-91 votes

What's wrong with a little gun control?

I don't believe anyone is coming for your guns. I understand that there are people that might want that, but it's just not going to happen. I have no problem with stricter laws. Sorry, but we don't need AK 47's. And guess what, nothing suggested in any of the current proposals would even mean that you'd have to give up yours if you had one. These were the same views Reagan had:

In 1986 he signed the Firearm Owners Protection Act. It banned ownership of any fully automatic rifles that were not already registered on the day the law was signed.

As governor of California, Reagan signed the Mulford Act, which prohibited carrying loaded firearms in public.

He also supported a 15-day waiting period.

And are background checks really a bad thing for someone to own a gun. I mean to drive a car you need to take a test and get a license. You need to be 16, sometimes 17 before you get behind the wheel. You have to have car insurance. You have to obey posted speed limits. You're not allowed to drink and drive. You can even have your license suspended or revoked...not because you are a felon, but because of non related driving offenses like underage drinking.

And the doubters will always bring up the 2nd Amendment, but never mention it begins with "well regulated". Not to mention the arms that the founders bared were muskets that took up to a minute to reload between shots.

Some of the others will say we need to protect ourselves from a Tyrannical government. I hate to be the barer of bad news, but our government has drones. If they want you dead, you're high powered assault rifle isn't going to save you.

And you can say what you want about me without really knowing who I am, but I believe in the 2nd Amendment. Before you bash me and vote me down, I ask only that you tell me what you feel the 2nd Amendment protects. Do we have the right to own a Nuclear Bomb? To extreme? Can I fly around in a fully loaded F-16? No, how about drive around in a tank? Can we own anything the begins with the words "Surface to Air"? A rocket launcher, a grenade thrower? Please tell me where your "line" is. Am I really that extreme because I believe the line is right before an automatic rifle which holds a clip with more than 10 rounds and your's is right after it?

And I know that guns don't kill people, people kill people. And I know that stricter gun laws won't end gun violence, the same way I know that laws against murder, didn't end murder. Laws against rape, didn't end rape...but does that mean we shouldn't have those laws?




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

What's wrong with a little gun control? That's easy.

It is a step toward a lot of gun control.
You really needed that explained to you? You need to get out more.

This is the article that got my posting privileges revoked:
http://bklim.newsvine.com/_news/2013/05/12/18212165-dr-stan-...

Why always invoke an army?

What about, say, a police state?

2nd Amendment is about making sure no privileged group has a monopoly on violence. No one likes to hear this, but that's the bottom line.

Of course no one really NEEDS an "assault rifle" - however, in free society, every law abiding citizen NEEDS the right to own one, especially when police/army are being issued them as well.

Govnt has drones? Sure, but they have no right using them domestically (and otherwise...). In case there is a government who would use things such as drones against its citizenry, you'd wish you had at least the rifle.

It really is about the balance of power between the people and the ruling class. It's not a rocket science to see that once you lose that balance, it would be impossible to do anything when the government gets full totalitarian.

No one likes revolutions and civic uprisings but it's the possibility of them happening that keeps the rulers in check and democracy in shape.

Like it never happened before. You think people were stupid or uncivilized before WW2? On the contrary! They were just as cool and easy-going as we're now and they thought the times of tyrant kings were over.

Liberty is always in danger, constantly.

Why

Should the Government have a monopoly of power?!!!

When Fascism goes to sleep, it checks under the bed for Ron Paul!

I need an AK 47.

The Soviet gun is probably the best ever made. Large capacity, easy to operate, never jams. Sorry, goldstck, the right to defend oneself shall not be infringed. If you want restrict yourself, great. But you and your cohorts in the devil cities have no right to infringe me. Self preservation is a God given right, even exceeds your silly free speech rights.

I do not believe that you "I

I do not believe that you "I believe in the 2nd Amendment." And I do not believe that you want any type of honest answer to your questions. This post does not deserve to be taken seriously.

Larry in North Carolina
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men and women to not support Ron Paul!

Maybe that's it!

About a quarter into it I thought the OP was sarcasm. Quitting about half way through I decided it was either arrant stupidity or machiavellian evil. Maybe I should have finished it (but it was just too painful to endure), I may have concluded it was not intended seriously either.

dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
======================================
West of 89
a novel of another america
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/161155#longdescr

Sounds good if you start with

Sounds good if you start with the military ...then the police.

