HOME | DD
Balddog4 β 2nd Amendment
Published: 2012-12-24 17:31:06 +0000 UTC; Views: 6858; Favourites: 121; Downloads: 47
Redirect to original
Description
I love this Amendment. In fact I love all of the amendments. However, I love this one because it allows us to own weapons that the government have. So I can buy a tank if I want and the government can't do anything about it. Because the 2nd amendment states that I can. Now I would love to own guns, for one reason only; To protect my family. Other than that, I wouldn't use guns for any other purpose. I might go hunting, but that depends.But I support the 2nd amendment 100% and I hate gun bans. Because if everyone is armed and allowed to carry assult weapons around where ever they go, then people wouldn't go out and shoot other people. Because then they might get shot themselves. That's why gin bans DO NOT WORK! Because all they do is allow lawless people to do whatever they want. So that is why we can not allow gun bans.
Related content
Comments: 391
What, long words tend to confuse you? Aaaawwwww, don't worry, one day, when you grow up you will understand.
π: 0 β©: 1
No. I understand them perfectly.
You're just a grade-a example of a fudd, and that's pretty much all there is to it.
π: 0 β©: 1
Oh yes, I forgot - rednecks in your part of the world found out about internet. What, you got bored trying to breed with your family and decided to check the Webster's online? And how's that zoophilia thing going on for you?
Do us all a favor, keep trying to score with your favorite goat and leave serious stuff to us adults.
π: 0 β©: 1
Except I'm white collar, you fucking assumptive retard 
Most "gun nuts" aren't rednecks. They mostly comprise of people who pay close attention to politics, country, and/or are veterans.
To top that off, you use "redneck" in a negative connotation in order to lower your opposition's credibility, which is an Ad Hominem (or more accurately, Poising the Well).
Furthermore, you assumption that rednecks are into zoophilia is beyond rancid.
But of course, both of these things are common amongst you fudds*.
Please, child, find some where else to leave your dribble.
*Fudds are violently pro-gun-control.
π: 0 β©: 1
Look, being a "manager" in 7-11 doesn't make you a white collar, Mr. Douchebag. 
Most gun nuts ARE rednecks. People who feel a need to own a gun for legitimate protection will never declare themselves "gun nuts". My father as a chief of police (retired) has a gun and he doesn't flaunt it in everyone's face. it stays safe in his house and he only takes it out couple of times a year to clean it. Me, as a former chief of security (for 2 1/2 years) and somebody who was shot at for a better part of my life, well guess what - I don't even own a gun anymore. And I used one since I was old enough to lift it up.
And for the record, I live in a country where civil war was reality until recently. Even after years of internal conflict we still think that most of the Americans are idiotic, scared, whiny little brats who hide behind their Hummers and guns.
You can pretend that you're special and better from those who don't like guns and don't want them on the streets, but the fact is that you're just scared and insecure. You need something to wave in somebody's face and since you don't have a dick, it has to be a gun or your so called "white collar" job.
Give it a rest, pup, and grow a pair. You can be a man without owning a gun, you know?
Now, sit. Stay.
Good boy!
π: 0 β©: 1
"Look, being a "manager" in 7-11 doesn't make you a white collar, Mr. Douchebag."
>Implying white-collar automatically means working a management job
>Still assuming you know what kind of job I work
"Most gun nuts ARE rednecks."
>Sweeping Generalization
I know quite a few people who would eat you alive for saying that. Protip: They're not rednecks.
" My father as a chief of police (retired) has a gun and he doesn't flaunt it in everyone's face."
>Implying gun-nuts flaunt their shit in everyone's faces
"Me, as a former chief of security (for 2 1/2 years) and somebody who was shot at for a better part of my life, well guess what - I don't even own a gun anymore."
Would you like a reward for your self-righteousness?
"And for the record, I live in a country where civil war was reality until recently."
Lmao. This makes you any more valid how?
Oh right, it doesn't.
"Even after years of internal conflict we still think that most of the Americans are idiotic, scared, whiny little brats who hide behind their Hummers and guns."
