Replies: 43
| visibility 1
|
110%er [6861]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 6501
Joined: 10/7/07
|
HELP ME OUT HERE PEOPLE, DEMS AND REPUBLICANS
Dec 18, 2012, 8:35 AM
|
|
Does it bother you at all that the government wants to take away your rights as a citizen of the United States of America? How many of you even know what the 2nd Amendment actually says? Here is a hint: its got NOTHING to do with hunting. The very purpose of it is to protect the citizens right to defend themselves against a government that attempts to take away their rights - funny how that works huh? As such an "assault weapons" ban is a direct violation of the Bill of Rights set forth in the Constitution of the United States. An "assault weapon" being defined here as essentially a semi-auto version of a military weapon (AR's and AK's for example). How can a civilian expect to defend himself with anything less than what the goverment itself carries? A muzzle loader and a peacemaker just arnt going to cut it. We have already had one such illegal ban, signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1994. When the law expired in 2004, exhaustive research was conducted by various institutions including the ATF to determine its effectiveness. The overwhelming conclusion was that the ban had virtually no impact on violent crime. But how can that be liberals?! Well, its because "assualt weapons" are almost never used in these crimes (robbery, rape, murder), in fact, far less than 5% of the time. The unspeakable acts that occured this year are far and away the exception, not the rule, despite what liberal propoganda would have you believe. Look, I have a little girl of my own, I cant even begin to imagine the hell those parents are going through right now, but at the end of the day, an "assault weapon" ban would have done nothing to prevent it. The actual truth is that a semi-auto hand gun would have been just as effective in the small confines of a classroom setting as the rifle was. Ok, rant over, would love to hear your thoughts - please use facts and not some idiotic rhetoric.
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [83625]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63724
Joined: 12/31/06
|
you'll find the answers to all your tough questions...
Dec 18, 2012, 8:41 AM
|
|
On the P&R bored
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [108390]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64974
Joined: 2/25/06
|
i blame ewe. no basis for that, but it's not my fought
Dec 18, 2012, 8:53 AM
|
|
they're here.
so ima make #### up.
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11161]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10900
Joined: 9/17/07
|
I got blown up for comments like this earlier.
Dec 18, 2012, 8:47 AM
|
|
The 2nd amendment allows us to protect ourselves from oppressive government. It also makes us the largest civilian army in the world. It needs to be left alone.
It drives me absolutely crazy that all these politicians are nodding their heads in disbelief and grief over dead children while our country permitted the termination of over 1 million pregnancies last year. Talk about protecting the innocent! Abortion is hands down the single largest source of premature child death. There's always an argument of "rape and incest" for keeping abortion legal. The FACT is that less than 5% of the abortions are for this reason. Even less than that to preserve the life of the mother. It would not be a stretch to say that 90% (say 900,000) abortions per year are COMPLETELY VOLUNTARY.
I am upset when ANY innocent human being loses their life prematurely. Additionally, it upsets me when politicians use tragedy to erode freedom and expand power.
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6861]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 6501
Joined: 10/7/07
|
Thats kind of what Im getting at here
Dec 18, 2012, 8:49 AM
|
|
They are just using these tragedies as an excuse to slowly take away our rights, thereby increasing their power.
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2281]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 3489
Joined: 2/15/04
|
Re: Thats kind of what Im getting at here
Dec 18, 2012, 8:56 AM
|
|
One question, How much is too much? I concur with the right to own guns and own them myself, but do you really want someone like Boros or the Koch Brothers, or Bill Gates who could afford it, equipping a private army with Abrams tanks and F-16s? Secondly you already lost that right if you read the "Patriot Act".
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3744]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2510
Joined: 11/30/98
|
NEWSFLASH!
Dec 18, 2012, 9:25 AM
|
|
IF you have the money, you already CAN buy used MIGS, etc., as well as, recoiless rifles, AK47s and anything you can think of.
These shootings ARE being used to take away our freedom. It isn't about making people "safer".
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2281]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 3489
Joined: 2/15/04
|
Re: NEWSFLASH!
Dec 18, 2012, 11:26 AM
|
|
Mojo, try bringing a T-72, mig-21, or Su-27, or even a mig-17 or T-34 into this country with operational weapons systems into this country and let me know how that works for you from Leavenworth!
|
|
|
|
|
Scout Team [193]
TigerPulse: 46%
Posts: 193
Joined: 7/31/01
|
Re: HELP ME OUT HERE PEOPLE, DEMS AND REPUBLICANS
Dec 18, 2012, 8:50 AM
|
|
I'm a republican and have no issues with the right to carry. However, you'll have a hard time convincing me that we need to carry automatic weapons. They ought to be banned.
