Sola
beta
a year
Photo #1 from Paradise, United States by Hanover Fiste made on 2018-03-23 14:53 for Sola

Until you have a better idea, and know how to compromise, STFU.

Photo #2 from Paradise, United States by Hanover Fiste made on 2018-03-23 14:53 for Sola

Do you really think a woman is safer when she cannot protect herself?

I would love to debate the gun issue as soon as someone can acknowledge all of the failures of the government to enforce laws that already exist.

Plenty of gun crimes happen when the criminal shouldn't have had access to a gun in the first place.

The right to protect oneself must be preserved when any gun control debate takes place. How to remove them from those who cause harm is the only topic I will discuss.

449votes
0SOL earned
Vote
Share
Vote
Share
135
204
449
United States, Paradise
135 comments
Kevin
Gun laws reduce suicide and accidents. If my gun kills me in my house, or your gun kills you in your house.....why would anyone even want to legislate that shit?!?!
1
Hanover FisteAuthor
So, you're proposing to take away the means of self defense for millions, to keep a few hundred from killing themselves? Wait, now you have to take away poison and tall bridges too....
29
Kevin
Hanover Fiste, not at all. We should consider suicide and accidents, but that means my gun won't kill you if you don't come here and start shit.
Saя¿asmatron
Why are full auto guns, granades and bazookas banned? Doesn't that restrict your murican freedomz to protect yourselves from robbers, muggers, rapists and gangsters constantly trying to kill your family, rape you and steal your tv?
1
Hanover FisteAuthor
Ah yes take the extreme point. Hell don't forget nukes and nail bombs are banned too!
4
Saя¿asmatron
Hanover Fiste, why are these extreme? They are just an other type of weapon. If the good guys can't have them the bad guys will!
Kevin
Military weapons are not allowed to the citizens, because they are not allowed to the police. How complicated is a "free state"? It's the opposite of a "police state" we're racing towards the later.
Saя¿asmatron
Kevin, very complicated... so why not give military grade weapons to the police as well? Isn't that an infringement of their rights too? Aren't they the good guys with guns?
Hanover FisteAuthor
Saя¿asmatron, I guess you don't know about the 1033 program.... It's ok you live on the other side of the planet. Please stay there.
Saя¿asmatron
Hanover Fiste, that is actually a counter argument to Kevin, but ok..
1
Josh
Saя¿asmatron, the police here already have "military grade" weapons
Saя¿asmatron
Josh, clearly. how about the civilians though?
Hanover FisteAuthor
Saя¿asmatron, *acts like he already knew that* 😂😂😂😂
4
Farmer Jeff
Saя¿asmatron, civilians can and do own full auto weapons. Rocker Ted Nugent has several he frequently shows off just to make liberals’ heads explode.
5
Saя¿asmatron
Jeff Barriault, So anyone in America has the right to have military grade weapons? machine guns, grenades, rocket launchers etc?
Farmer Jeff
Saя¿asmatron, fully automatic rifles for sure. Just need to pass a federal background check and pay a hefty fee.
Saя¿asmatron
Jeff Barriault, interesting. Cold you direct me to where I can learn more about this?
Farmer Jeff
Saя¿asmatron, look up the National Firearms Act.
Josh
So many Guns prevented us from being overrun by a megalomaniacal madman with a penchant for genocide, unlike a certain other continent.......
1
Cunor
So many guns make you live in fear every day of a few lunatics with a soft spot for violence, unlike almost every other country. But you only have to produce fears and images of enemies to control a flock of sheep. And the right to possess firearms makes you feel free and secure.
2
Josh
Cunor, hitler
3
Farmer Jeff
Cunor, wow! That was an ignorant comment.
12
Hyde
Cunor, I don't live in fear and own multiple firearms. All are stored in my home in various locations.
6
Farmer Jeff
Hyde, shotgun next to the bed?
3
Hyde
Jeff Barriault, shotguns are under my bed
1
Farmer Jeff
Hyde, I’m getting too old to be reaching under my bed. LOL
2
Hyde
Jeff Barriault, it keeps me limber.
