
“If it goes one inch further, I’m going to start killing people.”
A person exhibiting behavior involving uncritical zeal and devotion for an ideology, or obsessive enthusiasm for an inanimate object such as a drug, is a fanatic. Fanaticism is not unlike addiction in that in extreme cases, an individual may become defensive or violently protective of their object of devotion, and Americans are witnessing religious fanaticism bordering on addiction from gun fanatics as the nation attempts to have a conversation to stem the proliferation of firearms responsible for the senseless shootings ravaging what should be a peaceful civilized nation. The violent reaction the NRA and so-called patriots demonstrate at the suggestion the nation needs sensible gun controls is tantamount to a protective parent defending their child from a sexual predator.
The reaction from the NRA and gun-proliferation addicts over the past week have revealed a deep-seated belief among firearm fanatics that simply talking about gun control is a cardinal sin worthy of civil war. There were three specific incidents involving gun advocates that reveal their fascination with firearms rivals familial relationships worthy of fight-to-the-death scenarios to protect a blood relative, and all over an inanimate object. It is noteworthy that there has been no discussion, or intent, on the part of the government to dispatch storm-troopers to seize firearms and imprison their owners, but one would not know it based on the rage emitting from so-called patriotic Americans defending their dog-given right to possess weapons better suited for the battlefield than an American’s home.
On Wednesday, the CEO of a Tennessee company specializing in weapons and tactical training threatened to “start killing people” if the President took any steps to move forward with gun control measures. James Yeager, CEO of Tactical Response, went on a verbal rampage in a video posted to YouTube and on his Facebook page over a report that Vice President Joe Biden suggested the President could take executive action with minor gun control measures without Congress’s approval. Yeager said, “Vice President Joe Biden is asking the president to bypass Congress and use executive privilege, executive order to ban assault rifles and to impose stricter gun control. I’m telling you that if that happens, it’s going to spark a civil war, and I’ll be glad to fire the first shot. I’m not putting up with it. I need all you patriots to start thinking about what you’re going to do, load your damn mags, make sure your rifle’s clean, and get ready to fight. I’m not f*cking putting up with this. I’m not letting my country be ruled by a dictator. I’m not letting anybody take my guns! If it goes one inch further, I’m going to start killing people.”
Yeager was most likely reacting to reports from conservative sites equating President Obama with Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin over the idea that the White House could act without Congress and impose harsh gun control measures without Congress’s approval. The President cannot ban assault rifles or close gun show loopholes of his own accord, but he can, by executive order, take lesser steps such as modernizing background checks and limiting assault rifle importation into the country, but to a gun fanatic, such steps are indistinguishable from sending their children to concentration camps.
Last week, conspiracy theorist Alex Jones went on a tirade while discussing gun control with Piers Morgan, and immediately went to a favorite talking point of conservative gun fanatics equating gun control with Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Fidel Castro, and Hugo Chavez seizing guns and said, “I’m here to tell you, 1776 will commence again if you try to take our firearms! The Second Amendment isn’t there for duck hunting. It’s there to protect us from tyrannical government.” Actually, the Constitution’s framers wrote the Second Amendment for a well-regulated militia with the goal of creating a strong central government with a citizens-based military force capable of putting down insurrections, not to enable or encourage uprisings. However, the NRA, gun lobby, and so-called patriots never mention that easily verifiable piece of information because doing so destroys their argument for the necessity of weapons they believe are living embodiments of the Constitution.
The NRA has humanized firearms to the point that when gun owners turned their guns in to be destroyed by law enforcement in a Tucson gun buy-back campaign, the pro-gun fanatics went ballistic, and national board member of the NRA said they may sue to stop police from destroying the firearms. Todd Rathner, NRA national board member, said he has no problem with the gun buyback, but he does have a problem with the fate of the guns once police take possession of them. He said, “We do believe that it is illegal for them to destroy those guns – the guns can be put back in circulation or given away” even though the people turning them in said it was for the purpose of destroying their unwanted firearms. In the fanatical NRA’s mind, unwanted guns are like orphaned little children worthy of a good home, and second chance at murdering human beings.
One can almost understand fanaticism over religion, political ideology, or even a sports franchise, but guns are inanimate objects that serve no useful purpose in a civilized society except for killing other human beings. The idea of civil war, or revisiting the revolutionary war, over simply talking about sensible gun controls is a fairly new development arising since the election of Barack Obama as President in 2008, and a recurring theme of so-called patriotic gun fanatics that conceals the real issue is opposition to an African American man as President. What is most worrisome are threats of civil war and revolution against the government over a discussion about controlling the proliferation of guns, and in conjunction with uncritical zeal and devotion to inanimate human-killing devices, the reality is that perhaps it is time to seize the fanatics’ guns before they really do “start shooting people” and “commence 1776 all over again.”




Evil Ferret
Jan. 11th, 2013 at 7:49 pm
Let them have their Constitutionally-protected guns. What we should work with is this:
There is no Constitutional amendment granting a right to possess ammunition….
(By the way, in the article? thumbs up for “dog-given right”.
loading...
DC4TEGGZ
Jan. 11th, 2013 at 8:36 pm
I re-load my rounds. And I have more than enough.
Good luck with that. ;)
loading...
Phillip Roberts
Jan. 12th, 2013 at 12:55 am
—and you’ll be the first to be shot in the head, you goddamned child-killing NAZI…….
loading...
Marco
Jan. 12th, 2013 at 10:32 am
Aren’t you precious!
Sounds like you need some psychological counseling.
loading...
Molon Labe Foundation
Jan. 14th, 2013 at 6:59 am
“—and you’ll be the first to be shot in the head, you goddamned child-killing NAZI……”
I love how folks that want less guns, become violent extremists when others use their 1st Amendment rights to protect their 2nd. It does nothing for your cause or point of view. At the end of the day it is laughable as by your own admission you do not like or more than likely own a gun.
But yet here you are. Wishing death upon someone you A. Do not know B. Does not agree with you. So who is the Nazi in this situation.
I would go down the road of …. You might want to educate yourself and learn what the hell you are arguing about. Or maybe even tell you to calm down and stop having such a knee jerk reaction to something that kills less people than, drunks, cancer, Suicide, ETC ETC ETC.
But it obvious by your post you are either to young and childish to understand what the big people are talking about. Or you may be too stunted mentally to understand the situation. or my favorite you are complete idiot and too stupid to reason with.
Or it could be that YOU are the raging psychopath that the current guns laws are suppose to protect against but don’t because you have 4TH amendment rights and this pesky privacy law called HIPAA protects your right to privacy and stops your name from going onto a banned buyer list.
Either way that was the most ignorant post I have seen today. Not the scariest, because we Law Abiding gun owners have been attacked / threatened day in day out since this senseless mass shooting happened.
But I at least am not worried. Because if some psycho like yourself did decide to try and shoot me. Well I spend more time at the range than your average policeman and was military trained so I do not have to wait for police. So threaten all you want…. It is your 1ST amendment right and covered under free speech.
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 14th, 2013 at 8:22 am
Disregarding the idiot that you responded to, I find your statement about law-abiding gun owners a little bit paranoid. There are people like the gentleman that you responded to around, but the vast number of people do not care about those who own guns and deal with the situation responsibly. And that includes the rhetoric that they use. I hardly think that the law-abiding citizens with guns are being attacked. I think you understand full well that it is the people whose lives are dictated by guns almost in the same way that other lives are dictated by alcohol. Those for whom owning high-capacity high-speed semi automatic rifles and pistols is more important than life.
loading...
harris stein
Jan. 11th, 2013 at 8:59 pm
I reload all my calibers also. Sorry to say it would take an act of congress to ban the sale of reloading components to hobbyists.
You’re barking up the wrong tree.
loading...
EvilFerret
Jan. 11th, 2013 at 11:20 pm
Sure, fine, you re-load. But tell me, is a shooter going to be picking bullets out of bodies to re-load? If there are limits on ammunition, then a shooter only has a set amount of damage he or she can. Do before the bullets run out. People who want to target-shoot or choose guns as their protection of choice still have enough ammo for their purposes and everyone is safer from the whack-jobs.
So, no, I have absolutely the right tree.
loading...
Linda1961
Jan. 12th, 2013 at 7:41 am
Sorry EvilFerret, I hit “thumbs down” by accident; meant to hit “thumbs up.”
loading...
harris stein
Jan. 12th, 2013 at 12:53 pm
What do you not understand about “act of congress?”
Congress will not ban the sale or possesion of ammunition or reloading components by lawful, responsible gun owners.
It is left wing fringe whackos like you that has strengthened the NRA’s hand. I suggest you check out the web site of Gabby Gifford’s non-profit organization for responsible solutions because obviously you are not responsible.
http://americansforresponsiblesolutions.org/
By the way, I’m a gun totin’ liberal (I voted twice for Bill Clinton and twice for Barack Obama) so don’t try to call me a right wing fringe whacko. That will definitely put you on the wrong tree.
loading...
Evil Ferret
Jan. 12th, 2013 at 11:44 pm
I didn’t call you a right-wing fringe whacko. I called people who go around shooting bunches of other people “whack-jobs”. I didn’t mention “right-wing” at all and I didn’t call you anything. I sincerely doubt you’re someone who goes around shooting innocent people, and that is the only way such a phrase would apply to you.
Shrug. I thought I was on safe ground calling those shooters whack-jobs.
loading...
EvilerFerret
Jan. 12th, 2013 at 1:46 pm
You don’t pick the bullets out of bodies. You buy the bullets as a separate component and keep the casings for the reloads.
This is why we don’t want your kind making laws for us about something you don’t understand.
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 12th, 2013 at 6:40 pm
And we dont want people like you with guns
loading...
Evil Ferret
Jan. 12th, 2013 at 11:50 pm
No, Eviler, that was precisely my point.
If a mass shooter’s actual bullets are limited, it won’t matter whether or not he can re-use the casings. The only way he will get more bullets is to pick them out of the bodies, because he won’t be able to buy more.
