“We need automatic guns so to defend against the military. ” - What???

American's are for the most part kind of retarded in that the majority really have no real life experience at doing anything at all.

Anyone in the military is definitely out of adjustment at least, I know this from my military experiences.

Guns are the same as cars and are shown off the same way as everything else we claim to own but have little or nothing to do with the creation of or any ability to produce or even repair ourselves....

When the second amendment is dismissed as a kind of "paranoia" is when we will find out what it was there for to begin with.

Weapons are to be concealed and out of sight unless their use is required, and when used the golden rule is to be considered over all else.

The Constitution wasn't written for the people, it was written to protect the people from the government becoming overpowering and over reaching by making it unlawful to infringe on the rights of the people, by making sure the people have the means to protect themselves from the goons in charge from becoming tyrranical.

Fail, Fail, Fail, Fail..........

a reply to: macman

Defending yourself is human nature. Not acting upon that is in itself stupid.

What?? As if defence can't have many forms. This is what you don't even realize. You only see one form of defence: bullets. I sincerely pity you. I see at least three other forms of defence but hey, why would you care.

The worst is, you are truly convinced that this is the only way to go about it. Man will the Guns Corporations make money.

I dare you to show me one time in the whole of History where a gun fight led to an utopia.

You live in constant fear of a bogeyman, so you live your life with this crutch (for some it's drugs, for others it's alcohol, and for more and more people it's guns), and I am truly sorry that you can't feel secure without weapons in your life. Maybe it's time you check a psychoanalyst for paranoia.

One big thing about having some innate need to defend one's self has a lot to do with not making people want to attack you.

Verbal attacks or threats don't make it OK to shoot somebody down like a dog unless one is an immature coward with too thin skin.

If one really looks in the mirror, most will realize they are simply terrified to be alive and afraid of their own shadow.

I have found that people don't really need a reason to attack one another, like chickens pecking at one another until the terrorized chicken sneaks off to get a gun.

Soldiers are not there to help you, anyone who arms themselves as a matter of course is not there to help you.

Entities which possess weapons as a matter of course are not there to help anyone, they are there to control people through the threat of deadly force, through intimidation.

This is why the founders thought people should have the right to arm themselves, if you don't agree, don't buy or keep weapons, that is your choice.

Guns are obsolete anyway, there are much easier ways to control people than to shoot and injure and kill them.

a reply to: masqua

The notion of an armed revolution involving the population of America pitted against the US Military is pure fantasy. It'll never happen regardless of the scenario of 'state of the art' tanks in every driveway.

Why?

Because the US Military consists of sons and daughters who would never stand against the citizenry.

Ahhhh my friend, you couldn't be me wrong if you tried.
Governments have a knack for pitting the populace against each other, They will use Racial divide, then cultural, then status, then there will be no one left to stand up and unite, it has been successfully done time and time again.

Divide and rule (or divide and conquer) (derived from Greek: διαίρει καὶ βασίλευε, diaírei kaì basíleue)
The Nazi party were masters of this, They destroyed opposition political parties , then they came for the Jews, then the non Aryans by then there was no one left to stand up.

What makes the USA any different, once they have your guns they have won half the battle.

The notion of an armed revolution involving the population of America pitted against the US Military is pure fantasy. It'll never happen regardless of the scenario of 'state of the art' tanks in every driveway.

Completely unaware of history. You have no Idea what the Bonus March was, do you? You would be wise to educate yourself.

Even today, If you don't believe there is a subset of law enforcement officials who view their interactions with the public as adversarial, you are deluded.

a reply to: swanne
Those who refuse to reach outside themselves or safety ,to grow. And those who don't.

a reply to: masqua
Infiltrate the system (Wouldn't have to NOBODY will back the Govt who REALLY fights) attack /capture supplies and logistics, capture families of key figures and command elements would disappear. Any non heavily supported units would be quickly killed and stripped. (thermite kills ALL tanks when placed over the magazine) or we would take it intact.
Aircraft used against us would struck on the ground by Guerilla raids.
We ALL have DONE ALL that before( BEST, MOST ON THE PLANET),that's why they won't try it ...until they disarm us.

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: macman

Defending yourself is human nature. Not acting upon that is in itself stupid.

What?? As if defence can't have many forms. This is what you don't even realize. You only see one form of defence: bullets. I sincerely pity you. I see at least three other forms of defence but hey, why would you care.

