The Right to Bear Arms. Period.

[Arch Avian]

Hawanja

Hero Rising

Thank you for that response. You seem very educated on this issue.

Honestly, where on earth have you been for the past 5 years? When Obama was a senator, he placed a number of gun control laws (and went very far on Chicago). It didn't stop when he became president.

I won't be vague here. Don't worry.

Obama stated in his last debate that he was going to ban all assault weapons from homes. ALL of them. Meaning that only the government and the military were going to have military grade weapons. He uses the words "assault weapons" (which, in the world of guns, is actually only proper when referring to the military).

On LIVE television. In front of our eyes and ears. Me and my father looked at each other and suddenly the election became MUCH more for us.

But obviously, you did not watch the debates.

Here's a direct quote from Obama:
"So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or antitrade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

If that's too vague for you, here's more:
Obama was being misleading when he denied that his handwriting had been on a document endorsing a state ban on the sale and possession of handguns in Illinois. Obama responded, “No, my writing wasn’t on that particular questionnaire. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns.”
Actually, Obama’s writing was on the 1996 document, which was filed when Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate. A Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois, had this question, and Obama took hard line:

35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.

Wait! But there's more!

Obama sought moderate gun control measures, such as a 2000 bill he cosponsored to limit handgun purchases to one per month (it did not pass). He voted against letting people violate local weapons bans in cases of self-defense, but also voted in 2004 to let retired police officers carry concealed handguns.

^These are just handguns. Not even assault weapons!

Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:
Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.

A bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others. Voting YES would:
Exempt lawsuits brought against individuals who knowingly transfer a firearm that will be used to commit a violent or drug-trafficking crime
Exempt lawsuits against actions that result in death, physical injury or property damage due solely to a product defect
Call for the dismissal of all qualified civil liability actions pending on the date of enactment by the court in which the action was brought
Prohibit the manufacture, import, sale or delivery of armor piercing ammunition, and sets a minimum prison term of 15 years for violations
Require all licensed importers, manufacturers and dealers who engage in the transfer of handguns to provide secure gun storage or safety devices

THIS MEANS THAT THE COMPANIES WHICH MANUFACTURE GUNS WILL GET ATTACKED WHENEVER SOMEONE IS SHOT BY A GUN THEY MADE. THIS DESTROYS GUN OWNERSHIP WITH A TRICKLE DOWN EFFECT.


An interview about the assault weapons ban:

KEYES: [to Obama]: I am a strong believer in the second amendment. The gun control mentality is ruthlessly absurd. It suggests that we should pass a law that prevents law abiding citizens from carrying weapons. You end up with a situation where the crook have all the guns and the law abiding citizens cannot defend themselves. I guess that’s good enough for Senator Obama who voted against the bill that would have allowed homeowners to defend themselves if their homes were broken into.
OBAMA: Let’s be honest. Mr. Keyes does not believe in common gun control measures like the assault weapons bill. Mr. Keyes does not believe in any limits from what I can tell with respect to the possession of guns, including assault weapons that have only one purpose, to kill people. I think it is a scandal that this president did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban.


Now, would you like me to tell you WHY assault weapons are important? Because I can and I will. Anyone who does not understand the philosophy behind assault weapons needs a bit of education on the founding fathers and why they states all arms for all men, not to be infringed.

If Obama does not understand the value of having equal arms with the government and the military, then his understanding on the value of the constitution is not suitable for any government seat.


But would you like some more proof?

[Arch Avian]

Morbid Monstrosity

You should take the perspective of someone who has had a "military grade weapon" kill someone they love. It is appropriate to take away such weapons to reduce crime and senseless violence.

I believe we should be allowed to protect ourselves, but we must do so diplomatically before other options are considered. Our government and justice system may not be the cleanest, but it is at least something we can work with.

I actually used to think like you, also, until my father explained to me why assault weapons have a purpose in the homes of law-abiding American citizens.

It's very funny that Obama gives guns to Mexican drug gangs but plans to remove it from his own people, but that's a story for another time.

