If this were a discussion about nukes then I guess that would be the comment to make. However this is a discussion about the right to protect oneself against all those foreign and domestic. The reason the Nazis did not invade Switzerland was because they had guns. They had taken weapons away from everyone else. No one could protect themselves from this take over. I have a right to protect my son and my family. I have a right to protect my own body from harm. It is not the ability to get guns that you may have to worry about...it is the ammo anyway. However I will tell you this, most countries throughout history where their government has taken away their right to protect themselves fell under a dictatorship or is no longer around. Only a government in fear takes away the right of its people to defend themselves and their country.<quoted text>
So by that retarded logic, if every bad guy had a nuke, does that mean you should have one too ?
[[[ point gun to head and click ]]]
Gun Control Debate - San Diego, CA
Discuss the national Gun Control debate in San Diego, CA.
Would you support a ban on handguns?
#126 Feb 27, 2012
#127 Feb 27, 2012
Another missive from a government suck up!!
#129 Feb 27, 2012
Notice how he never uses the same name? He also lashes out at law-abidiing citizens.
Bet he's a pedophile afraid of getting caught by a parent with a gun.
#130 Feb 28, 2012
Wrong, this is about you owning a gun to flaunt your anarchism and anti-gov spewl, all that foreign and domestic enemy crap is NRA snake oil.
Your gun will not stop a take over and that was not the reason why Nazis didn't invade Switzerland ha ha what a nimrod, you need to go back to history class. Did you drink up all the NRA koolaid ?
Nobody is saying you don't have a right to protect your family (within reason of course), but why do you need an Uzi and a ton of ammo and hand grenades to do it ? You don't really expect us to believe your "we do it to protect our family" NRA propaganda do you ? We all know the real reason, don't we. Hey here's an idea, why not own a BB Gun instead of a WMD that kills ? Oh I get it, because the bad guys have one (bad guys being the government) so got to have one too, how childish and retarded.
America was taken over long time ago, you missed the boat. The founding fathers were terrorists who took it over and sold it to the highest bidder. So basically, we are not buying your shit, next...
#131 Feb 28, 2012
My aren't you a pleasant person. Your type of attitude is why our country might want to take a look at its unity. If you do not agree with me... be a big boy, put your big boy pants on and DISCUSS it like the big people do. Otherwise go play in the playground where children still call each other names and still learning how not to be rude. Respectfully, Mr or Ms Hahaha, I do not believe I said anything about owning an Uzi or grenades. I do not belong to the NRA. I am not anti-government. Please do not begin to think you know anything about me. I am simply a taxpaying, law abiding, American who loves their country and my rights. I am well aware of past history of Germany and I do know that if we do not remember past, we are doomed to repeat it. I did not say MY gun would stop a take over...however if those who wish to exercise their 2ND amendment rights are armed in this climate of uneasiness with the middle east and such, then should anything happen on our soil we would not have to hide in corners while waiting for The Calvary to arrive. Because if something ever happened on our soil, oh wait it did... I also do want it for home invasion. I believe it is all one and the same. I really feel that the point is not why I want my gun, but the fact that I want the right to have my gun. I can go on and all day saying why, However Mr Hahaha if you were my neighbor I know just from this post, I could not trust you to help should I be in time of need as a neighbor. And if you do feel about the founding fathers being terrorists (the government of that time)as you say...then you Sir, proved my point for me when I said foreign or DOMESTIC.
#132 Feb 28, 2012
For all of those that really do not want Americans to have weapons. Take a moment to look at the bigger picture as I see it. If you see it differently please share it.
So we now have all law abiding citizens turn in their weapons (and they will because they are law abiding citizens)But what about everyone else? There will be those that are just not willing to comply. So the laws will have to be changed to allow for the police to search homes to make sure all weapons have been turned in. There are not enough police so we will have to get the military to help. Why not we are not at war anymore, right. Do you really think it will that easy. I assure you that there will have to be curfews. Military go nowhere without their weapons. So we will have the military in the streets and with weapons. So say just for amusement sake that we get all weapons away from ALL the people...
Well? Now what? There are now no guns in America. Should we put up a bubble around us? Okay now what? So now there will be no crime. I am a realist by nature. I lean towards the positive. However, rage is rage. Money is money. Pride is pride. Lust is lust. Whether by planning or not these are some of the reasons crime happens. And it WILL happen by any means necessary. Those that are law abide will continue to try to abide by the law...until pushed and they have nothing to lose. But what happens with those that just will not, do not and can not abide by the law... All I am saying is. Look at the bigger picture. It is more than just saying. You can not possess your firearm as a law abiding citizen.
