To all Gun Grabbers

[Daryl Hunt]

6 shots? that's it? then you reload? 6 shooters are revolvers not many magazine based guns...…so now that we know you dont know much about guns....you must be one of those people that would shit your pants if you saw one in person.

So for you six shooter and your reload, did you calculate:
How many enemies?
What kind of gun is it?
What caliber is it?
Do you know how many shots it takes to kill someone with a specific caliber?
What weapons or armor they may have?
Their training and experience?
Your training and experience?
The location?
What kind of cover they have?
What kind of cover you have?
Are there others around?

I'm sure others can think of more variables.....but those are the basics....sorry I hate criminals...I'd rather they end up dead.....and not innocents.

You can adequately defend yourself without high capacity magazines and I don't care if you ask me a page full of questions. I was kinda guessing on the number of bullets in an average mag. So I just googled it and the "average" is 8 or 9!!!! If you can't hit your target by then, you need to hit the range.

DO you feel this way about the police as well?

Mark

Police are apprehending criminals. Quite a bit different than defense obviously.

So civilians don't have the right to protect themselves from the same criminals?

And the police have no legal obligation to render aid to the public so if you think the police will save your sorry ass you're an idiot

Do you need a 50 round magazine to protect yourself from criminals?
Do you plan on missing 49 times

 

[Rigby5]

Stop trying to **** with the 2nd Amendment...….we have a right to own guns...….focus on executing criminals not citizens..



Judge blocks California's ban on high-capacity magazines over 2nd Amendment concerns


and for those of you trying....he's what you need to do

Do you know what a "magazine" is? Why are you whining about not being able to bear arms?

I do, but democrats apparently dont...…



My question, is why do you not want people to defend themselves?

So this moron thinks that once the "bullets have been shot" that the magazines can no longer be used?
If we could tax stupid just the money raised from the taxes of congresspeople would balance the budget forever

I noticed this also, at the end of the video. She really knows nothing of guns.
In fact, I never leave magazine fully loaded because it is claimed to weaken the springs.
I unload any that are not needed, and only have one partially loaded stilling around.
So odd she would think you threw magazines away after using them.
I mean the military does in war, but that is not how real people do it.
In fact, I have never seen magazines for sale already loaded.
If that how the military ships them?

 

[rightwinger]

Police are apprehending criminals. Quite a bit different than defense obviously.

So civilians don't have the right to protect themselves from the same criminals?

And the police have no legal obligation to render aid to the public so if you think the police will save your sorry ass you're an idiot

Do you need a 50 round magazine to protect yourself from criminals?
Do you plan on missing 49 times

What I need or don't need is none of your business.

Do cops carry 50 round magazines? Does the US military?

My preferred handgun has a 15 round magazine, is that more than I "need"

Very true
If a mass killer needs a 50 round magazine, it is none of my business

What sized magazine do you find optimum for shooting young children?

There's a reason 50 round mags aren't common.

Can you figure out what that reason is?

And it seems you certainly think about shooting kids but I have never once thought about it

Why else would you ever need a 50 round magazine ?

While shooting young children it is annoying to have to continually reload
Some might get away

 

[Rigby5]

You can adequately defend yourself without high capacity magazines and I don't care if you ask me a page full of questions. I was kinda guessing on the number of bullets in an average mag. So I just googled it and the "average" is 8 or 9!!!! If you can't hit your target by then, you need to hit the range.

DO you feel this way about the police as well?

Mark

Police are apprehending criminals. Quite a bit different than defense obviously.

So civilians don't have the right to protect themselves from the same criminals?

And the police have no legal obligation to render aid to the public so if you think the police will save your sorry ass you're an idiot

Do you need a 50 round magazine to protect yourself from criminals?
Do you plan on missing 49 times

Jim Stafford was a great singer and classical guitarist, as well as comedian.
You can tell from the background that the video was from the "Smother's Bros Show".
Here is another on that show.
Jim Stafford Plays Classical Gas Branson, MO

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Stop trying to **** with the 2nd Amendment...….we have a right to own guns...….focus on executing criminals not citizens..



Judge blocks California's ban on high-capacity magazines over 2nd Amendment concerns


and for those of you trying....he's what you need to do

Do you know what a "magazine" is? Why are you whining about not being able to bear arms?

I do, but democrats apparently dont...…



My question, is why do you not want people to defend themselves?

