“We need automatic guns so to defend against the military. ” - What???

a reply to: starheart


Those weapons were not "military grade". They were civilian legal semi-automatic weapons that Adam Lanza stole from his mother that he murdered to get.

That is what we're trying to ban. Even AK-47 rifles are completely unnecessary against burglars. A simple 1-shot manual hunting gun can do the trick.

Again, how many firefights have you been in to make this determination?

Do you realize automatic weapons are so heavily regulated that they are next to impossible for MOST people to get? Military weapons are NOT circulating in the United States in a legal capacity.

Again you keep showing your ignorance.

a reply to: Silicis n Volvo

When you disarm the people you do not disarm the criminals.

Yes you do, it just takes a hell of a long time when the country is already flooded with guns, i agree though that you can't completely remove it.

The same could be said for knives, cars, golf clubs or your fists.

Those are tools needed in society, a gun is a veapon nothing else, again you can't completely remove killings but removing some of the options a killer has is a start, but look above.

Fix society. Any idea on how to go about doing that?

My job is to behave and i succeed in that, the rest is up to the government, thats why they are elected... by you or me.
I live in a country where murder, rape or home invasions are rare, i think we are doing great when you think of that no one owns a gun for protection.

More importantly the government are not trying to ban guns for our benefit. They are doing it for theirs!

Thats a conspiracy and pure speculation, there are no proof of that.

a reply to: swanne

You clearly have no idea do you.

During the time of the creation of the 2nd, there were more than just "muskets". There were rapid fire firearms, cannons and explosives.

Your talking points are very flashy and shiny, but are basically polished turds from the Brady Camp, MDA and Bloomberg.

And since when do automatic firearms equal violence against a "school yard of kids"?

You might as well just say everything you want, is for the children.

Your ignorance to the right of the 2nd is very clear and simple.
Only Progressives can twist and contort this crap into meaning anything other than what it is.

a reply to: Mianeye

Thats a conspiracy and pure speculation, there are no proof of that.

What about historical precedent? Or is history a conspiracy too?

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: starheart


Those weapons were not "military grade". They were civilian legal semi-automatic weapons that Adam Lanza stole from his mother that he murdered to get.

All right, then. Do you really need a semi-automatic gun to stop a burglar? More importantly, have YOU been in such a fight? If no, let me tell you that 1 shot, and you don't move for awhile. No need for 4 to 5 bullets.

a reply to: starheart

I have.

I am a soldier after all.
I've been shot at more times than I care to count.

While I have never had to kill anyone, I have had to use suppressive fire to keep heads down.

If multiple attackers come after you, you're going to need more than one bullet.

People like you do not understand criminals. People intent on violence.

a reply to: swanne

Where have you been?

Have you ever heard of the JFK Coup de tat that happened in America>

The American people will never respect a Coup de tat regime,and the simple fact is that they have every reason to fear a Domestic Military that is run by a Coup de tat regime and not by a true government of their choosing.

If anyone wants the American People to stop being afraid then they ought to support the immediate Cold Case investigation of JFKs unsloved murder.

It is and will always be this simple,those who actioned the Coup de tat and hi-jacked America MUST be completely rooted out and held to justice or America is destined to fall to pieces,to continue to rot from the inside until it falls completely apart of its own accords.

You would have to have been in a time capsule to not understand that it is the JFK Coup de tat that is destroying Americe and the American people DO NOT WANT TO STOP THE BLEEDING,they REFUSE to impeach each other and this shows how rotten America is on the inside.

There are not enough GOOD AMERICANS WILLING TO STEP UP TO THE PLATE, there are FAR MORE GOOD AMERICANS THAN BAD,but the good ones seem to have lost their cojones.

Disclose the Coup de tat Cabal , hold them up high and show the world they have not been allowed to destroy america and then one by one by one make a HUGE SHOW OF HUNTING DOWN THEIR FRIENDS .

America will have to fight for this truth,and everyone knows it,either a few are surgiclly removed and this Coup de tat is finally uncovered and dealt with or there will inevitably be a Civl War of epic proportions with the people responsible sitting safely in other Countries laughing their heads off.

America does not just want the head of the Snake that bit Her ,she wants the whole dam thing,and when america sinks her teeth into this cold reptile she will HOLD IT UP FOR THE WORLD TO SEE and squeeze until there is nothing left to squeeze.

a reply to: projectvxn

Unfortunately i'm not completely aware of everything in the US history, could you provide me with some clues?

Or are you talking about the world history, cause we have evolved a lot when it comes to history.

a reply to: swanne

Are you an ignorant child? The military would use the bomb only in a last ditch effort, so half your argument is null and void.

When the Second Amendment was drafted almost three centuries ago, guns were at the stage of revolvers and muskets. Limited quantity of bullets, and often slow to re-charge - basically, you had to think twice before shooting someone.

I swear you must be a teenager with the specious quality of your arguments. The 2nd amendment doesn't grant the right to bear arms but preserves and guarantees it. If you had read any of the federalist papers you would know that. Oh wait, schools don't even teach that there exist documents that predate and molded the formation of the constitution.

