Marked politics..........

Not surprised at all. They took their law abiding citizens right away and we all know criminals are do not following the laws.

It is always better to be judged by 12 than to be carried by 6.
The only way anyone will ever take my guns away is to pry them from my cold dead hands.
Steve

------------------
Technology is great when it works,
and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't.

Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.

[This message has been edited by 84fiero123 (edited 12-28-2011).]

Anti-gun laws let the government control the people and take their rights away. If one can't defend themself from their own government they are at their mercy.

quote Originally posted by avengador1: Anti-gun laws let the government control the people and take their rights away. If one can't defend themself from their own government they are at their mercy.

I dunno about you, but personally I don't think a gun is going to do me much good when they have F22's that can blow my house off the map...

If it comes down to that, I would not be in my house. I would be some where more secure. Also, what makes you think any of the armed forces would attack their own families and friends? When I mention government I mean our leaders and politicians. Our armies are not made out of them, they are mostly us. They also are honor bound to not follow any orders that would be against the constitution. They are sworn to defend it and our nation even from within.

quote Originally posted by avengador1: If it comes down to that, I would not be in my house. I would be some where more secure. Also, what makes you think any of the armed forces would attack their own families and friends? When I mention government I mean our leaders and politicians. Our armies are not made out of them, they are mostly us. They also are honor bound to not follow any orders that would be against the constitution. They are sworn to defend it and our nation even from within.

True, but I suppose it all comes down to how the information is presented to the armed forces. You said it with this line "They are sworn to defend it and our nation even from within.". "If" it threatens the stability of the country, then theoretically it could be viewed as a threat from "within" and acted against.

Curious, who do you think would make that call?

[This message has been edited by Khw (edited 12-28-2011).]

quote Originally posted by avengador1: If it comes down to that, I would not be in my house. I would be some where more secure. Also, what makes you think any of the armed forces would attack their own families and friends? When I mention government I mean our leaders and politicians. Our armies are not made out of them, they are mostly us. They also are honor bound to not follow any orders that would be against the constitution. They are sworn to defend it and our nation even from within.

I would like it to be known that if our army was deployed to rape the citizens of their rights, they would be sent far from home so that when they did have to kill americans it wouldn't be as hard to do because there would be minimal chance of them shooting at family or friends.

I've had this talk with an artillery colonel in the national guard, thats what he told me would happen and I believe it.

Did you know from figures today, Guns were one of the most recieved gifts this holiday season in the US. I dont remember the figure for sure, but think it was like 6 million permits issued since Thanksgiving.

I got a year jump on the guns for Christmas thing. Last year I gave my two sons Diamondback .380's for Christmas and had them get their CCW. Now just have to work on the wife. In PA we now have the castle law which will help with protecting the home owners rights. I have been collecting and carrying firearms since 1975.

Earl

quote Originally posted by Khw: I dunno about you, but personally I don't think a gun is going to do me much good when they have F22's that can blow my house off the map...

Its more complex than that.

I know if they tried this here in America, there would be open revolt. American gun owners would just just go quietly into the night like the Brits did.

quote Originally posted by Doug85GT: I know if they tried this here in America, there would be open revolt. American gun owners would just just go quietly into the night like the Brits did.

That is why the next generation is being trained to accept this and that guns are evil. In 2 generations there will be no 'fight'.

quote Originally posted by User00013170: Its more complex than that.

Yes, I know I simplified it for fun. It was more a humorous reply then anything. Reality is though, while the populace may have guns, the Government has bigger guns. Granted, it would be difficult for the Government to handle a massive scale uprising, but small scale skirmishes? /shrug.

Video is Very old news.... Use search in TOT archives or at youtube....

Gun ban only works for criminals and Governments. Both want sheep to control.

------------------
Dr. Ian Malcolm: Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.
(Jurassic Park)

The Ogre's Fiero Cave (It's also at the top and bottom of every forum page...)

