47 States Revolt Against Obama Gun Control

Originally posted by SpookyVince

Originally posted by twitchy

Originally posted by SpookyVince
I can't see how you would have less liberty and freedom if guns were simply banned.

If you really can't see the irony in that statement, then how can you see the point we're trying to make at all?

No irony there.

Your liberty ends where mine starts. By removing guns from people, all the people have the same liberty. Do not tell me it is to protect yourself. Protect yourself against who or what?

If people feel so much the urge to shoot at anything that moves in their garden, it is because they expect anyone or anything out there to be armed as well. If the burglar who's attempting at your house feels so much the need to shoot at you, it is because they expect you to shoot at them too.

It is like in the cold war with the nukes. It is a balance of fears. How negative is this?

Originally posted by sonnny1
reply to post by SpookyVince

 

One cannot "take back" without being armed. People see this for what it is. A power grab, by "executive" decision or actions, or whatever other word you want to place after it.

So you bluntly dare to declare that people in the US do not accept their government's decisions, nor rules for the matter. You don't want "executive" decisions.

So why the hell do you still elect anyone to the head of your country?

So why do you need any rules at all???

So why do you defend your laws then???

You are just so contradicting everything.

Same with the (so awfully insufficient) health care, or Obamacare as it was nicknamed.

It is not about protecting your "rights". No. It is about evolving. It is about accepting that times change, that people change, and that laws can change. Even if it has been deemed "unalienable". Intelligence is about admitting that what was yesterday, may not sill be today. That is true even for truth itself.

The 2nd amendment has lived. It is outdated. It is unnecessary. It is time to amend it. If things were to never change, you wouldn't have a 2nd amendment in the first place.

What is scary is how much you actually believe what you are saying.

Do you not realize how IMMORAL it is to use the monopoly on the use of force to take away somebody's inherent right to defend themselves?

You say you don't want violence, that people should EVOLVE from it. Then you should be 100% behind the idea of using IDEOLOGY and PERSUASION to convince people not to use guns. You have absolutely no moral standing if you are telling others not to be violent while at the same time telling them to submit to a higher power to forcefully remove their method of self-defense. It is hypocrisy at it's most blatant.

And removing guns from people doesn't equalize liberty. There is absolutely no science or statistic that can prove this, in fact all of the facts disagree with you.

Let us define liberty

Noun
The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life.
An instance of this; a right or privilege, esp. a statutory one.

How does forcefully stripping a human being of their right to self-defense or self-preservation in ANYWAY enhancing liberty? You can't have liberty by taking somebody away from somebody but you can certainly have it if you let that human live his or her life as long as they do not inflict damage on another's body or property. THAT IS LIBERTY. get it straight. PLEASE.

This is the essential reason why I think it is extremely scary that you believe this stuff.

Your self-righteousness has come back to bite you in your ass.

reply to post by SourGrapes
You're welcome! I too have a sudden urge to eat Mexican food and play Call of Duty!

It probably won't make a definite change in those minds who defend allowing guns, but have a read at this:

The rate of people killed by guns in the US is 19.5 times higher than similar high-income countries in the world. In the last 30 years since 1982, America has mourned at least 61 mass murders.

Source:
ThinkProgress link

These numbers are speaking by themselves.

"Revolt" is a fairly strong expression for the announcement of demonstrations...

reply to post by theAnswer1111
They want to take our video games after they take our guns. Hold your X-Box tight.

Well having guns certainly doesn't make.things less violent. We're the most heavily armed fiat world country in the world, and we are one of, if not the most violent. Not saying to outlaw guns, just saying you have as much behind your argument as he does.


I still don't see how the op is talking about a revolt.

reply to post by SourGrapes


No. I don't think they were talking about progressives revolting. I think they were talking about people who think they are true and legitimate Americans who have all these guns and think they are gonna defeat the United States of America in some fantasy war they have been dreaming up. That's who I am talking about. Liberals and Progressives don't revolt and fight so I think we know full well what was meant no matter how hard you try to change it.

And it is those people. the fake gun wielding patriots who I look forward to being smashed into the ground like a gnat when they try to launch their stupid little war against America. There are 300 million people in this nation and only about 4 million nuts who can and will easily be dealt with. You know why I hate them, because every day I watch them talk smack about certain Americans that happen to be my family like they are going to do something to them and I take it personal.

So please......... proceed gun nuts, proceed.

reply to post by Talliostro
Yes! It reminds of police that would dress up as rioters and try to get a peaceful protest to turn into a bloodbath.

Originally posted by SpookyVince

Originally posted by twitchy

Originally posted by SpookyVince
I can't see how you would have less liberty and freedom if guns were simply banned.

