Why the liberals are lossing the debate about guns.

[Lonestar_logic]

Gun fanatic logic:

1. Obama wants to take our guns
2. In order to do this, he will have to rely on the 800,000, to 900,000 law enforcement professionls in this country
3. There are over 300,000,000 guns in this country
4. Therefore, Obama will have to use the military to take away our guns
5. As a conservative, I loudly applaud our heros in the military, and support our troops in all that they do
6. Therefore, I support the military, who are the ones who will be assigned the task of taking away our guns.
7. Nobody, including the military, had better take way my guns, because I will fight for my 2nd ammendment rights by using my guns against the military, which, as a patriot, I value and respect above all else. God bless our troops.

Here's a clue dumbass. If the military works hand in hand with an oppressive govt to take away the God given, and Constitutionally guaranteed and protected rights of the citizens, they become traitors to the nation and thier oaths and they are no longer OUR military, they become THEIR military and every Patriot in this nation would be honor and duty bound to fight against them even if it meant dying.

I'm sorry, jt. I understand, now. In this republic, the military is made up of heros who deserve our support...unless the Republic tells them to do something that you don't agree with, in which case, they are traitors, and deserve to be shot in the streets in the revolution.

Our soldiers vowed to defend the Constitution if they fail to honor that oath then I would consider them traitors.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Driving is a right. You cannot deny a person the right to operate a motor vehicle any more than you can deny them the right to own a gun.

Driving is a right?


Then it should be easy for you to point to where it's written in the Bill of Rights.
Oh and I guess the purpose of a driving and written test to be licensed to legally operate a motor vehicle is just symbolism.

Still waiting!!

Lonesatar,
You really ought to think about changing your signiture line:

"Although Houston was a slave owner and opposed abolition, he opposed the secession of Texas from the Union. An elected convention voted to secede from the United States on February 1, 1861, and Texas joined the Confederate States of America on March 2, 1861. Houston refused to recognize its legality, but the Texas legislature upheld the legitimacy of secession. The political forces that brought about Texas's secession were powerful enough to replace the state's Unionist governor. Houston chose not to resist, stating, "I love Texas too well to bring civil strife and bloodshed upon her. To avert this calamity, I shall make no endeavor to maintain my authority as Chief Executive of this State, except by the peaceful exercise of my functions ... " He was evicted from his office on March 16, 1861, for refusing to take an oath of loyalty to the Confederacy, writing,

"Fellow-Citizens, in the name of your rights and liberties, which I believe have been trampled upon, I refuse to take this oath. In the name of the nationality of Texas, which has been betrayed by the Convention, I refuse to take this oath. In the name of the Constitution of Texas, I refuse to take this oath. In the name of my own conscience and manhood, which this Convention would degrade by dragging me before it, to pander to the malice of my enemies, I refuse to take this oath. I deny the power of this Convention to speak for Texas....I protest....against all the acts and doings of this convention and I declare them null and void.[34] "

He was replaced by Lieutenant Governor Edward Clark. To avoid more bloodshed in Texas, Houston turned down U.S. Col. Frederick W. Lander's offer from President Lincoln of 50,000 troops to prevent Texas's secession. He said, "Allow me to most respectfully decline any such assistance of the United States Government."

Wiki

 

[jtpr312]

Gun fanatic logic:

1. Obama wants to take our guns
2. In order to do this, he will have to rely on the 800,000, to 900,000 law enforcement professionls in this country
3. There are over 300,000,000 guns in this country
4. Therefore, Obama will have to use the military to take away our guns
5. As a conservative, I loudly applaud our heros in the military, and support our troops in all that they do
6. Therefore, I support the military, who are the ones who will be assigned the task of taking away our guns.
7. Nobody, including the military, had better take way my guns, because I will fight for my 2nd ammendment rights by using my guns against the military, which, as a patriot, I value and respect above all else. God bless our troops.

Here's a clue dumbass. If the military works hand in hand with an oppressive govt to take away the God given, and Constitutionally guaranteed and protected rights of the citizens, they become traitors to the nation and thier oaths and they are no longer OUR military, they become THEIR military and every Patriot in this nation would be honor and duty bound to fight against them even if it meant dying.

I'm sorry, jt. I understand, now. In this republic, the military is made up of heros who deserve our support...unless the Republic tells them to do something that you don't agree with, in which case, they are traitors, and deserve to be shot in the streets in the revolution.

Where you ever actually in the Military son? Doubtful or you would know the oath that we take. We don't swear an oath to uphold the government, the Republic, the country or the current admin. We take an oath uphold the US Constitution.