Yeah...

...the tiny little town I used to live in had it in their tiny little paper that the tiny little police force purchased some of the most powerful arms made! WTF!!! There was no reason for that what-so-ever! And they weren't a very kind FORCE either...no one likes them. And also, didn't one of our soldiers overseas go bananas with one of those things? Killing families and even children? Don't find anyone talking about that anymore. They weren't Americans, therefore not human? Just making a point I guess.

And what is also scary in the medical thing. You think there are crazies out there now? Wait till they start with this stuff. Then everyone who needs help in their life, little or a lot, will be afraid to go for it. This makes no sense. I think there are already laws that allows people to invade privacy rights if they make threats...no?

This world is getting scarier by the moment.=/

Can we please lay to rest the "musket" argument?

This is guaranteed to come up in any "gun control" discussion. It's a ridiculous fallacy used as a cheap attempt to make a point, along with the argument you don't need an AK-47 to go duck hunting.

Are we seriously supposed to believe it was beyond the founders mental capacity to envision any further advances in defense weaponry, and that it had reached its apex?

There is no way in hell a musket will offer much protection in this era just as sticks and stones would during the time of our nations founders. And anyone who believes an AR-15 will put up much of a defense 200 years from now is simply not using their head.

Trust me, your grandchildren's grandchildren will back me up on this.

Defense?

The AR-15 can't put up a defense right now. In 200 years our species will have either killed each other off or moved on to a technological wonderland.

Technology has an exponential quality to it, so 200 years from now the AR-15 wont be thought of as the musket is now. It will be such a relic, I would think that it wouldn't be thought of at all.

Defense!

Would you not agree an AR-15 offers better protection than a musket? That is my point - it's all relative.

Of course

But no one on this planet is saying you need to defend yourself with a musket.

I don't know what the founding fathers thought about weapon advancement. I would assume they knew it would advance; but they could never have predicted it would advance so far.

We can literally kill everyone in a matter of hours. The world is different than 1776. The founding fathers have been dead for two centuries. Let them go, their graves have been stood upon for far too long.

Why are you here?

Seriously!? Your entire contributing history is less than one month old with a decidedly negative reception. You made two posts; one attacking the free market, the other attacking the Constitution and all your comments thus far have been invested in this single post, all garnering negative votes.

Additionally, you accuse me of standing on the graves of our founders when it was my request we lay to rest the musket reference mentioned first by the OP.

Furthermore, I find it quite presumptuous to claim the founding fathers, the great intellects of their time who are highly regarded among students of liberty, "could never have predicted" such things as the AR-15 while you seem fit to claim, "In 200 years our species will have either killed each other off or moved on to a technological wonderland", thus confirming my question that some including yourself would have us believe it was beyond the founders mental capacity. On that point we simply disagree.

I find it all to be highly contradicting with a double-standard and I'd love to hear the explanation before I block you.

It's quite simple when you think about....

You have to look at the exponential quality of technological advancement. Lets take a function like f(x) = x^2. During the first values of x: 0,1. The line appears linear. For instance:

0^2 linear (point 1 = 0)
1^2 linear (point 2 = 1)

So the semi-major axis(y-axis or f(x) axis) looks to be linear when only the first two values are taken into account. If you look at technological advancement in history, the standard of living and weapon advancement is stagnant when compared to the last 130 years or so. Therefore, the founding fathers lived in a time where weapon advancement would have seemed linear instead of exponential. It would have been nearly impossible for them to make an exponential prediction on weapon advancement when all data pointed toward a linear function. Nowadays, we live in the exponential region of the curve and we can make predictions on where we will be based on where we have been. Basically, we know more now than the fathers did then.

point 3 (2^2) = 4
point 4 (3^2) = 9
point 5 (4^2) = 16
...
point 101 (100^2) = 1000000

linear function 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8...100
exponential function 0,1,4,9,16,25,36,49,64...1000000

Now, about why I'm here, my first posts were about Rand Paul endorsing Mitt Romney and how I was disgusted by it. I really disliked how Jesse Benton handled the campaign and how Rand handled the end of it. At that point I started listening to a lot of Adam vs. the Man and a little bit of Alex Jones; although I think his conspiracy theories are ridiculous. I also have a very negative post about Tom Woods calling other libertarians moochers because they didn't want to pay him every time he spoke for the movement. After that, I didn't post on the Daily Paul until Alex Jones called for violent revolt if the AR-15 was taken from him. So I guess I'm here to try and stop others from committing violence in the name of something I believe in. I'm not perfect and sometimes I get sidetracked onto other subjects; but that was my main objective when I first posted again.

