Self preservation is a right. I use my firearm for self preservation, be it hunting food, defending my home and family or just to make me feel a little safer. I have the right to life, and to defend my life. I do this with my weapon.
Of course the weak, and insecure would want to take the guns away. Those people still believe that the system is 100% just. Those people believe that those in power are honest and will never be corrupted. Or those people are the ones in power. Those in power would seek to take away the abilities of those not in power.
This is why those old men made the constitution this way. They intended for none of their citizens to be helpless against a tyrannical government. Our right to bear arms is one of the ways we do just that. Those old men weren’t tyrannical in the least. They did everything in their power to see to it that we would never have to live through tyranny.
Personally, I think automatics aren’t necessary for hunting or most cases of self defense. However, as soon as we allow one item to be taken, then next one will. This is the way it always goes. Had we never allowed the first thing to be taken, it would never have come this far.
Even if my own government called for me to disarm, I would not. That would be tyranny.
[quote]TrainerinDC wrote:
Self preservation is a right. I use my firearm for self preservation, be it hunting food, defending my home and family or just to make me feel a little safer. I have the right to life, and to defend my life. I do this with my weapon.
Of course the weak, and insecure would want to take the guns away. Those people still believe that the system is 100% just. Those people believe that those in power are honest and will never be corrupted. Or those people are the ones in power. Those in power would seek to take away the abilities of those not in power.
This is why those old men made the constitution this way. They intended for none of their citizens to be helpless against a tyrannical government. Our right to bear arms is one of the ways we do just that. Those old men weren’t tyrannical in the least. They did everything in their power to see to it that we would never have to live through tyranny.
Personally, I think automatics aren’t necessary for hunting or most cases of self defense. However, as soon as we allow one item to be taken, then next one will. This is the way it always goes. Had we never allowed the first thing to be taken, it would never have come this far.
Even if my own government called for me to disarm, I would not. That would be tyranny. [/quote]
Most people engage in politics WITHOUT guns… I don’t know how you do it though…
[quote]Adamsson wrote:
Most people engage in politics WITHOUT guns… ;)[/quote]
Yes, the Soviets and Nazis are two great examples, as are North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela and any number of Marxist thug African dictatorships…
The interesting thing about those old dead whiteys who founded my country is they represent the only government in history (that I am aware of) that INVITED its own overthrow should it become necessary.
[quote]Fonebone wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
Most people engage in politics WITHOUT guns…
Yes, the Soviets and Nazis are two great examples, as are North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela and any number of Marxist thug African dictatorships…
The interesting thing about those old dead whiteys who founded my country is they represent the only government in history (that I am aware of) that INVITED its own overthrow should it become necessary.[/quote]
I’ll correct that a bit:
The only government in history that INVITED it’s own VIOLENT overthrow. Most governments prefer the non-violent democratic way…
[quote]Adamsson wrote:
Fonebone wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
Most people engage in politics WITHOUT guns…
Yes, the Soviets and Nazis are two great examples, as are North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela and any number of Marxist thug African dictatorships…
The interesting thing about those old dead whiteys who founded my country is they represent the only government in history (that I am aware of) that INVITED its own overthrow should it become necessary.
I’ll correct that a bit:
The only government in history that INVITED it’s own VIOLENT overthrow. Most governments prefer the non-violent democratic way…
[/quote]
Any comment why these countries tend to degenerate into quasi-socialist tyrannies of the majorities?
[quote]orion wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
Fonebone wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
Most people engage in politics WITHOUT guns…
Yes, the Soviets and Nazis are two great examples, as are North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela and any number of Marxist thug African dictatorships…
The interesting thing about those old dead whiteys who founded my country is they represent the only government in history (that I am aware of) that INVITED its own overthrow should it become necessary.
I’ll correct that a bit:
The only government in history that INVITED it’s own VIOLENT overthrow. Most governments prefer the non-violent democratic way…
Any comment why these countries tend to degenerate into quasi-socialist tyrannies of the majorities?[/quote]
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
keaster wrote:
Why do you guys need assualt rifles, full auto’s, high calibre rifles(50 cal and the like)? Are the red coats attacking again or what? Do you want to turn a deer into hamburger while hunting?
We need these things for the same reason our military and police need them. Remember, these weapons are there to defend against people that have those things.
mike[/quote]
Man that is the weakest arguement I have ever heard.
The whole having high powered guns things seems so immature to me.
But, this thread is about the article, so with nothing to add (except for that was some gay shit) I’m out.
[quote]TrainerinDC wrote:
Self preservation is a right. I use my firearm for self preservation, be it hunting food, defending my home and family or just to make me feel a little safer. I have the right to life, and to defend my life. I do this with my weapon.
Of course the weak, and insecure would want to take the guns away. Those people still believe that the system is 100% just. Those people believe that those in power are honest and will never be corrupted. Or those people are the ones in power. Those in power would seek to take away the abilities of those not in power.
