HYPOCRISY, Thy Name Is 'DEMOCRAT': Democrats Leave Capitol To March For Gun Control With Students

[JGalt]

Not really. Having served with both, I have no problem with either the military or law-enforcement. That's not the purpose of most militias, as many members of them have had either prior or current experience with them.

Gun nuts make all kinds of claims for the purpose of their so called militias. That was the last one I heard. Most seem to bounce back and forth between preparing for a civil war, and being prepared to take over when the military has been defeated by some foreign power. Both ridiculous flights of fancy.

Really? Why wouldn't we prepare for a civil war? It was after all a Bernie Sanders supporter who fired the first shot on that baseball field. You probably aren't aware of it, but there are even factions of Antifa who have armed themselves.

Even if it didn't come to that, all it would take is one cataclysmic event to throw this country into complete chaos. I don't know about you, but the thought of roving gangs of desperate hungry people streaming out of the cities, who are willing to kill others for their food and supplies, doesn't sound like much fun to me.

And don't say that it couldn't happen. We are a large country with a lot of resources, but more fragile that than you know. What if the Russians or Chinese hacked into out electrical grid and shut it down? What if we had an EMP attack? Being unprepared, people living in high-population areas would start dropping like flies within a couple weeks.

Even more reason to arm yourself.

Right. You should stock your compound and keep a good supply if tinfoil handy. Sounds like you will need it.

I'm just throwing those scenarios out there. If you don't care what happens to you and your family, why do you have a spare tire on your car? Why car insurance? Why life and home insurance? Why a savings account? Do you have only one pair of underwear or one pair of shoes?

Even if it didn't come to that, we all have the responsibility for our own personal safely and the safety of our loved ones. To be unprepared is thoughtless and imprudent.

I live 12 miles out of a small town. So what do I do when I hear one of my dog's low growl and a car with three or four suspicious people pulls up to the house and tries to come through the door? Call the police and wait 15 minutes? Go outside, sit down with them around a campfire making Smores and singing a round of "Kumbaya"?

Is that your preferred method?

Knowing there is a possibility of a flat tire is not the same as expecting and gearing up to fight another holocaust.

Well then let me put it this way: I do because I can. I'm a big boy now and I can afford big-boy toys.

And it's not up to you what I spend my money on.

 

[toobfreak]

You mistakenly believe most gun owners fall in the same category as the NRA and their gun nut drones. We do not.

I'm an NRA Life Member, my best friend a Benefactor, and neither of us are "gun nut drones." We're two of the nicest people you'd ever want to meet. It isn't crazy to take your right to bear arms seriously. Problem is too many Americans have lived too long in peacetime and have only known life in a benign oligarchy. The Jews can tell you how bad things can get overnight when a government suddenly decides you are a "threat to the state" and takes all your guns away, and with that, all possibility to resist tyranny.

View attachment 183094 View attachment 183095

So you really expect the US to experience the same thing the Jews did at the hand of the Nazis? That's nuts.

I never said I expected that! Don't act crazy by putting words in other people's mouths. But I bet neither did the Jews before Hitler took power. All I'm saying is that chance favors the prepared. Better to be prepared and never need it than to NEED IT and not be prepared.

Never bet your life that what hasn't happened CAN'T happen or that just because you haven't see it means it doesn't exist.

View attachment 183096

Of course you never said that. You just posted pictures of the atrocities the Jews faced, and said you needed to be prepared for that. You even persist in saying it CAN happen in your most recent post. What a weasel post.

What a weasel mentality YOU have. I'm so sick and tired of you ******* Leftards always trying to tell me how to run my life. I can never decide if you are just ACTING opaque or you really ARE this dense?! I posted pictures of an example of what CAN and HAS happened by a populace that was neither prepared nor armed. Indeed, I think they WERE armed to a degree and those arms were TAKEN from them by force! I never said I needed to be prepared for that kind of atrocity, I merely showed a worse case example of what can and HAS happened to people who took their preparation too lightly. And stuff like that still goes on today. And of course it CAN happen! It HAS happened!!! Jesus H Christ are you a twit. Do you EVER act like you don't have snot for brains? What exactly is your point, that because its not likely to happen to us here today*, we should give up rights that once gone we can never get back thus INVITING abuse? DAMN, what an ass.

* And I say that even as the Left pounces ever more demandingly that I give up all my guns. That MY disarming here will somehow solve all of their problems 2000 miles away.

 

[toobfreak]

Not really. Having served with both, I have no problem with either the military or law-enforcement. That's not the purpose of most militias, as many members of them have had either prior or current experience with them.

Gun nuts make all kinds of claims for the purpose of their so called militias. That was the last one I heard. Most seem to bounce back and forth between preparing for a civil war, and being prepared to take over when the military has been defeated by some foreign power. Both ridiculous flights of fancy.

Really? Why wouldn't we prepare for a civil war? It was after all a Bernie Sanders supporter who fired the first shot on that baseball field. You probably aren't aware of it, but there are even factions of Antifa who have armed themselves.

Even if it didn't come to that, all it would take is one cataclysmic event to throw this country into complete chaos. I don't know about you, but the thought of roving gangs of desperate hungry people streaming out of the cities, who are willing to kill others for their food and supplies, doesn't sound like much fun to me.

And don't say that it couldn't happen. We are a large country with a lot of resources, but more fragile that than you know. What if the Russians or Chinese hacked into out electrical grid and shut it down? What if we had an EMP attack? Being unprepared, people living in high-population areas would start dropping like flies within a couple weeks.

Even more reason to arm yourself.

Right. You should stock your compound and keep a good supply if tinfoil handy. Sounds like you will need it.

I'm just throwing those scenarios out there. If you don't care what happens to you and your family, why do you have a spare tire on your car? Why car insurance? Why life and home insurance? Why a savings account? Do you have only one pair of underwear or one pair of shoes?

Even if it didn't come to that, we all have the responsibility for our own personal safely and the safety of our loved ones. To be unprepared is thoughtless and imprudent.

I live 12 miles out of a small town. So what do I do when I hear one of my dog's low growl and a car with three or four suspicious people pulls up to the house and tries to come through the door? Call the police and wait 15 minutes? Go outside, sit down with them around a campfire making Smores and singing a round of "Kumbaya"?

Is that your preferred method?