"Now some less informed, less thoughtful, or liberals have argued why does the average American need to own an AK-47, M16, M14, SKS, or other type military grade rifle? There is not an apparent need for such weapons for hunting deer or other game, right?"

If you are willing to read a lot to learn about our side of the issue, I promise that you will grow to understand why guns are so heated as an issue.



But here's the MAIN point. This is very important.

A military style semiautomatic rifle's main purpose is to defend one's rights and the rights of others. A military style rifle allows common citizens to have at their disposal the same kind of firepower that law enforcement or the military possess to defend their civil rights when the government turns against their freedoms. Now a lot of gun jocks don't have the same kind of training as the average soldier does. There are a large number of veterans in the US population who know how to fight, but those veterans are most likely out of shape. The point is that armed citizens can put up enough of a fight as to make the suppression of their freedoms costly. Americans did this successfully in 1776 against the King's soldiers and could do so again, if need be.

The founding fathers of the American Republic well understood that men with power will try to gain more power. Governments need deterrants to keep them from violating the rights of their citizens. This is the reason the United States had three branches of government established with an Executive branch, a Legislative branch, and a Judicial branch. This separation of powers meant that no one person or group could dominate the others. Now this concept did not always hold true with various periods where on branch held a bit more power than the others such as when the Congress held more power in early days of the Republic, largely up until the dawn of the Twentieth Century. Lincoln exerted more power than a previous president in his day, but Johnson and Grant did not and it was not until Theodore Roosevelt that powerful presidents arose.

The founding fathers also realized that not only does power need to be divided between branches at the national level, but also between the National Government, the State Governments, and individuals. The Tenth Amendment says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." There are certain things that the National Government can do, things the States only can do, and things that belong to individuals themselves. There are limits on what these bodies can do and what they cannot do. This tension between the powers of the National Government and the States is often cited by the heirs of and admirers of the Confederacy as grounds for the decision by seven, then four more states to attempt to leave the American Union in 1860-65. They believed that after a long stream of abuses of their rights such as the protective tarrifs that aided New England manufacturers and made imported goods expensive for them that they had the right to rebel and establish their own government.

The problem is that an unarmed citizenry cannot readily rebel against tyranny. When the citizens are not armed there is little they can do to resist the government. China is a good example of what happens when an unarmed citizenry tries to push for change and are crushed. Armed citizens may not be as well armed as the military, but they can resist. They can pick off governmental troops, acquire heavier weapons, and form rebel armies. In time they become stronger than the national governmental troops as governmental troops defect, and overthrow the national government such as is happening in Syra and happened in Libya. With a civilian population (such as the US has) having thousands of military grade or near military grade small arms there is only so far that the government can go to usurp the rights of individual citizens.

We don't own military guns to kill people. They DO provide better self defense than a handgun. But we go by the philosophy our forefathers took of freedom and liberty, and justice.


"As long as free men and women are armed there is always a threat to would be tyrants that their rule will be challenged. There is always the knowledge that armed citizens could turn the tables on their toy soldiers and overthrow the despots, and even if the armed citizens must die opposing tyranny it is better to die a free man than live as a slave. "

[Viral Protocol]

So HR I take you also think every citizen should have a tank, assault helicopter, and battleship so we stay on equal arms with the military yes?

Now lets address some other things, how is a free trigger lock when you purchase a firearm a bad thing?
How does a bill prohibiting civil actions against MANUFACTURERS mean that those MANUFACTURERS are being attacked
How are waiting periods and background checks a bad thing, so you have to wait a bit longer before having a firearm you purchased, boo hoo
And if you actually payed attention to your own ramblings youll see his stance on gun control has mellowed and gone to a more moderate place over time

Now please explain to us why you absolutely can not live without an assault rifle in your home

[Arch Avian]

Chaos Dirge

Symorin

Disa Uniflora

Viral Protocol

Veras Gunn

Thank you for that response. You seem very educated on this issue.

Honestly, where on earth have you been for the past 5 years? When Obama was a senator, he placed a number of gun control laws (and went very far on Chicago). It didn't stop when he became president.

I won't be vague here. Don't worry.

