February 1, 2013

Gun Control

Real men, like this, are helping me restore my beliefs in most of us, and makes me very proud to be an American. I cannot stress hard enough for people to wake up, get involved, and to fight for our rights; to defend our Constitution, before these professional politicians take away our RIGHT to defend our own homes. Bill Stevens should run for congress, at the very least.




But do you see what they are trying to propose!!!!??? Any gun, shooting more than ONE ROUND, is to be outlawed!! We understand that any damage that has been done, or will be done, can be reversed with a new group we vote in, but that takes time. We will not allow some 550+ guypeople in the branches of our government to simply take America hostage, and disarm us. But, these gun control proposals should not even be considered by these people, EVER! We have learned from our past that THIS path they are on, is the wrong one.

Just remember that the police are glorified report takers, to a degree. They only can do so much after the fact. How many rapes, murders, break in, or attacks have been stopped by the police? Hardly any, if not zero. That is why the police, themselves, have armed their own family members at their home. I am not actually worried that much, as we have some very sound and logical people anumbers Americans, that I am certain will voice their concerns and voting rights, to vote in better people then some of the failure that is in office now.




"Surely oppression maketh a wise man mad" ~Ecclesiastes 7:7

We owe it to each other as American citizens to protect one another, no matter what ANYONE says.



 "To conquer a nation, one must first disarm its citizens" - Adolf Hitler (?)

This is now reminding me of an older post... We can do better than this.

“When it gets down to having to use violence, then you’re playing the system’s game. The establishment will irritate you, pull your beard, flick your face to make you fight. Because once they’ve got you violent, then they know how to handle you. The only thing they don't know how to handle is non-violence and humor." ~John Lennon

"No one has greater love than this, that someone would lay down his life for his friends." ~ John 15:13

UPDATE:





bit.ly/Guncontrol

74 comments:

  1. Oh dear, Dan is now misquoting Hitler.

    http://www.newsday.com/opinion/viewsday-1.3683911/misinformation-did-hitler-say-one-must-first-disarm-citizens-to-control-a-nation-1.3864911

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow, who is assuming now?

      From YOUR link: " It’s hard to prove a negative. Hitler may have said this."

      From what I read, he might have. Even if he didn't, guess what he did? He disarmed his citizens, silly.

      Delete
    2. No, 'silly', he disarmed the Jews, he actually RELAXED gun controls for German citizens.

      There is no evidence AT ALL that Hitler said this, so it should not be attributed to him.

      Why is it you lot are incapable of fact checking? Read this, then correct your article - http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/stop_talking_about_hitler/?/2013/01/11/stop_talking_about_hitler/?source=newsletter

      Delete
  2.      I tend to go with the idea that government is needed but not to be trusted. It should always be possible for the people to rise up and overthrow a government when it acts against the people. Now it's interesting that, according to the bible, your god sets himself up as government to serve only his own pleasure -- even if you call it "glory."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Bible also states that good christians should accept whatever government is in power, as supposedly YHWH puts those rulers in their positions.

      Delete
    2. Wrong again. God granted governments to serve Him combating evil, not be evil silly.

      Delete
    3. I'm not too sure about that. What about 1 Peter 2:13 - 18?

      Delete
    4. Seems to me that Fake Christian Dan doesn't know his Bible.

      Delete
    5. Thats rich. An angry atheist who pretends to quit blogging because he doesn't want to be famous for being a angry atheist tells Dan he's a fake Christian. But angry atheist's always wrong about everything, so he wont' start being right now.

      Delete
    6. Thats rich. An angry atheist who pretends to quit blogging because he doesn't want to be famous for being a angry atheist tells Dan he's a fake Christian
      You don't understand "irony".

      Delete
  3. Did you know Jesus was a founding member of the NRA? He didn't say turn the other cheek; he said pack an extra magazine.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He certainly did. Luke 22:35-38

      Delete
    2. Yeah, Dan, and what's the context? That's right, he was telling them to get swords so that prophesy might be fulfilled, not to shoot burglars.

      Delete
    3. Alex, context doesn't matter when a Christian quotes the bible. It only matters when a non-Christian does it.

      You should know that! :-)

      Delete
  4. You know, Canada and the European countries have way stricter gun control laws, and we also have proportionally way less gun crimes.