Knowing there is a possibility of a flat tire is not the same as expecting and gearing up to fight another holocaust.

I get the problem here. You reason like that of a person of about 75 to 80 IQ. You do not realize that your every argument is both circular AND non sequitur (does not follow): you can justify preparing for a simple flat tire which at worst might be a small inconvenience but you scoff at the idea of being able to save your own life against lethal danger. You still have it your head that to be an NRA member is to be a paranoid nut with enough guns to fend off a battalion. You just cannot comprehend that some people LIKE guns, collect them and enjoy using and having them around. Because it doesn't appeal to YOU, it should not appeal to anyone else.

 

[BULLDOG]

Gun nuts make all kinds of claims for the purpose of their so called militias. That was the last one I heard. Most seem to bounce back and forth between preparing for a civil war, and being prepared to take over when the military has been defeated by some foreign power. Both ridiculous flights of fancy.

Really? Why wouldn't we prepare for a civil war? It was after all a Bernie Sanders supporter who fired the first shot on that baseball field. You probably aren't aware of it, but there are even factions of Antifa who have armed themselves.

Even if it didn't come to that, all it would take is one cataclysmic event to throw this country into complete chaos. I don't know about you, but the thought of roving gangs of desperate hungry people streaming out of the cities, who are willing to kill others for their food and supplies, doesn't sound like much fun to me.

And don't say that it couldn't happen. We are a large country with a lot of resources, but more fragile that than you know. What if the Russians or Chinese hacked into out electrical grid and shut it down? What if we had an EMP attack? Being unprepared, people living in high-population areas would start dropping like flies within a couple weeks.

Even more reason to arm yourself.

Right. You should stock your compound and keep a good supply if tinfoil handy. Sounds like you will need it.

I'm just throwing those scenarios out there. If you don't care what happens to you and your family, why do you have a spare tire on your car? Why car insurance? Why life and home insurance? Why a savings account? Do you have only one pair of underwear or one pair of shoes?

Even if it didn't come to that, we all have the responsibility for our own personal safely and the safety of our loved ones. To be unprepared is thoughtless and imprudent.

I live 12 miles out of a small town. So what do I do when I hear one of my dog's low growl and a car with three or four suspicious people pulls up to the house and tries to come through the door? Call the police and wait 15 minutes? Go outside, sit down with them around a campfire making Smores and singing a round of "Kumbaya"?

Is that your preferred method?

Knowing there is a possibility of a flat tire is not the same as expecting and gearing up to fight another holocaust.

Well then let me put it this way: I do because I can. I'm a big boy now and I can afford big-boy toys.

And it's not up to you what I spend my money on.

Finally an honest answer. Why didn't you say that from the beginning instead of trying to come up with a bullshit answer?

 

[BULLDOG]

You mistakenly believe most gun owners fall in the same category as the NRA and their gun nut drones. We do not.

I'm an NRA Life Member, my best friend a Benefactor, and neither of us are "gun nut drones." We're two of the nicest people you'd ever want to meet. It isn't crazy to take your right to bear arms seriously. Problem is too many Americans have lived too long in peacetime and have only known life in a benign oligarchy. The Jews can tell you how bad things can get overnight when a government suddenly decides you are a "threat to the state" and takes all your guns away, and with that, all possibility to resist tyranny.

View attachment 183094 View attachment 183095

So you really expect the US to experience the same thing the Jews did at the hand of the Nazis? That's nuts.

I never said I expected that! Don't act crazy by putting words in other people's mouths. But I bet neither did the Jews before Hitler took power. All I'm saying is that chance favors the prepared. Better to be prepared and never need it than to NEED IT and not be prepared.

Never bet your life that what hasn't happened CAN'T happen or that just because you haven't see it means it doesn't exist.

View attachment 183096

Of course you never said that. You just posted pictures of the atrocities the Jews faced, and said you needed to be prepared for that. You even persist in saying it CAN happen in your most recent post. What a weasel post.

What a weasel mentality YOU have. I'm so sick and tired of you ******* Leftards always trying to tell me how to run my life. I can never decide if you are just ACTING opaque or you really ARE this dense?! I posted pictures of an example of what CAN and HAS happened by a populace that was neither prepared nor armed. Indeed, I think they WERE armed to a degree and those arms were TAKEN from them by force! I never said I needed to be prepared for that kind of atrocity, I merely showed a worse case example of what can and HAS happened to people who took their preparation too lightly. And stuff like that still goes on today. And of course it CAN happen! It HAS happened!!! Jesus H Christ are you a twit. Do you EVER act like you don't have snot for brains? What exactly is your point, that because its not likely to happen to us here today*, we should give up rights that once gone we can never get back thus INVITING abuse? DAMN, what an ass.

* And I say that even as the Left pounces ever more demandingly that I give up all my guns. That MY disarming here will somehow solve all of their problems 2000 miles away.

Got it. You never said that could happen, but this is what could happen. Weasel.

 

[BULLDOG]

Gun nuts make all kinds of claims for the purpose of their so called militias. That was the last one I heard. Most seem to bounce back and forth between preparing for a civil war, and being prepared to take over when the military has been defeated by some foreign power. Both ridiculous flights of fancy.

Really? Why wouldn't we prepare for a civil war? It was after all a Bernie Sanders supporter who fired the first shot on that baseball field. You probably aren't aware of it, but there are even factions of Antifa who have armed themselves.

Even if it didn't come to that, all it would take is one cataclysmic event to throw this country into complete chaos. I don't know about you, but the thought of roving gangs of desperate hungry people streaming out of the cities, who are willing to kill others for their food and supplies, doesn't sound like much fun to me.

And don't say that it couldn't happen. We are a large country with a lot of resources, but more fragile that than you know. What if the Russians or Chinese hacked into out electrical grid and shut it down? What if we had an EMP attack? Being unprepared, people living in high-population areas would start dropping like flies within a couple weeks.

Even more reason to arm yourself.

Right. You should stock your compound and keep a good supply if tinfoil handy. Sounds like you will need it.

I'm just throwing those scenarios out there. If you don't care what happens to you and your family, why do you have a spare tire on your car? Why car insurance? Why life and home insurance? Why a savings account? Do you have only one pair of underwear or one pair of shoes?

Even if it didn't come to that, we all have the responsibility for our own personal safely and the safety of our loved ones. To be unprepared is thoughtless and imprudent.

