Guns Don't Make Us Free. Period.

page: 9
33
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by milominderbinder
 



Really? I thought all that property was stolen by enacting a brutal genocide against the Indians.


And they did it with superior weaponry.

We're all Indians now.


??? Superior Weaponry ???

...yeah...if you think guns were the advantage you REALLY, REALLY, need to go back and do some more reading.

Let me know when you can pass an 8th grade history exam and then we will go from there.




posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by frazzle
Have you ever done the math on how many murders are committed every day with bare fists?

The FBI did. According the most recent dataset available from 2010 there were 745 cases where people killed with bare hands...and 8,775 gun deaths.

However...for the record...I'm not even that worried about "total gun deaths" At least SOME of those "total gun deaths" are going to be rival gang members and whatnot. What percentage? I have no idea...I'm not sure the data exists. But I'm the first guy to say that when one starts running drugs for the Mexican mob...one dramatically increases their chances of getting a bullet in the head and only have themselves to blame.

Those are the cases of the traditional "criminals".

What I'm a bit more concerned about are LUNATICS who start RANDOMLY PEPPERING A CROWD OF PEOPLE for no reason. Once again...I think "childproofing" the world is a fool's errand...but that doesn't mean we have to EXTRA STUPID about where we keep the razor blades and broken glass.



Screw the 2nd amendment, the right to self defense is a natural law. Being hung up on some old dead white guy's words is the crazy part.


LOL. Wow. Just WOW.
I honestly do not know where to start with the ignorance contained in that sentence.

On that note...I think I'm reconsidering my stance slightly. A permit to own a gun should ONLY be give to someone who is able able to pass a high school level proficiency test in History, Western Civ., Philosophy, and Civics in the hope that they might be able to string two sentences together which don't contain four contradictions in them.

....Some things are just too dangerous.
edit on 18-12-2012 by milominderbinder because: formatting



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by milominderbinder

Originally posted by frazzle
Have you ever done the math on how many murders are committed every day with bare fists?

The FBI did. According the most recent dataset available from 2010 there were 745 cases where people killed with bare hands...and 8,775 gun deaths.





And yet long guns of all types amounted to 300 deaths. Less people were killed by all rifles (AR-15's included) than by fists, therefore, fists are more dangerous than AR-15's and should be banned.

And actually, if you have studied history and philosophy, then you would know that many philosophers and statesmen considered self defense a natural law. The right of self defense is called by Locke the first law of nature.

John Locke (1632-1704)



And thus it is that every man in the state of Nature has a power to kill a murderer, both to deter others from doing the like injury (which no reparation can compensate) by the example of the punishment that attends it from everybody, and also to secure men from the attempts of a criminal who, having renounced reason, the common rule and measure God hath given to mankind, hath, by the unjust violence and slaughter he hath committed upon one, declared war against all mankind, and therefore may be destroyed as a lion or a tiger, one of those wild savage beasts with whom men can have no society nor security. And upon this is grounded that great law of nature, "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed." And Cain was so fully convinced that every one had a right to destroy such a criminal, that, after the murder of his brother, he cries out, "Every one that findeth me shall slay me," so plain was it writ in the hearts of all mankind.

Reference: John Locke, An Essay Concerning the true original, extent, and end of Civil Government, 1690, para. 11

edit on 18-12-2012 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by milominderbinder

Originally posted by frazzle
Have you ever done the math on how many murders are committed every day with bare fists?

The FBI did. According the most recent dataset available from 2010 there were 745 cases where people killed with bare hands...and 8,775 gun deaths.





And yet long guns of all types amounted to 300 deaths. Less people were killed by all rifles (AR-15's included) than by fists, therefore, fists are more dangerous than AR-15's and should be banned.

And actually, if you have studied history and philosophy, then you would know that many philosophers and statesmen considered self defense a natural law. The right of self defense is called by Locke the first law of nature.

John Locke (1632-1704)



And thus it is that every man in the state of Nature has a power to kill a murderer, both to deter others from doing the like injury (which no reparation can compensate) by the example of the punishment that attends it from everybody, and also to secure men from the attempts of a criminal who, having renounced reason, the common rule and measure God hath given to mankind, hath, by the unjust violence and slaughter he hath committed upon one, declared war against all mankind, and therefore may be destroyed as a lion or a tiger, one of those wild savage beasts with whom men can have no society nor security. And upon this is grounded that great law of nature, "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed." And Cain was so fully convinced that every one had a right to destroy such a criminal, that, after the murder of his brother, he cries out, "Every one that findeth me shall slay me," so plain was it writ in the hearts of all mankind.

