It’s Time for Gun Confiscation in America

reply to post by TruthxIsxInxThexMist


I guess you'll have to take my word for it. Also, my criminal record, or lack thereof, is not open for discussion as I have chosen not to own any firearms of any sort as it is not covered by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Thanks for the hostile response to my rational argument though. That lets me know that I struck a nerve. Also, the fact that you lumped me in with the law-abiding gun-owners without even bothering to look just to your left where it clearly states that I live in CANADA! I guess to anti-self-defense types like yourself, though, details are of minor importance I suppose. I wonder why that is......maybe because your entire argument is based on a knee-jerk response to a tragedy that could have easily been prevented had the teachers in said school been in possession of Concealed Carry Permits and were carrying at the time. That would have stopped Adam Lanza real quick now wouldn't it? But like I said....details are of no importance.....right? /sarcasm

reply to post by ObjectZero

Would you want the man in this vid to have the right to bring a gun to work?

Good thread and good point. It's the ol' double standard with the U.S. government, as always. If it was never clear before, it is very clear now; That we better hang on to our guns and keep our eyes open because something's on the move. But I agree, the U.S. gov. should lead by example and get rid of all their weapons, and stop giving the latest to their friends, like Israel, then maybe we will talk about the second amendment. I'm still trying to figure out why so many people in the U.K. and other countries are so pushy about Americans giving up their second amendment.

I find it disgusting that people who do not live in America want to dictate what we do...

They call US the bullies? Maybe in your culture and country you can't have guns,
see them as terrible objects, don't be jealous because we do....

This thread has pointed out the illogical thinking from people who don't want the
US citizens to have guns... I don't rely on the police, rely on myself...

All the points and discussions are moot because they will never take away
the US citizens firearms.. The South Will Rise Again.

Guns this. guns that, BLAH BLAH BLAH!!! They're making a huge problem out of guns, but lets just turn a blind eye to all the drugs that have taken more lives in the US than guns. But wait lets not ban alchol, even if it's the cause of most deaths in the U S, most spousal abuse/family abuse. What about is friend tobacco? But guns are the problem today my ass. It's the ones BEHIND the trigger that are the cause of this, the brain washed, the druggie, the psycho. But it's ok to take the guns out of our hands,. the ones ready to stand up an protect our country, I'm the son of a Marine, I will not stand for this, to have our government ONCE AGAIN rape us from behind an have the citizens just accept it.

reply to post by IvanAstikov


I'd rather not leave my family to foot a funeral or medical bill, cause I was asked to disarm. If you remove someone else’s ability to defend them self you’re taking their lives in to your hands, and so should be ready to compensate them or next of kin when you fail. If you’re unable to protect or make proper compensations then you shouldn’t ask for people to remove their ability to defend then self’s under the lie that you could.

reply to post by gangdumstyle


You should have prevented your own govt from doing its own meddling in others affairs if you wanted other nation's peoples not to be interfering in yours.

Originally posted by ObjectZero
reply to post by IvanAstikov

 

I'd rather not leave my family to foot a funeral or medical bill, cause I was asked to disarm. If you remove someone else’s ability to defend them self you’re taking their lives in to your hands, and so should be ready to compensate them or next of kin when you fail. If you’re unable to protect or make proper compensations then you shouldn’t ask for people to remove their ability to defend then self’s under the lie that you could.

You're not being asked to disarm, you're being asked do you really need weapons more suited for real war zones, as opposed to urban environments.

reply to post by TruthxIsxInxThexMist

So lets see what you would prefer:

I prefer guns in the hands of honest, hard-working people whose only intention is self-preservation

Your words!!

Now, what happens when one of these hard-working people snap??

Yes, you guessed it.... he/she wouldn't be a hard-working person for much longer.....

Yes, I stand behind what I said. Sometimes people snap…sometimes people get the flu….sometimes people have a car accident…that’s life. I don’t walk around worrying about my neighbor flying off the deep end and shooting me; do you? If so you might want to consider moving.