    Anyone care to explain?

    You americans are so bloody gung-ho in your gun culture you just can't seem to see the consequences even when they keep happening in your schools, theatres, malls, etc.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, because unlike you and the people in the UK, we do not tolerate tyrannical governments. We fought against the King of the UK they willingly give their guns to. It is how we started, in a battle against tyranny, evil, with our lives. Real men protect their families. You're unable to.

      Delete
    2. Dan, Dan, Dan, we didn't have guns in the first place, so we could hardly have 'willingly' given our guns up!

      Do you get all of your information from other Christians, and/or right wing nutcases?

      Delete
    3. Oh yeah...Canada and the UK have gov't that are widely recognized as being tyrannical and oppressive.

      As for fighting against the king of the UK: You people went against your own bible to do so, as I mentioned once before in a different post.

      Real men protect their families. You're unable to.
      I always thought that real men were able to act civilized and work things out without having to constantly resort to brainless violence. American Civil War, anyone?

      Or hell: Any of the many, many, many wars the states are always jumping into.

      Delete
    4. Your conclusion is a non sequitur. Compare Russia and Finland for a counter example. Russia has a murder rate of 20.54 per 100,000 in 2002, with 4,000 guns per 100,000. Finland is 1.98 per 100,000 in 2004, with 39,000 guns per 100,000. There is clearly no positive correlation between gun proliferation and homicide. That being said, I think there is some evidence to support a correlation between religiosity and crime in general. The nations you mention are some of the least religious on the planet. If one is credulous enough to believe religious nonsense, then one has already surrendered the faculty of reason that prevents people from wanting to commit crimes in the first place.

      Delete
  5. Reynold:

         Are you saying that total crime is lower in Canada and the UK? Or are you just cherry-picking a microcategory that suits your purposes?

         Let me explain why a lot of countries have strict gun control laws and the rest are trying to put them in place. It's not about crime. The governments don't care about that. It's about the possibility of an uprising. Once citizens around the globe are unarmed, all remaining governments can eliminate this farce of elections, inform the general public that they are now all serfs, and remind them that -- if they don't like it -- the militaries are still armed and loyal to the powers-that-be.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I said right off the bat: "gun crimes". Mind you...from what I've read, it does pertain to other kinds of crime too, like murder, etc.

      I should have mentioned that first. Still, the facts remain:

      Those are stable democracies, not dictatorships who are afraid of their own civilians.

      And yes, the proportional deaths due to guns are way sodding less than in the states. You people are killing each other with guns it seems, almost every fucking week now.


      Would you care to elaborate on just what "my purposes" could possibly be?

      Delete
    2. pvblivs, what evidence do you have that governments will eliminate elections, etc?

      Delete
  6. This is fun: Dan and pvblivs are on the same side for once!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We agree on more than you think, but that is not the point. He is right, guns are for protection FROM governments that overstep their authority, authority we give them, as that second video states. Also, I cannot think of a better way to protect the innocent from evil doers. I much rather face 12 strangers as peers, in a court, than face 6 friends as my pallbearers.

      The entire Bible is about fighting, resisting, evil. To say we are to NOT resist evil governments is not only against God, but against our entire Constitution. So it is unchristian but also unamerican.

      I just started reading a book called "God and Government" by Gary DeMar that I believe makes that case thoroughly.

      Delete
    2. DAN: To say we are to NOT resist evil governments is not only against God,
      According to the Paul, governments are of god:
      Romans 13:1-2 "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
      Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation."


      So, it is indeed unbiblical to resist a government :-)

      Delete
    3. Havok, right wing Christians ignore those verses.

      Delete
    4. Cafeteria Christians the lot of them! :-)

      Delete
    5. To be fair, as his failure to give me £1000 when I asked him directly for it shows, Dan isn't a Christian at all....which probably explains this blog - the atheist he's debunking constantly is himself, by posting utter gibberish that does nothing but undermine the points he thinks he's making.

      Debunking Dan the Atheist. If only he'd accept the valid, sensible points of his fellow unbelievers, then he could move on from his endless self debunking.

      Delete
  7. The entire Bible is about fighting, resisting, evil.
    No. It's about obeying god, even when he says to kill people, including babies.

