Results 21 to 30 of 49
Thread: Two Guns Per Person
-
October 14th, 2017, 11:24 PM #21
Re: Two Guns Per Person
All I know is if someone has been shot, they were shot with a gun. It's pretty simple. If there were no guns, there could be no shootings. That means if someone wants to kill, they would have to use something less nasty. Fire-bombing via Molotov Cocktail comes to mind. Much preferable.
#SARC
-
October 14th, 2017, 11:45 PM #22
-
October 15th, 2017, 01:27 AM #23
Re: Two Guns Per Person
GL's post is outstanding. I wish it was in the form of oration in the house during gun control debates. But then, I guess it wouldn't matter to those who routinely ignore inconvenient truths. Cannot rep him again...yet.
-
October 15th, 2017, 04:47 AM #24
Re: Two Guns Per Person
I think you misinterpret me. I am not justifying, or begging.
We have different tactics: you demand your rights, while I choose to point out other rights that can/will be infringed if mine are. I may be -defending- my rights, but I don't abrogate my rights or relegate them to the status of privilege: I simply point out other rights that could/would be infringed on the slippery slope and which may be a bit more impactful to those seeking to deny my rights.
It's pointing out to the boo-hooing "think of the children" folks the old saw: first they came for the jews and I (you) said nothing, then they came for the gypsies and you said nothing... etc. First they came for the gun owners, then they came for the assaulted women, then they came for the book-owners...
There's a great line in "A Man for All Seasons" where someone says he would tear down every law to get at the Devil, and Thomas More says "and when the Devil turned 'round on you, how would you defend yourself, the laws all being flat?"
That is the point I wish to make to the opposition, not to throw down my rights, but rather to relate them to the rights they hold dear and make them understand WHY rights are rights, not privileges, not granted, not allowed. Rights.DGAF
-
October 15th, 2017, 04:51 AM #25
-
October 15th, 2017, 04:56 AM #26
Re: Two Guns Per Person
With no #SARC at all:
Without guns for defensive use, baseball bats would be mightily effective. Or just a gang of big strong guys kicking ass. Steel toed boots. Billy-clubs. Golf Clubs. Bit of home-made napalm (it ain't difficult).
As I often say to anti-gun folks, what do you do if you suffer a home invasion by 3-4 big strong fellows with no weapons at all? You think they won't be able to rob / rape / kill you with their bare hands? You think they can't stop you calling the police (for whatever good that would do by the time they arrive, if they arrive).
Ever watch "A Clockwork Orange?"... There are no guns in the home invasion / rape / murder sequence. IIRC nothing but a single baton. Woulda been a wholly-different scene if the homeowners had a gun.DGAF
-
October 15th, 2017, 06:35 AM #27
Re: Two Guns Per Person
Rules are written in the stone,
Break the rules and you get no bones,
all you get is ridicule, laughter,
and a trip to the house of pain.
-
October 15th, 2017, 06:38 AM #28
Re: Two Guns Per Person
What dick sponge neglects is the fact that the U.S. Constitution is not a laundry list of what citizens may do, it is a document enumerating the limitations of government intrusion into our lives. So, his assumption that the Constitution is a starting point not an end point is totally false. Someone who is hell bent on socislism and government intervention is going to misinterpret the laws of our land everytime. They mistakenly see Big Brother as the end all and be all, the U.S. Constitution is the leash on that beast.
Last edited by eatmydust; October 15th, 2017 at 06:45 AM. Reason: spelling
-
October 15th, 2017, 07:28 AM #29
Re: Two Guns Per Person
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Again for the window lickers on the left side of the classroom, for the motherfucking umpteenth time, lets break this down:
A well regulated Militia,
The militia was described as all able bodied males in a certain age group. Well Regulated refers to the uniformity of their arms in caliber, dress and uniform command structure so that they may be supported logistically and by a command structure that would not break down. Some might argue this now means state NG units, but these may bee called up as armed forces by the government, they do not count as citizen militia. The founding fathers were deathly afraid of a standing army on US soil and did not want the government to hold hat oppressive capability. Despite this concept being eroded repeatedly theres a reason for a Militia of citizen soldiers outside the control of the government and articles like this show the reasoning behind the necessity.
"being necessary to the security of a free State,"
The "Militia" is relegated to a singular task protecting the security of our liberty and our country, no one elses. Not afghanistan Not Zimbabwe. The United States.
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,"
This enumerates a specific RIGHT of the PEOPLE, not Government entities, AGAIN NOT THE GOVERNMENT!!! GET THIS THROUGH THEIR SKULLS!! Its describing the PEOPLE Not the "Militia" specifically, or the NG or the US army or the Police THE PEOPLE
To keep ( maintain and have ammunition for the use of the arms) and bear ( Go about freely armed ) arms (plural weapons as many as the citizen requires to protect the free state)
shall not be infringed.
There shall be No conditions on the keeping and bearing of arms by the people.
Now we may legally deny those deemed unfit to the right to keep and bear arms, criminals drug addicts and mentally unstable. Now despit the simplistic nature of this statement the government as taken upon itself the power to regulate this "right" because it is in direct opposition to its goals of oppression and to its power to oppressLast edited by bigandy1966; October 15th, 2017 at 07:32 AM.
-
October 15th, 2017, 12:22 PM #30
Re: Two Guns Per Person
As important, if not more, are the numerous letters, notes, notations, general documents written by the Founders during the times leading up to the drawing of the Bill of Rights. To look at (read) the 2nd without knowing those proofs of intent is almost akin to taking a knee and not really knowing why.
The problem today and of late is the same brains wired to believe the man-induced global change nonsense are the ones who will cling to the lame standard, "times have changed since then", and the flintlock/militia comparison posture.
What is really amazing (and f*cking aggravating) is Jefferson and associates were well aware that a semi-auto firearm had been invented, before the constitution was signed.
https://prezi.com/yfq60jxsfjea/weapons-1700-1800/
Similar Threads
-
Prohibited person cannot TOUCH guns or ammo?
By HiredGoon in forum GeneralReplies: 5Last Post: November 15th, 2010, 11:25 PM -
1st person shooter with real guns!
By Gunny1969 in forum GeneralReplies: 3Last Post: August 14th, 2009, 09:28 PM -
Did you know that you cant mail long guns person to person?????
By Brown-Bear in forum GeneralReplies: 19Last Post: September 27th, 2008, 04:54 PM -
What stops a mentally ill person from getting guns?
By ChrisAHF in forum GeneralReplies: 26Last Post: April 26th, 2008, 04:14 PM
Bookmarks