It's insane that civilians can buy assault rifles (Arizona, Las Vegas, welfare)
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.
I am not so sure. Government employees, like law enforcement, and military tend to do what the people that pay them tell them to do. Yes, ultimately the taxpayer is paying them, but the Bureaucrats, and Politicians control the payroll, and purse strings. After all Law Enforcement went door to door during Katrina, and illegally confiscated firearms under orders from their leadership. I believe that happened at some point is CT also.
In general government HATES that we have the ability to own firearms.
If we are in the situation of across the US house to house door busting by the military then the concerns of the people are much bigger than who and how someone is getting paid. I am not talking about a single weather event.
Makes you wonder why he was ever allowed to roam the streets as a free man to do as he pleases? He too beat his ex wife and infant step son, cracking the poor kid's skull along with animal cruelty charges.
Because the ACLU said it's mean to lock up crazies. Another liberal fail.
A lot of Liberal/Progressive Activist courts have upheld these Un-Constitutional gun control laws, and the SCOTUS refuses to hear them, so they stand. They can't successfully pass gun control legislation on a national level as it is political suicide. Just ask Al Gore who lost his own state largely due to his gun control stance. Therefore the lower courts legislate from the bench, and uphold these illegal laws from states like NY, NJ, CT, MA, MD, RI, IL, CA, HI, etc.
Trump, like him or not is doing pretty good with regards to changing the make up of the courts. Especially with Neil Gorsuch. Same with his appointments to the federal appeals courts. More than likely he will appoint two or more to SCOTUS before his term is over. So far he's stuck to his guns on the 2nd Amendment and remains loyal to those who voted for him.
I didn't support him in the primaries and opted for Ted Cruz or Ben Carson. But voted for him in the general election. Now that he's president, I'm not at all sorry for voting for him. You've got to give the man credit with all of his wealth and at his age he could be relaxing and living the good life. Enjoying the fruits of his labor. Instead of having to put up with all the BS of being president. Especially with all the relentless attacks and ridicule being thrown at both him and his family. I've never before seen anything like it. I just hope to Christ he wins another term if for nothing else but to stick it to them good. Just to prove how irrelevant his detractors really are.
Just the sight of guns would probably make her pee he pants!
probably very true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohhwanderlust
So, would you agree that the mentally ill should not be permitted to purchase or possess guns?
heck no, we dont want the mentally ill to possess firearms. BUT we cant just decide someone is mentally ill either, they must be properly adjudicated as mentally defective BEFORE you take away their second amendment rights. would you agree with that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough
"Not weapons that can wipe out an entire church in 15 seconds"
Do you know here are people who can fire a single action pistol FASTER then a semiautomatic pistol.
I DOUBT it!
and that includes reloading that single action six shot revolver, TWICE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NVplumber
Lol. Not even! I never have been overly concerned about a government coup. Or foreign invasion. Foreign powers see a ground invasion of the continental US as a no can do. And as you say, military backing for national martial law is nonexistent. That's been looked into. The government actually polled the military oh, 25 or so years ago(?) someone else may remember this as well and if they were thinking they would get support see a mass following of orders in regards to shooting fellow citizens they were disappointed.
I'm far more concerned with criminals in general and the cartel backed street gangs in particular.
Quote:
Originally Posted by redwood66
And pray tell why is that?
wells lets look at that shall we? first there are two oceans that help protect the US from invasion. you need a great amount of sea and air lift capability to bring enough troops, supplies, and equipment in a constant flow to support such an effort. and that means very long supply lines which are extremely vulnerable.
second, even though alaska is 55 miles from russia, getting over the mountain ranges in alaska, even in the summer months, is a tough go, again with all the supplies, men and equipment necessary. again that means vulnerable supply lines.
third we have the best military in the world, and our supply lines are very short indeed, and thus far less vulnerable to being cut.
fourth we have more guns in this country than we do people, so lets say russia AND china decided to invade the US. yes they could get to the shores, and actually put troops on the ground. they might even come up through mexico, and perhaps make it several miles inside the border, but remember that texas, new mexico, and arizona is not going to let them just waltz in and do what they want, we are going to fight them with everything we have in support of our military. and that means the people with guns are going to be a force multiplier. whether as individuals or as groups, we will cause problems for an invading force, because we wont be following any rules of war the governments think up. we wont be leaving the injured on the battlefield to be taken back, and we wont be leaving any weapons on the battlefield either.
fifth, we will pop up suddenly since our movements generally wont be tracked by the invaders like military units are tracked. so while teh fifth marine division might be being watched, two thousand citizens wont be.
