you know im a conspiracy theorist... just thought i would share one link, and ask for you thoughts.
http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/ps_america_martial_law2.htm
http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/ps_america_martial_law2.htm
Police State... your thoughts
- Thread starter juballs
- Start date
The denial of gun ownership has been going on in socialist states like california,new york,illinois & maryland for years.
Wake up people!!!
Notice what "type" of state this is taking place in? A blue state with a democrat governor & a liberal mayor in N.O. You don't think these fuckwad's wouldn't take advantage of disarming their pop.?
http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/Releases.aspx?ID=6466
Wake up people!!!
Notice what "type" of state this is taking place in? A blue state with a democrat governor & a liberal mayor in N.O. You don't think these fuckwad's wouldn't take advantage of disarming their pop.?
http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/Releases.aspx?ID=6466
Last edited:
i live in San Francisco, Republican(i know its weird), and i support guns. I have a family member that is fighting PROPOSITION H, whic wants to ban citizens from owning handguns in SF. This is a site containing an ebook, that has lots of facts and such that support guns http://gunfacts.info
that would be preporation H, but yeah ive heard that many times before. i dont know why but its always used for the police and gun related Props
I still can't see why an everyday citizen needs a gun. We have all the technology in the world to stop the threat in our own homes...and cops are "supposed" to do the rest once you step outside. Seems weird when a cop never shows up until after it happens, but in the off chance they pass by at the right time, you won't need to use a deadly weapon. Yea, sucks huh....and banning guns is supposed to stop criminals from having themm yet up here we have to register our guns. All crimes are commited with UNregistered guns.....except for a few idiots.
I don't know a lot about americans, but I do know that when I walk outside, I don't need a gun. When I lock my door, I don't even expect someone to knock on it...but "incase shit happens" I'm supposed to lock up.
end of my long winded speech, peace
I don't know a lot about americans, but I do know that when I walk outside, I don't need a gun. When I lock my door, I don't even expect someone to knock on it...but "incase shit happens" I'm supposed to lock up.
end of my long winded speech, peace
actually, what you have just said is wrong. It is a common misconception, it is not the police departments job to protect you. It is to protect and serve the community as a whole. it is not thier job to follow you around, and protect you from everything. They are there as a service that is given to you as a courtesy. Every citizen, the the exception of convicted fellons shouls have at least one firearm, to protect themselves and their families. Im sorry to say, that the 2nd ammendment is not olny there to protect us from crime, but it is also a doomsday provision. In the event that our government decides to ensalve us all, or kill us all off, we can protect ourselves, however small a possibility this is, its still possible.
the right to bear arms was to protect from civil war and such back in the old days...I heard both sides but can't figure out a "right" side. I figure the right side will be to own handguns, because the US of A has proven to be a voilent, and militant sociaty. Not crazy psycho militant, but a paranoid defensive...."everyone wants us dead" style...I'm babbling now 
I use guns to hunt, and hunt alone. I don't worry much about neighbours.
I use guns to hunt, and hunt alone. I don't worry much about neighbours.
SeraphiM
Retired Moderator
I have a huge problem with people that tell me the world would be a better place if the second Amendment was taken away.
Here are my thoughts on that. The only people affected by that would be the people that obey the gun law and own guns legally in the first place.
Criminals would still have guns, but worse now, they would be the only ones carrying them.
The problem of gun violence dosen't lie with the gun. A gun has never killed anyone, a gun has never been arrest, tried and convicted of any crime. It has always been the person using it.
If we started having a epidemic of stabbing and cuttings would we have anti-knife laws?
Here are my thoughts on that. The only people affected by that would be the people that obey the gun law and own guns legally in the first place.
Criminals would still have guns, but worse now, they would be the only ones carrying them.
The problem of gun violence dosen't lie with the gun. A gun has never killed anyone, a gun has never been arrest, tried and convicted of any crime. It has always been the person using it.
If we started having a epidemic of stabbing and cuttings would we have anti-knife laws?
The main reason we were given the right to have arms was to someday fend off tyranny, and to defend ourselves from things that would harm us everyday. It pisses me of to no end the people that think we were given that right so we can go shoot a deer or a goose once every year or two...no not given, given implies it was something the government choose to give us. It was acknowledged that the right to self defense was something that every person has that is bestowed by nature (and perhaps nature's God if you believe in that) upon us. It is not a matter of if we will someday come under tyranny. It's a matter of when. To believe otherwise is pure naivety and blind hope. I can't be that trusting of my government. All civilizations and governments have failed. We and you will be no different. Human nature and history doesn't bode well for them. We are not led by angels; we are governed by humans that are just as corruptible now as they were in the beginning. You can easily see it for yourself in you elected officials. Do you want to just trust them with your future and the future of your decedents? Do you really think they have your best interest at heart? Maybe you’re lucky enough to be in an area where the police aren't almost as bad as the criminals. Perhaps if it makes people feel any better they can hold on to the belief that the vote that they get every few years, that they are forced to choose from the lesser of two evils from will make things better and protect them. Perhaps they can hold on to the belief that a piece of paper that list their rights can magically jump form its container and stand between the them and the people that want to enslave them. We only have the rights we have because of the will of the people to keep them. That will can only be guaranteed through the use of force and the threat of force. Not that I like that, but that is reality. If there was world peace and everybody would always leave me alone as long as I left them alone, and I never had to worry about violence I would gladly give up my weapons. That world has never existed and will NEVER exist.
