Missouri Joins Wyoming and Texas.

page: 4
41
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Screwed
 


Hope something like this passes...in any state (or did it already and I didn't catch it?) If it does/did, there will be quite a showdown. Which is why they actually pass laws like this. Not because they expect years of enforcing the law - they expect to enforce it once, and then to see it sent on its way to the Supreme Court. What happens there? If Missouri "wins" their case, then it instantly applies to all 50 states. Reasonable minds to figure this out would be better, but this is the other way to go, and it ought to get the job done.




posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by PurpleDog UK
You Americans and your love and obsession with being able to buy an assault rifle and sufficient ammo to take down a small third world country............ Pathetic.... Seriously pathetic.......... Just look at yourselves, the world is laughing at you......


Pathetic is being under the boot of your government every day of your life. Pathetic is multiple cameras on ever corner tracking your every move. Tell me, if it's so safe in the UK, why do you all need that many cameras? I contend that the world is laughing at you, because it is you who are utterly pathetic.

By the way if you want to use ellipses in your posts you should limit them to three. Or you could just use normal punctuation.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by okyouwin
reply to post by Screwed
 


I'm just curious. All this talk of the Constitution. Is this document, that was written over 200 hundred years ago by people who had agendas and circumstances that you can't even begin to understand, the sole inspiration for this adamant confrontation of any appearance of infringement on this perceived right? Or is this something deeper in your own personality.

I certainly don't want to question anyone's motives, but I think some judgements are certainly impaired.

The Constitution is most certainly a flawed document if it's purpose is to maintain the united nature of the states participating in this union. In the short history of this country ( and I hesitate to call this a country, more like a loose affiliation of dominions.) a lack of commitment to the federal or supreme government has been on display often, the most visible being the Civil War. Remember that blood bath? I assume that commitment of Abraham Lincoln to insure the continuation of this union is still strong.

I suggest that the strong individualism of many Americans is about to be tested. I also believe it is to come up wanting. Those who want to defy the national government will soon be identified as enemies of the state and in this conflict power will prevail. Righteous reference to the Founding Fathers and homilies of individual liberty, will mean little in the aftermath of the death and destruction that will ensue.This ain't a game you play in the field with your friends shooting at paper targets. Is the will there to die and have your family stripped of their home and livelihood?

To quote Mr. Heston, " You'll pry this gun from my cold dead hands." Maybe they will. And just maybe It'll be the correct thing to do.



Sounds like you've already decided to roll over and lick the boot of your superiors by your screen name. I just don't understand why it's so difficult for people like you to process the words, "...shall not be infringed...".



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaticusMaximus

Originally posted by PurpleDog UK
You Americans and your love and obsession with being able to buy an assault rifle and sufficient ammo to take down a small third world country............ Pathetic.... Seriously pathetic.......... Just look at yourselves, the world is laughing at you......


Id rather have serfs laughing at me because I am freer than they, rather than be patted on the back by them because I was one of them.


I still find it amazing that you think you are living in a (and i quote) "freer" way than the rest of the world yet most of you haven't even left the USA and seen the bigger wider world out there and choose instead to chomp down another Big Mac and fries whilst sucking up evangelistic religious claptrap and screaming at the rest of the world for being too fanatical.......!!

You dont have to have a gun to be a contrarian and look at Ghandi, a single man who affected change without the need for an AR-15 assault rifle and a squirrel gun.....!

It's the American ''attitude'' which is farsical and pathetic and which non -Americans find hard to understand.

Regards

PDUK



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by PurpleDog UK
You Americans and your love and obsession with being able to buy an assault rifle and sufficient ammo to take down a small third world country............ Pathetic.... Seriously pathetic.......... Just look at yourselves, the world is laughing at you......


"Pathetic"? Seriously? That's the best you've got?



Speaking of
, can you give me a compelling reason why I should give a rat's ass who is laughing at me, whether "the world" or whomever?

I mean, if we wanna laugh, "the world" has some gawdawful funny stuff going on elsewhere, too...




Yes i can give you another reason........... your avatar.....!

Seriously though there is no reason to worry what others think unless those others are a few sandwiches short of a picnic and they are pointing the barrel of a semi-automatic at the head of someone you love and care for........ then there is a reason to worry.....

Regards

PDUK



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Donkey_Dean

Originally posted by PurpleDog UK
You Americans and your love and obsession with being able to buy an assault rifle and sufficient ammo to take down a small third world country............ Pathetic.... Seriously pathetic.......... Just look at yourselves, the world is laughing at you......


