Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

[martybegan]

You won't like any of these possible efforts to reduce innocent deaths by gun violence but here it goes:

1. Require all gun owners to be licensed and insured. Each gun owned by the licensed and insured owner shall be recorded & stored in secure records of the insurance company; only by court order can such records be examined by LE.

Failure to comply with this law shall be punished by a fine of $5,000 and the surrender of all guns owned by the gun owner. A second or subsequent offense shall be punished by one year in the County Jail, a fine of not less than $10,000 and a lifetime revocation of a license to own, possess or have in the custory or control of said person.

2. All unlicensed persons who own, possess or have in his/her custody or control a gun is guilty of a felony and shall be imprisoned in the County Jail for one year and fined not less than $5,000. A second or subsequent conviction shall be punished by five years in a Federal Prison and a fine of not less than $10,000.

3. Any person who sells, gives, loans or in any manner provides a gun to an unlicensed person is guilty of a Felony and shall be imprisoned for not less than one year in a County Jail, Fined $10,000 and have their license to own, possess or have in their custody or control revoked for life.

4. Each person who owns, possess or has in their custody or control has a duty to secure their weapon from lose or theft. Failure to exercise due diligence in this duty makes the owner of said weapon culpable in the event any harm is done to any person. If a trier of fact determines the lose or theft was due to negligence or a conspiracy to provide an unlicensed person to obtain such weapon the penalties in #3 shall apply.

Those are how we keep honest citizens from having guns and if they do making it hard for them to use them to protect themselves, none of them work on criminals.

Specifically address the point in the op, please. Since any highschool kid can get as much pot as they want, which is expressly illegal. How are you going to prevent criminals from getting guns? You have to explain why your idea will work for guns when it doesn't work for pot.

Anyone can grow pot in a pot; one can't grow a gun. Honest citizens should not have a problem with gun control and your apples and antelope analogy is silly.

Think of my post as people control, not gun control. Even a gun lover knows that not everyone is responsible and not everyone should own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.

The Second Amendment is outdated, and the NRA position on gun control is irrational, absurd and evil. Next time the US Navy decides to hit your town with cruise missiles try to knock them down with your weapons. Next time someone shoots and kills a dozen or more unarmed citizens argue that more and more of us ought to be armed. Next time someone shoots and kills 24 innocents in an elementary school just say, "ain't it awful" but my rights supersede their lives.

Nothing in the four points I posted impact your liberty in any real sense. You can still have your guns, only if they were implemented you would need to exercise personal responsibility for owning, possessing and having in your custody and control a gun or else go to jail and pay a fine.

Then work to get it revised or repealed, until then, fuck off.

 

[earlycuyler]

Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws. I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.

In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want. There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world. So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.

So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade. The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.

They have no plan. Even this last bit they did, the Joe Manchin Toomy thing was stupid and b their own admission useless. Mostly, they talk and say what they are told to say and think. Not one gun control advocate can point to one law that would have prevented one death in thees mass shootings. There is no proof that even an out right gun ban would have prevented any of those deaths. History proves that when one gets it in their head to kill lots of folks that's just what they are going to do. Its pretty sad that Americans can be so stupid thees days. So willing to let some info twat on cable TV tell them what to think. I'm sad for my country. Its circling the drain and judging by the stupidity displayed in thees threads, I am not seeing any reason to hope it will get any better.

 

[candycorn]

I disagree; here is why.

We have a constitution that permits the citizens to have guns. For better or worse; that will never change. Nothing says they have to be cheap.

It is what we've done with cigarettes and it's taken a VERY LONG time but fewer and fewer people are smoking due to the stigma and the cost.

Stigmatize gun ownership and make it cost-prohibitive by taxing, making gun owners carry liability insurance per gun, health insurance rates should be much higher for those who live in the house with a gun etc... and you'll see the same thing thath happened to cigarettes happen to guns.

Fewer owners equals fewer guns being sold here which means fewer guns in circulation. It will take a very long time but it will work.

with your so-called proposal, you have just violated the 2nd, 14th & 24th Amendments. Nice work. Poll taxes were struck down as unconstitutional as they violated the right to vote. Rights can not be taxed so that only a few can enjoy them. Gun ownership by private citizens isn't the problem, when are you leftists going to understand that? We have had gun ownership in this country for over 200 years & until recently, it was never an issue. The problem is criminals will continue to have access to weaponry. The founding fathers understood this as well since the language of a free state was included in the 2nd Amendment. Crime takes away from the concept of a free state which is another reason why We The People can own weapons.

