M
MummyCat
I'll let the website (and my previous statement) speak for itself on that one
I'm sure I won't have to post a link since the organization is so widely known
Government WILL Ban Guns Soon....
- Thread starter krunchbubble
- Start date
- Status
I'll let the website (and my previous statement) speak for itself on that one
I'm sure I won't have to post a link since the organization is so widely known
FreedomFightr
Member
I saw an interview with the president of the NRA saying that we realy only need a 1 shot gun? I for one dont trust the NRA. I should have a 100 round drum if I want. Not that I would want one, To heavy and jams to much.
as funny as it sounds the 2nd amendment would allow just for that.
The reason for the 2nd is so that IF "we the people" ever needed to overthrow a shitty government ( like the one we get when we elect the same old republicans and democrats ) we will have the TRAINING and WEAPONRY to EQUALLY MATCH what OUR GOVERNMENT has.
It has zero to do with hunting or protecting your house. Nowadays however there are so many countries without any gun rights who were trained to be blown away by all us crazy gun toting Americans.
As they trash our country more and more and blame it on the guns (which is BS considering most crime that happens in inner cities for example are GUN FREE ZONES go figure right...) we too COULD END UP like many other countries before us who now can't own a weapon let alone defend against a person OR an ever expanding government.
America NEEDS ITS GUNS or we will end up with cameras up our ass, the government EVERYWHERE ( as if it isn't already ) and IF they are able to confuse enough voters into removing our 2nd amendment rights ( which they will keep pushing as hunting rights with BOLT RIFLES ) it will be very easy for them to fully take over our country.
We are at a tipping point and while everyone can pretend to think that a world without guns would be a safer one BETTER WAKE UP to the realization that there will always be evil assholes out there who want to kill and harm people and if anything why shouldn't ALL humans have a right to defend themselves at minimum as a basic manimalistic right?
guns don't kill people
governments do
hell we are the only country with a kill list that we can off people with rc planes for shits sake.
land of the something and home of the what was it again?
I don't trust them either. Everyone has an agenda.,
"I should have a 100 round drum if I want. Not that I would want one, To heavy and jams to much"
Get the right spring in it and it'll work better. Factory springs in the drums suck. Plus you have to bend your wrist a bit funny to work the trigger. Rather tape 30 round mags together.
M
MummyCat
Please post a link to this interview. That is shocking
check out gun owners of America for a real pro second amendment organization.
Can't agree with that. It's just too easy to kill someone with a gun. A momentary loss of temper could equal instant death. Gang bangers wouldn't be gang bangers without guns. They are cowards and would not fight to the death mano a mano. Most murders are by gun, by far. The shootings every day in our inner cities are evidence of that.
In 2008, 12,000 Americans were killed with guns. Only 11 in all of Japan, a country where it is really difficult to get a gun.
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-many-americans-killed-with-guns-2012-7
Here's another link to "Japan, a land without guns". Excellent article. They have virtually eliminated gun deaths.
http://www.theatlantic.com/internat...-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/
so besides the gangbangers which by the way mostly live in GUN FREE ZONES here in the states, what does that do for the rest of us when these evil doers come to mug us. Are you saying that without guns all these idiots will go on the straight and narrow?
Japan, yeah what a utopia. Give up ALL OF YOUR FREEDOM and you too can be free!
If you aren't doing anything wrong then why wouldn't you allow the cops to come into your house, verify how many live there, what type of car you drive among many other things.
Japan is no America and that would be a TERRIBLE model to ever follow, I think many are going down that road as far as countries go and while not having a gun might remove a death being scared of the boogie man sure does give many enough reason to run down and turn in their own guns right?
How sad and what is to protect us from the government when they are the only ones with guns again? I will turn in ALL of my guns once the government does the same, until then our second amendment needs to be protected just as much as our 1st.
Now bringing up the first amendment, everyone has the right to free speech at least here in the US, how is the free-est gun free country JAPAN and their free speech doing?
since we are posting links, check out the guns that japan IS trying to create...
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/stor...amming-gun-developed-by-japanese-reasearchers
Japan, yeah what a utopia. Give up ALL OF YOUR FREEDOM and you too can be free!
If you aren't doing anything wrong then why wouldn't you allow the cops to come into your house, verify how many live there, what type of car you drive among many other things.
Japan is no America and that would be a TERRIBLE model to ever follow, I think many are going down that road as far as countries go and while not having a gun might remove a death being scared of the boogie man sure does give many enough reason to run down and turn in their own guns right?
How sad and what is to protect us from the government when they are the only ones with guns again? I will turn in ALL of my guns once the government does the same, until then our second amendment needs to be protected just as much as our 1st.
Now bringing up the first amendment, everyone has the right to free speech at least here in the US, how is the free-est gun free country JAPAN and their free speech doing?
since we are posting links, check out the guns that japan IS trying to create...
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/stor...amming-gun-developed-by-japanese-reasearchers
This has absolutely nothing to do with guns and everything to do with a population that has been domesticated to death. The japanese are the most "Do what the govt says" group of people on the earth.
Pick a different analogy.
Stay Safe!
