The Guns thread

[auditor]

This country needs to heal and the powers that be keep on ripping us apart - pitting us against each other. making sure we're afraid and blame each other ,never the man behind the curtain.

I blame every republican behind and in front of the curtain.

 

[Matt Mortem]

I blame every republican behind and in front of the curtain.

Blame the liberals for being spineless as hell too. If the Dems were as cunning as Republicans in legislation we'd actually get somewhere in this country.

 

[auditor]

Blame the liberals for being spineless as hell too. If the Dems were as cunning as Republicans in legislation we'd actually get somewhere in this country.

What good does it do when republicans have congress? The only blame democrats deserve is for dem voters who stayed home on election day in 2014. For that they deserve blame. And the Bernie hold outs will also be to blame.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

What good does it do when republicans have congress? The only blame democrats deserve is for dem voters who stayed home on election day in 2014. For that they deserve blame. And the Bernie hold outs will also be to blame.

And yet when they did have control of Congress and Obama in charge, they did absolutely nothing except push the ACA. Blaming inanimate objects for crime when it's the people behind them is just as stupid.

 

[Sawyer]

https://***********/johnlegend?lang=en

John Legend
‏@johnlegend
.@NRA do you believe the citizenry should be able to buy weaponry that equals or outpaces the police?

.@NRA are you committed to a society that is so armed that police have a reason to fear every encounter?

.@NRA I guess an arms race filled with fear and suspicion is good for you if you're in the gun-selling business

 

[Supernova]

https://***********/johnlegend?lang=en

I ussually cant stand john legend but he makes some Valid points there

 

[auditor]

And yet when they did have control of Congress and Obama in charge, they did absolutely nothing except push the ACA. Blaming inanimate objects for crime when it's the people behind them is just as stupid.

That's a pretty big "absolutely nothing except."

They had two short years and they achieved historic health care reform. And oh yeah prevented a depression.

They also confirmed Sonya for the supreme court who helped legalize gay marriage nation wide. Give credit where it's due.

 

[auditor]

To be honest my previous opposition to outlawing all guns was based on my concern for how important guns were culturally to so many insecure men. I don't think people have a constitutional right to bear arms. I believe in a literal interpretation of the second amendment, which means gun rights expired along with the need for militias.

But if they can't support reasonable restrictions and respect my right not to be shot at then to hell with it. If they want to threaten to take up arms against our government and bring violence to our streets then I say ban all guns.

If they are that crazy to oppose all gun control then they really are the last people I want armed. I say baño all guns and incarcerate those who don't comply.

In 50 years our grandchildren will thank us.

 

[NotFadeAway]

to be honest my previous opposition to outlawing all guns was based on my concern for how important guns were culturally to so many insecure men. I don't think people have a constitutional right to bear arms. I believe in a literal interpretation of the second amendment, which means gun rights expired along with the need for militias.

But if they can't support reasonable restrictions and respect my right not to be shot at then to hell with it. If they want to threaten to take up arms against our government and bring violence to our streets then i say ban all guns.

If they are that crazy to oppose all gun control then they really are the last people i want armed. I say baño all guns and incarcerate those who don't comply.

In 50 years our grandchildren will thank us.

lmfao

 

[Webfoot Hero]

To be honest my previous opposition to outlawing all guns was based on my concern for how important guns were culturally to so many insecure men. I don't think people have a constitutional right to bear arms. I believe in a literal interpretation of the second amendment, which means gun rights expired along with the need for militias.

But if they can't support reasonable restrictions and respect my right not to be shot at then to hell with it. If they want to threaten to take up arms against our government and bring violence to our streets then I say ban all guns.

If they are that crazy to oppose all gun control then they really are the last people I want armed. I say baño all guns and incarcerate those who don't comply.

In 50 years our grandchildren will thank us.

And there's no wonder why people who are for lawful gun ownership don't trust anti-gun people like you. You blame the inanimate object but refuse to see that if the Democrats (and Republicans) would fix the educational and economic deficiencies that afflict many high-violence areas, people wouldn't be forced to resort to gangs, crime, and drugs to make a living or deal with rotten living conditions.

