|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
60 members (Peach, RSmith, NFHunter, BCLC, Shotts, BuckSpear, HappyHunter, bug54, AU338MAG, CeeHawk37, Tree Dweller, Catfish28, Cynical, sbo1971, lectrode, Stacey, CreekCrosser, 4Tigers, Uokman2014, fur_n_feathers, BACK40, Paint Rock 00, coldtrail, CarbonClimber1, scrape, TEM, goodman_hunter, rrice0725, Mbrock, JA, Bread, !shiloh!, Bmyers142, kyles, dirtwrk, Megatrondiablo, sidehitter, jdstephen44, GomerPyle, BD, pass thru, ultratec00, Chaser357, capehorn24, Solothurn, ParrotHead89, burbank, Ben2, JHL, Chiller, OutdoorsAL, CrappieMan, k bush, 7 invisible),
523
guests, and
0
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 12,982
Booner
|
|
Booner
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 12,982 |
My comprehension abilities are really not definable over an internet forum. Your insulting abilities however.......umm.
Some people are afraid of others. The same people think that government can help to make them secure. If anyone is willing to trade freedom for security - I fully respect their mindset but I can't agree with them in the least. Those people did not properly prepare for their defense. They are also probably not interested in getting involved when something needs to be done.
I know many men who are abusive. The most recent one I had a discussion with fled the country. Probably the best idea for him as the leo's where he lived rarely dig through the swamps looking for gator poop to do dna testing on. If everyone's brother/son/father/cousin/friend was willing to get involved when they see the signs, there would be very few abusive men around.
Sheep, wolves and sheep dogs. Sheep need a lot of tending, wolves take care of themselves but are awfully destructive.
Whoever is happy will make others happy too. Anne Frank
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 3,678
I'm Honey Lou Lou and I voted for Obama... Twice!!!
|
|
I'm Honey Lou Lou and I voted for Obama... Twice!!!
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 3,678 |
I believe the second amendment was meant to include any weapon our government has access to. How else would we protect ourselves from an oppressive government? That being said, if Uncle Sam wanted to take our guns forcefully and right now, I reckon we have about a snowballs chance you know where, of stopping them with our semi auto rifles and shotguns. You are not going to stop f-18's or even a B-52, very effectively with the weapons that we have access to. Sure, a few have a FFL that allows them to have SLIGHTLY better than average weapons, but that is yet another issue. They have to PAY for what is supposed to be a RIGHT ensured by the 2nd. Even then, it's conditional. But then the USA provides some of the most sophisticated weaponry in the world to some occupiers of some really bad real estate halfway around the world, to people that hate us to start with. I don't get it. Well, really I do, it just irks me to admit it.  OK, I'm done for now. Agreed, The founding fathers were terrified of an oppressive govt. that restricted the free will of men. They crafted the constitution and specifically to protect us from the same type of govt. that we have today. The 2nd amendment was so that in addition to protecting us from the govt. we would also have the ability to abolish it. We can neither do the former nor the latter if we are throwing sticks at tanks. No, they meant for We The People to be the tank drivers.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 33,437
Freak of Nature
|
|
Freak of Nature
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 33,437 |
Well, I will just chalk it up to the fact I have dealt with a lot more violent criminals, murders, domestic violence and gun crimes then anyone else on here and I know that some gun laws have there place.
However, I would love to have you on my jury in a felon in possession of a firearm case in federal court.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 15,484
Old Mossy Horns
|
|
Old Mossy Horns
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 15,484 |
The issue aint guns...the issue is dirt bag judges handing out insignificant sentences. Like the one handed out to the two guys in Oregon that everyone wants to protest now that they finally got the correct sentence? So you're saying it's ok to revisit sentencing because someone didn't like the original sentence? I'm not throwing stones, just asking a question.
Character is not developed in moments of temptation and trial. That is when it is intended to be used.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,316
8 point
|
|
8 point
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,316 |
There are a couple that are odd. My 20 yo son has a carry permit but he can't buy a gun or bullets.
It's not a Passion, it's an Obsession. That's what I tell my wife, but she promptly informs it's a disease to which is incurable.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2014
Posts: 3,558
10 point
|
|
10 point
Joined: Jun 2014
Posts: 3,558 |
I believe the second amendment was meant to include any weapon our government has access to. How else would we protect ourselves from an oppressive government? That being said, if Uncle Sam wanted to take our guns forcefully and right now, I reckon we have about a snowballs chance you know where, of stopping them with our semi auto rifles and shotguns. You are not going to stop f-18's or even a B-52, very effectively with the weapons that we have access to. Sure, a few have a FFL that allows them to have SLIGHTLY better than average weapons, but that is yet another issue. They have to PAY for what is supposed to be a RIGHT ensured by the 2nd. Even then, it's conditional. But then the USA provides some of the most sophisticated weaponry in the world to some occupiers of some really bad real estate halfway around the world, to people that hate us to start with. I don't get it. Well, really I do, it just irks me to admit it. OK, I'm done for now. Metalmuncher Something you are not considering is the VAST number of weapons in the hands of citizens. Hundreds of millions of firearms. In my opinion you are not giving the citizenry of America enough credit. They would not be wiped away as easily as you think, unless NBC weapons are used. Consider how bogged down our troops were in the recent middle east wars with insurgents. There were nowhere as many hajis over there as there would be armed citizens in America. If you look at a recent election map of America and completely discount the blue (democrat) areas the military would have a very difficult time controlling the red areas. And I for one could care less about what happens in the blue areas. Let them be slaughtered. It is the blue areas who dont own guns, couldnt grow their own food, and have no ability to hunt or fish. They are just standing around with their hands out. They would not make it 90 days in a civil war or a large scale catastrophe.