If you want to carry a concealed weapon, no problem but we don't need to be carrying around automatic weapons.
That piece of the law needs to change. If a criminal wants a gun they'll get one. We can protect ourselves by having our own. However, we need to make it as difficult as possible through laws for criminals to get certain types (automatic) weapons which have no business being in anyone's hands except our military.
|
|
|
|
|
Walk-On [147]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 326
Joined: 6/18/07
|
The civilan AR -15 is a semi automatic weapon not automatic***
Dec 18, 2012, 8:51 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6861]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 6501
Joined: 10/7/07
|
See, thats the whole point, you clearly do not understand
Dec 18, 2012, 8:56 AM
[ in reply to Re: HELP ME OUT HERE PEOPLE, DEMS AND REPUBLICANS ] |
|
the second amendment. Whats to stop the government from abusing the people if they cannot defend themselves. You going to defend yourself with a pistol against someone with a rifle? I dont think so.
|
|
|
|
|
MVP [509]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 720
Joined: 2/23/05
|
Term limits and campaign finance reform would be more
Dec 18, 2012, 9:15 AM
|
|
effective than guns. It's a little scary how much effort you are putting in defending yourself against your government. I am pro 2nd amendment, and I am just as pissed as you that politicians are using this tragedy for their political agenda, leading the very gullible public to believe they can end this sort of thing with gun control. But I am not going to arm myself for the sole purpose of being ready to rise up against the government.
|
|
|
|
|
Walk-On [147]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 326
Joined: 6/18/07
|
To each his own, but you have the right to currently***
Dec 18, 2012, 9:21 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [56106]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31650
Joined: 8/27/02
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [25734]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15034
Joined: 10/12/08
|
Re:Libs. ALWAYS Have A Longer Term Goal In Mind
Dec 18, 2012, 9:57 AM
[ in reply to See, thats the whole point, you clearly do not understand ] |
|
when advancing their agenda and that is to completely control our lives from cradle to grave. They know their Socialist/Communist agenda has to be implemented in small steps. One only needs to look at how they accomplish this plan. Education. Health Care, EPA Regs., Regulating Smoking Tobacco and where one can smoke, Food Police,kind of car you can drive,Gays and Lesbians,Gun control,Religion, etc. They always sell their agenda one small step at a time. When one realizes what the long term plan is, and opposes these small steps, that person is labeled an extremist. This is the reason the NRA opposes ANYTHING that restricts the second amendment.
Experience has shown that liberals are never satisfied and never stop until they achieve their ultimate goal. They will use any crisis or trajedy to accomplish their goal.
We already have cities(Chicago and DC) that have gun control laws so stringent that it is almost impossible to legally own or posess a firearm, yet the murder rate and violence committed with firearms by criminals in those cities is extremely high. Proving that the strict control of guns is not the answer. But facts do not matter to liberals with an agenda to control your life. Control, complete control, is what matters.
Once one understands the real agenda of liberals, one will know that the goal is not about preventing violence with guns, we already have books full of laws designed to do that, but it's about controlling your life. So, to discuss the issue is futile because they have an end goal in sight, and we are too blind to recognize it.
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6861]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 6501
Joined: 10/7/07
|
Amen brother***
Dec 18, 2012, 10:47 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2281]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 3489
Joined: 2/15/04
|
Re:Libs. ALWAYS Have A Longer Term Goal In Mind
Dec 18, 2012, 11:47 AM
[ in reply to Re:Libs. ALWAYS Have A Longer Term Goal In Mind ] |
|
Funny thing, the greatest attack on our gun owner rights is the "Patriot Act" and it was written by the well-known LIBERAL, JOHN ASHCROFT, and pushed through by that well known LIBERAL, GEORGE W. BUSH, and without a peep from the well known LIBERAL institution, the NRA. Convenient memories seem to be the hallmark of the right wingers around here more than the left wingers(They also have them, just not as much). PS Speaking of convenient memories, you left Massachusetts off your list of places with strict gun control. Could it maybe be because of those being pushed through by YOUR GOP CANDIDATE for PRESIDENT this time?PS I am a gun owner and will refuse to give up my guns and a moderate, but I am sick seeing the pots calling the kettles black around here.
