Latest Topics

[Zee]

I can't believe what I'm reading.  You are sort of indifferent...you don't want one so you just decide that you believe no one should have one.  But again, you don't really care...but you'll vote away other people's ability to have one.  That's pretty remarkable.

[smokeyone]

Zee, on 17 January 2013 - 01:15 PM, said:

I can't believe what I'm reading.  You are sort of indifferent...you don't want one so you just decide that you believe no one should have one.  But again, you don't really care...but you'll vote away other people's ability to have one.  That's pretty remarkable.

Again I couldnt be a liberal. I just cant imagine forcing my will on anyone else.

[GatorHater24]

I don't need a gun, so who cares? Take em all

I could use cheaper healthcare, so why not?

I'm not wealthy, what do I care if the rich pay more in taxes? Besides, I might need some of their money one day

It doesn't affect me, so I could give a

-Signed, random liberal

Edited by GatorHater24, 17 January 2013 - 06:54 PM.

[Neo]

zartan, on 16 January 2013 - 07:58 PM, said:

Obviously I'm exaggerating, but what is the justification for needing anything other than a handgun for personal defense?

Because our founding fathers believed that the citizens should have the same weaponry as our military. That way, they were on a somewhat even keel and could resist a tyrannical government. The standard military issued weapon was a flint-lock musket. Well, guess what type of gun that the average citizen owned? A flint-lock musket.

http://military.disc...ns/weapons.html

This is common knowledge and can be found in the many writings of Jefferson, Franklin and even Gen. Washington. See the links below;

The militia men of old owned their own militia weapons and took them to war, returning home with those arms. Therefore, it only makes sense that the modern militiaman would keep and bear the arms of the militia: the semi-automatic rifle with a medium capacity magazine. Those who seek to disarm the American people of effective arms to wage war with only invite disaster upon all of us. It is the right and responsibility of every American citizen to defend our country from enemies foreign and domestic. But let us not argue about what the founding fathers intended, for they clearly stated:

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
- Thomas Jefferson

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
- Alexander Hamilton

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined."
- Patrick Henry

"To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason

How are you supposed to defend a nation with 3 round hunting rifles and 9mm handguns? The sheep that cry for the constraining of the sheepdogs only invite the predation of the wolves.

http://www.dailykos....econd-Amendment


Or this one....

There is no legitimate exception to the Second Amendment for military-style weapons, because military-style weapons are precisely what the Second Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to secure our ability to oppose enemies foreign and domestic, a guarantee against disorder and tyranny. Consider the words of Supreme Court justice Joseph Story — who was, it bears noting, appointed to the Court by the guy who wrote the Constitution:


The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

“Usurpation and arbitrary power of the rulers” — not Bambi, not burglars. While your granddad’s .30-06 is a good deal more powerful than the .223 rifles that give blue-state types the howling fantods, that is not what we have a constitutional provision to protect. Liberals are forever asking: “Why would anybody need a gun like that?” And the answer is: because we are not serfs. We are a free people living under a republic of our own construction. We may consent to be governed, but we will not be ruled.

http://granitegrok.c...port-or-hunting

Edited by Neo, 17 January 2013 - 10:37 PM.

[zartan]

Zee, on 17 January 2013 - 01:15 PM, said:

I can't believe what I'm reading.  You are sort of indifferent...you don't want one so you just decide that you believe no one should have one.  But again, you don't really care...but you'll vote away other people's ability to have one.  That's pretty remarkable.

You can have a handgun at home for protection, but anything above that is needless

[zartan]

Times have changed, Neo. The government has tanks and stealth bombers and missiles. Even a grade-A nutball like you isn't dumb enough to take on the government. They'd bury what's left of you in a pizza box. So given that you have zero chance of resisting the government in armed conflict, the only real reason you 'need' guns is to maintain your laughable GI Joe fantasies

[Penguin]

zartan, on 18 January 2013 - 12:02 AM, said:

You can have a handgun at home for protection, but anything above that is needless

so its needless outside of your house? what logic is that? Your house is the only place on the planet that might be unsafe?

