There is no GUN CONTROL issue (US)

There is no gun control issue in the U.S.

There never has been, and there never will be, as long as the U.S.
is governed by the Constitution upon which it was founded...

The Second Amendment

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.

So what is a militia?


FEDERAL STATUTE TITLE TEN CHAPTER THIRTEEN

(A) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, (except as provided in
section 313 of title 32,) under 45 years of age who are, or
who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens
of the United States and of female citizens of the United
States who are members of the National Guard.

(B) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia,
which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia;
and...

(2) the UNORGANIZED militia, which consists of the
members of the militia who are not members of the National
Guard or the Naval Militia.


There is NO GUN CONTROL DEBATE...

...only law abiding patriotic U.S. citizens,

and insurgents who stand in opposition to the law of the U.S.

Which side are you on?

a reply to: rival

There is no gun control issue in the U.S.

That might be the problem

a reply to: Akragon

Well if there is a problem, and that problem can be solved
by dis-arming the populace [in opposition to the Constitution]
then I for one am happy that the founders left intact a means
to amend that document.

At that point I guess there would be a debate. But for now,
there is no issue to debate, unless you are willing to amend
the document...

a reply to: rival

Fear seems to be the motivation for arming a "populous"

We tend to solve our issues with language and our fists....

but this is Canada

originally posted by: rival

insurgents

There aren't any god damned insurgents in the USA you fear-monger.

Insurgent:

(international law) a person or group that rises in revolt against
an established government or authority but whose conduct
does not amount to belligerency.
----------------------------------------

U.S. gun control advocates stand in direct opposition to the
established authority of law.

a reply to: Akragon

That's true.

There are only two reasons to arm yourself.

For protection, out of fear
and
For aggression, to control.

As long as there are aggressive humans with weapons
it is insane to argue that those who would use them for
protection should not be allowed their use.

I've given up arguing with the anti gun crowd. I just don't care what they have to say or what excuses they come up with. I would bet most of them have never been in situations where their life is in danger, so have no clue how many out there would gladly kill you for a few dollars or just for the fun of it. They've never gone beyond the safety of the streetlights, so why should I bother listening to them bleating about their fear of guns.

a reply to: rival

Look, I understand what you're saying with your stupid stretch of logic. That being said, 'insurgent' and the way you used it paints a very different picture.

1. There are no Rebellion groups in the USA. We have the most sophisticated Spy network in the World. The NSA has you on Camera 8 times a day. We're praised a lot for our military power, but our spy networks have won incomparable battles at this point when it comes to National Defense. Knowing who/why/how/what is going to attack you, is most literally 1 million times more important than having guns.

2. Our Army is the best in the World, and we literally will level a country that attacks us. While it's cute you think we have Guns to protect our country from insurgents, we really actually keep them because we don't trust the U.S.A. Government. This is actually noted a lot.

At almost no point do I have faith that local Guns will stop anything that breaks through the most equip Military force of all time. If they get past NATO, the Army, our Navy and Satellites, guns aren't going to #ing stop them. This law wasn't created when we were the most dominate thing in existence. It's main purpose was to give people ability to challenge the Government.

3. The same goes for the Militia. "What if our Army betrays us? That's why we have the Militia!" Not sure how many times I've heard this piece of crap. Like the Militia could even take down a single jet rofl. Anyway, our Militia stems from the same idea of our 2nd Amendment. That OUR country cannot be trusted and needs a check there. Why exactly do we have a Militia again if it's: "a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency."? Isn't that what our Army Reserve is for? Well you see, that's the point if the Army is the Enemy.

you think we have Guns to protect our country from insurgents

No, I'm afraid I have caught you in the headlights with my
use of the word "insurgents".

Insurgents was a word brought to popularity during the Gulf Wars.
It's intended utility was to serve as a term for "the bad guys" and
was used by media and politicians to invoke fear.

In actuality, the founding fathers of this country were insurgents,
as was Rosa Parks, Mahatma Gandhi, and Jesus Christ.

The need to keep arms, first and foremost, is for protection
from tyranny...you are right about that.

Where you are dangerously wrong is in your belief that "we
the people" have no chance against an established army.
That could only be true if surrender is an option. With a fully
armed populace the only option available government is to
kill everyone....and that leaves no one to govern.

a reply to: DAVID64

I understand, but you should never give up the good fight.
And this thread wasn't intended as an argument. I assumed
most people in opposition to the second amendment would
be unaware of the stated definition of "militia".

To me, when you put the two together, there is no room
for argument. Unless you want to argue against facts.

a reply to: rival

Sandy Hook .

List of casualties
Killed:
Perpetrator's mother
Nancy Lanza, 52, perpetrator's mother (shot at home)
School personnel
Rachel D'Avino, 29, teacher's aide[16]
Dawn Hochsprung, 47, principal
Anne Marie Murphy, 52, teacher's aide[17]
Lauren Rousseau, 30, teacher
Mary Sherlach, 56, school psychologist
Victoria Leigh Soto, 27, teacher
Students

Lots .

Adam Lanza, 20 (suicide)
Wounded:

Natalie Hammond, 40, lead teacher
Deborah Pisani[18]

No gun control problems there . I willing to bet you have a really large gun .

ETA , i removed the children's names .

originally posted by: rival

you think we have Guns to protect our country from insurgents

No, I'm afraid I have caught you in the headlights with my
use of the word "insurgents".

