The Future of Gun Control with Cody Wilson

page: 4
43
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 06:47 PM
link   

tothetenthpower
reply to post by beezzer
 


No not at all.

What I would ask is that Americans realize the context in which that was written. That the founding fathers never imagined automatic weapons and grenade launchers. That had they had such things, the 2nd amendment would have probably been a whole lot more specific that it is now.

I'd like them, much like the religious, to stop using documents from hundreds of years ago to justify sound policy decisions in a modern society.

~Tenth



I think Washington, Adams and Jefferson were Brilliant men, visionaries. Look at Benjamin Franklin, And later H G Wells, and the likes of Jules Verne. To say they never imagined what weapons of the future might be like, I think would do them a disservice. Some of those ideas existed in the times of DaVinci in part.




posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 07:48 PM
link   

tothetenthpower
reply to post by beezzer
 


In contemporary society, the gun issue should be largely non existent. The USA is one of the only countries, outside of one's we deem either third world, or embroiled in civil war that has such open laws regarding gun possession.

It causes far more problems than it's ever solved and at this point it's really just rather silly that ANYBODY would WANT to have an automatic weapon for any purpose other than shooting at the range for sport. I don't mind gun ownership for those purposes.

The 'gun culture' in the US it's just so 19th century if you ask me. Then again, I'm Canadian, the only time you see guns around these parts are on cops and when we go hunting.

~Tenth

edit on 3/6/2014 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)


I'm sorry but I find your opinion regarding the 2nd amendment lacking. By failing to recognize that almost every single statistic proves it serves the people of our country far more than it threatens it. My mother successfully defended herself twice in government parking garage against multiple assailants, go ahead and try to convince her or me that having the great equalizer in her purse is somehow a bad idea. This happens every day, but I guess the media keeps missing them for some reason.




posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 08:07 PM
link   

tothetenthpower
reply to post by Masterjaden
 



NOW THAT"S JUST SILLY.

The 'rights' afforded to you by the constitution, were made up and given to you, by men. Not gods, not anybody, but MEN.

There is NO SUCH THING as an UNALIENABLE RIGHT. Those are myths. Those in power, control what you rights are at any given moment.

Regardless of what some piece of paper may say, or even what the law says. It's clear those who run this place don't give two damns about it.

~Tenth


Silly? No, no. It is completely . . . natural.
The framers of our Constitution recognized that rights are natural and unalienable. That was the purpose for the inclusion of the Bill of Rights. Some understood the tendency for government to exceed its authority and demanded an acknowledgment of areas government SHALL NOT infringe upon. Specifically, life, liberty and property. Those rights preexist government.

What you suggest is that, before the establishment of government, a man was not entitled to his own life and the authority to defend it; that slavery and bondage was justified; that a man was not entitled to the fruits of his labor.

Our Constitution describes what government is supposed to do, what it is authorized to do, and, in the Bill of Rights, what it SHALL NOT do.

ETA: I believe I should also explain to you that AR-15s are not "automatic weapons," as you continuously imply. There are very few "automatic" weapons in private possession and those that are owned legally are registered by the ATF and approved for ownership by the local sheriff or chief of police, with full knowledge of their location. I don't believe that is constitutional either, but that should clear up some things for you.

Lastly, how do you justify punishing law abiding citizens, by limiting their access to firearms of their choice? I have owned dozens of firearms in my life and not one of them has harmed another person. Never. If we, as a society, decide to restrict or prohibit everything everyone is afraid of, what would that look like?
edit on 8-3-2014 by WTFover because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Notheycant
 


really, just out of curiosity... do you guys think that the weapons you have could in truth.. Really, and i mean really, hold of the governments resources if they decided they to move against the general populace. sure you could maybe.. maybe, resist for a day or so..

but in the end.. nope.. the argument that you need these weapons to defend yourselves against your government - which you elected by the way - is false..



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 08:25 PM
link   
You know, I'm sure I'm not the only one thinking this, but I'm ABSOLUTELY SICK of all the gun control media attention.

Why can't the gun grabbers give it a rest? Who is relentlessly pursuing all this gun control legislation, and WHY? Who spends every waking hour trying to deny American Gun Owners their Constitutional Right to protect themselves?

It's just exhausting, and the never ending media barrage doesn't take a break. These people will simply NEVER be happy until we are as neutered a people as the British.

If you don't like guns, you aren't forced to own one. But why try and deny someone else their rights? Does any one truly believe that the determined person will not just find another way of inflicting lethal harm on someone else, if a gun isn't available?

Look at Britain's skyrocketing of stabbings, for example. Should we preemptively ban kitchen knives now too?

