Gun control compromise

And how do you think these guns are to be used to do this?

 

If YOUR gov decides to take YOUR rights and decides to enter YOUR home unlawfully, you can defend yourself. This is about tyranny from your gov, who would have no issue destroying your rights whenever they feel like it.

Do you not feel you should defend your own rights? I have no issue defending my home from an out-of-control gov, as per the statements from the founding fathers.

 

Are you going to answer the question or not? How are these guns to be used to defend your rights?

 

Do you think they're just going to walk in and take your things? If they decide to kick my door in in order to take what is lawfully mine, or to deny my rights as a citizen they will need guns to do it.

I get it. You're trying to pretend that it's just fine for a gov to take your rights. That's ok at your place, but they cannot enter my home without permission, that's trespassing and I can defend myself. You simply have no idea what defending yourself means and you do not wish to do so at any length.

 

And for the second time your "reply" to a simple question is gobbledygook.

I accept your concession.

 

Yes, you will welcome the gov into your home at any time, for any reason, and without warrant. I won’t, the bill of rights says I don’t have to.

 

QUOTE: That's my very point, the 2nd Amendment DOESN'T give you a right to murder people protecting your own life or your families lives. is not murder. only simple minded people believe otherwise.
QUOTE: Unfortunately, the people who are voted into the House are Trump bootlickers, whose only policy is to repeat the big lie. oh! according to you then, defending the 2nd amendment is only for bootlickers? is that what you think?
QUOTE: Trump bootlickers, whose only policy is to repeat the big lie. OH! so the high cost of gasoline, food, mortgage rates, vehicles, no formula for babies, biden running to venezuela, iran, the saudies, on hand and knees begging them for more oil, which we have in abundance. is nothing to ---bash---the lib dems about. right?
QUOTE: Understand what I'm saying, if you think the 2nd amendment was put in so we could keep firearms to overthrow tyrants; just HOW are we supposed to USE the firearms to do that? simple: it is called---voting!!! i think you have heard of that before. right?
QUOTE: The gun advocate's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment says we do indeed have a right to murder politicians we disagree with on political matters you do know that the doj takes a dim view of threats against politicians. right? and that statement is a threat. now just who made that statement. if you know, then you should get evidence and report them to the doj for arrest and prosecution. but imo that is just one of your "wild statements" that mean you have no answer to anything.
quote:and since everyone in America is a politician (we are the government) and everything is basically a political matter (name one that's not) you have the right to murder Nathan Neighbor because he works at an abortion clinic. another silly statement from you. just try that and see what happens to you. the p.d. will arrest you for (real murder) try, convict, and possibly get a life sentence, depending what state you live in.

you seem to post the most Ludacris statements i've ever heard. try taking some med before posting from you doctor. that may help.

 

QUOTE: but the people who say it was put in TO GIVE US THE RIGHT TO VIOLENTLY OVERTHROW A TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT are saying EXACTLY AND PRECISELY that. again i ask, name the people that said that? what person in congress said that?
QUOTE: How do you use firearms in any case? home defence, family defence. defence against criminals attacking me on the streets or in my car. target shooting, hunting. skeet shooting, trap shooting. how's that?
QUOTE:
Or is a Democrat
Or won't keep his trash cans off your lawn.
Or at least so says the 2nd Amendment. Tell me how it doesn'
now your showing your off your meds again. try any of them and depending on your d.a. unless if your in san fran. you'll find yourself up on 1st deg. murder charges. would you like to try that? i think not.

 

Wayne LaPierre and every Congressperson who has ever said they agree with the NRA has said that, because the NRA has said that they support gun ownership because it enable us to overthrow tyrants

You misunderstand, my question was how do you use your gun to overthrow a tyrannical government NOT what is the use of a gun in general.

And yes, I realize it's an utterly insane proposition, but the NRA and most NRA members, apparently don't.

 

I think you're the one who needs to take some meds. Possibly something to help you THINK about what you are saying.

 

quote: Wayne LaPierre and every Congressperson who has ever said they agree with the NRA has said that really? i get the nra magazine and have never read anything like that from lapierre, nor have i heard any congressman or women, say that. that would be the lead headline on all the lib propaganda outlets. and i have never seen that happen. can you show a story or article to back that up with? not saying your wrong, just have not heard that one before.

quote: You misunderstand, my question was how do you use your gun to overthrow a tyrannical government NOT what is the use of a gun in general. answer: ---you don't!!! why? the u.s. military will stand with the government, with the air force, army, marines, and navy. no civilian group with only civilian fire arms would stand a chance against that. only mentally ill or stupid people would even think that could happen. and lapierre and others are not that dumb.

quote: And yes, I realize it's an utterly insane proposition, but the NRA and most NRA members, apparently don't. yes, i know some silly people that talk a good game. but when questioned on the matter. of how they could beat the u.s. military, they back off knowing how stupid their statement is. please show me some factual stories, not--i heard some one said this or that. but facts showing lapierre and congressmen/women said that civilians with civilian firearms could beat the u.s. military. thanks.