Yes, I know that limiting quantity of ammo will still permit people to stockpile ammo over a period of time, but it will lengthen that time and hopefully other people will be tipped off and intervene before it comes down to shooting people.
loading...
texican
Jan. 12th, 2013 at 11:57 pm
Reckon you’ve never heard of lead bullets. Lead, the stuff that is on most every tire in America (wheel weights). Most reloaders I know have a handful of bullet moulds and a melt pot. Gonna have trouble banning a basic element (lead). A pound of powder will load hundreds of bullets.
loading...
sherrie heckendorn
Jan. 12th, 2013 at 3:18 pm
I agree with your assessment that ‘amunition’ is not protected by law, and that is one way to stop this ‘gun nonsense’
loading...
Dave Kalishnikof
Jan. 13th, 2013 at 2:19 pm
Voter fraud aside, O’ would be in Chicago home of some of the toughest Gun laws in the country and one of the highest crimes rates in the Country both if not for ferret’s like yourself. It’s all a big joke to you lib’s, you think this is a flash in the pot with your half, the other Half go to bed at night concerned what tomorrow will bring and they view the US as a new unknown thing, that winding road they have driven their whole lives well now it’s suppose to curve to the right after the hook but who know’s. The uncertainty is what drives these folks mad, and I am one of them. O’ had to have both you and the vote stealing to come together it’s the only way even Al super plan AlJazzera’s fuzzy math even comes out. Well you got it now you want to make fun and poke fun…..you so underestimate how close this Nation is to falling apart with violence spilling over not seen since the 1950′s….We are overdue. And the one who have not been seen rioting are the ones who own guns not the tote less like yourself. I kind of feel for a fellow American like yourself who is so blind of what is going on around them until they step in a bear trap…then it’s to late. Forget Congress they mean nothing in what is coming…Do you think the Government will protect this land….huh yea against 50 million across the Nation…..ok It is time for a re-adjustment and I would give you fellow’s a little advise take your families and head for either border if you want them to be safe because the streets around this Nation are headed for chaos!
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 13th, 2013 at 2:32 pm
Yawn
loading...
mjh
Jan. 14th, 2013 at 1:34 am
Yawn
Yeah, that was my thought exactly . . .
.
loading...
mjh
Jan. 14th, 2013 at 1:33 am
Do you think the Government will protect this land….
Well, it’s their JOB — and they’ve done it the past 235-odd years . . .
huh yea against 50 million across the Nation….
Um, the US population is close to 310 million — and I’m guessing the majority is a lot saner than the 50 million you refer to {which is likely closer to 50,000, anyway} . . .
.
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 14th, 2013 at 6:59 am
these people make the mistake of thinking that while there are 50,000,000 people who own guns, not all 50,000,000 of those people go to bed at night masturbating to their gun. Some of them are just hunters who hunt because they love to do so. They have enough brains to understand that no one is coming for their guns, and they don’t have the need to live in a citadel that is based around guns. I’m not sure that these gun nuts could count on them to stand up and create chaos in the streets over nothing except their need to shoot their guns
I’m willing to bet that the vast percentage of gun owners understand that there is a life beyond guns
loading...
Just A Dumb Fireman
Jan. 11th, 2013 at 8:04 pm
This country is insane. On a lot of levels.
loading...
djchefron
Jan. 11th, 2013 at 8:09 pm
Oh wingnuttery of the wingnuts.Think before you go on a rant.If you must spew your venom,take a step back,breathe and think if you want to hit send.Remember you have 1st amendment rights but when you exercised them then that big bad gubbmint will watch you and take appropiate actions
State suspends gun permit for CEO who said he would ‘start killing people’ over gun control
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/11/state-suspends-gun-permit-for-ceo-who-said-he-would-start-killing-people-over-gun-control/
I guess your little army is going to have to start without you.Remember THINK!!!!
loading...
DC4TEGGZ
Jan. 11th, 2013 at 8:38 pm
That “gun permit” is for concealed carry. His state is open carry. So now all he has to do is carry it in the open.
So what did that stop? Not dick.
He still has plenty of black rifles. Can’t do shit about that bud.
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 11th, 2013 at 9:14 pm
Well arnt you just the desperate gun fanatic?
loading...
djchefron
Jan. 11th, 2013 at 9:19 pm
Well,well aren’t we the little keyboard warrior.
loading...
Singhx
Jan. 12th, 2013 at 6:46 am
“…[you] have no idea about what really makes this country operate that would be us dumb country folks us dumb oil field workers.”
That’s a good one, a really, really good one, nice…
Ever read a book by an All-America author named Sinclair Lewis called, “It Can’t Happen Here”?
It’s all about “dumb country folk” who believe a charismatic politician who promises Americans that if he’s elected, he will “over haul the guv’urnment”? His plan; give every American $5k (in 1930′s $$) and, put “patriotic Minute Men and Corpo’s*” out in the streets to bring back traditional American values with law and order (*Corpo’s were big corporations).
Go ahead, read the book; see how well it turns out for “dumb country folks”, like yourself, who think they can run the country on god, guns and christian traditions.
My parting words to you Mr Concerned is, I love the fact that “dumb country folks” (like yourself) have such a great grasp on reality because of where they live/what you do for a living in proximity of those who don’t. Did you know that the big cities ALSO have Walmart, Target, Sam’s Club, fast food chains, pick up truck, meth labs, prostitution, gay bars, stripe clubs, drunk drivers just like all those little towns where you “dumb country folks” live?? How about that?
Sue-prize, sue-prize, sue-prize! I bet you didn’t know that…well, now ya’ do, neighbor!
loading...
D. W. Skinner
Jan. 12th, 2013 at 10:51 am
glad I don’t live in your head.
loading...
djchefron
Jan. 12th, 2013 at 12:56 pm
Seems like the state of Tennessee might disagree with you on that
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2013/01/busted-and-it-might-actually-stick.html#links
loading...
mjh
Jan. 14th, 2013 at 1:39 am
He still has plenty of black rifles. Can’t do shit about that bud.
Yeah — until he starts to follow through on his threat to kill people over gun control . . .
.
loading...
sherrie heckendorn
Jan. 12th, 2013 at 3:19 pm
Awesome. One of the good things about ‘commenting’ is that i learn so much. Thank you for sharing that.
loading...
john kelly
Jan. 11th, 2013 at 8:13 pm
where did this author get the idea that the usa is a “civilized” nation?
loading...
harris stein
Jan. 11th, 2013 at 9:09 pm
The US is a deliberative democracy. As such it is considered by the UN part of the democratic family of nations.
Civilized pertains more to economic development than political systems.
loading...
EvilFerret
Jan. 11th, 2013 at 11:22 pm
The USA is a democratic republic. There is a considerable difference between a republic and a democracy.
loading...
concerned citezen
Jan. 11th, 2013 at 8:32 pm
Amendment rights You liberals are all sheep just because ypu dont like something or respect it you try to restrict it i believe theinternet is the main reason for the degredation of society and would gladly give it up along with much of the medias first amendment right nobody has a right to privacy anymore im pretty sure meth and other drugs are highly illeagle but they seem to be everywhere weird thats ok keep selling out your country and giving up freedoms toward progress and social-communism
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 11th, 2013 at 8:39 pm
In other words no one has rights except you.
communism? thats the word you use when you really want to prove you dont have a clue blah blah blah
loading...
harris stein
Jan. 11th, 2013 at 9:10 pm
Is that what he said?
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 11th, 2013 at 9:15 pm
Near as I could tell he was all for giving up others rights. Then he went on to subjects he has no knowledge of
loading...
Ted
Jan. 11th, 2013 at 10:22 pm
Yes, because only liberals have ever in the history of this country restricted anything. Let’s see…black people, women, voting, the LGBT community, health care access, living wages, weekends, safe working conditions, secure retirements…that’s a pretty impressive list of things conservatives have opposed and/or oppressed.
So you were saying?
loading...
djchefron
Jan. 11th, 2013 at 8:55 pm
Dear concerned citezen
Read, well thats a stretch.Next time you post please so we can understand you……
http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/5682/imagese1357174278299.jpg
loading...
Reynardine
Jan. 11th, 2013 at 9:30 pm
And if you had ever taken advantage of that terrible, socialist, public school system, you might even have learned to spell f-u-k and s-h-y-t-e.
loading...
djchefron
Jan. 11th, 2013 at 9:34 pm
LMBAO!!!!HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.Almost lost my keyboard choking on my coffee
loading...
Alan
Jan. 12th, 2013 at 12:08 pm
I wondered why he was so worried about sick birds (the “ill eagles” he refers to…)
loading...
Reynardine
Jan. 12th, 2013 at 2:24 pm
Bird flu is a terrible thing, Alan.
loading...
Sally
Jan. 11th, 2013 at 10:08 pm
So ‘concerned,’ where do you stand on the Patriot Act, pushed by Cheney and Bush, which allowed them to spy on us? Every single phone call or email. Every single thing we do? It was crickets from the right over that, and still is, every time it comes up for renewal. The only people fighting for our privacy rights are liberals, buddy. Guns kill. That is what they do. And more guns means more people will die. I don’t care what people wrote into an amendment 200 years ago. I care that our high schools are becoming prisons, that we think arming more people will stop the killings, and that the right has no issue at all with selling whatever weapon they want to whomever has a buck to pay them. That is not a right…that is insanity.
loading...
Ted
Jan. 11th, 2013 at 10:31 pm
You know what else is insanity? That fully armed and aggressive Tea Party paramilitary groups that openly threaten the government (at least when “UnAmericans” are in charge) are considered fine, upstanding patriots while the unarmed, peacefully civilly disobedient Occupy protesters are considered malicious, dangerous terrorists.
loading...
Marco
Jan. 12th, 2013 at 10:35 am
Nice run on sentence. Guess you spent more time with your guns than your school work.
loading...
M Washam
Jan. 12th, 2013 at 11:38 am
So, how exactly does that comment line up with the right wing agenda to impede on a woman’s right to choose? Or contraception issues? Or our ability to determine if a rape is legitimate or not? It’s OK for government to be involved in those issues, but not in issues regarding guns?
loading...
knight4444
Jan. 12th, 2013 at 11:42 am
@concernedcitizen you’re the typical republican no doubt! you’re demonizing the internet all the while you’re using it to type out that primate rant YOU just threw up here! I see why your gop loses presidential elections! BTW my grammar sucks but double check your handle ”CITEZEN”? what’s a CITEZEN
loading...
knight4444
Jan. 12th, 2013 at 12:03 pm
Damn dude! you’re proof positive why we need comprehensive gun reform! because if your writing skills are ANY indication of how you handle a weapon I strongly suggest everyone in your village better run! Non military and law enforcement shouldn’t have access to ”ILLEGAL” fire arms BTW is “ILLEAGLE” a new word there using today? wow
loading...
sandppppr
Jan. 12th, 2013 at 12:18 pm
Mr. Concerned, There are two words in the 2nd Amendment that everyone like you ignores; they are ‘well regulated.’ The second amendment is not a blank check.
loading...
