My FB post on guns & civillians...

[JUSA]

F'ck the second amendment/right to bear arms, the people who wrote it (and the ones who protect/believe in it) are f'cking dumb retarded motherf'ckers that should have THEIR children killed with an automatic weapon, maybe see first hand what that kind of gun does to the head of a child.

They should just make it illegal to shoot people. That would fix all this because nobody ever breaks the law.

[cowboybiker]

[so-tex]

Thank you for taking time and googling these quotes for me. You shouldn't have. In any rate though, I believe that when Founding Fathers were taking about keeping and bearing arms, it was meant for military purposes - i.e. national defense. You can interpret it however you want to, google 100 different links, quotes, documents. We are not in Civil War, times have changed (alot) and I believe we need to adapt and adjust to those changes. That is, of course, only my opinion.

I have done plenty of research in school (did undergrad in Gov't and Int' Politics). Honestly, I don't feel like googlig quotes. I can form and express my opinion based on what I know, objective thinking, if you will. Second Amendement was written at a certain time in history when arming the militia was necessary for national security. What happened to the universal militia service? Google it. After that google National Guard. Hopefully, you are familiar with WWII. And now we are here, in a present with the most powerful army in the world. Times have chanted ALOT. Time to adjust. IMXO, of course.

Please continue - which governments? Time period? What was the political arena, economic situation, historic background?

Thank the forefathers for the first ammendment, because it allows people like you to make such idiotic statements, or should we reform that ammendment as well.

[paolo59]

My goodness!!!!! Spot on the mark! Frighteningly so!!!

[lotusdeva]

Ell Oh Ell....

Since the Founding Fathers point was to allow the people to protect themselves from the government, then yes I think they would be in support of ownership of the same type of weapons that the government had access to.

Do you really think these things out before posting?

Yes, I do and I completely disagree with you. Per your logic we should have the same type of weapons as the government. OK, government has access to nuclear weapons, tanks , rockets, etc. Should we?

[lotusdeva]

Oh, good . . . what a relief. Stalin only brutally culled millions of citizens after disarming them, but he was an equal opportunity butcher and did not ONLY kill dissidents. Thanks for setting us straight on that one.

That was not my point.

[Marius_Ursus]

Yes, I do and I completely disagree with you. Per your logic we should have the same type of weapons as the government. OK, government has access to nuclear weapons, tanks , rockets, etc. Should we?

Unequivocally, yes. There is no reason to believe a law-abiding citizen will act any different with Nike missile than he would with a ball point pen.

[paolo59]

Yes, I do and I completely disagree with you. Per your logic we should have the same type of weapons as the government. OK, government has access to nuclear weapons, tanks , rockets, etc. Should we?

Young lady, now you're exemplifying what I would expect to hear from the mouth of a Third Grader!

[lotusdeva]

Literally laughed out loud...thanks for being able to put into words my dumbfounded jaw hanging.

Like the fact that he killed everyone makes up for the fact that he killed people he'd disarmed...

you obviously know nothing about Russian history. Despite gun control, everybody had guns. Gun control had nothing to do with what happened in the 30's. Zero relevance

[lotusdeva]

Unequivocally, yes. There is no reason to believe a law-abiding citizen will act any different with Nike missile than he would with a ball point pen.

is this real life?

[taf1968]

you obviously know nothing about Russian history. Despite gun control, everybody had guns. Gun control had nothing to do with what happened in the 30's. Zero relevance

Wait . . . despite gun control, everybody had guns? How do people have them if they are illegal . . . unless . . . gun control doesn't work, maybe?

[VoxExMachina]

Yes, I do and I completely disagree with you. Per your logic we should have the same type of weapons as the government. OK, government has access to nuclear weapons, tanks , rockets, etc. Should we?

Ok, let's approach this from another angle:

1. What weapons do law-abiding citizens have access to today that you think they should not be allowed to own? (Give a specific example of brand/model and not some generic thing like "assault weapon" that you've heard from the media).

2. Describe what features of that weapon you think make it such that law-abiding citizens shouldn't be allowed to own it.

3. Describe what positive effect you think banning that specific weapon will have.


If you can't answer any of these in a logical manner, I'm going to assume that you don't know what you're talking about and are just trolling this thread.

[Brackneyc]

you obviously know nothing about Russian history. Despite gun control, everybody had guns. Gun control had nothing to do with what happened in the 30's. Zero relevance

You might as well come to grips with the fact that there will be NO more gun "control" in the next 50 years than there is today. There are 300 million of them out there, and the government ain't getting them. No army is capable (not even ours) of getting it done, and no way are they voluntarily going to be turned in.

[so-tex]

you obviously know nothing about Russian history. Despite gun control, everybody had guns. Gun control had nothing to do with what happened in the 30's. Zero relevance

Source?

