***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (7 Viewers)

[5 digit know nothing]

Anybody see the Piers Morgan interview with Ben Shapiro last night?Entertaining if nothing else.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJdhAm_oUUs

Morgan gets This pretty much sums it up.The right: interprets the 2nd Amendment as the right to bear arms for the purpose of the citizens being able to defend themselves against a potential tyrannical government.The left: calls the the right idiots and

 

[smotherhook]

Also, is this really the job of the federal govt? I would think this is much more a states issue. Feds have no business discussing this

Guns cross state lines all the time. Seems like the sort of thing where the feds have a role to play.

the majority of guns dont cross state lines

That's a silly thing to say.

i guess i meant to say after private ownership is established

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2010-09-29/news/os-florida-illegal-guns-09272010_1_illegal-gun-trafficking-mayors-against-illegal-guns-lax-gun-laws

Mayors Against Illegal Guns has traced 145,321 guns that were used in crimes in 2009 and found that 30 percent of them were bought in a different state than where the crime occurred.

It doesn't have to be a majority of the product to represent a legitimate government interest.

thanks for the stat. that is 50k out of an estimated 30-50 million guns in the country

 

[boots11234]

Also, is this really the job of the federal govt? I would think this is much more a states issue. Feds have no business discussing this

Guns cross state lines all the time. Seems like the sort of thing where the feds have a role to play.

the majority of guns dont cross state lines

That's a silly thing to say.

i guess i meant to say after private ownership is established

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2010-09-29/news/os-florida-illegal-guns-09272010_1_illegal-gun-trafficking-mayors-against-illegal-guns-lax-gun-laws

Mayors Against Illegal Guns has traced 145,321 guns that were used in crimes in 2009 and found that 30 percent of them were bought in a different state than where the crime occurred.

It doesn't have to be a majority of the product to represent a legitimate government interest.

thanks for the stat. that is 50k out of an estimated 30-50 million guns in the country

Wow, that really puts it in perspective. Less then 1%.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Also, is this really the job of the federal govt? I would think this is much more a states issue. Feds have no business discussing this

Guns cross state lines all the time. Seems like the sort of thing where the feds have a role to play.

the majority of guns dont cross state lines

That's a silly thing to say.

i guess i meant to say after private ownership is established

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2010-09-29/news/os-florida-illegal-guns-09272010_1_illegal-gun-trafficking-mayors-against-illegal-guns-lax-gun-laws

Mayors Against Illegal Guns has traced 145,321 guns that were used in crimes in 2009 and found that 30 percent of them were bought in a different state than where the crime occurred.

It doesn't have to be a majority of the product to represent a legitimate government interest.

thanks for the stat. that is 50k out of an estimated 30-50 million guns in the country

Wow, that really puts it in perspective. Less then 1%.

You guys are great at statistics.

 

[timschochet]

Also, is this really the job of the federal govt? I would think this is much more a states issue. Feds have no business discussing this

Guns cross state lines all the time. Seems like the sort of thing where the feds have a role to play.

the majority of guns dont cross state lines

That's a silly thing to say.

i guess i meant to say after private ownership is established

http://articles.orla...ns-lax-gun-laws

Mayors Against Illegal Guns has traced 145,321 guns that were used in crimes in 2009 and found that 30 percent of them were bought in a different state than where the crime occurred.

It doesn't have to be a majority of the product to represent a legitimate government interest.

thanks for the stat. that is 50k out of an estimated 30-50 million guns in the country

Wow, that really puts it in perspective. Less then 1%.

You guys are great at statistics.

They are, aren't they?But even so, it's still too many. It's more than enough to warrant changing the laws.

 

[pantherclub]

Anybody see the Piers Morgan interview with Ben Shapiro last night?Entertaining if nothing else.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJdhAm_oUUs

Morgan gets This pretty much sums it up.



The right: interprets the 2nd Amendment as the right to bear arms for the purpose of the citizens being able to defend themselves against a potential tyrannical government.

The left: calls the the right idiots and

It really is a bit unnerving when in 2013 people actually believe this

 

[tom22406]

Anybody see the Piers Morgan interview with Ben Shapiro last night?Entertaining if nothing else.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJdhAm_oUUs

Morgan gets This pretty much sums it up.The right: interprets the 2nd Amendment as the right to bear arms for the purpose of the citizens being able to defend themselves against a potential tyrannical government.The left: calls the the right idiots and

Shapiro called him out on his tactics and he took the how dare you defense.A new drinking game should be take one for every use of the AR-15 that Morgan says.You would be wasted in a matter of 15 minutes for each of his shows.Maybe they should roll Piers out with clown shoes on and a red nose next time.

 

[Henry Ford]

Also, is this really the job of the federal govt? I would think this is much more a states issue. Feds have no business discussing this

Guns cross state lines all the time. Seems like the sort of thing where the feds have a role to play.

the majority of guns dont cross state lines

That's a silly thing to say.

i guess i meant to say after private ownership is established

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2010-09-29/news/os-florida-illegal-guns-09272010_1_illegal-gun-trafficking-mayors-against-illegal-guns-lax-gun-laws

Mayors Against Illegal Guns has traced 145,321 guns that were used in crimes in 2009 and found that 30 percent of them were bought in a different state than where the crime occurred.

It doesn't have to be a majority of the product to represent a legitimate government interest.

thanks for the stat. that is 50k out of an estimated 30-50 million guns in the country

Which were:1) brought across state lines2) used in the commission of a crime3) found and identified as being used in the commission of a crime.Do you think a higher percentage of weapons cross state lines in order to be used in crimes, or just in the general flow of commerce and people moving and such?

 

[Henry Ford]

Also, is this really the job of the federal govt? I would think this is much more a states issue. Feds have no business discussing this

Guns cross state lines all the time. Seems like the sort of thing where the feds have a role to play.

the majority of guns dont cross state lines

That's a silly thing to say.

i guess i meant to say after private ownership is established

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2010-09-29/news/os-florida-illegal-guns-09272010_1_illegal-gun-trafficking-mayors-against-illegal-guns-lax-gun-laws

Mayors Against Illegal Guns has traced 145,321 guns that were used in crimes in 2009 and found that 30 percent of them were bought in a different state than where the crime occurred.

It doesn't have to be a majority of the product to represent a legitimate government interest.

thanks for the stat. that is 50k out of an estimated 30-50 million guns in the country

Wow, that really puts it in perspective. Less then 1%.

You guys are great at statistics.

84% of the 604 New Jerseyans polled support labelling genetically modified foods as such. So only 508 people in New Jersey support labelling genetically modified foods. Sounds like a non-issue.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Anybody see the Piers Morgan interview with Ben Shapiro last night?Entertaining if nothing else.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJdhAm_oUUs

Morgan gets

Watched a clip of that this morning. Had never seen any of them speak before. Piers got the worst of it by far.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Anybody see the Piers Morgan interview with Ben Shapiro last night?Entertaining if nothing else.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJdhAm_oUUs

Morgan gets This pretty much sums it up.



The right: interprets the 2nd Amendment as the right to bear arms for the purpose of the citizens being able to defend themselves against a potential tyrannical government.

The left: calls the the right idiots and

It really is a bit unnerving when in 2013 people actually believe this

 

[SacramentoBob]

Anybody see the Piers Morgan interview with Ben Shapiro last night?Entertaining if nothing else.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJdhAm_oUUs

Morgan gets This pretty much sums it up.



The right: interprets the 2nd Amendment as the right to bear arms for the purpose of the citizens being able to defend themselves against a potential tyrannical government.

The left: calls the the right idiots and

It really is a bit unnerving when in 2013 people actually believe this

Why is it unnerving to believe this? We can point to a list of tyrannical governments that exist TODAY. It's not like we've having to believe in something that hasn't happened in 600 years.

 

[pantherclub]

That's why people think you are loony tunes.You actually believe this.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

That's why people think you are loony tunes.You actually believe this.

Shapiro put it best, you don't know what's going to happen in 50 or 100 years. Just because there is no imminent threat does not diminish the meaning written into the Constitution this country was founded on.If you think it is loony tunes I suggest you work on rewriting the Constitution.

 

[Blick]

Anybody see the Piers Morgan interview with Ben Shapiro last night?Entertaining if nothing else.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJdhAm_oUUs

Morgan gets This pretty much sums it up.



The right: interprets the 2nd Amendment as the right to bear arms for the purpose of the citizens being able to defend themselves against a potential tyrannical government.

The left: calls the the right idiots and

It really is a bit unnerving when in 2013 people actually believe this

Andrew the Giant!

 

[timschochet]

Why is it unnerving to believe this? We can point to a list of tyrannical governments that exist TODAY. It's not like we've having to believe in something that hasn't happened in 600 years.

Actually it's exactly like that, except it's not 600 years, it's forever. Two points:1. There has never been an instance in human history where private ownership of guns was the key to resistance against a dictatorship.

2. There has never been an instance in human history where the seizure of private ownership of guns was the key to imposing a dictatorship.

The truth is that when it comes to the formulation of government, and the establishment of a free society vs. a non-free society, private ownership of guns is almost completely a non-factor. (I don't want to say completely because there are very rare times when it has played a small anecdotal role, but that role has NEVER been decisive.)

