Vote democrat for now on

Probably the most rational post I've seen on these forums. The only change I might make would be to change the word 'Some' to 'Most'.

 

If you don't like it, vote for someone else.
At least you have the option to vote for your leader directly.

 

Just to jump in here with a quick comment on this. And btw, this is coming from someone who owns a tazer, not a gun, for self protection.... and I feel no real need or want for a gun.... but I also am not strongly for or against guns.

I think you are both so right in this post and so wrong. You are right in the sense of people like George Zimmerman. That was someone who had some kinda complex that he was the good guy and had to go around w his gun not minding his own business, because yep, he was the good guy w the gun.

BUT...if someone has a gun in their house and doesn't take it out all vigilante style but keeps it for the simple chance that someone someday could break into their house w intent on harming or killing them and their family..... to use just in case that would ever happen.....well, then a person like that does not have any sort of complex about thinking they are the good guy and other people the bad guy....and would have every right to defend themselves if someone is truly trying to kill them.
I strongly support responsible gun owners in situations such as that to be able to save their own lives and that of their families.

The problem lies in the fact that, obviously, that is not why every gun owner owns a gun and obviously some people do things other than that w their guns.

But I just wouldn't generalize anyway that every gun owner leans more towards the George Zimmerman side.

 

I don't need a leader, do you?

 

That's not even the issue.

The issue with what he said was that voting for someone else- the other pre-selected person wouldn't make any difference anyways?

Being told here are two people (or 3, or 4, or 6....)---go and vote for one of them-you have so much freedom and you are making such a difference is just a huge sham to begin with. But, whatever.



And btw, who the hell disliked my post for being NEUTRAL on gun control and not taking a certain side? Hahaha...geez. Sorry I pointed out that not every gun owner is the same and there are crazy ones and sane, responsible ones. Who woulda thought, huh?

 

It is indeed a major issue in electing a government of free societies.

I agree that voting for a Democrat or Republican party supported candidate makes little difference, but they're the 2 choices that are most willing to increase debt as the means of producing votes.

In reality, voters have very little, if anything at all, to say about how their government works any longer. It has become a government "of the people, for some of the people, and by the party that wins the election".

That was me, by accident, so I clicked on "like" of the post I'm responding to now, although I would not have clicked on "dislike" otherwise

I would prefer the elimination of parties in American politics and require that campaign funding be allowed only by those who could legally vote for the candidate.
But in the end, nothing will change much without repeal of the 16th, and 17th amendments, and the Federal Reserve Act. Those 3 items have provided the means by which our Federal government has acquired the ability and power to impose rule with or without need of the peoples consent.

 

Giving up and not even bothering to vote is definitely not going to change the world.

You're never going to get everything that you want... the trick is to find who best represents your beliefs and remain loyal, even if they don't seem to stand a chance. There are 2 'major' parties but at least three other 'third' parties, one of which is libertarian and is probably the third party closest to being legitimate, god help you all.

Or, you can found your own party and run... it will be expensive, but if you can raise enough money you still stand a chance.

 

Actually, yes it is. They want to take Semi-automatics which is dumb. First of all, they're not near as deadly as fully-automatic guns that drug cartels use, or the military.

Secondly, the 2nd Amendment says the Right to bear arms "Shall not be infringed."

You may not think taking this right away from people with depression, ADD or, some unrelated disorder isn't wrong, but it is disarmament all the same.

Also the "background checks" are used to deny ex-drug users, who have never committed any violence, from the right to protect themselves.


More background checks and limiting what type of weapons are legal, is not going to change anything. (Since you love talking about Sandy hook) Adam Lanza, did not have a history of mental illness or criminal behavior. So denying a little bit of everyone wont get us to our goal of minimal gun violence.

Here's one you guys have been ignoring, Columbine. Those kids weren't old enough to get guns.

"They committed numerous felony violations of state and federal law, including the National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act of 1968, before they began the massacre."

Laws wont fix the problem. Especially when you consider that the Mexican drug cartels smuggle drugs over with AK47's.

The idea that we need more restrictions on guns is so wrong. If guns kill people, pencils misspell words. Of course the pencil doesn't do it, but the person behind the pencil (or gun.)

Lucky for government though, most Northern cities are already stricken with this perception that guns are evil, and not the person behind the guns. But, if you really look at it, cities with greater gun restrictions have more violence (Chicago, Detroit etc.) New York used to be one of them, till they boosted police presence everywhere,

You're making yourself look foolish. You're not an expert on gangbangers, cults, troubled young people or, Nancy Lanza, but in your liberal mind they ALL support guns.