[This message has been edited by theogre (edited 12-28-2011).]

quote Originally posted by avengador1: If it comes down to that, I would not be in my house. I would be some where more secure. Also, what makes you think any of the armed forces would attack their own families and friends? When I mention government I mean our leaders and politicians. Our armies are not made out of them, they are mostly us. They also are honor bound to not follow any orders that would be against the constitution. They are sworn to defend it and our nation even from within.

Yes but you of all people should know that the government is slowly trying to demolish the constitution. But i do agree with you there.... If it did come down to that the american public does outnumber politicians.

quote Originally posted by Khw: I don't think a gun is going to do me much good when they have F22's that can blow my house off the map...

quote Originally posted by avengador1: If it comes down to that, I would not be in my house. I would be some where more secure.

So, ... your cut and paste intelligence is so much more superior to the capabilities of the government's to provide cut and paste material, ?
Are you gonna go to your bunker ? I am sure the government won't waste a bunker buster bomb on you. You might wish their Mom's dead, or call them duche bags.

Guns keep the power with the people, regardless of all the technology the armed forces have, they are a simple techology that every citizen can own and maintain. Even if all the armed forces are aimed at its citizens, the technological advantage though it may be huge in the beginning will simply fall by the wayside as private citizens slowly revolt (using small arms).

Technology takes money, work, and requires constant support to maintain. Who is going to do that? More primitive techonolgies win out over time. It takes nothing for me to maintain my small arsenal, but maintaining a tank, helicopter, or jet is very expensive. Plus you have to train people, groups of them, on how to use it and make sure they are loyal to you.

For you Star Wars fans out there, remember the warning Darth Vader gave his leadership council, "dont underestimate the power of the Force!!!" A single man, committed, even with the most primitive techonology (and religion) can and will win out over cumbersome technologies, even though all the odds are seemingly against it. That's what happened to the Death Star.

Please remember that the personnel in the military are not mindless robots we are free thinking people just like everyone. We know right from wrong. If an order is an unlawful we on the most part not follow it.

quote Originally posted by User00013170: That is why the next generation is being trained to accept this and that guns are evil. In 2 generations there will be no 'fight'.

And, It's already begun. The % of the population that wouldn't raise a finger or a voice against teir govt grows each year, and they won't unless it DIRECTLY affects their own insignificant lives. That "ever decreasing circle" they place around themselves serves to isolate/insulate/ and "protect" them from govt excesses.

quote Originally posted by Khw: Yes, I know I simplified it for fun. It was more a humorous reply then anything. Reality is though, while the populace may have guns, the Government has bigger guns. Granted, it would be difficult for the Government to handle a massive scale uprising, but small scale skirmishes? /shrug.

Oops, sorry

ya, i also think that small scale skirmishes would fail here but a general public uprising could be effective. If things ever came to that.

So how did the government having the biggest and baddest weapons work out for them in Viet Nam and Afghanistan ? Yep, bunch of rice farmers and goat herders put up a pretty good fight with 40 year old weapons.

quote Originally posted by rogergarrison: So how did the government having the biggest and baddest weapons work out for them in Viet Nam and Afghanistan ? Yep, bunch of rice farmers and goat herders put up a pretty good fight with 40 year old weapons.

How did it work out for them down in Waco?

Apples and oranges. A battle would have taken a lot longer. The government screwed up and started a fire that burned them up.

quote Originally posted by Khw: I dunno about you, but personally I don't think a gun is going to do me much good when they have F22's that can blow my house off the map...

It's true the government "can" do that, but a government without a people is pretty useless. The government isn't interested in doing something like that if there's any chance to pacify the populace and keep them working and consuming. Dead people pay no taxes. (although they do vote for Obama)

Trying to pacify an armed populace is much more difficult without resorting to extreme measures that they are reluctant to use. That is the bargaining power civilian firearms give. Look at our military engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan. We had FAR more capability than what we used. We could have wiped Iraq and Afghanistan off the map - so why didn't we? That wasn't the goal. And wiping out the American people isn't their goal, either. It's also why the first thing any dictator or totalitarian regime does is confiscate weapons. It's not so they can win a war against the people. It's so they can take away the people's ability to wage war, even one they'd lose, in order to keep the sheep under control.