 

[auditor]

And there's no wonder why people who are for lawful gun ownership don't trust anti-gun people like you. You blame the inanimate object but refuse to see that if the Democrats (and Republicans) would fix the educational and economic deficiencies that afflict many high-violence areas, people wouldn't be forced to resort to gangs, crime, and drugs to make a living or deal with rotten living conditions.

Don't trust me? Yeah I'm so corrupt.

I don't blame inanimate objects. I blame the shooters, the NRA, and those who oppose gun control.

If retailers won't carry an illegal product, then what investor is going to spend his money to have a factory produce the guns?

Heroine doesn't kill drug addicts. They kill themselves. By that logic we should legalize heroine. Not much logic in the whole "guns don't kill."

Yes I want to ban these inanimate objects.

 

[NotFadeAway]

And there's no wonder why people who are for lawful gun ownership don't trust anti-gun people like you. You blame the inanimate object but refuse to see that if the Democrats (and Republicans) would fix the educational and economic deficiencies that afflict many high-violence areas, people wouldn't be forced to resort to gangs, crime, and drugs to make a living or deal with rotten living conditions.

Well said...

Don't trust me? Yeah I'm so corrupt.

I don't blame inanimate objects. I blame the shooters, the NRA, and those who oppose gun control.

If retailers won't carry an illegal product, then what investor is going to spend his money to have a factory produce the guns?

Heroine doesn't kill drug addicts. They kill themselves. By that logic we should legalize heroine. Not much logic in the whole "guns don't kill."

Yes I want to ban these inanimate objects.

You give your fellow liberals a bad name. Let's make a bargain, shall we, how about we ban all guns and go about "confiscating". You lead the way and get a birds eye view of the fighting that would ensue. That's like taking welfare completely away, it would lead to complete degeneration and violence. Criminals with guns don't give a crap about the law, and we don't even have them registered. The hilljacks in the Appalachians are already arming to the teeth to fight the government or anyone who sets foot on their property, the southerners aren't backing down, the mentally unstable, I can go on. Good luck setting off a border less civil war. The liberals, and neo-con/Nazis have already been starting a race war which is ridiculous for 2016. Just take that extra step baby. I want you, tough guy, front and center. And yes, you are corrupt. You favor control

 

[NotFadeAway]

I'll give pro gun control people this much, I'm OK with a watch list and the banning of military grade assault weapons. You have a point.

Now, I'm already aware that on this particular board I'll get flamed for saying what I'm about to say. Ill get called a paranoid, sheltered wack job. I'm OK with that, FYI, because I'm really just a student of history. One, as discussed, the right to bear arms was granted to prevent a tyrannical government. But two, the right for an American citizen to bear arms is a provisional step to prevent/deter/defend against foreign invasion. Yes, it doesn't dawn on our citizens because it hasn't happened since 1812, we are used to our comfortable soil and feel invincible because of our ocean fortresses. Liberals think the world is a hegemonic union and can't fathom such "crazy talk" because they trust the rest of the world more than their own country. Well, have you ever stopped to wonder why no one has ever dared such an action since 1812. I don't want to start a war with the rest of the world, I don't hate the rest of the world, I don't look at the rest of the world as lesser than, but I don't trust the rest of the world with the freedom of myself and my family. Our ocean fortresses provide little comfort, our coast lines would be the most likely to lay down doggie style, at least on the west coast and northeast. And the floor could be wiped with Mexico and Western Canada. So no, you can't take guns away because its a part of national security.

Flame on, call me paranoid, I'm saying better safe than sorry.

 

[auditor]

Well said...



You give your fellow liberals a bad name. Let's make a bargain, shall we, how about we ban all guns and go about "confiscating". You lead the way and get a birds eye view of the fighting that would ensue. That's like taking welfare completely away, it would lead to complete degeneration and violence. Criminals with guns don't give a crap about the law, and we don't even have them registered. The hilljacks in the Appalachians are already arming to the teeth to fight the government or anyone who sets foot on their property, the southerners aren't backing down, the mentally unstable, I can go on. Good luck setting off a border less civil war. The liberals, and neo-con/Nazis have already been starting a race war which is ridiculous for 2016. Just take that extra step baby. I want you, tough guy, front and center. And yes, you are corrupt. You favor control

Horrible post. First off his post wasn't well put. The whole not trusting people like me thing. I'm not threatening to take up arms against the United States of America. When people make that argument, then you have a trust issue.

