This is the Reaction Republicans Have to Horrific Gun Violence.

vess1:

"People like you are as much of a problem as the antis. Either join the pro-gun side or don't discuss it publicly."

Thank you, rant away ...you are unnecessary.

 

No, not a rant. He was right. The people who support gun control don't even understand the purpose of the second amendment. It has nothing to do with self defense, rather the defense against tyranny, government tyranny. The well regulated militia needs to have the right to carry the same weapons that the government has.

 

Such a wimpy gun, the BAR is a real thumper. Now that 'The Donald' has been exposed about his draft status, will the pro-Trumps change their minds about his truthfulness?

 

OK How about all those who own a gun join a well regulated Millitia? (at least then they might learn how to handle it) for me gun ownership is not in question what is in question is the ability of those who own guns to understand how to use them Over here we have extreemly tight gun laws but that has not stoped the use of guns in crimes (Knee jerk reaction from politicians to a gun related tragedy caused our draconian laws)
I think a simple course in gun maintinence and use would help lower a number of accidental deaths from fierarms but alongside that you should have a good system in place to check the person who wishes to purchase a gun.

 

Ya know this bill was passed on the heels of the one hundred forty sixth anniversary of the assassination of Lincoln. Those darned Republicans could've shown some restraint.

 

While I think that knowing how to use your guns safely is important, I support no law that would affect the freedom to own one. The second amendment states "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." It does not say that every person bearing arms need be in the militia. In fact, the militia would probably only be formed once the emergency occurred.

If you want to require a gun license for those that own them, that is fine as long as the penalty for not having the license is not seizure of their guns.

 

I was only giving my opinion. In it, I was trying to explain the differing opinions and where I stand on each.

To demand me to "either join the pro-gun side or don't discuss it publicly" is disrespectful and unacceptable. It is unnecessary to personally attack my opinion, and wrong to demand I do as you command. I appreciate your opinions, but please ...don't resort to personal attacks on mine.

 

On an offensiveness scale from 1-10, that ranks about a 2. You are going to need much thicker skin to survive in this circus. Lighten up Francis!

 

I understand. I am simply attempting to improve his/her social skills. A comment that is filled with angry retorts and hateful speech lessens that person's more valid statements. If you wish for people to understand your opinion, it is in your best interest to be civil. People will pay more attention to it and a true debate can begin.

 

Bit late forming a militia after the event is it not, much better to have one formed and ready to respond before a event happens

 

I know this may sound silly but the "well regulated militia" of 200 years ago and the "well regulated militia" of today are just a tad different aren't they?

After all 200 years ago a "big gun" would be a cannon and if you could afford one I suppose it was just fine to "carry" one.

Things have changed in 200 years haven't they? According to the logic concerning the "right to carry the same weapons" a current militia should be open to tanks, airpower and even nukes if they could afford them. Somehow I don't think the founders of this country foresaw this.

I own a gun for home protection.

 

They really have not changed that much. That argument is used by liberals who have already made up their mind that the second amendment is not necessary. It seems that nothing short of a military takeover of the United States will prove the worth of the second amendment to the liberals in this country. The fighters in Afghanistan and Iraq don't have tank divisions or nuclear weapons but they seem to be kicking our ass just fine. Small arms, guerilla warfare, and the support of the local people are that are needed to defeat a more powerful military force. But take away the guns and you are begging to become a slave.

 

I understand what you are saying Lehigh and did NOT make my point as some Liberal who thinks we should not have the right to bear arms. I'm not planning on giving up MY gun.

Now as for my statement being used by Liberals that have already made up their mind that the second ammendment is not necessary that's hogwash. Why do I say this? Simple actually.
While I was typing last night I was interrupted by a phone call from a friend in California. He's a coin collector and I have some coins he wants.

I told him what I was involved in at the time he called (this thread). So I ran the "well regulated military" by him and his response was "I suppose they should have nukes too".
So is he a Liberal? Far from it my friend. He comes from a Republican family and he and his brother both happen to be career U.S. military.

Now as for the situation in Afghanistan and Iraq. Yes, they have shown success. Heck, just ask the Russians about Afghanistan.
Would it be the same here? I certainly hope not because how much of the "local support" is really that?
Is it "local support" or oft times a bunch of thugs coming into a village with AK-47s and demanding support?
Would anyone here like to see such a scenario? I certainly hope not but it's food for thought.