Estimated 1000 knife crimes reported each month in London

Realistically, if people want to hurt others, they're going to do it with whatever they can get their hands on. Banning firearms treats the symptom of an unhealthy society, but it does not end violence.

So we're left asking, what's the real motive for disarming the populace of such a large nation as the U.S.? If there's no ulterior motive, why such unending and undeterred aggression towards gun owners? The average person with a gripe against guns can be reasoned with. This does not seem to be the case with political gun grabbers.

Here's what two determined knife-wielding attackers managed to do in China.

27 dead and 100+ injured in China knife attack

But we're going to single out and ban firearms? Am I the only one who thinks singling out firearms is pointless, unless you have a larger plan for a defenseless nation?



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


That's what you just don't seem to understand about government... Everything you said there is WRONG!!!!

Government does not inherently have authority, they are granted the authority to rule by the people.

Government does not HAVE nor do they GIVE rights to the people. The second that the people no longer want government to function... guess what???

It will cease to function.

Government only has authority. Authority that is granted to it at the consent of the governed.

The founder's of America understood this. They also knew that by the nature of people and of government that government would seek to oppress the people and the people would suffer injustices for a long time before saying enough is enough.

The rights of the people are inherent. The founder's of America only chose to codify the rights of the people to help minimize the ability of the government to oppress the rights of the people.

History has shown this time and time again. The founder's didn't just pull this out of their asses. They saw that from time immemorial people would be oppressed and then they would stand up to their oppressors.

They saw that certain things were always done to aid the oppressors. Some of these things were limiting where and what could be said and written, targeting political opponents and arresting them simply for being opponents, limiting access to arms, etc...

These were all things that were codified in the bill of rights, NOT because they are not inherent and need to be granted, but to specifically limit government's ability to limit these things because they ALWAYS lead to government oppression of the people.

The ability to have arms and to not be subject to unreasonable search and seizure and to be able to speak freely and to be able to practice religion not controlled by the state. THESE ARE ALL CODIFIED WITH ONE SINGULAR PURPOSE....

To prevent the oppression of the people by the state, to allow the people to speak against the government without being subject to limits on doing so and to have the means to fight back when it becomes necessary.

All people NATURALLY, without the consent of government, have these rights by their very existence, endowed by their creator, whether that be God or nature or whatever. They are simply codified to create a more perfect union that is government intrinsically and specifically run by the people of the people and FOR the people.

That IS the way it is with ALL government, but in American government it is ratified in the documents that founded the country.

So sorry, you are wrong, the rights of the people ARE inherent as has been shown time and time again.

Jaden



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 08:46 PM
link   

rolljas
reply to post by Notheycant
 


really, just out of curiosity... do you guys think that the weapons you have could in truth.. Really, and i mean really, hold of the governments resources if they decided they to move against the general populace. sure you could maybe.. maybe, resist for a day or so..

but in the end.. nope.. the argument that you need these weapons to defend yourselves against your government - which you elected by the way - is false..


Do you recall the Russian's invading Afghanistan, who had only "primitive" weapons in comparison to their invaders? Do you recall who, after nine years, was successful?



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by rolljas
 


You know nothing about warfare if you think that.

Ask the vietnamese, the afghani's et al. if they can't....

I have already responded to this ridiculous notion and explained exactly WHY that is several times but forget about that let's look at the logic of this argument for a minute...

So basically what you are saying is that you concede that the second amendment is about allowing the people to stand up to government but that since you don't think that having these arms available would do much good or much good for very long, that access to arms should be limited FURTHER not less???

Do you even realize how asinine that sounds. You're basically using an argument for lessening restrictions on access to arms to try and argue for GREATER restrictions.....

Jaden
edit on 8-3-2014 by Masterjaden because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 09:10 PM
link   

yourignoranceisbliss
You know, I'm sure I'm not the only one thinking this, but I'm ABSOLUTELY SICK of all the gun control media attention.

Why can't the gun grabbers give it a rest? Who is relentlessly pursuing all this gun control legislation, and WHY? Who spends every waking hour trying to deny American Gun Owners their Constitutional Right to protect themselves?

I feel ya, brother.
The answer with regards to: Who is behind gun control?

There's a definite pattern, and a well-defined core group of suspects.

Now (*sigh*), due to the fact that the prime-movers are by and large of Jewish ethnicity, and the fact that I fully expect some nitwit to reply with some label-tard false accusation of being "anti-semitic"—I will go ahead and preempt that rather obvious non-rebuttal of the facts presented by directing their attention to the stance taken by the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.
Read what they have to say.

