[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
toejam wrote:
x there’s more military on here than you think. some just don’t toot their horn like you.
God I can’t believe I am doing this, but X was giving me a hard time for saying I am a Marine.
But wait, that wasn’t “tooting your own horn”. Me saying you weren’t alone is?
I was defending you smart guy. [/quote]
I know you were. I was simply pointing out how dumb his post was again.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
If this country does continue to take away our privacy rights how will we defend ourselves without guns? [/quote]
If your privacy rights are gone, do you really think you could defend yourself from “the government”? Remember the Waco Incident? Trust me, they’ve gotten better.
So why make it harder for individuals to get a gun to protect against criminals breaking into your home?
Background checks are used to verify the purchaser hasn’t committed a felony not to help an angry person “cool off”. If you want to kill someone and can’t get a gun your going to find another way to kill them.
What do hacker’s have to do with the government? We do have an FBI cyber crimes division to protect against ID theft or you can pay for a service like life line. So why shouldn’t our government i.e. CIA, NSA, etc… Protect us from terrorist. Hell I pay the government for homeland security one of the few things I believe the government should be involved in. If they want to give me some of my tax $'s back to protect myself fine I’ll use it to buy guns.
No matter how large the government is we the people still need guns to protect ourselves. It really boils down to attitude. The British out numbered us and had years and years of military training, but lost to mostly militia in the Revolutionary War. We would be the new militia if once again a revolution had to be fought. That was only about 230 years ago it could happen again. A man with the right mind set can defend himself against 5+ men that are just trying to earn a pay check. Just look at Vietnam.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
This, the above, is a misconception.
A vast well armed populace of tens of millions of gun owners and hundreds of millions of guns is a formidable force to be reckoned with even if we are talking small arms.[/quote]
Hundreds of millions of people is called an army if working against a common goal using military force. Good luck finding a leader for all of those people when the enemy is our own government because that is possibly the most important aspect of making that work. Otherwise, you have anarchy with guns.
The average person today doesn’t even want to get their hands dirty washing the dishes. You seem to think this country is filled with Alpha males, soldiers and hard workers. HA!
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Professor X wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
If this country does continue to take away our privacy rights how will we defend ourselves without guns?
If your privacy rights are gone, do you really think you could defend yourself from “the government”? Remember the Waco Incident? Trust me, they’ve gotten better.
This, the above, is a misconception.
A vast well armed populace of tens of millions of gun owners and hundreds of millions of guns is a formidable force to be reckoned with even if we are talking small arms.
In the 1770s and 80s the British army was significantly better armed than the colonists. In the 1860s the North was significantly better armed than the Confederacy. In the 1960s the U.S. military was significantly better armed than the Viet Cong. In recent years the Soviet (and U.S. for that matter) military was significantly better armed than the insurgents in Afghanistan.
In all of these cases a protracted and costly conflict ensued precisely because of citizens being armed. Don’t ever underestimate the power of an armed guerrilla/citizen force against a clearly superior military power. If you do so you might just make the same foolish mistakes made by many others in history.
This premise is what makes the 2nd what it is and what it was intended to be by the Founding Fathers. It has everything to do with what I just stated. It has a little to do with protection of one’s home from criminals. It has nothing to do with hunting and the shooting sports.[/quote]
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
pushharder wrote:
This, the above, is a misconception.
A vast well armed populace of tens of millions of gun owners and hundreds of millions of guns is a formidable force to be reckoned with even if we are talking small arms.
Hundreds of millions of people is called an army if working against a common goal using military force. Good luck finding a leader for all of those people when the enemy is our own government because that is possibly the most important aspect of making that work. Otherwise, you have anarchy with guns.
The average person today doesn’t even want to get their hands dirty washing the dishes. You seem to think this country is filled with Alpha males, soldiers and hard workers. HA!
[/quote]
People will rise to the occasion if they feel moved enough to do so…just look at MLK jr. and the civil rights movement.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
So why make it harder for individuals to get a gun to protect against criminals breaking into your home? [/quote]
Possibly because some of those people ARE criminals.
[quote]
What do hacker’s have to do with the government?[/quote]
Did you really just ask that question?
Wow. I was using that as an example of how the government itself could freeze your own accounts if there ever was a time when the citizens turned on their government.
No argument there.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
So why make it harder for individuals to get a gun to protect against criminals breaking into your home?
Possibly because some of those people ARE criminals.
What do hacker’s have to do with the government?
Did you really just ask that question?
We do have an FBI cyber crimes division to protect against ID theft or you can pay for a service like life line. So why shouldn’t our government i.e. CIA, NSA, etc… Protect us from terrorist.
Wow. I was using that as an example of how the government itself could freeze your own accounts if there ever was a time when the citizens turned on their government.
No matter how large the government is we the people still need guns to protect ourselves. It really boils down to attitude.
No argument there.[/quote]
Let me clarify:
No problem with the 24 hours waiting period except it could be a 5 minute wait period.
No problem not allowing a felon to own a gun. Even though they can just get one illegally.
You did not specify whether the “hackers” were government employees or random anarchist in their mom’s basement. I assumed the random guys. Also banks are not controlled by the government YET! They do have protection against hackers even government ones.