You need high capacity magazines to defend yourself? If so, you are either in the wrong profession or you need to move.

When they roll 6 deep, yes you do. Not every part of the country is as hunky-dory as the part you're in, missy.

"Green said. "The number of
perpetrators would vary depending upon the anticipated risk involved in
a particular robbery."
Green said gang members were armed with AK47s and MAC 10 assault rifles."

https://www.crimeindetroit.com/documents/Police Stop Bandits who Posed as Officers, Invaders.pdf

Remind me never to come to Florida. Six at once, huh? Don't the rest usually run after you shoot one or two?

Its better to have a 15 round mag and one in the chamber.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

So civilians don't have the right to protect themselves from the same criminals?

And the police have no legal obligation to render aid to the public so if you think the police will save your sorry ass you're an idiot

Do you need a 50 round magazine to protect yourself from criminals?
Do you plan on missing 49 times

What I need or don't need is none of your business.

Do cops carry 50 round magazines? Does the US military?

My preferred handgun has a 15 round magazine, is that more than I "need"

Very true
If a mass killer needs a 50 round magazine, it is none of my business

What sized magazine do you find optimum for shooting young children?

There's a reason 50 round mags aren't common.

Can you figure out what that reason is?

And it seems you certainly think about shooting kids but I have never once thought about it

Why else would you ever need a 50 round magazine ?

While shooting young children it is annoying to have to continually reload
Some might get away

I've used them at the range. I don't go shooting people either.

 

[2aguy]

2017?

Yes and it's just as constitutionally legal now obviously.

Sorry but your bullshit is being struck down in calipornia at the moment.

And the Supreme court says its constitutional.

The court knows the 2nd is limited.
Bump stocks: Supreme Court denies request to halt ban - CNNPolitics

Who the **** needs a bump stock?
I can use my belt loop or a rubber band.

You seem to have missed the point. The Supreme Court knows the 2nd is limited.

The Supreme Court stated that AR-15 rifles and all other bearable arms are protected by the 2nd Amendment...

 

[Rigby5]

So civilians don't have the right to protect themselves from the same criminals?

And the police have no legal obligation to render aid to the public so if you think the police will save your sorry ass you're an idiot

Do you need a 50 round magazine to protect yourself from criminals?
Do you plan on missing 49 times

What I need or don't need is none of your business.

Do cops carry 50 round magazines? Does the US military?

My preferred handgun has a 15 round magazine, is that more than I "need"

Very true
If a mass killer needs a 50 round magazine, it is none of my business

What sized magazine do you find optimum for shooting young children?

There's a reason 50 round mags aren't common.

Can you figure out what that reason is?

And it seems you certainly think about shooting kids but I have never once thought about it

Why else would you ever need a 50 round magazine ?

While shooting young children it is annoying to have to continually reload
Some might get away

Obviously the reason all people need large capacity magazines is the same reason why police, military, and everyone else also has them.
The real question should be why anyone would deliberately pay more for low capacity magazines that would have to be special ordered instead of paying off the shelf, surplus prices?

 

[Stormy Daniels]

While shooting young children it is annoying to have to continually reload
Some might get away

You would know, I'm sure.

 

[Rigby5]

DO you feel this way about the police as well?

Mark

Police are apprehending criminals. Quite a bit different than defense obviously.

So civilians don't have the right to protect themselves from the same criminals?

And the police have no legal obligation to render aid to the public so if you think the police will save your sorry ass you're an idiot

Do you need a 50 round magazine to protect yourself from criminals?
Do you plan on missing 49 times

What I need or don't need is none of your business.

Do cops carry 50 round magazines? Does the US military?

My preferred handgun has a 15 round magazine, is that more than I "need"

Very true
If a mass killer needs a 50 round magazine, it is none of my business

What sized magazine do you find optimum for shooting young children?

Changing the number of magazines you carry the same number of bullets in, makes no difference at all.
It is much quicker to change smaller magazines than it is to change larger magazines. But changing magazines only takes seconds, so does not really make any difference.

If one is at close range and you simply want to shoot the most people, likely 2 pistols or a shotgun are far more deadly than an AR, regardless of magazine size.