I live 12 miles out of a small town. So what do I do when I hear one of my dog's low growl and a car with three or four suspicious people pulls up to the house and tries to come through the door? Call the police and wait 15 minutes? Go outside, sit down with them around a campfire making Smores and singing a round of "Kumbaya"?

Is that your preferred method?

Knowing there is a possibility of a flat tire is not the same as expecting and gearing up to fight another holocaust.

I get the problem here. You reason like that of a person of about 75 to 80 IQ. You do not realize that your every argument is both circular AND non sequitur (does not follow): you can justify preparing for a simple flat tire which at worst might be a small inconvenience but you scoff at the idea of being able to save your own life against lethal danger. You still have it your head that to be an NRA member is to be a paranoid nut with enough guns to fend off a battalion. You just cannot comprehend that some people LIKE guns, collect them and enjoy using and having them around. Because it doesn't appeal to YOU, it should not appeal to anyone else.

I love guns. I've remember sitting on a log trying to be still and quiet while my daddy shot squirrels. I spend a few weekends clearing lanes and getting the camp house ready on my lease every year. I never said gun owners were any of those things. The gun nuts are those who have been convinced by the NRA that someone is coming for their guns, or that the apocalypse will start next Thursday at sunrise, or perhaps both.

 

[Kosh]

Another far left political stunt for the mid terms as the far left religion is finally being forced out of government.

They better enjoy what little time they have left.

 

[Humorme]

Yes, we DO know the capabilities of the future. So, are we to be defeatist about it or plan for the future?

Stephen Hawkings final prediction was:

"Famed physicist Stephen Hawking died Tuesday at the age of 76, his family confirmed. Renowned for his scientific work in a number of areas, Hawking left behind a legacy that encompassed a variety of subjects, expounding on everything from the secrets of the universe to artificial intelligence.

Hawking often shared his predictions about the future, discussing the fate of humanity and the human race.

Here are some of Hawking’s most interesting theories.

Artificial Intelligence
Hawking warned about the potential for robots to outperform humans, effectively making the human race obsolete.“I fear AI may replace humans altogether,” he told Wired in November. “If people design computer viruses, someone will design AI that improves and replicates itself. This will be a new form of life that outperforms humans.” "

Stephen Hawking's Most Notable Predictions

Of course the founders had some inkling about the possibilities about the future based on the past. I want you to remember that in the 1200s Genghis was busy taking over half the world. So, they understood both history and political philosophies.

It does not stand to reason that they would handicap us and make us unable to stand against tyrannical governments. And what you're arguing is way out of touch with reality.

Adolph Hitler, sitting around a table having beer with his buddies, began an effort with a little country about the size of Texas and damn near took over the world.

Going back earlier, Jesus had but twelve apostles and he changed the world.

The point is, modern militaries have weaponry that is awesome by any standard. But the difference in capabilities is not any greater than the differences between what we have today compared to what they have.

If they nuke you, you're dead anyway. If any military, including our own, plans a full on occupation, they cannot destroy neighborhoods without killing their own. So, it boils down to tanks against civilians - and the have to come out some time plus the fact that our armed citizenry far outnumbers ANY military on earth... just as the founders intended.

Then you're back down to the Right of the People. It cannot be infringed.

In the 60s did you know cassette tapes would soon be obsolete, or that the internet would soon connect everybody in the world with everybody else? Did you know that old rotary dial telephone would be replaced with a package the size of a cigarette pack that didn't need a wired connection, and would have more computing power than the manned rocket that first went to the moon?

On some of it I did. Admittedly, I had an advantage though. My uncle was working on the earliest stages of computers with IBM before they actually became IBM. I can barely remember that as I was maybe 5 or so at the time.

Rotary phones? I read a science fiction book when I was maybe 8 and one guy had a phone he put in his lunchbox.

Paul Otlet, born in 1868 envisioned the computer era in the 1930s:

"Decades before even the first microchip, Otlet was calling for screens at everyone's desk and the creation of a "réseau mondial," a worldwide network. Or, yes, a web.

"Everything in the universe, and everything of man, would be registered at a distance as it was produced," Otlet wrote in 1934, imaging a sort of steampunk/Gilliam's Brazil proto-internet, made of index cards, and microfiche. "In this way a moving image of the world will be established, a true mirror of his memory. From a distance, everyone will be able to read text, enlarged and limited to the desired subject, projected on an individual screen. In this way, everyone from his armchair will be able to contemplate creation, in whole or in certain parts."

The Man Who Envisioned the Internet Before Computers, Without Computers

And what about Charles Babbage?

Either way, it is too late to turn back the clock on technology

When you start picking away at what made America great and incrementally removing it (i.e. unalienable Rights) you begin attacking ALL the fundamental Rights our forefathers fought, bled, and died securing.

Lastly, you have no told me why we cannot resolve this issue in the same manner that we approach the issue of DUIs with.

Only some of it? So you admit you didn't know how things would change.

You are attempting to be anal retentive now. I've answered your questions and you have nothing left except to play Perry Mason. Well counselor, it ain't working.

While I don't know everything that is going to happen in the future, when you put thirty nine men into a room and they can ponder the future, the possibilities are limitless as to what they thought.

So, let me make this easy for you:

Since the founders could not foresee all the possible contingencies of the future, they left you a get out of jail free card. If you want to succeed at what you're doing, you amend the Constitution. So, if you don't like the laws, that is your recourse.

I don't know what in the Hell the right and the NRA have allowed the liberals to go as far as they have in this piece meal destruction of our Constitution and avoided the treasonous acts of the left.

If the right does not oppose further gun control, they may as well capitulate and let you tear this government down and make it the communist shithole of the left's dream. If you attempted to enforce any such laws as the de facto forces are advocating, it would justify a time for the people to show the left what the meaning of the Second Amendment is all about.

Now, this conversation is mostly for entertainment, but I feel like the patriots who took up arms against the Brits. Some Rights are unalienable. I always bold that word because it means something - something you cannot wrap your head around. It means that some Rights are NOT given by government and government, under the de jure / lawful / legal Constitution is legally powerless to enforce any law that jeopardizes the Right.

Benjamin Franklin said:

"I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other."

The Dems need despots; I don't. And I have faith that there will be those who will not let you turn this country into a dictatorship.

