It is with an open mind that I have come to accept that the only way

page: 1
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 09:42 PM
link   
To prevent full blown government tyranny is with an armed population.

I tried really hard to support the banning of assault rifles, but I try to keep an open mind about everything no matter how much of a liberal I might seem. I support the 2nd amendment and we should protect it.

Having said this, I do not support having armed teachers in classrooms. In my opinion a better solution would be to have more security at schools, not allowing anyone inside a school campus without providing an ID and having the doors locked 24/7.

I support background checks when purchasing a high powered rifle. Owning a fire arm is a big responsibility and while it might be our right we should still make sure that only responsible, sane and law abiding citizens are the only ones able to buy them.

I do not support an assault weapons ban. But I do support enforcing the current laws more strictly.

An armed population can secure and maintain its freedom.




posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by muse7
 





Having said this, I do not support having armed teachers in classrooms. In my opinion a better solution would be to have more security at schools, not allowing anyone inside a school campus without providing an ID and having the doors locked 24/7.


I work in a factory that deals primarily with cardboard. The factory runs from 7 to 3:30, and those doors are locked all day. If someone needs to come in they ring a loud buzzer.

If an insignificant factory can do this, then the protection of our children demand that schools do this too.

S&F and a whole bunch of these:



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by muse7
 





Having said this, I do not support having armed teachers in classrooms. In my opinion a better solution would be to have more security at schools, not allowing anyone inside a school campus without providing an ID and having the doors locked 24/7.


I work in a factory that deals primarily with cardboard. The factory runs from 7 to 3:30, and those doors are locked all day. If someone needs to come in they ring a loud buzzer.

If an insignificant factory can do this, then the protection of our children demand that schools do this too.

S&F and a whole bunch of these:


Most factories and office buildings have more security than our schools, 1 or 2 police officers per campus, having to provide ID before entering the campus and locking every classroom door would make a big impact.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by muse7
 


It is with an open mind that I have come to accept that the only way

.....To prevent full blown government tyranny is with an armed population.





Exactly what did you think would prevent it prior to this revelation..?


Owning a fire arm is a big responsibility and while it might be our right we should still make sure that only responsible, sane and law abiding citizens are the only ones able to buy them.


And it's this very subjective slippery slope that prevents any effective legislation or action from taking place.





posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by facelift
reply to post by muse7
 


It is with an open mind that I have come to accept that the only way

.....To prevent full blown government tyranny is with an armed population.





Exactly what did you think would prevent it prior to this revelation..?


Owning a fire arm is a big responsibility and while it might be our right we should still make sure that only responsible, sane and law abiding citizens are the only ones able to buy them.


And it's this very subjective slippery slope that prevents any effective legislation or action from taking place.





You know I tried really hard to believe that less guns would make us safer, but I always ended up asking myself I were home and someone broke in with a gun.

Would I feel safer hiding and waiting for the police or would I feel safer if I was armed?



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 10:00 PM
link   
I disagree If 1 person in a 100 mile radius that is considered the "undesirable" would stop being a part of the system, it would cause more chaos and less death. We as a society dont give each other enough credit for the damage we could actually do.

They dont fear guns.. They fear productive, fully knowledgeable groups of people. Just my 2 cents

Peace, NRE.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by muse7
 


In my school district, the doors to the classrooms are already locked.
Have been for some time.
Not terribly sure, but even a parent is not allowed in the building without an appointment.

Your idea about one or two cops per school is a nice dream....but most cities don't have the money for the cops they have...let alone a dozen or so more......



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by muse7
To prevent full blown government tyranny is with an armed population.

I tried really hard to support the banning of assault rifles, but I try to keep an open mind about everything no matter how much of a liberal I might seem. I support the 2nd amendment and we should protect it.

Having said this, I do not support having armed teachers in classrooms. In my opinion a better solution would be to have more security at schools, not allowing anyone inside a school campus without providing an ID and having the doors locked 24/7.

I support background checks when purchasing a high powered rifle. Owning a fire arm is a big responsibility and while it might be our right we should still make sure that only responsible, sane and law abiding citizens are the only ones able to buy them.

I do not support an assault weapons ban. But I do support enforcing the current laws more strictly.

An armed population can secure and maintain its freedom.


How the fook do we in the UK survive?

I've no idea?

Seriously, I'm actually in favour of bearing arms but assault rifles??????



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 10:06 PM
link   
we should just donate our entire paychecks to taxes and have armed guards on every street corner and in every building... as long as we get government cheese for dinner.

Or we could just move along as-is and wait for the next news cycle.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tykonos

Originally posted by muse7
To prevent full blown government tyranny is with an armed population.

I tried really hard to support the banning of assault rifles, but I try to keep an open mind about everything no matter how much of a liberal I might seem. I support the 2nd amendment and we should protect it.

