you know what, we should not just stop Obama taking our rifles. We should insist that the right to bare arms is not restricted to guns. Therefore i want Abrams class tanks made available to the public, i also want a new line of home sized nucelar bombs available so that i can properly protect myself in my home

haha best post ever

get him to surrender first. he volunteered to protect our rights.

You can buy a tank but how would a nuke help you protect yourself? I really really hope you don't own a firearm.

We don't have guns in Australia because its way too easy. Have you ever hunted wild boar with your bare hands? Its among the most manliest things to do ever.

He man it is my second amendment right to bare arms, DONT TAKE MY NUKES AWAY FROM ME! YOU FACIST!!!!!! HITLER ALERT HITLER ALERT

Oh i am Australia by the way and if you need help understand, i am making fun of you.

Discuss this:

I'll be a gun owner until I die...and I don't give a fluff what anyone from Europe, Japan, Australia,Canada etc has to say about it.

I won't be back to this thread, troll away.

Good, at least you aren't a problem for the us, just the people down under. Had me thinking i was talking to a sociopath who just wants to cause mass chaos. Its good you live in a place that is highly regulated, you are the type of person that needs it. And now that i know you don't own a firearm, I know the world is a little safer.

i technically find it interesting that so many socialists actually care enough to pay attention to what we do with our country and quietly mourn the ineffectiveness of my bullets abilities to get them to shut up because they signed a treaty with US.

If Obama weren't such an asshole and a political hack I'd be more inclined to argue on behalf of his preferred policies. He has generated so much ill-will from so many people that it has become very difficult for him to get anything done.

You should stop posting about American politics, you're really annoying.

if it comes down to defending my right to own weapons, I will see no difference between enforcement personel or a regular voter that voted in favor of a ban on all firearms.

You're going to murder someone for voting? That is a bit excessive.

I'm only allowed to kill them in self-defense, but there isn't a limit on my bag if i can bury them fast enough.

You want gun control? Kill all the stupid people. There ya go gun control.

Guns do not kill people stupid people with guns kill people.

Wow talk about a thread raising red flags. This just went from a discussion to some crazy hypothetical situations. Last post for me.

if my memory serves me correctly, i might've taken an oath to defend the constipation from both foreign and domestic influences.

I will never happen, but I think thats its reasonable. Hypothetically speaking. If I have to shed others blood to defend a constitutional right, I should not kill the people that helped make it happen?

i love the reaction i get from you guys, it provides me with a few moments of laughter and entertainment.

cheers all

lack of reaction? terrorists are about the only ones about who complain about their inability to effectively wield nuclear arms of mass destruction. think it has something to do with people from the east having smaller peckers, but it might be totally psychotic.

Trained people with training that they follow to protect the President. If they sent them to protect you you would probably troll about the fact they are watching you too closely ;)

You can keep your constipation LOL! :)

Locket I wouldn't expect you to understand the hypocrisy, you are Canadian after all!

Also Obama has a King complex! He thinks he can go around and executive order stuff without going through the proper channels!

There is a reason our founding fathers set it up this way... So we would have a president, not king.

Ok, here is why he cannot go through the "appropriate channels." Jon Stewart rips this whole thing wide open with some huge truth bombs.

http://www.businessinsider.com/...-gun-control-obama-2013-1

-Rep. Todd Tiahrt, who in 2007 suggested that mayors shouldn't try to trace the source of illegal guns because the ATF is "going after them 24/7."

-The ATF hasn't had a full time Director since 2006, For instance, its current director, B. Todd Jones, doubles as the U.S. Attorney for Minnesota. "You're telling me this dude ... has another full-time job?" Stewart quipped. "He's just moonlighting?"

-The Senate hasn't confirmed an ATF director since 2006. The body has to confirm the position because of a 2006 provision inserted into a Patriot Act renewal by Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner.

"I don't have footage of that. ... I do have footage of Sensenbrenner from that year, accepting the NRA's coveted Defender of Freedom Award," Stewart said.

Stewart pointed out other problems—like how the ATF is prohibited from creating a federal registry to track gun sales. It also is barred from releasing information from its firearms trace database to anyone other than a law enforcement agency or prosecutor.

Stewart then revealed that the Congressman who authored the amendment with so many limits on the ATF was the aforementioned Todd Tiahrt. Stewart said the amendment couldn’t be worse if the NRA wrote it themselves."