The worst is, you are truly convinced that this is the only way to go about it. Man will the Guns Corporations make money.

I dare you to show me one time in the whole of History where a gun fight led to an utopia.

You live in constant fear of a bogeyman, so you live your life with this crutch (for some it's drugs, for others it's alcohol, and for more and more people it's guns), and I am truly sorry that you can't feel secure without weapons in your life. Maybe it's time you check a psychoanalyst for paranoia.

"I dare you to show me one time in the whole of History where a gun fight led to an utopia."



On the other hand,I dare you to show me one time in the whole of history where leftist ideology led to utopia.
You are not from the U.S.A. are you?You sound like a lefty dreamer from Europe or Canaduh.

originally posted by: starheart
In all the sectors we've lived in, and in a range of 10-20 kilometre of those sectors, no such things ever happen. You guys talk about it as if it's something happening every single day, where in fact, it is not.

So in other words, it has not happened to you so in your sheltered little operating area so it is impossible for it to happen anywhere else..Got it.

Come spend a couple of hours in the Badlands of North Philadelphia or any other major city and then tell me how violent and horrible crime isn't happening on a daily basis.

originally posted by: Sunwolf
On the other hand,I dare you to show me one time in the whole of history where leftist ideology led to utopia.

I'm nor leftist nor rightist. Don't need to be to see how History repeats itself.

You are not from the U.S.A. are you?You sound like a lefty dreamer from Europe or Canaduh.

Canada. So now you guys resort to discrimination against Canadians to support your point? Let's say I'm close to USA enough that any stupidity on your side will indeed affect us Canadians. Do your homework: en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: Sunwolf

On the other hand,I dare you to show me one time in the whole of history where leftist ideology led to utopia.

No problemo. For your information, it is not leftist ideology, but pacifist.

I present to you... Gandhi:



He brought peacefully the independence of India.

And, I also present to you... Martin Luther King Jr.:



As for this "coward", as you guys call all pacifists, he brought peacefully the freedom of African Americans.

Pray tell me if you still think that non-violence doesn't solve conflicts, even extreme ones. If you still think so, then there's nothing left to debate upon. Your mind is set upon violence.

originally posted by: starheart
a reply to: Sunwolf

On the other hand,I dare you to show me one time in the whole of history where leftist ideology led to utopia.

No problemo. For your information, it is not leftist ideology, but pacifist.

I present to you... Gandhi:

He brought peacefully the independence of India.

And, I also present to you... Martin Luther King Jr.:

As for this "coward", as you guys call all pacifists, he brought peacefully the freedom of African Americans.

.

No, you're thinking of Abraham Lincoln. And it wasnt peaceful, either. it cost more lives than all other American wars combined
But King and Lincoln had one thing in common: they both were unarmed when they took a bullet to the dome. We don't want the same fate.

As for ghandi, biggest coward of all time. Wouldn't let his wife take antibiotics because of his stance on modern medicine. She died of infection, but he quickly changed his tune when he got sick.
Thank you for proving our point

originally posted by: starheart
Pray tell me if you still think that non-violence doesn't solve conflicts, even extreme ones. If you still think so, then there's nothing left to debate upon. Your mind is set upon violence.

It has in the past, we can also see examples like Tiananmen Square Massacre in Beijing and 100s others where the pacifist gets chewed up and spit out...

This doesn't mean that there is no room or need for the pacifist, but you need to understand that personally I'm not one of them so I need to go where my strengths lie.

originally posted by: starheart
a reply to: Sunwolf

On the other hand,I dare you to show me one time in the whole of history where leftist ideology led to utopia.

No problemo. For your information, it is not leftist ideology, but pacifist.

I present to you... Gandhi:

He brought peacefully the independence of India.

And, I also present to you... Martin Luther King Jr.:

As for this "coward", as you guys call all pacifists, he brought peacefully the freedom of African Americans.

Pray tell me if you still think that non-violence doesn't solve conflicts, even extreme ones. If you still think so, then there's nothing left to debate upon. Your mind is set upon violence.

Au contraire,gun banners are historically leftist,Pol Pot is just one example.What a utopia he created!

originally posted by: starheart
And, I also present to you... Martin Luther King Jr.:

As for this "coward", as you guys call all pacifists, he brought peacefully the freedom of African Americans.

Another clueless gun-grabber.......

On Martin Luther King Jr.'s attitude about weapons...