Seriously? Well, Japanese admiral Yamamoto was asked about the requirements for a ground invasion of the continental US during WW2. His assessment declared it totally unfeasible as the invasion forces would run up against "a rifle behind every blade of grass." That hasn't changed. In order for a foreign nation to successfully land and invasion force a precursor(and successful) nuclear strike would be needed. And that assumes that said nation is still intact enough to pull it off after our retaliatory strikes hit them.
It's not that difficult to see. When was the last foreign invasion of the US? Hint, it was a while back and even then it didn't work out well.
Because the ACLU said it's mean to lock up crazies. Another liberal fail.
The ACLU is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party. I believe it's all intentional. The more crazies they let out, the more mass murderers there are. The more mass murders there are especially with guns, the more the demands for gun control. The end justifies the means. Nothing is below these people.
They're not at all interested in public safety. The objective is to enslave us to a socialist aristocracy of which they will have absolute control over every aspect of our lives. No different than Venezuela or North Korea. This will lead to a massive revolt as people's life standards will deteriorate to the point of being no different than any other third world dictatorship. The 2nd Amendment and Constitutional law are the only things that stand in their way.
Quote:
"The law has been used to destroy it's own objective; It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which it's real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense." "But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others. This process is the origin of plunder." --- The Law by Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850) French economist, statesman, and author.
Seriously? Well, Japanese admiral Yamamoto was asked about the requirements for a ground invasion of the continental US during WW2. His assessment declared it totally unfeasible as the invasion forces would run up against "a rifle behind every blade of grass." That hasn't changed. In order for a foreign nation to successfully land and invasion force a precursor(and successful) nuclear strike would be needed. And that assumes that said nation is still intact enough to pull it off after our retaliatory strikes hit them.
It's not that difficult to see. When was the last foreign invasion of the US? Hint, it was a while back and even then it didn't work out well.
1812 when the US proper was invaded, 1836 when texas was invaded(before it was a state, or even a territory), though there were cross border raids in the mid teens of the last century, and of course we cant forget the mexican/american was of 1846-1848, mexico lost that one as well.
heck no, we dont want the mentally ill to possess firearms. BUT we cant just decide someone is mentally ill either, they must be properly adjudicated as mentally defective BEFORE you take away their second amendment rights. would you agree with that?
and that includes reloading that single action six shot revolver, TWICE.
wells lets look at that shall we? first there are two oceans that help protect the US from invasion. you need a great amount of sea and air lift capability to bring enough troops, supplies, and equipment in a constant flow to support such an effort. and that means very long supply lines which are extremely vulnerable.
second, even though alaska is 55 miles from russia, getting over the mountain ranges in alaska, even in the summer months, is a tough go, again with all the supplies, men and equipment necessary. again that means vulnerable supply lines.
third we have the best military in the world, and our supply lines are very short indeed, and thus far less vulnerable to being cut.
fourth we have more guns in this country than we do people, so lets say russia AND china decided to invade the US. yes they could get to the shores, and actually put troops on the ground. they might even come up through mexico, and perhaps make it several miles inside the border, but remember that texas, new mexico, and arizona is not going to let them just waltz in and do what they want, we are going to fight them with everything we have in support of our military. and that means the people with guns are going to be a force multiplier. whether as individuals or as groups, we will cause problems for an invading force, because we wont be following any rules of war the governments think up. we wont be leaving the injured on the battlefield to be taken back, and we wont be leaving any weapons on the battlefield either.
fifth, we will pop up suddenly since our movements generally wont be tracked by the invaders like military units are tracked. so while teh fifth marine division might be being watched, two thousand citizens wont be.
That is for sure. I now live in Arizona, I don't know of too many people that do not own firearms and know how to use them well.
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.