I, STATE YOUR NAME, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God

I underlined that one section for a reason. That section is in refrence to obeying the orders of the President and Officers above you. See UCMJ starting with article 90 I believe. It is refrence to following ONLY legal orders and any order that denies citizens of their Constitutional rights are by defintion illegal and if they obey them they are traitors.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Driving is a privilege, owning a gun is a right.

See the difference??

Driving is a right. You cannot deny a person the right to operate a motor vehicle any more than you can deny them the right to own a gun.

Driving is a right?


Then it should be easy for you to point to where it's written in the Bill of Rights.

Oh and I guess the purpose of a driving and written test to be licensed to legally operate a motor vehicle is just symbolism.

1. It's in the Ninth Amendment.

2. NY has been licensing pistol owners for 50 some years, if they want legally own one.

You were saying?

 

[The Rabbi]

Driving is a right. You cannot deny a person the right to operate a motor vehicle any more than you can deny them the right to own a gun.

Driving is a right?


Then it should be easy for you to point to where it's written in the Bill of Rights.

Oh and I guess the purpose of a driving and written test to be licensed to legally operate a motor vehicle is just symbolism.

1. It's in the Ninth Amendment.

2. NY has been licensing pistol owners for 50 some years, if they want legally own one.

You were saying?

I dont see the word "driving" anywhere there. Maybe it's in the margin of your copy?
Driving on public roads requires a state (not federal) license. Anything requiring a license is ipso facto not a right. NY is infringing on constitutional rights, like that's anything new.

You had a point somewhere that I failed to eviscerate?

 

[P@triot]

I suggest everyone read this in its entirety. If I could I would quote it entirely and force every gun control nut to read it every day before they go to bed. It is, by far, the single best exposure of the hypocrisy built into the gun control position you will ever read.

Or, How I Learned To Stop Caring.
By way of introduction, I'd like to explain some of my former positions. Please do not reply and tell me why I'm wrong. That's not relevant to this post. These WERE my positions, for right or wrong.
I used to believe women had a right to reproductive choice. As a male, I will obviously never have an abortion. I supported access because birth control is cheaper than abortions, abortions are cheaper than welfare, welfare is cheaper than jail. And I don't believe the government is capable of legislating for every circumstance. Most of the time, a woman and her doctor will make a decision that works for the situation, and until a baby is an independent organism, it's a parasite. This was also important to me because my wife was warned that a further pregnancy could kill her. That's been surgically remedied and is no longer a problem.
I used to believe gays were entitled to relate as they wished, including marriage. What two people do together doesn't affect me unless I'm one of them.
I used to believe it was wrong to treat people differently based on their skin color. Even if a few people fit a stereotype, millions of others do not.
I used to believe there should be a strong division between church and state, that any support of a religious entity using property of the state constituted endorsement and was wrong.
I used to believe people had a right to protest, campaign, rant and create non-violent incidents to express themselves and their positions. I also believed they had a right to publish as they chose. I believed they were entitled to burn the Flag in protest, to make a statement.
I have obviously been at odds with conservatives over these positions. There have been loud arguments, heated discussions and occasional insults.

Every fucking asshole that supports restricting guns should be taken into a back room at the jail and beaten with a rubber hose just to remind them about why rights for everyone matter.

Don't complicate it QW.... they are wrong because guns are a Constitutional right. It really is that simple - and that's why they will lose no matter what they do (even if they get it "outlawed" - gun owners are simply not going to put their guns down - it's a Constitutional right).

 

[Vandalshandle]

"Where you ever actually in the Military son? Doubtful or you would know the oath that we take. We don't swear an oath to uphold the government, the Republic, the country or the current admin. We take an oath uphold the US Constitution."

As interpreted by you, of course, jt. I assume that you do not feel compelled to necessarily uphold that part of the Contitution whereby the Supreme Court has the final authority of interpreting the Constitution.