One thing I think most of us are forgetting is if we had to go against our government it is very likely a lot of our military would fight on our side not the governments. There is so much division in Washington they would probably have to take sides just like in the civil war.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
…No problem not allowing a felon to own a gun…
I believe this should pertain to violent felons or at least on a case by case basis. There are a lot of non-violent felony convictions that should not warrant loss of gun possession rights.
For example, let’s say a guy had a felony cocaine possession conviction in 1973 when he was 18 and has been a good boy ever since. Why should he prohibited from owning a weapon now?[/quote]
He is prevented from voting so why would he not be prevented from getting a gun?
You all are starting in the wrong place.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Professor X wrote:
pushharder wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
…No problem not allowing a felon to own a gun…
I believe this should pertain to violent felons or at least on a case by case basis. There are a lot of non-violent felony convictions that should not warrant loss of gun possession rights.
For example, let’s say a guy had a felony cocaine possession conviction in 1973 when he was 18 and has been a good boy ever since. Why should he prohibited from owning a weapon now?
He is prevented from voting so why would he not be prevented from getting a gun?
You all are starting in the wrong place.
I edited my above post to include some examples BTW.
My point is there are numerous felonies that one could be convicted of that should not warrant loss of weapons. White collar crimes, etc. At the very least, one should be able to recover his gun rights after so many years of a good record. As it stands now it is a lifetime ban.
For instance, what if a dentist or oral surgeon who had no violent criminal history at all was convicted of felony malpractice. Should he ever be allowed to touch a weapon again?
Forty years after his conviction a Houston area criminal breaks into his home and rapes and kills him and his wife and he COULD have defended himself had he been armed but because he fucked up with a tool in someone’s mouth decades before, he can’t.[/quote]
I’m not even disagreeing with you. I am stating that starting with FIREARMS is starting in the wrong place when those same people can’t even vote.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Professor X wrote:
My point is there are numerous felonies that one could be convicted of that should not warrant loss of weapons. White collar crimes, etc. At the very least, one should be able to recover his gun rights after so many years of a good record. As it stands now it is a lifetime ban.
For instance, what if a dentist or oral surgeon who had no violent criminal history at all was convicted of felony malpractice. Should he ever be allowed to touch a weapon again?
Forty years after his conviction a Houston area criminal breaks into his home and rapes and kills him and his wife and he COULD have defended himself had he been armed but because he fucked up with a tool in someone’s mouth decades before, he can’t.
I’m not even disagreeing with you. I am stating that starting with FIREARMS is starting in the wrong place when those same people can’t even vote.
Why start here? Because it is clearly an unjust quirk in our legal system that has been around for a long time. It needs to be changed.
Make it a package deal with the voting restoration if you want. To be honest, if it were me, I’d rather have my guns than my voting rights. I thought about that for .001 seconds in order to make my decision and if I took two weeks to make the decision it wouldn’t change.
[/quote]
There are many areas that deserve attention before firearms like the fact that many have trouble even renting an apartment based on 10-20 year old criminal activity which does nothing but make it even harder for that person to rehabilitate.
I am sure quite a few would put having a roof over their heads without relying on others before owning a gun.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Professor X wrote:
My point is there are numerous felonies that one could be convicted of that should not warrant loss of weapons. White collar crimes, etc. At the very least, one should be able to recover his gun rights after so many years of a good record. As it stands now it is a lifetime ban.
For instance, what if a dentist or oral surgeon who had no violent criminal history at all was convicted of felony malpractice. Should he ever be allowed to touch a weapon again?
Forty years after his conviction a Houston area criminal breaks into his home and rapes and kills him and his wife and he COULD have defended himself had he been armed but because he fucked up with a tool in someone’s mouth decades before, he can’t.
I’m not even disagreeing with you. I am stating that starting with FIREARMS is starting in the wrong place when those same people can’t even vote.
Why start here? Because it is clearly an unjust quirk in our legal system that has been around for a long time. It needs to be changed.
Make it a package deal with the voting restoration if you want. To be honest, if it were me, I’d rather have my guns than my voting rights. I thought about that for .001 seconds in order to make my decision and if I took two weeks to make the decision it wouldn’t change.
There are many areas that deserve attention before firearms like the fact that many have trouble even renting an apartment based on 10-20 year old criminal activity which does nothing but make it even harder for that person to rehabilitate.
I am sure quite a few would put having a roof over their heads without relying on others before owning a gun.[/quote]
I’m just putting this out there…Once you become a felon I don’t think you deserve shit. Whatever you did you knew it was wrong and you still pissed it away. The crime shouldn’t have been committed in the first place. Most of the guys that perform “white collar” crimes are smart enugh to know the consequences of their actions. If they can’t defend their family 30 years from now that is on them.
This isn’t really the topic, but the same goes for early parole or parole at all for anyone that commits a violent crime. I mean if you murder someone why should you only have to sit in jail for 20-50 years and then be released. Ya your life might suck and you might not amount to shit, but you still have opportunities your victim never had and to me that is wrong. same goes for all violent crimes.
[quote]
There are many areas that deserve attention before firearms[/quote]
The thread is about gun ownership if you want to talk about something else start a different thread.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
There are many areas that deserve attention before firearms
The thread is about gun ownership if you want to talk about something else start a different thread. [/quote]
Why not direct that at the person who brought up felons?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
<<< Good luck finding a leader for all of those people >>>
[/quote]
I volunteer =]