Obama set to expand War on Terror to include your guns, page 2

Originally posted by Raud
reply to post by FewWorldOrder

---

Hmm, I don't know about the second amendment. Isn't that one pretty obsolete by now? I mean, times were a little different back then, wasn't it?

Still, this is the lacuna coil I am talking about; people arm themselves by mentioning this amendment, the government becomes uneasy and starts being afraid of the population, the population sees this and so goes the arms race-merry-go-round...down, down, down...while people die for no reason.

First of all the second amendment was put into place to allow the people to take back their country if ever things ran aground. As long as there is government there will be a need for the second amendment.

The government work for the people, not the other way around. There is no need for them to be "uneasy" unless they are over stepping their boundaries, which obviously they are.

If you want to really be technical about it the government murders far more people with their military actions around the world than the law biding citizens in the US.

reply to post by Raud

---

Originally posted by Raud
...the government becomes uneasy and starts being afraid of the population

I wish to reply to this with a quote:

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson, third President of the United States."



[edit on 20-11-2008 by FewWorldOrder]

reply to post by Raud
[To me, guns mean nothing but trouble. I mean, look at all the statistics, look at the statistics of countries outside yours with strict laws.]

In Canada, we've noticed an dramatic increase in gun violence... from unregistered firearms! There are club shootings, street shootings...

I am talking about criminal groups that manage to smuggle in guns from countries like Israel, Russia, America, China, among others.... Countries with big criminal groups.

What does the average law abiding citizen have to protect themselves from these thugs who one day will steal and rape their children with reckless abandon when the SHTF and the police melts away like butter on a hot potato?

Nothing!

reply to post by 44soulslayer

---

Pew!

Now I read the debate, and I am thankful for your tip once again!

Even though you seem to have won that one, I still, personally think you lost. Too bad "Bud" lost his focus a little at the end there.

Furtermore I guess I stepped into quite the quagmire here.

Consider me the cat who chased a rat too far, just to end up in a hive of them.

I will not continue arguing this upsetting topic anymore, but I am still the cat and you are still the rats.

Good luck with that. I'm outta here.

Peace to you...if that is really what you are into.

reply to post by TheFreeBird

---

TheFreeBird, +1! Exactly right! I'm glad to find some Patriots still following the guiding wisdom of our Founding Fathers. I too am a proud gun owner, and a Concealed Carry Permit holder, and I am always amazed that people can somehow convince themselves that making it harder for the law abiding citizen to purchase/possess firearms legally would have any impact whatsoever on a criminal's ability to gain access to guns, or harm people in general.

Criminals don't need to buy guns legally, they either already have them, or have access to black market stockpiles. All a gun ban/restriction would do is embolden criminals (and TPTB) to commit more crime against the lawful people who would be made completely defenseless by adhearing to restrictive gun laws.

Think of the single mother with children to provide for, when three crackheads bust down her door and rob, rape, and murder her and her children. Criminals don't need guns to hurt/kill people. Honest, law abiding people need some form of self-defense that levels the odds, so a weaker person can defend themselves and loved ones against a single, or multiple attackers.

If you think you're truly protected by Law Enforcement, you're insane, just ask any Cop and they'll tell you they can't physically be everywhere at once and even if they could, it's wrong to expect another human being to put his/her life in danger because you were incapable of protecting yourself and your loved ones...

How would you suggest a pregnant women protect herself and her unborn child against a more powerful attacker, or several attackers? Karate? What if they have knives or clubs? There is no argument that could convince me to say she should be left to fend for herself when the tool she needs to preserve her and her child's lives is still an inaliable right, protected by our Constitution. A gun. As far as I'm concerned anyone (criminal, civilian, LE, Military, or Government official) who tries to limit my ability to protect myself, from ANYONE is directly threatening my life and the lives of my loved ones.

Only when LE and Military feel safe and secure without firearms, would I even consider not carrying my .45 on a daily basis. But I would never allow myself to be totally disarmed, by anyone. Period.

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
-Mahatma Gandhi

"(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
-James Madison, The Federalist Number 46

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States."
-Noah Webster (1758-1843) American patriot and scholar, author of the 1806 edition of the dictionary that bears his name.

"[Tyranny cannot be safe] without a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace."
-James Madison, In his autobiography

reply to post by thisguyrighthere

---

Not allow gun shows, especially not to be able to purchase firearms.

That is totally against the constitution. I know that amendment was created over 200 years ago due to fighting the British, but every individual regardless should be able to purchase a firearm, given that they have the right background credentials. Guns do not kill people, people kill people. I know many individuals with legally purchased firearms, but they do not going around shooting people randomly.

Firearms should be allowed on the basis of severe government oppression or the upheaval of military coupes, or personal defense.

Given that ramble,

Peace to all

Bubbapug1985

reply to post by Raud

---

just want to know the fundation of this gun-owning-fundamentalism currently influencing the US. I just want to know what's the deal (knowing that there are literally thousands of different reasons).