If you really can't see the irony in that statement, then how can you see the point we're trying to make at all?

So why the hell do you still elect anyone to the head of your country?

So why do you need any rules at all???

So why do you defend your laws then???

You are just so contradicting everything.

Dude, you really have no idea what you are talking about whatsoever.

The American government was formed to protect the people, to protect their liberties, to protect property rights, and protect the Constitution.

There is a reason why the founding fathers created all of the checks and balances. UNFORTUNATELY, they could not see far enough into the future to know that we would be screwed over by lobbyists that have wormed their way into the veins of this nation.

WHY DO YOU THINK every public official has to SWEAR to protect the Constitution from all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC? it is just unfortunate that they do not take this SWEARING ON THE BIBLE as seriously as they are supposed to like Ron Paul.

As the good looking King once said...."Look, the peasants are revolting".

reply to post by eLPresidente


For some, the Constitution is outdated.........



We know what the alternative is....

Originally posted by sonnny1
reply to post by eLPresidente

 

For some, the Constitution is outdated.........

We know what the alternative is....

Not so much out dated, as it's up for edit. It was a document written by slave owners. I think it's fair to say changes can always be made. It's how they made it.

Originally posted by SpookyVince
It probably won't make a definite change in those minds who defend allowing guns, but have a read at this:

The rate of people killed by guns in the US is 19.5 times higher than similar high-income countries in the world. In the last 30 years since 1982, America has mourned at least 61 mass murders.

Source:
ThinkProgress link

These numbers are speaking by themselves.

Wow. You are certainly something special.

Let's start with your 19.5 times higher gun deaths than simliar high income nations. Nobody makes arguments like that, not even Piers Morgan does and he is a bumbling buffoon when it comes to debate. He makes the arguments in a PER CAPITA, like everybody else does, ask a CRIMINOLOGIST. Of course guns deaths are more common in a nation where there are MORE GUNS.

Earlier, you wrote off the fact that over 70% of gun deaths in America are gang-related and occur in cities of 250,000 or more in population. Still means nothing huh? Of course, you don't like facts that disagree with your emotional sentiments.

reply to post by theAnswer1111
Idiotville is not a real town, it is an area off highway 6 near story burn road in the Tillamook forest. Do you live off the Wilson river highway? Early loggers named that area idiotville, because you would have to be an idiot to log it. What gives?



BTW, I love hiking in that area.

after driving across the country and listening to the various talk radio stations It dawned upon me that this whole debate is just a plan to divide us all into chaos, seriously, slow down everybody..

Originally posted by eLPresidente
UNFORTUNATELY, they could not see far enough into the future to know that we would be screwed over by lobbyists that have wormed their way into the veins of this nation.

The fact that lobbyists are controlling (to some extent) everything is not relevant either, because it is the case everywhere else as well.

The fact that those who have written the constitution and the bill of rights were of another age is however very relevant in this case, and it is the very reason why it is time to investigate a change.

Originally posted by bknapple32

Originally posted by sonnny1
reply to post by eLPresidente

 

For some, the Constitution is outdated.........

We know what the alternative is....

Not so much out dated, as it's up for edit. It was a document written by slave owners. I think it's fair to say changes can always be made. It's how they made it.

Can you imagine an America where free speech was 'edited'?

The first and second amendment are both unalienable rights and SHALL be treated equally, just like the other 8. Why would anybody suggest to change the second amendment anyways? Tyranny and corruption will always be there, it is only obvious to keep a last resort insurance policy against it.

Earlier I said 9 out of 10 amendments have already been violated. An example, Obama has forced journalists to give up their sources, a blatant axing of the FIRST amendment. Another example, you cannot protest in any area where there is secret service or you will be subject to punishment.

Originally posted by SpookyVince

Originally posted by eLPresidente
UNFORTUNATELY, they could not see far enough into the future to know that we would be screwed over by lobbyists that have wormed their way into the veins of this nation.

The fact that lobbyists are controlling (to some extent) everything is not relevant either, because it is the case everywhere else as well.

The fact that those who have written the constitution and the bill of rights were of another age is however very relevant in this case, and it is the very reason why it is time to investigate a change.

Interesting how you just rolled over everything else, especially the part about you being IMMORAL or you arguing that deny somebody their LIBERTY is indeed enhancing LIBERTY.

If you can't stand firm on MORALITY, what DO you have???

reply to post by VikingWarlord
Yes, my undergr... I mean yes I live their? The state I mean.

reply to post by theAnswer1111


I have been hiking/hunting in that area for nearly 20 years, so when I saw idiotville, I went wait...what? I Frequent the idiot creek loop at least 15 times a year.