RunRyder RC
WATCH
 18 pages [ <<    <     4      5     ( 6 )     7      8     NEXT    >> ] 10491 views POST REPLY
Home🌌Off TopicsOff Topics News & Politics › Gun Control Didn't work in Australia Why Will it Work Here
01-07-2013 01:46 PM  7 years ago
Dusty1000

rrApprentice

Glasgow, U.K.

MyPosts All Forum Topic
AN oppressive government is an evil that we have the right to overthrow no matter where it originated from.
If your government becomes too oppressive, you can overthrow it at the ballot box.

Bearing in mind that free speech in the US does not extend to sedition, how exactly would you envisage overthrowing an oppressive government by use of force? Anyone who doesn't have a carry permit for Washington for example, does not have a right to march on Capitol Hill while carrying a gun.

Dusty
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-07-2013 02:32 PM  7 years ago
fla heli boy

rrElite Veteran

cape coral, florida

MyPosts All Forum Topic
c'mon, I know you like to argue, but now you're just making yourself look like an ass. Nobody gets "overthrown" anymore because they've managed to buy off over 50% of the people. We're not a democracy. It's for the people that AREN'T allowing themselves to be bought off that the 2nd probably means more now than at any time since we ran you turkeys off our continent.

PS - we don't cling to our guns so we can go on the offiensive, it's purely a defensive situation. One you may just be young enough to see in action before you go. Sit back and enjoy the show, because it will be epic if they try to take away our guns.
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-07-2013 02:44 PM  7 years ago
TheWoodCrafter

rrKey Veteran

Costa Mesa, Ca.

MyPosts All Forum Topic
"From my cold dead hands"
Thanks, TheWoodCrafter
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-07-2013 03:21 PM  7 years ago
Dusty1000

rrApprentice

Glasgow, U.K.

MyPosts All Forum Topic
Nobody gets "overthrown" anymore because they've managed to buy off over 50% of the people.
If a minority tried to overthrow a government that the majority had voted for, by use of force, they would be labelled ''terrorists,'' and treated accordingly.
PS - we don't cling to our guns so we can go on the offiensive, it's purely a defensive situation. One you may just be young enough to see in action before you go. Sit back and enjoy the show, because it will be epic if they try to take away our guns.
Nobody is suggesting taking away all guns. Back in the day when the musket was the main weapon of choice, and a WMD was a cannon, US citizens would have had the right to have the same weapons as the government's security services had. Ever since the 2nd amendment was written, civilians' rights to possess and carry the same weapons as the US military and police etc has consistently diminished. Supposing what are termed as ''assault rifles'' are next on the list, and they are banned. If the police come up to your door with a warrant and tell you to hand your assault rifle over or they're coming in to get it, do you envisage barricading yourself up in your house and having a shoot out with the police?

Or supposing handguns were banned, but you were allowed to keep rifles. In that scenario, would you barricade yourself up in your house and shoot the police if they tried to seize your handgun(s)?
c'mon, I know you like to argue, but now you're just making yourself look like an ass
The people who are looking like ''asses'' are those who think they somehow have a ''right'' to ''defend themselves'' from, or to ''overthrow'' their government, with guns, yet are unable to explain how they would envisage putting this ''right'' into effect.

It seems to me that there isn't much difference between mainstream Democrat and Republican policies, while Libertarian policies are quite different. While I don't keep up on the gun debate in the US, I would imagine Libertarian policies to be the ones which have the least restrictions on gun ownership, as that would be consistent with their principles. Yet very few people vote for the Libertarian candidates, while the vast majority... well over 50%, votes for the mainstream Republican and Democrat candidates.

Dusty
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-07-2013 03:53 PM  7 years ago
fla heli boy

rrElite Veteran

cape coral, florida

MyPosts All Forum Topic
If a minority tried to overthrow a government that the majority had voted for, by use of force, they would be labelled ''terrorists,'' and treated accordingly.
Which is precisely why we don't do it and precisely what I said in my post. Our guns aren't for overthrowing, our guns are for protection from our own government.
The ENTIRE problem Dusty, is that if we let them take away assault rifles, they won't stop there. The next shooting will be with an outo hand gun, so then they'll ban those. When the next one happens with a revolver, they'll mose to take those.....on and on until we're left with sticks and stones and our fists (which kill MANY times more people than legal guns do).
Our government never stops with "just one chip"...ever (that's an American saying you may not get). If we let them get their foot in the door, it's a big deal.