With regards to Gangbangers, the weapon laws help them. Most of their guns are illegal anyway, and the last thing they want is average citizens having the ability to protect themselves from robberies and carjackings. Use your head, disarmament is great for gangsters, and all other criminals because it creates a new prohibited market, just like marijuana and other drugs. Our government wont keep people from getting weapons, but through the black market- it will only be bad people getting those weapons.

With regards to "cults," you're making that up as well. Typically, cults are a spiritual/religious entities, that captivate peoples lives, and separate them from their families and reality. I'm sure a majority of cults down permit their members to be armed, because typically they are broken down, and brainwashed to believe a leader or other such oligarch, and it's never good for them for you to be an individual with Rights and protection.


Nancy Lanza- Seriously dude?


The first thing I think about is the lies of Sandy Hook.

IE. Adam Lanza used a Semi-automatic rilfe. This is false, it was in the trunk of the black car.

The black car belonged to Adam Lanza. That's also false- it belonged to a registered sex offender who ran from the police, but was detained instead of being arrested.

Nancy Lanza was a teacher in that school- Nancy was not there, she was not killed, and I'm not even sure if she did work at that school.

But, besides all the media "confusion," Obama used this as a fear tactic to push the mental idea of more Gun Control. Meanwhile, a man in Asia stabbed 20 children on that same day, and the Liberals still didn't get it;
People who are mentally unstable can snap and go nuts. A crazy person can kill 20 children with a knife, bat, brick- anything! But this only happens with real sociopaths, people that don't feel anything, they just learn emotions from movies and such. I believe 98% of our politicians are sociopaths!

But anyway, there are all types of stories that show that guns protect families, while government typically does a lousy job in response to these calls. Nearly every encounter I've ever had with a police officer, only made the situation worse. They can take anywhere from 15 mins- 3 hours to get to your house. I know Liberals say they don't want total disarmament, but level with me- that is the end goal. And, even if it isn't with you, I truly believe that's the end goal for Obama, Ted Turner and, other such Left Wing politicians.

It's not simple, but the reason you think it's "complex" is because you think we need government to protect us and keep us safe.

You think I should negotiate some of my freedom, for security and the "Greater good." I don't buy into that, I think that if we had freedom, and the government followed the Constitution and the people utilized our rights, we would be safer than ever.


Cops only show up after the crime takes place. Armed Citizens are able to stop a crime before it takes place, or escalates to a serious extent.

I think Liberals ideals are too idealistic, and when you knock on mine, when I'm just defending basic Human Rights, shows that Liberalism is against the private ownership of guns. I mean, immediately: I'm Nancy Lanza, a gangbanger, a Cultist- Yet, all I am doing is defending my Right to protect myself and my family without government intervention.

Obama is not only going after certain type of guns, and neither is Liberalism. They're going after certain sized magazines,(I've heard anything over 10 rounds, but I'm not sure,) 3D printed gun parts, semi-automatic rifles (but not pistols,) and, private sales. But the laws are already bad when a women can be turned down due to a mental illness that does not interact with her morality.

I think it is a witch hunt, and I think Liberals are on the wrong side of history on this one. As much as most of you claim to believe in Human Rights, this is one of several lapses in that claim.

 

This is a fallacy known as 'relative privation'. Using your logic, it's okay to murder just you because it's not as bad as murdering your whole family.

While we're at it, why don't we shoot anyone who doesn't rest on the Sabbath or keep it holy? Why don't we line up anyone who denies the word of God and burn them at the stake? Laws change as society changes... for someone who hates authority you sure do seem to enjoy hiding behind the law.

Why are you so keen on junkies and mentally unstable people being able to legally buy semi-automatic weapons, exactly?

He definitely did have a history of mental illness. I don't know where you're getting this from. The problem was that his mother didn't do anything about it except teach him how to shoot using the NRA handbook.

Yes, they got their guns illegally at a gun show... and I think they got one from a guy who worked in a pizza place. Guns are so easy to come by in the US that they can be bought and sold like old furniture. This was actually part of the legislation Obama wanted to pass... cracking down on gun shows/making guns harder to get so that this can't happen as easily. Clinton tried to do something about it as well after Columbine happened, but the gun lobby blocked him.

If anything, this proves that gun laws aren't strict enough.

Yes, this is a tired old argument.

But it's not really an accurate comparison because misspelling words isn't exactly in the same league as murdering children. You would have a really hard time being injured while taking a spelling test.

We're talking about weapons that are being bought by people who think they might need to hurt or kill other people, either in self defense or because they're pissed off. Using them for hunting is obviously a completely different story and needs to be considered differently.

Just having a gun culture where weapons manufacturers are allowed to promote paranoia and fear to sell guns is enough to make people feel like they need to take human lives. You're not a gun nut because you have been threatened, you're a gun nut because certain groups have convinced you that you will be threatened in the future.

