You can keep saying that as long as you want. Does not change facts. The fact is, constitutional rights are not absolute, and limitations on them have been upheld (including limitations on free speech). And support of unfettered rights is ludicrous. You are the one with the disappointment. I am perfectly happy with common sense restrictions on some of these rights, such as not allowing released convicts to legally own guns. You can deal with your disappointment however you wish. It appears that you are doing so by burying your head in the sand and ignoring reality and common sense.
as long as the limitation on speech apply to everyone equally, you can't say everyone but the disabled and those with a past criminal records now you can so no one with a gun can board a plane, or no one can yell fire in the crowded theater... but you can just say freckled people can't carry guns.... - - - Updated - - - it's not a right if only the privileged few can own guns, you obviously do not understand the difference between a right and a privilege you want to treat gun ownership like driving a car... (which is fine, just be honest about it, you obviously don't support the 2nd Amendment) .
To forum members; Sorry I didn’t use quote tags etc. How do I change the editor so I get the quote tags and other tags back so I don’t have to manually type in [quote etc??? thanks… Ok my forum friends... onward; Natty (I typoed Mr Nattys name by typing Nappy Bumpo, man am I happy I caught it before posting! ) Mr Natty took issue with this comment and post of mine I think it was post #30; Originally Posted by RevAnarchist (corrected for grammar) “I often wonder why those that despise all firearms never seems to answer the rebuttal that criminals will always be armed ?” Natty B said ; “How often do you wonder that?” REVA sez; LOL! How often ? Lol… ahhh’… Ok … (forgive me but that caught me off guard) Ok …umm’ Every time I am I offer that or similar rebuttal(s) up to my gun hater or disliker’ debate partner and get the silent treatment! That’s how often and its very often! The same treatment is when I or we defend our constitutional rights and how they are proximal to freedom, primarily the second amendment and those relating to firearms. Nb replies You can probably stop because 1) Most criminals are not armed, and making it harder for those who would like to be armed is quite reasonable. Reva sez; "I will not ask for sources because it does not matter. Your argument is an Non sequitur. An intruder may or may not be armed. Its illogical to assume that the intruder will be armed. The reason to go or be armed is to negate the threat. Armed resident accomplishes that by being armed. If the intruder is aremed no explanation is necessary. If the intruder is not armed still the firearm is a force multiplier. Only in the screwy minds of some firearm proponents does a firearm enabled homeowner render him less secure to intruder or home invasion than an unarmed homeowner." NB replies; “2) I'd be pretty sure that there are precious few who "despise all firearms." (Since you often wonder about them, can you identify them?)” Reva sez……: “That was a general term and was meant to include those that have an ulterior motive saying that they only want this or that firearm banned but in reality is working or would work to ban all firearms. The firearm opponent usually ID’s him or themselves in the debate as they are proud of their position (which is comical to we that live in the real world), thinking and extremely erroneously so that their extreme dislike of firearms make them somehow more intelligent, and very popular amongst the usual suspects in the world that prefer someone else to make their decisions and handle their security etc for them. Then they also hope to be seen as more ‘PC’ (that is true but PC in the way Franklin referenced in his quote at the top and bottom if this page)”. NB replies; “Most folks just want sensible regulations conducive to keeping shooty things in the hands of responsible people who fancy them, and out of the hands of homicidal criminals and maniacs.” Yes I would agree that the majority of gun control advocates are fairly reasonable, if conceited and bigoted lol. They like the flip side i.e. gun control opponents run the gamut of sane to insane ideas. Some firearm opponents want to completely ban most firearms and some simply want a reasonably restrictive system that regulates firearms in a manner they deem morally ethically etc correct. The huge problem and a problem that remains unsolved is the fact that morals and ethics are HIGHLY SUBJECTIVE. And in the USA it all goes back to INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS of USA citizens to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. That last sentence trumps everything. NB sez; "That seems like a good idea to me." Reva; "On face value it does seem like a good idea but upon even cursory inspection most of your claims and ideas fail and are too simplistic and seem designed more for flame bait and trolling than meant for serious consideration. Natty bumpo said ; "Certainly, sane, law-abiding