 

[timschochet]

That's why people think you are loony tunes.

You actually believe this.

Shapiro put it best, you don't know what's going to happen in 50 or 100 years. Just because there is no imminent threat does not diminish the meaning written into the Constitution this country was founded on.If you think it is is loony tunes I suggest you work on rewriting the Constitution.

In this case we absolutely do. We know for a fact that private ownership of guns will not prevent a dictatorship in this country (or any country.) That's 50 or 100 or 1000 years or forever.

 

[Spanky267]

Also, is this really the job of the federal govt? I would think this is much more a states issue. Feds have no business discussing this

Guns cross state lines all the time. Seems like the sort of thing where the feds have a role to play.

the majority of guns dont cross state lines

That's a silly thing to say.

i guess i meant to say after private ownership is established

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2010-09-29/news/os-florida-illegal-guns-09272010_1_illegal-gun-trafficking-mayors-against-illegal-guns-lax-gun-laws

Mayors Against Illegal Guns has traced 145,321 guns that were used in crimes in 2009 and found that 30 percent of them were bought in a different state than where the crime occurred.

It doesn't have to be a majority of the product to represent a legitimate government interest.

thanks for the stat. that is 50k out of an estimated 30-50 million guns in the country

Actually there are closer to 300 million guns in the U.S. at least that is the number bandied about by the media.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

That's why people think you are loony tunes.

You actually believe this.

Shapiro put it best, you don't know what's going to happen in 50 or 100 years. Just because there is no imminent threat does not diminish the meaning written into the Constitution this country was founded on.If you think it is is loony tunes I suggest you work on rewriting the Constitution.

In this case we absolutely do. We know for a fact that private ownership of guns will not prevent a dictatorship in this country (or any country.) That's 50 or 100 or 1000 years or forever.

 

[Jackstraw]

The part I don't get is why an innordinate amount of dooshbaggery seems to go hand in hand with the 2nd amendment/gun people. It's like they take pride in their azzholeness. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/11/portland-residents-panic-as-men-armed-with-assault-weapons-educate-the-city/Two men walked the streets of Portland armed with assault weapons earlier this week because they said they wanted to “educate” residents, who reacted by fleeing and calling police.Warren Drouin and Steven Boyce told KPTV that they were forced to take drastic measure to make sure people were aware of their Second Amendment rights after 20 children in Connecticut were massacred with same type of AR-15 rifles they were carrying.“We’re not threatening anyone,” Drouin explained. “We don’t have that type of criminal behavior.”“This happens to open that line of communication, to let people know that you can defend yourself in a time of crisis or any time that you want to,” Boyce added.But KPTV’s Kaitlyn Bolduc reported that the demonstration created a “state of panic” in Portland’s Sellwood neighborhood.

 

[smotherhook]

That's why people think you are loony tunes.

You actually believe this.

Shapiro put it best, you don't know what's going to happen in 50 or 100 years. Just because there is no imminent threat does not diminish the meaning written into the Constitution this country was founded on.If you think it is is loony tunes I suggest you work on rewriting the Constitution.

In this case we absolutely do. We know for a fact that private ownership of guns will not prevent a dictatorship in this country (or any country.) That's 50 or 100 or 1000 years or forever.

are you suggesting that we rewrite part of the US Constitution?

 

[timschochet]

That's why people think you are loony tunes.

You actually believe this.

Shapiro put it best, you don't know what's going to happen in 50 or 100 years. Just because there is no imminent threat does not diminish the meaning written into the Constitution this country was founded on.If you think it is is loony tunes I suggest you work on rewriting the Constitution.

In this case we absolutely do. We know for a fact that private ownership of guns will not prevent a dictatorship in this country (or any country.) That's 50 or 100 or 1000 years or forever.

The LMAO emoticon should be reserved for anyone who could possibly think otherwise.

 

[timschochet]

That's why people think you are loony tunes.

You actually believe this.

Shapiro put it best, you don't know what's going to happen in 50 or 100 years. Just because there is no imminent threat does not diminish the meaning written into the Constitution this country was founded on.If you think it is is loony tunes I suggest you work on rewriting the Constitution.

In this case we absolutely do. We know for a fact that private ownership of guns will not prevent a dictatorship in this country (or any country.) That's 50 or 100 or 1000 years or forever.

are you suggesting that we rewrite part of the US Constitution?

No. What does the Constitution have to do with what I wrote?