    To say we are to NOT resist evil governments is not only against God,...
    1 Peter 2:13-18

    Ecc 10:20
    Curse not the king, no not in thy thought; and curse not the rich in thy bedchamber: for a bird of the air shall carry the voice, and that which hath wings shall tell the matter.


    ...but against our entire Constitution. So it is unchristian but also unamerican.
    If you religious right types actually gave a damn about your own constitution there would be no gov't subsidized "faith-based" crap out there, churches would pay taxes, and there'd not be this constant fight going on about religious symbols placed on gov't property, or in public schools, etc.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If they gave a damn about their bible, they wouldn't be praying in public, they'd be giving away all of their possessions, etc.

      Delete
    2. A truly moral person would do what’s right even if God himself told them to wrong. That‘s why Huckleberry Finn is a better moral exemplar than Abraham.

      Delete
    3. God cannot contradict his nature and character, therefore cannot do evil, so you're being nonsensical as far as that goes. You're also appealing to an absolute moral standard, or law, to make such a claim. In other words, you're abandoning your atheism, and borrowing from my worldview, to make that claim. Nice.

      Delete
  8. Havoc:

         Do you dispute that people in power like to stay in power? Elections tend to interfere with that. Those in power that can get away with it deny elections. It's so much easier just to gun down protesters -- unless the people are armed or can appeal to someone who is.
         Both the Revolutionary War and the American Civil War were about a group of people wanting to detach themselves from the existing powers and the existing powers wanting to force them to continue under their rule. Do you think that has changed? Here's a hint: Some states have petitioned for a peaceful detachment. Obama said no.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you dispute that people in power like to stay in power? Elections tend to interfere with that.
      There are certainly other concerns which are relevant here. For instance, the means to actually stay in power are likely to be rather distasteful to the majority of politicians (at least in Australia, where I am).

      Do you think that has changed? Here's a hint: Some states have petitioned for a peaceful detachment. Obama said no.
      A few disgruntled wingnuts in some states, upset at not getting their way, have petitioned for a secession. I'm not aware of any real movement to do this.

      People are not mindless automatons, politicians aren't about retaining power at any cost, and the defense forces in the countries we're talking about are highly unlikely to blindly follow orders to kill their countrymen.

      Delete
  9. Reynold:

         Dan does not decide my beliefs either in the sense of my agreeing with everything he says or in the reverse sense of my believing the opposite of everything he says. Despite what certain idiots think (shout out to Norman) I do not wait to find out what the christian thinks just to disagree with him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I never said he did. I just find it comical to find you guys on the same page about something. Usually, you are going hammer-and-tongs at each other.

      Not that I don't go after him myself mind you, I just find it amusing, that's all.

      Delete
  10. Havoc:

         "A few disgruntled wingnuts" may well be representative of the states as a whole. Our founding fathers were also "a few disgruntled wingnuts upset that they didn't get their way." Obama did not suggest putting it to a vote of the states as wholes and that he would respect any full state that wished to secede. He said that all states must remain whether they like it or not.
         "and the [military] forces in the countries we're talking about are highly unlikely to blindly follow orders to kill their countrymen."
         The Milgram study would tend to contradict you -- even ignoring the fact that soldiers that question orders are ejected until only the obedient remain. That is the military mindset -- that orders are orders and orders are to be followed. If they are told to kill some of their countrymen organized in a protest, then they must be "dangerous insurgents." There might be some resistance if a soldier's immediate family is involved. But I wouldn't bet on it.
         By the way: They are not "defense forces." They are military forces. There is no need to sugarcoat.

    Reynold:
         I know you didn't claim that Dan decided all my opinions for me. But I also remembered that Norman did make such a claim. My reaction was more of a "why should it be funny? he just found a topic on which we agree."

    ReplyDelete
  11. "A few disgruntled wingnuts" may well be representative of the states as a whole.
    It wouldn't seem so, since I'm not aware of any states where Romney had a massive majority in the election.

    Our founding fathers were also "a few disgruntled wingnuts upset that they didn't get their way."
    The founding fathers seemed to care about facts and reality. The current crop of wingnuts, those who appeared to be behind the secession petitions (like tea partiers) are notorious for their denial of any facts about reality that they don't like.

    Obama did not suggest putting it to a vote of the states as wholes and that he would respect any full state that wished to secede.
    Surely it would be up to the state to decide if it wanted to seceed, rather than a couple of wingnuts?
    Why should the national government care about what seems obviously a rather small fringe group?

