JohnRich 4
Recommended Posts
kallend 2,106
QuoteQuotei always thought that liberals were hypocrites because they don't believe that the first amendment applies to christians.
Good one.
And somehow they can find an absolute right to an abortion in the Constitution, yet can't find the right to keep and bear arms...
Go figure!
Which "they" is that. Many liberals are also gun enthusiasts as you well know. (Many are also anti-abortion). They just aren't as paranoid as the unliberal gun enthusiasts.
Most around here consider me a "liberal" and I don't disagree in any significant way with your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. In fact, I think another Constitutional amendment making it clear that it is an individual right would be in order, for reasons that I would be happy to explain.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
JohnRich 4
QuoteWhich "they" is that. Many liberals are also gun enthusiasts as you well know.
"They" is "most".
QuoteMost around here consider me a "liberal" and I don't disagree in any significant way with your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
Yes, you've said that a few times before on rare occasions. Yet the overwhelming majority of your gun-topic messages are slanted toward the liberal gun-control view of things. So I never really know whether to believe you.
QuoteIn fact, I think another Constitutional amendment making it clear that it is an individual right would be in order, for reasons that I would be happy to explain.
I would love to see that made clear. Not necessarily with another amendment, but by modifying the original 2nd Amendment.
I'd love to hear your explanation. I'm guessing it would be so that the debate could get beyond the "rights" arguments and concentrate on what controls are appropriate?
Amazon 7
QuoteI would love to see that made clear. Not necessarily with another amendment, but by modifying the original 2nd Amendment.
I'd love to hear your explanation. I'm guessing it would be so that the debate could get beyond the "rights" arguments and concentrate on what controls are appropriate
Wouldn't that be judicial activism???
steve1 5
Quote
Well, fortunately our government is not yet totally tyrannical. SO instead of using us in Iraq as your example, what if it were Hitler's Wermacht and SS in Iraq.
The Afghani mujahadeen didn't make the Soviets pull out by using their rifles, they did it with Stingers, TOWs and other more serious arms that were supplied by the US Government.
I'd really like to see you and your hunting rifle take on an Apache gunship.
In a guerrilla type war many of our high tech weapons may not work as well as you think. Just as in Iraq or Vietnam it's really hard to find where the enemy is, because they blend in with the general populace, and then they pull clandestine missions secretly when the opportunity arises. Of course they aren't just going to fight conventually on a battlefield somewhere where they'd quickly be wiped out by Apache gun ships etc. This principal has been proven highly effective throughout history. In 1776 it was used, and now it's being used by the Iraqis in their country. A relatively small force with low tech weapons and explosives can keep a much larger one at bay for months or even years....Steve1
skydyvr 0
QuoteDude you crack me up.
I'm still waiting for an explanation of how the comment I made about my Dad "explains a lot".
Do you crack yourself up?
. . =(_8^(1)
QuoteAfter all, it is only logical that the one who most vehemently opposes your ability to employ force is the one most like to attempt in the future to oppress you. He doesn't want you to be able to fight back!
-
What a load of rubbish. If your government comes after you with the resources at its disposal, you won't stand a chance regardless of how many Glocks you own. It isn't 1776 any more, they have really serious stuff that you simply can't get.
Of all the arguments in favor of gun ownership, that is the most absurd by far.
You just have not considered, or probably even read treatments of, the reasons why the government would have a hard-as-hell time actually waging a guerrilla war against its 80,000,000+ armed citizens.
For one thing, not all military personnel would be willing to fire on and kill fellow American citizens. Many would desert, and bring their military skills and knowledge (and probably materiel) with them to the other side.
For another, ANY guerrilla encounter with a spread-across-the-country U.S. military would probably yield materiel for the guerillas to use later.
Supply lines would be impossible for the military to maintain. They would not be able to guard every base as though it were under attack (which they would be) and would certainly not be able to guard every road and highway that would enable delivery of supplies. Areas surrounding bases would have guerrillas waiting to take potentially devastating shots at arriving aircraft, AND any ground personnel. Think about it: the public has high-powered rifles (like .50 cal.) and many are very experienced at using them.
How long would support for the government remain among fence-sitters and anti-gun people, if in order to get at cadres of guerrillas, it used its F-15s and B-1s against towns and cities and infrastructure within the country?
These are just a few of the considerations that would make prosecuting another domestic civil war to preserve the Union far more difficult than it was in the 1860s, and probably straight-out impossible.
Besides, without a force fighting under a specific flag, from whom would the government ever obtain a surrender?
-
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
Quoteso your saying that since we the people couldn't possibly match tyrannical governments resources we should be left with nothing and just roll over and take whatever comes? that is a load of rubbish.
Thank you!
