All Forums > Gridiron Dynasty Football > Gridiron Dynasty > OT Obama Paranoid Government Coming For His Guns
2/7/2013 5:12 PM
Posted by Arfy on 2/7/2013 5:00:00 PM (view original):
Posted by ermackey on 2/7/2013 4:28:00 PM (view original):
Posted by katzphang88 on 2/7/2013 4:22:00 PM (view original):
Posted by caesari on 2/6/2013 7:13:00 PM (view original):
Eh, while I would prefer to keep religion out of the debate, it is probably a crux of the matter on gun control. Many people see it as a moral dilemma.

However, since I don't have much time to type an editorial, I will leave everyone with this thought: Switzerland has the largest percent of citizens carrying guns in the world. Switzerland has the lowest violent crime rate in the world.
I also will refrain from extensive comments. But just to add to caesari's point. Guns are illegal to own in Mexico. How's it going down there amigos?
You know wheo else liked guns? HITLER!  (just kidding though)
This thread is starting to remind me of this joke I have heard.  It is called 'the aristocrats'.  lol

Anyone heard this?


Be warned.  Not suitable for anyone that gets offended easily.

Be warned all!!

I learned a long time ago not to trust this mans links. Buyer beware!!!

2/7/2013 5:14 PM
Posted by ermackey on 2/7/2013 4:54:00 PM (view original):
By the way. I just made this the perfect troll thread by bringing Hitler into a a thread already discussing guns and religion.
I thought Hitler and the Pope went together like ham on rye.
2/7/2013 6:36 PM
Posted by jibe on 2/7/2013 5:14:00 PM (view original):
Posted by ermackey on 2/7/2013 4:54:00 PM (view original):
By the way. I just made this the perfect troll thread by bringing Hitler into a a thread already discussing guns and religion.
I thought Hitler and the Pope went together like ham on rye.
You are just scratching the surface here.

www.thewatcherfiles.com/exposing_reptilians.htm
2/8/2013 7:29 AM (edited)
Posted by ermackey on 2/7/2013 6:36:00 PM (view original):
Posted by jibe on 2/7/2013 5:14:00 PM (view original):
Posted by ermackey on 2/7/2013 4:54:00 PM (view original):
By the way. I just made this the perfect troll thread by bringing Hitler into a a thread already discussing guns and religion.
I thought Hitler and the Pope went together like ham on rye.
You are just scratching the surface here.

www.thewatcherfiles.com/exposing_reptilians.htm
I had heard rumors of HW shapeshifting.
2/7/2013 7:04 PM (edited)
I'm really wondering if Senator Al Franken could be reptillian. He looks the part in his natural form anyway. LOL

I'm just flabber gasted that Nancy Pelossi isn't one too. That's a nasty piece of flesh regardless. I guess it does prove that even the aliens have better taste than that.

2/8/2013 1:25 AM (edited)
Posted by jibe on 2/6/2013 4:30:00 PM (view original):
Posted by dream76 on 2/6/2013 4:06:00 PM (view original):
Very mature, folks--I don't need to act high and mighty if I am higher and mightier than you are---both in education and morality.  Think about this:  How many automatic weapons would Jesus own? 

....and if you need a bigger gun to think that you're a bigger man, then you have more Freudian issues than I care to address.  Good day, that is all.
Jesus said, "he that hath no sword let him sell his garment and go buy one".

The Roman sword was the highest weaponry  of its day.

Jibe---I will deign to come down from my mountaintop for a moment to point out that as the proverbial Devil can quote scripture to further his purposes, as can you, biased and out of context.  Again the confirmation bias manifests itself.

In Luke Jesus tells his servants to buy swords, and when they show him two, he says they are enough.  Enough for what?  Resisting arrest?  No, Jesus is shown to be opposed to this when he tells Peter to put away his sword.  Enough for armed rebellion to resist authorities in some political manner?  Again, Jesus denounces this in Luke 22:52.  So much for your interpretation. In this case the sword (actually Greek 'machaira' which may only refer to a more utilitarian knife) is a mechanism to fulfill Isaiah's prophesy, and swords are referred to by Jesus in a metaphorical, rather than literal sense more than once. 

If you believe that Jesus would support your belief system, you have an awfully twisted idea of who Jesus was and what Christianity stands for. I don't have a problem with the 2nd amendment, but there is absolutely no reason to have military weapons (automatic assault rifles or nuclear weapons for that matter) when leading a civilian life.  No good can come of it.  ...and if you want to protect your home as a castle, that is fine, and one bullet is sufficient to kill off your potential intruder---no need to make it a fortress.