Cities in general have more violence-- what's your point here? It also doesn't help that anyone can just drive for a few hours, buy a gun and bring it home. And yes, New York went from being a crime-ridden hellhole to the safest big city in the US. While it might be due to reasons other than gun control alone, it at least suggests the gun control could be a factor.

You don't need to be an expert on these things... just do a little online research or try using your head. Nancy Lanza owned a small arsenal-- I'm pretty sure that's a clear sign of her being something of a gun collector. I'm pretty sure the gangbangers like guns too... I think I'll just trust my gut on that one. And yeah, actually I worked with kids for 10 years so I'm pretty good at knowing what the troubled ones are like/how they think.

And the current laws make it far, far too easy for the illegal gun trade to flourish. Licenses are cheap and easy to get, gun laws don't carry over between the states, etc.

And all that the lax gun laws are doing is increasing demand, which in turn increases supply, which in turn increases illegal sales, which in turn increases gun violence.

Mexican cartels get almost ALL of their guns from the US. The majority of illegal guns in Canada also come from the US. US gun manufacturers supply Al Qaeda with their guns... terrorist leaders actively encourage their followers to attend American gun shows! North Korean soldiers use American guns. America is probably the biggest supplier of death and destruction in the entire world, and the firearms trade that the NRA defends because of their wealthy corporate sponsors is the reason. Even moreso than the wars the government initiates, the US enables warlords, terrorists, dictators through its weapons manufacturing.

David Koresh had a stockpile of grenades and used gun shows as a means of financing his private arsenal, which eventually included grenades and automatic weapons, all from people he met at gun shows.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/blwacoguns.htm

Interestingly enough, most of the illegal weapons he owned were actually modified versions of weapons that were legal. That's something to keep in mind, I think.

http://www.vpc.org/studies/tupstudy.htm

^ Like his alleged avenger McVeigh, Branch Davidian leader David Koresh frequented gun shows. The St. Petersburg Times reported that Koresh purchased a large quantity of the weapons stockpiled at Mount Carmel (the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas) from Hewitt Handguns, a Texas gun dealership operated by Karen Kilpatrick with Henry McMahon. Koresh had picked up their business card at a Texas gun show. Hewitt Handguns' licensed place of business was McMahon's home, and the Times reported that Kilpatrick and McMahon "did business mostly on weekends traveling from gun show to gun show." According to the Times, from 1990 to 1992, Kilpatrick and McMahon sold Koresh approximately 225 guns and 100,000 rounds of ammunition. The article noted, "Until someone told federal agents they were arming a cult leader, they reported these sales to nobody. By law, they were not required to do so."

In testimony before the 1995 House Judiciary Committee during hearings investigating federal actions at Waco, author Dick Reavis asserted that Koresh not only was a buyer at gun shows—he was a seller. Reavis testified that "in late 1991 he [Koresh] began buying guns and studying armaments....Within a few months, Koresh and a handful of associates were not only buying but also selling goods at the shows."

You live in a very, very small world Stp.

Oh wow here come the conspiracy theories.

Adam Lanza DID use the Bushmaster. The police report confirmed it:

http://www.ct.gov/despp/cwp/view.asp?Q=517284

There was a lot of confusion and speculation at first and the conspiracy-minded took every little comment and blew it out of proportion. A lot of what they were running with was mistakes made by reporters, not formal statements issued by the police.

Death toll from Sandy Hook: 26 (using the Bushmaster rifle).
Death toll from Chengping School Stabbings: 0 (using a knife).

I don't know about you, but I'd rather be injured than murdered.

No, I already said I was in favor of gun ownership... I'm just not big on the retardedly lax regulations that the US has now.

 

This is just stupid. I'm not advocating murder or burning people at the stake. It really shows something about Liberals that they automatically assume this is what would happen if people have freedom.

And, I'm not "hiding" behind the law, I'm upholding the founding document of my country which protects me from tyranny.

Because it's not the governments business if someone once used drugs. You say "junkie" to justify your position, but Obama could've been arrested for his drug use, and Clinton and Rob Ford. Wealthy Americans aren't punished near as much as those who are impoverished, so, this is just another additive of the cultural war, where government doesn't tolerate raw milk drinkers or marijuana smokers.

It's none of the governments business if someone was diagnosed (or misdiagnosed in many cases) ADD, ADHD, depression etc. This is a clear overreach, and it is banning law abiding citizens from self protection due to what 1 Doctor may have said once.

Dude, shut up. You totally ignored what I said about 20 kids being stabbed in Asia on that same day. You Liberals argue off of whim, and it's so retarded. If the principle had a gun, we wouldn't even be talking about this, and of course as a liberal you had nothing to say about people PROTECTING themselves with guns, only a few cases, where people go nuts.

