Why there is a need for the Second Amendment

Jan 3, 2013 Full story: Tampa Bay Online 245

Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., shootings, said: "The British are not coming.

Read more
First Prev
of 13
Next Last

“Constitutionist/ SAF”

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#1 Jan 3, 2013
Walter E Williams wrote:
... And notice that the people who support gun control are the very people who want to control and dictate our lives.
Millions of Amerikanos and gun owners voted for the communists Obama, Pat Quinn, Senator Durbin, and Rahmulus.

Americans will eagerly get in line and exchange their freedom for entitlements. That's what a gun-buyback is all about, exchanging their guns for money.

“Pompous pontificator”

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#2 Jan 3, 2013
This dick doesn't get it. It's not the British we are guarding against, it's the likes of HIM!

Free people can be armed. Slaves and prisoners can never be armed. EVERY SLAVE MASTER, AND EVERY TYRANT, ALWAYS DISARMS HIS VICTIMS. If a government does not trust its people to be armed, the people cannot trust their government.

The famous "shot heard around the world" was fired when the British tried to take away the guns. The stark reality is that once the people have been disarmed all resistance will be a risk of death. The right to defend yourself is your life.
Anyone who tries to take your right to defend yourself is trying to kill you. Whatever you have a right to do, in defense of your life, you
have a right to do in defense of your right to keep and bear arms.
swxxxt

Rochester, PA

#4 Jan 3, 2013
youtube.com/watch... Gung-Ho Fool!
FTSE 100

South Ockendon, UK

#5 Jan 3, 2013
Bubbletoes wrote:
This dick doesn't get it. It's not the British we are guarding against, it's the likes of HIM!
Free people can be armed. Slaves and prisoners can never be armed. EVERY SLAVE MASTER, AND EVERY TYRANT, ALWAYS DISARMS HIS VICTIMS. If a government does not trust its people to be armed, the people cannot trust their government.
The famous "shot heard around the world" was fired when the British tried to take away the guns. The stark reality is that once the people have been disarmed all resistance will be a risk of death. The right to defend yourself is your life.
Anyone who tries to take your right to defend yourself is trying to kill you. Whatever you have a right to do, in defense of your life, you
have a right to do in defense of your right to keep and bear arms.
Ok, so i understand what you've said here. Surprisingly, very few Amercians i've spoken to have summarised it quite as succinctly as you have, so thanks for that.

In theory, this is exactly what all nations need. A system whereby the people don't fear the govt.

however, what we have in reality is a situation where the right to bear arms results in the right to harm others. The fear of harm makes people paranoid. So you have a bunch of paranoid people armed to the teeth walking around looking for an excuse to discharge their weapon.

I know its not as glib as this but its not far from the truth.

I thought the democratic process was in place to deal with tyrannical govts. or at least, thats what we preach to the world

“Pompous pontificator”

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#6 Jan 3, 2013
FTSE 100 wrote:
<quoted text>
In theory, this is exactly what all nations need. A system whereby the people don't fear the govt.
however, what we have in reality is a situation where the right to bear arms results in the right to harm others.[/QUOTE}

Not true, millions who hold and exercise their RIGHTS never do harm.
[QUOTE]The fear of harm makes people paranoid. So you have a bunch of paranoid people armed to the teeth walking around looking for an excuse to discharge their weapon.
Laughable! I and all the gun owners I know, are neither paranoid (Psychiatric term as you should know) nor looking for any excuse to fire a weapon. If you knew anything at-all about LAWFUL gun owners, you'd know that they are some of THE MOST polite and measured people in our nation. They understand the profound responsibility they have to keep a cool head while everybody around them are loosing theirs. They steer-clear of petty arguments and similar nonsense knowing they prefer to not get involved in any legal entanglements for no good reason.
I know its not as glib as this but its not far from the truth.
I thought the democratic process was in place to deal with tyrannical govts. or at least, that's what we preach to the world


Not glib, NAIVE! Do you really believe stormtroopers will back off if they know all you have to counter their illegal, unconstuitutional home invasion is a piece of paper? What you don't know about red-blooded Americans who honor their war dead and The Founders' and Framers' principles is a lot.
CrimeaRiver - IMP

South Ockendon, UK

#7 Jan 4, 2013
Bubbletoes wrote:
<quoted text>
Laughable! I and all the gun owners I know, are neither paranoid (Psychiatric term as you should know) nor looking for any excuse to fire a weapon. If you knew anything at-all about LAWFUL gun owners, you'd know that they are some of THE MOST polite and measured people in our nation. They understand the profound responsibility they have to keep a cool head while everybody around them are loosing theirs. They steer-clear of petty arguments and similar nonsense knowing they prefer to not get involved in any legal entanglements for no good reason.
<quoted text>
Not glib, NAIVE! Do you really believe stormtroopers will back off if they know all you have to counter their illegal, unconstuitutional home invasion is a piece of paper? What you don't know about red-blooded Americans who honor their war dead and The Founders' and Framers' principles is a lot.
Ok - but you're talking about a scenario that hasn't happened in the US. In 200 years there has never been a situation where the American people have had to take up arms against a tyrannical govt or invading army.