I think that somewhere around 85% of Americans disagree with the liberty movement in some way or another. In the case of gun control, a vast majority of people want some form of it or another. A majority of people want to ban assault weapons altogether. So, when some people come on here and advocate violent revolution, they are threatening my people, my country. I may not agree with 85% of my people; but I'm not going to kill any of them for it. I think some of you are very sick, and I want to help you and this movement. That's my personal choice and there's nothing you can do about except hide and block me like a coward; but I don't think your a coward. I guess we'll find out.

Cyril's picture

The United States of America have been founded AS A REPUBLIC.

"I think that somewhere around 85% of Americans disagree with the liberty movement in some way or another. In the case of gun control, a vast majority of people want some form of it or another. A majority of people want to ban assault weapons altogether."

"MAJORITY"?

WHO, THE FREAKING HELL, CARES what it thinks?

NOT I.

I don't know if you are a citizen of this country, personally I am not (just a fresh immigrant), but if you are, then I am very surprised.

Unless I am myself misunderstanding -AND BIG TIME- how this country was founded, this three sentences statement from you I just quoted shows that you have very little clues about this country precisely.

I find mind boggling I am about to give the obvious refresher:

(1) The People AND (2) the People's Constitution and the 10 Amendments of the Bill of Rights they have UNANIMOUSLY agreed upon DO NOT CARE FOR A SECOND what "the majority thinks".

These texts HAVE NEVER BEEN INTENDED to have the people live together in a full blown democracy.

This is a Republic, HERE, with SOME democratic processes to vote on laws.

It is A TYPICAL facet of the ignorant (or the reckless) to confuse full blown DEMOCRACY and ***SOME*** DEMOCRATIC representation and voting processes.

It is a difference between A NOUN and AN ADJECTIVE. Or, A NOUN, and A QUALIFIER.

The NOUN, denoting A CONCEPT, or even, A COMPLETE ONTOLOGY around the concept, is much more involving than the qualifier WHICH ONLY BORROWS some facets of the noun/ontology it is derived from.

NOBODY.

I say, NOBODY has ever, EVER, wanted or meant The United States of America, to be a full blown DEMOCRACY where the Tyranny of the 50.001% majority overwhelms the 49.999% minority(ies).

Yes, the TYRANNY of the MAJORITY over all the other minorities. By force of LAW.

On anything or everything.

And what is the smallest minority? THE PERSON. THE INDIVIDUAL.

The Bill of Rights to begin with, then the rest of the Constitution, HAVE ALWAYS HAD only this SOLE PURPOSE:

TO STATE, EXPLICIT, and PROTECT the natural, INALIENABLE rights of THE INDIVIDUAL or ANY OTHER type of minority beyond just one person.

AGAIN:

The Bill of Rights and the 2nd Amendment of which that I and others defend the LITERAL interpretation is only about this:

YOUR INALIENABLE rights. Mine. Or the rights of the three dudes standing next to me earlier outside the store.

And whether I, AND 300+ MILLIONS other people do not like the look or what those three dudes do in their lives ... DOES NOT FREAKING MATTER for a second ... NOBODY, NO NUMBER of people can DENY or infringe on their rights.

They would still have SOME OF THOSE RIGHTS as INDIVIDUALS, even IF THEY ARE SUSPECT OR EVEN, CONVINCED as criminals.

So ... N O B O D Y.

Yes, NOBODY, in THIS country, FREAKING CARES, what (supposedly) "the majority" -or even, "the vast majority"- cares about/thinks is good or not.

There is NOBODY AND NOTHING HAVING THE RIGHT ... TO REDEFINE THOSE RIGHTS, of the Bill of Rights.

