OK, all you happy card carrying NRA members.....

[Overbrook]

Go back and read the original post

Well, people are out hurting and killing other people all the time. Blacks killing blacks, whites killing blacks, blacks killing whites, whites killing whites, etc. As far as the kid in SC goes...he's crazy!! There's not 1 picture of him that shows he's remotely sane! Hang him by his balls!! I just don't hear you talk about a lot of the other stuff...seems a bit odd to me.

I wanted to hang the NRA guy by the balls. The one who was blaming the incident on the pastor of the church/slate legislator because he voted against allowing people to cancel carry guns into places like churches. That is one sick fuck (IMHO)

[Overbrook]

Outstanding cut and paste

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
- William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783


Shame on you Philadelphians for not knowing your own history.

Now, I hope you didn't eat too much of the paste while doing that. It's not good for you, you know.

Imbecile.

[Mississippi-Fan]

I just wanna ask a question.

Was the Fort Hood Shooter; A gun nut, Racist or Psycho, a member of the NRA?

An Army psychiatrist who opened fire at Fort Hood, Texas, killing 12 people and wounding 31 others, was shot but captured alive, military officials said late Thursday.

[McCarthy12]

While I have zero problem with reasonable gun laws, background checks, etc., the truth is that you don't understand the Second Amendment. It wasn't drafted because there weren't enough government actors with arms to protect the citizenry, it was drafted precisely because the government actors had arms.

One can certainly debate the utility and scope of the Second Amendment in today's society, but the notion that it was created because there wasn't a robust enough police force at the time is silly. C'mon Historian Green!

[FuriousXGeorge]

I'll take "ridiculous straw men" for $500 Alex. Why do you automatically assume that anyone who disagrees with you is either evil or crazy? It's like you're indoctrinated or a cult member or something.

So you believe in a government, media, big business, and medical community conspiracy to use psychiatric medication to create mass murderers and then cover up the cause in order to...steal your guns? I really think you are missing the role of the Jews and Chemtrails in all this. It all goes back to 9/11, the freemason and occult influence, and what REALLY happened that day.



Also, you read MRA sites.

[BIG JAY]

I gotcha...that comment may have been ignorant but if I was carrying in that church, psycho boy would have been dead after one person was shot. Need to find a way to get guns out of the hands of the irresponsible...not sure how to do that. I'm not a "gun nut" but think responsible human beings should be able to have them. There's no simple solution here...

[TerpEagle]

Can a threat of violence act as a deterrent? Can an armed populace threaten corrupt leaders into respecting their rights more or less effectively than an unarmed populace? I'm at a loss to explain how you can be so obtuse.

It's a matter of scale. At the time the Constitution was written and ratified, the idea that armed citizens could overthrow the government was (more) plausible. The level of disproportion between the armament of the average citizen and the government through its army was relatively small. This was somewhat proven during the American Revolution although in reality it was one centralized army fighting another that had to cross an ocean.

That is not the case anymore and really hasn't been sing not long after the Constitution was ratified. The federal government quickly gathered power upon itself making it no match of an uprising militia. If you'd like evidence of this fact, the government proved its strength less than 100 years after the United States declared independence.

And even that uprising was an organized revolt with its own centralized government and army. Now, 150 years later, the federal government has control of chemical, nuclear, biological, cyber, and remote control weaponry while the populace is arguing over how many guns they need to protect themselves.

Stop being delusional.

The only thing that citizens have to protect themselves from tyrannical government is the law and the ability to elect lawmakers. Theoretically.

[NcEaglesfan]

If the 2nd amendment is changed, if only for the purpose of removing guns from the general populace to stem mass murder/suicides, etc., then what would stop criminals and or psychotic people from using something else to commit heinous acts? Honest question. Did McVeigh use guns? No, he blew up a goddamn building with a fertilizer bomb. Take away our fertilizer? Would that help? And since when do criminals and the crazies abide by the rules anyway?

Gun ownership should be allowable as long as one goes through the proper channels. Good luck getting ALL of the unauthorized AK's, Glocks, laser guns, light-sabers, and whatever the hell else out of the hands of the general populace.