folks who feel insecure unless they equip their boudoirs with guns have every right to do so." I Reva sez; Why make such false, inflammatory and ignorant comments? I keep guns in my home for a variety of reasons. There are as many reasons to keep and bear arms as there are people that own firearms. Personally I own and bear arms because it’s my right, and really my responsibility as a citizen and a patriot to do so. So I say individuals who value their rights and freedoms possess higher moral and ethical standards than the majority of firearm opponents, especially the more rabid ones, lol. Some of the more ridiculous whims and often times ignorant wants of anti- firearm proponents only serve to illustrate the capacious mental stability of such people. reva
Partial Quote; It seems to me that the opposite is true. The outspoken ninnys of other nations and cultures insist in judging the citizens of the USA, specifically those Americans ie USA citizens that love our firearms and the 2nd amendment. Most outlanders have no concept of individual rights neither do they seem to know the value of such rights! They would be seen as near slaves by most firearm enabled Americans in nearly every case. Not only slaves but neutered slaves, due to their acceptance to every decree by their king etc. If not a king most outlanders are indentured to some type of Marxist socialist dictatorship etc. Is there any wonder certain freedoms we in America take for granted seem so alien to them? Those poor souls have been historically indoctrinated and beat down into serving the monarchy etc without asking questions. So its not that difficult to understand the reason for the Europeans and other outlanders harsh comment etc of our firearm and other freedoms, its jealousy and envy writ large. Yes there are other reasons some valid for the distain our outlander friends etc express towards american ideas of freedoms and rights, but they are few in number. reva
You are wrong. Category D weapons are BANNED to civilian use and ownership. Only the govt can have Category D weapons. And you are WRONG on the AUS crime data. Your own chart proves it as it shows assault increased about 40% and continues to remain far above the pre-ban rate (1995 rate). The scale for assault hides the fact that the other rates increased as well, with only robbery and homicide eventually dropping below the pre-ban rates (but you cant see homicide because of the scale). Put up the NUMBERS so you cant hude behind a poorly scaled chart or are you afraid? The numbers show your chart is correct and your conclusion is wrong. When I get back I will put up the numbers again. Amazing how you can look at the data and continue this blatant misrepresentation.
Do I believe they have a motive? Absolutely, to minimize the ability for criminals to easily obtain weapons. It's the same reason I lock my door when I leave home, even though I know a truly dedicated burglar could still break a window. Do I believe they have a hidden/ulterior motive? I don't see any evidence to believe so. What would the government gain by attacking the very people that elected them into office in the first place? Being holders of elected offices kinda proves that they have majority support, and would only lose their position if they tried something stupid.... Unless you're concerned that all elected officials will simultaneously become a cooperative team of villains, like the Legion of Doom?!
Locks are for the honest. Just because someone gets elected does not mean they, after years in power, do not become paranoid. Incumbent politicians have a big advantage over opposition. It seems that everyone likes their incumbents but it is up to us to turn them over.
Really? You think if you leave your doors unlocked, honest people will walk into your home? The majority likes their incumbents largely because the majority liked their incumbents enough to elect them in the first place. If an incumbent started acting contrary to the best interests of his constituents (in the eyes of those constituents), turning him over in the next election (if not prior) wouldn't be a problem.
people in power have armed security guards and live in gated communities... background checks only prevent honest people from owning guns, criminals will get them anyways the very act of having a background check system violates the 2nd amendment... some in gov want owning a gun to be a privilege, not a right... it's a slippery slope... .
Honest people wouldn't enter your house in the first place, and most certainly wouldn't do any damage or steal anything even if they did come in... So, if locks are "are only for the honest", you must feel that locking your door is a waste of time and money. I take it you don't lock your door when you leave home?
But not as easily as if they can simply purchase them freely. Any reduction in armed criminals is an improvement. If it doesn't stop anyone who has the legal right to own a weapon from getting one, how is it a violation of the 2A? "Slippery Slope" is a logical fallacy. Good of you to admit your argument is fallacious.
