People advocating or warning of a new American Revolution or Civil War...Who are your enemies?

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by smurfy

 

but I am also betting that a vast majority of gun owners agree that we should keep a small few from owning a high-capacity weapon of war.

This is where we disagree. I believe if I can be trusted with one bullet then I can be trusted with a thousand. The capacity should have nothing to do with it.

High capacity or low capacity it matters not. A revolver and a semi-automatic achieve the same function and many people do not understand that. I do not support restrictions of any kind on magazine capacity or semi autos.

The problem isn’t the guns it is the people. Those who committed the heinous acts slipped through the system and that is what needs to be fixed. Further gun legislation will not help matters. Enforcing the laws we already have will. Fixing the mental health system will. That is what responsible gun owners advocate

That Obama quote, (not my quote for anyone looking in) is as up for debate as is all the rest, that's why I posted them. The big question is the apparent ambiguity of the 2nd amendment. It was probably clear enough to the people who had the task of outlining everything for ratification, and in that body there was consensus that the people must be protected against tyranny from their own government, and that keeping guns was intended for the raising of a people's army. Now, maybe can put me right here, where is it in the constitution that says those kept guns cannot be controlled by law, or rather any new law, if there is a need, since the laws of the day would have had to be kept.

Originally posted by smurfy

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by smurfy

 

but I am also betting that a vast majority of gun owners agree that we should keep a small few from owning a high-capacity weapon of war.

This is where we disagree. I believe if I can be trusted with one bullet then I can be trusted with a thousand. The capacity should have nothing to do with it.

High capacity or low capacity it matters not. A revolver and a semi-automatic achieve the same function and many people do not understand that. I do not support restrictions of any kind on magazine capacity or semi autos.

The problem isn’t the guns it is the people. Those who committed the heinous acts slipped through the system and that is what needs to be fixed. Further gun legislation will not help matters. Enforcing the laws we already have will. Fixing the mental health system will. That is what responsible gun owners advocate

That Obama quote, (not my quote for anyone looking in) is as up for debate as is all the rest, that's why I posted them. The big question is the apparent ambiguity of the 2nd amendment. It was probably clear enough to the people who had the task of outlining everything for ratification, and in that body there was consensus that the people must be protected against tyranny from their own government, and that keeping guns was intended for the raising of a people's army. Now, maybe can put me right here, where is it in the constitution that says those kept guns cannot be controlled by law, or rather any new law, if there is a need, since the laws of the day would have had to be kept.

I guess you'd have to define "need". That seems pretty ambiguous doesn't it?

Who are your enemies?

The 545 idiots in Washington, DC, who spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. It seems inconceivable to me that we can’t replace these idiots who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those idiots.

When you fully grasp the plain truth of these people; The one's who exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

The problem is the career politician--- They need to go, thats a simple guestion...

all democidal on comers trying to propose superiority over man are my enemies. all people who say "this is not an assault" before rolling tanks through buildings shooting innocent people who surrender. my enemies are the ones who want to keep their bootprint on the pages in history.

reply to post by Shdak


No enforcement of a federal mandate is possible without state co-operation/involvement. Some would, Ca. etc.,
some wouldn't is my guess. Which ones wouldn't is anyone's guess.

Even with state co-operation, it would be a slow, arduous task. One house at a time, the odd one going "enough is enough" and shooting it out.(not many, talk is cheap) It may even end up impossible to impliment even with state co-operation.

Toss in legal challenges, appeals, injuctions and this may never actually happen.

I'm not saying don't fight the good fight, just that it's a long way from some point of no return from a civil war...

Originally posted by xedocodex

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by xedocodex

 

That is for me anybody that wants to undermind and change our constitutional rights, as we are a nation rule by a constiution, in any other nation will be any body that tries to undermind the peoples rights that has been established in any particular nation for the protection of the freedoms of their citizens.

Plain and simple.

So you believe you have the individual right to deem someone an enemy if they advocate a law that you don't agree with?

Tell me, does the Constitution say that the bill of rights are exempt from amendment? If so, that must be in a different Constitution than I have read.

So again, I don't understand who your enemies are besides anyone that disagrees with you.

!). Please point out the Constitutional Amendment in progress. Currently there is not one in the works and so, yes, all of the proposed are unConstitutional at present.

2). Actually, since not enough states would ratify the original Constitution until the Bill of Rights was put in place, there is much historical and legal thought that removing any of the first Ten Amendments would make the document void. That would definately be an interesting debate for scholars.

The whole purpose behind the second ammendment is a balance of power between the people and the government. If they ban assault weapons, then the people are fighting with sticks against the government with gunsits all about balance, so yes, an assault weapons ban greatly reduces combative power of the people, thus nullifying the second ammendment. Yes its unconstitutional, for those reasons I will not lay down my ability to fight tyranny should it arise.

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
All this talk of a “revolution” or a “civil war” is just extreme rhetoric with no substance.

It’s an assault weapons ban.

There wasn’t a Civil war when Clinton brought in a law similar to this in 1994 and it won’t happen this time.

Still have fun with your “Red Dawn” fantasies.

Will you come back and apologize and admit you were wrong, if they try to legislate, or pass an executive order that comes for more then that?