Stewart got word from his "messenger pigeon" that, indeed, the NRA "did write that law."
----------------------------------------

If you're american, you can watch the clips in that link (Canadians cannot unless you know how to manipulate your IP addresses)

hahahahahahahahahaha, yeah man i am totes serious about being able to have nukes. I am in no way being sarcastic.

One more thing... Obama isn't taking anyone's guns away as long as they are not fully automatic armor piercing 100 cartridge magazine holding "fluff your mother up" type of guns. Tell me what legitimate use you have for that kind of gun. Hunting deer?

If you have a .22 rifle or something completely reasonable for shooting deer or other game, Obama won't come near you... be reasonable.

Req... you gotta take your head out of your anus with this King Obama crap. Are you joking? I mean, you must be facetious or you forgot to take your delusion medication... Jesus...

”A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”
~George Washington

Having guns just for hunting/sport is not the reason our forefathers gave us the right to have guns. The 2nd amendment is not for hunting. We were not invaded by Japan in WW2 because they were afraid of us Americans with our guns. Believe it or not, there are independent militias in the USA... These executive orders are illegal, infringing our rights and treasonous all under the cover to "protect our children" from rare instances of psychos in a country where more people die tripping over thereselves IMO.

”The danger (where there is any) from armed citizens, is only to the ‘government’, not to ’society’; and as long as they have nothing to revenge in the government (which they cannot have while it is in their own hands) there are many advantages in their being accustomed to the use of arms, and no possible disadvantage.”
~Joel Barlow

It's a sad state of affairs when the AT right wing nuts have gone so far off the grid that Klown's opinions seem moderate.

It's kind of how Bill O'Reilly seems somewhat rational... but only because he's being compared to the rest of the nuts on Fox News.

accidentally? invade my home, and it won't be an accident....i'll be like that woman in georgia who emptied the gun in the intruders face....except i'll kill the scumbag where he stands
don't want shot? stay the fluff outa my house unless invited...pretty simple, really

the level of moron it takes to not have guns secured from children is beyond comprehension.....i don't get why the remainder of sensible folks should be punished due to these morons

i seriously don't get why sensible, lawful people have to be screwed around with, because the mother of that sandy hook monster was irresponsible
she paid the ultimate penalty for her actions, and there's no doubt that so many otherd paid the price for her stupidity, but i have yet to see a reasonable presentation as to why my rights should be trampled on as a response

[Censored]

wonder if Obama's Presidency is setting any records for gun sales. people seem to be buying more of them now.

For me it's not so much about the guns but about our rights being taken away. Also one must at least think about a slipperly slope situation... So they take away "assalt" rifles this time (keep in mind that is a term created by politicians to make you scared of guns and these guns are evil....) what if next time someone commits a crime with a handgun. Is it time to take away hand guns now? These things never go backwards. I see it as a way to eventually take away a lot more.

Furthermore if Obama can just executive order away rights in the 2nd amendment what is stopping him from not liking say any other amendment and try to executive order it away? King Obama can do whatever he wants the media/liberals like you guys let him get away with anything. Don't worry though if it goes wrong you can always blame Bush.

Why all of these posts about "Obama taking our guns away" when the whole point of the OP was that there is nothing there about taking guns away? He cannot do that!!!!

He can suggest legislation to Congress. Congress can do that, and THEN he can sign it. THEN it has to stand up to judicial scrutiny.

Seriously people, stop making fluff up!!!

You know the world has changed since he said that right? You think you should still be quoting him 1000 years from now too?

Why do we expect a ban on guns to be any more effective than a ban on Marijuana, or a ban on alcohol like we had during prohibition?

Similarly, one of the arguments used by liberals in favor of legalization of abortion is that banning abortion won't end it, it will just make it take place on the black market.

It's ironic how each side has their issue where they believe that a complete ban will be completely effective, and their opponents argue that a complete ban will only force the trade onto the black market and will not eliminate the trade. Why can't they just be consistent and either decide that bans will be completely effective, or bans will just force the activity onto the black market?

How can both sides not see how completely hypocritical they both are???

HAS THE WORLD CHANGED SO MUCH THAT PEOPLE IN POWER NEVER ABUSE THAT POSITION AGAINST THOSE WHOM THEY FIND CAN BE SUBJUGATED?

IT IS TOO EARLY TO ANSWER YOUR SECOND QUESTION. IF A NATION FOUNDED ON THE PRINCIPLES OF LIBERTY STILL STANDS 1000 YEARS FROM NOW, THEN THE ANSWER TO THAT SECOND QUESTION WILL BE A RESOUNDING HELL YEAH.

