Why do Americans need guns? Rip UP the Second Amendment, problem solved.

Everyone knows the founders included the 2nd amendment so if usurping of a tyrannical government was needed, that option would be more feasible to the common man. Pure and simple, looks like we need to retain that right more and more as of late.

There's a lot of misconception about the US from abroad.

A very, very wealthy Iraqi came here to the US to see my brother about some financial dealings, and was acting a bit perplexed.

Upon further examination, he was taught, and it was a given fact, that the US was a regular Dodge City 24/7, and he mentioned he was surprised that he'd heard no gunfire!

Well, we're looking at this stupid SOB, and he got a call from another wealthy friend right then, asking how dangerous it was over here, and had he been shot at?

Five minutes later, Another one called!

He finally went back to his sandpile, but the misinformation was telling. There is no telling what foreigners, such as Scots have been led to believe.

I conceal carry a 3"Kimber Ultra CDP II, a lightweight Model 1911 .45. The reason I carry the .45 is because they don't' make a .46

My sons each got their first rifle at age 8, and my daughter can shoot . . . well, it' just pisses the rest of us off, she's such a natural. An intruder finally broke down our front door one night, and the boys, at that time aged 8 and 10, met the intruder as he came in the door, one with his own .20-gauge pump shotgun, and the eight year old with his .22.

The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. It's to protect us from our leaders.

You Europeans have another hard lesson coming.

Nothing stays the same.

Nothing.

reply to post by c0ldPhr34k


Sorry bub, you just never hear about the body's they find in the bog that the home owner tosses in after they catch someone trying to break into their home.

You also certainly never hear about burglars who run down the street like a little girl while the family opens fire on them.'

You only hear about how afraid you should be, and that its your fault you were shot at because guns should be illegal and that will protect you.

Well guess what cupcake - Up in canada they have begun restricting firearms and it hasnt slowed down crime at all in regards to guns. Not to mention now there is a registry on file for the government to sieze your guns immediately. Not to mention I get pulled over and searched because im flagged as a gun owner. not to mention the fact that police treat me like a criminal because I MIGHT have a gun on me.

You are conditioned to be CATTLE, Dont you get it? Dont you see what you anti gun people are doing!?

I mean this is STUPID. How can you demand the disarming of a public and allow for the government, police and military to have the equipment specifically designed to KILL YOU?

Oh wait wait...they are going to protect you, right?

So long as you sit in your home and starve to death while all your tax money is sent to China.

reply to post by kevinunknown


An armed population = citizens

An unarmed population = subjects

Originally posted by TheOracle
I used to be vocal in my anti- guns views. I am still very much against it but honestly, no point argueing to our american brothers. The problem is not guns it's social.

America is not Europe, America is 'free for all' mentality, each on his own and criminality is just another means to many's needs. Let them defend themselves against their own, let them have their guns until they learn how to live together.

Which the large majority of American society does. The small minority that decides that they will break the law and use a firearm in a manner that is not conducive towards a self regulated, self governed society will continue to receive the majority of media coverage. It [violence] increases ratings which increases advertisement and in turn turns profits.

It has become me to see that other citizens of various countries have accepted that the State should be given control over their lives. Which, on paper and still instilled in various aspects of the United States of America, is still a big no no.

So yes, leave us to our guns. Our guns that which fall under the right to bear arms. Leave us to dictate what is and what is not acceptable as a society. I say and will say the same to Americans that preach upon British or any other society we wish to impose a 'free' society at our will, not their own.

Originally posted by TheOracle
I used to be vocal in my anti- guns views. I am still very much against it but honestly, no point argueing to our american brothers. The problem is not guns it's social.

America is not Europe, America is 'free for all' mentality, each on his own and criminality is just another means to many's needs. Let them defend themselves against their own, let them have their guns until they learn how to live together.

Even within our own borders we have the same debate. I grew up in california, where there are millions of guns, but chances are you will go to prison if you are caught with one.

I have lived here in Denver for quite some time now, where I can not only carry, but if some scumbag tries to come into my house uninvited I can strenuously force him to leave (maybe not just my home, but the world in general).

Go figure

Guess what folks, when Obama came into office the most guns ever recorded were sold nationwide for fear of stronger gun restrictions. Millions of guns sold in several months alone and annual homicide numbers when DOWN significantly nationwide, cops can make more or less arrests in a given year, but you can't really fudge on the stat of the murder rate, either someone's dead or they're not. Guns provide defensive security, but as I said, the reason we have guns and the ONLY reason is to have the raw might to forge another revolution if need be, no George Washington and old Ben Franklin didn't think it was so we could go shoot animals for food, they were thinking of governmental tyranny.

reply to post by FarArcher


I was on submarines when I was in the Navy. We hosted a Russian sub for a few days for sub games. A few days in they asked to be escorted to town to buy toiletries. We took them to wal-mart. They were so angry with us. We couldn't understand it. We asked them why the fuss. They explained they were upset because America stocked a store full of so much stuff to impress them. We explained that we couldn't control what wal-mart had or didn't have. Once we explained that every one had tons of stuff cheap it blew their mind. They had many misconceptions. Just like the British. Brushing teeth is good. Not bad Brits.

Originally posted by TheOracle
I used to be vocal in my anti- guns views. I am still very much against it but honestly, no point argueing to our american brothers. The problem is not guns it's social.