Victotronics
Jan. 12th, 2013 at 11:29 pm
Can I have a copy of the program that you used to generate this parody of right-wing verbal diarrhea?
loading...
harris stein
Jan. 11th, 2013 at 9:14 pm
James Yeager needs to read up on what happened in Alaska a few days ago.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/08/schaeffer-cox-sentenced-26-years_n_2435659.html
loading...
Reynardine
Jan. 11th, 2013 at 9:37 pm
I think so-called Concerned Citizen has demonstrated anything I was about to discuss more clearly than I could ever describe it.
loading...
James
Jan. 11th, 2013 at 9:53 pm
“…the Constitution’s framers wrote the Second Amendment for a well-regulated militia with the goal of creating a strong central government with a citizens-based military force capable of putting down insurrections, not to enable or encourage uprisings. However, the NRA, gun lobby, and so-called patriots never mention that easily verifiable piece of information…” The link given is to wikipedia, 2nd Amendment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
And if you take the trouble to read it, you will see that the “goal of creating a strong central government with a citizens-based military force capable of putting down insurrections, not to enable or encourage uprisings” is only half the story, the rest being exactly the symbolic and real ability to defeat a tyrannical standing army of the federal government. This gross distortion really begs for the question, what else has been distorted in this article??
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 11th, 2013 at 10:00 pm
Distorted? Whats distorted is the truly nut cases who think they can defeat a tyrannical government. But then again, do we have the type of government that could be tyrannical? Not really.
loading...
chuck
Jan. 12th, 2013 at 2:59 am
Problem is most of the military and law enforcement will be on the side of the Constitution as will a vast majority of the veterans. That doesn’t mean UN peace keepers won’t be brought in.
Obama is out of control. He’s given himself power to detain US citizens and take control of the media. He’s actively trying to disarm us. He has ALL the makings of a tyrant complete with a fanatical followers devoted to his idealism. Yes most tyrants gain their power and followers with idealistic humanitarian goals.
Many states have already passed the Freedom Firearms act to protect their citizens from the tyranny of the federal government and the angry mob. Wyoming is passing something now that will make it a felony to enforce any gun control laws by federal agents. So take a good hard look at the dear leader because when everyday law abiding people(not just red dawners) are discussing…well lets just say the founding fathers could envision such senerios.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. Tomas Jefferson
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 12th, 2013 at 9:06 am
He gave himself no new powers that the patriot act didnt already give him.
1st, the senario you make up wont happen. If it does it will be the military that does it. You make assumptions. You have zero evidence that Obama is trying to disarm anyone and have fallen for the emails you get from various groups that want money.
Always remember that no matter what the states pass, federal law trumps it.
Sorry, the propaganda you swallow is full of holes.
If we think about it, what government can go against its people without the military? Would a government made up of 3 branches go against the people without the military? I see no logic in these idiots that keep saying they wilkl fight the military, when if anyone tries to take over a country, it would be the military by itself. Given there would be a tremendous amount of military people sneaking out of the military, would the military still try and take over and rule the country? It could, the weapons are advanced enough that lots of land could be taken by a few people.
But get your head out of your arse
loading...
djchefron
Jan. 12th, 2013 at 9:53 am
Usually the way this works is when one makes claims they provide links to prove it.See I can say you like to have relations with goats but if I don’t have any proof I would just be talking out of my ass.
So provide the links or from now on you will be known as chuck the goat f@cker.
loading...
knight4444
Jan. 12th, 2013 at 6:03 pm
Now @djchefron be civil that comment about @chuck being a goat fu*ker was uncalled for!! goats typically have higher standards of who they sleep with! after reading @chuck’s rants I think the goats would pass on the chuckster!!
loading...
rslewis147
Jan. 12th, 2013 at 3:09 pm
This has got to be the craziest comment yet. That is why no one will come around to your house to collect your guns. It is logistically impossible and will never be attempted. However much needed regulation will be passed, Including, I hope, laws that send the owner of a gun that was used in a kllling to jail if that gun was left unsecured and allowed to fall into the wrong hands. Again, police yourselves or we will police you. Your right to bear arms ends when those arms walk out of your house without you and head for a school or a shopping mall.
loading...
rslewis147
Jan. 12th, 2013 at 3:11 pm
Ever noticed that one of the intended purposed of having a gun in the home is protection from home invasion, and if you have your gun unloaded and in a safe it is un-accessible when you would presume to need it most? And If left more accessible, the potential harm from someone OK’d to be in the house is greater than from any potential invader?
Just food for thought.
Homeland Security, did he actually break any terrorism laws by his threat?
This creep doesn’t deserve to be allowed to have a gun. His idea of free speech is to threaten other people with his violence backed up by his gun ownership. Precisely the kind of person we don’t want to have owning a gun. Its an aggressive mindset attached to his firearm. He’s one very insecure man, and it shows by his very attitude.
loading...
knight4444
Jan. 12th, 2013 at 4:13 pm
Wow what is this? “I can’t spell Saturday?” @chuck obviously you’re a rightwinger but if you’re going to bore us with your FUX news Alex Jones ramblings then at lease quote “Thomas Jefferson” with some respect! now tell everybody who “TOMAS” Jefferson is?? BTW if I’m correct Thomas Jefferson shot a man outside the whitehouse because he thought he was a traitor! you’re lucky @chuck that we don’t still do things like that anymore! my last point, to show how ignorant and ill informed you are Thomas Jefferson was a….. ?…. LIBERAL! thank you for quoting a 18th century liberal!! you feel ”dirty’ now don’t ya??? FUX news kills brain cells!!
loading...
mjh
Jan. 12th, 2013 at 8:26 pm
“Obama is out of control. He’s given himself power to detain US citizens and take control of the media. He’s actively trying to disarm us. He has ALL the makings of a tyrant complete with a fanatical followers devoted to his idealism.”
Yo, Chuck,
Who was it who said the following?
- “I am the Decider.”
- “You’re either with us, or against us.”
- Who was it who put forth the concept of “The Unitary Executive”?
- Who suspended the writ of habeas corpus?
- Who wiretapped US citizens without warrants, in direct violation of FISA {and said he’d continue to do so after being caught?}
Whoever it was, sounds a bit more like a tyrant than Obama could ever hope to be . . .
.
loading...
djchefron
Jan. 12th, 2013 at 8:53 pm
i bet chuckie ,concerned citsen[sorry I cant spell your name] and the rest of these super patriots would be singing a different tune on rights if Jamel al Hashim would have made the video instead of captain America Yeager.
loading...
djchefron
Jan. 11th, 2013 at 10:09 pm
Just to piggy back on your comment.There are many so called patriots who don’t know history.So here are the cliff notes for the history challenge.
Back in the 1780′s there was a rebellion about taxes,central gubbmint the usual rabble.It was called the shay’s rebellion.A militia was raised by the government and crushed the rebellion.You can read it here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays’_Rebellion
So you yahoos who run around in the woods playing wolverines remember the government will tolerate your bull shit for only so long.And then BAM!!!Cancel Christmas
loading...
Reynardine
Jan. 11th, 2013 at 10:14 pm
Tyrannical:
A. Dominated by the candidates you didn’t vote for, even when the majority did, especially when:
B. Black, brown, not Chrischun, not your kind of Chrischun, ancestors from someplace different, has eevil librul ideas, has vulva, or any combination of the foregoing.
Second Amendment remedies: the right to shoot any candidate in any of the foregoing categories if they get elected in despite of your petty little will, not to mention members of any group who voted for them (and maybe their little kids)
loading...
mjh
Jan. 12th, 2013 at 8:04 pm
” . . . you will see that the “goal of creating a strong central government with a citizens-based military force capable of putting down insurrections, not to enable or encourage uprisings” is only half the story, the rest being exactly the symbolic and real ability to defeat a tyrannical standing army of the federal government.”
I’ll ask ONCE AGAIN:
Exactly WHAT CRITERIA do you rightwingnut teabagging gun-nuts use to determine WHEN the gov’t is “tyrannical” enough to take up arms against??
1. Is it when a black guy with a funny name gets in the White House?
2. Is it anytime the gov’t does something you don’t agree with?
If it’s (1) — which is what I suspect is the case — that’s too bad; a majority of us lawfully elected him {despite the GOP’s best vote-rigging efforts.} Don’t like it? Feel free to exercise that secession you’re always threatening.
If it’s (2), there’s a much less messier way to deal with that, besides committing treason — it’s called VOTING. If only you gun-nuts were as energized about maintaining that right as you were the right to bear arms . . .
.
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 12th, 2013 at 8:37 pm
You have any idea how hard it is to carry a dozen guns, all that ammo, your family bible thats been in the family since the Mayflower showed up, a doll dressed up as away in a manger,and chew tobacco at the same time?
Well do you?
loading...
Sally
Jan. 11th, 2013 at 10:09 pm
We just got back from seeing “Les Miz,” which is a far cry in quality from the stage show, but in case Concerned hasn’t seen it, the little uprising was quashed by the big bad police force of Paris. Quickly and bloodily. You just try taking on our military and see how many rounds you get out before you are dead.
loading...
john
Jan. 14th, 2013 at 3:08 pm
If you think there is going to be a open rebellion you are just mistaken. What would most likely happen is 2 things .First lone wolves using “hunting” rifles will attack the family’s of anti gun politicians from a distance.Second there will probably be proxy bombings aimed at pro gun control groups and high value targets.
