yeah, no shit.
that *unt gets elected in NY, does jack shit for it, takes a few years off to campaign, doesn’t get the nod, returns to NY telling the retards here how much she loves them and NY, then gets appointed to obamas team and bails before he could even finish asking her.
and people think this is perfectly acceptable
Ny gets everything it deserves 
StrokedZ28 hit my main point of concern, but there’s others. The 12 gauge is the ultimate gun, but you would use something that could get someone from 1/2 mile away? Complete opposites. Maybe there’s only been that one case, because automatic weapon control laws are relatively effective?
A car and a dirt bike have the purpose of moving you around, and they are incidentally dangerous, not dangerous by necessity. A gun was invented to kill. Its only practical purpose is to kill, unless it’s loaded with rubber bullets, in which case it is intended to incapacitate. Your analogy is completely flawed. You’re talking about shades of gray within something that is useful, not something whose primary use is antithetical to a civilized society.
If you truly believe what you’re saying, do you think that private nuclear, explosive, assault jet, and tank ownership should be allowed? Because that’s the only way that we, as a population, could hope to contend in battle with the U.S. Army. A million assault rifles in the hands of people with the inclination and money to purchase them would do absolutely nothing to make a potential rebellion successful against the government. It would, however, provide nut-cases with an extra tool to mess up our society.
like retarded gun laws? lol
there should be NO restriction on assult rifles (semi-auto… I agree that people don’t need full auto)… They’re no more dangerous/safe than a hunting rifle, they just look cooler
^ Moruitelda, your arguments that an armed populace could in no way take on the US government because of the government’s superior weapons are laughable and being proven wrong in every small arms conflict we get into around the world. Somolia, Iraq, Afghanistan… when you have an armed resistance that looks just like the civilian population nukes, tanks and bombs dropped from fighters are useless. This is twice as true if you had to wage this battle on your own soil. The US built it’s superpower army to take on the superpower army of the USSR. It is not trained or designed to wage a gorilla war on it’s own soil.
Besides that, how many of these soldiers would really follow the governments orders to attack their own people on US soil? You have soldiers questioning their orders in Iraq so you can bet telling them to kill Americans who had decided to take on the government because it became too powerful would present a serious moral dilemma for them.
I don’t think there is any real point discussing it though because you’re statements that guns are “just for killing people” tells me you’re never going to be open to a real discussion about gun rights.
Thats my point, but too many people I know that want no assault weapons ban also push for the legality of fully auto firearms.
You understand that this argument helps the idea that you don’t need guns for protection from the government.
eh, some people do want it… some don’t think it’s necessary. Either way, banning assault weapons because some people want full auto doesn’t make any sense
I wouldn’t go that far…
:picard:
Without guns, you could never start the revolt in the first place.
I agree. I’ve said several times, I’m against automatics, not rifles, shotguns, or, in a more controlled sense, pistols. I don’t care about what it looks like, I care about the practicality.
Our army is more than capable of fighting in a guerrilla war. Public opinion has been the source of our floundering in wars since Korea, nothing else. We’ve lost less than 4,000 soldiers in 5 years in Iraq, many in friendly fire or equipment malfunction incidents. While it’s a tragedy, since it’s an unjustified war, it’s also nothing in the grand scheme of things. If you think that these bloody noses are in any way significant strategic defeats of the type necessary to win any (even a guerrilla) war, you’re simply wrong.
I never said they’re just for killing people, I said they’re just for killing. That’s their purpose. They can be used by hobbyists for other things, but that’s why they were created, from their very foundations. If they were just for killing people, I’d be for banning them completely. What other use is there for a gun? I’ll remind you that hobbies are not utilities.
And, as has been said, if the army will not carry out orders to oppress other Americans (false on the small scale, true on the large scale), then we don’t need weapons to defend ourselves against them.
True. That’s what I’ve been arguing against all along.
Define revolt.
The same people who were smart enough to put gun rights as the 2nd most important right in the land did a far better job than I ever could.
http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/index.htm
My favorite part of the most important document in the history of our country…
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
That doesn’t mean because I don’t like Obama, or because you don’t like Bush. “absolute Despotism”. One could argue that NY is slowly approaching that with their dysfunctional state government who’s incumbent leaders are allowed to redraw district maps to insure their own re-election, but even then we’ve still got mostly ourselves as the voters to blame. No, absolute Despotism is when the government stops listening to the will of the people through voting and can only be changed through conflict.
One solution to that would be to elect a county representative with votes proportionate to the population of that person’s county. That’d throw a wrench in the works!
While JayS said I’m clearly not willing to have a discussion about this and change my mind, it’s not true. I draw a line in the sand at automatics, since the case to be made for them is much less convincing than the case against them, in my mind, but everyone but anarchists understands that there must be a line that you do not cross.
I understand your resolve to connect the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights but the second Amendment was not written with the concept of a coup in mind.
Under the semi-Constitutional Monarchy that the UK was under we did not have the representation needed to foster the changes that we wanted. That what led to conflict to over throw the British government.
Knowing that, we set up a system where the will of the people could be represented (through a filter) so that it would not lead to an open revolt.
If the government gets to the point of absolute despotism then simply haveing the 2nd Amendment wouldn’t make any difference because obviously such rights would be ignored by the government.
Its like telling a burgler not to steal your stuff because its against the law. At that point the law is meaningless.
Yeah. Forgot to mention that. The Declaration has no more force of law than the Gettysburg Address.
Since he’s not here, I’ll post it in absentia
Huh?
justa4door posts LOCK in every thread that goes on like this. but he isn’t full-time day crew any more since he had his 32nd kid
:lol:
You do realize though that there are over 80,000,000 gun owners in this country. The government would not have a snowballs chance in hell. They would not launch nukes against their own soil…there would be nothing left to fight over. Hitler also said that we don’t need guns to protect ourselves from the government. And he tuned out ok :bloated:.
Now I am not saying that the government is going to be like “totalitarian time” and start a regime. But this is supposed to be the land of the free. And more and more freedoms are being taken away due to people’s fear of what could be, as opposed to what is. No, we don’t need fully automatic firearms. But when you have hundreds of thousands of them that are legally owned in the US, and there has only been 1 case of one being used in a crime, which was committed by a police officer, you must realize that they are only as dangerous as the person wielding them. In Washington DC, there was a complete gun ban, yet they had the highest murder rate by gunfire in the country. When you make something (as far as firearms are concerned) illegal, all you do is keep it out of the hands of the honest law abiding citizens, leaving the criminals to run around unchecked. As I had stated before, I have no problem with people owning fully automatic firearms. Personally I would love to have some, they would be very fun to shoot. It comes down to personal responsibility. The masses let fear overpower logic and that’s how many laws are passed. I’m just saying that anywhere that fully automatics are legal, they have NO problems with them. Places where they are illegal, they do. They should legalize fully autos, but stiffen the punishments for crimes where assaults are committed using a firearm.