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5712]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4268
Joined: 10/22/00
|
Well said***************
Dec 18, 2012, 8:55 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Pro [697]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 745
Joined: 5/17/01
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [56106]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31650
Joined: 8/27/02
|
Good luck overthrowing your government now, Australians!***
Dec 18, 2012, 9:14 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Walk-On [147]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 326
Joined: 6/18/07
|
Poplulation of Australia is 22M vs 311M here. Also,
Dec 18, 2012, 9:19 AM
[ in reply to Re: HELP ME OUT HERE PEOPLE, DEMS AND REPUBLICANS ] |
|
has Australia ever had a sickos bomb buildings? Bombs are illegal but it still happens here.
People are the issue. We have a lot of them. If I told you 50 out of 311,000,000 Million people were sick and would commit horrible crimes should it cause action to limit the rights of the 310,999,950? (rounded to make the point clear)
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [54]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
|
|
|
|
Recruit [83]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 53
Joined: 9/23/01
|
Re: HELP ME OUT HERE PEOPLE, DEMS AND REPUBLICANS
Dec 18, 2012, 9:03 AM
|
|
Weapons of any type are just a by product of the problems in America.More children are killed every week by drunk drivers than assault weapons,and more or murdered in a month by their parents than assault weapons.We glorify murder in movies,tv the media and video games and accept it as entertainment.Gov.intrusion will not help now.America needs spirtual healing.
|
|
|
|
|
Walk-On [147]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 326
Joined: 6/18/07
|
In a presidential debate, Obama was asked about an AK-47 ban
Dec 18, 2012, 9:10 AM
|
|
He started out on AK-47's then lumped in AR-15 and then worked his way to 9mm handguns in the same paragraph.
They will attempt to link together all weapons (i.e. those not used to hunt). Give an inch and they will take a mile.
The issue with the tragedies is concealed carry laws that failed to protect the innocent. Nearly every mass shooting in recent months has been in gun free zone. Mall shooting, movie theater, college campus, school, New York City tourist area, church. As long as sick people realize there is no threat, they will continue to prey on the defenseless.
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10900]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15072
Joined: 8/6/10
|
this***
Dec 18, 2012, 9:22 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [60234]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42560
Joined: 11/30/98
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [54]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
HOW CAN I DEFEND MYSELF AGAINST AT TYRANNICAL
Dec 18, 2012, 9:21 AM
|
|
GOVERNMENT WITHOUT MY VERY OWN STINGER SHOULDER FIRED MISSLE?!?!
SURELY THAT'S WHAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS MEANT TOO.
If we're going to dabble in hyperbole, it can be done.
|
|
|
|
|
Ring of Honor [32958]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 53106
Joined: 3/5/02
|
Little known fact. Franklin had to convince his colleagues
Dec 18, 2012, 9:27 AM
|
|
to remove the explicit mention of stinger missiles from the 2d Amendment to keep readers from knowing that the Founding Fathers used time travel to ensure the Constitution would seen as applicable in later centuries.
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10900]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15072
Joined: 8/6/10
|
Actually, it is what they meant.
Dec 18, 2012, 9:32 AM
[ in reply to HOW CAN I DEFEND MYSELF AGAINST AT TYRANNICAL ] |
|
The founders specifically didn't say which arms were allowed and which ones weren't. The idea was that individuals in the various states would have cannons, ships, muskets, swords, etc on hand, and if any mess broke out, they would go get it and form up with their units and go fight.
Of course, this was before we had the permanent standing army, the worldwide military empire, etc, etc.
But still, the founders meant for the citizens to each have the same arms that a regular army would have (if they could afford it.) This is clear in the ratification debates.
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [54]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Hell...where my F22 Raptor at?***
Dec 18, 2012, 9:34 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2538]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 771
Joined: 9/3/10
|
Re: HELP ME OUT HERE PEOPLE, DEMS AND REPUBLICANS
Dec 18, 2012, 9:26 AM
|
|
If you think your "assault weapon" is going to protect you from an oppressive government, then you don't know much about the " fire power" that the government has in store. Even back in the Korean war we used fire power that your precious "assault weapons" would do nothing for you but get you killed and the government would be still standing. All this talk of "lost Freedom" is extreme nonsense. As an 83 year old, I find it difficult to make a list of things that I cannot do today that I could do back in the 30's, 40's(better leave the 50's out because I don't think I can do the "Korean thing" again) and all the years since. Following your line of thinking, we need the freedom to accumulate tanks, jet planes, and even atomic bombs, if we truly want to have the capacity to "protect" ourselves from the government.
