If machine guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have machine guns

[ScaliaFan]

typical liberal reaction whenever soemthing awful happens where guns are involved:

ban (or at least limit) guns for the law-abiding!

Oh, gee, that works well, doesn't it? Disarm us all so that when the jihadists get here, they can mow us down like the stupid sheep the liberals want us to be.

Notice how Hillary has ARMED guards all around her... ditto all prominent politicians and office holders

but they don't want We the People to have that kind of protection

If that man who lost his child to the alligator had had a gun....

If someone with a machine gun had been there @ the Pulse that night...

If that woman who had been raped had had a pistol on her...

These liberals are disgusting!

 

[River Jordan]

Who exactly is saying "disarm everyone"? Name a specific person and show where they said exactly that.

 

[Wormwood]

Yeah, I dont think anyone is saying no one should have the right to have a gun. What they are asking for is tighter restrictions on who can get a permit and what types of weapons should be accessible. Why does someone need a semi-automatic assault rifle with a 30 shot banana clip? I mean, why not say people can have grenades, land mines and Sherman tanks? Do I think that these restrictions will keep fanatics from getting illegal weapons and shooting up places? Probably not. But no one is saying to disarm everyone and not allow people to carry guns. At least no one I have heard.

 

[ScaliaFan]

Who exactly is saying "disarm everyone"? Name a specific person and show where they said exactly that.

u haven't been watching news?

the Ds as always are using terrorism as an excuse to disarm the law-abiding

stupid

they are passing laws probably today on this

 

[ScaliaFan]

Yeah, I dont think anyone is saying no one should have the right to have a gun. What they are asking for is tighter restrictions on who can get a permit and what types of weapons should be accessible. Why does someone need a semi-automatic assault rifle with a 30 shot banana clip? I mean, why not say people can have grenades, land mines and Sherman tanks? Do I think that these restrictions will keep fanatics from getting illegal weapons and shooting up places? Probably not. But no one is saying to disarm everyone and not allow people to carry guns. At least no one I have heard.

i dont think anyone needs grenades and they should be outlawed b/c there is no control over where they land... etc

but the thing is that the FOCUS is wrong here... Guns do not kill, people do

the left dont seem to understand the idea of EVIL

they are dragging this country down further and fruther

and they try to take our rights away INCREMENTALLY... it is always about.. incrementally...

 

[Wormwood]

I agree with you that evil is the problem. However, a person with an assault rifle and 30-shot clips can murder 50 innocent people in about 2 minutes. Most police officers do not even carry that kind of weaponry. The argument is against people having and stockpiling weapons that were made for warfare. A person can defend themselves with a shotgun, rifle or pistol. No one is trying to take those away. For the life of me, I do not understand why anyone needs an assault rifle or to sockpile masses of heavy weaponry. Why not rocket launchers? Why not grenade launchers on the end of the rifles (those can be controlled more easily). Why not chain guns or sniper rifles? Arent you "incrementally" taking away rights by denying these weapons? After all, the 2nd Amendment was made to protect the people from the government. Maybe we should have fighter jets of our own? We cant really resist the government without some kind of tactical air resistance, right?

The point I am trying to make is simply that we all draw lines somewhere. I find it nonsensical to say that the line between chain guns and assault rifles is not "dragging this country down" but to draw a line between semi-automatic assault rifles and pistols and shotguns is "dragging this country down." Who decides which imaginary line is an effort to oppress the people while the other is not?

 

[lforrest]

If it is reasonable to assume criminals may carry machine guns, law abiding citizens should be able to have them too. Who should be entrusted with the defence of the people but the people themselves, there is no one more motivated to come to someone's defence than their own.

Defence against tyrannical governments is also an intent of the 2ND ammendment.

To be realistic citizens are not going to be able to afford military hardware in any quantity that would make an effective defence against the government should they turn on the people. And if militias targeted our own infrastructure the supply lines for these complex machines would be severed and infantry would be employed heavily by both sides.

 

[River Jordan]

u haven't been watching news?

the Ds as always are using terrorism as an excuse to disarm the law-abiding

stupid

they are passing laws probably today on this

That's not an answer. Again, exactly who is saying "disarm everyone"?

 

[Wormwood]

If it is reasonable to assume criminals may carry machine guns, law abiding citizens should be able to have them too. Who should be entrusted with the defence of the people but the people themselves, there is no one more motivated to come to someone's defence than their own.