Having said this, I do not support having armed teachers in classrooms. In my opinion a better solution would be to have more security at schools, not allowing anyone inside a school campus without providing an ID and having the doors locked 24/7.

I support background checks when purchasing a high powered rifle. Owning a fire arm is a big responsibility and while it might be our right we should still make sure that only responsible, sane and law abiding citizens are the only ones able to buy them.

I do not support an assault weapons ban. But I do support enforcing the current laws more strictly.

An armed population can secure and maintain its freedom.


How the fook do we in the UK survive?

I've no idea?

Seriously, I'm actually in favour of bearing arms but assault rifles??????



Rifles have many uses, depending on where you live. Here in Texas I know a lot of people who live on a few acres and have to use rifles to defend their livestock from coyotes and other predators. They can also be used for hunting and also for self defense.

Our constitution gives us the right to bear arms.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by muse7
 


That constitutional right should include the use of grenades, chemical weapons too? Sure arms and weaponry technology develops, your constitution is set in stone from an era that is so very different to the time you live in? Where do you draw the line in what the average American should be allowed to have as 'self defense'?
edit on 17-2-2013 by Tykonos because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 10:19 PM
link   
Increased security is the obvious answer. Banning guns is clear, ridiculous agenda of high-up tyrants, which thankfully most of America sees through.

Obviously a gun needs an operator. People kill people.

The second amendment was placed there especially to stop tyrannic rule. That is the whole point.

They can't even be straight with us on what guns they found at Sandy Hook. However- soon after, the new assault weapon laws/bans come into play.

And if that last sentence is not your cup of tea, then at least realize that gun control is the least of America's problems. Sure, GUN massacres are terrible (sure, especially involving young kids), however- I can guarantee that thousands upon thousands more souls are lost to theft, automobile/machinery accidents, and prescription drugs.

-AA



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by muse7

Originally posted by Tykonos

Originally posted by muse7
To prevent full blown government tyranny is with an armed population.

I tried really hard to support the banning of assault rifles, but I try to keep an open mind about everything no matter how much of a liberal I might seem. I support the 2nd amendment and we should protect it.

Having said this, I do not support having armed teachers in classrooms. In my opinion a better solution would be to have more security at schools, not allowing anyone inside a school campus without providing an ID and having the doors locked 24/7.

I support background checks when purchasing a high powered rifle. Owning a fire arm is a big responsibility and while it might be our right we should still make sure that only responsible, sane and law abiding citizens are the only ones able to buy them.

I do not support an assault weapons ban. But I do support enforcing the current laws more strictly.

An armed population can secure and maintain its freedom.


How the fook do we in the UK survive?

I've no idea?

Seriously, I'm actually in favour of bearing arms but assault rifles??????



Rifles have many uses, depending on where you live. Here in Texas I know a lot of people who live on a few acres and have to use rifles to defend their livestock from coyotes and other predators. They can also be used for hunting and also for self defense.

Our constitution gives us the right to bear arms.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin


Like I say; where do you draw the line in terms of 'self defense'?



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Tykonos
 


I agree with you there, I am from Canada and I personally don't own a gun but most of friends/ family have some sort of rifle for hunting etc, I just don't get the assault rifle thing , I don't think many dear are running around with bullet proof vests on or riding in armored cars...and to my knowledge they didn't have assault rifles back when the Constitution was written . I am against a complete ban on guns but assault rifles just seems a tad over the top.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tykonos

Originally posted by muse7

Originally posted by Tykonos

Originally posted by muse7
To prevent full blown government tyranny is with an armed population.

I tried really hard to support the banning of assault rifles, but I try to keep an open mind about everything no matter how much of a liberal I might seem. I support the 2nd amendment and we should protect it.

Having said this, I do not support having armed teachers in classrooms. In my opinion a better solution would be to have more security at schools, not allowing anyone inside a school campus without providing an ID and having the doors locked 24/7.

I support background checks when purchasing a high powered rifle. Owning a fire arm is a big responsibility and while it might be our right we should still make sure that only responsible, sane and law abiding citizens are the only ones able to buy them.

I do not support an assault weapons ban. But I do support enforcing the current laws more strictly.

An armed population can secure and maintain its freedom.


How the fook do we in the UK survive?

I've no idea?

Seriously, I'm actually in favour of bearing arms but assault rifles??????



Rifles have many uses, depending on where you live. Here in Texas I know a lot of people who live on a few acres and have to use rifles to defend their livestock from coyotes and other predators. They can also be used for hunting and also for self defense.

Our constitution gives us the right to bear arms.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin


Like I say; where do you draw the line in terms of 'self defense'?



The 2nd amendment was not put in place just for self defense, the whole point of the 2nd amendment is to prevent Government tyranny and every law abiding citizen in the US can purchase any sort of gun as long as they go through the proper background checks and pay the required fees.

