The Right To Bear Arms

[Rigby5]

“In a world without guns I am what’s known as prey. A world without guns is very frightening to a small female...God made man and woman and Colonel Colt made them equal.”—Ann Coulter

Exactly. The end of the monarchies of the Dark Ages did not come just out of enlightenment of the Renaissance, but from the invention of firearms, the equalizer or all sizes, ages, and genders.

 

[basquebromance]

IMPOSE A TAX ON GUNS!

 

[Rigby5]

IMPOSE A TAX ON GUNS!

There already are way too many taxes and fees on firearms, considering firearms are essential defensive means of staying alive and maintaining a republic.
Its like taxing firemen or lifeguards at the beach.

 

[frigidweirdo]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.​

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

2A obsolete?

Only if you are suicidal or clinically depressed.

A Quiz

Warsaw Ghetto

1- How many Jews are carrying AR15's?


2- How many Gestapo agents are carrying AR15's?


.

Here's a problem though.

People had guns in that picture. They were the Germans.

Now, imagine a situation where a MINORITY group was in a society where people had guns, the minorities would be taken out and those crimes would be ignored, and if the minority has a gun, they'll find a reason to make it illegal. Like making it hard to register the gun. Demand they do this, that or the other with gun.

The guns aren't going to save them.

The US had guns and blacks were in slavery too. They just said black people didn't have rights.

 

[Lakhota]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.​

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

2A obsolete?

Only if you are suicidal or clinically depressed.

A Quiz

Warsaw Ghetto

1- How many Jews are carrying AR15's?


2- How many Gestapo agents are carrying AR15's?


.

Here's a problem though.

People had guns in that picture. They were the Germans.

Now, imagine a situation where a MINORITY group was in a society where people had guns, the minorities would be taken out and those crimes would be ignored, and if the minority has a gun, they'll find a reason to make it illegal. Like making it hard to register the gun. Demand they do this, that or the other with gun.

The guns aren't going to save them.

The US had guns and blacks were in slavery too. They just said black people didn't have rights.

Amen!

 

[Rigby5]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.​

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

2A obsolete?

Only if you are suicidal or clinically depressed.

A Quiz

Warsaw Ghetto

1- How many Jews are carrying AR15's?


2- How many Gestapo agents are carrying AR15's?


.

Here's a problem though.

People had guns in that picture. They were the Germans.

Now, imagine a situation where a MINORITY group was in a society where people had guns, the minorities would be taken out and those crimes would be ignored, and if the minority has a gun, they'll find a reason to make it illegal. Like making it hard to register the gun. Demand they do this, that or the other with gun.

The guns aren't going to save them.

The US had guns and blacks were in slavery too. They just said black people didn't have rights.

Yes, it is important that we never allow the bad guys to get a monopoly on guns in the US.
And since the police and military are working for pay, they likely will go with whomever pays them, not what is right.
So you can't count the police or military any more than those kids in the Warsaw ghetto could count on the police or military.

 

[frigidweirdo]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.​

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

2A obsolete?

Only if you are suicidal or clinically depressed.

A Quiz

Warsaw Ghetto

1- How many Jews are carrying AR15's?


2- How many Gestapo agents are carrying AR15's?


.

Here's a problem though.

People had guns in that picture. They were the Germans.

Now, imagine a situation where a MINORITY group was in a society where people had guns, the minorities would be taken out and those crimes would be ignored, and if the minority has a gun, they'll find a reason to make it illegal. Like making it hard to register the gun. Demand they do this, that or the other with gun.

The guns aren't going to save them.

The US had guns and blacks were in slavery too. They just said black people didn't have rights.

Yes, it is important that we never allow the bad guys to get a monopoly on guns in the US.
And since the police and military are working for pay, they likely will go with whomever pays them, not what is right.
So you can't count the police or military any more than those kids in the Warsaw ghetto could count on the police or military.

No, you can't.

But you also can't defeat the Police and Armed Forces with a few guns. It's not 1776 any more.

The Vietcong didn't win Vietnam with weapons they were keeping in their cupboards. They had the USSR giving them weapons.