    He said that all states must remain whether they like it or not.
    Is succession catered for in the constitution? Not being from the US, I'm probably not as familiar with it as you. If not, then it seems that the Obama government's statement is correct.
    The Milgram study would tend to contradict you -- even ignoring the fact that soldiers that question orders are ejected until only the obedient remain.
    The Milgrom experiments ewre of a single person. While groups can also behave like this, the exceptional circumstances we're talking about, coupled with the amount of time the soldiers would have between hearing orders and having to carry them out, would lead to massive amounts of desertion.
    You really think US soldiers, who have it drilled into them that they're protecting US citizens, would simply start killing US citizens?

    That is the military mindset -- that orders are orders and orders are to be followed.
    Soldiers are also people. If you hear orders that will lead you to be firing upon friends and family, all because some politician wants to stay in power, do you think that you'd follow them without question?

    If they are told to kill some of their countrymen organized in a protest, then they must be "dangerous insurgents." There might be some resistance if a soldier's immediate family is involved. But I wouldn't bet on it.
    I would. Especially if the soldiers knew that the "dangerous insurgents" were not armed (your scenario is of the populace having restricted gun ownership, after all).

    By the way: They are not "defense forces." They are military forces. There is no need to sugarcoat.
    I didn't think "defence force" was sugar coating.

    You also seem to be underestimating one factor that would likely prove to undermine your claims - the opposition politicians. Why would the democrats support the Republicans in gainging absolute power in the US? Why would the Republicans support the Democrats in the same? While politicians do want to remain in power, those who are not in power want to gain it. This surely provides a rather strong reason to think that your scenario is unlikely in the extreme? (expecially as it has not happened in nations which DO have strict gun control laws, which have not ended up as dictatorships).

    ReplyDelete
  12.      "The founding fathers seemed to care about facts and reality. The current crop of wingnuts, those who appeared to be behind the secession petitions (like tea partiers) are notorious for their denial of any facts about reality that they don't like."
         Perhaps. But as history is written by the winners, the view may be a little distorted. Certainly, if England had won, the same description would be applied to "those reality-denying rebels."
         "Is succession catered for in the constitution?"
         About as much as it was approved of by George III -- which is to say not at all. But actually the Second Amendment was some protection. It intended that the people could fight off a tyranny. And politicians have been trying to dismantle it ever since.
         "The Milgrom experiments ewre of a single person."
         I am sorry that you think there was only one person who behaved like this.
         "Soldiers are also people. If you hear orders that will lead you to be firing upon [complete strangers,] all because [you are told they are dangerous lawbreakers with improvised weapons,] do you think that you'd follow them without question?"
         I fixed your question for you. I don't think there is a single soldier that would resist the order. As a practical matter, soldiers would not be dispatched to their home states and they would not be told that it was because someone wanted to stay in power. And I think you know this.
         "I would. Especially if the soldiers knew that the 'dangerous insurgents' were not armed (your scenario is of the populace having restricted gun ownership, after all)."
         They would only know that these people did not have traditional guns. Obviously the soldiers to use their guns to prevent these terrorists from attacking all those people who are not part of the protest with their improvised weaponry. You can never know that someone is unarmed. You can only know that they don't have access to certain types of manufactured weapons. Too many things can be used to improvise weapons. They might not be terribly useful against the equipment that soldiers have. But they can still kill a lot of unarmed people.
         "I didn't think 'defence force' was sugar coating."
         So you thought invading other nations unprovoked was an act of "defense"? They call it the "defense department" because it sounds better than "war department." And I suppose they fool a lot of people.
         "You also seem to be underestimating one factor that would likely prove to undermine your claims - the opposition politicians. Why would the democrats support the Republicans in gainging absolute power in the US? Why would the Republicans support the Democrats in the same? While politicians do want to remain in power, those who are not in power want to gain it." [Emphasis mine]
         The politicians that want to gain power aren't writing the laws or ordering the troops. Besides, they only want to hold off martial law until after they are in power.
         "expecially as it has not happened in nations which DO have strict gun control laws, which have not ended up as dictatorships"
         People don't usually get into positions of power by being stupid. (George W. Bush had the help of his father, who wasn't stupid.) They just need to hold off until the last few stragglers implement gun control. An uprising in a foreign nation that then frees their slav- er citizens is still a threat to their power. The time is not yet ripe.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Certainly, if England had won, the same description would be applied to "those reality-denying rebels."
    Actually, I suspect both sides in the war of independance had a greater respect for facts than todays wingnuts.