Gun freaks may now return to their state of chronic paranoia, and distopian paradise, pointing weapons of death at each other, all the while declaring how wonderful it is to be free.
2/8/2013 7:28 AM
Posted by dream76 on 2/8/2013 1:25:00 AM (view original):
Posted by jibe on 2/6/2013 4:30:00 PM (view original):
Posted by dream76 on 2/6/2013 4:06:00 PM (view original):
Very mature, folks--I don't need to act high and mighty if I am higher and mightier than you are---both in education and morality.  Think about this:  How many automatic weapons would Jesus own? 

....and if you need a bigger gun to think that you're a bigger man, then you have more Freudian issues than I care to address.  Good day, that is all.
Jesus said, "he that hath no sword let him sell his garment and go buy one".

The Roman sword was the highest weaponry  of its day.

Jibe---I will deign to come down from my mountaintop for a moment to point out that as the proverbial Devil can quote scripture to further his purposes, as can you, biased and out of context.  Again the confirmation bias manifests itself.

In Luke Jesus tells his servants to buy swords, and when they show him two, he says they are enough.  Enough for what?  Resisting arrest?  No, Jesus is shown to be opposed to this when he tells Peter to put away his sword.  Enough for armed rebellion to resist authorities in some political manner?  Again, Jesus denounces this in Luke 22:52.  So much for your interpretation. In this case the sword (actually Greek 'machaira' which may only refer to a more utilitarian knife) is a mechanism to fulfill Isaiah's prophesy, and swords are referred to by Jesus in a metaphorical, rather than literal sense more than once. 

If you believe that Jesus would support your belief system, you have an awfully twisted idea of who Jesus was and what Christianity stands for. I don't have a problem with the 2nd amendment, but there is absolutely no reason to have military weapons (automatic assault rifles or nuclear weapons for that matter) when leading a civilian life.  No good can come of it.  ...and if you want to protect your home as a castle, that is fine, and one bullet is sufficient to kill off your potential intruder---no need to make it a fortress.

Gun freaks may now return to their state of chronic paranoia, and distopian paradise, pointing weapons of death at each other, all the while declaring how wonderful it is to be free.
Yes I see clearly where your side of the aisle is heading with all of this. Paranoia? Yeah you bet. You said all I need to hear to affirm what I see. "one bullet is sufficient to kill off your potential intruder". One bullet huh? One single shot .22 is going to be enough. Sure you bet. That'll really scare the pants off of 3 strung out druggies. I'll keep my 8 shot 12 gauge pump thank you.

My interpretation is wrong? Jesus said, "Put thy sword again into its scabbard".  I don't recall him saying, "Turn thy sword over to the governing authorities".

As for who Yahshua/Jesus is, He is my Lord and Savior. Is he yours? So if that is a twisted view of Him then so be it.

No your posts clearly reveal your disdain for supporters of ALL gun rights and your disdain for anyone who disagrees with you. Now go on back to your mountaintop, no point in wasting your important time talking to a lowlife gun owner such as myself. I will leave you with this, pride goeth before a fall.

2/8/2013 9:06 AM
The 2nd amendment is not only the right to bear arms to "protect" your castle but it is also intended to protect the citizens from its own government if need be.  While it is hard to imagine our government using military force on its own people in the current time the possibility of it happening in the future is much greater when the people have no means of stopping it. 

I do not own a single gun at this point in time after a childhood of hunting and being around guns on a regular basis as well as 8 years in the infantry.  With that being said I think (the key point here because none of us are changing what we think on this and many other topics) that we need to make it harder to obtain a gun but further limiting types of weapons will do little to stop the "crazies" from commiting acts of violence.  Ask T. McVay what he needed to blow up a building and it had nothing to do with guns.

I live in VA and I support our states stance on the new bill, basically no state agencey or locale will enforce any new federally imposed gun limits.  The US is THE gun country and I would love to see how a federal ran gun seizure program would work out...I am thinking civil war?
2/8/2013 1:23 PM
Posted by dukelegend on 2/8/2013 9:06:00 AM (view original):
The 2nd amendment is not only the right to bear arms to "protect" your castle but it is also intended to protect the citizens from its own government if need be.  While it is hard to imagine our government using military force on its own people in the current time the possibility of it happening in the future is much greater when the people have no means of stopping it. 

