Do you support the second amendment?

  • Thread starter Thread starter thephilosopher6
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Vonsalza said:
Again, ad nauseam, the issue is guns and poor people.

When you have a high supply of both, you have high gun-crime.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is nauseating the way you are placing all poor people into a group and implying they are violent. If a conservative made that comment, the charge of racism and bigotry would be 24/7 on CNN and other progressive/leftist media.

The high supply is not causing violence. Guns do not cause gun violence. People do. Individuals do. And claiming law abiding citizens who happen to be poor should have less access to their rights in this way is like saying all Muslims are terrorists.

The sale of guns in Indiana is not the cause of gun violence in Chicago. It is in part the fault of progressive policies that restrict economic growth.
It is, in part, the fault of a poor education system that doesn’t focus o knowledge necessary for successful membership in the economy.
But it isn’t the fault of the right to keep and bear arms.
 
Jcrichton . . .
Wow, so Hitler and his Nazis were defeated by British militia?
Click to expand...
I never said or intimated that. Maybe it mattered, maybe it didn’t matter that the British frantically wanted US guns at the time.

But an honest reading of my post, would have told you the principle of my point concerned elites in power and how they will pull out all the stops for protection for . . . .themselves (yet not afford the common law abiding people the same consideration).

It was NOT a treatise on how WWII was won or was not won.

I am disappointed in the lack of comprehension or the level of dishonesty in your post here jcrichton.

From my post that jcrichton took out of context for political points . . . .

.
Do you know when gun proliferation for a law abiding citizenry has been encouraged by Governments?

When it’s expedient for politicians. . . .

. . . After Great Britain was in the process of stripping their subjects of their guns, they were threatened by Hitler and the Nazis.

England made frantic appeals to Americans to part with THEIR firearms and send them to England during World War II so they could get guns back in the hands of the “common folk” quickly. (Also their gun industry had been “going to seed” un-nurtured. So now when they needed guns and needed them quickly, they could not count on themselves.)

Politicians felt threatened and they wanted protection for themselves.

Protection not just from their military and law enforcement, but protection for themselves from their subjects too.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Where are you going to get that effective guerrilla that is not going to turn against other citizens the second that they feel their “rights” are being infringed upon by the “lesser” capable and secretly elitist–anyone who thinks differently is judged and usurper of the “true” movement/rebellion/revolution.

Look at the white supremacists, er white nationalists–any White person that does not support their agenda are seen as the enemy… then you have all those different goals and opinions that will take over the “movement” every other day as new “votes” “elections” of the “soon to be free people” must engage in order to demonstrate their cause is the 'just/right" one.

Maran atha!

Angel
 
…yeah, somehow the tyrannical element is going to put all their most destructive weapons on reserve… and no soldier is going to be executed on sight for failing to follow command… yeah, it’s the kindler, gentler tyrants move.

Maran atha!

Angel
 
jcrichton - the militia movement in the US is more organized than you might think, not just a bunch of factions that will turn on each other. Look how they responded to the Bundy Ranch situation. They made the feds back down. And if you think patriots are all “white supremacists”, you are wrong.
 
Last edited:
jcrichton said:
40.png
Cathoholic:
The Constitution was set up to protect the citizenry against overarching Government encroachment
Click to expand...
Thank you; we are finally at an agreement: the Constitution, not the dreamy 2nd!

Maran atha!

Angel
Click to expand...
That protection includes the protection provided by the 2nd. I frankly think it is a dreamy to believe that government should or could be trusted with all the guns.
 
jcrichton:
Where are you going to get that effective guerrilla that is not going to turn against other citizens . .
Click to expand...
It doesn’t matter.

Why not?

Because the Second Amendment is not based upon where people can get “effective guerrilas” or not.
 
Which God is that?

The God of fable?

Could you cite the US Military enforcement of confiscation of weapons?

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Have you ever experienced a block out?

How many braves go out to help the elderly and the families with children?

Those same ammo enthusiast would kill you right where you stand before sharing a piece of road kill… if times got as hard as the US state becoming a tyrannical state… pork bellies will not be the only fat that will burn!

Maran atha!

Angel
 
JonNC said:
40.png
Vonsalza:
Again, ad nauseam, the issue is guns and poor people.

When you have a high supply of both, you have high gun-crime.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is nauseating the way you are placing all poor people into a group and implying they are violent.
Click to expand...
No, that’s just your frantic attempt to twist what’s true. Poor people aren’t generally violent. But violent people are generally poor.

“Sorry bro”, dems da’ facts…
 
Jon, could you reason out this math: Indiana gun sales say “XYZ” per year, Indiana citizenry owner ship of guns “XYZ-xy missing guns” so no import of violence from Indiana?

Maran atha!

Angel
 
On the issue of the unfair advantage of rich over the poor I fully concur with; all we have to do is note the news developments… a young Latina leaves her kid in a car for a few hours to attend an employment interview and the state goes after her for child endangerment; a young White woman’s 2 year old female child disappears for two months never to be found alive again and while the “mother” never reports the child missing, she goes free without even as much as a slap on the wrist–money walks, 99.9% of the times.

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Last edited:
Vonsalza said:
40.png
JonNC:
40.png
Vonsalza:
Again, ad nauseam, the issue is guns and poor people.

When you have a high supply of both, you have high gun-crime.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is nauseating the way you are placing all poor people into a group and implying they are violent.
Click to expand...
No, that’s just your frantic attempt to twist what’s true. Poor people aren’t generally violent. But violent people are generally poor.

“Sorry bro”, dems da’ facts…
Click to expand...
It is the facts, but individual constitutional rights are not infringed upon based on what a general group does, or based on an elitist progressive notion that we know better. The vast amount of gun violence in Chicago is young black males. You seem squeamish about targeting those groups- youth, blacks, males, but you’re sure ready to infringe on the rights of the law abiding poor simply because they are poor.
 
jcrichton said:
Jon, could you reason out this math: Indiana gun sales say “XYZ” per year, Indiana citizenry owner ship of guns “XYZ-xy missing guns” so no import of violence from Indiana?

Maran atha!

Angel
Click to expand...
Cite your statistical source.

Why do they leave Indiana? Isn’t there anything in Indiana to steal? No stores to rob? No violent folks live there? Really? So, the only violent folks are the people from Chicago?
The guns are not the cause of the violence. Violent people are. Stop the violent people. And when you actually come up with the name of a gun dealer who has been accused of illegal gun sales, ill stand with you in condemning it.
 
jcrichton:

You addressed to me . . .
.
On the issue of the unfair advantage of rich over the poor I fully concur with; all we have to do is note the news developments… a young Latina leaves her kid in a car for a few hours to attend an employment interview and the state goes after her for child endangerment; a young White woman’s 2 year old female child disappears for two months never to be found alive again and while the “mother” never reports the child missing, she goes free without even as much as a slap on the wrist–money walks, 99.9% of the times.
Click to expand...
.

I have no idea the point you are attempting to make to me here. Does this concern one of MY posts?

Could you be getting me mixed up with another poster (because admittedly, I have not read the entire thread so I can’t tell for sure)?
 
Last edited:
So you believe that an incident such as empty land would be treated the same as an advancement against the government and government representatives?

…and you actually believe that it was because of the armed forces that the government backed down?

Ever seen any of those sci-fi movies/programs where the aliens take down communication, infrastructure and the arm forces? That’s what happens when a tyrannical power goes into effect… there’s no negotiation, and preparation, and mustering up a coalition of “defenders.”

The first rule of extermination is cut off the head!

Civil liberties and rights will be nonexistent!

Maran atha!

Angel
 
It is a compilation of protections not a single-issue protection that keeps the government away from tyranny.

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top