Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
funny their was bloodless change in Germany in 1933, how did that work out?
"you cant stop the government from taking your guns" really? how did Lexington and concord turn out?
Lay down, give up, submit, said no American ever.
Face it...you and your camo clad brothers would have no choice but to surrender your weapons if the government came calling. Real life isn't a Chuck Norris movie.
Face it...you and your camo clad brothers would have no choice but to surrender your weapons if the government came calling. Real life isn't a Chuck Norris movie.
How`d Ruby Ridge work out for you guys?
With egg on the Feds faces, and a large, cash, settlement for Randy Weaver, which was small consolation for a murdered wife and son. What an idiotic statement! In your zeal to sing the praisez of the government, you have revealed tbe depths "you guys" are willing to sink to in order to force your agenda.
Sweeping aside civil rights, treating those who oppose you as less than human, and outright MURDER, is all just fine. Government murder of women and children in the case of Ruby Ridge. Is this an example of the touted, liberal, leftist, "greater social conscience" I have seen brought up so many times?
To condone and praise the brutal muder of a woman, holding nothing more dangerous than her infant, and shooting a 14good year old boy in the back after killing his dog in front of him, and you smirk?! Please, tell us again, how the liberal/leftist mindset is all about compassion, empathy, and tbe greater vood of society.
Perhaps you would have prefered they just used heavh artillery at Waco, and just simplified things at Ruby Ridge, and just fired some Willy Pete into the house.
This attitude you present is disgusting, on to many levels to list, and slides my willingness to try and have reasonable discourse with liberal/leftists down the rungs a ways.
With egg on the Feds faces, and a large, cash, settlement for Randy Weaver, which was small consolation for a murdered wife and son. What an idiotic statement! In your zeal to sing the praisez of the government, you have revealed tbe depths "you guys" are willing to sink to in order to force your agenda.
Sweeping aside civil rights, treating those who oppose you as less than human, and outright MURDER, is all just fine. Government murder of women and children in the case of Ruby Ridge. Is this an example of the touted, liberal, leftist, "greater social conscience" I have seen brought up so many times?
To condone and praise the brutal muder of a woman, holding nothing more dangerous than her infant, and shooting a 14good year old boy in the back after killing his dog in front of him, and you smirk?! Please, tell us again, how the liberal/leftist mindset is all about compassion, empathy, and tbe greater vood of society.
Perhaps you would have prefered they just used heavh artillery at Waco, and just simplified things at Ruby Ridge, and just fired some Willy Pete into the house.
This attitude you present is disgusting, on to many levels to list, and slides my willingness to try and have reasonable discourse with liberal/leftists down the rungs a ways.
Oh..now some sympathy for the victims of guns.
...as long as its the government doing the shooting.
I stand by my assertion that in a shooting war with the government you guys have only a snowball`s chance in you-know-where.
That presumes that those teachers would choose to be armed. In a school. A place of learning.
My wife is a teacher. She should not have to 'arm' herself in order to teach children in a safe environment. She would not choose to carry a firearm in a school, as would most other teachers. Arming an entire society does not magically make society safer. To even think in such terms is simply delusional and simply does not merit an argument to the contrary. Access laws to firearms in this country are way too easy. Hell they're easier than getting an archery permit to hunt in Montana.
And before anyone even begins to spout off that I'm some hippie liberal creep- I am a veteran, a sportsman, lived in WV and MT most of my life, and own more firearms than most of you that are espousing the graces of unfettered firearm ownership. And most of my ilk feel the same way. There is no reason that we, as a society, can't keep a lid on the access to firearms to looney's like the one that shot those kids to an early grave. A REAL patriot and American would stand up for those kids. Not the frekkin' NRA, not some hollow organization driven by corporate profits.
You want to defend our rights as lawfully abiding firearm owners and sportsmen? Then come to the table with real solutions- not some looney "let's arm all the teachers" diatribe. That logic will get you nowhere except the bunker you may have dug in your backyard.
=The NRA doesn't oppose restrictions to firearms for those with mental health issues. Corporate profits? For whom are you speaking?
As to arming teachers, your spew suggests that you prefer to keep the status quo. Posting "Gun Free Zones" that are magnets to killers with a mind to exact maximum carnage.
What is YOUR solution to prevent the staff and children from becoming victims?
What is YOUR belief as to why this was never a phenomena in the 60's or 70's?
