Viewing 66 reply threads

  • Author

    Posts

    • Ozymandias

      Participant
      Post count: 7

      I'll be keeping my firearms, thanks:http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/jun/12/pentagon-mass-civil-breakdown

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1520

      I saw this yesterday and I just had to laugh. Mainly because there are some on this site who like to mock those of us who have mentioned the fact that the second amendment is in place partially to allow citizens to protect themselves from their own government. Now the government is showing they’re worried about a revolt. The government is worried about us but we shouldn’t be worried about them? Hmm, I think the founding fathers just might have been on to something.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 395

      More white man paranoia."Got more tears than a white man got fears"

      Please wait…

    • bcwizard

      Participant
      Post count: 149

      I saw this yesterday and I just had to laugh. Mainly because there are some on this site who like to mock those of us who have mentioned the fact that the second amendment is in place partially to allow citizens to protect themselves from their own government. Now the government is showing they're worried about a revolt. The government is worried about us but we shouldn't be worried about them? Hmm, I think the founding fathers just might have been on to something.

      look what the Const says about funding for the army.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2862

      Anyone hungry for more freedom fries?

      Please wait…

    • vlagatta

      Member
      Post count: 2638

      nafeez-mosaddeq-ahmed-england-bangladesh.jpgBratty Brit (and Muslim) @nafeezahmed asked a question of the American War Machine,  and did not like the "non-answer" he got, so in turn, the low level staff reporter with a napoleon complex takes his original idea and turns a 180 onto I'll Make Stuff Up Drive.

      Please wait…

    • bcwizard

      Participant
      Post count: 149

      Glad I got that Glock. I call it Raptor KillerTwo_F-22A_Raptor_in_column_flight_-_(Noise_reduced).jpgI feel safe

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      lol

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1520

      Glad I got that Glock. I call it Raptor KillerTwo_F-22A_Raptor_in_column_flight_-_(Noise_reduced).jpgI feel safe

      You're assuming the military would find Americans willing to bomb their own citizens. I don't think it would ever get to that point (would take an absolute lunatic to even agree to the idea), but I can easily see a martial law type situation where having even a simple hand gun could mean the difference between life and death.

      Please wait…

    • bcwizard

      Participant
      Post count: 149

      Glad I got that Glock. I call it Raptor KillerTwo_F-22A_Raptor_in_column_flight_-_(Noise_reduced).jpgI feel safe

      You're assuming the military would find Americans willing to bomb their own citizens. I don't think it would ever get to that point (would take an absolute lunatic to even agree to the idea), but I can easily see a martial law type situation where having even a simple hand gun could mean the difference between life and death.

      actually, hyperbole . . . just making point that if the government wants you dead, you're dead . . and no gun would change that.  The flaw is forgetting that our government is not a monarchy, not unified . . and in fact, it is very divided . .  and that is before even getting to the military. a gun is not protection against the government in the 21st century.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1520

      Glad I got that Glock. I call it Raptor KillerTwo_F-22A_Raptor_in_column_flight_-_(Noise_reduced).jpgI feel safe

      You're assuming the military would find Americans willing to bomb their own citizens. I don't think it would ever get to that point (would take an absolute lunatic to even agree to the idea), but I can easily see a martial law type situation where having even a simple hand gun could mean the difference between life and death.

      actually, hyperbole . . . just making point that if the government wants you dead, you're dead . . and no gun would change that.  The flaw is forgetting that our government is not a monarchy, not unified . . and in fact, it is very divided . .  and that is before even getting to the military. a gun is not protection against the government in the 21st century.

      The government and military are made up of people, people with different ideas of right and wrong. I'd imagine most people work for the government, or join the military, for the benefits...not because they can't wait to kill an American one day. I find it very hard to believe they'd find enough people willing to use fighter jets and tanks against their fellow citizens. In fact I think it would be the opposite, with members of the military getting their hands on these things to help the people, not the government. An isolated incident here or there where the government wants someone dead....sure, you're in trouble. A full scale revolution where it's the people (including many in the military and even government) vs the government, the government has no chance.

      Please wait…

    • vlagatta

      Member
      Post count: 2638

      Our Govt is a lot more fragile that most of you realize.