The gun control movement doesn’t see that people are willing to die for there perceived rights. Im not saying that gun control is right or wrong but if you don’t think there will be backlash you are just being ignorant.
loading...
concerned citezen
Jan. 11th, 2013 at 10:18 pm
Ok duck and dodge valid points sorry im posting from a cell phone from an oil field so how is limiting rights of law abiding citezens going to solve this problem you have all shown the total social breakdown of common values such as respect integrety and just plain common decency that all big mouth librals show so i am in no way offended by you probably neverbeen out of the city and have no idea about what really makes this country operate that would be us dumb country folks us dumb oil field workers everyone should have their decisions made for them by the government go ahead run ur mouths some more i remember a time when people were accountable for their words and lack of respect
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 11th, 2013 at 11:15 pm
Remember in almost all cases the guns were purchased by law abiding citizens
You can get help getting the paranoia and propaganda out of you.
loading...
mjh
Jan. 13th, 2013 at 7:06 pm
You can get help getting the paranoia and propaganda out of you.
And, while he’s at it, he should get help with spelling and punctuation . . .
.
loading...
Reynardine
Jan. 11th, 2013 at 11:30 pm
The Hell you’re out in an oil field in Oklahoma. That’s in the Central Time Zone, that’s either on the Caprock or just off of it, it’s cold, it’s windy, it’s dark, and if you’re wandering around in that, you’re either a tumbleweed or a lunatic.
Well, then again…
loading...
Evil Ferret
Jan. 11th, 2013 at 11:54 pm
It seems odd to me that you talk about liberals not having courtesy or respect or decency and run their mouths when you began your first post calling liberals sheep. Either you have a double standard and think that you need to show courtesy, respect, or decency, or you don’t understand what those words mean. Generally, though, to receive respect and courtesy, it helps to show the same towards those you are addressing.
If we have to resort to name-calling towards people or groups of people we disagree with, we’ll never have civilized, constructive discourse about gun violence in this country.
Then again, it is this inability to hold civil discourse, to resolve conflicts peacefully, and to show a modicum of self-control, restraint, and compassion towards others, it is this very lack so prevalent in our country today that leads to so much violence. Not all, but I do think it is a contributing factor.
loading...
Singhx
Jan. 12th, 2013 at 7:22 am
“…this inability to hold civil discourse, to resolve conflicts peacefully, and to show a modicum of self-control, restraint, and compassion towards others, it is this very lack so prevalent in our country today that leads to so much violence…”
Well said. The country has been over-run by “gimmee-gimmee-now” knee-jerkers who have little/no capacity to contain themselves. They get an “F” in Personal responsibility, the Golden Rule and teaching children common civility.
Their finger is constantly on the trigger of self-indulgence; this is how they “justify” their 2nd Amendment “rights”. Like a petulant child’s tantrum, “That’s MINE, you can’t have it! If you restrict my killing toys that encourage my bad behavior, I will turn on you! I will kill you!”
This guy, “If it goes one inch further, I’m going to start killing people.” is EXACTLY who we are talkin’ about. That guy is a cold, chilling, intimating mo’fo who intends to kill “you”…let that sink in.
loading...
Marco
Jan. 12th, 2013 at 10:38 am
Guess you never learned punctuation.
loading...
Nefer
Jan. 12th, 2013 at 11:05 am
For God’s sake, would you at least learn to spell the word “citizen” correctly? If you are too ignorant and stupid to spell your own name, I am pretty sure everything else bouncing out of your keyboard is stupid and ignorant also.
loading...
djchefron
Jan. 12th, 2013 at 11:49 am
Dont worry its some super duper secret code.A call to action, if you will to all concerned citisens.
loading...
Alan
Jan. 12th, 2013 at 12:13 pm
“… you have all shown the total social breakdown of common values such as respect integrety and just plain common decency that all big mouth librals…”
Pot, meet kettle. Also meet poor spelling and grammar.
loading...
knight4444
Jan. 12th, 2013 at 1:28 pm
@CITEZEN you’re the poster child for your party alright I don’t care you’re texting from your phone! you aren’t making any sense and you’re butchering the english language! don’t worry @charlie our resident republican will give you thumbs up unconditionally! Besides your poorly written post! am curious do you own a car? because I can’t believe you’d EVER pass the written exam! you seriously need to go back to your conservative blogs where misspelled idiotic homophobic hillbilly rants ”are a plenty!!” once again MY grammar stinks but you make my stuff look like Shakespeare goodnight Johnboy!
loading...
Moose
Jan. 11th, 2013 at 10:53 pm
All of these shooting have took place in gun free zones, By people that did not own the guns. they did not buy them, they did not go through a back ground checks, and you answer is to make more gun free zone’s? Let Obama rip apart the 2nd amendment. Then it will be the 1st and the rest of them, lets see how your going to like your Video games Banned, your Movies censored, Yes this is about gun’s today, but more than anything it’s about our freedom. so be careful what you support,
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 11th, 2013 at 11:13 pm
You are really paranoid. Remember that someone had to buy the guns in question
Lastly, there will be no banning of guns. No matter what Brietbart, the idiots at the NRA or any other email you get
Do try to calm down and put life before your obvious need for help
loading...
Reynardine
Jan. 11th, 2013 at 11:37 pm
Take a look, cazzo. Adam Lanza didn’t have to buy his weapons or go through a background check because his mother did both. Every damn shooter who didn’t get his weapons through legal channels got them from someone who did. And don’t even pretend you care about any amendment but the second, which to you is the right to shoot anyone who gets in the way of society being run according to your ideas…assuming your cranium is capacious enough to house any.
loading...
djchefron
Jan. 11th, 2013 at 11:42 pm
You are right.Its about freedom.Its about the 2nd amendment.We do have the right to all guns.So have your guns any type of guns and keep standing up for the American way I salute you
BTW as I looked over the 2nd amendment it didn’t say anything about ammunition did it?Nope I didn’t think so.But hey we know all patriots need that ammo to protect our bodily fluids from the tyranny of government so I wont even want to ban the ammo.Because whats good of a gun if you don’t have any ammo to go with it.
So I thought about it and we can solve our deficit with drum roll please.Tax the living snot out of your ammo.I say start off at 1500% up to a max of 3000% for certain types.The details can be worked out.Of course for legitimate hunting rifles the tax would be waived but for only a certain quantity to last 3 to 6 months.
Don’t worry I haven’t forgotten about sport shooting.You will buy a small quantity at a license shooting range and you would use the amount that you buy, can only be use at the range.See I didn’t leave out the owners because they will make money two ways.Selling you the access and the ammo.The free market you got to love it.
loading...
Evil Ferret
Jan. 12th, 2013 at 12:03 am
Pssst. You stole my ammo idea. ;)
loading...
knight4444
Jan. 12th, 2013 at 1:39 pm
LMAO @moose do everybody a favor you and @CITEZEN go back to your trailer and rethink your positions! Obama’s not going to take your gun or your ellie mae clampett wife! @moose you’re a victim (a poorly educated) victim of conservative media! they’ve played on your fears! GET A GRIP!! A- nobody wants your gun B- nobody sure as hell wants your wife! so go watch some reruns of Hee Haw or the Andy Griffith show and daydream about 1950′s america!
loading...
concerned citezen
Jan. 12th, 2013 at 12:06 am
There are gun runners just as there are drug runners it is very easy to buy illeagle weapons from fully automatics to hand grenades they are out there no law or background check will change that when you buy a gun at a gun show you still have to get a background check the only way to avoid that is a private sale that will still happen with background checks and people will just reload their ammo alot of them do now to avoid high tax
loading...
Reynardine
Jan. 12th, 2013 at 9:44 am
Keep threatening us with murder if we don’t do what you say, live how you say, vote how you say. Just remember, some of us make laws, some of us enforce laws, and some of us shoot back.
loading...
Alan
Jan. 12th, 2013 at 12:14 pm
There you go again with the sick birds…
loading...
labman57
Jan. 12th, 2013 at 12:13 am
Poster children for the gun-toting “law-abiding citizens” frequently touted by the NRA.
loading...
djchefron
Jan. 12th, 2013 at 12:19 am
I was at a music site that I post at.Other than music its like a barbershop.Every subject gets talk about and really nothing is taboo.
As I was just checking out past threads over the past couple years and it is sad how many times shooting,massacre gets discussed.
This shit is pure insanity.Do my right to life and liberty is so devalued by people rights to have freaking arsenals?
loading...
Left communism Dru (CAUSE & EFFECT - use logic!! )
Jan. 12th, 2013 at 2:01 am
Do some objective research. Your right to life and liberty exists because people Did Have arsenals.
You have to understand the scope and function of the government before you can understand what the reality is (and how your politicians are abusing their powers at your expense).
My right to own and enjoy practicing with my firearm (and my right to defend myself, you, or any kid on the street) has zero to do with these massacres. Think a little – for yourself. Did my ownership permit the shootings? On the contrary, a mad-man would think twice if he knew he would get dropped in an instant if he threatened another’s life.
Look at the real facts (cause/effect relationships) and look at history. There is a bigger picture here than the groundless “guns are bad.” Average people freed themselves from oppression with guns- in much less civilized societies than our America. The author has probably never held a firearm nor took the time to learn the protocol. If you call yourself educated and concerned- that fact alone should worry you: the author condemning something that 1. Is different from his personal beliefs, 2. Doesn’t understand, 3. Doesn’t Educate himself on the facts, and 4. Buys into the hype and propaganda the politicians feed you so you can take up their cause and re-elect them for “doing something for the people.” Only problem is- a murderer won’t stop in his tracks bc you (or some Capitol Hill shithead) “makes a law.” Learn about society and crime a little bit. Cause and effect. -based on facts. THEN adopt a stance. Until then, you’re a slave to their propaganda. And ps- I don’t support either party. I support the Constitution. And the well being of the people. I support freedom of speech and to defend myself -both from others AND from the government. They’re imperfect people, too, you know. Don’t bet your kids’ life on some power-grabber’s words up in DC. They eat with gold spoons. Because you don’t.
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 12th, 2013 at 9:08 am
Except for one little tiny fact you dont want to know.
Where do these people get the guns? From people such as yourself.
The rest of your post is assumption
Your “name” is ridiculous
loading...
Reynardine
Jan. 12th, 2013 at 9:50 am
What you mean when you screech about tyranny is that the government won’t do what you want, the voters won’t vote how you want, and people won’t live, talk, act, and worship the way you want, and you want unlimited firepower and the right to display it openly so you can make us. We’re not buying it.
loading...
John Taylor
Jan. 12th, 2013 at 1:12 am
I just don’t understand all the macho talk about armed insurrection. If every citizen who owned a gun decided to rebel against the government, they would lose. What the “militia” people think they could do – other than die quickly – is beyond any rational understanding. If the government decided to confiscate all weapons in this country, they could do so with impunity. Anyone who thinks they could win a war against our military with semi-auto AR15′s is way past delusional. That such a “war” would be supported by the american people is delusion times three.
