I can't wait to be the first kid on my block with my own tactical nuke for self defense.

amazing collection of loons

yeah right. My dad had me shooting guns since I was 5 years old. (my family owned cattle and orange groves...literally thousands of acres of land)

You keep on "training" on how to "handle it"

But if you break into my house, I have a chrome shotgun with 5 shells full of birdshot that will make you wish you were dead. And I don't even have to aim that very well. It's scattershot and will fuck you up BAD.

You just keep on training and waitng for the "shit to hit the fan"

Your kindergarten reading level cartoon makes a persuasive argument. I'm sold.

I don't beleive in any gun bans (a short term solution that won't work) but the The Second Amendment states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

To me that is more about arming the military than a person's indiviual freedom, but yes the Second Ammendmant will be stripped like the others:

1st Amendment: Well republicans are trying to create a Christian state, infact A GOP superstar (Michelle Bachman) wanted a witch hunt looking for any muslim in the government

4th Amendment: Google patriot act

5th Amendment: Gone, you can be held as a terrorist with no trial

6th Amendment: Government can now decline a witness from testifying and present a "summary" of the testimony.

7th Amendment: Supreme courts handed big Corporations a major victory and crippled the ability of consumers to file class action law suits

So basically the Constitution is something that can be changed or ignored, the Second Amendment will be no different

crockett, you won't ever even have a slingshot. lol

Like I said, if the people (the citizens of the U.S.) no longer want the right to be armed...then the people need to abolish the 2nd amendment.

Everything else is stupid and unconstitutional.

A "militia" is not the govt. military. It's the exact opposite.

Remember, the constitution was written by a group of revolutionaries whom had just finished rising up against an oppressive govt. and against all odds won their freedom from them.

They envisioned being able to do the same thing anytime the govt. became oppressive. Of course we all know that if you tried that now, the govt. would kill you and all your cohorts and brand you as "terrorists".

I think the 2nd ammendment gives me the right to any arms that I want. Not what I "need" as so many are trying to say. But what I WANT.

Right now all I have is a shotgun just in case someone were to break into my home. My German shepard would attack them while I grabbed my shotgun.
I'd also like to own a nice pistol for my office in my backyard Casita. I work late outside and if somebody were to break into the main house it would be nice to have a pistol out here with me to take in and defend my family.

But if I wanted to have some kind of crazy ass gun that fired a million rounds...I should be able to according to the constitution.

So if you think that is wrong, then we need to get rid of the 2nd ammendment. That's the way it's supposed to be done. Not try to tiptoe around it.

A little research will show that the Second Amendment had more to do with freedom than historical militias. Here is what some of the Founding Fathers actually said about arms:

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms, disarm only those who are neither inclined, nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants. They serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1764

What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.
-- Thomas Jefferson

Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who didn't.
-- Ben Franklin

Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property... Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.
--Thomas Paine

A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.
-- George Washington

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined?The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.
--Patrick Henry.

Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?
-- Patrick Henry, 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.

The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.
--Samuel Adams, debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87.

The right of the people to keep and bear?arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country?
--James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789).

(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation?(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
--James Madison.

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government...
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist (#28) .

The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.
--Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-B.

To disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them.
-- George Mason

The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.
--Noah Webster, ?An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (1787) in Pamplets on the Constitution of the United States (P.Ford, 1888)

[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or the state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People.
-- Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

Don't bring up those pesky founding fathers.

You have to understand that they didn't live in 2012 and don't understand how things are now.

It's best just to let those nice and benevolent police officers have guns. They are there to protect us and would never abuse their power.
Just imagine how much nicer they will be when they are the only ones with guns. :)

This just proves my point. We can spend tens of billions a year on armed guards at schools and it's not going to stop mass murders at schools. Once a madman has a gun in their hands, it's too late and they will kill. At Columbine it was 13 dead and 21 wounded, and the armed guard did nothing to stop the killing, other officers arrived on the scene, and the two killers committed suicide.

If you are twenty years old and get drunk enough in public to start a bar fight, well, clearly your not mature enough to own a firearm.

Years ago I had a neighbor who was arrested three times in one year for assaulting his wife. For reasons I cannot understand no one thought to take away his firearms until he was shooting at his wife... Really? Why isn't there a law in place saying "If you are charged with assault, we are searching your house and taking away your firearms". Common fucking sense.

I'm thinking that back in the "wild west" days you were required to check your weapons at the bar to make sure no altercations went crazy and ended up in a bloodbath.

But that's just from watching movies. lol

Congrats on owning nickle plated sissy gun.

Nevermind.

actually no it was written to mean militia not people. They would of said people like they did how many other times in the document. They didnt have a free standing army and if the country got attacked everyone had to be able to help out. It was protect the gov,they were still getting attacked its not like now. .

I deleted my reply because I worded it incorrectly. The important thing is that the second amendment was written so that the people were allowed to arm themselves to be protected from a tyrannical Government.

That's not really true. It was to written to deter a tyrannical government, suppressing insurrection, and repel invasion. It was meant to protect the government as it was to protect the citizens from the government.

Semantics. We are on the same page here though.

Bullshit. If that were true then it would contradict Article 3 of the Constitution:

U.S. Constitution - Article 3 Section 3
Article 3 - The Judicial Branch
Section 3 - Treason


Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

One thing that irritates me is when people say the founding fathers had no idea that people would one day invent modern assault rifles so that means the second amendment is out of date. Really? Most of the founding fathers were men of science, some were actual scientists. They were also very well read, some owned libraries and were well versed in history. I am confident they were well aware that weapons of war would advance over the years. Weapons have always advanced since the most primitive of times, so to think the founding fathers were not capable of knowing that paints them as some sort of cave men. They knew weapons would improve over the time, and they wanted the people's weapons to keep up with that.

