If they come for your guns, do you have a responsibility to fight?

blindbaby

blindbaby

Active Member
044.jpgif they disarm us, its because we let then kill the constitution. it will be more our fault, then theirs, if they succed. sad. but id rather die on my feet, defending my birthright, than on my knees, begging for some more freebies...like my life.....
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
rooky1985 said:
I simply feel that it is the "Duty of the people" is to protect rights, that is what sets this country apart from many others. I am passionate about guns but also feel that there is not a practical use for magazines exceeding 10 rds. Also, basing a weapon plantform can be difficult and the proposals to ban assault weapons are sometimes hard to hear. There has not yet been a practical measure for what is considered an assault weopon.
Click to expand...

Let us try, let us put in place a magazine limit of 12 rounds for all firearms and put a sunset law into effect. I have always had a problem with this country's inability to actually test it's laws. Every law passed seems to be enacted with certainty- as though THIS law is the one that will finally put things to right and we know perfectly well that it will work as expected because we are so cognizant of what the future holds.


So we never actually go about testing a new law. If we sunset a magazine law for say, 10 years and make metrics an essential part of the law we could be much more flexable and accurate in our law making. We could make the continuation of the law contingent upon it's ability to actually work.

So, for instance, if prohibiting the manufacture of large magazines does not result in a, say, 10 percent reduction in mass shootings then the law is automaticaly recinded after a given amount of time.

We could do this with all sorts of laws and yet we never do, requiring yet another law when it is finally determined that the first law does not result in the reduction in harm presumed but does, perhaps reduce our basic freedoms.
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
Magazines that contain more than 10 rounds have been around for nearly 100 years, you can NEVER get rid of them plus, by law, you can never make them illegal to own or use either, so the only thing your ban can do is limit the manufacture and legal sale of them, other than that it has no teeth whatsoever and won't do a goddamn thing to keep people form being victims of violence.

When you are being attacked, or at least are almost attacked do you know who you call to save you? People with guns, the cops. Why? Cuz the guys with guns can possibly keep you from harm. Do you call your neighbor to bring his louisville slugger to smash the gun wielding meth addict?
Click to expand...
You are right, why pass any law that doesn't have a chance of 100 percent effectiveness. For that matter, it seems that our laws against murder don't work very well - so why have them at all?
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
MrStickyScissors said:
dissarming us is not right. arming more good people is wat they should do
Click to expand...

And in so doing you will be charging the U.S. government with determining who are the "good" people. Great idea. We could have the government test people and certify that they are "good". We could even have them carry around a document stating that the Department of Justice has officialy determined that the bearer of that document is a "good" person.


They drive a pickup truck, they go to church regularly, they give to the corrrect charities, they love their mother and teach abstenence in place of rubbers.

That should do it.
 
C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
No gun bans
No magazine restrictions
Our 2nd amendment rights have been trampled enough already

There is no way to stop the willing from achieving their goals
You could outlaw all the guns in the world and the lunatics will just resort to using fire to mass murder people
 
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
If Gabby Giffords would have had armed protection which was her right if she asked for it or if another person in the crowd was armed they would not have to wait for him to shoot more rounds.
 
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
ChesusRice said:
No gun bans
No magazine restrictions
Our 2nd amendment rights have been trampled enough already

There is no way to stop the willing from achieving their goals
You could outlaw all the guns in the world and the lunatics will just resort to using fire to mass murder people
Click to expand...
If they got a ban at 10 clip magazines you know that immediately after a shooting with a smaller mag they would start demanding *mag blocks* to reduce the number to 5 or 3 or 1....

Clips dont kill anyone, people do.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
NLXSK1 said:
If Gabby Giffords would have had armed protection which was her right if she asked for it or if another person in the crowd was armed they would not have to wait for him to shoot more rounds.
Click to expand...
there were armed people there, didn't help.

NLXSK1 said:
If they got a ban at 10 clip magazines you know that immediately after a shooting with a smaller mag they would start demanding *mag blocks* to reduce the number to 5 or 3 or 1....

Clips dont kill anyone, people do.
Click to expand...
slippery slope. you're falling off the camel's nose, kiddo.

clips don't kill anyone, they just allowed loughner to fire 23 more shots than he would have, ceterus parabus.*
 
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
there were armed people there, didn't help.



slippery slope. you're falling off the camel's nose, kiddo.

clips don't kill anyone, they just allowed loughner to fire 23 more shots than he would have, ceterus parabus.*
Click to expand...
You cant smoke legal cigarettes inside your own apartment in some cases these days... No slippery slope there eh? Oh wait...

Loughner was the problem, not the clips...
 
Canna Sylvan

Canna Sylvan

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
And in so doing you will be charging the U.S. government with determining who are the "good" people. Great idea. We could have the government test people and certify that they are "good". We could even have them carry around a document stating that the Department of Justice has officialy determined that the bearer of that document is a "good" person.


They drive a pickup truck, they go to church regularly, they give to the corrrect charities, they love their mother and teach abstenence in place of rubbers.