Didn't we have to come and save you guys from the Gas chambers? How many in Russia were sent to die in the gulags? Don't confuse yourself friend 200+ million died as a direct result of tyrannical government in the 20th century alone!

Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it!

Gun free zones are targeted because they are defenseless, just like and unarmed populous can be targeted!

In America our highest offices and our main stream media outlets are for sale to the highest bidder! Our goverment sponsors the death of hundreds if not thousands of children in Syria today. Kills children and other inocents with drones daily. Sponsored the killing of tens of thousands in Iraq and beyond. Kills Americans without trial or any type of due process.

White House wins fight to keep assassinations of Americans secret.
rt.com...

Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Mao’s China, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, etc, all contained disarmed populations. The guns were gone, and as a result millions upon millions died!

The Patriot Acts, the FISA domestic spy bill, the bailouts of corrupt international banks, attempts at CISPA and SOPA, actions like the NDAA authorizing the treatment of U.S. citizens as “enemy combatants” without rights to due process; all paint a picture so clear only a one-celled amoeba (or your average suburban yuppie) would not see it. You and I, and everyone else for that matter, have been designated potential targets of the state.

DISARM YOU SAY? I dont think so!
edit on 16-1-2013 by Donkey_Dean because: (no reason given)


Intelligent answer Dean but your comparison with Nazi germany is flawed.....

Nazi Germany was hellbent on invading other countries and enforcing a change of belief underwritten with a sense of creating a ''aireain (?) super race''.... yes they did turn on their own Jewish communities in a terrible way but having every German citizen armed prior to Nazi Germany rising would NOT have stopped WW2......

in the same way, the USA if challenged by another power would not expect it's citizens to fight ahead of it's armed forces to preserve soverienty......unless you have been watching Red Dawn.....Yawn...!

I have been to America many times and still travel there and for all the good in your society there is a HUGE element of criminality and downright stupidness. The prolifercation of guns in that society will always lead to more innocent people being killed.......

is that acceptable in a supposed civilised society.....?

Regards

PDUK



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Screwed
reply to post by PurpleDog UK
 


Yeah, I suppose that there are unemployed people laughing at me everyday as I head off to work.

"look at that loser, going to work all day, chuckle chuckle, snicker chuckle."

" what's he think he's gonna do, get rich and buy everything in the world?...chucklesnicker"

I say, more power to you if you are that happy being unemployed, I'm off to work.
It wouldn't occur to me to give two squirts of piss what they thought of me because I am ensuring my survival and doing the same for my family.

Nor do I give a crap what other people think of gun owners.
Whether you live in the U.S. or another country YOU have a right to be a victim.
I would NEVER want to take that right away from you.
Victims NEED to be victims.
They are victims for a reason.
There is nothing inherantly "wrong" with being a victim or WANTING to be a victim just so long as you don't expect someone else to save you.

I however, choose NOT to be a victim.
THere is nothing wrong with this choice either.
It is simply the way I choose to live.
Just as you have chosen to put yourself in the victim role by disempowering yourself ON PURPOSE,
we choose the opposite.

You have fun knowing that there is NO WAY WHATSOEVER that the citiznes of your country would have ANY WAY WHATSOEVER to defend yourself against tyranny.
Nothing wrong with that.
I fully support it and so does your King or Queen.

I rest a little easier at night knowing that I have a way to resist tyranny.

YOU and people who operate with your mindset CANNOT and WILL NOT EVER be able to comprehend or understand this way of thinking and I know this.

It is like trying to convince a battered wife to leave her husband.
I don't play that game anymore either.
You are exactly where YOU need to be in this grand play.
I would never want to deprive you of your victim status.
And as long as YOU don't try to make ME a victim too then, we'll get along just fine.

The person or entity who WOULD try to make ME a victim would have their work cut out for them.
Good luck.
edit on 16-1-2013 by Screwed because: (no reason given)
edit on 16-1-2013 by Screwed because: (no reason given)



Screwed....(?) I understand where you are coming from....... the ability to fight fire with fire, to level the playing field, to make it a fair fight. Then again is it right to allow everyone that ability in a world where many are unable to make rational decisions or whom have lost sense of reality because they have been spoon fed a diet of cheap news, poor role models and popular culture, bad music and aggressive TV and films....?