      Please wait…

    • bcwizard

      Participant
      Post count: 149

      Glad I got that Glock. I call it Raptor KillerTwo_F-22A_Raptor_in_column_flight_-_(Noise_reduced).jpgI feel safe

      You're assuming the military would find Americans willing to bomb their own citizens. I don't think it would ever get to that point (would take an absolute lunatic to even agree to the idea), but I can easily see a martial law type situation where having even a simple hand gun could mean the difference between life and death.

      actually, hyperbole . . . just making point that if the government wants you dead, you're dead . . and no gun would change that.  The flaw is forgetting that our government is not a monarchy, not unified . . and in fact, it is very divided . .  and that is before even getting to the military. a gun is not protection against the government in the 21st century.

      The government and military are made up of people, people with different ideas of right and wrong. I'd imagine most people work for the government, or join the military, for the benefits...not because they can't wait to kill an American one day. I find it very hard to believe they'd find enough people willing to use fighter jets and tanks against their fellow citizens. In fact I think it would be the opposite, with members of the military getting their hands on these things to help the people, not the government. An isolated incident here or there where the government wants someone dead....sure, you're in trouble. A full scale revolution where it's the people (including many in the military and even government) vs the government, the government has no chance.

      right, so in either scenario the gun is pretty useless.  Its no longer the 19th century

      Please wait…

    • brycen54

      Participant
      Post count: 636

      If you picture millions of armed Americans as one guy with a gun it might skew the results your way.

      Please wait…

    • bcwizard

      Participant
      Post count: 149

      If you picture millions of armed Americans as one guy with a gun it might skew the results your way.

      but I dont because that does not make sense. I am a gun owner but very different than other gun owners and the same as many gun owners. The government and the military are also mixed with gun owners of different stripes and people who hate guns and people who are indifferent, so Its not like we create some kind of closet army.  The country is by design a divided country with many different people and many different and competing interest, so the whole concept is weird if you really think about itBut if you think you need a firearm to keep the government off you, so be it. That's fine. Nothing wrong with that.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2594

      I saw this yesterday and I just had to laugh. Mainly because there are some on this site who like to mock those of us who have mentioned the fact that the second amendment is in place partially to allow citizens to protect themselves from their own government. Now the government is showing they're worried about a revolt. The government is worried about us but we shouldn't be worried about them? Hmm, I think the founding fathers just might have been on to something.

      Better stock up that bunker full of wives, canned goods, and ammunition

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      the second amendment is in place partially to allow citizens to protect themselves from their own government.

      well, not really . . at least not in the sense it is being discussed here. If you think about it, the guys drafting the 2nd Amendment were "the government or would be in the government, so they didn't draft the 2nd Amendment to protect voters from themselves. They drafted the 2nd Amendment do deal with the substantial fear of having a standing army, so much so that they did not want one. The 2nd Amendment stemmed from self defense and defense against oppression (but by the military) and also the need for common defense of the state in the absence of a standing army. The drafters - or the Founding Fathers, if you will -- were self-interested politicians protecting themselves as much as the people

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1520

      Right, it wasn’t drafted to protect citizens of the standing government, because the founding fathers weren’t corrupt scumbags like the politicians of today. It was to protect future generations. We all know where you stand regarding guns, so it doesn’t surprise me that you’re attempting to downplay this part of the second amendment.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2862

      As i’ve said before each man has a natural right to self defense. Which includes fists. guns, knives, bricks etc. The 2nd amendment does not bestow rights, again self defense is a natural right, it does however guarantee those rights are recognized and protected as part of the agreement between the government and the people. Forming a militia is a natural right, one that is distinct from a professional army. That too is recognized and protected. Until it’s not.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Right, it wasn't drafted to protect citizens of the standing government, because the founding fathers weren't corrupt scumbags like the politicians of today. It was to protect future generations. We all know where you stand regarding guns, so it doesn't surprise me that you're attempting to downplay this part of the second amendment.