As to why does anybody need fully automatic weapons, the honest answer is no one NEEDS these weapons, but denying them to the citizenry doesn't wave a magic wand and make them go away, or stop them from being produced. The citizenry wants these weapons, and we have an absolute right to own them lawfully. Now grow up and think with more maturity.

originally posted by: Mianeye
a reply to: projectvxn

Unfortunately i'm not completely aware of everything in the US history, could you provide me with some clues?

The revolutionary war came at the heels of a British ban on privately owned firearms.

Let us not forget the gun control of the 20th century that resulted in the murder of millions at the hand of government despots.

a reply to: starheart

So let's make everyone become criminals. Is that what you're saying? Also, how is a simple manual 1 shot hunting gun not enough against criminal? When did you suddenly need an automatic gun and an apc against a simple burglar? You want to scare him/wound him, not kill him with 15 bullets in 1 second.

Where in my post did I say that everyone should or should not own an automatic firearm or apc? I think you are confused between semi-auto and full-auto (select fire). Plus, do you think you can reload that one shot pistol in time when you are faced by multiple threats? You are very naive when it comes to self defense, 99% of the time you should try to get to safety and not confront the attacker(s), but if you have to pull out your gun, your aim is to stop the threat(s). If the sight of your gun is not enough to deter the attacker(s), shoot until the attacks stop, it could take one shot or your whole magazine (never shoot a gun to scare or wound).

a reply to: projectvxn

Fair enough, though the world and the people are more bound together today, so that would be a hard task to perform, so it's still just speculation.

originally posted by: Mianeye
a reply to: projectvxn

Fair enough, though the world and the people are more bound together today, so that would be a hard task to perform, so it's still just speculation.

Not really. We have an example happening right now.

ISIS is taking over Iraq and murdering people by the thousands.

They have banned all guns in their purview unless use in service with ISIS.
They are essentially attempting to solidify their power by taking all power from the civilians who could fight back against them.

a reply to: starheart

And where did you get this "1 shot" will stop someone idea?

Movies and Hollywood have done a grave disservice to the public.

Just because someone is shot, doesn't mean the threat will stop. There have been reports of people taking multiple rounds, center mass and still fight. GO research the Hollywood bank robbery.

And people have dropped dead on sight, from being shot with a .22.

And there is no justification for "need".

We have the right. That is all that is "needed".

a reply to: projectvxn

Again fair enough, but we all know the purpose of extremist muslims, could you imagine the same thing going on in the US....I don't think so as the soldiers are children of the citizens, they are not extreemist, though i will give you a slight benefit of the doubt.

a reply to: starheart

The government arent trying to start a war on the people. They are trying to control them and stop the people starting a war with the government. They want you to be good little people are do as you are told. Keep lining their pockets with gold.

But they know that if the entire population wanted to remove its government from power there is absolutely jack sh!t the government could do to stop them. Dropping bombs on "Sectors" is not something they can get away with. And even if they could they could not stop a whole nation. Your numbers are too great. But they are trying to prevent people from rising up by taking their weapons and monitoring everything they do.

They are lying to you about it and they have you fooled for thinking that gun confiscation is for your protection. It's not. It's for their own protection.

a reply to: Mianeye

It is very short sighted to think that bad things cannot happen here in the US. Just because you do not see the need for the 2nd Amendment now, does not mean we or our children or children's children may not need it in the future . The 2nd was written to guarantee that all our Rights are protected, now and to the end of this Republic.

a reply to: Mianeye

Hmm.. then why does England have over 7 million illegally possessed guns?

a reply to: swanne

It is really absurd to suggest that a government can have any toys that it can produce to keep the populace subdued, but the people, under the Second Amendment, must be restrained in the type of arms that they can have on hand to do battle if it came to that.

Yes, the argument is endless, but the bottom line, the main point, is the government will have you heavily regulated if not entirely weaponless if it had its way. In the not to distant past, before WWII for instance, we would think little of our government wanting to take our weapons, but these days, we take it of a sign of a growing, fascist-type of oppression that we've seen in government after government of all stripes.

Once your only weapon is a paper ballot (of dubious value) the game is lost. Having a gun is your best bet for protection from home invasions and the invasion by a systematic, calculated government attack on your freedoms.

a reply to: Mianeye


Are you freakin serious

A bad guy will go after someone without a gun in a new your second

where as on the other hand, a bad guy even sees an armed citizen and they rethink their plan.

It seems like a lot of you anti-gun folks (Sheeeeeeeeple) want to be controlled. Well that is your choice by all means let the government control you

We hard working; Tax Paying; Gun Loving; law abiding citizen choose not to be SHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEPLE, We see the big picture and choose not to play their game

Let me ask this --- When (not IF) SHTF (as I had stated in a previous post), who are you going to see first---
a) A Cop coming to protect you from all the bad guys??????? or
b) Your neighbor who you see and smile at as they pass you on the street and wave and just happens to have weapons

And in such a situation who would you rather see first

besides more killings are being perpetrated by cops and not the general population

WAKE UP SHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEPLE