The Question Of Guns Is A Simple One:

(A post of mine that deserves a thread)

I've said it once I'll say it a thousand times.

In an ideal world, guns wouldn't and shouldn't exist - they are a force of destruction after all.

HOWEVER, having said that, answer me this Americans -

"Do you trust your government to have arms whilst you do not have any?"

Especially with acts like the Patriot act popping up..

Thoughts?

Johnny Redneck and his Chewin Tobacco Gang are no match for the US military. There's no "stopping the government" with armed citizenry.

The government has access to nuclear weapons.

Do you really trust them enough to not have some WMDs of your own?

reply to post by DaTroof


Considering you feel so strongly on the matter - What do you think the future has install for a non-armed America?

Why do you think the Elites are trying to disarm the Americans? Do you think any of these mass shootings have been set - up?

Originally posted by DaTroof
Johnny Redneck and his Chewin Tobacco Gang are no match for the US military. There's no "stopping the government" with armed citizenry.

There are two (2) things that, If I were you, I would NEVER do...

1) Try to take "Johnny Redneck and his Chewin Tobacco Gang"s guns away, by force!
2) Underestimate "Johnny Redneck and his Chewin Tobacco Gang"...

I would advise you to carefully consider these...

reply to post by ObservingYou


It's not the government I dont trust, it's the people WE elected. Many of them are incompetent. As far as taking gun rights, we are pretty well outgunned. That semi-automatic assault rifle wont do much against the weapons they have. I think we have a better chance of outsmarting them than we do in an all out war with the government.

reply to post by DaTroof


although that may seem to be the case to many but have you ever read the book David and Goliath? I respect your opinion but i will take my chances give me liberty or death cheesy quote but you cant go wrong with it. and as for the op well its in our heritage to not trust the government and as for the US citizens who have lost sight of that are the true sheep of this great nation.

Originally posted by ObservingYou
reply to post by DaTroof

 

Considering you feel so strongly on the matter - What do you think the future has install for a non-armed America?

Why do you think the Elites are trying to disarm the Americans? Do you think any of these mass shootings have been set - up?

An unarmed America is a safer America.

If the L.A. riots in 1992 didn't push the country over the edge, nothing will. The only thing an armed public insures is that there will be more shootings.

Originally posted by GoOfYFoOt

Originally posted by DaTroof
Johnny Redneck and his Chewin Tobacco Gang are no match for the US military. There's no "stopping the government" with armed citizenry.

There are two (2) things that, If I were you, I would NEVER do...

1) Try to take "Johnny Redneck and his Chewin Tobacco Gang"s guns away, by force!
2) Underestimate "Johnny Redneck and his Chewin Tobacco Gang"...

I would advise you to carefully consider these...

Oh no, I'm shaking.

What are they gonna do, murder someone who tries to take their guns? Nice folks you associate with.

reply to post by ObservingYou

Your question begets another question: Americans feel more justified than anytime since the civil war to support the Second Amendment but a) would armed citizens actively resist martial law and/or gun confiscation in this country? and b) could an unorganized (esp once the control grid is locked down) armed citizenry overthrow a tyrannical government? I realize that the greatest military in the world can get bogged down fighting determined insurgents half way across the world but what about in this country when all assets can be brought to bear (the military as well as those billions of bullets recently purchased by the DHS)? This probably deserves its own thread also but there are too many gun control threads proliferating on the site right now.

reply to post by DaTroof


Funny, how your unfounded and ill-advised opinions, come across as so, matter-of-fact...Let me help you...

An unarmed America is a safer America.

...should be re-phrased to state, "An unarmed criminal element in America is a safer America."

reply to post by DaTroof


And those LA riots happened without the assistance of the Government...right?

Originally posted by GoOfYFoOt
reply to post by DaTroof

 

Funny, how your unfounded and ill-advised opinions, come across as so, matter-of-fact...Let me help you...

An unarmed America is a safer America.

...should be re-phrased to state, "An unarmed criminal element in America is a safer America."

But one doesn't become a criminal until one commits a crime... So, what's your point?