I do not own a single gun at this point in time after a childhood of hunting and being around guns on a regular basis as well as 8 years in the infantry.  With that being said I think (the key point here because none of us are changing what we think on this and many other topics) that we need to make it harder to obtain a gun but further limiting types of weapons will do little to stop the "crazies" from commiting acts of violence.  Ask T. McVay what he needed to blow up a building and it had nothing to do with guns.

I live in VA and I support our states stance on the new bill, basically no state agencey or locale will enforce any new federally imposed gun limits.  The US is THE gun country and I would love to see how a federal ran gun seizure program would work out...I am thinking civil war?
I know this is popular mythology, but it is BS. 
 
To understand our right to bear arms, you have to understand the French and American Revolutions. We had just fought a long war for independence. We did this with an Army of citizen soldiers who used their hunting rifles to defend their country from the English Monarchy. The need for an armed militia was further reinforced by the rise of Conservatism – a philosophy that defended the Monarchy and railed against Democracy. Burke and conservatives of the day saw Monarchies as stable and predictable forces endowed by God to lead man. In contrast, he saw Democracy as a “tyranny of the multitudes” that were a danger to word security and stability. You could liken it to the cold war and the way the US and capitalist powers viewed the US, and yes, it was that serious.
 
The US Founding Fathers were very aware of the prevailing English sentiment toward Democracy. They also watched France’s Revolution be undercut by English interference. Eventually, this would lead to a collapse of the French Democracy, but the founding fathers only saw the interference and knew that the English would be very willing to do the same to us.
 
Faced with an English threat and also possible conflicts with Spain and France regarding North American interests, the founding fathers settled on the 2nd Amendment to protect us from “tyranny”, meaning invasion and occupation back into a monarchial empire. Scrapped for cash and with a great ocean buffering us, they created a 2nd Amendment to create an armed citizenry from which the US could recruit or draft a citizen army to protect itself. This came to fruition in the French-Indian Wars and the War of 1812.  Our founding fathers were very good soothsayers on foreign policy.
 
Regarding the 2nd Amendment in today’s context, there are two things to realize in the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment reads, “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” First, it establishes that the purpose of the amendment is “necessary to the security of a free State”. This clearly provides the intent and I provided the historic context earlier. Second, the amendment provides for a “well-regulated Militia.” The “WELL REGULATED” is an important part of this amendment because it puts the state in charge of the militia. Therefore, there is no intent for the militia to ever overthrow the state, but is to be regulated for the security and preservation of the state. Finally, the most controversial aspect, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” This clearly gives the right of people to keep and bear arms and the purpose was for subsistence and preservation of an armed citizen militia.
 
This last part of the amendment is critical because it creates a substantial “gray area”. On one hand, the government cannot infringe the right to “Keep and Bear arms”, but is allowed to regulate the militia that is actually the citizens themselves. I think the courts have gotten this right. For example, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia. However, the courts have also upheld rulings that say that citizens do not have the right to have weapons of war or material that can be used to make weapons of war (i.e.: nukes, fertilizer bombs, anti-aircraft missiles, etc…). In other words, handguns and hunting rifles are not militia related and cannot be regulated. However, nukes and howitzers are militia-based and are well regulated. 
 
Therein lays the problem with the assault weapon. Is it a militia weapon or a citizen weapon?  It lies in a gray area that the courts will have to clarify. Personally, I think that the definition lies within the abilities of the weapon. If it is a fully-automatic weapon, it is clearly a militia weapon and falls under the regulated militia clause. If it is semi auto, it falls under citizen use. However, this is my opinion. The courts have to decide and will have a plethora of arguments from which to create the division.
 
That brings me to my concluding statement. I am against the regulation of assault weapons and even clip capacity. However, I am not going to lie or spread a piece of right-wing propaganda that the founding fathers wanted us to protect ourselves from the national government. They did not. I will direct you to the Whiskey Rebellion where Washington sent troops to quash a rebellion against the national government as a clear example. Please stop saying that the founders intended for us to have guns for that reason. It only emboldens far-left and far-right radicals that use that ignorant statement to legitimize their violent opposition of national law and policy, makes uneducated people dumber and more misinformed, and makes you look stupid to people that know better. It also hurts the image of responsible and reasonable gun owners by appearing to be unreasonable to moderates we need on our side to win the debate. When you say the founders wanted us to have guns to resist the government, moderates hear: “I have the right to be violent against laws with which I disagree.” You may not intend it, but that is how it is politically seen. You are not helping the team nor the cause. Please stop it.
2/8/2013 1:36 PM
Posted by dukelegend on 2/8/2013 9:06:00 AM (view original):
The 2nd amendment is not only the right to bear arms to "protect" your castle but it is also intended to protect the citizens from its own government if need be.  While it is hard to imagine our government using military force on its own people in the current time the possibility of it happening in the future is much greater when the people have no means of stopping it. 