Fewer owners does not lead to fewer guns nor does it lead to fewer in circulation. That approach never worked during Prohibition & it never worked during the war on drugs. Criminals can merely import their weapons or even make them themselves. These are foolish ideas put forth by foolish people. If you don't want to own a gun, that is fine. That's your right. But you will not tell me that I can not own a gun when the Constitution clearly states I have that right.

You have a right to smoke also...its taxed crazily.

Fewer buyers will cause fewer guns being made.

Violations are for the courts to decide.

 

[Steven_R]

The Second Amendment is outdated, and the NRA position on gun control is irrational, absurd and evil. Next time the US Navy decides to hit your town with cruise missiles try to knock them down with your weapons.

Is it? suppose tyranny does come to the United States. Then what? If we have no way to fight back, what do we do? Suck it up and enjoy it?

Now is where you bring out the canard of how powerful weapons the military has are and how puny my rifle is. True, very true. But I'm not going to take out a tank with a rifle. However, that tank crew has to leave the tank sometime. Food and fuel and logistical shipments still have to venture out of compounds to go from point A to point B. And is the president going to really carpet bomb all of America or use cruise missiles? What's the point of governing if there's nothing left to govern?

We've been fighting cavemen in Afghanistan for 12 years and still haven't brought them to heel. These same cavemen brought down the Soviets and British armies. They have used nothing but old rifles in many cases.

The entire point of the Second Amendment is to allow We The People to remove the government if it forgets that it is the hired help and that We The People are the masters. Sorry if you think that is too dangerous for common folk to handle, but freedom is chaotic and ugly and at times dangerous. I am proud to be a Second Amendment absolutist just as I am proud to be a First Amendment absolutist.

 

[itfitzme]

Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws. I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.

In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want. There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world. So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.

So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade. The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.

You are an absolutist, a delusional believer that there are absolutes in life. There are no absolutes, no absolutes in law (some people still drive over the posted speed limit), no absolutes in science (even Newton's Laws of Motion have a statistical basis), no absolutes in even perception of reality (learn about optical illusions, our perception is a reconstruction based on assumptions built into our brains.)

You are presenting, basically, a bullshit strawman argument.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Those are how we keep honest citizens from having guns and if they do making it hard for them to use them to protect themselves, none of them work on criminals.

Specifically address the point in the op, please. Since any highschool kid can get as much pot as they want, which is expressly illegal. How are you going to prevent criminals from getting guns? You have to explain why your idea will work for guns when it doesn't work for pot.

Anyone can grow pot in a pot; one can't grow a gun. Honest citizens should not have a problem with gun control and your apples and antelope analogy is silly.

Think of my post as people control, not gun control. Even a gun lover knows that not everyone is responsible and not everyone should own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun.

The Second Amendment is outdated, and the NRA position on gun control is irrational, absurd and evil. Next time the US Navy decides to hit your town with cruise missiles try to knock them down with your weapons. Next time someone shoots and kills a dozen or more unarmed citizens argue that more and more of us ought to be armed. Next time someone shoots and kills 24 innocents in an elementary school just say, "ain't it awful" but my rights supersede their lives.

Nothing in the four points I posted impact your liberty in any real sense. You can still have your guns, only if they were implemented you would need to exercise personal responsibility for owning, possessing and having in your custody and control a gun or else go to jail and pay a fine.

Then work to get it revised or repealed, until then, fuck off.

Your angry and emotional response fits nicely into my remark that not everyone, "is responsible and not everyone should own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun"; I suspect you wouldn't pass the psychological barrier which should preclude angry and emotionally unstable persons for securing a license to own, possess, or have in their custody and control a gun.

US Message Board is a forum where all ideas can be expressed, that you tell me to STFU because you disagree with my opinion suggests you hold the Second as sacrosanct, but would be willing to restrict my speech - possibly with a gun or other device as did Rudolph, Roeder and McVeigh in silencing their victims.

 

[itfitzme]

The Second Amendment is outdated, and the NRA position on gun control is irrational, absurd and evil. Next time the US Navy decides to hit your town with cruise missiles try to knock them down with your weapons.

Is it? suppose tyranny does come to the United States. Then what? If we have no way to fight back, what do we do? Suck it up and enjoy it?

