Ferguson: Still Think Gun Control is a Good Idea?

Dont Taz Me Bro

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Nov 17, 2009
70,658
38,484
2,645
Las Vegas, Nevada
For those of you gun control advocates who mock those of us who remind you that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect us from an over reaching government, have the actions of the Ferguson PD changed your mind or do you still think only the police should have the guns?
 
For those of you gun control advocates who mock those of us who remind you that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect us from an over reaching government, have the actions of the Ferguson PD changed your mind or do you still think only the police should have the guns?

profound irony
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #6
The irony is that Ferguson voted for Obama and Governor Nixon and neither are anywhere to be found while Rome is burning.
 
Sound cannons, automatic weapons, red dot sights on people, tear gas, rubber bullets that are often times lethal, dogs, pigs in full military mode, armored vehicles, intimidation, suppression of the press...we can go on and on.

What can you say? Pigs are gonna pig. This is EXACTlY the kind of thing these adrenaline junkies look forward to.
 
I think the plan is to disarm most citizens so the entire country can be a police state. Which is what the 2nd amendment was put in place for to STOP from happening.

It's all been planned way in advance. For years.
 
The irony is that Ferguson voted for Obama and Governor Nixon and neither are anywhere to be found while Rome is burning.

obama and holder provided the MRAPS and military gear the protesters are facing

so it is unlikely the prezbo will show up
 
The irony is that Ferguson voted for Obama and Governor Nixon and neither are anywhere to be found while Rome is burning.

obama and holder provided the MRAPS and military gear the protesters are facing

so it is unlikely the prezbo will show up

To be fair, this started under the Clinoon administration in 94 and evolved from the war on drugs to the phony war on terror.

Eventually, it will be a war on dissent, Christians or whomever else doesn't follow the party line.
 
My question is....why is the police chief still chief..and why are the police in that department still the police in that town and department? Shouldn't they ALL be relieved of duty until this is all under control and either the national guard take over temporarily or the FBI? One would think so.
 
For those of you gun control advocates who mock those of us who remind you that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect us from an over reaching government, have the actions of the Ferguson PD changed your mind or do you still think only the police should have the guns?

This fails as a straw man fallacy.

No one is advocating 'only the police have guns.'

And one needs to be specific as to what constitutes 'gun control.'

There are certain provisions of gun control laws that are both appropriate and Constitutional, such as background checks to prevent felons, undocumented immigrants, and those mentally ill from possessing firearms (see: DC v. Heller (2008)).

There are also gun control provisions that are not appropriate and ineffective whether Constitutional or not, such as licensing requirements (save that of concealed carry), purchase and possession permits, registration requirements, waiting periods, and restrictions on magazine capacity and the prohibition of semi-automatic rifles such as AR and AK platforms.

Last, the Second Amendment doesn't trump the First Amendment.

The notion that that Second Amendment enshrines a 'right' to use firearms to 'overthrow' a government perceived to be 'overreaching' is incorrect and unfounded. The Heller Court determined that “[t]he Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”

A minority of private citizens may not 'take up arms' against a government they believe to be 'oppressive' without the consent of the majority, where the First Amendment guarantees all Americans the right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” as such petitions manifest at the ballot box or in the Federal courts; to 'overthrow' a government by a force of arms without first affording the people the opportunity to seek relief via elections or in the courts is clearly un-Constitutional and a violation of the rule of law – indeed, it is in fact advocacy of mob rule.
 
Last edited:
For those of you gun control advocates who mock those of us who remind you that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect us from an over reaching government, have the actions of the Ferguson PD changed your mind or do you still think only the police should have the guns?

This fails as a straw man fallacy.

No one is advocating 'only the police have guns.'

Why do you keep lying?

San Ramon Valley letters: Only police, military should have guns - ContraCostaTimes.com
 
For those of you gun control advocates who mock those of us who remind you that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect us from an over reaching government, have the actions of the Ferguson PD changed your mind or do you still think only the police should have the guns?






What I also find amusing is the same people who are screaming for gun control ignore the fact that it is the hated .1% billionaires who are funding this crap. Gun control is the ultimate class warfare but these drone are so stupid they can't see it....or...more likely, they support it.
 
Is there a rash of firearms going off all by themselves I don't know about? Very term is ridiculous. Think back to prior technology and civilization, was there ever sword-control? It's simply a weapon. Wanna have order you control people, not the weapons. Could ban every new weapon sale overnight and not effect violence one bit. To fix violence you have to fix people, not the tools they use to do bad things.
 
Is there a rash of firearms going off all by themselves I don't know about? Very term is ridiculous. Think back to prior technology and civilization, was there ever sword-control? It's simply a weapon. Wanna have order you control people, not the weapons. Could ban every new weapon sale overnight and not effect violence one bit. To fix violence you have to fix people, not the tools they use to do bad things.

was there ever sword-control?

certainly

in medieval Japan

Toyotomi Hideyoshi (豊臣 秀吉?, February 2, 1536 or March 26, 1537 – September 18, 1598) was a preeminent daimyo, warrior, general and politician of the Sengoku period[1] who is regarded as Japan's second "great unifier."[2] He succeeded his former liege lord, Oda Nobunaga, and brought an end to the Sengoku period. The period of his rule is often called the Momoyama period, named after Hideyoshi's castle. After his death, his young son Hideyori was displaced by Tokugawa Ieyasu.

Hideyoshi is noted for a number of cultural legacies, including the restriction that only members of the samurai class could bear arms. He financed the construction, restoration and rebuilding of many temples standing today in Kyoto. Hideyoshi played an important role in the history of Christianity in Japan when he ordered the execution by crucifixion of twenty-six Christians.
 
What is happening in Northern, Mo is the police are acting like a South American despotic ruler. Silencing reporters, arresting reporters, firing tears gas and rubber bullets at reporters...Firing on protesters with rubber bullets and riot control demonstrators. reports of excessive use of force. Thank God these brave people are standing up to this tyranny and suppression by the the real face of the para-military misuse of force by police..
The gov is going to Ferguson and is telling the cops to let the citizens have their rights and to stop using excessive force..
 
Last edited:
For those of you gun control advocates who mock those of us who remind you that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect us from an over reaching government, have the actions of the Ferguson PD changed your mind or do you still think only the police should have the guns?

I don't understand your point

Are you implying that the situation in Ferguson would be better if the people were shooting it out with police?
 

Forum List

Back
Top