Nationwide dog and pony **** show.

[Spike]

Tearing up the Constitution, that's what all left wing radicals want


This is always their goal

 

[21STEELERS21]

At the time the constitution was written, militias were using muskets, so the constitution makes no reference to the firearms of today.

The Vietnam War went from 1955 to 1975 with American major military activity taking place from 1965 to 1975. We lost 58,200.
We average 32K gun deaths here in a year, so it takes less than 2 years to pass the Vietnam war. Most of you don't seem to think
that is a problem that needs solved. These kids at least have enough sense to know its a problem.

 

[Steeltime]

The Vietnam War went from 1955 to 1975 with American major military activity taking place from 1965 to 1975. We lost 58,200. We average 32K gun deaths here in a year, so it takes less than 2 years to pass the Vietnam war. Most of you don't seem to think
that is a problem that needs solved. These kids at least have enough sense to know its a problem.

Again, for the 3rd time - how many "gun deaths" are suicides?? Aren't you all for free choice in suicide? So now you want to interfere with a citizen's ability to commit suicide?

 

[ark steel]

At the time the constitution was written, militias were using muskets, so the constitution makes no reference to the firearms of today.

What YOU don't understand is that the founders were fairly smart and, probably, assumed that gun technology would increase. Therefore, they, specifically, did not mention what "bear arms" would be limited to. Those people fighting the British were armed with the same guns the British were using.

In the early 1700's, btw, there was a "machine gun" of sorts that had been invented. it was called the Puckle Gun. Apparently, not used in actual war, but it DOES indicate that the technology of firing rounds more quickly than a musket was pretty much out there.

I'd guess they didn't anticipate the internet, either, but here we are with free speech on it.

The Vietnam War went from 1955 to 1975 with American major military activity taking place from 1965 to 1975. We lost 58,200.
We average 32K gun deaths here in a year, so it takes less than 2 years to pass the Vietnam war. Most of you don't seem to think
that is a problem that needs solved. These kids at least have enough sense to know its a problem.

There IS a problem that needs to be solved. YOU and your ilk have not identified the problem correctly. Some might say that the very polices you believe in are part and parcel with the underlying causes.

 

[deljzc]

At the time the constitution was written, militias were using muskets, so the constitution makes no reference to the firearms of today.

The Vietnam War went from 1955 to 1975 with American major military activity taking place from 1965 to 1975. We lost 58,200.
We average 32K gun deaths here in a year, so it takes less than 2 years to pass the Vietnam war. Most of you don't seem to think
that is a problem that needs solved. These kids at least have enough sense to know its a problem.

And if you think taking guns away from rural, fly-over America is really going to stop gang violence in our cities or suicides (which make up about 90% of those gun deaths), you're more stupid than you realize.

 

[Superman]

well, well, well...

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

At the time the constitution was written, militias were using muskets, so the constitution makes no reference to the firearms of today.

The Vietnam War went from 1955 to 1975 with American major military activity taking place from 1965 to 1975. We lost 58,200.
We average 32K gun deaths here in a year, so it takes less than 2 years to pass the Vietnam war. Most of you don't seem to think
that is a problem that needs solved. These kids at least have enough sense to know its a problem.

You and other Liberals still fail to understand the 2nd Amendment. Not my words but truth in these words.

""A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

I am afraid still most people, many adults included, have very little understanding or appreciation of the actual spirit and letter of the 2nd amendment.

To put it very bluntly, the essence of the 2nd amendment is very much the spirit of rebellion against a tyrannical government and the subsequent right of citizens to defend itself against the imposition of government. Hence, the size and capacity of a weapon really have absolutely NOTHING to do with the right to bear arms. To the contrary actually, the citizen should be as well armed as the "tyrant'. And I suggest people also research the various forms of tyranny. It’s not just a crown-wearing monarch. Tyranny can come in many forms.

In fact, if you take into consideration, weapon 'inflation' the firepower of an AR15 is not overly disproportional to a musket, as frequently suggested by lefties and gun grabbers. Regardless, the idea of any weapon being too powerful and hence unconstitutional is a red herring. Size and capacity are irrelevant, really.

Yes, the idea of armed rebellion against a tyrannical force sounds a bit theatrical now. God forbid. We don't like to think about such an event. But, that's the very spirit of the 2nd amendment - not hunting, not sportsmanship. To be candid - it's war. Hence the need for an independent citizen separate fighting force - a militia. Remember, it was written by men who'd taken up arms against a tyrannical government that was very, very well equipped. Hence, the explicit right to arm.

Subsequently and additionally, people often make flawed comparisons between prohibitions on drugs, alcohol, and the states right to regulate guns. That is flawed. Very flawed.

