Poll: 2/3 of Americans Would Defy Federal Gun Ban

[Cowman]

Common use is the limiting Constitutionality test.

Surface to Air Missile = Not Common Use

AR-15 = Very much common use.

Muskets aren't in common use, so are you telling me you cannot own a musket?

I mean **** dude, muskets were in common use when the constitution was written, and you could own one then, but you can't own one now?

Muskets aren't firearms or regulated under Federal law.

Muskets aren't firearms? Muskets aren't arms?

Really?

Did they stir tea with them? Perhaps they were landscaping devices?

I bet they'd make a great pile driver.

 

[martybegan]

Muskets aren't in common use, so are you telling me you cannot own a musket?

I mean **** dude, muskets were in common use when the constitution was written, and you could own one then, but you can't own one now?

Muskets aren't firearms or regulated under Federal law.

Muskets aren't firearms? Muskets aren't arms?

Really?

Did they stir tea with them? Perhaps they were landscaping devices?

I bet they'd make a great pile driver.

Actually they are considered antiques, or collectables.

What they really are is obsolete. When the amendment was written, it did not specify muskets, it was understood "arms" was the common arm in use at the time, then a musket, or a rifled musket.

Since technology moves on, arms change, but the concept of the type of arm the founders were talking about did not, the individual long arm. Today the common manifestation of this is the semiautomatic rifle.

Please note that even the military is shying away from full auto weapons for infantryman, going with three round burst weapons. Full auto is now reserved for a dedicated heavy weapons person.

 

[martybegan]

Who gives a flying **** what you believe? It's a brilliant strategy to have an opinion you care about so much that you are so willing to make enemies by the way you behave. Spread your craziness around and don't keep it all bottled up on one issue. That way society can see you for the nut you are and disarm you.

Like most rational people, I don't want the populace of America disarmed, but it wouldn't bother me if the gun nuts of this site were disarmed. They act like they are too crazy to own a gun. When people act the way you act, they aren't getting sympathy from me.

By posting our views on a ******* internet message board, we are somehow disqualified from exercising our rights? YOU are the one trying to let the government infringe on MY rights. That makes you the asshole, not me.

So I guess you support ThoughtCrime now? eh? How Orwellian.

We don't want your sympathy, we want you to leave us the **** alone But progressives can't do that. And statists defintely can't do that.

This all stems from your inability to see a person being normal and having a different view than you. thus you have to make up crap about crazy, or evil or stupid. It is the sign of a limited intellect.

I thought I made it clear. By going on the internet and behaving like nuts, you have convinced people you are crazy and crazy people shouldn't have guns.

You live in a society that has laws. If you don't want this society to make laws that you have to obey, leave this society! We aren't going to leave you alone to do whatever you want to do.

I know people who have plenty of weapons and many more than you have. Your type is ******* things up for them and yourself. You aren't going to get your way by acting like a bunch of crazy people. You may impress each other with your childish behavior, but you aren't impressing the country.

Tell us about your cold dead hands, like we haven't heard that a thousand times!

and one of those laws is the first amendment, preventing the government from interfering with my right to free speech, and unless I threaten someone specifically or lie under oath, preventing the government from punishing me for that speech.

Again, you seem to love the concept of Thoughtcrime.

 

[Dubya]

By posting our views on a ******* internet message board, we are somehow disqualified from exercising our rights? YOU are the one trying to let the government infringe on MY rights. That makes you the asshole, not me.

So I guess you support ThoughtCrime now? eh? How Orwellian.

We don't want your sympathy, we want you to leave us the **** alone But progressives can't do that. And statists defintely can't do that.

This all stems from your inability to see a person being normal and having a different view than you. thus you have to make up crap about crazy, or evil or stupid. It is the sign of a limited intellect.

I thought I made it clear. By going on the internet and behaving like nuts, you have convinced people you are crazy and crazy people shouldn't have guns.

You live in a society that has laws. If you don't want this society to make laws that you have to obey, leave this society! We aren't going to leave you alone to do whatever you want to do.

I know people who have plenty of weapons and many more than you have. Your type is ******* things up for them and yourself. You aren't going to get your way by acting like a bunch of crazy people. You may impress each other with your childish behavior, but you aren't impressing the country.

Tell us about your cold dead hands, like we haven't heard that a thousand times!

and one of those laws is the first amendment, preventing the government from interfering with my right to free speech, and unless I threaten someone specifically or lie under oath, preventing the government from punishing me for that speech.