The world has changed and there needs to be a little bit of reality when discussing the subject.

 

[Cecilie1200]

a lot of these mass shooters want suicide by cop, which accounts for 11 percent of all officer-involved shooting and 13 percent of all officer-involved justifiable homicides.

suicide by cop is an actual form of suicide.

"people who sought suicide by cop have to be in some kind of depression" - Dr Arshak Hudson

But people wanting to commit any sort of suicide means society is all screwed up.
Suicide is not at all normal.

I disagree. I think it is a sad, but quite normal, aspect of human nature. There have been people who wanted to die ever since we learned that we could.

I have to agree with Rigby5 here, Cecilie1200. Self-preservation is the core basis of all life. Have you ever seen a koala commit suicide? How about a giraffe? It just doesn’t happen. Quite the contrary, all forms of life will got to great lengths to ensure their own survival.

You do realize that humans are not koalas or giraffes, right? One of the major reasons we consider ourselves to be higher life forms is because we are not ruled merely by our instincts. We are able to hold moral standards, to put our reason in charge of our instincts and suppress them for things we consider more important. This is why we have people who put themselves in danger on a regular basis to save and protect others: law enforcement (in places other than Broward County), firefighters, soldiers . . . This is the reason that we see people like Stephen Williford, who heard shots at the church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, and ran TOWARD the danger to save lives. Or the brave teachers who turn up in every single one of these schools shootings, sacrificing their lives to try to protect the students in their charge.

We used to live in a society which valued and admired heroes like him, and encouraged people to aspire to be like them. Now we live in a society which ignores them in favor of telling people that it's ridiculous to think that anyone could, or should, be willing to lay their own safety on the line for others. Is it any wonder that now we're treated to the horrific visual of the people we rely on to stand between us and the evil, the dangerous, and the criminal standing around while children are slaughtered?

And for the record, even lower animals will risk themselves to protect their young. Do you really want to view humans as being less than that?

 

[Rigby5]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.​

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

2A obsolete?

Only if you are suicidal or clinically depressed.

A Quiz

Warsaw Ghetto

1- How many Jews are carrying AR15's?


2- How many Gestapo agents are carrying AR15's?


.

Here's a problem though.

People had guns in that picture. They were the Germans.

Now, imagine a situation where a MINORITY group was in a society where people had guns, the minorities would be taken out and those crimes would be ignored, and if the minority has a gun, they'll find a reason to make it illegal. Like making it hard to register the gun. Demand they do this, that or the other with gun.

The guns aren't going to save them.

The US had guns and blacks were in slavery too. They just said black people didn't have rights.

Yes, it is important that we never allow the bad guys to get a monopoly on guns in the US.
And since the police and military are working for pay, they likely will go with whomever pays them, not what is right.
So you can't count the police or military any more than those kids in the Warsaw ghetto could count on the police or military.

No, you can't.

But you also can't defeat the Police and Armed Forces with a few guns. It's not 1776 any more.

The Vietcong didn't win Vietnam with weapons they were keeping in their cupboards. They had the USSR giving them weapons.

The world has changed and there needs to be a little bit of reality when discussing the subject.

Of course you can defeat a corrupt police or military, as long as you have weapons similar to theirs.
We have 1000 to 1 odds over them.
We can use stealth and guerrilla tactics.
An armed and determined population always wins.
The US military has always lost against a determined population, such as Vietnam or Afghanistan.
And you are also forgetting that more than half the police and military also are against gun control and insane corruption like trying to ban ARs, the most popular or all firearms, and the ones used the least in crimes.

 

[Rigby5]

a lot of these mass shooters want suicide by cop, which accounts for 11 percent of all officer-involved shooting and 13 percent of all officer-involved justifiable homicides.

suicide by cop is an actual form of suicide.

"people who sought suicide by cop have to be in some kind of depression" - Dr Arshak Hudson

But people wanting to commit any sort of suicide means society is all screwed up.
Suicide is not at all normal.

I disagree. I think it is a sad, but quite normal, aspect of human nature. There have been people who wanted to die ever since we learned that we could.