My only point has been and is that the framers of the constitution were smart, and gave us an amazing document, but they had no idea how life would change in the future. They knew that themselves, and made allowances for us to change their document, or interpret it in ways different than they did to match the reality of the time.

And my point to you is that our forefathers, knowing that people would change as would attitudes, warned us against usurpation of powers. That means if all these people don't like the Second Amendment, they should band together and seek to amend the Constitution or repeal the Second Amendment.

The biggest problem with usurpation - i.e. the incremental process of destroying the Second Amendment via banning one weapon over another leaves the door open for government to attack ANY AND / OR ALL OF YOUR GUARANTEED LIBERTIES IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS. The Bill of Rights is not ten different laws; it is ONE bill.

We see the assaults all the time. The government created the Constitution Free Zone in order to destroy the Fourth Amendment; concocted a phony "separation of church and state" philosophy in order to undermine our public morals and attack the First Amendment - not to mention putting all kinds of limitations on Free Speech, etc. in order to dismantle the First. I don't need to go through the litany of what some are doing in order to dismantle the Constitution.

As for gun control, you nor anyone else has been able to explain why we cannot approach the issue the way we do DUI offenders and why we cannot employ preventative measures.

Philosophically, I do not think that those who hate guns can understand that we have a culture of Liberty. They cannot understand that our forefathers did not intend to leave us in a position of becoming the kinds of countries wherein we are slaves within our own borders. And, while the anti-gunners are preaching gun control, they seem to be oblivious to the fact that the countries they use as examples have scores of their citizens coming to the United States. Meanwhile, Americans are not leaving in droves to go to what they think are these Heaven on earth countries.

The difference between the United States and the rest of those countries is that we have guaranteed unalienable Rights that are above the reach of government (if we would reclaim all our Rights) and we have the tools to prevent this country from becoming the kind of place where people had rather leave than to have the false promise of safety and security predicated upon half baked statistics that don't tell even half the story.

We could reduce deaths by firearms without gun control, but we are never going to. The controversy and chaos is a good career for political propaganda prostitutes - and NOBODY gives a rip about your kids or anyone else. Otherwise, this time the left would negotiate on reducing the numbers without gun control AND the NRA would put the proposals on the table.

 

[toobfreak]

I'm an NRA Life Member, my best friend a Benefactor, and neither of us are "gun nut drones." We're two of the nicest people you'd ever want to meet. It isn't crazy to take your right to bear arms seriously. Problem is too many Americans have lived too long in peacetime and have only known life in a benign oligarchy. The Jews can tell you how bad things can get overnight when a government suddenly decides you are a "threat to the state" and takes all your guns away, and with that, all possibility to resist tyranny.

View attachment 183094 View attachment 183095

So you really expect the US to experience the same thing the Jews did at the hand of the Nazis? That's nuts.

I never said I expected that! Don't act crazy by putting words in other people's mouths. But I bet neither did the Jews before Hitler took power. All I'm saying is that chance favors the prepared. Better to be prepared and never need it than to NEED IT and not be prepared.

Never bet your life that what hasn't happened CAN'T happen or that just because you haven't see it means it doesn't exist.

View attachment 183096

Of course you never said that. You just posted pictures of the atrocities the Jews faced, and said you needed to be prepared for that. You even persist in saying it CAN happen in your most recent post. What a weasel post.

What a weasel mentality YOU have. I'm so sick and tired of you ******* Leftards always trying to tell me how to run my life. I can never decide if you are just ACTING opaque or you really ARE this dense?! I posted pictures of an example of what CAN and HAS happened by a populace that was neither prepared nor armed. Indeed, I think they WERE armed to a degree and those arms were TAKEN from them by force! I never said I needed to be prepared for that kind of atrocity, I merely showed a worse case example of what can and HAS happened to people who took their preparation too lightly. And stuff like that still goes on today. And of course it CAN happen! It HAS happened!!! Jesus H Christ are you a twit. Do you EVER act like you don't have snot for brains? What exactly is your point, that because its not likely to happen to us here today*, we should give up rights that once gone we can never get back thus INVITING abuse? DAMN, what an ass.

* And I say that even as the Left pounces ever more demandingly that I give up all my guns. That MY disarming here will somehow solve all of their problems 2000 miles away.

Got it. You never said that could happen, but this is what could happen. Weasel.

Not used to talking to idiots. Oh wait, yes I am. You.

 

[toobfreak]

The gun nuts are those who have been convinced by the NRA that someone is coming for their guns, or that the apocalypse will start next Thursday at sunrise, or perhaps both.

Funny, I've been a member of the NRA for decades and they've never tried to tell me of anything that wasn't actually happening, easily confirmed elsewhere. Maybe you just have a misplaced paranoia problem.

 

[BULLDOG]

In the 60s did you know cassette tapes would soon be obsolete, or that the internet would soon connect everybody in the world with everybody else? Did you know that old rotary dial telephone would be replaced with a package the size of a cigarette pack that didn't need a wired connection, and would have more computing power than the manned rocket that first went to the moon?

On some of it I did. Admittedly, I had an advantage though. My uncle was working on the earliest stages of computers with IBM before they actually became IBM. I can barely remember that as I was maybe 5 or so at the time.

Rotary phones? I read a science fiction book when I was maybe 8 and one guy had a phone he put in his lunchbox.

Paul Otlet, born in 1868 envisioned the computer era in the 1930s:

"Decades before even the first microchip, Otlet was calling for screens at everyone's desk and the creation of a "réseau mondial," a worldwide network. Or, yes, a web.

"Everything in the universe, and everything of man, would be registered at a distance as it was produced," Otlet wrote in 1934, imaging a sort of steampunk/Gilliam's Brazil proto-internet, made of index cards, and microfiche. "In this way a moving image of the world will be established, a true mirror of his memory. From a distance, everyone will be able to read text, enlarged and limited to the desired subject, projected on an individual screen. In this way, everyone from his armchair will be able to contemplate creation, in whole or in certain parts."

The Man Who Envisioned the Internet Before Computers, Without Computers

And what about Charles Babbage?

Either way, it is too late to turn back the clock on technology

When you start picking away at what made America great and incrementally removing it (i.e. unalienable Rights) you begin attacking ALL the fundamental Rights our forefathers fought, bled, and died securing.

Lastly, you have no told me why we cannot resolve this issue in the same manner that we approach the issue of DUIs with.