PS - Libertarian here....big time.
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-07-2013 04:05 PM  7 years ago
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

MyPosts All Forum Topic
The people who are looking like ''asses'' are those who think they somehow have a ''right'' to ''defend themselves'' from, or to ''overthrow'' their government, with guns, yet are unable to explain how they would envisage putting this ''right'' into effect
The estimated amount of firearms legally in the hands of US citizens is somewhere in the range of 90 million and climbing daily. Speaking for myself, I think its several times that amount. Thats not even counting the firearms in the hands of criminals and the amount of firearms in the hands of US citizens that are not registered firearms. Registering new hand guns in the USA increased by 2.8 million last month alone.

There is not enough authority in the entire world anywhere to get all those hands guns and rifles confiscated and destroyed. It would be an act of dangerous futility and silliness to try it as plenty of Americans would arm themselves while they are being "disarmed". The biggest black market in world history would open up in the USA and prosper very well. Same as the drug trade.

We do have a right to defend ourselves by our constitution, tradition and basic common sense. Plenty of Americans know enough history to know what happens to citizens when governments disarm them.

Get over yourself dusty. Read a little history.

SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-07-2013 04:11 PM  7 years ago
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

MyPosts All Forum Topic
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-07-2013 04:12 PM  7 years ago
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

MyPosts All Forum Topic
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-07-2013 05:59 PM  7 years ago
Dusty1000

rrApprentice

Glasgow, U.K.

MyPosts All Forum Topic
Which is precisely why we don't do it and precisely what I said in my post. Our guns aren't for overthrowing, our guns are for protection from our own government.
The same holds true. You can ''protect yourself'' against your government, by voting for someone else at the next election.
When the next one happens with a revolver, they'll mose to take those.....on and on
Yes, that is what I'm saying is happening. This is what happened in the UK. Yet even though UK gun laws are among the most restrictive in the world, there are still thousands of legal gun owners here. Handguns were banned, while shotguns and rifles were not. Rifles are even still kept in some schools here which have shooting ranges.

But my point is that even in the US, you do not have a legal right to use your guns against your government, even in a defensive manner. That's why no-one can describe any scenario where that might happen. If a law was passed, by a duly elected government I might add, to ban handguns for example, then the act of shooting police who, armed with a warrant, attempted to seize your handgun(s), would be illegal. If something is illegal, you do not have a right to do it. They would have a right to seize your handguns, as they currently would with any illegal automatic weapons for example, and you would not have a right to resist.
PS - Libertarian here....big time.
Good choice! Ron Paul's policies on government spending were way more conservative than any of the mainstream candidates. If a government passes a law which the vast majority of Americans oppose, then the prudent course of action would be to vote for a candidate who promises to overturn that law, at the next election.

If a majority of Americans choose to vote for mainstream candidates for reasons other than gun laws, then those reasons obviously outweigh the issue of gun ownership, whatever they might be.

But my point is that no matter what your 2nd amendment says, US citizens do not have a legal right to use their guns against a government that the majority has voted for, no matter how oppressive the minority who didn't vote for it consider it to be.

Dusty
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-07-2013 06:02 PM  7 years ago
Dusty1000

rrApprentice

Glasgow, U.K.

MyPosts All Forum Topic
The estimated amount of firearms legally in the hands of US citizens is somewhere in the range of 90 million and climbing daily. Speaking for myself, I think its several times that amount. Thats not even counting the firearms in the hands of criminals and the amount of firearms in the hands of US citizens that are not registered firearms. Registering new hand guns in the USA increased by 2.8 million last month alone.
There is not enough authority in the entire world anywhere to get all those hands guns and rifles confiscated and destroyed. It would be an act of dangerous futility and silliness to try it as plenty of Americans would arm themselves while they are being "disarmed". The biggest black market in world history would open up in the USA and prosper very well. Same as the drug trade.
That's besides the point. Buying illegal weapons is not the same as using them against your government, either offensively or defensively.
We do have a right to defend ourselves by our constitution, tradition and basic common sense. Plenty of Americans know enough history to know what happens to citizens when governments disarm them.

Get over yourself dusty. Read a little history.
Again, history is besides the point. If you would wake up to the reality of the world you live in today, perhaps you would be able to ''get over yourself.''

Dusty
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-07-2013 06:04 PM  7 years ago
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

MyPosts All Forum Topic

There ya go folks.

Another wacko on display

SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-07-2013 06:06 PM  7 years ago
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

MyPosts All Forum Topic
Again, history is besides the point.
That is, unless you can find something in history that you can use.

Sound familiar dusty?

SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-07-2013 06:10 PM  7 years ago
Dusty1000

rrApprentice

Glasgow, U.K.

MyPosts All Forum Topic
That is, unless you can find something in history that you can use.
No, unless it is relevant. History is irrelevant to whether or not American citizens have a right, today, to use guns against their government, either offensively or defensively. It's as simple as that.

