When you say you're afraid of "the government", who exactly are you afraid of?

[theclemsonkid]

I agree with Crimzy for the most part. People who cry bloody murder (bad pun, sorry) over gun control are doing it mostly for self serving reasons. If you are a competent person with a firearm, you would be able to fend of a threat with a pistol with 15 in the magazine and one in the chamber. If you can't defend yourself with 16 shots, you probably shouldn't own a firearm in the first place. But TheClemsonKid, what about if the government tries to come into my home or private property, and I can't defend myself because they systematically took away all my guns?!? Listen brother, if you have the full wrath of the US Government coming after you, I can bet you have bigger problems then your guns being taken away. Fact of the matter is, you like your guns, and you like being able to blow s**t up. I get that man, blowing s**t up is a lot of fun. And if we're being honest, most people probably given the choice (if no one judged them) would rather keep their guns, even if it did save just one life. Because realistically, you're probably never going to be affected by a gun crime; and although Newtown was tragic, you see it as par for the course.
I know, I know; how dare I speak about the truth. It's just like when Obama got elected. I had a very dear elderly friend who straight up told me "I won't ever vote for a n***er in the White House". Racist? Absolutely. But I give him all kinds of credit because he doesn't hide behind a fake view of "I just don't like his policies". It's the same with guns. People can tell you all day they are worried about the government, or the next Hitler or Cambodia... But like Crimzy said, it's all self serving for 99% of the people.
The thing about it that really makes me chuckle, is how anyone, under any guise, can look at the 2nd Amendment and not take it with a grain of salt. Muskets. That was the weapon of choice when the 2nd amendment was written. I'll tell you what, you want to carry an assault musket? Have at it. While there certainly are some unalienable rights (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness), you have to put them in context. This isn't 1776, this is 2013. To think that a document written over 200 years ago can be assumed valid under all circumstances is foolish.

 

[beth]

Its naïve if your understanding of people's embrace of the 2nd Am is totally self-serving just so folks can have a hoot shooting off powerful weapons.
The Founding Fathers were not tunnel vision-ed. They understood history exceedingly well and knew very well that 500 yrs before 1776 humans were fighting with swords not guns and cannons. I'm sure they could extrapolate that technology would evolve over the decades and centuries to include much more powerful weapons then a musket. In fact, a musket was not the most powerful firearm of the day--the cannon was. The 2nd Am. does not even mention muskets....only the brain-dead media is using that ridiculously short-sighted comparison.
It is not that the government will come after an individual and so that individual has the right to defend himself against a wrong government. It that the government will become tyrannical, and that we the people will have the ability, through the 2nd Am., to rise against such a government---and fight back. If you look at any history about this, you can clearly see that the first thing a corrupted, self-serving, power-grapping government does to oppress the people who they supposedly serve is to take away their ability to fight back.
Why is this so hard to grasp? Stop watching Piers Morgan and his brain-dead musket and GB comparisons. The Founding Fathers knew very well what they were doing. They put it right at the very top of the Constitution for goodness sakes.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid http:///t/394081/when-you-say-youre-afraid-of-the-government-who-exactly-are-you-afraid-of/40#post_3507707
I agree with Crimzy for the most part. People who cry bloody murder (bad pun, sorry) over gun control are doing it mostly for self serving reasons. If you are a competent person with a firearm, you would be able to fend of a threat with a pistol with 15 in the magazine and one in the chamber. If you can't defend yourself with 16 shots, you probably shouldn't own a firearm in the first place. But TheClemsonKid, what about if the government tries to come into my home or private property, and I can't defend myself because they systematically took away all my guns?!? Listen brother, if you have the full wrath of the US Government coming after you, I can bet you have bigger problems then your guns being taken away. Fact of the matter is, you like your guns, and you like being able to blow s**t up. I get that man, blowing s**t up is a lot of fun. And if we're being honest, most people probably given the choice (if no one judged them) would rather keep their guns, even if it did save just one life. Because realistically, you're probably never going to be affected by a gun crime; and although Newtown was tragic, you see it as par for the course.
I know, I know; how dare I speak about the truth. It's just like when Obama got elected. I had a very dear elderly friend who straight up told me "I won't ever vote for a n***er in the White House". Racist? Absolutely. But I give him all kinds of credit because he doesn't hide behind a fake view of "I just don't like his policies". It's the same with guns. People can tell you all day they are worried about the government, or the next Hitler or Cambodia... But like Crimzy said, it's all self serving for 99% of the people.
The thing about it that really makes me chuckle, is how anyone, under any guise, can look at the 2nd Amendment and not take it with a grain of salt. Muskets. That was the weapon of choice when the 2nd amendment was written. I'll tell you what, you want to carry an assault musket? Have at it. While there certainly are some unalienable rights (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness), you have to put them in context. This isn't 1776, this is 2013. To think that a document written over 200 years ago can be assumed valid under all circumstances is foolish.
So in your narrow minded view anyone who didn't support 0bama is a racist. The most racist person I've known in quite a few years is an 0bama bot and party line Democrat voter. Then again my Mom and most of her family were Southern Baptists who were also party line Democrats. Funny how people who's religion is anti abortion and gay rights would vote for the party that champions such things but whatever. It just goes to show perceptions aren't always reality.
So you are OK with us carrying muskets. OK. Then your freedom of speech is now limited to print and town criers cause if the founders couldn't foresee a gun that could fire a bullet with each pull of the trigger (AR 15) They sure as hell couldn't have imagined information being transmitted by radio waves all across the planet.