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
reply to post by ObservingYou

 

Your question begets another question: Americans feel more justified than anytime since the civil war to support the Second Amendment but a) would armed citizens actively resist martial law and/or gun confiscation in this country? and b) could an unorganized (esp once the control grid is locked down) armed citizenry overthrow a tyrannical government? I realize that the greatest military in the world can get bogged down fighting determined insurgents half way across the world but what about in this country when all assets can be brought to bear (the military as well as those billions of bullets recently purchased by the DHS)? This probably deserves its own thread also but there are too many gun control threads proliferating on the site right now.

I think that all depends on if any organised resistance can be arranged - and if your fellow police and armed forces rally to support you the people or sell you out.

From my research perspective their are millions awaiting the final conflict between the forces of the elite and us the people - the elite and MSN would have us think we are a minority - we are not! Remember that.

"An unarmed America is a safer America."

IF all were unarmed maybe....but what about your safety if you are an older couple and some young thugs try to break into your home armed with a baseball bat and a machete? That doesn't even address the original intent of the Second Amendment which so many conveniently avoid acknowledging.

Originally posted by DaTroof

Originally posted by GoOfYFoOt

Originally posted by DaTroof
Johnny Redneck and his Chewin Tobacco Gang are no match for the US military. There's no "stopping the government" with armed citizenry.

There are two (2) things that, If I were you, I would NEVER do...

1) Try to take "Johnny Redneck and his Chewin Tobacco Gang"s guns away, by force!
2) Underestimate "Johnny Redneck and his Chewin Tobacco Gang"...

I would advise you to carefully consider these...

Oh no, I'm shaking.

What are they gonna do, murder someone who tries to take their guns? Nice folks you associate with.

Whats funnier is trying to imagine how taking guns away from people would work. Yes there would be shootings as many of those owning guns will not give them up voluntarily.

Joking aside it is a real concern and it's not just "Johnny Redneck and his Chewin Tobacco Gang" that will fight back. Seemingly rational people will turn into rabid constitutionalists. It wouldnt work and it wont happen.

Originally posted by DaTroof

Originally posted by ObservingYou
reply to post by DaTroof

 

Considering you feel so strongly on the matter - What do you think the future has install for a non-armed America?

Why do you think the Elites are trying to disarm the Americans? Do you think any of these mass shootings have been set - up?

An unarmed America is a safer America.

If the L.A. riots in 1992 didn't push the country over the edge, nothing will. The only thing an armed public insures is that there will be more shootings.

That makes no sense.
Sub-par mental health care is what causes this stuff. Not guns.

As i say. If one pilot during 9/11 was required to carry a firearm on the job. we wouldn't have had a 9/11. If one teacher was required to carry a firearm on the job, then sandy creek, columbine, virginia tech, etc etc would not have been nearly as lethal.

Criminals are gunna do crime. Even if you took every single arm out of america. They would still get them. It would actually make things worse because then the demand for black market armaments skyrockets. Thus creating a larger more evolved black market. So then you have 100% of the criminals getting guns illegally and 100% of the law abiding citizens will be unable to protect themselves from those criminals.

Banning guns would just make everyone a target.

And all i see is fear based control tactics.

reply to post by Mike.Ockizard


I wouldn't take this guy (DaTroof) to seriously, he's abeen on a few threads denouncing guns - he has an agenda.

reply to post by ObservingYou

Even if the local law enforcement personnel and some military defected to "The People's Resistance" how would they organize when phone calls, emails, etc are monitored by the NSA? In addition there would be govt infiltrators into these fragmented resistance groups and the technology with gps, drones and hellfire missiles would end much resistance before it had a chance to gain momentum. That would make it a disorganized guerrilla insurrection like in Iraq and Afghanistan.

reply to post by Mike.Ockizard


So these people NEED guns because it's in the Constitution. It's law, right?

So if a law gets passed banning guns, they should fork them over as law abiding citizens. If they don't, they are now criminals in possession of deadly weapons.

So it's not really about the Constitution at all, it's about fear.