NOT even "a vast majority".

I don't care for a second what "the vast majority" of the people in my city think is good or not for my affairs at home, including, but not limited to, self defense. And I hope they do the same for themselves.

However, EVERYBODY, those who understand the United States of America anyway, CARE ONLY about having ...

... AT MINIMA

every single of ***THEIR OWN*** fundamental freedoms and rights RESPECTED and DEFENDED.

AS EVERY SINGLE OF THE INDIVIDUALS they are.

Here is my promise to you:

I will LEAVE, AT ONCE, WITHOUT LOOKING BACK, this country WHEN YOU AND OTHERS, eerily, have managed to turn it into a full blown Democracy.

That I would HATE.

Yes, H A T E.

That I would FEAR.

That I would RUN FROM.

Indeed, the VERY sort of place I would NEVER, EVER want to live in.

Because I can read. I can read HISTORY.

On Democracy and "how good it is" to be RULED by "the majority":

WHO will dare to say to my face Edmund Burke wasn't an early supporter for the American declaration of Independence?

Either the GROSSLY IGNORANT or the HYPOCRITE.

WHO will dare to say to my face Edmund Burke had not warned in 1791 a member of the French National Assembly of the "despotism through democracy" coming to them shortly after?

Either the GROSSLY IGNORANT or the HYPOCRITE.

WHO will dare to say to my face Edmund Burke had not warned in the same letter, the same member, of the Evils of Rousseau's rhetoric?

Either the GROSSLY IGNORANT or the HYPOCRITE.

WHO will dare to say to my face Edmund Burke had NOT predicted the horrendous events of Terror that ensued in France thereafter from 1792 to 1795?

Either the GROSSLY IGNORANT or the HYPOCRITE.

Refresher materials, for those who are UNFAMILIAR with the importance of History:

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/15700/15700-h/15700-h.htm

ANYONE wants Democracy? And LAWS made by "the majority", enforced at GUN POINT by Big Government's MOBS?

BE MY GUEST : GO FOR IT !

Just DO NOT COUNT ON ME BEING AROUND.

These BROWN SHIRTS MOBS WITH A GOVERNMENT BADGE now have ALL THE GUNS ... while YOU DON'T ANY MORE.

By that time, you can prepare yourself THOROUGHLY to surrender ON WHATEVER ELSE they will decide to take AWAY FROM YOU.

Your guns ARE NOW GONE, for you to dare to decline.

"MAJORITY" : a noun completely IRRELEVANT, a revealing one OF THE GROSS IGNORANCE on the origins of this country's FOUNDING principles - like, you know ... THE 2ND AMENDMENT, "for instance".

FOUNDING PRINCIPLES.

'HTH,

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Read one more sentence after the piece you quoted...

"I think that somewhere around 85% of Americans disagree with the liberty movement in some way or another. In the case of gun control, a vast majority of people want some form of it or another. A majority of people want to ban assault weapons altogether. So, when some people come on here and advocate violent revolution, they are threatening my people, my country."

You just wrote all that stuff up above for no reason. How much time did you waste? If I did that, I would feel really stupid and apologize to whoever I had just wronged.

You need to take a deep breath and practice controlling your emotions. Your probably very young, I respect your gumption; but please think before you waste your time and my time.

Cyril's picture

Gun/arm control is based on a FALSE assumption, that's why.

"You just wrote all that stuff up above for no reason. How much time did you waste?"

For no reason? You say so.

Wasted time? You say so.

I'm doing good with my time management, thanks. The stress, if ever, is only if I'm at work, working on something hot.

Gun/arm control is just not defensible, IMO, that's all. The rhetoric of its proponents is trapped in the FALSE assumption that government will remain reasonable once it's implemented by a government which has made illegal whatever weapons they have deemed inappropriate for the people to own.

And this is PLAIN WRONG.

Governments NEVER, EVER "stay reasonable" once they're EMPOWERED WITH A FORCE THAT HAS NOTHING IN FRONT OF IT TO BE CHALLENGED WITH.

Then, THE BRUTE FORCE of the gov't is being used by whatever TYRAN(S) of the time who found his/their way to get to the top.

Men will always be CORRUPTIBLE and EVER POWER-HUNGRIER.

