Can Gun Nuts Please Stop Saying You Need Guns to Protect Yourself From A Potential Tyrannical Government!!!

[2aguy]

Again, the majority of the violence came from counter protesters who were members of white nationalist groups, or white para military groups. This is documented and I have read police reports from cities that had protests. I am not repeating crap I heard on fox or newsmax.

I'm not supporting the republican party. That's the party trying to destroy black families and children. Don't even try that Great Society lie, it's been long debunked. So has the bs Moynihan wrote.

Wow......you truly are an idiot.......lying about the democrat party thugs, blm and antifa, and trying to create the imaginary "white nationalists," in order to do it.....

You are a tool of the racist democrat party..........

 

[2aguy]

Look white man, I am black, I don't need your damn explanation about what blacks have done. Many blacks left the republican party during the depression because of a promise Hoover msde to black leaders that he did not keep. So please stfu trying to tell me about black people.

Yeah, you do.....since you have no clue what you are doing.........the democrat party is your enemy, but you seem to be protecting and defending that party.

 

[BothWings]

Then why did the Nazis confiscate guns from non-Nazis? Do you think they were just trying to make Europe safe?? One person with a gun has no chance. How about several million? Do you think the government would simply bomb the entire country? There would be nothing left to rule! Your logic is RIDICULOUS. There are neighborhoods that cops stay out of and mostly contain from the outside. That's because there would be serious bloodshed if they did. But what if the armed neighborhood is a GOOD neighborhood and the government becomes the criminal....as with Nazis. France, Poland and several.other countries maintained successful underground resistance forces against them...and they weren't using slingshots.

 

[bripat9643]

It wasn't "White, Right wingers," who did those things to you....it was members of the democrat party, who you defend to this day...........and that party has destroyed black families in the cities they control for decades...and you still vote for them.....you give them power, not us.....

Using terms like "right winger" and "left winger" aren't appropriate to refer to people in the 19th Century. The terms had no meaning back then.

 

[IM2]

Wow......going back to pre-Civil war days when they were trying to keep the democrats from taking the country to Civil War....nice try. The democrat party actually started a Civil War to keep blacks as slaves....you condemn the actions of the Republicans trying to prevent the war, but vote for the party that actually started a Civil war to keep blacks as slaves...

Where is the logic in that?

Not only did they start the Civil War, after the Republicans ended slavery...yes...you forgot that party, you twit.......after the Republican party ended slavery, the democrat party kept blacks from voting, created the kkk, jim crow, segregation, and murdered free blacks and republicans....

You use the fig leaf of the Corwin act, one thing in order to hide from the fact that you, to this day, support the actual party of slavery......

Lyndon Johnson was a racist and likely member of the kkk in Texas.......and you defend him.......that is how blind you are.....

Lyndon Johnson was a racist who only went along with the very end of the Civil Rights movement to keep the democrats in power.....

Why do you defend this guy and this party?
LBJ’s Democratic Plantation › American Greatness
LBJ’s Democratic Plantation › American Greatness
there is a man who, according to a memo filed by FBI agent William Branigan, seems to have been in the Ku Klux Klan. This memo was only revealed in recent months, with the release of the JFK Files.


Lyndon Johnson opposed every civil rights proposal considered in his first 20 years as lawmaker

"He had been a congressman, beginning in 1937, for eleven years, and for eleven years he had voted against every civil rights bill –

against not only legislation aimed at ending the poll tax and segregation in the armed services but even against legislation aimed at ending lynching: a one hundred percent record," Caro wrote.


"Running for the Senate in 1948, he had assailed President" Harry "Truman’s entire civil rights program (‘an effort to set up a police state’)…Until 1957, in the Senate, as in the House, his record – by that time a twenty-year record – against civil rights had been consistent," Caro wrote.

=========

The Party of Civil Rights | National Review

The Party of Civil Rights

The depth of Johnson’s prior opposition to civil-rights reform must be digested in some detail to be properly appreciated.

In the House, he did not represent a particularly segregationist constituency (it “made up for being less intensely segregationist than the rest of the South by being more intensely anti-Communist,” as the New York Times put it), but Johnson was practically antebellum in his views.

Never mind civil rights or voting rights: In Congress, Johnson had consistently and repeatedly voted against legislation to protect black Americans from lynching.


As a leader in the Senate, Johnson did his best to cripple the Civil Rights Act of 1957; not having votes sufficient to stop it, he managed to reduce it to an act of mere symbolism by excising the enforcement provisions before sending it to the desk of President Eisenhower.