Because that sort of thinking is more intelligent than that of who you condemn. Gotta get dem generalizations.
Also, speak for yourself, skidmark.
"You can pretend that you're special and better from those who don't like guns and don't want them on the streets,"
>Implying guns wouldn't be "on the streets" if they were illegal or heavily regulated
"but the fact is that you're just scared and insecure."
>Implying I'm scared of anything
>Implying owning a gun doesn't take balls working with dangerous equipment (unless one is a careless pedestrian)
"You need something to wave in somebody's face and since you don't have a dick,"
>Implying women can't be gun nuts
>Implying - again - gun-nuts need something to wave in somebody's face
>Implying there aren't gun-nuts who have ten times the balls that you, or your father, have or ever will have - COMBINED
", it has to be a gun or your so called "white collar" job."
>Implying you even know what "white collar" even means
White collar: office job
Blue collar: labor job
And I happen to be a programmer
"You can be a man without owning a gun, you know?"
>Implying I actually own a firearm
>Implying I'm not more of a man than you are, considering your tendency to result to insults instead of focusing on the issue at hand
"Now, sit. Stay.
Good boy!"
I don't take orders from neckbeards
ADDENDUM: Replace "gun-nut" with "gun-enthusiast" and you've got what I was really trying to get across, which is why I put "gun-nuts" in quotes on my first time mentioning it.
π: 0 β©: 2
Here's an exercise in logic for you:
If majority of population could easily afford PAGANI ZONDA (10th fastest car in the world [link] ) how do you think that would affect number of crashes and accidents?
Would it
a) increase it or
b) decrease it?
Hint: use LOGIC ([link] ) and take into account typical human behavior, i.e. need to show off, reaction to stress, experience in handling it etc.
Now, translate those results to ASSAULT WEAPONS and try to draw conclusion based on same principles.
π: 0 β©: 1
One: Psychology isn't a perfect science
Two: Moral-Hazard only takes place if the vehicle is safer, not if it's faster.
Three: Most firearm related crimes that are committed where the victim and offender do not know each other are done with handguns and cheap shotguns.
I went through the entire list of massacres in the US on Wikipedia. Only three had any sort of semi-auto rifle, and one with a bolt.
Four: Rifles are impossible if not hard as fuck to conceal, proving a higher risk factor in covert crime. This makes them a less likely choice among criminals because of this. Only active insurgents and crazies would use rifles. Typically.
This is like comparing a truck to a mid-size car.
π: 0 β©: 1
> One: Psychology isn't a perfect science
And which one is? Empty words which you use to hide behind. Nothing is perfect but what is most accurate for our needs? What I offered to you is a good example of how human mind works and potential consequences of ignoring human nature. What you gave back to me is a poor excuse not to accept the fact.
> Two: Moral-Hazard only takes place if the vehicle is safer, not if it's faster.
Says you. That still isn't an answer to question I posted above, just your cheap way to avoid honest answer.
And to end this once and for all, here's some FACTS for you to ponder - you can get the whole article here: [link]
"Despite a surge in gun-related offenses in the early 2000s, the past seven years in the U.K. have seen successive drops in gun crimes β a consequence, some argue, of the countryβs tougher laws on gun ownership. Of course, such measures arenβt enough to wholly prevent mass killings. In 2010, a taxi driver with a shotgun and a rifle cruised around the idyllic Lake District of Cumbria, northern England, killing a dozen people in a shooting spree that shocked the country. The shooter had no history of mental problems and his guns were legally owned and licensed.
On the other side of the world, just a month after the 1996 Dunblane attack, a shooter in the town of Port Arthur, Tasmania, went on a rampage, killing 35 people in what is the worst single episode of such slaughter in Australian history. The then months-old old government of conservative Prime Minister John Howard β who would go on to rule for over a decade β initiated a sweeping set of reforms, even in the face of opposition from allies in Australiaβs right wing. The new measures banned the sale and possession of all automatic and semiautomatic rifles and shotguns. Moreover, the government instituted a mandatory buyback scheme that compensated owners of newly illegal weapons. Between 1996 and β98, some 700,000 guns were retrieved by the government and destroyed. The results have been tangible: A widely cited 2010 study in the American Journal of Law & Economics showed that gun-related homicides in Australia dropped 59% between 1995 and 2006. The firearm-suicide rate dropped 65%. There has been no mass shooting in Australia since the Port Arthur attack."
