Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuttyd

I guess is mistook long lines outside of gun shops and plans to train teachers in armed response as some sort of anxiety.

---

YesTut undoubtedly you did, it was just citizens exercising their constittional right to own more weapons, like 270,000,000 isn't enough, but I question what do they have to fear but fear itself. Being afraid doesn't fit very well with the Superman image, I expect soon Superman will need an AR15 to get his man card marked

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuttyd

I guess is mistook long lines outside of gun shops and plans to train teachers in armed response as some sort of anxiety.

---

We shouldn't respond to our rights and safety being threatened?

Hello again, Steve:

If the problem we have with guns, is that there's TOO FEW of them, then maybe the answer to the drug problem, is that there's TOO FEW of them.

I mean, if EVERYBODY had drugs, there wouldn't be ANY drug crime.. Problem solved.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

If the problem we have with guns, is that there's TOO FEW of them, then maybe the answer to the drug problem, is that there's TOO FEW of them.

I mean, if EVERYBODY had drugs, there wouldn't be ANY drug crime.. Problem solved.

excon

---

Yeah, OK. You run with that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuttyd

I guess is mistook long lines outside of gun shops and plans to train teachers in armed response as some sort of anxiety.

---

It's paranoid to be prepared to respond to a threat.

Would you kill an ant with a cannon? How many times? How many bullets do you need to protect your family in your home?

Protecting your home against the zombie apocalypse is understandable if you admit it. But don't say you need a machine gun for a burglar or thug. That's loony right?

the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Capiche ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

It's paranoid to be prepared to respond to a threat.

---

Should read it's NOT paranoid...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

capiche ?

---

No they don't.

Then go defend our country the way real soldiers do if you have a right to act, dress, and arm yourselves like them.

But you are the same guys who don't want REAL soldier on every corner.

No Tal they like playing toy soldiers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

But you are the same guys who don't want REAL soldier on every corner.

---

And you do ? One of the grievances documented in the Declaration of Independence was "For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us".

In fact ;one of the primary reasons for the 2nd amendment was to prevent the deployment of REAL soldier on every corner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

ok then ;how's it going with other violent crimes ,assaults ,rapes ,forced entries into homes ?Did the use of firearms in robberies decrease ? All you really did was remove the means of self defense .



America, don’t repeat Australia’s gun control mistake | The Daily Caller

yeah yeah I know ....right wing ...no validity .

---

Tom, I think this will just be wasting my time and yours.


Tut

I'll say it again these are different days, time to move on. The government has a standing army, that it quarters in barracks, they are well supplied with arms and food, no need to quarter them in private homes or to augment their services with militia, the reason for some of the provisions in the constitution were the grievences of the people who were mistreated at that time, this is a different time with different problems, taxation is still an issue but you cannot say you are without representation, however weak it might be. You don't have an army maintaining order, you have a police force, a luxury no one had thought of in the eighteenth century. There hasn't been an Indian raid in, what, a least a century, there hasn't been a border incursion since the early nineteenth century.

I know you all long for the simple days of the eigthteenth century when there was still a nation to pioneer and conquer, but those days are long gone, if you can conquer the que in the rush hour you are doing well and you can't use a gun for that

Yeah I get it... We the sheeple of the United States should trust that the government will always be representative, and like the good nanny it is ,look out for our best interest ,and will not evolve into a tyranny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

yeah I get it ...We the sheeple of the United States should trust that the government will always be representative, and like the good nanny it is ,look out for our best interest ,and will not evolve into a tyranny.

---

Of course, we are to always be watchful, but certainly there are plenty of checks and balances (plus eyes watching).

What would be the definition of tyranny? How would the government not become representative?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

yeah I get it ...We the sheeple of the United States should trust that the government will always be representative, and like the good nanny it is ,look out for our best interest ,and will not evolve into a tyranny.

---

If it evolves into a tyranny will you be like Syria and tear yourselves apart and how long will it take before you oppose it with small arms? You get the government you ask for and the surest way for it to become a tyranny is to allow the present corruption to persist and grow.

Look at your revolution, a small armed group was successful because it opposed a similarly armed small army which was not reinforced. Look at your civil war, professional armies fought themselves to a standstill, what citizens who could fight did and yet victory took years, and yet the south was unable to overcome the tyranny of the north. It is a romantic notion that an armed population will be successful against a well trained military

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Of course, we are to always be watchful, but certainly there are plenty of checks and balances (plus eyes watching).

What would be the definition of tyranny? How would the government not become representative?

---

Look up Alexis de Tocqueville 's description of 'soft tyranny '.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

look up Alexis de Tocqueville 's description of 'soft tyranny '.

---

Thank goodness President Obama was reelected so that we will be able to avoid that "soft tyranny" and be able to work together for a better future for all of us!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Thank goodness President Obama was reelected so that we will be able to avoid that "soft tyranny" and be able to work together for a better future for all of us!

---

Alexis de Tocqueville was a 19th century thinker. We don't live in the 19th century. Political society has evolved into something vastly different to that which captured deTocqueville imagination.

I also recommend John Saul's 'Voltaire's Bastards' and 'The Unconscious Civilization' This represents a contemporary and updated explanation of modern politics.

P.S.

Obama is actually contributing to the unconsciousness of society.

Tut