Johnson’s Democratic colleague Strom Thurmond nonetheless went to the trouble of staging the longest filibuster in history up to that point, speaking for 24 hours in a futile attempt to block the bill. The reformers came back in 1960 with an act to remedy the deficiencies of the 1957 act, and Johnson’s Senate Democrats again staged a record-setting filibuster.

In both cases, the “master of the Senate” petitioned the northeastern Kennedy liberals to credit him for having seen to the law’s passage while at the same time boasting to southern Democrats that he had taken the teeth out of the legislation.



Johnson would later explain his thinking thus: “These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days, and that’s a problem for us, since they’ve got something now they never had before: the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this — we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.”

Read more at: The Party of Civil Rights
=============

Stop making excuses. Your party tried making slavery constitutional.

Again, I am black, I don't need your explanation for anything. Lincoln believed in white suprwmacy. He wanted to ship blacks out of the country. There is a meeting he had with black leaders in 1862 where he had the nerve to blame blacks for the civil war. Rutherford Hayes made a compromise with southern states that ended reconstruction. Republicans didn't give a damn about blacks just like the democrats. So spare me all the lies. I know what went on and the fact is that today's republican party is the party of racists. You think all blacks are dumb so you try running the shit you're trying here. It's not going to work.

In 2020 it was Republicans that filibustered the John Lewis voting rights act. So stop posting what Johnson said because:

 

[Dagosa]

That's what you spew into this forum on a daily basis.

Sure. What I “spew“ is advocated by the majority of not just the left, but the majority of all citizens including gun owners. So really, you’re FOS.

 

[2aguy]

Stop making excuses. Your party tried making slavery constitutional.

Again, I am black, I don't need your explanation for anything. Lincoln believed in white suprwmacy. He wanted to ship blacks out of the country. There is a meeting he had with black leaders in 1862 where he had the nerve to blame blacks for the civil war. Rutherford Hayes made a compromise with southern states that ended reconstruction. Republicans didn't give a damn about blacks just like the democrats. So spare me all the lies. I know what went on and the fact is that today's republican party is the party of racists. You think all blacks are dumb so you try running the shit you're trying here. It's not going to work.

In 2020 it was Republicans that filibustered the John Lewis voting rights act. So stop posting what Johnson said because:

And yet you vote for the democrats....the party that actually owned the slaves........you are an idiot.........

 

[Dagosa]

There are many on the Left who want an unarmed America,

Wow, ” many”. The majority of gun owners want stronger gun laws. They just want to keep gun mongers like you from handing them over to criminals, the insane and wife and child abusers. Really, that’s all you care about. You want to hoard guns and distribute them to your friends who can’t legally own them now.

 

[2aguy]

Wow, ” many”. The majority of gun owners want stronger gun laws. They just want to keep gun mongers like you from handing them over to criminals, the insane and wife and child abusers. Really, that’s all you care about. You want to hoard guns and distribute them to your friends who can’t legally own them now.

No....the majority of gun owners respond to vague poll questions that don't even come close to explaining the issues they are asked about.

Nothing in Universal Background Checks keeps criminals from getting illegal guns...nothing.

Yet you morons lie to uninformed people with your poll questions to get dishonest answers that you can spew across democrat party news stories......

We have all the gun laws we need....it is idiots, morons, like you, who vote for democrats who have undermined the police to the point they can't, or won't, do their jobs.......and then you release the most violent and dangerous criminals over and over again no matter how many felonies with guns they commit.

It isn't normal people who own guns who are using them for crime and murder....it is the criminals you keep releasing who are doing that, and you keep releasing them....gleefully, so that you can use their crimes to justify more gun control.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So all that over a paranoid fantasy

How is it in any way irrational to hold the "fear" that the government - almost universally, in states run by Democrats - will someday use their gun registries as a means to facilitate confiscation of certain types of firearms?

 

[hadit]

As well they should be.

Nope, absolutely not. They take an oath to the constitution, NOT the president. Would you have wanted the military to be TRUMP!'s robots, doing whatever he wanted them to do?

 

[themirrorthief]

No....the majority of gun owners respond to vague poll questions that don't even come close to explaining the issues they are asked about.

Nothing in Universal Background Checks keeps criminals from getting illegal guns...nothing.

Yet you morons lie to uninformed people with your poll questions to get dishonest answers that you can spew across democrat party news stories......

We have all the gun laws we need....it is idiots, morons, like you, who vote for democrats who have undermined the police to the point they can't, or won't, do their jobs.......and then you release the most violent and dangerous criminals over and over again no matter how many felonies with guns they commit.

