 |
|
|
 |
Ultra Member
|
|
Dec 28, 2012, 06:21 PM
|
|
 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
|
|
 |
Ultra Member
|
|
Dec 29, 2012, 09:01 AM
|
|
 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?
|
|
 |
Uber Member
|
|
Dec 29, 2012, 09:09 AM
|
|
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
|
|
 |
Ultra Member
|
|
Dec 29, 2012, 09:15 AM
|
|
 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.
|
|
 |
Ultra Member
|
|
Dec 29, 2012, 09:16 AM
|
|
 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.
|
|
 |
Expert
|
|
Dec 29, 2012, 09:58 AM
|
|
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?
|
|
 |
Ultra Member
|
|
Dec 29, 2012, 12:18 PM
|
|
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Capiche ?
|
|
 |
Ultra Member
|
|
Dec 29, 2012, 12:37 PM
|
|
 Originally Posted by speechlesstx
It's paranoid to be prepared to respond to a threat.
Should read it's NOT paranoid...
|
|
 |
Ultra Member
|
|
Dec 29, 2012, 12:38 PM
|
|
 Originally Posted by tomder55
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
capiche ?
No they don't.
|
|
 |
Expert
|
|
Dec 29, 2012, 01:03 PM
|
|
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.
|
|
 |
Ultra Member
|
|
Dec 29, 2012, 01:34 PM
|
|
No Tal they like playing toy soldiers
|
|
 |
Ultra Member
|
|
Dec 30, 2012, 03:33 AM
|
|
 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.
|
|
 |
Junior Member
|
|
Dec 30, 2012, 03:47 AM
|
|
 Originally Posted by tomder55
Tom, I think this will just be wasting my time and yours.
Tut
|
|
 |
Ultra Member
|
|
Dec 30, 2012, 04:20 AM
|
|
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
|
|
 |
Ultra Member
|
|
Dec 30, 2012, 01:20 PM
|
|
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.
|
|
 |
Jobs & Parenting Expert
|
|
Dec 30, 2012, 01:37 PM
|
|
 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?
|
|
 |
Ultra Member
|
|
Dec 30, 2012, 01:46 PM
|
|
 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
|
|
 |
Ultra Member
|
|
Dec 30, 2012, 02:00 PM
|
|
 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 '.
|
|
 |
Jobs & Parenting Expert
|
|
Dec 30, 2012, 02:07 PM
|
|
 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!
|
|
 |
Junior Member
|
|
Dec 30, 2012, 03:33 PM
|
|
 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
|
|
Question Tools |
Search this Question |
|
|
Add your answer here.
Check out some similar questions!
Gun Control... it didn't take long
[ 1292 Answers ]
I won't go into hysterics that Obama is going to take away our guns.
Just one question. If the US backs a UN Treaty to restrict small arms ,what is the law of the land ? The treaty ,or the Constitution of the land... specifically the 2nd Amendment ?
After Obama win, U.S. backs new U.N....
Gun control. My thoughts. Just shoot me now. This thread won't end well.
[ 332 Answers ]
Okay, I do have thoughts on gun control, and I promised to start a thread where we could discuss guns, and peoples thoughts on guns. But I didn't start the thread about the Connecticut massacre to discuss gun control. That was about the families and their loss.
So, to keep that Connecticut...
Gun control by fiat?
[ 17 Answers ]
Who needs a congress? King Obama is reportedly working on gun control "under the radar" by way of executive order or regulatory means.
WaPo did a story on White House gun control czar Steve Crowley which had this little tidbit that just almost escaped notice.
I'm sure that is "under the...
Gun Control
[ 29 Answers ]
Hello:
The killer we've been talking about was subdued AFTER he emptied his magazine and before he could insert another. He was using 30 round clips. THOSE clips were illegal under the Assault Weapons Ban that EXPIRED under Bush and was not reinstated.
If it HAD been reinstated, the killer...
Gun control and socialized medicine in Europe
[ 1 Answers ]
Are any countries in Europe that do not have either gun control laws or socialized medicine? I know they're very "europe-y" things to do, but I don't know if the EU requires them, or if a bunch of countries just decided to institute them. (I know the exact polices vary a bit, so I'm guessing it's...
View more questions
Search
|