So why don't you move to Afghanistan where you are free to own automatic rifles, pay no taxes and not be forced to live under Socialist ideals such as a pensions , education and healthcare. Leave all these tyrannical oppressive regimes that have strict gun Control laws like England, France, Germany, Ireland, etc where the people keep their government in check with the ballot box instead of the armalite so you can run around and fire off your weapons and truly be free.
AA flight attendant arrested at ORD checkpoint on Friday with gun
- Thread starter FWAAA
- Start date
- Status
So why don't you move to Afghanistan where you are free to own automatic rifles, pay no taxes and not be forced to live under Socialist ideals such as a pensions , education and healthcare. Leave all these tyrannical oppressive regimes that have strict gun Control laws like England, France, Germany, Ireland, etc where the people keep their government in check with the ballot box instead of the armalite so you can run around and fire off your weapons and truly be free.
eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,959
- 9,374
The question was when the last time was that someone decided to take up arms against the government, not whether it was justified.
And for the record, slavery was only one of several issues that formed the Confederacy. States rights was the main issue, and tariffs also played a role. Certainly, the economy was based on low production costs from slavery, but the balance of the issues at play came down to some of the same urban needs vs. rural needs issues we still see today.
Funny how all of you crying "it's about the children" are the same ones who get all wobbly whenever someone speaks out against abortion....
With a free society of free will, what happened in Conn. is inevitable. Sad but it was,... and will always be,.... a possibility when a nation is self governed where free will reigns ,.(wether the second ammendment is in place or not)........ Our freedoms and the decission making of free will has grossly been eroded/preyed upon over the years to the point of the founders not recognizing this country as it is today......It's what has seperated us over all other country's,.....free will and freedom,.....it will never be perfect,.....but its closer to perfect than any other nation,......we keep eroding these freedoms,...allowing law makers to tell us what to eat, what light bulbs we can use,...how much gas our cars burn,...if and how we protect our rights and property ,...If we continue down this path our nation is done......and yes gun control and its legality has and is being preyed upon by those who wish this country to be something it can never be,....Utopiah. I don't want to live in a country that mimics France or Great Britain,.....either did our founders. I will fight to keep their vision alive (as I did in my oath in the military) against those who wish to destroy her in the name of safety against ourselves.
Kev3188
Veteran
GMAFB already.
No one's asking people to line up en masse to throw their revolvers into an incinerator.
There is no grand plot to disarm the US populace.
The 2nd Amendment is all about defense. The weapons in question are designed solely for offense.
No one's asking people to line up en masse to throw their revolvers into an incinerator.
There is no grand plot to disarm the US populace.
The 2nd Amendment is all about defense. The weapons in question are designed solely for offense.
blue collar
Veteran
- Mar 17, 2008
- 1,241
- 901
Also funny how the small govt conservatives want to remove a woman's right to choose with... More government.
In actuality,....if you were to look into it ,... and don't feel bad about it, this mistake is often made,....the second ammendment was put into place to over throw the government if it goes rogue to insure the citizen's stay in power of their country,....you know as Lincoln put it " By the people,for the people"......to me that would be very offensive in nature as far as a weapon go's,....the ammendment has nothing to do with defending yourself or from a foreign invasion......nada.....its in place to keep you and i inpower over the government.....and yes as in Canada/UK and most notable Australia,....there was gun grabbing in mass making you a criminal if you didn't submit.
777 fixer
Veteran
- Jul 21, 2004
- 4,792
- 900
And the state right they were most concerned about, slavery.
Kev3188
Veteran
I've read it many times, but thanks for the patronizing reply anyway.
I would say that the phrase "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" certainly speaks to defense. You know, the defense of the free state. What it doesn't speak to is the inalienable right to a high powered assault rifle.
Same question to you that I asked earlier; which well regulated militia do you belong to?
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #85
E,
don't take it personally but if internet chat forums are any indication of society as a whole - and we know they are not completely - then the American people no longer support the need for high powered weapons being available to the general citizenry. And we don't think our freedom is threatened or that t we fear our government will become (more) tyrannical should some limitations be put in place.
But let's also make no mistake that most of these situations have involved mental health issues which are much more difficult to address than gun control issues - and the potential for government abuse of personal rights is far larger in order to deal with those issues.
The American people are tired of hearing every couple months - or more often - of another mass shooting involving innocent people in places where they should have no fear of such acts.
We will address the problem - and if you have better ideas to solve the problem, I suggest you start speaking very quickly.
don't take it personally but if internet chat forums are any indication of society as a whole - and we know they are not completely - then the American people no longer support the need for high powered weapons being available to the general citizenry. And we don't think our freedom is threatened or that t we fear our government will become (more) tyrannical should some limitations be put in place.
But let's also make no mistake that most of these situations have involved mental health issues which are much more difficult to address than gun control issues - and the potential for government abuse of personal rights is far larger in order to deal with those issues.
The American people are tired of hearing every couple months - or more often - of another mass shooting involving innocent people in places where they should have no fear of such acts.
We will address the problem - and if you have better ideas to solve the problem, I suggest you start speaking very quickly.
Yes but the government built Armories all across the country to prevent that. So I guess we can now look at Armories as being in place to protect those who do not own guns from being overcome by those who do?
I would not be in favor of stripping us the right to own guns, just as I would not be in favor of being told I could not own a car But, as pointed out earlier self defense, hunting and target shooting are different than military weapons designed for maximum killing power. Just as I can't drive a top fuel dragster on public roads roads I feel that the unregulated access to military weapons poses too much of a threat to the general population. Would it stop all killings? No, but it would make it harder to kill as many.
You might want to check the laws of your state. In mine, every able bodied citizen is considered to be a member of the state militia.
Despite you perception of the word "well regulated", plenty of people, including the Founding Fathers, smarter than a late 2012 internet poster have hashed out the legalize of the issue and have come to a different conclusion than you.
You can build a top fuel dragster, you just can't drive it on public roads without obeying the speed and license regulatory requirements. You also can own firearms, but cannot discharge, carry or display them outside of private land without adhering to the regulatory requirements. See where I'm going?
The rifle used wasn't a military weapon. It was designed to look like one, but it was essentially black hunting rifle. Remember that this nutcase could also have killed just as many with a pair of six shot revolvers and a deer rifle with a 5 shot magazine. A well practiced shooter can reload them just as fast as an semi-auto handgun and probably face less of a chance of jamming.
This and most other recent shootings are more of an issue of mental health care priorities in this country. Every private gun could disappear tomorrow and these fd up people would come up with another way to get famous with fire, IED's, commandeering busses with knives and driving off cliffs, ect, ect. I haven't heard people going after the 1st Amendment when it comes to the news media glorifying these killers or restricting the internet where plenty of nasty methods of killing can be researched.
And when the second amendment was written how many shots could you get off in a minute? One, if you were really good?
Kev3188
Veteran
Um, no.
It was an AR-15, the civilian version of an M-16. Is that what you use when hunting?
- Status