Some think we're better with no ability to fight for ourselves than meager ability to fight for ourselves. As if that makes any sense.
I'd rather have slim hope than no hope. And I'd rather die fighting than live pleading.
-
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
QuoteQuoteSure, that argument doesn't work when only a few people own guns. The argument is a lot stronger for places like Switzerland, where everyone owns a gun.
"... where everyone owns a gun..."
That's not correct. Every guy who ever was in the army has to keep his weapons. Just in case of, just to be prepared......Most of them really dislike it.
The majority of private persons is not interested in owning any guns. Swiss folks are peace-loving.
Please post a link to your poll of "most of them."
And what about the fact that Swiss communities organize sport shooting events all over the place?
I think you don't know what you're talking about.
-
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
sometimes i can use help in my delivery....thanks for clarifying.
_________________________________________
people see me as a challenge to their balance
people see me as a challenge to their balance
steve1 5
Quote
I'd really like to see you and your hunting rifle take on an Apache gunship.
Don't ever think that a well trained soldier with a deer rifle is something to sneeze at. They make up an important part of our military even today. Some sniper teams today may use a 50 cal. shoulder fired weapon, but not all. Many still pack your standard bolt action deer rifle that has been accurized and fitted with an expensive scope. In the hands of the right rifleman it's possible to inflict a lot of damage to an enemy force with one.
Sgt. Hathcock had nearly a hundred confirmed kills while serving with the USMC in Vietnam. These are the kind of odds that win wars. He used a Winchester Model 70 and a Remington Model 700 for most of his sniping. These are two of the same rifles I hunt deer and elk with back home...Steve1
QuoteQuoteQuoteSure, that argument doesn't work when only a few people own guns. The argument is a lot stronger for places like Switzerland, where everyone owns a gun.
"... where everyone owns a gun..."
That's not correct. Every guy who ever was in the army has to keep his weapons. Just in case of, just to be prepared......Most of them really dislike it.
The majority of private persons is not interested in owning any guns. Swiss folks are peace-loving.
Please post a link to your poll of "most of them."
And what about the fact that Swiss communities organize sport shooting events all over the place?
I think you don't know what you're talking about.
-
Hey PJ!
How about that idea: You just disarm yourself, leave your weapons behind and take a trip over to Switzerland! You may be surprised to find happy people over there - with no hand gun under their belt!
I know that so well, PJ, as I'm in this country regularly, have many friends there and it's just like my own mother country to me.
Leave your little corner of the world, you'll see there is much more to discover than just following a link to something......
BTW: There is some difference between private gun ownership in the US and sport shooting events in Switzerland, hahahaha, love your fine humor, dear!
dudeist skydiver # 3105
QuoteBTW: There is some difference between private gun ownership in the US and sport shooting events in Switzerland, hahahaha, love your fine humor, dear!
Laugh if you want; you're admitting that they have the sport shooting events, even as you deny there is a gun culture, or people who like guns, in Switzerland.
-
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
Darius11 12
QuoteQuoteDude you crack me up.
I'm still waiting for an explanation of how the comment I made about my Dad "explains a lot".
Do you crack yourself up?
You should have PMed me I can gladly explain it to you. I don’t come back and read every post on every thread. You can save your self-a lot of time and not have to wait by doing that.
You mentioned your father was angry with you for voting for a democrat. Even if the Democrat was a good guy. That tells me 1. your father was a guy who did belong to a political party most likely the republicans and 2. that he felt strongly about it. Maybe he voiced his opinion around you and the hatred for the damn liberals. Growing up in that environment can effect the way you think.
It is just like racism only instead of hearing bad things about blacks you might have heard them about democrats. Of course this works both ways. Just like racism people will deny facts so their precious beliefs that they hold so dear don’t get crushed by the truth.
And as per your question if I crack my self up? I actually do I am a funny guy and I don’t just mean funny looking and I enjoy life so yes I guess I crack my self up as well.
I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain
rehmwa 2
QuoteWouldn't that be judicial activism???Quoteby modifying the original 2nd Amendment.
Congress isn't the judicial branch, silly
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
aftermid 0
The subject of your post is an excellent example of the ignorance and small-mindedness that pervades both sides of the political spectrum.
Rather than taking the time, energy, and brainpower to develop a well informed, educated position for yourself, or using the same effort to examine contrary arguments, you resort to name calling and generalizations. You lump yourself into one group, i.e. the righteous, and place everyone else against you.
I believe in the second amendment, smaller government, and private healthcare, less taxes and less spending policies. I also support abortion, privacy laws, less Executive power, and secular public education policies. What’s more I think GW is a neo-fascist tyrant. Furthermore, I can explain to you most of my opinions based on facts rather than merely name calling.