It's much preferable to put down a handful of aggressive animals than it is to wipe out the entire herd. It's much easier to control a herd of sheep than a pack of wolves.

quote Originally posted by rogergarrison: Apples and oranges. A battle would have taken a lot longer. The government screwed up and started a fire that burned them up.

It was also a group of people holed up in one location trying to protect it. A true breakout would be protecting entire towns, not just a specific building.

quote Originally posted by Clifw Are you gonna go to your bunker ? I am sure the government won't waste a bunker buster bomb on you. You might wish their Mom's dead, or call them duche bags.

No need to wish someone's mom dead when she is already so. All I need to do is to state the obvious, douche bag. Keep on trolling.
Back on topic.
Liberals Spell Government Control “R-E-G-U-L-A-T-I-O-N”
http://patriotupdate.com/ar...-r-e-g-u-l-a-t-i-o-n

quote What liberals want more than anything else is control. Unable to convince Americans that their political philosophy of unlimited government and high taxation is superior to that of the Founders, liberals want to use government to force Americans to toe the line of leftist orthodoxy. To this end, liberals have learned to spell “control” as follows: R-E-G-U-L-A-T-I-O-N. When it comes to using regulation to control the American people, Barack Obama is an unwavering advocate. No administration in America’s history has been so aggressive in proposing new regulations.

quote What liberals want more than anything else is control. Unable to convince Americans that their political philosophy of unlimited government and high taxation is superior to that of the Founders, liberals want to use government to force Americans to toe the line of leftist orthodoxy. To this end, liberals have learned to spell “control” as follows: R-E-G-U-L-A-T-I-O-N. When it comes to using regulation to control the American people, Barack Obama is an unwavering advocate. No administration in America’s history has been so aggressive in proposing new regulations.

[/QUOTE]

So we should all be opposed to any type of gun regulations, any type of background checking, any gun type regs. Ex-cons should be allowed to buy and carry, nut cases right out of phycho wards should be able to just walk in and buy a gun, even a full auto M16 or whatever. I suppose you'd like to be able to buy an RPG from your local Wallmart since it is a just a hand held weapon.
BTW: We own guns and don't have a problem with background checks and 24 hr etc waiting times. Sorry, but as much as I like shooting, I just can't justify the need for Joe Blow to own an assault weapon. The NRAs anti gun regs position is F^*(- up, but then they don't have to answer to us or even their members, they answer to higher powers with deep pockets, the gun manufactures.

quote topic: How did Englands gun ban work out? You might be suprised.

I'm not surprised at all, for two reasons:

1) When the government makes something illegal, it creates crime, by default. Something that was previously legal is now illegal (i.e. a crime). And people who were previously law-abiding citizens are now criminals. Make enough laws, and everyone will be a criminal.

2) Criminals don't abide by the law. Making something illegal does not stop them from doing it. So weapons bans really only affect the law-abiding citizens... who now find themselves unarmed, and faced with armed attackers. This is simple straightforward logic, which is probably why the politicians will never understand it.

Should I be scared to go out now there is a gun ban...or should I have been scared to go out before the gun ban? When was this gun ban? Why was I not informed?

If anyone wants to check outside to see if its safe that would be great.

My only personal experience of guns being used on someone I know comes from 5 weeks in the US of A. I worked with about 5 people. I heard a few weeks after returning that one of them had shot one of the others and then shot themselves. So that is my little 5 week window on US life 40% of the people I knew were shot. I dare not return as I don't fancy the odds.

quote Originally posted by Francis T: So we should all be opposed to any type of gun regulations, any type of background checking, any gun type regs. Ex-cons should be allowed to buy and carry, nut cases right out of phycho wards should be able to just walk in and buy a gun, even a full auto M16 or whatever. I suppose you'd like to be able to buy an RPG from your local Wallmart since it is a just a hand held weapon. BTW: We own guns and don't have a problem with background checks and 24 hr etc waiting times. Sorry, but as much as I like shooting, I just can't justify the need for Joe Blow to own an assault weapon. The NRAs anti gun regs position is F^*(- up, but then they don't have to answer to us or even their members, they answer to higher powers with deep pockets, the gun manufactures.