Magazine size is totally irrelevant.
The reason most people use 30 round magazines these days is because those are the least expensive because they are surplus.
Sure you can BUY a 100 round drum magazine, but it weighs a ton when loaded, and hardly anyone I know would want one.
Is there any reason to legislate them?
Of course not.
They are not more dangerous or threatening to anyone.
They likely just slow the person down more, and make them less effective.
That is why the military, police, gangs, etc., do not use them.

 

[Rigby5]

Yes.

You want the peasants disarmed so that your filthy party cannot be resisted,

Quite the imagination you have....

We've seen you operate dozens of times. Never again.

And when have you used your gun to resist? You understand we have elections for that right cowboy?

For what? So if the government becomes tyrannical OR if someone invades your home, you're defense is voting?

If you're that paranoid, you should go live in a cave in the wilderness somewhere.

It is called being realistic, just like people in Kansas who have a tornado shelter.
It is very hard to predict when you will need it, but it is certain that you will eventually.
There has never been any society that has gone for more than about 400 years without a major upheaval, like civil war, rebellion, invasion, catastrophe, large natural disaster, etc.
If you think that periods as long as hundreds of years is not worth planning for, then you belong in the extinct species category.

And frankly, this country likely is WAY over due for a major upheaval.
We murdered 3 million innocent Vietnamese, half a million innocent Iraqis, tortured at Guantanamo, lied about WMD, assassinated Qaddafi, tried to invade Syria, overthrew the elected government of Egypt, etc.
The government in the US is WAY out of control and constantly committing serious war crimes.

 

[OldLady]

Stop trying to **** with the 2nd Amendment...….we have a right to own guns...….focus on executing criminals not citizens..



Judge blocks California's ban on high-capacity magazines over 2nd Amendment concerns


and for those of you trying....he's what you need to do

Do you know what a "magazine" is? Why are you whining about not being able to bear arms?

I do, but democrats apparently dont...…



My question, is why do you not want people to defend themselves?

You need high capacity magazines to defend yourself? If so, you are either in the wrong profession or you need to move.

What do you have to defend yourself should the need arise?

The 2nd amendment was created because if the government and police can have fully automatic weapons with high capacity magazines, then the law abiding US citizens should have weapons that can compete with the government in case it decides to become like Venezuela. It has always been this way, because an unarmed citizenry is a dead citizenry and the founding fathers knew one day there would be a coup on the president and socialism would take over. We the People are free not because of the 1st amendment but because of the 2nd amendment. Without that there isnt a free citizenry.

Our government is NOT going to stand down because we've got AR's and pistols. They've got missiles, drones, tanks, etc. etc.

You do know what guerilla warfare is right?
Think afghanistan and vietnam....

The military would have to bomb indiscriminately,which of course means dead civilians.
Another fact for you, there anywhere from 150 million gun owners to around 100 million. No one really knows for sure.
Our standing army has 1.3 million troops of which only 20% are combat soldiers.
Do the math.

And do you really believe our military is going to fire on their own families and friends?
If the shit ever happens you can bet it will be due to a grave violation of the Constitution,which the military is sworn to defend.

I know you're not a deep thinker like most liberals but a little common sense goes along way.

You're truly out there on this one. I can't even begin to follow your argument, and it is not because I'm stupid; it is because this is insane nonsense. You start by saying we should have as many guns with as many bullets as we want, because we might need to defend ourselves against the government. Then you say we outnumber the combat troops in our military. THEN you say the military won't attack us.

And you think there's something wrong with me. LOL

 

[Uncensored2008]

Stop trying to **** with the 2nd Amendment...….we have a right to own guns...….focus on executing criminals not citizens..



Judge blocks California's ban on high-capacity magazines over 2nd Amendment concerns


and for those of you trying....he's what you need to do

Do you know what a "magazine" is? Why are you whining about not being able to bear arms?

I do, but democrats apparently dont...…



My question, is why do you not want people to defend themselves?

You need high capacity magazines to defend yourself? If so, you are either in the wrong profession or you need to move.

What do you have to defend yourself should the need arise?

The 2nd amendment was created because if the government and police can have fully automatic weapons with high capacity magazines, then the law abiding US citizens should have weapons that can compete with the government in case it decides to become like Venezuela. It has always been this way, because an unarmed citizenry is a dead citizenry and the founding fathers knew one day there would be a coup on the president and socialism would take over. We the People are free not because of the 1st amendment but because of the 2nd amendment. Without that there isnt a free citizenry.