Only some of it? So you admit you didn't know how things would change.

You are attempting to be anal retentive now. I've answered your questions and you have nothing left except to play Perry Mason. Well counselor, it ain't working.

While I don't know everything that is going to happen in the future, when you put thirty nine men into a room and they can ponder the future, the possibilities are limitless as to what they thought.

So, let me make this easy for you:

Since the founders could not foresee all the possible contingencies of the future, they left you a get out of jail free card. If you want to succeed at what you're doing, you amend the Constitution. So, if you don't like the laws, that is your recourse.

I don't know what in the Hell the right and the NRA have allowed the liberals to go as far as they have in this piece meal destruction of our Constitution and avoided the treasonous acts of the left.

If the right does not oppose further gun control, they may as well capitulate and let you tear this government down and make it the communist shithole of the left's dream. If you attempted to enforce any such laws as the de facto forces are advocating, it would justify a time for the people to show the left what the meaning of the Second Amendment is all about.

Now, this conversation is mostly for entertainment, but I feel like the patriots who took up arms against the Brits. Some Rights are unalienable. I always bold that word because it means something - something you cannot wrap your head around. It means that some Rights are NOT given by government and government, under the de jure / lawful / legal Constitution is legally powerless to enforce any law that jeopardizes the Right.

Benjamin Franklin said:

"I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other."

The Dems need despots; I don't. And I have faith that there will be those who will not let you turn this country into a dictatorship.

My only point has been and is that the framers of the constitution were smart, and gave us an amazing document, but they had no idea how life would change in the future. They knew that themselves, and made allowances for us to change their document, or interpret it in ways different than they did to match the reality of the time.

And my point to you is that our forefathers, knowing that people would change as would attitudes, warned us against usurpation of powers. That means if all these people don't like the Second Amendment, they should band together and seek to amend the Constitution or repeal the Second Amendment.

The biggest problem with usurpation - i.e. the incremental process of destroying the Second Amendment via banning one weapon over another leaves the door open for government to attack ANY AND / OR ALL OF YOUR GUARANTEED LIBERTIES IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS. The Bill of Rights is not ten different laws; it is ONE bill.

We see the assaults all the time. The government created the Constitution Free Zone in order to destroy the Fourth Amendment; concocted a phony "separation of church and state" philosophy in order to undermine our public morals and attack the First Amendment - not to mention putting all kinds of limitations on Free Speech, etc. in order to dismantle the First. I don't need to go through the litany of what some are doing in order to dismantle the Constitution.

As for gun control, you nor anyone else has been able to explain why we cannot approach the issue the way we do DUI offenders and why we cannot employ preventative measures.

Philosophically, I do not think that those who hate guns can understand that we have a culture of Liberty. They cannot understand that our forefathers did not intend to leave us in a position of becoming the kinds of countries wherein we are slaves within our own borders. And, while the anti-gunners are preaching gun control, they seem to be oblivious to the fact that the countries they use as examples have scores of their citizens coming to the United States. Meanwhile, Americans are not leaving in droves to go to what they think are these Heaven on earth countries.

The difference between the United States and the rest of those countries is that we have guaranteed unalienable Rights that are above the reach of government (if we would reclaim all our Rights) and we have the tools to prevent this country from becoming the kind of place where people had rather leave than to have the false promise of safety and security predicated upon half baked statistics that don't tell even half the story.

We could reduce deaths by firearms without gun control, but we are never going to. The controversy and chaos is a good career for political propaganda prostitutes - and NOBODY gives a rip about your kids or anyone else. Otherwise, this time the left would negotiate on reducing the numbers without gun control AND the NRA would put the proposals on the table.

So much twisted logic, but I will hit on a few points.
1) Nobody is wanting to repeal the 2nd, no matter what the NRA is telling you.
2) We already have regulations concerning one type of firearm over another. Machine guns and hand grenades are not for sale at Walmart.
3) Constitution free zone?
4) Separation of church and state has long been recognized as a constitutionally accepted premise. Our government has no business endorsing a state religion over any other religion. Would you want a political change to be able to designate your religion as one of the unacceptable ones?
5) You can't yell Fire in a crowded theater. Get over it.
6) *****I FULLY SUPPORT PREVENTATIVE MEASURES***** when it comes to keeping guns way from crooks and crazies. The large majority of Americans, and that includes a large majority of gun owners, and even a large majority of NRA members see universal background checks as the first and most effective way to do that, yet the NRA blocks any action from being done on that.
7) The rest of your post is silly gun nut rhetoric.

 

[BULLDOG]

So you really expect the US to experience the same thing the Jews did at the hand of the Nazis? That's nuts.

I never said I expected that! Don't act crazy by putting words in other people's mouths. But I bet neither did the Jews before Hitler took power. All I'm saying is that chance favors the prepared. Better to be prepared and never need it than to NEED IT and not be prepared.

Never bet your life that what hasn't happened CAN'T happen or that just because you haven't see it means it doesn't exist.

View attachment 183096

Of course you never said that. You just posted pictures of the atrocities the Jews faced, and said you needed to be prepared for that. You even persist in saying it CAN happen in your most recent post. What a weasel post.

What a weasel mentality YOU have. I'm so sick and tired of you ******* Leftards always trying to tell me how to run my life. I can never decide if you are just ACTING opaque or you really ARE this dense?! I posted pictures of an example of what CAN and HAS happened by a populace that was neither prepared nor armed. Indeed, I think they WERE armed to a degree and those arms were TAKEN from them by force! I never said I needed to be prepared for that kind of atrocity, I merely showed a worse case example of what can and HAS happened to people who took their preparation too lightly. And stuff like that still goes on today. And of course it CAN happen! It HAS happened!!! Jesus H Christ are you a twit. Do you EVER act like you don't have snot for brains? What exactly is your point, that because its not likely to happen to us here today*, we should give up rights that once gone we can never get back thus INVITING abuse? DAMN, what an ass.

* And I say that even as the Left pounces ever more demandingly that I give up all my guns. That MY disarming here will somehow solve all of their problems 2000 miles away.

Got it. You never said that could happen, but this is what could happen. Weasel.

Not used to talking to idiots. Oh wait, yes I am. You.

If your circle of friends agree with you, you would have to be used to talking to idiots.

