History of Un-armed Citizens

reply to post by buttafuqua


Where do you get off playing a race card?
This had nothing to do with race until you brought it up.

So, just drop it and go away. If I can't be judgemental of my President, then I am already just a slave to the Fed system.

Don't tread on me!

I am an American, true to the bone. I believe in the Constitution and everything my fore fathers wanted it to be.

Just slip out the back, Jack.
Make a new plan, Stan,
You don't need to be coy, Roy.
Just leave it to me..............

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
reply to post by W3RLIED2

 

Ummm... No, I don't think so. You combined known history and what you SPECULATE is fact about Obama.

Like I said. History and conspiracy theory.
In fact, Obama is ON THE RECORD stating that he WILL NOT take a hunter's weapons away.
Therefore, your entire premise is jacked up. Unless you are now willing to grant me that you are postulating a theory of conspiracy.

That's just a slight of hand.

Here watch my lips move as my pen is busy.
One month, and my trust is going fast.
He has always voted against guns and pro-anti-gun.
That is not conspiracy, that is history about to repeat itself.
And we know where Holder sets on this.
Heck, lets have another Waco every month, since he was so proud of that one!

reply to post by W3RLIED2


You Said

While many Americans don't know it, one of President Obama's main goals while in office is to ban firearms for the public and abolish the 2nd ammendment. I'm here to tell you all why that is a very bad idea.

Emphasis mine.


I have one question for you (and I am a pro-gun Democrat who would have a carry permit, pending the dismissal of a few pot charges in my teenage years.) Do you have proof this is one of Obama's main goals?

Thats an awful drastic step to take in the first term of a 55-60% winning candidate. Hell that will kill 90% of the Democratic votes that I KNOW he got in my state...

As is commonly said, drastic claims require drastic proof. While they have both voted down assault weapons and automatic weapons I have yet to see where they are stepping on our second amendment rights...

please provide evidence of this one statement, and voting records alone won't do...

that said I agree with the entire POINT of your post... When you disarm law abiding citizens, all that are left with guns are criminals and the cops who won't even show up until someones been shot and killed...

The citizenry should be well armed... but to be honest, if you can't kill a person (in self defense) with one shell from a .38 (or better) than you really REALLY shouldn't be carrying a fully automatic or assault style weapon. Leave the real guns to the pros... If you need something to shoot and you're that bad of a shot, get a damn paintball gun... It will stop a person in their tracks, and their legally fully automatic... Plus you won't have to worry about really hurting innocent bystanders since you would have to be a horrendous shot to require a fully automatic weapon in 99% of the situations where you would need a gun for self-defense.

anywho...

My $.02

(p.s. the you is a descriptive you for perspective, not aimed at The OP or any other poster)

Coven

thats actually not a bad idea at all get a paintball gun
better than nothing if thats the only choice you have those things leave pretty big welts to and if you get him in the face all the better

i would imagine the person you shot would probably think he was shot with a real gun buy red paint balls to and he would probably think it was his own blood and at least run away

Originally posted by coven
reply to post by W3RLIED2

 

You Said

While many Americans don't know it, one of President Obama's main goals while in office is to ban firearms for the public and abolish the 2nd ammendment. I'm here to tell you all why that is a very bad idea.

Emphasis mine.


I have one question for you (and I am a pro-gun Democrat who would have a carry permit, pending the dismissal of a few pot charges in my teenage years.) Do you have proof this is one of Obama's main goals?

Thats an awful drastic step to take in the first term of a 55-60% winning candidate. Hell that will kill 90% of the Democratic votes that I KNOW he got in my state...

As is commonly said, drastic claims require drastic proof. While they have both voted down assault weapons and automatic weapons I have yet to see where they are stepping on our second amendment rights...

please provide evidence of this one statement, and voting records alone won't do...

that said I agree with the entire POINT of your post... When you disarm law abiding citizens, all that are left with guns are criminals and the cops who won't even show up until someones been shot and killed...

The citizenry should be well armed... but to be honest, if you can't kill a person (in self defense) with one shell from a .38 (or better) than you really REALLY shouldn't be carrying a fully automatic or assault style weapon. Leave the real guns to the pros... If you need something to shoot and you're that bad of a shot, get a damn paintball gun... It will stop a person in their tracks, and their legally fully automatic... Plus you won't have to worry about really hurting innocent bystanders since you would have to be a horrendous shot to require a fully automatic weapon in 99% of the situations where you would need a gun for self-defense.

anywho...

My $.02

(p.s. the you is a descriptive you for perspective, not aimed at The OP or any other poster)

Coven

That is an excellent question. While my claim (to me any way) is not all that drastic I do understand the need for drastic proof.