Our government is NOT going to stand down because we've got AR's and pistols. They've got missiles, drones, tanks, etc. etc.

You do know what guerilla warfare is right?
Think afghanistan and vietnam....

The military would have to bomb indiscriminately,which of course means dead civilians.
Another fact for you, there anywhere from 150 million gun owners to around 100 million. No one really knows for sure.
Our standing army has 1.3 million troops of which only 20% are combat soldiers.
Do the math.

And do you really believe our military is going to fire on their own families and friends?
If the shit ever happens you can bet it will be due to a grave violation of the Constitution,which the military is sworn to defend.

I know you're not a deep thinker like most liberals but a little common sense goes along way.

You're truly out there on this one. I can't even begin to follow your argument, and it is not because I'm stupid; it is because this is insane nonsense. You start by saying we should have as many guns with as many bullets as we want, because we might need to defend ourselves against the government. Then you say we outnumber the combat troops in our military. THEN you say the military won't attack us.

And you think there's something wrong with me. LOL

Almost as crazy as saying we should be able to go anywhere we like, without asking permission from our rulers, or say anything we like, even ideas that oppose our rulers.

What's wrong with you is that you're a statist thug openly hostile to civil rights.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Stop trying to **** with the 2nd Amendment...….we have a right to own guns...….focus on executing criminals not citizens..



Judge blocks California's ban on high-capacity magazines over 2nd Amendment concerns


and for those of you trying....he's what you need to do

Do you know what a "magazine" is? Why are you whining about not being able to bear arms?

I do, but democrats apparently dont...…



My question, is why do you not want people to defend themselves?

You need high capacity magazines to defend yourself? If so, you are either in the wrong profession or you need to move.

What do you have to defend yourself should the need arise?

The 2nd amendment was created because if the government and police can have fully automatic weapons with high capacity magazines, then the law abiding US citizens should have weapons that can compete with the government in case it decides to become like Venezuela. It has always been this way, because an unarmed citizenry is a dead citizenry and the founding fathers knew one day there would be a coup on the president and socialism would take over. We the People are free not because of the 1st amendment but because of the 2nd amendment. Without that there isnt a free citizenry.

Our government is NOT going to stand down because we've got AR's and pistols. They've got missiles, drones, tanks, etc. etc.

You do know what guerilla warfare is right?
Think afghanistan and vietnam....

The military would have to bomb indiscriminately,which of course means dead civilians.
Another fact for you, there anywhere from 150 million gun owners to around 100 million. No one really knows for sure.
Our standing army has 1.3 million troops of which only 20% are combat soldiers.
Do the math.

And do you really believe our military is going to fire on their own families and friends?
If the shit ever happens you can bet it will be due to a grave violation of the Constitution,which the military is sworn to defend.

I know you're not a deep thinker like most liberals but a little common sense goes along way.

You're truly out there on this one. I can't even begin to follow your argument, and it is not because I'm stupid; it is because this is insane nonsense. You start by saying we should have as many guns with as many bullets as we want, because we might need to defend ourselves against the government. Then you say we outnumber the combat troops in our military. THEN you say the military won't attack us.

And you think there's something wrong with me. LOL

I was just pointing out the the various reasons why you're a dumbass.
It's not my fault your depth of thought is no deeper than the kiddie pool.

 

[OldLady]

Do you know what a "magazine" is? Why are you whining about not being able to bear arms?

I do, but democrats apparently dont...…



My question, is why do you not want people to defend themselves?

You need high capacity magazines to defend yourself? If so, you are either in the wrong profession or you need to move.

What do you have to defend yourself should the need arise?

The 2nd amendment was created because if the government and police can have fully automatic weapons with high capacity magazines, then the law abiding US citizens should have weapons that can compete with the government in case it decides to become like Venezuela. It has always been this way, because an unarmed citizenry is a dead citizenry and the founding fathers knew one day there would be a coup on the president and socialism would take over. We the People are free not because of the 1st amendment but because of the 2nd amendment. Without that there isnt a free citizenry.

Our government is NOT going to stand down because we've got AR's and pistols. They've got missiles, drones, tanks, etc. etc.

You do know what guerilla warfare is right?
Think afghanistan and vietnam....

The military would have to bomb indiscriminately,which of course means dead civilians.
Another fact for you, there anywhere from 150 million gun owners to around 100 million. No one really knows for sure.
Our standing army has 1.3 million troops of which only 20% are combat soldiers.
Do the math.

