Freedom will you give up your guns?

imported post

I would... In defense of the Constitution and the United States... no matter WHO they posed to represent. 'Been shot at in war before... No difference 'cept for the real estate.

imported post

Sonora Rebel wrote:

I would... In defense of the Constitution and the United States... no matter WHO they posed to represent. 'Been shot at in war before... No difference 'cept for the real estate.

Click to expand...

So, killing is good in defense of the Constituion, but not your home? I'm sure that you would want everyone that you shoot to live though, right? Otherwise you'd be the Devil himself, cause you shouldn't want anyone to die, for any reason.

I'm not pickin on ya Rebel, just voicing my opinion while it last.

imported post

Why would any person in their right mind, kill anybody, overan Amendment in theConstitution. I thought we should only shoot if we physically fear for our lives. Having the Government in control doesn't mean your life is in danger does it?

Edit: Btw, make sure you wear nice slacks and a polo when you're defending the Constitution, otherwise you'll upset people. You wouldn't want the church goin image of OC'ers tarnished.

imported post

Y'know.... there's been other governments that confiscated guns... and we know the consequences of dictatorships. So... if anyone... under color of 'law' contrary to the Constitution tried to sieze my legitimate property, deny me the right to self defense and... Shut me up in the process... The war begins here... at my front door. And yes... I would kill them in the national interest or for the common good (or die in the attempt). They are domestic enemies sent by an enemy occupier. I don't care what they call themselves or who they pose to represent. If you can't kill... dont carry a gun.

You fail to comprehend that the 2A (And the Constitution)is recognition of a pre-existing right... It does not grant Rights. Only declares that they exist and shall not be infringed.

"Those who would sacrifice liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin

imported post

Yeah, but that "common good" pool is in small numbers here.

Some are more worried about who we offend, than the real meaning of the gun.

imported post

Sonora Rebel wrote:

...
You fail to comprehend that the 2A (And the Constitution)is recognition of a pre-existing right... It does not grant Rights. Only declares that they exist and shall not be infringed.

"Those who would sacrifice liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin

Click to expand...

No I did not fail.

You're point is one that I preach to people all the time. In case you didn't pick up on it, I'm not really talking to you.

imported post

All my neighbors are a decent bunch. Good to sit and have a beer with but they would sit back and watch the confiscation occur. There would be no outcry or help defending against illegal confiscation. If I was to go at it, I would be alone.

imported post

snake021 wrote:

Why would any person in their right mind, kill anybody, overan Amendment in theConstitution. I thought we should only shoot if we physically fear for our lives. Having the Government in control doesn't mean your life is in danger does it?

Edit: Btw, make sure you wear nice slacks and a polo when you're defending the Constitution, otherwise you'll upset people. You wouldn't want the church goin image of OC'ers tarnished.

Click to expand...

Unless I missed something here and in subsequent posts, please tell me sir that you are kidding.

imported post

snake021 wrote:

SouthernBoy wrote:

Hopefully it will never come to that. But remember, the spark that ignited the American Revolution was arms confiscation.

If it ever comes to national confiscation, it is my fervent hope that the American spirit still beats in the hearts of enough of us to rise up, take up our arms, and send the bastards where they belong - hell comes immediately to mind.

Click to expand...

The only one I see in this thread saying what they believe.

How about the rest of you, answer the question, will you shoot someone for a gun?

Click to expand...

I have to tell you that I hope and pray that it never comes to this in our nation.. another all out open hostilities situation. I really doubt I will see this come to pass in my lifetime, but I am not so foolish or naive to think that the possibility does not exist.

I would rather my country enter into armed rebellion and conflagration than to go quietly into the abyss of tyranny and evil. This was not the Founders design or intent and it should not be such for ours or any other generation. For once the call for confiscation goes out, this nation will then and forever cease to be America and will join the nations of history who have allowed the folly of despotism to swallow them and commit them to eternal darkness.

imported post

coachl wrote:

I am concern with the possibility of "O" getting into the White House. Would you give up your guns? Would you die for your rights? With the radical changes possible facing us what will you do when the power of the federal government or local police show up on your door step? Is it treason to fight for your 2nd amendment rights? i am afraid that we will be faced with these questions with an "O" presidency. What are your thoughts?

Click to expand...