The right to bear arms is a constitutionally protected right. Period. Full stop. Hence, those rights, explicitly spelled out cannot be "infringed". It's rather clear, actually. Likewise, the state can regulate drugs and alcohol, because the individual does not have a constitutional right to it. If you are going to impose upon any constitutional right - speech, voting, etc - you have to amend the constitution.

The amendment process is also spelled out in the constitution. Make sense? Is that so difficult to understand?"

 

[Superman]

but, tim, those guns are so scary. and so many deaths. and if it saves the life of just one child.

 

[Tibs]

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

well, well, well...

Is it just me, or does Hogg look like a villain? There's something deranged looking about this kid. The incredibly narrow jaw and the wide forehead. He looks like the quintessential villain cast in movies.

He also appears to be a plant or crisis actor by some accounts. Not sure if this is true. Lots of images, fake news, maybe real news.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

If it weren't for militias, you couldn't call yourself an American...from behind your wall, under your bed, petting your kitties in Hungary.

 

[Tibs]

If it weren't for militias, you couldn't call yourself an American...from behind your wall, under your bed, petting your kitties in Hungary.

Quick, grab the phone Tim, the 18th century is on line 1.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Quick, grab the phone Tim, the 18th century is on line 1.

Quick, grab a history book. Hundreds of millions of lives may have been saved if other countries had had their own militias.

You are one of the reasons history is doomed to repeat itself over and over and over. Look up democide.

You might want to read the following: http://jpfo.org/pdf/dociviliangunsdoanygood.pdf

First, let’s note what Professor R. J. Rummel discussed in his book, Death by Government. In the history of the 20th Century, there were zero wars between what we would term "democratic" countries. The wars that killed so many millions involved either (1) non-democratic vs. democratic countries, or (2) non-democratic vs. nondemocratic countries.

Second is another Rummel observation: governments mass murdered their own citizens, or civilians under their control (as with occupation), in numbers exceeding 170,000,000 in the 20th Century alone. Over 95% of those killed were murdered by nondemocratic governments.

Third is JPFO's observation: the mass murder of at least 70,000,000 (perhaps many millions more) civilians (men, women and children) by governments in the 20th Century occurred in nations where "gun control" ideas and laws had taken a strong hold.

The Effects of Civilian Disarmament Ideas

Now you have the basic groundwork. Next, consider "gun control" ideas and laws. To the extent that “gun control” causes any results, those results are:

(1) The non-evil, peaceful, law-abiding people will be discouraged from owning, carrying, using, and even learning more about or practicing with firearms. "Gun control" laws act to discourage firearms ownership and use by making it more expensive, embarrassing, difficult, or legally risky to have and use guns.

(2) “Gun control” laws do not decrease the incidence of Evil – not one bit. Gun control laws discourage people, or impose costs on people – but they do not affect evil minds and evil intentions.

(3) “Gun control” laws encourage people to render themselves less powerful. Turn in guns, not own guns, avoid guns, learn little or nothing about guns. “Gun control” laws work only in the direction of causing law-abiding people to reduce their personal defense power.

(4) “Gun control” laws thus make it necessary for people to rely upon their government or private defense providers. For most people, hiring a private body guard or other security service that would come anywhere close to the effectiveness of being personally armed, is too expensive. So most people depend upon their government police and upon dialing Emergency 911.

(5) The more Draconian the “gun control” laws and policies, the more it is likely the civilians are unarmed.

(6) When a government takes power with evil intentions, and extensive “gun control” laws are in place, then you have the set-up for destruction. Most of the people have obeyed the laws and placed their self-defense trust in their governments. The people are relatively we ak. Meanwhile, the aggressors are mostly undeterred by gun control laws. The aggressors would include street criminals, organized crime, and government agencies (e.g. the Nazi SS, the Soviet KGB, various death squads). In fact, the government agencies are usually specifically exempted from the “gun control” laws.

So, there are deliberate programs of persecution by government, as in Nazi Germany or in Soviet Russia / Ukraine or in Cambodia. There are cultures of civilian powerlessness as in China during the Japanese invasion and rape of Nanking in 1937. There is the malign neglect that allows armed parties to raid and attack defenseless people, as in El Salvador and Uganda. In all cases, the imbalance of power, coupled with the people’s helpless dependence upon the same entity that doesn’t mind if they get killed or enslaved, produces the worst human suffering imaginable.

How Can An Armed Society Help?

Now, you may ask: “Yes, but what difference would it make if the people were armed?”

