The NRA Myth of Arming the Good Guys - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

Robbie · 12-29-2012, 01:01 PM

I'm thinking that back in the "wild west" days you were required to check your weapons at the bar to make sure no altercations went crazy and ended up in a bloodbath.

But that's just from watching movies. lol

OneBallJohn · 12-29-2012, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

yeah right. My dad had me shooting guns since I was 5 years old. (my family owned cattle and orange groves...literally thousands of acres of land)

You keep on "training" on how to "handle it"

But if you break into my house, I have a chrome shotgun with 5 shells full of birdshot that will make you wish you were dead. And I don't even have to aim that very well. It's scattershot and will fuck you up BAD.

You just keep on training and waitng for the "shit to hit the fan"

Congrats on owning nickle plated sissy gun.

OneBallJohn · 12-29-2012, 03:19 PM

Nevermind.

tony286 · 12-29-2012, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneBallJohn

That's because you're not reading it as intended. The document is not written in modern English. It is written to acknowledge that a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free nation and that the citizens of that nation have the same right to be armed as the militia.

In other words: A well regulated Military, being necessary to the security of a free Nation, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The 2nd Amendment was written to protect "The People" not the Government.

actually no it was written to mean militia not people. They would of said people like they did how many other times in the document. They didnt have a free standing army and if the country got attacked everyone had to be able to help out. It was protect the gov,they were still getting attacked its not like now. .

xNetworx · 12-29-2012, 03:27 PM

OneBallJohn · 12-29-2012, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony286

actually no it was written to mean militia not people. They would of said people like they did how many other times in the document. They didnt have a free standing army and if the country got attacked everyone had to be able to help out. It was protect the gov,they were still getting attacked its not like now. .

I deleted my reply because I worded it incorrectly. The important thing is that the second amendment was written so that the people were allowed to arm themselves to be protected from a tyrannical Government.

Rochard · 12-29-2012, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneBallJohn

I deleted my reply because I worded it incorrectly. The important thing is that the second amendment was written so that the people were allowed to arm themselves to be protected from a tyrannical Government.

That's not really true. It was to written to deter a tyrannical government, suppressing insurrection, and repel invasion. It was meant to protect the government as it was to protect the citizens from the government.

OneBallJohn · 12-29-2012, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

That's not really true. It was to written to deter a tyrannical government, suppressing insurrection, and repel invasion. It was meant to protect the government as it was to protect the citizens from the government.

Semantics. We are on the same page here though.

SuckOnThis · 12-29-2012, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneBallJohn

I deleted my reply because I worded it incorrectly. The important thing is that the second amendment was written so that the people were allowed to arm themselves to be protected from a tyrannical Government.

Bullshit. If that were true then it would contradict Article 3 of the Constitution:

U.S. Constitution - Article 3 Section 3
Article 3 - The Judicial Branch
Section 3 - Treason

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

mynameisjim · 12-29-2012, 04:34 PM

One thing that irritates me is when people say the founding fathers had no idea that people would one day invent modern assault rifles so that means the second amendment is out of date. Really? Most of the founding fathers were men of science, some were actual scientists. They were also very well read, some owned libraries and were well versed in history. I am confident they were well aware that weapons of war would advance over the years. Weapons have always advanced since the most primitive of times, so to think the founding fathers were not capable of knowing that paints them as some sort of cave men. They knew weapons would improve over the time, and they wanted the people's weapons to keep up with that.

My issue with gun control has to do with the distant future. It won't be in the next 100 years, maybe not even the next 200 years. But one day, some asshole is going to try to take over the world again. There will be another Hitler somewhere in the world someday. And as long as Americans are armed, they will never end up in gas chambers or concentration camps. I know that sounds crazy, but it will happen again one day. Some asshole will build an army and try to march over other countries.

Robbie · 12-29-2012, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneBallJohn

Congrats on owning nickle plated sissy gun.

heh-heh

It's one of the ones used by the Coast Guard (so it doesn't rust as easily from the salt air). Plus it just looks freakin' cool.

I figure if I ever actually have to use it (which I don't think I will), I'll look cool filling some burglar up with a thousand holes of bird shot. (and that will make him wish he were dead)

- Jesus Christ - · 12-29-2012, 05:18 PM

Move past the founding father bullshit.
I don't care what they intended anymore.
Men that WANT to be free WILL be free.

You don't need daddy holding your hand.

Gozarian · 12-29-2012, 05:31 PM

Welcome Jesus to ignoring clear concise and deeply thoughtful individuals.
But you seriously need to get one thing perfectly clear pal, nobody holds my fucking hand and never will.

DBS.US · 12-29-2012, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

I'm thinking that back in the "wild west" days you were required to check your weapons at the bar to make sure no altercations went crazy and ended up in a bloodbath.

