324 replies to this topic

[AsteroidX]

I suppose Europe is not like the Wild West then. We still have large animals in or near every major city. Not too mention rural America.

[odiesbsc]

Br Cornelius, on 01 January 2013 - 10:25 AM, said:

Lefties as you call them believe in Democracy and rule by consent of the people. Lefties and progressives do not believe that when that consent goes against their wishes they then have the automatic right to foment riot and rebellion. That is a fact which is lost on many of the extremist right wing  people who seem to believe that a disagreement over political principles can be resolved through a minority shooting it out with their elected Government.

Br Cornelius

It wasn't me who called anyone "leftists or lefties". That was a quote from a Russian newspaper.

[odiesbsc]

NocturnalWatcher, on 02 January 2013 - 08:41 AM, said:

it's easy as using common sense. obviously citizens should not be allowed to own guns. They should have never gotten to the point where it's basically impossible to disarm America this point.

leave the guns to the people who are trained And need them like the police and military.

WOW, You're not Dianne Feinstein by any chance, are you?

[Corp]

This thread is still going? Would have though by now it would be clear that claims of getting rid of the Second Amendment is nothing but baseless fear mongering.

[Br Cornelius]

odiesbsc, on 02 January 2013 - 07:47 PM, said:

It wasn't me who called anyone "leftists or lefties". That was a quote from a Russian newspaper.

If you choose to quote someone - accept the assumption that you share their views.

Br Cornelius

[Liquid Gardens]

odiesbsc, on 31 December 2012 - 02:44 AM, said:

You, like practically every other person seeking to diminish our constitutional rights,

Ah, but it all depends on which constitutional right you select, correct?  You aren't trying to diminish our constitutional right to amend the Constitution, are you (which probably has almost zero chance of occurring anyway)?

Quote

The answer to this question is straightforward: The purpose of having citizens armed with paramilitary weapons is to allow them to engage in paramilitary actions.

And we've seen all the collateral damage that purpose has resulted in, all to allow the citizens to engage in paramilitary actions which hasn't actually been needed for what, over a century now at least?  We already have the most powerful military in the world to protect us against 'foreign' threats, and it's laughable that, even if we threw the door wide open and allowed automatic weapons, allowing citizens to possess guns would result in any hesitation by a tyrannical government intent on subduing us.  I've got two words for you:  "Air Force" (which would result in two other words for the citizenry: 'game over'.)

[rippedagain5]

Why does the UN even care about our gun rights? Maybe because our government did a study to see how many of our own military would fire on US citizens.The results were overwhelmingly no way. So if /when the US declares marshall law they are bringing in UN troops to "contain" us. They have been training them near here for years. They have maps of what they call hot spots which show basicly where they'll have fight on their hands. We have  the second amendment to protect ourselves from just such things. As for assault riffles, thats exactly what they meant (well if they had them then).  It keeps us from being overrun by our government.Otherwise we don't stand a chance.

[DONTEATUS]

Left & Right how they both can be wrong ! Automatic weapons will indeed be the start of the End of our world ! like was posted before once the U.N starts to take over the streets and the Hot spots get even hotter,By that time all the Gun toteing Idiots will join in on the merriment ! What a World,What a World ! Im melting,Im melting !
just Shoot me !
By the way Im a Left winger peace love and Blue jeans kinda guy ! I HATE GUNS ! ANd the people that think they need them !ITs my Rights . RIGHT ?

[MstrMsn]

rippedagain5, on 03 January 2013 - 11:25 PM, said:

Why does the UN even care about our gun rights? Maybe because our government did a study to see how many of our own military would fire on US citizens.The results were overwhelmingly no way. So if /when the US declares marshall law they are bringing in UN troops to "contain" us. They have been training them near here for years. They have maps of what they call hot spots which show basicly where they'll have fight on their hands. We have  the second amendment to protect ourselves from just such things. As for assault riffles, thats exactly what they meant (well if they had them then).  It keeps us from being overrun by our government.Otherwise we don't stand a chance.

The UN doesn't care about our gun anything.

The US Constitution Article 1, Section 9 states, "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

So, I ask... how will Martial Law be declared? Neither the president nor congress can do so, unless the above exceptions are met. Doing so would be considered treasonous, and possibly a declaration of war against the citizens. And if UN troops were brought in, it would absolutely be considered an invasion by a foreign military, and under the Rules of Land Warfare, we would be well within our rights to repell them.

Edited by MstrMsn, 04 January 2013 - 07:37 AM.

[MstrMsn]

DONTEATUS, on 04 January 2013 - 03:05 AM, said:

Left & Right how they both can be wrong ! Automatic weapons will indeed be the start of the End of our world ! like was posted before once the U.N starts to take over the streets and the Hot spots get even hotter,By that time all the Gun toteing Idiots will join in on the merriment ! What a World,What a World ! Im melting,Im melting !
just Shoot me !
By the way Im a Left winger peace love and Blue jeans kinda guy ! I HATE GUNS ! ANd the people that think they need them !ITs my Rights . RIGHT ?

Really? And you have empirical evidence to support this?

[Babe Ruth]

MstrMsn, on 04 January 2013 - 07:37 AM, said:

The UN doesn't care about our gun anything.

The US Constitution Article 1, Section 9 states, "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

So, I ask... how will Martial Law be declared? Neither the president nor congress can do so, unless the above exceptions are met. Doing so would be considered treasonous, and possibly a declaration of war against the citizens. And if UN troops were brought in, it would absolutely be considered an invasion by a foreign military, and under the Rules of Land Warfare, we would be well within our rights to repell them.

Keep in mind that the most recent NDAA amendment effectively suspends Habeas Corpus.  That is, by legislative fiat, the government has suspended Habeas.

Keep in mind that the Unpatriot Act and its several extensions effectively nullifies the Fourth Amendment by way of National Security Letters.

So, if your point is that the government honors the rule of law, or governs in accordance with the US Constitution, you're quite wrong about that.

[Corp]

rippedagain5, on 03 January 2013 - 11:25 PM, said:

Why does the UN even care about our gun rights? Maybe because our government did a study to see how many of our own military would fire on US citizens.The results were overwhelmingly no way. So if /when the US declares marshall law they are bringing in UN troops to "contain" us. They have been training them near here for years. They have maps of what they call hot spots which show basicly where they'll have fight on their hands. We have  the second amendment to protect ourselves from just such things. As for assault riffles, thats exactly what they meant (well if they had them then).  It keeps us from being overrun by our government.Otherwise we don't stand a chance.

As it's been noted the UN doesn't give a damn about American gun laws. What they care about is the illegal gun trade and how international efforts could be made to stop it, efforts that have been going on for more than a decade. Some overly paranoid Americans saw this, decided that this was targetted directly at the Second Amendment even though it doesn't in anyway, and foolishly freaked out. Likewise UN troops (there's no such thing btw) are not training to contain American citizens. Shockingly America is not the centre of the universe and the UN has far more important matters to worry about. Surpressing the freedom of Americans for no reason at all is way down on the list. It's below 'setting the world record for longest string of high fives'. You're worrying yourself over nothing.

[DONTEATUS]

MstrMsn, on 04 January 2013 - 07:38 AM, said:

Really? And you have empirical evidence to support this?

Yes Look at the Deaths ! Or better yet Look at post #51 that Czero posted ! Do the numbers mean anything to you ?

[MstrMsn]

Babe Ruth, on 04 January 2013 - 02:50 PM, said:

Keep in mind that the most recent NDAA amendment effectively suspends Habeas Corpus.  That is, by legislative fiat, the government has suspended Habeas.

Keep in mind that the Unpatriot Act and its several extensions effectively nullifies the Fourth Amendment by way of National Security Letters.

So, if your point is that the government honors the rule of law, or governs in accordance with the US Constitution, you're quite wrong about that.

Did I ever say anything about the government following the rule of law? Nope.

The NDAA does not supercede the US Constitution, nor can any Executive Order (and NDAA is an EO, not amendment). Also, look at the wording of the NDAA - strict requirements, just like Martial Law (though, the requirements differ - because they are different things).

Also, before the Patriot Act (while I don't agree with it, I will use the proper wording as to not show ignorance or arrogance - take your pick) there was an Act called FISA - which basically allowed LEOs to circumvent the 4th, for the same reasons.

[MstrMsn]

DONTEATUS, on 05 January 2013 - 02:04 AM, said:

Yes Look at the Deaths ! Or better yet Look at post #51 that Czero posted ! Do the numbers mean anything to you ?

OMG!!! The deaths...wait, the numbers provided there are not all deaths.

Also, nothing on that says anything about Automatic weapons. So, I will ask this one last time.... where is your emperical evidence?