 

in every statement i made. i used ---your---quote to show what i was answering. and how silly your statements were. so please show me what statement i made that was not factual. show me where your statement was factual. your the one making these outlandish statements, i'm just correcting your statements.

example your quote: Understand what I'm saying, if you think the 2nd amendment was put in so we could keep firearms to overthrow tyrants; just HOW are we supposed to USE the firearms to do that? where in the constitution does it say that to "overthrow tyrants" in the 2nd amendment. here is the direct quote from the 2nd amendment: a wll regulated militia being neccessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. now there is no way you can read anything about tyrants or overthrowing a u.s. government. and i have --never---never--posted anything giving anyone the idea that i believe that is what the 2nd amendment is about. you are trying to put words in my mouth to beef up your side. only some one who can't win a discussion does that. use only what i post. or get back on your meds.

 

So we agree, there is nothing in the 2nd Amendment that says we can keep weapons to overthrow a tyrannical government.

 

Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf Makes a Great Case Against Red Flag Laws.

“The absolute ignorance of our justice system and its operations it would take to genuinely post this and to think it makes a good point is jaw-dropping. It’s ironic, too, because proponents of red flag laws say that they’re only going to be used in extreme cases, like when someone is publicly threatening to shoot up a school, for example. But this graphic actually proves the opposite—it all starts over ‘photos of guns’ and ‘cryptic messages,’ neither of which are illegal or even necessarily concerning.”

The folks that think that parents who speak up at school board meetings are terrorists get to have guns removed, by force, from anyone makes them "uncomfortable"?

 

NOW, we have a new attempt to make an back-door slam on gun owners. The Biden administration is considering a ban on specific types of ammunition. One of those specific types is 5.56 ammo used by most AR-15 rifles.... So, if can't grab your guns without risking our hides, we will just **** off you ammo.

There is no integrity here, no good intent, no patriotic motive, no real concern for the victims of violence. IF there were, they would be targeting criminals instead of turning them loose, and arming the people instead of disarming them.

it's all posturing to veil the primary objective of violating the second amendment and making the citizens defenseless.
Ask yourself- WHAT KIND OF GOVERNMENT SUPPORTS THAT AGENDA?

Answer- one that is planning to do things the people might shoot them for doing.
There is no other answer than a government seeking the power of tyranny.
Thomas Jefferson was right.

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/house-republicans-joe-biden-ammo/2022/06/21/id/1075387/

 

I normally ignore anyone who keeps bringing up "Trump". Since he's not in office and all...irrelevant. But I've gotta say quality of life was sure better under Trump, wasn't it?

 

QUOTE: The Biden administration is considering a ban on specific types of ammunition. One of those specific types is 5.56 ammo used by most AR-15 rifles.... So, if can't grab your guns without risking our hides, we will just **** off you ammo. lol rofl, you have just shown you know --nothing about ar-15's. why? a ar-15 made for 5.56 ammo.-----can----shoot 223 ammo. so if you like silly (senile) biden want to ban 5.56 ammo. you have ---not---stopped people with a ar-15 cal 5.56 from being loaded with 223 ammo and used. this is why most liberal gun controller's have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to firearms. please get educated before posting. you sound very dumb on these matters.

quote: There is no integrity here, no good intent, no patriotic motive, no real concern for the victims of violence. correct!!! on the liberal side of this discussion that is true. why? the conservatives want the mentally ill & criminals put in prison or hospitals where they can't hurt innocent people. but liberals want them out on the street to kill, and harm innocent people. they will not prosecute them or put them in hospitals. SO WHO IS OUT TO PROTECT THE INNOCENT? CERTANILY NOT LIBERALS.

 

Hmmmm ... So you think I know nothing about AR's. You also think the anti-gunners aren't smart enough to try to block any ammo that will fire in an AR platform. That would include around 50 calibers..... from .17 to the .50 SOCOM. How many AR's do you have? I don't have all the calibers, but I have a few.

I posted what Biden was trying to do- not what I endorsed. Did you misunderstand that?

 

to me your statement quote: The Biden administration is considering a ban on specific types of ammunition. One of those specific types is 5.56 ammo used by most AR-15 rifles.... So, if can't grab your guns without risking our hides, we will just **** off you ammo. didn't make that clear to me. if you were indorsing that or not. to me it sounded like you did indorse it. (and) you "only" mentioned 5.56----you said nothing about 223. so what was i supposed to make of that? i could only assume you didn't know that in a 5.56 ar-15 could fire a 223. you must make yourself way more clear. please read what you are trying to post before posting.

 

I didn't mention the other 50 or so calibers the AR platform can handle either. What did you make of that? I suspect you had no idea there were so many left out.
You did misunderstand what I said- or at least, what I intended people to see. The PF platform also did some mods to the post, and I have no idea why as nothing there was offensive or marginal.
There are people who need a lot more explanation than others. Sometimes I slow down to keep them in the buggy, but most of the time I just expect them to keep up.
I probably am a lot more familiar with the options of the AR than most. Didn't mean to confuse anyone.

 

Absolutely. I support this.

 

sorry, i try my best to go just by what is posted. if you only mentioned 5.56, that is what i go by. i try, (doesn't always work) not to assume things. if you had included other calibers then i would have understood what you were meaning. so imo, no harm done.