{Gun Control} Jesse Jackson: “Anti-govt. people” with “Confederate ideology” are Terrorists!

page: 4
12
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cynicaleye
The confederate ideology does exist amongst some gun owners, I have lost count of how many people I've seen on this forum that threaten violence if the Government even thinks about banning some assualt rifles..it's dangerous.



Try reading the Federalist Papers. That's the precise reason the founding fathers gave us the 2nd Amendment. To go after a tyrannical imperial government.




posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by dave_welch
just like I don't need a BAR, but I'd like to have one.



We need to get together and hit the range.

Ohio Ordinance, right?



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cynicaleye
The confederate ideology does exist amongst some gun owners, I have lost count of how many people I've seen on this forum that threaten violence if the Government even thinks about banning some assualt rifles..it's dangerous. Yes, most gun owners are sensible, however there are those who will shoot people if the goverment create laws regulating gun ownership, and this site is a perfect example of that ideology. How dare Jesse point out something that exists, something which is growing and will eventually spill over. Will planes be shot down? I'm not sure, but I'm certain there will be major instances of violence from hardcore gun owners.



Still waiting on proof. This should be a very easy thing to provide, since you know, you have been here on the site for some time now.
3 days and no response.



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 11:48 AM
link   
Just Jessie being Jessie... he was more interesting to me back in the golden days of SNL when he would host occasionally.. anymore he's pretty much irrelevant.



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Cynicaleye
The confederate ideology does exist amongst some gun owners, I have lost count of how many people I've seen on this forum that threaten violence if the Government even thinks about banning some assualt rifles..it's dangerous.



Try reading the Federalist Papers. That's the precise reason the founding fathers gave us the 2nd Amendment. To go after a tyrannical imperial government.


And also largely to defend against potential foreign threats.. as well as Indians, wild life.. etc the size of the country made it impossible for the government to be everywhere at once, there was no massive military back then.. so the right to form militias and defend yourselves was guaranteed.. Never know if the British would decide to return.

But we don't live in those times anymore.. I doubt the founding fathers envisioned the civilian population carrying machine guns... besides Joe Civilian with his AR-15 won't do much to stop a tyrannical government given that the only way the government would attack the civilians would be by way of drone strikes and bombs.. the ground troops would largely not participate because they are our friends and family, brothers and sisters, sons and daughters.. A small pocket might, but the bulk of the armed forces would be on the side of the people... I feel pretty confident about that

So, the only legitimate "need" for weapons like that in my mind is if a zombie apocalypse really broke out or if some enemy of the US managed to knock out our power grids long enough that food and water shortages caused people to turn on each other .. then you're going to need some protection for you and your family and an assault rifle might be VERY useful.

Does that mean I'm for gun control and banning these things? no .. I think it's largely a useless measure.. it won't prevent psychotics from being psychotic .. and a shot gun from walmart would do just as much damage in a small room of people .. even a standard hand gun would... so this kind of law does nothing to prevent disasters like Sandy Hook
edit on 2/5/2013 by miniatus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by miniatus
 


No.....

The Founding Fathers knew that the Govt would become out of control. Thus the 2nd Amendment.
The large ordinance of the time was cannons and cannon projectiles. There is no restriction of those with the confines of the Documents.
Also, with most of the Founders being inventors and such, they knew that technology was not limited to the time nor finite, thus leaving out any mention within the 2nd Amendment that future arms would need review.

They also did not envision people using the internet to exercise their 1st Amendment Rights, yet the internet is all well and good, with the endless amount of crime and filth on it.

Further more, in Title 10 USC 311, the vast majority of Citizens are in the Militia, as stated within the 2nd Amendment.

All able-bodied americans from 17 to 45 years of age are members of the Militia. American women who are members of the national guard are members of the Militia. Former members of the U.S.Army, navy, air force and Marine corps are members of the Militia until 64 years of age. (described in 32-313). The national guard and naval militia are called the organized Militia. The unorganized militia is everyone in the militia who is not in the national guard or the naval militia.


Seems that the Govt has failed to provide the Militia Arms and failed to provide the training to make ready and able bodied.



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by miniatus
 


What machine guns? Civilians don't have machine guns. Automatic weapons have been outlawed since 1934.

And btw, rifles, shotguns, and the like WERE the "assault weapons" of that day. All your points are moot.



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 01:46 AM
link   
reply to post by miniatus
 



But we don't live in those times anymore.. I doubt the founding fathers envisioned the civilian population carrying machine guns..


Btw, following this logic above let me ask you about another Constitutionally protected liberty, freedom of speech..

Should freedom of speech/press only apply to printed newspapers and street-corner heralds because at the time the first amendment was written the framers of the Constitution never envisioned radio, television, the internet, or satellite radio?

Of course not. What the framers could or could not envision is an irrelevant argument. Liberty is liberty.



posted on Feb, 10 2013 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by dave_welch
just like I don't need a BAR, but I'd like to have one.



We need to get together and hit the range.

Ohio Ordinance, right?


Nah, I live in Oklahoma, but there's a pretty decent range in Wyandotte, Ok, if you're ever in the area.



posted on Feb, 11 2013 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by dave_welch

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by dave_welch
just like I don't need a BAR, but I'd like to have one.



We need to get together and hit the range.

Ohio Ordinance, right?


Nah, I live in Oklahoma, but there's a pretty decent range in Wyandotte, Ok, if you're ever in the area.


Oh, no the BAR. Is it an Ohio Ordinance BAR?



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


Oh, I don't have one, just said I'd like to have one, lol.





new topics
 
12
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join