It's the Guns, Stupid

[Armed Veteran]

Snow Bunny_ wrote:

<quoted text>I would be willing to bet that Government officials whom are willing to resort to taking your guns, would be able to outrank your gun barrel, and pull more sophisticated weapons such as tanks, bombs, grenades, etc....
You would NEVER win.
...and possibly end up getting your entire family killed.

May your chains wear lightly.

[Where Is My America]

Snow Bunny_ wrote:

<quoted text>I would be willing to bet that Government officials whom are willing to resort to taking your guns, would be able to outrank your gun barrel, and pull more sophisticated weapons such as tanks, bombs, grenades, etc....
You would NEVER win.
...and possibly end up getting your entire family killed.

Does that sound like a country you want to live in ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

[Snow Bunny_]

Where Is My America wrote:

<quoted text>Does that sound like a country you want to live in ?

NO!
Absolutely not!

...but that doesn't change the fact that they would easily over-power you, and all of us:)

[Snow Bunny_]

Armed Veteran wrote:

<quoted text>
May your chains wear lightly.

You seem to be under the impression, that I am for that happening, merely because I posted facts.

As an American, my chains are YOUR chains.

I wouldn't want a country like that...not at all, BUT...that doesn't change the fact that they would easily over-power you.

It's a fact.

...and has nothing to do with me wearing chains.

[Armed Veteran]

Snow Bunny_ wrote:

<quoted text>
You seem to be under the impression, that I am for that happening, merely because I posted facts.
As an American, my chains are YOUR chains.
I wouldn't want a country like that...not at all, BUT...that doesn't change the fact that they would easily over-power you.
It's a fact.
...and has nothing to do with me wearing chains.

No it is NOT a fact. That is nothing more than your own speculation. It is also a huge assumption on your part that the military would actually turn on its own civilians. While some may, as a former member of our military, I would be willing to bet that most would not.

[Snow Bunny_]

Armed Veteran wrote:

<quoted text>
No it is NOT a fact. That is nothing more than your own speculation. It is also a huge assumption on your part that the military would actually turn on its own civilians. While some may, as a former member of our military, I would be willing to bet that most would not.

1. It is a fact.

2. Do you honestly think your piddly gun can go up against bigger, more powerful weapons, and win?

3. I never said I assumed the military would turn on it's own civilians. I would be willing to bet a million dollars...they wouldn't!
Where did I assume the military would turn on civilians?

4. It was a HYPOTHETICAL!
Do you know what hypothetical means?
In direct response to them "coming to your door to take your guns", and the reply "they'd be looking down the barrel of a gun".
It really has nothing to do with a military take over, as opposed to COMMON SENSE, and knowing if it did happen (hypothetically) you could not win.

[Armed Veteran]

Snow Bunny_ wrote:

<quoted text>
3. I never said I assumed the military would turn on it's own civilians. I would be willing to bet a million dollars...they wouldn't!
Where did I assume the military would turn on civilians?

This is from your post: "I would be willing to bet that Government officials whom are willing to resort to taking your guns, would be able to outrank your gun barrel, and pull more sophisticated weapons such as tanks, bombs, grenades, etc..."

Exactly who were you talking about, if not the military?

[ZigmunnDroid]

Snow Bunny_ wrote:

<quoted text>Bull Sh!t:)
Not at all. I just set >you< straight on there being HUNTING LAWS!
Sorry, but you should know semantics and deflection won't work on me:)
<quoted text>BUT, in your previous post you said an accident "would be prosecuted".
That's where and why regulation comes in
<quoted text>Now you agree it's a right?
You should be thanking me for making you aware of that:)
...you're welcome!
<quoted text>...that would mean it IS infringed!
You can't say it's "not" infringed, and then say "unless"!
..that "unless" is the PROOF that's it's not absolute!
<quoted text>WTF?
You are trying desperately to have a point here, but it is evident you do NOT have a valid point here.
YIKES!
AGAIN< for the THIRD time....it is not the SPEECH itself which is regulated, it is the FREEDOM of being able to say whatever you want, when we ALL KNOW you can't SAY whatever you want!
<quoted text>That's what I was telling you:)
...now you repeat it to me?
WOW
It's like you're trying to hit the ball, you get struck out, and yet you round the bases fist pumping and celebrating.
I don't get it:(
<quoted text>I've pointed that out to you more than once.
So, what is your point of telling me something, that I've already told you, and you denied previously?
<quoted text>Care to show me this "law"...the law that says you can't "speak" in a theater? Oh, and how it's the same law that prevents guns in theaters?
<quoted text>I do not confuse the two. Why do you not know the difference between exercising a right, and breaking the law?
Exercising a right = talking to you about guns and politics.
Misbehaving (breaking a LAW)= making up malicious lies about you, which destroys your life, business, reputation, etc..
<quoted text>The right to free speech!
Name any other right that involves an instrument that cause so much death, crime and violence?