It is A FACT of human nature. No People can be FREE if they have no meaningful force to oppose, IF NECESSARY, to their government.

And gun/arm control IS ALL ABOUT THE FROG IN BOILING WATER : it starts little, BUT IT IS NEVER INTENDED TO STAY SO.

It is only the beginning before ALL TYPES OF WEAPONS (that are impractical to a potential tyrannical government) are denied to the people. Indeed, it is only A QUESTION OF TIME before the latter occurs.

Thus, History PROVES them, gun control proponents otherwise. WITHOUT FAILING.

One can look back AS FAR AS ONE WISHES TO TRY FIND COUNTER-EVIDENCE. They won't.

One just needs TO EVEN BOTHER reading it, though, true.

I hope you do.

Granted, I would love, just as you do I suppose, the contrary to be true, but I'm in no denial.

If we care for our own future, we have to accept the lessons of History.

They are human things, in relation to the rulers' power and their prerogatives, and what CAN GO wrong with those if we're RECKLESS, that WE CANNOT change.

The best we can do is NOT FORGET. TO NOT REPEAT THE HARM done ... MANY TIMES. In MANY different places. In ALL TIMES.

The 2nd Amendment is all about protecting us against one of these threats. The first is about another, the fourth, yet another. Etc.

They really ARE NOT RANDOM at all. It's really not like your local restaurant's seasonal menu.

Again and again: as for the 2nd Amendment, NEITHER of its simplicity and terseness and generality were CHOSEN RANDOMLY when they wrote it.

The 2nd Amendment was CAREFULLY WRITTEN AS SIMPLE AND GENERAL AS IT IS.

Once AND FOR ALL. To PROTECT US, and not just from our next door neighbor, or crazies or home invaders.

NOT ONLY THOSE, NOT AT ALL (help yourself; hit me).

Ultimate question:

can ANYONE find me in ANY OTHER country's founding text an equivalent to this?

Please : go for it, I want to read that foreign thing, WHEREVER it may be found from.

It could be phrased slightly differently in whatever language but ***I DEMAND*** IT TO BE AS MUCH BROAD in its generality. Oh, I am sorry : this last requirement is NON-NEGOTIABLE.

(I don't like comparing apples to orange; hence the latter)

You should start searching NOW, my dear.

See, people of the United States of America ? THAT is just one facet of YOUR RIGHTS' UNIQUENESS.

And some of you folks want to challenge it?

This is EERIE to me.

Thank You, &

'Hope it helps.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Cyril's picture

Wrong.

"Your probably very young, I respect your gumption."

Wrong. I'm 42. Father of two. And I know what big government is capable of.

And I read Burke. I warmly recommend YOU reading him on the dawn of the French revolution, and the dark hours of 1791-1795, if not done yet.

Thanks.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Cyril's picture

Are YOU on topic?

"So, when some people come on here and advocate violent revolution."

I never did so. And I haven't read from anyone else doing so in this thread either.

So, I have no clue what you are talking about.

What I had advocated for, though, is the REJECTION (as in : REJECTION = NOT ACCEPTING) of steadily increasing use of Government force (or inconspicuous, evident political LOBBYING) put in use to INFRINGE on INALIENABLE rights DEFINED in texts which should be considered IMMUTABLE in their given interpretation.

The literal one, that is.

And if the "BILL ... OF ... RIGHTS" isn't such a founding text, I really have NO IDEA ***WHAT ELSE*** could be.

"NOT INFRINGE". "INALIENABLE". "RIGHTS". "FOUNDING TEXTS". "MAJORITY = IRRELEVANCE" (because we are NOT living in a Democracy, but in a REPUBLIC)

THAT is on topic.

"Violent revolution"? By WHO? WHERE? WHEN? WHAT FOR?

What ARE YOU talking about NOW?

Thanks.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

On topic?

I was responding to a question by somebody who isn't you. I answered him. This has nothing to do with you.

I will answer your question though. Alex Jones said that if there is an assault weapons ban, then 1776 would happen all over again. Many people on the site say that if this congress tries to enact laws to inhibit gun ownership that they will rise up and violently fight against the government.

Seriously, chill out, your gonna give yourself a heart attack.