I think the question should be directed at you...Will you admit you were wrong when they only ban auto or semi auto guns?
If they come for every single gun, I'd be the first to admit I was wrong. But I've seen absolutely no evidence that suggests it. Just some ramblings of crazies on the internet.

ffs, they haven't even said anything about requiring people to turn in their already owned assault rifles. I've only seen discussion about banning the sale.

reply to post by Ghost375


so were going to take that chance? naw. they ban the sale or ownership of semi auto guns (pistols, rifles shotguns) they will take the whole mile

Originally posted by topherman420
reply to post by xedocodex

 

I guess its hard for some people to see the shades of grey past all the black and white they paint their views with.
The people who shout revolution, im not sure if they see that it's not so cut and dry as "you are enemy and you are not" when it comes to 300 million + people.

And that is kind of my point, people are quick to say they are ready for the next Revolution, but they really have no idea who they want to revolt against.

The reluctance for them to identify who they think the enemy is, just proves they are really just talking without really thinking anything through.

reply to post by schuyler


That was a very well thought out and logical post.

And it just proves that those that are calling for Revolution just really haven't thought it through.

Originally posted by DocHolidaze
reply to post by xedocodex

 

i think the problem is this is one of those subjects that is not spoken freely on the internet, because some things need to disscussed word of mouth,

and anybody that try to get answers on this subject is looked at as a abc boy.

so you will continue to get nothing from these people because as dumb as Americans are portrayed in media, the rest of them know the correct way of discussing this subject. and that is face to face.

oh yeah and anyone that tells you there plans is just a keyboard warrior

edit on 14-1-2013 by DocHolidaze because: (no reason given)

I and maybe others have seen folks in here with the intention of trying to provoke and/or get folks to say things. Now that may be a no brainer....but what I am saying is that some have tried to provoke me personaly and it is clear that they have been at least reading post history. And worse.....if you dig....if you dig.

reply to post by redhorse

This is not a reasonable or logical question. This is an attempt to paint people who believe they should be allowed a fire arm as unreasonable or crazy, which is oddly enough, exactly what you have done as well. This just reinforces that the favorite tactic of gun control advocates is to simply cry "crazy", when called on their crap. I'll call a spade as spade. This is a troll thread, and a dishonest one at that.

This is the most logical question to come after people start to call for Revolution.

If you hear people for calling for Revolution and you don't stop to think who they want to revolt against, you may just find out that you are the one that they are considering the enemy. Maybe it's because it's where you live, maybe because of what type of job you have, maybe because of a political sign you had in your yard last year, maybe because you weren't quick enough to support their cause.

If you aren't calling for a Revolution and you are simply a 2nd Amendment supporter, then this question isn't for you.

reply to post by 11235813213455

Who are your enemies? And don't say "nobody" because you obviously have an axe to grind.

I have no enemies that I wish to violently revolt against.

Believe it or not, you can disagree with someone...passionately disagree with someone, and still not consider them the enemy or want to shoot them.

Some people honestly believe that guns aren't the solution.

reply to post by xedocodex


Many that are well armed pray that it never comes to it. Gun haters have no corner on that my friend.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
OP I am very pro-gun but your question is pretty straightforward and honest. I have wondered about the same thing before. I am not worried about legislation though like many others because I have seen this happen before and the truth is nothing will happen with it because our elected officials are too worried about staying in congress. The last time something was passed restricting firearms the American public kicked them out of office real fast so will not make the same mistake twice. The US populace is overwhelmingly against gun control the very real problem we face which this debate has taken focus off of is mental health. It is too bad really.

And I totally respect that. This is the means the Constitution gives us to "revolt", through voting out politicians who vote in a way we disagree with.

If Gun Control is passed, and then there is a big shift in elections because of this and new politicians go in and overturn the gun control, then more power to you. That is the way it should be done, and even though it would be the opposite of what I would want to happen, it would be what the public wants to happen and I would respect that.

reply to post by redhorse

Your name calling and ad hominem attacks have been just one more attempt to make me, and by association gun owners and second amendment advocates appear as hunchbacked, single toothed idiots hovering whining, and muttering over their gun collection, and it simply isn't true. Good try though. Which was exactly the point of this entire thread.

Even though this wasn't directed to me, I'd just like to remind you that you were the one to start throwing around the ad homs by calling me a troll.

Just because my questions make you uncomfortable (because there is no good or easy answer to them) doesn't mean I'm a troll. It only means you are mad because you know you don't know how to answer my question.

who is my enemy in a war?
the gun shooting at me of course!
but defiantly not politicians.
and defiantly not the innocent kind hearted banker.
oh heavens no. lets get them to the bunker first!!

reply to post by xedocodex


Or keep what they have? You sound as if you'd tie your own noose if "they" passed a law.....

reply to post by xedocodex

What you fail to understand is the "public" has no say in the matter of mine or your "rights" we are not a democracy we are a Republic. Our "democratically elected leaders" sware to "uphold and defend a Republic". The majority doesn't rule in this country (U.S.A.) That is not the law.

Your kind of thinking got Jews wearing the star of David in Nazi Germany..... You must be a Public educated graduate to even ask such a stupid question in your OP.