If you look at the early period of his leadership in the civil rights movement, particularly the period of the Montgomery Bus Boycott, his household, as one person noted, was an arsenal, with guns all over the place. William Worthy, who was a journalist...tried to sit down in an armchair in Martin King's house and was warned by Bayard Rustin, who was with him, that he was about to sit down on a couple of guns. King was a man of the South, after all, and he responded to terrorism, he responded to violence the way most people in the South would be inclined to respond. So when the Klan...bombed his house in 1956, he went to the sheriff's office and applied for a gun permit to carry a concealed weapon. Now, he didn't get the permit...but Martin King always acknowledged — if you read his writings — the right to self-defense, armed self-defense. Source

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Lets not forget that Gandhi was not anti gun or anti self defense. Neither is the Dalai lama. Gun grabbers mistake pacifism and non-violence with the notion that NOTHING justifies violent self-defense. That is simply not true.

a reply to: swanne

Sigh... I apologize in advance if this comes off rude or anything of the sort because I don't mean to be, but...

You're naive. Any adult who thinks like that is ignorant of the world and foolish. Maybe not today, next year, or in the next decade, but eventually there will come a time when we need the very same guns that the liberals don't want us to have. We, the people of these United States, are the last bastion of defense against authoritarian and/or extreme tyrannical government systems both foreign and domestic. Take away the guns and crazy people will still kill large numbers of people. They'll go "Grand Theft Auto" with cars, or they'll make deadly homemade explosives from H2O2. They'll use machetes. They'll use anything that can kill large quantities of people, and the possibilities are endless. So, take away the guns and crazies can still commit mass murder, and we will be vulnerable to the very real threat of government (again, both foreign and domestic). And history proves that threat to be deadlier, more widespread, and more frequent than anything the crazies do.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

If you look at the early period of his leadership in the civil rights movement, particularly the period of the Montgomery Bus Boycott, his household, as one person noted, was an arsenal, with guns all over the place. William Worthy, who was a journalist...tried to sit down in an armchair in Martin King's house and was warned by Bayard Rustin, who was with him, that he was about to sit down on a couple of guns. King was a man of the South, after all, and he responded to terrorism, he responded to violence the way most people in the South would be inclined to respond. So when the Klan...bombed his house in 1956, he went to the sheriff's office and applied for a gun permit to carry a concealed weapon. Now, he didn't get the permit...but Martin King always acknowledged — if you read his writings — the right to self-defense, armed self-defense. Source

Say so a pro-gun website, who has everything to gain by writing that King, the most pacifist man of our time, had in fact loads of guns.

Here's what King truly said about violence:

I have often wished that he would talk less of violence, because violence is not going to solve our problem. And in his litany of articulating the despair of the Negro without offering any positive, creative alternative, I feel that Malcolm has done himself and our people a great disservice.... [U]rging Negroes to arm themselves and prepare to engage in violence, as he has done, can reap nothing but grief."

He was speaking about Malcolm X, who, exactly like you guys, urged the African Americans to assassinate, or, at the very least, overthrow, the government. In the end, it wasn't the violent-hungry man that won; big surprise, it was the pacifist.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Lets not forget that Gandhi was not anti gun or anti self defense. Neither is the Dalai lama. Gun grabbers mistake pacifism and non-violence with the notion that NOTHING justifies violent self-defense. That is simply not true.

Let's not forget that Dalai-Lama is funded by the CIA; being pro-violence would certainly profit the gun corporations, wouldn't it?

originally posted by: JohnFisher
a reply to: swanne
Take away the guns and crazy people will still kill large numbers of people. They'll go "Grand Theft Auto" with cars, or they'll make deadly homemade explosives from H2O2. They'll use machetes. They'll use anything that can kill large quantities of people, and the possibilities are endless. So, take away the guns and crazies can still commit mass murder, and we will be vulnerable to the very real threat of government (again, both foreign and domestic). And history proves that threat to be deadlier, more widespread, and more frequent than anything the crazies do.

At least we'll be taking the biggest weapon off the street. Bats and machetes are easy to counter; not a bullet that does 300m/s. There's a reason why big wars in the Dark Ages didn't made even 1 million of deaths. Hard to do a mass-killing with a bat or a knife. And the government could've killed anyone in one shot had they wanted to do so; and since decades. Don't you want to stop and wonder why?

Giving big guns with more than 4 shots (to allow hunting to continue) to every citizens will be the worse thing that can ever happen. It will be like giving C4 to every rebelling teenager in school.