I have to agree with Rigby5 here, Cecilie1200. Self-preservation is the core basis of all life. Have you ever seen a koala commit suicide? How about a giraffe? It just doesn’t happen. Quite the contrary, all forms of life will got to great lengths to ensure their own survival.

You do realize that humans are not koalas or giraffes, right? One of the major reasons we consider ourselves to be higher life forms is because we are not ruled merely by our instincts. We are able to hold moral standards, to put our reason in charge of our instincts and suppress them for things we consider more important. This is why we have people who put themselves in danger on a regular basis to save and protect others: law enforcement (in places other than Broward County), firefighters, soldiers . . . This is the reason that we see people like Stephen Williford, who heard shots at the church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, and ran TOWARD the danger to save lives. Or the brave teachers who turn up in every single one of these schools shootings, sacrificing their lives to try to protect the students in their charge.

We used to live in a society which valued and admired heroes like him, and encouraged people to aspire to be like them. Now we live in a society which ignores them in favor of telling people that it's ridiculous to think that anyone could, or should, be willing to lay their own safety on the line for others. Is it any wonder that now we're treated to the horrific visual of the people we rely on to stand between us and the evil, the dangerous, and the criminal standing around while children are slaughtered?

And for the record, even lower animals will risk themselves to protect their young. Do you really want to view humans as being less than that?

I can't tell if you are actually disagreeing or not since you start by saying you disagree, but close by agreeing?

Instincts are the only basis for morality really, and anything else is just corrupt conditioning forced on people by evil people trying to manipulate them.
We ARE ruled entirely by our instincts, which is why we have sex, eat too much, and everything else that we do that is not logical.
Putting yourself in danger to save others is entirely instinct.
The alpha male attacks the marauding leopard until the females can get the infants to safety.
That is not at all logical, reasoned, or based on ethical decisions.
Sacrificing your life for others is NOT at all suicide.

 

[frigidweirdo]

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

2A obsolete?

Only if you are suicidal or clinically depressed.

A Quiz

Warsaw Ghetto

1- How many Jews are carrying AR15's?


2- How many Gestapo agents are carrying AR15's?


.

Here's a problem though.

People had guns in that picture. They were the Germans.

Now, imagine a situation where a MINORITY group was in a society where people had guns, the minorities would be taken out and those crimes would be ignored, and if the minority has a gun, they'll find a reason to make it illegal. Like making it hard to register the gun. Demand they do this, that or the other with gun.

The guns aren't going to save them.

The US had guns and blacks were in slavery too. They just said black people didn't have rights.

Yes, it is important that we never allow the bad guys to get a monopoly on guns in the US.
And since the police and military are working for pay, they likely will go with whomever pays them, not what is right.
So you can't count the police or military any more than those kids in the Warsaw ghetto could count on the police or military.

No, you can't.

But you also can't defeat the Police and Armed Forces with a few guns. It's not 1776 any more.

The Vietcong didn't win Vietnam with weapons they were keeping in their cupboards. They had the USSR giving them weapons.

The world has changed and there needs to be a little bit of reality when discussing the subject.

Of course you can defeat a corrupt police or military, as long as you have weapons similar to theirs.
We have 1000 to 1 odds over them.
We can use stealth and guerrilla tactics.
An armed and determined population always wins.
The US military has always lost against a determined population, such as Vietnam or Afghanistan.
And you are also forgetting that more than half the police and military also are against gun control and insane corruption like trying to ban ARs, the most popular or all firearms, and the ones used the least in crimes.

And the ammo? What happens when the ammo runs dry? Because it will. A war of attrition and you won't last that long.

Also it'd be making lots of assumptions. Like that everyone is on board.

The govt just needs to make sure they get enough people on their side, which they would. If it's again MINORITIES, which is what we're talking here, that 1000-1 odds suddenly becomes 1-1000 or worse.

 

[Rigby5]

2A obsolete?

Only if you are suicidal or clinically depressed.

A Quiz

Warsaw Ghetto

1- How many Jews are carrying AR15's?


