When people focus on the tyrannical government thing you aren’t stopping much from your front porch. Again if people say they want them for home protection that’s fine. It’s probably a bit overkill but if it’s what you need to feel safe that’s fine. It’s when you run off in the woods with your buddies talking about overthrowing the government that you’ve jumped the shark and we all know there is a segment that is out there doing that.
I would like to have a intelligent discussion about the horrible shooting that occurred today in Boulder, Co. No politics allowed.
- Thread starter Freddie.B.Cocky
- Start date
- Status
The scenarios you dream up are far fetched and oddly specific.
The image of some of you guys handling unexploded ordinance in an insurrection brings to mind a Wiley Coyote cartoon.
okay, we will put you on that task, just change all the things you dont like, then let us know our rights are!! (tongue in cheek, but who will decide what to change, POTUS Harris?? Pelosi?? Schumer??)
i know they Banned Dr seuss, so PLEASE!! NO green eggs and ham reference it offends me, and i also think they banned Wile E Coyote!!
Yep a tyrannical government is usually very respectful of peoples privacy, yuuuuuup
They banned Wile E because that sounds to much like White-y.
If you read through this thread you will notice one side of the argument often struggles with context.
It really is disgusting hearing the list the mass shootings over and over again. We just move on. It's sad.
Imagine trying to argue with a straight face that your “privacy” is more important than someone else’s life.
We’ve seen what one guy could do in Oklahoma City so yes a I agree large groups of like minded people could probably do more. That said it’s just such a stretch to think there is ever going to be a point where you will be fighting a depleted, traitorous military. I’m not even sure you could get millions of people to agree what they would see that as or to fight to do anything other than install their own dictator. People are easily manipulated and there was a small pocket of people hoping that what you just described what take place earlier this year.
If the imagery of Jim Bob and Bubba bothers you call them Frank and Tommy. There is (and probably always will be) a group of people who are against any government involvement in anything. That group has spent hundreds of years talking about how they want to see the government do this or that to them but then turn a blind eye when someone else’s land gets taken under “imminent domain”. In the end though for all the talk even when those guys are impacted the majority of them simply throw their hands up and move on to the next “I’d like to see them try...”.
In the end though I just think the whole protecting myself from the tyrannical government thing is ridiculous and the vast majority of people who say that are just repeating a talking point.
18 pages and running.
Raise you hand if any of you have been swayed, leaned over, or reconsidered your original stance on this subject.
I'll hang up and listen.
Raise you hand if any of you have been swayed, leaned over, or reconsidered your original stance on this subject.
I'll hang up and listen.
Of course it's a stretch, because it would have to be a severe set of circumstances for something like that to happen. People are not going to go to war against the government because of a 5% tax increase, but if certain lines start being crossed, who knows what will happen.
Not really. There is a group in Michigan who thinks this is entirely possible. If there is one there then the odds are there are groups like that everywhere. Oddly it doesn’t take much for some people to jump from this looks cool to I’m going to be part of a revolution.
I have travelled the entire country. Portland is a wasteland thanks to AntiFa. Maybe you should take your head out of the sand
Shocker you won’t own up to what you’re saying. That tends to be a trend with people with your beliefs. You have to look at everything in a vacuum ignoring the bigger picture, because the bigger picture so obviously shows why you’re wrong.
He who would give up freedom for security deserves neither
Not completely fair. Gun grabbers have their boyfriends to protect them.
Dizzy01
How can you claim to be a fan of a University of higher education's sports teams, and yet be so woefully uneducated? The people that you trusted with your upbringing have failed you miserably. I feel sorry for you, but there is still time for you to dust off some history books and start learning about how the real world works in practice. Read the words from the Founding Father's own hands as to why they deemed it so important to include the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. (It wasn't because they were scared of wild bears.) Leave the theory to the progressives, doomed to repeat the failures of their ilk throughout history. Wolves and sheep, Dizzy. Wolves and sheep.
How can you claim to be a fan of a University of higher education's sports teams, and yet be so woefully uneducated? The people that you trusted with your upbringing have failed you miserably. I feel sorry for you, but there is still time for you to dust off some history books and start learning about how the real world works in practice. Read the words from the Founding Father's own hands as to why they deemed it so important to include the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. (It wasn't because they were scared of wild bears.) Leave the theory to the progressives, doomed to repeat the failures of their ilk throughout history. Wolves and sheep, Dizzy. Wolves and sheep.
USCBatgirl21
Well-Known Member
Project all you like. The fact is that that is mostly incorrect, as has been explained on here many times. I dont need to explain it further. However, believe it or not, I don't own any guns. I didn't want them in my house with my small children. Keeping them in a safe is worse than useless since you won't have time to retrieve it in crisis. So I chose to keep them out of my home until my children are at an age where I can instill them with the proper respect a weapon deserves. Responsible gun ownership needs to be pushed more prominently. Perhaps annual safety courses before purchase, or annual certification (current) as well as a background check (current) to purchase. Locally maintained registries for continued and repeated classes. I know I don't fully agree with a registry, but I'd be ok with a weapon control department or militia department of local (state or county) government to maintain that list and enforce proper training.
All I will say is you can try to belittle people who are willing to defend themselves from whatever threats there are and that's fine. I find it amusing. One day it may not be you who is laughing. Maybe it will. I disagree with you either way.
Last edited:
Annual training is a good idea. Making it mandatory is where problems will arise.
If we had some eggs, we could have ham and eggs, if we had some ham.
Last edited:
Totally ok to have an opinion and it's ok to think to yourself What do you need that sports car for? what do you need that nice house for? what do you need to buy those type of clothes for? but when you ask those questions and you have it in your mind to take some action to prohibit another citizen's right to do those things that's not a good sign.....government regimes that begin to act on "what do you need that for" end up taking (by force guns), private property and sometimes give folks a free trip to the re-education gulag
How on earth would the government ever find the people with military grade guns? Posting about it on a public forum that has a TON of data cache
That's also useful for holding a gun somewhere within easy reach in your car. But you need to know the state laws of every state you're in..
Well I don’t know about that tax thing. Seems like at one point that was a pretty big deal.
Again I agree that things would have to be at an unbelievable extreme to get something like that to happen today and if it does it won’t be a bunch of guys with ARs that make it happen.
I'm 60, and have met many people who want ALL firearms banned.
I'm not sure what you're referring to as "military scale weapons". Can you explain what that means?
Hi Searooster, Concerning your point about a convincing argument for public ownership of military scale weapons, we need look no farther than the letters of our great Nation’s forefathers, including the federalist papers. Here are a few pertinent quotes that I hope are helpful but realize you are probably already familiar with:
“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
Here Thomas Jefferson describes that a purpose for being armed is to be an obstacle to tyranny. What would a government fear if the citizens were massively out armed by its military?
“I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence … I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778
The advantage spoken of here, was that the American familiarity with the traditional military weaponry of the day from the time of boyhood, made him a more lethal military warrior.
there are many more...just a few here as I did not want to write a book. Have a great day
- Status
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
Gamecock Scoop Podcast: Re-Aligning The College Football Landscape
- Latest: Caleb Alexander
-
Gamecock Scoop Podcast: Re-Aligning The College Football Landscape
- Latest: Caleb Alexander
-