You still see your society as the Wild West and not a civilised country in which case keep your guns and blow each others heads off with them....because that's what they are for....

Regards

PDUK



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Scamzarilla
reply to post by PurpleDog UK
 


you are the type of numbskull to bring a knife to a gunfight arent you? myself, i do not own a gun, but ill be damned if the federal government tries to take my rights that were given to me by the concrete bill of rights. not everybody is all like "ooooooh look at my sexy AR, its so beautiful, lets see how many hollow points i can acquire because i am a badass".... well some of us are like that but thats not the point, people have the right to overthrow an unjust government right? well what if you just sold your gun(s) to the government for money like some (sheeple) people are doing now, and the unjust government tries to pull a fast one on you illegally, what are you going to do, let them have their way with you and send you to guantanamo bay to fill your mouth with a c#@kmeat sandwitch, or are you going to defend yourself with your property and your rights? I vote option B you sucker you
have fun being a tool...


Scamzarilla

You are the ''numbskull' - filled with agression and insults and virtually unable to hold a conversation i'm thinking....... it is exactly people like you whom should be denied access to dangerous weapons or even anything sharp or likely to be swallowed and cause choking.......


You don't live in Saudi Arabia mate, you live in America - the land of the free - your mind is so polluted by FEAR that your Governemt might take your liberties away............. for gods sake look around the world..... you and your mates are living in luxury compare to most of the planet.......GET OVER yourself...

Regards

PDUK



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by dreammerchant
reply to post by PurpleDog UK
 


Keep laughing shill! I would try to explain it to you but I'd be a total idiot to think you would understand.


YAWN.............!

rgds

PDUK



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by PurpleDog UK
You dont have to have a gun to be a contrarian and look at Ghandi, a single man who affected change without the need for an AR-15 assault rifle and a squirrel gun.....!


I think he was all over it...





Originally posted by PurpleDog UK
It's the American ''attitude'' which is farsical and pathetic and which non -Americans find hard to understand


As a person who resides in Missouri - I support this measure. It is necessary because the federal government is absolutely out of control. It is for the States to regulate firearms if the people of the State wish it so. The people of NY have voted in anti-gun legislators and made very restrictive laws. I am all for live and let live - if that is what they wish they are welcome to it.

Here the way of life is different and legislators who think it necessary to regulate everything from the size of a soda to the size of a magazine would never be elected to office.

The thing non-American's don't understand is that it is a very diverse country of huge size with distinct lifestyles. We don't all live like they do in NYC. Sure there are houses in the UK older than America is and that makes it quaint. However, it takes longer to traverse most States than it does to cross your entire island tip to toe.

A area that big with large cultural differences doesn't need or want to be homogenized under some central tenants that are not even close to what they believe.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cabalis

Originally posted by okyouwin
reply to post by Screwed
 


I'm just curious. All this talk of the Constitution. Is this document, that was written over 200 hundred years ago by people who had agendas and circumstances that you can't even begin to understand, the sole inspiration for this adamant confrontation of any appearance of infringement on this perceived right? Or is this something deeper in your own personality.

I certainly don't want to question anyone's motives, but I think some judgements are certainly impaired.

The Constitution is most certainly a flawed document if it's purpose is to maintain the united nature of the states participating in this union. In the short history of this country ( and I hesitate to call this a country, more like a loose affiliation of dominions.) a lack of commitment to the federal or supreme government has been on display often, the most visible being the Civil War. Remember that blood bath? I assume that commitment of Abraham Lincoln to insure the continuation of this union is still strong.

I suggest that the strong individualism of many Americans is about to be tested. I also believe it is to come up wanting. Those who want to defy the national government will soon be identified as enemies of the state and in this conflict power will prevail. Righteous reference to the Founding Fathers and homilies of individual liberty, will mean little in the aftermath of the death and destruction that will ensue.This ain't a game you play in the field with your friends shooting at paper targets. Is the will there to die and have your family stripped of their home and livelihood?

To quote Mr. Heston, " You'll pry this gun from my cold dead hands." Maybe they will. And just maybe It'll be the correct thing to do.



Sounds like you've already decided to roll over and lick the boot of your superiors by your screen name. I just don't understand why it's so difficult for people like you to process the words, "...shall not be infringed...".


Sounds like you're about to go over the edge an end up in some federal institution. Boots are not my favorite meal. But you must have some great phobia as they occupy a considerable part of your thinking. A little more acquiescence to you superiors may be in order for you.