But that's just from watching movies. lol

Check your weapons at the school office

Frank21 · 12-29-2012, 05:41 PM

Then why is the police armed? With the anti-gun logica unarmed cops result in much safer streets, why not start there?
No law or amendment has to be changed for that just take the guns of the cops, problem solved.
In the schoolyards it worked! Take away the guns of the good guys and it will be all OK i promise you.

- Jesus Christ - · 12-29-2012, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gozarian

Welcome Jesus to ignoring clear concise and deeply thoughtful individuals.

I don't ignore them. I take them in context and build upon their ideas as a free thinking individual.

Deify no man.

brandonstills · 12-29-2012, 05:47 PM

If guns are banned then only criminals will have guns. Prohibition didn't work for alcohol. It's not working for drugs right now. Why would it work for guns?

One of the other points of gun ownership is to prevent tyranny from the government.

tony286 · 12-29-2012, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mynameisjim

One thing that irritates me is when people say the founding fathers had no idea that people would one day invent modern assault rifles so that means the second amendment is out of date. Really? Most of the founding fathers were men of science, some were actual scientists. They were also very well read, some owned libraries and were well versed in history. I am confident they were well aware that weapons of war would advance over the years. Weapons have always advanced since the most primitive of times, so to think the founding fathers were not capable of knowing that paints them as some sort of cave men. They knew weapons would improve over the time, and they wanted the people's weapons to keep up with that.

My issue with gun control has to do with the distant future. It won't be in the next 100 years, maybe not even the next 200 years. But one day, some asshole is going to try to take over the world again. There will be another Hitler somewhere in the world someday. And as long as Americans are armed, they will never end up in gas chambers or concentration camps. I know that sounds crazy, but it will happen again one day. Some asshole will build an army and try to march over other countries.

The founding fathers were men not prophets.they also were cool with slavery and woman not voting. Its a hero gun fantasy, over throw a gov, take on the next hitler.

SuckOnThis · 12-29-2012, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brandonstills

If guns are banned then only criminals will have guns. Prohibition didn't work for alcohol. It's not working for drugs right now. Why would it work for guns?

You think making guns is comparable to some hillbilly boiling water in a still in his backyard or a kid growing a plant in his closet?

brandonstills · 12-29-2012, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony286

The founding fathers were men not prophets.they also were cool with slavery and woman not voting. Its a hero gun fantasy, over throw a gov, take on the next hitler.

Ad hominem. They may not have been perfect but the principle involved is what is important, not historical figures themselves. Does gravity cease to be a true principle because Newton and Einstein were not perfect individuals?

A fantasy? Ever hear of this country called the USA that overthrew an oppressive government (arguable one of the most powerful) and started their own?

Having gone through that, they wanted to make sure the people would be the ones with the power, not the government.

The right to bear arms is to protect against one's OWN government not just foreign threats.

brandonstills · 12-29-2012, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuckOnThis

You think making guns is comparable to some hillbilly boiling water in a still in his backyard or a kid growing a plant in his closet?

No. What does manufacture have to do with this? The debate is about gun ownership, not gun manufacturing.

I brought up alcohol and drugs to give examples of how bans don't have the desired effect.

tony286 · 12-29-2012, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brandonstills

Ad hominem. They may not have been perfect but the principle involved is what is important, not historical figures themselves. Does gravity cease to be a true principle because Newton and Einstein were not perfect individuals?

A fantasy? Ever hear of this country called the USA that overthrew an oppressive government (arguable one of the most powerful) and started their own?

Having gone through that, they wanted to make sure the people would be the ones with the power, not the government.

The right to bear arms is to protect against one's OWN government not just foreign threats.

That is the fantasy.it was a different time muskets against muskets. Also its a very different world.

Robbie · 12-29-2012, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony286

That is the fantasy.it was a different time muskets against muskets. Also its a very different world.

That's not true Tony.

The British had cannon, and a super well trained army with the very BEST guns you could get in the world at the time.

The Continental Army started as something we'd call "terrorists" today. Using guerilla warfare, ambushing the British soldiers, blowing them up (primitive versions of roadside bombings), etc.

Once the rebels (patriots as we call them) showed that they meant business with their muskets...we started getting foreign aid (the French for instance) and building a semblance of a ragtag army and navy to fight the war.

But it took a very bloody, hard fought EIGHT YEARS to overthrow the British ruling govt. in the "colonies".

So yes...IF the entire nation rose up against the U.S. govt. with rifles, shotguns, etc. I do believe it could be done. Especially if they did as the founding fathers did back then...take over some of the military bases.

All it would take is a few generals in the current military establishment to side with the "rebels" and it could very well happen. But they would have to believe it's serious before they did something that radical. Disarm the country and there would be nothing left for the U.S. Govt. to stop it from taking all of our freedom. Nothing credible could ever be mounted against an oppressive future leader.

Hell, Baby Jesus Obama won't always be President you know. Down the line a true madman could weasel his way in.

Look at The Civil War. Going by what you're saying, it could never have happened. But it did and it was a hard fought bloody war that could have went either way at first.