1
Farmer Jeff
Hyde, I own/run a micro farm. I’m so sore by the end of every day I’m not sure I even remember what limber feels like. LOL
Dances with bits
Had to laugh about the 2nd card. You do know that there are countries other than the US, where unarmed women do feel safe?
6
Farmer Jeff
Had to laugh about your comment. You do know there are ‘developed’ countries where women are less safe than in the US?
1
DELETED USER
Feeling safe and being safe are two very different things
12
Hanover FisteAuthor
🤝JDaniel Richer🤝, ^
Dances with bits
Jeff Barriault, not many.
12
Dances with bits
🤝JDaniel Richer🤝, the „being save“ has been covered well by all the statistics on crime in the US and Europe. No need to reiterate this.
Dances with bits
🤝JDaniel Richer🤝, IMHO the US gun law debate has noting to do with being safe and everything to do with feeling safe.
2
Hanover FisteAuthor
Dances with bits, statistics 😂😂😂😂😂 I love when people use statistics against my basic constitutional rights
Farmer Jeff
Hanover Fiste, basic fundamental human rights. Some of the founders didn’t think we needed the bill of rights to restrain government since the power to regulate arms isn’t among the enumerated powers. I agree with the statistics bit . . .
Farmer Jeff
I am so sick and tired of each and every gun control argument. Why must the LAWFUL activity of roughly 42% of American households suffer more and more infringements from government because of the actions of less than .005% of the population? Millions of gun owners go through life every day without harming anyone. Their LAWFUL activity isn’t infringing upon anyone’s rights.
15
Saя¿asmatron
Because we have to walk as slow as our slowest person to keep society moving. Why can't skilled drivers drive as fast and crazy as they want on the streets? Why can't responcible drug users take any drugs they want? Why can't responcible gun owners not have full auto, granades and rocket launchers? Because there are always the idiots who fuck it up for the rest of us.
3
Farmer Jeff
Saя¿asmatron, brilliant! Simply brilliant! </sarcasm>
17
Kevin
Saя¿asmatron, walking as slow as the slowest person doesn't keep society moving. It holds it back. That's the philosophical core problem though. We tried this is schools here in the US under "No Child Left Behind." It sounds nice, but if you apply logic you will see how it is destructive. We cannot drink clean water, until everybody has clean water to drink! Let's all drink parasites until that glorious day comes! (That day won't come if we do)
9
Saя¿asmatron
So do you think there should not be any limitations and restrictions on driving? like how fast we should be able to drive, who gets to drive? I think you may have misunderstood my point...
Hanover FisteAuthor
Saя¿asmatron, that's about the dumbest comment I've ever seen on Sola 😂😂😂😂 thanks I took a screenshot for a suoviner
Hanover FisteAuthor
Saя¿asmatron, do you know how they figured out speed limits? They figure the normal speed that 80% of people would normally drive on that road....(base it on the slowest person 😂😂😂 that's so funny)
9
Saя¿asmatron
Hanover Fiste, you are making a fool out of yourself by not understanding the metaphor nor even trying to. But what else is new...
Hanover FisteAuthor
Saя¿asmatron, oh great excuse. Call the dumbest thing ever said on Sola a metaphor. So you're backtracking now. Good job I would too 😂
Kevin
Saя¿asmatron, in the US driving in a privilege issued by the government, who builds a good portion of our roads. I can assure you we pollute a lot and have a high number of deaths on the road, so over here "they" have not figured out speed limits. Just "they" will steal your money, vehicle, or jail you if you break them, regardless of whether it was dangerous to do so. Gun ownership, and the right to carry, and even bear them is specifically not a governments job. The people have that right automatically from birth here. Either way you look at it our government is incompetent and does not need any more power. We gave over 50,000 gun laws in the US and if they could be enforced, we would have had zero shootings in school, this year so far. Also, try some logic or study classical debate, I feel where you're coming from but the Ad Hominem style arguments make your points completely invalid for debate of any kind.
