Another Gun Thread

[Gawdzilla Sama]

He meant that the puny arsenal of the people cannot stand up against the might of the government's weaponry. The we need guns to stand up to a tyrannical government is simply a whimsical conspiracy gun fondlers share with one another to justify their ownership of unneeded guns.

Wrong again.  It would be mostly an urban guerrilla war like in Iraq.  It would never end until a side submitted.  This topic is dangerous.  There are people with guns on both sides that are standing there ground firmly.

"their"

[Figbash]

[CDF47]

Yeah, that is the type of government you want.  One that would drone strike it's own people domestically.  Wow, this country is in a sad state of affairs with many people buying into this logic.

I swore an oath to defend the Constitution from an enemies, foreign or domestic. The drunks with guns would count. Insurrectionists would get bombed, why do you have a problem with that?

I follow what the founding fathers intended which is what makes the most sense and that is an armed people.

[Brian37]

The founding fathers made it a right to bear arms that shall not be infringed to prevent tyrannical governments from taking power primarily.  Also, guns are to protect against potential invaders.  They also serve to deter and defend against thugs and criminals that would get guns regardless of the laws.  If the totalitarians in this country ever really went for the guns, I expect there might be a war in this country.  

There are active duty and former military, law enforcement, and firefighters that belong to the Oath Keepers.  They will not disarm their fellow citizens and I believe they will defend against it.  Anyone can join but it is mainly targeted at military, law enforcement, and fire fighters.  There are many organizations like this.  I do not support what they do sometimes but often what they are saying is true for the most part.  I am not sure about their "security missions" they run and some other things but what they say appears correct to me.

No, the right to bear arms was not written so anyone could play Dirty Harry. "Well regulated militia" is in that same amendment. And we don't simply have muskets anymore. By your logic the tax payers should have stood up to Washington with his putting down the "Whiskey Rebellion" .

And regulations are not bans in any case. We have regulations for all other products. And since there is no political party or religious oath required to own one, that means liberals can own them to. And since they vote too, that means one industry and one lobby do not get to dictate to the rest of us. Laws are not done by dictation, and laws also have to change with changing technology. 

I am sorry the industry sold you lies. I am sorry their profit lobbies NRA and NSSF sold you bullshit fear, but we are not fascists for saying we have an epidemic. If adding more firearms to the public was working and made us safe, we would not see the amount of firearm violence we are.

This isn't about rights. This is about the fear marketing by one industry and its fear peddling lobbies it uses to protect industry profit margins.

[CDF47]

Wrong again.  It would be mostly an urban guerrilla war like in Iraq.  It would never end until a side submitted.  This topic is dangerous.  There are people with guns on both sides that are standing there ground firmly.

"their"

Good catch.  I edited my response to fix their.

---

The people.

---

The founding fathers made it a right to bear arms that shall not be infringed to prevent tyrannical governments from taking power primarily.  Also, guns are to protect against potential invaders.  They also serve to deter and defend against thugs and criminals that would get guns regardless of the laws.  If the totalitarians in this country ever really went for the guns, I expect there might be a war in this country.  

There are active duty and former military, law enforcement, and firefighters that belong to the Oath Keepers.  They will not disarm their fellow citizens and I believe they will defend against it.  Anyone can join but it is mainly targeted at military, law enforcement, and fire fighters.  There are many organizations like this.  I do not support what they do sometimes but often what they are saying is true for the most part.  I am not sure about their "security missions" they run and some other things but what they say appears correct to me.

No, the right to bear arms was not written so anyone could play Dirty Harry. "Well regulated militia" is in that same amendment. And we don't simply have muskets anymore. By your logic the tax payers should have stood up to Washington with his putting down the "Whiskey Rebellion" .

And regulations are not bans in any case. We have regulations for all other products. And since there is no political party or religious oath required to own one, that means liberals can own them to. And since they vote too, that means one industry and one lobby do not get to dictate to the rest of us. Laws are not done by dictation, and laws also have to change with changing technology. 

I am sorry the industry sold you lies. I am sorry their profit lobbies NRA and NSSF sold you bullshit fear, but we are not fascists for saying we have an epidemic. If adding more firearms to the public was working and made us safe, we would not see the amount of firearm violence we are.

This isn't about rights. This is about the fear marketing by one industry and its fear peddling lobbies it uses to protect industry profit margins.