 

[reefraff]

And as far as motives go I have 11 rifles, 2 shotguns, 10 pistols and one muzzle loader. I haven't shot most of them. They are COLLECTORS items. For a price I'll sell everything I have except for a couple pistols for self defense. But what right does the government have to tell me I can't have my legally purchased firearms? Barack 0bama's gun running policy has killed more people than any gun I've ever owned. Maybe we should ban him.

 

[theclemsonkid]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/394081/when-you-say-youre-afraid-of-the-government-who-exactly-are-you-afraid-of/40#post_3507709
So in your narrow minded view anyone who didn't support 0bama is a racist. The most racist person I've known in quite a few years is an 0bama bot and party line Democrat voter. Then again my Mom and most of her family were Southern Baptists who were also party line Democrats. Funny how people who's religion is anti abortion and gay rights would vote for the party that champions such things but whatever. It just goes to show perceptions aren't always reality.
So you are OK with us carrying muskets. OK. Then your freedom of speech is now limited to print and town criers cause if the founders couldn't foresee a gun that could fire a bullet with each pull of the trigger (AR 15) They sure as hell couldn't have imagined information being transmitted by radio waves all across the planet.
Clearly, what you can take from my post is that anyone who didn't support Obama is a racist. I told you about ONE person I knew, who I respected because of his honesty.
And you can mock me all you like, but you can't take something written 200+ years ago and expect it to be "up to date". Times and people change, deal with it. You want to have a surgeon use the medical knowledge from 1774 for your next procedure? Or maybe you are alright with keeping slaves, abusing and owning women... you know "constitution times" stuff.
I'm not saying take away the second amendment. That would be dangerous. I am however saying that putting SOME limitations on it, is not the end of the world like a lot of people make it out to be. In case you forget, there already WAS a ban on assault rifles in place. Did that somehow matriculate into all our other guns being taken away? No? It didn't? Last I checked I walked into a store less than a month ago and purchased a pistol. Just like I could have 50 years ago, and just like I will be able to 50 years from now.
I can't understand why you all assume that A leads to B leads to Z. Sometimes A just leads to B and that's it...

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid http:///t/394081/when-you-say-youre-afraid-of-the-government-who-exactly-are-you-afraid-of/40#post_3507713
Clearly, what you can take from my post is that anyone who didn't support Obama is a racist. I told you about ONE person I knew, who I respected because of his honesty.
Then what was the point of your little story? I get real tired of left wingers insinuating anyone who opposes 0bama does so because he's black. I can list a number of actions he took as a legislator that led to me decision to oppose him. Finding one of his supporters who could point to a single thing that led them to support him over Hillary or one of the other Dems is nearly impossible.
And you can mock me all you like, but you can't take something written 200+ years ago and expect it to be "up to date". Times and people change, deal with it. You want to have a surgeon use the medical knowledge from 1774 for your next procedure? Or maybe you are alright with keeping slaves, abusing and owning women... you know "constitution times" stuff.
I'm not saying take away the second amendment. That would be dangerous. I am however saying that putting SOME limitations on it, is not the end of the world like a lot of people make it out to be. In case you forget, there already WAS a ban on assault rifles in place. Did that somehow matriculate into all our other guns being taken away? No? It didn't? Last I checked I walked into a store less than a month ago and purchased a pistol. Just like I could have 50 years ago, and just like I will be able to 50 years from now.
I can't understand why you all assume that A leads to B leads to Z. Sometimes A just leads to B and that's it...
If you are going to make the case the founders couldn't foresee modern weapons so they shouldn't be covered under the 2nd amendment I can make a stronger case for why radio, TV, internet, movies and video games shouldn't be covered under the first. Do you really want to go down that road or would you rather accept the constitution and bill of rights mean what they say and modifications should be done through the amendment process? Do you know the federal government doesn't ban full automatic machine guns?