How do YOU plan to control the black market that criminals often use to buy/trade their weapons of choice?
How many more laws need to be enacted before you realize that criminals (by definition) don't follow laws?
I stand by my assertion that in a shooting war with the government you guys have only a snowball`s chance in you-know-where.
You have no idea how much firepower is already in the hands of citizens.
Not to mention the numbers of people that would desert a government hell bent on perpetrating violence on its citizenry.
Face it...you and your camo clad brothers would have no choice but to surrender your weapons if the government came calling. Real life isn't a Chuck Norris movie.
How`d Ruby Ridge work out for you guys?
Dream on. That same government that had a military wandering the hills of Afghanistan for 18 months trying to find an itinerant Bedouin, is not as powerful as you make them sound.
...as long as its the government doing the shooting.
I stand by my assertion that in a shooting war with the government you guys have only a snowball`s chance in you-know-where.
You just keep stepping in it. Might want to clean off your boots before you go in the house. First off, the Weavers were not "victims of guns". They were victims of a team of government agents run amok. Lon Horiuchi took that shot, and murdered Vicky Wea er, just because be wanted a confirmed kill. But, it was him, not the rifle, that did the killing.
It also seems, and I stand by this assertion, that you are fine with guns being used to murder, so long as it's the government doing it, and they are killing people with views that don't match your own. I , personally, don't care what you tbink about tbe capabilities of civilians with small arms are. That's not a subject I approached.
You have made plain your confidence in and support for government troops/agents attacking civilian firearms owners.That is a subject I refuse to discuss with you, as combat, with anyone, the government included, is not something I dwell on or am enamored in the thought of. Most firearms owners feel that way. The BDU bunch is a very small segment, and hardly representative of the majority of the shooting community.
I still find your smirking and enthusiastic support of actions such as Ruby Ridge to be worthy of only contempt. Very much akin to someone who was jubilant about the Oklahoma City bombing.
That elected representatives whom you support are in power in DC right now frightens me. Especially now that you have exposed just what "you guys"are are capable of.
So I'm law abiding and don't mind taking a proficiency test and have a full background check before I'm allowed to purchase a firearm.
Just like before getting a drivers permit. And rechecked in every so many years making sure there are no medical provisions prohibiting operation of a motor vehicle. And having insurance and registration and so forth and so on. I moved here and had to take a test to make sure I know the difference between a griz and a black bear to get a bear permit and prove proficiency with my Matthews bow before being granted an archery permit. All these things make sure I am not a detriment to society or some jack-leg in the woods.
So why make access to lethal instruments so easy and not take steps to ensure some sense like what is described above? Just cause?
This issue is going to keep building so far up in crest that if us folks don't come up with solutions, others will do it for us that DON'T enjoy what we enjoy. We should be pushing damn hard for existing laws to be enforced and coming up with solutions to keep looney-tunes from getting firearms.
I encourage you all not to think short term. Time is not on our side, that I can be assured of.
First, you mentioned in a previous post that you speak for many. That is false. You speak for yourself, and yourself only, unless you represent an association or other organized group through which you speak for its membership.
Second, none of the things you mentioned (driving, hunting, etc) are rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Perhaps you can't see the difference, but we are a nation of laws, and the laws pertaining to firearms ownership are controlled, ultimately, by the 2nd Amendment. If you want that law changed, there's a process by which it can be done. Until it is, comparing a Constitutional right to any privilege - especially ones provided by the states - is a useless effort that demonstrates only that you don't understand the nature of what you're advocating.
Third, ease of access is irrelevant when it comes to psychopaths and their evil plans. If they want a weapon, regardless of type, they will get it. You can't legislate around that simple fact. You need look no further than the control of various pharmaceutical substances if you need that fact demonstrated.
Finally, if you want psychopaths to stop harming others, you have to get them off the streets. Period. If a mentally or emotionally unstable person decides that they want to hurt people, the only way you can stop them is to physically remove the opportunity to do so. That means separating them from the rest of society and taking steps to ensure that they're not able to commit those acts. Lock. Them. Up. Any attempt to address this perceived problem that doesn't include this physical separation will fail, up to and including a complete ban on guns, if it were even possible (which it's not).
You seem like a reasonably sensible person, but you've been led to believe that ineffectual remedies will work. They won't. No law you can pass will stop a deranged person from harming others. The only way to accomplish that goal is to remove their opportunity to do so.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