Obama stated in his last debate that he was going to ban all assault weapons from homes. ALL of them. Meaning that only the government and the military were going to have military grade weapons. He uses the words "assault weapons" (which, in the world of guns, is actually only proper when referring to the military).

On LIVE television. In front of our eyes and ears. Me and my father looked at each other and suddenly the election became MUCH more for us.

But obviously, you did not watch the debates.

Here's a direct quote from Obama:
"So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or antitrade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

If that's too vague for you, here's more:
Obama was being misleading when he denied that his handwriting had been on a document endorsing a state ban on the sale and possession of handguns in Illinois. Obama responded, “No, my writing wasn’t on that particular questionnaire. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns.”
Actually, Obama’s writing was on the 1996 document, which was filed when Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate. A Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois, had this question, and Obama took hard line:

35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.

Wait! But there's more!

Obama sought moderate gun control measures, such as a 2000 bill he cosponsored to limit handgun purchases to one per month (it did not pass). He voted against letting people violate local weapons bans in cases of self-defense, but also voted in 2004 to let retired police officers carry concealed handguns.

^These are just handguns. Not even assault weapons!

Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:
Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.

A bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others. Voting YES would:
Exempt lawsuits brought against individuals who knowingly transfer a firearm that will be used to commit a violent or drug-trafficking crime
Exempt lawsuits against actions that result in death, physical injury or property damage due solely to a product defect
Call for the dismissal of all qualified civil liability actions pending on the date of enactment by the court in which the action was brought
Prohibit the manufacture, import, sale or delivery of armor piercing ammunition, and sets a minimum prison term of 15 years for violations
Require all licensed importers, manufacturers and dealers who engage in the transfer of handguns to provide secure gun storage or safety devices

THIS MEANS THAT THE COMPANIES WHICH MANUFACTURE GUNS WILL GET ATTACKED WHENEVER SOMEONE IS SHOT BY A GUN THEY MADE. THIS DESTROYS GUN OWNERSHIP WITH A TRICKLE DOWN EFFECT.


An interview about the assault weapons ban:

KEYES: [to Obama]: I am a strong believer in the second amendment. The gun control mentality is ruthlessly absurd. It suggests that we should pass a law that prevents law abiding citizens from carrying weapons. You end up with a situation where the crook have all the guns and the law abiding citizens cannot defend themselves. I guess that’s good enough for Senator Obama who voted against the bill that would have allowed homeowners to defend themselves if their homes were broken into.
OBAMA: Let’s be honest. Mr. Keyes does not believe in common gun control measures like the assault weapons bill. Mr. Keyes does not believe in any limits from what I can tell with respect to the possession of guns, including assault weapons that have only one purpose, to kill people. I think it is a scandal that this president did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban.


Now, would you like me to tell you WHY assault weapons are important? Because I can and I will. Anyone who does not understand the philosophy behind assault weapons needs a bit of education on the founding fathers and why they states all arms for all men, not to be infringed.

If Obama does not understand the value of having equal arms with the government and the military, then his understanding on the value of the constitution is not suitable for any government seat.

[Arch Avian]

Chaos Dirge

Symorin

Disa Uniflora

Viral Protocol

Veras Gunn

I actually used to think like you, also, until my father explained to me why assault weapons have a purpose in the homes of law-abiding American citizens.

It's very funny that Obama gives guns to Mexican drug gangs but plans to remove it from his own people, but that's a story for another time.

"Now some less informed, less thoughtful, or liberals have argued why does the average American need to own an AK-47, M16, M14, SKS, or other type military grade rifle? There is not an apparent need for such weapons for hunting deer or other game, right?"

If you are willing to read a lot to learn about our side of the issue, I promise that you will grow to understand why guns are so heated as an issue.



But here's the MAIN point. This is very important.

A military style semiautomatic rifle's main purpose is to defend one's rights and the rights of others. A military style rifle allows common citizens to have at their disposal the same kind of firepower that law enforcement or the military possess to defend their civil rights when the government turns against their freedoms. Now a lot of gun jocks don't have the same kind of training as the average soldier does. There are a large number of veterans in the US population who know how to fight, but those veterans are most likely out of shape. The point is that armed citizens can put up enough of a fight as to make the suppression of their freedoms costly. Americans did this successfully in 1776 against the King's soldiers and could do so again, if need be.