Secondly calling somebody corrupt for stating what they believe is simply better for the country? Maybe I'm misguided. Maybe your misguided in believing guns shouldn't be banned. But how does that make me corrupt? It's a well intententioned belief. Whoever is right or wrong here, corruption has nothing to do with it.

And if you make the punishment harsh it will work. A few people will fight, but they would sooner or later anyways. Most gun owners would figure it's not worth it. Who are they going to shoot? Cops? The president? The army?

They would hitch and say it's coming and then they would return to their day jobs, families, tv and beer.

If you join a militia, you know that before the war is over you could end up in prison
I'm not giving liberals a bad name. Your giving republicans a bad name by threatening my country with terrorism.

If a holocaust or something like that were occurring that I could respect your threats. Short of that you are unjustified

 

[Thundercrack85]

I'll give pro gun control people this much, I'm OK with a watch list and the banning of military grade assault weapons. You have a point.

Now, I'm already aware that on this particular board I'll get flamed for saying what I'm about to say. Ill get called a paranoid, sheltered wack job. I'm OK with that, FYI, because I'm really just a student of history. One, as discussed, the right to bear arms was granted to prevent a tyrannical government. But two, the right for an American citizen to bear arms is a provisional step to prevent/deter/defend against foreign invasion. Yes, it doesn't dawn on our citizens because it hasn't happened since 1812, we are used to our comfortable soil and feel invincible because of our ocean fortresses. Liberals think the world is a hegemonic union and can't fathom such "crazy talk" because they trust the rest of the world more than their own country. Well, have you ever stopped to wonder why no one has ever dared such an action since 1812. I don't want to start a war with the rest of the world, I don't hate the rest of the world, I don't look at the rest of the world as lesser than, but I don't trust the rest of the world with the freedom of myself and my family. Our ocean fortresses provide little comfort, our coast lines would be the most likely to lay down doggie style, at least on the west coast and northeast. And the floor could be wiped with Mexico and Western Canada. So no, you can't take guns away because its a part of national security.

Flame on, call me paranoid, I'm saying better safe than sorry.

I think you've been watching Red Dawn too much. I mean, who would even invade America? Extraterrestrials? Because that's the only plausible answer. No one else is in a position to do that. It has nothing to do with gun ownership. It's geographically unfeasible, if not impossible.

Also with the world's best military, including air force and navy, I really don't see how you as an armed civilian would enter the equation.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

Horrible post. First off his post wasn't well put. The whole not trusting people like me thing. I'm not threatening to take up arms against the United States of America. When people make that argument, then you have a trust issue.

Secondly calling somebody corrupt for stating what they believe is simply better for the country? Maybe I'm misguided. Maybe your misguided in believing guns shouldn't be banned. But how does that make me corrupt? It's a well intententioned belief. Whoever is right or wrong here, corruption has nothing to do with it.

And if you make the punishment harsh it will work. A few people will fight, but they would sooner or later anyways. Most gun owners would figure it's not worth it. Who are they going to shoot? Cops? The president? The army?

They would hitch and say it's coming and then they would return to their day jobs, families, tv and beer.

If you join a militia, you know that before the war is over you could end up in prison
I'm not giving liberals a bad name. Your giving republicans a bad name by threatening my country with terrorism.

If a holocaust or something like that were occurring that I could respect your threats. Short of that you are unjustified

Don't you have some moonwalking to practice rather than talk about a subject you seem woefully ill-informed on?

 

[NotFadeAway]

I think you've been watching Red Dawn too much. I mean, who would even invade America? Extraterrestrials? Because that's the only plausible answer. No one else is in a position to do that. It has nothing to do with gun ownership. It's geographically unfeasible, if not impossible.

Also with the world's best military, including air force and navy, I really don't see how you as an armed civilian would enter the equation.