To answer you honestly I cant provide any more on Obama than i have said already. While i stand by what i said about Obama wanting to abolish the second ammendment, i say it openly that I have never heard him say so. It is my own description that Obama would "abolish" the 2nd ammendment.

On a side note between you and I... I'm very glad to see that there are still Democrats who can appreciate the sevarity of all this. I was begining to lose faith in Americans.

reply to post by coven


The Govt. does not need to know what guns I have, how many rounds I shoot or don't shoot. Where I keep them. There are enough laws on the books already. It takes a back ground check. That's good enough.

So, I guess you stance on the President is that he stand for nothing. He has always voted anti-gun, now he is pro-gun. I don't trust someone that can't make a stand and stick to it. This is the guy that has his hand on all of our Nukes and all of our Military Might. When is he going to flip and change his mind again?
He already has proved he can't keep a promise. He has already proved he cannot surround himself with respectable people. He cannot hire someone with any morals.
Give me a break. I think the fact that he has not come out and said he does not support HR 45 shows his true self.

I had high hope even though he was not my guy. Ron Paul did not make the ballot.

Ive got to get myself a gun soon.

but why do you think Obama will make gun ownership unconstitutional. He hasn't said he would do such a thing. His voting record in the local state wont reflect his federal actions. Its two completley different things.

I just was on the Texas thread and about the same time some sick puke started with the race stuff over there too.
Are these just sick people getting a kick, or Govt. a-holes trying to disrupt these threads?

reply to post by j2000

The Govt. does not need to know what guns I have, how many rounds I shoot or don't shoot. Where I keep them. There are enough laws on the books already. It takes a back ground check. That's good enough.

Ahhh, so you prefer to serve yourself on a silver platter to those who wish to take your guns away?

If you are a law abiding citizen you should have no fear of registering your weapons with the Government. If anything, they would utilize this information to give you a chance to turn in any weapons that would be illegal pending the passage of any new gun legislation...

and the second people get those letters a massive number of US citizens and soldiers will be arming up, and asserting their 2nd amendment right by any means necessary.

It's a catch 22. Call for the disarmament of American citizens, start a civil war that could cause you to lose control once and for all... No matter whether the Puppets or the Puppetmasters run the show, they would all be out of power the moment this revolt occurred. You don't slit you're own throat to spit your enemies.

I do have to say that contributing to this thread is giving me a little more excitement than I expected, and if I come across as harsh please realize this is not me being disrespectful or rude, but just a free flow of thought on a topic I did not realize interested me soooo much until just now!

reply to post by coven


Ok, cool. But to be honest, I don't trust our Govt.
After serving, and working on future weapons projects as a Sr. Engineer for 27 plus years, I just don't trust them with anything.

I do want the right if needed to march on DC and get them straight. I think we should do it thru law and the states first, but they really need a hard back hand about now.

reply to post by coven


Slitting ones throat to spite the enemy is out of the question. In the type of (hypothetical) situations we've been discussing through the day the best way to spite ones enemy is by surviving.

By your own admission there is a degree of excitement while you talk about this subject, here? I've felt it too. As have several others. I can tell by the way some people's writing styles have changed and words used!!! Hold on to it. While we hope that there isn't a time to say "we knew it", it's still a very real possibility.

good nite, thank you for contributing to the thread every one.

reply to post by coven


So do you really think its a good idea to let the Fed. Govt. keep making laws to control our life?

Which Amendment is next. Oh ya lets go for the first. We should restrict all free speach, unless you buy a permit. Since Catholics are loaded you need to pay 4 times the amount of other Religions for a permit just to go to church. And if you don't go to church, that will be a crime with a big ticket.
What did you say? Due what, oh, due process. No that's ok, we will just leave you on house arrest with a ankle collar. I think your trial is coming up in 2014 if we can squeeze it in......

Sorry OP. I'll have to go back in the am and read the original post again.
I got side tracked with the race crap and keeping up with the Texas thread at the same time.

Yes, all this with the Govt crap this year has recharged me. I've learned the real truths of our countries history and have taken the Red pill.

Only in America can someone try to affectively use events such as Bloody Sunday and the Nazi Regime as arguments towards the need for guns. You claim that it isn't guns that kill people but its people that kill people? And you are damn right, but maybe this slipped you by, but people are killing people with GUNS. You claim that taking away guns will mean you can't defend yourself, and maybe that is true to an extent, but if it is done correctly then you shouldn’t need a gun to defend yourself because there wouldn't be any more guns.

Are you following me?