I do not own a single gun at this point in time after a childhood of hunting and being around guns on a regular basis as well as 8 years in the infantry.  With that being said I think (the key point here because none of us are changing what we think on this and many other topics) that we need to make it harder to obtain a gun but further limiting types of weapons will do little to stop the "crazies" from commiting acts of violence.  Ask T. McVay what he needed to blow up a building and it had nothing to do with guns.

I live in VA and I support our states stance on the new bill, basically no state agencey or locale will enforce any new federally imposed gun limits.  The US is THE gun country and I would love to see how a federal ran gun seizure program would work out...I am thinking civil war?
In regards to what you said about Tim McVeigh, you are wrong. Tim McVeigh said why he did this. He did it in retailation of military-like force against Ruby Ridge and Waco after ATF agents were resisted in serving warrants regarding illegal gun sales. He used a similar rationale as you stated that it was his "right" to do this, stating: Therefore, this bombing was also meant as a pre-emptive (or pro-active) strike against these forces and their command and control centers within the federal building. When an aggressor force continually launches attacks from a particular base of operation, it is sound military strategy to take the fight to the enemy."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,17500,00.html#ixzz2KKkpKS7j

The 2nd amendment is NOT there to empower citizens to wage war against its nation. And like I said earlier, people like you stating that it is only emboldens the radicals and borderlines to use firearms to commit acts of terror in the name of the founding fathers.  Please stop it.
2/8/2013 1:37 PM
Posted by jibe on 2/8/2013 7:28:00 AM (view original):
Posted by dream76 on 2/8/2013 1:25:00 AM (view original):
Posted by jibe on 2/6/2013 4:30:00 PM (view original):
Posted by dream76 on 2/6/2013 4:06:00 PM (view original):
Very mature, folks--I don't need to act high and mighty if I am higher and mightier than you are---both in education and morality.  Think about this:  How many automatic weapons would Jesus own? 

....and if you need a bigger gun to think that you're a bigger man, then you have more Freudian issues than I care to address.  Good day, that is all.
Jesus said, "he that hath no sword let him sell his garment and go buy one".

The Roman sword was the highest weaponry  of its day.

Jibe---I will deign to come down from my mountaintop for a moment to point out that as the proverbial Devil can quote scripture to further his purposes, as can you, biased and out of context.  Again the confirmation bias manifests itself.

In Luke Jesus tells his servants to buy swords, and when they show him two, he says they are enough.  Enough for what?  Resisting arrest?  No, Jesus is shown to be opposed to this when he tells Peter to put away his sword.  Enough for armed rebellion to resist authorities in some political manner?  Again, Jesus denounces this in Luke 22:52.  So much for your interpretation. In this case the sword (actually Greek 'machaira' which may only refer to a more utilitarian knife) is a mechanism to fulfill Isaiah's prophesy, and swords are referred to by Jesus in a metaphorical, rather than literal sense more than once. 

If you believe that Jesus would support your belief system, you have an awfully twisted idea of who Jesus was and what Christianity stands for. I don't have a problem with the 2nd amendment, but there is absolutely no reason to have military weapons (automatic assault rifles or nuclear weapons for that matter) when leading a civilian life.  No good can come of it.  ...and if you want to protect your home as a castle, that is fine, and one bullet is sufficient to kill off your potential intruder---no need to make it a fortress.

Gun freaks may now return to their state of chronic paranoia, and distopian paradise, pointing weapons of death at each other, all the while declaring how wonderful it is to be free.
Yes I see clearly where your side of the aisle is heading with all of this. Paranoia? Yeah you bet. You said all I need to hear to affirm what I see. "one bullet is sufficient to kill off your potential intruder". One bullet huh? One single shot .22 is going to be enough. Sure you bet. That'll really scare the pants off of 3 strung out druggies. I'll keep my 8 shot 12 gauge pump thank you.