Again, you seem to love the concept of Thoughtcrime.

You're free to show everybody you are crazy by using your free speech and so are all the other gun nuts. It's good for crazy people to let us know, but we don't want to go in the padded room with you. We aren't going to take an amendment that says the governments can't disarm the populace and agree that it now means they can't limit magazine size.

 

[martybegan]

I thought I made it clear. By going on the internet and behaving like nuts, you have convinced people you are crazy and crazy people shouldn't have guns.

You live in a society that has laws. If you don't want this society to make laws that you have to obey, leave this society! We aren't going to leave you alone to do whatever you want to do.

I know people who have plenty of weapons and many more than you have. Your type is ******* things up for them and yourself. You aren't going to get your way by acting like a bunch of crazy people. You may impress each other with your childish behavior, but you aren't impressing the country.

Tell us about your cold dead hands, like we haven't heard that a thousand times!

and one of those laws is the first amendment, preventing the government from interfering with my right to free speech, and unless I threaten someone specifically or lie under oath, preventing the government from punishing me for that speech.

Again, you seem to love the concept of Thoughtcrime.

You're free to show everybody you are crazy by using your free speech and so are all the other gun nuts. It's good for crazy people to let us know, but we don't want to go in the padded room with you. We aren't going to take an amendment that says the governments can't disarm the populace and agree that it now means they can't limit magazine size.

Why dont we limit the number of pages in a book then? after all you can speak in multiple volumes if you want.....

For you to consider me crazy means you are either too dense to understand an opinion different than your own, or too much of a sheep to do likewise. I find it crazy that you think limiting lawful gun owners from owning a magazine over 7 shots will somehow end all gun violence, have dogs and cats living together in peace, and bring rainbow gumdrop yumminess to all the world.

 

[Dubya]

and one of those laws is the first amendment, preventing the government from interfering with my right to free speech, and unless I threaten someone specifically or lie under oath, preventing the government from punishing me for that speech.

Again, you seem to love the concept of Thoughtcrime.

You're free to show everybody you are crazy by using your free speech and so are all the other gun nuts. It's good for crazy people to let us know, but we don't want to go in the padded room with you. We aren't going to take an amendment that says the governments can't disarm the populace and agree that it now means they can't limit magazine size.

Why dont we limit the number of pages in a book then? after all you can speak in multiple volumes if you want.....

For you to consider me crazy means you are either too dense to understand an opinion different than your own, or too much of a sheep to do likewise. I find it crazy that you think limiting lawful gun owners from owning a magazine over 7 shots will somehow end all gun violence, have dogs and cats living together in peace, and bring rainbow gumdrop yumminess to all the world.

I find it crazy

That along with everything else!

I never said limiting magazine size would end all gun violence, Some crazy man said I did, who is trying to get cats and dogs to live in sin, while he's eating rainbows.

If you knew anything about me, I make up my own mind and base it on the facts, so what's with the sheep stuff from a man buying into what the NRA tells him? I've never seen anyone suggest the changes to gun laws that I've suggested. I get my news off the internet analyze and investigate to determine my opinion on an issue. It should be obvious that a type of arm is regulated for a society based on public safety issues. I remember seeing dynamite in the hardware store as a child and people would use it to blow stumps. Times change and you aren't going to go there and buy it now. It changed for public safety, because some nut would use it for hurting people.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Poll: 2/3 of Americans Would Defy Federal Gun Ban​

by Tony Lee
25 Jan 2013

In a Fox News survey, two-thirds of Americans said they would "defy" a federal gun ban and keep their guns if the government ever passed a law to "take your guns."

The survey asked respondents, "If the government passed a law to take your guns, would you give up your guns or defy the law and keep your guns?"

Sixty-five percent of those surveyed said they would "defy the law." Specifically, 70% of Republicans, 68% of conservatives, 52% of Democrats, and 59% of liberals said they would "defy" a federal gun ban to keep their guns.


[Excerpt]

Read more:
Poll: 2/3 of Americans Would Defy Federal Gun Ban

No one is taking your guns. But if they did, this just proves that the majority of Americans are willing to become criminals. Better remove the US from the list of tourist destinations...

This is where you are wrong. Obama can "dictate" all he wishes. If he were to somehow pull this off (and I don't think that will happen) Americans WOULD NOT be breaking any laws whatsoever by refusing to turn in weapons.

Until the Constitution is changed (God forbid) the only entity that would becomes"criminal" would be the Federal Government.

 

[martybegan]

You're free to show everybody you are crazy by using your free speech and so are all the other gun nuts. It's good for crazy people to let us know, but we don't want to go in the padded room with you. We aren't going to take an amendment that says the governments can't disarm the populace and agree that it now means they can't limit magazine size.

Why dont we limit the number of pages in a book then? after all you can speak in multiple volumes if you want.....

For you to consider me crazy means you are either too dense to understand an opinion different than your own, or too much of a sheep to do likewise. I find it crazy that you think limiting lawful gun owners from owning a magazine over 7 shots will somehow end all gun violence, have dogs and cats living together in peace, and bring rainbow gumdrop yumminess to all the world.

I find it crazy

That along with everything else!

I never said limiting magazine size would end all gun violence, Some crazy man said I did, who is trying to get cats and dogs to live in sin, while he's eating rainbows.

If you knew anything about me, I make up my own mind and base it on the facts, so what's with the sheep stuff from a man buying into what the NRA tells him? I've never seen anyone suggest the changes to gun laws that I've suggested. I get my news off the internet analyze and investigate to determine my opinion on an issue. It should be obvious that a type of arm is regulated for a society based on public safety issues. I remember seeing dynamite in the hardware store as a child and people would use it to blow stumps. Times change and you aren't going to go there and buy it now. It changed for public safety, because some nut would use it for hurting people.

And nuts still use it to hurt people, and people who can actually use it are inconvienced for something that happened less often then people driving in traffic accidents.

So nuts can still get access to the black powder, and someone who wants to use it to blast a stump has to fill out 10 forms of paperwork. And you get to FEEL safer without actually BEING safer. Form over function, and government regulation over self responsibility.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Muskets aren't in common use, so are you telling me you cannot own a musket?

I mean **** dude, muskets were in common use when the constitution was written, and you could own one then, but you can't own one now?

Muskets aren't firearms or regulated under Federal law.

Muskets aren't firearms? Muskets aren't arms?

Really?

Did they stir tea with them? Perhaps they were landscaping devices?

I bet they'd make a great pile driver.

Muskets are not firearms under federal law. That is why you can buy them without a 4473 form, no background check and you can get them in the mail direct to your house.

 

[Cowman]

Muskets aren't firearms or regulated under Federal law.

Muskets aren't firearms? Muskets aren't arms?

Really?

Did they stir tea with them? Perhaps they were landscaping devices?

I bet they'd make a great pile driver.

Muskets are not firearms under federal law. That is why you can buy them without a 4473 form, no background check and you can get them in the mail direct to your house.

Once again, proving my issue, with your trust and endorsement of federal law.

 

[Cowman]

Muskets aren't firearms or regulated under Federal law.

Muskets aren't firearms? Muskets aren't arms?

Really?

Did they stir tea with them? Perhaps they were landscaping devices?

I bet they'd make a great pile driver.

Actually they are considered antiques, or collectables.

What they really are is obsolete. When the amendment was written, it did not specify muskets, it was understood "arms" was the common arm in use at the time, then a musket, or a rifled musket.

Since technology moves on, arms change, but the concept of the type of arm the founders were talking about did not, the individual long arm. Today the common manifestation of this is the semiautomatic rifle.

Please note that even the military is shying away from full auto weapons for infantryman, going with three round burst weapons. Full auto is now reserved for a dedicated heavy weapons person.

Do you people not even see the corner you're painting yourself into? How is this even this easy?

 

[bayoubill]

Doesn't matter, because they're not taking your guns.

given the opportunity, if the political landscape were to change, they would...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blXkl9YVoHo]Dianne Feinstein Gun ban in 1995 - She wanted to Ban all guns, Force turn in - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Dubya]

Why dont we limit the number of pages in a book then? after all you can speak in multiple volumes if you want.....

For you to consider me crazy means you are either too dense to understand an opinion different than your own, or too much of a sheep to do likewise. I find it crazy that you think limiting lawful gun owners from owning a magazine over 7 shots will somehow end all gun violence, have dogs and cats living together in peace, and bring rainbow gumdrop yumminess to all the world.

I find it crazy

That along with everything else!

I never said limiting magazine size would end all gun violence, Some crazy man said I did, who is trying to get cats and dogs to live in sin, while he's eating rainbows.