There is some of that going on as well probably but what they are saying is true.  The founding fathers intended to have an armed people for the reasons I stated previously.  The guns we own should stand up somewhat with what the military and police carry.  No, not everyone should own a nuclear weapon,...  There needs to be some lines drawn, I agree.  I think the line stops where it is now.  No further gun regulation is needed.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Oh, no, the Wolverines would totally kick the Spetsnaz asses.

---

There is some of that going on as well probably but what they are saying is true.  The founding fathers intended to have an armed people for the reasons I stated previously.  The guns we own should stand up somewhat with what the military and police carry.  No, not everyone should own a nuclear weapon,...  There needs to be some lines drawn, I agree.  I think the line stops where it is now.  No further gun regulation is needed.

Guns are killing children. You don't have a problem with that. (Note the full stop, not a question mark.)

[Brian37]

I swore an oath to defend the Constitution from an enemies, foreign or domestic. The drunks with guns would count. Insurrectionists would get bombed, why do you have a problem with that?

I follow what the founding fathers intended which is what makes the most sense and that is an armed people.

No you don't because the The Second Amendment does not stand by itself. You have the First Amendment which is an anti monopoly concept which gives people you disagree with the right to free speech, the right to peacefully assemble, and "to petition the government for a redress of grievance." That means I  have the right to appeal to others, appeal to our politicians and appeal to courts as well.  I am sick of this shit that laws are a dictatorship and should never be adjusted for changing times. You not getting 100% of what you want all the time is not oppressing you. 

AND nobody here has called for a ban on 100% of all firearms. I am also sick of your bullshit implying that is what we want.

If you want to live in a state where laws never change and where one party controls everything, try North Korea for a while. But here in America WE means we, the people, not one party alone, not one industry alone.

[CDF47]

Oh, no, the Wolverines would totally kick the Spetsnaz asses.

---

There is some of that going on as well probably but what they are saying is true.  The founding fathers intended to have an armed people for the reasons I stated previously.  The guns we own should stand up somewhat with what the military and police carry.  No, not everyone should own a nuclear weapon,...  There needs to be some lines drawn, I agree.  I think the line stops where it is now.  No further gun regulation is needed.

Guns are killing children. You don't have a problem with that. (Note the full stop, not a question mark.)

In a prolonged urban fight, the Wolverines just may.  Look at Iraq and Afghanistan.  

I do have a problem with that.  We need better safety training for gun owners.  So many people are ignorant to the basics of gun safety.

---

I follow what the founding fathers intended which is what makes the most sense and that is an armed people.

No you don't because the The Second Amendment does not stand by itself. You have the First Amendment which is an anti monopoly concept which gives people you disagree with the right to free speech, the right to peacefully assemble, and "to petition the government for a redress of grievance." That means I  have the right to appeal to others, appeal to our politicians and appeal to courts as well.  I am sick of this shit that laws are a dictatorship and should never be adjusted for changing times. You not getting 100% of what you want all the time is not oppressing you. 

AND nobody here has called for a ban on 100% of all firearms. I am also sick of your bullshit implying that is what we want.

If you want to live in a state where laws never change and where one party controls everything, try North Korea for a while. But here in America WE means we, the people, not one party alone, not one industry alone.

The founding fathers accounted for changing times and they said the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.  

I agree with much of what you said.  I disagree that assault weapons should be banned.  We need to have close to what the military and police have.  See my previous post.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

In a prolonged urban fight, the Wolverines just may.  Look at Iraq and Afghanistan.  

I do have a problem with that.  We need better safety training for gun owners.  So many people are ignorant to the basics of gun safety.

In a prolonged fight the Wolverines would be in pieces, just like in the movie.

And yes, so many GUN OWNERS "are ignorant to the basics of gun safety." And children die because of that. The more stupid people buy guns the more children will die.

[CDF47]

In a prolonged urban fight, the Wolverines just may.  Look at Iraq and Afghanistan.  

I do have a problem with that.  We need better safety training for gun owners.  So many people are ignorant to the basics of gun safety.

In a prolonged fight the Wolverines would be in pieces, just like in the movie.

And yes, so many GUN OWNERS "are ignorant to the basics of gun safety." And children die because of that. The more stupid people buy guns the more children will die.

Look at Iraq and Afghanistan. Can't count those as vicories. They are just prolonged guerrilla battles.

I don't mind a further training requirement on basic safety for first time gun owners.  Maybe just a CPL/CCW permit renewal training type course for maybe about 1 hour would suffice.