I love my country, but don't trust my government.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 17,308
Old Mossy Horns
|
|
Old Mossy Horns
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 17,308 |
I believe the second amendment was meant to include any weapon our government has access to. How else would we protect ourselves from an oppressive government? That being said, if Uncle Sam wanted to take our guns forcefully and right now, I reckon we have about a snowballs chance you know where, of stopping them with our semi auto rifles and shotguns. You are not going to stop f-18's or even a B-52, very effectively with the weapons that we have access to. Sure, a few have a FFL that allows them to have SLIGHTLY better than average weapons, but that is yet another issue. They have to PAY for what is supposed to be a RIGHT ensured by the 2nd. Even then, it's conditional. But then the USA provides some of the most sophisticated weaponry in the world to some occupiers of some really bad real estate halfway around the world, to people that hate us to start with. I don't get it. Well, really I do, it just irks me to admit it. OK, I'm done for now. Metalmuncher Something you are not considering is the VAST number of weapons in the hands of citizens. Hundreds of millions of firearms. In my opinion you are not giving the citizenry of America enough credit. They would not be wiped away as easily as you think, unless NBC weapons are used. Consider how bogged down our troops were in the recent middle east wars with insurgents. There were nowhere as many hajis over there as there would be armed citizens in America. If you look at a recent election map of America and completely discount the blue (democrat) areas the military would have a very difficult time controlling the red areas. And I for one could care less about what happens in the blue areas. Let them be slaughtered. It is the blue areas who dont own guns, couldnt grow their own food, and have no ability to hunt or fish. They are just standing around with their hands out. They would not make it 90 days in a civil war or a large scale catastrophe. I am taking into consideration the # of guns in American citizens hands. But I am also considering that a high percentage of the people that own them are not even close to being trained to use them as proficiently as the military. I know that there are a lot of ex and retired military out there, but what percentage of them are in ideal fighting shape now? What other resources do they have? And how do their weapons, support, and organization compare to the greatest military force the world has ever known? In the middle east we didn't exactly have the home court advantage either. And a big chunk of the populace over there are raised up with hatred and war on their minds, so trained fighters are a dime a dozen. You may be right. We may could whup their backsides pretty soundly if it came to that, but I am a little skeptical myself. That doesn't mean I wouldn't be there trying to do my part.
Last edited by metalmuncher; 01/07/16 06:05 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,427
10 point
|
|
10 point
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,427 |
Gun laws are useless when there's a demographic of American society that has no respect for others and for any law. Until that culture is changed, we'll keep getting the same results.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,721
8 point
|
|
8 point
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,721 |
Drug crime aren't necessarily violent crimes. Not to mention the war on drugs is a farce. Our own government peddles and traffics drugs all the time.
"Liberty must at all hazards be supported.We have a right to it,derived from our maker.But if we had not,our fathers have earned and bought it for us at the expense of their ease,their estates,their pleasure and their BLOOD!"
-John Adams (1735-1826)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,721
8 point
|
|
8 point
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,721 |
"Liberty must at all hazards be supported.We have a right to it,derived from our maker.But if we had not,our fathers have earned and bought it for us at the expense of their ease,their estates,their pleasure and their BLOOD!"
-John Adams (1735-1826)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,721
8 point
|
|
8 point
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,721 |
How did gun laws keep any of those crimes from being committed?? I doubt they did. We need proper sentencing and judges that aren't bleeding heart liberals and have the guts to deal with trash properly. Not strict gun laws. If a felon has served his time and made his self a productive member of society for a period of time without getting trouble he deserves the right to be able to defend himself. If the crime was bad enough he shouldn't be getting out at all. As far as the Hammonds in Oregon I hope you haven't heard the whole story about how they have been railroaded,harassed and had their rights violated and still think they deserve to be back in prison. They served what the judge sentenced them several years ago after they were wrongly convicted in the first place of crimes of terrorism for lighting a fire that actually saved thousands of acres from burning.
Last edited by Duckshooter; 01/07/16 10:47 PM.
"Liberty must at all hazards be supported.We have a right to it,derived from our maker.But if we had not,our fathers have earned and bought it for us at the expense of their ease,their estates,their pleasure and their BLOOD!"
-John Adams (1735-1826)
|
|
|
|
|