[NextYearIsHere]

smokeyone, on 17 January 2013 - 01:45 PM, said:

Again I couldnt be a liberal. I just cant imagine forcing my will on anyone else.

This from the man that says the slaughter of entire nations of people was perfectly acceptable because hey, might makes right.

Edited by NextYearIsHere, 18 January 2013 - 02:25 AM.

[zartan]

Penguin, on 18 January 2013 - 01:05 AM, said:

so its needless outside of your house? what logic is that? Your house is the only place on the planet that might be unsafe?

I'd like people to be able to defend themselves against home invasion. I think it's good for store employees who work alone for long periods of time, particularly at night, to have some defense against armed robbery.

Don't really care for a bunch of John Q Publics walking the streets packing heat and waiting for stuff to pop off. You may save my life one day, but you might end it, too

[bbqit]

zartan, on 18 January 2013 - 05:39 AM, said:

I'd like people to be able to defend themselves against home invasion. I think it's good for store employees who work alone for long periods of time, particularly at night, to have some defense against armed robbery.

Don't really care for a bunch of John Q Publics walking the streets packing heat and waiting for stuff to pop off. You may save my life one day, but you might end it, too

i got more than one gun zartan. yet all i insure is enough to replace one rifle for deer hunting, one pistol for protection, one shotgun for duck and dove hunting and one 22 rifle for squirrel hunting. I have several handed down from dad, granddad, and great granddad that i wont give up. i have a few that became a piece in the cabinet due to steel shot. I am also licensed to carry. twice my wife was followed from the court house after handling arraignment proceedings. Now I go with her when I can. The judge suggested I get licensed to carry and remember to carry. Yes I have 17 guns. I only insure enough to buy 4 if robbed cause that is really all I need. There is no replacing hunting history or memories so the other guns can't be replaced anyway. Yet as you see, just because I have several guns doesn't make me some "just add water and he will kill" person.

[zartan]

bbqit, on 18 January 2013 - 06:41 AM, said:

i got more than one gun zartan. yet all i insure is enough to replace one rifle for deer hunting, one pistol for protection, one shotgun for duck and dove hunting and one 22 rifle for squirrel hunting. I have several handed down from dad, granddad, and great granddad that i wont give up. i have a few that became a piece in the cabinet due to steel shot. I am also licensed to carry. twice my wife was followed from the court house after handling arraignment proceedings. Now I go with her when I can. The judge suggested I get licensed to carry and remember to carry. Yes I have 17 guns. I only insure enough to buy 4 if robbed cause that is really all I need. There is no replacing hunting history or memories so the other guns can't be replaced anyway. Yet as you see, just because I have several guns doesn't make me some "just add water and he will kill" person.

Yeah, I guess it's always a few loonies that ruin it for the rest of you

[Neo]

zartan, on 18 January 2013 - 12:08 AM, said:

Times have changed, Neo. The government has tanks and stealth bombers and missiles. Even a grade-A nutball like you isn't dumb enough to take on the government. They'd bury what's left of you in a pizza box. So given that you have zero chance of resisting the government in armed conflict, the only real reason you 'need' guns is to maintain your laughable GI Joe fantasies

Tell that to the North Vietnamese Army. We were so much more advanced than they were and yet, they kicked our a$$.

Technology will not help you in guerrilla warfare. The same with Afghanistan. The Afghans would rather die than be someone's slave.

The British Empire failed.
The Indians Failed.
The Soviets Failed.
And now we're engaging the Afghans.

[smokeyone]

zartan, on 18 January 2013 - 12:02 AM, said:

You can have a handgun at home for protection, but anything above that is needless

Needless? Please justify that statement.

[zartan]

smokeyone, on 18 January 2013 - 08:47 AM, said:

Needless? Please justify that statement.

No. You are the one who 'needs' guns. You justify it

[smokeyone]

NextYearIsHere, on 18 January 2013 - 02:00 AM, said:

This from the man that says the slaughter of entire nations of people was perfectly acceptable because hey, might makes right.

In times of conflict. If it comes to a fight the winner gets to write history.