10
God.
I refuse! Why cant you just learn to compromise?! I refuse to talk to you!
18
Hanover FisteAuthor
Too late, you just did
Farmer Jeff
Why would anyone in their right mind compromise by surrendering their rights?
20
God.
Hanover Fiste, RHEEE
10
Hanover FisteAuthor
God., Troll....
1
God.
Hanover Fiste, oh please. The contradiction is so blatant and stupidly obvious you minds well give me this.
11
Hanover FisteAuthor
God., Don't get mad it's only a joke....
God.
Hanover Fiste, it better be 😃
3
Hanover FisteAuthor
God., Man you were so pissed you couldn't even type right 😂. *minds well* 😂
God.
Hanover Fiste, Nah, I always say that
Gregory Thomas
There is no "debate" about gun control...anything that infringes arms ownership & carry is illegal.
10
Saя¿asmatron
Is it illegal to infringe your right to have full auto guns, granades and rocket launchers?
Kevin
Saя¿asmatron, grenades and rocket launchers are not guns. I can tell you are not in the US, but our nation has intellectual property are always protected; speech, gathering, and religion collectively protected as one thing; and armed persons who can keep the government from taking that away. The only reason for the US government, or a state for that matter, to try and effect changes on carry (ownership was, and is, implied), is because that state or government does not want you to speak, worship, or think. Our states that have strict gun laws have way more shootings.
6
Saя¿asmatron
Kevin, what chances of resistance does a bunch of civilians with pistols and semi auto assault rifles have, when they would be fighting one of the worlds most advanced armies with tanks, drones, jets, missiles and other cool shit? Also all these things, like gun ownership technically can be changed legally, would you still consider that to be tyranical?
Farmer Jeff
Saя¿asmatron, didn’t I already attempt to answer that asenine question for you already on another card? Or do you just like to hear yourself talk?
Saя¿asmatron
Jeff Barriault, you did attempt but you did not succeed answering. Let someone else try. Maybe they are better at it than you are?
Farmer Jeff
Saя¿asmatron, what chance do you think the US will ever have another civil war?
Saя¿asmatron
Jeff Barriault, hopefully 0. It is highly unlikely but technically possible.
Farmer Jeff
Saя¿asmatron, if that’s the case, then why keep asking the same question regarding a highly unlikely scenario?
Saя¿asmatron
Jeff Barriault, I want to understand what pro guns people see as tyranny in America that they are going to fight with their pistols and semi auto assault rifles that they so badly need to defend themselves. What would be interesting is if you guys would paint a scenario how you think America could becomes a tyranny? Where would you draw the line? And what do you think the chances of that happening are?
Farmer Jeff
Saя¿asmatron, why do we have to fight? Isn’t simple ownership a deterrent akin to how governments stockpile nukes?
Saя¿asmatron
Jeff Barriault, it is not really much of a deterrent when the power balance of weapons are very unequal. We can take many examples from all around the world. We can take the Turkish coup d'état attempt in 2016 that ideologically aligns to your idea of resisting a government that turns away from the original values of the country. Here a government that would make Atatürk roll in his grave was challenged not by a bunch of civilians with pistols, but by fractions of actual Turkish military. They did not succeed because not only did they not have enough support from rest of military, but also the Turkish population supports Erdogan and went out to the streets to oppose the uprising, thus nullifying of what the founding father of Turkey stood for. The modern dictator doesn't declare a dictatorship. He just makes it as hard and dangerous as possible to oppose him. No tyrant is able to rule with his iron fist if he already does not have a huge support by his people. All he needs to do is convince his society that the only way the people are free and safe is when they are with him. But as I think both of us agree that a scenario like that in US is highly unlikely, what exactly is this arming and preparation for? It clearly is not a deterrent today as it may have been many years ago... at least from my point of view...
Farmer Jeff
Saя¿asmatron, because we can? Do we honestly need more of a reason than that? Why must we justify our actions?
