If they come for your guns, do you have a responsibility to fight?

[herbbilly]

It's pretty amusing watching someone spew over a couple of key words without considering content. I believe I may be guilty of "trolling" I'm not that hip but I'm not a retard. You my sir however did not bite so in this one sided non-argument the victor wasn't even on the field.

 

[UncleBuck]

i've yet to see anyone ever "win" anything in the politics section.

 

[canndo]

I havn't time yet to read through this thread but I will answer the question.


If they come for any of your rights as a U.S. citizen then you have the right and the duty to fight. You may opt for a strategic response, you may opt to make sure that everyone knows that your weapons are being removed from you or you may simply shoot it out. I'd hate to see that happen but the short answer is that we have very few responsibilites as citizens of the United States and the primary one is to ensure that our rights are passed on to our children as intact as possible.

 

[canndo]

Battles may be lost but in time the people will always prevail. If I as an individual loose my life to better the people as a whole I would make that sacrifice. I would not be the first and deffinately not the last to make that sacrifice. Are you ok with a totalitarion government? Is your Gun Ban notion only targeting assault weopons? What do you consider an assault weopon? Alot of things sound kind of stupid to me its all a matter of perspective I guess.

Now I don't know where you stand on all of the standard left/right issues that are argued here on politics but your statement struck me as odd.


I believe I might have heard hard core righties claim the same, that they are willing to lose their lives in order to "better" the people as a whole and they would make that ultimate sacrifice for their country.


But ask those same noble people to give up 3 or 4 percent more in taxes and they threaten to either leave the country or shut down the government.

Strange lot.

 

[canndo]

I hope all make note of this statement. If the Government every turns on the people you know who side Uncle Buck will be running to. Very telling. It must be nice to know that you have people out there that are willing to fight for your freedom and rights, while you would run cowering to the state and aiding them in taking away others rights. Does not surprise me.

Oh here it is "We will protect you, and because we are willing to protect you you have the obligation to let us have any and every weapon we desire, you are beholding to us". This is a load of crap. What protects your ability and right to keep and bear is the law and those who defend that law, like those lawyers you so love to hate, like that mass media you claim is never unbiased, like that old lady who refused to sit at the back of the bus and that guy who insists on his right to vote in spite of state laws to the contrary, like that woman who insists that she has a right to privacy and is willing to march, or organize in order to protect that right. The gun toters actually believe that they are the only defenders of our freedom when in reality it is the common hero, the average citizen who does something when he sees a social or political problem - those are the folks that protect your freedoms and when it comes to the true warriors in the battle to keep what is ours, the gun toters are at the very bottom of the list so quit patting yourselves on the back while seeing to it that we are deprived of every right OTHER than the one that allows us to keep and bear. These are the folks who go on and on about how the military "gave us our rights" to speak or the military "protects our rights to assemble and vote". It is all more of the same bravado masquerading as patriotism.

 

[rooky1985]

Now I don't know where you stand on all of the standard left/right issues that are argued here on politics but your statement struck me as odd.


I believe I might have heard hard core righties claim the same, that they are willing to lose their lives in order to "better" the people as a whole and they would make that ultimate sacrifice for their country.


But ask those same noble people to give up 3 or 4 percent more in taxes and they threaten to either leave the country or shut down the government.

Strange lot.

I simply feel that it is the "Duty of the people" is to protect rights, that is what sets this country apart from many others. I am passionate about guns but also feel that there is not a practical use for magazines exceeding 10 rds. Also, basing a weapon plantform can be difficult and the proposals to ban assault weapons are sometimes hard to hear. There has not yet been a practical measure for what is considered an assault weopon.

 

[NoDrama]

I simply feel that it is the "Duty of the people" is to protect rights, that is what sets this country apart from many others. I am passionate about guns but also feel that there is not a practical use for magazines exceeding 10 rds. Also, basing a weapon plantform can be difficult and the proposals to ban assault weapons are sometimes hard to hear. There has not yet been a practical measure for what is considered an assault weopon.

The practical use of magazines over 10 rounds? So then you see no practical use for the corner convenience store or the drive up window at the liquor store or the fast food restaurant?
I find it very convenient to have a large magazine capacity when target shooting or when being attacked by multiple assailants. 10 isn't enough when 70%-90% of bullets shot in panic fail to connect. For the proficient person, magazine changes take 1/2 a second to perform with an AR, you know that as well as I do. Wars can be started with nothing more than a .380 pocket pistol and Presidents can be slain with old rickety un-accurate ancient Italian bolt actions on moving targets.

 

[UncleBuck]

I find it very convenient to have a large magazine capacity when target shooting

awwww, poor baby.

guess the gabby giffords massacre needed to be as bad as it was because it inconveniences you to spare a half a second to reload.

you poor goddamn thing.

 

[NoDrama]

awwww, poor baby.

guess the gabby giffords massacre needed to be as bad as it was because it inconveniences you to spare a half a second to reload.

you poor goddamn thing.

Magazines that contain more than 10 rounds have been around for nearly 100 years, you can NEVER get rid of them plus, by law, you can never make them illegal to own or use either, so the only thing your ban can do is limit the manufacture and legal sale of them, other than that it has no teeth whatsoever and won't do a goddamn thing to keep people form being victims of violence.

When you are being attacked, or at least are almost attacked do you know who you call to save you? People with guns, the cops. Why? Cuz the guys with guns can possibly keep you from harm. Do you call your neighbor to bring his louisville slugger to smash the gun wielding meth addict?