 

[Humorme]

On some of it I did. Admittedly, I had an advantage though. My uncle was working on the earliest stages of computers with IBM before they actually became IBM. I can barely remember that as I was maybe 5 or so at the time.

Rotary phones? I read a science fiction book when I was maybe 8 and one guy had a phone he put in his lunchbox.

Paul Otlet, born in 1868 envisioned the computer era in the 1930s:

"Decades before even the first microchip, Otlet was calling for screens at everyone's desk and the creation of a "réseau mondial," a worldwide network. Or, yes, a web.

"Everything in the universe, and everything of man, would be registered at a distance as it was produced," Otlet wrote in 1934, imaging a sort of steampunk/Gilliam's Brazil proto-internet, made of index cards, and microfiche. "In this way a moving image of the world will be established, a true mirror of his memory. From a distance, everyone will be able to read text, enlarged and limited to the desired subject, projected on an individual screen. In this way, everyone from his armchair will be able to contemplate creation, in whole or in certain parts."

The Man Who Envisioned the Internet Before Computers, Without Computers

And what about Charles Babbage?

Either way, it is too late to turn back the clock on technology

When you start picking away at what made America great and incrementally removing it (i.e. unalienable Rights) you begin attacking ALL the fundamental Rights our forefathers fought, bled, and died securing.

Lastly, you have no told me why we cannot resolve this issue in the same manner that we approach the issue of DUIs with.

Only some of it? So you admit you didn't know how things would change.

You are attempting to be anal retentive now. I've answered your questions and you have nothing left except to play Perry Mason. Well counselor, it ain't working.

While I don't know everything that is going to happen in the future, when you put thirty nine men into a room and they can ponder the future, the possibilities are limitless as to what they thought.

So, let me make this easy for you:

Since the founders could not foresee all the possible contingencies of the future, they left you a get out of jail free card. If you want to succeed at what you're doing, you amend the Constitution. So, if you don't like the laws, that is your recourse.

I don't know what in the Hell the right and the NRA have allowed the liberals to go as far as they have in this piece meal destruction of our Constitution and avoided the treasonous acts of the left.

If the right does not oppose further gun control, they may as well capitulate and let you tear this government down and make it the communist shithole of the left's dream. If you attempted to enforce any such laws as the de facto forces are advocating, it would justify a time for the people to show the left what the meaning of the Second Amendment is all about.

Now, this conversation is mostly for entertainment, but I feel like the patriots who took up arms against the Brits. Some Rights are unalienable. I always bold that word because it means something - something you cannot wrap your head around. It means that some Rights are NOT given by government and government, under the de jure / lawful / legal Constitution is legally powerless to enforce any law that jeopardizes the Right.

Benjamin Franklin said:

"I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other."

The Dems need despots; I don't. And I have faith that there will be those who will not let you turn this country into a dictatorship.

My only point has been and is that the framers of the constitution were smart, and gave us an amazing document, but they had no idea how life would change in the future. They knew that themselves, and made allowances for us to change their document, or interpret it in ways different than they did to match the reality of the time.

And my point to you is that our forefathers, knowing that people would change as would attitudes, warned us against usurpation of powers. That means if all these people don't like the Second Amendment, they should band together and seek to amend the Constitution or repeal the Second Amendment.

The biggest problem with usurpation - i.e. the incremental process of destroying the Second Amendment via banning one weapon over another leaves the door open for government to attack ANY AND / OR ALL OF YOUR GUARANTEED LIBERTIES IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS. The Bill of Rights is not ten different laws; it is ONE bill.

We see the assaults all the time. The government created the Constitution Free Zone in order to destroy the Fourth Amendment; concocted a phony "separation of church and state" philosophy in order to undermine our public morals and attack the First Amendment - not to mention putting all kinds of limitations on Free Speech, etc. in order to dismantle the First. I don't need to go through the litany of what some are doing in order to dismantle the Constitution.

As for gun control, you nor anyone else has been able to explain why we cannot approach the issue the way we do DUI offenders and why we cannot employ preventative measures.

Philosophically, I do not think that those who hate guns can understand that we have a culture of Liberty. They cannot understand that our forefathers did not intend to leave us in a position of becoming the kinds of countries wherein we are slaves within our own borders. And, while the anti-gunners are preaching gun control, they seem to be oblivious to the fact that the countries they use as examples have scores of their citizens coming to the United States. Meanwhile, Americans are not leaving in droves to go to what they think are these Heaven on earth countries.

The difference between the United States and the rest of those countries is that we have guaranteed unalienable Rights that are above the reach of government (if we would reclaim all our Rights) and we have the tools to prevent this country from becoming the kind of place where people had rather leave than to have the false promise of safety and security predicated upon half baked statistics that don't tell even half the story.

We could reduce deaths by firearms without gun control, but we are never going to. The controversy and chaos is a good career for political propaganda prostitutes - and NOBODY gives a rip about your kids or anyone else. Otherwise, this time the left would negotiate on reducing the numbers without gun control AND the NRA would put the proposals on the table.

So much twisted logic, but I will hit on a few points.
1) Nobody is wanting to repeal the 2nd, no matter what the NRA is telling you.
2) We already have regulations concerning one type of firearm over another. Machine guns and hand grenades are not for sale at Walmart.
3) Constitution free zone?
4) Separation of church and state has long been recognized as a constitutionally accepted premise. Our government has no business endorsing a state religion over any other religion. Would you want a political change to be able to designate your religion as one of the unacceptable ones?
5) You can't yell Fire in a crowded theater. Get over it.
6) *****I FULLY SUPPORT PREVENTATIVE MEASURES***** when it comes to keeping guns way from crooks and crazies. The large majority of Americans, and that includes a large majority of gun owners, and even a large majority of NRA members see universal background checks as the first and most effective way to do that, yet the NRA blocks any action from being done on that.
7) The rest of your post is silly gun nut rhetoric.

I guess since you insist on going south with this, I'm obliged to reply. You buy into too much liberal propaganda.

1) In my entire voting life (which started with Reagan), every time a Republican got into office, the gun Rights of the people has had to be compromised with more and more gun control to appease the left. Reagan outlawed the future manufacture of fully autos for civilians; Bush got rid of the AK 47 (plus many other weapons due to the same silly ass arguments being used against the AR 15.) We've outlawed automatic weaponry, foreign imports of semi-autos, certain shotguns AND we've banned the importation of antique firearms the U.S. owns and sells to civilians i.e. M1 Garands (eight shot heavy rifles NEVER used in crimes), the .45 acp, M1 carbines, etc.

