Gun Owners' Rights

[WISD0MTREE]

http://rt.com/usa/ohio-nationalguard-gun-drill-590/?utm_source=browser&utm_medium=aplication_chrome&utm_campaign=chrome

 

Ok, so we all know that nowadays that gun owners are being oppressed by the government and liberal media. What do you think? Should we be called %#&@ terrorists like the ones that rammed into our buildings (supposedly, but that is a different topic, so don't make the mods get their ban-hammers out) just for owning a gun? 

 

This is not a question weather or not guns should be banned. Different topic. 

[Grillick]

"The revelation of this information is appalling to me, and to all citizens of Ohio who are true conservatives and patriots, who don’t have guns for any other reason than that the Second Amendment gives them that right."

 

I highly doubt that such people exist in significant quantities. There may be a few here and there who own guns just because they can, but most people who own guns own them for self-defense, sport, and/or hunting. Some own them for criminal purposes. Some Second Amendment advocates are willing to take extralegal actions to support their policy goals.

 

It is no more unrealistic to create a fictitious training scenario in which the domestic terrorists happen to be engaged in a terror operation in furtherance of the pro-Second Amendment argument than it is to create one where they happen to support gay marriage, oppose religious education, oppose the teaching of evolution in schools, support pornography, oppose pornography, support gun control, oppose gay marriage, support religious education, or oppose the teaching of intelligent design in schools.

 

A terrorist group almost invariably will be formed around the furtherance of some ideal. No ideals are more or less susceptible to extremism. The mere fact that the Ohio National Guard happened to select pro-Second Amendment advocates in their training exercise is neither inappropriate nor oppressive to gun rights advocates.

[WISD0MTREE]

Let's see them use gay supporters as domestic terrorists then we will talk. The only people who have been attacked in this form are religious groups (particularly Muslims and Islams) and gun owners. 

 

http://pjmedia.com/blog/swat-and-the-second-amendment/

(4 pages)

 

http://www.infowars.com/dhs-supplier-provides-shooting-targets-of-american-gun-owners/

Because old men in their homes are terrorists. 

 

http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/see-police-confiscate-guns-from-americans/

Gun confiscation is a lie? 

 

 

EDIT I: I might not agree that all of them are violations, it's just better to post a link. A few are reasonable. 

EDIT II: Karma

[Oberfeldwebel]

I always fail to see the fascination that some people in the states have for firearms.  I am now living in Germany, but grew up in Great Britain.  I find the argument for having guns, nothing short of crazy.

 

The argument always used is we have guns because it is our right to do so.  Well hey that makes sense, not.  It is a proven fact in law enforcement, that whatever the law enforcement personnel are armed with, the criminals always stay one ahead.  In Germany we have our police armed, because of this criminals have armed themselves too.  In Great Britain, crimes committed using firearms is one of the lowest in Europe.

 

Of course criminals are always going to get guns regardless.  But the harder it is to do so, the less that will be obtained, the less they feel at risk from police, the less inclined they are to get firearms for protection..

 

The absurdity of the situation in the United States, is best exemplified by the fact that the State of Florida has more registered firearms than people living there.  No wonder that so many crazies can get hold of guns.  Just pause for reflection - registered, that does not include illegal firearms. 

 

Guys we are now in the 21st Century, the frontier days have past, there is not going to be a major breakdown in society with every man for himself.

[WISD0MTREE]

\This is not a question weather or not guns should be banned. Different topic. 

 

Since you brought it up: 

 

 

Banning assault rifles will do NOTHING without BOARDER PATROL!!! If I tried to smuggle 100 weapons in cargo ships, only 5 would get caught. If I tried running 66 across the boarder with Mexico, 1 would get caught. 

 

Blaming guns for deaths would be blaming planes for 9/11, or blaming video games for blood clots. So, we need to enforce our laws (before this blew up and got a million executive orders) better. 

 

Banning guns is an invitation to let the gov. oppress you because you have no way to fight back. That is why when kids fight, it is usually some kids against a nerd because they know the nerd won't fight back. This is why George Washington put that in the Constitution. Constitution outdated? So is the law preventing murder outdated, too? We even update the Constitution to make it still relevant. Saying we can't own a type of weapon would be like saying you can only practice a type of religion. 

 

http://www.genocidewatch.org/

Look at the Central African Republic. What if the people were armed? Then they could have a government that they like. Sure, people would die, but that will always happen. And less people would die, since they can fight back. 