Infringe; To break a law. To encroach on the rights of others.

I think you missed that part of the amendment about a well regulated militia.

Regulate: To control or direct according to a rule, principle. to adjust to a standard, rate. To adjust for accurate operation

The right to bear arms is not an invitation to a free-for-all. The constitution is not an immalleable document. and I think you may find that regular street fights of armed insurgents is not something the majority of American citizens are ready to sign on to, or tolerate.

The fantasy land fueled by paranoia, has reached a fever pitch in this country. And to those who, because of some obscene notion of individualism and hubris, would want to recklessly destroy what our unique social contract has created in this country be aware, you will rapidly become outsiders. The law and the majority will be against you, and your days will be short.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Golf66

Originally posted by PurpleDog UK
You dont have to have a gun to be a contrarian and look at Ghandi, a single man who affected change without the need for an AR-15 assault rifle and a squirrel gun.....!


I think he was all over it...





Originally posted by PurpleDog UK
It's the American ''attitude'' which is farsical and pathetic and which non -Americans find hard to understand


As a person who resides in Missouri - I support this measure. It is necessary because the federal government is absolutely out of control. It is for the States to regulate firearms if the people of the State wish it so. The people of NY have voted in anti-gun legislators and made very restrictive laws. I am all for live and let live - if that is what they wish they are welcome to it.

Here the way of life is different and legislators who think it necessary to regulate everything from the size of a soda to the size of a magazine would never be elected to office.

The thing non-American's don't understand is that it is a very diverse country of huge size with distinct lifestyles. We don't all live like they do in NYC. Sure there are houses in the UK older than America is and that makes it quaint. However, it takes longer to traverse most States than it does to cross your entire island tip to toe.

A area that big with large cultural differences doesn't need or want to be homogenized under some central tenants that are not even close to what they believe.



Golf66

I get your thinking.......

I do tend to consider America as a European continent speaking English.............. I agree that there are HUGE cultural differences as in Europe too but I do not see any country in Europe or any group demanding guns as a part of their identity and freedom....?!

Regards

PDUK
edit on 18-1-2013 by PurpleDog UK because: addition of text



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by PurpleDog UK

Yes i can give you another reason........... your avatar.....!

Seriously though there is no reason to worry what others think unless those others are a few sandwiches short of a picnic and they are pointing the barrel of a semi-automatic at the head of someone you love and care for........ then there is a reason to worry.....

Regards

PDUK


Good. We are agreed, then. There is no compelling reason I should care who is laughing at me and who isn't.

By the way, I care a fair deal about myself, and have had "the barrel of a semi-automatic" pointed at my head. From that end, it doesn't look all that different from the barrel of a muzzle loading flintlock - from that perspective, they all look pretty similar. They're all just a big black hole (looks a LOT bigger when it's pointed at you) surrounded by a steel tube.

Oddly enough, that wasn't in the US. Go figure.

Still. I'm curious as to your apparent need to slip the words "semi-automatic" in there, as if that has a bearing. Do you really reckon that when someone is shot, it occurs to them to be more upset that it was a semi-automatic instead of, say, a fowling piece? When one is shot, is outrage supposed to increase based upon how many rounds the gun can fire before a reload?

Should I be happier it was a semi-automatic, and not a full-automatic? Oddly enough, I've been shot at by both, and can't really find a compelling reason to fear one more than the other.

Shot is shot.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by okyouwin

A little more acquiescence to you superiors may be in order for you.



If you acknowledge superiors, that sounds like a personal problem to me. Don't expect us all to fall for it.



Infringe; To break a law. To encroach on the rights of others.


Precisely. As in the current moves to encroach on the rights of others to keep and bear arms.



I think you missed that part of the amendment about a well regulated militia.


And I think YOU missed the SCOTUS decision in Heller vs, DC that clearly explained how that works, and that it is an individual right.



The right to bear arms is not an invitation to a free-for-all.


No, it's not. Neither has anyone said it is. You appear to be fighting phantoms, perhaps another sign of a terrible dementia.



The constitution is not an immalleable document.


Correct again - as far as it goes. You neglected to mention that the document itself has within itself the proper manner of hammering it into a different shape. Presidential edict, nor even new congressional legislation, is not the proper way of doing that. Until the proper channels are plumbed to make the changes, it stands as it is. Until then, it IS an immalleable document.



and I think you may find that regular street fights of armed insurgents is not something the majority of American citizens are ready to sign on to, or tolerate.


