Welcome to Gaia! ::

Hero Rising's avatar

Paladin

7,250 Points
  • 50 Wins 150
  • Battle: Knight 100
  • PvP 200
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.


We may not stand a chance but the point is that the government will face consequences if they meddle with our rights.

It would be a lot worse to rebel if we didnt have than if we had, correct?

The corrupt are very, very, very, very few when it comes to gun ownership.

The law abiding gun owners are practically 100%...like Purell. 99.9%. Theres that damn germ that always gets in the way, however.

Were not Columbine shooters. We are the original homeland security. We are very aware of our privileges each time we walk out onto the field. We know, we understand.

Were not here to shoot you but to defend you. Your rights. Your livelihood. And were the only thing that stands between you and the government, even if nowadays it is shrinking due to the pressures of gun control and the expenses involved.
Qyp's avatar

Manly Lunatic

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.

I do not think it's to protect you from the Government, though I guess it could be in some ways, it's more about the common person, who goes about their daily life working on a farm, or in a shop selling some goods, is just as powerful as the President really. It's about equality, about letting the people have control over what happens in their country. So letting them have arms, shows equality. They are equal to military and law enforcements. I do not think it's a means of letting people make sure the Government tries to so Martial Law, it's more of a means of showing that the country isn't run through fear, and dictatorship... stuff like that.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the protection of the free state; The Right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed."
BlueRockman's avatar

Dedicated Dabbler

I'm just going to throw my two cents on the table, though I may or may not risk sounding like I'm for one side or the other.

I do agree that the second amendment should be kept, if only for having the ability to have firearms to protect ourselves from those who'd intrude on our homes and try to steal from us or have their way with us. However, without some form of regulation involved, what's to stop people from abusing the right to bear arms?

Remember when Gabrielle Giffords and several other people got shot in 2011? It's things like that which cause the issue of how gun control should be handled. In the right hands, any gun is a non-issue until you provoke it being an issue. However, you have to account for people who are the wrong hands, and how far they're willing to go to have their way.

So, how do you regulate? Do you make it so only law enforcement and military are the ones allowed to have guns? Do you limit what types of guns people are allowed to get? Do you reform background checks? Do you make said checks stricter? Do you lift all the restrictions altogether? What are the consequences of any of these actions?

Personally, I'd keep the military grade weaponry in the military and law enforcement, while the sports grade weaponry and general handguns would be with the people. Won't stop people from stealing the more powerful weapons, I know, but how you curb that is a whole other matter that would be far more time consuming to debate considering all the variables involved.

Sorry if I rattle any cages. By no means are you wrong for your beliefs, likewise, I shouldn't be wrong for mine until either side forces the issue.
Qyp's avatar

Manly Lunatic

Hero Rising
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.

Tyranny is impossible due to the 22nd amendment.

And the only why for tyranny to begin, if the people strike first, and then the President can issue Martial Law.
Hero Rising's avatar

Paladin

7,250 Points
  • 50 Wins 150
  • Battle: Knight 100
  • PvP 200
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


Yes, I do like firing assault weapons.
Thank you for asking.

Two, Obama plans on allowing that to happen. To allow the gun manufacturers, those who manufacture guns, to face the consequences for others actions. Thats what I just explained, yes?

Ok. Now. The point is that we will never be at equal footing with the military. But when the civilian force is armed, it creates a foundation of power that makes for a more powerful country. One in which there WILL be consequences if their rights are meddled with.

Ultimately, it is far better in the long run to have an armed civilian force than to NOT have an armed civilian force.
BlackBeltMan's avatar

Enduring Conversationalist

6,700 Points
  • Partygoer 500
  • Forum Sophomore 300
  • Marathon 300
You noted China. You said they took away ALL "arms". Obama isn't taking away all arms, only the military grade ones, so YOU don't go crazy ( don't say its impossible because it is highly possible for everyone ) and shoot 100 people and 10 cops. Why do we need MILITARY GRADE weapons anyways? We could still defend ourselves just fine with a hunting rifle...
Hero Rising's avatar

Paladin

7,250 Points
  • 50 Wins 150
  • Battle: Knight 100
  • PvP 200
Qyp
Hero Rising
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.

Tyranny is impossible due to the 22nd amendment.


But if they can rattle the 2nd "Shall not be infringed"? Tell me what value the 22nd could hold?

Shall not be infringed means shall not be infringed. It does not mean infringe. Period. And there is a true reason for it. It protects you, it protects me.

When the average American is better armed than the soldier of another country, tell me how powerful our homeland security is?

We are a powerful foundation to a force called the United States of America. Know that if we were invaded in such a way by multiple countries, if bombs were thrown upon us (it IS possible), wed be the underlying foundation of defense.

Its there for a reason, not for fun.
Qyp's avatar

Manly Lunatic

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

Reminds me of SOPA, and how any illegal uploads on say, Youtube, will cause Youtube itself to be shutdown and prosecuted for "allowing" an illegal upload.
Qyp's avatar

Manly Lunatic

Hero Rising
Qyp
Hero Rising
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.

Tyranny is impossible due to the 22nd amendment.


But if they can rattle the 2nd "Shall not be infringed"? Tell me what value the 22nd could hold?

Shall not be infringed means shall not be infringed. It does not mean infringe. Period. And there is a true reason for it. It protects you, it protects me.

When the average American is better armed than the soldier of another country, tell me how powerful our homeland security is?

We are a powerful foundation to a force called the United States of America. Know that if we were invaded in such a way by multiple countries, if bombs were thrown upon us (it IS possible), wed be the underlying foundation of defense.

Its there for a reason, not for fun.