Reference: John Locke, An Essay Concerning the true original, extent, and end of Civil Government, 1690, para. 11

edit on 18-12-2012 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)


Thomas Aquinas:
(pay close attention to the last two sentences.)


“if a man, in self-defense, uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repel force with moderation his defense will be lawful, because according to the jurists (Cap. Significasti. De Homicid. volunt. vel casual.), ‘it is lawful to repel force by force, provided one does not exceed the limits of a blameless defense.’ Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense in order to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s life than of another’s.”




posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by milominderbinder

Originally posted by frazzle
Have you ever done the math on how many murders are committed every day with bare fists?

The FBI did. According the most recent dataset available from 2010 there were 745 cases where people killed with bare hands...and 8,775 gun deaths.


Statistics lie and liars make statistics. Do a search on "beaten to death" and less than the first dozen pages will put the lie to 745 deaths per year. Also, how many gun deaths are perps shot to death in the commission of a violent attack?


However...for the record...I'm not even that worried about "total gun deaths" At least SOME of those "total gun deaths" are going to be rival gang members and whatnot. What percentage? I have no idea...I'm not sure the data exists. But I'm the first guy to say that when one starts running drugs for the Mexican mob...one dramatically increases their chances of getting a bullet in the head and only have themselves to blame.


Yes, and all the gun control anyone could dream up won't stop gang and drug violence. Remember who's guarding the poppies in Afghanistan ...


What I'm a bit more concerned about are LUNATICS who start RANDOMLY PEPPERING A CROWD OF PEOPLE for no reason. Once again...I think "childproofing" the world is a fool's errand...but that doesn't mean we have to EXTRA STUPID about where we keep the razor blades and broken glass.


We're all worried about that. Expect the cops to show up 20 minutes after the victims are dead.



Screw the 2nd amendment, the right to self defense is a natural law. Being hung up on some old dead white guy's words is the crazy part.



LOL. Wow. Just WOW.
I honestly do not know where to start with the ignorance contained in that sentence.

On that note...I think I'm reconsidering my stance slightly. A permit to own a gun should ONLY be give to someone who is able able to pass a high school level proficiency test in History, Western Civ., Philosophy, and Civics in the hope that they might be able to string two sentences together which don't contain four contradictions in them.

....Some things are just too dangerous.
edit on 18-12-2012 by milominderbinder because: formatting


Glad you got a kick out of it. At least it got your attention. Whenever natural rights are codified ~ as for example many basic natural rights are in the first ten amendments, they become subject to revision, redefinition, regulation, limitation and can be totally revoked by the government that codified them in the first place. Check it out ~ without the knee jerk denial of the facts. Most of the first ten codified rights have already undergone revocation to one degree or another, one increment at a time.

Free Speech. Well, if it doesn't hurt someone's feelings or your opinion is spoken in a proper venue (free speech zone)

Keep and bear arms. Well, as long as you jump through the proper hoops of somewhere around 20,000 previous restrictions.

Privacy of your person, house and papers. Well except when someone demands to see them, including your passwords. No knocks and drug raids at the wrong house.

Not to testify against yourself. Well, until they demand to know your income under penalty of perjury.

Speedy trial. Don't make me laugh. A jury? In an administrative court? In gitmo? Ain't happening.

Excessive bail / excessive fines. What are speeding and no seat belts fines running these days?

Some rights to be retained by the people. Which ones? They never did say.

States Rights. Not happening since the civil war and the fourteenth amendment.

And that's just a brief overview.


edit on 18-12-2012 by frazzle because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc
And yet long guns of all types amounted to 300 deaths. Less people were killed by all rifles (AR-15's included) than by fists, therefore, fists are more dangerous than AR-15's and should be banned.


Precisely. And the only thing that nearly ALL of the MASS SHOOTINGS have in common is a rather large ammo capacity and the ability to reload in about 2 seconds.

Personally...I find the length of the gun to be quite irrelevant.