      The non corrupt founding fathers thought their replacements would be corrupt so they drafted the 2nd Amendment? Ugh ...Escobar, I am not attempting to downplay anything, I am saying your reading of history is wrong. You don't have to take my word though, read for yourself ....or just think about it. Better yet, someone mentioned this above (I think) but answer this question why does the Constitution limit the length of funding for a standing army? Not the navy .., the army?Just because something is a talking point doesn't mean it's true.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1520

      They might have thought future governments were going to be dangerous to those they govern, or maybe not. That’s irrelevant. It’s about protecting citizens in case it did end up happening. You don’t have to believe something will definitely happen to provide a safeguard against it. What percentage of homes in America have security systems, how many of those homes have ever been broken in to? Should everyone get rid of their security systems because it’s not likely their home will be broken in to? Should children run out and play in the middle of a thunderstorm because the chance of being struck by lightning is remote? They did what they were supposed to do, they covered all bases. Our government, and you apparently, don’t like the fact that all bases were covered. This kind of goes hand in hand with your stance on gun control. You clearly are against guns, you use the "fear" argument constantly to mock people who disagree with your viewpoints on the matter. What you're ultimately saying is "you're worrying about something that might not even happen". It's the same mindset with this example, the government might not ever turn on its people, so obviously that's not what the second amendment is about. I hope you can see the parallel.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      They might have thought future governments were going to be dangerous to those they govern, or maybe not. That's irrelevant. It's about protecting citizens in case it did end up happening.

      In other words, the facts dont support your claim . .  but hey .  . why not run with it anyway ;)way to keep an open mind

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      you use the "fear" argument constantly

      omg . . .  . you're joking right?  Did you even bother to read the op?

      I'll be keeping my firearms, thanks:http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/jun/12/pentagon-mass-civil-breakdown

      :D

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 188

      I'll be keeping my firearms, thanks:http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/jun/12/pentagon-mass-civil-breakdown

      If this is true they can label any religious movement or any one who speaks against any politician. This is not going to bode well with a lot of people because now they are trying to determine if your a sympathizer or not to anything that a politician could deem negative to their plight. I don't like seeing this....OBD

      Please wait…

    • bcwizard

      Participant
      Post count: 149

      Right, it wasn't drafted to protect citizens of the standing government, because the founding fathers weren't corrupt scumbags like the politicians of today. It was to protect future generations. We all know where you stand regarding guns, so it doesn't surprise me that you're attempting to downplay this part of the second amendment.

      The non corrupt founding fathers thought their replacements would be corrupt so they drafted the 2nd Amendment? Ugh ...Escobar, I am not attempting to downplay anything, I am saying your reading of history is wrong. You don't have to take my word though, read for yourself ....or just think about it. Better yet, someone mentioned this above (I think) but answer this question why does the Constitution limit the length of funding for a standing army? Not the navy .., the army?