 

Now, you say think about the children. I AM thinking about the children. I don't want them to be speaking Korean and becoming Kim Sung Il Jun IV's (random name) slave. Now, I know that the US Military could handle N. Korea and day, but if every country that had any of our debt to collect came and attacked us, what would happen then? Now, we know that China wouldn't attack us because we produce most of their food, unless they can take over the food production ASAP. Now, if the people have assault weapons, we could help the Military when this happens (http://www.usdebtclock.org/ Trade Numbers close to the bottom and look at our military's budget decrease). The fact that the people were armed was why Japan didn't attack the mainland in WWII. 

 

There is actually already a ban on assault rifles, and has had one since 1934. What you are wanting banned are rifles. An assault rifle is a rifle that can fire intermediate powered cartridges on selective fire. So you guys want to ban a gun that looks like another gun. So, should my golf video be illegal because it teaches the same thing as another, just in a different way? 

 

Handguns kill people, too! They are also more concealable. Is Chicago safe? It is more than twice as likely to be killed there than in the Army in Iraq ans Afghanistan. 3,371 people in Chicago were shot. Only 37 were killed with rifles (less than 1%). So you say rifles are too dangerous? So a Glock .40 cal. is only a little dangerous? All guns are deadly in the wrong hands, so don't let mentally unstable get them. We had good gun laws before Obama, we just needed to enforce them better. 

 

JOBS!!! No, not Steve. Gun makers employ 184,000 people in America, and average $45,000 a year. A ban on rifles would lay off about 50,000 of these people. But, we don't need jobs, I guess... 

http://iget2work.com...ymentclock.html

 

One ban leads to another, so we would end up without pressure cookers, and less jobs. 

[Drew Pickles]

 

\This is not a question weather or not guns should be banned. Different topic. 

 

 

Since you brought it up: 

 

 

Banning assault rifles will do NOTHING without BOARDER PATROL!!! If I tried to smuggle 100 weapons in cargo ships, only 5 would get caught. If I tried running 66 across the boarder with Mexico, 1 would get caught. 

 

Blaming guns for deaths would be blaming planes for 9/11, or blaming video games for blood clots. So, we need to enforce our laws (before this blew up and got a million executive orders) better. 

 

Banning guns is an invitation to let the gov. oppress you because you have no way to fight back. That is why when kids fight, it is usually some kids against a nerd because they know the nerd won't fight back. This is why George Washington put that in the Constitution. Constitution outdated? So is the law preventing murder outdated, too? We even update the Constitution to make it still relevant. Saying we can't own a type of weapon would be like saying you can only practice a type of religion. 

 

http://www.genocidewatch.org/

Look at the Central African Republic. What if the people were armed? Then they could have a government that they like. Sure, people would die, but that will always happen. And less people would die, since they can fight back. 

 

Now, you say think about the children. I AM thinking about the children. I don't want them to be speaking Korean and becoming Kim Sung Il Jun IV's (random name) slave. Now, I know that the US Military could handle N. Korea and day, but if every country that had any of our debt to collect came and attacked us, what would happen then? Now, we know that China wouldn't attack us because we produce most of their food, unless they can take over the food production ASAP. Now, if the people have assault weapons, we could help the Military when this happens (http://www.usdebtclock.org/ Trade Numbers close to the bottom and look at our military's budget decrease). The fact that the people were armed was why Japan didn't attack the mainland in WWII. 

 

There is actually already a ban on assault rifles, and has had one since 1934. What you are wanting banned are rifles. An assault rifle is a rifle that can fire intermediate powered cartridges on selective fire. So you guys want to ban a gun that looks like another gun. So, should my golf video be illegal because it teaches the same thing as another, just in a different way? 

 

Handguns kill people, too! They are also more concealable. Is Chicago safe? It is more than twice as likely to be killed there than in the Army in Iraq ans Afghanistan. 3,371 people in Chicago were shot. Only 37 were killed with rifles (less than 1%). So you say rifles are too dangerous? So a Glock .40 cal. is only a little dangerous? All guns are deadly in the wrong hands, so don't let mentally unstable get them. We had good gun laws before Obama, we just needed to enforce them better. 

 

JOBS!!! No, not Steve. Gun makers employ 184,000 people in America, and average $45,000 a year. A ban on rifles would lay off about 50,000 of these people. But, we don't need jobs, I guess... 

http://iget2work.com...ymentclock.html

 

One ban leads to another, so we would end up without pressure cookers, and less jobs. 

 

I would like this, but you used the liberal term: assault weapon, which I find offensive. Did you mean modern sporting weapon?

[WISD0MTREE]

 

There is actually already a ban on assault rifles, and has had one since 1934. What you are wanting banned are rifles. An assault rifle is a rifle that can fire intermediate powered cartridges on selective fire. So you guys want to ban a gun that looks like another gun. So, should my golf video be illegal because it teaches the same thing as another, just in a different way?