Do Democrats REALLY Think Americans Will Turn Their Guns In Peacefully If They Pass a Law

[rightwinger]

Most gun owners claim they are law abiding citizens and they shouldn’t be confused with those that are not

If regulations regarding background checks, registration, allowable weapons and magazine size are changed......I imagine law abiding citizens will comply

Nope....no more creeping gun control.

Who are you going to shoot?

Tell us tough guy

Your type of course......if I can find you in the myriad of basements in the US.
It'd help if ya dont mind putting Hillary 2016 signs in your yard.
Thanks in advance.

I am not cowardly enough to need an arsenal to protect myself

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Most gun owners claim they are law abiding citizens and they shouldn’t be confused with those that are not

If regulations regarding background checks, registration, allowable weapons and magazine size are changed......I imagine law abiding citizens will comply

Nope....no more creeping gun control.

Who are you going to shoot?

Tell us tough guy

Your type of course......if I can find you in the myriad of basements in the US.
It'd help if ya dont mind putting Hillary 2016 signs in your yard.
Thanks in advance.

I am not cowardly enough to need an arsenal to protect myself

Are you telling me you're so tough you can stop a speeding bullet?

I think I've discovered a new mental illness....I'm going to call it Superman syndrome.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Well, all police are criminals against natural law, but within the context you're suggesting, I certainly hope you're right, but I'm not so sure. I think things would have to get pretty bad for them to stand up. If their masters said "go round up all the children and bring them to work camps" I believe many would take a stand, but tyranny doesn't usually work like that. It's more of a step-wise, tip-toe effect.

But if they said "Go get their guns, not ALL of them, just those really dangerous ones that they don't need for hunting and stuff" I think these guys will come and take them. My view can be skewed because I'm from NYC, I don't know. I have this notion that cops in more gun-friendly areas would be more likely to stand up, but it's just a guess.

Disagree that police are criminals against natural law. Except maybe in NYC.
Agree with your comment about tyranny.
About - Oath Keepers

I love what the oath keepers are trying to do, but the Constitution itself condones violation of natural law (ironically, considering who wrote it) because it asserts an inequality of rights. “Congress shall have power...” that other individuals don’t have.

Congress is not an individual and does not have rights. Congress has lawful limited authority.

Um... Congress is a group of human beings, is it not? Making them all stand in one place, pointing at them and calling them “Congress” doesn’t change that fact. Men make laws, men enforce laws, and men who do these things claim rights that others don’t have (euphemized as “lawful limited authority”). Do you agree?

No. the individuals that make up the group known as congress have rights. The group known as congress may have powers responsibility privileges and authority but it does not have rights.

These are people. That’s it. If you believe you can add or subtract anything from people by calling them a different name, writing things on paper, banging hammers on desks, saying words while touching a book, or any other religious ritual, then you are literally insane.

“Rights” are moral actions. The people we call “Congress” is no different than the people we call “The New York Mets”; they have the right to do many things, but they do not, and can never, have the right to do more things than anyone else.

 

[rightwinger]

Most gun owners claim they are law abiding citizens and they shouldn’t be confused with those that are not

If regulations regarding background checks, registration, allowable weapons and magazine size are changed......I imagine law abiding citizens will comply

Nope....no more creeping gun control.

Who are you going to shoot?

Tell us tough guy

Your type of course......if I can find you in the myriad of basements in the US.
It'd help if ya dont mind putting Hillary 2016 signs in your yard.
Thanks in advance.

I am not cowardly enough to need an arsenal to protect myself

Are you telling me you're so tough you can stop a speeding bullet?

I think I've discovered a new mental illness....I'm going to call it Superman syndrome.

Some of us do not fear life

We do not need firearms to give us a sense of security

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Nope....no more creeping gun control.

Who are you going to shoot?

Tell us tough guy

Your type of course......if I can find you in the myriad of basements in the US.
It'd help if ya dont mind putting Hillary 2016 signs in your yard.
Thanks in advance.

I am not cowardly enough to need an arsenal to protect myself

Are you telling me you're so tough you can stop a speeding bullet?

I think I've discovered a new mental illness....I'm going to call it Superman syndrome.

Some of us do not fear life

We do not need firearms to give us a sense of security

I dont fear life.
And I dont fear criminals breaking into my home and harming my family either.
I do however fear not being able to protect my family,which is my job.
If you choose to put your family at risk thats your choice.

