Al, well, I guess it's time to rile up the lefties again -- give them a post or two for their vendetta flagging.Post #6Thank you all for your support of the well-regulated militia clause. Let's talk about this again when y'all are back from your next stint with your state's National Guard.
Nice attempt at diversion, BUT...
Amendment II (1791)
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
The world "people is used ten times in the Constitution and the Amendments. However, if we believe the egregious wailing of the insatiable gun-grabbers, only in the Second Amendment does the word NOT refer to the citzenry. There is exactly zero justification for that interpretation, but zealots on a political jihad don't allow little things like facts to dissuade them.There is no "long slide." Gun ownership in the US has always been mostly military, and rural.
Ever wonder why the per-capita crime rate in the urban sewers is vastly higher than in those rural areas where the "bitter clingers" live (Obozo's term)? The answer is obvious: criminals are far less likely to commit their crimes against people who just might be able to off their sorry arses. They prefer cities because the streets have been made safe for them by clueless kakistocrats.
Where are the highest firearm crime rates in the CONUS? Places like New York City, Washington DC, and Chicago.
Where are the most stringent and oppressive firearms laws? Places like New York City, Washington DC, and Chicago.
Where can one find irrefutable evidence that preventing law-abiding citizens from defending themselves is, to be exceedingly kind, counterproductive? Places like New York City, Washington DC, and Chicago.
Here's a cold, hard fact: courts have made clear that the police have no mandate to protect the people. Per Warren v. District of Columbia:By a 4-3 decision the court decided that Warren was not entitled to remedy at the bar despite the demonstrable abuse and ineptitude on the part of the police because no special relationship existed. The court stated that official police personnel and the government employing them owe no duty to victims of criminal acts and thus are not liable for a failure to provide adequate police protection unless a special relationship exists. The case was dismissed by the trial court for failure to state a claim and the case never went to trial.
The cops aren't there to protect you. They arrive after the fact to scope out what happened and draw chalk lines around the bodies.
Another stat: the average interaction time between a criminal and his victim is 90 seconds. The response time to a high-priority 9-1-1 call varies widely, but at the minimum it is over two minutes. It's just a matter of logistics.
So what are you going to do while waiting for the LEO to show up? Far too often you're going to die. The logical, realistic choice is as follows: you can beg and plead with your felonious assailant to let you live, or you can explain to the cops (when they finally arrive) how that bullet hole happened to be in the bastard's head.
Here's a simple fact: you might call 9-1-1 and hope, but ultimately you are your own 9-1-1. No one will protect you except you. Screw what those bastards in Washington think about your right to self-protection. They all have armed body guards, so they don't give a shit about you. If the time arrives when it's a choice between being in control and being a victim, there is no choice.
The only workable gun control is a two-handed Weaver stance and the ability to hit the target.
==================================================
Post #19Please tell me the need for a semi-automatic assault style weapon...
In return, please tell us why your dislike for a "semi-automatic assault style weapon" translates to a rationale for taking it way from a law-abiding citizen who owns one. Liberals have had a consistent mantra for decades: "I don't like it, so you can't have it."
That aside, "assault weapon" is a gun-grabber-invented term that found its way into the liberal argot with the infamous 1994 "assult weapons ban" (a fraud that in fact banned NOTHING). The designation "assault weapon" was based entirely on cosmetics. If a gun looked military, it was an assault weapon. Liberals are good at inventing meaningless standards.... with 10 or more rounds?
Again, it's a frivolous issue. The fact that a magazine might hold 15 or 20 rounds does not presuppose that the owner will go postal and mow down a shiteload of people. It's part of the firearm's design, and poses not one iota more danger to anyone than a lower-capacity magazine.or armour piercing bullets?