hmm, hunting laws, you say.
That sounds like a law that only addresses behavior with a gun.
Can you produce some "hunting laws" that address the mere wearing your rifle or pistol?
and jane you ignorant lsut, we have laws I agree with that puish behavior that causes accidental death.
You should have been behaving better, then you would not have had that accident.
and as usual, you grasp for the neck of an argument and get your head stuck up the ass.
My right to shoot a gun has nothgin to do with your right to not get shot.
You have a right to not get shot if you are nto trying to hurt someone.
I have a right to shoot my gun anywhere I want to as long as I am not aiming at you, assuming you are not trying to hurt someon.
and the only valid point you have is above your ears.
No one has a right to infringe anothers rights.
That is not a BUT moment.
Period.
I have the right to do anythign I want as long as it does nto infringe anothers rights.
We do disagree on what a right is.
You feel you have a right to live your life unafraid.
Tough noogies. We can't go around tiptowing away from your paranoias.
And jesus we can lead you to knowledge and you are just allergic.
I say you have no fetters on free speech.
Free speech is not being allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater.
That is misbehavior.
YEt I can whisper fire ina crowded theater all I want.
That is free speech because it does not harm others.
I cannot shoot my gun in a crowded theater. That is misbehavvior.
I can wear my gun in a crowded theater, and that is not misbehavior.
Yet to sumbshits like you, you see nothgin wrong qith me being arrested for merely wearign a gun in a corwded theater.
That is the same as banning any speech in a theater.
jesus you're stupid.
let me repeat, jesus your're stupid.
did you undertsand that!
but to answer your last question.
The Pen.
The Pen has been used to kill hundreds of millions of people during the 20th century.
jesus you're stupid.

[ZigmunnDroid]

OregonSUX wrote:

<quoted text>
Yeah, which is why modern warfare is committed these days using battling cliffs.
You are an unrepentant racist, a bigot, a coward and really kinda dumb. Are you Paul I am an uneducated dolt Ryan?

jesus christ buddy, get bidens dick out of your mouth and talk sense, will ya.

[ZigmunnDroid]

Local Deputy wrote:

I can't wait until the day we (law enforcement) are allowed to go door-to-door and confiscate all guns. It will be funny seeing the look on some people's face. lol

yea, like yours with a size 12 boot in it.

[ZigmunnDroid]

Light Bearer wrote:

2.5 million people in concentration camps
5 million people under Govt. parole supervision
LOL 8x the prisoners of enlightened nations.
Why? 12x the guns of enlightened nations.
You Have the RIGHT to remain silent!
Just a police state.

nasty little country you live in there,

http://www.zcommunications.org/thailands-hill...

wow, throwing pregnant women in jail for growing food on governemnt land.

no wonder you want the slaves disarmed.

[ZigmunnDroid]

Nixx wrote:

<quoted text>
Internet: Tim Berners-Lee (English)
Telephone: Alexander Graham Bell (Scottish)
Electricty: Benjamin Franklin first conclusively proved its existance, but Alessandro Volta (Italian) was the inventor of the battery.
Computers: Long history of American and Bristish scientists
Wi-fi: CSIRO (an Australian Government Organisation)

tim got his knowledge from a belgian.