    About as much as it was approved of by George III -- which is to say not at all.
    So the statement from the Obama govt was correct?

    But actually the Second Amendment was some protection. It intended that the people could fight off a tyranny.
    The text of the second amendment seems to apply to a militia seemingly organised and regulated by the state.

    And politicians have been trying to dismantle it ever since.
    And politicians have been trying to expand it ever since...

    I am sorry that you think there was only one person who behaved like this.
    I'm sorry I wasn't clear. It was a single person in each experimental setup.

    I fixed your question for you. I don't think there is a single soldier that would resist the order.
    And I think you're mistaken, and badly underestimating the people who make up the military.
    I don't doubt there are some who would not resist the order (and perhaps who would relish the opportunity).

    As a practical matter, soldiers would not be dispatched to their home states and they would not be told that it was because someone wanted to stay in power. And I think you know this.
    Because a soldier's only source of information is the chain of command?

    They would only know that these people did not have traditional guns. Obviously the soldiers to use their guns to prevent these terrorists from attacking all those people who are not part of the protest with their improvised weaponry.
    Since you're admitting that improvised weaponry is an option, why the concern with gun control at all - surely you could just improvise the weapons you claim to require?

    But they can still kill a lot of unarmed people.
    So, the soldiers wouldn't be particularly concerned about these people, and would perhaps wonder why the police force wasn't being used?
    I don't think the scenario you are sketching is realistic.

    So you thought invading other nations unprovoked was an act of "defense"? They call it the "defense department" because it sounds better than "war department." And I suppose they fool a lot of people.
    "Defence Forces" are what they're called here in Aus. It doesn't matter if they attack more than defend, or whether the title is truthful. I know what their role is - you're making a lot out of a simple statement of fact.

    The politicians that want to gain power aren't writing the laws or ordering the troops. Besides, they only want to hold off martial law until after they are in power.
    We see this happen all the time with other issues. Party A while in power tries to take action X. Party B, in opposition, hobbles, highlights, publicly shames Party A, so that action X fails. When Party B gains power, they attempt to take action X, Party A opposes them. And on.
    I don't see how it would be any different with martial law, except that the party that tried (and failed) to introduce it would likely lose massively in the next election (which they failed to stave off), and so it is actually in the interest of them gaining/retaining power to NOT institute martial law.

    People don't usually get into positions of power by being stupid.
    There seems to be a lot of GOP members who undermine this claim (perhaps they're cunning politically, but they seem stupid generally).

    They just need to hold off until the last few stragglers implement gun control.
    Which would amount to what?
    Refusing to allow dangerous people to own guns?
    Requiring people to be properly licensed and regulated, as is done with driving?

    ReplyDelete
  14. pvblivs, from what I gather about the current political argument raging about gun control, the measures being introduced by the Obama Govt do not appear to be the Orwellian measures that many are making them out to be. There is a large amount of disinformation and hyperbole on the pro gun side (there probably similar efforts from those who favour Orwellian gun control measures, but they don't seem very vocal).

    ReplyDelete
  15. Havoc:

         "So the statement from the Obama govt was correct?"
         That depends on your point of view. The revolution was technically illegal. According to the law, Obama does not have to let any state leave the union. And that is certainly what he has chosen. That doesn't mean that it is right in any moral sense.
         "The text of the second amendment seems to apply to a militia seemingly organised and regulated by the state."
         People have debated the meaning for a long time. I don't expect that to be resolved any time soon.
         "Since you're admitting that improvised weaponry is an option, why the concern with gun control at all - surely you could just improvise the weapons you claim to require?"
         Because they are not as effective. While they can have an impact on the unarmed populace (and thus serve as "justification" to shoot people claimed to have them) they would be no match for the military's arsenal and shielding. (I note that you forgot I already mentioned that part.)
         "Because a soldier's only source of information is the chain of command?"
         Sometimes that is the only source of information open to them.