π: 0 β©: 0
>Implying white-collar automatically means working a management job
>Still assuming you know what kind of job I work
"The term white-collar Worker refers to a person who performs professional, managerial, or administrative work, in contrast with a blue-collar worker, whose job requires manual labor. Typically white collar work is performed in an office or cubicle." Source: wikipedia
Sorry for giving you more credit than you deserve, pup.
>Sweeping Generalization. I know quite a few people who would eat you alive for saying that. Protip: They're not rednecks.
They can start from below my belt. I'm sure they're used in handling big weapons.
>Implying gun-nuts flaunt their shit in everyone's faces
Pretty much, yeah. Hint: professional policeman for more than 30 years + ex-military chief of security = experience with "gun-enthusiasts".
To dumb it down for you - I know what I'm talking about. My LINE OF WORK was to deal with your so called "gun enthusiasts".
> Because that sort of thinking is more intelligent than that of who you condemn. Gotta get dem generalizations. Also, speak for yourself, skidmark.
After 10 years of civil war and population with high "gun per capita" ratio we still DON'T have ANY mass murders since war was over. Gotta hate dem facts, eh? My people are worried about how to feed their families, most of them didn't go for vacation in ages, they drive cars that are falling apart and we're living on edge of poverty yet we're not killing school children to went our frustration because our BigMac was well done instead of medium. Boo-hoo, poor little rich Americans...
>Implying guns wouldn't be "on the streets" if they were illegal or heavily regulated
They would be, Mr. Smart ass programmer, but we're talking about law of chances here. What is better - higher chance to get a bullet in your noggin or lower?
>Implying I'm scared of anything
This statement alone shows how scare and insecure you are. You need professional help.
>Implying there aren't gun-nuts who have ten times the balls that you, or your father, have or ever will have - COMBINED
Yes, you got that one right. There's none. For me alone, I'd say that there's somebody out there who's twice the man I am, but not many and that's about it. I'm still better than scared little whiny bitch sitting in a cubicle and whining about Obama trying to take his guns from him! Boo-hoo.
π: 0 β©: 1
"Sorry for giving you more credit than you deserve, pup."
You're not sorry.
White collar jobs are just as important blue-collar.
"Pretty much, yeah. Hint: professional policeman for more than 30 years + ex-military chief of security = experience with "gun-enthusiasts".
To dumb it down for you - I know what I'm talking about. My LINE OF WORK was to deal with your so called "gun enthusiasts"."
LMAO. On your profile you have your age as 35, so either you're delusional or you're talking about your father, in which case you're using your father's anecdotal as your own anecdotal, which is twice the stupid.
After 10 years of civil war and population with high "gun per capita" ratio we still DON'T have ANY mass murders since war was over. Gotta hate dem facts, eh? My people are worried about how to feed their families, most of them didn't go for vacation in ages, they drive cars that are falling apart and we're living on edge of poverty yet we're not killing school children to went our frustration because our BigMac was well done instead of medium. Boo-hoo, poor little rich Americans...Whut.
First you support the main argument of gun-rights supporters, which is having a high gun-ownership rate doesn't equate to high violence, then you go about criticizing Americans based on your own fucktarded assumptions and stereotypes?
This is the most pathetic piece of self-advocating drivel I've read all day.
"They would be, Mr. Smart ass programmer, but we're talking about law of chances here. What is better - higher chance to get a bullet in your noggin or lower?"
One word: Switzerland.
Oh, and it's not their ownership rate either. Finland has a high ownership rate, comparable to the US. It's their military service - their mandatory one-year military service.
That and they don't have the gangs and drug-cartels to deal with that the US has.
"This statement alone shows how scare and insecure you are. You need professional help."