 

[smotherhook]

The part I don't get is why an innordinate amount of dooshbaggery seems to go hand in hand with the 2nd amendment/gun people. It's like they take pride in their azzholeness. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/11/portland-residents-panic-as-men-armed-with-assault-weapons-educate-the-city/Two men walked the streets of Portland armed with assault weapons earlier this week because they said they wanted to “educate” residents, who reacted by fleeing and calling police.Warren Drouin and Steven Boyce told KPTV that they were forced to take drastic measure to make sure people were aware of their Second Amendment rights after 20 children in Connecticut were massacred with same type of AR-15 rifles they were carrying.“We’re not threatening anyone,” Drouin explained. “We don’t have that type of criminal behavior.”“This happens to open that line of communication, to let people know that you can defend yourself in a time of crisis or any time that you want to,” Boyce added.But KPTV’s Kaitlyn Bolduc reported that the demonstration created a “state of panic” in Portland’s Sellwood neighborhood.

i have to agree with you on this one.

 

[smotherhook]

That's why people think you are loony tunes.

You actually believe this.

Shapiro put it best, you don't know what's going to happen in 50 or 100 years. Just because there is no imminent threat does not diminish the meaning written into the Constitution this country was founded on.If you think it is is loony tunes I suggest you work on rewriting the Constitution.

In this case we absolutely do. We know for a fact that private ownership of guns will not prevent a dictatorship in this country (or any country.) That's 50 or 100 or 1000 years or forever.

are you suggesting that we rewrite part of the US Constitution?

No. What does the Constitution have to do with what I wrote?

i just misinterpreted what you said

 

[5 digit know nothing]

The part I don't get is why an innordinate amount of dooshbaggery seems to go hand in hand with the 2nd amendment/gun people. It's like they take pride in their azzholeness. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/11/portland-residents-panic-as-men-armed-with-assault-weapons-educate-the-city/Two men walked the streets of Portland armed with assault weapons earlier this week because they said they wanted to “educate” residents, who reacted by fleeing and calling police.Warren Drouin and Steven Boyce told KPTV that they were forced to take drastic measure to make sure people were aware of their Second Amendment rights after 20 children in Connecticut were massacred with same type of AR-15 rifles they were carrying.“We’re not threatening anyone,” Drouin explained. “We don’t have that type of criminal behavior.”“This happens to open that line of communication, to let people know that you can defend yourself in a time of crisis or any time that you want to,” Boyce added.But KPTV’s Kaitlyn Bolduc reported that the demonstration created a “state of panic” in Portland’s Sellwood neighborhood.

i have to agree with you on this one.

Yeah that was pretty dumb.

 

[smotherhook]

The part I don't get is why an innordinate amount of dooshbaggery seems to go hand in hand with the 2nd amendment/gun people. It's like they take pride in their azzholeness. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/11/portland-residents-panic-as-men-armed-with-assault-weapons-educate-the-city/Two men walked the streets of Portland armed with assault weapons earlier this week because they said they wanted to “educate” residents, who reacted by fleeing and calling police.Warren Drouin and Steven Boyce told KPTV that they were forced to take drastic measure to make sure people were aware of their Second Amendment rights after 20 children in Connecticut were massacred with same type of AR-15 rifles they were carrying.“We’re not threatening anyone,” Drouin explained. “We don’t have that type of criminal behavior.”“This happens to open that line of communication, to let people know that you can defend yourself in a time of crisis or any time that you want to,” Boyce added.But KPTV’s Kaitlyn Bolduc reported that the demonstration created a “state of panic” in Portland’s Sellwood neighborhood.

i have to agree with you on this one.

Yeah that was pretty dumb.

lucky, they didnt have to use them pulling a stunt like this

 

[Spanky267]

That's why people think you are loony tunes.

You actually believe this.

Shapiro put it best, you don't know what's going to happen in 50 or 100 years. Just because there is no imminent threat does not diminish the meaning written into the Constitution this country was founded on.If you think it is is loony tunes I suggest you work on rewriting the Constitution.

In this case we absolutely do. We know for a fact that private ownership of guns will not prevent a dictatorship in this country (or any country.) That's 50 or 100 or 1000 years or forever.

It might not prevent the rise of a dictator, but private gun ownership would allow the people to resist a dictatorial regime. Why do you think dictators are so quick to seize privately held guns when they rise to power.

 

[pantherclub]

Dude

 

[timschochet]

That's why people think you are loony tunes.

You actually believe this.

Shapiro put it best, you don't know what's going to happen in 50 or 100 years. Just because there is no imminent threat does not diminish the meaning written into the Constitution this country was founded on.If you think it is is loony tunes I suggest you work on rewriting the Constitution.

In this case we absolutely do. We know for a fact that private ownership of guns will not prevent a dictatorship in this country (or any country.) That's 50 or 100 or 1000 years or forever.

It might not prevent the rise of a dictator, but private gun ownership would allow the people to resist a dictatorial regime. Why do you think dictators are so quick to seize privately held guns when they rise to power.