[13donniedarko]

Do you think that shotguns, assault rifles, handguns and such will protect you from the goverment? Also, were the weapons different when the 2nd Amendement was written? What kind of weapons were in existance then? Do you think the Founding Fathers would support ownership of contemporary weapons?

have you heard of nam?

[Marius_Ursus]

is this real life?

I think the difference between the way you and I see this situation is I have principles.

[erinlee01]

is this real life?

What makes our president that much more special than the average, law-abiding citizen?

[paolo59]

Cut her some slack......she's........MULTITASKING.

I've got Second Graders with more reasoning skills!

[lotusdeva]

Wait . . . despite gun control, everybody had guns? How do people have them if they are illegal . . . unless . . . gun control doesn't work, maybe?

have you ever been to Russia? Gun control got nothing to for with it. No laws get enforced, not in the way they should be and not equally to everyone. Comparing oranges and a monkeys behind.

[VoxExMachina]

Ok, let's approach this from another angle:

1. What weapons do law-abiding citizens have access to today that you think they should not be allowed to own? (Give a specific example of brand/model and not some generic thing like "assault weapon" that you've heard from the media).

2. Describe what features of that weapon you think make it such that law-abiding citizens shouldn't be allowed to own it.

3. Describe what positive effect you think banning that specific weapon will have.


If you can't answer any of these in a logical manner, I'm going to assume that you don't know what you're talking about and are just trolling this thread.

^ Still waiting, lotusdeva.

I'm sure you find answering these incredibly inconvenient, since it requires actual thinking on the subject.

[erinlee01]

have you ever been to Russia? Gun control got nothing to for with it. No laws get enforced, not in the way they should be and not equally to everyone. Comparing oranges and a monkeys behind.

Kind of like here?

[Brackneyc]

have you ever been to Russia? Gun control got nothing to for with it. No laws get enforced, not in the way they should be and not equally to everyone. Comparing oranges and a monkeys behind.

Is there a nation where the laws are enforced "equally," dare I say "fairly?"

[lotusdeva]

I've got Second Graders with more reasoning skills!

If my posts fall under the level of your intelligence, you are more then welcome to not reply.

[taf1968]

have you ever been to Russia? Gun control got nothing to for with it. No laws get enforced, not in the way they should be and not equally to everyone. Comparing oranges and a monkeys behind.

You're the one who brought up the fact that in the 30's there was gun control in Russia . . . and yet everyone had guns. That wasn't MY point of fact. I'll defer to your demonstrated expertise on the bolded part.

[VoxExMachina]

^ Still waiting, lotusdeva.

I'm sure you find answering these incredibly inconvenient, since it requires actual thinking on the subject.

If my posts fall under the level of your intelligence, you are more then welcome to not reply.

Tempted to neg for intentional trolling.

[JUSA]

Do you think that shotguns, assault rifles, handguns and such will protect you from the goverment? Also, were the weapons different when the 2nd Amendement was written? What kind of weapons were in existance then? Do you think the Founding Fathers would support ownership of contemporary weapons?

I love it when people think that soldiers of the US Army wouldn't instantly obey each and every order to open fire on American citizens. All of us smart and reasonable gun-control advocates know for a fact that every single one of them would. Please don't bring up how people in Afghanistan with limited access to firearms have been able to successfully fend off both the Russians and now our own army. Some facts probably should be ignored and that sure is one of them.

So, for the record:
1) Once people join the military they are turned into mindless robots who obey all orders and would shoot their own mothers
2) There is no country called "Afghanistan" and if someone mentions it, they're just making silly stuff up (like, come on, has anyone ever really been to this fairy tale land? NO). Same with any other fantasy stories about poorly-armed but resilient people successfully defending their homelands from a far more powerful occupying force. It's never happened in all of history you dopes, the jokes on YOU!

So, all your crazy gun advocates, there is no purpose in the world to own firearms. Give it up already and give up your guns. If you do that, so will the criminals and then there will never be any more gun-related crimes, ever.

[lotusdeva]

^ Still waiting, lotusdeva.

I'm sure you find answering these incredibly inconvenient, since it requires actual thinking on the subject.

That's not true. Your post made me think and I am sitting at the most boring meeting, can only type couple sentences at a time.

[VoxExMachina]

That's not true. Your post made me think and I am sitting at the most boring meeting, can only type couple sentences at a time.

I will wait.

[lotusdeva]

Kind of like here?

Not even. Very simple example - you can't pay off a cop. Well, I am sure there are corrupt officers, but. When you get pulled over, you don't pull out your money. In Russia $50 will take care of
most tickets. Corruption is widespread beyond belief. Very, very different.

[Brackneyc]

Not even. Very simple example - you can't pay off a cop. Well, I am sure there are corrupt officers, but. When you get pulled over, you don't pull out your money. In Russia $50 will take care of
most tickets. Corruption is widespread beyond belief. Very, very different.

How do you know you cannot pay off a cop here?