My interpretation is wrong? Jesus said, "Put thy sword again into its scabbard".  I don't recall him saying, "Turn thy sword over to the governing authorities".

As for who Yahshua/Jesus is, He is my Lord and Savior. Is he yours? So if that is a twisted view of Him then so be it.

No your posts clearly reveal your disdain for supporters of ALL gun rights and your disdain for anyone who disagrees with you. Now go on back to your mountaintop, no point in wasting your important time talking to a lowlife gun owner such as myself. I will leave you with this, pride goeth before a fall.

If you admit to your paranoia, then that is the first step toward the solution to your mental illness. I encourage you to seek it.  Yes, your interpretation is wrong, and influenced by the confirmation bias.  My religious beliefs are personal and none or your business, but they are more sophisticated than you could possibly imagine.  You cannot infer disdain, pride or any other attitudes from my postings because they are not an accurate portrayal of what I actually believe.  I am simply putting for arguments to see if you can handle them in a reasonable fashion.  You cannot.  If you really do believe that you are Christian, and you also believe that earthly weapons are the answer to your problems, then you are following the message of the Anti-Christ.  But you may return to your lowlife if you wish, that is fine with me. 
2/8/2013 5:56 PM
Can we just get back to the simple fact that Hitler liked guns?
2/8/2013 6:17 PM
Posted by ermackey on 2/8/2013 1:23:00 PM (view original):
Posted by dukelegend on 2/8/2013 9:06:00 AM (view original):
The 2nd amendment is not only the right to bear arms to "protect" your castle but it is also intended to protect the citizens from its own government if need be.  While it is hard to imagine our government using military force on its own people in the current time the possibility of it happening in the future is much greater when the people have no means of stopping it. 

I do not own a single gun at this point in time after a childhood of hunting and being around guns on a regular basis as well as 8 years in the infantry.  With that being said I think (the key point here because none of us are changing what we think on this and many other topics) that we need to make it harder to obtain a gun but further limiting types of weapons will do little to stop the "crazies" from commiting acts of violence.  Ask T. McVay what he needed to blow up a building and it had nothing to do with guns.

I live in VA and I support our states stance on the new bill, basically no state agencey or locale will enforce any new federally imposed gun limits.  The US is THE gun country and I would love to see how a federal ran gun seizure program would work out...I am thinking civil war?
I know this is popular mythology, but it is BS. 
 
To understand our right to bear arms, you have to understand the French and American Revolutions. We had just fought a long war for independence. We did this with an Army of citizen soldiers who used their hunting rifles to defend their country from the English Monarchy. The need for an armed militia was further reinforced by the rise of Conservatism – a philosophy that defended the Monarchy and railed against Democracy. Burke and conservatives of the day saw Monarchies as stable and predictable forces endowed by God to lead man. In contrast, he saw Democracy as a “tyranny of the multitudes” that were a danger to word security and stability. You could liken it to the cold war and the way the US and capitalist powers viewed the US, and yes, it was that serious.
 
The US Founding Fathers were very aware of the prevailing English sentiment toward Democracy. They also watched France’s Revolution be undercut by English interference. Eventually, this would lead to a collapse of the French Democracy, but the founding fathers only saw the interference and knew that the English would be very willing to do the same to us.
 
Faced with an English threat and also possible conflicts with Spain and France regarding North American interests, the founding fathers settled on the 2nd Amendment to protect us from “tyranny”, meaning invasion and occupation back into a monarchial empire. Scrapped for cash and with a great ocean buffering us, they created a 2nd Amendment to create an armed citizenry from which the US could recruit or draft a citizen army to protect itself. This came to fruition in the French-Indian Wars and the War of 1812.  Our founding fathers were very good soothsayers on foreign policy.
 
Regarding the 2nd Amendment in today’s context, there are two things to realize in the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment reads, “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” First, it establishes that the purpose of the amendment is “necessary to the security of a free State”. This clearly provides the intent and I provided the historic context earlier. Second, the amendment provides for a “well-regulated Militia.” The “WELL REGULATED” is an important part of this amendment because it puts the state in charge of the militia. Therefore, there is no intent for the militia to ever overthrow the state, but is to be regulated for the security and preservation of the state. Finally, the most controversial aspect, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” This clearly gives the right of people to keep and bear arms and the purpose was for subsistence and preservation of an armed citizen militia.
 