[Melchior]

Feel free to contribute as many quotes by the founding fathers about the benefits of government restriction of firearms as you like. No need to resort to ad-hominems, friend.

Well, the idea of a civilian military rebellion is batshit crazy for obvious reasons. If you ever do happen to shoot a cop you'll either a) be killed or beaten to near death by his fellow cops before b) being sent to prison for the rest of your life.

So since the government has already stripped you of the ability to compete with them from an arms standpoint and has made it practically impossible to use force to defend yourself from a LEO, what the fuck are you even going on about?

[TerpEagle]

If the 2nd amendment is changed, if only for the purpose of removing guns from the general populace to stem mass murder/suicides, etc., then what would stop criminals and or psychotic people from using something else to commit heinous acts? Honest question. Did McVeigh use guns? No, he blew up a goddamn building with a fertilizer bomb. Take away our fertilizer? Would that help? And since when do criminals and the crazies abide by the rules anyway?

Gun ownership should be allowable as long as one goes through the proper channels. Good luck getting ALL of the unauthorized AK's, Glocks, laser guns, light-sabers, and whatever the hell else out of the hands of the general populace.

There are always going to be ways to commit heinous acts of violence. It's a matter of how difficult or easy it is to commit those acts. A main argument for gun control is that guns are so readily available to anyone who wants one in this country (good or bad) that they make mass murder relatively easy.

Building a fertilizer bomb (especially after McVeigh) is not that easy or common. Killing 12 people with a knife is not that easy or common.

[FuriousXGeorge]

If the 2nd amendment is changed, if only for the purpose of removing guns from the general populace to stem mass murder/suicides, etc., then what would stop criminals and or psychotic people from using something else to commit heinous acts? Honest question. Did McVeigh use guns? No, he blew up a goddamn building with a fertilizer bomb. Take away our fertilizer? Would that help? And since when do criminals and the crazies abide by the rules anyway?

Gun ownership should be allowable as long as one goes through the proper channels. Good luck getting ALL of the unauthorized AK's, Glocks, laser guns, light-sabers, and whatever the hell else out of the hands of the general populace.

The answer for the US is probably the middle path. Regulation, registration, tracking all sales. That way you can keep dangerous items out of the hands of people who should not have it. For the Ammonium Nitrate that isn't too hard, if you don't have something to fertilize you don't need it so that puts a pretty high barrier of entry up for a potential terrorist.

Guns are different because many people perceive them of having varied uses as simple as personal defense. But still, a registry can help us do things like keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. It's a lot easier to buy something when you don't have to go on the black market, even if the black market is still out there.

[Riccardo]

So in other words you're saying

Kelly Green is EL-WRONGO again??

[McCarthy12]

Indeed!

[wynnron123]

Well, the idea of a civilian military rebellion is batshit crazy for obvious reasons. If you ever do happen to shoot a cop you'll either a) be killed or beaten to near death by his fellow cops before b) being sent to prison for the rest of your life.

So since the government has already stripped you of the ability to compete with them from an arms standpoint and has made it practically impossible to use force to defend yourself from a LEO, what the fuck are you even going on about?

Waco was a prime example.

[TerpEagle]

You're acting like US soldiers are going to just turn on US civilians in the blink of an eye and start using tactical nukes and biological drone warfare. The second amendment is pretty damned ingrained in the collective mind of the country as a fundamental right and a check on governmental tyranny, and any move by military leaders to try to eliminate that freedom is going to set off warning bells in the heads of a LOT of soldiers. It's the second fucking amendment for fuck's sake, and it's meant to guarantee the first. Law is only as effective as the ability of a state or collective to enforce that law.

During the American Revolution the British military fired upon their countrymen. During the American Civil War the American military fired upon their countrymen.

In those examples, the armament of the state vs. the citizenry was much less disproportionate than today. Why do you think that the current state controlled military wouldn't fire upon the citizenry (and be more effective than in the past) if the state thought there was a valid threat?