! Calm down! My hand is not on my weenie, yours is!
> 
> Look what I bought last month!
> View attachment 60734


Oooooh, it's sooooo big! Is that supposed to upset me? I like guns. I just hate stupid morons. I know you're too stupid and dishonest to answer a question, which makes me stupid for asking, but WTF. Do you really think anyone would give a damn about your guns if the gun death rate wasn't so high?


----------



## Elvis Obama (Jan 22, 2016)

PredFan said:


> Elvis Obama said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...


And you are apparently too stupid to formulate a reply. No, what I wrote does not support your argument. You've made no argument. Try it. I love dogs who think their farts are a form of communication. Please, Fido, fart away!


----------



## Elvis Obama (Jan 22, 2016)

Eaglewings said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> > You are an idiot. A paranoid fool.
> ...


PredFan has made no points, and no thread that refers to people as "kool-aid drinkers" is looking for a serious discussion. 

This thread is a typical paranoid screed. Never give an inch on anything. Insulting the mentally ill is a waste of time, and I normally don't bother, but the paranoia which motivates the "pro-gun" advocates has a death count. 

I repeat, if our disgusting gun death rate was not a problem, no one would care about guns. It would be a complete non-issue.


----------



## Eaglewings (Jan 22, 2016)

Elvis Obama said:


> Eaglewings said:
> 
> 
> > miketx said:
> ...



Nice to meet you Elvis!


----------



## Elvis Obama (Jan 22, 2016)

depotoo said:


> Show me criminals that would give up their gums?  Make sure to get a background check..
> You are fooling no one.
> 
> 
> ...


Show me criminals that would give up their guns? What has that got to do with #1 or #2?

Let me ask you a simple question, do you believe that every human being who worries about our gun death rate is a "gun grabber"? Cause that's insane. 

1- I have never advocated for gun confiscation.
2- I have never advocated for gun control. I consider it ineffective and counter-productive.
3- I am concerned solely with the prevention of unnecessary death. I regard people who do not want to prevent unnecessary death as sick. That shows a depraved indifference to human life as bad as any gang-banger.


----------



## Elvis Obama (Jan 23, 2016)

miketx said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Eaglewings said:
> ...


Wow! That's terrible! We have to do something about it! Oh yeah, that's right, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana already did it. For a second there I thought we would have to depend on psycho vigilantes to save us! 

Of course people overreach. Of course there are people who dream of banning all guns, like there are people who dream of mandating that all adults be required to carry guns. Both ideas are equally extreme and equally wrong. Luckily, we have the constitution! I trust it, you don't.


----------



## Elvis Obama (Jan 23, 2016)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Elvis Obama said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...


First of all, RETARD, I don't believe in gun confiscation. Second of all, RETARD, I don't believe in gun control. What I do advocate for, you disgusting pig, is preventing death. You make a good point (amazingly). The number one target in the prevention of unnecessary gun death is suicide. And what do we have for him, Johnny? It's a brand new brain! Try not to fill this one up with diarrhea, wouldya pleeeze?

Why am I not concerned about automotive deaths?  Because we deal with them rationally. Why am I not concerned about smoking deaths? Because we deal with them rationally. We have successfully reduced both of those previously out-of-control death rates. There is NO justification for dealing any differently with gun deaths.

No!! We can't let the CDC study gun violence! They'ze guuuun grabbers! You can't trust doctors! They're all crypto-fascists. We must remain vigilant against the evil of medicine!! Fuck the veterans who blow their brains out. We owe them nothing. They're not worth trying to save.

Now, please, give us your "expert" opinion about suicide prevention. I'm sure you know more about it than anyone else in the whole wide world! RETARD.


----------



## PredFan (Jan 23, 2016)

Elvis Obama said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Elvis Obama said:
> ...



Yet you continue to substitute schoolyard insults for logic and reason. You are boring the shit out of everyone.


----------



## PredFan (Jan 23, 2016)

Elvis Obama said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Elvis Obama said:
> ...



ZZZZZzzzzzz.....


----------



## Centinel (Jan 23, 2016)

Elvis Obama said:


> Ahhh, the left, the organized, ultra-effective left! And all you have to protect you is the constitution. Too bad you have no faith in it. Coward.



When the states came together and formed their compact, they gave their creature, the federal government, a small set of powers. You can see the list of powers in article I, section 8. You will not see any power here that would allow the federal government to criminalize the acquisition or possession of guns by the people of the several states.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jan 23, 2016)

Centinel said:


> Elvis Obama said:
> 
> 
> > Ahhh, the left, the organized, ultra-effective left! And all you have to protect you is the constitution. Too bad you have no faith in it. Coward.
> ...