Ah, shit, THAT tired old gun-grabber trope again.* "Armor piercing" ammunition is only legally available to law enforcement agencies and to the armed forces. * Rather than opposing the ban on "armor piercing" ammunition, the NRA was in fact instrumental in crafting the law that Congress ultimately passed. * When properly wearing the appropriate body armor, not one law enforcement officer has ever been killed by a handgun bullet penetrating their vest. The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) certifies three levels of body armor. The most commonly worn, Level IIA, offers realistic protection against all .22, .25, .32, .380, and .38, caliber handgun ammunition, against most 9mm, .357 Magnum, .40 S&W, .45 ACP and .44 Magnum handgun ammunition and against 000 buck shotgun pellets. Level II and Level IIIA armor protects from even greater threats including 12 gauge shotgun slugs and the "hottest" .44 Magnum rounds. "Cop-killer" bullets are a myth born from media hype and nurtured by unrealistic Hollywood portrayals and the deliberately misleading claims of the anti-gun lobby. An objective, rational look at the facts quickly separates the myth from the reality. Knowledge is power.
"Cop-killer" BulletsPlease tell me why a gun is needed so badly, that one cannot wait for a more thorough background check, before one obtains said gun??
Please tell us why that is of concern to you.
==================================================
The most abhorrent aftermath of the Sandy Hooks massacre was that the liberals/DemonicRATs were screeching about more gun control before the kids' blood was dry on the floor. The shameless, loathsome, despicable bastards exploited a tragedy for purely political reasons.
Any why the insane obsession for "doing something" ASAP? The answer is simple: they wanted to feed off the shock and the grief while it was still fresh. They knew that with the passage of time, the emotions and the horror would fade, making it harder to ram their unconstitutional demands down America's throat. They have no humanity.
As for that treasonous bastard in the People's House, it is unlikely that his multi-orgasmic spate of EOs could stand up to legal challenges. However, inasmuch as he has shown only contempt for America, its Constitution and its laws, illegality is of no concern to him.
As well, who is gullible and naive enough to believe that the 23 EOs were penned in the aftermath of the shootings? Anyone with more than a microclue is aware that they have been sitting in a desk or file cabinet waiting for the opportunity to use them. And I, being a cynic, envision Obozo and his lackies high-fiving one another as the news of the tragedy unfolded, aware of Rahm Emanuel's cynical advice: "Never let a good crisis go to waste."
He has been brazenly exploting children since this business began, culminating with his photo-op signing of the EOs (none of which would have prevented Sandy Hook) with his backdrop of children being used like tools and then discarded when they have no more propaganda value.
And as for that shrieking harridan, Dianne Feinstein, the self-appointed World's Greatest Authority on firearms, this photo of her with an AK-47 is damning.
For those who don't like guns, feel free not to own them. But do keep to yourselves your opinions about why the rest of us should surrender them because of your dislike. We really don't care.
Lastly, if I happen to be near a gun-hater whose arse is on a griddle because of a thug with an unlicensed, illegal gun, I shall considerately refrain from deploying my weapon in his defense, not wishing to upset him. After all, if he begs and grovels and cries rivers of tears and wails, "Please don't hurt me! I'm no danger to you!" with great sincerity, the punk may just fall on the ground laughing, giving the coward a chance to run.
BRAVO NudeInMa, This time you have really hit the nail on the head! We have Constitutional Rights to have and bear arms that was etched in stone from our extremely wise founders, who by the way took to arms to fight for the founding of this great nation. Any one with more than a molecule of brain matter knows you do not get rid of the main tools that brought this great nation into existence.
Only the likes of pinkos and criminals are the ones who would like to see us disarmed and defenseless. We have the rights and we at present have the arms to keep and preserve those rights, as those rights are well worth keeping and fighting for as did our founding fathers. Protecting the constitution is every citizens duty!
IFULLY support the Second Amendment and I'm no fan of President Obama, but I think it's important not to get caught up in the hysteria of losing your right to bear arms.It's BIG money for the gun industry every time this culture war erupts. They want you to buy as many guns, as much ammo as you can possiblyget your hands on. There's talk hereabout losing constitutional rights, a slide into socialism, letting the lefty elitists take over our country. These are greattalking pointsthat hit a rough nerve, and lead to hefty profits. The gun lobby is toostrong and too entrenched in our fine country. The President's proposal for gun control is mere lip service to his constituents. If you don't believe me, just watch what happens.