Do I think that you and me and a few hundred guys with guns could overthrow the govt.?
No.
Do I think that you, me, a few million people with guns could? Yes.

Just look at what happened in Libya. And look what's happening in Syria.

tony286 · 12-29-2012, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

That's not true Tony.

The British had cannon, and a super well trained army with the very BEST guns you could get in the world at the time.

The Continental Army started as something we'd call "terrorists" today. Using guerilla warfare, ambushing the British soldiers, blowing them up (primitive versions of roadside bombings), etc.

Once the rebels (patriots as we call them) showed that they meant business with their muskets...we started getting foreign aid (the French for instance) and building a semblance of a ragtag army and navy to fight the war.

But it took a very bloody, hard fought EIGHT YEARS to overthrow the British ruling govt. in the "colonies".

So yes...IF the entire nation rose up against the U.S. govt. with rifles, shotguns, etc. I do believe it could be done. Especially if they did as the founding fathers did back then...take over some of the military bases.

All it would take is a few generals in the current military establishment to side with the "rebels" and it could very well happen. But they would have to believe it's serious before they did something that radical. Disarm the country and there would be nothing left for the U.S. Govt. to stop it from taking all of our freedom. Nothing credible could ever be mounted against an oppressive future leader.

Hell, Baby Jesus Obama won't always be President you know. Down the line a true madman could weasel his way in.

Look at The Civil War. Going by what you're saying, it could never have happened. But it did and it was a hard fought bloody war that could have went either way at first.

Do I think that you and me and a few hundred guys with guns could overthrow the govt.?
No.
Do I think that you, me, a few million people with guns could? Yes.

Just look at what happened in Libya. And look what's happening in Syria.

The brits fire power wasnt that superior to the colonies. as far as the civil war the rebels lost. I think its a fantasy at this point. Also people revolt when they have nothing to lose,most that bitch got a whole lot to lose. Worry about those people who dont have shit and are first on gov program chopping block. They got nothing to lose unlike boortz lol

Also our gov isnt set up so some madman can take over. also when people talk about hitler, people forget he had the support of the german people at the time. He was elected in.

Rochard · 12-29-2012, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mynameisjim

One thing that irritates me is when people say the founding fathers had no idea that people would one day invent modern assault rifles so that means the second amendment is out of date. Really? Most of the founding fathers were men of science, some were actual scientists. They were also very well read, some owned libraries and were well versed in history. I am confident they were well aware that weapons of war would advance over the years. Weapons have always advanced since the most primitive of times, so to think the founding fathers were not capable of knowing that paints them as some sort of cave men. They knew weapons would improve over the time, and they wanted the people's weapons to keep up with that.

The second amendment was created to protect the government from invasion and suppressing insurrection - and law enforcement. You might call them "men of science" or claim they had "great wisdom" but they couldn't imagine one day the United States would have one of the most powerful military forces in the world - or that law enforcement was only moments away.

Robbie · 12-29-2012, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony286

The brits fire power wasnt that superior to the colonies. as far as the civil war the rebels lost. I think its a fantasy at this point.

I agree with the rest of your post, but not this part.

Number one...the British Army & Navy was the most powerful one on Earth at that time (just like the U.S. is now). So yes, their fire power, quality of weapons (their "muskets" didn't jam or blow up in their faces for instance) were far superior to what the Continental "Army" had.

And the Civil War example was to show you that YES if a group were organized (like the CSA was) and had it's own manufacturing and former USA generals and forts and equipment come over to their side...then YES it can definitely pose a credible threat to the federal govt.

arock10 · 12-29-2012, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

I agree with the rest of your post, but not this part.

Number one...the British Army & Navy was the most powerful one on Earth at that time (just like the U.S. is now). So yes, their fire power, quality of weapons (their "muskets" didn't jam or blow up in their faces for instance) were far superior to what the Continental "Army" had.

And the Civil War example was to show you that YES if a group were organized (like the CSA was) and had it's own manufacturing and former USA generals and forts and equipment come over to their side...then YES it can definitely pose a credible threat to the federal govt.

Today's US military versus citizens with assault rifles doesn't remotely compare to the north versus the south.

arock10 · 12-29-2012, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brandonstills

No. What does manufacture have to do with this? The debate is about gun ownership, not gun manufacturing.

I brought up alcohol and drugs to give examples of how bans don't have the desired effect.

Guns aren't addictive substances. Totally different

icymelon · 12-29-2012, 09:24 PM

more people drinking isn't going to cut down on drunk driving

brandonstills · 12-29-2012, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by icymelon

more people drinking isn't going to cut down on drunk driving

A ban on alcohol didn't cut down on people drinking either. And it created crime syndicates too.

Robbie · 12-29-2012, 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arock10

Today's US military versus citizens with assault rifles doesn't remotely compare to the north versus the south.

You're missing my point

Of course if it was just a few guys with guns the outcome would be immediate.

But if (just like the civil war), half the military were to defect to the people trying to overthrow a tyrannical govt. then it would be a different situation.