And I think you'll find that in the long run, that won't matter. It never has anywhere else, why would it here?



The fantasy land fueled by paranoia, has reached a fever pitch in this country. And to those who, because of some obscene notion of individualism and hubris, would want to recklessly destroy what our unique social contract has created in this country be aware, you will rapidly become outsiders. The law and the majority will be against you, and your days will be short.


SOMEONE'S days will be short, that's for sure! I submit that the "reckless destruction" you speak of is coming entirely from the other side of the fence, an attempt to finish off a country that has made it so far for over 200 years. Which "social contract" are you referring to? It must be something new, a part of the destructive forces. It certainly bears no resemblance to the "social contract" in the country I grew up in.


edit on 2013/1/18 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by PurpleDog UKI agree that there are HUGE cultural differences as in Europe too but I do not see any country in Europe or any group demanding guns as a part of their identity and freedom....?!


I did an exchange in England when I was on active duty. Specifically, I was involved in training SAS candidates during the Survive, Evade, Resist, Extract 4 week phase of their training. I mostly did the R2I portion. I had an offical residence at Chicksands outside Bedford but I wasn't really there much - mostly traveling about.

Anyway, it is American rural culture - I grew up with firearms. Learning to shoot and handle them safely at a very young age. Europe is so densely populated that hardly anyone grows up living the way we do out here.

We have as heroes Wyatt Earp, Doc Holiday - a gun and freedom in America are the same to most people. That is changing of course as the people gravitate to the cities. What we are having here is a culture war - urban vs. rural. The urban folks outnumber the rural of course which means the national level meme is for restriction of guns as urban dwellers associate firearms with crime, criminals the military and police. While we rural Americans associate firearms with freedom, hunting, self defense, a hobby and or sport.

The two ideologies are colliding - the difference is the rural folks don't want to dictate to the urban dwellers how they should live. If the people of NY are happy to vote in legislators who limit their rights more power to them I don’t live there. However, they want to force everyone in America to live under their ideal restrictions even if we do not share the same problem sets.

Everyone, and I mean everyone I know has more than one firearm. Most carry one daily and in the county in which I reside we have had one gun crime in the last 3 years... Why should we give up our rights because some ass hats in NY, Chicago and LA can't handle the balance of population density and law enforcement.

We are doing ok with self governance - we have different values, period. We don't have their problems, we don't need their solutions. There is no need for a national solution to what is a localized problem. If a State, City or County has a problem the best way to solve it is locally.

National laws are about one of two things:

1. Getting some attention and making a name for one’s self by advancing an agenda so that you can gain enough support to either stay in office, get in office or get another office with more power.

2. To gain the influence to court more campaign donations from groups and individuals who share your values and think they know what is best for others without regard to the differences in problem sets. The way to show you can get things done if you already have the laws in your dstrict is to force them on others in different districts. I mean if they work in urban NY surely they will work in rural Missouri?

Seldom is it at all about concern or solutions.

The federal government and the men who run it seek to homogenize America though law so that regardless of which State one chooses to reside there is no relief from their agenda.

They want to make each location a mini-me of thier own district.

They want to be able to control it from one place. I mean after all these are people who think they know whats best for you more than you do.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by PurpleDog UK
 


It seems like you aren't getting many stars there bud, could it be you are on the wrong BLOODY site?
Why don't you quit trolling and find a leftest UK site where you will feel more at home on?
I like the Brits, but in your case I will make an exception!



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Golf66

Originally posted by PurpleDog UK
You dont have to have a gun to be a contrarian and look at Ghandi, a single man who affected change without the need for an AR-15 assault rifle and a squirrel gun.....!


I think he was all over it...






i'd like to point something out, he was not talking about personal arms, but armed forces during worldwar 1. he was hoping that if the british saw how well the indian people fought for the british they might give india independence.
the british basically left them defenseless during ww1 and wouldn't let them fight. also this was before his pacifist movement and is thought to have been a catalyst of it.

it is basically taken out of context since he at no other point promoted the idea of arms in his writings, he was a pure pacifist and didn't believe anyone needed guns.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 10:44 PM
link   
I wonder if the gun loonies from more modern states will move out to these caveman states? God I hope so.



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 12:06 AM
link   
reply to post by PurpleDog UK
 


All you have to understand, assuming you really WANT to understand our mindset and I have no doubt you do, is that GUNS are great for all sorts of things and are fun no doubt BUT our second ammedment was not written to make sure we all have the ability to hunt or target practice.