Appreciate the above comments from the Republican. As a Democrat, I think he and I could sit down and make some decisions that would solve this "fiscal cliff" issue in short order!
|
|
|
|
|
Walk-On [147]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 326
Joined: 6/18/07
|
you need enough firepower to make a statement to get
Dec 18, 2012, 9:30 AM
|
|
our allies involved in overturning an oppressive government. Not necessarily the firepower to over take the greatest armed forces in the world.
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6861]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 6501
Joined: 10/7/07
|
Bingo. Besides how would the government use
Dec 18, 2012, 9:33 AM
|
|
tanks and bombs on a civilian popuation that they have no idea who or where the opposition is?
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2538]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 771
Joined: 9/3/10
|
Re: Bingo. Besides how would the government use
Dec 18, 2012, 9:45 AM
|
|
Do you think we have learned nothing from our experience over the last ten years or so in the two engagements in which we have been involved?
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6861]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 6501
Joined: 10/7/07
|
That is absolutely stupid and complete nonsense
Dec 18, 2012, 9:30 AM
[ in reply to Re: HELP ME OUT HERE PEOPLE, DEMS AND REPUBLICANS ] |
|
If any sort of conflict did begin in this country it would not be fought out on open battle grounds necessitating tanks and fighter aircraft. If it did evolve into that, then the states would take sides and use all available military hardware necessary. And by the way, which side do you think the majority of the military will go with?
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10900]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15072
Joined: 8/6/10
|
That last question is a good one.
Dec 18, 2012, 9:37 AM
|
|
I used to think they would take the people's side but I'm not so sure. Back in the 90's a lot of our troops were ordered to take off their US uniforms and put on UN uniforms and take orders from UN staff. Only one of them refused to do so.
If the same type scenario played out, and they were under UN direction, then the UN ordered them to operate against certain people in certain areas of the country... I'm not sure how many would refuse. I hope it would be the large majority.
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2538]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 771
Joined: 9/3/10
|
Re: That is absolutely stupid and complete nonsense
Dec 18, 2012, 9:39 AM
[ in reply to That is absolutely stupid and complete nonsense ] |
|
I suspect the military might be divided along the lines of the general public. Or, the majority might be true to their oath and stay on the side of the government they swore to protect. No one really knows how our soldiers would react. My speculation is probably just as legitimate as yours!
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11208]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 18394
Joined: 2/2/03
|
With all due respect, sir.
Dec 18, 2012, 9:43 AM
|
|
Those soldiers are obligated to defend the Constitution. Not the government.
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10900]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15072
Joined: 8/6/10
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [54]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11208]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 18394
Joined: 2/2/03
|
Some folks remain a kid, at heart.
Dec 18, 2012, 9:58 AM
|
|
I know that I do. I'm nowhere near 83 though.
|
|
|
|
|
Member [24]
TigerPulse: 50%
Posts: 30
Joined: 2/12/06
|
the fallacy of the second amendment
Dec 18, 2012, 9:53 AM
|
|
Since we’re all Clemson tigers here, I’m going to use our favorite mascot in an analogy. Let’s say the federal government is a full grown hungry Siberian tiger and he’s coming right at you and he wants you for dinner. It doesn’t make one bit of difference if you armed with a butter knife or a steak knife or you just have your bare hands. In all three cases – you are going to be served up with a side salad. If the federal government is coming for your house, town, dorm room, whatever - it doesn’t matter if you and twelve of your manliest buddies have semi-automatic military style weapons or hunting rifles. Once we started introducing tanks, battleships, fighter jets, nuclear weapons, battle drones – the second amendment has become totally pointless. If by some miracle you and your buddies were to survive the initial assault by battle drones and armored vehicles and fighter jets dropping missiles and trained combat soldiers with real automatic assault rifles – you could just gather up the hostile ammunition and add it your supplies. And then you’d be able to overthrow the remaining 2 trillion dollar army, navy, air force and marines with the armament you have acquired. This of course is a ridiculous arguement, but true nonetheless.
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11208]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 18394
Joined: 2/2/03
|
Two things. One has already been pointed out numerous
Dec 18, 2012, 9:57 AM
|
|
times.
First, our mascot is a Bengal tiger.
Second, our military should never engage it's citizens in an unconstitutional battle/war. It's that simple.
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6861]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 6501
Joined: 10/7/07
|
That analogy only works if
Dec 18, 2012, 9:59 AM
[ in reply to the fallacy of the second amendment ] |
|
youre some nut job cult like the Branch Davidians, holed up in some compound. If its an underground movement, spanning the entire country, military included, well then its a whole other ball game.
|
|
|
|
Replies: 43
| visibility 1
|
|
|