It's not gonna happen anyway. But I'm just pointing out that once the citizenry is disarmed...then even that tiny bit of possibility is gone.

But I do absolutely believe that if somehow our govt. went "rogue" and people rose up against it en-mass then the results would be very different than the US military vs. a few guys with guns.

The military would think twice before killing their own families and friends. Especially if the mood of the country was so anti-govt. at the time and large portions of the military began defecting.

It just happened in Libya, and it's happening in Syria.

Again, I'm not saying that will happen here. Tony is right...Americans have it too good. We are all more worried about getting the newest tech gadget than we are about our freedom and rights.

So if enough people in this country really want to disarm themselves...then the 2nd amendment should be scrapped.

Anything else is unconstitutional and just us arguing over nothing.

Maybe you guys are right. We are all doomed anyway and slaves to the govt. In that case, let's just get rid of the 2nd amendment and move forward from there wherever it may take us.

Hell, this country is probably gonna limp along in a somewhat recognizable form during our lifetimes anyway. Let the people 100 years from now worry about not having a 2nd amendment right to bear arms. We'll all probably be long dead before the U.S. govt. becomes completely tyrannical.

brandonstills · 12-29-2012, 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arock10

Guns aren't addictive substances. Totally different

Hmm, I'm not sure what your argument is. Are you implying that drugs are addictive and so that is why people will find a way to get it no matter what? I would agree with that. But isn't it true that people greatly value freedom and security from others who intend them harm. Those are forces that are very strong drives as well and a reason why people will go to great lengths to get guns.

If the goal is to stop violent crimes from happening, I don't think banning guns is the solution.

The thought many people have is that if there are less guns there will be less gun related crimes. That leads people to think "hey, let's ban guns".

There are 2 problems with this.

1) Gun bans will not prevent criminals from getting guns. Disarming lawful citizens prevents them from protecting themselves. The risk to a criminal is now decreased and disarmed citizens are much easier prey. As a result this will only increase crime. A gun ban will widen the gap disparity between criminals and citizens ability to protect themselves (in favor of the criminals).

2) If the concentration of guns determines the likelihood of violent crimes then wouldn't a gun show be the most likely place for a massacre, not schools? The fact is that there is less crime in areas of high gun ownership.

In the presence of well armed citizens, the probability of pulling off a successful crime is much less and the risk of bodily harm to a criminal is much greater.

In order to rationalize a gun ban, it must first be proven that decreasing guns per capita will reduce crime and that implementing a gun ban will indeed reduce the amount of criminals with guns. I think both of those assumptions are false but I am open to changing my mind should a rational argument and supporting evidence be presented.

GrantMercury · 12-29-2012, 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buzzard

The Ban should be on government, If you are associated in any way, shape or form with government, you are NOT allowed at any time to posess a firearm.

The government is US. We The People. Stop trying to turn it into "them".

The problem is when government stops being US. When $$$ corrupts the system, We The People aren't heard. When people can't be bothered to learn the names of their Congressmen and Senators, the system gets away from us.

GrantMercury · 12-29-2012, 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Guys, the Second Ammendment to the constitution says that: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

It doesn't specify that the "people" (which means the citizens of the United States) can only have a certain type of weapon.

I recall something that comes before this...something about being "well regulated"...hmmmm.

Gozarian · 12-30-2012, 12:32 AM

What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.
-- Thomas Jefferson

Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property... Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.
--Thomas Paine

Coup · 12-30-2012, 12:35 AM

Guns is cool man

Robbie · 12-30-2012, 01:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrantMercury

The government is US. We The People. Stop trying to turn it into "them".

You know that's not true. It long ago went out of the people's hands and became totally corrupt.

Did you decide to "experiment" on poor black people and deliberately give them STD's and fake treatments just to see what would happen to them? No? Me neither.

Did YOU decide to go to an undeclared war in Vietnam? Nope? Me neither.

Did YOU decide to have our CIA promote disruption and destabilization of govt.'s and assassinate leaders in South and Central America? Nope? Me neither.

Did YOU decide to start a "war on drugs" against the citizens of this country? No? Me neither.

Did YOU decide to invade Afghanistan when a handful of guys with box cutters hijacked and crashed planes on 9-11? No? Me neither.

Did YOU decide to invade Iraq "pre-emptively"? No? Me either.

GrantMercury...our govt. is NOT "us". It's a group of totally corrupt lifetime politicians who are bleeding this country dry.

I seriously can not understand how any liberal minded person would want to give the govt. more money and more control over our lives.
The liberal people I saw when I was young in the 1960's and 1970's were all about FREEDOM and protested against govt. control of their lives.

This is like some kind of bizarro world where everything is upside down.

I think that in time you and many others are going to come to regret your faux liberalism view of handing the govt. everything and taking your own rights and money away.

GrantMercury · 12-30-2012, 01:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

You know that's not true. It long ago went out of the people's hands and became totally corrupt.