 

[Pop23]

Most gun owners claim they are law abiding citizens and they shouldn’t be confused with those that are not

If regulations regarding background checks, registration, allowable weapons and magazine size are changed......I imagine law abiding citizens will comply

Nope....no more creeping gun control.

Who are you going to shoot?

Tell us tough guy

Your type of course......if I can find you in the myriad of basements in the US.
It'd help if ya dont mind putting Hillary 2016 signs in your yard.
Thanks in advance.

I am not cowardly enough to need an arsenal to protect myself

Have you got that posted on your front door? If not, then you are indeed, by your own words, a coward.

 

[Pop23]

Nope....no more creeping gun control.

Who are you going to shoot?

Tell us tough guy

Your type of course......if I can find you in the myriad of basements in the US.
It'd help if ya dont mind putting Hillary 2016 signs in your yard.
Thanks in advance.

I am not cowardly enough to need an arsenal to protect myself

Are you telling me you're so tough you can stop a speeding bullet?

I think I've discovered a new mental illness....I'm going to call it Superman syndrome.

Some of us do not fear life

We do not need firearms to give us a sense of security

Live in a concrete bunker? Do you?

And tell your awesome story to the rape victim that buys an arsenal to protect herself.

God you are an idiot ON ALL LEVELS!

 

[jon_berzerk]

Corn Planting Map | Agweb.com

 

[jon_berzerk]

Soybean planting tracking with five-year average, 5% in the ground

Soybean Planting Map | Agweb.com

 

[rightwinger]

Most gun owners claim they are law abiding citizens and they shouldn’t be confused with those that are not

If regulations regarding background checks, registration, allowable weapons and magazine size are changed......I imagine law abiding citizens will comply

Nope....no more creeping gun control.

Who are you going to shoot?

Tell us tough guy

Your type of course......if I can find you in the myriad of basements in the US.
It'd help if ya dont mind putting Hillary 2016 signs in your yard.
Thanks in advance.

I am not cowardly enough to need an arsenal to protect myself

Have you got that posted on your front door? If not, then you are indeed, by your own words, a coward.

LOL

Go ahead and post on your door that you have guns. Theives will know which house to rob

 

[rightwinger]

Who are you going to shoot?

Tell us tough guy

Your type of course......if I can find you in the myriad of basements in the US.
It'd help if ya dont mind putting Hillary 2016 signs in your yard.
Thanks in advance.

I am not cowardly enough to need an arsenal to protect myself

Are you telling me you're so tough you can stop a speeding bullet?

I think I've discovered a new mental illness....I'm going to call it Superman syndrome.

Some of us do not fear life

We do not need firearms to give us a sense of security

Live in a concrete bunker? Do you?

And tell your awesome story to the rape victim that buys an arsenal to protect herself.

God you are an idiot ON ALL LEVELS!

How many bad guys have you killed?

 

[Pop23]

Nope....no more creeping gun control.

Who are you going to shoot?

Tell us tough guy

Your type of course......if I can find you in the myriad of basements in the US.
It'd help if ya dont mind putting Hillary 2016 signs in your yard.
Thanks in advance.

I am not cowardly enough to need an arsenal to protect myself

Have you got that posted on your front door? If not, then you are indeed, by your own words, a coward.

LOL

Go ahead and post on your door that you have guns. Theives will know which house to rob

Why? You are the one who contends such Bravery. Guess you aren't very good at putting your money where your mouth is, which makes YOU the COWARD!

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Nope....no more creeping gun control.

Who are you going to shoot?

Tell us tough guy

Your type of course......if I can find you in the myriad of basements in the US.
It'd help if ya dont mind putting Hillary 2016 signs in your yard.
Thanks in advance.

I am not cowardly enough to need an arsenal to protect myself

Have you got that posted on your front door? If not, then you are indeed, by your own words, a coward.

LOL

Go ahead and post on your door that you have guns. Theives will know which house to rob

Have fun getting into the gun safe thats bolted to the floor.
Along with getting past the alarm system and the video surveillance system.

 

[Pop23]

Nope....no more creeping gun control.

Who are you going to shoot?