1. No it wouldn't. It NEVER has. 2. The truth is, contrary to revisionist history, is that this rarely happens.

 

[Spanky267]

That's why people think you are loony tunes.

You actually believe this.

Shapiro put it best, you don't know what's going to happen in 50 or 100 years. Just because there is no imminent threat does not diminish the meaning written into the Constitution this country was founded on.If you think it is is loony tunes I suggest you work on rewriting the Constitution.

In this case we absolutely do. We know for a fact that private ownership of guns will not prevent a dictatorship in this country (or any country.) That's 50 or 100 or 1000 years or forever.

It might not prevent the rise of a dictator, but private gun ownership would allow the people to resist a dictatorial regime. Why do you think dictators are so quick to seize privately held guns when they rise to power.

1. No it wouldn't. It NEVER has. 2. The truth is, contrary to revisionist history, is that this rarely happens.

It never has in any other part of the world because most of those countries do not have a right to gun ownership as a part of their founding and governing documents. As a result gun ownership isnt nearly as prevalent as it here in the US. Comparing the American experience to the rest of the world is apple to oranges.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

That's why people think you are loony tunes.

You actually believe this.

Shapiro put it best, you don't know what's going to happen in 50 or 100 years. Just because there is no imminent threat does not diminish the meaning written into the Constitution this country was founded on.If you think it is is loony tunes I suggest you work on rewriting the Constitution.

In this case we absolutely do. We know for a fact that private ownership of guns will not prevent a dictatorship in this country (or any country.) That's 50 or 100 or 1000 years or forever.

It might not prevent the rise of a dictator, but private gun ownership would allow the people to resist a dictatorial regime. Why do you think dictators are so quick to seize privately held guns when they rise to power.

1. No it wouldn't. It NEVER has. 2. The truth is, contrary to revisionist history, is that this rarely happens.

So you are saying it wouldn't (your opinion), but that it is possible. Shocking.We are not arguing the likelihood that it will definitely happen in the U.S. and certainly not over any time span but that the possibility exists. Furthermore having a well armed populace reduces the chances that it can or would be attempted.

 

[pantherclub]

That's why people think you are loony tunes.

You actually believe this.

Shapiro put it best, you don't know what's going to happen in 50 or 100 years. Just because there is no imminent threat does not diminish the meaning written into the Constitution this country was founded on.If you think it is is loony tunes I suggest you work on rewriting the Constitution.

In this case we absolutely do. We know for a fact that private ownership of guns will not prevent a dictatorship in this country (or any country.) That's 50 or 100 or 1000 years or forever.

It might not prevent the rise of a dictator, but private gun ownership would allow the people to resist a dictatorial regime. Why do you think dictators are so quick to seize privately held guns when they rise to power.

1. No it wouldn't. It NEVER has. 2. The truth is, contrary to revisionist history, is that this rarely happens.

So you are saying it wouldn't (your opinion), but that it is possible. Shocking.

We are not arguing the likelihood that it will definitely happen in the U.S. and certainly not over any time span but that the possibility exists. Furthermore having a well armed populace reduces the chances that it can or would be attempted.

You keep saying it doesnt make it trueIts a weak, psychotic and paranoid excuse that the gun owners love to try and trot out.

 

[Jackstraw]

That's why people think you are loony tunes.

You actually believe this.

Shapiro put it best, you don't know what's going to happen in 50 or 100 years. Just because there is no imminent threat does not diminish the meaning written into the Constitution this country was founded on.If you think it is is loony tunes I suggest you work on rewriting the Constitution.

In this case we absolutely do. We know for a fact that private ownership of guns will not prevent a dictatorship in this country (or any country.) That's 50 or 100 or 1000 years or forever.

It might not prevent the rise of a dictator, but private gun ownership would allow the people to resist a dictatorial regime. Why do you think dictators are so quick to seize privately held guns when they rise to power.

1. No it wouldn't. It NEVER has. 2. The truth is, contrary to revisionist history, is that this rarely happens.

It never has in any other part of the world because most of those countries do not have a right to gun ownership as a part of their founding and governing documents. As a result gun ownership isnt nearly as prevalent as it here in the US. Comparing the American experience to the rest of the world is apple to oranges.

Did I miss something. Is there a proposal to take all the guns? Did someone slip Biden a mickie?

 

[5 digit know nothing]

That's why people think you are loony tunes.

You actually believe this.

Shapiro put it best, you don't know what's going to happen in 50 or 100 years. Just because there is no imminent threat does not diminish the meaning written into the Constitution this country was founded on.If you think it is is loony tunes I suggest you work on rewriting the Constitution.

