So what do Democrats think about this pic?

Reagan wanted assault rifles banned. Some figure believing something doesn't mean anyone else has to or should. To be clear, I'm completely opposed to any form of gun control.Rhazakna

Those who have not yet liberated their minds from the shackles of statism. Those too blind to see the truth of extremist idealism.

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"]Reagan wanted assault rifles banned. Some figure believing something doesn't mean anyone else has to or should. To be clear, I'm completely opposed to any form of gun control.BossPerson

Those who have not yet liberated their minds from the shackles of statism. Those too blind to see the truth of extremist idealism.

[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="BossPerson"]the wording of that amendment is so bad, the interpretation can go both ways and still be equally right. BossPerson

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

What part of that don't you understand?

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"]Reagan wanted assault rifles banned. Some figure believing something doesn't mean anyone else has to or should. To be clear, I'm completely opposed to any form of gun control.Rhazakna

Those who have not yet liberated their minds from the shackles of statism. Those too blind to see the truth of extremist idealism.

I see the appeal of anarchism in many ways. Im not exactly a fan of states by any means. They are the epitome of what is criminal imo. But perhaps they're necessary.

Understand something. We LIVE in anarchism. States are imaginary constructs, you know this more than anyone. There's nothing physically restraining anyone from trying to destroy a state. I believe anarchism will always naturally lead toward statism at some point since people will always try to achieve some sort of monopoly of power, unless people are willing to always defend an anarchism system.

[QUOTE="BossPerson"][QUOTE="thegerg"] The wording isn't bad at all. It grants the right to own and bear weapons to the people in order to keep the militia regulated. DJ419

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

What part of that don't you understand?

[QUOTE="DJ419"]

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]"the militia"? BossPerson

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

What part of that don't you understand?

Then why does it say people instead of the militia? Because the militia is the people. You need an armed populace in order to form a militia in the first place. That is why it says people.

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="BossPerson"]pragmatism....practicality....these are words of the establishment drones, right?

Those who have not yet liberated their minds from the shackles of statism. Those too blind to see the truth of extremist idealism.

BossPerson

I see the appeal of anarchism in many ways. Im not exactly a fan of states by any means. They are the epitome of what is criminal imo. But perhaps they're necessary.

Understand something. We LIVE in anarchism. States are imaginary constructs, you know this more than anyone. There's nothing physically restraining anyone from trying to destroy a state. I believe anarchism will always naturally lead toward statism at some point since people will always try to achieve some sort of monopoly of power, unless people are willing to always defend an anarchism system.

Live by the sword...

[QUOTE="GazaAli"]Are you going to fight the U.S army with pistols and rifles?ristactionjakso

[QUOTE="ristactionjakso"]

[QUOTE="GazaAli"]Are you going to fight the U.S army with pistols and rifles?gamerguru100

What do you think of it ristactionjakso? You didn't really say.

Personally I'm not for taking away people's guns nor their right to own them. I'm simply for keeping them out of the hands of the mentally ill, and for the amount of bullets they can hold at one time to be limited in capacity so that if and when something terrible happens less people can be murdered. Nothing in that JFK quote seems to disagree with me on that.

As for the rest of the responsible gun owners out there, they can go shoot game or targets until their heart is content for all I care.

[QUOTE="AIIison"]JFK can do whatever he wants. We just do not want uneduacated hill billies and psychos with them.thegerg

[QUOTE="gamerguru100"][QUOTE="ristactionjakso"]Do you really think the army will stand against millions of armed people? Unless the government bombs itself, there is no way it can win.

Yusuke420

It is so reassuring to hear that humanity as a whole has suddenly evolved beyond the point where everyone now knows what is good for everyone else. That the possibility of a small group of people (the government), is no longer capable of commiting anymore heinous acts.

The 2nd Amendment was designed specifically for this doomsday you speak of.

"The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed - where the government refuses to stand for re-election and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once." - Judge Alex Kozinski of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

[QUOTE="ristactionjakso"]

[QUOTE="GazaAli"]Are you going to fight the U.S army with pistols and rifles?gamerguru100

Do we even have militias anymore? Even if we do I doubt they are well-regulated. Regardless of what JFK, I still feel in sight of the many gun related crimes that were committed last year, that we have to do something, doing nothing doesn't change anything and more crimes will happen. Something must change.layton2012

again, what do you think of the picture you postedristactionjakso.

What do you think of it ristactionjakso? You didn't really say.

Personally I'm not for taking away people's guns nor their right to own them. I'm simply for keeping them out of the hands of the mentally ill, and for the amount of bullets they can hold at one time to be limited in capacity so that if and when something terrible happens less people can be murdered. Nothing in that JFK quote seems to disagree with me on that.

As for the rest of the responsible gun owners out there, they can go shoot game or targets until their heart is content for all I care.