      the navy and militia didnt have the limitation.http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/52/army-clause"For most Americans after the Revolution, a standing army was one of the most dangerous threats to liberty. In thinking about the potential dangers of a standing army, the Founding generation had before them the precedents of Rome and England. In the first case, Julius Caesar marched his provincial army into Rome, overthrowing the power of the Senate, destroying the republic, and laying the foundation of empire. In the second, Cromwell used the army to abolish Parliament and to rule as dictator. In addition, in the period leading up to the Revolution, the British Crown had forced the American colonists to quarter and otherwise support its troops, which the colonists saw as nothing more than an army of occupation. Under British practice, the king was not only the commander in chief; it was he who raised the armed forces. The Framers were determined not to lodge the power of raising an army with the executive.Many of the men who met in Philadelphia to draft the Constitution, however, had the experience of serving with the Continental Line, the army that ultimately bested the British for our independence. Founders like George Washington, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton were also acutely aware of the dangers external enemies posed to the new republic. The British and Spanish were not only on the frontiers of the new nation. In many cases they were within the frontiers, allying with the Indians and attempting to induce frontier settlements to split off from the country. The recent Shays's Rebellion in Massachusetts had also impelled the Framers to consider the possibility of local rebellion.The "raise and support Armies" clause was the Framers' solution to the dilemma. The Constitutional Convention accepted the need for a standing army but sought to maintain control by the appropriations power of Congress, which the Founders viewed as the branch of government closest to the people.The compromise, however, did not satisfy the Anti-Federalists. They largely shared the perspective of James Burgh, who, in his Political Disquisitions (1774), called a "standing army in times of peace, one of the most hurtful, and most dangerous of abuses." The Anti-Federalist paper A Democratic Federalist called a standing army "that great support of tyrants." And Brutus, the most influential series of essays opposing ratification, argued that standing armies "are dangerous to the liberties of a people...not only because the rulers may employ them for the purposes of supporting themselves in any usurpation of powers, which they may see proper to exercise, but there is a great hazard, that any army will subvert the forms of government, under whose authority, they are raised, and establish one, according to the pleasure of their leader." During the Virginia ratifying convention, George Mason exclaimed, "What havoc, desolation, and destruction, have been perpetrated by standing armies!" The Anti-Federalists would have preferred that the defense of the nation remain entirely with the state militias.The Federalists disagreed. For them, the power of a government to raise an army was a dictate of prudence. Thus, during the Pennsylvania ratifying convention, James Wilson argued that "the power of raising and keeping up an army, in time of peace, is essential to every government. No government can secure its citizens against dangers, internal and external, without possessing it, and sometimes carrying it into execution." In The Federalist No. 23, Hamilton argued, "These powers [of the federal government to provide for the common defense] ought to exist without limitation: because it is impossible to foresee or define the extent or variety of national exigencies, or the correspondent extent & variety of the means which may be necessary to satisfy them."Nonetheless, both Federalists and Anti-Federalists alike expressed concerns about a standing army, as opposed to a navy or the militia"

      Please wait…

    • brycen54

      Participant
      Post count: 636

        “now they are trying to determine if your a sympathizer or not to anything that a politician could deem negative to their plight. I don’t like seeing this…”It goes further than that, they're talking about preemptive action against citizens who haven't broken any laws.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1520

      They might have thought future governments were going to be dangerous to those they govern, or maybe not. That's irrelevant. It's about protecting citizens in case it did end up happening.

      In other words, the facts dont support your claim . .  but hey .  . why not run with it anyway ;)way to keep an open mind

      How did you come up with this reply based on what I said? You attempted to shift the focus onto something that doesn't even matter, whether they believed for certain something would happen or not, and I simply corrected you. You don't get it, but that's not surprising because you never get it.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      They might have thought future governments were going to be dangerous to those they govern, or maybe not. That's irrelevant. It's about protecting citizens in case it did end up happening.

      In other words, the facts dont support your claim . .  but hey .  . why not run with it anyway ;)way to keep an open mind

      How did you come up with this reply based on what I said? You attempted to shift the focus onto something that doesn't even matter, whether they believed for certain something would happen or not, and I simply corrected you. You don't get it, but that's not surprising because you never get it.

      Um ....., yeah

      Please wait…

    • bcwizard

      Participant
      Post count: 149

        they're talking about preemptive action against citizens who haven't broken any laws.

      where did you see that?the article is really about stuff outside the US, its just at the end that the author cites two critics. Here's a bit about one of those critics:Petras describes himself as a "revolutionary and anti-imperialist" activist and writer.[citation needed]. He was a founding member of the Young Socialist Alliance and early articles by him appeared in the The Young Socialist in 1959 and 1960.maybe the fear is a little overblown?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1520

      They might have thought future governments were going to be dangerous to those they govern, or maybe not. That's irrelevant. It's about protecting citizens in case it did end up happening.

      In other words, the facts dont support your claim . .  but hey .  . why not run with it anyway ;)way to keep an open mind

      How did you come up with this reply based on what I said? You attempted to shift the focus onto something that doesn't even matter, whether they believed for certain something would happen or not, and I simply corrected you. You don't get it, but that's not surprising because you never get it.

      Um ....., yeah

      Good. Nice to see you admit you're wrong for a change.

      Please wait…

    • brycen54

      Participant
      Post count: 636

      “the article is really about stuff outside the US,”It's about areas the government considers a threat.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Good. Nice to see you admit you're wrong for a change.