In this case we absolutely do. We know for a fact that private ownership of guns will not prevent a dictatorship in this country (or any country.) That's 50 or 100 or 1000 years or forever.

It might not prevent the rise of a dictator, but private gun ownership would allow the people to resist a dictatorial regime. Why do you think dictators are so quick to seize privately held guns when they rise to power.

1. No it wouldn't. It NEVER has. 2. The truth is, contrary to revisionist history, is that this rarely happens.

So you are saying it wouldn't (your opinion), but that it is possible. Shocking.

We are not arguing the likelihood that it will definitely happen in the U.S. and certainly not over any time span but that the possibility exists. Furthermore having a well armed populace reduces the chances that it can or would be attempted.

You keep saying it doesnt make it trueIts a weak, psychotic and paranoid excuse that the gun owners love to try and trot out.

If you think our founding fathers were psychotic and paranoid maybe you should change countries?

 

[pantherclub]

I picture you playing Lee Greenwood in the backgroud with a Toby Keith shirt on typing that.

 

[TobiasFunke]

That's why people think you are loony tunes.

You actually believe this.

Shapiro put it best, you don't know what's going to happen in 50 or 100 years. Just because there is no imminent threat does not diminish the meaning written into the Constitution this country was founded on.If you think it is is loony tunes I suggest you work on rewriting the Constitution.

In this case we absolutely do. We know for a fact that private ownership of guns will not prevent a dictatorship in this country (or any country.) That's 50 or 100 or 1000 years or forever.

It might not prevent the rise of a dictator, but private gun ownership would allow the people to resist a dictatorial regime. Why do you think dictators are so quick to seize privately held guns when they rise to power.

1. No it wouldn't. It NEVER has. 2. The truth is, contrary to revisionist history, is that this rarely happens.

So you are saying it wouldn't (your opinion), but that it is possible. Shocking.

We are not arguing the likelihood that it will definitely happen in the U.S. and certainly not over any time span but that the possibility exists. Furthermore having a well armed populace reduces the chances that it can or would be attempted.

You keep saying it doesnt make it trueIts a weak, psychotic and paranoid excuse that the gun owners love to try and trot out.

If you think our founding fathers were psychotic and paranoid maybe you should change countries?

OK folks, I think we can call this. You're not gonna hear a more ridiculous argument than that. Lock it up.

 

[boots11234]

That's why people think you are loony tunes.

You actually believe this.

Shapiro put it best, you don't know what's going to happen in 50 or 100 years. Just because there is no imminent threat does not diminish the meaning written into the Constitution this country was founded on.If you think it is is loony tunes I suggest you work on rewriting the Constitution.

In this case we absolutely do. We know for a fact that private ownership of guns will not prevent a dictatorship in this country (or any country.) That's 50 or 100 or 1000 years or forever.

It might not prevent the rise of a dictator, but private gun ownership would allow the people to resist a dictatorial regime. Why do you think dictators are so quick to seize privately held guns when they rise to power.

1. No it wouldn't. It NEVER has. 2. The truth is, contrary to revisionist history, is that this rarely happens.

So you are saying it wouldn't (your opinion), but that it is possible. Shocking.

We are not arguing the likelihood that it will definitely happen in the U.S. and certainly not over any time span but that the possibility exists. Furthermore having a well armed populace reduces the chances that it can or would be attempted.

You keep saying it doesnt make it trueIts a weak, psychotic and paranoid excuse that the gun owners love to try and trot out.

And your side always trots out "psychotic and paranoid". Sorry to tell you but our founders disagree with you. That is the reason it's there, Not for hunting. But it is obvious you are certainly smarter then the founders of this great nation. So please enlighten us more with your wisdom.ETA: I see you just did while I was responding. Thank you great one.

 

[pantherclub]

 

[smotherhook]

I picture you playing Lee Greenwood in the backgroud with a Toby Keith shirt on typing that.

you are an idiot..........but that one was top shelf. lol

 

[BigSteelThrill]

But it is obvious you are certainly smarter then the founders of this great nation.

They got an absolute crap ton of things wrong.

 

[Cookiemonster]

Compromise: An agreement or settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making a concession.

YOU: These mass shootings are a problem. We may need some mild gun control measured to help deal with them.

ME: I'll give you a privately held database that can be checked by subpoena to trace illegal gun sales if you give us back automatic weapons.

YOU: Automatic weapons are illegal and too dangerous for you to have.

ME: OK, I'll give you my bare ### to kiss instead.

We (the pro-gun crowd) are sick of the word compromise, because that's never what it is. It is only further restriction, legislation and infringement. I don't see what our side is getting out of it.