It’s interesting that our military is being trained to deal with urban warfare. Do these militia nuts really think they would stand a chance in hell in open rebellion?
All the camo in the world isn’t going to make a bit of difference despite all the bluff and bluster.
Real gun lovers have to be alarmed and disgusted by this mindless zealotry. The more these idiots proclaim “second amendment solutions”, there is less support for gun ownership.
loading...
The One True Dave
Jan. 12th, 2013 at 3:00 am
One of my favorite things about freedom of speech is that it allows the truly dangerous among us to feel comfortable outing themselves to the rest of us.
As for the paranoid ravings of these “patriots,” despite their fear of a tyrannical government they continue voting for people who make the military they fear even larger and stronger.
They tend to be the most vocal in crying “support our troops,” but think those same men and women would instantly and easily turn against their countrymen. (As someone who spent most of his adult life in the US Army, I find it rather insulting, to be honest.)
They claim to follow the founders’ intent, but do not call for abolishing that standing army they admire/fear.
They niggle over the original definition of “well regulated” as meaning “functioning as expected,” refusing to understand that something can only be functioning as expected if there is some enforceable standard to determine those expectations (regulation in the modern sense).
They cry “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” but agree that children and people with certain mental illnesses should not be allowed to bear arms and accept that only governments should own cruise missiles, mortars, grenade launchers or other mass-casualty producing munitions.
They quibble over the definition of “assault rifle” to derail conversation, willfully ignoring the fact that the wounds caused by an AR-15 are identical to those from an M-16 or M-4 (which I, and every other American soldier, was trained to use in combat in EXACTLY the same manner that an AR-15 functions).
They claim this country is the greatest on Earth, but believe any restriction on killing tools will inevitably cause us to act like the Germans, Chinese and Russians of at least a half century ago, rather than like the Australians, Canadians, Japanese, British, Welsh, Scots and Irish of today.
I don’t see why we are under any obligation to treat them as serious participants in this national…
loading...
Rob Cox
Jan. 12th, 2013 at 3:49 am
This is as nicely as I know how to end this argument…WAKE UP PEOPLE
http://www.saveamericafoundation.com/2012/12/25/the-next-american-civil-war-by-j-d-longstreet/
loading...
djchefron
Jan. 12th, 2013 at 10:49 am
Wow just wow!!The author born in Rhodesia white supremacist check.Moved to South Africa after the WHITE MINORITY government was overthrown so I don’t know, his dream country.I guess apartheid did not bother him.
Rob cocks I think you made a wrong turn here.Go back to stormfront because I think it may be to many icky blahs here for you.
loading...
Rob Cox
Jan. 12th, 2013 at 3:55 am
A LITTLE GUN HISTORY
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. >From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
You won’t see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 12th, 2013 at 9:19 am
Whats really funny here is people think gun control is taking guns away. Its determining what fruity nutcase should have guns. And I can tell you, from the comments I have seen here and around the net, there are about 2.5 million gun owners who shouldnt have them
You obviously have no idea what gun control is other then a full on take away. You try so hard to protect guns that you dont know whats going on. No guns will be teken away, the Supreme court already said that. But it also said the government does have the right to determine what guns are sellable if it want
Jesus. I worry about you people.
loading...
djchefron
Jan. 12th, 2013 at 11:01 am
Shiva I dont know how you do it,being moderator.I mean there is so much stupid out there I’m surprise you just dont lose it and go….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfuy4YkIncs&feature=endscreen&NR=1
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 12th, 2013 at 11:39 am
I can tell you being up from at least 7 to at least and usually 1 am reading this stuff take a toll. But I am reel gud about holding my anger in. I have the meanest korean gf on earth. I can do anything
And moreover, I almost worked foe the post office once
loading...
djchefron
Jan. 12th, 2013 at 10:11 am
Uhh Rob I don’t know where you get your history from but Nazi Germany did not ban guns.After World War 1 the Versailles treaty forbade Germany from owning arms other than a standing army of 100,000 and law enforcement.So it was the Wiemar republic that enacted the gun laws.The Nazis when they came in power restored gun rights.Now it is true Jews could not own guns but that was no different than certain parts of the United States denied African Americans the right to own guns.
So if that fact is wrong in your post I wonder what else is wrong.Google here I come.
loading...
SinghX
Jan. 12th, 2013 at 3:03 pm
Recent article on Hitler/gun control shows Hitler loosened all the gun laws passed by the Treaty of Versailles (just as you said)…the Jews and Gypsies were not allowed weapons as they were considered dangerous minorities.
As to the Russian gun control issue…
“…Gun enthusiasts often mention that the Soviet Union restricted access to guns in 1929 after Joseph Stalin rose to power. But to suggest that a better armed Russian populace would have overthrown the Bolsheviks is also too simplistic, says Spitzer. “To answer the question of the relationship between guns and the revolutions in those nations is to study the comparative politics and comparative history of those nations,” he explains. “It takes some analysis to break this down and explain it, and that’s often not amenable to a sound bite or a headline.”
(Ironically, pro-gun white nationalists have tried to stand the “Hitler took the guns” idea on its head by arguing that he was in fact a staunch supporter of the right to bear arms—for Aryans. William Pierce, author of the race war fantasy The Turner Diaries, made this claim in his book Gun Control in Germany, 1928-1945. So who’s behind the effort to paint Hitler as anti-gun? The Jews, of course!)”
loading...
Reynardine
Jan. 12th, 2013 at 11:03 am
And why do you rob cox? Isn’t your own good enough?
loading...
The One True Dave
Jan. 12th, 2013 at 2:54 pm
So why hasn’t it happened in Australia or the UK? Are they just less barbarous than Americans? Yeah, every Indian reservation is proof that Americans were once at LEAST as brutal as the Nazis, but do you really think we’re no better than we were? What a bleak and cynical worldview. I’m glad I don’t live in such paranoid fear.
loading...
Bluebird
Jan. 12th, 2013 at 6:54 am
Think about it…If your daughter broke up with her boyfriend and found your gun and killed herself, that would be ok with you because you had the right to bear arms and she was mentally ill at the time?
Why is it that so many gun owners sound like lunatics who could shoot someone at the slightest provocation? Should they be allowed to own guns?
loading...
Moose
Jan. 12th, 2013 at 9:10 am
LOL why do you think we would have to fight our Military. there are 300 million gun owners in the US we would never have to fire a shot, you people think our government is so powerful……. they cannot stop drugs from coming into the US, and they know where they come from….then they cannot stop Illegal’s from crossing the Boarder’s. but for some reason you think they could take guns from 300 million gun owners. the government would go broke in 2 days even trying, and taxing ammo how would that prevent the shootings. crazy people will always kill. take all the guns and ammo. then when they kill with a knife or drive a car through a school crossing full of kids then what do you want to Ban or take away, the kid that was building Bombs to take to school what do we ban to stop him. maybe it’s the internet where he learned to make them. and that’s going to be the 1st amendment I sure when they were writing the 1st amendment it was not meant to cover the internet
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 12th, 2013 at 9:15 am
If we think about it, what government can go against its people without the military? Would a government made up of 3 branches go against the people without the military? I see no logic in these idiots that keep saying they wilkl fight the military, when if anyone tries to take over a country, it would be the military by itself. Given there would be a tremendous amount of military people sneaking out of the military, would the military still try and take over and rule the country? It could, the weapons are advanced enough that lots of land could be taken by a few people.
But get your head out of your arse
loading...
Moose
Jan. 12th, 2013 at 9:21 am
Bluebird and if there was no gun in the house she took a knife and cut her wrist Now does that make you feel better.
Hint maybe we need to fix the problem with the mentally Ill
loading...
Reynardine
Jan. 12th, 2013 at 9:55 am
Maybe yu nede two lern to reed an spel gud.
loading...
John Taylor
Jan. 12th, 2013 at 9:38 am
Do you think these clowns will be out in the woods playing army today? Maybe. But only till a couple of hours before the first playoff game. They have to have time to stop at Quickie Mart for beer and chips before getting home and crawling into their recliner. Their war against “tyranny” has to be convenient. They can only play on the weekends and that depends if there is a big game on TV.
The scariest part of all of this is that we have a group of so-called “patriots” living in an alternate universe.
loading...
SinghX
Jan. 12th, 2013 at 3:09 pm
You’re right on target; this is absolutely how the bunker fundamentalist “play book” works. This is exactly what goes on within Klan cells who think they’re going “act” and to rain down on “the man” by killing…one of’em gets arrested or shot and he/she rats out the whole pack. SPLC enters quietly, documents the entire ordeal, sues the Klan and keeps them in their site until the next time…
loading...
Tiffany Lathrop
Jan. 12th, 2013 at 10:41 am
The only way the second amendment gives you people the absolute personal right to own firearms only if the comma after the word “militia” was put there by mistake by the amendment’s authors. Yes, by MISTAKE. This means that your precious amendment is flawed, and you are using a flawed document to justify flooding this country with hundreds of millions of firearms. Of course, I don’t think the amendment is flawed and that the comma belongs there. When read with the comma “militia” is the subject of the sentence and then the operative words of the amendment are: “a well regulated militia———shall not be infringed.” And this confers no absolute right to own firearms. So, you see people, you have no rights to bear arms, and you have been getting it wrong the whole time. Now you all need to trot yourselves down to the nearest police station and turn in your firearms.
loading...
Bobbie Rosario
Jan. 12th, 2013 at 2:26 pm
Thank you, Tiffany, for your insight. First time I have actually seen a reasoned response to the 2nd Amendment fanatics based on what it was intended to do. Of course if many of them can’t spell or don’t know how grammar and punctuation works they won’t get it. We all make mistakes in our writing. I am terrible at editing but at least I understand the concepts. This was a good discussion. I am a Liberal progressive who bow hunts and owns guns but do not hunt with them. Get it from both sides. Hunters think the 2nd Amendment gives them hunting rights. We know a lot of good people who are confused. Not in their minds. They convince each other that their hobby whether hunting or shooting /collecting guns is a right not a privilege that can be taken away if they are irresponsible.
loading...