Saя¿asmatron
Jeff Barriault, You don't need to justify anything. In fact you don't need to take part in this discussion if you do not want to. I am simply curious.
Farmer Jeff
Saя¿asmatron, curious? I don’t see that based on reading many of your comments. I get more of an ‘I’m superior because I live in a developed country’ kind of attitude.
Saя¿asmatron
Jeff Barriault, I don't think I am in any way superior at all. I don't think you are either. This is not what the discussion is about. And Sweden is no more developed than US. In many cases probably even less so. We are simply different.
Farmer Jeff
Saя¿asmatron, that I can certainly agree upon.
Hanover FisteAuthor
Saя¿asmatron, what chance did the rebels that formed the United States have against the British soldiers? 😂😂😂😂 But they won. You're proposing to take that little tiny chance away. That's the worst thing that could ever happen. That's why it's the 2nd amendment not the 15th. It's the second thing they thought of when they thought about things that a government should not be able to take away from people. Many people today still agree with that.... The same people who will save your life if shit hit the fan.
Kevin
Saя¿asmatron, our government does not use military weapons in the US. They do not even arm most National Guard with more than a couple of bullets.
Saя¿asmatron
Kevin, they would if a group of armed people would start a violent uprise against the elected government and the situation would reach a point where police force can not handle it any more. But still... please.. someone... paint a scenario for me of how you imagine America becomes a tiranny. Where do you cross the line? How do you think civilians with guns that are available to them would resist it? And why would it be any different in US than in any other violent uprising in the world in modern times?
Farmer Jeff
Saя¿asmatron, to go back to your original question, yes, the national firearms act is illegal. It clearly violates the crystal clear language of the Second Amendment.
Saя¿asmatron
Jeff Barriault, so is the governmt tyranical because of the NFA or is that not enough of freedom infringement to call it so yet? Where is the line that it becomes tyranny for you?
Farmer Jeff
Saя¿asmatron, the American government is already a tyranny. 95% of what they do is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court wrote one bad decision that set a precedent for their abuse. The one thing the founders didn’t count on was a Supreme Court that would allow an expansion of government instead of limiting its own power.
10
Saя¿asmatron
Jeff Barriault, so when do you rise up against it? Where do you draw the line?
Farmer Jeff
Saя¿asmatron, we already have/are. http://tenthamendmentcenter.com
6
Saя¿asmatron
Jeff Barriault, this does not really look like an upraising against tyranny using guns that I was looking for, it looks more like a movement of activists, one like many others. Again - how more tyranical does the government need to get before words turn to action? Where do you draw the line?
Farmer Jeff
Saя¿asmatron, if/when they start going door to door to confiscate firearms I imagine that’s when you’ll see action. Basically the same actions the British took that started the revolutionary war. With the number of guns in America I doubt it will ever happen. The federal government doesn’t have the manpower for such efforts and would need help from the states. Many of those states, including Texas where I live, also have the right to keep and bear arms written into their state constitutions. So once again, highly unlikely.
Saя¿asmatron
Jeff Barriault, but we established in our previous discussion that technically your right to have guns can be removed legally by change of constitution - it is an unlikely and a difficult process but technically it is possible to do legally. If that situation would happen in accordence to law, would you see it as tyranny? Also there currently are some sort of regulations of what kind of guns are allowed and so on, right? If these regulations get much more strict, but legally does not break any constitutiknal laws, would you see that as tyranny worth violent uprising?
Farmer Jeff
Saя¿asmatron, rights can never be removed. They are unalienable. The only two things government can do is protect rights, or use coercive force to infringe upon them. NONE of the federal gun laws on the books are constitutional. We are already living under tyranny. States are already passing Second Amendment protection bills citing their Tenth Amendment authority. I shared the link already. Violence isn’t needed so I don’t know why you keep pushing the issue. Violence will happen when the government initiates it. Nobody is looking to start an uprising.
Farmer Jeff
Saя¿asmatron, and as far as any other new regulations are concerned, this quote from Robert A. Heinlein explains how I feel: “I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.”