#133 Feb 29, 2012
Wrong. This is about you spewing your ignorant claptrap to people you don't even know and projecting your own inadequacies on.
A takeover by whom?
Just as you drink the Brady Ale?
What business is it of yours?
More fodder from a mental eunuch.
#134 Mar 1, 2012
So if you want a car the only car you should have is a Rio. You only NEED a car that gets from point A to point B. Why have foreign imports at all. We don't NEED all that stuff anyway. Your children can only have clothes from sears...no designer for you. No more smartphones. Why when we only NEED a phone that calls and texts. And why have computers. After all they are really only a medium for FREE expression. To know what is going on in the world. We are a country with rights and freedoms. There is no NEED for rights and freedom. Right????
However I would love to know other than your imagination, where you come up with your facts that gun owners are MORE prone to violence and that there is an anarchy mentality. What is wrong with hunting? It is a sport.. If I side I only want one weapon and one box of ammo then I am suddenly not an NRA Kool Aid Drinker?? I may or may not be more prone to violence, and I may or may not be of the anarchy mentality, but I will tell you this... I will protect my family, because I still can (while drinking NRA Kool Aid) and since you are against guns it is your family that might suffer with this decision. And it won't a 50+ plus man that comes through the door. And sir you will never understand unless you have been there. And luckily people have more than one box of ammo so that they can practice, practice , practice just so they do not shot someone's foolhardy head off when they are aiming.
#135 Mar 2, 2012
People have a right to protect them selves.
#136 May 30, 2012
#137 May 30, 2012
I believe in control. You should be able to hit what you are aiming at .
#138 May 31, 2012
Who said anything about needin that? What business is it of yours?
How do you know?
But of course you can't prove anything you just puked up there.
Perhaps you've been on the business end of Sarah Brady's strap-on too many times.
Since: Dec 10
#140 Oct 25, 2012
NOPE, SCOTUS ruled that INDIVIDUALS have a RIGHT to keep and bear arms.
#141 Jan 16, 2013
Sir, I provide you with the following scenario: you are at home, it's night and you hear someone breaking into your home. The phone lines and alarms have been cut. You cell phone does not have a signal. Your children are asleep in the rooms next to yours. What do you do? I reach for my gun and cock it.
#143 Jan 16, 2013
As a matter of fact the Second Amendment does have a lot to do with a potential tyrannical government. Consider the Social Contract...and just why our country revolted from England. Consider why the founders included the 2nd Amendment in the first place. Instead of insulting people, back your assertions up with fact.
#144 Jan 16, 2013
NOPE, it has zero to do with it. NRA brainwashing they coined the phrase tyrannical government. First off, the country did not revolt from england, it was only a small number of what the British would call criminals and terrorists aka the founding fathers. The people had no say in the matter, it was done in secret like traitors usually do. The second amendment was for regulated government militia. Individuals were usually allowed hunting riles for hunting and home protection that was only because there were less people and when you have less people you have less idiots with guns. Things have changed since then which is why the second amendment will be revised.
Like it not Gun Control is coming,it's long overdue.
Gun ownership has gotten out of hand, you DO NOT need a fracking assault rile or uzi to hunt ducks and you certainly do not need one for home invasion. You get what to have what the federal government allows you to have, don't like it then get the hell out. If the government says you may own a hunting rile for hunting ducks and home defense, don't be a dick about it, just accept it. It's because idiots rebel that we have the laws we have in this country. People have to screw everything up because they think they are entitled to more.
#145 Jan 16, 2013
First, I would like address your points:
“NRA brainwashing they coined the phrase tyrannical government.”
Taken from Declaration of Independence:“The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States” Notice the phrase ‘tyranny’. True, tyrannical government is not used but implied. The NRA did not exist until 1871 and I have found no etymological evidence that the NRA coined the phrase. I would, however, be interested in your sources.
“First off, the country did not revolt from england, it was only a small number of what the British would call criminals and terrorists aka the founding fathers.”
From what I have researched Loyalists numbered approximately 20% of the white populous. Note that many of the loyalists had strong connections to England and a break from her would cause them great strife. Which is understandable. However, 20% is not a majority. My information regarding the percentage comes from the following cite: http://countrystudies.us/united-states/histor... as well as other books, etc. that all seem to be in close agreement. If you have another source, please share.
“The people had no say in the matter, it was done in secret like traitors usually do.”