This last part of the amendment is critical because it creates a substantial “gray area”. On one hand, the government cannot infringe the right to “Keep and Bear arms”, but is allowed to regulate the militia that is actually the citizens themselves. I think the courts have gotten this right. For example, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia. However, the courts have also upheld rulings that say that citizens do not have the right to have weapons of war or material that can be used to make weapons of war (i.e.: nukes, fertilizer bombs, anti-aircraft missiles, etc…). In other words, handguns and hunting rifles are not militia related and cannot be regulated. However, nukes and howitzers are militia-based and are well regulated. 
 
Therein lays the problem with the assault weapon. Is it a militia weapon or a citizen weapon?  It lies in a gray area that the courts will have to clarify. Personally, I think that the definition lies within the abilities of the weapon. If it is a fully-automatic weapon, it is clearly a militia weapon and falls under the regulated militia clause. If it is semi auto, it falls under citizen use. However, this is my opinion. The courts have to decide and will have a plethora of arguments from which to create the division.
 
That brings me to my concluding statement. I am against the regulation of assault weapons and even clip capacity. However, I am not going to lie or spread a piece of right-wing propaganda that the founding fathers wanted us to protect ourselves from the national government. They did not. I will direct you to the Whiskey Rebellion where Washington sent troops to quash a rebellion against the national government as a clear example. Please stop saying that the founders intended for us to have guns for that reason. It only emboldens far-left and far-right radicals that use that ignorant statement to legitimize their violent opposition of national law and policy, makes uneducated people dumber and more misinformed, and makes you look stupid to people that know better. It also hurts the image of responsible and reasonable gun owners by appearing to be unreasonable to moderates we need on our side to win the debate. When you say the founders wanted us to have guns to resist the government, moderates hear: “I have the right to be violent against laws with which I disagree.” You may not intend it, but that is how it is politically seen. You are not helping the team nor the cause. Please stop it.

This was a very good read, ermackey. Very informative and I appreciate the insight.

2/8/2013 6:28 PM
Posted by dukelegend on 2/8/2013 9:06:00 AM (view original):
The 2nd amendment is not only the right to bear arms to "protect" your castle but it is also intended to protect the citizens from its own government if need be.  While it is hard to imagine our government using military force on its own people in the current time the possibility of it happening in the future is much greater when the people have no means of stopping it. 

I do not own a single gun at this point in time after a childhood of hunting and being around guns on a regular basis as well as 8 years in the infantry.  With that being said I think (the key point here because none of us are changing what we think on this and many other topics) that we need to make it harder to obtain a gun but further limiting types of weapons will do little to stop the "crazies" from commiting acts of violence.  Ask T. McVay what he needed to blow up a building and it had nothing to do with guns.

I live in VA and I support our states stance on the new bill, basically no state agencey or locale will enforce any new federally imposed gun limits.  The US is THE gun country and I would love to see how a federal ran gun seizure program would work out...I am thinking civil war?
Agree. And I'm afraid you may well be very right on those last 5 words and I really have no desire to see it happen.
2/8/2013 7:00 PM
Posted by jibe on 2/8/2013 6:28:00 PM (view original):
Posted by dukelegend on 2/8/2013 9:06:00 AM (view original):
The 2nd amendment is not only the right to bear arms to "protect" your castle but it is also intended to protect the citizens from its own government if need be.  While it is hard to imagine our government using military force on its own people in the current time the possibility of it happening in the future is much greater when the people have no means of stopping it. 

I do not own a single gun at this point in time after a childhood of hunting and being around guns on a regular basis as well as 8 years in the infantry.  With that being said I think (the key point here because none of us are changing what we think on this and many other topics) that we need to make it harder to obtain a gun but further limiting types of weapons will do little to stop the "crazies" from commiting acts of violence.  Ask T. McVay what he needed to blow up a building and it had nothing to do with guns.

I live in VA and I support our states stance on the new bill, basically no state agencey or locale will enforce any new federally imposed gun limits.  The US is THE gun country and I would love to see how a federal ran gun seizure program would work out...I am thinking civil war?
Agree. And I'm afraid you may well be very right on those last 5 words and I really have no desire to see it happen.
Have fun dieing in vain.
of 5
All Forums > Gridiron Dynasty Football > Gridiron Dynasty > OT Obama Paranoid Government Coming For His Guns

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.