The founding fathers of the American Republic well understood that men with power will try to gain more power. Governments need deterrants to keep them from violating the rights of their citizens. This is the reason the United States had three branches of government established with an Executive branch, a Legislative branch, and a Judicial branch. This separation of powers meant that no one person or group could dominate the others. Now this concept did not always hold true with various periods where on branch held a bit more power than the others such as when the Congress held more power in early days of the Republic, largely up until the dawn of the Twentieth Century. Lincoln exerted more power than a previous president in his day, but Johnson and Grant did not and it was not until Theodore Roosevelt that powerful presidents arose.

The founding fathers also realized that not only does power need to be divided between branches at the national level, but also between the National Government, the State Governments, and individuals. The Tenth Amendment says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." There are certain things that the National Government can do, things the States only can do, and things that belong to individuals themselves. There are limits on what these bodies can do and what they cannot do. This tension between the powers of the National Government and the States is often cited by the heirs of and admirers of the Confederacy as grounds for the decision by seven, then four more states to attempt to leave the American Union in 1860-65. They believed that after a long stream of abuses of their rights such as the protective tarrifs that aided New England manufacturers and made imported goods expensive for them that they had the right to rebel and establish their own government.

The problem is that an unarmed citizenry cannot readily rebel against tyranny. When the citizens are not armed there is little they can do to resist the government. China is a good example of what happens when an unarmed citizenry tries to push for change and are crushed. Armed citizens may not be as well armed as the military, but they can resist. They can pick off governmental troops, acquire heavier weapons, and form rebel armies. In time they become stronger than the national governmental troops as governmental troops defect, and overthrow the national government such as is happening in Syra and happened in Libya. With a civilian population (such as the US has) having thousands of military grade or near military grade small arms there is only so far that the government can go to usurp the rights of individual citizens.

We don't own military guns to kill people. They DO provide better self defense than a handgun. But we go by the philosophy our forefathers took of freedom and liberty, and justice.


"As long as free men and women are armed there is always a threat to would be tyrants that their rule will be challenged. There is always the knowledge that armed citizens could turn the tables on their toy soldiers and overthrow the despots, and even if the armed citizens must die opposing tyranny it is better to die a free man than live as a slave. "

[Qyp]

Just so you know, your quote train won't work like that...

You need to do it like this

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

[weeb scum]

Having a gun is perfectly fine. Having military grade weapons in your home is completely unnecessary.

The second Amendment means nothing to me now since most of the people who cling to it are ******** stupid. There is no way that the people who cling to the NRA could stage a successful "rebellion against an oppressive government". They'd be slaughtered.

[Divine_Malevolence]

Who the hell needs military grade weaponry to take on common thugs?
What the hell was wrong with your alarm system?
Two issues I have with your little story.
As to why I'm against legal guns whatsoever...:


If there are no guns, ala zero, aka you can't get any guns whatsoever, how would a criminal get one, per say?
Sure, they wouldn't instantly get disarmed. But they would run out of ammo, and supplying that wouldn't really be possible. Every bust against someone with a gun would remove one from the criminal world, to a point where a scant few criminals throughout the country would have any access to even the lowest grade weaponry.
Four guys break into your house at night? That's what a security system is for. If they're armed with at most a knife and you're capable of barricading a door there's basically no way they'd harm you. If they're also armed , one of the best case scenarios is that you hit one and the other three turn you into a holey maiden, doors don't even matter.

Guns don't make you safe. They make everyone else a little less safe regardless if you're against them or not.

[Arch Avian]

Viral Protocol

So HR I take you also think every citizen should have a tank, assault helicopter, and battleship so we stay on equal arms with the military yes?