Did you decide to "experiment" on poor black people and deliberately give them STD's and fake treatments just to see what would happen to them? No? Me neither.

Did YOU decide to go to an undeclared war in Vietnam? Nope? Me neither.

Did YOU decide to have our CIA promote disruption and destabilization of govt.'s and assassinate leaders in South and Central America? Nope? Me neither.

Did YOU decide to start a "war on drugs" against the citizens of this country? No? Me neither.

Did YOU decide to invade Afghanistan when a handful of guys with box cutters hijacked and crashed planes on 9-11? No? Me neither.

Did YOU decide to invade Iraq "pre-emptively"? No? Me either.

GrantMercury...our govt. is NOT "us". It's a group of totally corrupt lifetime politicians who are bleeding this country dry.

I seriously can not understand how any liberal minded person would want to give the govt. more money and more control over our lives.
The liberal people I saw when I was young in the 1960's and 1970's were all about FREEDOM and protested against govt. control of their lives.

This is like some kind of bizarro world where everything is upside down.

I think that in time you and many others are going to come to regret your faux liberalism view of handing the govt. everything and taking your own rights and money away.

??? WTF are you going on about? Get a grip.

Who fucking throws out corrupt lifetime politicians? WE DO. Who demands changes in laws that aren't working? WE DO. We can have the country we want. But people have to fucking give a shit. People have to pay attention. People have to read newspapers. People have to think in the abstract. People have to know and regularly contact their lawmakers. People have to fucking VOTE! Forty percent don't even bother to do that. So why do you think the crooks have taken over?

The government certainly isn't ALL bad. And the shit that's not working can be fixed IF WE INSIST on it. THAT is the beauty of America. THAT is the genius of the Constitution.

Bellyaching about corruption and giving up is bullshit. Every positive piece of legislation passed in government came about because the people demanded it, and in some cases fought for it, and even died for it. There have been so many positive changes in America's short history. None of it happened as a result of people sitting on their asses, throwing up their hands, and moaning about "gubment".

And who ever said anything about giving the government more money or control over our lives, anyway?

Robbie · 12-30-2012, 02:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrantMercury

??? WTF are you going on about? Get a grip.

Who fucking throws out corrupt lifetime politicians? WE DO. Who demands changes in laws that aren't working? WE DO.

And who ever said anything about giving the government more money or control over our lives, anyway?

Dude you are living in a dream world. You just voted for another corrupt politician for President (Romney would of been the same...I voted Libertarian for real freedom).

I am sad to say that Harry Reid is my Senator. And he is about the perfect example of a lifetime corrupt politician as you will see.

"WE" aren't voting anybody out. "WE" are doing what you did...letting the media tell you who and what to vote for. And did anything change? No.

Even the bill for Hurricane Sandy disaster relief...it's FULL of pork barrel spending!
It has $8 MILLION dollars to buy cars for Homeland Security personnel.
$150 MILLION for fisheries in Alaska.
13 BILLION dollars for planning for future disasters!!!!!
The list goes on:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/nationa...Elj4CKwbheEV0N

THAT is your precious federal govt. full of fucking crooks at "work".

Wake up man. You're not cut from the same cloth as say an Abbie Hoffman. You're more of the "sheeple" variety than a true liberal who loves freedom.

Dirty F · 12-30-2012, 02:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank21

Then why is the police armed? With the anti-gun logica unarmed cops result in much safer streets, why not start there?
No law or amendment has to be changed for that just take the guns of the cops, problem solved.
In the schoolyards it worked! Take away the guns of the good guys and it will be all OK i promise you.

My god, you are retarded.

Gozarian · 12-30-2012, 03:15 AM

At least here we know the politicians are crooks and most, sadly, wear it as a badge of honor. In America its biz as usual "what me?" while the right hand is behind the back taking the $ and fucking someone.

tony286 · 12-30-2012, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Dude you are living in a dream world. You just voted for another corrupt politician for President (Romney would of been the same...I voted Libertarian for real freedom).

I am sad to say that Harry Reid is my Senator. And he is about the perfect example of a lifetime corrupt politician as you will see.

"WE" aren't voting anybody out. "WE" are doing what you did...letting the media tell you who and what to vote for. And did anything change? No.

Even the bill for Hurricane Sandy disaster relief...it's FULL of pork barrel spending!
It has $8 MILLION dollars to buy cars for Homeland Security personnel.
$150 MILLION for fisheries in Alaska.
13 BILLION dollars for planning for future disasters!!!!!
The list goes on:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/nationa...Elj4CKwbheEV0N

THAT is your precious federal govt. full of fucking crooks at "work".

Wake up man. You're not cut from the same cloth as say an Abbie Hoffman. You're more of the "sheeple" variety than a true liberal who loves freedom.