So you think that I state that I'm not something, so that automatically means I'm in denial? Wow. Just... wow. I'm amazed at the sheer logical fallacy oozing out of you at non-relative velocities.
Between the Confirmation Bias and the Texas Sharpshooter. Jesus buttfucking Christ, you're pathetic.
"Yes, you got that one right. There's none. For me alone, I'd say that there's somebody out there who's twice the man I am, but not many and that's about it."
You can't even go two fucking sentences without spewing some kind of Ad Hominem or Pro Hominem bullshit because you feel everyone is inferior to you, especially those that challenge you.
You base most of your statements off of anecdotals and negative stereotypes, and you suckle off of them because they confirm what's in your head.
"I'm still better than scared little whiny bitch sitting in a cubicle and whining about Obama trying to take his guns from him! Boo-hoo."
And more Ad Hominem. As usual. "You're this," "I'm that," "I'm better than you," etc, etc.
I'm pretty much done with your clown ass.
You could have stayed on topic and focused on the point, but instead, you went after my person and my vocabulary literacy range.
I've acted the fool by insulting your choice of words, you brought yourself down to that level, and now I've just gotten through using your momentum to slam you face first into intellectual concrete. The only thing protecting you is your inability to see past your own phallus (is that even a penis, or???).
You turned this into a shitfest, and now I've got you by the balls, whether you realize it or not, and now to further hurt your ego~
π: 0 β©: 0
I know. My dad said the same thing. Also why don't we just ban gasoline because they are use in bombs and kill people. I mean it's the same principle. That's why banning guns makes no sense.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yup. Plus, bombs are scarier and more destructive; especially if one makes them right. Guns are really only good for one target at a time, unlike munitions.
π: 0 β©: 0
While I'm not for banning all guns (that would be almost impossible), I do think the U.S. needs some regulations on guns. A Assault Weapons ban would be a good start.
π: 0 β©: 0
Here is the definitive post on gun-control by an expert in firearms and firearms instruction who also happens to be a novelist.
Just astonishingly well done.
[link]
Orion
π: 0 β©: 0
I'm from Belgium though I hold no real love for my country in any way nor am I proud of it in any way. Still I think that the rules we have for firearms are better than those in America. You can get one but only if you wait several months and join a shooting club. There are still people who enjoy hunting or firearms as a hobby but they are not just 'freely available' plus you have to have a clear mental health history or you do not qualify. It's true there are still criminals on our streets who own guns (and it will ALWAYS be like that) but still the violence, shootings and criminal activity in our country is so much lower than in America. I'm not saying America should follow our example by any means. I'm just saying that there are countries who have stricter gun controls and it has not caused criminal activity to spike out of control.
Truth is we are not always in control of our own actions. My father once got really angry and punched a guy in a bar. They got into a fight that was broken up pretty quickly. My father is not a violent man just because he got in a fight once in his life but he was really angry and he lost his self control for only a minute. This situation only ended with the other guy having a black eye but who knows what could have happened if my dad had beenc carying a gun? He could have lost control for one minute because of his anger and ruined that man's life (and his family), his own life and ours' (my family)
It would be incredibly difficult to bring down the amount of firearms in America because there are already so many circulating right now but people children are dying! This is like going up to a parent who has just lost it's child and saying: I would rather buy a gun than save a child.
We don't know whether stricter gun laws will save any children in the future but we can't just say: 'That's just how it is' and be done with it. Something needs to be done.
π: 0 β©: 0
True, true. Guns are awesome.
π: 0 β©: 1
wasn't the reason this amendment was passed was so that if the government got to strong the people could overthrow it and start new. to late for that because we wouldn't stand a chance against our government but the amenment is still there and now people take advantage of it and make it seem like a mistake. it's sad how some people think like that. taking advantage of rights and priveleges that people died for just so WE could have it
π: 0 β©: 2
Accually, in our Constitution it states the people could over through the government. That or Thomas Jefferson said that the people are allowed to do that. Anyway the 2nd Amendment was so that if needs be, militas could be formed to help protect the country, without going directly into the militray. That is the purpose of the second amendment and the only way to do that is for the people to own guns.