And actually, if you have studied history and philosophy, then you would know that many philosophers and statesmen considered self defense a natural law. The right of self defense is called by Locke the first law of nature.

John Locke (1632-1704) ...


Without a doubt. I'm in 100% agreement.

Yet, this makes the fact that John Locke is an "old dead white guy" AND that the Constitution and Declaration of Rights was inspired in large part by many of the philosophical musings of Locke somewhat more at odds with the other guys statement which that Constitution ought to be simply disregarded BECAUSE it was the words of "old dead white guys" somewhat asinine...correct?
LOL.

I'm all for the Second Amendment. But the reality is that there is not one single person in the United States that is arguing that NUCLEAR ARMS are included EITHER in John Locke's interpretation of Natural Law OR enshrined in the Second Amendement.

Therefore, while the right to "self-defense" is guaranteed by both...it is ALSO true that NEITHER of these two expressly state a SPECIFIC TYPE of weaponry which constitutes meeting the requirement of "self-defense". Likewise...there is no gun store in America where one can purchase a handheld surface-to-air Stinger missile legally. What if everybody in NYC had their Stinger missiles on them at all times on 9-11? They could have just shot down the planes themselves and reduced the death toll, RIGHT? I mean...wreckage still would have fallen and people still would have died...but at least the towers wouldn't have scored 2 direct hits.

If this "logic" sounds insane to you...that's because it is. It's actually far more likely that everybody having a Stinger missile would cause a lot MORE problems than it prevents and probably exceeds what any reasonable person would consider their right to "self defense" underneath EITHER the Second Amendment OR the Natural Law.

So...since it's OBVIOUSLY insane to consider that EVERYBODY ought to be able to have EVERY possible type of weapon they can imagine...the question then becomes "What types of weapons allow one to defend oneself...but AREN'T likely to be turned into a weapon of MASS destruction".

My argument is that civilians ought to need need a firearm which holds more than 6 rounds and we shouldn't allow weapons with a replaceable magazine. It SHOULD take you a little bit of time to reload. Likewise...since The Peasants are disarming...then it is only fair, sane, rational and responsible that the cops ALSO disarm. Personally...I would like to see them lose the chemical weapons, electroshock torture devices, tanks, drones, and riot gear. I'm actually OK with a cop having replaceable magazines as it helps even the score against criminals who will disregard such laws.

However...note that criminals aren't much of problem these days (especially if we continue to legalize drugs). It's PSYCHOS that are the chief concern and PSYCHOS are generally less organized, not as well funded, and less likely to have the connections to obtain a black market arsenal.

Now...the movie theater kid or this nutter in CT might STILL go nuts and start shooting...but in either case SOMEBODY is going to start kicking his ass when he has to stop to reload.

Again...it's not about attempting to "childproof the world"...I'm just saying it's not very smart to store the matches next to the gasoline and dynamite.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by milominderbinder

Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by milominderbinder
 



Really? I thought all that property was stolen by enacting a brutal genocide against the Indians.


And they did it with superior weaponry.

We're all Indians now.


??? Superior Weaponry ???

...yeah...if you think guns were the advantage you REALLY, REALLY, need to go back and do some more reading.

Let me know when you can pass an 8th grade history exam and then we will go from there.


Despite the tens of thousands of Indians massacred by the cavalry and settlers, Custer might agree with you. Actually, though, the west was pretty much won by lies, called treaties.

www.courthousenews.com...

Excerpts from a letter from T. Jefferson to William Henry Harrison re: the Indiana territory:

To promote this disposition to exchange lands which they have to spare and we want for necessaries, which have to spare and they want, we shall push our trading houses, and be glad to see the good and influential individuals among them run in debt, because we observe that when these debts get beyond what the individuals can pay, they become willing to lop them off by a cession of lands.


IOW, tricking those ignorant savages into unpayable debt. Sound familiar?

Insults don't strengthen your argument.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 06:42 PM
link   


Statistics lie and liars make statistics. Do a search on "beaten to death" and less than the first dozen pages will put the lie to 745 deaths per year. Also, how many gun deaths are perps shot to death in the commission of a violent attack?

Read my post in it's entirety. I addressed both of these items already and actually cited it as a reason why I'm a strong advocate of the Second Amendment. Read before you speak.


Yes, and all the gun control anyone could dream up won't stop gang and drug violence. Remember who's guarding the poppies in Afghanistan ...