2- How many Gestapo agents are carrying AR15's?


.

Here's a problem though.

People had guns in that picture. They were the Germans.

Now, imagine a situation where a MINORITY group was in a society where people had guns, the minorities would be taken out and those crimes would be ignored, and if the minority has a gun, they'll find a reason to make it illegal. Like making it hard to register the gun. Demand they do this, that or the other with gun.

The guns aren't going to save them.

The US had guns and blacks were in slavery too. They just said black people didn't have rights.

Yes, it is important that we never allow the bad guys to get a monopoly on guns in the US.
And since the police and military are working for pay, they likely will go with whomever pays them, not what is right.
So you can't count the police or military any more than those kids in the Warsaw ghetto could count on the police or military.

No, you can't.

But you also can't defeat the Police and Armed Forces with a few guns. It's not 1776 any more.

The Vietcong didn't win Vietnam with weapons they were keeping in their cupboards. They had the USSR giving them weapons.

The world has changed and there needs to be a little bit of reality when discussing the subject.

Of course you can defeat a corrupt police or military, as long as you have weapons similar to theirs.
We have 1000 to 1 odds over them.
We can use stealth and guerrilla tactics.
An armed and determined population always wins.
The US military has always lost against a determined population, such as Vietnam or Afghanistan.
And you are also forgetting that more than half the police and military also are against gun control and insane corruption like trying to ban ARs, the most popular or all firearms, and the ones used the least in crimes.

And the ammo? What happens when the ammo runs dry? Because it will. A war of attrition and you won't last that long.

Also it'd be making lots of assumptions. Like that everyone is on board.

The govt just needs to make sure they get enough people on their side, which they would. If it's again MINORITIES, which is what we're talking here, that 1000-1 odds suddenly becomes 1-1000 or worse.

You don't need a lot of ammo for an insurrection. One bullet per assassination. And you resupply from the evil person you assassinate. It was how the French Resistance worked.
And if the government every got so corrupt as to try to confiscate 10 million ARs, then at least 100 million gun owners would be sure to retaliate.
That is not an assumption, but pretty likely fact.
And now, the reality is that the police and military would likely also have huge losses from mutiny, so the odds against the corrupt government would likely be more like 2000 to 1.
What you seem to fail to realize is that gun control to the point of trying to confiscate ARs, is not at all popular.

 

[Humorme]

Here's a problem though.

People had guns in that picture. They were the Germans.

Now, imagine a situation where a MINORITY group was in a society where people had guns, the minorities would be taken out and those crimes would be ignored, and if the minority has a gun, they'll find a reason to make it illegal. Like making it hard to register the gun. Demand they do this, that or the other with gun.

The guns aren't going to save them.

The US had guns and blacks were in slavery too. They just said black people didn't have rights.

Yes, it is important that we never allow the bad guys to get a monopoly on guns in the US.
And since the police and military are working for pay, they likely will go with whomever pays them, not what is right.
So you can't count the police or military any more than those kids in the Warsaw ghetto could count on the police or military.

No, you can't.

But you also can't defeat the Police and Armed Forces with a few guns. It's not 1776 any more.

The Vietcong didn't win Vietnam with weapons they were keeping in their cupboards. They had the USSR giving them weapons.

The world has changed and there needs to be a little bit of reality when discussing the subject.

Of course you can defeat a corrupt police or military, as long as you have weapons similar to theirs.
We have 1000 to 1 odds over them.
We can use stealth and guerrilla tactics.
An armed and determined population always wins.
The US military has always lost against a determined population, such as Vietnam or Afghanistan.
And you are also forgetting that more than half the police and military also are against gun control and insane corruption like trying to ban ARs, the most popular or all firearms, and the ones used the least in crimes.

And the ammo? What happens when the ammo runs dry? Because it will. A war of attrition and you won't last that long.

Also it'd be making lots of assumptions. Like that everyone is on board.

The govt just needs to make sure they get enough people on their side, which they would. If it's again MINORITIES, which is what we're talking here, that 1000-1 odds suddenly becomes 1-1000 or worse.