π: 0 β©: 1
thats true but even though were allowed to own guns, it's near impossible that we'd be able to defend our country by ourselves. guns aren't the strongest source of weaponry anymore
π: 0 β©: 0
It almost happened a few years after the US officially got started. Check out the Whiskey Rebellion-
[link]
π: 0 β©: 0
It constantly amazes me that people would feel the need to, "defend" themselves where they live. I sat next to a guy on a flight once with a fellow from Texas and this topic came up (he said he felt naked without his gun). I asked if he really felt that he needed to wear a gun to protect himself around his home, and he said yes.
I responded that Texas sounded like a very scary place and I was glad I lived in country where people didn't feel like they had to walk around with a gun to be safe.
π: 0 β©: 1
I would love to walk around with a gun. The reason for it would be so that I could defend myself if the situation calls for it. It's better to be safe than sorry.
π: 0 β©: 1
That view is not supported by the evidence however. I suggest getting a hold of the statistics and seeing it for yourself.
π: 0 β©: 1
Actually in Isreal it's required that everyone carries a gun. They also requires everyone to join the Military for two year. Because of that there are hardly any schools shooting. Most of the times they have to worry about terrorist. But even then since everyone is armed, minus children, hardly anyone dies from attacks.
π: 0 β©: 0
Militia is not common civilians.
Personally, I cannot understand why everyone would feel safe with everyone having guns. History contradicts your logic on numerous occasions.
π: 0 β©: 0
...and murder small children n order to enrich the weapons dealers. Support the NRA shoot a member. Why bother having laws at all they just restrict the herd culling abilities of those destined to survive and hire private armies . Jesus , Our Lord Murderer , and Gods Bastard Avenger shall smite the weak with the machine gun of Destiny. Oooppps the Nazi shit gets to yah.
π: 0 β©: 0
Except the point where it says "A Well regulated militia". Until the 1980's the supreme court agreed that the second amendment did not protect the right of individuals to bear arms. A Republican justice went as far as calling the idea insanity. Powerful gun lobby's in the 80's dedicated themselves to lying to the public until public opinion reversed on the issue.
Your last paragraph is pure insanity, and shows that you have never done any research or looked at any stats. From Sydney, to New York, they have worked.
Albeit, you are one of those people who cares about the emotion not the facts.
π: 0 β©: 0
Please give me an example of loose gun restrictions preventing crime.
π: 0 β©: 1
Not the poster of the work, but here's a few:
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
π: 0 β©: 0
So are you also suggesting that we establish a militia?
π: 0 β©: 1
Got one in every state already. The National Guard units are technical the modern equivalent of the state milita.
π: 0 β©: 3
That isn't true. The National Guard units dont Answer to the Federal Government and there for the UN has no jurisdiction over them. The Guard has been around LONG before the UN was even a gleam in someones eyes. The National Guard is controlled by the state that levies them.
π: 0 β©: 0
Actually the National Guard are tools for the UN. America has no say in what we can use them for, aside from volunteer work.
π: 0 β©: 0
All right then, but not everyone is in the National Guard.
π: 0 β©: 0
I totally disagree with you.
In so many cases people that go out and shoot others kill themselves in the end, so it doesn't matter to them if they are shot by others or shoot themselves. But making it so easy to buy guns will result in more shootings. Yes, I know, if someone really wants to have a gun he will get one, no matter if it is allowed or not - but statistics prove that in countries where it is far more harder to get a gun legally there are far less shootings. If people have guns they will use them. It's as easy as that.
To sell guns to make people protect themselves results in two things: Why police men, when you can take the law into your own hands? And yes, that happens and will happen again. And, even more important: Selling guns is trying to cure the symptons of our sick society. Yes, there is violence out there and people are doing bad stuff - but selling guns does not make anything better. Helping to improve society so less and less (and someday no one) use violence would help. We don't need guns to oppose violence with more violence but to use our energy and money to break out of that circle of violence by stopping the things that make people violent: hunger, unemployment, desperation, hatred against them...