But, if law abiding citizens have guns, they can stop those people. He probably did have a mental illness, but that's totally besides the point- if he was that crazy, he wouldve done anything to commit his crime. You're blaming the Guns like the guns did it, when really they couldve stopped it.

You always support Obama when it's good for you, but, he's another extreme hypocrite. Coming from a man who kills underage citizens with drones, spies on our Emails/phone calls and, violates the constitution in every other law. Gun Control doesn't stop violent crime from happening, it stops the method. And it gives total power to cops, criminals and, Military- who get guns either way.

I can't believe how dumb the string of thought is, that if government took away all guns, we would live peacefully-- It always leads to total government control and leaves the people will nothing to protect themselves. Im sure you'd feel differently about gun laws, when a cop can walk into your home, rape your wife and kids, and you can't do anything about it, cause he's the only one with a gun.

This is the dense part of Liberalism. You want to take away peoples right to protect themselves, yet, you support abortion if a girl gets raped, some of you support women being topless all the time and, cops for "protection" if a crime happens. You're leaving huge room for an abuse of power. It's quite bit worse than mob rule, that is tyranny and it means the few control the many. Fear is the tactic they use. That's how they got us into the wars, That's how they justifying spying on us and violating our Constitution


Not everyone in America owns guns, and those who don't, have this perception of them being the root of evil, and not human greed and immorality. The violence will not stop until you get rid of the immorality in society- it has nothing to do with prohibiting guns. Prohibition never works, and most those politicians like Obama that you idolize, have armed guards 24-7, so people like you just perpetuate this idea that government is more important and, above us. Like, it's okay if they steal, kill and, make "regime changes," because it is for the "greater good"


You can believe that non-sense if you like, but don't attack me because I don't.

That's BS! They broke laws, there was no cop there to arrest them. And there will never be protection from EVERY criminal, unless you put a cop in everyones house. Liberals would probably LOVE that! A cop to watch over you from cradle to grave! pssh!

If more people owned guns, more people could protect themselves from violent criminals. Taking guns away will create an illegal market, and criminals will get guns, but citizens will not, and it would cause a hierarchy in society.

I may be a gun nut, but at least I'm not a tool for the Machine.

The point I was making is that it isn't the gun that does it, it's the person behind the gun. If someone is crazy, theyll stab you with a pencil! Whereas someone else, will only use it to write.

I enjoy shooting. I do it to blow off steam, and I only shoot at targets. But, if someone broke into my home, or was going to hurt my family, I would use it.

You act like I'm crazy for believing what I believe, but the founders knew it all along...


"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms."~Jefferson~

“The constitution shall never be construed...to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
― Alexander Hamilton

While, that may be your theory, I have a different one. New York has become a police state since the last time I've lived here. There are cameras, police booths and police cars on every street corner. They also use military-style surviellance trucks, which can listen a mile away. You may be willing to sacrifice your freedom, but I'm not. This is not the purposes America stood for, and people are just into politics cause it's a popularity contest.

I know she was, but that has nothing to do with the conversation. Again, the kids morality came into play, and we don't know the whole story. To get into this conversation is insane, because no law would've stopped it. We know he was crazy now, but like you said, his mom didn't bring him to a Head Doctor. Okay, we both agree there. So what? She collected guns, and like I said, if the principles or one of the desk ladies had a gun, this wouldn't be an issue, you would ignore it like you did the video of a bunch of different people protecting themselves from violence with guns.

"Liking" guns has nothing to do with it. I'm sure most of them don't care if guns are legal or not, because they obtain them illegally anyway. On top of that, if guns were illegal it would create a new criminal market, and they could smuggle guns in, and make alot more money. That means all we would literally do is shift the gun market from good and honest citizens, to the gun-toting cartels and criminals, and that is a fallacy.

I totally disagree with your premise. I don't think "violence" and "gun violence" are two different things. That is to say, even if guns were illegal, many of the worse people will still get them through mexican drug cartels and government, and any person who would've committed a crime with a gun, would've committed that same crime with a knife or bat.

You know, I only have one argument with this really. We don't send the mexican drug cartels and radical Syrian rebels, weapons that would be "legal" in America.


I mean, I agree with you, for once. America is the biggest distributor of weapons (especially military-grade weapons.)

But, I think the government causes more death, despair and, hardships than citizens. Typically people just want to live their day-by-day.As I said, it is an immoral society that causes the violence. And there is incredible amounts of immorality bred by our government.

Ha! What a joke! I could say the same about you, the only difference is, i wouldn't be lying.


You're the one who takes Obama on his word, and believe he's working for the greater good. Your world is so small, you don't realize that every arm of the federal government works for bribes. You don't realize that the drug laws are just an excuse to embezzle more tax money, and give power to brutal dictators worldwide.


I suggest you watch/read "1984" if you're not seen it.