Serraph105

[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="AIIison"] Oh **** off Captain America. This thread is not about your morals? Some people are just smarter, learn the fact. Would you give a monkey a gun?ristactionjakso

[QUOTE="Yusuke420"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"] Yes, some people are smarter. That has nothing to do with the fact that you seem to wish to deny Americans their rights based on their level of education. Let's not forget that that was the same justification used to prevent blacks from voting in many places for generations. It's inhumane and disgusting. thegerg

[QUOTE="GazaAli"]Are you going to fight the U.S army with pistols and rifles?ristactionjakso

He doesn't give much of an interpretation of the second amendment, he merely says what it is and says he thinks its important.chessmaster1989

Or if, just maybe, they use the hundreds of thousands of tanks, aircraft, APC's, missile's, and bombs that make them more powerful than every other military on the planet... but sure, a few "million" people with handguns, hunting rifles, and pipe bombs are sure to win in the end....

Lotus-Edge

That was very effective in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. It also worked really well for the Soviets in the 80s in Afghanistan.

Bascially what you just said goes against every major conflict of the last 40 years.

[QUOTE="Lotus-Edge"]

Or if, just maybe, they use the hundreds of thousands of tanks, aircraft, APC's, missile's, and bombs that make them more powerful than every other military on the planet... but sure, a few "million" people with handguns, hunting rifles, and pipe bombs are sure to win in the end....

Wasdie

That was very effective in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. It also worked really well for the Soviets in the 80s in Afghanistan.

Bascially what you just said goes against every major conflict of the last 40 years.

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="Lotus-Edge"]

Or if, just maybe, they use the hundreds of thousands of tanks, aircraft, APC's, missile's, and bombs that make them more powerful than every other military on the planet... but sure, a few "million" people with handguns, hunting rifles, and pipe bombs are sure to win in the end....

DroidPhysX

That was very effective in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. It also worked really well for the Soviets in the 80s in Afghanistan.

Bascially what you just said goes against every major conflict of the last 40 years.

Changes nothing. Just because you know the land better doesn't mean you can efficiently oppress it, especially when your population is armed.

Bombing your own infastructure to the ground is not the best of strategical decisions you could make. The military gets their supplies from somewhere. Logistics really don't work when you have to attack your own supply routes.

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="Wasdie"]

That was very effective in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. It also worked really well for the Soviets in the 80s in Afghanistan.

Bascially what you just said goes against every major conflict of the last 40 years.

Wasdie

Changes nothing. Just because you know the land better doesn't mean you can efficiently oppress it, especially when your population is armed.

Bombing your own infastructure to the ground is not the best of strategical decisions you could make. The military gets their supplies from somewhere. Logistics really don't work when you have to attack your own supply routes.

Um...I don't care...

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"] In all of those instances that you've used, never once was there a government that engaged in DOMESTIC tyranny and takeover. Once again, it's easier to take over your own backyard than your neighbors. Because you know what goes on in your own backyard. DroidPhysX

Changes nothing. Just because you know the land better doesn't mean you can efficiently oppress it, especially when your population is armed.

Bombing your own infastructure to the ground is not the best of strategical decisions you could make. The military gets their supplies from somewhere. Logistics really don't work when you have to attack your own supply routes.

You overestimate the capabilities of our insanely inefficent government.

Also I'll say it again, bombing your own infrastructure doesn't work. Just look at Syria. They've been doing such a good job of bombing their people to submission.

[QUOTE="Planeforger"]I do enjoy how your example of a pro-gun advocate was also one of the most famous gunshot victims of all time. I guess that makes my response "I'm fine with Americans keeping their guns, just as long as they're fine with being shot all the time".thegerg

Assuming that there's an anology there (and that's shakey at best - cars are used publicly/guns privately; cars' death-dealing capacity is incidental to their central purpose/guns' central purpose is to kill; cars aren't used in many intentional killings/guns are; cars are used worldwide/guns tend to be banned or restircted in most first world counties; etc.)...people tend to be totally fine with laws designed to reduce car deaths.

There are strict regulations concerning what cars may be produced/sold, what cars people may drive, where people may drive, who is qualified to drive, what state of mind they have to be in before they get behind the wheel, etc. The whole system is strongly licenced, scrutinised and enforced, and particularly dangerous cars are quickly purged from the market.

Stronger car regulations could prevent more deaths from occurring, but at the same time some concessions need to be made to weaker drivers/unsafe cars, given the near-necessity of private transport in everyone's daily lives. The same argument for under-regulation couldn't easily be used in defence of guns.

Also, the original picture would be like using an image of Princess Diana in an endorsement for reducing car regulations. It wouldn't be particularly convincing.

*edit* To put it another way: if ridiculously fast sportscars started crashing into schoolbuses on a weekly basis, killing children with regular ease, would there be much of an outcry if the government tried to regulate sportscars more strongly, or ban those types of unsafe sportscar entirely?

In any case...that wasn't my main point at all. I was merely saying that I don't honestly care whether or not the USA ends up keeping or banning their guns, just as long as they don't act surprised or outraged at the natural and probable consequences of widespread gun ownership.

[QUOTE="ristactionjakso"]

[QUOTE="GazaAli"]Do you really think the army will stand against millions of armed people? Unless the government bombs itself, there is no way it can win.

Lotus-Edge

He doesn't give much of an interpretation of the second amendment, he merely says what it is and says he thinks its important.chessmaster1989

JFK can do whatever he wants. We just do not want uneduacated hill billies and psychos with them.AIIison