You don't need a lot of ammo for an insurrection. One bullet per assassination. And you resupply from the evil person you assassinate. It was how the French Resistance worked.
And if the government every got so corrupt as to try to confiscate 10 million ARs, then at least 100 million gun owners would be sure to retaliate.
That is not an assumption, but pretty likely fact.
And now, the reality is that the police and military would likely also have huge losses from mutiny, so the odds against the corrupt government would likely be more like 2000 to 1.
What you seem to fail to realize is that gun control to the point of trying to confiscate ARs, is not at all popular.

I wish your enthusiasm had some basis in fact. But I've witnessed too much.

Ten states have all but outlawed firearms. Where was the backlash? We really didn't do much when the government attacked those people in Waco at the Carmel church, did we? We didn't hold the government accountable when they murdered family members of the former Green Beret, Randy Weaver, at a place called Ruby Ridge.

The American people accepted having a national holiday for a married man that was pretending to be a preacher while doing ladies of another color in a hotel - and consorting with known communists of his era. The guys who had sworn to uphold their heritage by preserving the Confederate flag lost and disappeared.

Then those same guys accepted defeat when the liberals went after historical monuments, memorials and statues. Of course they were just as silent when the liberals assaulted their culture and got rid of nativity displays and the removal of the Ten Commandments (God forbid someone read them and apply them in their lives.)

The government doesn't take your weapons all at once. They attack your culture on one front and dismantle the Second Amendment incrementally while you do nothing on the other hand. They divide your forces, put extremists into positions of power and ignore the legitimate people that are vying for your support.

I'm just telling you how life really works.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Here's a problem though.

People had guns in that picture. They were the Germans.

Now, imagine a situation where a MINORITY group was in a society where people had guns, the minorities would be taken out and those crimes would be ignored, and if the minority has a gun, they'll find a reason to make it illegal. Like making it hard to register the gun. Demand they do this, that or the other with gun.

The guns aren't going to save them.

The US had guns and blacks were in slavery too. They just said black people didn't have rights.

Yes, it is important that we never allow the bad guys to get a monopoly on guns in the US.
And since the police and military are working for pay, they likely will go with whomever pays them, not what is right.
So you can't count the police or military any more than those kids in the Warsaw ghetto could count on the police or military.

No, you can't.

But you also can't defeat the Police and Armed Forces with a few guns. It's not 1776 any more.

The Vietcong didn't win Vietnam with weapons they were keeping in their cupboards. They had the USSR giving them weapons.

The world has changed and there needs to be a little bit of reality when discussing the subject.

Of course you can defeat a corrupt police or military, as long as you have weapons similar to theirs.
We have 1000 to 1 odds over them.
We can use stealth and guerrilla tactics.
An armed and determined population always wins.
The US military has always lost against a determined population, such as Vietnam or Afghanistan.
And you are also forgetting that more than half the police and military also are against gun control and insane corruption like trying to ban ARs, the most popular or all firearms, and the ones used the least in crimes.

And the ammo? What happens when the ammo runs dry? Because it will. A war of attrition and you won't last that long.

Also it'd be making lots of assumptions. Like that everyone is on board.

The govt just needs to make sure they get enough people on their side, which they would. If it's again MINORITIES, which is what we're talking here, that 1000-1 odds suddenly becomes 1-1000 or worse.

You don't need a lot of ammo for an insurrection. One bullet per assassination. And you resupply from the evil person you assassinate. It was how the French Resistance worked.
And if the government every got so corrupt as to try to confiscate 10 million ARs, then at least 100 million gun owners would be sure to retaliate.
That is not an assumption, but pretty likely fact.
And now, the reality is that the police and military would likely also have huge losses from mutiny, so the odds against the corrupt government would likely be more like 2000 to 1.
What you seem to fail to realize is that gun control to the point of trying to confiscate ARs, is not at all popular.

Sure there are ways around it.

However if the police had 50% mutiny, then you wouldn't have needed guns in private hands in the first place. Because you'd have loads of guns.

But the reality, again, is that if the US armed forces got involved, you'd be able to fight back, but would you have started fighting in the first place?