 

[Papawx3]

When my nation was at war in a far-away place called Vietnam, I rose to the occasion. I signed my name on the dotted line and then donned my country's uniform. I joined the thousands of other young men who, like me, were proud to serve their country, even though doing so might cost our very lives.
The military issued a weapon to me, then taught me how to use it effectively. When I aim at something, or someone, and pull the trigger, I always hit my target. I don't miss, and that's what I call true Gun Control.
Since then, I have always supported our military both at home and abroad. I have stood in line at a local bus station and applauded our troops as they returned home from their overseas assignments.
Over the past 35 years, I married and raised a family. I started and ran a business. I have been an honest, law-abiding citizen and productive member of society for all these years. I have supported my local law enforcement agencies because they have, so far, been the protectors of others like myself.
Even as a civilian, I am still a gun owner because I know that the law cannot always be there, and that criminals take advantage of every opportunity they can. They ply their trade when the law is far away, and when the law-abiding citizen is least expecting them to strike.
The Constitution of the United States provides the 2nd Amendment which protects my right to keep an bear arms and to protect myself, my family, friends and neighbors.
Now some government bureaucrat is talking about either restricting my rights to keep and bear arms, or worse, confiscating my weapons altogether. On top of that, they want to send the very military in which I served after me to invade my home and property and steal from me my own private property.

After being a soldier, husband, father, business owner and general law-abiding citizen, the very government that I served now wants to declare me their mortal enemy. Well, let them have it their own way. I still remember every single lesson they taught me. What they don't realize is that I still hit what I am at, the first time, and every time. I didn't miss back then, and even to this day, I still don't.

You want my weapons? Come and get them. I dare you.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

The failure of the left on gun control or bans is they look to places such as Britain, Austrialia, Japan, etc. and don't see why the same philosophy and treatment of guns cannot happen here.

Once you accept the fact, though it may be hard, that guns will never be banned here, then a realistic debate can begin. Until then, the anti-gun crowd is simply pissing in the wind.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Driving is a right?


Then it should be easy for you to point to where it's written in the Bill of Rights.

Oh and I guess the purpose of a driving and written test to be licensed to legally operate a motor vehicle is just symbolism.

1. It's in the Ninth Amendment.

2. NY has been licensing pistol owners for 50 some years, if they want legally own one.

You were saying?

I dont see the word "driving" anywhere there. Maybe it's in the margin of your copy?
Driving on public roads requires a state (not federal) license. Anything requiring a license is ipso facto not a right. NY is infringing on constitutional rights, like that's anything new.

You had a point somewhere that I failed to eviscerate?

You obviously don't have any clue what the 9th amendment means.

Since you can constitutionally require licenses, permits, etc., to own guns,

either that means that, by your reasoning, gun ownership is not a right, or,

by every other sane person's reasoning, gun ownership is a right that can have responsibilities, regulations, and limitations attached to it.

 

[Vandalshandle]

When my nation was at war in a far-away place called Vietnam, I rose to the occasion. I signed my name on the dotted line and then donned my country's uniform. I joined the thousands of other young men who, like me, were proud to serve their country, even though doing so might cost our very lives.
The military issued a weapon to me, then taught me how to use it effectively. When I aim at something, or someone, and pull the trigger, I always hit my target. I don't miss, and that's what I call true Gun Control.
Since then, I have always supported our military both at home and abroad. I have stood in line at a local bus station and applauded our troops as they returned home from their overseas assignments.
Over the past 35 years, I married and raised a family. I started and ran a business. I have been an honest, law-abiding citizen and productive member of society for all these years. I have supported my local law enforcement agencies because they have, so far, been the protectors of others like myself.
Even as a civilian, I am still a gun owner because I know that the law cannot always be there, and that criminals take advantage of every opportunity they can. They ply their trade when the law is far away, and when the law-abiding citizen is least expecting them to strike.
The Constitution of the United States provides the 2nd Amendment which protects my right to keep an bear arms and to protect myself, my family, friends and neighbors.
Now some government bureaucrat is talking about either restricting my rights to keep and bear arms, or worse, confiscating my weapons altogether. On top of that, they want to send the very military in which I served after me to invade my home and property and steal from me my own private property.

After being a soldier, husband, father, business owner and general law-abiding citizen, the very government that I served now wants to declare me their mortal enemy. Well, let them have it their own way. I still remember every single lesson they taught me. What they don't realize is that I still hit what I am at, the first time, and every time. I didn't miss back then, and even to this day, I still don't.

You want my weapons? Come and get them. I dare you.

They are coming to get you, papa. Dig your bunker deep...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You know.................they don't really want your guns. What they want is responsible ammo clips, and responsible use by those that buy them.

If you can't see anymore, you don't get to drive, and you get checked every 4 years. Why not the same for gun owners?

And..................like I've said many times before...........................if you can't get rid of intruders in 10 shots or less (10 rounds being what the maximum for a civilian clip is being looked at) you are a really bad shot and maybe should have spent more time at the range.

The only reason for a clip of 15 rounds or more is to kill a lot of people quickly.

Stop using the word reasonable, you aren't fooling anyone. Thre is nothing reasonable about any of your idiocy, if there was you wouldn't have to use the word reasonable to describe it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

They aren't losing the debate.

