If you are for gun control, then you're not against guns

[LibertyLemming]

If you are for gun control, then you're not against guns, because the guns will be needed to disarm people. You'll need to go around, pass laws, and shoot people who resist, kick in doors, and throw people in jail, and so on; rip up families, just to take away guns. So it's not that you're anti-gun, because [...] you'll need the police's guns to take away other people's guns, so you're very pro-gun, you just believe that only the government (which is of course so reliable, honest, moral, virtuous, and forward-thinking) should be allowed to have guns. So there's no such thing as gun control, there's only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small political elite and their minions. Gun control is a misnomer.

.

 

[LibertyLemming]

92 views and nobody can challenge this statement huh?

 

[S.J.]

"Control" is the key word.

 

[tjvh]

"Control" is the key word.

Exactly... Gun control isn't about controlling guns... It's about controlling people.

 

[S.J.]

Smart people know that the reason Democrats are always pushing gun control is because they seek to control by any means they can, and taking guns out of the hands of citizens is a necessary step in order for them to start using force to make us comply with everything else they demand.

 

[LibertyLemming]

Smart people know that the reason Democrats are always pushing gun control is because they seek to control by any means they can, and taking guns out of the hands of citizens is a necessary step in order for them to start using force to make us comply with everything else they demand.

Yeah Republicans love control just as much as Democrats. They are different sides of the same coin.

 

[Dewey13]

Smart people know that the reason Democrats are always pushing gun control is because they seek to control by any means they can, and taking guns out of the hands of citizens is a necessary step in order for them to start using force to make us comply with everything else they demand.

I agree completely. While yes, taking away certian guns (large round capacity) will only lead to the government wanting more control. After they take away the assualt rifle, another person will just find another way to mass murder which will then lead to the government wanting to take away that specific weapon and they will just want more and more. Even if they take away assualt weapons and other guns, people will just find a way to get their hands on them again. Not every person is going to hand over their weapon. The United States is consisted mostly of country and "small towns" as you go inward from the coasts. Country folk and small town folk both dislike and distrust the government which will eventually lead to them not giving up their weapons. Even if everyone does, citizens will find someway of obtaining those guns all over again just like in the Prohibition of 1920. My final word is that the government will have larger issues if they try to ban assualt rifles or any other type of gun.

 

[alexa_decatur]

Most people think that gun control implies that government seizes control of all guns. Some people in favor of gun control would just like to implement more restrictions on what guns you can own. For example, not a gun that allows you to shoot up a public place and murder 20-30 people in a matter of minutes. I think American's should be allowed to own guns for personal protection that would allow you to ward off home intruders, but not mow down a dozen people at a time.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

I love this interpretation. Copying and pasting for usage in our project if you give me the rights to do so (only need to simply say yes in a response post). If you want to join us via e-mail, here's the Introduction of what we're writing. We're going to make Common Sense and the Federalist Papers look like a warm up act.

The contents contained in the following document, are so far only known to the political elite and to the political factions that have been adversely affected and criminalized by that same elite; however, it is paramount during these turbulent times, that the general public be made aware of the abuses that have been inflicted upon them, and continue to be perpetrated against them, both subtly and overtly --- both accidentally and intentionally, for these abuses have become intolerable.

The abuses to be discussed are not isolated to any particular State or Locality within the United States, in fact, they are not even isolated within the United States itself. For the entire world is confronted by the same enemy, The Federal Reserve, and those who control and manipulate its actions. Unknown to most citizens of the United States, is the fact that the Federal Reserve is a Private Central Bank. It is neither beholden nor owned by the United States government. The very operation of the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional under Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution, and the very idea of fiat currency is inconsistent with the intent of the Founding Fathers, as evidenced by many documents and proceedings during their time.

This document will address in great detail all of our ailments, and the causes thereof, for no ailment can be cured when the cause is unknown. The reader shall also discover that the ailments are many, but the causes are few, and the are solutions simple. The powers that be have made a smokescreen, shielding the causes from the public eye and diverting attention away from those who are responsible --- the elite themselves. The elite have succeeded so well, that many citizens have abandoned hope, believing that the system is too complicated ---- beyond both diagnose and repair; while at the same time, the people believe that an inanimate system will knowingly fix itself, while under the influence of the same tyrants who rule from the shadows.