 

[darthtang aw]

I agree with Crimzy for the most part.  People who cry bloody murder (bad pun, sorry) over gun control are doing it mostly for self serving reasons.  If you are a competent person with a firearm, you would be able to fend of a threat with a pistol with 15 in the magazine and one in the chamber.  If you can't defend yourself with 16 shots, you probably shouldn't own a firearm in the first place.  But TheClemsonKid, what about if the government tries to come into my home or private property, and I can't defend myself because they systematically took away all my guns?!? Listen brother, if you have the full wrath of the US Government coming after you, I can bet you have bigger problems then your guns being taken away.  Fact of the matter is, you like your guns, and you like being able to blow s**t up.  I get that man, blowing s**t up is a lot of fun.  And if we're being honest, most people probably given the choice (if no one judged them) would rather keep their guns, even if it did save just one life.  Because realistically, you're probably never going to be affected by a gun crime; and although Newtown was tragic, you see it as par for the course.
I know, I know; how dare I speak about the truth.  It's just like when Obama got elected.  I had a very dear elderly friend who straight up told me "I won't ever vote for a n***er in the White House".  Racist? Absolutely.  But I give him all kinds of credit because he doesn't hide behind a fake view of "I just don't like his policies".  It's the same with guns.  People can tell you all day they are worried about the government, or the next Hitler or Cambodia... But like Crimzy said, it's all self serving for 99% of the people.
The thing about it that really makes me chuckle, is how anyone, under any guise, can look at the 2nd Amendment and not take it with a grain of salt.  Muskets.  That was the weapon of choice when the 2nd amendment was written.  I'll tell you what, you want to carry an assault musket? Have at it.  While there certainly are some unalienable rights (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness), you have to put them in context.  This isn't 1776, this is 2013.  To think that a document written over 200 years ago can be assumed valid under all circumstances is foolish.   
 
Actually you would be wrong on this. Up until last year, I didn't own a gun. I grew up with them. Understood them. Had many friends and family that owned one. Yet I still opposed most forms of gun legislation in a restricting manner. My owning gun or not owning a gun played no bearing on why I am against the legislation. ESPECIALLY if done so through executive order...which you seem to keep ignoring.
99% that support the ability to get an abortion legally do so for selfish reasons. Does that diminish the abortion stance at all?
Raiding taxes on just the rich, is purely done from a selfish standpoint....does this negate your tax support and stance at all?

 

[reefraff]

It isn't going to matter. They don't have the votes to get a ban through anyway.
Now we will see if the Democrats want an issue or a solution. Any legislation that contains a ban is DOA in the house for sure and maybe the Senate. However, universal background checks and possibly a ban on the sale of large magazine going forward would probably have a good chance of passing. I don't believe we'll see a bill without the ban because as usual the Dems want an issue, not a solution. I think we'll see a ban bill go down in flames and then a bill to help fund cops or additional security in schools will rise out of the ashes.

 

[darthtang aw]

It isn't going to matter. They don't have the votes to get a ban through anyway.
Now we will see if the Democrats want an issue or a solution. Any legislation that contains a ban is DOA in the house for sure and maybe the Senate. However, universal background checks and possibly a ban on the sale of large magazine going forward would probably have a good chance of passing. I don't believe we'll see a bill without the ban because as usual the Dems want an issue, not a solution. I think we'll see a ban bill go down in flames and then a bill to help fund cops or additional security in schools will rise out of the ashes.
I keep reading the Administration is trying to circumvent things and use executive order..........................

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/394081/when-you-say-youre-afraid-of-the-government-who-exactly-are-you-afraid-of/40#post_3507742
I keep reading the Administration is trying to circumvent things and use executive order..........................
They could ban imports but I am not sure how much else they could get away with. They better keep in mind that the NRA has a 10 point advantage over 0bama in favorability ratings.