The right compromised on worthless background checks, the wholly unconstitutional, immoral, illegal, and indefensible Lautenberg Amendment, and the PROVEN FAILURE known as the Assault Weapons Ban. Hitlery Clinton made it a point to make sure you knew she was proud to be able to piss off the NRA. BTW, not only am I NOT a member of that organization, but feel they are too liberal for me

2) You argue that nobody is wanting to repeal the Second Amendment and THEN you admit that "We already have regulations concerning one type of firearm over another"

THAT WAS MY WHOLE POINT!!!!!

The left put fear in the minds of the people and got rid of automatic weapons because they were supposedly worse than other weapons. Then the AK 47, Uzi, etc were the worst. Finally, after most classes of weaponry have been outlawed, you want the AR 15. Please don't pee down my neck and tell me it's raining

3) Constitution Free Zone - that area where the Constitution does not apply







4) The term "separation of church and state" is not in the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation OR the Constitution of the United States. Neither does it have shit to do with establishing a religion in the United States.

Rather, unpopular churches have had their non-profit status revoked when their tenets of faith clashed with "public policy." While I never understood how the government could control what you believe by granting you a permit to operate when there was, supposedly a "separation of church and state," I point out that your religious point of view is subject to attack while the liberals are promoting this absolute LIE that there is a separation of church and state. It's not part of this conversation, but I'd be glad to debate it separate and apart from this issue. It was only used as an example to show what is being done, by the left, to take away our Rights.

5) You can't yell fire in a crowded theater, but nobody is advocating cutting off your tongue in order to keep you from doing it either

6) Again, I'm NOT with the NRA, but over the years have offered plans that either side could have suggested, but did not. In Broward County, Florida the government there was lax and attorneys are suing on behalf of victims because the government did not do their job. The Public Defender's office admitted that the shooting was the result of a "multi-system failure." All the things I'm being laughed at over are now being looked at - through the cost of SEVENTEEN CHILDREN.

Preventative measures would have saved those lives and the left has done everything within their power to avoid the honest truth - Had the government in Florida put some simple measures in place, Cruz would not have carried out that dirty deed. That is not the fault of the AR 15. It's a failure of the government.

You keep pretending that my name is Wayne La Pierre. I can assure you, it is not. I'm not on either side of this because the right has the option of putting my preventative measures on the table. Yet, here's the real deal: The only time my ideas get any traction is AFTER people have been killed. You and I haven't even discussed that part of the equation and won't because we've all been dumbed down and will only consider those options the MSM gives us.

I hate to tell you this, but the average American ought to have been born with two ass-holes. If you cannot use your brain, that's the extent of what it serves. I'm not willing to try and debate bumper sticker slogans as solutions. You got the wrong guy. You AND the NRA are the same to me. The chaos, controversy and the political jockeying are simply too fun for you to step outside the box and look at gun violence for what it is and stop it rather than wage a war on hard earned Liberties.

 

[alang1216]

And the majority of accidental discharges are done by people who shouldn't have firearms in the first place. They rarely ever happen to someone who is part of the "gun culture" or is a member of the NRA because most of those individuals have pretty much memorized the four basic rules of firearms safety.

If you know those rules and live by them, you'll never ever have an accidental discharge.

If you handle guns long enough, you will probably get a BANG when you didn’t expect one.

Why would that happen if you faithfully observe the four basic rules of firearms safety?

Because we're human. The article I linked was written for police, people who handle guns regularly. If they have accidents, anyone will have an accident, it is only a matter of time.

And? So what are you suggesting? That I don't carry, even though I have a concealed carry permit?

Maybe law-enforcement personally would be safer if they didn't carry weapons too? Do you even know why they carry a sidearm?

You're probably thinking "They carry a weapon because they are the police, and it's their job to protect me." Right?

Wrong. They carry weapons to protect themselves, not you or I, or anyone else.

In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-to-4 decision that the police do not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm. Therefore it is up to each individual to take the responsibility of protecting themselves, their families, and their property.

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

The laws of my state say that I am a trusted individual: I have been thoroughly trained, thoroughly vetted with a criminal background check, and have every right according to the Second Amendment, my state's concealed carry law, and my state's "Castle Doctrine" or "Deadly Force Law", to carry a use a firearm should I need to protect my own life, the lives of my family, or the lives of someone in mortal danger.

Whether you believe "It's only a matter of time" or not is irrelevant to me, as I will continue to carry a legal concealed handgun just as I have for the last eight years. And unless I break a law and have to forfeit my right to carry, there's nothing you or anyone else can say or do that's going to change that. So save your breath.

I don't question your right to carry a firearm, I only wonder if you are safer with one or without one, statistically speaking.

How much training is required to get a concealed carry permit? When I see a cop with a gun I know he has been thoroughly trained and knows how and when to use the weapon. Was your training comparable?

 

[Humorme]

And the majority of accidental discharges are done by people who shouldn't have firearms in the first place. They rarely ever happen to someone who is part of the "gun culture" or is a member of the NRA because most of those individuals have pretty much memorized the four basic rules of firearms safety.

If you know those rules and live by them, you'll never ever have an accidental discharge.

If you handle guns long enough, you will probably get a BANG when you didn’t expect one.

Why would that happen if you faithfully observe the four basic rules of firearms safety?

Because we're human. The article I linked was written for police, people who handle guns regularly. If they have accidents, anyone will have an accident, it is only a matter of time.

And? So what are you suggesting? That I don't carry, even though I have a concealed carry permit?

Maybe law-enforcement personally would be safer if they didn't carry weapons too? Do you even know why they carry a sidearm?

You're probably thinking "They carry a weapon because they are the police, and it's their job to protect me." Right?

Wrong. They carry weapons to protect themselves, not you or I, or anyone else.

In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-to-4 decision that the police do not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm. Therefore it is up to each individual to take the responsibility of protecting themselves, their families, and their property.

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

The laws of my state say that I am a trusted individual: I have been thoroughly trained, thoroughly vetted with a criminal background check, and have every right according to the Second Amendment, my state's concealed carry law, and my state's "Castle Doctrine" or "Deadly Force Law", to carry a use a firearm should I need to protect my own life, the lives of my family, or the lives of someone in mortal danger.