It is the wish of the author that the reader be encouraged to supplement their reading of this document through the use of the unlimited research capabilities granted to them by this modern age of information. The author has explicitly avoided those things which are personal, and with careful and proper judgment, has also avoided injecting any substantial or noticeable degree of bias. The reader is also advised to purge themselves of as much biases and prejudices as possible and to proceed with candor and impartiality, and to become open and receptive to the ideas and information that shall be presented.

As Thomas Paine once said, “The cause of America is in a great measure the cause of all mankind.” This again is true today, and in fact, it is even more true than it was during his era. The modern world is so interconnected, from the globalization of her markets, to the instantaneous communication from any of her parts to another, that we find that all of her regions are governed by the same forces --- and the same tyrannies; for the peoples of the Earth have had very little to say about those forces which came to govern, and as such, those forces have proceeded to rule unchecked.

Thomas Paine also wrote: “Ye that love mankind, that dare oppose not only tyranny but the tyrant, stand forth! Every spot of the old world is overrun with oppression; Freedom hath been hunted round the globe…” Unfortunately, the tyrants have succeeded in the efforts of global domination and oppression. The cause of America --- the cause of all mankind, has been defeated, hunted to extinction.

However, the hallowed principles of individual freedom and self-government may yet find asylum once more in America; the citizenry that composes the United States, is the only sizable armed citizenry that remains in the modern world. To quote the Declaration of Independence: “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

As the only substantially armed and civilized population remaining, we are the only people that can abolish the tyranny that plagues the entire globe. It is for this reason, that the powers that be wish to disarm the citizens of the United States, and wholly devour the Second Amendment by our own consent.

There is only one logical practice of the Second Amendment, and that is that it shall not be infringed. Any other practice is a paradox, for it contradicts the very purpose of the Second Amendment in its entirety; it is the ultimate form of popular recourse against tyranny, and thus no potential tyrants may restrict it. The Second Amendment is the Supreme Sovereign; to surrender the Second Amendment, is to surrender the sovereignty of self-government.

If the reader finds themselves in disagreement with the above paragraph, they are encouraged to skip directly to the section of this document titled “The Second Amendment, and the Tyrannical and Racist History of Gun Control.”

Without further adieu, the authors cordially invite the reader into the realm of reason and common sense.

 

[hortysir]

Most people think that gun control implies that government seizes control of all guns. Some people in favor of gun control would just like to implement more restrictions on what guns you can own. For example, not a gun that allows you to shoot up a public place and murder 20-30 people in a matter of minutes. I think American's should be allowed to own guns for personal protection that would allow you to ward off home intruders, but not mow down a dozen people at a time.

What if that "dozen people" arrive in black SUVs to try to take away my guns?

 

[jon_berzerk]

If you are for gun control, then you're not against guns, because the guns will be needed to disarm people. You'll need to go around, pass laws, and shoot people who resist, kick in doors, and throw people in jail, and so on; rip up families, just to take away guns. So it's not that you're anti-gun, because [...] you'll need the police's guns to take away other people's guns, so you're very pro-gun, you just believe that only the government (which is of course so reliable, honest, moral, virtuous, and forward-thinking) should be allowed to have guns. So there's no such thing as gun control, there's only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small political elite and their minions. Gun control is a misnomer.

.

those that favor more gun control

also favor more violence

it goes hand in hand

just take a look at anywhere more gun control is passed

a rise in violence follows

 

[S.J.]

I think American's should be allowed to own guns for personal protection that would allow you to ward off home intruders, but not mow down a dozen people at a time.

The second amendment wasn't included in the Constitution to enable us to ward off home intruders, it was included to enable us to take back our country from a tyrannical government (like the one developing now), which is probably why this administration is trying so hard to disarm us.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Colorado Sheriff Alleges Democrats Pressuring Pro-Gun Sheriffs By Threatening To Stop, Stall Pay Raises If They Don’t Support Gun Control

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mHzx3ZyXRWw#]CO Sheriff Speaks Out Against Democrats' Threats - 3/9/2013 - YouTube[/ame]!

 

[Bfgrn]

92 views and nobody can challenge this statement huh?