NRA does not support criminals or people declared as mentally unstable by a doctor as still qualifying as gun ownership. They also support a reasonable background check and loss of rights due to misuse.

Assault weapon justification? RPG ownership? Who gives you as an individual the right to say what i can and cant have? That is the job of the Constitution to clarify my rights, and it shows no restrictions like this, so i should have every right to own what i want. And i don't have to justify a need.

quote Originally posted by Francis T: So we should all be opposed to any type of gun regulations, any type of background checking, any gun type regs. Ex-cons should be allowed to buy and carry, nut cases right out of phycho wards should be able to just walk in and buy a gun, even a full auto M16 or whatever. I suppose you'd like to be able to buy an RPG from your local Wallmart since it is a just a hand held weapon. BTW: We own guns and don't have a problem with background checks and 24 hr etc waiting times. Sorry, but as much as I like shooting, I just can't justify the need for Joe Blow to own an assault weapon. The NRAs anti gun regs position is F^*(- up, but then they don't have to answer to us or even their members, they answer to higher powers with deep pockets, the gun manufactures.

Its sad that a person believes others should be responsible to defend them. The police are for following up on crimes, and maybe stopping one if they catch it in progress, you are responsible for keeping yourself safe. As for RPGs, in this country canons were legal, and they did have access to explosive rounds. Basically a heavier much slower to reload RPG.
If the purpose of the 2nd is only self defense, then we don't need RPGs.
If the purpose of the 2nd is only for sporting purposes, then we don't need RPGs.
If the purpose of the 2nd is to give the people the ability to overthrow domestic tyrants, then yes we need RPGs, along with belt fed machine guns. Deal with it.

Explosive devices should be locked up at say the local sherrifs office, something out of Federal control and carefully accounted for, training rounds should be readily available though. In the event of tyranny, the ammo should be released to the people. That keeps Bubba from getting drunk and blowing up his ex wifes car. This only applies to explosive devices. Full auto belt fed guns are legal if you have a whole bunch of money and can jump through the legal hoops. The availability of these firearms have not proven to be dangerous the general public.

Please don't bring up the WMD argument, they have no value to restoring the Union, hence not covered by the second.

[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 12-29-2011).]

quote Originally posted by dennis_6: *snip* Explosive devices should be locked up at say the local sherrifs office, something out of Federal control and carefully accounted for, training rounds should be readily available though. In the event of tyranny, the ammo should be released to the people. *snip*

I happen to disagree with that part.

1 - It should be my right to have explosives if i want. Us citizens did just that for a LONG time and you see how many crimes were committed.... Besides the criminals wont lock theirs up. ( now if you want to talk mandating 'safe storage practices', 'restricted areas to use' sure.. )

2 - if the government becomes the threat, why would you want your supply to be held by same government? Good luck with your "in event of tyranny it will be released" idea...

[This message has been edited by User00013170 (edited 12-29-2011).]

quote Originally posted by PK: Should I be scared to go out now there is a gun ban...or should I have been scared to go out before the gun ban? When was this gun ban? Why was I not informed? If anyone wants to check outside to see if its safe that would be great. My only personal experience of guns being used on someone I know comes from 5 weeks in the US of A. I worked with about 5 people. I heard a few weeks after returning that one of them had shot one of the others and then shot themselves. So that is my little 5 week window on US life 40% of the people I knew were shot. I dare not return as I don't fancy the odds.

OPINION by JOHN STOSSEL
April 26, 2007

This past Tuesday the governor of Virginia announced he would close the loophole that allowed Seung-Hui Cho to buy the guns he used to kill 32 people -- and himself -- on the Virginia Tech campus. OK, it's a good idea to keep guns out of the hands of people who are mentally unstable. But be careful about how far the calls for gun control go, because the idea that gun control laws lower gun crime is a myth.

