Liberal gun bullshit

Howey said:
Huh. Well, Rune? At least you got a reasonable, thought out answer, from a liberal.
Click to expand...
a reasonable, thought out answer that leads directly to a police state....so no. we will not submit. we will not back down. and we will most certainly not surrender our guns to you tyrants.
 
Howey said:
Huh. Well, Rune? At least you got a reasonable, thought out answer, from a liberal.
Click to expand...

I was you you for a minute. Then I read this;

Howey said:
Make the program voluntary at first, gradually increasing it's scope to make it mandatory with criminal sanctions, including substantial fines, for those who refuse to comply after a given period of time.
Click to expand...


Reminds me of the method the nazis used to dis-arm Norway. No thanks.

A surcharge, or tax, on ammunition and guns sufficient to handle the cost of mental health care and awareness, and to provide replacements for weapons turned in
Click to expand...

A little magical thinking there Howie. You must think gunowners go through ammo like cigarettes.
 
Rune said:
I was you you for a minute. Then I read this;




Reminds me of the method the nazis used to dis-arm Norway. No thanks.



A little magical thinking there Howie. You must think gunowners go through ammo like cigarettes.
Click to expand...

The Godwin rule? Really?

I guess you didn't want an opinion.

Enjoy your conversation with STN.
 
Howey said:
The Godwin rule? Really?

I guess you didn't want an opinion.

Enjoy your conversation with STN.
Click to expand...

See the problem is I had a witness, a very close family member, recently deceased who told me what life was like under the nazi occupation.
How wonderful for you that a clever little internet fallacy can be used to dismiss reality so glibly.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
the 2nd Amendment was written to keep the government in check by the people, should the newly formed central government ever forget who it was they were working for.

so what?
Click to expand...

No, it was not. It was intended to protect the nation from foreign invasion in the absence of a standing army. The whole need for protection from the federal government argument only came about due to the desire of progressives and hawks to engage in foreign wars and because state regiments lacked cohesion needed for extended wars.

Prior to that the federal government could have been subdued without firearms easily.
 
apple0154 said:
I wouldn't be too hard on Obama. He's done a lot with ObamaCare and the hate for him is still there. He has to move very carefully.
Click to expand...

And he has the bully pulpit. He needs to go directly to the people. FDR used the fireside chats to get the people behind his policies. Obama needs to stop offering Republicans what he'd settle for right off the bat. They are not interested in a fair bargain. And Obama needs to garner some Give 'em hell Harry.


"Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke. They stand four-square for the American home--but not for housing. They are strong for labor--but they are stronger for restricting labor's rights. They favor minimum wage--the smaller the minimum wage the better. They endorse educational opportunity for all--but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools. They approve of social security benefits-so much so that they took them away from almost a million people. They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine--for people who can afford them. They believe in international trade--so much so that they crippled our reciprocal trade program, and killed our International Wheat Agreement. They favor the admission of displaced persons--but only within shameful racial and religious limitations.They consider electrical power a great blessing--but only when the private power companies get their rake-off. They say TVA is wonderful--but we ought never to try it again. They condemn "cruelly high prices"--but fight to the death every effort to bring them down. They think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it."
President Harry S. Truman
 
cannabis said:
should we extend the 1st amendment to television, radio, internet.....?
Click to expand...

The first amendment IS extended to television, radio and the internet. But can you scream 'FIRE' in a crowded theater? Can you show pornography on Saturday morning TV?
 
Bfgrn said:
The first amendment IS extended to television, radio and the internet. But can you scream 'FIRE' in a crowded theater? Can you show pornography on Saturday morning TV?
Click to expand...

yet your post seemed to indicate you only want the weapons existing at the time the second was created, to be legal.

i have no problem with reasonable gun control regulations.
 
Rune said:
See the problem is I had a witness, a very close family member, recently deceased who told me what life was like under the nazi occupation.
How wonderful for you that a clever little internet fallacy can be used to dismiss reality so glibly.
Click to expand...

I grew up in Germany in the sixties and seventies and am Jewish. I know what happened.
 
SuperstringTheory said:
No, it was not. It was intended to protect the nation from foreign invasion in the absence of a standing army. The whole need for protection from the federal government argument only came about due to the desire of progressives and hawks to engage in foreign wars and because state regiments lacked cohesion needed for extended wars.

Prior to that the federal government could have been subdued without firearms easily.
Click to expand...
every single statement, document, debate, and argument (with the exception of hamilton) says you are wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top