I know the pundits clouded your mind. But lets think about a few things. If you are elected to congress or the senate whats one of your main jobs? To bring money to your state. They showed an example of that during the election Paul "the budget hawk" Ryan asking multiple times for stimulus money for his state. If you cant go back and say I brought this back you dont get reelected.
Also as long as Humans are in gov it will never be pure. In the constitution slaves had no rights and there were people who had a problem with that but the author had a shitload of slaves. So he was taking care of his interests.

Also we see all the time guys in office forever get voted out. You dont like Harry what did you do to get him out besides bitch on gfy? People can still change things, look at gay rights, those people work tirelessly to make that happen and its happening.

Also something else interesting the Thomas Jefferson lines about fighting and blood and he never fought in the war. He wrote great documents but he was a young man there is no excuse why he didnt take up arms.You never hear the people who were actually in battle making the chicken hawk statements. I guess things really do never change.

Cherry7 · 12-30-2012, 09:08 AM

Guns don't make revolutions, ideas do.

You win the majority over to your way of thinking and you can take power.

The army defected to the people in the Russian Revolution etc...

Societies without guns look on with in credulity at the USA killing its own children.

Do you think we all despair that we can't change the government because we have no guns?

More important to have a better TV and mass media than guns.

There is no reason why anyone should be armed in a peacefully society - including the police.

2MuchMark · 12-30-2012, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

We have a large number of returning soldiers from overseas -- why not station them on guard duty in schools? A friendly soldier patrolling with a machine gun for public protection is not such a bad thing in these circumstances notwithstanding .

I can think of a few reasons this is a bad idea.

First, maybe they don't want to. They've seen enough shit and horror to last them a lifetime.

Next, it's expensive. Assuming they would be paid what an average security guard makes ($55k) it would cost $4 Billion a year to place one in every school across the US

Finally, it's a bandaid solution that patches a problem instead of curing it.

Barry-xlovecam · 12-30-2012, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by **********

I can think of a few reasons this is a bad idea.

First, maybe they don't want to. They've seen enough shit and horror to last them a lifetime.

Next, it's expensive. Assuming they would be paid what an average security guard makes ($55k) it would cost $4 Billion a year to place one in every school across the US

Finally, it's a bandaid solution that patches a problem instead of curing it.

1. They are still on active duty and are collecting a paycheck.

2. The average armed security guard ... What good might that do is questionable -- let's not discuss his shooting abilities. It would cost little to station active duty soldiers that are collecting a paycheck on guard duty at schools.

3. If you are in the armed forces what you like to do is of little issue;
You carry out any legal order -- that is what you are paid to do -- in a volunteer army by that soldier's choice -- he enlisted ...

4. It's a band-aide we cant find and lockup every psycho-killer from society unfortunately.

5. It's already illegal to carry a firearm into a school unless you are a allowed person.

So the real question is why was this guy not stopped -- he carried concealed weapons into a school and that is a crime. "Lanza was found dead next to three guns, a semi-automatic .223-caliber Bushmaster rifle and two pistols made by Glock and Sig Sauer, a law enforcement source told CNN." The guy was a nutjob, he intended to massacre -- you might not stop one maniac.

In the end, this may result on some restriction on the future sale of "assault weapons." No law can be ex-post facto and as long as the right to bear arms is guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment what arms are possessed legally are legal to own.

I guess we US citizens will have to decide on that 44 billion you assert as the rent-a-cop cost; That would cost the 120 Million US taxpayers [133,457,468 tax returns 2011] less than $40.00 a year. I would think there would be support for the bearing of this cost.

However, one rent-a-cop with a side arm is a limited solution. A few soldiers with automatic weapons and well trained in their use seems a more effective deterrent. That in itself will not stop some psycho but knowing that he would be facing down soldiers with flack jackets and fully auto rifles might scare a psycho off.

In spite of all the drama, and I am not diminishing this tragedy in any way, there will always be a problem of violence here, also gun violence for reason of our right to own firearms.

People were killing each other with rocks, spears, swords, and arrows for years. It is just the nature of some of mankind to murder. Should we outlaw Machetes too? They can be used to hack people to death, e.g.; Rwanda. Had the victims been armed in Rwanda, or guarded, might they not have been victims? Or at least, less of them and that is the point -- less pointless deaths.

tony286 · 12-30-2012, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

1. They are still on active duty and are collecting a paycheck.

2. The average armed security guard ... What good might that do is questionable -- let's not discuss his shooting abilities. It would cost little to station active duty soldiers that are collecting a paycheck on guard duty at schools.

3. If you are in the armed forces what you like to do is of little issue;
You carry out any legal order -- that is what you are paid to do -- in a volunteer army by that soldier's choice -- he enlisted ...

4. It's a band-aide we cant find and lockup every psycho-killer from society unfortunately.

5. It's already illegal to carry a firearm into a school unless you are a allowed person.

So the real question is why was this guy not stopped -- he carried concealed weapons into a school and that is a crime. "Lanza was found dead next to three guns, a semi-automatic .223-caliber Bushmaster rifle and two pistols made by Glock and Sig Sauer, a law enforcement source told CNN." The guy was a nutjob, he intended to massacre -- you might not stop one maniac.