Now why would you bring up something that's never even been discussed? I've seen no serious calls for a return of automatic weapons. Personally, I don't think they should be legal, but if you're asking me if I would trade it in order to get the database? I probably would. But perhaps not now, because I'm thinking we're going to get the database anyhow, without these sort of concessions compromises. We'll see.

FTFY. You have a real hard time with the English language don't you?

Automatic weapons are already against the law. So, assuming that somehow I were in charge, if I were to agree to make them legal, that would be a concession.

Once again Tim, you are illuminating your lack of knowledge on the subject. Automatic weapons are not illegal.

Then why would cookiemonster write, "If you give us back automatic weapons"? I admit to not having studied whether they are illegal or not (though I assumed they were) because it's not relevant to the issues I am interested in. He brought them up, not me.

From good ole Wiki:

It is a common misconception[13] that an individual must have a "Class 3 License" in order to own NFA firearms. An FFL is required as a prerequisite to become a Special Occupation Taxpayer (SOT): Class 1 importer, Class 2 manufacturer-dealer or Class 3 dealer in NFA firearms, not an individual owner. Legal possession of an NFA firearm by an individual requires transfer of registration within the NFA registry. An individual owner does not need to be an NFA dealer to buy Title II firearms. The sale and purchase of NFA firearms is, however, taxed and regulated, as follows:

All NFA items must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). Private owners wishing to purchase an NFA item must obtain approval from the ATF, obtain a signature from the Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) who is the county sheriff or city or town chief of police (not necessarily permission), pass an extensive background check to include submitting a photograph and fingerprints, fully register the firearm, receive ATF written permission before moving the firearm across state lines, and pay a tax. The request to transfer ownership of an NFA item is made on an ATF Form 4.[14] Many times law enforcement officers will not sign the NFA documents. There have been several unfavorable lawsuits where plaintiffs have been denied NFA approval for a transfer. These lawsuit include; Lomont v. O'Neill 2002 9th circuit, Westfall v. Miller 1996 5th circuit, and Steele v. National Firearms Branch 1985 11th circuit. In response Tennessee and Alaska have passed state laws which require the CLEO to execute the NFA documents. On October 28, 2010 in response to a writ of mandamus a Tennessee Williamson County Chancellor Robbie Beal found that the sheriff or CLEO is not required to execute NFA documents according to Tenn. Code Ann. 39-17-1361.

NFA items may also be transferred to corporations (or other legal entities such as a trust). When the paperwork to request transfer of an NFA item is initiated by an officer of a corporation, a signature from local law enforcement is not required, and fingerprint cards and photographs do not need to be submitted with the transfer request. Therefore, an individual who lives in a location where the chief law enforcement officer will not sign a transfer form can still own an NFA item if he or she owns a corporation. This method has downsides, since it is the corporation (and not the principal) that owns the firearm. Thus, if the corporation ever dissolves, it must transfer its NFA firearms to the owners. This event would be considered a new transfer and would be subject to a new transfer tax.

US National Firearms Act Stamp, affixed to transfer forms to indicate tax paid.

The tax for privately manufacturing any NFA firearm (other than machineguns, which are generally illegal to manufacture) is $200. Transferring requires a $200 tax for all NFA firearms except AOW's, for which the transfer tax is $5 (although the manufacturing tax remains $200).

Dealers who pay a special yearly occupational tax are exempt from these taxes for transfers to or from other special occupational taxpayers (SOT's). Only a Class 2 manufacturer can “make and register” a machine gun—and that gun becomes a Post May-19th, 1986 Gun—salable only to police, State, local, Federal-Government, and the military. Low volume Class 2 manufacturers (those with sales under $500,000.00) pay the $500.00 per year SOT tax, while high sales volume Class 2’s pay the full $1,000.00 SOT “ticket” price.

Transferable machine guns made or registered before May-19th 1986 are worth far more than their original, pre-1986 value. And items like registered “auto-sears,” “lightning-links,” trigger-packs, trunnions, and other “combination of parts” registered as machineguns before the aforementioned date are often worth nearly as much as a full registered machine gun. For instance, as of September 2008, a transferable M16 rifle costs approximately $11,000 to $18,000, while a transferable "lightning-link" for the AR-15 can sell for $8,000 to $10,000. New manufacture M-16s sell to law enforcement and the military for around $600 to $1000.

The registration or transfer process (to an individual or corporation) takes approximately 3–6 months to complete as of October 2011. Additionally, the firearm can never be handled or transported by any other private individual unless the firearm's registered owner is present. Corporations which own NFA firearms can loan them to any employee of the corporation with a letter of permission on the corporate letterhead. NFA items owned by trusts may be legally possessed by any trustee (i.e., if a husband and wife are both trustees, either of them may use and transport the firearm without the other present).