Bill danger please have my babies.

AN INTRIGUING AND FLATTERING REQUEST REQUIEM!! I AM NOT 100% CERTAIN HOW THE LOGISTICS WOULD WORK, ALTHOUGH I DO KNOW IT WOULD REQUIRE SURGERY AND I AM AFRAID OF KNIVES AND TEND TO FAINT AT THE SIGHT (OR EVEN PARTICULARLY INTENSE THOUGHT) OF BLOOD, SO I'M AFRAID I MUST RESPECTFULLY DECLINE.

HA!

Do you seriously believe that? Its only been about 25 years since the most powerful economy in the world slaughtered 10k of their own people in Tienanmen Square - and China has a seat on the UN security council.

How many dictators have terrorized Europe since the US Constitution was signed?

How long would Assad have held power in Syria if there was a second amendment there?

I'll bet my 10k years of history against your few decades of good fortune any day. Mankind has a predisposition towards tyranny, its in our blood. America's founding fathers understood that and they wrote a tyrant insurance policy into our foundation.

This is going to be a long post and many of you will probably disagree with most of it, but it may spark some more intelligent arguments instead of what has been argued so far on this issue.
(this is my hope but this is AT)


ok first lets take the "we need guns to protect us against the government" stance.

If the US government becomes tyrannical, it is only the US people to blame. Each state elects their representatives, and if those reps become tyrannical and at some point, form a super majority, than the American people only have themselves to blame for electing all the leaders who are tyrannical and want to take away rights.

But there is a stop gag isn't there? The only person who controls the military is the President and if he becomes someone who wants to destroy America, unless the American people have also elected in both houses of Congress a Super Majority of Reps and Senators who are also tyrannical Communists, the President would be impeached immediately, and I very highly doubt that American Generals are going to wage war on American People.

But if your belief that you should have powerful guns does come to par, that the US military is going to impose Marshall Law on the American People and subjugate us, Your Semi-Auto's are not really going to do crap against Tanks, drones, Military Helicopters and other Military Aircraft, and The American navy.

I'm sorry, but to me the argument "that you are protecting yourself against the government" is really, full of crap. If you have such a low opinion of our government, sorry but go live somewhere else and see if your life improves. We only have ourselves to blame for electing officials based on ignorance (most Americans do not even vote, and those that do vote based on name recognition, party allegiance, or stereo types. This is on a year American's vote for the President, and it gets far worse when voting in the midterm elections where far fewer people vote.


Take all the gangs for instance, If you watch the show "Gangland" Gangs do steal guns, but the majority of them, are bought, by people with no criminal records, who are affiliated with a gang, but only to buy firearms for the gang members who then get rid of the serial # to be unable to trace it back to the original owner.

I also saw the comparison of Weed to buying guns. There is 1 big difference, weed is cheap compared to buying a high level gun and ammunition.

And Ford, saying that you will kill someone if they try to take your guns, shows why more liberal minded individuals do not want this massive amount of fire arms in people's hands. You do not seem to care 2 licks about someone else's life besides your own. Sorry but when you will kill / try to kill law enforcement officers who would want to get these guns shows that you view life, and the laws as garbage

Why do we not all just start killing individuals based on laws we do not want to live by? Why have any laws at all? Once again, I see no reason to have a military sized arsenal, unless you are preparing for war why do you need 1000's of rounds of ammunition? why do you need 20? 30? 40? fire arms? Are American's so delusional about our government that you all feel that you need to prepare for war against it? Do you all have such little faith, in the government that you all help create (You elected the Governors that gerrymandered the districts to create this pathetic situation in Congress) and you in turned elected the representatives that are dysfunctional at best (this goes for both sides as there is very little moderates left in Congress and both sides mostly have far left or far right Representatives)

To Finish off, Obama can't take away your guns, he can't order the military to "go find every American with Semi-auto weapons and take them". If a Democratic President is elected in 2016, that person cannot do that either, neither can the next democratic president, or the next. The only way the any amendment can be changed is either with a super majority in both houses of congress that then needs a super majority of states to ratify the new amendment, or by the states taking up the issue first and sending it to both houses of Congress. The President can only issue orders to the agencies under the Executives Watch

And Hey, if that happens, then it means that a Super majority of American wants it to happen (as, I believe and would hope that more than 100 million Americans would turn out to vote on a new amendment, but if not, and less than 100 million (which was the voter turnout for the 2012 Election) well that is America and American's should learn to get more involved, become more knowledgeable about issues, or just stfu if a new amendment gets passed or fails to pass as it is their fault for not going out and voting (and voting intelligently not based on preconceived notions *shurgs*

Exactly. I've always felt the "bear arms" against tyrannical governments as being an incredibly dumb argument, because there is no way the common citizen with assault guns can fight against a full military with advanced equipment and chemical weapons.