We have the 2nd ammendment so that we are able to defend ourselves against tryrrany.
This is WAAAYYYYYY more important than a couple dozen dead kids.

YES!!!!!!!
I said it and I meant it!!!!

Our entire country and our collective freedoms and liberties are worth far more to ME than the lives of a couple dozen dead children and those same liberties and freedoms are worth far more to ME than 100s upon hundreds of dead children.

I will NOT give up the freedoms given to me by my creator and spelled out in my constitution for ANY amount of dead kids!

You WILL NOT get me to cower in fear no matter how many kids our government decides to kill in order to get us to give up.

Kill them all, I WILL NOT give up an inch more.

Because,
If we do?

If we DO give up our guns, you think 20 dead kids upset you?
You aint seen nothin yet.
If we give up our guns you will see more death than youur worst nightmares could possibly provide you with.

Promise.
edit on 19-1-2013 by Screwed because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by okyouwin

A little more acquiescence to you superiors may be in order for you.



If you acknowledge superiors, that sounds like a personal problem to me. Don't expect us all to fall for it.



Infringe; To break a law. To encroach on the rights of others.


Precisely. As in the current moves to encroach on the rights of others to keep and bear arms.



I think you missed that part of the amendment about a well regulated militia.


And I think YOU missed the SCOTUS decision in Heller vs, DC that clearly explained how that works, and that it is an individual right.



The right to bear arms is not an invitation to a free-for-all.


No, it's not. Neither has anyone said it is. You appear to be fighting phantoms, perhaps another sign of a terrible dementia.



The constitution is not an immalleable document.


Correct again - as far as it goes. You neglected to mention that the document itself has within itself the proper manner of hammering it into a different shape. Presidential edict, nor even new congressional legislation, is not the proper way of doing that. Until the proper channels are plumbed to make the changes, it stands as it is. Until then, it IS an immalleable document.



and I think you may find that regular street fights of armed insurgents is not something the majority of American citizens are ready to sign on to, or tolerate.


And I think you'll find that in the long run, that won't matter. It never has anywhere else, why would it here?



The fantasy land fueled by paranoia, has reached a fever pitch in this country. And to those who, because of some obscene notion of individualism and hubris, would want to recklessly destroy what our unique social contract has created in this country be aware, you will rapidly become outsiders. The law and the majority will be against you, and your days will be short.


SOMEONE'S days will be short, that's for sure! I submit that the "reckless destruction" you speak of is coming entirely from the other side of the fence, an attempt to finish off a country that has made it so far for over 200 years. Which "social contract" are you referring to? It must be something new, a part of the destructive forces. It certainly bears no resemblance to the "social contract" in the country I grew up in.


edit on 2013/1/18 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)


Superiors. I suppose You don't have any. Or at least haven't met one that you acknowledge.But I assure you they are out there and you very well could meet them some day under the most unpleasant circumstances. That you believe you have no superiors speaks volumes of you character, and you may consider this to be a good thing..

No one wants to infringe on your right to bear arms, but the American majority are about ready to set some limits on how and under what circumstances this right is to be enjoyed

I understand there are procedures outlined for changing the constitution, and I can assure you that at the first volley fired to destroy the "phantom" agenda to end liberty. this process will be implemented at great speed. You don't see how you are creating your own doom.

Never mattered before? Rebellions have a particular flavor. Religious zealotry is very popular. Oppressive dictatorships is common. But not being allowed to have a hundred round clip for my Ar? This is not going to get much popular backing. If the shooting starts, the perpetrators and sympathizers will be found and neutralized.

Is a nations response to senseless slaughter that repeats itself with increasing regularity, a slaughter made possible by specialized tools of destruction that by all reasonable standards should have some kind of control, an impetus or reason to go forward with the delusional tantrum you propose? This is a question you may wish to consider.. Your argument and position becomes more powerful if you extend a hand to reason.

SOMEONE'S days will be short, that's for sure! So true. I think that's inevitable at this point.Where it leads can be a dark dangerous place.

I find it ironic. This debate is now ignited by the acts of those in a delusional reality state, preforming some necessary task in a false but compelling circumstance, and any rebellion will come from a mood originated in a cloud of speculation, rumor, and unsubstantiated reports that has achieved some measure of reality. See any similarities?





 
41
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join