I am a student of history. I share your concerns.



Because of my concerns I have sold all my guns and am no longer a gun owner. I have made that statement on every public forum I belong to.



Tarzan

imported post

snake021 wrote:

SouthernBoy wrote:

Hopefully it will never come to that. But remember, the spark that ignited the American Revolution was arms confiscation.

If it ever comes to national confiscation, it is my fervent hope that the American spirit still beats in the hearts of enough of us to rise up, take up our arms, and send the bastards where they belong - hell comes immediately to mind.

Click to expand...

The only one I see in this thread saying what they believe.

How about the rest of you, answer the question, will you shoot someone for a gun?

Click to expand...

This question has been posed about 15 trillion times now and the answer is the same every time. In fact, it's a pretty popular answer whendealing with a narrow, yes/no bracketed question in a situation that isn't black/white...IT DEPENDS.

Go see the Katrina thread for a more elaborate answer.

imported post

SouthernBoy wrote:

snake021 wrote:

Why would any person in their right mind, kill anybody, overan Amendment in theConstitution. I thought we should only shoot if we physically fear for our lives. Having the Government in control doesn't mean your life is in danger does it?

Edit: Btw, make sure you wear nice slacks and a polo when you're defending the Constitution, otherwise you'll upset people. You wouldn't want the church goin image of OC'ers tarnished.

Click to expand...

Unless I missed something here and in subsequent posts, please tell me sir that you are kidding.

Click to expand...

I've been told that my way feeling about a BG dying does not fit into a "self defense" forum like this. Because I don't feel remorse about the BG dying, my opinion is not welcome here, or should be kept to myself. You know like we should only CC so no one is offended. Evidently, not showing remorse is detrimental to the OC cause. I tried to explain my reason behind my lack of remorse, but it was deleted.

So I'm asking, when is it legit enough for an OC'er to kill, which is the purpose of the gun. Simply taking your guns away seems to be the popular answer, as long as you feel bad about the killing in defense..

imported post

You're still missing the point, snake021.

There's really no difference between the "gun confiscation" scenario and a normal self-defense one.

Hypothetically, say I did need to use my firearms to defend my ownership thereof. Just as with self-defense, I will not shoot to kill. I will shoot to stop the threat. I no more wish death on an American soldier following orders than a criminal. Once the threat is stopped, I stop shooting and hope nobody died. Realistically, armed resistance by civilians will lead to death, but we should not wish it. If we can defend out rights with no bloodshed, should we not?

Remember, nobody here is talking about letting persons get away with crimes; we're just suggesting that, in the event one of us is forced to pull the trigger, we hope our bullets stop the threat, but we do not hope to kill. Yet, if our assailant dies, then so be it.

imported post

snake021 wrote:

Because I don't feel remorse about the BG dying, my opinion is not welcome here, or should be kept to myself.

Click to expand...

Your lack of remorse is not the issue. The issue is you started a thread titled I HOPE THE BG DIES, which reflects poorly on all of us. There is a big difference between not feeling remorse for defending yourself and hoping a person dies, whatever the person may have done.

Read my post above. I think I explain myself fairly well.

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

GreenDrake wrote:

Despite the fear the gun lobby instills or what a local AR salesman tells you, Barry won't take your guns, CAN'T take your guns and there is insufficient proof that there would be any reason to. Biden's AW ban did NOTHING, any changes in the laws require not a majority but a 2/3 majority and politicians like their cushy jobs. I doubt anything will happen to our ability to carry or own weapons. The fear campaigns some are running are merely self serving sales schemes to keep the money coming in.

Click to expand...

Wow, I have someone else living in reality land with me.

Click to expand...

Thats 3 of us...wow. I didn't know there were so many of us. Thought I was the only one posting who hadnt written a manifesto. ssshhhh....dont tell them that I already voted for Obama or they'll freak out.

imported post

I'm not a racist. I just don't like Obama's policies. You sir are a sexist. Just read your post. I have no doubt that Sarah can see Russia. I've read several of your posts and have no doubt what you can see.....it is a dark place.

