Obama takes no action on gun control;

[NoSaint]

 

You've missed the point entirely. It isn't a guns issue at all. It's an issue of freedom.

 

Is there anything you value enough that you would be willing to die for it? Is there anything you value enough to kill for?

 

What are you doing to fight for it before it becomes life or death?

[3rdnlng]

well, at least we've moved from the 17th century to the 18th.

 

 

WTF?

 

I wonder when Obama is going to have a photo shoot with Brian Terry's kids?

 

 

http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/News/fast-furious-scandal-man-claims-shot-brian-terry/story?id=18242489

[ExiledInIllinois]

 

I apologize for not hanging around the website yesterday afternoon and this morning. You've made your point and I've made mine. I have nothing to add to what I have already said. You won't convince me that your right to own something is worth killing other people and I can't convince you that it isn't.

 

I hope that it never comes to the day where you are forced to make the decision to fight or not. As I have repeated several times I am for gun ownership in this country I see no issue with it. I don't think guns are the issue. People are the issue. Society as a whole always needs to blame something to make themselves feel better, I don't. Sh*t happens. If Adam Lanza had it in his head that he was going to kill a bunch of kids he would have accomplished it with gun or without. The only thing I will ask is that you understand why people are reaching in the way that they are. They are searching for answers, an explanation, when there really isn't an easy one.

 

Your guns are safe, they will not be taken away. If they are I hope that you come up with a better solution to show your dissatisfaction then killing people to do it.

 

+1

 

I would hope he too would come up with a better solution. I fear they won't because the entitlement road they are on is paved with an easy answer.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

 

What are you doing to fight for it before it becomes life or death?

Depends on the stage.

 

Right now I'm writing letters, organizing opposition, donating money, and trying to educate.

 

I'll have to reevaluate when it get to the next stage.

[Rob's House]

first off, in the event that the military didn't go rogue in great numbers, there would be a great many more troops and weapons immediately available to quell an uprising and a stronger political will to subdue it. not to mention local knowledge of customs, geography, likely insurgency groups, local power structures and informants. i also don't think american civilians, in general, are any where near as tough as the afghani's but hopefully we'll never find out.

 

the biggest factor that you're discounting is the industrial part of the military-industrial complex. a small arms, popular revolution would be very bad for business....even to the arms and military suppliers but to many other industries as well. what if they decided to stop selling weapons and ammo or supplies to the rebels (populace) because it wasn't in their best interest (and it likely wouldn't be)?

 

 

but seriously, i can't believe we are even discussing these outrageous scenarios. what percentage of the armed populace do you guys estimate even contemplate armed revolt? just like in the last election, i think support (or even consideration of it) is greatly overestimated because discussions like this are often had in an echo chamber.

It's not a matter of whether you'll actually need to resort to armed revolt. The mere threat of such should be sufficient to substantially deter types of governmental overreach. You're painting a particular scenario and arguing that point, but there are many scenarios where the issue could be relevant. Take FOR EXAMPLE a German Holocaust scenario; the government would be hard pressed to pull off a maneuver like that against an armed populace. Not that I'm concerned that such a scenario is likely to happen if we were disarmed, just pointing out an obvious one where being armed would be crucial in protecting people from government.

 

I get why the concern of the government kicking down the doors of people that have fallen out of favor to do ? with them seems crazy, but look around the world. Government's are doing things like this now. There's no guarantee that the stability we enjoy here and now is permanent and that things couldn't degrade to a point where fear of the government is less far-fetch. Or a scenario where society breaks down (like the power grid going out) where you need to protect yourself not from the government but from mobs of people (think LA riots but on a larger scale).

[birdog1960]

WTF?

 

I wonder when Obama is going to have a photo shoot with Brian Terry's kids?

 

 

http://abcnews.go.co...ory?id=18242489

the revolutionary war was fought in the 18th century. charles II disarmed rebel militias in england in the 17th century, a fact cited in the scalia majority supreme court decision of 2008. is there a problem with my dates? both before the industrial revolution, after which revolutionaries were more likely to come from the ranks of tasker's gardeners and housekeepers than well heeled industrialists. Edited January 18, 2013 by birdog1960

[3rdnlng]

We here in America have really had it better and easier in the last 60-150 years than nearly all of the rest of the world. I attribute a large part of that to the way our republic was set up. To some here it is absolutely unfathomable that our government could ever become dictatorial. Others, mainly those who know a little about history and can also differentiate between inherent, God given rights and privileges can see where there is an erosion of rights going on in our country. Now, if it's just an ebb and flow type of thing then most of us can live with it. If it's a trend that's not going to change, then I think I'd like to take a stand before I lose my right to a firearm.

[birdog1960]

It's not a matter of whether you'll actually need to resort to armed revolt. The mere threat of such should be sufficient to substantially deter types of governmental overreach. You're painting a particular scenario and arguing that point, but there are many scenarios where the issue could be relevant. Take FOR EXAMPLE a German Holocaust scenario; the government would be hard pressed to pull off a maneuver like that against an armed populace. Not that I'm concerned that such a scenario is likely to happen if we were disarmed, just pointing out an obvious one where being armed would be crucial in protecting people from government.