You can buy machine guns, 50. Cal rifles just as long as you go through the required background checks.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by AsarAlubat
Increased security is the obvious answer. Banning guns is clear, ridiculous agenda of high-up tyrants, which thankfully most of America sees through.

Obviously a gun needs an operator. People kill people.

The second amendment was placed there especially to stop tyrannic rule. That is the whole point.

They can't even be straight with us on what guns they found at Sandy Hook. However- soon after, the new assault weapon laws/bans come into play.

And if that last sentence is not your cup of tea, then at least realize that gun control is the least of America's problems. Sure, GUN massacres are terrible (sure, especially involving young kids), however- I can guarantee that thousands upon thousands more souls are lost to theft, automobile/machinery accidents, and prescription drugs.

-AA


Two different arguments come up in favour of bearing arms;

1) The weak should be allowed to be able to defend themselves, their family and their homes against an intruder.

The intruder will no doubt arm themselves to break into a home knowing the owner has the 'right' to bear a gun.
Okay, I'm actually in favour of people being armed. There is no difference to a person picking up a knife or gun to defend themselves and their family in the event of a home intrusion.

2) The fear of government overtaking peoples rights.

You do have elections or is that so rigged?

What are you and the other people needing to own a gun against your own government doing about that?
If most people feel like that, the government wouldn't survive.

FEAR! That's all it's about

Are you all so afraid of each other you need to resort to high calibar weapons?



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 03:31 AM
link   
reply to post by muse7
 




Having said this, I do not support having armed teachers in classrooms. In my opinion a better solution would be to have more security at schools, not allowing anyone inside a school campus without providing an ID and having the doors locked 24/7.

Yeah they tried that at sandy hook. Strange thing is, it turns out that a gun can actually shoot a door- strange huh?

Another thing is many schools are not the indoor ones you see east of the Mississippi and in movies. Many are wide open with the classrooms being the only thing that is inside.



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 07:26 AM
link   
reply to post by muse7
 



Originally posted by muse7
I tried really hard to support the banning of assault rifles, but I try to keep an open mind about everything no matter how much of a liberal I might seem. I support the 2nd amendment and we should protect it.


I am happy to see you have taken a rational view of this issue.
I agree with everything you said. I don't think armed guards (or police) at a school would be doable or the answer, simply because of current resources. Locked and secured entrances, however, should be very easy to do, and would go a long way in discouraging those who would use our children's lives to gain notoriety for themselves... Securing all the schools would cost some money, but I used to work at Intel and there was practically NO WAY anyone unauthorized could gain entry. If our children really are "our future", as the politicians like to state, then we should actually invest in them, not leave them to fend for themselves...

Trouble is, once the schools were secure, we'd have to do the same for malls, movie theaters, restaurants, and anywhere else that children or the public gathers. Because if Mr. Crazy Pants can't get into the school, he's going to go somewhere else.

The REAL problem is not security or guns, even "assault weapons". The problem is the culture of violence that's revered in this country. That is going to be the hardest (but only effective) issue to focus on, IMO. Banning guns is a band-aid on that particular jugular. To many on the left, who are desperate to do SOMETHING, banning "scary-looking" guns looks like the right thing to do but will have zero effect on the problem - and the politicians know it. A simple ban is just for show. For votes. For selfish reasons...

One more thing that your post illustrates beautifully is that being a "liberal" doesn't have to mean aligning one's self with the most left-wing positions and sticking to them, regardless of rationale. I'm just happy to see another "liberal leaner" who rejects one of the most irrational liberal positions.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Reevster
 


At the time of the writing of the second amendment, the citizens were allowed to own the assault weapons of their day. There was no difference between the weapons of the military and the weapons of the citizens.

"Assault weapons" are nothing more than fancy semi-automatic rifles. Period.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 09:38 PM
link   
The whole idea was to keep power in the hands of 'the people' and 'the state'. We were supposed to be able to take any able-bodied person and with a 'well organized militia' defend the state. By 'well organized', the framers meant meeting once or twice a year to organize, but to ensure the defense did not interfere with normal commerce and other things that people were preoccupied with.

This idea included the benefit of not having to finance an expensive, permanent standing federal army. The Constitution has within its body (not even an amendment) that we are not supposed to have a standing federal army except in time of war and not to extend beyond 2 years without express permission.

The power of an army is supposed to reside within the people or state such that the federal government can never overpower them.

On that premise, there is no limit on the arms any person can own, assault rifle or otherwise. By all rights, any law restricting or limiting arms held by individuals is unconstitutional. This would include taxes or duties imposed on Class 3 weapons, like explosives and automatic weapons. It's a hard concept for most people to grasp, but that's what's in the Constitution.

It actually makes a lot of sense to me. We are experiencing the gradual decay of our country right now because of federal tyranny, whether by design or not. And it's enforced by force, like it or not.





top topics
 
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join