Defence against tyrannical governments is also an intent of the 2ND ammendment.

To be realistic citizens are not going to be able to afford military hardware in any quantity that would make an effective defence against the government should they turn on the people. And if militias targeted our own infrastructure the supply lines for these complex machines would be severed and infantry would be employed heavily by both sides.

I understand. I think the argument from those who want restrictions is that if we restrict the ability to get these machine guns, then it will help keep them out of the hands of criminals (and thus law abiding citizens would have no need for them). Besides, how many people with private carry permits are walking around the mall with an assault rifle? Those who secretly carry weapons for protection carry items that can be concealed (i.e handguns). So, it doesnt make sense to say that we need an assault rifle for "protection" from criminals when people are not carrying around concealed assault rifles. That would only be "protection" for the home. Last I checked, most criminals and terrorists are not raiding local homes with machine guns. So, in my mind, the "protection" argument doesnt seem to hold water for these types of weapons. I think handguns, shotguns, and basic rifles are quite sufficient for any type of personal or home protection.

 

[ScaliaFan]

about the only thing that can stop a machine gun is another machine gun

what if there had been 2 or more at Orlando night club? with machine guns?

 

[River Jordan]

You ever figure out who is saying we should "disarm everyone"?

 

[Wormwood]

about the only thing that can stop a machine gun is another machine gun

what if there had been 2 or more at Orlando night club? with machine guns?

So you are saying people should be able to roam the streets with machine guns? I dont believe that is currently legal.

 

[Dcopymope]

typical liberal reaction whenever soemthing awful happens where guns are involved:

ban (or at least limit) guns for the law-abiding!

Oh, gee, that works well, doesn't it? Disarm us all so that when the jihadists get here, they can mow us down like the stupid sheep the liberals want us to be.

Notice how Hillary has ARMED guards all around her... ditto all prominent politicians and office holders

but they don't want We the People to have that kind of protection

If that man who lost his child to the alligator had had a gun....

If someone with a machine gun had been there @ the Pulse that night...

If that woman who had been raped had had a pistol on her...

These liberals are disgusting!

This "liberal" anti-gun trash should ask themselves why Switzerland's gun violence isn't nearly as high as America's despite being just as if not better armed than the American populace. Obviously, there is a difference between the way the citizenry of America and Switzerland conducts themselves. Right off the bat, I can see that the difference is primarily two things, the cultures and the state of the economies. Unlike America's culture, Switzerland doesn't glorify weapons, putting them on a pedestal as if its holier than thou, like some Christians in particular do. In America, they don't just glorify guns, but the very use of them with its gangster culture, and through various movies. There are plenty of yanks that get so hyper, so excited, so smiley faced from shooting guns that its akin to an addict getting high off cocaine. Unlike Americas economy, Switzerland's isn't anywhere nearly as down the toilet as Americas either. A trash economy, breeds bad behavior, it breeds societal decay, and I don't see it getting any better. It is claimed that an armed society makes for a well behaved society, but this clearly isn't entirely true. A well armed society really only makes for a polite government, as it keeps the power of government in check, which is the main purpose of arming the citizenry and forming militias. At the same time, we see that most of the mass shootings occurs in zero tolerance, gun free zones, you know, like schools. It shows the cowardice of those who engage in it, as they know ain't nobody there to shoot back. So the problem isn't the guns, the problem is that Americans have become such animals that its giving the anti-gun clowns something to whine about.

 

[Wormwood]

I just dont understand why such an issue would warrant someone, especially a Christian, calling other people "trash." Personally, I am all for the right to bear arms, I just dont think people need assault rifles with 30 shot banana clips. Just my opinion. I certainly wouldnt call someone who believed in the right to carry an assault rifle, trash. What a terrible thing to say. Jesus spilled his blood for those people, regardless of their views on guns.

 

[River Jordan]

If the US instituted the sort of gun control and regulation that's in place in Switzerland, the NRA and their supporters would lose their minds.

 

[Phoneman777]

No one is calling for an outright ban?
Ever heard of Senator Dianne Feinstein?

"IF I COULD HAVE GOTTEN 51 VOTES IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES FOR AN OUTRIGHT BAN, PICKING UP EVERY ONE OF THEM - MR. AND MRS. AMERICA, TURN 'EM ALL IN - I WOULD HAVE DONE IT." Senator Diane Feinstein, (60 Minutes broadcast, 1995)

She said she didn't have enough votes which means there were some, probably a significant number, who were willing to vote with her and more who chose not to solely b/c it was politically expedient not to.