I live in the UK (Scotland to be more specific) and I understand the difference between applying one law that has been successful in a small country like my own and applying the same law to a country such as the United States of America. But guns have been outlawed here completely since 1997. It is near impossible to get a gun in this country and it's impossible to get one legally unless you happen to be a farmer and it's for a humane purpose. I am twenty-two years old and I have never seen a gun before. Getting rid of guns wouldn’t get rid of crime. Stabbings will no doubt increase because of it, because people will always find a way to commit murder.

My point of this is not to suggest that removing guns from society will solve your problems, but I am astounded that some people believe more guns is actually the answer. Your argument is based solely on fear. Here's an idea, get rid of all guns and nobody has to fear them anymore.

I have just joined this website, and I like the motto: Deny Ignorance. It’s catchy and it states the intentions of this website. So tell me why it is whenever people bring up gun control your arguments are solely based upon the precedent that not everyone who owns a gun is a murderer?

That argument stinks of ignorance and here is why. Not everyone needs to be a murderer. Just one person needs to be for a chain of devastation to follow.

When living in a country that witnessed fourteen school kids being murdered in six different schools in the last year and thirty three in Virginia in the year before. How can you still claim that Gun Control is a violation of the 2nd Amendment? Ask the parents of those kids what they think and see what they say.

Shame on you all.

reply to post by dean007

Last one for a while and a little off topic, BUT...

I had to tell a brief story as to why I believe paintball guns are a viable option...

A short preface, I have been punched in the face on an occasion or two, and took the back swing of a baseball bat to the forehead as a kid, oddly neither hurt me too badly, and it could be said I have a high tolerance for pain.

Back to the Story, In High School my group of buddies (10-20 of us total, maybe 8-10 hanging out at a time) had setup a BMX trail in the woods near our homes, and next to it a Paintball field... They all had awesome Guns (forgive me as the names slip my mind) that cost anywhere from $500-1000. My buddy who got everyone into it had a handgun that had to be pumped and only held six shots at a time...
Sadly I had no paintball gun, so I missed out on a lot of hard play.

We'll one weekend my buddy offers me his single shot gun and decides to pair me with the three best guys against the 6 other alright shots... He did this to even out the fact that I had a handgun paintball gun (the really cheap CO2 cartridge kind) Anyways, we get to crossing the field, and all six guys focus on the weakest target, me and my pea shooter...

Now here's the deal (and this is what makes a PB gun a good defensive weapon) I didn't have all the gear these guys had, and I didn't realize by bulky clothes they meant a few denim coats over a few sweaters. I wore a winter work jumpsuit and a light outfit underneath it. While running in the woods my zipper broke on my jumpsuit and I was stuck in regular street attire... The 6 swarming me attacked and I literally thought I was going to die.

The first few paint balls hit me in the chest and shoulders... then 5 or six in the stomach. I tried to hide at that point, but was shot in the crotch from behind(And the front while rolling on the ground in pain) 5 or 6 times. While the pain was unbearable from the crotch shots, the shots to the chest winded me something fierce... The stomach shots made my legs instantly turn to jelly. It was like being pelted by explosive ball bearing...

To make a Long story short... the next day on the way to school my buddy asked me who gave me a hickey... On of the shoulder bruises was showing above the collar of my shirt. I had three welts on my chest that were raised a 1/2 inch and were black in the center... It hurt to breath, and I still had an odd gate from the occasional wince of fire down below.


I wrote so much in hopes that the description of the pain should hurt a bit... Now imagine a robber feeling that (and as dean said... In the FACE... that would maim and possibly kill the person.)

Anywho, sorry to derail, just figured I should throw that little tidbit of Information in there...

reply to post by AgentMoulder


And you BELIEVE that???

God have mercy.

The man lied--PROVEN, DEMONSTRABLY LIED--REPEATEDLY throughout the "election" and got away with it more, even than Shrillery.

He's even lying still about his birth.

And you BELIEVE HIM ABOUT GUN CONTROL?

Boggles my mind.

Truly The whole country has fallen down Alice's rabbit hole.

And the Red Queen is raging and yet . . . just warming up.

reply to post by Vodo34861

Why can people not get it through their heads that laws only restrict the law abiding citizen? You take away all of the guns from the public and who is left with the guns? The criminals. By criminals I mean the people who run drugs and the GOV. Our rights as Americans are being demolished. The patriot act has listed EVERYONE and I mean EVERYONE who posts on this board as a terrorist and they are subject to be treated as such.

As a psychologist and sociologist, I've been scratching my head asking myself the same question.

Mystifying . . .

So far, the best I can come up with is . . .

MOST OF THOSE advocating gun "control" . . . actually abolishment . . .

demonstrate one or more of the following--and usually more of the following:

1. A placing of responsibility for happiness on OTHERS--particularly on authority, systems, . . . OTHERS . . . INSTEAD OF--ON THE INDIVIDUAL.

