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

[Spoonman]

I was kinda kidding.

But seriously, if you folks really think that all these guns are needed because you think that you might have to overthrow your own government with force one day, well, that I believe is called a straw argument. Either that or your fucking nuts?

But that is exactly what James Madison, the guy who wrote the 2nd amendment was thinking. An that is exactly what the rest of the founding fathers approved. they knew from experience that a tyranical government needed to be kept in check.

...in 1776. Stop living in the past. Do you actually think that you can overthrow the US army today?

you just made madisons point exactly. the intent is the civilian population remain as strong as the government. of course the government along with the help of the anti gun nuts does everything in their power to stop that from happening. Get it?

Think about this, if our military can't stop a radical insurgency in afghanistan, what makes you think they could stop one here?

 

[Steven_R]

I was kinda kidding.

But seriously, if you folks really think that all these guns are needed because you think that you might have to overthrow your own government with force one day, well, that I believe is called a straw argument. Either that or your fucking nuts?

But that is exactly what James Madison, the guy who wrote the 2nd amendment was thinking. An that is exactly what the rest of the founding fathers approved. they knew from experience that a tyranical government needed to be kept in check.

...in 1776. Stop living in the past. Do you actually think that you can overthrow the US army today?

Chris Dorner, one single man, shut down California for a week. There are 100,000,000 gun owners in this country. If 1/10 of 1% of that number decide it's time, that's 100,000 Chris Dorners.

Cavemen in Afghanistan have stopped the British, Soviet, and now American armies dead in their tracks. We aren't cavemen, but a literate and technological society. How many gun owners are engineers and scientists and physicians and machinists and tradesmen with skillsets and knowledge and experience with planning and problem solving?

But they have tanks and drones. Good. Tanks need fuel and troops need food. Every inch between the production facilities and destinations will been to be covered. The US Army doesn't have that kind of manpower. Even if they did, short of total warfare against the US there is no way to bring that firepower against any rebellion. Are you going to firebomb Detroit just to get a sniper? Drone attacks against McDonald's because they are meeting places? Roll tanks and flatten Bumfuck, Kansas just in case? Naval blockade Hawaii to starve out a few people? All that does is turn the population against the government. How many troops will go along with that plan anyways?

It won't be a stand up battle if it ever get to be Go Time. It'll be a low-level insurgency from coast to coast. The goal isn't to overthrow tyrants. The goal is to make it so costly that TPTB never start tyranny in the first place.

 

[KevinWestern]

I was kinda kidding.

But seriously, if you folks really think that all these guns are needed because you think that you might have to overthrow your own government with force one day, well, that I believe is called a straw argument. Either that or your fucking nuts?

But that is exactly what James Madison, the guy who wrote the 2nd amendment was thinking. An that is exactly what the rest of the founding fathers approved. they knew from experience that a tyranical government needed to be kept in check.

...in 1776. Stop living in the past. Do you actually think that you can overthrow the US army today?

I think you incorrectly assume that 100% of the US army would be fighting for the US gov't in that sort of a situation. Probably not the case at all.

I think Ron Paul - for example - receives a great deal of his funding/support from the military. I don't these guys would be obeying commands to fire on US citizens anytime soon.

 

[kaz]

But that is exactly what James Madison, the guy who wrote the 2nd amendment was thinking. An that is exactly what the rest of the founding fathers approved. they knew from experience that a tyranical government needed to be kept in check.

...in 1776. Stop living in the past. Do you actually think that you can overthrow the US army today?

I think you incorrectly assume that 100% of the US army would be fighting for the US gov't in that sort of a situation. Probably not the case at all.

I think Ron Paul - for example - receives a great deal of his funding/support from the military. I don't these guys would be obeying commands to fire on US citizens anytime soon.

Yes, I am not military, but my family is. They believe they are fighting for freedom, they do not believe they are fighting freedom. Not that there aren't a lot of military who would just follow orders, but I believe the majority would not.

 

[MonaGonna]

You guys have a mental disease if you think that you need your guns to fight your own government and you can envision that day and have planned out tactics in your heads. Seriously, get help. All of you.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You guys have a mental disease if you think that you need your guns to fight your own government and you can envision that day and have planned out tactics in your heads. Seriously, get help. All of you.

I ask you a question, define what an assault rifle is. I see you have not responded. And have given up arguing that a miniscule problem requires millions to lose a right.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You guys have a mental disease if you think that you need your guns to fight your own government and you can envision that day and have planned out tactics in your heads. Seriously, get help. All of you.

What do you expect us to do? Submit?

Over my dead body.

 

[MonaGonna]

You guys have a mental disease if you think that you need your guns to fight your own government and you can envision that day and have planned out tactics in your heads. Seriously, get help. All of you.

I ask you a question, define what an assault rifle is. I see you have not responded. And have given up arguing that a miniscule problem requires millions to lose a right.

Seriously man, get some help. 9,000+ gun deaths a year is a miniscule problem?

 

[TemplarKormac]

You guys have a mental disease if you think that you need your guns to fight your own government and you can envision that day and have planned out tactics in your heads. Seriously, get help. All of you.

I ask you a question, define what an assault rifle is. I see you have not responded. And have given up arguing that a miniscule problem requires millions to lose a right.

Seriously man, get some help. 9,000+ gun deaths a year is a miniscule problem?

Yeah, considering that there are 315 million people in this country alone. Your gun control argument fails when it concerns places like Chicago or Detroit.

 

[KevinWestern]

You guys have a mental disease if you think that you need your guns to fight your own government and you can envision that day and have planned out tactics in your heads. Seriously, get help. All of you.

No, I think you have it mixed up. I fight to maintain a certain level of citizen empowerment (by being able to own guns, etc) to protect us from things that can and do happen.

I say this respectfully, but do you know your history? There are literally (and I mean literally) thousands of documented of examples spanning from the beginning of time all the way up to 2013 of gov'ts (that were once benevolent) becoming violent, oppressive, etc. It just happens, and it's human nature. A “check” against this from occurring (in America) is that folks are allowed to own guns.

Note that there is never an elimination of guns, there is only gun control meaning that you can only choose from these options:

1.) Law abiding citizens, criminals, and government has guns…. Or
2.) Criminals and government has guns (gun control)

Option two leaves the normal citizen quite vulnerable.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You guys have a mental disease if you think that you need your guns to fight your own government and you can envision that day and have planned out tactics in your heads. Seriously, get help. All of you.

I see you have nothig of substance to refute the posiiton, and so you must resort to ad homs.
Thank you for again proving my point.

 

[M14 Shooter]

what ever solution you come up with, just remember you can not restrict the rights of legal gun owners. pretty much every recommendation i'm seeing here does.

You forgot to mention your cold dark hands. Actually your right to bear arms shall not be infringed, and I'm kinda thinking that the founding fathers weren't talking about semi-automatic weapons and large caliber magazines. They were talking about muskets. So you're right to a musket shall not be infringed. You can probably have a bow and arrow too, nobody will mind.

Given your vapidity, above, tell us why you believe the government should have a warrant to listen in on your cell phone conversations, and why it cannot censor CNN.

No response, eh?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You guys have a mental disease if you think that you need your guns to fight your own government and you can envision that day and have planned out tactics in your heads. Seriously, get help. All of you.

I ask you a question, define what an assault rifle is. I see you have not responded. And have given up arguing that a miniscule problem requires millions to lose a right.

Seriously man, get some help. 9,000+ gun deaths a year is a miniscule problem?

Do the math. 9000 from 316 million is miniscule. Hell even if you assume only 100 million own firearms 9000 is miniscule. Again for the slow the number of deaths per 100000 in the US from firearms murders is 3.7 or less. You would deny 999996 people their rights because of that?

 

[Ernie S.]

what ever solution you come up with, just remember you can not restrict the rights of legal gun owners. pretty much every recommendation i'm seeing here does.

You forgot to mention your cold dark hands. Actually your right to bear arms shall not be infringed, and I'm kinda thinking that the founding fathers weren't talking about semi-automatic weapons and large caliber magazines. They were talking about muskets. So you're right to a musket shall not be infringed. You can probably have a bow and arrow too, nobody will mind.

They were talking about muskets because muskets were what the government had.

And what the fuck is a large caliber magazine?

If you are going to argue for gun control, perhaps you should educate yourself on the subject.

Oh and the Bill of Rights was not written in 1776, but 1789

 

[Ernie S.]

I was kinda kidding.

But seriously, if you folks really think that all these guns are needed because you think that you might have to overthrow your own government with force one day, well, that I believe is called a straw argument. Either that or your fucking nuts?

But that is exactly what James Madison, the guy who wrote the 2nd amendment was thinking. An that is exactly what the rest of the founding fathers approved. they knew from experience that a tyranical government needed to be kept in check.

...in 1776. Stop living in the past. Do you actually think that you can overthrow the US army today?

Do you really think barack obama could persuade the US Army to fire on US citizens?
10% of them, perhaps, but, believe me! The US Army is all about liberty and doesn't much care for tin hat dictators.

 

[Ernie S.]

You guys have a mental disease if you think that you need your guns to fight your own government and you can envision that day and have planned out tactics in your heads. Seriously, get help. All of you.

I ask you a question, define what an assault rifle is. I see you have not responded. And have given up arguing that a miniscule problem requires millions to lose a right.

Seriously man, get some help. 9,000+ gun deaths a year is a miniscule problem?