As I’ve stated before, I don’t want to disarm the government any more than I want to disarm my neighbor or myself. My point is that if the argument the government is using to take away our right to bear arms is that “mass murders happens” then the government should look at its own actions first. I’ve never committed mass murder…why should I be disarmed? Tyrannical governments are certainly guilty of murder.

Originally posted by seabag

Yes, I stand behind what I said. Sometimes people snap…sometimes people get the flu….sometimes people have a car accident…that’s life. I don’t walk around worrying about my neighbor flying off the deep end and shooting me; do you? If so you might want to consider moving.

You're obviously concerned about becoming a target of some random criminal, otherwise why do you feel the need to own a gun for protection? Or are you one of the "GUNS > TYRANTS" contingent?

reply to post by IvanAstikov

You should have prevented your own govt from doing its own meddling in others affairs if you wanted other nation's peoples not to be interfering in yours.

You don’t think we’ve been trying??

If my government listened to me do you think I’d have made this thread? Our government takes orders from the NWO banksters and corporate thugs!

We’re working on it…it’s a work in progress filled with many setbacks. No country is perfect....

Originally posted by IvanAstikov

Originally posted by ObjectZero
reply to post by IvanAstikov

 

I'd rather not leave my family to foot a funeral or medical bill, cause I was asked to disarm. If you remove someone else’s ability to defend them self you’re taking their lives in to your hands, and so should be ready to compensate them or next of kin when you fail. If you’re unable to protect or make proper compensations then you shouldn’t ask for people to remove their ability to defend then self’s under the lie that you could.

You're not being asked to disarm, you're being asked do you really need weapons more suited for real war zones, as opposed to urban environments.

My first post was not to any weapon bill. But too both Government and private owned "gun free zones".

Originally posted by spacedog1973

Originally posted by seabag

Originally posted by spacedog1973
If tyrannical governments are the ones who's guns should be taken away
If the purpose of civilians possessing firearms is to oppose tyrannical governments....

Why are you sitting there at your computer talking about it?

Well....obviously because I am a keyboard warrior, right?

Move along...nothing to see here.

Pretty much what I expected. Can you answer the question or not?
Why don't you defend your rights with your second amdendant firearms. Or is that a ridiculous question. Not that you're a keyboard warrior, but you like others here, talk big, but do nothing in the face of the oppression that you claim your guns are needed for.

Because, contrary to fools ranting, people don't WANT to have to kill to ensure that our liberties remain untarnished. They are hoping against hope and trying very hard to avoid that necessity...

The people aren't like government. While injustices are sufferable, they will tend to suffer them rather than resort to violence to meet their ends.

DO NOT make the mistake of thinking that is cowardice or that action will be held off indefinitely.

This is a coward of the county situation and YOU are the group of people poking fun at him.

Eventually, the time for action will come, and you'll be the one calling for someone else to stop them without realizing that you are calling for your OWN fate to be sealed and your OWN rights to be taken from you.

People like you are the ones asking why people didn't use the second amendment when Bush passed the patriot act, people like you asked why people didn't use the second amendment when Obama passed NDAA...

I already gave the answer to those questions in my first statement. While injustices are sufferable, people tend to suffer.

Liberties are eroded slowly over time so that government can get the people to NOT exercise their right to defend their liberties and the people will attempt EVERYTHING BUT violence until there is no other recourse.

It is getting close to a time where there will not likely be any other recourse. If I were you, I wouldn't be taunting the people who are likely to be the ones who will take that recourse and I definitely wouldn't be encouraging government to take those actions that could very well be the catalyst for it.

When the usurpations become so blatant that they can openly talk about a repeal of the only amendment giving the people recourse against tyrrany, it has come ever closer to using that means of ensuring the continued liberties of the people. Please stop wishing for it. We DON'T want it.

That doesn't mean we won't do it when all other recourse hasn't kept our liberties intact.

Jaden

reply to post by IvanAstikov


Hate to break it to ya, but that guy kinda had it coming being a bully. I have no sympathy for people like that. I guarantee if it was known that everyone was carrying, people would be a LOT more polite to eachother. An armed society is a polite society, regardless of what the MSM would have you think.

reply to post by IvanAstikov

You're not being asked to disarm, you're being asked do you really need weapons more suited for real war zones, as opposed to urban environments.