Tell us tough guy

Your type of course......if I can find you in the myriad of basements in the US.
It'd help if ya dont mind putting Hillary 2016 signs in your yard.
Thanks in advance.

I am not cowardly enough to need an arsenal to protect myself

Have you got that posted on your front door? If not, then you are indeed, by your own words, a coward.

LOL

Go ahead and post on your door that you have guns. Theives will know which house to rob

Put a few into jail cells, but never killed one.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Well, all police are criminals against natural law, but within the context you're suggesting, I certainly hope you're right, but I'm not so sure. I think things would have to get pretty bad for them to stand up. If their masters said "go round up all the children and bring them to work camps" I believe many would take a stand, but tyranny doesn't usually work like that. It's more of a step-wise, tip-toe effect.

But if they said "Go get their guns, not ALL of them, just those really dangerous ones that they don't need for hunting and stuff" I think these guys will come and take them. My view can be skewed because I'm from NYC, I don't know. I have this notion that cops in more gun-friendly areas would be more likely to stand up, but it's just a guess.

Disagree that police are criminals against natural law. Except maybe in NYC.
Agree with your comment about tyranny.
About - Oath Keepers

I love what the oath keepers are trying to do, but the Constitution itself condones violation of natural law (ironically, considering who wrote it) because it asserts an inequality of rights. “Congress shall have power...” that other individuals don’t have.

The Constitution is the law of the land. "Natural law" is a fantasy construct.

So you completely dismiss everything the Founding Fathers believed - unalienable rights and so forth - but have total respect for the document expressly born of those beliefs?

Please support your assertion of natural law being a fantasy construct with some rational argumentation, if you would. To make that determination, you must have a great understanding of the principles of natural law and reasons for thinking it’s all bunk, so please explain how you came to this conclusion.

You think you know everything the Founding Fathers believed or that they all believed the same things? I believe they put their beliefs into the Constitution and the Constitution does not contain unalienable rights. A person can be deprived of any and all rights under certain circumstances such as conviction of a crime insanity age etc. Nor were all men created equal in our new Country. Some were still born slaves and women were little better than property and only property owners had a vote in some places.

Why would you think I could or should know the properties of somebody else's fantasy? At one time people believed that it was natural law that the world was flat and the sun circled the earth. In case you're wondering they were wrong. Given the examples you've given as being natural law (which is all I know about how you define the term) I have to think your thinking is very nearly as skewed.

My point is that, in general, the people who wrote the Constitution believed in unalienable natural law rights, as stated in the Declaration. So the Constitution was purported as a means of protecting those rights. It does not do this (for many of the reasons you mentioned) and it can never do this (because external authority is inherently a violation of rights), and so the document is invalid on that account, but if you believe it’s valid, you must either accept the basis of its claim to validity - natural law rights, including the necessity for consent of the governed - or believe that anything written down on parchment, no matter how arbitrary, is valid “just because”.

In other words, why do you believe the Constitution is valid?

And if you believe my view of natural law is skewed, please explain what you believe natural law is.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

In these things about guns I always wonder what is the attraction of guns? Why would people be willing to threaten a civil war to keep their guns? Is the attraction of guns in themselves, is it what they do, is it the feeling a person gets when he carries a gun. Just what?

It's the fact that the right to bear arms is the right that ultimately protects every other.

It's the fact that to deny people the right to defend themselves is no different then denying them the right to secure food, shelter, or any other fundamental means of survival.

It's the fact that parchments, oaths, and protest marches can't stop government overreaching to the point of outright tyranny. Only the ability to fight back can do that.

Don't ever get to thinking this ain't still a jungle. Law is not a protection. DEFENSE is the only true protection.

You could always offer dipshit a ride to the middle of the woods, where there's bears and Coyotes, and big cats, put him out, and tell him "Fuck You, you don't like guns, remember?"

He could get killed by a deer.

It's triple dangerous in FL woods. Not only are there the 3 critters I mentioned, there's around 6 more.

Gators, Diamondbacks, Crocodiles, poisonous spiders, Moccasins, Pygmy Rattlers.

And here some dumbass is talking about banning guns.

That dumbass needs dropped off where the critters are.

Did I mention wild boar? There's Razorbacks, too. Git you some!

...or possibly some oxbow on the Trinity River full of gators.

So is that the reason for people's need for guns? In case they go to the FL woods?