Your friends in the media are trying destroy Sarah by turning herinto Dan Q. Mr. O. can't count to 50, it comes up 57 states, but he gets a pass from the media and koolaiders like you. Biden, oh my! Talk about foot in mouth issues. GB ps I use my name while you hide.

imported post

gary a bentzen wrote:

I'm not a racist. I just don't like Obama's policies. You sir are a sexist. Just read your post. I have no doubt that Sarah can see Russia. I've read several of your posts and have no doubt what you can see.....it is a dark place.

Your friends in the media are trying destroy Sarah by turning herinto Dan Q. Mr. O. can't count to 50, it comes up 57 states, but he gets a pass from the media and koolaiders like you. Biden, oh my! Talk about foot in mouth issues. GB ps I use my name while you hide.

Click to expand...

The woman is borderline retarded. That'snot my opinion, that's a fact. Have you or have you not actually listened to her answer questions? I'm not talking about pre-fab speeches. I'm talking about her speaking for herself. If you think she isn't dumber than a stump then you, sir, are the one drinking the koolaide.

imported post

snake021 wrote:

The only one I see in this thread saying what they believe.

How about the rest of you, answer the question, will you shoot someone for a gun?

Click to expand...

You mean as in government sponsored confiscation?

I already have the posts cut to put skulls on around the perimeter of my property. Sometimes ya gotta do what ya gotta do.


AWDstylez wrote:

The woman is borderline retarded. That'snot my opinion, that's a fact. Have you or have you not actually listened to her answer questions? I'm not talking about pre-fab speeches. I'm talking about her speaking for herself. If you think she isn't dumber than a stump then you, sir, are the one drinking the koolaide.

Click to expand...

That's a fact? Really? Are you sure? Do you have any proof? Only someone who is truly retarded, or just incredibly stupid, would make a statement like that.

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

The woman is borderline retarded. That'snot my opinion, that's a fact.

Click to expand...

Wow, so the citizens of Alaska elected a borderline mentally retarded woman for their governor? And the previous governor appointed a mentally retarded woman to chair the ethics committee?

Please give links to your 'facts', including IQ tests, medical records, and anything else that substantiates your 'facts'. Otherwise, sir, you are just name calling, instead of using a rational argument as to why you personally feel she is not qualified to be vice-president.

Name calling in place of rational discourse is childish, and tends to show you don't have a leg to stand on, or are just so partisan that you will use name calling attacks to shut down the opposition.

The 1st amendment gives you the right to speak freely, but it is your job to speak intelligently.

imported post

marshaul wrote:

You're still missing the point, snake021.

There's really no difference between the "gun confiscation" scenario and a normal self-defense one.

Hypothetically, say I did need to use my firearms to defend my ownership thereof. Just as with self-defense, I will not shoot to kill. I will shoot to stop the threat. I no more wish death on an American soldier following orders than a criminal. Once the threat is stopped, I stop shooting and hope nobody died. Realistically, armed resistance by civilians will lead to death, but we should not wish it. If we can defend out rights with no bloodshed, should we not?

Remember, nobody here is talking about letting persons get away with crimes; we're just suggesting that, in the event one of us is forced to pull the trigger, we hope our bullets stop the threat, but we do not hope to kill. Yet, if our assailant dies, then so be it.

Click to expand...

No. It's you, still not getting MY point. There is no "the point", there's yours and mine. Since mine doesn't agree with yours, you say it's wrong and shouldn't be discussed.

Shooting a BG and hoping he dies = Lack of remorse.

Shooting a BG and hoping he doesn't die = Remorse. Get it?

The only time I ever should pull the trigger is to kill. The "stop" word is just today's PC word for kill. If you want to "stop" someone, there are plenty of other means such as bean bags, tazers, etc.

The line is clear to me, onceaBGsteps inside my house, he has ignored all other methods to "stop" him. Ignored the laws that are in place, ignored the No Tresspassing signs, ignored the locked doors and windows. I don't want a BG in my house, I don't wantto have to shoot, I hope it never happens, but when it does, I will not feel the least bit guilty. I will call for LE and a medic, because that is what I should do. He had his warnings, he doesn't care, now it's time to die.

There is no law against hoping a shotBG dies in my house, no more than hoping a convicted murderer gets the death penalty. If you hold some sort of imaginary moral high ground over me for my way of thinking on this subject, then so be it.

I don't see how this "makes everyone here look bad" though. If it does, why isn't everyone else saying it too? Seems to me, others are saying the same thing as I, just not as bluntly.