Real war zones?? With semi automatics??

We have a thing here in US called “sport shooting” and it isn’t possible to do with muskets or black powder guns. Besides, what business is it of yours (or anyone else) what type or how many guns I own? As long as I act responsibly with them there should be no issue.

This is a PEOPLE problem not a GUN problem.

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by ObjectZero

 

Would you want the man in this vid to have the right to bring a gun to work?

Why not? At least a good majority of his co workers would be carrying as well I would imagine if it was legal. Unlike the current situation where nothing is stopping him from walking in with a gun illegally and going bat crazy. At least in the first scenario he would be stooped in his tracks rather quickly. Next......

reply to post by IvanAstikov

You're obviously concerned about becoming a target of some random criminal, otherwise why do you feel the need to own a gun for protection? Or are you one of the "GUNS > TYRANTS" contingent?

I’m not concerned about being shot by anyone BECAUSE I carry a gun….see how that works?

Besides, I don’t have to justify my reason for gun ownership because it’s my RIGHT as an American.

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by Visitor2012

 

"The purpose of civilians possessing firearms is to oppose tyrannical governments...."

Really? Who said that?

Really???

As Noah Webster put it in a pamphlet urging ratification of the Constitution, "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe." George Mason remarked to his Virginia delegates regarding the colonies' recent experience with Britain, in which the Monarch's goal had been "to disarm the people; that [that] . . . was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." A widely reprinted article by Tench Coxe, an ally and correspondent of James Madison, described the Second Amendment's overriding goal as a check upon the national government's standing army: As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

Thus, the well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state was a militia that might someday fight against a standing army raised and supported by a tyrannical national government.

link

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants"

Thomas Jefferson

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms”

James Madison

"The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms"

Sam Adams

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..."

Sam Adams quotes

I understand the intent and motivation our forefathers had in regards to Arms. But I didn't read anything that says anything close to this "The purpose of civilians possessing firearms is to oppose tyrannical governments...."

I'm not arguing the grounds, I'm questioning the statement only.

Like I said, semantics....let's move on..

reply to post by seabag


I think it is unfortunate that the government, both state and federal, seem to be using the heinous shootings of late to further an agenda of disarming the populace. An unarmed population is easier to control. Sure they still support the second amendment, but it seems the tactic is to take guns away a little at a time rather than all at once.

We used to enjoy freedoms like protection from illegal search and seizure, right to counsel, warrentless wire taps and the like. Due to the patriot act and the NDAA that is no longer true.

I believe the problem is simple, the solution complex. The problem as I see it is that a very small amount of the population should NEVER have access to a gun. I think every member of the NRA would agree that there are some people who should never buy, own, shoot or even look at a gun. But taking away guns from people who have never broken the law and have owned and used firearms for 10, 50 or 100 years is wrong. These responsible gunowners should be allowed to own any firearm and any size magazine they desire. The problem is separating these two groups.

I can understand that the people of the world who have suffered gun related violence because of the actions of a deranged few, feel that the solution is to take away everyone's guns. I won't pretend to know exactly how they feel, and I hope I never do. But I don't think I or the millions of other gun owners should be penalized for it.

Y'know if giving up my guns would bring back even one of those Newtown children, I would give them all up immediately. But we all know that can never happen. Likewise I believe that if we give up our rights to own firearms, we will never get them back.Once we give up freedom, its gone forever.

I hope the decision makers consider both sides in this debate and are able to come up with a solution that not only solves the problem, but preserves the rights that we have always enjoyed.

reply to post by Visitor2012

I understand the intent and motivation our forefathers had in regards to Arms. But I didn't read anything that says anything close to this "The purpose of civilians possessing firearms is to oppose tyrannical governments...."

I'm not arguing the grounds, I'm questioning the statement only.

Like I said, semantics....let's move on..

The closest thing is I’ve seen is Thomas Jefferson’s quote from my previous post:

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants"

And this:

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."

Tench Coxe


Not to oppose tyrannical governments but to preserve our liberties from tyrannical government.

Yes…semantics….we shall move on.