Now is where you bring out the canard of how powerful weapons the military has are and how puny my rifle is. True, very true. But I'm not going to take out a tank with a rifle. However, that tank crew has to leave the tank sometime. Food and fuel and logistical shipments still have to venture out of compounds to go from point A to point B. And is the president going to really carpet bomb all of America or use cruise missiles? What's the point of governing if there's nothing left to govern?

We've been fighting cavemen in Afghanistan for 12 years and still haven't brought them to heel. These same cavemen brought down the Soviets and British armies. They have used nothing but old rifles in many cases.

The entire point of the Second Amendment is to allow We The People to remove the government if it forgets that it is the hired help and that We The People are the masters. Sorry if you think that is too dangerous for common folk to handle, but freedom is chaotic and ugly and at times dangerous. I am proud to be a Second Amendment absolutist just as I am proud to be a First Amendment absolutist.

"suppose tyranny does come to the United States. "

Suppose that Santa Claus is real. Suppose there are aliens living on the dark side of the moon. Suppose that you will win a million dollars in the lottery.

We could suppose lot's of things. They aren't going to happen.

"The entire point of the Second Amendment is to allow We The People to remove the government"

No it isn't. It never was. You have made that up by confusing things your learned in grade school.

 

[Steven_R]

It can't happen here...

...except when it has. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)

 

[earlycuyler]

I disagree; here is why.

We have a constitution that permits the citizens to have guns. For better or worse; that will never change. Nothing says they have to be cheap.

It is what we've done with cigarettes and it's taken a VERY LONG time but fewer and fewer people are smoking due to the stigma and the cost.

Stigmatize gun ownership and make it cost-prohibitive by taxing, making gun owners carry liability insurance per gun, health insurance rates should be much higher for those who live in the house with a gun etc... and you'll see the same thing thath happened to cigarettes happen to guns.

Fewer owners equals fewer guns being sold here which means fewer guns in circulation. It will take a very long time but it will work.

with your so-called proposal, you have just violated the 2nd, 14th & 24th Amendments. Nice work. Poll taxes were struck down as unconstitutional as they violated the right to vote. Rights can not be taxed so that only a few can enjoy them. Gun ownership by private citizens isn't the problem, when are you leftists going to understand that? We have had gun ownership in this country for over 200 years & until recently, it was never an issue. The problem is criminals will continue to have access to weaponry. The founding fathers understood this as well since the language of a free state was included in the 2nd Amendment. Crime takes away from the concept of a free state which is another reason why We The People can own weapons.

Fewer owners does not lead to fewer guns nor does it lead to fewer in circulation. That approach never worked during Prohibition & it never worked during the war on drugs. Criminals can merely import their weapons or even make them themselves. These are foolish ideas put forth by foolish people. If you don't want to own a gun, that is fine. That's your right. But you will not tell me that I can not own a gun when the Constitution clearly states I have that right.

You have a right to smoke also...its taxed crazily.

Fewer buyers will cause fewer guns being made.

Violations are for the courts to decide.

Roughly translated, poor people will forfeit their right to self defence, hunting, firearms ownership in general, and rich folks will get all the guns. Again, its sad to see so many so willing to let others do their thinking for them.

 

[Steven_R]

The Second Amendment is outdated, and the NRA position on gun control is irrational, absurd and evil. Next time the US Navy decides to hit your town with cruise missiles try to knock them down with your weapons.

Is it? suppose tyranny does come to the United States. Then what? If we have no way to fight back, what do we do? Suck it up and enjoy it?

Now is where you bring out the canard of how powerful weapons the military has are and how puny my rifle is. True, very true. But I'm not going to take out a tank with a rifle. However, that tank crew has to leave the tank sometime. Food and fuel and logistical shipments still have to venture out of compounds to go from point A to point B. And is the president going to really carpet bomb all of America or use cruise missiles? What's the point of governing if there's nothing left to govern?

We've been fighting cavemen in Afghanistan for 12 years and still haven't brought them to heel. These same cavemen brought down the Soviets and British armies. They have used nothing but old rifles in many cases.

The entire point of the Second Amendment is to allow We The People to remove the government if it forgets that it is the hired help and that We The People are the masters. Sorry if you think that is too dangerous for common folk to handle, but freedom is chaotic and ugly and at times dangerous. I am proud to be a Second Amendment absolutist just as I am proud to be a First Amendment absolutist.