Cyril's picture

Sure

"Seriously, chill out, your gonna give yourself a heart attack."

You're funny teasing now.

Bah. Chill out? Oh, I am. This is my conclusion:

http://www.dailypaul.com/271003/whats-wrong-with-a-little-gu...

If you and others don't get my point after that, it's then really hopeless.

You may still not agree (see, that's one of your rights I don't deny) but then it will be at your own risk.

I've already said when and in which circumstances I would leave this country, anyway.

For now,

Cheers!

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

What is really driving the debate...

...in my view is a simplicity. All the really loud and cantankerous rabble rousers rattling the 2nd Amendment want from their government is a sign--just one sign--that this government intends a rule by law, by Constitutional law, to be exact--but there is not one little sign forthcoming, not one peep about scaling back the rhetoric on their side either. It's a case of a standoff of mutual distrust--and yet gun owners have never descended on Washington Waco-style. No single instance that I'm aware of has there been of a single law-abiding gun owner "losing it" with his semiautomatic "assault weapon". Anyone on the sidelines observing gun control historically in America sees instance after instance of pyschotics turning loose on people after which the entire nation of peaceable gun owners get the blame as legislators ratchet up the antigun heat with no minimal attention being paid to the source of the devastation. You can't correct a thing unless you correctly identify the cause. Here's the cause. It's not a lack of "mental health" in the nation--rather, it's a result of "mental health" in the nation. The answer is in front of everybody. It's printed on every pharmaceutical psychoactive carton that leaves the warehouse. These crazy people are driven into homicidal behavior by the neural poisons of these chemicals they're "treated" with. Psychiatrists and medical doctors are handsomely paid to dispense this death as fast as they can scribble their names. Most of the victims take their own lives, shattered into suicidal ideation. But there are those whose aggression turns outwards, and this is fully known. The pharmaceuticals know it. The Congress knows it. The White House knows it. CNN and the rest of the MSM know it. But there's too much money and the prospect of a wholly drugged sheep population is more than the increasingly nervous on Capitol Hill can resist. There shouldn't even be a dialogue about firearms in America. The assault weapons are pharmaceutical poisons fired point blank into American neural pathways, 10 billion dollars worth in one recent year. And growing. If everyone talking about guns would talk about psychiatric medication in the bloodstream of these killers the discussion about guns would fall to the wayside as the media and politicians ran for cover and figured how they could throw big pharma under the bus and survive the fallout themselves. There'd be no time left for worrying about cosmetic features of this or that black, red or polka dot gun. You're solving nothing by being half-hearted about the 2nd Amendment. Compromising by drawing some kind of personal "components" list isn't going to get the psych drugs out of the next wave of mass murderers. Whether you have 7, or 10, or 20 round magazines makes no difference. All the anti-gun crowd wants is to feel safer themselves in some way (unless genuinely dedicated to world disarmament, which is another story). Spend some of your energy on gun control issues pro or con on a letter to your politicians telling them to look into the psych drug link to these murders. Or you'll vote them out. Anything that gets their attention.

Lord my body has been a good friend/but I won't need it/when I reach the end. --- Cat Stevens

Lets just say China...

...decides to come full force to America to collect their money with a full army in tact. Most of our military just seems to be busy overseas. Well, wouldn't a bunch of well armed Americans be a good thing to have? You cannot say that is a farfetched reality.

China's Navy would be obliterated

We have Nukes, end of story.

That depends on which

That depends on which bought-and-paid for servant is in charge of our nuclear defense when they come.

My guess is that whomever he is, he's working for the bank. Banks like long drawn out wars. Killing the Chinese quick wouldn't allow the banks to loan to both sides for an extended conflict.

31 down-votes

I would never down vote somebody that takes the time to make a well thought out post like this one here. You don't have to agree; but mindlessly down voting everything you don't agree with is just plain silly. Why would you do that? Was his argument so good that it hurt your ego, or are you incapable of giving people the credit they deserve? If you disagree, explain why; but up-vote the people who take the time to engage others by expressing themselves. If the author of this post was unwilling to express him or herself, then you would have no opportunity to prove how the author is wrong.

