Ban the Gun, Repeal the Second Amendment.

Originally posted by MysterX
Ban attacks on the second amendment.

An armed population is a population protected from a tyranical government.

People die and are injured much more in vehicle crashes...why don't you try and ban those and leave the people's protection alone.

You've done a remarkable job so far of protecting yourselves from a tyrannical government. Tell me, how do you expect you'd use your automatic weapons against tanks, fighter jets, chemical and biological weapons, a standing army of hundreds of thousands of highly trained and heavily armed men and women, drones, intelligence agencies...

You're delusional. There is NO CHANCE IN HELL you or any other American is gonna use your rights to defend yourselves against that kind of government. To use that as a repeated excuse is not only pathetic, it's laughable in the extreme.

Also, the Second Amendment was written at a time when the most powerful gun was hand loaded, shot maybe a few hundred feet, and was capable of killing maybe one person ever thirty seconds at a major push.

If those people back then could see what their amendment was excusing they would be sick, disgusted, they would repeal that faster than you can say "NRA!"

American's who use the Second Amendment to excuse their ownership of high-powered assault weapons are living in cloud cuckoo land. You;ll use anything at all to excuse your arrogance and insanity, and no number of dead babies will ever persuade you that you might possibly be wrong.

I'll say it again, those who wrote the Second Amendment would be sick to see the kind of thing people like you are defending. They would be ashamed of what they had allowed to happen. If they could come back right now they would be on a podium, crying their eyes out and demanding that all assault weapons be outlawed immediately.

If you don't think that's true, you really are truly delusional and an insult to those who founded your country.

What I find funny is that I hear no calls from anyone to dismantle thier own nation's military forces....none whatsoever.

I wonder why that would be? Could it be that the "guns" of the military are used to protect it's parent nation? Even the UK, with it's ban on all weapons for the "subjects", has a fully functional, modern military for it's governments protection.

I guess nations should be protected, whereas individuals should just accept what fate has in store for them?

I will never take any stance on gun removal seriously that does not begin with dismantling that person's home nation's entire military first. I wonder if there will be any discussion of disarming the UK' s military defences?

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff

Never been to the US so no I havent been to that town.

Thanks, that answers everything.
No further questions needed.

and here is obama..just like other presidents before him talking about another mass murder...blah blah blah.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff

 

Because the Us does not have the "highest rate" in the world

en.wikipedia.org...

By why lets facts enter in to the conversation this is ats where dogma reigns supreme.

Never said it had the highest "rate"

I said it had the highest total which it does.

If I did use the word "rate" in any of my posts it was merely a slip, whichever way you look at it the US has way to many gun deaths.

And anyway, look at the countries on that list that are above you, well done you have a lower "rate" than Sth Africa and Honduras.

USA USA USA

reply to post by detachedindividual

Yeah, because no society has EVER taken on and held their own against an over powering Govt that had them out gunned.

Sure sure.

Love to hear the Progressive Liberal ideals here.

reply to post by KoolerKing


The problems with mental tests are that anyone can pass them on day one! Then fast forward 5 years and that dude has lost his car/house/dog/kids, and now his government check. Not only that but he has lost his court fight with his wife who now wants 5 years of back pay. Also his boss has been mentally abusing him every day because....well because he's gonna take it or lose his job....then to lose his job cause his boss has decided to move to china to abuse more workers for less pay! Then some dirty bum just pissed on his cardboard box that night and stolen his waffle iron.

All he's got left is his fully automatic and his 9mm that he obviously didn't sell for crack because he's a patriot and all that jazz. < insert mental breakdown here> He takes said guns and decides that a full frontal assault of a shopping mall and movie theater and a kids school are his best options to revenge. You know a bunch of innocent people are who he takes his rage out on. People he knows are not responsible for his current situation in any way! YUP, sounds legit!!!!!!!


I CALL false flag all the way! Who writes this stuff anyways?

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff

 

Because the Us does not have the "highest rate" in the world

en.wikipedia.org...

By why lets facts enter in to the conversation this is ats where dogma reigns supreme.

Never said it had the highest "rate"

I said it had the highest total which it does.

If I did use the word "rate" in any of my posts it was merely a slip, whichever way you look at it the US has way to many gun deaths

There are other places in the world that has more

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by DAZ21

 

Are you going to answer the direct question?
Do you believe that being shot automatically means you die?

Well, it depends where you're shot obviously.

How does this justify shooting someone? Because you may not die? Ok you stand and be a Target and I'll do some shooting practice.

Originally posted by ZiggyMojo

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by DAZ21

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by DAZ21
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin

 

I tried telling them the same thing and they won't listen, they believe that if they can own guns they will shoot the shooters, which blatantly hasn't happened over the recent shootings.