Just imagine what would have happend in that Batman premiere if everyone in the audience would have had a gun to protect himself: A dark room, suddenly the shooting starts, people scream - and half of the people jumps up to shoot that one person who started the killing. There would have been far more deaths because people would have panicked and would have shot everyone that was shooting in that cinema.
Yes, I do recognize that you do have a very different oppinion than I have. That's fine with me and I don't want to argue about that (since it is nothing personal); it is just my oppinion that you are wrong.
π: 0 β©: 1
The big issue I see with your arguement is a possible concern if everyone did carry. But most people likely wouldn't choose to do so even if outright allowed to. Think about how many gun owners there are. Legal gun owners who can then go to the next step and get a carry or concealed carry. How few of them do so. But the real thing that scares me about gun control in that sense is; if guns were by some mean successfully banned. Only one illegal gun could pop up to commit a crime every few months. That wouldnt stop the violence. Because now the news isn't talking of a guy who went into a theater and shot 20 people. It is instead talking about the apparent suspect that walked it the theater and blew himself up and killed hundreds as the bulding fell to ruins after the blast...
π: 0 β©: 0
It doesn't allow anything.
It recognizes the fact that we as human beings all naturally have the right to defend ourselves, our property, and our country. Certain tools are required to do that, this recognizes that as well.
Madison said "All the terrible implements of the soldier". Meaning personal weapons, so sadly a tank really isn't on that list. But light cannon & artillery is (most of that was privately owned during the Revolution).
Anyone that tells you the Constitution "allows" anything is wrong. You have these rights by the very second you become a human being regardless of what the Government says. The 9th and 10th effectively recognize they may have missed some, so you have those too. The only powers Government has are those explicitly stated in the Constitution, anything not talked about belongs to you. It's why Constitutional cases are such a huge deal, like Heller v DC and McDonald v Chicago where the natural rights of whole populations were summarily suppressed by a Government written to protect those rights.
π: 0 β©: 1
The Constitution are rights. Right that we are allowed to have. Without the Constitution then everything America stands for is nothing. But because the Constitution was inspired by God, then the amendments are also inspired from God. Because they used the Constitution to create the amendments. So suck on that.
π: 0 β©: 1
Read the Federalist Papers and what Madison and Jefferson in particular had to say about the Constitution. They make very clear that the Government exists to protect our natural rights. Those rights exist with us and can only be taken away by Government. This was (and still is) a new paradigm of thinking. It's the whole reason for the existence of the 9th and 10th amendments. The founders needed to make explicit that this was the case. The Bill of Rights was necessary for the passage of the Constitution, without it it would not have been ratified as the folks that had just lived through the Articles of Confederation did not believe that those rights would be protected.
In every other nation on Earth the Sovereign (even if its an elected parliment) has Divine Right, and they grant you the rights through legislation and agreement (like the Magna Carta). All rights not enumerated in those documents are assumed that you do not have. You have only the rights that the Sovereign says you have. In the United States each and every one of us is a Sovereign, aligned together in a social compact via the contracts that are our State and Federal Constitution.
π: 0 β©: 1
The US Government are govern by the Constitution. So if the government make laws, which they do, then the Constitution is the foundation of those laws. If the Constitution is the foundation of Americas laws, then the amendments are too base on the Constitution. Everything that America stands for is from the Constitution. Without the Constitution then America is nothing. It doesn't matter what anyone says, the Constitution is the foundation of our Rights. Because before the Constitution the Americas never had the many rights that we do now.
π: 0 β©: 1
You're right in that the Constitution is the foundation. I'm telling you that you have those rights regardless of what any document says. You only cede them through your consent to be governed, all those powers reside with you. You are the King/Queen in this country, and so am I.
You're missing my bigger point and it's one that Thomas Jefferson and James Madison made repeatedly in selling the Constitution during its ratification (which included the first 10 amendments as part of the deal, originally it was 12) : The Constitution identifies rights that we all have just by the very nature of being human. It identifies them to declare them explicitly off limits. The Constitution does not grant us those rights, it only recognizes them.