Saя¿asmatron
Jeff Barriault, I still don't get it... you need guns to fight the government when it becomes tyrannical, but it already is tyranical, but you do not fight it because it does not initiate the fight first? Then you post a quote that sounds quite anarchistic. Is that your goal of freedom? Everyone in your society decides the rules for themselves?
Farmer Jeff
Saя¿asmatron, where did I ever say I needed guns? I’m already ‘fighting’ the government in various non-violent ways. My goal for freedom is to restore constitutional limits on the federal government and to be left alone by them.
10
Kevin
Saя¿asmatron, it's a dynamic of power. Like the ancient Greek states knew: an armed populace is a free populace. We did have a stand-off over land rights where the "right wing gun nuts" won, the federal government gave up and left. They were in the wrong, according to the US Constitution and they lost. The thing about control is that if you blow people up you lose control of the people, because they are dead. If you just want to rob the people, but they have a lot of guns, you go rob someone else....like Iraq or Afghanistan....
10
Saя¿asmatron
Jeff Barriault, than we might be discussing two completely different things. I am primarily interested here in the pro-gun argument of "we need guns to fight the government if it ever gets tyranical" - if you do not agree with this arguement than we are both wasting our time, unless you have some insight in the logic of people that support it. Kevin, they are actually called "Gun boner rednecks" but whatever. And you are right - blowing people up does not get you controll over them, but convincing them into submission over ideology and promise of safety as well as unification over a common enemy will give you support and control as well as martyrdom to rob someone else..
Farmer Jeff
Saя¿asmatron, when the Second Amendment was written, why do you think the founders sought to prevent the government from infringing upon the individual right to keep and bear arms? I’m guessing you already know the answer to that question. So why is it a stretch for people today to feel the same way?
Saя¿asmatron
Jeff Barriault, lets get one thing straigt - I am not against people having access to guns. I personally have some interest in them myself. However, I do not think guns should be available willy nilly to every dufus out there. I also do not think the model of founding father of America aplies very well in modern times for reasons and examples I mentioned in my previous comments. I am also not understanding or feel like I am getting answers to what is a tyranical government in America, how it may become tyranical, how it would be countered by civilians with guns that are inferior to what government has, if it is tyranical already, why it is not countered with guns as intended and is anarchy the type of freedom you seek for and your founding fathers built the republic on?
Farmer Jeff
Saя¿asmatron, guns are not available willy nilly. Laws already exist that made it illegal for the most recent 17 year old school shooter in Maryland from even possessing a handgun. Why should we tolerate more laws that infringe upon the fundamental rights of 700 some odd million people because of the behavior of less than .005% of the population? The founders’ principles are timeless and apply equally well today in modern times. The federal government is already lawless/tyrannical. It happened when the Supreme Court sided with government expansion and ignored the overwhelming evidence from the federalist papers to the ratifying conventions concerning the limited nature of the federal government. I thought I already explained that one. I’ve already explained how a second civil war could theoretically go down, but you’ve already rejected that explanation. Ironically it’s the same scenario presented by others, and one person I know of who has a degree in military strategy. Nobody is advocating for anarchy. We’re not even anti-government. The Tenth Amendment left the realm of ‘regulations’ with the states. States should be free to experiment with different ideas. People can ‘vote with their feet’ as Ronald Regan once said. People are free to move to places that are more suited to their liking. Smaller, more local governments are way more humane than huge centralized authority. Given that the British are leaving the EU, and the fact that you live in a small nation I figured you’d already understand that. Apparently not.
Saя¿asmatron
Jeff Barriault, I agree that gun controlling laws exist in US - they have a certain degree of freedom infingement though as they are controlling of gun use and ownership among other things. So if there are laws that already are controlig guns, is it tyranical if these laws get more strict, even if they do not completely remove your right to own guns? If it is, why are you not in a violent uprise against the tyranny that you say you have your guns for already? The founding fathers principles were made at a time of muskets vs muskets. Today you stand with pistols vs army that has machine guns, granades, rocket launch... ahhh.. you know the rest.... Well Great! You explained to me that you see the current government as tyranical and I get your point of view. But what I do not get is why are you not resisting the tyranny with your gun as you said what they are for? A civil war could start in many ways and finish in even more ways, as many modern civil wars have shown. America is in no way uneque to any of these scenarios not to be possible, just like any other country in the world. America is also not the only country where civilians have guns. You quoted: * “I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.” * if I am not mistaken this is from "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress". The quote is used to describe Rational Anarchy.