Upon the request of any ATF agent or investigator, or the Attorney General, the registered owner must provide proof of registration of the firearm.[15]

In a number of situations, an NFA item may be transferred without a transfer tax. These include sales to government agencies, temporary transfers of an NFA firearm to a gunsmith for repairs, and transfer of an NFA firearm to a lawful heir after the death of its owner. A permanent transfer, even if tax-free, must be approved by the ATF. The proper form should be submitted to ATF before the transfer occurs. For example, lawful heirs must submit a Form 5 and wait for approval before taking possession of any NFA item willed to them. Temporary transfers, such as those to a gunsmith or to the original manufacturer for repair, are not subject to ATF approval since they are not legally considered transfers. The ATF does, however, recommend filing tax-free transfer paperwork on all such temporary transfers, to confer an extra layer of legal protection on both the owner and the gunsmith.

 

[pantherclub]

Our founding fathers were not for a big controlling government. Our government is just getting larger and more controlling with these measures. Those living in their land of unicorns and rainbows are just being obtuse.

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corp's that will grow up around will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.

-Thomas Jefferson

whoopshttp://www.snopes.com/quotes/jefferson/banks.asp

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Our founding fathers were not for a big controlling government. Our government is just getting larger and more controlling with these measures. Those living in their land of unicorns and rainbows are just being obtuse.

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corp's that will grow up around will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.

-Thomas Jefferson

whoopshttp://www.snopes.com/quotes/jefferson/banks.asp

Yep you got me there, and as snopes points out "Jefferson certainly expressed disdain and mistrust of banking institutions and paper currency on many occasions." It doesn't change the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[pantherclub]

Our founding fathers were not for a big controlling government. Our government is just getting larger and more controlling with these measures. Those living in their land of unicorns and rainbows are just being obtuse.

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corp's that will grow up around will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.

-Thomas Jefferson

whoopshttp://www.snopes.com/quotes/jefferson/banks.asp

Yep you got me there, and as snopes points out "Jefferson certainly expressed disdain and mistrust of banking institutions and paper currency on many occasions." It doesn't change the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.

lolololololololololololololol

 

[smotherhook]

But it is obvious you are certainly smarter then the founders of this great nation.

They got an absolute crap ton of things wrong.

they also got an absolute crap ton of things right

 

[boots11234]

Our founding fathers were not for a big controlling government. Our government is just getting larger and more controlling with these measures. Those living in their land of unicorns and rainbows are just being obtuse.

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corp's that will grow up around will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.

-Thomas Jefferson

whoopshttp://www.snopes.com/quotes/jefferson/banks.asp

Yep you got me there, and as snopes points out "Jefferson certainly expressed disdain and mistrust of banking institutions and paper currency on many occasions." It doesn't change the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.

lolololololololololololololol

They will build great shrines in your name when you are gone!!!

 

[pantherclub]

Our founding fathers were not for a big controlling government. Our government is just getting larger and more controlling with these measures. Those living in their land of unicorns and rainbows are just being obtuse.

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corp's that will grow up around will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.

-Thomas Jefferson

whoopshttp://www.snopes.com/quotes/jefferson/banks.asp

Yep you got me there, and as snopes points out "Jefferson certainly expressed disdain and mistrust of banking institutions and paper currency on many occasions." It doesn't change the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.

lolololololololololololololol

They will build great shrines in your name when you are gone!!!

yes by all means keep hanging your hat on a poster that posts made up crap.

 

[Cookiemonster]

1. There has never been an instance in human history where private ownership of guns was the key to resistance against a dictatorship. 2. There has never been an instance in human history where the seizure of private ownership of guns was the key to imposing a dictatorship. The truth is that when it comes to the formulation of government, and the establishment of a free society vs. a non-free society, private ownership of guns is almost completely a non-factor. (I don't want to say completely because there are very rare times when it has played a small anecdotal role, but that role has NEVER been decisive.)

I've only been in the thread for the last 1000 posts and I know we've shot you down on these "facts" a couple times, and I'm sure it happened another dozen times in the previous 4,500 posts.

 

[Mello]

Our founding fathers were not for a big controlling government. Our government is just getting larger and more controlling with these measures. Those living in their land of unicorns and rainbows are just being obtuse.

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corp's that will grow up around will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.

-Thomas Jefferson

whoopshttp://www.snopes.com/quotes/jefferson/banks.asp

Yep you got me there, and as snopes points out "Jefferson certainly expressed disdain and mistrust of banking institutions and paper currency on many occasions." It doesn't change the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.

lolololololololololololololol

They will build great shrines in your name when you are gone!!!

yes by all means keep hanging your hat on a poster that posts made up crap.

It's a commonly mis-attributed quote. It's not like he just made it up.