The US govt is basically run by the rich who totally control politics, and the people with the guns don't care. They've been told what to think.

So there's not going to come a time when they think "we need to do something" because they're been totally brainwashed anyway.

 

[P@triot]

And for the record, even lower animals will risk themselves to protect their young. Do you really want to view humans as being less than that?

Do I want to view humans as less than animals? No. But clearly progressives are. Have you ever seen animals have an abortion? Only humans (on the left) kill their own babies. And only humans kill themsleves.

 

[Humorme]

Yes, it is important that we never allow the bad guys to get a monopoly on guns in the US.
And since the police and military are working for pay, they likely will go with whomever pays them, not what is right.
So you can't count the police or military any more than those kids in the Warsaw ghetto could count on the police or military.

No, you can't.

But you also can't defeat the Police and Armed Forces with a few guns. It's not 1776 any more.

The Vietcong didn't win Vietnam with weapons they were keeping in their cupboards. They had the USSR giving them weapons.

The world has changed and there needs to be a little bit of reality when discussing the subject.

Of course you can defeat a corrupt police or military, as long as you have weapons similar to theirs.
We have 1000 to 1 odds over them.
We can use stealth and guerrilla tactics.
An armed and determined population always wins.
The US military has always lost against a determined population, such as Vietnam or Afghanistan.
And you are also forgetting that more than half the police and military also are against gun control and insane corruption like trying to ban ARs, the most popular or all firearms, and the ones used the least in crimes.

And the ammo? What happens when the ammo runs dry? Because it will. A war of attrition and you won't last that long.

Also it'd be making lots of assumptions. Like that everyone is on board.

The govt just needs to make sure they get enough people on their side, which they would. If it's again MINORITIES, which is what we're talking here, that 1000-1 odds suddenly becomes 1-1000 or worse.

You don't need a lot of ammo for an insurrection. One bullet per assassination. And you resupply from the evil person you assassinate. It was how the French Resistance worked.
And if the government every got so corrupt as to try to confiscate 10 million ARs, then at least 100 million gun owners would be sure to retaliate.
That is not an assumption, but pretty likely fact.
And now, the reality is that the police and military would likely also have huge losses from mutiny, so the odds against the corrupt government would likely be more like 2000 to 1.
What you seem to fail to realize is that gun control to the point of trying to confiscate ARs, is not at all popular.

Sure there are ways around it.

However if the police had 50% mutiny, then you wouldn't have needed guns in private hands in the first place. Because you'd have loads of guns.

But the reality, again, is that if the US armed forces got involved, you'd be able to fight back, but would you have started fighting in the first place?

The US govt is basically run by the rich who totally control politics, and the people with the guns don't care. They've been told what to think.

So there's not going to come a time when they think "we need to do something" because they're been totally brainwashed anyway.

Peace and plenty makes cowards out of men OR

""To sin by silence, when we should protest, Makes cowards out of men." - Ella Wheeler Wilcox

 

[P@triot]

I wish your enthusiasm had some basis in fact. But I've witnessed too much.

Ten states have all but outlawed firearms. Where was the backlash? We really didn't do much when the government attacked those people in Waco at the Carmel church, did we? We didn't hold the government accountable when they murdered family members of the former Green Beret, Randy Weaver, at a place called Ruby Ridge.

The American people accepted having a national holiday for a married man that was pretending to be a preacher while doing ladies of another color in a hotel - and consorting with known communists of his era. The guys who had sworn to uphold their heritage by preserving the Confederate flag lost and disappeared.

Then those same guys accepted defeat when the liberals went after historical monuments, memorials and statues. Of course they were just silent when the liberals assaulted their culture and got rid of nativity displays and the removal of the Ten Commandments (God forbid someone read them and apply them in their lives.)

The government doesn't take your weapons all at once. They attack your culture on one front and dismantle the Second Amendment incrementally while you do nothing on the other hand. They divide your forces, put extremists into positions of power and ignore the legitimate people that are vying for your support.

I'm just telling you how life really works.

Man did your post just depress the hell out of me (because it is mostly true).