I am not anti-gun, per se. But the evidence proves where there are no guns, their are no shootings. The second amendment was written to guarantee that MILITIAS were allowed to bear arms in order to protect us against potential enemies. It wasn't written so that every gang banger or criminal could have a gun. But, as with many things, the original idea has been distorted, and now we all live in an armed camp, where any lunatic can get a gun and go off on a shooting spree. The gang shootings in this country are out of control, and something ought to be done about it, but what? I'm all for the right to bear arms, but the notion of bearing arms has become completely distorted from it's initial intent. Not anti-gun, just saying....
This has absolutely nothing to do with guns and everything to do with a population that has been domesticated to death. The japanese are the most "Do what the govt says" group of people on the earth.
Pick a different analogy.
Stay Safe!
It's not just Japan.
Here is a list of gun deaths worldwide. Notice there are countries with low death rates besides Japan. All the Scandinavian countries would be one example. Ireland, Germany, England, Scotland, South Korea, Hong Kong, Chile, Taiwan, Spain, New Zealand, Barbados, Belgium, Switzerland and others all have much lower gun deaths due to stronger gun control. Notice also that Columbia, El Salvador, Jamaica, and Honduras have the highest rates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
Also, the level of gun ownership is directly related to gun deaths. No surprise there.
http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm
Here are the facts about which many are in denial:
Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):
Homicide Suicide Other (inc Accident)
USA (2001) 3.98 5.92 0.36
Italy (1997) 0.81 1.1 0.07
Switzerland (1998) 0.50 5.8 0.10
Canada (2002) 0.4 2.0 0.04
Finland (2003) 0.35 4.45 0.10
Australia (2001) 0.24 1.34 0.10
France (2001) 0.21 3.4 0.49
England/Wales (2002) 0.15 0.2 0.03
Scotland (2002) 0.06 0.2 0.02
Japan (2002) 0.02 0.04 0
Guns are big business here, and the makers are no less evil than "big pharma" that everyone rails about.
Again: I support the second amendment, but facts are facts. Countries with gun control have much fewer gun related deaths.
I need a link for that to give it any credence whatsoever. If he said it, I would be willing to bet that it was taken out of context. About the only thing that I have really disagreed with the NRA on in over 45 years of being a member is that they are too unyielding.
No offense but the verbage that we assume as fact versus our founding fathers were much different I suggest you research what militia meant back then because it isn't simply MILITIAS...
The Second Amendment reads:
"A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
One common translation: "The reason people have an individual right to keep and bear arms is that it makes it easier to provide a militia as the security to a free state."
There is absolutely "no contrary evidence" from the writings of the Founding Fathers, Federalist Papers, early American legal commentators, or Supreme Court decisions indicating that the Second Amendment was intended to apply solely to active militia members. None whatsoever.
1
187020
Do you feel lucky punk?
Do you feel lucky punk?
Do you feel lucky punk?
I think you made my point for me. Our founding fathers could never have envisioned what's happening today, with people being shot dead in the streets by their own. When they spoke of militias, they meant exactly that. Organized groups of armed men to defend our country against foreign or domestic "invaders". Military forces, if you will.
Your interpretation of "militia" is a bit different than mine. You are projecting the rights of "militias" to individuals, as many have.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I really don't think the founding fathers would have agreed with you, or with the mayhem happening in our streets.
Again: I support the 2nd amendment.
What I wrote wasn't my opinion but fact actually as in FROM the document itself. The term militia didn't ever mean "military forces" ever, you are just making stuff up now.
You also forget to quote the rest which was
One common translation: "The reason people have an individual right to keep and bear arms is that it makes it easier to provide a militia as the security to a free state."
There is absolutely "no contrary evidence" from the writings of the Founding Fathers, Federalist Papers, early American legal commentators, or Supreme Court decisions indicating that the Second Amendment was intended to apply solely to active militia members. None whatsoever.
Our founding fathers would LAUGH at what people like yourself are interpreting the 2nd as. The "mayhem" you speak of is due to LOSING the rights that we were born with which by the way are not GRANTED to us by any piece of paper but simply reiterated.
firstly, have you ever heard of the massachusetts minute men??? they were a famous militia branch that fought against the british during the revolutionary war (among others)... and they were just individual farmer/hunters that were down to fight to protect themselves their family and their land... you cannot tell me that the founding fathers didn't have them in mind when righting the constitution and the bill of rights... just a few years later, as tyranny and protection from it, through firearms was fresh in their minds... BELIEVE THAT!
many many people share your sentiment... but you sound fuckin' brainwashed bro, and that is the scary part, just saying.
The US is supposed to be an independent nation... made of free and independent people... the individual is forever ingrained in the idea of independence; and the idea of a "group" is inherently dependent, because for a group work together successfully, naturally one individual must be able to depend on another individual to work for the benefit of the group as a whole... so what sounds more american... and free, the independent way or the dependent way?
also... define "individual"... then show me any group that isn't just a bunch of individuals... so where does one draw the line to separate the rights of the individual from the rights of the group as a whole... and who is granted that power of drawing said line???
individual liberty is only limited where it infringes on another's liberties... (you can do whatever the hell you want, but) DONT TREAD ON ME!... get it?
the constitution is to protect the minority against being ruled by the majority... we all have basic freedoms and liberties that cannot be infringed upon regardless of congressional acts, majority opinion or any form of authoritarian hierarchy.
Last edited:
- Status