I actually think that movie is overrated.

It would difficult for any country to pull off, true. But its not impossible in the slightest. And I don't trust that our military is as far ahead of others technology wise. Bottom line, its not been attempted in 204 years for a reason. Call me a crackpot, I don't care.

 

[DeadPresident]

I actually think that movie is overrated.

It would difficult for any country to pull off, true. But its not impossible in the slightest. And I don't trust that our military is as far ahead of others technology wise. Bottom line, its not been attempted in 204 years for a reason. Call me a crackpot, I don't care.

And you think the reason for that is because Joe Soap can buy a .44 or an AR at his local sports equipment store?

 

[regwec]

Britain has not been successfully invaded for 950 years. Other than farmers or gamekeepers, almost nobody here owns a gun.

 

[terry78]

Well, now you know how the other guy feels regarding the gun issue and vice versa.

 

[auditor]

If you disagree with me on outlawing guns, I respect your opinion. If people talk about taking arms against the government as retaliation for outlawing guns, then I do not respect their opinion.

What kind of militias do we have today? The kkk, isis, bundys, and alqueda. Who thinks those people have a constitutional right to own a gun?

If we were talking a holocaust or a mass deportation or deporting people who were born here, none of which will happen, then you got something to talk about. I would probably join a militia. But Those aren't material possessions like guns. Those are people.

 

[auditor]

Don't you have some moonwalking to practice rather than talk about a subject you seem woefully ill-informed on?

I don't call myself an expert, but if that's your argument, then maybe you should try moonwalking. I'm not uninformed. And my points are reasonable, and so far unrefuted.

 

[auditor]

I'll give pro gun control people this much, I'm OK with a watch list and the banning of military grade assault weapons. You have a point.

Now, I'm already aware that on this particular board I'll get flamed for saying what I'm about to say. Ill get called a paranoid, sheltered wack job. I'm OK with that, FYI, because I'm really just a student of history. One, as discussed, the right to bear arms was granted to prevent a tyrannical government. But two, the right for an American citizen to bear arms is a provisional step to prevent/deter/defend against foreign invasion. Yes, it doesn't dawn on our citizens because it hasn't happened since 1812, we are used to our comfortable soil and feel invincible because of our ocean fortresses. Liberals think the world is a hegemonic union and can't fathom such "crazy talk" because they trust the rest of the world more than their own country. Well, have you ever stopped to wonder why no one has ever dared such an action since 1812. I don't want to start a war with the rest of the world, I don't hate the rest of the world, I don't look at the rest of the world as lesser than, but I don't trust the rest of the world with the freedom of myself and my family. Our ocean fortresses provide little comfort, our coast lines would be the most likely to lay down doggie style, at least on the west coast and northeast. And the floor could be wiped with Mexico and Western Canada. So no, you can't take guns away because its a part of national security.

Flame on, call me paranoid, I'm saying better safe than sorry.

This is kinda my point. Yes you sound paranoid. Everyone on your side sounds paranoid crazy, like you guys belong on a do not sell list. That is a big part of why some of us don't want you to have guns.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I actually think that movie is overrated.

It would difficult for any country to pull off, true. But its not impossible in the slightest. And I don't trust that our military is as far ahead of others technology wise. Bottom line, its not been attempted in 204 years for a reason. Call me a crackpot, I don't care.

What country? Seriously. It's impossible. Nuclear weapons alone make it implausible. Geography makes it impossible. The Empire of Japan exhausted itself just harassing some Alaskan islands, and that was back in the day when America had virtually no air force, and a much smaller navy.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Britain has not been successfully invaded for 950 years. Other than farmers or gamekeepers, almost nobody here owns a gun.

I mean, maybe in the 1910's, the militias in Texas influenced Mexico's decision not to invade the United States, but I am pretty sure the United States military with its machine guns was the bigger factor.

In 2016 it's pretty silly to suggest that American gun ownership is influencing anybody's decision to invade the United States. Especially since no country is geographically capable of invading the United States, or politically inclined to do so. Also if that's your rationale for being armed, that's a pretty bad one.