Gang and drug violence isn't a big problem these days. Violent crime as a whole has been dropping year after year. I really don't think we need to worry too much about "criminals". These mass shootings have a lot more to do with LUNATICS.



We're all worried about that. Expect the cops to show up 20 minutes after the victims are dead.

Which is why I'm a strong advocate of getting rid of the unconstitutional municipal police forces and returning ALL of those services back to the ELECTED Sheriffs department as well as why I'm a strong proponent of Constitutional Carry and stand against the concealed carry laws.

That being said...none of these issues have anything to do whatsoever with the fact that guns have not and DO NOT keep us "free". We are indisputably the BEST ARMED civilian population in the history of planet earth and are also LEAST FREE nation in the history of planet earth in terms of incarcerating it's own citizens.

There simply is NO CORRELATION of "freedom" to "guns". It's a myth. It's demonstrably and mathematically false.




Screw the 2nd amendment, the right to self defense is a natural law. Being hung up on some old dead white guy's words is the crazy part.




Free Speech. Well, if it doesn't hurt someone's feelings or your opinion is spoken in a proper venue (free speech zone)

Keep and bear arms. Well, as long as you jump through the proper hoops of somewhere around 20,000 previous restrictions.

Privacy of your person, house and papers. Well except when someone demands to see them, including your passwords. No knocks and drug raids at the wrong house.

Not to testify against yourself. Well, until they demand to know your income under penalty of perjury.

Speedy trial. Don't make me laugh. A jury? In an administrative court? In gitmo? Ain't happening.

Excessive bail / excessive fines. What are speeding and no seat belts fines running these days?

Some rights to be retained by the people. Which ones? They never did say.

States Rights. Not happening since the civil war and the fourteenth amendment.

And that's just a brief overview.


Correct. One of the great tragedies of our age is that we have lost the ability to discern between "mistakes"/"mistakes that matter" and "reasonable exceptions"/"ridiculous exceptions which are justified by the reasonable ones".

You bring up very valid points on ALL of the items you mentioned. In fact...I would state that ideally we need to sit down and revisit ALL of the first 10 Amendments and have conversations about them like adults. That was the crux of the idea with making the Constitution a living document which could be amended...the Founding Fathers were smart enough to know that the world would change and that if the document was not permitted to flex with the times...it would soon be rendered obsolete.

Unfortunately, we Deified the Founding Fathers SO MUCH and we Sanctified the Constitution to such an absurd degree that instead of sitting down and going through the VERY RIGOROUS process to add an Amendment which FORCES adult conversations...we have instead looked to circumvent the constitution with an endless set of quasi-laws. I'm in TOTAL AGREEMENT.

For example...we have an Amendment to protect against unreasonable search and seizure. It disgusts me that we have simply thrown it in the trash. However...notwithstanding...shouldn't we actually UPDATE that Amendment to INCLUDE things like wiretapping, consumer data, medical records, etc? I'm pretty sure the Founding Fathers would have been ALL FOR that idea.

Likewise...I don't think ANYBODY in the past OR the present would really assume that the Second Amendment ought to include weaponized smallpox as an inalienable right. It's just STUPID...and dangerous...and there is WAY TOO MANY THINGS which are LIKELY to go wrong.

This is why we need to revisit this stuff like grown-ups. The CORE IDEAS are all as valid as the day they were written...but the language used does not address the complexities of our day.

Also note...that I ROUTINELY state that the damn cops are citizens too. Illegal for one...illegal for all.
...and isn't that whats really driving the civilian arms race in this country? Fear of "the other side"?

Yes, criminals will get their guns anyways...but LUNATICS are the problem these days, not mobsters...right?



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by milominderbinder
 



Yet, this makes the fact that John Locke is an "old dead white guy" AND that the Constitution and Declaration of Rights was inspired in large part by many of the philosophical musings of Locke somewhat more at odds with the other guys statement which that Constitution ought to be simply disregarded BECAUSE it was the words of "old dead white guys" somewhat asinine...correct?
LOL.


John Locke was not a delegate to the convention and he was not a signer of the constitution. The following are the old dead guys who attended, debated the articles and clauses contained within and signed it:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Antifederalist No. 1 GENERAL INTRODUCTION: A DANGEROUS PLAN OF BENEFIT ONLY TO THE "ARISTOCRATICK COMBINATION"

www.wepin.com...



