90 replies to this topic

[RavenHawk]

Just a point of observation.  If you really want to kill more people, you don’t want a full auto.  You waste bullets.  A semi auto would do a lot better with a normal magazine.  You want to take your time with careful aim.  A short burst is always better.  Full auto is to laying down cover fire on the battle field so that other members of your unit can move up.  You don’t care if you hit anything, you just want people to keep their heads down or flee.

And for the poster that says that the Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment because they only had muskets just doesn’t understand the concept of Liberty.  The Constitution is not obsolete.  Our FF were not so much concerned with firearms and they were with Rights and those don’t change; they are timeless.  You see, back then the people had the Right to muskets because the government had muskets.  Today our weaponry is a little more advanced, so the people need to be as equally equipped as the military.  Plus, other for a few situations, I don’t think our military would turn on the people for three reasons.  Oh there might be an incident here or there but 1) the military gives its oath to the nation, not to the President like in other dictatorships (but that was why he wanted to raise a NCSF to be loyal to him).  2) Posse Comitatus is a long honored concept that our military would probably not violate.  Again, there would be exceptions.  3) There would come a point that the military would realize that going against the people is an illegal order and would refuse to obey by either stepping down or joining the people.

[aztek]

RavenHawk, on 17 January 2013 - 05:45 AM, said:

1) the military gives its oath to the nation, not to the President like in other dictatorships (but that was why he wanted to raise a NCSF to be loyal to him).  2) Posse Comitatus is a long honored concept that our military would probably not violate.  Again, there would be exceptions.  3) There would come a point that the military would realize that going against the people is an illegal order and would refuse to obey by either stepping down or joining the people.

keep army overseas, and use agents, and contractors here, 9 out of 10 of those, would not think twice  shooting you  and your family if ordered or paid.

[Kafkaesque]

acidhead, on 17 January 2013 - 03:46 AM, said:

I think the big wigs funding the film industry do care about politics.  While the MSM is great at inserting popular opinion into the public I believe, like many others, that it's the film industry which inserts the most propaganda into the brains of the viewer.  Movies manipulate public opinion to a great degree and nothing comes close... not even cable TV.

How?  All they gotta do at the start of a movie is run the title:  Based on real life events...... or a message similar.

Take for instance the new bin laden/seal team 6 movie already being released.  I for one still have questions unanswered and there is already a bloody movie made about it and it hasn't even been a year since the event yet!!!!  WTF

The movie industry glorifies death and destruction, all the while wars and occupations are occurring and half the general public is taking some form of anti-depressants or suffering from some sort of doctor supervised mental illness.  

Of course the movie industry is going to switch to future movies which de-glorify gun violence.  Just wait and see.  I'd bet on it.

There have been two Bin Laden out since he died. I've neglected to watch both.

If anything, it shouldn't be about guns - but rather the anti-depressants and anti-psychotics people are taking.

My friend, for instance, has been taking anti-psychotics and has told me he wants to kill himself and that he's been thinking about going to a hospital where he'd stay and get therapy. I won't lie, I went to the psych ward when I was 17. I wasn't on any medications, but I sure as hell was feeling down about life. I recently had a discussion with him that some drugs actually enhance the symptoms they are meant to combat. Kids taking Prozac might end up even more depressed than they were before. Some times pills don't get the desired effect.

Mental health is important in any country. If we have disturbed kids shooting up places, does that warrant gun control? Not necessarily. I think gun control is the result of people panicking. Does it mean we need to take care of our people better? Definitely. It all starts with mental health, but it's a dangerous, dangerous road that we are going down as a country. We need to approach this delicately.

Edited by Eonwe, 17 January 2013 - 06:30 AM.

[sam12six]

I think eliminating guns from our society is a great idea and as soon as our swat teams are issued nothing more dangerous than whistles and clubs, I'll believe the government is serious about making that effort. After all, the number of people killed by psycho non-cop shooters is far less than those killed by police every year and the police are easily identifiable while psycho non-cop gunmen are pretty much unidentifiable until they they psycho-gun some people down, making disarming police the logical place to start.

Once we've disarmed the police, we'll take a serous look at those horrible automobiles that are killing our people ('cause you know Thomas Jefferson never meant liberty to apply to someone having the freedom to zip around in two tons of metal going 70MPH).

[The Unseen]

Noodly Savior, on 16 January 2013 - 11:26 PM, said:

There's a difference between racism and knowing if you're dangerous or not. And why would you want to buy an assault weapon anyway?

I'm giving Obama a BBBIIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGG thumbs up!