 

[mantisman51]

The Border Patrol keeps me and my family safe from the cartel smugglers-just 2 nights ago showing up to save my daughter and I from 4 cartel mules bound and determined to take my truck. I now live out away from everyone and everything on the border, I couldn't exist there without Federal intervention. The mail started showing up the day I got my mailbox up-UPS and Fedex won't deliver "way out there". The local school district added an extension to the bus route to make sure my daughter could get to and from school. The Federal Game and Fish agents have hunted and killed several coyotes who were determined to kill my turkeys. My local sheriff's department sent 3 officers to back up BP when the cartel mules came around. The U.S. Army is flying drones 24 hours a day over my area to watch out for cartel smugglers(aw, Bionic's buddies are being discriminated against). I have millions and millions of Federal $ protecting me while I carve out my humble little piece of the American dream. I have 0 complaints about our government. The politicians who want to twist the Constitution and empower the ATF to take my guns so that I can't protect myself from the cartels that THEY ARMED, I have a problem with. I have 1 question for liberals: Do you think it's right that YOUR president and YOUR attorney general armed the cartels and now want to take MY firearms that I have owned for over 20 years and committed NO CRIMES with? Yeah, I'm back! And I will answer liberal stupidity with facts and common sense. Also, as far as those crying for "Obama, president for life" for which I was called a lunatic right-winger:reagancoalition.com/articles/2013/20130108004-obama-third-fourth.html.

 

[reefraff]

I couldn't live on the border. The legal fees from defending myself against shooting Mexican criminals would break me.

 

[mantisman51]

I was armed to the teeth, but did not, nor would I, shoot because while they were aggressive, they never made an attempt to physically harm me or my daughter. Just a lot of shouting and gesturing. I am not afraid to defend myself, but unlike what the liberals here and all over America say, I don't want to hurt anyone. BP told me if I were not armed, they absolutely would have attacked since they had been tracking them for 5 miles and they were feeling the pressure and wanted to get away desperately. As it was, they are now sitting in the Federal Detention center in Tucson, awaiting smuggling charges. I am satisfied. Good Guys 1, La Raza 0.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by mantisman51 http:///t/394081/when-you-say-youre-afraid-of-the-government-who-exactly-are-you-afraid-of/40#post_3507960
I was armed to the teeth, but did not, nor would I, shoot because while they were aggressive, they never made an attempt to physically harm me or my daughter. Just a lot of shouting and gesturing. I am not afraid to defend myself, but unlike what the liberals here and all over America say, I don't want to hurt anyone. BP told me if I were not armed, they absolutely would have attacked since they had been tracking them for 5 miles and they were feeling the pressure and wanted to get away desperately. As it was, they are now sitting in the Federal Detention center in Tucson, awaiting smuggling charges. I am satisfied. Good Guys 1, La Raza 0.
I wouldn't pop someone for gesturing but if they are on my property refusing my commands there's going to be a reality check sent in their general direction and they will comply one way or another. In my state property theft in itself isn't cause for deadly force so you can't pop someone for that. But if you catch someone in the act and instead of leaving they advance it's Dodge City Saturday night if you want.

 

[theclemsonkid]

Quote:
Originally Posted by mantisman51 http:///t/394081/when-you-say-youre-afraid-of-the-government-who-exactly-are-you-afraid-of/40#post_3507934
The Border Patrol keeps me and my family safe from the cartel smugglers-just 2 nights ago showing up to save my daughter and I from 4 cartel mules bound and determined to take my truck. I now live out away from everyone and everything on the border, I couldn't exist there without Federal intervention. The mail started showing up the day I got my mailbox up-UPS and Fedex won't deliver "way out there". The local school district added an extension to the bus route to make sure my daughter could get to and from school. The Federal Game and Fish agents have hunted and killed several coyotes who were determined to kill my turkeys. My local sheriff's department sent 3 officers to back up BP when the cartel mules came around. The U.S. Army is flying drones 24 hours a day over my area to watch out for cartel smugglers(aw, Bionic's buddies are being discriminated against). I have millions and millions of Federal $ protecting me while I carve out my humble little piece of the American dream. I have 0 complaints about our government. The politicians who want to twist the Constitution and empower the ATF to take my guns so that I can't protect myself from the cartels that THEY ARMED, I have a problem with. I have 1 question for liberals: Do you think it's right that YOUR president and YOUR attorney general armed the cartels and now want to take MY firearms that I have owned for over 20 years and committed NO CRIMES with? Yeah, I'm back! And I will answer liberal stupidity with facts and common sense. Also, as far as those crying for "Obama, president for life" for which I was called a lunatic right-winger:reagancoalition.com/articles/2013/20130108004-obama-third-fourth.html.
You're not a lunatic right winger, so much as an uninformed lunatic right winger Here's the actual truth about that whole 22nd amendment thing...
Although Rep. Serrano may be a Democrat, the rhetoric quoted above stating that the purpose of his proposal for repealing the 22nd amendment is specifically to "pave the way to make Barack Obama president for life" is not supported by the facts. Rep. Serrano has introduced the very same proposal to Congress every two years since 1997 (a total of nine times), regardless of which party was currently occupying the White House and starting well before Barack Obama became involved in national politics. On the first two occasions (in 1997 and 1999) the incumbent president was a Democrat (Bill Clinton); the next four occasions (2001, 2003, 2005, and again in 2007), were after the election of a Republican (George W. Bush). Rep. Serrano's 2013 bill is the third time he has proposed that same legislation to Congress since the election of Barack Obama, following similar efforts in 2009 and e="color: blue;">2011.
And for a little more information, look who ELSE has also introduced the same legislation:
Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky (Republican): 1995 (during the presidency of Bill Clinton).
Yep, that's right. Good old Mitch McConnell of the hallowed Republican leadership committee also introduced similar legislation. So it's not that you,re wrong with you said that, it's just how you framed it. So instead of blaming the "liberals" for trying to put in Obama for life... why don't you actually find the truth. And the truth is, people from both parties have tried to do this, hoping that one day "their guy" could be kept indefinitely.