It's not "Conspiracy theories" it's only questions of why the information was so messed up. They do more in depth and accurate weather reports, than the reporting of that day.

But, there was an extensive amount of misinformation throughout the whole thing. and btw, if he walked in with this big ass assault rifle, why would they buzz him in?

Conspiracy theorists think Israel did it. I just think it doesn't sound right, and it never did. And, right away Obama was talking about gun control, when people were nice and scared. Meanwhile, he kills kids constantly. The death toll of his presidency is way higher than that!

That's just the way it happened in that one case. If someone stabs or cuts the right place it can only take 1.

I don't want to be murdered or injured, that's why I defend second Amendment Rights to protect myself, and for other law abiding citizens to do the same.

Stricter regulations will not make us safer. Government agents can go crazy just as easily as regular people. The answer is rebuilding the morality of society, and gun owners being responsible and keeping their guns from kids. But the government can't protect you from everyone and everything, you need to be responsible for yourself at times in the real world, and government wont protect you from every type of harm, with or without a regulation. And what do you support, anyway? Laws like the UK, where hunting is the only excuse to buy a gun, and self defense isn't?

To me, these views are idealistic; The government is going to use force with their fully automatics, to take guns away from peaceful citizens, and suddenly all gun violence will stop and no Social security, DHS or, police officer will abuse their power to do wtvr they want in a defenseless country. That is just fantasy.

 

^See, this is why it's impossible to argue with you.

1. You completely missed the point of my first comment-- which was that laws need to change as society changes. We can't function as a modern society under the same laws that we had 1000 years ago, so why is it not the same for laws that were written 300 years ago?

2. You use scenarios that haven't happened to prove your point, and refuse to admit that laws can be tweaked/improved. You are outraged over laws that haven't been passed or even written up... and what's more, you're not even pissed because you've seen the actual laws, you're pissed because some bullshit conspiracy sites told you they're going to result in tyranny.

3. You keep changing MY argument to 'let's take away all the guns'. You're responding to things that I haven't even said. I think that gun shows should probably be banned, and making guns harder to get will decrease the demand, which will in turn lead to fewer guns being produced/traded/stolen/etc. Obama is NOT trying to get rid of ALL the guns, and I'm not advocating that either. I have no idea how to explain this in a way that you will understand... because you either misinterpret my comments, change the subject, or just go on some weak rant about 'liberals'. Seriously... you're talking about women being topless and abortion and all of this fucked up shit that has nothing to do with gun control.

And this is why I can't argue with you, because your beliefs result in monsters emerging from the oceans and eating all the babies until everyone is old and too weak to fight. This is what Libertarians want!! And you support it! You think everything Ron Paul says is gospel and you don't have your own thoughts. It's scary, like 1984, Brave New World, Hitler, Ted Bundy, the Dark Ages, the Imperial Death Star and North Korea combined.

4. Adam Lanza shot his way in. This information is actually available on wikipedia, because it has been known for quite some time.

What does this even mean?

The point I was making was that a guy with a knife attacked over 20 elementary students and all of them LIVED. A guy with a gun shot 26 people and all of them DIED.

You claimed that they died, but a simple google search revealed this to be wrong. So you're honestly going to come on here and say that if Lanza had attacked the kids with a knife instead of a Bushmaster, it would have been just as bad?

That's all the time I'm going to waste right now.

 

25

Please stop ranting and actually address the criticisms leveled at you views.

 

Random

I’ve been through the Switzerland issue many times, I wasn’t trying to dodge anything and I’ll put my argument below but first here are some statistics I posted in another related thread on general crime figures in US, England, France and Germany.

http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showpost.php?p=7952625&postcount=17

Now add these -

Firearm-related deaths rate per 100,000 population.
US – 10.3
England and Wales – 0.22
France - 3.00
Germany – 1.10
Switzerland - 3.04

Homicides by any method per 100.000
US - 2011: 5.1
England and Wales - 1.03
France : 1.2
Germany 0.8
Switzerland 0.57

Gun related homicides per 100,000
US 2011: 3.6
England and Wales 0.06
France - 0.22
Germany - 0.2
Switzerland 0.16

Number of prisoners per 100,000
US – 716
Switzerland - 82

*
Basically the general crime figures for these countries and the US are roughly the same the only really big anomaly is gun related deaths.

Even taking out gun related homicides from the general homicide rate gives a figure for the US that is roughly the same as these European nations (1.2).

Yes Switzerland is often cited as an example of another ‘gun culture’ but it has an incredibly different outlook on guns to how pro-gunners seem to see them in the US.

To the Swiss it is about communal duty rather than individual rights. The Swiss have still got a citizen army and so many there see being able to use a gun as part of that civic duty in that context.