I remember multiple predictions right here on this board that there would be a ban on assault weapons, yet the Senate is not even going to introduce a bill that includes such a ban. Tell me again you aren't losing.

You have now told me the Senate is not the relevant measure of who is winning the debate.

1. Who predicted the assault weapons ban would pass?

2. Why is that relevant to who is winning the debate?

There are 3 major components to the gun law debate, currently

a. Banning assault style weapons
b. Restricting magazine capacity
c. Universal background checks

If you're defining the 'debate' you referred to as public opinion, then gun control is winning all three, because all three have majority support in the polls.

If you're defining the 'debate' as being won or lost by what legislation passes, we don't know who's winning that because that process has not played out.

Liar.

The only one that has majority support is the background checks, and that is simply for expanding them, not making them universal for all gun transfers.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You know.................they don't really want your guns. What they want is responsible ammo clips, and responsible use by those that buy them.

If you can't see anymore, you don't get to drive, and you get checked every 4 years. Why not the same for gun owners?

And..................like I've said many times before...........................if you can't get rid of intruders in 10 shots or less (10 rounds being what the maximum for a civilian clip is being looked at) you are a really bad shot and maybe should have spent more time at the range.

The only reason for a clip of 15 rounds or more is to kill a lot of people quickly.

Driving is a privilege, owning a gun is a right.

See the difference??

Driving is a right. You cannot deny a person the right to operate a motor vehicle any more than you can deny them the right to own a gun.

Yet you want restrictions on the right to own a firearm that would cause you to scream in indignation if they were applied to driving a car.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"Where you ever actually in the Military son? Doubtful or you would know the oath that we take. We don't swear an oath to uphold the government, the Republic, the country or the current admin. We take an oath uphold the US Constitution."

As interpreted by you, of course, jt. I assume that you do not feel compelled to necessarily uphold that part of the Contitution whereby the Supreme Court has the final authority of interpreting the Constitution.

The Supreme Court is not the final authority on the Constitution.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

1. It's in the Ninth Amendment.

2. NY has been licensing pistol owners for 50 some years, if they want legally own one.

You were saying?

I dont see the word "driving" anywhere there. Maybe it's in the margin of your copy?
Driving on public roads requires a state (not federal) license. Anything requiring a license is ipso facto not a right. NY is infringing on constitutional rights, like that's anything new.

You had a point somewhere that I failed to eviscerate?

You obviously don't have any clue what the 9th amendment means.

Since you can constitutionally require licenses, permits, etc., to own guns,

either that means that, by your reasoning, gun ownership is not a right, or,

by every other sane person's reasoning, gun ownership is a right that can have responsibilities, regulations, and limitations attached to it.

You are the one that have no idea what you are talking about. The right to travel, and, by extension, the right to drive, come out of the privileged and immunities clause, not the 9th.

Nice try though.

 

[Darkwind]

They aren't losing the debate.

I remember multiple predictions right here on this board that there would be a ban on assault weapons, yet the Senate is not even going to introduce a bill that includes such a ban. Tell me again you aren't losing.

He is right. They are not losing the debate. They HAVE LOST the debate.

 

[Darkwind]

Gun fanatic logic:

1. Obama wants to take our guns
2. In order to do this, he will have to rely on the 800,000, to 900,000 law enforcement professionls in this country
3. There are over 300,000,000 guns in this country
4. Therefore, Obama will have to use the military to take away our guns
5. As a conservative, I loudly applaud our heros in the military, and support our troops in all that they do
6. Therefore, I support the military, who are the ones who will be assigned the task of taking away our guns.
7. Nobody, including the military, had better take way my guns, because I will fight for my 2nd ammendment rights by using my guns against the military, which, as a patriot, I value and respect above all else. God bless our troops.

It is clear that you don't understand it at all.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

They aren't losing the debate.

I remember multiple predictions right here on this board that there would be a ban on assault weapons, yet the Senate is not even going to introduce a bill that includes such a ban. Tell me again you aren't losing.

He is right. They are not losing the debate. They HAVE LOST the debate.

Yet they keep yacking.

 

[Darkwind]

I remember multiple predictions right here on this board that there would be a ban on assault weapons, yet the Senate is not even going to introduce a bill that includes such a ban. Tell me again you aren't losing.

He is right. They are not losing the debate. They HAVE LOST the debate.

Yet they keep yacking.

Yeah, but racists like Carby are paid to continue on, so its not like he even cares if he is right. Its all about the ben's......