         Much of what you're saying is that soldiers would somehow be psychically aware that the situation was not as it seemed to be. For example: You state that you think that a soldier told that the protesters are really criminals armed with improvised devices would question why an unarmed police force was not sent instead. Rather than underestimating our soldiers, I am assuming human limitations on their knowledge. I am also applying the fact that they are trained to obey orders and not to question them. They are not even supposed to think about something that may seem a little odd. In proper circumstances, such questioning can get a unit killed. There may be reasons why an order seems odd. Those that question are dishonorably discharged. Perhaps you think there is a lot of questioning out in the field. But there isn't. The commanders are assumed to know what they are doing and to have good reasons for their orders.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. According to the law, Obama does not have to let any state leave the union.
      Would it be more accurate to say that Obama cannot just let any state leave the union (without some sort of constitutional amendment).

      And that is certainly what he has chosen.
      I'd think his hands are likely tied on this point. There's also the point that the few people upset that they didn't get their way, who have petitioned, are not representative of the states.

      That doesn't mean that it is right in any moral sense.
      If the states are bound to the union without recourse to legale secession due to the constition, then whether it is moral or not, it is really the only option for the national government to take.

      People have debated the meaning for a long time. I don't expect that to be resolved any time soon.
      That's not surprising.

      Because they are not as effective.
      Neither would a group of civilians be as effective as highly trained soldiers.

      Sometimes that is the only source of information open to them.
      That would be very rare in this day and age, in a "normal" secular democracy.

      Much of what you're saying is that soldiers would somehow be psychically aware that the situation was not as it seemed to be.
      Not at all. They may begin to carry out orders, and see that the populace is not as they have been described.

      Rather than underestimating our soldiers, I am assuming human limitations on their knowledge.
      You seem to be severely underestimating their reasoning and empathy.

      Perhaps you think there is a lot of questioning out in the field. But there isn't. The commanders are assumed to know what they are doing and to have good reasons for their orders.
      Soldiers are not always out in the field.

      Delete
  16. For the record:

         I think that any form of gun control should start with the nation's military. I do not insist on being able to have any weapons that the military has no access to.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So, are you saying you should have nukes? Or that the US Army shouldn't?

      Delete
    2. pvblivs, do you insist on allowing the unstable, irresponsible and incompetent access to all of the weapons you demand access to?

      Delete
    3. We should be able to buy whatever the government sells. Anything. Tanks, RPG, whatever. What makes you believe Governments are MORE moral then citizens?The data sure does not back up that assertion.

      Why can't we own drones? Oh, that's right, we can. Mwahahahahahahaha!

      Delete
    4. The military appears to be far more regulated and disciplined than the general populace.

      Perhaps you'd consent to having the same regulations and discipline being imposed upon those in the general public who own guns?

      No wait, that's what this whole discussion is about - people like you complaining about any impediment to you owning a weapon.

      Delete
    5. "We should be able to buy whatever the government sells. Anything. Tanks, RPG, whatever. What makes you believe Governments are MORE moral then citizens?The data sure does not back up that assertion.

      Why can't we own drones? Oh, that's right, we can. Mwahahahahahahaha!"

      There we have it, Fake Christian Dan Marvin thinks that he should be able to own weapons of mass destruction.

      Delete
  17. An armed society, is a peaceful society. Hopefully if a government nukes their own people, I would hope nukes would be on the way to that evil government.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Alex B:

         I don't really trust the military with nukes. Is there some reason you think I should?

    Havoc:

         I note that quite a few of those unstable, irresponsible, and incompetent wear uniforms with stars for decoration. They already have such access.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. pvblivs, those who wear uniforms have access to those weapons under pretty strict regulation.

      Comparing having access to weapons in the military, to having access to weapons as a public person doesn't seem to be appropriate.

      Delete
    2. I don't really trust the military with nukes. Is there some reason you think I should?

      Well, at least since WWII, they haven't used them in war yet...though they did do a lot of tests...

      Delete
  19.      Havoc apparently missed the part about "stars for decoration" or didn't understand the significance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, I got it the reference. They're still regulated and disciplined, are they not?

      Unless you're saying that they got the stars without having to just wear the uniform first?

      Delete
  20.      No, as the enforcers of the regulations, they pretty much have access at their pleasure.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you saying that an officer can just walk off a base with a n assault rifle, or an RPG, or a SAM, and ammunition for the weapon?

