Guns: how much longer will it take ....

@msolga,

I've now explained it as clearly as I'm willing to. Both in English (in the first 5 pages of this thread, and now)

The statement you quoted states "my right to own", what could I have been talking about besides my 2nd Amendment RIGHTS?

How dense are you?

0 Replies

@msolga,

Are you really this slow?

maporsche, gave you all the "stuff" you need.
Is there an adult in the room that can perhaps explain things to you?

1 Reply

Sheriffs say 5-year-old concealed-carry law works

0 Replies

@H2O MAN,

She may be slow, however I suspect that she's trying to find someone who supports 2ndA rights who thinks murder is just peachy.

She's simply, and most disgustingly, being vile and dishonest. I have a hard time imaging someone who can willfully do what she's doing here.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

She may be slow, however I suspect that she's trying to find someone who supports 2ndA rights who thinks murder is just peachy.

She's simply, and most disgustingly, being vile and dishonest. I have a hard time imaging someone who can willfully do what she's doing here.

+1
She is simply, and most disgustingly, being vile and dishonest.

1 Reply

Here's the original post. I don't think I've misread it at all :

Quote:

Re: Green Witch (Post 3616668)
I care more about my right to own guns than I do about the life that is lost because of guns.

I don't know why you feel people have to admit this, it's rather obvious isn't it?

Hell, I don't think it's even that shocking of a statement. I care more about my freedom than the lives that are lost protecting my freedom.

I care more about driving my car than I do the lives that are lost because we buy oil from the Middle East. Or the lives that are lost in car accidents.

Hell, people care more about cheap clothes than they do about the lives that are destroyed in sweat shops.

2 Replies

@msolga,

You are lost, seek help and guidance before you post here again.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

I would really appreciate it if you just stuck arguing your point, whatever it is, rather than resorting to personal abuse.

2 Replies

@msolga,

And you think this means that I'm AOK with murder?

You are lost.

1 Reply

@msolga,

You are accusing me of being supportive of murder and you think that gives you a right to tell other people not to attack you?

0 Replies

@msolga,

I'm just an innocent bystander observing your self abuse play out here on A2K.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

Well, I'd definitely say that you've expressed no concern at all for the loss of human life, compared to the over-riding importance that you attach to gun ownership.
No, I'm not "lost" at all. And I'm also not using derogatory personal comments, either, as I attempt to discuss this with you - as you have to me.

3 Replies

@msolga,

Well IF you'd have simply said that then we wouldn't have had any problems. Instead you accuse and insist that I am some vile, disgusting poor excuse for a human being. You did this by insidiously twisting and distorting what I said. If you don't consider that a "personal attack" then so be it, but it most certainly was.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

I am no more impressed by your valuing gun ownership over the human casualties now, than I was before, maporsche. And what is the problem of assuming you'd have little concern for those killed in the US on the weekend, given your stated view? (Which you read as "condoning murder") As I told you earlier in the thread, your attitude shocked me (it still does) & I can't understand it. But at no stage have I called you "some vile, disgusting poor excuse for a human being". Those are your words, not mine. As for "twisting & distorting" what you've said, I don't believe that I've done that at all. But anyway .....

0 Replies

@msolga,

Quote:

Well, I'd definitely say that you've expressed no concern at all for the loss of human life, compared to the over-riding importance that you attach to gun ownership.

The point you're refusing to deal with is that gun control exposes a society to loss of human life in bulk quantities. Gun control was one of the first and most major agenda items for both the nazi German and Soviet Russian states. That's what all those articles on that JPFO (Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership) website are about.

2 Replies

@gungasnake,

gungasnake wrote:

Gun control was one of the first and most major agenda items for both the nazi German and Soviet Russian states. That's what all those articles on that JPFO (Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership) website are about.

Unbelievable, the crappola you're telling us here, gunga. For your information
gun control, the Law on Firearms and Ammunition, was introduced to Germany in 1928 under the Weimar regime (there was no Right to Arms in the Constitution of 1919).

You definitely would fall under the mental incapacity clause to have the right
to bear arms, as do some of your cronies here.