Whether you believe "It's only a matter of time" or not is irrelevant to me, as I will continue to carry a legal concealed handgun just as I have for the last eight years. And unless I break a law and have to forfeit my right to carry, there's nothing you or anyone else can say or do that's going to change that. So save your breath.

I don't question your right to carry a firearm, I only wonder if you are safer with one or without one, statistically speaking.

How much training is required to get a concealed carry permit? When I see a cop with a gun I know he has been thoroughly trained and knows how and when to use the weapon. Was your training comparable?

We're definitely safer with a firearm.

 

[JGalt]

And the majority of accidental discharges are done by people who shouldn't have firearms in the first place. They rarely ever happen to someone who is part of the "gun culture" or is a member of the NRA because most of those individuals have pretty much memorized the four basic rules of firearms safety.

If you know those rules and live by them, you'll never ever have an accidental discharge.

If you handle guns long enough, you will probably get a BANG when you didn’t expect one.

Why would that happen if you faithfully observe the four basic rules of firearms safety?

Because we're human. The article I linked was written for police, people who handle guns regularly. If they have accidents, anyone will have an accident, it is only a matter of time.

And? So what are you suggesting? That I don't carry, even though I have a concealed carry permit?

Maybe law-enforcement personally would be safer if they didn't carry weapons too? Do you even know why they carry a sidearm?

You're probably thinking "They carry a weapon because they are the police, and it's their job to protect me." Right?

Wrong. They carry weapons to protect themselves, not you or I, or anyone else.

In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-to-4 decision that the police do not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm. Therefore it is up to each individual to take the responsibility of protecting themselves, their families, and their property.

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

The laws of my state say that I am a trusted individual: I have been thoroughly trained, thoroughly vetted with a criminal background check, and have every right according to the Second Amendment, my state's concealed carry law, and my state's "Castle Doctrine" or "Deadly Force Law", to carry a use a firearm should I need to protect my own life, the lives of my family, or the lives of someone in mortal danger.

Whether you believe "It's only a matter of time" or not is irrelevant to me, as I will continue to carry a legal concealed handgun just as I have for the last eight years. And unless I break a law and have to forfeit my right to carry, there's nothing you or anyone else can say or do that's going to change that. So save your breath.

I don't question your right to carry a firearm, I only wonder if you are safer with one or without one, statistically speaking.

How much training is required to get a concealed carry permit? When I see a cop with a gun I know he has been thoroughly trained and knows how and when to use the weapon. Was your training comparable?

I can't vouch for anyone else, but my experience with firearms is more extensive than a large portion of law-enforcement community. Most police officers in urban areas are not really "gun guys". They receive the majority of their firearms training while attending school, and only qualify with their weapons a few times a year.

To obtain a concealed carry permit in my state requires that you take a hunter safety course, and a concealed carry course. I didn't have to do either, as I am a military veteran and all it took was a copy of my DD-214 and the $50 fee.

My training with firearms goes back to my childhood days, as my father was a hunter, a shooter, and a reloader and I've had 56 years of experience with a pretty wide variety of firearms. I own a fairly nice collection and do most of my own repair, and am sometimes a vendor at the local gun show. I also do quite a lot of hand-loading, shooting thousands of rounds in different calibers per year, at either the range I have behind my house, or the public county range.

I'm also a member in our local gun club, and we have several target and competitive combat shooting competitions throughout the year.

 

[alang1216]

I can't vouch for anyone else, but my experience with firearms is more extensive than a large portion of law-enforcement community. Most police officers in urban areas are not really "gun guys". They receive the majority of their firearms training while attending school, and only qualify with their weapons a few times a year.

To obtain a concealed carry permit in my state requires that you take a hunter safety course, and a concealed carry course. I didn't have to do either, as I am a military veteran and all it took was a copy of my DD-214 and the $50 fee.

My training with firearms goes back to my childhood days, as my father was a hunter, a shooter, and a reloader and I've had 56 years of experience with a pretty wide variety of firearms. I own a fairly nice collection and do most of my own repair, and am sometimes a vendor at the local gun show. I also do quite a lot of hand-loading, shooting thousands of rounds in different calibers per year, at either the range I have behind my house, or the public county range.

I'm also a member in our local gun club, and we have several target and competitive combat shooting competitions throughout the year.

Sounds like you know how to use your weapon but that is only 1/2 of what is required. Do you know when to use the weapon?

 

[JGalt]

I can't vouch for anyone else, but my experience with firearms is more extensive than a large portion of law-enforcement community. Most police officers in urban areas are not really "gun guys". They receive the majority of their firearms training while attending school, and only qualify with their weapons a few times a year.

To obtain a concealed carry permit in my state requires that you take a hunter safety course, and a concealed carry course. I didn't have to do either, as I am a military veteran and all it took was a copy of my DD-214 and the $50 fee.

My training with firearms goes back to my childhood days, as my father was a hunter, a shooter, and a reloader and I've had 56 years of experience with a pretty wide variety of firearms. I own a fairly nice collection and do most of my own repair, and am sometimes a vendor at the local gun show. I also do quite a lot of hand-loading, shooting thousands of rounds in different calibers per year, at either the range I have behind my house, or the public county range.

I'm also a member in our local gun club, and we have several target and competitive combat shooting competitions throughout the year.

Sounds like you know how to use your weapon but that is only 1/2 of what is required. Do you know when to use the weapon?

Of course, silly.

 

[alang1216]

Do you know when to use the weapon?

Of course, silly.

That's a relief. How did you learn?

 

[Flopper]

Competent and knowledgeable firearms users shouldn't be held responsible for 2,000 idiots in this country.

Responsible? No. But laws have to be the same for everyone and a history of responsible use doesn't mean you'll never slip up.

I'm a good driver, why do I have to obey the same speed limits as everyone else?

Good Point.
We can have sensible restrictions on drivers because there is no constitutional amendment declaring that driving is a right. As long as the second amendment shapes our gun laws, they will not be very effective. If a state manages to pass strict gun control laws and neighboring states allow individuals to sell guns with no restrictions, guns will drift across state lines and weaken enforcement.

To have gun laws that actually work well, we must either change the 2nd amendment or the courts would have to adopt the living constitution theory in regard to the 2nd amendment.