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:03 PM
link   


Despite the tens of thousands of Indians massacred by the cavalry and settlers, Custer might agree with you. Actually, though, the west was pretty much won by lies, called treaties.


^^^EXACTLY^^^. It was lies, deception, and divide-and-conquer strategies. In fact...WE INTENTIONALLY ARMED THE INDIANS AND INSTIGATED WARS BETWEEN TRIBES SO THEY KILLED ONE ANOTHER OFF BEFORE we sent in the damn cavalry in most instances. Any good colonial power worth their salt knows that the BEST WAY to conquer the natives is to dump lots and lots of guns into the hands of a minority which feels it has been victimized by a rival faction (whether ethnic, religious, governmental, socio-economic, cultural...whatever) and then sit back and watch the sparks fly. Optionally toss in some exotic trade goods or chemical substances which are poorly metabolized by the locals for good measure.

Why do you think the CIA made Mac-10 was so prevalently referred to in the first wave of "gangster" rap in the 1980's? Because it was the CIA that developed the crack coc aine and dumped the guns into the black community in the first place in order to break up the civil rights movement and ensure that that there were lots and lots of problems in our cities for a long time to come. Generations, in fact.

Also...let's not forget smallpox. The current estimates are that roughly 95%+ of the Native American population died off from smallpox BEFORE THE YEAR 1600. There were ENTIRE TRIBES and even LANGUAGE GROUPS that went extinct WITHOUT EVEN BEING AWARE that Europeans landed on the Eastern Seaboard in North and South America.

You know all of those early reports from the first colonists about how it was an "uninhabited country" and the wildlife and game was ridiculously abundant? Well...in the 1600's there WAS a bit of truth to that. The Native American had just undergone a depopulation event that made the Black Death look like a seasonal flu.

Thus by the time the Indian Wars started in earnest in the 1800's the Native American population was still a shadow of it's Pre-Columbian numbers...even while HORDES of Europeans kept reinforcing the ranks on the other side.

The idea that "we had guns and that's how we beat the Indians" is just plain ignorant.

You know why nobody will ever "come for your guns" and actually REMOVE them from your house? Because TPTB NEED YOU to be afraid of your fellow citizen. They NEED the occasional random Trayvon Martin accident to reinforce those old lines of cultural division. They NEED people to be so scared witless of their neighbor even in upscale, idyllic CT towns that they are pushed EITHER to the extreme of wanting to get rid of all guns everywhere OR give combat rifles to Kindergarten teachers...because EITHER WAY....THEY WIN.

The way you fight this sort of thing is through MODERATION and attempting to DE-ESCALATE the fears on BOTH Team Tie-Dye AND Team RealTree.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by frazzle
John Locke was not a delegate to the convention and he was not a signer of the constitution. The following are the old dead guys who attended, debated the articles and clauses contained within and signed it:


Ummm...of course not. He was dead 72 years before we declared independence. And he was and Englishman. And he never once set foot in the New World.

What does that have to do with anything at all?




posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rikku
reply to post by seeker1963
 



So just what will happen once the threat of the citizens rising up against them is muted???

i think the point of the thread is that you cant keep using that argument as it is an empty threat.



The following article is well written and voices many of the sentiments much better than I ever could

www.humanevents.com...

Quote: Thirteen scholarly studies show that guns are used to prevent crimes and save lives between 700,000 and 2.5 million times each year (depending on study size, time frame and other factors). You could get the book entitled “Armed,” by Kleck and Kates, and read the studies yourself. Why doesn’t the media ferret out those stories and put them on the front page? That’s what you say. End quote.
edit on 18-12-2012 by 727Sky because: intro to article



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by milominderbinder
 


Gang and drug violence will never become "not a problem". Of course REPORTED violent crime has been reduced, mainly because many people don't want any contact with the police if there's a way to avoid it. For obvious reasons. To be honest, I worry a lot less about street gangs and drugs than psychiatrists and prescription drugs. That's what creates these lunatics. Legally.

I agree municipal police forces are now totally militarized and have become localized versions of federal SWAT teams and I agree we would be much better off ratcheting the whole law enforcment crew back down to elected sheriffs. Unfortunately, they also have become another arm of federal policing and people don't have any notion if the candidate's running for office are pro military law or pro people. People are voting blind.

