Our right to bare arms has absolutely nothing to do with hunting or defending against criminals. Our right to bare arms is enshrined into the bill of rights as a check against government. All of human history up to that constitutional convention had proved that only an armed citizenry can remain free, and all of human history since then has proved their perceptions correct.
So how do you think your AK-47 is going to fare against the government's tanks, bombers, drones, and nuclear weapons? I know some of you believe that the government boogeyman is just salivating to subdue the citizenry. And yet the government has had overwhelming firepower for close to 100 years. When is the subduing going to begin? And how many more innocent people have to die while we wait?
we already are going down the slippery slope, taking away this right from millions of people who have done their time, saying they do not have the right to protect their family from harm next will be depressed people, and the list goes on....
The tanks, bombers, drones, and nuclear weapons can't do anything without anyone to operate them but be used against their masters. Please remember that.
Our military can't even beat 3rd world two bit countries like Iraq and Afghanistan without draining the government resources. Do you really think our military are going to know who the enemy are in the US if our government turns tyrannical? The one million man army can't beat 300 million armed civilians if the SHTF. Armies got to eat and if there's war, tanks aren't moving and bullets aren't getting made if the civilians aren't making them. (*)(*)(*)(*), the government can barely help when natural disasters hit like Sandy and Katrina.
You should read this before you fantasize anymore about it. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
LMAO...Nobody is forcing you to cover your arms, kid, but it's painfully obvious that ignorant people and guns don't mix.
I think we have lost the country to the Democrats who are bribing lazy Obama voters with government handouts.
This is t he reality. Beyond all the macho rhetoric of fighting the oppressive government, the same people have accused Obama of repression, communism, socialism, crapping on the constitution and way way more... and guess what? There has been no uprising of any kind. Instead, the people who want guns to fight the government praise the Tea Party for being polite and following the government laws and condemn the OWS's for breaking the law. Crazy! The harsh reality is that the right to own guns incarcerates Americans, as it gives them a false sense of security that they "could" do something if pushed too far. But they never ever do so. It's smart play by the government; give the people a sense of power, knowing they'll never use it. But what set of circumstances would be "far enough" to force the hand of the US gun owning patriots? 1. A socialist president, forcing socialist policies? 2. A communist president, forcing communist policies? 3. A muslim president, forcing muslim policies? Because we've heard all these accusations againsdt Obama and guess what? none of these things were enough to bring forth these US patriots! Why I wonder? Because there is a huge step between obiding with the law and an armed uprising. In other societies, that do not have guns, we see far more social unrest, the French are past masters at it; the people don't like something, they go out onto the streets and stop a city from operating for a few days. The government gets the message and compromise is forced by the people. The reaction in the US is: polish guns, talk tough about an armed uprising, nothing. Guns incarcerate you, they do the opposite of what you think.
You do not have 300M capable people. You have a population of 380M, of which you have huge sections of elderly and young. Of the remaining, there is a huge % of people who'd disagree with the nut jobs.
It sounds like Leffe is disappointed that the bloodbath hasn't begun yet. But being a foreigner what does he care if Americans die in a civil war or a rebellion?
Early in the history of Rome, the Romans were under the domination of the Etruscans. Tarquin, the Estruscan king of Rome, issued an order - ostensibly for the public good, for safety and security - that the Romans be disarmed. No Roman would be allowed to own a sword. But the Romans knew what this would actually mean so they rose in rebellion. Tarquin was driven from the city, and the early Roman Republic was established. http://heartland.org/sites/all/modules/custom/heartland_migration/files/pdfs/13495.pdf
When you take away the basic understanding that people are by and large responsible, that they believe in our Republic for which it stands, your strange comment might hold weight. Responsible gun owners rely on the good sense of our political system that has stood for over 200 years in part because the populace is armed. This places a marker on freedom. It draws a line where WE decide if it has been crossed. If it has WE decide what to do about it. WE hold the power to vote for a future or if a future has been taken away from us we take matters into our own hands. WE are the balance and the reminder of what our government is for, what it was designed to do and most of all the purpose for which it was formed (a reminder to all you liberals out there) to protect freedom. Part of protecting freedom requires an armed populace.
Excellent point. Most in the military understand the reason for an armed America. Liberals think they will simply turn their AKs on their own without second thought. They think they will drop nukes on our own cities.
And when the Roman Republic was formed, the citizens were dominated by the Patricians for five centuries. Yet there were numerous slave and Roman rebellions, coup d'etats, murder, incest, etc.
And when the Roman Republic was formed, the citizens were dominated by the Patricians for five centuries. Yet there were numerous slave and Roman rebellions, coup d'etats, murder, incest, etc.
It's a right because the US Sup Ct said it is. You can thank the NRA and other lobbyists for that - and also various Presidents for appointing conservative Justices.
Way to simplify the issue. Who said 300 million people are going to stump up and fight anyway? Do you realise the difficulties inherent in organising an insurrection in a nation as large as the US?
No man is an island, Entire of itself. Each is a piece of the continent, A part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less. As well as if a promontory were. As well as if a manor of thine own Or of thine friend's were. Each man's death diminishes me, For I am involved in mankind. Therefore, send not to know For whom the bell tolls, It tolls for thee. John Donne
That last part is what makes non-Americans living in democracies curious about some Americans. An armed populace doesn't protect freedom at all, it's just an armed populace. I could just as well argue that an unarmed populace protects freedom because in many non-American democracies the population isn't armed yet freedom exists. Why not just say you like guns, nothing wrong with that.
Nukes? On your own territory? Do you realise what sort of ridiculous comment that is? You don't quell an insurrection by nuking your own cities for crying out loud, it requires more smarts than that.
Why don't you break the habit of a lifetime and address the points I made in my post: Beyond all the macho rhetoric of fighting the oppressive government, the same people have accused Obama of repression, communism, socialism, crapping on the constitution and way way more... and guess what? There has been no uprising of any kind. Instead, the people who want guns to fight the government praise the Tea Party for being polite and following the government laws and condemn the OWS's for breaking the law. Crazy! The harsh reality is that the right to own guns incarcerates Americans, as it gives them a false sense of security that they "could" do something if pushed too far. But they never ever do so. It's smart play by the government; give the people a sense of power, knowing they'll never use it. But what set of circumstances would be "far enough" to force the hand of the US gun owning patriots? 1. A socialist president, forcing socialist policies? 2. A communist president, forcing communist policies? 3. A muslim president, forcing muslim policies? Because we've heard all these accusations againsdt Obama and guess what? none of these things were enough to bring forth these US patriots! Why I wonder? Because there is a huge step between obiding with the law and an armed uprising. In other societies, that do not have guns, we see far more social unrest, the French are past masters at it; the people don't like something, they go out onto the streets and stop a city from operating for a few days. The government gets the message and compromise is forced by the people. The reaction in the US is: polish guns, talk tough about an armed uprising, nothing. Guns incarcerate you, they do the opposite of what you think.
