Hugh G. Rection Report This Comment Date: February 05, 2008 03:32PM
Yeah...why does that couple who live in an upscale neighborhood need so many
guns?
Are they drug dealers? Bank robbers? Cultists? I feel safer now that they're
disarmed.
Mrkim Report This Comment Date: February 05, 2008 04:57PM
Maybe because they live in an upscale neighborhood and have a right to protect
themselves and what they own from those who would otherwise choose to simply
steal it from them ? You anti-gun fuckers are a pretty pitiful bunch of fucks.
Making the assumptive "leap of ant-faith" that anyone posessing
multiple weapons much be drug dealers or cultists speaks volumes about your lack
of understanding.
I suppose by the same logic used above all gun collectors, gun traders/sellers
and hunters who likely own a variety of weapons for varied prey must also be
affiliated with drug dealers or cults too huh ?
BTW, best of luck to you and your loved ones with the attitude you have if you
ever are awakened at 3am to find some crack head or common burglar breaking into
or much less, already inside your home. Maybe you can talk 'em outta killin you
by lettin 'em rape your wife or kids instead of just defending yourself, those
who mean something to you, much less your property by being pro-active about it
all and just shootin the worthless fucker.
The only person who would be comforted by the image above is a criminal
themselves since they then know what easy pickins these folks would be after
their weapons are taken away.
Whatta fuckin leftist whiny choom
zxz555 Report This Comment Date: February 05, 2008 05:15PM
mrKim you make the same mistake all americans make on this issue. For the same
reason Europeans do not understand the gun issue in the US you all fail to see a
society that has existed far longer than your adolescent country has and without
guns and without gun crime, aside from isolated and rare incidents.
If you were not all toting and selling arms then even the criminals would not
have them. I see that in the US you need to have one because the other, more
psychotic guy has one, but you could also be without them altogether.
As for hunters owning guns... well they are the worst, hiding in the bushes with
telescopic infra-red sights wearing camo and killing an animal from 200 meters.
If you want a license to hunt you should be stripped naked and told to go at it
on equal terms with the poor beast you intend to kill. Fucking pussies hiding
in the undergrowth.
I hope you all keep your guns locked up too, so that the burgler/rapist that
breaks in, the one you are going to blow away, does not steal yours fro use in a
crime. Because you know they will only break in and steal yours guns and rape
your dog / wife when you are at work.
Mrkim Report This Comment Date: February 05, 2008 06:08PM
Sorry Z, but I strongly disagree with your views. For the reasons stated above
as well as for a very simple tenet of our own constitution which allows our
citizenry the right to bear arms.
This right wasn't granted for hunters or gun collectors, but so that no one in
this "new" society would ever again be put under governmental control
simply because they were unarmed against a government that was.
While it is true that if guns were eliminated within our society there would be
fewer guns for the criminals TO steal and use against us, it would just as
surely NOT stop crimes against persons or their property still and would only
drive up the prices criminals pay for their illegally owned weapons
comparatively.
Here NO convicted felons have the right to own a firearm, not even as a hunting
weapon, but it damned sure dudn stop 'em from gettin 'em anyway!
The bottomline that really derails your stance to me is that even before
firearms were invented people STILL robbed and killed one another and game was
still killed for food.
Weapons themselves are neither evil nor dangerous. Only Humans hold that
distinction
Anonymous Report This Comment Date: February 05, 2008 06:37PM
The new world order has a plan to do just that! to tak our guns away from us.
There are a few states that are asking people to turn in their guns for money.
No one will get my guns!! FUCK THAT!!
woberto Report This Comment Date: February 05, 2008 08:47PM
And so-on ans so-forth...
fossil_digger Report This Comment Date: February 05, 2008 09:03PM
the day the government decides to revoke our constitutional right to bear arms
is the day they get shot in the head. maybe that's not such a bad idea, at least
then we can install leaders that are for the people rather than for big
business, banks,insurance companies, and any other asshole group who choose to
contribute to inflation in the name of loss prevention.
