The Right of the People to Own Weapons Cant be Expunged From The Debate.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Seriously. Pull your head out of your ass and go reread what I typed more carefully this time.

When deflection isn't working, use personal insult.

Hey pot, are you telling the kettle what color it is again?
"You are one of the hand wringers, conditioned by decades of anti gun propaganda,"
How about you cut the bickering and actually address my points before I start alerting the mods to your trolling?

How it goes, first play the emotional card, then the personal insult, then the "Umm, I'm telling" one.

Alert yourself...

Seriously. Pull your head out of your ass and go reread what I typed more carefully this time.

yea, this is where these discussions usually end up by around this time. Guess I'm not missing anything. Maybe another week off and everybody will remember they are at each other by design or whatever. Ha, I may as well wish it to rain unicorns.

a reply to: elysiumfire

Wrong. Lethal force can be used to protect others and yourself any time any where including gun free zones. US citizens can arrest anyone committing a felony in their presence and can use lethal force to detain them if they try to flee custody. Just be sure that they committed a felony and not just a misdemeanor.

Oh, and Wyatt Earp was a US Marshal. They are allowed to do thing even FBI agents are not allowed to do.

You sir , and a few other membera here on ATS obviously do not know what the second amendment is all about. Before you start your preaching , read it and try to understand it please.
The right to bear arms is to protect us from a tyrannical government and to be able to take back said government if it gets to that point.
It's harder for a country to be taken over when those in charge realize that the people are armed and will not be taken like sheep to the slaughter.
And I hope you stay safe in your country. And stay there please.
a reply to: Agit8dChop

a reply to: TacoLoco75

The right to bear arms is to protect us from a tyrannical government and to be able to take back said government if it gets to that point.

It is? Where does the Constitution say that? The document is not really that big. It should be easy to back that claim up.

Your attitude sir is how King George lost a war against a small upcoming nation. The United States of America 🇺🇸 , just in case you needed clarification. Stay in Britain please, with your opinions. a reply to: elysiumfire

a reply to: TacoLoco75

Actually, I'm not in Britain.

Now, can you show me what I asked about the Constitution?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TacoLoco75

Actually, I'm not in Britain.

Now, can you show me what I asked about the Constitution?

Pssst: I think he was replying to elysiumfire.

a reply to: Krakatoa

Oh. Never mind.

I will patiently wait in queue for a response to my query.

originally posted by: ausername
I've very recently discovered and concluded there is absolutely no middle ground in the gun debate in this country, it's either one extreme or the other. One way or the other, all or nothing, no compromise. Everything is a slippery slope leading to a total gun grab.

Like so many issues in government in this country, you have to be on one side or the other, otherwise you're irrelevant and insignificant noise no one will hear.

That's very true. You need to look at the use cases of firearms:

farmers - needed to shoot vermin and other pests (could use traps)
hunters - needed to shoot for food / culling
trekkers - needed for self defence against wild animals
home owners - needed for self defence
police - needed for self defence against criminals
business owners - needed for self defence against criminals

If you search the internet for stories about mothers defending themselves with weapons, you will find dozens of stories:

abcnews.go.com...

If you are under attack, then there is no maximum number of rounds of ammunition you need. Either you eliminate the threat or you are dead once you run out of ammunition. There may be no need to carry a weapon if you are living in a safe area of a prosperous city or live in a gated community. but for the rest of the population who are over 30 minutes away from the police station by car, they need something for self defence.

originally posted by: elysiumfire
ntrptr:

We mustn't allow all of American's rights to be reformed based on the actions of one individual.

One individual is bad enough, but multiple individuals committing 40 individual gun rampages killing 350 Americans over the last 30 years or so, now that ought to be making people sit up and ask questions as to why enough is not be done to insure it doesn't happen again.

If the gun is not the problem, and that people are the problem, ban all people from having guns. It really is as simple as that. Either ban the gun, or ban the people, and throw the 2nd amendment out as a crackpot idea, which is about as useful today as a chocolate fire guard.

Why? No one bats an eye at the number of gun murders at the hands of criminals in Chicago, Baltimore, NYC, etc., all still going strong. Just check the additional homicides in those cities this weekend, none of which would be stopped by “new” gun laws. And those numbers FAR exceed 350...a shame folks won’t go after criminals but would prefer to dismantle the US Constitution and destroy a free America for the law abiding populace.