Now lets address some other things, how is a free trigger lock when you purchase a firearm a bad thing?
How does a bill prohibiting civil actions against MANUFACTURERS mean that those MANUFACTURERS are being attacked
How are waiting periods and background checks a bad thing, so you have to wait a bit longer before having a firearm you purchased, boo hoo
And if you actually payed attention to your own ramblings youll see his stance on gun control has mellowed and gone to a more moderate place over time

Now please explain to us why you absolutely can not live without an assault rifle in your home

I didnt say those were bad things. I simply gave all information and bolded out the errors. Some good stuff is bolded out as well. I DO believe in safety mechanisms. Thats a given.

His stance on gun control has gotten worse. It is not in chronological order. He never fully stated (blatantly) that he was against assault rifles until the debates. Which is why it has only become so heated until now.

We can absolutely not live without assault rifles in the general population because if they are outlawed, this means that only the 1) government, 2) military, and 3) criminals will manage to get these weapons. This places the innocent under risk of tyranny. Yes, tyranny. The government will have control of weapons and therefore the people will be vulnerable to the whims of the government. The only reason Obama can give when asked "why" is simply that "I do not believe the general population should have access to military grade rifles".

The OVERWHELMING majority of gun owners DO NOT shoot up theaters.

We should never base the rights of the vast majority at risk because of the very, very few corrupt.

Ever. In doing so, we create a corrupt system of laws.

As for attacking manufacturers? Imagine being persecuted because someone strangled a man with a t shirt you produced.

Now does that make sense? No, it doesnt. The factories and gunsmiths have nothing to do with the few criminals who use their guns for evil.

Many things you have said are flawed because the arguments spoken when speaking of our founding fathers completely invalidate your arguments.

Now, again:
"As long as free men and women are armed there is always a threat to would be tyrants that their rule will be challenged. There is always the knowledge that armed citizens could turn the tables on their toy soldiers and over throw the despots, and even if the armed citizens must die opposing tyranny it is better to die free than live a slave. The reason for owning guns then is to protect our freedom. "

You and I will be at the whims of our government, no matter how trustworthy they may be, if the civilians and military and government are not somewhat balanced in their weaponry. The founding fathers stressed this for a reason, not so that a rare psychopath would shoot up a theater.

The second amendment protects YOU from the government.

During the 1950s, 68 million people died in China because they had no defense against their government. Remember this.

[Arch Avian]

Divine_Malevolence

Who the hell needs military grade weaponry to take on common thugs?
What the hell was wrong with your alarm system?
Two issues I have with your little story.
As to why I'm against legal guns whatsoever...:


If there are no guns, ala zero, aka you can't get any guns whatsoever, how would a criminal get one, per say?
Sure, they wouldn't instantly get disarmed. But they would run out of ammo, and supplying that wouldn't really be possible. Every bust against someone with a gun would remove one from the criminal world, to a point where a scant few criminals throughout the country would have any access to even the lowest grade weaponry.
Four guys break into your house at night? That's what a security system is for. If they're armed with at most a knife and you're capable of barricading a door there's basically no way they'd harm you. If they're also armed , one of the best case scenarios is that you hit one and the other three turn you into a holey maiden, doors don't even matter.

Guns don't make you safe. They make everyone else a little less safe regardless if you're against them or not.

The main argument is not about criminals. It is ONE of the arguments, but when it comes to military grade weapons, were not speaking about defense against thugs, were speaking about defense against our government.

As long as the civilians, the military, and the government have balanced weaponry available, the government can not take the freedoms of those they lead without dire consequences. The founding fathers were not thinking of "thugs" when they created the constitution.

They felt this was so important that they created the 2nd amendment. "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

This law was created to protect the people in the long run. It's great to have an advantage over criminals, as well, but this law was created in thought of preventing tyranny.

Chine, Libya...these countries are great examples. In China, 68 million died because the civilians were at the whim of the government: unarmed. In Libya, the civilians were able to rebel and it cost the government dearly when their rights were meddled with.

