Who is the bigger fascist? Trump or Democrats?

a reply to: Eshel

So, unless you can show me to the nearest "gun tree" or explain to me how some higher cosmic power gave us guns, you're dead wrong. You should really stop beating that dead horse into the ground. Won't make it right regardless of how many times you spout it.

I dont think the argument was ever that cosmic powers gave us any specific types of arms, but the people have the right to use them in self-defense. Therefore any infringement upon one's right to arm oneself would seem to violate this idea.

Also, as an afterthought. If it is indeed an inalienable right as you suggest, then why do we have to pay for such items? If it's my 'god-given' right, then I expect it to be completely left out of other's hands. How dare they charge me to own something that is my right to possess ?!?!

Another misunderstanding of what having a right means. It isn't one's right to be armed on demand, but one's right to not be forbidden from obtaining some form of armament.

a reply to: timequake

So, we can't have proper self defense UNLESS we have a semiautomatic firearm with a pistol handle and noise suppressors.

a reply to: timequake

Waste of time.

They think we give each other our rights.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: neo96

Now you're going to worry about too much power being given to the police? Not when they're being given military weaponry?

Only a judge can decide that someone is mentally ill against their will.

But a police department with military-grade weapons and an APV can turn even the largest civilian arsenal into a joke.

I Think you are vastly underestimating the civilian arsenals in the USA.

I mean damm the reasons the cops say they need those is because we all have them duhh

originally posted by: neo96


They think we give each other our rights.

We do, actually.

A squirrel most certainly didn't give it to you.

It's an agreement made between human being with human beings.

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: neo96

Now you're going to worry about too much power being given to the police? Not when they're being given military weaponry?

Only a judge can decide that someone is mentally ill against their will.

But a police department with military-grade weapons and an APV can turn even the largest civilian arsenal into a joke.

I Think you are vastly underestimating the civilian arsenals in the USA.

I mean damm the reasons the cops say they need those is because we all have them duhh

And completely ignored Vietnam,Iraq,Afghanistan,Syria, and our very own revolutionary war, but that beside his point.

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: timequake

So, we can't have proper self defense UNLESS we have a semiautomatic firearm with a pistol handle and noise suppressors.

How do you defend your self from an automatic weapon with a pistol?

a reply to: notsure1

Um, I don't know, aim?

You know, what we used to do back then when our ammunition was scarce and survival was paramount?

a reply to: notsure1

The same way Trump would run into that school without a gun and capture/kill the shooter with his bare hands.

Duh.

a reply to: swanne

But the US federal government nor congress is a human being,

Nor their agencies.

You people have never seen actual fascism. Actual fascism is far from mere regulation of a specific type of gun.

a reply to: swanne

A semi-automatic weapon include nearly all guns that exist. Keep in mind that automatic weapons are already strictly limited. Therefore such a ban would be a weapons ban--something Mussolini favored. Fascism isn't just one regulation, but such regulations are part of what constitutes a fascist regime.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

No semiautomatic would also apply to the shooter, genius.

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: timequake

So, we can't have proper self defense UNLESS we have a semiautomatic firearm with a pistol handle and noise suppressors.

How do you defend your self from an automatic weapon with a pistol?

Bribe a politician with a lots of money to write a law that a bat snip whacko person will ignore.

a reply to: timequake
No. Not all guns are semiautomatic.

Far from it.

a reply to: neo96

nope, still drivel. You didn't even address the point of the post.

I asked nothing about tax or free speech. But good swing ol' chap.

I might point out though that speech is absolutely free. You do realize that the words coming out of your mouth aren't taxed or charged right? You can go out in your yard and just randomly say words and it won't cost you a penny.

I would like you to prove that you are correct. I get a feeling you can not. Just give me the source material that led you to believe that it is a true inalienable right.

(I'll offer you an easy way out. You can admit that you misspoke and meant to say a "fundamental right")

a reply to: Eshel

It was answered, just not how you liked.

People could make their own.

No wait.

That's illegal without permission.

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: timequake

So, we can't have proper self defense UNLESS we have a semiautomatic firearm with a pistol handle and noise suppressors.

I didn't say that. I was simply clarifying the meaning of what "arms" means, and what "rights" are.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: notsure1

The same way Trump would run into that school without a gun and capture/kill the shooter with his bare hands.

Duh.

What I am saying is The cops have automatic weapons the criminals have automatic weapons.

The biggest threat to a free state is not foreigners its the cops and the national guard and the government.

Hitler pulled the first documented false flag in history right before WWII so he could declare marshall law and disarm his populace. And we all know what happened after that right?

Now we have a Potus that all you guys have been calling HITLER and making comparison after comparison to HITLER actually saying he wants to take the guns before due process ....

AND YOU GUYS WANT TO LET HIM. PLEASE LET THAT SINK IN...

a reply to: notsure1

You do know that Hitler won because he succeeded to take over the original police and the gov, right?

Basically the state couldn't defend against his revolutions, and he eventually rose to power.

a reply to: timequake

Sorry, you're mistaken. If he used the definitions or even the sole word "right", then you would be correct.

The problem lies with the fact that he believes it to be "inalienable". That definition is lost on him and I took a stab at providing the definitions. Guess that doesn't help anymore.

Welcome to right wing America. Where the "rights" are made up and the definitions don't matter.