One would think Christians would wake up and see that, just as the homosexual agenda lied in the beginning about just wanting "equality" and is now pulling out all the stops to destroy Biblical marriage, the Gun Control lobby is not satisfied with "limited infringement" which in itself is unConstitutional, but will not stop until a total ban is in place.

 

[River Jordan]

It's a mined quote, originally about assault weapons, taken out of context to make it seem like she was talking about all guns. You can see the full video of her 60 Minutes interview here: http://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2016/jan/15/ted-cruz/ted-cruz-misfires-feinstein-gun-claim/

 

[Wormwood]

Phoneman,

Basically, the argument seems to be, "If there is one liberal that thinks there should be an outright ban on guns [which has yet to be established], then all must be pushing toward that agenda...no matter what they actually say. Therefore, lets hate and smear them." I do not consider myself to be a liberal...on any issue. Yet, I think we should take people at their words. If they say they just want to ban certain extreme combat weapons from public use, why must we assume they are lying and are secretly trying to ban all weapons? it would be like saying, "All conservatives want citizens to be able to purchase grenades, land mines, tanks and personal fighter jets. After all, they are pushing for people to be able to carry assault rifles." Really?

Also, even if someone believes citizens should not be able to carry guns, is that license to hate them and say nasty things about them? Where does it say in the Bible, "Love your neighbor [except if they oppose your right to bear arms]." The constitution was not penned by God. There is no such thing as "rights" in the Bible. So much hub-bub about something God has not seen fit to include in Holy Scripture.

 

[Phoneman777]

Phoneman,

Basically, the argument seems to be, "If there is one liberal that thinks there should be an outright ban on guns [which has yet to be established], then all must be pushing toward that agenda...no matter what they actually say. Therefore, lets hate and smear them." I do not consider myself to be a liberal...on any issue. Yet, I think we should take people at their words. If they say they just want to ban certain extreme combat weapons from public use, why must we assume they are lying and are secretly trying to ban all weapons? it would be like saying, "All conservatives want citizens to be able to purchase grenades, land mines, tanks and personal fighter jets. After all, they are pushing for people to be able to carry assault rifles." Really?

Also, even if someone believes citizens should not be able to carry guns, is that license to hate them and say nasty things about them? Where does it say in the Bible, "Love your neighbor [except if they oppose your right to bear arms]." The constitution was not penned by God. There is no such thing as "rights" in the Bible. So much hub-bub about something God has not seen fit to include in Holy Scripture.

Wormwood, what if those who once stood Right of Center with the founding fathers have adopted Left of Center beliefs (modern Republican Party) and those who once stood Left of Center have now adopted Extreme Far Left beliefs (modern Democrat Party) and those who remain standing just Right of Center where the founding fathers have always stood historically now appear - due to everyone else having shifted to the Left - to be "dangerously extreme far right"?

In other words, WHAT IF MODERN LIBERAL THINKING IS NO LONGER LEFT OF CENTER BUT NOW AT THE INSANE EXTREME FAR LEFT BUT APPEARS TO BE HARMLESSLY JUST LEFT OF CENTER BECAUSE MODERATES AND REPUBLICANS HAVE MOVED OVER IN THE SAME DIRECTION AS THESE FAR LEFT EXTREME RADICALS?

(please refer to chart from the Youtube presentation- "Agenda: Grinding America Down")

Your position on gun control was once a Left of Center position but now due to this shift appears Right of Center and the historic Right of Center position - that the average citizen should have the same weapons at his disposal as does the enlisted infrantryman that the citizenry might have the means to defend itself against the ever-present threat of the rise of government tyranny - now appears to be the extreme Right of Center.

And you say we should take these godless Christ-haters at their word? I say we enter in among them with Godly love and earnest desire to see them saved, but not check our brains at the door when we do.

 

[Wormwood]

Your argument is based on a conspiracy theory.

Your chart is absurd. The founding fathers were not dealing with WMD, hand grenades, fighter jets and assault rifles. To imply that they stood for 0 ban on any types of weapons is a faulty anachronism. You have no idea what they would have thought given our current circumstances and so this image of things sliding progressively to the left as some sort of maniacal plan by "godless Christ-haters" is a gross character attack on people who have a different view on the civilian use of assault rifles. You should be ashamed of yourself.