Americans didn't have those rights prior to the Constitution because George III said they didn't have them. You had explicit rights granted to you by the Magna Carta, which was a deal made with the King requiring the King grant those rights. With the Constitution we turn that around, Government only curtails rights, it does not grant them. It can only curtail those rights based on the explicit powers granted to it by the Constitution, instead of the People only enjoying rights explicitly granted to them by the King.
A9: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
A10: 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
Those two Amendments are meant to hammer the point home if it's not spelled out in the Constutution the Government can't, and you can (or your State, which brings in the importance of State Constitutions being written in a similar style of desribing what the government can and cannot do, rather than the people).
π: 0 β©: 0
well at this point it'd probably be easier just to give everyone a gun than to ban them and try to take them away from the wrong people who have them but to be honest i think we'd be better off without guns.
the thing about guns is that it's a lot easier to cause a lot more damage with a lot less training with a gun than with a blade or bow.
also at this point in time while guns are easier to get gun bans may not make much sense since they'll still be pretty easy for people to get illegally but if guns had always been (or were from this point on) banned and strictly prohibited it would also make it a lot harder for the wrong people to get them since they wouldn't be so readily available now (or a ways into the future).
π: 0 β©: 0
The Second Amendment is for the purpose of protecting ourselves from a Tyranical Government. It's not about Hunting, and Protecting ourselves from harm is a natural instinct, Flee or Fight so to speak. I sell guns and trust me only a law abiding citizen can buy them "Legally", Criminals do not care about regulations or laws. Gun Bans are just about more regulations so we can all eventually be considered criminals, and in time we will lack the ability to defend ourselves from an oppresive Government. I agree with you, and definitely agree with dragonpyper. I firmly believe that Guns don't kill people, People kill people, (although they would be less likely to be dumb enough to try if everyone else open carried and could stop them) In this same aspect as a Veteran of the Army I took an oath to protect America from all enemies foreign and domestic, right now our enemies are domestic, they use political spin and red flags to try and take away our rights. Its time for some common sense in America again. Heres an idea lets ban guns from Governments, Millions of lives would be saved. Quick solution to violence, bring back dueling, after a few a-holes are called out you will see a very polite society form.
π: 0 β©: 1
Your oath is actually to protect the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. Which technically means that if the govt threatens the constitution your oath states you must defend it from the govt.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yeah I know, Thats what I said in my comments, Maybe I wasn't clear enough on that, Thats what I meant by Domestic, I choose to do so peacefully by standing behind, and supporting valid constitution protecting/upholding Statesmen, not lying politicians. I hate our two party system and don't agree with it or the losers that they promote. There is no technically, I know what the government interest are and it ain't about the American people, It's all for the crack jobs that control our rat raced, keep up with the Jones' corporate bankster, rich elite. I know where my loyalties lie it's with "We The People" But I'm glad to see you figured out the whole "Domestic" part. I woke up a long time ago and I stand by "Oathkeepers" I just plan on fighting the fight by making people understand this circus of politics and mass media fraud. Knowledge is a real powerful thing. I hope this clarifies things for you. And before you ask yes I am an ex-Neo Con, turned Liberty Lover, dis-enfranchised Ron Paul supporter, ex-Republican, turned Libertarian, voted for Gary Johnson to he** with the system American. And yes my Ron Paul signs still stand in my yard.
π: 0 β©: 1
Much respect for sticking to your beliefs. Personally I'm moderate and think a third party with centrist ideas is what this country needs.
π: 0 β©: 0
Dear Balddog your point of view is incredibly naive. Beucase people have easy access to firearm, they would fire. Simple as fucking that.
In the heat of the moment, even the nicest of people would lose to an adrenalin rush, and pull the trigger.
While if you just resort to use your fist, when the fight is over, no one would die and the no one would regret that in the moment of uncontrollable impulse, they ended another human being's life.
When you punch another person, you know it's hurt, so you would hesitate to do it to another person.
When you shoot, they die too easily, too fast. You dont know their pain, dont know what it is like to have a bullet inside you. It would never occur to you that "Hey this is hurt, maybe i shouldnt do this to another person"
π: 0 β©: 4
<= Prev | | Next =>