1 Reply

@gungasnake,

gungasnake wrote:

Quote:
Well, I'd definitely say that you've expressed no concern at all for the loss of human life, compared to the over-riding importance that you attach to gun ownership.

The point you're refusing to deal with is that gun control exposes a society to loss of human life in bulk quantities. Gun control was one of the first and most major agenda items for both the nazi German and Soviet Russian states. That's what all those articles on that JPFO (Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership) website are about.

Yes.
One of the reasons for the Founders making the explicit point
of the people having the right to possess weapons
was to keep the government in line,
in addition to personal defense from the depredations
of common criminals, Indians, carnivorous fauna etc.

Indeed, keeping the government in line
or overthrowing it was explicitly argued in both the Ferdealist Papers
in support of ratification of the Constitution
and the Anti-Federalist Papers in opposition to ratification.

By assuring an armed populace,
the Founders physically put sovereignty into the hands of the citizens.
As US Supreme Ct Justice Joseph Story (1811-1845) said:
"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered
as the Palladium of the liberties of the republic since it offers
a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of the rulers;
and will generally...enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

His view was adopted by the US Supreme Ct in US v. MILLER 3O7 US 174 (1939)
together with that of Judge Thomas Cooley who reiterated that idea,
adding:
"The meaning of the provision...is that the people ...
shall have the right to keep and bear arms
and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose."
[emphasis added by David]

The Constitution no more allows any government to control guns
than to edit the Bible or control who has one.

If a man proves, by his violent conduct, that he is an intolerable danger to the decent people,
he can be isolated and separated from access to his potential victims.
Government HAS jusridiction to do that.

David

0 Replies

@msolga,

THANK U FOR THIS THREAD, OLGA.
IT IS VERY ACTIVE! NICE JOB !

msolga wrote:

saab

My understanding (from posts to this thread) is that these pro-gun folk
are more concerned about dealing with a possible robber, or intruder, to their home,
than forming some sort of "militia" to defend their democratic society.

Yes.
This is true. I am too old and too ugly to run around with any militia.

However, the Founders of the Republic were all successful Revolutionaries.
By the 2nd Amendment, thay physically put sovereignity into the hands of the citizens.

Thay anticipated the possibility that government might get out-of-hand
in the future, as it had in the past. Suppose that Obama used the Army
to take over the country and suspended elections.
This is unconstitutional.

The Founders believed that the citizens shoud be empowered to remedy such a situation.
Creating a government is like a group of real estate owners
choosing to hire a property manager to attend to day-to-day affairs; plumbing maintenance, etc.

If the employee tried to overwhelm his employers
and to dominate them, thay needed to be able to rectify the situation.

This was the philosophy of the Founders
as expressed in their writings of the time,
including the US Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land.

David

P.S.:
Olga, I like your avatar.

About 60 or so years ago, I delighted myself in reading
inter alia "Felix the Cat" comic books.
I believe that I probably still have some.
I developed a large comic book collection,
as well as gun collection, from the 1940s and the 1950s.
Those were my 2 favorite decades.
It was another world, then.

I liked it.

0 Replies

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

Bill, Bill!!
All these hypotheticals! (David was at it last night, too ...)
Are they part of the pro-gun training manuel, or something ? Seriously.

I honestly can't see the point of me giving you my opinions on any number of real or imaginary situations .....
all of which, of course, strongly suggest someone would be far better off with a gun!
And I imagine that
I could come up with a few scenarios myself,
which would suit my particular view point, so ...

Well, for MY part,
I hope that u will take the time to bless us with them, Olga.

I 'd LOVE to entertain your scenarios for analysis.
Thay shoud be fun, if u have the time.

David

0 Replies

@gungasnake,

So you think that the Jews could have overcome the Nazis.
Berlin had at the time after Hitler got in power around 4 million inhabitants and of those were about 160.000 Jewish members of the Synagoge, add more who were not members say 200 000 Jews.
The Nazis took 1702 guns plus 20 000 bullets from the Jews.
That means that about 1% of the Jews could have been able to shoot a Nazi.
How many SS lived in Berlin at that time I don´t know but it was thousands and that does not include all the Nazis who where against the Jews.
It is very sad that they had no chance whatsoever with or without guns.

2 Replies

Guns: how much longer will it take ....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know