 

[mantisman51]

When they thought my daughter was in the RV alone, they were acting like filthy animals. Making those dumb-ass whistling noises so many from Mexico make and shouting, "Hey little girl, come outside" and "We want to show you something"(see most are money-maker, anchor babies that have gone to school here in the U.S. and are used by the cartels because when they're not running through the desert with 100's of # of dope, cocaine or heroine, they can blend in). So, when I finally heard the shouting and quit playing a video game on my laptop and jumped out of the truck, they started yelling in Spanish and acting aggressive and coming toward me. When I pulled my jacket off my hip(I am always armed here at the urging of BP and the Sheriff), they turned and ran. So I called the Sheriff and then BP. While on the phone with the BP dispatcher, they tried to circle around in the dark and flank me. I told my daughter to get my (uh...semi-auto rifle) gun and drew on them. They wouldn't stop coming toward me, but were still about 50 feet away. Finally I yelled that if they took one more step, I'd defend myself. The BP dispatcher asked if they were still advancing, I said yes. He said don't let them get within arms reach. So I yelled again and they ran. So, if I needed to, I would not have hesitated to grease a few pieces of garbage. But it would have been the absolute last resort.

 

[mantisman51]

And right there ^^^^^^ is why liberals want guns taken. In their warped and twisted minds I and my daughter should have been unarmed victims so the rights of these animals wouldn't risk being violated and just let the cops and courts take care of the cleanup after. Liberal, anti-gunners are not caring or compassionate, they want unarmed victims. I can think of no more evil or lower life form on earth.

 

[theclemsonkid]

Quote:
Originally Posted by mantisman51 http:///t/394081/when-you-say-youre-afraid-of-the-government-who-exactly-are-you-afraid-of/40#post_3508076
And right there ^^^^^^ is why liberals want guns taken. In their warped and twisted minds I and my daughter should have been unarmed victims so the rights of these animals wouldn't risk being violated and just let the cops and courts take care of the cleanup after. Liberal, anti-gunners are not caring or compassionate, they want unarmed victims. I can think of no more evil or lower life form on earth.
Again, I think you have a VERY skewed view of what "liberals" want. I'm a liberal. I just spent an hour at the outdoor range yesterday, went through almost 400 rounds. I also am looking at a new rifle that's for sale by the range owners brother. If I were you, I would be armed to the teeth. Your families safety should be of the utmost importance.
In fact, if I were you, and I felt that threatened, I would pack my stuff up and leave. I know it's sucks that you would have to leave your home because of immigrant drug dealers, but that doesn't change the fact it would make you feel a lot safer, no? I mean even with BP, a small arsenal, and the sheriff helping out... how safe can you really feel?
This is why I have a problem with immigration in this country. If corporations and laborers hadn't been using their services for the better part of a century, maybe we wouldn't have this problem...

 

[mantisman51]

So, again, I am being told to yield to criminals. Not gonna happen. This country wasn't built by wimps and as long as left-wing politicians leave me the hell alone, I'll be just fine.

 

[mantisman51]

BTW, if that's not true about liberals wanting unarmed victims, why did the liberal's Lord and Savior(thanks Jamie Foxx for validating what I've said from day 1) say, "More guns in schools isn't the answer"? That right there is saying, "We should have unarmed victims in every school". There is no other way to interpret that