The answer is pretty simple: even evil people calculate the costs. Bad guys rob convenience stores and pizza delivery guys whom they know are unarmed. Bad guys do not rob gun stores nor do they burgle police stations, because the criminal’s personal risk of getting caught and killed is too high.1

It is known that Nazi Germany did not invade Switzerland largely because the Nazis did not want to invest a lot of machinery and manpower to subjugate a nation that was civilian-armed to the teeth.2 Similarly, historians tell us that the Imperial Japanese military leaders did not want to invade the United States during World War II because they knew they would encounter fierce resistance from armed citizens.3

Remember that human beings are the ones who carry out orders. People calculate risks. Even though there is a lot of crime and lots of criminals infesting certain parts of Los Angeles, New York and Washington, D.C. (for example), the police will not go to those parts of town without backup. And in some areas, they will not go at all –certainly not at night.

We learn from all of these examples that armed civilians can deter even armed government functionaries.

Likewise, in the Iraq War, the American military chooses to deploy its forces in a manner less likely to result in American casualties. Thus, the American military does not blindly attempt to move into some towns and regions where they know the civilian resisters (“insurgents”) are armed and dangerous.

We therefore learn from modern military history that even powerful armies steer clear of armed and motivated civilian populations.

All of these facts and observations suggest the following conclusion:

When a civilian population widely possesses firearms such as rifles, shotguns and handguns, along with ammunition for them, and the population has the training with the weapons along with the ethic of self defense, then the population is very unlikely to be conquered and persecuted either by their own government or by an invading force.

This conclusion means that lives are saved and human suffering is avoided when the population generally undertakes to prepare for its own armed defense. Stated simply: an armed population saves lives.

The data from the 20th Century suggest that millions of non-combatant lives were lost to genocide and persecution, because (a) the afflicted populations were tremendously underpowered compared to the killers, (b) the population relied solely upon their government to protect them, and (c) the government protectors either failed or actively turned against the populations.

So yeah, about that 18th century. Isn't it funny that in the 20th century the single largest killer of human beings in violence has been governments?

Yeah, we don't need the 2nd Amendment because we are different and this could never, ever happen here because we have Disney and Unicorns and this is Utopia.

 

[Tibs]

Sad that you and others on the right hate our military and police officers so much you have wet dreams of arming yourself against them in mortal combat. To each his own.

 

[CoolieMan]

Sad that you and others on the right hate our military and police officers so much you have wet dreams of arming yourself against them in mortal combat. To each his own.

damn...now you are really reaching.

 

[Superman]

Sad that you and others on the right hate our military and police officers so much you have wet dreams of arming yourself against them in mortal combat. To each his own.

what's even sadder is you hate the military so much that you balk, whine, ***** and moan when it comes time to give our military pay raises (this is part of defense spending) and provide upkeep on barracks, bases, equipment and munitions, as well as food, clothing, etc.

 

[Troglodyte]

damn...now you are really reaching.

No, Tim is arguing the need for militias to prevent democide. If Tibs is reaching its to catch Tim’s overthrown pass.

 

[Troglodyte]

what's even sadder is you hate the military so much that you balk, whine, ***** and moan when it comes time to give our military pay raises (this is part of defense spending) and provide upkeep on barracks, bases, equipment and munitions, as well as food, clothing, etc.

... and arm themselves against militias that might try to overthrow the tyrannical government.

 

[Tibs]

No, Tim is arguing the need for militias to prevent democide. If Tibs is reaching its to catch Tim’s overthrown pass.

Yeah, that went right over Coolie's head, but that's the only logical interpretation of Tim's incessant babbling.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

No, Tim is arguing the need for militias to prevent democide. If Tibs is reaching its to catch Tim’s overthrown pass.

That's exactly what I'm arguing - an armed citizenry is necessary. And it is a Right. History's proven the argument valid. 170 Million dead by Government, 70 million in countries where gun control laws took effect make the argument a slam dunk.

 

[CoolieMan]

No, Tim is arguing the need for militias to prevent democide. If Tibs is reaching its to catch Tim’s overthrown pass.

nope..you and Tibs are swinging and missing

 

[Tibs]

nope..you and Tibs are swinging and missing

That's exactly what I'm arguing - an armed citizenry is necessary.

 

[IndySteel]

 

[Tibs]

That's exactly what I'm arguing - an armed citizenry is necessary. And it is a Right. History's proven the argument valid. 170 Million dead by Government, 70 million in countries where gun control laws took effect make the argument a slam dunk.

Good luck with that. You may wanna buy an xtra few rounds for your AR15 and get some sandbags ready.

 

[CoolieMan]

nope..you and Tibs are swinging and missing

my point is that the 2nd Amendment was written stating that a well armed militia being necessary for a secure State....the right to bear arms shall not be infringed....

you are saying that fighting for that right means the Right thinks the current government needs to be over turned now....hence you are swinging and missing....

The Right believes the possibility exists that in the future such action may be required of the citizens to respond to a tyranical government and that is why the 2nd Amendment was written and needs to be defended

now keep expressing your 1st Amendment rights on a system that the Founding Fathers certainly didn't foresee....