Wrong. 

The Constitution affords Congress powers both expressed and implied, as was the original intent of the Founding Generation (_McCulloch v. Maryland_), where laws passed by Congress are binding on the states and local jurisdictions, Article VI of the Constitution renders this fact settled, accepted, and beyond dispute. 

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.' 

Consequently, the Federal government has the authority, acting at the behest of the American people, through their elected representatives, to enact firearm regulatory measures consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence, including that of designating felons and the mentally ill prohibited persons not eligible to possess firearms.


----------



## Centinel (Jan 23, 2016)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The Constitution affords Congress powers both expressed and implied, as was the original intent of the Founding Generation (McCulloch v. Maryland), where laws passed by Congress are binding on the states and local jurisdictions, Article VI of the Constitution renders this fact settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.



Only laws made in accordance with (pursuant to) the constitution.



> “But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'



Actually, the ignorant 'argument' is that anything other than the constitution is the law of the land.

_*This Constitution*, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made *in Pursuance thereof*; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land_

It says it right there for you to read.



> Consequently, the Federal government has the authority, acting at the behest of the American people, through their elected representatives, to enact firearm regulatory measures consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence, including that of designating felons and the mentally ill prohibited persons not eligible to possess firearms.



No it doesn't. It only has the authority to make laws that carry into execution its enumerated legislative powers. Prohibiting the people of the states from acquiring or possessing arms is not among those powers.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jan 23, 2016)

PredFan said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...


You continue to resort to schoolyard insults in place of logic, facts, and reason. Your 'arguments' are as ridiculous as they are wrong.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jan 23, 2016)

depotoo said:


> Show me criminals that would give up their gums?  Make sure to get a background check..
> You are fooling no one.
> 
> 
> ...


As is the case with the rest of the Constitution, the Second Amendment exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by Federal courts, where in fact background checks are Constitutional. 

And background checks are working exactly as intended: to prevent felons, those mentally ill, and other prohibited persons from obtaining a firearm from an FFL 01; it was neither the understanding nor intent of background checks to be a 'panacea' for all gun crimes and violence, nor was it the intent that background checks should prevent criminals or prohibited persons from acquiring guns from private persons, rendering ignorant and wrong the 'argument' that background checks 'don't work.'


----------



## depotoo (Jan 23, 2016)

Right that's why so many criminals don't have guns.





C_Clayton_Jones said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > Show me criminals that would give up their gums?  Make sure to get a background check..
> ...


----------



## Centinel (Jan 23, 2016)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> As is the case with the rest of the Constitution, the Second Amendment exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by Federal courts, where in fact background checks are Constitutional.



The 2nd amendment is a specific prohibition by the states instructing their agent, the federal government, that it shall not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms.


----------



## PredFan (Jan 23, 2016)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



I have presented the facts and logic in many threads including this one, yet you idiots never ever learn. I save time and simply point you out as the fool you are.


----------



## Elvis Obama (Jan 23, 2016)

PredFan said:


> Elvis Obama said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...


I tried being polite to you scum. You don't deserve to be treated like intelligent, emotionally stable people. You're bored, you worthless prick? Stop replying.

Logic and reason, huh? Everyone who tried to prevent gun deaths is a "gun grabber". That's what you "think". That means you're utterly incapable of logic. That's a point, dickwad. Tell me I'm wrong. Tell me there's one person in the world who is working to prevent gun deaths who isn't a "gun grabber". Clown. Oh, no. It's the NRA that works to prevent death!!! Riiiight.


----------



## PredFan (Jan 23, 2016)

Elvis Obama said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Elvis Obama said:
> ...



ZZZZZzzzzzz....


----------



## Elvis Obama (Jan 23, 2016)

PredFan said:


> Elvis Obama said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...


And yet you keep replying. Is it an emotional problem? No, mommy, I want the last word!! Again, coward, make a point, answer a question, engage in debate, which you claim no one else is doing. 

You are a sick ass who thinks anyone who tries to prevent gun deaths is a gun grabber. Answer that, coward. Tell me there is one individual or group, not connected to the NRA, that you think works to prevent gun death, who is not part of a sinister plot to steal your toys.

ZZZZZZZZzzzzzz.


----------



## PredFan (Jan 23, 2016)

Elvis Obama said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Elvis Obama said:
> ...



ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzz.......


----------