Leave itto you NIMA to double whammy this string with the abortion issue. ; ) In all seriousness, I respect your opinion, passion and knowledge of guns and gun rights. No doubt there are self-professed liberals, or gun grabbers as you call them that have worked for decades to nullify the power of the Second Amendment. And it is important to continue the fight to keep the right to bear arms.But most Americans including those that represent us in government are somewhere in the middle, and theiropinionsmay actually vacillate dependent on current events, or even an horrific event they may experience involving crime and possibly a gun. You may disagree with me here, but it isn't black or white and not all that oppose absolute gun rights are stereotypicalliberals. I bring this up not because I have any interest in proving you wrong (and I certainly don't consider you a fool), but Ithink those that support gun rights like me and youare better suited to not stereotype those that disagree,as you can'tcreate a persuasive argumentby assumingthosethat oppose gun rights toone degree or anotherare all the same.
Probably along with others from lesser gun cultures than the USA, I look at the arguments presented here (and elsewhere) and think on the 'Right of Might'.
If you need a gun to defend yourself, fine - but you need a bigger gun than the your aggressor? Yes? So .22's are useless, .38's too it seems. Fine, get a bigger gun, one with more bullets too, so it begs the question, why stop at guns?What will you need next to defend yourself?
As an aside the nuclear bomb I thought, was invented to defend? And yet it is now pretty much agreed by the international community that other nation states should not have that capability of defence?
It seems to me that the same argument could be used against (not that I would) all types of gun being in the hands of anyone in case the technology fell into the wrong hands.
Keep up the good work!https://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/shooting-texas-college-campus-reports-191439016.html
What is your point Soupie? Did you read the second to the last line? here it is in case you missed it: "According to the school's website, Lone Star College prohibits "knowingly, intentionally or recklessly" setting foot on school property with a firearm."
Once again, another Gun Free Zone where a bad guy carries a gun and shoots people with no one to defend themselves! They make it sound like a shootout as if two people with guns were involved but the story says just "A Handgun" was involved! Beyond that we know nothing about the circumstances so whatever you are trying to prove means nothing!
I know that little things like facts and statistics are abhorrent to gun lovers, but if you just look at the per capita homicides by guns, you will clearly find that the U.S. is so wildly beyond any other country with tighter forms of gun control.
I know that little things like facts and statistics are abhorrent to gun lovers, but if you just look at the per capita homicides by guns, you will clearly find that the U.S. is so wildly beyond any other country with tighter forms of gun control.
Soupie, you believe what statistics you want to believe! I don't expect you to buy or borrow this book but if you like statistics, then I recommend John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime" I try to be respectful of people's opinion but yours is plain wrong as with most of your posts! You have no clue about statistics and like everyone on the left of this issue, you are leaving out all key components of the statistical argument. People like you leave out that the high gun crime rates are highest in states and cities that have the strictest gun control (Chicago over 450 deaths with firearms last year and guns are banned there) DC and Chicago have the strictest gun control in the entire US and also the highest crime rates. You on the left of this issue also fail to consider that nationwide, our firearm ownership rate is higher than almost every other nation in the world (possibly the highest) so if you compare the rates to amounts of guns and gun ownership to any other country, the rates are very low! Crimes are based on rates not actual numbers. So your so called "Facts" are just left wing talking points that have no basis in real facts! I dare you to read that book, but we all know you won't and continue to spout off your BS on here just because you like to disagree with NIM even through he is spot on!
There is no room for emotion in this argument because like it or not, the 2nd Amendment is the only thing standing in between Liberty and Tyranny in this country! At this point it's a very thin line too, sadly there are too many people that take the freedom for granted and keep spouting off their mouths as if the 1st Amendment won't fall with the 2nd if we, as Americans, allow it to happen! Freedom is NOT Free people, and it's time people wake up and stop living in progressive la-la land!
Actions
Back to TopicsReply to TopicShare this topic
Get paid just by sending us users/traffic.
Signup takes seconds, start now!
Signup as an affiliate!