If you knew anything about me, I make up my own mind and base it on the facts, so what's with the sheep stuff from a man buying into what the NRA tells him? I've never seen anyone suggest the changes to gun laws that I've suggested. I get my news off the internet analyze and investigate to determine my opinion on an issue. It should be obvious that a type of arm is regulated for a society based on public safety issues. I remember seeing dynamite in the hardware store as a child and people would use it to blow stumps. Times change and you aren't going to go there and buy it now. It changed for public safety, because some nut would use it for hurting people.

And nuts still use it to hurt people, and people who can actually use it are inconvienced for something that happened less often then people driving in traffic accidents.

So nuts can still get access to the black powder, and someone who wants to use it to blast a stump has to fill out 10 forms of paperwork. And you get to FEEL safer without actually BEING safer. Form over function, and government regulation over self responsibility.

You obviously can't do anything more than act stupid. Nut's aren't using dynamite to hurt people still like they would if they could just go to the hardware store and buy it. Black powder would be an expensive and stupid way to blow stumps.

You just like running your mouth, no brain attached, and demonstrate the nutty way you think. Try doing it around enough people who know you and see how long you keep your guns!

 

[bayoubill]

Poll: 2/3 of Americans Would Defy Federal Gun Ban​

by Tony Lee
25 Jan 2013

In a Fox News survey, two-thirds of Americans said they would "defy" a federal gun ban and keep their guns if the government ever passed a law to "take your guns."

The survey asked respondents, "If the government passed a law to take your guns, would you give up your guns or defy the law and keep your guns?"

Sixty-five percent of those surveyed said they would "defy the law." Specifically, 70% of Republicans, 68% of conservatives, 52% of Democrats, and 59% of liberals said they would "defy" a federal gun ban to keep their guns.


[Excerpt]

Read more:
Poll: 2/3 of Americans Would Defy Federal Gun Ban

I don't own a gun... never have... probably never will...

but I wouldn't mind telling the feds to dare to come get mine... even though I have none...

just to see 'em make fools of themselves trying to pin non-existent guns on me...

 

[RandallFlagg]

So let me get this straight....The idiot Feinstein's 2013 "Assault Weapons Ban" includes any American EXCEPT "government officials". An order was just placed by Homeland Security for "personal defense weapons" AKA Assault Weapons for employees of Homeland Security to use a "personal defense" weapons. 7000 of them.

So, the idiot Feinstein has armed security that protects her fat butt, and Homeland Security need "personal defense" weapons. But law-abiding citizens shouldn't have the ability to protect themselves in the same manner as these idiots.

Sort of reminds you of "Obamacare", doesn't it. The very governmental officials vote it in, are not required to participate in the ACA.....just us.

Ain't it great??

 

[Dubya]

Doesn't matter, because they're not taking your guns.

given the opportunity, if the political landscape were to change, they would...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blXkl9YVoHo]Dianne Feinstein Gun ban in 1995 - She wanted to Ban all guns, Force turn in - YouTube[/ame]

It would require two-thirds of both houses of Congress and 38 states ratifying an amendment to change the 2nd. If that many people wanted to do it, then their wishes are legal and not hurting anyone's rights. The original reason for having the 2nd has passed.

It wouldn't be practical to remove firearms from everyone. Regulated hunting, for example, is needed to keep the deer population and therefore the deer tick population in check, because there aren't natural predators. When natural predators are around, it's a good idea for the people to be armed. There still are people who rely on game to feed themselves. Many animals can get rabies.

In densely populated areas where resources like animal control are available, people probably could get by without firearms. If there were no firearms, people could protect their homes with a large dog and a sword against a home invasion. I don't think it's realistic to have guns in rural areas and not have them show up in densely populated areas at times. What's to prevent someone going to a rural area and stealing guns? That said, a home invasion is typically a burglary. The noise from a dog is enough to discourage the burglar and only a nutty burglar would be armed. The penalties for possessing a gun during a burglary are severe enough to discourage it.

I think society is better served with a system that prevents guns ending up in the wrong hands and allows the people to make their own choices on whether to own a firearm.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Poll: 2/3 of Americans Would Defy Federal Gun Ban​

by Tony Lee
25 Jan 2013

In a Fox News survey, two-thirds of Americans said they would "defy" a federal gun ban and keep their guns if the government ever passed a law to "take your guns."

The survey asked respondents, "If the government passed a law to take your guns, would you give up your guns or defy the law and keep your guns?"

Sixty-five percent of those surveyed said they would "defy the law." Specifically, 70% of Republicans, 68% of conservatives, 52% of Democrats, and 59% of liberals said they would "defy" a federal gun ban to keep their guns.


[Excerpt]

Read more:
Poll: 2/3 of Americans Would Defy Federal Gun Ban

2/3 of Americans own guns?

So you believe that people who don't own guns can't support the second amendment?

 

[martybegan]

Muskets aren't firearms? Muskets aren't arms?

Really?

Did they stir tea with them? Perhaps they were landscaping devices?

I bet they'd make a great pile driver.

Actually they are considered antiques, or collectables.

What they really are is obsolete. When the amendment was written, it did not specify muskets, it was understood "arms" was the common arm in use at the time, then a musket, or a rifled musket.

Since technology moves on, arms change, but the concept of the type of arm the founders were talking about did not, the individual long arm. Today the common manifestation of this is the semiautomatic rifle.

Please note that even the military is shying away from full auto weapons for infantryman, going with three round burst weapons. Full auto is now reserved for a dedicated heavy weapons person.

Do you people not even see the corner you're painting yourself into? How is this even this easy?

Please explain, because the corner you think I am in is really only in your mind.

Muskets are not controlled weapons, because they are obsolete. USING one in a crime, say shooting someone, is still a crime.

They have deregulated possession because of thier obsolescence.

 

[martybegan]

Doesn't matter, because they're not taking your guns.

given the opportunity, if the political landscape were to change, they would...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blXkl9YVoHo]Dianne Feinstein Gun ban in 1995 - She wanted to Ban all guns, Force turn in - YouTube[/ame]

It would require two-thirds of both houses of Congress and 38 states ratifying an amendment to change the 2nd. If that many people wanted to do it, then their wishes are legal and not hurting anyone's rights. The original reason for having the 2nd has passed.

It wouldn't be practical to remove firearms from everyone. Regulated hunting, for example, is needed to keep the deer population and therefore the deer tick population in check, because there aren't natural predators. When natural predators are around, it's a good idea for the people to be armed. There still are people who rely on game to feed themselves. Many animals can get rabies.

In densely populated areas where resources like animal control are available, people probably could get by without firearms. If there were no firearms, people could protect their homes with a large dog and a sword against a home invasion. I don't think it's realistic to have guns in rural areas and not have them show up in densely populated areas at times. What's to prevent someone going to a rural area and stealing guns? That said, a home invasion is typically a burglary. The noise from a dog is enough to discourage the burglar and only a nutty burglar would be armed. The penalties for possessing a gun during a burglary are severe enough to discourage it.

I think society is better served with a system that prevents guns ending up in the wrong hands and allows the people to make their own choices on whether to own a firearm.

Tell that to the home invaders who ALWAYS enter a home armed.....

And how does the AWB prevent weapons from getting into the "wrong hands?"

All it does is ban SCARYWEAPONS to those who did not own them prior to a given date, which implies it will only stop people who would obey a law anyway.....

 

[martybegan]

That along with everything else!

I never said limiting magazine size would end all gun violence, Some crazy man said I did, who is trying to get cats and dogs to live in sin, while he's eating rainbows.

If you knew anything about me, I make up my own mind and base it on the facts, so what's with the sheep stuff from a man buying into what the NRA tells him? I've never seen anyone suggest the changes to gun laws that I've suggested. I get my news off the internet analyze and investigate to determine my opinion on an issue. It should be obvious that a type of arm is regulated for a society based on public safety issues. I remember seeing dynamite in the hardware store as a child and people would use it to blow stumps. Times change and you aren't going to go there and buy it now. It changed for public safety, because some nut would use it for hurting people.

And nuts still use it to hurt people, and people who can actually use it are inconvienced for something that happened less often then people driving in traffic accidents.

So nuts can still get access to the black powder, and someone who wants to use it to blast a stump has to fill out 10 forms of paperwork. And you get to FEEL safer without actually BEING safer. Form over function, and government regulation over self responsibility.

You obviously can't do anything more than act stupid. Nut's aren't using dynamite to hurt people still like they would if they could just go to the hardware store and buy it. Black powder would be an expensive and stupid way to blow stumps.

You just like running your mouth, no brain attached, and demonstrate the nutty way you think. Try doing it around enough people who know you and see how long you keep your guns!

Plenty of people use black powder to blow stumps. If all you have is "YUR STUPID HURR DURR DURR" as a retort, then i can tell you have no reasonable response to any of my points.

[ame=http://youtu.be/EA4jjML3H-A]Black Powder Explosion Stump Removal - YouTube[/ame]