 

[MrStickyScissors]

dissarming us is not right. arming more good people is wat they should do

 

[UncleBuck]

Magazines that contain more than 10 rounds have been around for nearly 100 years, you can NEVER get rid of them plus, by law, you can never make them illegal to own or use either, so the only thing your ban can do is limit the manufacture and legal sale of them, other than that it has no teeth whatsoever and won't do a goddamn thing to keep people form being victims of violence.

if jared loughner's dad, who bought all of his weapons legally, had been confined to purchasing a 10 round mag, loughner would have only gotten off 10 shots before fumbling the reload instead of 33.

of course the extended mags will still be out there, but they'll be tougher and more expensive to come by.

 

[UncleBuck]

dissarming us is not right. arming more good people is wat they should do

name me one person of consequence calling for full disarmament.

you blather about this inanely often enough, you should be able to show us how it's a legitimate concern, right?

 

[MrStickyScissors]

cops are middle men for guns. you call them cause they have guns. if you dnt want to wait 5 mins you can arm yourself

 

[NoDrama]

if jared loughner's dad, who bought all of his weapons legally, had been confined to purchasing a 10 round mag, loughner would have only gotten off 10 shots before fumbling the reload instead of 33.

of course the extended mags will still be out there, but they'll be tougher and more expensive to come by.

You don't know that at all, perhaps he would have reloaded all 5 magazines perfectly and fumbled none, Perhaps maybe killed 30 people. Once again you try to baffle with BULLSHIT, cuz its all you got, nothin but hot air and a BS knee jerk reaction to everything.

 

[UncleBuck]

You don't know that at all, perhaps he would have reloaded all 5 magazines perfectly and fumbled none, Perhaps maybe killed 30 people. Once again you try to baffle with BULLSHIT, cuz its all you got, nothin but hot air and a BS knee jerk reaction to everything.

i sense you've been drinking. you're never usually this belligerent.*

could'ves and might'ves...but the fact is he fumbled the reload after firing 23 more bullets than he would have had common sense gun laws been in place.

oh, and people with guns were there, it didn't help.

 

[NoDrama]

i sense you've been drinking. you're never usually this belligerent.*

could'ves and might'ves...but the fact is he fumbled the reload after firing 23 more bullets than he would have had common sense gun laws been in place.

oh, and people with guns were there, it didn't help.

By all means ban them, I will still legally use all the different magazine I have that all hold more than 10. Legally, for as long as I live. I put 3 beta magazines together and now I can hold 300 rounds at once. Gonna go to the local cop range and shoot it, nothing they can do its legal for all time.

 

[Mr Neutron]

i've yet to see anyone ever "win" anything in the politics section.

You never see it because you're too busy running away.

 

[Mr Neutron]

Now I don't know where you stand on all of the standard left/right issues that are argued here on politics but your statement struck me as odd.

Why do you insist on defining everything as either left or right? Are there no other views that are valid? This, right after you make a post that I could "like", too.

I believe I might have heard hard core righties claim the same, that they are willing to lose their lives in order to "better" the people as a whole and they would make that ultimate sacrifice for their country.

Sacrificing your life for liberty does not necessarily mean the same as sacrificing to "better" anything.

But ask those same noble people to give up 3 or 4 percent more in taxes and they threaten to either leave the country or shut down the government.

Strange lot.

Nobody is asking anything. It is being taken and being taken by fraud. Leaving the country means nothing in this context. Being poor means nothing, either. Obama promised to not raise taxes on the 99% but employees got a 2% increase in payroll taxes. That is on top of the 10, 20 or 30% we already pay. How much is enough? Clearly, when it comes to government, it's never enough.

 

[Doer]

i've yet to see anyone ever "win" anything in the politics section.

What's to win? So, I agree. We can have discussion and there can be verbal slap fights. Fun stuff. But, define a win.

The guy apologized? Seriously, there are those that may disagree, but when we start to parse words and have a right-fight, then it gets boring.

Do you want someone, say our Uncle, here, to formally Conceded to your point about that other point where he said you said, but didn't agree? Make sense? I hope not.

If it does make sense, some sense, fair game.

 

[blindbaby]

first. look up all the senators, etc who are on the anti gun thing. i did. i so far, have only found democrates who want this. the old dems would not, however, they are extinct. and are now socialists. ......on the way to attemping communism....we are not a democratic society. were never meant to be, accouding to the founding fathers. a democracy, is a group of wolves, and one sheep, discussing whats for dinner. liberty, is a well armed sheep. i read this today. no senator, or politician, has the right to be such, if they dont support our constitution, TOTALLY. so. this tells us what needs to be done. dosent it? or, do we do what the green, peaceniks think is right, by giving up our guns, (and soon after, ALL OUR FREEDOMS), in exchange for MO' FREE SHIT!?? one thing is very true. and that is this.............IN EVERY CASE, IN HISTORY, OF PEOPLE LOSING THEIR RIGHT TO BE ARMED, WAS ALLWAYS. ALLWAYS. ALLWAYS.....FOLLOWED BY GENECIDE! MILLIONS WERE MURDERED, BY THE GOVERMENT, THAT THEY TRUSTED, TO TAKE AWAY THEIR GUNS. so why is this a debate??? get it? no debate. and yes, if they come for our guns, its OUR RESPONSIBILITY, TO STOP THEM. we were under rule in the 1700's. we had guns. we survived. same now. they want our guns. why?> to protect the "children". funny. how many initiatives, going on the ballot, often use the guilt thing, to pass an otherwise unpopular law, etc??? answer....DO IT FOR THE CHILDREN!!! LOL. what is wrong with the left, and thier thinking all is going to be fine. just lets remove 100% of our military, and the world will take our example!!?? lol. since when has anyone taken our example in the last 232 years?? not. we are america. be happy for that. not the brainwashing of some ex vietnam era hippy, who has made it, and his freinds, into power in the whitehouse, etc!! etc, i mean universities, were our young are constantly being taught, to hate america first!. id shoot these types first......