Ol' doodlebugger
Jan. 12th, 2013 at 1:32 pm
I wouldn’t worry about the gun totin tough guys. They are obviously living in fear. when they see the first helicopter gunship hovering over them with 50 cal gatlings aimed at them they will poop their pants, drop their beloved gun and beg for their life.
loading...
labman57
Jan. 12th, 2013 at 2:40 pm
The right to bear arms was incorporated into the Constitution because the government did not have a substantial standing army and wanted to make sure that a civilian militia could be recruited quickly and efficiently should the need arise.
In other words, the Second Amendment was written so that the public could HELP the government, not in order to attack the government. With our modern armed forces — including the National Guard — this type of civilian-based militia is no longer a necessity.
In addition, I doubt that the Founding Fathers ever envisioned “arms” which could fire 50-60 rounds per minute.
Want to keep a shotgun under the bed, a hunting rifle in the closet, or a handgun in the bureau drawer? Be my guest.
Want to use high-capacity magazines with your Glock … or keep a semi-automatic assault rifle in the closet? That’s another story.
If you need a semi-automatic rifle to go hunting … this doesn’t speak well of your skill as a hunter.
loading...
The One True Dave
Jan. 12th, 2013 at 4:05 pm
“In other words, the Second Amendment was written so that the public could HELP the government, not in order to attack the government.”
Exactly. The Constitution spells out the purpose of that militia pretty clearly. Congress is given the power “To provide for the calling for of the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.”
Historical precedent also shows that intent, when we look at how militia was used to execute law and suppress insurrection in the very earliest years of the United States. Shay’s Rebellion was ended by a state-authorized (though privately-funded) militia army in 1787 and while he was President George Washington himself led a militia force to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794 (though he turned over command of forces to another general once he saw they’d meet minimal resistance). In 1799 militia were used to arrest leaders of a third anti-tax rebellion led by John Fries.
The German Coast Uprising and Nat Turner’s revolt were suppressed by militia. The Anti-Rent War in New York led to the governor calling out militia and imposing martial law. In 1842 the governor of Rhode Island declared martial law, using the militia to enforce it, in response to Dorr’s Rebellion (though many militiamen supported the rebels). In 1889 the governor of Texas used militia and martial law during the Jaybird–Woodpecker War. In 1870 the governor of North Carolina used militia to suppress the KKK. In Puerto Rico in 1950 the National Guard (with close-air-support from the Air Force) defeated rebels in at least two cities during nationalist revolts there.
It’s pretty clear that the purpose of the militia was to take the place of a standing army, rather than to oppose one.
loading...
mjh
Jan. 12th, 2013 at 8:31 pm
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. Tomas Jefferson”
First off, it’s Thomas. I’m pretty sure Jefferson was not of Hispanic descent.
Second off . . . I wonder: do the wingnuts who love to bring up that quote, have any CLUE that –
- the quote does not refer to the American Revolution; it refers to Shay’s Rebellion, held in Massachusetts in 1787
- the farmers in Shay’s Rebellion were only in conflict with the US federal gov’t over the matter of taxes levied against their land; they were not attempting to overthrow the federal gov’t {which wasn’t yet in existence}
- Jefferson himself was not in the US at the time; the quote appears in a letter he wrote to William Smith while in France
- the quote, when taken in context:
“Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusetts? And can history produce an instance of rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it’s motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive.”
indicates that Jefferson believed that the farmers motives in Shay’s, while honorable and necessary in a fledgling democracy, were nonetheless borne of ignorance — and, in the cases of that ignorance, it was the gov’ts duty to inform the citizenry:
“The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them.”
Being in permanent, bloody rebellion was NOT, contrary to wingnut opinion, a statement of desirable policy by Thomas Jefferson.
.
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 12th, 2013 at 8:40 pm
I would ask you to not expect these people to have any idea of what they are doing when they post things that others have given them to post. Post this Charlie, dont look it up. Its ok, no one will catch it
loading...
The One True Dave
Jan. 14th, 2013 at 6:32 am
“The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive.”
I’ve come to regard that quote as prophecy lately, predicting the modern “Tea Party.”
loading...
djchefron
Jan. 12th, 2013 at 10:13 pm
Well this is one way to skin this cat
One of America’s largest pension funds began on Wednesday to divest itself of firearms holdings, a response to the schoolhouse shooting in Newtown, Conn., that other pension funds could follow.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/10/business/california-teachers-fund-to-divest-of-gun-stock.html
loading...
charlie
Jan. 12th, 2013 at 11:39 pm
loading...
djchefron
Jan. 13th, 2013 at 12:08 am
Now Charles you have to admit your compadres provided sh$ts and giggles.
loading...
charlie
Jan. 13th, 2013 at 1:12 am
Heh, yeah…they’re a fun bunch, aren’t they?
But here’s the thing….I do agree with them on the basic principle…that another law isn’t going to do any good. If someone is he!!-bent on killing a bunch of innocents, they’ll find a way to do it…with or without a gun. Last time I checked Brookings…can we use them? :-), there were over 300 major federal and state gun laws and thousands of local gun laws on the books now. We just haven’t hit the right one yet that’s going to put a stop to these head-line grabbing mass shootings? Don’t think so. It’s all been tried. Seems more like the definition of insanity if you ask me. One more law isn’t going to achieve a different result. I think the left is wrong on this, just as much as I think the right is too twisted up in the abortion issue. Don’t get me wrong…another gun restriction doesn’t get me too fired up one way or the other…I just hope we’re not reading more about 20lb. propane tank bombs next.
loading...
knight4444
Jan. 13th, 2013 at 1:07 pm
@charlie I really hate to stereotype but….. after Bush jr. first term I’ve noticed republicans becoming completely unglued!! I remember when you could talk somewhat rationally with them! sadly those days appear to be over. @charlie I welcome different points of view but seriously! you don’t have anything to offer! giving out counterpoints from conservative think tanks isn’t going to fly here! @charlie seriously! what’s your agenda? because buddy I’m getting kind of bored with your conservative talking points! I guess you get a hard on being a pesky mosquito! You can post your Fux news nonsense if that makes you feel like a conservative crusader but this site is over you’re pay rate! @charlie either say something worthwhile or try YOU TUBE! I think you’re Archie Bunker opinions are suited for that mob.
loading...
charlie
Jan. 13th, 2013 at 3:47 pm
I forgot to link my comment to yours.
Scroll down and you will see my reply.
loading...
djchefron
Jan. 13th, 2013 at 12:05 am
How the NRA Became an Organization for Aspiring Vigilantes (Part 1)
http://www.thenation.com/blog/172100/how-nra-became-organization-aspiring-vigilantes-part-1
How the NRA Became an Organization for Aspiring Vigilantes (Part 2)
http://www.thenation.com/blog/172125/how-nra-became-organization-aspiring-vigilantes-part-2
loading...
Lisette Root
Jan. 13th, 2013 at 3:40 am
I look at these people as members of a cult. There is a difference between beliefs and total fanaticism. A gun is a gun, designed to kill, either animals or humans. Of course there are a few who only use them for target practice, which I enjoy. I am quite concerned by the cult mentality right now, no good ever comes from a cult. I would venture to say that those with over the top rhetoric are displaying cultish behavior, and they are dangerous to themselves and others.
loading...
Molon Labe Foundation
Jan. 13th, 2013 at 1:40 pm
You call it fanaticism. So be it. Feel free to label whatever you think works to scare folks. The reality is this. For some of us the constitution means something. It is sacred, all parts, to include the 2nd amendment. Many have fought for that right. We take our rights seriously. You should as well. So when Senator Feinstein proposes a bill that guts the second amendment and our rights people get heated. When the President decides to BYPASS the legislative branch people get heated. At the end of the day no matter what the dictator passes, congress will not fund it. The courts will strike it down. Even if they don’t and people take up arms… Guess what all three are protected by the constitution. Unlike the attempts of The President. Alex Jones and James Yeager like to self promote they do not speak for all of us… However their message is dead on. The delivery sucks. Like it or not I / We fought for your right to write this dribble. We also fought for the rights of the second amendment. Don’t for a minute think people wont fight to keep it.
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 13th, 2013 at 2:36 pm
Funny every president has bipassed the congress where they can. and NOW, a fanatic shows up with outrage.
Oh my
What attempts has the president taken except that he is a better friend to gun owners then the NRA is? What has he done? Well?
loading...
mjh
Jan. 13th, 2013 at 7:42 pm
For some of us the constitution means something. It is sacred, all parts, to include the 2nd amendment.
If all parts of it were so “sacred”, why was there a Twenty-first Amendment for the specific purpose of REPEALING the Eighteenth?
Hell, FTM — if the original Constitution was so “sacred”, why was there a need for ANY amendments AT ALL?
When the President decides to BYPASS the legislative branch people get heated.
Oh, bullshit . . . did you rightwingnuts get “heated” when Dumbya Bush declared himself “The Decider”, and write “signing statements” detailing which parts of bills he would and would not enforce?
Did you get “heated” when he put forth the concept of “the Unitary Executive”, and claimed he could exercise “Emergency Powers” including martial law at any emergency HE declared?
If anything, you got “heated” in excitement . . .
.
loading...
Molon Labe Foundation
Jan. 14th, 2013 at 12:26 am
Actually, I am a moderate not right wing by any means. And G.W. was a clown. he did more to set back our fourth amendment rights with that crap called the Patriot Act. There is nothing Patriotic about it. Like I said I believe in ALL of our rights not just the second. I fight for the 4TH just as hard.
I realize other Presidents have used their Executive rights in the past and more than likely Obama is just going to enforce the executive powers given to him in the Federal Firearms Act of 1938 and 1968. However, he has used it to limit private property rights as well. You may want to read section 308 of the “National Defense Resource Preparedness order” Where he signed that the US government at a time of Martial Law (War Time or in Peace) Declares ownership of all natural resources in the United States and allows for the Government to modify or use any private facilities of their choosing at will.
My point in all of my posts is that our rights, Not just the 2nd amendment are being whittled away. Bush helped Obama helped. But we need to stand up for them.
Congress is just as bad expanding the Patriot act and signing this into law with the help of the President.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/7/coming-to-a-sky-near-you/?page=all
We need to stand up for all our rights. But in fairness I am a HUGE supporter of my 2nd Amendment rights.
loading...