 

[Rigby5]

Yes, it is important that we never allow the bad guys to get a monopoly on guns in the US.
And since the police and military are working for pay, they likely will go with whomever pays them, not what is right.
So you can't count the police or military any more than those kids in the Warsaw ghetto could count on the police or military.

No, you can't.

But you also can't defeat the Police and Armed Forces with a few guns. It's not 1776 any more.

The Vietcong didn't win Vietnam with weapons they were keeping in their cupboards. They had the USSR giving them weapons.

The world has changed and there needs to be a little bit of reality when discussing the subject.

Of course you can defeat a corrupt police or military, as long as you have weapons similar to theirs.
We have 1000 to 1 odds over them.
We can use stealth and guerrilla tactics.
An armed and determined population always wins.
The US military has always lost against a determined population, such as Vietnam or Afghanistan.
And you are also forgetting that more than half the police and military also are against gun control and insane corruption like trying to ban ARs, the most popular or all firearms, and the ones used the least in crimes.

And the ammo? What happens when the ammo runs dry? Because it will. A war of attrition and you won't last that long.

Also it'd be making lots of assumptions. Like that everyone is on board.

The govt just needs to make sure they get enough people on their side, which they would. If it's again MINORITIES, which is what we're talking here, that 1000-1 odds suddenly becomes 1-1000 or worse.

You don't need a lot of ammo for an insurrection. One bullet per assassination. And you resupply from the evil person you assassinate. It was how the French Resistance worked.
And if the government every got so corrupt as to try to confiscate 10 million ARs, then at least 100 million gun owners would be sure to retaliate.
That is not an assumption, but pretty likely fact.
And now, the reality is that the police and military would likely also have huge losses from mutiny, so the odds against the corrupt government would likely be more like 2000 to 1.
What you seem to fail to realize is that gun control to the point of trying to confiscate ARs, is not at all popular.

I wish your enthusiasm had some basis in fact. But I've witnessed too much.

Ten states have all but outlawed firearms. Where was the backlash? We really didn't do much when the government attacked those people in Waco at the Carmel church, did we? We didn't hold the government accountable when they murdered family members of the former Green Beret, Randy Weaver, at a place called Ruby Ridge.

The American people accepted having a national holiday for a married man that was pretending to be a preacher while doing ladies of another color in a hotel - and consorting with known communists of his era. The guys who had sworn to uphold their heritage by preserving the Confederate flag lost and disappeared.

Then those same guys accepted defeat when the liberals went after historical monuments, memorials and statues. Of course they were just as silent when the liberals assaulted their culture and got rid of nativity displays and the removal of the Ten Commandments (God forbid someone read them and apply them in their lives.)

The government doesn't take your weapons all at once. They attack your culture on one front and dismantle the Second Amendment incrementally while you do nothing on the other hand. They divide your forces, put extremists into positions of power and ignore the legitimate people that are vying for your support.

I'm just telling you how life really works.

I see your point, but attempting to confiscate ARs would a huge provocation. There are about 10 million of them. Are they going to arrest or shoot all the owners, because no one is going to turn them in? They are the single most popular of all firearms these days. And they do not have any characteristic that would justify them being banned. They do not have an exception rate of fire or deadly power.

 

[Rigby5]

Yes, it is important that we never allow the bad guys to get a monopoly on guns in the US.
And since the police and military are working for pay, they likely will go with whomever pays them, not what is right.
So you can't count the police or military any more than those kids in the Warsaw ghetto could count on the police or military.

No, you can't.

But you also can't defeat the Police and Armed Forces with a few guns. It's not 1776 any more.

The Vietcong didn't win Vietnam with weapons they were keeping in their cupboards. They had the USSR giving them weapons.

The world has changed and there needs to be a little bit of reality when discussing the subject.

Of course you can defeat a corrupt police or military, as long as you have weapons similar to theirs.
We have 1000 to 1 odds over them.
We can use stealth and guerrilla tactics.
An armed and determined population always wins.
The US military has always lost against a determined population, such as Vietnam or Afghanistan.
And you are also forgetting that more than half the police and military also are against gun control and insane corruption like trying to ban ARs, the most popular or all firearms, and the ones used the least in crimes.