 

I get why the concern of the government kicking down the doors of people that have fallen out of favor to do ? with them seems crazy, but look around the world. Government's are doing things like this now. There's no guarantee that the stability we enjoy here and now is permanent and that things couldn't degrade to a point where fear of the government is less far-fetch. Or a scenario where society breaks down (like the power grid going out) where you need to protect yourself not from the government but from mobs of people (think LA riots but on a larger scale).

to your first point about the holocaust, were americans not armed at the time of the internment of japanese americans during world war ii or the taking of american indians territories?

 

in the event of a riot, i'm gonna be behind a locked door with a loaded shotgun, waiting for the police or military to restore order. vigilantes shooting semiautomatic weapons in the street aren't likely be doing themselves or anybody a service. and if i thought our democracy was becoming so fragile that the govt was becoming a threat to my safety, i'd move as i'd be much more likely to live out a happy life with that option than fighting a battle i'd almost surely lose. call that weak if you choose. i call it smart. we shouldn't be making policy based on paranoia.

[3rdnlng]

the revolutionary war was fought in the 18th century. charles II disarmed rebel militias in england in the 17th century, a fact cited in the scalia majority supreme court decision of 2008. is there a problem with my dates? both before the industrial revolution, after which revolutionaries were more likely to come from the ranks of tasker's gardeners and housekeepers than well heeled industrialists.

 

 

Walk it back all you want. You were responding to a comment about the Revolutionary War and our "advancement" since. Are you so f'n self centered that you go all the way back to some link that you posted? Do you need to be right that badly? I'd have more respect for you if you just said "oops".

[Adam]

We here in America have really had it better and easier in the last 60-150 years than nearly all of the rest of the world. I attribute a large part of that to the way our republic was set up. To some here it is absolutely unfathomable that our government could ever become dictatorial. Others, mainly those who know a little about history and can also differentiate between inherent, God given rights and privileges can see where there is an erosion of rights going on in our country. Now, if it's just an ebb and flow type of thing then most of us can live with it. If it's a trend that's not going to change, then I think I'd like to take a stand before I lose my right to a firearm.

Personally, I don't think it is something that started recently. It has been going on for decades and we are just starting to see the effects now. I don't trust any of our elected officials and I don't buy all the lip service they give to the deficit. They use that to scare us into compliance. Democrat, republican.....screw em all.

[3rdnlng]

to your first point about the holocaust, were americans not armed at the time of the internment of japanese americans during world war ii or the taking of american indians territories?

 

in the event of a riot, i'm gonna be behind a locked door with a loaded shotgun, waiting for the police or military to restore order. vigilantes shooting semiautomatic weapons in the street aren't likely be doing themselves or anybody a service. and if i thought our democracy was becoming so fragile that the govt was becoming a threat to my safety, i'd move as i'd be much more likely to live out a happy life with that option than fighting a battle i'd almost surely lose. call that weak if you choose. i call it smart. we shouldn't be making policy based on paranoia.

 

Did you use to also post under the name of "conner"? The Japanese were interned with the blessing of the vast majority of the American people. I'm not saying it was right, but that was reality then. The American Indian fought and lost, but to the settlers, cholera, other diseases, and booze, not the government.

 

Tell me, where would you move to, knowing that the most free country in the world was threatening your safety? If it can happen here, it could happen anywhere.

[Bigfatbillsfan]

I suspect you know this, but the reason you keep banging your head against the wall with people like birddog, etc., is because of one very basic, fundamental difference that essentially leaked out of the liberal minds during the past election.

 

People like you and me believe the government and its elected officials serve the people, where the liberal belief is simply that the people serve the government because without the government, you'd be nothing. Put another way, "you didn't build that." Without the government providing you with roads and police and schools, you'd be nothing more than another maggot in a long list of maggots infesting this great land.

 

You're pissing in the wind because the takers will never agree with your idea of the role government plays.

 

 

Can you say "Straw Man"?

[3rdnlng]

Can you say "Straw Man"?

 

Why don't you ever post something here that is well thought out and intelligent? LA's post had some substance. Your post was weak, but I guess no weaker than the normal schit you post.

[Bigfatbillsfan]

Why don't you ever post something here that is well thought out and intelligent? LA's post had some substance. Your post was weak, but I guess no weaker than the normal schit you post.

 

We must not have read to same post.

[Alaska Darin]

Could it happen? Sure. The military could revolt against a tyrannical govt. But the citizenry owning a r15's and the like would be inconsequential to their decision to revolt or to the outcome.

Spoken like someone who has never served a day in the military and has never held a gun in his life. You're nothing more than another ignorant liberal blowhard who lives in a fantasy world.

 

to your first point about the holocaust, were americans not armed at the time of the internment of japanese americans during world war ii or the taking of american indians territories?