      I find that very difficult to believe.

      Delete
  21. Ok one the government is not taking away your guns. In fact the law for banning assault weapons hasn't even passed yet. Two just because its an executive order does not mean its absolute,it still has to go through congress. Three any weapon purchased before the ban will be legal to own. Four there was a ban on assault rifles already in place before 2005. The majority of America the republicans in office and NRA members are for universal backroud checks. I don't know why your give opinion over facts but I guess irationallity is better for you.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Oh and I have to point out that you think guns are for protection against a tyranical government. That basically means your bassing your beliefe in dangerous lax gun laws on the off chance your government decides to go dictator. That isn't an effective argument because it has no basis because even if they ban assault weapons you still get to have guns. Not to mention how the general public with assault weapons has any chance against a government with nukes missles drones and tanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I just watched 1 Marine against 30 NYPD officers. Some of us took an oath. We intend on keeping it. It is time to stand and defend our liberty folks. It only takes a few good people to change a society by speaking up. Notice how quickly, we the people, can change the common practice. Sometimes that take drastic measures. Sometimes it takes a collective vote. Either way, we will restore out Constitution and liberty, given to us by our Creator.

      BTW, I can order drones on Amazon.com

      Delete
  23. Yeah, it'll take a lot of work to restore your constitution after Bush and co. mucked things up.

    As for liberties given by your creator? That was the declaration of independence; which was a document telling england to fuck off. You get your liberties from your constitution.

    Some parts like the freedom of religion part directly contradict biblegods' commands.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Replies
    1. http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/12/6/365.full

      Delete
  25. How can we stop the Florida college student or any other person from just buying arms and planning to massacre people? We have the right to bear arms but when or how should the line be drawn?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither." ~Benjamin Franklin

      What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand? Bad people will always exist. Gun free zones are the most dangerous places on earth. Criminals do not read and obey such signs or rules. That is why it is the duty for good Americans to always carry firearms for when evil people rear their ugly heads. To protect the innocent from aggression. Care to join us?

      Delete
    2. I guess "god" can't protect you then?

      Delete
    3. I pray my bullets find their intended target. God certainly answers those prayers. :7)

      Proof of God's existence? My 30 out of 30 shot at 45 yards.

      Delete
  26. I do support gun ownership. But how can we prevent loonies from owning hi poweted weapons?

    ReplyDelete
  27. I would much rather have good and evil people to have guns, than to try to disarm everyone and only have a police state carry guns, which always turns them out to be evil towards the innocent. An armed society is a polite society.

    That being said, such a subjective term as "crazy" invites abuse. I am sure Diane Feinstein finds many "crazy" as most find her "crazy"'.

    High powered weapons is not a problem at all. I can take someone out at 200 yards just as easy with a 10-22 o than with a Sig556. Caliber is not the issue, people being inherently evil is.

    Actually, the real issue for me is getting as much 3D printing material as I can. Because not only can 3D printers print lower AR-15s legally, but they can print 3D printers also. In other words, they are self replicating. We are in an entirely new age. Very exciting.

    ReplyDelete
  28. The way the U.S is going right now (in decline) simlar to Greece, so whether we arm our citizens to the tee, we as a country are so vulnerable. Morally, politically, economically we are going downhill and the fertility rate is at a minimum with Hispanics , Muslims and other ethnicities surpassing the typical Euro American family. Kudos if you have more than 2 kids by the way. Furthermore about having weapons , this country is a sitting duck for terrorists or countries who can attack through emp attack or atomic dirty bombs or chemical/biological warfare. Last but not leaste, God can pull the plug on the U.S too, Im sensing that one day hes going to start making moves that would make noahs flood look like disneyland. This countrys future might be seeing its last generations . Is it something that I want ...hell no...but reading up on how ancient Greece fell ...just shows too many similarities with the U.S and Europe. ...sorry for typos..im on mobile. :)

    ReplyDelete
  29. Gun control has never any chance of reducing crime or protecting people but it only affects the law abiding because they don't have a self defense thing to stand up and defend themselves and their loved ones.
    _____________
    MA Firearms Safety Course.

    ReplyDelete

Bring your "A" game. To link: <a href="url">text</a>