Yes, they really do want your guns.

www.wsj.com... more serious on topic post from me allan dershowitz of all people thinks red flags are a bad idea

To those who favor strict gun control the answer might seem obvious. They think it’s worth it for 100 or 1,000 nonviolent people to lose their guns to prevent a mass shooting. But those who regard gun possession as a fundamental right under the Second Amendment—as the Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)—frame the issue differently. They ask: Can the government deprive a citizen of a constitutional right based on a prediction? Red-flag laws risk setting a dangerous precedent. If the government can take your guns based on a prediction today, what will stop it from taking your liberty based on a prediction tomorrow? It isn’t a far-fetched concern. The U.S. detained more than 100,000 Japanese-Americans during World War II based on wildly exaggerated predictions of sabotage. States lock up convicted sexual predators even after they’ve completed their sentences based on predictions of recidivism. (The best predictor of future violence is past violence, so sexual-predator laws may have fewer false positives.) Criminal defendants—who are entitled to the presumption of innocence—are frequently denied bail based on predictions that they will flee or commit additional crimes. So the danger of moving from red-flag gun confiscation to red-flag preventive detention is real. We should be careful about denying individual rights based on questionable predictions. Red-flag laws would be worth trying as a remedy for gun violence if they remained limited to temporary gun confiscation pending a timely due-process review. But when government starts taking away some rights in the interest of safety, all rights are at risk.

so there is his opinion for what its worth

a reply to: Gandalf77

ideally yeah but they would sure as hell go for more then a Mossberg 500 or a Remington 870 and the ammo cost will add up pretty quick

a reply to: Gandalf77

Ah, but I never said I agree with the need for the Class 3 license. In fact, I find it abhorrent and in direct disagreement with SCOTUS rulings in other cases stating it is unlawful to require licenses or conditions to permit the exercising of a Right.

originally posted by: PraetorianAZ

originally posted by: carewemust
There is no good reason for any gun that holds more than 25 rounds to be available to the public.

What about fighting a tyrannical government that uses 100rd+ belt-fed automatic weapons? You expect me to fight that with a breech-loader? GTFO. Fighting a tyrannical government that is a good enough reason for me.

You don't want me to have my guns with extended mags? Molon Labe

Spoken like a true patriot.

Give me liberty or give me death.

After Hurricane Katrina:

a reply to: Graysen

The RCMP did this in Alberta, after a flood. They of course gave them back, but the big question to me is how did they know who had them? Did they do an invasive search of every house, or..did they have access to the cancelled gun registry. The records of which were supposed to be destroyed.

Either way


www.cbc.ca...

a reply to: PraetorianAZ

I am so strongly in support of the 2nd Amendment, and interpret it from it's most obvious intention (to defend against tyranny) that I believe we need to also possess grenades, land mines, anti-tank weapons, and anti-air weapons.

A LMG or rifle is not sufficient for combating air strikes or heavy armor.

And if we do ever need to revolt openly to depose the corrupt govt, we will certainly be facing armor and air assets in our cities. They will be doing this down the block from you:




with these:



So yes! We absolutely need the best AA and ECM defense we can get.

If they will bomb other cities around the world - what makes you think they won't do it to us if and when we stand up to them??

I cannot believe people are not demanding access to the newest and most high-tech weaponry available. We definitely might need it.

They can try, good luck to them.

during the Ferguson mayhem, (white) oath keepers stood guard on the rooftops of (minority) business, to prevent looting and arson. The local and state police were outraged, and threatened the oath keepers with arrest.




When I was the age of many of you posting on this thread, this was the evening news:



That's why I'm not giving up my guns. It's been a #ty year. I've got a lot less to lose than some of you young'uns.

originally posted by: carewemust
There is no good reason for any gun that holds more than 25 rounds to be available to the public.

Wrong...There is no good reason for it not to be...

Yep...they have outright state it across multiple media sources many times, especially over this last year.

I'm not sure how anyone could have missed it.

Not much we can do about it at this point but "praise the Lord and pass the ammunition."

It's inevitable Americans will voluntairly surrender their gun rights, it just likely won't happen with until a generation or two down the road.

Being independant in thought, belief and the ability to live without the government directing your every move is being bred out of people.

But make no mistake, disarming believers in our Constitution is a beginning step.

Me: "I try not to think about what I am writing when I'm out in public because I'm lowkey 'afraid' someone will "over-hear" my thoughts and steal my story beats and hooks."

Them: "That's crazy. You need meds."

Them: "They absolutely are planning on coming for my guns and it makes me so angry I actually fantasize about defending my guns with my guns to prevent them from taking my guns."