This is why those old men made the constitution this way. They intended for none of their citizens to be helpless against a tyrannical government. Our right to bear arms is one of the ways we do just that. Those old men weren’t tyrannical in the least. They did everything in their power to see to it that we would never have to live through tyranny.
Personally, I think automatics aren’t necessary for hunting or most cases of self defense. However, as soon as we allow one item to be taken, then next one will. This is the way it always goes. Had we never allowed the first thing to be taken, it would never have come this far.
Even if my own government called for me to disarm, I would not. That would be tyranny. [/quote]
Sorry, one more thing, could you say tyranny or tyrannical one more time
[quote]Adamsson wrote:
I did not say that there are no such things as rights. I just said that constitutional rights are just that, parts of the constitution. A constitution that can be changed… if the correct amount of people WANT it to be change. [/quote]
And you can therefore understand why some people might be upset that the spirit of the constitution is dishonored by politicians and groups who lobby for laws that curtail those constitutionally granted laws bit by bit, over a period of many years. Such is not democratic progress, and it certainly isn’t the supermajority that ought to be required to change the Constitution.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
I did not say that there are no such things as rights. I just said that constitutional rights are just that, parts of the constitution. A constitution that can be changed… if the correct amount of people WANT it to be change.
And you can therefore understand why some people might be upset that the spirit of the constitution is dishonored by politicians and groups who lobby for laws that curtail those constitutionally granted laws bit by bit, over a period of many years. Such is not democratic progress, and it certainly isn’t the supermajority that ought to be required to change the Constitution.[/quote]
I got bored reading all the discussion, so I’ll just stay on topic. Comments like that girl’s, directed to no one in particular (so it isn’t harassment), shouldn’t be noted in her permanent records. I call this reverse discrimination. That’s when you try so hard to accomodate everbody’s needs and feelings that you end up disserving somebody.
This is coming from a high school teacher if anybody cares anymore.
[quote]Adamsson wrote:
orion wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
Fonebone wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
Most people engage in politics WITHOUT guns…
Yes, the Soviets and Nazis are two great examples, as are North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela and any number of Marxist thug African dictatorships…
The interesting thing about those old dead whiteys who founded my country is they represent the only government in history (that I am aware of) that INVITED its own overthrow should it become necessary.
I’ll correct that a bit:
The only government in history that INVITED it’s own VIOLENT overthrow. Most governments prefer the non-violent democratic way…
Any comment why these countries tend to degenerate into quasi-socialist tyrannies of the majorities?
which countries are you thinking of now…?
[/quote]
Most of Europe, spearheaded by Scandinavia.
The unholy combination of Democracy and Socialism.
But I guess in countries where people are basically wards of the state, taking away the guns is only the most consequent thing to do.
[quote]Andrew Dixon wrote:
What do you think your chances are of overthrowing the government with your weapons are? You need a big organized army to take down the USA.
…
[/quote]
Pretty simple. If the people wanted to take the government down they would.
The army and police force are made up of the average man in the US. While some would turn against the common citizen most would not.
[quote]orion wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
orion wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
Fonebone wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
Most people engage in politics WITHOUT guns…
Yes, the Soviets and Nazis are two great examples, as are North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela and any number of Marxist thug African dictatorships…
The interesting thing about those old dead whiteys who founded my country is they represent the only government in history (that I am aware of) that INVITED its own overthrow should it become necessary.
I’ll correct that a bit:
The only government in history that INVITED it’s own VIOLENT overthrow. Most governments prefer the non-violent democratic way…
Any comment why these countries tend to degenerate into quasi-socialist tyrannies of the majorities?
which countries are you thinking of now…?
Most of Europe, spearheaded by Scandinavia.
The unholy combination of Democracy and Socialism.
But I guess in countries where people are basically wards of the state, taking away the guns is only the most consequent thing to do.
They might hurt themselves. [/quote]
You sir, are VERY knowledgeable when it comes to scandinavia… Congratulations!
you can’t even defend yourself in Israel , and the police does nothing if anyone heard the story about the farmer from the Negev shai dromi , (bediun arabs robbed all of his farm , he shot one and got arrested for murder , and the police did nothing to them since there afraid to go in)
Do you want to put your life in stakes of an (potentially)impotent police force?
courts and other systems like this might only make things more ““civil”” real justice is elusive.
scociety will be better off as independent people who can protect themselves and live in harmony by agreement faith and honor and LAW.
then a bunch of sheep (baaaa) taken to slaughter while a few wolves(the real crooks) do whatever they want.
[quote]emonkeh wrote:
society will be better off as independent people who can protect themselves and live in harmony by agreement faith and honor and LAW.
[/quote]
Correct. The burden of self defense is on the self. The citizen himself should be the front line of self defense and crime prevention.
Congratulations!