They also have a rich society with a lot less of the socio-economic problems prevalent to some parts of the US. It also has a well developed social welfare system and their mentality towards prison rehabilitation and drugs is very different from the US (notice the difference in prison population)

 

Ok my theory is that many Americans see gun ownership as a way of dealing with social problems that would probably be better dealt with in other ways. It is the kind of mentality that only tackles the symptoms and not the causes.

This I believe is part of a general attitude among many Americans that accepts threat of violence, intimidation and suppression as legitimate means of societal control and this mindset gets in the way of them actually working toward solutions to their social and political problems. The thing is that because they see things that way they believe others do also and so they can come to see the world as threatening, they can feel intimidated and fear that they are or could be the victim of criminal or political suppression. And it can be a self fulfilling prophecy because people can come to think ‘why shouldn’t I be violent other people are violent’

To me the mentality has to change and to do that US society needs to change so that these people stop feeling so frightened that they feel they need their guns.

 

The Bill of Rights was put into place for the protection of the people. We have the freedom of speech, so we can utilize it, even if what we're saying may be offensive to other people.

Liberals say they care about these rights, but it's strange to me how many of you, (esp Obama supporters) want to "change" the Constitution, and believe it's some 'old' document.

The Constitution was written because we saw tyranny first hand: Disarmament, illegal searches, insane laws and, being prohibited from using honest money, all contributed to the separation of our country from Great Brittan.


Why would you want to back-track? I mean, the government is spying on us, watching our webcams, watching your porn habits, putting drones in our skies and, cracking down on any self defense nationwide.


Our Right to bear arms was put there, because they knew it was wrong to have an all-powerful government, and in the end the consent of the people control the government. They can't, come into my home and kill me, or, stop me from protesting Obama. Although, many laws he has passed are not Constitutional, and yet, most have not been contested by the system.

I don't even read conspiracy sites. I'm morally opposed to any type of further guns laws, they sign people up for the Army at 17 years old, and keep them through there college years- (the same years mental illnesses are starting to surface,) and, they allow them to essentially kill anyone- Women, children, citizens- do you think that's right?
I'm sure you don't.

But, you don't realize that if the government has an agenda for profit, they don't care who they have to kill to get there- citizens or not.

We are meant to have Rights that are given to us because we are human, that the government has no power over. This is what gives the people safety from tyranny. We've been losing many of those rights for the past 100 years, so it's obvious what's going on. I didn't hear it from a conspiracy site, I looked at how government perpetually lies to get us into war, causes terror/homocide worldwide, and takes away our Constitution in the name of "safety," and it clicked.

I think it's more crazy to think that mass murderers want to protect us. Besides, there's tons of evidence that suggest several government conspiracies, or at least foul-play and prior knowledge.

Like, I learned how Bush had prior knowledge that Osama may attack the WTC, and he cut spending on terrorism, does that make sense if the true "end goal" is to keep us safe?

I learned that Chaney was head of NORAD, on that day only, and would've been the guy the went to, for permission to shoot the plane down. And I also learned that no other vice president has ever done that.


I learned about "operation Northwoods"

I learned about how, America has been secretly making illegal regime changes for at least 40 years, through the CIA.

Then, they passed "The Patriot act:" a law which allows any federal agent the ability to write a search warrant on a napkin, and walk into your home.

I had a false-hope when Obama took office, that he would end the wars, follow the Constitution, repeal the patriot act, and never pass that type of unconstitutional laws.

But sadly, Obama Re-enstated the Patriot Act twice. But then came the worse barrage of Constitutional violations that ever came from one president:NDAA, NDRP, HR347 and, the FAA reauthorization act. Obama acts like the Constitution isn't even there, and that's a huge problem. If we followed the Constitution, we wouldn't have gotten into a 3rd of the wars we've been in. Besides that, all free people deserve the right to protect themselves, and even if you truly mean "some regulations on guns," it doesn't matter.

As much as I believe in, and, support the Constitution- I also support some other founding principles of this country. Like, rebelling from an overblown government, and citizens having power over the government.

3. You keep changing MY argument to 'let's take away all the guns'. You're responding to things that I haven't even said. I think that gun shows should probably be banned, and making guns harder to get will decrease the demand, which will in turn lead to fewer guns being produced/traded/stolen/etc. Obama is NOT trying to get rid of ALL the guns, and I'm not advocating that either. I have no idea how to explain this in a way that you will understand... because you either misinterpret my comments, change the subject, or just go on some weak rant about 'liberals'. Seriously... you're talking about women being topless and abortion and all of this fucked up shit that has nothing to do with gun control.
[/QUOTE]

Making it harder to get guns, will not decrease demand. In fact, it'll do the exact opposite. Prohibition increases demand, much like it does with drugs, and it did with alcohol; The only thing it does is creates a criminal racket for people to abuse. And a lot of those people are politicians.