No, Americans simply reacted to the emotional sale that politicians pushed on them and went along like the sheep most of them are. "Japs are bad!" "Assault weapons are the devil." Evil people are only able to commit atrocities because good people refuse to act.

 

Sound familiar? Yeah, didn't think so.

[B-Man]

[Ralonzo]

Owning a gun is your right, when it becomes illegal it is no longer your right.

 

There is a mechanism by which arms may be made illegal, and that is a Constitutional Amendment. By all means, make your case, and if 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of States agree, then more power to you. Until that

 

You can still own guns in NYS. They have just made modifications to what guns, ammo, attachments are allowed. When this right was given people owned muskets not ak's.

 

1) This right was not "given," it was recognized.

2) Contemporary to this right being recognized, regular (i.e. "well-regulated") soldiers of the Continental Army had as standard issue, muskets. So by inference, the right applies to such weapons and ordnance as now provided to regular Army: sidearms, and semi-automatic rifles. If anything, the so-called (and nebulously defined) "assault weapon" with "multiple military features" is especially protected by 2A through the particular wording of it.

 

In haste, Cuomo and New York Legislature forgot to exempt police from draconian new gun law. If I were a member of the legislature, I’d oppose a fix just as a lesson.

 

Not a bad idea; too many have forgetten the concept of the Peace Officer, instead construing their beat as a personal fiefdom. Might do some of them some good to get a sense of the other side of the billy club.

 

That's another reason the 2nd Amendment exists: Because when seconds count, the police can be there in minutes.

[B-Man]

NY newspaper removes handgun permit holder data.

 

 

Punching the bully in the nose works.

 

.

[Jim in Anchorage]

It's not a matter of whether you'll actually need to resort to armed revolt. The mere threat of such should be sufficient to substantially deter types of governmental overreach. You're painting a particular scenario and arguing that point, but there are many scenarios where the issue could be relevant. Take FOR EXAMPLE a German Holocaust scenario; the government would be hard pressed to pull off a maneuver like that against an armed populace. Not that I'm concerned that such a scenario is likely to happen if we were disarmed, just pointing out an obvious one where being armed would be crucial in protecting people from government.

 

I get why the concern of the government kicking down the doors of people that have fallen out of favor to do ? with them seems crazy, but look around the world. Government's are doing things like this now. There's no guarantee that the stability we enjoy here and now is permanent and that things couldn't degrade to a point where fear of the government is less far-fetch. Or a scenario where society breaks down (like the power grid going out) where you need to protect yourself not from the government but from mobs of people (think LA riots but on a larger scale).

Don't need to look any further then the Warsaw ghetto uprising in WW II. the populace, armed with a handful of smuggled guns[aided as the uprising went on with arms captured from German soldiers they shot] put up a resistance so fierce the Germans gave up on door to door foot solders and where forced to bomb the city to rubble. This was against a confined group of people just one step from a concentration camp

Now imagine a similar scenario in America against a heavily armed citizenship[ at lest in the free states.]

 

riots? LA happened, katrena happened and there will be others, bank on it.

The birdogs of this world are feeling safe with calling 911 for a cop 25 miles away and going away fast.

Edited January 19, 2013 by Jim in Anchorage

[B-Man]

Warning to bd and other liberals, links from extremist, wacko sites....................USA Today, WaPo, Reason, National Review,

 

 

Obama’s tired gun control schemes won’t make children, or the rest of us, any safer.

 

POLL: Twice as many favor more guns over banning guns to reduce crime.

 

Obama’s Completely Bogus 40% Number On No-Background-Check Gun Sales.

 

WaPo: On MLK holiday, walking for civil rights and the Second Amendment.

When Charles “Chuck” Hicks does the Martin Luther King Jr. Day peace and freedom walks Saturday, he’ll also be taking a step for what the National Rifle Association has dubbed “National Rifle Appreciation Day.” That’s because Hicks is the son of Robert Hicks, a prominent leader of the legendary Deacons for Defense and Justice — an organization of black men in Louisiana who used shotguns and rifles to repel attacks by white vigilantes during the 1960s.

“The Klan would drive through our neighborhood shooting at us, shooting into our homes,

” recalled Hicks, 66, who grew up in Bogalusa, La., and has been a civil rights activist in the District for more than 35 years. “

The black men in the community wouldn’t stand for it. You shoot at us, we shoot back at you.

I’m convinced that without our guns, my family and many other black people would not be alive today.”

 

Condi Rice tells a similar story, of course. More background here.

 

 

 

“And as for background checks, even the most vigorously policed would have done nothing to stop the killers at Newtown or the theater in Aurora, Colo. Adam Lanza stole his guns from his mother’s storage locker after murdering her, and Joseph Holmes’ problems with mental illness were not reported to authorities by his psychologist.” When you use a tragedy to peddle “solutions” that wouldn’t have prevented the tragedy, then you’re not really peddling solutions at all. . . .

Edited January 19, 2013 by B-Man