A semi automatic glock can cause almost as much damage as semi-automatic AR-15 when used in a close quarter situation. I don't believe that people should be flying F-16's that are armed to the teeth; so a the line has to be crossed somewhere before the that. I think the line gets crossed at fully automatic weapons. Machine guns are made to kill masses and masses of people. An AR-15 is not made for mass killings. If it was, it would be fully automatic. That's my belief, and I would be very interested to hear everyone else's.

It's not about Crushing ego, only Correcting Incorrect Principle

As in your post you present that a glock can cause almost as much damage as a AR-15;

and you do not believe "people" (I suppose you mean "non Military") should be flying F-16's "armed to the teeth".

Not the issue.

The issue is having "adequate force to repel" whatever force is applied.

Or as Samuel Adams in 1772 (See below) presents:

the "DUTY" OF "SELF PRESERVATION".

Less than 75 years ago 50 million people died fighting against "machine guns" and even Jet planes at the end of WW2;

You think that can't happen again? Just look at China's Military arsenal on YouTube; You Think all that Used Steel they have been buying up from the United States lately has been for building trinkets??? Should a world war break out; What type of Firearm would you prefer?

And if it does happen again, what would we do, ask the enemy to use BB guns? and to "fight fair"...

From the beginning weapons have been evolving, and those who failed to evolve simply ceased to exist.

I personally would feel better knowing a few of my neighbors had F-16's parked in their field "ARMED to the TEETH", just as I have seen video's with Russians who have jets parked in their farm fields "ARMED to the TEETH" with a small house and laundry line nearby.

---------

Absolute Rights of the Colonists, 1772:

In Full: http://www.pacificwestcom.com/oregonpatriotparty/Rights_of_t...

Samuel Adams:

"...1st. Natural Rights of the Colonists as Men.--

Among the Natural Rights of the Colonists are these First. a Right to Life; Secondly to Liberty; thirdly to Property;

together with THE RIGHT to support and DEFEND THEM in the "BEST MANNER" they can--Those are EVIDENT Branches of, rather than deductions from the "DUTY OF SELF PRESERVATION", commonly called "THE FIRST LAW OF NATURE"--

All Men have a Right to remain in a State of Nature as long as they please: And in case of intollerable Oppression, Civil or Religious, to leave the Society they belong to, and enter into another.--

When Men enter into Society, it is by voluntary consent; and they have a right to demand and insist upon the performance of such conditions, And previous limitations as form an equitable "original compact".--

Every natural Right not expressly given up or from the nature of a Social Compact necessarily ceded remains.--

All positive and civil laws, should conform as far as possible, to the Law of natural reason and equity.-- "

"...In short it is the "greatest absurdity" to suppose it in the power of one or any number of men at the entering into society, to renounce their "essential natural rights", or the MEANS (i.e. FIREARMS etc.) of preserving those rights when the great end of civil government from the "very nature of its institution" is for the support, protection and defence of those VERY RIGHTS: the principal of which as is before observed, are life, liberty and property.

If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the [Volume 5, Page 396] right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave--"

American Patriot Party.CC
http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc

Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/American-Patriot-Party-CC-Nati...

RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.

1772?

It's 2013. Are you kidding me?

There is no adequate force to repel. The government has drones, nukes, chemical weapons, tanks, an air force so far advanced from WWII the analogy is just plain ridiculous.

China will not attack because we could send them to oblivion a million times over again. We could have done it in the Korean War. Now 50 years later, we could kill everyone in China with neutron bombs without even wrecking the infrastructure.

I love liberty, I love the history; but it's history, it's gone forever, its not coming back.

Equivocation

They have trained soldiers and have conquered half of the known world. They have new muskets, cavalry, canons, a navy and the money of the largest empire the world has ever known! How could anyone EVER hope to defeat such a force?! The British would surely never be defeated by a bunch of farmers.

You sound like a fucking loyalist.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record

And you sound like a fool

How can you compare muskets, cavalry, cannons and a navy to drones, nukes, chemical weapons, tanks, and an air force?

I don't think you understand what equivocation means. Triangles that are congruent are not equal in magnitude. They look the same; but one may be so much larger than another that the smaller one is insignificant.

I enjoy all of your down votes. To be mocked by so many fools must mean that I have become very wise.

(edit) that last part was mean. I'm sorry.