The citizens are meant to be the militia, and that is the route to freedom. And, I don't only mean the right to protect yourself, but the right to: Smoke, eat or, drink, what you want in your own home, sell your body if you want to, start a business, without giving insane amounts of money to state/federal government, grow opium poppy or, peyote cactuses.. In a truly free society- You can do anything that doesn't harm anyone else or, destroy their property.

I don't advocate prostitution, and I'm not telling people to use drugs. But, in a free society, people are free to do what they want. If a girl wants to sell her body, there probably tons of guys willing to pay, so it shouldn't be the governments job to force their idea of morality down our throats.

Please, do not do the Liberal thing where you start flipping out, and saying I'm advocating rape and murder. I'm saying, people should be free to carry guns and, do all this other stuff. Providing that they don't cause harm on others. That is the most free people can really be. You keep more of the money you earned and, you can eat, smoke, grow or, sell what you want.
With minimal government interference, and no government force on peaceful people (like there is today.) To me, it sounds alot better than this Orwellian Nightmare. BTW did you watch "1984" yet? No excuses, dude, it's on youtube!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vq-_7F9asjo"]1984 - A film (George Orwell) - YouTube

What are you even talking about? You got that Liberal glitch going on, where anyone that doesn't agree with you is a Nazi.

I'm nothing like Nazi, as they believe in government control, and essentially a government that can do whatever it wants. That is pretty much what Liberals believe, but they pretend to oppose war.

I say pretend cause they get angry when a white redneck starts wars, but not when a black guy from chicago drone strikes children without trial, and makes unconstitutional regime changes under the guise of "supporting rebels," who, we're told, are average citizens who never picked up a gun.

If we're so worried about 'dictators' like Assad killing children, why does it not matter when Obama, the president of a much more civilized country, does the same thing?


The Nazis follow Hitler, and followed him regardless of his policies.

The difference between me and you, is I would drop Ron Paul if he became a war monger, or passed dictatorial laws. You with Obama, on the other hand, he has already passed crazy laws restricting our freedom, and you still support him.


So, who's the real nazi? I'm suggesting more freedom, and no unfettered power for the federal government. You're suggesting mindlessly following government and letting them take our rights.

As I said, you can believe that crap- but I don't buy it.

It means if the guy knew what he was doing, the death count could've been 20 or, 26. You're only comparing the two that happened on the same day.There are people who have stabbed and killed many people. Comparing two examples is pointless.

And as I said, I'm talking about self defense for law-abiding citizens. If the Principle had a gun, we wouldn't be talking about this, you'd ignore it like you did the story of a 15 year old boy, who protected his 12 year old sister by warding away the robbers with his dads semi automatic!

http://www.khou.com/news/crime/Burglary-suspect-shot-by-15-year-old-son-of-deputy-97430719.html

I said a guy in Asia stabbed 20 people. I didn't say they died. And anyway, that's the one case- if he had planned as much as Lanza planned, he probably would've killed them. Knifes can be as deadly as guns, if you know where to cut/slice. But, that only part of the whole point. People can protect themselves with guns, and there are tons of cases with this. Many time robbers with guns, will even run from a gun.

On top of that, our country was founded on the idea that our Rights are above government intervention, and today our Rights are nearly gone, and as much as you liberals claim to support these Rights, you're staying more and more to total government control. And those of you who support Obama, are already there.And you call me a Nazi

Btw, I don't got to waste so much time talking to you either,you think I wanted to type for a few hours? No, I was letting you know that I read everything you said.


I just think you have a very narrow view on life, so much so, that anyone that remotely leans to the Right politically is automatically a fascist Nazi, yet, you wont even look into your idolized leaders policies and see if the people really are getting a good deal. When you look into it, all of government is garbage. And on that, I don't want to waste anymore time either.

The bottom line is that you're putting total faith and control in the hands of the federal government, but after Bush and obama especially, it should be obvious to everyone that the US federal government doesn't work for us, and they spy on us, kill us, detain us without trial and, arrest and tourcher people for telling us the truth, by accusing them of "aiding the enemy."


I think some Americans are stuck in 2008, where people thought Obama was the black Jesus, and he can do no wrong. But, 6 years later, it's totally obvious that he lied and has only continued the Bush Doctrine, or, the Military-industrial Complex.

If you want to support the current system, then do it. But you can't pretend like you don't support the wars, if you support war-mongers and, fake endless money. So, on that note, I'm completely done wasting my time. But, you'll keep wasting time as long as you put faith and support into a puppet government, that works for their corporate sponsors.

And, oh yes- I cant forget when you defended Obama for taking bribes, saying that those banks and business were the only people that really matter.