But what does happen more frequently is that the wide availability of guns results in school massacres, criminals shooting at police, drive by shootings, stray bullets killing innocent bystanders.

I read somewhere that nearly 100 policemen a year are killed by guns.

So you may call me naive, but I'm a realist. You imagine a noble scenario that justifies the right to bear arms. But you ignore the reality where people are killed everyday because guns are dangerous. You can't guarantee that all Americans are righteous and polite, so arguing in favour of guns doesn't really apply.

I would much prefer a situation where the police can arrive at a situation and not have to fear getting shot by a criminal trying to escape arrest.
Besara

Des Moines, IA

#9 Jan 4, 2013
FTSE 100 wrote:
<quoted text>
O...
however, what we have in reality is a situation where the right to bear arms results in the right to harm others.
Wrong. The acts of criminals result in the harm to others.
FTSE 100 wrote:
The fear of harm makes people paranoid.
Speak for yourself. The fear of harm makes people wary. And especially of those who try to dismiss that fear.
FTSE 100 wrote:
So you have a bunch of paranoid people armed to the teeth walking around looking for an excuse to discharge their weapon.
But you can't prove that. It's simply your opinion. Nothing more.
FTSE 100 wrote:
I know its not as glib as this but its not far from the truth.
Yes it is far from the truth.
FTSE 100 wrote:
I thought the democratic process was in place to deal with tyrannical govts. or at least, thats what we preach to the world
Right. Despots always leave office after losing elections. You bet.
Besara

Des Moines, IA

#10 Jan 4, 2013
CrimeaRiver - IMP wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok - but you're talking about a scenario that hasn't happened in the US. In 200 years there has never been a situation where the American people have had to take up arms against a tyrannical govt or invading army.
So it's never going to happen?
CrimeaRiver - IMP wrote:
But what does happen more frequently is that the wide availability of guns results in school massacres, criminals shooting at police, drive by shootings, stray bullets killing innocent bystanders.
I read somewhere that nearly 100 policemen a year are killed by guns.
20,000 Firearms laws yet you prattle on about "wide availability". Everything you mentioned involves criminals. Nothing to do with law abiding gun owners.
CrimeaRiver - IMP wrote:

So you may call me naive, but I'm a realist.
No, not close.
CrimeaRiver - IMP wrote:
You imagine a noble scenario that justifies the right to bear arms.
Only a subject or despot would question the the justification of rights. Rights don't need to be justified.
CrimeaRiver - IMP wrote:
But you ignore the reality where people are killed everyday because guns are dangerous.
Liar. You ignore the reality that guns in the hands of the citizenry protect them and stop crimes.
CrimeaRiver - IMP wrote:
You can't guarantee that all Americans are righteous and polite, so arguing in favour of guns doesn't really apply.
You can't argue that the acts of the statistically minute minority should dictate the rights and liberties of the majority who choose to live withing the boundaries of the law. So arguing against guns doesn't really apply.
CrimeaRiver - IMP wrote:
I would much prefer a situation where the police can arrive at a situation and not have to fear getting shot by a criminal trying to escape arrest.
But you are okay if that criminal has already killed 3 or 4 victims in that situation because you wanted them to remain unarmed. How noble.
serfs up

Kissimmee, FL

#11 Jan 4, 2013
Why is there a need for taxpayers to beforced to pay for others to shittt out babies for the last fifty years, paying several times then families do and fora hefty percentage, for their whole lives.

“Pompous pontificator”

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#12 Jan 4, 2013
CrimeaRiver - IMP wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok - but you're talking about a scenario that hasn't happened in the US. In 200 years there has never been a situation where the American people have had to take up arms against a tyrannical govt or invading army.
(1946)The Battle of Athens (sometimes called the McMinn County War) was a rebellion led by citizens in Athens and Etowah, Tennessee, United States, against the local government in August 1946. The citizens, including some World War II veterans, accused the local officials of political corruption and voter intimidation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens... (1946)
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#13 Jan 4, 2013
CrimeaRiver - IMP wrote:
<quoted text>

I read somewhere that nearly 100 policemen a year are killed by guns.
.
Maybe we should start by taking the police's guns...