Uh huh....Well, anyway here is a bit of reading material (below and one visual aid). Do a little recon it might save things near and dear to you in the future. (1).....6 Billion Rounds Of Ammo For Homeland Security? It's Time For A ... www.forbes.com/.../1-6-billion-rounds-of-ammo-for-homeland-security-its- time-for-a-national-conversation/‎CachedSimilar Mar 11, 2013 ... Add to this perplexing outré purchase of ammo, DHS now is ... Regardless of the exact number of MRAP's being delivered to DHS ..... FEMA Camps, Death Drones, 15 bullets for every man, woman, and child in the nation Time To Abolish The FEMA Camps - Nolan Chart www.nolanchart.com/article10577-time-to-abolish-the-fema-camps-html‎Cached (2)...Nov 9, 2013 ... Obama's Homeland Security Department bought 1.6 billion bullets using ... for a bunch of Arab terrorists trying to take over a Walmart or an airport? ... Why does the U.S. Government need to make plans to lock up 15 million people? ... the creation of secret FEMA camps and has ordered millions of rounds of.... (3)....Why Did the U.S. Government Recently Purchase 30,000 Guillotines ... shariaunveiled.wordpress.com/.../why-did-the-u-s-government-recently- purchase-30000-guillotines/‎CachedSimilar Jun 19, 2013 ... EXECUTIVE ORDER 10990 allows the government to take over all modes of ... the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to ... Link here to see the list of FEMA Internment/Concentration Camps in the .... I can believe the 1.6 billion rounds of ammo, but not some medieval device…lol. (4)... (Lol) >>> who knows (above) ? Stranger things have happened... reva
Fresh Air. I finally fully understand why talking to the anti-firearm people is like talking to a rock. First they are the first casualties of war. Casualties because they have been successfully indoctrinated into the globalist/socialist reality and they don’t even know it! I don’t want to go too far off topic but I must say this; When one is able to ‘step back’ from what’s going on one can with a little information clearly see the oneworlders that have been brainwashed ie indoctrinated as easily as the heros did by putting on a pair of sunglasses that ID aliens. You know that movie They Live? (see * at bottom of page). Anyway the OW’ers care little about individual rights, our constitution, or sovereign nation concept in general. They are socialists at heart and mind and have been molded to be just that from birth here in the USA. This is why they detest firearms because their leaders/handlers know that eventually some Americans (USA) will have to be forcefully indoctrinated and they do not want to face a hail of lead when they attempt the final overthrow. Maybe all or most of the above is just a Mel Gibson conspiracy flick type paranoia, but I think at least some of it is true. * ….They Live (198 - IMDbSci-Fi Movie Collection. a list of ... They Live -- Aliens are systematically gaining control of the earth by masquerading as humans .... Nada, a down-on-his -luck construction worker, discovers a pair of special sunglasses. ... I think this movie is much more interesting, and much more realistic and ... This is a great cult movie. www.imdb.com/title/tt0096256/ reva
so that was the pizza man's 666 plan... - - - Updated - - - they want gun ownership to be a privilege like driving a car.. they just don't want to admit it, actually I have found that both sides seem to want that, just to differing degrees
Colt 45 which I now have to sell, due to tremors in my hands. I figured since I went from being expert on the M16 as well as my Colt 45 to no longer being able to hit the broad side of a barn; it was for the best.
I clicked the wrong box. But yes I have a gun. Politically I go both ways. I'm closest to libertarian.
Do you think you would go for the gun over the bat if you didn't have such great neighbors? Just curious.
Paranoid delusions. FEMA camps and "death drones"? ...Seriously? What would any elected politician (who obviously got elected because he/she already has majority support) gain from literally going to war against the very people who support them in the first place? Again with "secret FEMA camps"... What exactly do you think the government is waiting for? What would they gain? Given the checks and balances in our government, are you suggesting that all elected officials are involved in a massive conspiracy to wage war on the people who have put them in power in the first place? This is simply moronic. So now you have no issue with the ammo (despite your previous point), but are afraid of guillotines that an unfounded conspiracy site claims the government purchased? ...and again with the "FEMA camps". You realize that Obama is halfway through his second term, right? What do you think the government is waiting for? Really, chemtrails? http://urbanlegends.about.com/b/2008/07/01/of-chemtrails-and-conspiracy-theories.htm Is there a conspiracy theory you don't believe in?
Overall homicide rate or gun homicide rate? Doesn't matter we are still orders of magnitude away from America and - here is the joke - we do not have the gun access you seem to think is imperative