I already answered this question, as quoted in this reply, but you ignored it. Gators are part of the defense argument.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Disagree that police are criminals against natural law. Except maybe in NYC.
Agree with your comment about tyranny.
About - Oath Keepers

I love what the oath keepers are trying to do, but the Constitution itself condones violation of natural law (ironically, considering who wrote it) because it asserts an inequality of rights. “Congress shall have power...” that other individuals don’t have.

The Constitution is the law of the land. "Natural law" is a fantasy construct.

So you completely dismiss everything the Founding Fathers believed - unalienable rights and so forth - but have total respect for the document expressly born of those beliefs?

Please support your assertion of natural law being a fantasy construct with some rational argumentation, if you would. To make that determination, you must have a great understanding of the principles of natural law and reasons for thinking it’s all bunk, so please explain how you came to this conclusion.

You think you know everything the Founding Fathers believed or that they all believed the same things? I believe they put their beliefs into the Constitution and the Constitution does not contain unalienable rights. A person can be deprived of any and all rights under certain circumstances such as conviction of a crime insanity age etc. Nor were all men created equal in our new Country. Some were still born slaves and women were little better than property and only property owners had a vote in some places.

Why would you think I could or should know the properties of somebody else's fantasy? At one time people believed that it was natural law that the world was flat and the sun circled the earth. In case you're wondering they were wrong. Given the examples you've given as being natural law (which is all I know about how you define the term) I have to think your thinking is very nearly as skewed.

My point is that, in general, the people who wrote the Constitution believed in unalienable natural law rights, as stated in the Declaration. So the Constitution was purported as a means of protecting those rights. It does not do this (for many of the reasons you mentioned) and it can never do this (because external authority is inherently a violation of rights), and so the document is invalid on that account, but if you believe it’s valid, you must either accept the basis of its claim to validity - natural law rights, including the necessity for consent of the governed - or believe that anything written down on parchment, no matter how arbitrary, is valid “just because”.

In other words, why do you believe the Constitution is valid?

And if you believe my view of natural law is skewed, please explain what you believe natural law is.

Again. I believe that the FF wrote what they considered to be "unalienable rights" into the Constitution but that they did not subscribe to the same definition as you.
Nature is not especially fond of people and certainly does not confer rights on them. People fought and gave us our rights and people are required to maintain or lose them. I think you do our ancestors a grave discredit to consider anything other than them as the origin of our rights.
I don't believe that there is anything invalid about our Constitution. it is misinterpreted often and is by no means perfect but overall it functions quite well as intended.
External authority is not a violation of rights. Authority is an necessary and integral part of human culture. Parents are an authority to their children.
People consent to be governed by living under that government authority. Otherwise you can always move to a place that has a different government, change your current government, or overthrow it and found one you like better. Of course there is a certain amount of risk that may be involved with any option.

 

[whitehall]

Actually law abiding Americans would turn their guns in peacefully if the crazy left managed to repeal the 2nd Amendment. Some might be successful in hiding unregistered weapons but he new gestapo would eventually track down every registered firearm. The left would finally have it's wish where only illegal aliens and criminals would be able to possess a firearm and anarchy would prevail while the rest of the Constitution fell apart.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

I love what the oath keepers are trying to do, but the Constitution itself condones violation of natural law (ironically, considering who wrote it) because it asserts an inequality of rights. “Congress shall have power...” that other individuals don’t have.

The Constitution is the law of the land. "Natural law" is a fantasy construct.

So you completely dismiss everything the Founding Fathers believed - unalienable rights and so forth - but have total respect for the document expressly born of those beliefs?

Please support your assertion of natural law being a fantasy construct with some rational argumentation, if you would. To make that determination, you must have a great understanding of the principles of natural law and reasons for thinking it’s all bunk, so please explain how you came to this conclusion.

You think you know everything the Founding Fathers believed or that they all believed the same things? I believe they put their beliefs into the Constitution and the Constitution does not contain unalienable rights. A person can be deprived of any and all rights under certain circumstances such as conviction of a crime insanity age etc. Nor were all men created equal in our new Country. Some were still born slaves and women were little better than property and only property owners had a vote in some places.