Since: Nov 09

Newnan, GA

#14 Jan 4, 2013
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe we should start by taking the police's guns...
I know quite a few people in law enforcement and they are very much in favor of AMERICAN CITIZENS owning firearms...a number of them refer to themselves as "second responders" because it is the armed citizen who is the first to respond.

Since: Nov 09

Newnan, GA

#15 Jan 4, 2013
serfs up wrote:
Why is there a need for taxpayers to beforced to pay for others to shittt out babies for the last fifty years, paying several times then families do and fora hefty percentage, for their whole lives.
And unfortunatly those people we support with our taxes have the right to vote....guess who they voted for in November?

Since: Mar 11

Minnesota's North Coast

#16 Jan 4, 2013
ga_patriot wrote:
<quoted text>I know quite a few people in law enforcement and they are very much in favor of AMERICAN CITIZENS owning firearms...a number of them refer to themselves as "second responders" because it is the armed citizen who is the first to respond.
OPne of the bystanders of the Gabby Giffords shooting had his CCW with him,. he was actually one of the people who helped tackle the shooter. the shooting was over before his little pistol could help...

Sorry charlie/.....

Since: Mar 11

Minnesota's North Coast

#17 Jan 4, 2013
ga_patriot wrote:
<quoted text>I know quite a few people in law enforcement and they are very much in favor of AMERICAN CITIZENS owning firearms...a number of them refer to themselves as "second responders" because it is the armed citizen who is the first to respond.
Prob'ly a few armed, trained guards at Ft. Hood, dontcha think?

Since: Mar 11

Minnesota's North Coast

#18 Jan 4, 2013
ga_patriot wrote:
<quoted text>I know quite a few people in law enforcement and they are very much in favor of AMERICAN CITIZENS owning firearms...a number of them refer to themselves as "second responders" because it is the armed citizen who is the first to respond.
Armed guard at both Columbine and Virginia Tech.

how's this workin for ya?

Since: Nov 09

Newnan, GA

#19 Jan 4, 2013
FTSE 100 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok, so i understand what you've said here. Surprisingly, very few Amercians i've spoken to have summarised it quite as succinctly as you have, so thanks for that.
In theory, this is exactly what all nations need. A system whereby the people don't fear the govt.
however, what we have in reality is a situation where the right to bear arms results in the right to harm others. The fear of harm makes people paranoid. So you have a bunch of paranoid people armed to the teeth walking around looking for an excuse to discharge their weapon.
I know its not as glib as this but its not far from the truth.
I thought the democratic process was in place to deal with tyrannical govts. or at least, thats what we preach to the world
First of all we are not a democracy...WE ARE A REPUBLIC that elects our representatives democraticly. No one I know walks around looking for a reson to fire their weapon, they just happen to be prepared to do so if it BECOMES NECESSARY. Owning a weapon does not give one the right to harm others it gives them the right to defend themselves from others who attempt to harm them. Driving a car is a privelege that results in harm to others, in 2011 over 10,000 people were killed on our roads in accidents attributed to speeding.Many of those killed were innocent school aged children.Should cars be banned? We live in a nation where the speed limit is 70 yet many cars built by Ford,GM,Mazda,Nissan and Dodge are capable of reaching speeds of 140-180 MPH and not word from the left about "who would need a car that goes that fast". All they can say is who would need an AR or a magazine that holds 30 rounds. Cars that do 70-80 MPH are designed for transportation...cars that can do 140-180 are designed for SPEEDING!

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#20 Jan 4, 2013
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
Thomas Jefferson
Besara

Des Moines, IA

#21 Jan 4, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>OPne of the bystanders of the Gabby Giffords shooting had his CCW with him,. he was actually one of the people who helped tackle the shooter. the shooting was over before his little pistol could help...
Sorry charlie/.....
He correctly determined that there was too much a risk in firing his weapon so he left it holstered. Excellent fail on your part.
Besara

Des Moines, IA

#22 Jan 4, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>Armed guard at both Columbine and Virginia Tech.
how's this workin for ya?
Where were they at, the campus coffee shop?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 13
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Democrat Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News 'Not going to change': Indiana gov defends reli... 2 min Marcavage s Trick 59
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 2 min red and right 185,966
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min PolakPotrafi 1,207,841
News Indiana religious freedom act: What's behind th... 18 min fatbacks x 22
News Gay marriage (Mar '13) 20 min Just Think 58,935
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 21 min red and right 176,043
News Pence: 'Not going to change' religious freedom law 22 min Sneaky Pete 40
More from around the web