So get ready to face a whole bunch of cowboys.

edit on 14-12-2012 by DAZ21 because: (no reason given)

That's because schools are "gun free zones" moron. Gosh, that didn't deter the CRIMINAL, did it?

CRIMINALS don't care about LAWS. You and your bleeding heart idealism are not going to stop a criminal from committing a crime, and banning guns are not going to make guns magically disappear. Remember, alcohol was banned once, too. Remember how it "disappeared"?

edit on 14-12-2012 by AwakeinNM because: (no reason given)

Moron?

So how did the gunmen enter the school gun free zone? It's not a gun repellent, just because it's a gun free zone doesn't mean you can't walk in with a gun.

So I'm sure someone could have gone in and tried to be the hero, some of you think you are.

That's not the point though, maybe there wasn't anyone present with a gun to help.

The fact is though, this gun free zone wasn't very gun free was it?

You've just driven home my point. Kudos.

This just made my day and proved to me that some people have a total breakdown in logic. The LAW ABIDING citizens will ABIDE by the LAW of the signs posted. A criminal will not. Arm the criminal and leave the innocent as fish in a barrel.

Oh, I see. You are saying that because there are restrictive laws that prohibit guns on schools, that criminals will disregard those laws, that we must now ban all guns so that criminals won't have them to commit these kinds of crimes?

Okay.. breakdown in logic. GOTCHA.

I think we should ban alcohol again. Since YOU weren't in charge of it last time, I'm sure it would work much better this time if YOU run things.

Breakdown in logic indeed.

And thus it begins...

My Good british citizens who still kneels for the queen and whose Ruler is the head of your Church

Second Amendment wiki

There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with slight capitalization and punctuation differences, found in the official documents surrounding the adoption of the Bill of Rights.[5] One version was passed by the Congress,[6] while another is found in the copies distributed to the States[7] and then ratified by them.
As passed by the Congress:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[8]

The original hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights, approved by the House and Senate, was prepared by scribe William Lambert and resides in the National Archives.

These words were are very important... Necessary to the security of a free state...

Did I take it out of context... it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms is required for security of the state.. In fact it shall not be infringed...

Look what happens when it is infringed upon ... innocents die and are harmed because you insist upon violating an ideal in the name of your fear..

The founding fathers were among some of this nations greatest thinkers... The solution they say to prevent tyranny from those practicing tyranny is for the population to be armed... An extra check to the checks and balances present..

Power was divided

Executive branch to execute the rules and the business of america


Congress - to make laws
further split to make power difference
larger population- house-number of votes based on population
senate- number of votes is two per state

Judicial - enforce and interpret the laws
Supreme court


State Governments- kept power some as well

Even with this system of checks and balances, the founders felt more was needed

The first ten amendments was seen as this...

Number two was ingenious
IT is designed to prevent a government from preventing the citizens from having the ability to defend it self from from those who seek to impose tyranny

of the side benefits is the ability of the general populace to protect itself


Now fast forward to today... The idea was to have people able to protect themselves.. So what happened...

A group of people decided that no civilian can be armed on school grounds... So without recourse a group of unarmed teachers were unable to protect there charges..

So today I hold all of you gun control advocates responsible... Every death is on your hands... One armed teacher... one, and 18 children would be home today... So are you happy with yourselves... Your infringement and support of the infringement got 18 children killed... sleep with it on your conscious

reply to post by ZiggyMojo


Excellent posts ziggy, as per usual.

The issue is that this is representative of a much deeper core issue, along with violence in general. However, to actually approach the issue effectively, it requires people to look at themselves. People dont like to do that, and would rather shift blame to.. well.. the easiest target in any given situation.

Banning guns in America is a completely delusional suggestion. Even if getting rid of the guns would solve these societal issues (it wont), you have the logistics of actually carrying out the ban. I can appreciate someone being anti-gun, even if I disagree, but making such suggestions is a total waste of time and effort. It is simply not an effective solution. Even the anti-gun folks in this thread repeatedly say to the OP to "prepare for the onslaught." At this point dont you realize that your efforts are in vain and completely ineffective? At this point, if you really want to avoid these devastating tragedies, wouldnt you want to actually pursue options and solutions that are feasible, effective, and address the core issues rather than dancing around it? Obviously not.

The inherent division and lack of respect towards one another is the core issue behind all of these things, but that requires personal responsibility and not a shift of blame. I dont see that happening, honestly.

Tragedies such as this one really should require us, as a species, to look at ourselves and what we might be doing wrong. Banning methods of carrying out action is useless when it is the motivation behind that action that is the concern. Most just want to use it as a platform to pursue their own personal agenda though, blaming everyone else and just waiting for the moments to say "I told you so!" Sad state of affairs..