If Americans didn't own guns in the late 1700's, we would still be under British rule.
Guns are a safeguard to prevent our country from being taken over by demigods. The reason Europeans have been overrun so many times was BECAUSE you didn't have guns to repel the invaders.
The day may come when patriotic Americans have to take back their country.

reply to post by PhyberDragon

---

Here I'll save you the work: www.foundingfathers.info...
[The FP's begin with what could eerily apply today]

AFTER an unequivocal experience of the inefficiency of the subsisting federal government, you are called upon to deliberate on a new Constitution for the United States of America. The subject speaks its own importance; comprehending in its consequences nothing less than the existence of the UNION, the safety and welfare of the parts of which it is composed, the fate of an empire in many respects the most interesting in the world. It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force. If there be any truth in the remark, the crisis at which we are arrived may with propriety be regarded as the era in which that decision is to be made; and a wrong election of the part we shall act may, in this view, deserve to be considered as the general misfortune of mankind.

[FP#6 Opens out with more of what could be applied today]

THE three last numbers of this paper have been dedicated to an enumeration of the dangers to which we should be exposed, in a state of disunion, from the arms and arts of foreign nations. I shall now proceed to delineate dangers of a different and, perhaps, still more alarming kind--those which will in all probability flow from dissensions between the States themselves, and from domestic factions and convulsions. These have been already in some instances slightly anticipated; but they deserve a more particular and more full investigation.

A man must be far gone in Utopian speculations who can seriously doubt that, if these States should either be wholly disunited, or only united in partial confederacies, the subdivisions into which they might be thrown would have frequent and violent contests with each other. To presume a want of motives for such contests as an argument against their existence, would be to forget that men are ambitious, vindictive, and rapacious. To look for a continuation of harmony between a number of independent, unconnected sovereignties in the same neighborhood, would be to disregard the uniform course of human events, and to set at defiance the accumulated experience of ages.

The causes of hostility among nations are innumerable. There are some which have a general and almost constant operation upon the collective bodies of society. Of this description are the love of power or the desire of pre-eminence and dominion--the jealousy of power, or the desire of equality and safety. There are others which have a more circumscribed though an equally operative influence within their spheres. Such are the rivalships and competitions of commerce between commercial nations. And there are others, not less numerous than either of the former, which take their origin entirely in private passions; in the attachments, enmities, interests, hopes, and fears of leading individuals in the communities of which they are members. Men of this class, whether the favorites of a king or of a people, have in too many instances abused the confidence they possessed; and assuming the pretext of some public motive, have not scrupled to sacrifice the national tranquillity to personal advantage or personal gratification.

It goes on to give examples like The celebrated Pericles, in compliance with the resentment of a prostitute,1 at the expense of much of the blood and treasure of his countrymen, attacked, vanquished, and destroyed the city of the SAMNIANS. The same man, stimulated by private pique against the MEGARENSIANS,2 another nation of Greece, or to avoid a prosecution with which he was threatened as an accomplice of a supposed theft of the statuary Phidias,3 or to get rid of the accusations prepared to be brought against him for dissipating the funds of the state in the purchase of popularity,4 or from a combination of all these causes, was the primitive author of that famous and fatal war, distinguished in the Grecian annals by the name of the PELOPONNESIAN war; which, after various vicissitudes, intermissions, and renewals, terminated in the ruin of the Athenian commonwealth.

Terrorist that want to stage a attack in the US will not buy there guns at gun shows.
They will do the same thing that just happened in Mumbai India they will bring in full auto AK47s from some other country.
www.timesonline.co.uk...

This may be a practice run for a attack on the US
and central and south American are awash with AK47s
Hugo Chavez in Venezuela is a likely source.
The drug cartels are another source.
Even china has tried smuggling in 2000 AK47s
query.nytimes.com...

Banning gun shows would be a joke.
They would change them to accessory and ammo shows or something like that there would still be guns at the shows but you would have to buy them from the dealer after the show at there regular place of business.
Guns are only a small part of what is sold at gun shows.
ammo and gun accessory's are bigger sellers plus repair parts. hunting supplies and scopes,

When i lived in Calif i used to go to gun shows in Nevada and never could buy a gun at them but i got every thing else i needed.


[edit on 29-11-2008 by ANNED]

[edit on 29-11-2008 by ANNED]

The "Terrorism" Hot Spot map. You would think they were crawling out of the woodwork everywhere...
  Posted 9 days ago with 16 member flags

Keep Your Eyes on Sudan!!! We Have Boots on the Ground. Jihad Threat!
  Posted 16 days ago with 11 member flags

ALL ATS`ers are terrorists
  Posted 3 days ago with 9 member flags

CNN Endorsing Terrorism
  Posted 6 days ago with 7 member flags

Insurgency in America? Former Border Agent Details Threats Spilling Into the U.S.
  Posted 3 days ago with 7 member flags

Department of Homeland Security declares anyone who disagrees with them a Terrorist!
  Posted 3 days ago with 7 member flags

Obama\'s terror Drones.
  Posted 4 days ago with 6 member flags

Pair Detained in Twitter Homeland Threat Mix-Up
  Posted 11 days ago with 5 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: