Conceited CCW holders

Please elaborate on how this is relevant.

Could you be more specific?

Goodie. How is that relevant to the "well regulated militia" intended by the founding fathers who wrote the 2A?

Your willingness to thump your chest and throw down a gauntlet illustrates a lack of maturity that is somewhat concerning, particularly as I've said time and again that I'm not interested in taking guns from lawful citizens. Emotional outbursts do not serve to make your perspective credible.

 

You're familiar with the words "blatant" and "misrepresentation", I hope?
Clearly, raising a strawman regarding my position by claiming my it includes something as ludicrous as "minorities have no rights" is - at best - a "blatant misrepresentation".

I thought so, which means your misrepresentation is all the more "blatant", inappropriate and indicative of your own position's flaws.

 

Yet you think the simple majority should have control, a sure sign that the minority should have no say in your view.

 

I'm not dodging these, like you are mine, I'm saying outlawing guns won't work to change these things. 300,000,000, and the majority of them are legal.

If you remove the right of legal possession, what do you think the crime rate will do.

And your Dirty Harry comment is childish.

If I was not allowed to own a gun for protection I would have cause to be afraid.

I live in Colorado, and one out of every 24 persons in the state over the age of 20 has a concealed carry permit. I feel safe, even though I don't carry every day.

You must be a lowland Scot, my ancestors who moved from northern Ireland to the Iles would have scorned you.

 

The militia is to protect the rights of the people from an abuse of government. See below.

The militia as you know it (state national guards) has been pulled under the authority of the US military. They have become part of the standing army. Your link explains that a standing army is a threat to freedom and that the militia (meaning the armed populace-militia) is our defense of a standing army running over the rights of the people. Here's the text from your link.

"Mr. Gerry -- This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the

people against the mal-administration of the government; if we could suppose

that in all cases the rights of the people would be attended to, the

occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive,

sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to

destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously

scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms. What, sir, is the use of a

militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of

liberty. Now it must be evident, that under this provision, together with

their other powers, congress could take such measures ith respect to a

militia, as make a standing army necessary. Whenever government mean to

invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to

destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."

That was the exact purpose of Jebediah's shotguns.

 

This is all totally insane....Let's get rid of all guns. problem solved. I'm a gun owner myself....but I'm tired of seeing dead kids on the news. Id gladly give up my .45 if it keeps a kid from being shot at school. The only true argument I have for owning a firearm is that I that I think guns are awesome... and I wanted to own one. That's it.

Dead kids trump my stupid ass reason every single time.

 

Have you heard of democracy? Do you realize that, even in a democracy, minorities have rights?
Your repeated fallacy reeks of strawman.

 

Actually, to follow the orders of the President - as per the Militia Act written by the founders. I will concur that the founders were concerned about a future military coup (not an uncommon event at that point in history, or amongst developing nations even today).

None of that is contrary to what I've said, however you've disregarded the question I asked about whether you believe "Jebediah's shotguns" are suited to the task of protecting you from a drone strike.
We might also add to this another question or two:
1) Do you believe there is any chance, in this day and age, of the US military turning it's guns against our own citizens or the democratically elected representatives of the citizenry?
2) Despite having a standing army, how many military coups have been attempted and how many tyrants have been deposed?

 

So why did you ? Your subjective opinion counts for little here in face of the facts

You've been shown that your 'legal' guns are actually making you far less safe theres not much more to say

Stay exactly the same but with fewer overall deaths. Defensive firearms use is but a tiny fraction of your overall statistics. Until you are more concerned with actually tackling crime and less concerned with your toys getting taken away nothing will ever be done politically

Its those very guns that are responsible for your cycle of fear in the first place

There probably isn't a Scot lowland or highland that would wish to emulate your nations firearms hysteria

 

Yet you want to limit minority rights, by your own words. Go figure.

Hey, here is what you are missing.

 

Repeating your fallacious statement does not lend your position credibility.

It took me several seconds of looking at this pic before I noticed she was holding a firearm... Clearly it's the firearm you're referring to, since she would be more likely to shoot you than let you near her.

 

Ah, in your dreams. Think she would be attracted to a lib pantywaist?

 

With the national guard under the command of the president, who will protect the people from an oppressive government better than Jebediah and millions other's like him with rifles, shotguns and handguns? Right now, we are depending on the integrity of those in our military to obey their sworn oath to defend the Constitution of the US. If the people are disarmed, who will protect their rights.

An armed population will keep a standing army honest. Even if we can't beat the bully, we can make it not worth his while to fight us. There hasn't been a coup, but that is no reason to ignore the possibility. We are heavily taxed and continuously monitored in all kinds of ways. Power has been steadily flowing to a central federal authority. States are becoming less powerful. How long until they are deemed unnecessary? These things will happen in steps or it will get ugly fast.

 

Wait... Are you saying that a president who is elected by the people will suddenly decide to turn on the very people that supported him in getting the position, effectively guaranteeing his party will never again get in the White House, and that the military will suddenly start obeying unlawful orders to attack their own communities?

Should I start wearing a tinfoil hat now to prevent myself succumbing to the mind control ray that must be involved?

Oh, and the best part: your response to this "impending threat" is to support the political party that put the Patriot Act in place and wants a ever-increasing military budget...

 

What a shock that you're not married.

 

I didn't say it was happening. I said that power is becoming more centralized and that it is something to consider before blindly going with it. I don't like nationalized healthcare, the Patriot Act, or anything else that gives more power to Washington. States have rights and individuals have rights. That's what I am for. I'd love to downsize the military and get rid of some of our role as the world police force. We can't afford it, anyway.

 

Oh, power is becoming more centralized? Sorry, I thought we still had the checks and balances inherent in seperate branches of government... and that defense against our military would require the people in our military to be willing to attack the citizenry. My bad.

 

Don't forget about the pistol by her right knee.

 

Wow, ok... I didn't get that far down.

 

ahhhhh you finally admit it......you voted for the fool...........being snarky with delusional wet dreams of power and grandure.................... well, just shows the rest of us that some really have their panties in a bunch
2+1= anything but 3

 

Yeah, I voted for him - as did most of the country!
Now, other than personal attacks, did you have anything worthwhile to contribute?

 

When you say "Jebediah's shotgun" it sure sounds as though you are being condescending. If you are a Marine, then you know what our rifles are capable of already, but I don't believe for a minute that is true.

And if the ship ever did hit the fan, it wouldn't be the shotgun that I go to.

My AR.


How many Citizens own a Barrett .50 cal you reckon? 100's? 1,000's?
"Jebediah's shotgun", lol.

Would the Military turn on Americans? Yeah, some would.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1Qx0cTze0M&app=desktop


And just in case you missed it, I don't believe for a minute that you are a Marine. Your pants. They are on fire.

 

And that would do what, exactly, against heavy armor or a drone?
Please let me know when you're done stroking your...weapon.

Military units do not act as individuals. Either the military establishment is a threat to US citizens or it isn't.
If you believe it is, stop pretending to respect the troops and supporting military expansion.

You, once again, prove your willingness to speak on matters you know nothing about. Trying to get a rise out of me? Shame on you. Flamebait is the last resort of the impotent.

 

again with e the sexual innuendos.... like your sex is any concern of ours and ours should be of no concern to you

 

Please quote a previous post where I raised sexual innuendos.