[ZigmunnDroid]

Local Deputy wrote:

<quoted text>
we will take them in a manner in which a shot will not be fired. Just wait.

ah yes, the hallucinationmethod.

You drink the koolaid, and have all kinds of fantaises.

[ZigmunnDroid]

Tray wrote:

<quoted text> A country that does not trust the people with a means of defense. A nanny state. Do they wipe your butt too? A country that is the most powerful superpower the world has ever known IS THE enlightened nation, the rest just wish they could be. Any nation that removes rights from the citizens can not be called "enlightened", that word would be "oppressed".

I figured out why he thinks slaves should not have guns. It intereferes with all the genocide they keep doing over there.

He must be a gov offical,

[ZigmunnDroid]

Light Bearer wrote:

US is the Worst Police State in the World – By the Numbers
However, police states must be measured by conditions behind the bars, as well as raw numbers of inmates. And, by that standard, the American Gulag is even more monstrous.
Civilized people now recognize that solitary confinement is a form of torture. The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture, Juan Mendez, reports
that solitary confinement beyond 15 days at a stretch crosses the line of torture, yet, as Al Jazeera recently reported, it is typical for hundred of thousands of U.S. prisoners to spend 30 or 60 days in solitary at a stretch. Twenty thousand are held in perpetual isolation in so-called supermax prisons – that is, they exist in a perpetual state of torture. Studies now show that, all told, 80,000 U.S. prisoners are locked up in solitary on any given day. That’s as many tortured people as the entire prison system of Germany, or of England, Scotland and Wales, combined.
If that is not a police state, then no such thing exists on planet Earth.

massacres
http://www.hrw.org/news/2009/06/12/thailand-i...

corrupt police

http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,,QUERY...

slaughtering citizens
http://feww.wordpress.com/2010/04/10/thailand...

civil rights atrocities

hmm,. police state, your police just execute criminals when they find them,
http://www.stats.org/stories/2003/thailands_k...

nasty little country you love, eh brutus,
http://www.care2.com/causes/in-thailand-killi...

[ZigmunnDroid]

Snow Bunny_ wrote:

<quoted text>Now you're just playing semantics.
You are being intellectually dishonest, because you asked for the law (as though you didn't know there were laws prohibiting free speech), and when I provide the laws, you reply with not being able to "see" it stop free speech.
It LEGALLY prohibits certain speech (i.e. Hate speech, slander, libel, defamation).
Stopping someone by LAW, with consequences like JAIL TIME, and large fines, and criminal charges is DIFFERENT than literally PHYSICALLY stopping people.
Are you not aware of the difference?
<quoted text> Yes it does. It stops lots of people!
We have ALL seen the numbers of the Brady Bill preventing MILLIONS from legally purchasing guns with a less than .1% error rate!!
Are you blind, or just acting blind?
<quoted text>It does:)
Explain how it doesn't in your opinion?
<quoted text>Show me ONE LAW that prevents a LAW ABIDING CITIZEN from owning a gun?
I'll be waiting:)
<quoted text>WTF?
Are you saying you are NOT aware of the LAWS?
Are you ok?
can you READ?
I provided the laws on this very post you replied too! Did you read them?
Just like laws preventing shooting your gun in public. YET, you CAN shoot your gun in public if attacked or in danger.
You really make NO sense.
<quoted text>...you forgot the most important part: You can't yell fire in a crowded building, if there is NOT A FIRE!!!
Why did you omit the "if there is NOT a fire" part?
Just like you can shoot your gun in public, if you're in danger, or being attacked.
(you just said that in your other post)
Same difference!
<quoted text>...and a law to prevent a law abiding citizen from getting and using a gun would be one where your hands must be tied, before you go hunting.
You seem to be under the impression that LAWS can physically stop people from doing bad things.
That's not why we have laws...we have laws to PUNISH those who break them, and give consequences for criminal actions.
They don't STOP criminal actions, they punish those who do!
...and you and I both know that laws will STOP, or prohibit SOME people from criminal activity...for fear of being caught and punished!

jane you ignorant slut, you have posted laws that address behavior while carrying a gun, not the mere act of wearing a gun

PLease provide any law that addresses the mere act of speaking, not a law that addresses the misbehvaior of speaking.

jesus you're stupid.