The One True Dave
Jan. 14th, 2013 at 6:46 am
“Sec. 308. Government-Owned Equipment. The head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority of the President under section 303(e) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2093(e), to:
(a) procure and install additional equipment, facilities, processes, or improvements to plants, factories, and other industrial facilities owned by the Federal Government and to procure and install Government owned equipment in plants, factories, or other industrial facilities owned by private persons;
(b) provide for the modification or expansion of privately owned facilities, including the modification or improvement of production processes, when taking actions under sections 301, 302, or 303 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2091, 2092, 2093; and
(c) sell or otherwise transfer equipment owned by the Federal Government and installed under section 303(e) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2093(e), to the owners of such plants, factories, or other industrial facilities.”
Hmmm… I see nothing mentioned in there about natural resources, or of taking over use of private facilities. I can see a perfectly benign purpose for installing government owned equipment in them in an emergency, though. After Hurricane Katrina my National Guard unit (before I got to them from active duty) used their government owned generators to help power a local clinic, after modifying a power junction to be able to attach it.
You see something sinister because our brains are wired to look out for danger. The difference is that you don’t assess and filter that stimuli the same way the rest of us do. See the following link for a more detailed explanation of that phenomenon.
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4264
loading...
Molon Labe Foundation
Jan. 14th, 2013 at 11:41 am
Dave you may want to re-read that order.
Sec. 201. Priorities and Allocations Authorities. (a) The authority of the President conferred by section 101 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071, to require acceptance and priority performance of contracts or orders (other than contracts of employment) to promote the national defense over performance of any other contracts or orders, and to allocate materials, services, and facilities as deemed necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense, is delegated to the following agency heads:
(1) the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to food resources, food resource facilities, livestock resources, veterinary resources, plant health resources, and the domestic distribution of farm equipment and commercial fertilizer;
(2) the Secretary of Energy with respect to all forms of energy;
(3) the Secretary of Health and Human Services with respect to health resources;
(4) the Secretary of Transportation with respect to all forms of civil transportation;
(5) the Secretary of Defense with respect to water resources; and
(6) the Secretary of Commerce with respect to all other materials, services, and facilities, including construction materials.
Why would the Secretary of Defense be responsible for water?? I appreciate you taking the time to copy and paste. May want to read the thing. Section 801 defines what each of these are.
(n) “Water resources” means all usable water, from all sources, within the jurisdiction of the United States, that can be managed, controlled, and allocated to meet emergency requirements, except “water resources” does not include usable water that qualifies as “food resources.”
loading...
The One True Dave
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 1:41 am
Sorry. I only read section 308 because that was the section you said that was in. It’s your paranoia, so please present it more effectively. It should not be incumbent on the rest of us to guess that when you mention one section you mean that section plus another unmentioned one.
As for water, that’s a necessity for life, so in an emergency situation the drinkable kind becomes a strategic asset. Water resources also refers to navigable inland waterways, which, in a national emergency would be vital for the transport of military material. The Mississippi, Ohio, St. Lawrence, Columbia, Willamette, Missouri and many other rivers are effectively railroads and highways for boats, but not artificial structures like the latter. Hence the jurisdiction of the DoD, rather than Transportation.
Again, I understand why you see sinister implications in ordinary data, but your processes of filtering and analysis are out of whack.
loading...
charlie
Jan. 13th, 2013 at 3:30 pm
knight4444Reply
Jan. 13th, 2013 at 1:07 pm
loading...
knight4444
Jan. 13th, 2013 at 6:40 pm
@charlie I’m not interested in a long drawn out thing with you the bottom line is you’re reading these republican gun nuts rants posted here and I’m CURIOUS why you haven’t tried to talking sense to your republican bretheren! You have ZERO problem jousting with any liberal on everything up under the sun! but when your clown posse rolls in you get tongue tied!! if you’ve addressed ANY of republican crusaders here and I missed it I will apologize!! I question your sincerity Miss @charlie BTW way explain to me how a woman calling herself a conservative can be so tone deaf to your parties war on women!! LOL
loading...
charlie
Jan. 13th, 2013 at 10:26 pm
knight4444Reply
Jan. 13th, 2013 at 6:40 pm
loading...
knight4444
Jan. 14th, 2013 at 10:54 am
Repeat, as a woman and a conservative please tell everybody how you can be so incredibly tone deaf to the daily anti woman platform your party has committed suicide to! inquiry minds wanna know lol BTW if any liberal tried to go to a republican website trying to do what you’re doing here they would be bombarded with disgusting vile and juvenile behavior!! your side can’t end a sentence without calling Obama ”ODUMMER” or NIG*ER!! so much for the party of God huh?!
loading...
1voice1vote
Jan. 13th, 2013 at 7:25 pm
“I believe that we can start to bridge our divide by simply just talking to each other. There are those of us out here that haven’t given up on that.”
Charlie, you don’t talk to, you talk at. You state your Fox-Republican sound bites, you fail to back up your point of view with actual documentation/facts, and then you cherry pick, whine and move the goal posts. That’s not a conversation, it’s acting the troll: concern troll, aghast troll, don’t fight/debate/argue fairly troll.
“Madam, trying to have a conversation with you would be like trying to argue with a dining room table.” – Rep. Barney Frank
loading...
charlie
Jan. 13th, 2013 at 10:30 pm
1voice1voteReply
Jan. 13th, 2013 at 7:25 pm
Nothing personal, but I think I might just wait until you put down the pitchfork before I engage.
loading...
Anne
Jan. 13th, 2013 at 4:07 pm
These fanatics are scary in their childish, short-sighted, and utterly selfish insistence on gun rights that are disconnected from any sense of responsibility for fellow humans or for the need to demand accountability when it comes to dealing with lethal weapons. I would be willing to bet that there are a number of them who call themselves “God-fearing” while they violate the Commandament about serving no other gods or idols before God. What’s scariest of all is this apparent valuing of inanimate objects more than fellow humans.
loading...
Molon Labe Foundation
Jan. 13th, 2013 at 5:56 pm
Anne you talk about short sightedness. It is shortsighted to thing that law abiding and responsible gun owners do not mourn the loss of any human life. It is short sighted to thing that guns need to take accountability… Even now it sounds childish. People need to be held accountable for actions not (As it has been stated here)an inanimate object. An object that takes the hand of human to do harm. A tool that can be used for good or for evil.
Then you speak of religion. Well I am not religious. I did not vote for Obama and I sure did not vote for that clown Romney. The issues is how this is politicized Liberals, Conservatives, Fanatics. This has nothing to do with politics, other than the fact people are politicizing a horrible tragedy. I am a Veteran, A husband, and Father but above all else I am an American. Born and Raised and very proud. Just like we use to be decades ago. But these day we don’t give a crap about our fellow man. We divide ourselves along race, religion, and political lines. We don’t care for our fellow countrymen and women enough to give them help when they ask for it or even when they don’t. The one thing in common across all of these horrible massacres was mental illness. But I did not see Biden inviting them to the table. I have watched out rights get trounced slowly for years. It is going to continue unless we come together as Americans and do something about it. It does not have to be in Arms. It can be through diplomacy. But as long as these lines are there…. Well good luck to us all we will need it.
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 13th, 2013 at 6:00 pm
Well put
loading...
Anne
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 6:41 pm
In the first place, you must have read my post and only seen in it what you wanted to see. No one is talking about taking all gun rights away or demonizing all gun owners. However, my points stand about some folks who so thoroughly idolize their guns that they object to even common sense measures that would save countless lives. They are selfish,short-sighted people who value their rights above everyone else’s. And yes, among them are hypocrites who profess to be God-fearing and pro-life when it comes to protecting unborn children. Yet, these same folks have an incredible level of tolerance for carnage that claims the lives of so many, including already born children. I don’t presume to know whether all gun owners are religious or not, and I also know for a fact that there are responsible gun owners. That doesn’t alter the fact that there are too many like I’ve described above, and that they are a big part of the problem as opposed to solutions.
loading...
rslewis147
Jan. 13th, 2013 at 4:38 pm
2nd AMENDMENT VS SANITY
Anyone can snap. The sanest among us do. And
murder in America is becoming a part of the daily
milieu as a result. We are serving up murder nearly
every second of the day in this country and more
tragically still, we are unwilling to compromise on
ways to correct an ever-worsening situation.
Because anyone can snap, because the sanest among
do, shall we therefore declare our entire society to be
crazy– or at least potentially crazy — and declare this
as grounds sufficient for removing all guns from our
society?
No. This misses the point entirely while fixing nothing.
Knowing anyone can snap and knowing the sanest
among us do was arguably not a consideration given by
the Founding Fathers in drafting the 2nd Amendment;
neither were stress or anxiety or dozens of mental
health issues that didn’t exist then – at least, not in
number and in kind.
No sane person among us can possibly believe that
were they alive today, these same Founding Fathers
would draft the same 2nd Amendment and intentionally
give to all countrymen — even if every citizen could be
proved 100% sane at the time but also understanding
as we do now that anyone can snap at any time – guns
that are virtual bazookas compared to what guns
were then.
We need to march forward in lock-step with sanity
if we are going to preserve this magnificent democracy.
We need to find the way to do that while adhering as
closely as possible to the very last letter of our beloved
Constitution but while also acknowledging that as sagacious
as our Founding Fathers most certainly were, they were
not gods. Their every thought was not a perfect one.
They did not have crystal balls that would have allowed
them to craft a document that was perfect forever
and ever. We are doomed if we believe that.
We are faced today not with what Right was meant
or guaranteed under the 2nd Amendment but with
recognizing the sane gun controls…
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 13th, 2013 at 5:14 pm
I agree. They never even would have discussed gun ownership. They would have looked out the window and got sick just thinking about it.
The BS about over running the government would be hilarious if it wasnt so sick
loading...
Biggs
Jan. 14th, 2013 at 1:14 pm
I am a moderate liberal Democrat. I voted for Obama both times, voted for Clinton both times, and voted against Bush both times.
I am also a gun owner. I own several handguns, and practice at least 6 times per year at a local range in order to ensure my accuracy with each of them. I store them in a fingerprint enabled safe within arm’s reach of my bed, so I can retrieve them in an emergency, while still maintaining the safety of my young children.
When my children are old enough, I will teach them about gun safety & respect, and as they grow even older, I will take them to the range and teach them to use these guns properly.