That should do it.
Click to expand...
The opposite is also true. The government can't determine the bad people either until they act. Which means leave me alone.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
NLXSK1 said:
You cant smoke legal cigarettes inside your own apartment in some cases these days... No slippery slope there eh? Oh wait...

Loughner was the problem, not the clips...
Click to expand...
loughner was a bigger, deadlier problem because of the bigger, deadlier clips.
 
Pipe Dream

Pipe Dream

Well-Known Member
I want to say that if you take away all the guns, only criminals will have them, and that it's a right we have to protect ourselves from intruders and even our own government, but if they came to take away everyone's guns there isn't shit you could do about it. That's just being realistic.
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
there were armed people there, didn't help.
Click to expand...
Not true, at all. The only armed person arrived AFTER Laughner had shot everyone and had already lost the magazine.

Why do you state things as fact when they clearly are not?

If laughner had a 10 round magazine and took careful aim, couldn't he have killed 10 people or more? 33 shots and 6 died, guns must not be very effective if they only kill 1 out of 5 times. Getting hit by a car at speed or throwing someone off a 10 story building has much better success rates.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
Not true, at all. The only armed person arrived AFTER Laughner had shot everyone and had already lost the magazine.

Why do you state things as fact when they clearly are not?

If laughner had a 10 round magazine and took careful aim, couldn't he have killed 10 people or more? 33 shots and 6 died, guns must not be very effective if they only kill 1 out of 5 times. Getting hit by a car at speed or throwing someone off a 10 story building has much better success rates.
Click to expand...

come get me when someone throws a class of kindergarteners off a 10 story building.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Doer said:
If they come for your guns? Come on! What does that even mean? Responsibility to fight? What horse crap is this?

I see Libertarian as the worst kind of foolish theory. It's the one that can't be tried at all, ever. No one is that stupid. It is the theory of not being able to think past ones own nose. ME ME!

Now, you didn't post the article, but what scenario is proposed. How exactly do the come for the guns and what does he say to do, as an individual? I'm quite sure the answers are not there.

If they come for your guns, it will be like this, unless you are in the USA. Australian being still a Crown Colony doesn't have a real, for the people, Constitution.

-----------------------
Unlike the voluntary buybacks in the United States, Australian gun buybacks of 1996 and 2003 were compulsory, compensated surrenders of newly-illegal firearms.
The 1996 Buyback took 600,000 newly illegal sporting firearms, including all semi-automatic rifles including .22 rim-fires, semi-automatic shotguns and pump-action shotguns. Because the Australian Constitution prevents the taking of property without just compensation the Federal Government decided to put a 1% levy on income tax for one year to finance the compensation. The buyback was predicted to cost A$500 million and had wide community support.[SUP][5]

[/SUP]The 2003 handgun buyback compensated the confiscation of about 50,000 newly illegal pistols, the majority being target arms of greater than 9mm caliber (generally used for IPSC competition), or smaller handguns with barrels less than 4" such as pocket pistols, which were mostly licensed for target use as since 1996 licenses cannot be issued for self-defense in Australia.
----------------------------------

So, exactly what is being suggested here? How, under this Constitution can they "come for our guns?" Not try, how to do?
Click to expand...
You may wish to familiarize yourself with the opinion Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer committed to paper in the wake of McDonald v. Chicago. Two principles are at work here:
1) the Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says.
2) If four (three, really ... Sotomayor will very probably rule against the Second being for and about the people, once she senses possibility of a majority) justices with similar views are appointed to that bench, we can expect the Second to be dismantled without much ado.
And then the antigun forces will have a free hand. 'Ware the Ratchet. cn
 
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
You may wish to familiarize yourself with the opinion Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer committed to paper in the wake of McDonald v. Chicago. Two principles are at work here:
1) the Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says.
2) If four (three, really ... Sotomayor will very probably rule against the Second being for and about the people, once she senses possibility of a majority) justices with similar views are appointed to that bench, we can expect the Second to be dismantled without much ado.
And then the antigun forces will have a free hand. 'Ware the Ratchet. cn
Click to expand...
So I become a criminal yet again in the eyes of my government...

They have no record of my weapon, they will not get any record of my weapon. Therefore, they are not going to confiscate my weapon. I am guessing that even if they took the majority of weapons there would still be 50 million of them in America. Add to the fact that the police will still be armed and they are not immune to theft and there will be a nice black market in gun running in the USA.

Welcome to Amerika....
 
mr2shim

mr2shim

Well-Known Member
I find it hilarious that people on THIS website of all websites is arguing for gun bans. Can you really be THAT stupid. Did the ban on marijuana stop any of us from getting/growing it? LOL, lord Idiots amaze me sometimes.

Will = way
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
mr2shim said:
I find it hilarious that people on THIS website of all websites is arguing for gun bans. Can you really be THAT stupid. Did the ban on marijuana stop any of us from getting/growing it? LOL, lord Idiots amaze me sometimes.

Will = way
Click to expand...
I am not a fan of prohibition no matter the article being prohibited. cn
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top