[ZigmunnDroid]

Snow Bunny_ wrote:

<quoted text>Now you're just playing semantics.
You are being intellectually dishonest, because you asked for the law (as though you didn't know there were laws prohibiting free speech), and when I provide the laws, you reply with not being able to "see" it stop free speech.
It LEGALLY prohibits certain speech (i.e. Hate speech, slander, libel, defamation).
Stopping someone by LAW, with consequences like JAIL TIME, and large fines, and criminal charges is DIFFERENT than literally PHYSICALLY stopping people.
Are you not aware of the difference?
<quoted text> Yes it does. It stops lots of people!
We have ALL seen the numbers of the Brady Bill preventing MILLIONS from legally purchasing guns with a less than .1% error rate!!
Are you blind, or just acting blind?
<quoted text>It does:)
Explain how it doesn't in your opinion?
<quoted text>Show me ONE LAW that prevents a LAW ABIDING CITIZEN from owning a gun?
I'll be waiting:)
<quoted text>WTF?
Are you saying you are NOT aware of the LAWS?
Are you ok?
can you READ?
I provided the laws on this very post you replied too! Did you read them?
Just like laws preventing shooting your gun in public. YET, you CAN shoot your gun in public if attacked or in danger.
You really make NO sense.
<quoted text>...you forgot the most important part: You can't yell fire in a crowded building, if there is NOT A FIRE!!!
Why did you omit the "if there is NOT a fire" part?
Just like you can shoot your gun in public, if you're in danger, or being attacked.
(you just said that in your other post)
Same difference!
<quoted text>...and a law to prevent a law abiding citizen from getting and using a gun would be one where your hands must be tied, before you go hunting.
You seem to be under the impression that LAWS can physically stop people from doing bad things.
That's not why we have laws...we have laws to PUNISH those who break them, and give consequences for criminal actions.
They don't STOP criminal actions, they punish those who do!
...and you and I both know that laws will STOP, or prohibit SOME people from criminal activity...for fear of being caught and punished!

sorry, I did not realize you had written so much pure crap.

we have laws to punsih people that misbehave and harm others.

What you are to stupid to understand is that the mere wearing or buying of a gun does not harm, does not involve misbehavior and yet you can be arrested for doing that.

No other right is so abused.

except when you attemopt to use free speech, man that is abuse.

[ZigmunnDroid]

Snow Bunny_ wrote:

<quoted text>
1. YES, it actually says WELL REGULATED, and THE PEOPLE!, and Militias:)
2....and FYI, Militia's are the PEOPLE!
3. At the time it was written, the Second Amendment referred to militias that were private citizens who could be (and often were) called up on short notice for the common defense. They were expected to bring their own personal weapons (muskets, bayonets, etc.) and supplies. The military themselves often owned more sophisticated weapons like cannons that could be manned by the private citizens when they were called up.
4. Ouch

jane you ignorant slut,

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

according to a dumbblond like you, the right to free speech only applies to the press.

accodring to a dumb ass like you, the people can only assemble peaceably,

the right of the people to bear amrs shall not be infringed.
militias should be well regulated, unlike your head,

shame you are to blond to understand that

and private citizens owned cannons, you thundering moron,

they also owned warships with cannons, you cretinous pos,

[ZigmunnDroid]

Snow Bunny_ wrote:

<quoted text>I would be willing to bet that Government officials whom are willing to resort to taking your guns, would be able to outrank your gun barrel, and pull more sophisticated weapons such as tanks, bombs, grenades, etc....
You would NEVER win.
...and possibly end up getting your entire family killed.

your stupidity is only matched by your ignorance,

that is why all citizens should have the same access to military grade weapons.

Not just the ones that can get a permit for them,

just like citizens could do until the 1930's.

[ZigmunnDroid]

Snow Bunny_ wrote:

<quoted text>NO!
Absolutely not!
...but that doesn't change the fact that they would easily over-power you, and all of us:)

they could easily overpower wittel you and your peers,