Anonymous Report This Comment Date: February 06, 2008 04:43AM
question:if the government ever got so out of hand that the people decided to
march on washington and take it (the country)back with their weapons,do you
think the government and officials in charge(even knowing they're wrong)would
hesitate to use any means possible leagal or illeagal to stay in power?i believe
they'd even nuke their own to do so.sad state of a onece great country.
zxz555 Report This Comment Date: February 06, 2008 06:15AM
Firstly MrKim, thanks for replying without being a reactionary idiot
One of the points pro-gunners are often not eager to discuss is this:
major point of contention is whether it protects against infringement of an
individual right to personal firearms[5] or a collective State militia right.[6]
Most circuit court precedences favor the "collective" interpretation,
but the "individual" interpretations are supported by recent court
cases such as United States v. Emerson and Parker v. District of Columbia. There
is also a "modified collective" view that says the right is protected
for individuals to bear arms based on their needs while serving in a
militia.[7]
taken from here:
[
en.wikipedia.org]
Was that not the point of the second amendment? That you have the right to
raise hell against invasion or a government that dissolves your rights to the
point where the US can no longer be recognised as the state it was intended to
be?
Shooting at one-another willy-nilly was surely not the intention? Or does the
US administration just need to spend more time & money on policing?
jgoins Report This Comment Date: February 06, 2008 12:12PM
"Shooting at one-another willy-nilly was surely not the intention? Or does
the US administration just need to spend more time & money on
policing?"
---------
Shooting at one-another willy-nilly is not the reason the majority of people own
firearms. The majority of people who own firearms are upstanding law abiding
citizens who have never used them on another human and only would if there is no
other choice. The criminals who use firearms against other people are a very
small minority of people in this country and to paint all gun owners with the
same brush does a grave injustice to everyone. Gun laws only restrict law
abiding citizens and do nothing to stop crime.
Mrkim Report This Comment Date: February 06, 2008 03:28PM
I understand that the 2nd amendment has been interpreted in both ways you
mentioned Z and that such an interpretation is typically used to support
whatever agenda one purports to side with in how people individually view
it.
Idealogically we were granted the right to defend ourselves against aggressors
by allowing the citizenry the right to keep and bear arms, though the absolute
distinction as to whom such an aggressor might be was never specifically
outlined within the constitution.
What I was taught in school was that such a right was granted for defense
against foreign as well as domestic aggressions, meaning we had the right to
defend both our country against foreign powers on our soil and against our own
government should it ever go afoul of its intended purpose(s) and threaten the
citizenry.
In my view, and it's just mine, a citizenry deprived of its ability to posess
firearms stands naked and helpless against either type of foe and can easily
find themselves prey to either just as well
Anonymous Report This Comment Date: February 06, 2008 05:44PM
Damn!
Posted by: fossil_digger - I live here (IP Logged)
Date: February 05, 2008 03:03PM
"the day the government decides to revoke our constitutional right to bear
arms is the day they get shot in the head. maybe that's not such a bad idea, at
least then we can install leaders that are for the people rather than for big
business, banks,insurance companies, and any other asshole group who choose to
contribute to inflation in the name of loss prevention."
It's about time you speak up!...... are you
pushing forward (talking shit) on purpose?
The funny thing about the Anti-Gunners is, if the government tried to take the
peoples guns away, the Pro-gunners would fight against it, the Anti-Gunners
would then praise the government for shooting the Pro-Gunners because they had
Guns and deserved it.... get the "social correctivity" they thrive
on?!
We have a conceal-carry law here and "the city" never allowed it, even
though it became state law, they are fighting it, if they would allow city
people to carry guns, like the law says, then, crime in the city would plummet,
because, the bruthas would think twice before they did whatever they damn well
pleased!
Just by the way, there have been times when the police broke down someones door,
came storming in and were shot by the innocent people in that home that the cops
got the wrong information about from their crack addicted scumbag, so that he
could be patted on the head.... although I'm sorry to say them being found not
guilty is an exception to the rule.
[
www.theagitator.com]
[
www.hightimes.com]
Did everyone know that the Federal Government has special training now for
at
least higher ups at police departments across the country, those higher ups
will come back and say how great it was and now they're back in shape and all
that crap, but, they won't discuss in detail what the training was all
about..... Police State Tactics becoming the norm..... to help the people of
course (with excuses), the people will demand that the government "help
them", that's the biggest scam yet.... "don't force the people too
much, have them beg for it because of the 'situation' they are put in"...
kinda reminds of Ivan the Terrible.... speaking of..... "they" have
almost a year to make some shit happen, hopefully I am wrong! Just remember, it
doesn't matter who's in there, the laws are already passed..... why won't anyone
ask any of the current Presidential Candidates about the Patriot Act or any of
the other Anti-Freedom Laws that are in place and hard at work?
Here.....
[
www.salon.com]
Anonymous Report This Comment Date: February 06, 2008 06:35PM
I know, I know, if a couple people see these that haven't before then it's well
worth it.
[
www.youtube.com]
[
www.youtube.com]
[
www.youtube.com]
[
www.youtube.com]
When people were saying, long, long ago, that lots of the stuff that's happening
today was going to happen they were blown of and called... "crazies"
or (fill in the blank), well, it's happening. What about those "9/11
Truthers" talking that crazy stuff, follow the trail and it's easy to see,
ignore the trail if you fear the truth.
[
www.news.com]
Think about it, if you were told, say, 20 years ago that laws that have been on
the books since the 1800's were going to be erased... would you have believed
it?
Would you have believed that NORAD (look them up) could have just ignored those
plains throughout that morning. There were terrorist drills going on that very
morning all over the place.... more coincidence, coincidence after coincidence,
make a list.
What about the Patriot Act, if you were against it.... "two Democratic
Senators, Tom Daschle of South Dakota and Patrick Leahy of Vermont."... you
might be "helped" with your decision.
[
en.wikipedia.org]
[
www.youtube.com]
Now, look into govenment scientist that have committed "suicide"......
and on and on....
Freedom is a fairytale, tell the people they aren't free and they'll get pissed,
tell them they are free and they'll stand up straight, say.... damn straight!
and walk away smiling..... dumb.........dumb,dumb,dumb.
jgoins Report This Comment Date: February 08, 2008 12:01PM
Paranoia is a fatal disease.
fossil_digger Report This Comment Date: February 08, 2008 07:13PM
you don't seriously think i will watch any of those bullshit anti-gun fuckhead
you stooge posted videos do you?
whatta dipstick!
jgoins Report This Comment Date: February 09, 2008 01:08PM
In a country this size they could never remove all the guns. If you make it
illegal for law abiding citizens to have guns then the criminals will be the
only ones with access to them. We have something on the order of 1 policeman
for every 10,000 people so we cannot expect the police to be able to protect us
all the time. It is up to us to protect ourselves as much as possible. If guns
were somehow magically removed from the world then people would use bows and
arrows and knives to commit crimes and there would be no reduction of crime.
Crime and murder has been around far longer than gun powder. Concentrating on
one tool used in crimes is not the answer for fighting crime, it is just easier
for the wimps than dealing with the causes of crime.
zxz555 Report This Comment Date: February 09, 2008 04:26PM
jgoins, once again you are so wrong, if we get rid of guns then people will not
start using bow & arrow and knives, they will use blow pipes and poison
darts, which are considerably more cool than guns, or any of the other
alternatives.
That is my primary reason for banning guns worldwide. I want to read about
assassinations in the news by blowpipe. It just does not happen enough
jgoins Report This Comment Date: February 10, 2008 11:24AM
The point is banning guns will only change the instrument of crime to something
else, it will not reduce crime.