Town hall meetings, held in churches for the most part, were VERY popular. These meetings were held to discuss concerns, similar to what we have today in city hall meetings. Frustration at having to quarter soldiers, stamp/sugar/tea, etc, acts would also be heavily vocalized. I assure you, the thought of revolting was by no means secret. Also, letters to the King such as the Olive Branch letter-written before the break- would have been publically known.
“The second amendment was for regulated government militia. Individuals were usually allowed hunting riles for hunting and home protection that was only because there were less people and when you have less people you have less idiots with guns.”
True, individuals did have guns for protection and hunting. True, there were less people in the Americas at that time. However, there was no question of allowance of a gun for a white citizen. The inclusion of the Second Amendment’s right to bare arms is subjective to time. Each of the founders had their own view of the limitations and reasons for baring arms.
“Gun ownership has gotten out of hand, you DO NOT need a fracking assault rile or uzi to hunt ducks and you certainly do not need one for home invasion. You get what to have what the federal government allows you to have, don't like it then get the hell out. If the government says you may own a hunting rile for hunting ducks and home defense, don't be a dick about it, just accept it. It's because idiots rebel that we have the laws we have in this country. People have to screw everything up because they think they are entitled to more.”
I agree that gun violence has gotten out of hand. I do wonder the point behind owning assault weapons. I have lived in San Diego, and now live in Texas. The area I live in has very little to no gun violence. There are several classes that must be attended prior to receiving a concealed gun license. I personally attended a gun safety course offered by our police department- which was amazing. I think we are on the same page in theory. Thanks for your insight.
#146 Jan 18, 2013
You need to read your history better, This is part of the second sentence in the The Declaration of Independence.
" That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government," [Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776]
Is the Second Amendment in there for hunting or protecting your home? Does not sound like it.
It sound like its in there to insure the people can have "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." Key words in there are, right of the people....not right of the government.(Because only the Government can violate the Constitution)
History lesson, In 1775 British General Gates, which at the time was governing Massachusetts, put Boston under martial law and began seizing arms, when he could not locate their arms he seized gun powder. Is that why its there? Maybe.
#147 Jan 18, 2013
Maybe you should just accept that some people have guns, and don't be a dick about it, just accept it. Don't like it get the hell out.
For your information an Uzi (Which is available in semiautomatic) only fires pistol rounds(9×19mm,.22LR,.45 ACP,.41 AE), why is that different then a handgun?
I'm assuming you are referring to a AR15 as an assault rile, It is not. The AR15 is a carbine, which means it does not shoot a rifle round. A rifle round is a high powered round that will go through several walls (brick walls). 4570, 30-6, 308. Those are used for hunting animals...and sometimes people, depending on if you're a marine sniper or swat guy.
Now the AR15 is a great home defense gun. The 223 round is less likely to go through my target, the bed room wall, side of the house, into the neighbors house, and most of their home and possibly into their neighbors home. But the 4570 will most likely do just that (It will drop a grizzly bear with on round,....thumbs up). I would not suggest a "hunting rifle" for home defense. They are very good hole punches.
My suggestion to you is before you spout off on what you heard from local media, do some research. They seem to be only 50% accurate most the time.
#148 Jan 18, 2013
Through out history the side that starts the revolution or over through of the government, is always called criminals and terrorists by the government that's in power.(Moammar Gaddafi, Mubarak, Bashar al-Assad, Hitler, King Edward I, King Louis XVI)
At the time of the American revolution there was about 2.4 to 2.5 million people living in the colonies. During the revolutionary war about 245,00 to 255,000 colonist took up arms against the British, about 10 %. During WW2 there were about 130 million people living the United States, of those about 15.5 to 16 Million volunteered to serve, about 5%. Historians estimate about 45% to 50% of the colonist supported the revolution and only about 15% to 20% supported the British. Not sure if they are correct, but they did study it.
And with you stating "The people had no say in the matter, it was done in secret like traitors usually do." I suggest you research the Old South Meeting House before talk about something you know nothing about.(I can get you other buildings were several meetings took place as well).
You have no clue what your talking about. And I think you have a poopy diaper.
Add your comments below
|CA Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10)||59 min||RiccardoFire||200,577|
|CA California seeks to ban free, single-use carryo... (Jun '10)||2 hr||Macko mono||5,000|
|Review: Mission Legal Center||10 hr||Aldaskepry||3|
|CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10)||11 hr||Tank ever||7,926|
|Blue skies in North county||13 hr||sddude||1|
|Weather forecast - rainbows||22 hr||QOD||93|
|CNN's TV Series "THE SIXTIES"||Thu||hem_on_rye||1|
Find what you want!
Search San Diego Forum Now
Copyright © 2014 Topix LLC