It isn't normal people who own guns who are using them for crime and murder....it is the criminals you keep releasing who are doing that, and you keep releasing them....gleefully, so that you can use their crimes to justify more gun control.

people in the hood love shooting each other it would be racist to take away their guns....how can you get street cred if you havent killed someone or served time for a gun crime

 

[beautress]

The Founders of the USA had a good reason to believe guns were on a par with the human right of self-protection from predators be they wild animals or other persons. I think the Founders had it right.

 

[Dagosa]

Nope, absolutely not. They take an oath to the constitution, NOT the president. Would you have wanted the military to be TRUMP!'s robots, doing whatever he wanted them to do?

I want a military to follow orders.

 

[Dagosa]

The Founders of the USA had a good reason to believe guns were on a par with the human right of self-protection from predators be they wild animals or other persons. I think the Founders had it right.

Bullshit. Our founders never addressed hunting or sporting with firearms. As a people, not person, we have a right to be armed as a militia. That doesn’t mean every, just those who QUALIFY.

 

[Leo123]

It makes you sound mentally challenged.

Having guns is not going to protect you from the police or military. With normal police equipment, SWAT teams, police tactics and fire power etc, they can easily neutralize any armed threat or movement. They wouldn't even break a sweat. Not to mention, police surveillance tactics will make it impossible for an anti-government group to organize a big enough threat to the regime. You don't have a chance. And that is only the police. Your little AR-15 isn't going to do anything to a drone, tank, apache helicopter, fighter jet or combat unit (much less special forces). There is a reason you have not seen a people's uprising to over-throw a government even in Africa in decade. And really only Sudan has been overthrown by a military coup.

No, the only reason you want certain guns (such as a AR-15) is because you like to have them.

It is true the vast majority of gun owners are responsible and good people, including AR-15 owners. But that 1% or 0.05% that are not responsible can cause havoc, as we just saw in Highland park (an event I was on my way to attend and an event to which I know many people that were directly effected).

If you want to hunt, then a single shot hunting rifle will suffice. If it is about home defense, then handguns and shotguns (which as both short-range) would be sufficient.

There are many things that can be done, such as arm teachers, have cops in schools, secure soft targets, better mental health facilities, red flag rules and immunity for snitching, involuntary institutionalization, high standards for gun ownership, higher and minimum sentences for illegal gun possession, Federal no buy lists, vicarious liability for guns for the gun owner etc., but stop with the argument that you need guns for tyrannical governments! Because it is foolish.

There should be a ban on all guns other then single shot hunting rifles, handguns and shotguns.

Now I know handguns are by far the weapon of choice in the vast number of homicides, but so called "assault rifles" (yes I know that is a term the liberals made up) it by far a more sufficient weapon to commit mass murder then a handgun, even if they are semi-automatic (vs full).

Keep sticking to these stances that turn off the moderates (e.g. ban on abortion and do nothing on guns) and then cry about how Demorats can win with gas over $5-6, out of control inflation, major blunders in foreign policy and everyone hating woke politics. If the Demorats keep the House and pick up senate seats you are going to see the most radical changes to this country that we haver ever seen.

Tell that to Ukrainians whose government issued them fully automatic rifles to protect themselves from a tyrannical government (Russia).

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Bullshit. Our founders never addressed hunting or sporting with firearms. As a people, not person, we have a right to be armed as a militia. That doesn’t mean every, just those who QUALIFY.

No mention of a militia in any of these quotes by Thomas Jefferson . Just the right of the individual to own firearms. I can post more....

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
Thomas Jefferson

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison,

“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” – Thomas Jefferson

“A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.” – Thomas Jefferson

 

[beautress]

Bullshit. Our founders never addressed hunting or sporting with firearms. As a people, not person, we have a right to be armed as a militia. That doesn’t mean every, just those who QUALIFY.

Human rights were well known by the Founders. I'm not buying this contemporary balderdash that the Founders were bad, evil, outlandish, not to mention ignorant. True, they had no inkling of splitting an atom could mass kill an adversary nation, but they knew the human heart, they knew murder was wrong, they knew lying to chest-thump about their rival's naiveté, and they knew bully nations tended to take their money with no representation if they considered you a slave state to profiteer their monarch with for his favor for repetitive remunerations and other reciprocities given to clever nobles resultant in monarchical societies.

 

[hadit]

I want a military to follow orders.

Our military is required to follow orders unless those orders would violate the constitution or are illegal, and that is as it should be. I don't want the president to be able to use the military as his personal strike force, do you?

 

[Zincwarrior]

I have guns because I like things that go bang!