      Good strategy ... hope no one can read

      the second amendment is in place partially to allow citizens to protect themselves from their own government.

      the second amendment is in place partially to allow citizens to protect themselves from their own government.

      well, not really . . at least not in the sense it is being discussed here. If you think about it, the guys drafting the 2nd Amendment were "the government or would be in the government, so they didn't draft the 2nd Amendment to protect voters from themselves.

      Right, it wasn't drafted to protect citizens of the standing government, because the founding fathers weren't corrupt scumbags like the politicians of today. It was to protect future generations.

      lol ...and then

      They might have thought future governments were going to be dangerous to those they govern, or maybe not. That's irrelevant.

      lol

      Please wait…

    • brycen54

      Participant
      Post count: 636

      You know, Vin, I believe lol is the best argument you’ve made to date.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      You know, Vin, I believe lol is the best argument you've made to date.

      Lol is the reason I own my firearm, it's coming to get me ... I know it. Lol ... See, there it is again ...let me get my gun. No, I am not paranoid ... Lol is a cold killer ... And part of the government. ... But I have my gun Lol(There it is again!)

      Please wait…

    • bcwizard

      Participant
      Post count: 149

      "the article is really about stuff outside the US,"It's about areas the government considers a threat.

      not trying to be an ass, but did you actually read beyond the headline? Except for the nutty professors at the end, the article is about the DoD analyzing civil unrest in places like Egypt, Turkey, Russia etc."Launched in 2008 – the year of the global banking crisis – the DoD 'Minerva Research Initiative' partners with universities "to improve DoD's basic understanding of the social, cultural, behavioral, and political forces that shape regions of the world of strategic importance to the US."Among the projects awarded for the period 2014-2017 is a Cornell University-led study managed by the US Air Force Office of Scientific Research which aims to develop an empirical model "of the dynamics of social movement mobilisation and contagions." The project will determine "the critical mass (tipping point)" of social contagians by studying their "digital traces" in the cases of "the 2011 Egyptian revolution, the 2011 Russian Duma elections, the 2012 Nigerian fuel subsidy crisis and the 2013 Gazi park protests in Turkey."

      Please wait…

    • brycen54

      Participant
      Post count: 636

      Oh, well, I guess we can trust the government to never use the tactics they develop on their own citizens. I never thought of that. Because I'm not that unbelievably naive.Why do you think I choose the title that I did for this thread? "Big Brother" tactics are precisely what's being developed here. You seem reasonably educated, so I'm going to assume you know exactly what I mean by Big Brother tactics. On the other hand, if you believe for even a fraction of a second that our government will research and develop these tactics for controlling citizens of other countries and then never use them on us, then that reasonable education was wasted on a thick and empty head.You cannot possibly be that naive.

      Please wait…

    • bcwizard

      Participant
      Post count: 149

      Buddy, no need to start swinging at me. You said that you were keeping your firearm because of this article and then said this about the article

      It goes further than that, they're talking about preemptive action against citizens who haven't broken any laws.

      Pretty sure that the article doesn't  say that and if it does its at the end with two nutty professorsLooks like what you are really saying is that you're afraid the government is doing these things for some nefarious reason and so for that you keep your gun.  Fair enough, but that's really not what the article says

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2862

      …..as he goes whistling past the graveyard.

      Please wait…

    • brycen54

      Participant
      Post count: 636

      The reason given is nefarious enough in its own right. The intent of this research is civil control. It will not only used to foster and promote rebellion in other countries (from behind the scenes), it can and will be used to "guide" civil unrest in this country (i.e. quash any movement the government feels is not in its best interest).The history of civilization shows that what any government considers to be its best interest is the consolidation of more power.

      Please wait…

    • brycen54

      Participant
      Post count: 636

      wreck ship: "More white man paranoia."Perhaps the non-white people should display more interest in maintaining their freedom as well. It has proven to be of great advantage to The White Devil.

      Please wait…

    • bcwizard

      Participant
      Post count: 149

      wow, there is some serious paranoia in this conversation.  “maintaining their freedom” “whistling past the graveyard” “nefarious enough in its own right” “civil control”I was only talking about the article and the fact that your gun isn't much help against a government (a point you seem to agree with given your million gun owner, silent army post). But, if fear of your own government is what motivates you to arm yourself, then good for you. Have at it. My own view is that its absurd to connect the two because your gun isn't going to hold the government at bay and this is not the 16th century, but whatever works for you.