I think Liberals are becoming too accepting of total government control. You guys are practically begging for it. No one truly has the right to trial today, no one has the Right to protest government, yet, I tell you Liberals this, and it's like telling a brick wall. It's like, Liberals don't really care about freedom, they dont really care about stopping the wars- as long as they have a president who 'supports' gays and thinks marijuana isnt as bad as alcohol, they'll keep following, like sheep to slaughter.

 

Stp, do you understand the concept of irony? You actually took my comment about monsters coming out of the ocean and killing all the babies seriously.

And yes, you did basically say that the guy in Asia killed 20 people... it was part of your anti-Obama rant in the vein of 'OMG it's a conspiracy Obama is ignoring that this knife guy killed as many people as Lanza'.

But of course you have changed the topic 100 times since then.

I've read 1984 and seen the movie... but even if I hadn't, the references are implied since it goes hand in hand with every single anti-socialist anti-communist argument out there... usually in the 'slippery slope' format, and usually attached to an absurdly implausible fallacy-- which is exactly how you use it.

 

I didn't take it seriously, I didn't even say anything, because obviously I don't support killing children- that's Obama you're thinking of.

I said he stabbed 20 kids, and it doesn't matter if they died or not, most knife cases don't end this way, and if the guy had stabbed them in their throats, it would've been over for all 20 of them. And, besides the knives, drug cartels are armed to the teeth, with gun American citizens can't even own.

To ban a person from self defense because they did alittle dope in their day, is crazy. The dope shouldn't be treated as a crime in the first place, and thrown into prison with murderers and rapist.

btw- way to show everyone you're hypocrisy. Now, I'm just making "anti Obama rants," meanwhile, you were defending him in your last post.

With politicians, you can't ONLY support the good things they do, and still support him. You, supporting Obama now is like supporting Bush after 2 wars and legalized tourcher; "Same shit, different asshole."

Btw, I never used the word conspiracy, and idc if that pawn talked about it or not. You just shoot insane accusations at me that make no sense, and act like they're true.

It's useless to even argue with you, because you have government dependency issues; for some reason you believe the only way to achieve peace is through a huge forceful and violent entity that forces compliance.

You're gonna say "I don't believe in force," but yes you do- because the government is totally force. They force us to give them money, the impose force through military, they force us into certain eating patterns and, they force us to stay away from drugs, some of which you can ingest your body-weights worth, and not die.

This system you seem so devoted to, is a scam. But, it's a scam that only works if both Dems and republicans never look behind the curtain. They both work together to expand spending, grow government and, impose more laws on the people. When it is illegal for kids to run Lemonade stands, government has gone too far. And that is America today, I think you're wrong to trust it.

That's a joke! I've been talking about gun control, you came in here and brought up Nancy Lanza, Hitler and Cultist, because you were trying to hit peoples fear button, to get them on your side- much, like the government and media. Ill give you the benefit of the doubt, and say you didn't do it intentionally, but just because you've seen it so much.


To me, your Liberals news is misleading you. Politicians and Mayors who talk about disarmament, many own guns themselves. "Mayors against guns" Members, several of them have weapons. Liberal TV star who talk about disarmament, like Rosie O Donnell, have armed guards protecting them.

Al Gore uses 20X the national average on his energy costs.

Obama, Clinton and, others have smoked marijuana, but still prosecute people for it,sending them to jails and prison over a plant.

But, you're so captivated in the show, that you refuse to see the reality of it.


The Government is a criminal racket and a scam, meant to prosecute and spy on regular citizens, to perpetuate profits and, keep the corporations in control.

I know you refuse to believe it, cause you think the answer is more government, and there's something the people can do to reel them in. I'm afraid that's just wrong; the Government has become a substantial treat to the freedom of individuals, and I hope people are smart enough not to let those freedoms go, for promises of devious politicians. (Obama being one of them...)

 

25

You do realise that George Orwell (Eric Blair) was a democratic socialist; his views were much closer to mine that yours, if anything he was more extreme.

Here are a couple of things he proposed -

· Nationalization of land, mines, railways, banks and major industries.
· Limitation of incomes, on such a scale that the highest tax-free income in Britain does not exceed the lowest by more than ten to one.

He would have found your proposals to increase the power and influence of wealth abhorrent.

As to you constant rants they are meaningless and irrelevant bluster that seem designed to try and hide the fact that you are refusing to address any of the criticisms levelled at your ideas.

 

Yes, but if he saw his book come to life under a liberal/democrat, Im sure he would look at it differently. His book shows what it would be like in a world of total government control. And that's the direction we're moving in.


Fascism isnt the only kind of tyranny. Liberalism is tyranny, especially under a government like ours that craves money and power.

I've answered all you criticisms, it's Liberals that can't answer mine..

 

25

You claim this BUT CAN NEVER PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE other than you just telling us we are wrong and you are right which isn’t rational argument.


Why do you constantly lie?