Me: "Everyone or just you?"

Them: "Everyone."

Me: "They would have to do it in one day, otherwise too many houses would barricade themselves and shoot back at the first sign of something or someone coming in through a door or window. We are talking about a coordinated force of THREE BILLION door kickers, all acting near simultaneously..."

Them: "That's crazy."

Me: (Thinking) "Exactly."

a reply to: carewemust

I want a tank.

Take away civilians guns = Nazi it's a historic fact.

Gotta keep the peeps on the plantation.

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
Me: "I try not to think about what I am writing when I'm out in public because I'm lowkey 'afraid' someone will "over-hear" my thoughts and steal my story beats and hooks."

Them: "That's crazy. You need meds."

Them: "They absolutely are planning on coming for my guns and it makes me so angry I actually fantasize about defending my guns with my guns to prevent them from taking my guns."

Me: "Everyone or just you?"

Them: "Everyone."

Me: "They would have to do it in one day, otherwise too many houses would barricade themselves and shoot back at the first sign of something or someone coming in through a door or window. We are talking about a coordinated force of THREE BILLION door kickers, all acting near simultaneously..."

Them: "That's crazy."

Me: (Thinking) "Exactly."

He says, having an entire conversation with himself in an effort to prove a point nobody is arguing.

a reply to: Shamrock6

And the vast majority of this thread is filled with pigsqueal zooting over the vague threats of idiots who don't matter because they can't do math.

It's like fantasy football for partisans who can't play football and suck at fantasy.

queenofswords:

Surely, you jest.

Not at all. I don't jest where guns are concerned. From a perspective of the principle for life, a gun in any hand is the wrong hand. You just need to read many of the comments posted on this thread to become convinced of the mental instability of many gun owners.

There are literally tens of millions of Americans that own guns...all kinds of arms.

And right there...is America's gun problem. We can also factor in the hardest part of the problem, the mindset to own a gun, the need to have one or many. It is not mentally healthy.

It really doesn't matter how may Americans currently own guns, if it becomes a perceived right thought to ban the sale of, and confiscate guns for the good of society in general, then it will be enacted through legislation, and the plan will be to give enough time for the idea to percolate throughout the nation, and become acceptable. A well-controlled gun confiscation would take years, decades, but the amount of guns already 'out there' can easily be reduced.

I don't doubt that there will be cases where so-called responsible gun owners turn into 'nut jobs' and resist, and end up being killed in a hail of bullets, and probably putting their family in harms way, too. It will only take a few cases such as this for others to be convinced that to resist would ultimately be futile, and utterly life threatening. The choice would be such that one would have to decide what they want to be...a responsible family man, or a so-called responsible gun-owner, the two are not compatible (although I am sure many of you would convince yourselves that they are).

I'm not sure if any of you have noticed, but we have gone from protecting the rights of the individual to being more concerned with protecting overall society more. Protecting society in general is now perceived more important than individual rights, especially where individual rights might potentially threaten society. Under these terms, the 2nd Amendment is a threat to society, and the Amendment, being an amendment, can easily be amended.

Gun rampages are not acceptable in any society, but in one where the gun is as ubiquitous in sale as a pint of milk, then it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy of mayhem.

a reply to: elysiumfire

We can also factor in the hardest part of the problem, the mindset to own a gun, the need to have one or many. It is not mentally healthy.

That’s always a good way to get people to agree with you.

“Oh, you like this thing that I don’t like? Well you’re mentally ill because I say so. Now you need to agree with me so I get my way.”

a reply to: elysiumfire

We disagree on way too many points.

The only thing I agree with you about is that gun rampages are not acceptable. Find out what is causing young men to go berserk.

BTW, (and I'm sure many right here on this board will agree) most of the Americans that own firearms are much more mentally balanced and stable than most of you that screech against the 2A. I know way too many responsible family men (and women) that are responsible gun owners to even give your opinion a second thought.

One day, you may be very thankful indeed that so many of those responsible gun owners stand ready. You will stand in their shadow like a coward spouting all sorts of feel-good platitudes, but they will protect you anyway.....maybe.

What I do not understand is the states with the toughest gun laws consistently have the highest gun murder rates. If banning weapons actually worked then those states should have the lowest rates?

Also, I do believe gun ownership is a right of citizenship. But just like home ownership there should be strict qualifications. We do not just give homes away, you have to be qualified first. Maybe tougher qualifications for gun ownership?

I wonder if a mandatory 2 year military term would work for those people wanting to own guns? Just ideas...

FYI, I own guns. I carry almost always.