Think the feds are taking your guns? Think again! This just in!

Originally posted by PsychoX42
Why would they take away your guns? They want you to have them so they have an excuse to kill you when the time is right.

Do not attempt to fight fire with fire. Love your enemy. This is the one thing that TPTB hate more than anything.

Remember to love all unconditionally, including those who perceive you as their enemy. Its easy to love the one's that you already know and accept, who wouldn't? The key is to love everyone despite their ignorance and violence.

Namaste and love

You can love 'em to death of you want. I prefer taking cover and returning fire.

reply to post by Data_Corrupt


ok so what you are saying is i should keep my guns locked?
so when someone breaks into my house i should say "wait in need to unlock my guns to defend myself?"
i don't think a criminal would put up with that- nor will i

The united states constitution says we have a right to bear arms. It doesn't say what arms we can't bear. It doesn't say we can't bear arms period. Because of this I should be able to own everything from a 22 long rifle to an AK.

One of the major things that has kept this country from an invasion is that the foreign powers thinks that on average 1 in 4 Americans own something that can kill their troops. (I read that a long time ago and the source since eludes me)

On the other hand things can get way out of control really fast by every metropolitan center turning into a war zone and the countryside turning into the wild west. Extreme I know but it CAN happen don't kid yourself.

What we don't need is extreme gun control but rather Gun knowledge. Fathers to teach their children the ins and outs and rights and wrongs of using weapons ESPECIALLY on their fellow man.

And keep in mind you don't pull a weapon if you don't intend to use it.

Originally posted by ReVoLuTiOn76
reply to post by XxRagingxPandaxX

 

First of all, what do you consider an "assault weapon"? There is no such thing as an "assault weapon", there are only rifles. Secondly what is wrong with the public owning automatic weapons? If I pay my taxes, and don't break the law, why should it not be my right, as reserved in the constitution, to own an automatic weapon? The answer is I should be able to. Remember one thing: Gun control is only about control.

Well said.

Sadly, people have been indoctrinated & brainwashed to believe differently... especially when it comes to the MSM driven catch-all phrase "Assault Weapon" (which encompasses 99% of all semi-auto firearms & even many pump fed shotguns).

Law abiding citizens should have the same right to own fully automatic firearms, as they do with any other high capacity firearm.

Yes, Americans may own machine guns but due to the 1986 ban (which insanely inflated MG prices; $3k mgun jumped to $10k+), the high cost of a $200 tax stamp on each one you would like to own, cost of class 3 FFL dealer to facilitate the transfer process ($200 est), etc ; disproportionately leaves these truly enjoyable firearms for influential people who have wealth & power...

...It is nearly impossible for your average low to middle class, law abiding American to afford this right... and sadly the powers that be know it. One should never be priced-out of a right or be forced to pay for a FID permit or any other firearm license.

A Constitutional right should never have a $$ amount attached to it, in order to have access to it!



. ..

I am more of a blade fan...projectile weapons seem...dont know..a bit girly to me. Up close and personal, use skill, and should a burgler face you, they will rethink their position in life after they lose a hand or leg..


Its a good decision. Some people enjoy their cute little guns and its part of the constitution for people to hold onto them. The only issue is that the feds have basically said the states really dont have control over their people..that the fed is in control always...that focuses power alot more than I am comfortable with, but oh well.

Don't worry
before long we'll also be saying the same thing



hehe

reply to post by js331975


you are extremely right- isaid this in a different thread- i believe it was morimoto in ww2 "we can't dare invade the us because there is a gun behind every blade of grass"
that is why we need our right to defend ourselves
we need to defend ourselves more from our own gov't than anything else

at least theis is a start

Okay, got to page four and it was beginning to become redundant.

I had this wild idea......er the other day. If I was the Iranian head of information, I would request a hearing under the UN and state that my pursuit of nuclear weapons was EXACTLY laid out in the US Constitution. The RIGHT to bear arms and all that.

Sorry folks, there IS NO reverence to a type of weapon.

My father gave me a M1 a few years back that we modified to be fully automatic. It was not illegal back then, so NOW it is?

Give me a frelling break.

Tell you what, is it illegal for me to KNOW how to make a fully automatic weapon? Is it illegal for me to know how to EVEN make a weapon?

Kind of sounds like the gov is just trying to CONTROL us again. Kinda like the way they want to CONTROL the voild.

Hehehehehhehehehehehhe. Now, they just need to just admit it.

Yes, the sun even shines on the ass of a donkey now and then.

So the SC flipped a coin and won. WOW.

What this finding says to me, is that our IDIOTIC SC and gov is ripe for the junk heap. If they cannot even understand................

AND SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED....................

I do not know. I hear gun sales are up! Hehehehehehehhehe!

Originally posted by dbates
They should ban all guns because criminals would be afraid to use them while robbing your house if they were illegal.

EDIT: Gun control should only mean a nice tight grouping.

