They Want to Take Your Guns

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by tsuke, Apr 17, 2017.

  1. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,501
    Likes Received:
    705
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually it's the propaganda about the armed population that's the only deterrent. It would be the "300 million plus" firearms in public hands that might be a deterrent and even that's really questionable because it might simply be ignored. What not an actual deterrent are the actual types of firearms and the people that posses them. Additionally the deterrent value is very limited when compared to the military deterrent for one simple reason.

    The only serious concern for the invading army is how to disarm the population and not how to fight it. . .
     
  2. Voltamp

    Voltamp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2017
    Messages:
    2,435
    Likes Received:
    942
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Gender:
    Male
    Can't disarm them without fighting them chief.

    Your post is a rambling mess with no facts or point.
     
  3. Guno

    Guno Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2015
    Messages:
    1,571
    Likes Received:
    2,202
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    YES! any day now "they" are coming down the street to get everyone's guns!!!

    :omfg:
     
  4. Guno

    Guno Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2015
    Messages:
    1,571
    Likes Received:
    2,202
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    [​IMG]
     
  5. TheResister

    TheResister Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    3,789
    Likes Received:
    398
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I love it Shiva_TD. You ask me in big bold letters what I have advocated. It's almost as if you want posters to think I haven't proposed solutions to your concerns. That's not being honest, is it?

    As far as I can remember I was the first person to notice the link between SSRIs (Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors) and mass shootings. All a person has to do is say to their doctor or mental health provider that they are considering hurting themselves; that they are depressed; they have thoughts of killing our hurting themselves or others. Those magic words will get the individual a prescription for SSRIs (Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, etc.)

    In EVERY mass shooting in the United States, the shooter has been under the care of a psychiatrist or psychologist AND on SSRIs OR has been a political terrorist. Let's stick with those on SSRIs since they are the most prevalent. What have I advocated?

    That is a fair question. I advocated that prescribing SSRIs be the last option for doctors. People with those problems need to be evaluated carefully, put into both one on one therapy AND group therapy. Those on SSRIs belong in protective custody! That way, the MILLIONS of dopers cannot use the medical profession as an easy avenue to get feel good drugs. But, it's boring and it's not about banning guns. It's addressing the problem. But, you don't care, the anti-gun lobby don't care, and neither do gun owners. Nobody wants a solution to the concerns.

    Shall we keep going? Your silly idea of running background checks is about as effective as a eunuch in a brothel. So, let us talk solution - and solutions calculated toward addressing the concern. You want to create prohibited classes of citizens.

    Instead of creating different classes of citizens, I advocated keeping those who pose a threat by virtue of mental health issues in protective custody. Now let us talk about "criminals."

    What the United States currently does is to put all those with mental health problems, drug addictions and so forth into prisons. The United States has more people in prison than anywhere else on the planet. We still have this idiotic idea from the Quakers that you can put someone away in a cell and they will magically transform back into a God fearing asset to society.

    And so, we lock people into prisons where they get involved in gang activity and learn new ways to commit crimes. Many end up in small cells, alone for days, weeks and even months on end. They have no interaction with their fellow man and end up cutting themselves and beating their heads into walls. When their time is up, you take these human animals out of a cage, kick them out on the street, and tell them to be productive citizens.

    You give them a record and subject them to background checks. So, here they are with not only with the drug problem they had going in and the emotional problems, but they are back in society with no education, no job skills, NO and I mean NO experience in people skills and the background check denies them the opportunity to get a job, credit, or even go to school. Those that DO rise above all of that, you want labeled and denied the opportunity to return to society as your equal. NOW ASK ME WHAT I'M ADVOCATING.

    You need prison reform so that people who come out of prison are not recidivists. They commit a crime and you punish them; you educate them; you rehabilitate them; you prepare them to succeed in society. You return them as equals. And if you can't trust them back into society, you don't set them free. I have a lot of ideas regarding prison reform... like requiring people to get at the very least a GED to be considered for release. Prisoners would learn how to balance a check-book and make up their bed. They would learn problem solving skills and have therapy sessions to deal with emotional problems. They'd be way too busy to engage in gang activity while incarcerated.

    In my world, I would not extend citizenship to those who belong to religions that are at war with the United States...