If the military can't protect the USA, then well... whats the point in the military at all?
Hero Rising's avatar

Paladin

7,250 Points
  • 50 Wins 150
  • Battle: Knight 100
  • PvP 200
BlackBeltMan
You noted China. You said they took away ALL "arms". Obama isn't taking away all arms, only the military grade ones, so YOU don't go crazy ( don't say its impossible because it is highly possible for everyone ) and shoot 100 people and 10 cops. Why do we need MILITARY GRADE weapons anyways? We could still defend ourselves just fine with a hunting rifle...


A hunting rifle vs. a semi-automatic AR15? Do you shoot?

Balance in weaponry as evenly distributed as possible through civilian, military, and government is the best defense against infringed freedoms. Those AR's protect you.

The founding fathers stressed it for a very good reason. If they trusted that power could not be abused, they would not care.

Thank God that the government has so many branches and filters and that the citizens are well armed in the case that these filters fail and their freedoms are compromised.
Divine_Malevolence's avatar

Blessed Tactician

11,050 Points
  • Beta Contributor 0
  • Beta Critic 0
  • Contributor 150
Hero Rising


We may not stand a chance but the point is that the government will face consequences if they meddle with our rights.
Funny joke. At the very best they'd have the ability to quickly sedate you and then throw you in prison for treason. They would also be able to massacre you in the streets. A rebellion wouldn't actually be useful for the sake of rebellion. It would be more to the tune of "We're now rebelling, not because we can do anything, but to make a point", which is as effective if you're wielding automatic kalashnikovs or twigs and rocks.
Hero Rising


It would be a lot worse to rebel if we didnt have than if we had, correct?
Incorrect. You'd be equally ******** either way.
Hero Rising

The corrupt are very, very, very, very few when it comes to gun ownership.
No idea what the hell you're talking about here.
Hero Rising

The law abiding gun owners are practically 100%...like Purell. 99.9%. Theres that damn germ that always gets in the way, however.
You both provide no backing to your statistics and fail to address that there's still a problem anyway, which could easily be solved.
Hero Rising

Were not Columbine shooters.
But you empower them.
Hero Rising
We are the original homeland security.
And are outdated.
Hero Rising
We are very aware of our privileges each time we walk out onto the field.
Note you didn't say 'rights'.
Hero Rising
We know, we understand.
Somehow I doubt that.
Hero Rising


Were not here to shoot you but to defend you.
I'd rather you didn't do either, thank you.
Hero Rising
Your rights. Your livelihood.
More likely to be put in danger by an armed crazy than not.
Hero Rising
And were the only thing that stands between you and the government,
Don't make me laugh. Nowadays there are a million more effective ways to deal with the government than guns. If you're really interested in that, learn how to hack.
Hero Rising
even if nowadays it is shrinking due to the pressures of gun control and the expenses involved.
It's shrinking because it's outdated, more like.
BlackBeltMan's avatar

Enduring Conversationalist

6,700 Points
  • Partygoer 500
  • Forum Sophomore 300
  • Marathon 300
Also, forgot to note, for people saying that our country would be invaded, you seriously need to get out of the Cold War era mindset. Our country spends so much on our military, it trumps the next 20 or so countries COMBINED. Thats all of china and all of russia, plus a little bit more. Not to mention our homicide rate is so incredibly high that itself should be enough reason just to let us kill ourselves with our needlessly powerful guns. The world is coming to a new and peaceful era, hop on board or be stuck in the dark ages...
Hero Rising's avatar

Paladin

7,250 Points
  • 50 Wins 150
  • Battle: Knight 100
  • PvP 200
Qyp
Hero Rising
Qyp
Hero Rising
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.

Tyranny is impossible due to the 22nd amendment.


But if they can rattle the 2nd "Shall not be infringed"? Tell me what value the 22nd could hold?

Shall not be infringed means shall not be infringed. It does not mean infringe. Period. And there is a true reason for it. It protects you, it protects me.

When the average American is better armed than the soldier of another country, tell me how powerful our homeland security is?

We are a powerful foundation to a force called the United States of America. Know that if we were invaded in such a way by multiple countries, if bombs were thrown upon us (it IS possible), wed be the underlying foundation of defense.

Its there for a reason, not for fun.

If the military can't protect the USA, then well... whats the point in the military at all?


It protects our freedoms. But in some cases as seen throughout history, corruption bleeds into the system and it's up to armed civilians to protect liberties.

Remember the Assassin's Creed trailer? "It is better to die as a free man than live as a slave."

This is a famous argument for gun rights that goes back to Lord knows when. The AC3 trailer used it on a scene where Connor was shooting a huge rifle
Hero Rising
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


Yes, I do like firing assault weapons.
Thank you for asking.

Two, Obama plans on allowing that to happen. To allow the gun manufacturers, those who manufacture guns, to face the consequences for others actions. Thats what I just explained, yes?

Ok. Now. The point is that we will never be at equal footing with the military. But when the civilian force is armed, it creates a foundation of power that makes for a more powerful country. One in which there WILL be consequences if their rights are meddled with.

Ultimately, it is far better in the long run to have an armed civilian force than to NOT have an armed civilian force.


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

That is exactly what you typed up and posted, I did not alter it in anyway and feel free to check it if you dont believe me
Your argument on this is that somehow this proposed bill will do the exact opposite of what it says, did you seriously even read the ******** thing?

Also fun fact, your right have already been infringed on, for the most part by republican acts
Where was your citizens militia defending our rights then, or does it only matter when someone from an opposing political party is in power?

Please just crawl into the survivalist shelter I imagine you have already prepared for when the USSR invades and dont come out

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games