Richmond Gun Rally

But we can't have laws to sort out who is a "responsible and law abiding citizen"....

Seems legit!

 

We do have them. And you are reponsible and law abiding until you've shown otherwise. You should never have to defend yourself just because someone else is afraid of things you own or do legally.

 

Except where it comes to weaponry with which you can murder multiple people in under a minute.

 

Like a car.

 

or ladders

 

I was waiting for Tundras reply lol

The thing is Tundra; a car is not such a weapon, it can merely be (ab)used as such. A gun that can spray bullets or something like a bazooka are made to do that thing. Not that I have the illusion this is news for you.

 

You make some good point. Concerning the kitchen situation, it was that Russell fellow --fresh out of Camp Lewis McCord-- who brought his pride and joy to Bob's kitchen. I had no choice in the matter, and it was not my house to tell him to leave. So again, accidents happen. And guys trained in the army are not always "Hunter Wise" with hunting weapons. Additionally, my political opinion on this gun ownership question has changed over the years. I now know guns were allowed by the White Federal government so slave owners could keep their slaves in slavery … indefinitely. Guns in the hands of the pioneers were also used to terrorize the native Indians so the White could acquire some free farm land. Take for example the Delaware and Cherokee tribes. The Delaware were pushed out of the Delaware river country into Ohio, where they suffered the Gnadenhutten Massacre. After that they took refuge with the Miami Tribe on the banks of the Saint Joe River near Fort Wayne, Indiana. After that they along with the Miami were pushed into Oklahoma … at the point of a gun. The Cherokee were forced from Georgia, Tennessee, and the Carolinas into the Cherokee Strip in Oklahoma … at the point of a gun. Some of the Cherokees escaped to Northern Colorado. The Overland Stage Route from Denver to Wyoming and further west actually began as the Cherokee Trail. The escaped Cherokees were the people who found gold at Cherry Creek, and Red Feather Lakes. A part of Larimer County in Colorado is known to this day as Cherokee Park. The escaped Cherokees were forced back to their reservation in Oklahoma … at the point of a gun. The Arapaho tribe was slaughtered at Sand Creek in Colorado by white men with guns. There are many stories they tell during Pow Wow get-togethers about the way the whites set up the hand crank machine guns to cut down their people at dawn. One of my Crow friends was named Morning Gun for some reason of superstition. So, anyways, I don't want to ramble on. I feel that I have enough reasons to vote for a restructuring or repeal of the Second Amendment.

 

It's statements such as this, that makes it difficult to have a meaningful conversation. No offense at all intended to you, sir, but...politicians keep trying to write gun laws, to ban this or that, and they don't even have the most basic idea of how firearms operate. Try a search for "that shoulder thing that goes up" by Carolyn McCarthy. Note that, firstly...she doesn't even understand the terminology of the legislation which *SHE* introduced! Think about that...she introduced this bill, and has no idea what the words used in that bill even mean! Secondly, the bill states that it bans semi-automatic "assault weapons". (Because being killed by a "non-assault" weapon is acceptable to the anti-gunners, apparently) No such thing exists. By definition, an "assault rifle" is a rifle which is capable of fully automatic fire. Therefore, a semi-automatic rifle CANNOT BE an assault rifle. Lastly, the bill would have banned "pistol grips, vertical grips, and barrel shrouds". These are all non-mechanical devices, which in no way affect the way in which the firearm functions. They are all referred to as "furniture"...no different than a buttstock, or handguard.

There are many more I could quote, but I'll just quickly mention...Diana Degette, who co-sponsored a bill to ban magazines of a certain capacity, but hadn't a clue how magazines functioned, or even what they were. Joe Biden, who famously (and stupidly) advised people, on television, to buy a double barreled shotgun, and "if there's ever a problem, just walk outside, and fire two blasts from that shotgun"! Patricia Eddington, who believed that incendiary ammunition was "heat-seeking"! Uhh...it's not. No small arms ammunition has ever been produced that has that capability.

As far as the repetitive claim that the writers of the Bill of Rights were referring only to "muskets"...that's just ridiculous. Many of the Founding Fathers were inventors, and highly educated. While it's true that the standard of the time were mostly single shot firearms, multi-shot designs had been envisioned at least as far back as Leonardo DaVinci. It's difficult to imagine that these very intelligent men would lack the foresight to envision that improvements in weapons technology would one day create weapons more efficient than single-shot muzzleloaders. Additionally, it was legal at that time to own cannons, true artillery.