Because it is just more proof that the right wing mind is infested with paranoia, overwhelming fear and polarized thinking. No one is proposing taking away all guns or even most guns.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Most people think that gun control implies that government seizes control of all guns. Some people in favor of gun control would just like to implement more restrictions on what guns you can own. For example, not a gun that allows you to shoot up a public place and murder 20-30 people in a matter of minutes. I think American's should be allowed to own guns for personal protection that would allow you to ward off home intruders, but not mow down a dozen people at a time.

why would you want to limit the number life savers an honest gun owner can have

how can you judge what is the number of life savers one would need in a given circumstance

how about if we go after those who would commit those crimes

instead the firearm

listen to this guy

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwUekmQ7iss]Legal Immigrant's Testimony Against Gun Control - Hartford, Conn. - YouTube[/ame]

 

[legaleagle_45]

92 views and nobody can challenge this statement huh?

Because it is just more proof that the right wing mind is infested with paranoia, overwhelming fear and polarized thinking. No one is proposing taking away all guns or even most guns.

Prior to the decision in DC vs Heller, Washington DC banned the possesion of all functional firearms. The premier international gun control organization, IANSA, of which Brady is an affiliate member, advocates for the total elimination of all personal firearms with the exception of a single shot long arm with lethality limited to 100 meters. Persons who wish to own such a firearm must demonstrate a legitimate hunting or sporting purpose, must belong to a hunting or sports club and the firearm must be stored at said hunting or sports club when not in active use for hunting and sports. Self defense useage of firearms is not considered a legitimate useage and no firearms may be kept a t home.

It is not paranoid if they are really out to get you.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

92 views and nobody can challenge this statement huh?

Because it is just more proof that the right wing mind is infested with paranoia, overwhelming fear and polarized thinking. No one is proposing taking away all guns or even most guns.

Prior to the decision in DC vs Heller, Washington DC banned the possesion of all functional firearms. The premier international gun control organization, IANSA, of which Brady is an affiliate member, advocates for the total elimination of all personal firearms with the exception of a single shot long arm with lethality limited to 100 meters. Persons who wish to own such a firearm must demonstrate a legitimate hunting or sporting purpose, must belong to a hunting or sports club and the firearm must be stored at said hunting or sports club when not in active use for hunting and sports. Self defense useage of firearms is not considered a legitimate useage and no firearms may be kept a t home.

It is not paranoid if they are really out to get you.

Given the fact there is no pending legislation in any jurisdiction seeking to confiscate firearms indeed renders those fearful of confiscation delusional and paranoid.

 

[Bfgrn]

Because it is just more proof that the right wing mind is infested with paranoia, overwhelming fear and polarized thinking. No one is proposing taking away all guns or even most guns.

Prior to the decision in DC vs Heller, Washington DC banned the possesion of all functional firearms. The premier international gun control organization, IANSA, of which Brady is an affiliate member, advocates for the total elimination of all personal firearms with the exception of a single shot long arm with lethality limited to 100 meters. Persons who wish to own such a firearm must demonstrate a legitimate hunting or sporting purpose, must belong to a hunting or sports club and the firearm must be stored at said hunting or sports club when not in active use for hunting and sports. Self defense useage of firearms is not considered a legitimate useage and no firearms may be kept a t home.

It is not paranoid if they are really out to get you.

Given the fact there is no pending legislation in any jurisdiction seeking to confiscate firearms indeed renders those fearful of confiscation delusional and paranoid.

And DC vs Heller ended that argument.

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Gun control means using both hands.

 

[Lakhota]

Prior to the decision in DC vs Heller, Washington DC banned the possesion of all functional firearms. The premier international gun control organization, IANSA, of which Brady is an affiliate member, advocates for the total elimination of all personal firearms with the exception of a single shot long arm with lethality limited to 100 meters. Persons who wish to own such a firearm must demonstrate a legitimate hunting or sporting purpose, must belong to a hunting or sports club and the firearm must be stored at said hunting or sports club when not in active use for hunting and sports. Self defense useage of firearms is not considered a legitimate useage and no firearms may be kept a t home.

It is not paranoid if they are really out to get you.

Given the fact there is no pending legislation in any jurisdiction seeking to confiscate firearms indeed renders those fearful of confiscation delusional and paranoid.

And DC vs Heller ended that argument.

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Yeah, but the NRA can't make any money off the truth.