I guess that tells us about your situation. Sorry, I guess you're compensating for small balls, not neccessarily small cock.
Obama’s Gun Ban List Is Out
- Thread starter LightBearer
- Start date
Who are ya? Charles Bronson? Bwahahahaaaa! Gimme a break! Sorry, don't mean to be mean.
I laugh a sardonic guffaw at your attempt at being a tough, gun toting, kill-a-crackhead-for-mommy, bullet headed, pants dropping dude.
True, I don't get warm and fuzzy about guns. But I do have a profound respect for the power, engineering and destructive capability of most weapons.
If the US government is going to start ignoring their constitution, what's next?
The second amendment says nothing about people needing guns for sporting purposes or for hunting.
The second amendment says that the people have a right to bear arms to DEFEND THEMSELVES FROM THE GOVERNMENT, ie: the army.
The entire purpose of that amendment was to allow people to defend the country against the army. Good luck doing that with a hunting rifle.
What's next? I'm sure that Obama thinks that the 22nd amendment is also dangerous, might as well ignore that one too, right?
I wonder how thrilled Obama would be if everyone started ignoring the 13th Amendment.
The second amendment says nothing about people needing guns for sporting purposes or for hunting.
The second amendment says that the people have a right to bear arms to DEFEND THEMSELVES FROM THE GOVERNMENT, ie: the army.
The entire purpose of that amendment was to allow people to defend the country against the army. Good luck doing that with a hunting rifle.
What's next? I'm sure that Obama thinks that the 22nd amendment is also dangerous, might as well ignore that one too, right?
I wonder how thrilled Obama would be if everyone started ignoring the 13th Amendment.
Good luck trying that with any weapon whether it be an assault rifle, or whatever. If any part of the population rose up and decided to become their own sovereign country, I'm sure they'd be hard pressed to match the US army. Then again...are we just speculating or is this a possible reality?
Your assuming the Army will go along with these gun confiscations, some will some wont. Meanwhile theres 150 million gun owners down there. If 1% fights back thats 1.5 million combatants. Army wont have too much chance, thats when the foreign troops will come in.
come break into my house after the 3 presa canarios are done with you i might consider putting you down lol bwahahahahhaha i love people like you your like a big pussy waiting to get fucked.
You're full of love mclovin ! Is your neighborhood that bad that you need 3 presa canarios and a love of guns ?
It's both funny & serious.
Some here have stated that gun owners just want to shoot a politician rather than vote them out of office.
What about when the government decides to abolish voting & then attempts to nationalize all business?
Sound too far fetched?
Chavez did it in Venezuela!
This is what his government did to pacify the people to the changes he wanted:
http://www.rethinkvenezuela.com/downloads/Nationalization.htm
This is the reality:
http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=77912
http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN0426337720090305
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/10/business/chavez.php
When a gubment wants to control it's people it does so by nationalizing the economic engine.
Take a look at what is happening in the US now.
Through the events of 911 George Bush was able to pass the Patriot Act.
This one act has done much to undo 150 years of progressive freedom.
The Patriot Act effectively pushes the US back 70-90 years in Civil Liberties & personal freedoms in the US.
This latest economic mess - what are the chances it is completely accidental?
Let's look at a highly unlikely scenario here for a moment.
Two of the largest corporations in the world have just been nationalized - Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_sponsored_enterprise
You got the Dems blaming the Reps & vice versa - but what really brought this on?
Was it planned?
Suppose there really was a plan for a one world government?
How would you be able to make that happen unless the people are looking for something better than they have?
It is not so implausible that a government could choose to rule it's people
& remember ...
... disarming them is one of the first steps.
What if this guy is onto something?
http://mtwsfh.blogspot.com/
Before you get out the tin foil & start making smart ass remarks -
Just do this....
READ IT!
That's all - you don't have to believe it ... but what does it hurt to read about it?
You won't spontaneously combust!
Last edited:
The idea isn't that part of the population can leave the union by starting a civil war.
The idea was that if the military ran amok and tried to put a dictator into power the entire population could rise up against the military and save the country.
100 million gun owners vs a standing army of less than a million on domestic soil.
And not all of those in the army would follow orders they may consider to be illegal etc..
That was the POINT of the 2nd amendment. Arguing if it was useful or not is not the issue, the issue is what rights does it legally confer and what power does the government have to ignore those rights?
I think a lot of Military Folks would go AWOL with their weapons.
Don't forget, Guerrilla wars are very effective, Worked in 1776 for independence, they weren't trained soldiers but more farmers and merchants. The British Army on the other hand would be considered the US Army of today back then.
Don't forget, Guerrilla wars are very effective, Worked in 1776 for independence, they weren't trained soldiers but more farmers and merchants. The British Army on the other hand would be considered the US Army of today back then.
And that's why they put in the 2nd amendment, way back then.
Unfortunately, no American politician has the balls to actually try to have the 2nd amendment voided by another amendment. So they just try to ignore it and stack the courts with judges who will agree with them.
Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't this around the same time they were burning the odd woman and claiming they were witches. Did it ever occur to you that not ever word those founding fathers said is applicable 250 years later?
Do you think they knew the nuclear weapons would one day be invented?
Do you think they knew that automated weapons would one day exist?
Do you think they were aware of something called a grenade?
When they said the people have the right to bear arms I'm pretty sure they were referring to the guns which existed at the time.
Otherwise you're defination of "arms" might be a hand gun, and mine might be an automatic weapon and someone elses just might be a dirty nuclear weapon, after all if you actually have to go to war with those (ie the federal government which has nuclear weapons) don't you need one too?
So why not comprise and agree weapons designed for war be off limits? For the simple reason it's not soldiers who are getting killed, it's civilians, and it's not law abiding citizen's doing the killing, it's drug dealers, gangsters, and the odd child who finds a weapon and thinks it's a toy.
In fact there was recently a case in the US where a 9 year old boy shot and killed his father and a family friend. Some wanted to try this kid as an adult and when he was interogated he never even had a lawyer or even an adult present. Can anything be more screwed up in every conceivable manner than this? This is screwed up from the word go. But it all started with a gun in the house. Now at best this kid will never have his father back and at worst he may spend much of his life in jail. This was just a child. He certainly never intentially wanted to kill anyone and in fact, some said he was incapable of even forming intend at that age. And in the big picture, how did that gun make anyone safer, it didn't, instead it destroyed a family.
Now because this idea that the citizen's of the US are every going to revolt against their own nuclear equiped armed force is ridiculous beyond imagination. Here's a better idea, if they're really scared of the their own armed forces, why not just limit their funding and save several billion a year?
Last edited:
Its doesn't matter whether its a Musket or an M-16 the firearm itself is used to defend the country and there rights against there government should it get out of control. Comparing nukes to guns is just lame dude. I can go to a range and fire off a million bullets and not kill anyone, set off 1 small nuke and you get a nice dose of radiation.
When a child finds a loaded gun in the housethats the parents fault. You keep a loaded gun locked up especially with kids in the house.
And do you really think the Army is going to nuke there own citizens without any resistance? You think the entire armed forces wuld go along with that? If it did come to a fight the army would be beaten so badly it wouldn't even be funny. I wonder how many of the 100 million gun owners are army vets, hmmmmmm?