Insurgents was a word brought to popularity during the Gulf Wars.
It's intended utility was to serve as a term for "the bad guys" and
was used by media and politicians to invoke fear.

In actuality, the founding fathers of this country were insurgents,
as was Rosa Parks, Mahatma Gandhi, and Jesus Christ.

The need to keep arms, first and foremost, is for protection
from tyranny...you are right about that.

Where you are dangerously wrong is in your belief that "we
the people" have no chance against an established army.
That could only be true if surrender is an option. With a fully
armed populace the only option available government is to
kill everyone....and that leaves no one to govern.

The entire USA couldn't defeat 10,000 Soldiers with our own equipment. It's hard to truly fathom the extent of difference in our Tech. You can kill 5,000 people in 4 seconds with a Microwave Gun, they even go through walls. I'd love to hear an explanation of how the Militia plans to take down NORAD, or the new Dorito monster.

This is all assuming they don't bomb us, and American bombs is a whole 'nother can of worms. They're literally tinkering with Quantum Bubbles as 'contingency' bombs if ever attacked. This is similar to Dead-mans Switch nukes, that trigger if we are attacked automatically. The subtle difference, is a Quantum Bubble has about the force of our Big Bang and expands indefinitely. There's no real way to hide in a cave from it.

As for 'not killing us' and controlling the people, it seems to me the USA does that extremely well too.

originally posted by: hutch622
a reply to: rival

Sandy Hook .

List of casualties
Killed:
Perpetrator's mother
Nancy Lanza, 52, perpetrator's mother (shot at home)
School personnel
Rachel D'Avino, 29, teacher's aide[16]
Dawn Hochsprung, 47, principal
Anne Marie Murphy, 52, teacher's aide[17]
Lauren Rousseau, 30, teacher
Mary Sherlach, 56, school psychologist
Victoria Leigh Soto, 27, teacher
Students

Lots .

Adam Lanza, 20 (suicide)
Wounded:

Natalie Hammond, 40, lead teacher
Deborah Pisani[18]

No gun control problems there . I willing to bet you have a really large gun .

ETA , i removed the children's names .

Sandy Hook was probably one of the largest, most coordinated psyops this country has ever conducted. The official story is so ridiculous, it's insulting.

But, "NEVER FORGET", right??? Lol. Whatever.

Most anti-gun people forget,or want to,a few things.Many of us were in the military and know how to organize,if,god forbid,we ever go at it the military is going to stay out because our enemies damn sure would hit the US with everything they have,Some countries would supply rebels with all sorts of goodies,the military could not trust each other because of families,bystander casulties would be horrific,and if the government forces won,there would be terrorism that would make ISIS look like school kids.The only smart thing to do is start finding ways to change the conditions that lead to criminal activity,trying to disarm people would be far worse than prohibition and the war on drugs.Look how well those worked.

originally posted by: rival

There is no gun control issue in the U.S.

There never has been, and there never will be, as long as the U.S.
is governed by the Constitution upon which it was founded...

The Second Amendment

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of
a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed.
(...)

I'll bite and go so far as to say there IS a gun control issue in America.
The problem is just that- control. We have a problem with control of guns here in America, and every day it gets worse as these slimy lawyers and politicians make more rules, regulations, fees, and therefore criminals out of us law abiding citizens by controlling, regulating, and outright banning the purchase or ownership of certain firearms.

Then they go behind our backs and orchestrate these false flag shootings to give a public facing purpose to their relentless drive to disarm the population.

That, to me, is a "gun control issue" that needs to be solved once and for all- the one where some very sick, evil people are trying to be in control of the majority of the guns.

Well guys, the point of this thread wasn't to open a debate
on gun control. It was to nail that cupboard shut with the
facts and law courtesy the second amendment and the
official U.S. definition of "militia".

It's obvious we have two camps of opinion; and each are biased
against the other...one is seen as gullible and naive,
and the other is macho and reckless.

But the truth is somewhere in the middle. It's almost always
somewhere in the middle. On the extremes you have those
who have experienced gun violence first hand, to their
detriment. And on the other end you have the relatives of the
survivors at Auschwitz, or someone who has been present
when a gun was used to defend a potential victim.

In a perfect world, there would be no need for this thread,
but as long as we humans are driven as much by our animal
instincts as we are by our intellect, we must guard jealously
our ability to defend ourselves.

Thomas Jefferson said:

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to
time with the blood of patriots and tyrants

I would rather stave off that fateful day, by remaining armed,
and encouraging others to take responsibility for their own
protection and safety.

You are the ultimate guardian of yourself...no one but
you holds that responsibility

a reply to: hutch622

I understand your perspective, and Sandy Hook was
a terrible heart-wrenching tragedy that could have been
prevented in a perfect world.

But we don't live in a perfect world.

The world we live in has a history extreme violence
against the innocent. Millions of dead children lay in the
wake of tyrants and profiteers. This country was founded
on the near genocide of the Native Americans as one
example. In more recent history (less than 70 years ago)
the Nazis murdered well over a million women, children,
and infants.

These deaths were not accidental, nor the result of random
acts of violence, nor crimes of passion--the kinds of deaths
that (might) be prevented by gun control. Those deaths were
cold, calculated genocides. And cold calculated genocides
must be resisted by force.

If you give up your ability to defend yourself, you will save
a statistical number of innocent lives...but you will be
at the mercy of the state.

I, for one, do not trust the state that much...maybe that's
why I am a member of this site.

a reply to: lordcomac

Amen brother. You ever notice how people who agree with
always seem very smart?