And do you really believe our military is going to fire on their own families and friends?
If the shit ever happens you can bet it will be due to a grave violation of the Constitution,which the military is sworn to defend.

I know you're not a deep thinker like most liberals but a little common sense goes along way.

You're truly out there on this one. I can't even begin to follow your argument, and it is not because I'm stupid; it is because this is insane nonsense. You start by saying we should have as many guns with as many bullets as we want, because we might need to defend ourselves against the government. Then you say we outnumber the combat troops in our military. THEN you say the military won't attack us.

And you think there's something wrong with me. LOL

Almost as crazy as saying we should be able to go anywhere we like, without asking permission from our rulers, or say anything we like, even ideas that oppose our rulers.

What's wrong with you is that you're a statist thug openly hostile to civil rights.

Oh, quit whining. All of this over the possibility of limiting the number of bullets in your killing machine?
You're all sick.

 

[OldLady]

Do you know what a "magazine" is? Why are you whining about not being able to bear arms?

I do, but democrats apparently dont...…



My question, is why do you not want people to defend themselves?

You need high capacity magazines to defend yourself? If so, you are either in the wrong profession or you need to move.

What do you have to defend yourself should the need arise?

The 2nd amendment was created because if the government and police can have fully automatic weapons with high capacity magazines, then the law abiding US citizens should have weapons that can compete with the government in case it decides to become like Venezuela. It has always been this way, because an unarmed citizenry is a dead citizenry and the founding fathers knew one day there would be a coup on the president and socialism would take over. We the People are free not because of the 1st amendment but because of the 2nd amendment. Without that there isnt a free citizenry.

Our government is NOT going to stand down because we've got AR's and pistols. They've got missiles, drones, tanks, etc. etc.

You do know what guerilla warfare is right?
Think afghanistan and vietnam....

The military would have to bomb indiscriminately,which of course means dead civilians.
Another fact for you, there anywhere from 150 million gun owners to around 100 million. No one really knows for sure.
Our standing army has 1.3 million troops of which only 20% are combat soldiers.
Do the math.

And do you really believe our military is going to fire on their own families and friends?
If the shit ever happens you can bet it will be due to a grave violation of the Constitution,which the military is sworn to defend.

I know you're not a deep thinker like most liberals but a little common sense goes along way.

You're truly out there on this one. I can't even begin to follow your argument, and it is not because I'm stupid; it is because this is insane nonsense. You start by saying we should have as many guns with as many bullets as we want, because we might need to defend ourselves against the government. Then you say we outnumber the combat troops in our military. THEN you say the military won't attack us.

And you think there's something wrong with me. LOL

I was just pointing out the the various reasons why you're a dumbass.
It's not my fault your depth of thought is no deeper than the kiddie pool.

Can't enlighten me, either, I see. Your argument of defense against the government is total bullshit and you know it. But you've got to find some reason why civilians can have such serious weapons as AR's etc. when to you they are nothing more than a toy.

 

[Rigby5]

Stop trying to **** with the 2nd Amendment...….we have a right to own guns...….focus on executing criminals not citizens..



Judge blocks California's ban on high-capacity magazines over 2nd Amendment concerns


and for those of you trying....he's what you need to do

Do you know what a "magazine" is? Why are you whining about not being able to bear arms?

I do, but democrats apparently dont...…



My question, is why do you not want people to defend themselves?

You need high capacity magazines to defend yourself? If so, you are either in the wrong profession or you need to move.

What do you have to defend yourself should the need arise?

The 2nd amendment was created because if the government and police can have fully automatic weapons with high capacity magazines, then the law abiding US citizens should have weapons that can compete with the government in case it decides to become like Venezuela. It has always been this way, because an unarmed citizenry is a dead citizenry and the founding fathers knew one day there would be a coup on the president and socialism would take over. We the People are free not because of the 1st amendment but because of the 2nd amendment. Without that there isnt a free citizenry.

Our government is NOT going to stand down because we've got AR's and pistols. They've got missiles, drones, tanks, etc. etc.

You do know what guerilla warfare is right?
Think afghanistan and vietnam....

The military would have to bomb indiscriminately,which of course means dead civilians.
Another fact for you, there anywhere from 150 million gun owners to around 100 million. No one really knows for sure.
Our standing army has 1.3 million troops of which only 20% are combat soldiers.
Do the math.