[edit on 28-6-2010 by dbates]

I don't know, I like this point because it's a great possibility. Unfortunately, that fear doesn't stop addicts from using illegal substances. People who actually abide by the rules would be in trouble when the criminals still find their ways to get their guns.

Then again...that's where a sword could come in...

Edit to add/edit again to fix a word that I used in place of the word I actually intended: Problem with the whole sword thing (unless they're throwing knives), or you were a star javelin thrower, guns toss projectiles a lot faster than just about anyone can swing a sword

[edit on 6/29/2010 by philosearcher]

[edit on 6/29/2010 by philosearcher]

For those who still wrongly adhere to the false claim that guns create crime and should be controlled by the government:

MURDER RATES BY COUNTRY According to www.nationmaster.com...

Rank 1st Columbia = 0.617847 per 1,000 people

Rank 4th Venezuela = 0.316138 per 1,000 people

Rank 5th Russia = 0.201534 per 1,000 people

Rank 6th Mexico = 0.130213 per 1,000 people (Federal Gun Ban)

Rank 26th United States = 0.042802 per 1,000 people. 2nd Amendment gun rights. Trend has been toward fewer murders per capita for several years. In 2009 that trend continued even as gun ownership increased by 14,033,824 (based on NCIS background checks conducted in 2009). *That is more guns than the combined active armies of the top 21 countries in the world.
*This according to Ammoland.com with NCIS statistics printed there.

Rank 46th United Kingdom = 0.0140633 per 1,000 people. Tight government gun control:

**Murder rates (initially stable round about 1 per 100,000 population have steadily increased since the early 1990’s. In contrast, in the US over the same period homicides have almost halved. Now while homicide rates in the US are still higher than in the UK, the important thing is to realise that in 1980 the US homicide rate was about ten times the rate in England but now the US rate is only three times higher. Clearly the liberal firearms legislation in the US has worked to reduce murders while the legislation passed in the UK appears to have had the perverse effect of increasing the homicide rate. The net effect is that the gap between the UK and US murder rates has narrowed significantly. A similar pattern (a virtual doubling of murder rates since the passage of the 1988 and 1997 firearm laws is seen from Scottish figures.
** Taken from “HOW GOVERNMENTS CREATE CRIME” by Dr. Lech Beltowski as available in pdf format at dvc.org.uk...

Rank 56th Switzerland = 0.00921351 per 1,000 people. The personal weapon of militia is kept at home as part of the military obligations. Switzerland has one of the highest militia gun ownership rates in the world.

The following was taken from ActionAmerica.org:

“In a book titled "Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America (Social Institutions and Social Change)" Kleck's research showed that armed citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals every year as do police (1,527 to 606). Most of those instances were while the innocent victim was waiting on the police to arrive and many were even waiting for the police to answer the phone.” Emphasis added by me.

In the November 15th 1993 issue of Newsweek Magazine George Will reported that police were 5 times more likely than a civilian to shoot an innocent person by mistake.

The following is from the ActionAmerica.org downloadable widget counter:

Since January 1, 2010 until this moment, Tuesday, May 11, 2010 11:24:24 PM GUNS have already been used in the US, in SELF DEFENSE 870,204 times... Think about it.


Infringement means any means used by government (state or federal) to create by license requirements or tax an impediment to the realization of a right guaranteed by the constitution. Permits for ownership, concealment, or taxes and fees are infringements on the right to gun ownership. Your right to keep and bear arms cannot depend upon your ability to pay for it! PERIOD.

edit by me to add bold emphasis

[edit on 29-6-2010 by Hopup Dave]

reply to post by XxRagingxPandaxX


The more guns the merrier. And bigger guns means even happier owners.
Come the day when you might hear: Sorry sunny, you're not allowed in
this school without at least one Gun.

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by PsychoX42
Why would they take away your guns? They want you to have them so they have an excuse to kill you when the time is right.

Do not attempt to fight fire with fire. Love your enemy. This is the one thing that TPTB hate more than anything.

Remember to love all unconditionally, including those who perceive you as their enemy. Its easy to love the one's that you already know and accept, who wouldn't? The key is to love everyone despite their ignorance and violence.

Namaste and love

You can love 'em to death of you want. I prefer taking cover and returning fire.

I think that your method has been tried for centuries. Obviously this method has been ineffective considering it only escalates situations and thus creates more war. But, I'll let you be the judge in how you choose to interact with others.

Personally, since I don't have anyone outside of my back door shooting at me, I think my method has been good so far. If you are violent, you will attract it. If you're non- violent, you typically find ways to avoid it, or never run into it just from the vibrations that you exude. In my opinion, living by the sword is dying by it as well.

However, I cannot pretend to know your situation since I do not walk in your shoes. My opinion is mine alone, but, I'm sure that there are others whom would agree.

Namaste and love


[edit on 29-6-2010 by PsychoX42]

reply to post by dbates


Totally disagree with you. Our Constitution states that we have the right to bear arms against foreign and domestic!

Nothing else should should be said. Hail to NRA, and every other group and individuals that hold firearms that come in "harms way" (the elite group of Politicians that want to rid our Constitutional Rights!)