      Please wait…

    • brycen54

      Participant
      Post count: 636

      Yes, given our track record of occupying countries a fraction of our size, the U.S. Citizen Army stands no chance.

      Please wait…

    • bcwizard

      Participant
      Post count: 149

      Yes, given our track record of occupying countries a fraction of our size, the U.S. Citizen Army stands no chance.

      well, I know a few people who make the same kind of claim for having their gun and there is no way its legit, but you seem pretty committed to your belief, so kudos. Funny to think of the scenario you are describing though, as if one day Nancy Pelosi is suddenly going to convince the Pentagon that it should imprison all Americans.  Thankfully we'll both be armed.  When you, me and the rest of the "U.S. Citizen Army" win, I will send you a thank you note. Maybe I should run to Hallmark this afternoon  ;)

      Please wait…

    • brycen54

      Participant
      Post count: 636

      You seem to have become confused between the scenario I'm describing and the strawman you're trying to assign me.

      Please wait…

    • bcwizard

      Participant
      Post count: 149

      You seem to have become confused between the scenario I'm describing and the strawman you're trying to assign me.

      Ok then, what was the scenario you're describing? 

      Please wait…

    • brycen54

      Participant
      Post count: 636

      The slow and steady erosion of our individual rights. No one said anything about “suddenly one day.” No one but you, that is.

      Please wait…

    • bcwizard

      Participant
      Post count: 149

      The slow and steady erosion of our individual rights. No one said anything about "suddenly one day." No one but you, that is.

      so you are keeping a firearm today(your first post) because you are worried that you might need it to defend yourself from a "slow and steady erosion of our individual rights" that could take decades or even centuries to manifest itself into armed conflict (the point of the gun)? You keep your firearms as sort of a protest? You're armed as a political statement? Because I thought you meant you kept it for when the government came knocking at your door? 

      Please wait…

    • brycen54

      Participant
      Post count: 636

      So your plan is to wait until it's too late and then try to get your rights back?

      Please wait…

    • brycen54

      Participant
      Post count: 636

        “Because I thought you meant you kept it for when the government came knocking at your door?”Why would they come knocking at my door? How would they even know I had a gun? Oh, that's right, they want to make a list of people who have guns.Still, why would they believe it was a dangerous weapon in my hands? Oh yeah, their program for civil control will tell them who might oppose their tyranny.Weird how that works out, isn't it?

      Please wait…

    • bcwizard

      Participant
      Post count: 149

      So your plan is to wait until it's too late and then try to get your rights back?

      well see, now you're suggesting that you need the gun NOW because the government could show up any moment.  Which is it?  Are you armed NOW because they might show up NOW or are you armed as a political statement against the slow erosion of rights?  It doesn't make any difference to me which, I am just trying to follow

      Please wait…

    • brycen54

      Participant
      Post count: 636

      No, I'm suggesting that by the time you need the gun it will be too late to get one. Seems relatively simple and straightforward.

      Please wait…

    • bcwizard

      Participant
      Post count: 149

      No, I'm suggesting that by the time you need the gun it will be too late to get one. Seems relatively simple and straightforward.

      Oh, so you bought your gun because you think the laws are going to change at some point in the future.  Ok, got it

      Please wait…

    • brycen54

      Participant
      Post count: 636

      No, I bought the firearms I presently own to hunt and use for target practice. Have been an avid marksman for four decades.

      Please wait…

    • bcwizard

      Participant
      Post count: 149

      No, I bought the firearms I presently own to hunt and use for target practice. Have been an avid marksman for four decades.

      well good for you, you sound prepped for when that slow erosion reaches your door

      Please wait…

    • brycen54

      Participant
      Post count: 636

      Before God, I swear this creed. My rifle and myself are the defenders of my country.

      Please wait…

    • bcwizard

      Participant
      Post count: 149

      Before God, I swear this creed. My rifle and myself are the defenders of my country.