Alternately, if you really want to limit our freedoms under the Bill of Rights to *only* those things that existed at the time of their passage...that would mean that Freedom of Speech would be limited to the range of the sound of your voice (Freedom of Speech would not be guaranteed when using PA systems, phones, any electronic amplification device, or radio or television), or to print media, such as books and newspapers/pamphlets (phones, computers, internet...not covered by Freedom of Speech)...since it's much more believable that the Founding Fathers might not have foreseen these inventions.

Also...if one cares to do just a little research, it's pretty simple to find quotes from the Founding Fathers, in which they espouse the notion that citizens should be equipped with the same weaponry as individual infantrymen. That would be a constant, through time...that citizens would continue to be armed on a par with foot soldiers of their time.

As far as holding this rally on MLK Day...well, I will direct you to this. I recommend watching the video, too. NRA News' Colion Noir Explains How Dr. King REALLY Felt About Guns

Oh, and...semi-automatic firearms do not "reload themselves", and they do not "cock the firing pin". Upon firing, they *do* chamber another round, and some of them *do* cock the hammer. And it's really no more likely to cause an "unintentional" discharge, than a revolver from any era.

 

Polly Yarrow who was a Black Woman and the daughter in law of the Muslim Mamout Yarrow, told historians about the armed white men from Georgia who used to roam Maryland and Washington DC to look for runaway slaves. She said they carried guns and would capture and kidnap Black people who weren't even runaway slaves. Many slaves had actually made extra money while singing to buy their own freedom from their masters. Some slave owners were poor farmers and needed cash, some others grew into kind people with age and passing of the years. But the important lesson here is that guns were used to enforce slavery. Today, we should consider the restructuring of all gun regulations and the Second Amendment itself.

 

Based on what some slave owners purportedly did some 150 years ago? Sure...that's logical.

 

Please tell me which part is wrong? I'd love to know.

 

And...the fact is that the entire "gun control" movement is based on the attempt to deprive southern blacks from owning guns, so that they could be kept defenseless. You'd be aware of this, had you watched the video I referenced in my post. So, slavery and the experience of racism upon blacks, is one of the best arguments *for* gun ownership, and the right to self defense.

 

Something that I really had meant to say in my first post...but I got long-winded, and forgot.

I recognize that most, if not all, "regular folk" (by which I mean, non-politicians) have only the best intentions when they talk about restricting gun ownership, or some form of gun control. I realize that they believe that stopping people from killing each other, is more-or-less as simple as removing the means by which people are killing each other. And that their desire is simply to create a safer community and/or world.

Most politicians, on the other hand...aren't that empathetic. I believe that *most* politicians, on both sides of this issue, are merely doing whatever they believe will keep them in power, and in some cases, whatever they feel will give them more power.

So, I feel very strongly about this issue. I wholeheartedly wish that we could find a convincing and compelling solution to all of the innocent victims that die needlessly at the hands of criminals and aggressors, that would do so without alienating the rights of law-abiding citizens.

 

Yes, it's logical because guns are used to intimidate people more often than to kill them. Don't you agree?

 

See … that's what I mean. You just said you forgot! That means it's possible you might forget the position of the safety on your AR-15 and have an accident.

 

Hehe ladders? wtf

Cars exactly fit the description I quoted you as saying. Their intended use, whatever we may perceive that to be, is inconsequential to that simple fact.

I know it's not what you meant. But a car does fit the description. Easily used as "weaponry with which you can murder multiple people in under a minute". But "ladders'? I guess if you could convince a bunch of people to climb up on them real quick then pull them all out fast while on a cliff or something... Hahaha Don't Bogart that joint, my friend ...

 

Cars require an operator's license and state registration. If the Second Amendment is not repealed and firearms are not outlawed and confiscated, then I vote to register and license the gun owners. Additionally, the gun owners and them who desire to become gun owners should get medical evaluations and drug/alcohol testing. We don't need trailer park people to go postal when a conversation don't go their way.

 

We've all gone through this before.
And you're right on all accounts.
Some people just wish you weren't, and would lie. Some would be as ignorant on the subject as the people you described; no surprise there.