After the 1997 shooting of 16 kids in Dunblane, England, the United Kingdom passed one of the strictest gun-control laws in the world, banning its citizens from owning almost all types of handguns. Britain seemed to get safer by the minute, as 162,000 newly-illegal firearms were forked over to British officials by law-abiding citizens.

But this didn't decrease the amount of gun-related crime in the U.K. In fact, gun-related crime has nearly doubled in the U.K. since the ban was enacted.

Might stricter gun laws result in more gun crime? It seems counterintuitive but makes sense if we consider one simple fact: Criminals don't obey the law. Strict gun laws, like the ban in Britain, probably only affect the actions of people who wouldn't commit crimes in the first place.

England's ban didn't magically cause all British handguns to disappear. Officials estimate that more than 250,000 illegal weapons are still in circulation in the country. Without the fear of retaliation from victims who might be packing heat, criminals in possession of these weapons now have a much easier job, and the incidence of gun-related crime has risen. As the saying goes, "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."


It's true that if gun control laws had been stricter in Virginia, Seung-Hui Cho would have had a more difficult time getting ahold of the weapons he used to gun down innocent students and teachers. But it's foolish to assume that stricter gun laws will prevent maniacs like Cho from committing heinous crimes. A deranged criminal will find a way to get his hands on a gun. Or a bomb.

The sad truth is that if gun laws had been less strict in Virginia, there is a possibility that the tragedy at Virginia Tech could have claimed fewer lives.

In January 2006, a bill was proposed in the Virginia State Assembly that would have forced Virginia Tech to change its current policy and allow students and faculty members to legally carry weapons on campus. Teenage college students carrying guns makes me nervous, but shouldn't adults be able to decide if they want to arm themselves -- just in case? When the bill was defeated, a Virginia Tech spokesman cheered the action, saying, "This will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."

However, one gun rights advocate lamented the bill's failure with chilling accuracy: "You never know when evil will pop up."

Back in 2002, evil arrived at Virginia's Appalachian School of Law. A disgruntled student opened fire on the school's campus, killing three and wounding more. The law school also prohibited guns on campus, but fortunately two students happened to have firearms in their cars. When the pair heard gunshots, they retrieved their weapons and trained them on the killer, helping restrain him until authorities arrived.

There's no way to know whether Seung-Hui Cho's murderous rampage could have been stopped in a similar way, but what's certain is that strict gun control laws do not always have the effect that legislators intend. More guns (in the right hands) can stop crime, and fewer guns (in the wrong hands) can make for more crime. Gun control isn't crime control.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3083618&page=1

quote Originally posted by Francis T: So we should all be opposed to any type of gun regulations, any type of background checking, any gun type regs. Ex-cons should be allowed to buy and carry, nut cases right out of phycho wards should be able to just walk in and buy a gun, even a full auto M16 or whatever. I suppose you'd like to be able to buy an RPG from your local Wallmart since it is a just a hand held weapon. BTW: We own guns and don't have a problem with background checks and 24 hr etc waiting times. Sorry, but as much as I like shooting, I just can't justify the need for Joe Blow to own an assault weapon. The NRAs anti gun regs position is F^*(- up, but then they don't have to answer to us or even their members, they answer to higher powers with deep pockets, the gun manufactures.

It is not an all or nothing proposition. Part of wisdom is to be able to pick and choose and weigh the good against the bad.

I am not against background checks. Any waiting period beyond what is needed to do a background check is Excessive IMO. I am against any gun registration.

As far as which weapons we can and cannot own, I think all small arms should be allowed, including automatic weapons. BTW, you can legally own an automatic weapon right now. You just have to pay a boatload of money and get licensed. The deadliness of fully automatic weapons is so questionable that a lot of militaries, including our own, use rifles limited to just semi auto or 3 round burst.

The "assault" weapon definition is a joke. It roughly translates into anything that looks mean or menancing and has very look to do with functionality. A typical deer, elk or moose hunting rifle is much more deadly than most of the "assault" weapons available. A semi-auto 12 guage shotgun for duck hunting is more deadly than a pump action "assault" shotgun (using buck shot in each of course).