About the only restriction I'd like to see on any person's right to buy and carry is that they ALL must be trained every bit as stringently as is currently done for concealed carry permits prior to taking possession of the weapons. Anyone whose behavior seems "off" during that training should be denied until further evaluation. But I dispute that the second amendment or any of the subsequent laws or an outright ban could keep guns out of the wrong hands.

I also agree with you that guns do not keep us free and yes, its just another myth. We have never been free and we will never be free because too many people just can't get enough of telling everyone else how to live and how to think. Kids in public school can't play tag, for crying out loud? Teachers can't give a kid a hug? Every damn natural behavior that makes us human is illegal or immoral according to someone. It drives people crazy. Then they need antidepressants. That's why our incarceration rate is so insane and we do it to each other, or at least we allow it.

We will never get a chance to sit down and discuss the bill of rights or anything else with the people in charge, just as the founding fathers never sat down with the people of that era and discussed their ideas during the constitutional deliberations. It was all done in secret.

I do agree with you on many of the issues you've brought up and freely admit that I don't have any of the answers to fix them, I just know its always been a top-down-rules kind of world and that probably won't change any time soon. But we do need to talk about it like adults and I apologise for nearly inciting a riot earlier in the thread.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:58 PM
link   
Look at it this way,what makes you a prisoner??Cotton candy and fluffy clouds??Wake up,guns make you a prisoner and guns also make you free by proxy of that fact.What kind of propoganda are you pushing here??

Arm your Police,FBI,Secret Service,Army,Navy,Airforce and EVERY SINGLE militant group the government controls with EGG-SIZED ROCKS and then your idea is worthy because any time the people feel imprisoned by the government they can simply pick up a handful of rocks and regain their freedom.Do you understand this reasoning??I understand yours.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by milominderbinder

Originally posted by frazzle
John Locke was not a delegate to the convention and he was not a signer of the constitution. The following are the old dead guys who attended, debated the articles and clauses contained within and signed it:


Ummm...of course not. He was dead 72 years before we declared independence. And he was and Englishman. And he never once set foot in the New World.

What does that have to do with anything at all?



Not a thing. They discussed all of the great philosophers. And then they wrote the rules. I was just sayin'.


Mostly it just gave me another opportunity to post a link to the research I did on the founding fathers. Fascinating stuff and it was a lot of work to put together so I hated to see it die an early death. Too many people don't even know most of their names, much less who they were.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by milominderbinder
 



It was lies, deception, and divide-and-conquer strategies.


EXCELLENT post.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 08:07 PM
link   
That which imprisons you also sets you free.

Yes guns do make you free.

The day your governments military and police groups are armed with egg-sized rocks is the day you dont need guns any more because to free yourself all you need to do is pick up a handful of your own.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by 727Sky

Originally posted by Rikku
reply to post by seeker1963
 



So just what will happen once the threat of the citizens rising up against them is muted???

i think the point of the thread is that you cant keep using that argument as it is an empty threat.



The following article is well written and voices many of the sentiments much better than I ever could

www.humanevents.com...

Quote: Thirteen scholarly studies show that guns are used to prevent crimes and save lives between 700,000 and 2.5 million times each year (depending on study size, time frame and other factors). You could get the book entitled “Armed,” by Kleck and Kates, and read the studies yourself. Why doesn’t the media ferret out those stories and put them on the front page? That’s what you say. End quote.
edit on 18-12-2012 by 727Sky because: intro to article


Good article. Thanks for posting it.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 09:28 PM
link   
the reason gun owners did nothing is, because most people don't buy guns for offense but defense. meaning that gun owners are not rabid murderous hicks, as the new left likes to portray them. if they were rabid murderous hicks, there would be no new left. they fail to mention this because they learned from the soviets, pol pot, hitler, mao and castro, that if you control the media and educational systems, you can brainwash billions of people to believe totally unsubstantiated nonsense.

that is why gun owners did nothing. they tried to use the voting booth to solve the issues.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 09:37 PM
link   
So in the end the government can start hauling undesirable people into concentration camps but if they wont touch the 2nd amendment everything is ok. As long as they dont try to disarm people they can do whatever they wish. Like assasinate citizens, lock them up indefinetaly etc.





new topics
top topics
 
33
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join