Why would you think I could or should know the properties of somebody else's fantasy? At one time people believed that it was natural law that the world was flat and the sun circled the earth. In case you're wondering they were wrong. Given the examples you've given as being natural law (which is all I know about how you define the term) I have to think your thinking is very nearly as skewed.

My point is that, in general, the people who wrote the Constitution believed in unalienable natural law rights, as stated in the Declaration. So the Constitution was purported as a means of protecting those rights. It does not do this (for many of the reasons you mentioned) and it can never do this (because external authority is inherently a violation of rights), and so the document is invalid on that account, but if you believe it’s valid, you must either accept the basis of its claim to validity - natural law rights, including the necessity for consent of the governed - or believe that anything written down on parchment, no matter how arbitrary, is valid “just because”.

In other words, why do you believe the Constitution is valid?

And if you believe my view of natural law is skewed, please explain what you believe natural law is.

Again. I believe that the FF wrote what they considered to be "unalienable rights" into the Constitution but that they did not subscribe to the same definition as you.
Nature is not especially fond of people and certainly does not confer rights on them. People fought and gave us our rights and people are required to maintain or lose them. I think you do our ancestors a grave discredit to consider anything other than them as the origin of our rights.
I don't believe that there is anything invalid about our Constitution. it is misinterpreted often and is by no means perfect but overall it functions quite well as intended.
External authority is not a violation of rights. Authority is an necessary and integral part of human culture. Parents are an authority to their children.
People consent to be governed by living under that government authority. Otherwise you can always move to a place that has a different government, change your current government, or overthrow it and found one you like better. Of course there is a certain amount of risk that may be involved with any option.

Are you saying it’s literally might makes right? Rights are made up by whoever has the muscle to establish themselves in a seat of power and defend against attackers?

 

[9thIDdoc]

The Constitution is the law of the land. "Natural law" is a fantasy construct.

So you completely dismiss everything the Founding Fathers believed - unalienable rights and so forth - but have total respect for the document expressly born of those beliefs?

Please support your assertion of natural law being a fantasy construct with some rational argumentation, if you would. To make that determination, you must have a great understanding of the principles of natural law and reasons for thinking it’s all bunk, so please explain how you came to this conclusion.

You think you know everything the Founding Fathers believed or that they all believed the same things? I believe they put their beliefs into the Constitution and the Constitution does not contain unalienable rights. A person can be deprived of any and all rights under certain circumstances such as conviction of a crime insanity age etc. Nor were all men created equal in our new Country. Some were still born slaves and women were little better than property and only property owners had a vote in some places.

Why would you think I could or should know the properties of somebody else's fantasy? At one time people believed that it was natural law that the world was flat and the sun circled the earth. In case you're wondering they were wrong. Given the examples you've given as being natural law (which is all I know about how you define the term) I have to think your thinking is very nearly as skewed.

My point is that, in general, the people who wrote the Constitution believed in unalienable natural law rights, as stated in the Declaration. So the Constitution was purported as a means of protecting those rights. It does not do this (for many of the reasons you mentioned) and it can never do this (because external authority is inherently a violation of rights), and so the document is invalid on that account, but if you believe it’s valid, you must either accept the basis of its claim to validity - natural law rights, including the necessity for consent of the governed - or believe that anything written down on parchment, no matter how arbitrary, is valid “just because”.



In other words, why do you believe the Constitution is valid?

And if you believe my view of natural law is skewed, please explain what you believe natural law is.

Again. I believe that the FF wrote what they considered to be "unalienable rights" into the Constitution but that they did not subscribe to the same definition as you.
Nature is not especially fond of people and certainly does not confer rights on them. People fought and gave us our rights and people are required to maintain or lose them. I think you do our ancestors a grave discredit to consider anything other than them as the origin of our rights.
I don't believe that there is anything invalid about our Constitution. it is misinterpreted often and is by no means perfect but overall it functions quite well as intended.
External authority is not a violation of rights. Authority is an necessary and integral part of human culture. Parents are an authority to their children.
People consent to be governed by living under that government authority. Otherwise you can always move to a place that has a different government, change your current government, or overthrow it and found one you like better. Of course there is a certain amount of risk that may be involved with any option.

Are you saying it’s literally might makes right? Rights are made up by whoever has the muscle to establish themselves in a seat of power and defend against attackers?

Didn't say or mean that. Maybe you should read a little more closely.