Farmer Jeff
Saя¿asmatron, perhaps we don’t need a violent uprise? The intent of the Second Amendment is to defend oneself from aggression, including from our own government. We’re not going to initiate violence. This war over gun rights is already being non-violently fought and won on several fronts. That musket argument is so old, lame, and has been debunked by several scholars that I’m not going to even address it. If our military firepower is so overwhelmingly superior explain to me why we haven’t had victory against a bunch of people with far inseperior weapons in the Middle East? Small arms are an effective tool. Google the Bundy Standoff to see how non-violent protesters carrying small arms are effective against a lawless government. The courts eventually dismissed, with prejudice, all charges and basically ripped the government’s behavior to shreds. To suggest that small arms aren’t effective is just plain ignorant. The evidence proves otherwise. Yep, the quote was from “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.” Let me ask you a question. Do you obey the speed limit at all times? Have you ever rolled through a stop light on a deserted road in the middle of nowhere when there was no other traffic around? The quote applies to many areas in life, and in some ways and instances we are all anarchists. That doesn’t mean we’re ready to abolish all law.
Saя¿asmatron
Jeff Barriault, *perhaps we don't need a violent uprise? * well good than the argument "we need guns to overtake a government turning tyranical" falls apart right at you first sentace of your coment above and I agree with it fully. Why even prepare for something that you are not willing to use in practice anyway? In the second paragraph where you do not want to adress my point but do it anyway, we can adress that the Taliban or any other insurgent force in the middle east has never fought the US military with pistols and semi auto assault rifles. They are well trained and equipped. They may be causing havoc for a long time, but in no way are they wining. And with your quote you are discribing anarchy and my question still stands - is this the type of freedom you imagine an is this really what the founding fathers wanted for the republic?
Farmer Jeff
Saя¿asmatron, who said anything about overtake? The Second Amendment is about DEFENCE. I also provided an example where, in practice, protesters simply bearing arms successfully won a standoff against our tyrannical government and went on to prevail in court as well. Your assumption that Americans don’t own fully automatic weapons is wrong. The tactics of the Taliban, VC, American revolutionists, and countless other forces are what’s important. Your assumption that semi-auto arms would be ineffective is naive. Havoc is the name of the game. Outright victory isn’t needed. Russia eventually ran out of money and had to widthdraw from Afghanistan. I’m not sure how the quote ‘describes anarchy’ as you say. If anything it describes how free individuals deal with stupid laws. Prohibition comes to mind as a good example of how even in a lawful society people become intolerant of laws and ignore them. It doesn’t mean we’re lawless anarchists. It’s just an illustration of our thought process. You want an idea on the founders’ view on the topic? Try reading the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions.
Josh
Jeff Barriault, The last reach of tyranny is when the silent majority of American people will be forced to react. When it is declared that we must give up our firearms or face consequenses. Contrary to what many would have you think, we are a VERY tolerant and compromising people. We will pursue every means to avoid violent confrontation. But when left with no other option, we will resist. Till death. Till the last of our air leaks out in a death rattle.
11
Josh
Josh, not you Jeff the other guy lol
5
Hanover FisteAuthor
Josh, 👏 I'm a part of the silent majority. I know many others like me across all parties and walks of life. People come to this country, and desire to come more than any other because of our great liberty. I will not allow our liberty to be taken, and will die for it. I call myself part of the silent because I only state that feeling rarely. I don't drive a pickup truck with a rebel flag, my guns are safe, haven't been seen in years, and I don't really care about them....except that I have a right to own them and I will die for it, because of all that has been said here.