Originally posted by DAZ21


Well, it depends where you're shot obviously.

How does this justify shooting someone? Because you may not die? Ok you stand and be a Target and I'll do some shooting practice.

Can you just answer the question??

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin

Get out of the Wild West and the 18th century and BAN THE GUN!!!

Stop hiding behind that ancient bit of paper, your constitution, ...

Whenever a Brit says things like this, I think about the Royal Family, I laugh, and I move on.

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by DAZ21

 

It’s getting to the stage that enough is enough something has to be done.

You could make the above comment on so many things! But do you want to have your whole world regulated for you, because of the few?

First my prayer go out for all the children killed today... may God bless these families

First - I’m sick of people trying to take guns away from law abiding citizens… If just one or two of the teachers was trained, and carried a cancelled hand gun it could have made a big difference… unfortunately, it’s something we will never know.

I’m sorry but gun control is not going to stop any criminal from doing something that they set out to do… the only reason things like this happen is because a criminal knows he/she can carry out what he intends without being challenged by anyone.

When people start standing up against these idiots criminal, they will think twice before doing something stupid like this; there is just no way you can legislate behavior of mentally deranged people.

Second- An armed population is a population protected from a tyrannical government, which is what we witness everyday with new laws and legislation being placed and enforced…

I’m sure this will just be another step in big government agenda to take full control of our freedoms, considering what has happened today.

Second Amendment: could be like this and I would be OK with it… just my opinion, So long as I am able to protect myself, family and property sounds good to me...

• A State Regulated Militia: should be the only groups allowed to have weapons of the assault type
• Right to bear arms by the people: should be limited to pistols, and guns for hunting

petitions.whitehouse.gov...

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by ZiggyMojo
reply to post by DAZ21

 

Are you saying Knives can't kill people? Are you saying people don't KILL with knives? LOL

A knife is every bit as dangerous as a gun. Weapons are only as dangerous to people as the people wielding them. That is the logic you are missing.

What nonsense are you trying to sell?

Tell me, if you were in a street and someone was 10 feet in front of you with a knife or a gun, which one would you rather it be?
Run and you have a good chance with a knife weilder to get away...run with a person with a gun and you get a bullet in your back.

Also, knives have less mortality rate than bullets when they are struck home..requires upper body strength, etc. Also, if there is a crime committed, a person whom stabbed you is far more likely to be caught due to close proximity (aka, you can grab them, get some of their dna under your fingernails, hair samples, etc).

I can list a page long retort to that comment..but it would probably be easier for you to admit that is a silly thing to say...you don't have to be anti-gun to see the logic in how a knife is less dangerous than a gun...this makes you simply intelligent..
For instance, a pen is less dangerous than a knife..both can be used to murder someone...but because they can both be deadly, doesn't mean they are equal in deadliness..that doesn't mean I am anti-knife for understanding that..it just means I am rational.

No friend, you've missed the logic. Never once did I say a knife is more deadly or effective than a gun. You've also helped prove my point.

I said "A knife is every bit as dangerous as a gun. Weapons are only as dangerous to people as the people wielding them. That is the logic you are missing."

You are creating a scenario that pits a gun vs a knife.. Everyone knows you don't bring a knife to a gun fight.

I'm comparing a knife vs an unarmed victim to a gun vs an unarmed victim. Both of them can kill, both of them can kill quickly. Neither of them are deadly (unless accidentally misused) if the person wielding the weapon doesn't intend to use it for harm. Do you see the point you're missing? It has nothing to do with the effectiveness. An unarmed individual can do nothing but run. You're willing to bet that you're faster than the guy with a knife? Or would you rather have a means of defense that isn't your flesh?

A guy with a gun is 10 feet away.. You also have a gun. Playing field EVEN.
A guy with a knife is 10 feet away or right on top of you... You have a gun.. Playing field is in your favor.

Even if you AREN'T armed and someone else nearby is.. Your chances of survival are increased. Disarming the innocent WILL NOT stop these crimes from happening.

Guns do not create violent crime. Society does.

In the UK, there are 2,034 violent offences per 100,000 people, way ahead of second-placed Austria with a rate of 1,677.

The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 92 and South Africa 1,609.

Tell me how gun control has been good for the violent crime rates in the UK.

reply to post by ripcontrol


We don't all bow and love the Queen, stop stereotyping. Most of us couldn't care less.

reply to post by DAZ21


Still beholden to the ideals of the British Empire though I see.
You know, the same that state YOU are a subject.

Originally posted by ZiggyMojo
This isn't about guns. This is about people growing callous and desensitized. Humanity, or this sort of violence will continue to happen and probably at an increasing rate.

You say humanity, but in Europe, we have gun control and dont have these problems in that scale...
So if its not the guns, it must be the american people, is that what you are saying?