All my family members living in the US are nra lifetime members, I was also a member of the nra some years ago. I think that people are entitled to the right to "bear and own" guns. My uncle and my cousins have also some 50BMG Barrett and Accuracy International sniping rifles and are members of the cal 50BMG rifle owner association. I personnally think that the right to buy guns even AR isn't a problem. The last time I went to the USA, I had the pleasure to shoot with my m21 and my 629. Does the fact that someone own guns or assault rifles makes of him someone bad?
Most of people who buy these guns are using them for shooting on target at the range. See what happened with the ghetto guys in LA in the mid 80's early 90's, Bloods and Crips gangs who killed a lot of innocent people because of stolen and unregistered weapons.The problem is unregistered-stolen guns and the scum like bloods and crips or other gangs who are the problem.
Sadly in Europe, laws concerning guns are too strict and you have more the right to be a victim than something else.
Most of people who buy these guns are using them for shooting on target at the range. See what happened with the ghetto guys in LA in the mid 80's early 90's, Bloods and Crips gangs who killed a lot of innocent people because of stolen and unregistered weapons.The problem is unregistered-stolen guns and the scum like bloods and crips or other gangs who are the problem.
Sadly in Europe, laws concerning guns are too strict and you have more the right to be a victim than something else.
SeraphiM
Retired Moderator
"Militia" by it's definition is a a body of citizens organized for military service.
The citizen's who found themselves living in the american colonies in the late 1700's were not armed by their goverment. They were citizen's that were armed with personal firearms and were called to service to free themselves of an oppressive government.
As for the argument that the modern day militia is the military and the reserves, they are not militia. They are not citizen's they are military personnel. Subject to all rules and regulations of the military. Rules and regulations that we a citizen's are not bound by.
What it boils down to is this, are we to trust the goverment to police it's self, I think not! Our founding fathers believed in checks and balances in order to keep a free REPUBLIC. It's clear to most that the right for citizen's to bear arms was one of these balances.
The citizen's who found themselves living in the american colonies in the late 1700's were not armed by their goverment. They were citizen's that were armed with personal firearms and were called to service to free themselves of an oppressive government.
As for the argument that the modern day militia is the military and the reserves, they are not militia. They are not citizen's they are military personnel. Subject to all rules and regulations of the military. Rules and regulations that we a citizen's are not bound by.
What it boils down to is this, are we to trust the goverment to police it's self, I think not! Our founding fathers believed in checks and balances in order to keep a free REPUBLIC. It's clear to most that the right for citizen's to bear arms was one of these balances.
Colonel[/QUOTE said:The second amendment was put in (to my knowledge) because the British would not let the American's form their own military. The American's were sick of it and put forth in the constitution the right to form their own military. The Militia.
That is WHY it was written (imo).
Not so individual citizens could have a gun to fight off their neighbour.
Prove to me factually I am wrong and I will reconsider my point on the matter.
Otherwise...no chance.
My guess is it is going to end up what you typed earlier. We will just have to agree to disagree.
Last edited:
'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.'
They don't say the miltia is necessary to the security of the United States of America, they said it was necessary to the security of a free state. Freedom from an opressive goverment was what they intended us to have. The first and second ammendments were the tools left to us to keep our freedom. The first line of the second ammendment is what causes confusion, but the last line is crystal clear 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed'. If you want to cut hairs about the second ammendment, you could do the same for the first and say that it was never intended to grant you a right to watch men and women have sex in print, in movies, and on your computer.
They don't say the miltia is necessary to the security of the United States of America, they said it was necessary to the security of a free state. Freedom from an opressive goverment was what they intended us to have. The first and second ammendments were the tools left to us to keep our freedom. The first line of the second ammendment is what causes confusion, but the last line is crystal clear 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed'. If you want to cut hairs about the second ammendment, you could do the same for the first and say that it was never intended to grant you a right to watch men and women have sex in print, in movies, and on your computer.
mcrocket said:
The well regulated Militia is an important part of the second amendment(and it doesn’t exist anymore despite what people might think of the national guard, or if it does it is the people as a whole), but it wasn't meant to be a requirement for the second part. That would be like taking the statement "Learning being important to education, the right to own books shall not be infringed" and implying that you were only able to keep books if they were used in school, although that is an important part of it.
Anyway.....
Tench Coxe in "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution." under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col.1. wrote
"as civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
(letters in bold added by me to show emphasis)
This would only be slightly significant in of itself if it weren’t for the fact that Coxe sent a copy of his essay to James Madison along with a letter of the same date and Madison wrote back "Accept my acknowledgments for your favor of the 18th. instant. The printed remarks inclosed in it are already I find in the Gazettes here[New York]...The amendments will however be greatly favored by explanatory strictures of a healing tendency, and is therefore already indebted to the co-operation of your pen"
To believe that the founders of our country believed the second amendment to be anything other than an individual liberty is blind to history in my opinion. I added that above because it is in my opinion on of the strongest proofs of that, since Madison was the primary author of the constitution. There is a lot more than that. There is a mountain of evidence that supports the individual right to arms in the second amendment from our counties infancy. It wasn't even until the 1930's that it was seriously questioned, and by then Roosevelt was strong-arming the Supreme Court at the time. From that came the whole "states right" interpretation of the Second Amendment that some groups spout off about today. The majority of the country still sees it as an individual right, not that it would matter. Not even the majority has the right to take away your liberties, but it is an individual right we have to fight off tyranny. Which we WILL someday need. Those founders were smart people. Sometimes I am amazed at the foresight they had at the time.
Similar threads