Please people learn to think for yourselves and don’t merely come down on the side of one ideology. Before you know it that ideology might have you strapping a bomb to your stomach, or gassing a bunch of Jews, or just slowly sacrificing your rights and freedoms in the name of security.
Rather than taking the time, energy, and brainpower to develop a well informed, educated position for yourself, or using the same effort to examine contrary arguments, you resort to name calling and generalizations. You lump yourself into one group, i.e. the righteous, and place everyone else against you.
I believe in the second amendment, smaller government, and private healthcare, less taxes and less spending policies. I also support abortion, privacy laws, less Executive power, and secular public education policies. What’s more I think GW is a neo-fascist tyrant. Furthermore, I can explain to you most of my opinions based on facts rather than merely name calling.
Please people learn to think for yourselves and don’t merely come down on the side of one ideology. Before you know it that ideology might have you strapping a bomb to your stomach, or gassing a bunch of Jews, or just slowly sacrificing your rights and freedoms in the name of security.
rehmwa 2
QuoteThe subject of your post is an excellent example of the ignorance and small-mindedness that pervades both sides of the political spectrum.
name calling and generalization
QuoteRather than taking the time, energy, and brainpower to develop a well informed, educated position for yourself, or using the same effort to examine contrary arguments, you resort to name calling and generalizations. You lump yourself into one group, i.e. the righteous, and place everyone else against you.
self congratulatory name calling and generalization
QuoteI believe in the second amendment, smaller government, and private healthcare, less taxes and less spending policies. I also support abortion, privacy laws, less Executive power, and secular public education policies.
EXCELLENT
QuoteWhat’s more I think GW is a neo-fascist tyrant.
gratuitous name calling and generalization
QuoteFurthermore, I can explain to you most of my opinions based on facts rather than merely name calling.
EXCELLENT
QuotePlease people learn to think for yourselves and don’t merely come down on the side of one ideology. Before you know it that ideology might have you strapping a bomb to your stomach or gassing a bunch of Jews.
Odd emotional escalation delivered from a pulpit.
Seems we all mix up our good content with self satisfied condescension, stereotypes and unfair generalizations. Shit, look at this one. I'm unbearable.
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
kallend 2,106
QuoteQuoteAfter all, it is only logical that the one who most vehemently opposes your ability to employ force is the one most like to attempt in the future to oppress you. He doesn't want you to be able to fight back!
-
What a load of rubbish. If your government comes after you with the resources at its disposal, you won't stand a chance regardless of how many Glocks you own. It isn't 1776 any more, they have really serious stuff that you simply can't get.
Of all the arguments in favor of gun ownership, that is the most absurd by far.
You just have not considered, or probably even read treatments of, the reasons why the government would have a hard-as-hell time actually waging a guerrilla war against its 80,000,000+ armed citizens.
-
Ah, but how many of those 80M are actually trained in the use of weapons, have any clue about tactics, and have appropriate guns? The folks at Ruby Ridge and Waco didn't fare so well.
If you want to have an armed insurrection I think you are better off using IEDs, like the Iraqis are doing very effectively.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 2,106
QuoteQuote
I'd really like to see you and your hunting rifle take on an Apache gunship.
Don't ever think that a well trained soldier with a deer rifle is something to sneeze at.
But it's not well trained soldiers we're talking about. It's people like PJ who think they can take on the US Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force, and win.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
aftermid 0
QuoteQuoteThe subject of your post is an excellent example of the ignorance and small-mindedness that pervades both sides of the political spectrum.
name calling and generalizationQuoteRather than taking the time, energy, and brainpower to develop a well informed, educated position for yourself, or using the same effort to examine contrary arguments, you resort to name calling and generalizations. You lump yourself into one group, i.e. the righteous, and place everyone else against you.
self congratulatory name calling and generalizationQuoteI believe in the second amendment, smaller government, and private healthcare, less taxes and less spending policies. I also support abortion, privacy laws, less Executive power, and secular public education policies.
EXCELLENTQuoteWhat’s more I think GW is a neo-fascist tyrant.
gratuitous name calling and generalizationQuoteFurthermore, I can explain to you most of my opinions based on facts rather than merely name calling.
EXCELLENTQuotePlease people learn to think for yourselves and don’t merely come down on the side of one ideology. Before you know it that ideology might have you strapping a bomb to your stomach or gassing a bunch of Jews.
Odd emotional escalation delivered from a pulpit.
Seems we all mix up our good content with self satisfied condescension, stereotypes and unfair generalizations. Shit, look at this one. I'm unbearable.
Nice Analysis
Good one.
And somehow they can find an absolute right to an abortion in the Constitution, yet can't find the right to keep and bear arms...
Go figure!
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites