Would you give up your guns for...

No.

My rights aren’t up for negotiation.

originally posted by: Tempter

originally posted by: onthedownlow
Guns are for protection, why would anyone ban semi -automatic rifles? The problem here is that your asking the Right to give up a right, but you are only aking the left enforce Federal law. I can promise you that free speech causes more harm than guns, maybe we should give up that right

Finally, someone with an argument.

But what's more important, that you have a semiautomatic rifle or a nation of solidified culture?

You put up a false equivalency.

1. A legal right that is afforded protections in the ultimate set of laws, the United States Constitution.

2. An illegal breaking of a federal law, one which does have legal processes in place to enter the country legally.

So, you are making a false equivalency between a legal right and making something already illegal to be legal.


The ability to protect ones self and family is more important than any compromise. Compromise, of which has happened one-sided for 70 years now...it ends here.

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Tempter

originally posted by: onthedownlow
Guns are for protection, why would anyone ban semi -automatic rifles? The problem here is that your asking the Right to give up a right, but you are only aking the left enforce Federal law. I can promise you that free speech causes more harm than guns, maybe we should give up that right

Finally, someone with an argument.

But what's more important, that you have a semiautomatic rifle or a nation of solidified culture?

You put up a false equivalency.

1. A legal right that is afforded protections in the ultimate set of laws, the United States Constitution.

2. An illegal breaking of a federal law, one which does have legal processes in place to enter the country legally.

So, you are making a false equivalency between a legal right and making something already illegal to be legal.


The ability to protect ones self and family is more important than any compromise. Compromise, of which has happened one-sided for 70 years now...it ends here.

Would you be willing to let me punch you in the face if I promise not to stab you in the leg?
Basically.
Hehehehe

originally posted by: Tempter

originally posted by: onthedownlow
Guns are for protection, why would anyone ban semi -automatic rifles? The problem here is that your asking the Right to give up a right, but you are only aking the left enforce Federal law. I can promise you that free speech causes more harm than guns, maybe we should give up that right

Finally, someone with an argument.

But what's more important, that you have a semiautomatic rifle or a nation of solidified culture?

I dont believe a solidified culture is possible so I'll keep my semiautomatic rifle.

a reply to: Bluntone22

exactly, and honestly I cannot give up my Kimber 1911, nor would I ever consider letting my Glock 40 10mm with red dot go ...ever.

When deep deep in the mountains, that Glock 40 is peace of mind, especially with my 8 year old daughter, hunting with a bow.

Serious punishments need to be handed out for gun crimes.

Taking most guns away won't do much positive, maybe nothing.

a reply to: Tempter

They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. ... People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.

In short, go to hell.

I might’ve said this here. But it’s Worth repeating anyway .

I have 10 guns at home

The government tells me I have to give up eight of them.

How many guns do I have left ?


Yeah that’s right, I’ve still got all 10 .

Nothing short of death shall separate us from our inherent right to tell ET's that believe they can govern the human race to eat copper coated candy. !you #s, may as well just give us the kinetic bombardment now, we will never stop destroying the machines and the soldiers when you try and take it by force.

Kiss your production goodbye too. Keep your paid shills out of our r elections too, had Enough of them. The country can see right through their deceitful ways.

Just keep taking the gold, hydrogen, and other elements from the handful of family bloodlines paying your protection racket and let us handle it the human way. We'll get it right in probably less than ten nukes from now.

a reply to: Tempter

There are already states and localities who have strict gun enforcement.

There are other states who need the guns to maintain their way of life.

Go out and have a ranch or expanse of land with wildlife away from any kind of help, you have to have them.

Why should we ban something because there are some members of society who can't hand life's responsibilities? How many die to alcohol? We gonna go back to banning liquor?

a reply to: Tempter

Do you honestly believe that taking guns would codify the nation? The left is afraid of guns for the same reason they are afraid of fossil fuel and cows. They believe the right is a bunch of backwards bigots that love god and hate homosexuals. Taking the guns is going to correct this? Next they will want to take my religion. Next they will want to attack my sexual orientation. Next they will take my property. Thanks, but I think I will keep my guns

No.

Anyone who would sacrifice essential liberty for the promise of security deserves neither liberty nor security.
~Benjamin Franklin

If the government did offer a deal like this I would be very suspicious of it anyway. I will use Deerfield Illnois as an example of why. Deerfield put up a proposition to ban "assault rifles" within city limits. That sounds good to some people, ban assault rifles. There are a couple of problems though. One is that assault rifles are already banned in this country. The other is that the list of so-called assault rifles included but is not limited to: some semi-auto rifles based on capacity, some handguns based on capacity, some shotguns based on capacity. You read that correctly, semi-auto rifles, handguns, and shotguns on a list of "assault rifles".

This is why we can't have nice things...

Whether law abiding citizens have guns or not, there will still be mass shootings using those same guns.

a reply to: Fallingdown

a bunch more than that here

a reply to: CriticalStinker

/thats my point to a T, bravo

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
Nothing short of death shall separate us from our inherent right to tell ET's that believe they can govern the human race to eat copper coated candy. !you #s, may as well just give us the kinetic bombardment now, we will never stop destroying the machines and the soldiers when you try and take it by force.

Kiss your production goodbye too. Keep your paid shills out of our r elections too, had Enough of them. The country can see right through their deceitful ways.

Just keep taking the gold, hydrogen, and other elements from the handful of family bloodlines paying your protection racket and let us handle it the human way. We'll get it right in probably less than ten nukes from now.

Is this the most ATS-like post ever?

a reply to: BlueJacket

Dig some slit trenches just in case .

There was a reason why the second amendment was attached to our constitution. There is a reason why misguided democrats want to take it away. And it has nothing to do with saving lives. And, has everything to do with thwarting a full blown invasion!! Can anyone imagine all the "who's" that are possible? If all the guns were confiscated globally, and only militaries were allowed, but highly controlled by illuminati figures, the world would be a sitting duck. One world government, and bowing down, to the world's king.... or maybe, "Over Lord"...….

I will never give up my guns,not even if donkey's learn to fly!

no.
I don't think civilians are intelligent enough to understand all the variables.