America is not Europe, America is 'free for all' mentality, each on his own and criminality is just another means to many's needs. Let them defend themselves against their own, let them have their guns until they learn how to live together.

Your ignorance is showing, you Brits are in serious trouble, even the French have 32 guns per 100 people with all their present gun ownership restrictions. Europe is not a gun free zone my dear. Here's a list of countries arranged by gun ownership per 100 people, note the United Kingdom is way down the list at 5.6 firearms per 100 people (down there with Iran and Columbia). Ugh, good luck waging a revolution out there in Great Britain, poor Scots, I feel for ya, and fear for ya.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by Brood
reply to post by Deebo

 

Freedom of speech very much protects your right to talk about hard facts.

Unfortunately you provided no source to back up your self-fabricated statistic, so what you are trying to say holds absolutely no weight whatsoever. Babbling hearsay.

Yet I have noticed you only attack or confront arguments in which you can respond with a straw man. Many here have presented and even challenged you in one form or another yet you ignore those and continue with those that you feel you can 'win' the argument.

Want to debate the 2nd Amendment. Lets go.

“When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”

Thomas Jefferson


“All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.”

Thomas Jefferson


This cannot be said enough.

Its gonna be road warrior out there and somebody is going to end up being the yuppy with the ball gag.

Is it you?

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by kevinunknown

 

The Constitution was written to address the shortcomings of the Magna Carta. We choose not to burn it. But should you ever misplace the Magna Carta, we will gladly send you a copy of the Constitution as a replacement. After all, it was written by Englishmen who found the Magna Carta and the king's behavior unsatisfactory and could not act on clause 61, which excluded the common man.
The Chavs may not like our Constitution, but it may greatly benefit the good people of the UK.

This is not entirely true and based upon subjective observation of history. I could claim that the Constitution was the answer to a Monarchical form of government. It was a redefinition of what a Republic was. It was a crazy experiment by the Royal Crown to study the effects of a self governed society.

So, can you provide the source that shows the Constitution was written to address the Magna Carta? I could have sworn it was a spawn of the Articles of Confederacy?!?

The French have 32 guns per 100 people?

So?

The French Army had 100 guns per 100 soldiers, and we all see how well that turned out.

So, say for example that things get sideways. A catastrophic event. Every man for himself. So the few with the guns, they get to make the rules, you know? Take what they want. When they want. Take it all.

So are you going to fabricate some longbows?

I am really surprised this thread got as much attention as it has. The OP isn't even from the US, so why the hell are we even feeding into his trolling. Seriously, your talking to some "bloke" in the EU. That's a cool place to be I hear. And then he comes on the forum and demands we shred the second amendment? Why even bother with this clown, seriously.

One last thing before I go to bed . The fact that you knew about our second amendment is awesome. Because you guys are so jealous of us you can taste it. I don't know what your laws or anything is called. I know you have a big clock and sound a lot like Harry Potter. That's all I care to know. Not because I'm ignorant. It's because that's how much I pay attention to an insignificant country such as yours. By the way, the next time Germany comes barging in, don't call us. You don't want our guns!!!!!

Originally posted by FarArcher
The French have 32 guns per 100 people?

So?

The French Army had 100 guns per 100 soldiers, and we all see how well that turned out.

So, say for example that things get sideways. A catastrophic event. Every man for himself. So the few with the guns, they get to make the rules, you know? Take what they want. When they want. Take it all.

So are you going to fabricate some longbows?

Not sure what you're alluding to FarArcher, I'm talking about taking back a country, the last time the French did that was the French Revolution, although bloody and disorganized, they did forge a revolution. When times get bad those with guns can defend themselves against those who would "take what they want". Longbows?! We don't need 'em, in the US we have guns, I don't know where you are located.

reply to post by Gradius Maximus


To those who think guns should be outlawed a question for you.

Criminals are called that because they do not abide by the law. If we remove the guns from the law abiding citizens, why do you think it would solve the problem? The threat is not the law abiding citizens, but the ones who ignore the law and do what they want.

Its like New York trying to ban handguns because they logged 300 homocides in one year. The guns did not kill anyone. The criminal killed the person.

Which means when the law abiding citizens are unarmed, the criminals are the most productive. To me its the same BS argument people make about Police pursuits. The cops are doing ther job, enforcing the laws and trying to keep society safe. So when a person on a motorcycle running at 120 down the highway, which endangers everyone around them and is a law violation, is killed because he took a corner at 90mph while running from the police, do people blame the police for the death?

The argument "they" make is its not worth placing anyone in danger because a motorcyclyst wants to speed.

The question then becomes, where is the line drawn between enforcing the law on violaters who just dont get it, or punishing law abdiding citizens because they stop when they are being pulled over for speeding.

Taking the guns only punishes the law abiding citizens, and rewards the criminals.

reply to post by Xcathdra


You are horribly mistaken if you think I believe guns should be outlawed.

Hunting rifles and hand guns should be a mandatory item in a home.

Like they used to be.

end of story.

bigrex, my bad.

I was directing toward the Europeans, and used poor phraseology.

And a bit of a bite at the French . . .

Sorry. I'm apparently more tired than I believed.

What year is this?

reply to post by kevinunknown


Not surprised to see this post is from you. You've got to be one of the most ignorant self centered knowitalls I've ever seen on these boards. You're no better than the religious zealots and the UFO-believe-anything-fanatics here, you do the same sad attempts to impose your world views on everyone else.