Gun extremists fatal flaw

And what happens when the birds invade supermarkets, and run off with all of the bread, crackers and donuts? I think my fiction is much more scary than yours.

 

I was talking about conservatives.

Marriage is considered a constitutional right, unless the far right do not like how you live.

 

In this country historically your correct.
In other countries guns have been used by all sorts of bad governments to enforce tyranny on the people. Russia sticks in my mind as one of the worst examples.
Seeing as he is a communist perhaps he'd rather not look at it that way.

 

Please check out the Battle of Athens TN to find out where and when armed citizens were able to take back their county.

http://www.constitution.org/mil/tn/batathen.htm

 

are you saying The People have never used arms to maintain oppression????????????

 

This is my thinking as well.

 

I don't get it. Right now, there's only one gun within reach. Am I to hold it up to my head, and force myself to keep working for basically nothing, in a political system that I can't hope to affect, under officials who are hopelessly corrupt? Should I take that gun next door, and "force" my neighbor to keep on doing what he's doing? You didn't provide any link to a reference, so I assume that this is what you mean.

 

The Ku Klux Klan would be an example of "the people" using firearms to maintain oppression.

 

I think about it, and by jinkies, you're right. Now, quit helping Ronstar!

 

Marriage is not a constitutional right.

- - - Updated - - -

But they were thwarted in the long term by black men with guns.

 

"Gun extremist" are the people that want to restrict gun rights not people who want to uphold the constitutional right to keep and bear arms so the premise of this thread is flawed from the start.

 

Yeah, but maybe compare apples to apples next time? Weapon of mass destruction =/= AR15.

 

I am merely outlining the argument.

 

People use CCW on a daily basis to defend their lives, so how it is an excuse?

What is reasonable compromise? If compromise is reasonable, why do gun control proponents push for even more gun controls after the pro-gun side has already compromised?

There is no reason to meet in the middle. The gun control advocacy groups will not stop at any middle ground. They will slowly sneak there way in, and a couple years later push for even more gun control. New York's SAFE Act is a perfect example.

Oppose all gun control, and remove all proponents from office.

 

background checks save lives.

 

And we have background checks. I don't care about background checks. We do not need more entirely unenforceable background checks.

I am against the uneducated deciding what the educated may own.

 

This is a joke, right?
Oh yes, let's ban guns so murders/assaults can be committed by kitchen knives or baseball bats instead. Should we ban those too?
"Assault" weapons are only used in a very small fraction of crimes. Handguns kill more on an annual basis, but I'm not saying we should ban those either. It's pointless. If they were banned by government, it's not like all guns would magically evaporate into nothingness. They would still be around, and it would create yet another black market and make drug cartels even MORE dangerous.

 

beautiful strawman.

you win a cookie

 

Talk about extreme. You couldn't be more wrong.
Universal back ground checks would do nothing, even the VP said so.
And why cant I own 20 Glocks if I want or an AK47?

 

i have nothing against you owning 20 Glocks.

but i want you to only be able to buy one handgun a month.

 

Why? What point would that serve. What if I want 20 cars, who are you to tell me I cant buy them?

 

One gun a month has been shown to be ineffective, so why?

 

There is no scientific evidence for that.

- - - Updated - - -

What would that do? I own several handguns. Restricting me to one a month wouldn't do a thing to stop crime.

 

prevents people from making a living by being a gun runner.

 

How many people make a living at being a gun runner?