    Shiva_TD, I've advocated a Hell of a lot. I'm even considering starting a ministry to help men who come out of prison. The local woods in most towns are full of those you hate and loathe. I would like to take them off the street, give them a place to shower and shave. They need a place to get a meal and some decent clothes on their back... a place to get a GED and then a job. Instead of trying to keep records and deny these people an opportunity to be citizens, I'm advocating rehabilitating them. But that addresses the ROOT of the problem and you don't want to hear it.
     
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2017
  6. TheResister

    TheResister Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    3,789
    Likes Received:
    398
    Trophy Points:
    83
    You are out of your mind. Period. The objective of the founding fathers has been met:

    The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.

    How has that objective NOT been met? And lesh, the founding fathers had this to say to YOU:

    Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American… [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”,

    ...Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

    Tench Coxe Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

    Whenever governments 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.” Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts (spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789.)
     
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2017
  7. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    12,342
    Likes Received:
    1,599
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It does not matter how many times you repeat this nonsense -- you know it is nonsense.

    You are fully aware of the fact that nothing in the constitution requires anyone to be part of any militia for their right to keep and bear arms to be protected by the 2nd.
     
    Ddyad and TheResister like this.
  8. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    12,342
    Likes Received:
    1,599
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In both cases, this has been proven untrue.
    You know this because you were part of the conversation.
     
    TheResister likes this.
  9. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    12,342
    Likes Received:
    1,599
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A militia need not be subject to call up for it to be a militia; that these sate militia re not so subject in no way means they are not state militias.
    Aside from that, the militia exists at the federal level as well.

    None of this matters.
    The law makes no specification as to how the barrel is less than 18", only that if it is, it falls under the NFA.

    Try harder.
    A requirement under the commerce clause that allows sales of firearms only to private individuals when in possession of a federal license allowing them to buy a firearm would violate the 2nd.
     
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2017
    Ddyad likes this.
  10. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    12,342
    Likes Received:
    1,599
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As you know, The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
    Thus, your statement is irrelevant.
     
    Ddyad and TheResister like this.
  11. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    12,342
    Likes Received:
    1,599
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You refuse to understand what you post; everything you state here has to do with the weapon, not the person.
    Miller clearly holds the 2nd amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms of the individual, regardless of his connection to the militia.
     
    TheResister likes this.
  12. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    12,342
    Likes Received:
    1,599
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Even if true... this is irrelevant to any and every argument regarding the 2nd.
     
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2017
    TheResister likes this.
  13. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    12,342
    Likes Received:
    1,599
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nothing in the constitution requires a person to be part of any militia for the 2nd to protect his right to keep and bear arms.
     
  14. TheResister

    TheResister Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    3,789
    Likes Received:
    398
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I think lesh understands this. In Cruikshank, the point was made abundantly clear. I cited that in posts # 169 and #170... and repeated those posts - both times lesh refused to read and comment on the facts. You are dealing with an anti-gunner with no regard for the facts or the truth.
     
  15. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    12,342
    Likes Received:
    1,599
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Indeed.
    The only question that remains -- is she lying to herself, or just us?
     
  16. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    13,343
    Likes Received:
    705
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yep, certainly stopped us from invading in Iraq and Afganistan.
     
  17. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    13,343
    Likes Received:
    705
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Didn't Trump just decide that being crazy should not prohibit owning a gun. Next of course in his syncophantic courting of the NRA he will proclaim that being a convicted felon shouldn't prohibit owning a gun.
     
  18. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    12,342
    Likes Received:
    1,599
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Unsupportable nonsense.
     
  19. TheResister

    TheResister Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    3,789
    Likes Received:
    398
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Are you trying to be a CourtJester by misrepresenting facts?

    Trump advocated no such policy. No response necessary. I will say that being a convicted felon should not be a bar to owning a firearm. How many paragraphs did we just allot for that discussion? Back up a couple of posts and read post # 325 on this page.
     
  20. TheResister

    TheResister Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    3,789
    Likes Received:
    398
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Your posts are too easy to nuke. Look dude, Americans own upward of 300 MILLION firearms. Iraq, which has many more firearms than Afghanistan has a total of under 10 MILLION firearms.

    Now, CourtJester is the de facto leader of the left. He thinks that if a small country with 10 million weapons is easy to invade, the U.S. with 300 MILLION firearms will be equally easy to invade. How many of you will follow this guy into battle??????
     
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2017

Share This Page