"suppose tyranny does come to the United States. "

Suppose that Santa Claus is real. Suppose there are aliens living on the dark side of the moon. Suppose that you will win a million dollars in the lottery.

We could suppose lot's of things. They aren't going to happen.

"The entire point of the Second Amendment is to allow We The People to remove the government"

No it isn't. It never was. You have made that up by confusing things your learned in grade school.

Grades school...and the Federalist Papers...and private letters written by the framers of the Constitution. They were very clean on what the Second Amendment was for.

 

[Bern80]

You won't like any of these possible efforts to reduce innocent deaths by gun violence but here it goes:

1. Require all gun owners to be licensed and insured. Each gun owned by the licensed and insured owner shall be recorded & stored in secure records of the insurance company; only by court order can such records be examined by LE.

Failure to comply with this law shall be punished by a fine of $5,000 and the surrender of all guns owned by the gun owner. A second or subsequent offense shall be punished by one year in the County Jail, a fine of not less than $10,000 and a lifetime revocation of a license to own, possess or have in the custory or control of said person.

2. All unlicensed persons who own, possess or have in his/her custody or control a gun is guilty of a felony and shall be imprisoned in the County Jail for one year and fined not less than $5,000. A second or subsequent conviction shall be punished by five years in a Federal Prison and a fine of not less than $10,000.

3. Any person who sells, gives, loans or in any manner provides a gun to an unlicensed person is guilty of a Felony and shall be imprisoned for not less than one year in a County Jail, Fined $10,000 and have their license to own, possess or have in their custody or control revoked for life.

4. Each person who owns, possess or has in their custody or control has a duty to secure their weapon from lose or theft. Failure to exercise due diligence in this duty makes the owner of said weapon culpable in the event any harm is done to any person. If a trier of fact determines the lose or theft was due to negligence or a conspiracy to provide an unlicensed person to obtain such weapon the penalties in #3 shall apply.

Unconstitutional. Owning a firearm is right protected by the Constitution it can not be infringed, Licensing infringes the right.

Of course. An expected response which leaves out any mention of the daily carnage which costs the lives of innocents across our nation. How many must die or suffer grievous injuries before rational people are able to discuss rational gun policy?

How fucked up in the head do you need to be to see what a stupid argument that is. By your rationale I could substitute all kinds of things that are involved in more injry and eath than guns. How many innocent kids have to die or be injured for you to give up the selfish convenience of driving a car. What a selfish little fuck you are for not giving yours up when it could save so many lives......See? Sounds pretty stupid when substitute guns with other inanimate objects doesn't it?

 

[Bern80]

The Second Amendment is outdated, and the NRA position on gun control is irrational, absurd and evil. Next time the US Navy decides to hit your town with cruise missiles try to knock them down with your weapons.

Is it? suppose tyranny does come to the United States. Then what? If we have no way to fight back, what do we do? Suck it up and enjoy it?

Now is where you bring out the canard of how powerful weapons the military has are and how puny my rifle is. True, very true. But I'm not going to take out a tank with a rifle. However, that tank crew has to leave the tank sometime. Food and fuel and logistical shipments still have to venture out of compounds to go from point A to point B. And is the president going to really carpet bomb all of America or use cruise missiles? What's the point of governing if there's nothing left to govern?

We've been fighting cavemen in Afghanistan for 12 years and still haven't brought them to heel. These same cavemen brought down the Soviets and British armies. They have used nothing but old rifles in many cases.

The entire point of the Second Amendment is to allow We The People to remove the government if it forgets that it is the hired help and that We The People are the masters. Sorry if you think that is too dangerous for common folk to handle, but freedom is chaotic and ugly and at times dangerous. I am proud to be a Second Amendment absolutist just as I am proud to be a First Amendment absolutist.

"suppose tyranny does come to the United States. "

Suppose that Santa Claus is real. Suppose there are aliens living on the dark side of the moon. Suppose that you will win a million dollars in the lottery.

We could suppose lot's of things. They aren't going to happen.

"The entire point of the Second Amendment is to allow We The People to remove the government"

No it isn't. It never was. You have made that up by confusing things your learned in grade school.

Tyranny isn't going to happen in the U.S.? That's a pretty stupid thing to say since pretty much every government in history has trended that way.

 

[Bern80]

I disagree; here is why.

We have a constitution that permits the citizens to have guns. For better or worse; that will never change. Nothing says they have to be cheap.

It is what we've done with cigarettes and it's taken a VERY LONG time but fewer and fewer people are smoking due to the stigma and the cost.

Stigmatize gun ownership and make it cost-prohibitive by taxing, making gun owners carry liability insurance per gun, health insurance rates should be much higher for those who live in the house with a gun etc... and you'll see the same thing thath happened to cigarettes happen to guns.

Fewer owners equals fewer guns being sold here which means fewer guns in circulation. It will take a very long time but it will work.

with your so-called proposal, you have just violated the 2nd, 14th & 24th Amendments. Nice work. Poll taxes were struck down as unconstitutional as they violated the right to vote. Rights can not be taxed so that only a few can enjoy them. Gun ownership by private citizens isn't the problem, when are you leftists going to understand that? We have had gun ownership in this country for over 200 years & until recently, it was never an issue. The problem is criminals will continue to have access to weaponry. The founding fathers understood this as well since the language of a free state was included in the 2nd Amendment. Crime takes away from the concept of a free state which is another reason why We The People can own weapons.

Fewer owners does not lead to fewer guns nor does it lead to fewer in circulation. That approach never worked during Prohibition & it never worked during the war on drugs. Criminals can merely import their weapons or even make them themselves. These are foolish ideas put forth by foolish people. If you don't want to own a gun, that is fine. That's your right. But you will not tell me that I can not own a gun when the Constitution clearly states I have that right.

You have a right to smoke also...its taxed crazily.

Fewer buyers will cause fewer guns being made.

Violations are for the courts to decide.

I'm sorry but your argument is horribly flawed candy. I'm sorry for whatever you experienced in life that gave you such a negative preception of guns. At some point I hope you gain the objectivity to realize that it is only that; a perception which does not neccessarily constitute reality. You say the above as if their is a realtionship between the number of guns in existence and death. That's simply not correct. You convenietly ignored my response, probably because you can't argue it, but to reiterate, if that were the case, there should have been death and violence all around growing up considering the number of guns in my neighborhood and that simply wasn't the case. You are wrong on to fronts here. A moral one in that it wrong to punish and stigmatize the law abiding in response to the non law abiding. You are no different than someone who would tax a person for being gay. It is also wrong from simple logical problem solving perspective. If you outlaw guns, only the lawless will have them.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I disagree; here is why.

We have a constitution that permits the citizens to have guns. For better or worse; that will never change. Nothing says they have to be cheap.

It is what we've done with cigarettes and it's taken a VERY LONG time but fewer and fewer people are smoking due to the stigma and the cost.

Stigmatize gun ownership and make it cost-prohibitive by taxing, making gun owners carry liability insurance per gun, health insurance rates should be much higher for those who live in the house with a gun etc... and you'll see the same thing thath happened to cigarettes happen to guns.

Fewer owners equals fewer guns being sold here which means fewer guns in circulation. It will take a very long time but it will work.

with your so-called proposal, you have just violated the 2nd, 14th & 24th Amendments. Nice work. Poll taxes were struck down as unconstitutional as they violated the right to vote. Rights can not be taxed so that only a few can enjoy them. Gun ownership by private citizens isn't the problem, when are you leftists going to understand that? We have had gun ownership in this country for over 200 years & until recently, it was never an issue. The problem is criminals will continue to have access to weaponry. The founding fathers understood this as well since the language of a free state was included in the 2nd Amendment. Crime takes away from the concept of a free state which is another reason why We The People can own weapons.

Fewer owners does not lead to fewer guns nor does it lead to fewer in circulation. That approach never worked during Prohibition & it never worked during the war on drugs. Criminals can merely import their weapons or even make them themselves. These are foolish ideas put forth by foolish people. If you don't want to own a gun, that is fine. That's your right. But you will not tell me that I can not own a gun when the Constitution clearly states I have that right.

You have a right to smoke also...its taxed crazily.

Fewer buyers will cause fewer guns being made.

Violations are for the courts to decide.

Cite for us the Constitutional clause or amendment that gives you the right to smoke. Be specific.

 

[oldfart]

Is it? suppose tyranny does come to the United States. Then what? If we have no way to fight back, what do we do? Suck it up and enjoy it?