My issue with gun control has to do with the distant future. It won't be in the next 100 years, maybe not even the next 200 years. But one day, some asshole is going to try to take over the world again. There will be another Hitler somewhere in the world someday. And as long as Americans are armed, they will never end up in gas chambers or concentration camps. I know that sounds crazy, but it will happen again one day. Some asshole will build an army and try to march over other countries.

heh-heh

It's one of the ones used by the Coast Guard (so it doesn't rust as easily from the salt air). Plus it just looks freakin' cool.

I figure if I ever actually have to use it (which I don't think I will), I'll look cool filling some burglar up with a thousand holes of bird shot. (and that will make him wish he were dead)

Move past the founding father bullshit.
I don't care what they intended anymore.
Men that WANT to be free WILL be free.

You don't need daddy holding your hand.

Welcome Jesus to ignoring clear concise and deeply thoughtful individuals.
But you seriously need to get one thing perfectly clear pal, nobody holds my fucking hand and never will.

Check your weapons at the school office:winkwink:

Then why is the police armed? With the anti-gun logica unarmed cops result in much safer streets, why not start there?
No law or amendment has to be changed for that just take the guns of the cops, problem solved.
In the schoolyards it worked! Take away the guns of the good guys and it will be all OK i promise you.

I don't ignore them. I take them in context and build upon their ideas as a free thinking individual.

Deify no man.

If guns are banned then only criminals will have guns. Prohibition didn't work for alcohol. It's not working for drugs right now. Why would it work for guns?

One of the other points of gun ownership is to prevent tyranny from the government.

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphoto...53114262_n.jpg

http://edge.liveleak.com/80281E/s/s/...44&ec_rate=300

http://moonbattery.com/obama-ban-guns.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ZoMGIVBOtw...Obama+guns.jpg

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i...4o9disTldDl2-A

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i...73cUNKOM8bfJAx

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/i...az3B-UjhQcC1sQ

The founding fathers were men not prophets.they also were cool with slavery and woman not voting. Its a hero gun fantasy, over throw a gov, take on the next hitler.

You think making guns is comparable to some hillbilly boiling water in a still in his backyard or a kid growing a plant in his closet?

Ad hominem. They may not have been perfect but the principle involved is what is important, not historical figures themselves. Does gravity cease to be a true principle because Newton and Einstein were not perfect individuals?

A fantasy? Ever hear of this country called the USA that overthrew an oppressive government (arguable one of the most powerful) and started their own?

Having gone through that, they wanted to make sure the people would be the ones with the power, not the government.

The right to bear arms is to protect against one's OWN government not just foreign threats.

No. What does manufacture have to do with this? The debate is about gun ownership, not gun manufacturing.

I brought up alcohol and drugs to give examples of how bans don't have the desired effect.

That is the fantasy.it was a different time muskets against muskets. Also its a very different world.

That's not true Tony.

The British had cannon, and a super well trained army with the very BEST guns you could get in the world at the time.

The Continental Army started as something we'd call "terrorists" today. Using guerilla warfare, ambushing the British soldiers, blowing them up (primitive versions of roadside bombings), etc.

Once the rebels (patriots as we call them) showed that they meant business with their muskets...we started getting foreign aid (the French for instance) and building a semblance of a ragtag army and navy to fight the war.

But it took a very bloody, hard fought EIGHT YEARS to overthrow the British ruling govt. in the "colonies".

So yes...IF the entire nation rose up against the U.S. govt. with rifles, shotguns, etc. I do believe it could be done. Especially if they did as the founding fathers did back then...take over some of the military bases.

All it would take is a few generals in the current military establishment to side with the "rebels" and it could very well happen. But they would have to believe it's serious before they did something that radical. Disarm the country and there would be nothing left for the U.S. Govt. to stop it from taking all of our freedom. Nothing credible could ever be mounted against an oppressive future leader.

Hell, Baby Jesus Obama won't always be President you know. Down the line a true madman could weasel his way in.

Look at The Civil War. Going by what you're saying, it could never have happened. But it did and it was a hard fought bloody war that could have went either way at first.

Do I think that you and me and a few hundred guys with guns could overthrow the govt.?
No.
Do I think that you, me, a few million people with guns could? Yes.

Just look at what happened in Libya. And look what's happening in Syria.

The brits fire power wasnt that superior to the colonies. as far as the civil war the rebels lost. I think its a fantasy at this point. Also people revolt when they have nothing to lose,most that bitch got a whole lot to lose. Worry about those people who dont have shit and are first on gov program chopping block. They got nothing to lose unlike boortz lol

Also our gov isnt set up so some madman can take over. also when people talk about hitler, people forget he had the support of the german people at the time. He was elected in.

The second amendment was created to protect the government from invasion and suppressing insurrection - and law enforcement. You might call them "men of science" or claim they had "great wisdom" but they couldn't imagine one day the United States would have one of the most powerful military forces in the world - or that law enforcement was only moments away.

I agree with the rest of your post, but not this part.

Number one...the British Army & Navy was the most powerful one on Earth at that time (just like the U.S. is now). So yes, their fire power, quality of weapons (their "muskets" didn't jam or blow up in their faces for instance) were far superior to what the Continental "Army" had.

And the Civil War example was to show you that YES if a group were organized (like the CSA was) and had it's own manufacturing and former USA generals and forts and equipment come over to their side...then YES it can definitely pose a credible threat to the federal govt.

Today's US military versus citizens with assault rifles doesn't remotely compare to the north versus the south.

Guns aren't addictive substances. Totally different

more people drinking isn't going to cut down on drunk driving

A ban on alcohol didn't cut down on people drinking either. And it created crime syndicates too.