2. A muddle-headed irrational cluelessness about right and wrong. For most of them--there is no clear-cut right or wrong. They like to say--do whatever--as long as you don't hurt someone else--then they begin RATIONALIZING A THOUSAND WAYS a long list of HURTING SOMEONE ELSE . . . from infanticide to euthenasia to drug abuse to REACTIVE ATTACHMENT DISORDER to alcoholism to ragaholic etc. So they are not the least bit consistent with themselves EVEN WHEN THEY DO RARELY GET CLOSE to defining right vs wrong.

3. Somewhat in the closet rebels. They don't like to live by God's or anyone else's rules yet they like to be seen as good, decent, "moral" people without any clear-cut definable morality--again--muddle-headed mush rules instead.

4. They seem to have had parents who were outrageously hypocritical authoritarian arses OR laizez faire--no discipline or boundaries at all--OR--abusive and/or absent. DISCIPLINE WITHOUT SUFFICIENT RELATIONSHIP PRODUCES REBELLION.

5. They seem to be utterly blind to man's inhumanity to man and think of themselves as incapable of any such atrocities--all the while--voting increasingly lop-sidedly for precisely those folks who have planned the greatest range of atrocities since Adam and Eve in the looming global tyrannical government.

6. They have the blood of 50 million infants on their hands already and it's not enough. They support stabbing sharp objects into the brains of an unanesthesized mostly born infant and consider that merely wiping a smudge of protoplasm off their table. Yet, they'd rush to torture to death someone who abused a kitten 1/10th as badly.

7. Tyrannical collectives have NEVER produced more freedom and better living standards yet they lobby for, fight for, vote for precisely that prescription for tyranny.

I could go on but it's a dreary topic and I think I'm going back to bed, instead.

reply to post by msm1003


HELLO?

If one student . . . certainly if 2-3 students in each of the student killing situations had had a gun . . . and been trained to use it . . .

there would NOT HAVE BEEN such successful killings.

Taking lawful guns from lawful people would NOT have prevented most of those student killings.

imho, It's clueless to think otherwise.

In my personal history of a firearms instructor (predominantly for women) I hold up ignorance as the main benefactor for the anti-gun frame of mind.

The predominate story behind these women wanting to learn - they'd recently experienced a horrific encounter with violent/negative behavior directed at them and wanted to join my class to learn to *protect themselves*

They came to class with every type of ear and eye protection sold, more times than not their handgun still in it’s box and became visibly shaken when it came time to take her weapon in hand and was so near repulsed and horrified of guns they didn't even want to *touch one of those things*.

I asked them where their fear came from.

Not once was I given a valid reason why a woman feared a gun or an incident where a gun had done her harm.
Mostly I heard a variation on the theme: *I don’t know, I guess I’m just supposed to be, they're dangerous and kill kids/people right*?

Just goes to show what a little ignorance will do.
Ignorance that can be put to rest by a little training and willingness to no longer be a victim - which they soon found out and proceeded to revel in.

The majority of the women left the class with a license to carry, many joining the local rod and gun club.
Many went on to learn shotguns/rifle handling, skeet-shooting and a smaller number wishing to learn to hunt.

It was sooo rewarding (and downright fun) to watch women go from picking up the gun between thumb and forefinger, holding it out in front of them like a dead mouse - to being able to draw from a behind the back/waste belt holster, pop off a clip and reload all the while keeping their eyes open, their face beaming, and a glint in their eye sayin - *just try me buster.*

I can’t tell you how many women brought in their friends to learn after.

I also can't tell you how many times I heard variations on the *If only...* theme.
*If only I'd of had my gun...*

One more instance where education rips through preconceived ideas to reveal a rewarding and critical truth.

peace

reply to post by BO XIAN


You're generalizing and talking about leftist points of view, not just gun control. People don't just fit into one category or another, they generally develop positions on issues as they learn and grow, and not necessarily straight down the party lines. People occasionally have different opinions than their parties for some reason or another. It doesn't sound like you have any sort of academic training. Armchair psychologist? Me too. I'm actually getting a degree in Geography, so I'm not the expert.

I consider myself quite left wing (someone here had "liberal libertarian" or something as a tag-that's a good description of me) but I own 4 guns because I'm a history buff and it's a ton of fun to shoot things. I used to be less tolerant of guns but I support the constitution (it's a good one), and I don't trust this government. It's not "socialist" as some would have you believe. It's state capitalism. Fascism. Leftists don't support militaristic regimes such as this. Most people didn't even realize there was an actual socialist candidate for president, not Obama.