And do you really believe our military is going to fire on their own families and friends?
If the shit ever happens you can bet it will be due to a grave violation of the Constitution,which the military is sworn to defend.

I know you're not a deep thinker like most liberals but a little common sense goes along way.

You're truly out there on this one. I can't even begin to follow your argument, and it is not because I'm stupid; it is because this is insane nonsense. You start by saying we should have as many guns with as many bullets as we want, because we might need to defend ourselves against the government. Then you say we outnumber the combat troops in our military. THEN you say the military won't attack us.

And you think there's something wrong with me. LOL

The reality is that all governments always tend toward more corruption.
That is because power and money both are corrupting influences, and central government will collect both money and power.
It is obvious to see this has already happened in the US to a huge degree.
For example, the Bill of Rights clearly says there may be no federal weapons jurisdiction at all, and yet we have the BATF arresting thousands of people.
We illegally invade countries like Vietnam, Iraq, Panama, Grenada, Iraq, Syria, etc.

So then yes, of course all intelligent and responsible people should realize that at some point in the future, we likely will have to deal with rebellion, civil war, natural catastrophe, or invasion.
We do out number the combat troops in the military by over a hundred to one, but it all depends. They have better equipment, but most military are not corrupt enough to be willing to fire on US citizens. So we don't know how that is going to play out. It depends on how corrupt the military becomes, and what starts the conflict between the military and civilians? Odds some are corrupt enough so that we would have to fight them, but that most are not that corrupt, so would join in the mutiny. But we won't know until it happens.

But one thing any student of history will be able to say for sure, and that is that the conflict between the citizens and the military in any democratic republic is absolutely for sure bound to happen. They are inherently opposing forces, that only honorable leaders prevent from coming into armed conflict. And we all know that honorable leaders are far and few between. For example, who lied about Iraqi WMD?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I do, but democrats apparently dont...…



My question, is why do you not want people to defend themselves?

You need high capacity magazines to defend yourself? If so, you are either in the wrong profession or you need to move.

What do you have to defend yourself should the need arise?

The 2nd amendment was created because if the government and police can have fully automatic weapons with high capacity magazines, then the law abiding US citizens should have weapons that can compete with the government in case it decides to become like Venezuela. It has always been this way, because an unarmed citizenry is a dead citizenry and the founding fathers knew one day there would be a coup on the president and socialism would take over. We the People are free not because of the 1st amendment but because of the 2nd amendment. Without that there isnt a free citizenry.

Our government is NOT going to stand down because we've got AR's and pistols. They've got missiles, drones, tanks, etc. etc.

You do know what guerilla warfare is right?
Think afghanistan and vietnam....

The military would have to bomb indiscriminately,which of course means dead civilians.
Another fact for you, there anywhere from 150 million gun owners to around 100 million. No one really knows for sure.
Our standing army has 1.3 million troops of which only 20% are combat soldiers.
Do the math.

And do you really believe our military is going to fire on their own families and friends?
If the shit ever happens you can bet it will be due to a grave violation of the Constitution,which the military is sworn to defend.

I know you're not a deep thinker like most liberals but a little common sense goes along way.

You're truly out there on this one. I can't even begin to follow your argument, and it is not because I'm stupid; it is because this is insane nonsense. You start by saying we should have as many guns with as many bullets as we want, because we might need to defend ourselves against the government. Then you say we outnumber the combat troops in our military. THEN you say the military won't attack us.

And you think there's something wrong with me. LOL

I was just pointing out the the various reasons why you're a dumbass.
It's not my fault your depth of thought is no deeper than the kiddie pool.

Can't enlighten me, either, I see. Your argument of defense against the government is total bullshit and you know it. But you've got to find some reason why civilians can have such serious weapons as AR's etc. when to you they are nothing more than a toy.

The 2nd says you're wrong.
And it was written by Men who were far smarter than you....and when I say far I'm talking the distance to the sun far.

 

[Rigby5]

I do, but democrats apparently dont...…



My question, is why do you not want people to defend themselves?

You need high capacity magazines to defend yourself? If so, you are either in the wrong profession or you need to move.

What do you have to defend yourself should the need arise?

The 2nd amendment was created because if the government and police can have fully automatic weapons with high capacity magazines, then the law abiding US citizens should have weapons that can compete with the government in case it decides to become like Venezuela. It has always been this way, because an unarmed citizenry is a dead citizenry and the founding fathers knew one day there would be a coup on the president and socialism would take over. We the People are free not because of the 1st amendment but because of the 2nd amendment. Without that there isnt a free citizenry.

Our government is NOT going to stand down because we've got AR's and pistols. They've got missiles, drones, tanks, etc. etc.

You do know what guerilla warfare is right?
Think afghanistan and vietnam....

The military would have to bomb indiscriminately,which of course means dead civilians.
Another fact for you, there anywhere from 150 million gun owners to around 100 million. No one really knows for sure.
Our standing army has 1.3 million troops of which only 20% are combat soldiers.
Do the math.

And do you really believe our military is going to fire on their own families and friends?
If the shit ever happens you can bet it will be due to a grave violation of the Constitution,which the military is sworn to defend.

I know you're not a deep thinker like most liberals but a little common sense goes along way.

You're truly out there on this one. I can't even begin to follow your argument, and it is not because I'm stupid; it is because this is insane nonsense. You start by saying we should have as many guns with as many bullets as we want, because we might need to defend ourselves against the government. Then you say we outnumber the combat troops in our military. THEN you say the military won't attack us.

And you think there's something wrong with me. LOL

Almost as crazy as saying we should be able to go anywhere we like, without asking permission from our rulers, or say anything we like, even ideas that oppose our rulers.

What's wrong with you is that you're a statist thug openly hostile to civil rights.

Oh, quit whining. All of this over the possibility of limiting the number of bullets in your killing machine?
You're all sick.

If you call weapons, "killing machines", then why would you allow police and the military to have them?
Clearly the average population is more restrained and less likely to kill than the paid police and military.
And in fact, many of the police and military are way out of hand, and actually enjoy abusing their power, it seems to me.
When we spend 75% of our annual federal income on weapons for the military, why don't we call that "killing machines" then?
When these weapons are in the hands of average citizens, they are much more defensive than when the military has them.

It is when average people who are supposed to be responsible but instead refuse and hire unknown surrogates to do their duty with weapons for them, that these weapons become machines of murder instead of machines of defense.
So if you do NOT have a weapon and instead rely on mercenary police and the military, then it is YOU who are allowing these to be weapons of murder instead of peace.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I do, but democrats apparently dont...…



My question, is why do you not want people to defend themselves?

You need high capacity magazines to defend yourself? If so, you are either in the wrong profession or you need to move.

What do you have to defend yourself should the need arise?

The 2nd amendment was created because if the government and police can have fully automatic weapons with high capacity magazines, then the law abiding US citizens should have weapons that can compete with the government in case it decides to become like Venezuela. It has always been this way, because an unarmed citizenry is a dead citizenry and the founding fathers knew one day there would be a coup on the president and socialism would take over. We the People are free not because of the 1st amendment but because of the 2nd amendment. Without that there isnt a free citizenry.

Our government is NOT going to stand down because we've got AR's and pistols. They've got missiles, drones, tanks, etc. etc.

You do know what guerilla warfare is right?
Think afghanistan and vietnam....

The military would have to bomb indiscriminately,which of course means dead civilians.
Another fact for you, there anywhere from 150 million gun owners to around 100 million. No one really knows for sure.
Our standing army has 1.3 million troops of which only 20% are combat soldiers.
Do the math.

And do you really believe our military is going to fire on their own families and friends?
If the shit ever happens you can bet it will be due to a grave violation of the Constitution,which the military is sworn to defend.

I know you're not a deep thinker like most liberals but a little common sense goes along way.

You're truly out there on this one. I can't even begin to follow your argument, and it is not because I'm stupid; it is because this is insane nonsense. You start by saying we should have as many guns with as many bullets as we want, because we might need to defend ourselves against the government. Then you say we outnumber the combat troops in our military. THEN you say the military won't attack us.

And you think there's something wrong with me. LOL

Almost as crazy as saying we should be able to go anywhere we like, without asking permission from our rulers, or say anything we like, even ideas that oppose our rulers.

What's wrong with you is that you're a statist thug openly hostile to civil rights.

Oh, quit whining. All of this over the possibility of limiting the number of bullets in your killing machine?
You're all sick.

This is about your desire to crush the civil rights of those in the country south of you. This is about you thinking you know how to run my life better than I do.