"The problem is that an unarmed citizenry cannot readily rebel against tyranny. When the citizens are not armed there is little they can do to resist the government. China is a good example of what happens when an unarmed citizenry tries to push for change and are crushed. Armed citizens may not be as well armed as the military, but they can resist. They can pick off governmental troops, acquire heavier weapons, and form rebel armies. In time they become stronger than the national governmental troops as governmental troops defect, and overthrow the national government such as is happening in Syra and happened in Libya. With a civilian population (such as the US has) having thousands of military grade or near military grade small arms there is only so far that the government can go to usurp the rights of individual citizens.

As long as free men and women are armed there is always a threat to would be tyrants that their rule will be challenged. There is always the knowledge that armed citizens could turn the tables on their toy soldiers and over throw the despots, and even if the armed citizens must die opposing tyranny it is better to die free than live a slave. The reason for owning guns then is to protect our freedom."

[Arch Avian]

Caucasian Walk

Having a gun is perfectly fine. Having military grade weapons in your home is completely unnecessary.

The second Amendment means nothing to me now since most of the people who cling to it are ******** stupid. There is no way that the people who cling to the NRA could stage a successful "rebellion against an oppressive government". They'd be slaughtered.

This s why we have the 2nd amendment and military grade weapons within our homes.

The founding fathers created these laws to prevent tyranny over the people. They did not want the government and/or military to meddle with the freedoms and rights of the people without dire consequences. It protected us during the revolution. It made us a country.

The founding fathers found this so important that they,in fact, stressed: "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

China is a wonderful example (or else, not so wonderful)
68 million people died. They were unarmed against their government. To this day, the chinese government hides what occured in the 1950s

The problem is that an unarmed citizenry cannot readily rebel against tyranny. When the citizens are not armed there is little they can do to resist the government. China is a good example of what happens when an unarmed citizenry tries to push for change and are crushed. Armed citizens may not be as well armed as the military, but they can resist. They can pick off governmental troops, acquire heavier weapons, and form rebel armies. In time they become stronger than the national governmental troops as governmental troops defect, and overthrow the national government such as is happening in Syra and happened in Libya. With a civilian population (such as the US has) having thousands of military grade or near military grade small arms there is only so far that the government can go to usurp the rights of individual citizens.

[Arch Avian]

Qyp

_InvisibleSwaqqer_

Exactly. This is why I look at the stupid Obama supportser in my school that hunt almost every weekend. I never brought it up but i always thought to myself "Do you know ANYTHINg about Obama, his plans or what he wants to do." and I know they don't. They never could give his plan at all. Everyone just said random "bad" things about Romney.
Smh. I know the kids in my school voted for him cause hes black. Its obvious. They even said they had NO problem with Romney.. Then why would they Vote for Obama? They just want somone their own color to lead. I find that hghly stupid and a bit dangerous.

Dangerous you say? Why Obama won. Because Democrats have a brain. Romney would have destroyed America.

As people have said, the OP is just lying through her teeth... Obama isn't taking away rights, he actually gave some more during his first term.

He is just knocking down HARD on those who are bearing arms ILLEGALLY, without licenses. That is what he is doing.

Hes taking military grade weapons from all of us, soon. This should worry you.
As long as free men and women are armed there is always a threat to would be tyrants that their rule will be challenged. There is always the knowledge that armed citizens could turn the tables on their toy soldiers and over throw the despots, and even if the armed citizens must die opposing tyranny it is better to die free than live a slave. The reason for owning guns then is to protect our freedom.

[Arch Avian]

Qyp

royal3n

i think were going to need em to hunt obama is runninf this crountry in the ground

He is only targeting those who bear arms illegally. He isn't doing anything to those who are law-abiding and hold the proper permits and licenses for the arms they bear.

Read some of the posts on the 3rd page. I'm sick of explaining myself.

He's taking military grade weapons from us. We'll be at the whim of the government. Period. They don't allow us to have military grade for nothing. Obama is the first president to challenge this notion because he does not understand (or ignores) the reasoning of the founding fathers.

[Viral Protocol]

Hero Rising

Viral Protocol

So HR I take you also think every citizen should have a tank, assault helicopter, and battleship so we stay on equal arms with the military yes?

