Gun extremists fatal flaw

The funny thing about gun extremists is they think The People would only use AK-47s and AR-15s to defend liberty & freedom. But what's stopping them from instead imposing tyranny & oppression?

Ask the blacks of The South, how Segregation was maintained.

Guns have no morals, no values, no guiding principles.

They can be used to kill bad guys AND good guys.

They can be used to defend liberty...or impose tyranny.

 

People that are aimed at defending the constitution are ‘extremists’. You have your answer right there.

 

they care about keeping their guns and making sure ANYONE can possess one, as many as they want, whatever kind they want.

that's very different than "defending the Constitution".

so save the hyperbole,

 

Actually, firearms are hailed by '60s era civil rights supporters as the reason that they could do what they did. Without guns in the hands of black people, Jim Crow would still be with us. Martin Luther King applied for a concealed gun permit. It was denied, but it just shows why "shall issue" rather than "may issue" is important.

http://www.npr.org/2014/06/05/319072156/guns-kept-people-alive-during-the-civil-rights-movement

http://www.salon.com/2014/06/14/gun..._breaking_down_the_myth_of_nonviolent_change/

http://reason.com/archives/2014/05/10/why-civil-rights-and-gun-rights-are-inse

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2013/07/05/Ice-T-Gun-Rights-Are-Civil-Rights

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/

 

There are extremists in the Gun Fetishists and it's easy to show.

Ask them "Do I have a 2nd Amendment right to own a fuel-air bomb, such as a MOAB?"

Now, the extremists will fall into two categories-

A. those who are honest in their beliefs and say "Yes"

B. those who try to hide their extremism and change the subject, dodge, deflect, bob, weave, etc.....anything but give a straight answer, because they don't want to contradict themselves NOR make themselves look like a wacko.

 

Keep whining libs. Face it you can never take over the control of the country when ordinary citizens are armed.

BTW all of my friends are armed, and they nor I have ever shot anyone, except when we were in the military!!!!

 

Tyranny can only be imposed through a monopoly of force.

So if only one side has them (as you advocate)....

Check and mate.

 

Actually you should save us the hyperbole.

Please cite a predominate gun rights advocacy group that states that anyone should be able to own any firearm they want.

I would suggest refraining from making silly claims unless you can actually substantiate them.

 

You are created a false position and than attacking it..... major strawmen. One would only have to watch the news to know that bad people do things with ak-47`s and ar-15`s. We can not control everyone , it is foolish to think you can. I appreciate the ability to arm and defend myself from whatever threat may exist... no matter how much the gun grabbers whine and complain .

 

Once again I am going to ask you for a source in which I know you won’t provide… Give me a source that shows someone said they want ANYONE (to include the mentally ill and violent criminals) to possess a gun. Talk about hyperbole!

But the 2nd is not written to limit how many or what type of firearm someone can possess. Me believing a law-respecting person should be allowed to own an RPG is not extremist. That RGP is not a dangerous tool in the hands of someone that respects the law. Of course, given that RGPs could be legally owned.

Your problem is, you view anyone that has a gun as ‘potentially’ dangerous simply because they have a gun. This is an extreme point of view.

 

Most gun rights advocates are not extremists.

Most gun rights advocates believe in some common sense regulations for guns, such as background checks for all sales.

Its the extremists who want no background checks, so that anyone who ain't in prison can buy 20 Glocks or AK-47s.

 

Ah, so you are using the most extreme to make a point?

Sounds like your thread is a waste of bandwidth.

 

and yet you couldn't help yourself but to respond.

 

`The helpful response was to alert you about garbage....IMO...carry on...

 

Couldn't help but point out the silliness of the premise and conclusion.

I am a huge fan of crucifixions.

 

so why do they defend the rights of anyone who isn't in prison, to own an AK-47?

 

If they are a danger to society, why are they out of prison?

 

The vote is a much more powerful weapon to defend the Constitution than your popgun will ever be.

 

so you're saying once out of prison, they pose no danger to society?

 

No, the question is reversed, if they are still a danger, why are they out of prison?

The premise of their argument is as such:
If someone is out of prison, they have paid their debt. If they are still a danger with a firearm, given the proliferation (let's not pretend that making acquisition illegal actually stops anyone from acquiring a firearm) of firearms in the US, why are they being released?

 

I posit again...

To the "purists" who believe in no restrictions on the 2nd Amendment...

do I have the right to own a fuel-air bomb?



Contrariwise to those who'd say "no"....then restrictions on the 2nd Amendment are legitimate? Yes?

 

so you believe that all rights and priveleges should be restored when someone leaves prison?

 

Speaking as a gun owner and someone who grew up hunting and enjoying the outdoors, I resent having to defend gun ownership just because a loud bunch of extremists push things well past reason .... On both sides.

From the NRA, I resigned from this bunch of wing nuts when they took the silly stance that private gun ownership has anything to do with 2nd amendment militias. It doesn't. No one grounded in reality would think the guns we are busy killing our kids with would even leave a dent in a modern tank. If they really wanted to, the military could bring such overwhelming force to bear on any armed insurrection we would all be back talking about the liberal Media by lunch time. Guns are good for recreational hunting, sport target practice, and using against someone else, with or without their own gun. I have several handguns and really don't "need" any of them. I enjoy sport shooting, have been shot at in combat, have been present at civilian shootings, and have never yet seen a "need" for my CCW permit. It's an excuse pure and simple.

For the Gun Grabbing Left. Sport shooters are no danger to you and in fact have long been a type of ally. One of leading causes of gun injury and death is simple mishandling of weapons either by those unqualified to have access or simply too irresponsible when handling their guns. Nobody is more in favor of safety training and restricted access than gun owners themselves. Responsible shooters are highly aware of what a modern gun is capable inflicting on the human body and we have kids to keep safe too. No, the millions of hand guns aren't really needed but they are all ready out there and even a door to door search won't get them back at this point. I wouldn't mind registering my weapons, for what ever good that might do and I would be more than happy to consult any available data base to make sure I didn't sell one of my guns to some nut job with a death wish.

From my perspective, I see tons of room for reasonable compromise. The extremes from either side are not helping their case, it only entrenches their rivals. Why not everyone climb down from their ideological high horses and find common ground. There is plenty to go around.

 

Wow, Ronstar,

Don't like arguments that shoot you down, do you?