In the end, this may result on some restriction on the future sale of "assault weapons." No law can be ex-post facto and as long as the right to bear arms is guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment what arms are possessed legally are legal to own.

I guess we US citizens will have to decide on that 44 billion you assert as the rent-a-cop cost; That would cost the 120 Million US taxpayers [133,457,468 tax returns 2011] less than $40.00 a year. I would think there would be support for the bearing of this cost.

However, one rent-a-cop with a side arm is a limited solution. A few soldiers with automatic weapons and well trained in their use seems a more effective deterrent. That in itself will not stop some psycho but knowing that he would be facing down soldiers with flack jackets and fully auto rifles might scare a psycho off.

In spite of all the drama, and I am not diminishing this tragedy in any way, there will always be a problem of violence here, also gun violence for reason of our right to own firearms.

People were killing each other with rocks, spears, swords, and arrows for years. It is just the nature of some of mankind to murder. Should we outlaw Machetes too? They can be used to hack people to death, e.g.; Rwanda. Had the victims been armed in Rwanda, or guarded, might they not have been victims? Or at least, less of them and that is the point -- less pointless deaths.

The same constitution that allows guns, doesnt allow soldiers armed on patrol in the US.

Robbie · 12-30-2012, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony286

I know the pundits clouded your mind. But lets think about a few things. If you are elected to congress or the senate whats one of your main jobs? To bring money to your state.

So you think it's okay for all that pork barrel spending (bribing) to get Congress to pass an emergency bill to help hurricane victims?
Of course you don't.

But if you read your post Tony, you too used it for politics. You started attacking Republicans. What does that have to do with what I am pointing out?

The federal govt. is a bunch of crooks. It doesn't matter what political party they claim to be in. The whole thing is nothing more than a GIANT money collection agency. The rest is just for show.

And if you think that any politician in Washington D.C. really gives a shit about your "safety" then you are sadly mistaken.
They are all packing guns and surrounded with guns. And their kids are surrounded with guns.

It's just like everything else they do in Washington...from spending more than they take in, to the schools they send THEIR children to (private schools), to their health care (single pay...govt. funded), to their ability to play the market with inside information, and the list goes on and on.

What is GREAT for them...is no good for peasants like you and I.
Guns, private school, health care, insider trading, spending "free" money like a drunken sailor...that's for those ELITE Democrat and Republican crooks in Washington D.C. to do.

We are all expected to live under their heels and pay them for the privilege. And if a tiny percentage of us are still able to rise up and live the same lifestyle that the politicians do (the EVIL rich people), then they use the media to get people to resent that and have culture warfare.

The people we SHOULD be angry at and protesting...are the lifetime corrupt politicians in Washington D.C.
You know, the way REAL liberals did in the 1960's and 1970's when the REAL press didn't take their marching orders from Washington and actually investigated and reported the bullshit that the govt. was pulling.

tony286 · 12-30-2012, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

So you think it's okay for all that pork barrel spending (bribing) to get Congress to pass an emergency bill to help hurricane victims?
Of course you don't.

But if you read your post Tony, you too used it for politics. You started attacking Republicans. What does that have to do with what I am pointing out?

The federal govt. is a bunch of crooks. It doesn't matter what political party they claim to be in. The whole thing is nothing more than a GIANT money collection agency. The rest is just for show.

And if you think that any politician in Washington D.C. really gives a shit about your "safety" then you are sadly mistaken.
They are all packing guns and surrounded with guns. And their kids are surrounded with guns.

It's just like everything else they do in Washington...from spending more than they take in, to the schools they send THEIR children to (private schools), to their health care (single pay...govt. funded), to their ability to play the market with inside information, and the list goes on and on.

What is GREAT for them...is no good for peasants like you and I.
Guns, private school, health care, insider trading, spending "free" money like a drunken sailor...that's for those ELITE Democrat and Republican crooks in Washington D.C. to do.

We are all expected to live under their heels and pay them for the privilege. And if a tiny percentage of us are still able to rise up and live the same lifestyle that the politicians do (the EVIL rich people), then they use the media to get people to resent that and have culture warfare.

The people we SHOULD be angry at and protesting...are the lifetime corrupt politicians in Washington D.C.
You know, the way REAL liberals did in the 1960's and 1970's when the REAL press didn't take their marching orders from Washington and actually investigated and reported the bullshit that the govt. was pulling.

You actually now make me regret going into porn, I should went into politics sounds like a better deal. lol

DBS.US · 12-30-2012, 01:47 PM

Real Americans only shoot guns made by Americans.