      You're a Marine?

      Please wait…

    • brycen54

      Participant
      Post count: 636

      Always.

      Please wait…

    • bcwizard

      Participant
      Post count: 149

      well, thanks for the service

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Always.

      Really? Honestly, never would've guessed that, but if that it true thanks.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2862

      I see Vinnie has a new sock puppet.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      not even sure what that means, other than that you’re lonely.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1520

      Good. Nice to see you admit you're wrong for a change.

      Good strategy ... hope no one can read

      the second amendment is in place partially to allow citizens to protect themselves from their own government.

      the second amendment is in place partially to allow citizens to protect themselves from their own government.

      well, not really . . at least not in the sense it is being discussed here. If you think about it, the guys drafting the 2nd Amendment were "the government or would be in the government, so they didn't draft the 2nd Amendment to protect voters from themselves.

      Right, it wasn't drafted to protect citizens of the standing government, because the founding fathers weren't corrupt scumbags like the politicians of today. It was to protect future generations.

      lol ...and then

      They might have thought future governments were going to be dangerous to those they govern, or maybe not. That's irrelevant.

      lol

      You still don't get it, shocking. Some of the founding fathers may have felt citizens would one day need to protect themselves from their own government, some may have not. But they ALL were aware it was at least a possibility. This is why I brought up the home alarm example. You don't buy one KNOWING your house is going to be broken in to, you buy one IN CASE your home is broken in to. Going by your logic, if you aren't absolutely certain your home will be broken in to, there's no point in buying a home security system. How can anyone ever know if that's going to take place? They can't. How could the founding fathers ever know if future governments would turn on their citizens? They couldn't. In case it did happen, protection was provided through the second amendment. Whether each one agreed that one day it was going to happen is irrelevant, they clearly all agreed that it was at least a possibility. A possibility that needed to be accounted for, and it was. It's kind of like seat belts. You don't put one on because you know you're going to encounter a drunk driver, you put one on in case you do. This is simple stuff.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Good. Nice to see you admit you're wrong for a change.

      Good strategy ... hope no one can read

      the second amendment is in place partially to allow citizens to protect themselves from their own government.

      the second amendment is in place partially to allow citizens to protect themselves from their own government.

      well, not really . . at least not in the sense it is being discussed here. If you think about it, the guys drafting the 2nd Amendment were "the government or would be in the government, so they didn't draft the 2nd Amendment to protect voters from themselves.

      Right, it wasn't drafted to protect citizens of the standing government, because the founding fathers weren't corrupt scumbags like the politicians of today. It was to protect future generations.

      lol ...and then

      They might have thought future governments were going to be dangerous to those they govern, or maybe not. That's irrelevant.

      lol

      You still don't get it, shocking. Some of the founding fathers may have felt citizens would one day need to protect themselves from their own government, some may have not. But they ALL were aware it was at least a possibility. This is why I brought up the home alarm example. You don't buy one KNOWING your house is going to be broken in to, you buy one IN CASE your home is broken in to. Going by your logic, if you aren't absolutely certain your home will be broken in to, there's no point in buying a home security system. How can anyone ever know if that's going to take place? They can't. How could the founding fathers ever know if future governments would turn on their citizens? They couldn't. In case it did happen, protection was provided through the second amendment. Whether each one agreed that one day it was going to happen is irrelevant, they clearly all agreed that it was at least a possibility. A possibility that needed to be accounted for, and it was. It's kind of like seat belts. You don't put one on because you know you're going to encounter a drunk driver, you put one on in case you do. This is simple stuff.

      lol, history is the trough. you are the horse. I dont expect you to drink

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1520

      Your way of saying “okay, i misinterpreted your initial post”. Got it.When do you get your license back? Hopefully soon, you could really use a break from these boards.

      Please wait…

    • bcwizard

      Participant
      Post count: 149

      man …

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2862

      spn_names.png

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      The Gun Lobby's interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American People by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.  The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies - the militia - would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires.Retired Chief Justice Warren Burger, "The Right to Bear Arms," Parade Magazine, January 14, 1990.

      Please wait…

Viewing 66 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.