One of the things that I most respect about our President is the fact that (until very recently) he has largely avoided the gun argument, and if anything has been fairly pro-gun. So all of this hype about Obama coming for our guns confuses me.
I think that the “overthrow the government” people are just as damning to their cause as Feinstein and Sarah Brady are to the gun control cause. Guns are a tool. No more and no less. They are useful for hunting, for home and personal protection, and for causing harm. It all depends upon the intent of the person wielding the tool.
The bigger problem here is “what is reasonable gun control?” We have thousands upon thousands of gun control laws on the books. Will passing another one do any more good? Will passing another 50? Or another 100? Are we less safe now that Tommy Guns are legal again than we were when they were not? Does the fact that my 9mm magazine holds 20 rounds (standard on my gun and legal in my State) make it so much more dangerous than if it only held 12?
If we are going to talk about gun control, we need to stop passing legislation that is merely a pointless annoyance to gun owners and find some solution that will actually help keep guns out of the wrong hands without infringing on the rights of upstanding citizens. Find me that law, and I’ll…
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 14th, 2013 at 1:38 pm
if you remember, when Tommy guns were being used, they were being used on the streets to spray people indiscriminately. Yes we are safer.
Are used less safe if your gun holds 20 rounds instead of 12? Yes if you are killing people that’s a more people potentially. We are safer with the 12 even though the 12 is unnecessary.
You speak nicely of the president but you should also remember that president Obama has been better to the gun crowd than the NRA has. The NRA takes your money and gives you very little in return except for an insane spokesman. The president has signed bills allowing you to carry guns in national parks and other places where guns are totally unnecessary. If you remember, just before a teabag rally near the White House on state land they were allowed to carry their assault rifles and display their little penises. I’m sorry, their lack of self-confidence. The president has done nothing against any gun owners in his first four years and yet the NRA screams loudly that the president is coming for your guns. And I’m not talking about you, but there are people out there known as gun nuts who absolutely believe that the president is going to take their guns away. That’s why we call them gun nuts
This is not written in sarcasm toward yourself. But is just my view on two of the questions that you asked
loading...
john
Jan. 14th, 2013 at 4:04 pm
finding reliable pre nfa gun statistics is pretty hard. but the amount of crimes committed with Thompson sub machine guns was pretty low. the guns sold for around $200.00 up to mid 300s in some reports that works out to be around 2600usd in 2012.
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 14th, 2013 at 4:11 pm
I am primarily talking about the 1920s through the 1940s. They were not expensive during that era for certain people
loading...
Biggs
Jan. 14th, 2013 at 5:46 pm
Shiva,
I’m not talking about Tommy guns in the 20′s. I’m saying that when the assault weapons ban expired about 6 years ago, the ban on the Tommy Gun expired with it. They are legal to own again. There are 4 gun stores in this town that have them for rent. If I was interested, I could legally have one delivered to me for about $1,500.
http://www.gunsamerica.com/Search/Category/696/2/Guns/Rifles/Thompson-Subguns-Semi-Auto.htm
How are we less safe with this particular gun being legal than we were 6 years ago? Name me one mass shooting since they have been legal again where one of these guns was used, and then tell me that they couldn’t have done the same amount of damage with any of 1,000 other legal weapons.
Likewise, my gun holds 20 rounds. Lets say that we make California law the new federal law, and no gun is allowed to hold more than 10 rounds. If someone were looking to do a mass shooting spree, could they not just bring twice as many magazines with them? Mags for my gun run $16.95 at any gun shop. As I don’t like to spend my range time loading my magazines, I tend to have 20 loaded mags with me when I go to the range. It takes an experienced shooter less than 2 seconds to clear and magazine and exchange it for a fresh one. A practiced shooter can do it in under a second…
How is limiting the rounds in each magazine going to stop a mad man from committing acts of madness?
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 14th, 2013 at 6:56 pm
“Name me one mass shooting since they have been legal again where one of these guns was used, a”
What guns? Tommy guns or assault rifles? Sandy Hook if its Assault weapons
20 rounds is 10 more then 10. Thats 10 potential victims. Until all assault weapons are gone we dont have much chance of stopping these actions from being committted. Ask yourself, is there a certain confidence you have when you have an AR-15 as apposed to a pistol
“How is limiting the rounds in each magazine going to stop a mad man from committing acts of madness?”
I hope you understand how ridiculous that question is. Do you? Is every action taken supposed to stop these people? We wont stop them until every gun is removed from American shores. Now we know that wont happen, so whats the next best step? You limit the amount of killing that can occur. Now I know as a gun nut thats going to be a hard pill to swallow because it effects your bragging rights with the size of your magazine. And thats the only thing that big magazine is good for.
I mean thats a really bad question.
But you can be happy. From what I have been seeing on the news(you should put your gun down and try the news) there will be no weapons ban. You can look forward to more children being massacred. All the while telling yourself big mags and hi capicity guns are really something you need, and that the speed of the weapon and the amount of shells it shoots is meaningless..
I wont be here to see it, but I sincerely hope within 50 years or so there will be no need for guns.
loading...
Biggs
Jan. 14th, 2013 at 8:43 pm
Shiva, I think you are missing my point.
I specifically meant the Tommy Gun. How is outlawing the Thompson SPECIFICALLY going to make us safer? Or if you outlaw the AR-15, but leave the M-16 available, or outlaw the M-16 as well, but leave the SKS. The gun control laws in this country leave holes big enough to sail battleships through. There is no rhyme nor reason, and they do nothing to make anyone any safer.
But let’s say that you can make every gun with more than 6 rounds illegal. There are still something like 270,000,000 known guns in this country. Are you going to go door to door to get them all and keep them out of the hands of Adam Lanza and Erik Kliebold? No. There is no way that would ever pass, and even if it did pass, you may only ever find 1/2 the guns, and it would be the people who you don’t mind having them who no longer have them…..It would be the citizens who care about the law. So we have guns, and we will always have guns. There is no putting the toothpaste back in the tube. We have established that time and time again, on this thread and every other thread I’ve ever seen.
Which brings us to the next component. Let’s say that you COULD, somehow get all the known guns. It won’t affect the criminals other than to give them a distinct advantage because the will still be able to buy via the black market.
Then, you have the U.K. They outlawed basically all guns. Did you pay attention to what happened? Gun crimes went up by 89% after the handgun ban. WENT UP 89%! Gun deaths and injuries rose by 104%.
In Australia – In 2006, assault soared 49.2 percent, robbery went up 6.2 percent, rape rose 29.9 percent. Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate went up a staggering 42.2 percent.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323777204578195470446855466.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html
Check my facts.
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 14th, 2013 at 9:40 pm
Australia had a very low crime rate to start with. Have you ever looked up the nunbers? DO it
The outlawing guns thing has very little validity
Next, NO ONE in the government is talking about taking your guns. A non argument
I have seen other stats on Britian. I hoe you didnt get them from a gun website. I talk to 3 brits every day on the website I belong to. They dont agree.
loading...
Biggs
Jan. 14th, 2013 at 9:04 pm
Additionally, Chicago has the strictest gun control in the country, and also some of the worst crime rates. If you compare the monthly crime rates for Chicago over the last ten years, and look at the dates of stricter gun control laws in the city – there is an average 1.4% jump in crime rates every single time guns are harder for the average person to get.
Look, I don’t want guys like Dylan Harris or Erik Kliebold or the NYC sniper or Adam Lanza or James Holmes (batman shooter) to have a gun either. But I have yet to see a SINGLE viable solution for keeping these people from getting them.
So long as we can not stop mad men from committing evil acts, the only viable answer is to outnumber them 10 to 1. Make it impossible for them to kill 40 people by surrounding them with 15 good guys with guns who are willing and able to stop them.
Because that IS a deterrent. It won’t stop everyone, but it will minimize their damage, and it will stop some from trying. Knowing that 3 out of 4 homes on this block have a handgun and/or a shotgun will make someone think twice before breaking in. When a criminal knows that half of all women carry a gun, a 50% risk of attempting to rape a woman who is carrying a gun and willing to use it IS a deterrent.
The problem is – I will never convince you of that. I can show you 100 studies stating the same research and statistics, and you will never believe me. Because you are convinced that guns are the problem, and the only solution in your mind is the fantasy of absolute disarmament and peace.
I love the idea of a world where guns are not a necessity. But that will never happen. So long as there is evil within men, SOME men will use whatever tools they can find to gain power over their enemies. I do not like the idea of a world where there is no way to stop those men.
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 14th, 2013 at 9:37 pm
No. I have recently had this argument. Chicago doesnt have the strictest gun laws. Anyone can get a gun if they pass the test to get a license.
All big citys have high crime rates. Its called population density.
Guns are only a deterrent if you have them out and visible. Othersie the rape goes forward.
I think guns are the problem up to the point where they allow more murders to occur then should. The more assault rifles that are gone eventually massacres will happen with weapons that wont kill 20 kids in a few seconds. Thats the only prevention their is.
And no one, needs military style weapons.
loading...
Mark
Jan. 14th, 2013 at 9:14 pm
He’s talking about the government officials who will try to take his guns away you idiots. How would you feel if your war was to be taken away for some BS reason? of course you’d fight to protect it.
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 14th, 2013 at 9:32 pm
What government offcials? Anyone ever tried to take anyones guns?
loading...
Biggs
Jan. 15th, 2013 at 2:08 am
If Mark was referring to me in his previous post, he is wrong. I don’t think anyone is coming for my guns.
Shiva I posted links to 2 of the sources for my stats. One was the Wall Street Journal Online, and the other was The Daily Mail, which is the second most read paper in the U.K. (They call it a tabloid, but it doesn’t mean the same thing as a “tabloid” in the States. This paper has won a lot of awards for Journalism.)
And the “outlawing guns thing” (as you put it) has a tremendous amount of validity, but as I stated in my last post, I could show you 1,000 articles all backing up my research and prove beyond any reasonable doubt that banning guns will make things worse. You will never believe anything I have to say, because you have made up your mind on this subject, and anything that disagrees with your perception of reality is either mistaken, redneck rhetoric, or evil Republican propaganda.
There is no room in your world for anyone who disagrees with you.
loading...
Biggs
Jan. 17th, 2013 at 1:22 pm
Furthermore…this -
http://www.assaultweapon.info/
loading...