Dusty
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-07-2013 06:25 PM  7 years ago
fla heli boy

rrElite Veteran

cape coral, florida

MyPosts All Forum Topic
that pic is hilarious Dennis. Bringer of life...though she applauds abortion. Can't defend themselves with "death machines" though she's known to conceal carry her own firearm. For reasons of hypocrisy alone, she should be....well you get what I'm saying.
Let's forget about the woman that JUST defended herself and her children hiding in the attic.....
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-07-2013 06:25 PM  7 years ago
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

MyPosts All Forum Topic
No, unless it is relevant. History is irrelevant to whether or not American citizens have a right, today, to use guns against their government, either offensively or defensively. It's as simple as that.
The constitution is a very major part of our history dusty.

It is as relevant today as it was when it was written.

Read the 2nd amendment again to refresh yourself.

It might get amended some day. But, it ain't today.
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-07-2013 06:26 PM  7 years ago
rander1

rrNovice

Dallastown, PA

MyPosts All Forum Topic
No, unless it is relevant. History is irrelevant to whether or not American citizens have a right, today, to use guns against their government, either offensively or defensively. It's as simple as that.
Our constitution, and law precedents directly refute this point. Precedents have huge implications on lawsuit outcomes here in the US.

It is this history that shapes up in the future. And there is a reason that the 2nd amendment still exists in our constitution.

It is the threat of force that keeps us safe from oppressive governments.

Recent history shows us concentration camps, slavery, and oppression.

When there are no active cases of propaganda and corruption in power, I will give up my guns.
The same holds true. You can ''protect yourself'' against your government, by voting for someone else at the next election.
This has worked so well for Libya, Syria, Russia.... hasnt it????

No it hasnt, we are supposed to be a Republic, not a Democracy. We dont like mob rule here, where 49% of people loose because of 51%.

Syrians are getting slaughtered by their government, Isreal is killing defenseless civilians in Gaza. People have not changed in 2000 years. The human race does and will always have the same characteristics.
Tic Toc Tic Toc
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
01-07-2013 06:55 PM  7 years ago
Dusty1000

rrApprentice

Glasgow, U.K.

MyPosts All Forum Topic
The constitution is a very major part of our history dusty.
I did not say it wasn't. However, the point being discussed regards the laws that exist today. Not the laws that existed at some point in history.
It is as relevant today as it was when it was written.
Read the 2nd amendment again to refresh yourself.
The point is that regardless of what the 2nd amendment says, US citizens do not have the right to use guns against their government, today.

Dusty
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-07-2013 06:59 PM  7 years ago
Dusty1000

rrApprentice

Glasgow, U.K.

MyPosts All Forum Topic
Our constitution, and law precedents directly refute this point.
But reality supports it.

If your government was to pass a law banning all handguns for example, as they previously passed a law banning automatic weapons, then instructs the police to seize handguns which are not handed in, to obstruct the police in the course of their legal duties would be illegal. Just as refusing to hand over an automatic weapon would currently be illegal. You do not have that right, no matter what your constitution says.

You only have a right to do what is legal. If something is illegal, you do not have a right to do it.

Dusty
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
01-07-2013 07:04 PM  7 years ago
rander1

rrNovice

Dallastown, PA

MyPosts All Forum Topic
Only Americans understand what "Natural Rights" are. Dusty you should read up on them.
Natural rights are rights not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable. In contrast, legal rights are those bestowed onto a person by a given legal system.
The constitution guarantees us natural rights which are inalienable. This is what makes (made) us the most productive country in the world.

These right promote the greatest chance for success in the humans natural pursuit of happiness.

Without these rights, Authoritarian power is inevitable. (We are already seeing it here in the US as these natural rights are limited)

The right to defend ourselves on a level playing field is a very important part of these rights, that is why it is the 2nd and not 10th.
Tic Toc Tic Toc
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
01-07-2013 07:06 PM  7 years ago
Dusty1000

rrApprentice

Glasgow, U.K.

MyPosts All Forum Topic
None of which has any bearing on the fact that US citizens do not have a legal right, today, to use guns against their government.

Dusty
SHARE  PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
WATCH
 18 pages [ <<    <     4      5     ( 6 )     7      8     NEXT    >> ] 10491 views POST REPLY
Home🌌Off TopicsOff Topics News & Politics › Gun Control Didn't work in Australia Why Will it Work Here
 Print TOPIC  Make Suggestion 

 13  Topic Subscribe

Friday, April 10 - 12:09 am - Copyright © 2000-2020 RunRyder   EMAILEnable Cookies

Login Here
 New Subscriptions 
 Buddies Online