25
Saя¿asmatron
Jeff Barriault, ok fine.. defence, but like you said, you already live in tyranny so why not defend your freedom with your guns like you say you would? Isn’t all that activism and talk for pussy liberals? According to you, you are not free and your rights are infringed upon by a tyrannical government and the argument is that guns are necessary to protect yourself from when government turns tyrannical, which in your ideology it already is. Yes, you are right, some americans do have fully automatic guns and as I understand these are mostly guns made before 1986 with some exceptions and loopholes. The fact that they are harder to get than a semi auto should be a tyrannical infringement of your rights worth defending in your ideology, you know - with your gun! Also not every gun owner today has them either, which still makes your resistance movement arms largely inferior to the government’s. And again - the Mujahedeen were supplied by US with a lot more than some pistols and semi auto rifles, something US has also accused Russia lately of doing with Taliban. This is a basic scenario to every modern civil war as it is an easy target for foreign interference and destabilization to gain influence over the region by proxy. Are you saying you would accept support by a foreign power to win your cause too? What you are advocating for is individual interpretation of what laws should be obeyed and which ones to ignore, making laws basically useless as everyone decides for themselves what they see as a stupid law that is not worth obeying and what is a law worth following. This sounds a lot like a type of anarchy to me. Josh, there are legal ways to ban guns or restrict them. As we established with jef before this is technically possible but unlikely and difficult process that would need a huge support by the american people. So if that would reach a point that a decision is made to disarm you legally, by then it means most Americans support this and your resistance would be seen as criminal. You can’t say that there are few people who support the idea of disarmament, considering that the young generation gathered to express their stance on the matter in thousands yesterday as well as that it is a debate that interests many americans and it has been an important topic for ages now. That support may grow or it may fall, but if it grows enough to make change, no gun will save you by that time.
Farmer Jeff
Saя¿asmatron, are you an idiot? Seriously? We are defending our freedom, NON-VIOLENTLY. Do you think because we own guns we’re looking for a fight?
Hanover FisteAuthor
Jeff Barriault, that's obviously what he thinks. He probably thinks we wear seat belts because we want to hit each other. He probably thinks you don't need to own an umbrella because it didn't rain today.
Gregory Thomas
Saя¿asmatron, Yes. The Founding Fathers did not write FIREarms but instead wrote ARMS...all ARMS...not just firearms. Without any manipulation of the Constitution at all, you have a clearly defined right of the People (citizens) to Keep (possess, own) and Bear (have, carry) Arms (handguns, rifles, machine guns, clubs, swords, shillelaghs, crossbows, quarterstaff, longbows, suriken, nunchakus, sai, nuclear weapons, rocks, knives, cannon, a board with a nail in it, etc...)
Hanover FisteAuthor
Gregory Thomas, no....it meant you have a right to own the arms removed from a bear. Polat bear arms, grizzly bear arms, panda bear arms, etc.
Saя¿asmatron
Gregory Thomas, yes and these rights are infringed as the arms you are allowed to bear are limited and controlled to a certain point - according to your friend here, you guys live in tyranny already, but no need to defend your freedom with your arms that you need to defend your freedom from tyranny. If they can be controlled as they are today than so can they be regulated even more strictly. And constitution can be changed too. In fact by the logic of you friend here you can chose which laws are stupid and not follow and which are to be taken seriously individually so constitution shmonstitution....
Hanover FisteAuthor
Saя¿asmatron, the Constitution does say "well regulated" but far far before that it begins with "we the people...." So, we will have a major say in how it's regulated. As stated often we have hundreds of regulations already. If the government did it's job most massacres would have been prevented. More and more laws that are enforced the SAME way won't change a thing... The only thing it will change is law abiding gun owners, responsible people will be effected. That case is not acceptable.
Hyde
Hanover Fiste, government failures have more culpability in most massacres than a lack of current laws. As we have discussed before about the many different failures of government before the parkland shooting. If government does it job, the shooting doesn't happen. But lets not talk about that lets focuses on creating more laws that wont affect criminals.