Yes, it might have worked 300 years ago, but times have changed, and the amendments need to change.

The way to overthrow a tyrannical government that is voted in based on democracy is simply to vote differently.

Slavery was ok centuries ago, extremely widespread even, now it is outlawed, sure it took maybe a whole generation or two to achieve it. Times change. It won't be any different for guns.

yeah. the american militia had 0 chance against the most advanced and best military in the world in 1776. What fools.

You underestimate the power of will power. It sems to be a common underestimation.


/me waits for the trols to respond

Except the technology gap between the militia and the military 300 years ago is small.

The technology gap now between assault rifles and the current modern military is huge.

oh is it? i can convert my M4 to fully auto, even though it would be a waste, in a few minutes.

tanks maybe, but the afganis sem to have figured out how to hold the might of the Americana military at bay pretty well. i guess they are smarter than american citizens.

in history ideals and conviction, and im talking about thousands of years, not hundreds, have proven to better technology countless times. please stop using that as an excuse.

Yes comparing the "Western" countries to China is a great argument.


Oh and Mrford just because someone doesnt agree with you on gun control does not make them a troll.


Requiem is a troll with his King Obama crap and how he likes to start a new one of these argument threads every 5 days.

what are they going to do? nuke us until there's only a bunch of zombies left to do their bidding?

lol yes, if only the student protesters in Tiananmen Square who believed in non-violent protest and democracy had been armed.

Assad still holds power in Syria and Syria had less guns per capita than the Netherlands, India or Myanmar prior to their revolution. A lot of the weapons were simply stolen/bought from the army... and that's not to mention the fact that a non-violent mass movement of citizens usually works a lot better than an armed revolution.

Umm you guys talking about a revolution are nuts.

Also Locket I haven't started this thread nor have I started a thread about King Obama in a while.

ALL HAIL KING OBAMA

Hey ford, the middle eastern countries have HUGE differences between them and us.

Those countries are mostly desert mountainous regions. They are also getting their weapons from arms dealers around that area where they are readily available. They are also using the pretext that a foreign, country is coming in. The American Military, sorry is not a foreign power, in its home country

BTW, how are those landmines doing in Vietnam? They were very effective against he US and French also, but they topography is much different than the USA as well. But, now that the war is over, they have 1000's of mines that are killing their own people.

Once again use common sense. The people in the middle east have a vastly different life style than the modernized European countries and the USA. BTW, they also believe that in death they will be rewarded handsomely, where in the Catholic / Christian religion is vastly differently.

While on the topic of religion, the Americans with the most fire arms are touted as also being the most religious. I highly doubt the individuals in this country who truly believe in the Christian religion want to ignited a massive civil war 2 that would kill probably 10's of millions of Americans.

If war was enacted in the USA, USA civilians are at a massive disadvantage because of 1. Our military does not have to transport our military half way around the world, it is already here 2. Our topography is vastly different. We do not live in a mostly desert, mountainous country. Sorry, most Americans do not live up in the vastly rough mountainous regions. 3. We are also far more advanced in our laws than many middle eastern countries. Their laws are based mostly (or sorely) on their religion.

In fact comparing modernized countries to 3rd world countries is like comparing apples and oranges.

Once again, the only reason to be buying weapons in mass, if you are not in a police or military role, is to prepare for war. Also once again, the American military is not going to declare war on its own people, and i VERY HIGHLY doubt that Russia, China, or N. Korea, or Myanmar/Burma, are going to be declaring war on the USA any time in the near or distant future.

So, why do civilians, who typically have much less gun knowledge than individuals trained to use such weapons, need to own so much fire power? Sorry but if you have a beef with the police, and they know you are heavily armed, they will usually come in with special tactics groups that are far better trained than the average American.

Also, once again, Americans are not generally the most responsible of individuals. Once again, in most of the major shootings, the individual doing the mass murders have 1) not been diagnosed with a mental disorder 2) do not have a criminal record, 3) steals fire arms from a relative 4) just goes and pics up a powerful weapon or 5) orders their personal arsenal online but 6) there has not been a report of any of these individuals going to the "black market" to buy their firearms.

They are not part of some crime syndicate that knows where to go to buy illegal weapons.