Now as to the question of Why?
Well, I would say that's a combination of the well-meaning-but-misguided being led by those with more nefarious motivations~



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Masterjaden
 


Exactly right my friend, the gun-control lunatics would do well to study how many times in history guerrilla warfare has prevailed against larger, more well-armed, traditional standing armies.

To say nothing of the fact that the traditional military's "biggest guns" (e.g. hellfire missiles, etc) could NEVER be used against an insurrection. If they leveled a city, or otherwise did something drastic—it would create another million converts to the cause…overnight.

~E.



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 09:30 PM
link   
Ya know?, guns aren't really a problem by themselves, they just sit there and rust, you can throw it at someone or whatever....

The problem is that most people don't really understand that once you aim it and pull the trigger it is too late to change your mind.

I didn't watch the vid cuz it's expensive out here in the wilderness with this hot spot I use, and didn't read the thread cuz I am a lazy ass, never mind nearly everyone argues one extreme or another, never hitting anywhere in the middle where these topics can be discussed reasonably....

The truth is, IMHO, if you don't understand the damage a firearm can do, and the great distances that damage can be inflicted, maybe you just shouldn't have one of those.

Firearms are a deterrent, a tool.

You change your oil to protect your engine from excessive wear, you use tools to do that, you store the tools in a box while they are not being used.

Over?.

Out.



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by greencmp
 

More power for the new world order.



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 11:13 PM
link   

WTFover

rolljas
reply to post by Notheycant
 


really, just out of curiosity... do you guys think that the weapons you have could in truth.. Really, and i mean really, hold of the governments resources if they decided they to move against the general populace. sure you could maybe.. maybe, resist for a day or so..

but in the end.. nope.. the argument that you need these weapons to defend yourselves against your government - which you elected by the way - is false..


Do you recall the Russian's invading Afghanistan, who had only "primitive" weapons in comparison to their invaders? Do you recall who, after nine years, was successful?


By "primitive" weapons, are you talking about the shoulder mounted rocket launchers provided by the CIA to the Taliban?

Soviet War in Afghanistan

In reply to the other poster's inquiry about whether the civilian populace could ever stand up to the government, I'll ask if you realize how many people there are in this country compared to the military and police forces? Not to mention that these forces have their entire families dispersed among the civilians. You don't truly believe these forces would corral their own families, or the families of their fellow servicemen, do you?



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 06:11 AM
link   
Gun control? No, 2nd amendment. That's all that matters. All gun control is unconstitutional. The Constitution trumps both Federal and State law.



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by 3mperorConstantinE
 


The people who believe this are the people who would capitulate out of fear immediately if the government told them to do anything.

They don't seem to understand that if the government had to send in military, they can't just start shooting everyone in the populace, they can't just start breaking down doors and doing house to house searches. They would have no idea who the enemy is and would create additional enemies with every measure they took to increase their advantage.

That's why oppression of the people never works out in the end. There are too many of us and too few of them and they're easily identifiable and the people aren't.

Jaden
edit on 9-3-2014 by Masterjaden because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by rolljas
 


No i don't think they could. I think the weapon we are "allowed" to have are primitive compared to what the GOV has. That in it of itself is a conspiracy and a scary fact.

I hate to agree with you on your comment but it's the truth


--

Josh



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 11:37 PM
link   
What really grinds my gears is the hypocrisy of gun owning right wingers who insist that having a lethal weapon in their home is totally cool, yet spit fire over the idea of someone chilling in their own home and taking whatever substances they wish to get high on. Vice versa too for gun hating lefties. We have far too many laws in this world and the majority of them don't protect anyone from anything until after the fact at best.
edit on 9/3/2014 by RedSeraph because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by RedSeraph
 


Uhhhhh, say what now???


Many Many Many people that support the 2nd are Libertarian.


You seem to be confusing Progressives with those that back the 2nd.

Try again maybe??



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 09:05 AM
link   

macman
Many Many Many people that support the 2nd are Libertarian.


Here, here. If someone wants to get baked every day then that is their prerogative. Pro-2nd Amendment does not equal 'right wing loony', it means we support the right to keep and bear arms.



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 09:09 AM
link   

RedSeraph
What really grinds my gears is the hypocrisy of gun owning right wingers who insist that having a lethal weapon in their home is totally cool...


Besides my firearms I have plenty of 'lethal weapons' in my home as decided by legal precedent in other cases including, but not limited to, knives, screwdrivers, hammers, baseball bats, my dogs, my hands and feet, etc. Just about anything can be lethal if one wanted it to be, my firearms are just more effective and allow me to not unduly endanger myself in the process of self-defense.






top topics



 
43
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join