In this fast world we live in if they pass a bill disarming America half of our land of the free wouldn't even no what happened....you would go on about your everyday hustle and bustle maybe talking about it at the water fountain at work until they come for yours.
You will get a notice from the court of law to comply within so many days just like a parking ticket and if your a honest law abiding citizen you will comply, if not after three more warnings you failed to comply with your summons in court they will issue a bench warrant and our public service will do there job and come to your house...the rest of the world just keeps on turning .
If they take it out of your cold dead hands you'll make the "News" another Gun owner went on a shooting spree
There will be lots of red flags most gun owners with any since will putt there guns away in a dark place for safe keeping ......but if one of your guns are registered the court of law will want to see proof, with your compliance did you sell it, it was stolen show proof, proof of where your registered gun is or they will issue a search warrant.
There not going to send a militia down the streets kicking in doors...

I suppose it's easy to justify no gun reform of any kind.. when you are of a mindset that every mass shooting was a false flag event. Because obviously.. there are not actually any crazy people who would actually shoot at a crowd of people with an assault rifle.

Then there are the more common-sense folks out there feel that -some- sort of reform is due. Something that might curb or stop a shooting.. while still maintaining the integrity of the 2nd amendment. I don't know what those things might be.. but expecting a change when nothing is different is foolhardy.

Unless of course, you are one of those "everything is a false flag if it goes against my beliefs" sort of person. Then you've already made up your mind.

There are over 300 million guns in America—even if everyone wanted to, how could you control a supply that large, especially when person-to-person exchanges are also a liability.
Critically think: Keeping people self hating, divided and respecting are the ideal conditions required for maintaining dominance.
The government knows exactly how to indirectly manipulate unstable people through the media.
Its the intentional result of social engineering.

a reply to: fleabit wall street Gun stocks have gone up.....

.

originally posted by: TacoLoco75
You sir , and a few other membera here on ATS obviously do not know what the second amendment is all about. Before you start your preaching , read it and try to understand it please.
The right to bear arms is to protect us from a tyrannical government and to be able to take back said government if it gets to that point.
It's harder for a country to be taken over when those in charge realize that the people are armed and will not be taken like sheep to the slaughter.
And I hope you stay safe in your country. And stay there please.
a reply to: Agit8dChop

History laughs at you.

Take Iraq in 2003. Every adult male was required to keep a weapon at home. Didn't help defend them from Saddam but they came in handy fighting the US and British afterwards.

OK, lets assume the Iraqis were useless anyway. Let's look at another example from history.

At the Battle of Kursk, the Soviets had a defensive line 25 miles deep and 1000s of miles wide. 1,000,000 mines. 2,000,000 men. 5,000 tanks. Facing a German force about half their size.

At times it was a close run thing but it took the Soviets a week to stop the German advance.

Compare the modern US military with the Wehrmacht in 1943, already bruised after two years of fighting in Russia.

Good luck to you and your buddies standing up to tyranny.

originally posted by: Lab4Us


Why? No one bats an eye at the number of gun murders at the hands of criminals in Chicago, Baltimore, NYC, etc., all still going strong. Just check the additional homicides in those cities this weekend, none of which would be stopped by “new” gun laws. And those numbers FAR exceed 350...a shame folks won’t go after criminals but would prefer to dismantle the US Constitution and destroy a free America for the law abiding populace.

The rest of the world bats an eye and wonders why you tolerate it.

Back in the 70s, I think it was Ted Heath who said that the Troubles in northern Ireland were manageable because there was "an acceptable level of violence." It happened somewhere else to someone else so it wasn't a pressing issue.

Perhaps the US, too, believes it is an acceptable level of violence.

a reply to: Whodathunkdatcheese

I think you need to go read a history book again, all throughout history people with the will to resist that had weapons successfully fought insurgencies against a tyranny, yea some failed others succeeded and still others went so long the tyranny finally said F it we quit lets do some sort of coalition.

If you have no weapons your will does not really matter, you need something that can damage the enemy, being completely disarmed leaves you closer to serf status than free citizen.

a reply to: Irishhaf

So many of the control leaning haven't a clue as to the political/philosophical justification for the 2nd. And the US constitution is not the first place the right was affirmed.