 

The opinions of any resident of CA hold very little credibility to me. For the most part, anybody that lives there represents the left wing fringe. So wild accusations or blowing things out of proportion to fit their agenda is just noise to me.

To me, the biggest threat that exists is our own population and how they will react if/when things break down. Especially in densely, unnaturally, populated areas. The network that provides fuel and food on a regular basis is fragile and I would say relies on a multitude of things to go right, like clock work, without a misstep. If anything disrupts this flow, for one week, one month or one year what do you think is going to happen? Are there enough police and military to keep this entire country under control if marshal law were to be implemented? Millions of people starving with no hope and nothing to lose would not be pretty.

We have many liberals that don't think there should be any guns. In that scenario, they'll be the first to die.

Then there are some who are content with a single-shot shotgun and a box of shells. They would quickly be overwhelmed.

While others prepare as best as possible and could fall back into groups, working in shifts to protect a common area and enough food and firepower to do it for quite a while. In hopes that they could outlast the chaos until things got back to normal. If that's a week, a month or a year, that's doable for many. If it's prolonged for 10 years, not many will make it through but somebody will.

Everybody is free to not care about or worry about anything if they want. I just don't want some a-hole telling me what I'm limited to in a supposedly free country.

 

I fail to get your point. So a republican friend of yours doesn't think that a well regulated militia should have access to nuclear weapons. I don't think anyone should have access to nuclear weapons. But nukes are not the point. You just can't use them period. If a military takeover happens in the US, do you think they will use the nukes against their own people? It will enable them to kill the enemy, but it will also make the entire area uninhabitable. What purpose does that serve?

My point is that the second amendment is as relevant today as it was when our founding fathers crafted the Constitution. You have posted nothing that makes me believe otherwise. You know what you get when the people don't have access to arms but the government does? Libya!

Perhaps you should move there for a few months so you can gain some perspective about the importance of the second amendment which you take so for granted that you believe is no longer necessary. I am sure that the Libyan people will convince you of the second amendments virtues in short order. BTW, invite you republican friend as it seems he needs a refresher course as well.

 

What's sad is the fact that we live in a country where anybody can prepare as much as they want. We have the ability to protect ourselves and our families better than anybody else in the world. And there's people here that want to pi$$ on that right and down play it. Then take it away from everybody else too.
It's delusional. It's a tragedy IMO. It goes to show what value ( or lack there of) people actually put on themselves and their families.

I'm not one to be the measuring stick of success or failure in planning ahead. But I'm not impressed with anyone who has done nothing and calls for more restrictions on everyone else's rights.

I'm not 100% committed to a survivalist mindset or I wouldn't buy coins with numismatic value, have an Xbox 360 or a touch screen nav HU installed in my trailblazer. I'm just trying to enjoy life while trying to be prepared for the worst on the side. Might be considered a lot to some but not as much as I should, to myself.

People would lose sleep if they really realized how little the government can do for them should there ever be a nationwide crisis.

 

Liberals want to take away rights, but they're never willing to give up anything in return. So, let's make it tit-for-tat. I'll give up my right to bear arms and cease ever carrying them again if any liberal is willing to give up his right to life and cease breathing.

 

Nice uninformed sterotype there Vess. He's from California therefore he has no credibility?
Granted there are indeed a lot of whack jobs in CA IMHO but just because my friend lives in California does not make him a Californian.

He's in the MILITARY dude. THAT'S what brought him there about a year ago.
Now you can have fun with this. He's from Wisconsin so he must be a loon right? Other than the fact that he comes from a Republican family that does a lot of hunting and owns a lot of guns.

Now on the other hand Vess some of what you said makes some sense.

 

Lehigh. You're talking to Clembo not your buddy Moen OK?

For starters I NEVER said the Second Ammendment wasn't relavent did I? If I did please point out WHERE you interpreted my post as such. You can't because I never did.
I had the gall to point out that things have changed over 200 years. I took the "well regulated militia" statement and expounded.
Do I or my friend really think that "militias" should have access to tanks, F-16s, nukes etc.? Hell no we were expounding.

Your final statement is just plain assinine and I really do expect better from you Lehigh.

First. Why in the hell would I want to go to Libya?
Oh yeah. To gain some perspective on the second ammendment that I believe is no longer necessary.

AGAIN. Tell me where in the HELL I EVER stated that! You can't because I didn't. It's that simple.

Second. So why would I take my Republican friend along? He needs a refresher course? On what? Serving our country?

Pathetic statement Lehigh. Really pathetic.

 

So anyone you deem a Liberal should die?