And the ammo? What happens when the ammo runs dry? Because it will. A war of attrition and you won't last that long.

Also it'd be making lots of assumptions. Like that everyone is on board.

The govt just needs to make sure they get enough people on their side, which they would. If it's again MINORITIES, which is what we're talking here, that 1000-1 odds suddenly becomes 1-1000 or worse.

You don't need a lot of ammo for an insurrection. One bullet per assassination. And you resupply from the evil person you assassinate. It was how the French Resistance worked.
And if the government every got so corrupt as to try to confiscate 10 million ARs, then at least 100 million gun owners would be sure to retaliate.
That is not an assumption, but pretty likely fact.
And now, the reality is that the police and military would likely also have huge losses from mutiny, so the odds against the corrupt government would likely be more like 2000 to 1.
What you seem to fail to realize is that gun control to the point of trying to confiscate ARs, is not at all popular.

Sure there are ways around it.

However if the police had 50% mutiny, then you wouldn't have needed guns in private hands in the first place. Because you'd have loads of guns.

But the reality, again, is that if the US armed forces got involved, you'd be able to fight back, but would you have started fighting in the first place?

The US govt is basically run by the rich who totally control politics, and the people with the guns don't care. They've been told what to think.

So there's not going to come a time when they think "we need to do something" because they're been totally brainwashed anyway.

The military can be brainwashed into murdering Iraqis, and police can be brainwashed into murdering Blacks, but when the government starts to tell them to shoot AR owners who refuse to turn them in, the police and military will wake up.
They happen to also own ARs privately, so many of them will no longer comply with their orders.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, you can't.

But you also can't defeat the Police and Armed Forces with a few guns. It's not 1776 any more.

The Vietcong didn't win Vietnam with weapons they were keeping in their cupboards. They had the USSR giving them weapons.

The world has changed and there needs to be a little bit of reality when discussing the subject.

Of course you can defeat a corrupt police or military, as long as you have weapons similar to theirs.
We have 1000 to 1 odds over them.
We can use stealth and guerrilla tactics.
An armed and determined population always wins.
The US military has always lost against a determined population, such as Vietnam or Afghanistan.
And you are also forgetting that more than half the police and military also are against gun control and insane corruption like trying to ban ARs, the most popular or all firearms, and the ones used the least in crimes.

And the ammo? What happens when the ammo runs dry? Because it will. A war of attrition and you won't last that long.

Also it'd be making lots of assumptions. Like that everyone is on board.

The govt just needs to make sure they get enough people on their side, which they would. If it's again MINORITIES, which is what we're talking here, that 1000-1 odds suddenly becomes 1-1000 or worse.

You don't need a lot of ammo for an insurrection. One bullet per assassination. And you resupply from the evil person you assassinate. It was how the French Resistance worked.
And if the government every got so corrupt as to try to confiscate 10 million ARs, then at least 100 million gun owners would be sure to retaliate.
That is not an assumption, but pretty likely fact.
And now, the reality is that the police and military would likely also have huge losses from mutiny, so the odds against the corrupt government would likely be more like 2000 to 1.
What you seem to fail to realize is that gun control to the point of trying to confiscate ARs, is not at all popular.

Sure there are ways around it.

However if the police had 50% mutiny, then you wouldn't have needed guns in private hands in the first place. Because you'd have loads of guns.

But the reality, again, is that if the US armed forces got involved, you'd be able to fight back, but would you have started fighting in the first place?

The US govt is basically run by the rich who totally control politics, and the people with the guns don't care. They've been told what to think.

So there's not going to come a time when they think "we need to do something" because they're been totally brainwashed anyway.

Peace and plenty makes cowards out of men OR

""To sin by silence, when we should protest, Makes cowards out of men." - Ella Wheeler Wilcox

So.... do you have a point to make?

You're saying not having 4.0 per 100,000 murders a year makes other first world countries cowards?

Then go move to Caracas or Honduras if you're not a coward.