Hanover FisteAuthor
Hyde, exactly. I don't know if stupid people can figure out what you just said....
Farmer Jeff
Hanover Fiste, emotional people. When people get too emotional logic and reason tend to go out the window.
Josh
Saя¿asmatron, Then I would be a criminal according to an unconstitutional law, which when compared to my God given rights enumerated in the supreme law of the land, the constitution, would absolutely nothing to me.
Saя¿asmatron
Josh, god given rights? Oh boy... which god (coz there are many of them...) and what rights did it give you?
Josh
Saя¿asmatron, The God I believe in. And yes, the founders already did accepted foreign help. France.
Saя¿asmatron
Yeah.. when magic people giving rights come up, I think I had enough... anyway, interesting talking to you Jeff.
Gregory Thomas
Saя¿asmatron, I don't know who you are referring to...I have no friends on Sola
Josh
Saя¿asmatron, that's fine.....call it creator, nature, god, whatever you like. It makes no difference. I'll keep the right to bear arms, and my firearms. You keep whatever it is that you cherish. And by the way you'll know when the American people have had enough, it'll be loud and VERY clear. Just like the last time we threw off the chains of tyrannical rule. I know it hurts some feelings, but Ameria will NEVER surrender the second amendment.
5
Hanover FisteAuthor
Saя¿asmatron, fact: the existence of government doesn't add rights. In fact it removed them. The Constitution doesn't give anyone more rights, it guarantees those ones will not be taken.
10
Hyde
No middle ground is wanted by most. They have been taught from birth to fear guns of all kinds of all types probably all the way down to a BB gun. They've never held they probably never even seen a gun yet they have the strongest opinions on something they have no knowledge of.
14
Farmer Jeff
Whereas we’ve grown up with them. For me carrying my pistol is as natural as carrying my wallet. Having a loaded rifle readily accessible in my home that I can grab at a moments notice to protect my livestock is second nature.
10
Hyde
Jeff Barriault, I don't carry often anymore. But it is very second nature to me.
5
DELETED USER
"Middle ground" is not an option and honestly it's a phrase commonly thrown around by "woke" neocentrists. The thing about politics is it's nothing but people debating on how they should force others to live the way they would like them to. No one is going to compromise on what they believe in if they believe in it strongly enough.
Hyde
🤝JDaniel Richer🤝, you are correct. I dont understand how so many folks feel it is ok, to force others to live according what they see is right and just. I hear attempted justifications consistently but no valid justification. Most consist of "what I believe is right and what you believe is wrong, so you should be forced to live according to my will". It is just sad 😢
Hanover FisteAuthor
Hyde, the same such people are resorting to the block/mute function here....😂
DELETED USER
Hyde, "it's for your safety". "Its for your health".
DELETED USER
Hyde, I'LL BE THE JUDGE OF THAT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AM I NOT AN ADULT????
Hyde
🤝JDaniel Richer🤝, ?*you lost me with that last comment*
Hyde
Hanover Fiste, we can laugh about it, but it is a very real phenomenon. And I just can't understand or see how to reach these people to help them see we are equal, that I can choose my way even if it is different from their way. . I believe it stems from the "greater good" philosophy /fallacy
Farmer Jeff
Hyde, there is no valid justification to use FORCE to control the actions of peaceful people who are exercising their basic fundamental rights WITHOUT infringing upon the rights of others.
10
Hanover FisteAuthor
Hyde, yeah, the greater good...is there a such thing? The same people have said there is no "lesser evil" and the greater good applies to everyone, and removed individual freedom. The kind of freedom that makes live even worth living. The greater good....let's all just become robots, even as we get replaced by robots. Let's all become brain dead, and let others make decisions for us. But hey at least I'm not responsible for my own mistakes. It's someone else's mistake because it wasn't my choice. Oh wait, I think I just found the REAL goal! 🤤
Hyde
🤝JDaniel Richer🤝, gotcha. It makes sense now.
Write something...
Send