By far large the majority that I know that carry firearms won't give them up. They'll sooner shoot, as would I.

reply to post by dbates


Totally disagree with you. Our Constitution states that we have the right to bear arms against foreign and domestic!

Nothing else should should be said. Hail to NRA, and every other group and individuals that hold firearms that come in "harms way" (the elite group of Politicians that want to rid our Constitutional Rights!)

By far large the majority that I know that carry firearms won't give them up. They'll sooner shoot, as would I.

A country that allows its people to obtain and rightfully carry weapons has CITIZENS. A country that disallows the ownership or right to carry has SUBJECTS. I am a concealed hand gun licensee and I carry my XD40 any and everywhere I go within the limits of the laws which permit. I choose to protect my family 24/7 from any act of unwanted selfishness by another human being rather it be a friend or a stranger.

Originally posted by solarstorm

Originally posted by XxRagingxPandaxX
reply to post by ProjectJimmy

 

Well said, I for one am against automatic weapons and assault weapons for the general public, I think there kinda unnecessary.

In the event where foreign troops entered the homeland you would rescind that statement....

I dunno.. fully auto's seem like a waste of ammo to me! Personally my favorite guns are bolt-action .. even if I had a fully auto rifle they have shorter ranges, I'd have to be closer to the enemy.. with a semi-auto or bolt action rifle I could fire from long ranges, giving escape time and better accuracy. Just my opinion of course.. everyone has different preferences of course. But we wouldn't be entirely defenseless that's for sure.

Anyways! Good victory for Americans, another Liberal tyrannic law struck down!

I was appalled that this just barely got by. I just finished reading through the dissenting argument of the Justices and I am not impressed with their views. Let me share a few lines that bothered me.

From Justice Stevens
He considered this

matter not critical to personal liberty or procedural justice

and consideration was to be made to decide

which rights really are vital to ordered liberty, as well as a spur to judicial action.

And here he doesn't equate the second amendment as a right.

The right to free speech, for instance, has been safeguarded from state infringement not because the States have always honored it, but because it is “essential to free government” and “to the maintenance of democratic institutions”—that is, because the right

Here, he says the 2nd amendment was created to ensure states freedom from federal encroachment.

It was the States, not private persons, on whose immediate behalf the SecondAmendment was adopted.

And this little nugget.

Indeed, there is a good deal of evidence to suggest that, if anything, American lawmakerstend to underregulate guns, relative to the policy viewsexpressed by majorities in opinion polls.

From Breyer
Was referencing a colonial era English judge

Moreover, when Blackstone referred to “‘the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence,’” he was referring to the right of the people “to take part in the militia to defend their political liberties,” and to the right of Parliament (which represented the people) to raise a militia even when the King sought to deny it that power. ... . Nor can the historians find any convincing reason to believe that the Framers had something different in mind than what Blackstone himself meant.

REALLY? Has he never read the words of the founders?

"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
---Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.
"...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." ---George Mason
"The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms"
---Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
---Thomas Jefferson

And here he echos Stevens

the Amendment’s militia-related purpose is primarily to protect States from federal regulation,

Breyer went on to talk about all the cases of the states regulating and restricting gun ownership and use going back to when the constitution was written. The many examples did scare me. There is a long road ahead.





[edit on 29-6-2010 by Wolf321]

Originally posted by jdanielm1
A country that allows its people to obtain and rightfully carry weapons has CITIZENS. A country that disallows the ownership or right to carry has SUBJECTS. I am a concealed hand gun licensee and I carry my XD40 any and everywhere I go within the limits of the laws which permit. I choose to protect my family 24/7 from any act of unwanted selfishness by another human being rather it be a friend or a stranger.

I'm confused, are you living in Iraq or Umerica?

Originally posted by XxRagingxPandaxX
reply to post by ProjectJimmy

 

Well said, I for one am against automatic weapons and assault weapons for the general public, I think there kinda unnecessary.

Why is that?... You do know we are living in a "partially free country", and it was made free because the forefathers got the same weapons which the red coats were using right?...

And please, don't start with the "then everybody will have nuclear weapons".... You need expertise and a lot of money to have and keep safe a nuclear weapon... No American will ever have one, and in fact those with the money can probalby just buy one off the black market in Russia, or some other country and noone will be able to stop them from obtaining one.

[edit on 29-6-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by XxRagingxPandaxX
reply to post by ProjectJimmy

 

Well said, I for one am against automatic weapons and assault weapons for the general public, I think there kinda unnecessary.

Its very undemocratic of you to suggest that the government is more or less trustworthy of owning automatic and assault weapons than the general public. The government is supposed to be composed of nothing more than the general public itself... you know, the whole "we the people" thing.

If something is illegal for one, then it should be illegal for all. Governments deserve no special rights and privileges. They should have to abide by the same rules as the rest of us.

Do I think individuals should be walking around with nukes? Probably not... too dangerous. But likewise, I don't trust the government to handle them either.