And you STILL can't answer a simple question? Do you want to be taken seriously?

 

[jon_berzerk]

I ask you a question, define what an assault rifle is. I see you have not responded. And have given up arguing that a miniscule problem requires millions to lose a right.

Seriously man, get some help. 9,000+ gun deaths a year is a miniscule problem?

And you STILL can't answer a simple question? Do you want to be taken seriously?

the gun rights people ask

why do the criminals choose gun free zones to do their shoot outs

because they are free to wreak havoc

without the threat being confronted by an armed citizen

the left says that is non sense even though

we see repeated shoot outs in gun free zones

the pro gun folks typical reply a real head scratchier for the left

well why then do you not see the crazies attacking police stations

now in the words of the criminal

-[The suspect said he wanted to deliver a package to police and kill officers but, because he would be outgunned, he would "wreak havoc" elsewhere.]-

it cant get much clearer then that

Man kills woman, shoots hostages and is killed in gunbattle - Hawaii News - Honolulu Star-Advertiser

 

[Geaux4it]

You guys have a mental disease if you think that you need your guns to fight your own government and you can envision that day and have planned out tactics in your heads. Seriously, get help. All of you.

I ask you a question, define what an assault rifle is. I see you have not responded. And have given up arguing that a miniscule problem requires millions to lose a right.

Seriously man, get some help. 9,000+ gun deaths a year is a miniscule problem?

It might be someones problem, but it's not mine

-Geaux

 

[MonaGonna]

You guys have a mental disease if you think that you need your guns to fight your own government and you can envision that day and have planned out tactics in your heads. Seriously, get help. All of you.

No, I think you have it mixed up. I fight to maintain a certain level of citizen empowerment (by being able to own guns, etc) to protect us from things that can and do happen.

I say this respectfully, but do you know your history? There are literally (and I mean literally) thousands of documented of examples spanning from the beginning of time all the way up to 2013 of gov'ts (that were once benevolent) becoming violent, oppressive, etc. It just happens, and it's human nature. A “check” against this from occurring (in America) is that folks are allowed to own guns.

Note that there is never an elimination of guns, there is only gun control meaning that you can only choose from these options:

1.) Law abiding citizens, criminals, and government has guns…. Or
2.) Criminals and government has guns (gun control)

Option two leaves the normal citizen quite vulnerable.

2 straw arguments. The first one is TOTALLY ridiculous that you think you'll need to overthrow your own government one day as a reason. The second one fails because if you squeeze the supply of guns for everyone and use various methods to restrict purchase and ownership (no drug users, alcoholics, mental cases, felons...), squeeze the bullet supply as well, then as time goes on, it'll be harder and harder to get a gun, FOR EVERYONE, including bad guys. It works in other countries, you guys just refuse to accept it and refute it with shit that doesn't even make any sense.

And I'll add that personally, I don't care if the mafia, bikers and dealers gangs shoot each other. It's the so called good guys who shoot up the schools, movie houses, spouses... so maybe if we restrict your "normal" citizen more than others, gun deaths will still go down and the gang bangers can keep shooting each other.

I'll also add that I have no problem with citizens having a hand gun at home to protect themselves and their family, and a rifle for hunting. Banning guns outright is not on in my book.


.

 

[Geaux4it]

You guys have a mental disease if you think that you need your guns to fight your own government and you can envision that day and have planned out tactics in your heads. Seriously, get help. All of you.

No, I think you have it mixed up. I fight to maintain a certain level of citizen empowerment (by being able to own guns, etc) to protect us from things that can and do happen.

I say this respectfully, but do you know your history? There are literally (and I mean literally) thousands of documented of examples spanning from the beginning of time all the way up to 2013 of gov'ts (that were once benevolent) becoming violent, oppressive, etc. It just happens, and it's human nature. A “check” against this from occurring (in America) is that folks are allowed to own guns.

Note that there is never an elimination of guns, there is only gun control meaning that you can only choose from these options:

1.) Law abiding citizens, criminals, and government has guns…. Or
2.) Criminals and government has guns (gun control)

Option two leaves the normal citizen quite vulnerable.

2 straw arguments. The first one is TOTALLY ridiculous that you think you'll need to overthrow your own government one day as a reason. The second one fails because if you squeeze the supply of guns for everyone and use various methods to restrict purchase and ownership (no drug users, alcoholics, mental cases, felons...), squeeze the bullet supply as well, then as time goes on, it'll be harder and harder to get a gun, FOR EVERYONE, including bad guys. It works in other countries, you guys just refuse to accept it and refute it with shit that doesn't even make any sense.

Nice dream world interpretation.

Not going to happen here

Be smart and buy a firearm for protection because the police have no legal obligation to do so.

-Geaux