Robbie · 12-30-2012, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony286

You actually now make me regret going into porn, I should went into politics sounds like a better deal. lol

It's a better deal than anything...except being a preacher of course (preferably evangelical with your own t.v. show)

12-29-2012, 01:01 PM	#51
Robbie Leaner, Meaner, Faster Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Vegas Posts: 20,842	I'm thinking that back in the "wild west" days you were required to check your weapons at the bar to make sure no altercations went crazy and ended up in a bloodbath. But that's just from watching movies. lol __________________ -Robbie ClaudiaMarie.Com

12-29-2012, 03:19 PM	#53
OneBallJohn Confirmed User Join Date: May 2002 Location: Inside Jimbo's head. Posts: 262	Nevermind. Last edited by OneBallJohn; 12-29-2012 at 03:21 PM..

12-29-2012, 04:34 PM	#60
mynameisjim Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 2,985	One thing that irritates me is when people say the founding fathers had no idea that people would one day invent modern assault rifles so that means the second amendment is out of date. Really? Most of the founding fathers were men of science, some were actual scientists. They were also very well read, some owned libraries and were well versed in history. I am confident they were well aware that weapons of war would advance over the years. Weapons have always advanced since the most primitive of times, so to think the founding fathers were not capable of knowing that paints them as some sort of cave men. They knew weapons would improve over the time, and they wanted the people's weapons to keep up with that. My issue with gun control has to do with the distant future. It won't be in the next 100 years, maybe not even the next 200 years. But one day, some asshole is going to try to take over the world again. There will be another Hitler somewhere in the world someday. And as long as Americans are armed, they will never end up in gas chambers or concentration camps. I know that sounds crazy, but it will happen again one day. Some asshole will build an army and try to march over other countries. __________________ jim (at) amateursconvert . com Amateurs Convert

12-29-2012, 05:18 PM	#62
- Jesus Christ - Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: ::::::::::::: :::::::::::\|\|::::::::::: :::::::::::\|\|::::::::::: :::::::::::\|\|::::::::::: :::::::::::\|\|::::::::::: :::::::::::\|\|::::::::::: ::::::\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|\|:::::: :::::::::::\|\|::::::::::: :::::::::::\|\|::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::: Posts: 7,197	Move past the founding father bullshit. I don't care what they intended anymore. Men that WANT to be free WILL be free. You don't need daddy holding your hand. __________________ Amen

12-29-2012, 05:41 PM	#65
Frank21 Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 733	Then why is the police armed? With the anti-gun logica unarmed cops result in much safer streets, why not start there? No law or amendment has to be changed for that just take the guns of the cops, problem solved. In the schoolyards it worked! Take away the guns of the good guys and it will be all OK i promise you. __________________ www.Rate-My-Pussylips.com - FuckingFetish.com - for sale!!! - ExxGfs.com icq#: 598425939

12-29-2012, 03:27 PM	#55
xNetworx So Fucking What Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Whore Island Posts: 14,445

12-29-2012, 05:31 PM	#63
Gozarian Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: most recently Bucharest Posts: 558	Welcome Jesus to ignoring clear concise and deeply thoughtful individuals. But you seriously need to get one thing perfectly clear pal, nobody holds my fucking hand and never will.

12-29-2012, 05:47 PM	#67
brandonstills Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Chatsworth, CA Posts: 1,964	If guns are banned then only criminals will have guns. Prohibition didn't work for alcohol. It's not working for drugs right now. Why would it work for guns? One of the other points of gun ownership is to prevent tyranny from the government. __________________ Brandon Stills Industry and programming veteran [email protected] \| skype: brandonstills \| ICQ #495-171-318

12-29-2012, 09:24 PM	#79
icymelon Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 3,220	more people drinking isn't going to cut down on drunk driving __________________ Network Of Adult Blogs With Hardlink Rentals Available

12-30-2012, 12:32 AM	#85
Gozarian Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: most recently Bucharest Posts: 558	What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms. -- Thomas Jefferson Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property... Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them. --Thomas Paine

12-30-2012, 12:35 AM	#86
Coup 🚨 PBBC International 🚨 Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: /👁\ Posts: 9,932	Guns is cool man

12-30-2012, 03:15 AM	#91
Gozarian Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: most recently Bucharest Posts: 558	At least here we know the politicians are crooks and most, sadly, wear it as a badge of honor. In America its biz as usual "what me?" while the right hand is behind the back taking the $ and fucking someone.

12-30-2012, 09:08 AM	#93
Cherry7 Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: UK Posts: 3,564	Guns don't make revolutions, ideas do. You win the majority over to your way of thinking and you can take power. The army defected to the people in the Russian Revolution etc... Societies without guns look on with in credulity at the USA killing its own children. Do you think we all despair that we can't change the government because we have no guns? More important to have a better TV and mass media than guns. There is no reason why anyone should be armed in a peacefully society - including the police. __________________ My Neighbour Butterfly PORN-The Musical The Long Goodbye Cinema Erotique

12-30-2012, 01:47 PM	#99
DBS.US Geo Cities Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: North Captiva Island, Florida USA Posts: 11,772	Real Americans only shoot guns made by Americans. __________________ Make a Free Chaturbate White Label site in 34 minutes and be making money tonight