I knew that B-stard would do that,Im giviving Obama  a BBBIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGGG finger UP! and a big thumbs down

[Kafkaesque]

sam12six, on 17 January 2013 - 06:48 AM, said:

I think eliminating guns from our society is a great idea and as soon as our swat teams are issued nothing more dangerous than whistles and clubs, I'll believe the government is serious about making that effort. After all, the number of people killed by psycho non-cop shooters is far less than those killed by police every year and the police are easily identifiable while psycho non-cop gunmen are pretty much unidentifiable until they they psycho-gun some people down, making disarming police the logical place to start.

Once we've disarmed the police, we'll take a serous look at those horrible automobiles that are killing our people ('cause you know Thomas Jefferson never meant liberty to apply to someone having the freedom to zip around in two tons of metal going 70MPH).

Of course, of course.

I'm sure he'd also find it absurd that only 74 members of the House of Representatives showed up to a reading of the Constitution.

As well as Snooki. I have a feeling Jefferson would take up arms and hunt that thing down.

[preacherman76]

Stellar, on 17 January 2013 - 02:47 AM, said:

And this is why you can't have any progress. When something reasonable gets proposed such as a campaign to encourage safe and responsible ownership, it's immediately vilified as propaganda.

Why wouldnt it? Eric Holder has directly said they were pushing brain washing propaganda to stop people from wanting guns. This was back in the 90's. Feinstein has called for complete gun bans in the past. The people leading the charge for gun control have a agenda, and it isnt safe gun ownership.

[preacherman76]

ChewiesArmy, on 17 January 2013 - 02:58 AM, said:

I appreciate those people that had to die for us. I also understand that we have the right under the constitution, but, do you honestly believe that Jefferson and Co would have written the 2nd amendment exactly the same today? You can't deny that time changes things, makes them outdated, even obsolete. Muskets aren't even in the same realm as a semi-auto, or even a colt .45.

Most certainly. In fact I think our founders would have long ago over thrown the goverrnment we have today. By whatever means necessary. We are talking about men who considered a income tax as slavery. And what does the type of weapon they had available back then matter in the least? The second amendment was written to express the right to over throw a tyrannical government. Whether you need a musket, or a AR 15, the principle is exactly the same.

[preacherman76]

Eonwe, on 17 January 2013 - 03:16 AM, said:

"And what we need to do is change the way in which people think about guns, especially young people. And make it something that's not cool, that it's not acceptable, that it's not hip to carry a gun anymore." - Eric Holder

"One thing that I think is clear with young people, and with adults as well, is that we just have to be repetitive about this. It's not enough to have a catchy ad on a Monday and then do it every Monday. We need to do this every day of the week and just really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way." - Eric Holder

So, when he says the word brainwashing, and says the definition of brainwashing, "thinking about guns in a vastly different away", after he says brainwashing, that's not enough evidence to prove to you that he intends on brainwashing people about guns. And now that there is a national campaign federally mandated about guns, you don't think they might try to "make it into something that's not acceptable"?

And with several comments we have seen here, looks like they were sucessful in brainwashing many.

[preacherman76]

ChewiesArmy, on 17 January 2013 - 03:26 AM, said:

What's your assault weapon gonna do against a tank, a missile, armed drones, or even a F-22?

Honestly, I think the gov't wouldn't use force until they knew they would easily win. I think they would attack us other ways. But in reality, the US will never become a total gov't state. People are trying to justify keeping obscene weapons by creating a highly improbable boogeyman.

Highly improbable? Have you been living under a rock? We have a government who somehow thinks its lawful to kidnap you, torcher and or kill you with no due process. Heck this very thread proves that 0bama thinks he is king, and can create legislation with no due process. This government p***es on any rights that stand in the way of thier globle agenda. The government uses force every single day. Every single thing they do is by force.

[AsteroidX]

Cant ban my gun when thew business end is in operation

[Stellar]

preacherman76, on 17 January 2013 - 10:35 AM, said:

And with several comments we have seen here, looks like they were sucessful in brainwashing many.

Right. If someone doesn't agree with you, they're brainwashed. Typical.

[RavenHawk]

Stellar, on 17 January 2013 - 03:54 PM, said:

Right. If someone doesn't agree with you, they're brainwashed. Typical.

Not exactly.  It's if you see nothing at all wrong with what Obama is doing or you can't read between the lines, then you are brainwashed.

[Beckys_Mom]

acidhead, on 17 January 2013 - 01:05 AM, said:

GOV gun grabbers historically knew the importance of using children as props:

Personal favourite..

  

[Leah G.]

preacherman76, on 17 January 2013 - 10:29 AM, said:

Most certainly. In fact I think our founders would have long ago over thrown the goverrnment we have today. By whatever means necessary. We are talking about men who considered a income tax as slavery. And what does the type of weapon they had available back then matter in the least? The second amendment was written to express the right to over throw a tyrannical government. Whether you need a musket, or a AR 15, the principle is exactly the same.

EXACTLY!!!!

Edited by Leah G., 17 January 2013 - 04:31 PM.