Now lets address some other things, how is a free trigger lock when you purchase a firearm a bad thing?
How does a bill prohibiting civil actions against MANUFACTURERS mean that those MANUFACTURERS are being attacked
How are waiting periods and background checks a bad thing, so you have to wait a bit longer before having a firearm you purchased, boo hoo
And if you actually payed attention to your own ramblings youll see his stance on gun control has mellowed and gone to a more moderate place over time

Now please explain to us why you absolutely can not live without an assault rifle in your home

I didnt say those were bad things. I simply gave all information and bolded out the errors. Some good stuff is bolded out as well. I DO believe in safety mechanisms. Thats a given.

His stance on gun control has gotten worse. It is not in chronological order. He never fully stated (blatantly) that he was against assault rifles until the debates. Which is why it has only become so heated until now.

We can absolutely not live without assault rifles in the general population because if they are outlawed, this means that only the 1) government, 2) military, and 3) criminals will manage to get these weapons. This places the innocent under risk of tyranny. Yes, tyranny. The government will have control of weapons and therefore the people will be vulnerable to the whims of the government. The only reason Obama can give when asked "why" is simply that "I do not believe the general population should have access to military grade rifles".

The OVERWHELMING majority of gun owners DO NOT shoot up theaters.

We should never base the rights of the vast majority at risk because of the very, very few corrupt.

Ever. In doing so, we create a corrupt system of laws.

As for attacking manufacturers? Imagine being persecuted because someone strangled a man with a t shirt you produced.

Now does that make sense? No, it doesnt. The factories and gunsmiths have nothing to do with the few criminals who use their guns for evil.

Many things you have said are flawed because the arguments spoken when speaking of our founding fathers completely invalidate your arguments.

Now, again:
"As long as free men and women are armed there is always a threat to would be tyrants that their rule will be challenged. There is always the knowledge that armed citizens could turn the tables on their toy soldiers and over throw the despots, and even if the armed citizens must die opposing tyranny it is better to die free than live a slave. The reason for owning guns then is to protect our freedom. "

You and I will be at the whims of our government, no matter how trustworthy they may be, if the civilians and military and government are not somewhat balanced in their weaponry. The founding fathers stressed this for a reason, not so that a rare psychopath would shoot up a theater.

The second amendment protects YOU from the government.

During the 1950s, 68 million people died in China because they had no defense against their government. Remember this.

You know its ok to just admit you like firing assault weapons

There is no way that a civilian militia will be anywhere near on even footing with a military force and we are in no way shape or form a threat to them and are essentially already at the governments whims
Oh wait but we have a system of government in place that make it a huge pain in the a** for anything to get done so even those whims you fear are a non threat

And it seems you dont even understand your own evidence and Ill try to explain some of it to you
The manufacturer is protected by law from action being taken against them, that means if someone shoots someone with a S&W revolver than no action can be taken against S&W
now again, please explain how an innocent company being protected against frivolous lawsuits is that company actually being under attack

[Divine_Malevolence]

Hero Rising

The main argument is not about criminals. It is ONE of the arguments, but when it comes to military grade weapons, were not speaking about defense against thugs, were speaking about defense against our government.

AKA you don't need to have them in your house where they could easily get stolen.


...
But even if, nowadays? Minutemen are useless. Civilian Soldiers don't stand a chance against the government, really, no matter how many guns they have. The military could probably kick your asses via crowd control methods. A drone armed with tear gas could probably suppress an entire city.

But even if. Even if. For the ability to rebel, which is what the second amendment was there for, guns do not need to be sold to civilians. They need to be available so that a popular uprising can occur, sure, but selling them to the streets?
Doesn't really do that. It's more like to arm a criminal than to support a popular uprising.


I mean, seriously. Haven't we grown out of the phase where we need to shoot people to make a point? It's far more effective to spread information nowadays than get your gun out and declare viva la revolution, and we've already addressed the point that guns don't actually provide security.
I can see places where guns should be legal. Such as hunting ranges, and in lockers available for town/city defense.
Being sold to common citizens? No excuse whatsoever. There is gun violence going on, and guns being in the hands of civilians gives no noteworthy benefit. There's no reason they should be legal. They should be available when needed, but not legal to hold without a purpose.