Do you have any idea how delusional you sound? Do you seriously think that an armed resistance to government is going to turn out well for the insurgents? And do you want to end up in a society like Somalia, which is what you have if such an endeavor were successful?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Is it? suppose tyranny does come to the United States. Then what? If we have no way to fight back, what do we do? Suck it up and enjoy it?

Do you have any idea how delusional you sound? Do you seriously think that an armed resistance to government is going to turn out well for the insurgents? And do you want to end up in a society like Somalia, which is what you have if such an endeavor were successful?

So if the President declares he is Emperor and enough of the military agrees to let him hold it, you want us just to shrug our shoulders and accept it?

 

[Steven_R]

Is it? suppose tyranny does come to the United States. Then what? If we have no way to fight back, what do we do? Suck it up and enjoy it?

Do you have any idea how delusional you sound? Do you seriously think that an armed resistance to government is going to turn out well for the insurgents? And do you want to end up in a society like Somalia, which is what you have if such an endeavor were successful?

There are 100,000,000 gun owners in the US. Suppose 1/10 of 1% decide it is time to do something. That's 100,000 men. Christopher Dorner was one man who managed to shut down California for the better part of a week. You think 100,000 Christopher Dorners, many of who are trained and technologically knowledgeable, would do nothing more than stand and die?

I don't want Somalia, but if governments push they should expect to be pushed back in return. That was the final check and balance on the government, knowing that if it went too far really bad things can result. Unfortunately government get complacent and forget that, or they know what can happen and disarm the populace before it can get to the point where people say "enough" and have the means to enforce it.

 

[itfitzme]

Is it? suppose tyranny does come to the United States. Then what? If we have no way to fight back, what do we do? Suck it up and enjoy it?

Now is where you bring out the canard of how powerful weapons the military has are and how puny my rifle is. True, very true. But I'm not going to take out a tank with a rifle. However, that tank crew has to leave the tank sometime. Food and fuel and logistical shipments still have to venture out of compounds to go from point A to point B. And is the president going to really carpet bomb all of America or use cruise missiles? What's the point of governing if there's nothing left to govern?

We've been fighting cavemen in Afghanistan for 12 years and still haven't brought them to heel. These same cavemen brought down the Soviets and British armies. They have used nothing but old rifles in many cases.

The entire point of the Second Amendment is to allow We The People to remove the government if it forgets that it is the hired help and that We The People are the masters. Sorry if you think that is too dangerous for common folk to handle, but freedom is chaotic and ugly and at times dangerous. I am proud to be a Second Amendment absolutist just as I am proud to be a First Amendment absolutist.

"suppose tyranny does come to the United States. "

Suppose that Santa Claus is real. Suppose there are aliens living on the dark side of the moon. Suppose that you will win a million dollars in the lottery.

We could suppose lot's of things. They aren't going to happen.

"The entire point of the Second Amendment is to allow We The People to remove the government"

No it isn't. It never was. You have made that up by confusing things your learned in grade school.

Grades school...and the Federalist Papers...and private letters written by the framers of the Constitution. They were very clean on what the Second Amendment was for.

Delusional.

Sure, "a more perfect union"... oh, but were idiots so it might need to be overthrown by violence.

Delusional.

 

[bitterlyclingin]

Comrade Barack, whose "Fundamental Transformation Of America" includes the bringing of the Westgate Mall to every mall in America. You gotta admire the Dems for their unflinching loyalty to Comrade Barack, though. They'll probably stay loyal to Comrade Barack right up to the moment the Jihadi in the mall on our soil here puts the barrel of his gun to their head a la Nairobi and blows their brains away.

Obama Guns to Terrorist | A.F.Branco | Conservative Cartoon

 

[Bern80]

"suppose tyranny does come to the United States. "

Suppose that Santa Claus is real. Suppose there are aliens living on the dark side of the moon. Suppose that you will win a million dollars in the lottery.

We could suppose lot's of things. They aren't going to happen.

"The entire point of the Second Amendment is to allow We The People to remove the government"

No it isn't. It never was. You have made that up by confusing things your learned in grade school.

Grades school...and the Federalist Papers...and private letters written by the framers of the Constitution. They were very clean on what the Second Amendment was for.

Delusional.

Sure, "a more perfect union"... oh, but were idiots so it might need to be overthrown by violence.

Delusional.

Again since more government's have historically tended toward tyranny than not, who is more delusional here? Us who believe that people should have the right to fight tyrannical government or you who thinks tyranny can't happen here?