Pope says weapons manufacturers can't call themselves Christian

[calfoxwc]

Can't be disarmed. Our Constitution is our permanent guarantee.

 

It will never go away.

 

Fought against, watered down here and there, sure.

 

But ultimately we free Americans still win.

 

But what battles that must be fought to get it back in place if it

is "cancelled" by some Obamaotype dicktator, whatever...

 

is up in the air.

[The Cysko Kid]

Let me ask you all a question...

 

Let's consider the context of the constitution and when it was written. When it was written, what type of guns were available... single shot muzzles and pistols? Right? Correct me if I'm wrong because I'm not scholar when it comes to guns.

 

Do you think, that if our founding fathers could see how guns would evolve into the type of weapon they are today, would the 2nd amendment be re-written differently? I tend to think it would.

 

Now, I'm not against gun ownership and responsible gun ownership. However, if the founding fathers knew that guns could turn into fully automatic weapons that could be used to kill dozens of people at a time, I think their intelligence would have chosen to limit the type of gun that the general population could bare? And the constitution allows for these types of changes. I don't think guns should be taken away from the public, but certain guns yes.

 

Does any citizen need a fully automatic weapon machine gun/AR? I don't think so. Can someone own a semi-auto rifle, pistol, I think so, because it's been done so, relatively responsibly over several centuries now. However, we should do what we can, to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and much as we can. Will they still be stolen, absolutely? Will they be used to kill? Unfortunately yes, but typically, not by your law abiding citizen who is looking for something to protect themselves with.

we will make no progress until jack asses realize that you already can't get fully automatic weapons.

[Clevfan4life]

I've been saying for years, and here at this board too...that if you want the right AND privilege of owning a firearm you should absolutely have to prove baseline competency. And the more powerful the weapon the more competency you should have to prove. You want an assault rifle...prove you can run till your heart feels like it's coming out of your chest than drop and put some fire down range with competency. That's what's expected of you in the military or they don't let you have the weapon. Why do civilians think thy have a right to those weapons so they can sling em over their shoulder and look badass. I would absolutely like to own SAW......but I would agree with having to pass military style qualifications and background checks blah blah blah. And if I failed to show the high end competency to own that weapon? I don't get to own the weapon end of story. You'd hear no bitching out of me.

[OldBrownsFan]

I've been saying for years, and here at this board too...that if you want the right AND privilege of owning a firearm you should absolutely have to prove baseline competency. And the more powerful the weapon the more competency you should have to prove. You want an assault rifle...prove you can run till your heart feels like it's coming out of your chest than drop and put some fire down range with competency. That's what's expected of you in the military or they don't let you have the weapon. Why do civilians think thy have a right to those weapons so they can sling em over their shoulder and look badass. I would absolutely like to own SAW......but I would agree with having to pass military style qualifications and background checks blah blah blah. And if I failed to show the high end competency to own that weapon? I don't get to own the weapon end of story. You'd hear no bitching out of me.

 

So my Marine friend who was in combat in Viet Nam and for years ran 5 miles a day but can no longer do it because of his age and having health problems would lose his gun rights under Cleve's dictatorship?

[BrownsKidd]

we will make no progress until jack asses realize that you already can't get fully automatic weapons.

Guess I learned something... then what are people so pissed about.. where's my gun.

 

But seriously, I had no Idea. You would think the liberal media was acting like the average gun lover is toting around an M16 and an AK47 over each shoulder with 357 magnums on each hip.

 

But we should have some type of checks and balances to make sure that gun ownership responsibility is enforced.

If any gun is stolen, it needs to be reported within 48 hours (to allow the owner to find the gun if misplaced). I know people don;t like to have their guns registered, but if someone is doing background checks on you, the government can see that. Shoot, insurance companies can see that you have had a background check ran on yourself. So in essence, the background check is evidence enough that your own a gun.

 

There has to be a mutually agreeable way that we can tighten up ownership, while maintaining our rights. Unfortunately I think it starts with removing those that want to blame the gun for crimes instead of looking at the person wielding the weapon.

 

Like I said, not a gun owner, maybe one day, so I'm no expert, I'm just for people being responsible and allowing those responsible people to own a gun.

[calfoxwc]

Yes, automatic weapons are illegal, unless you jump through hoops, have

a special license and are a dealer or something - that's rare, I think.

 

Liberals wail, still, about automatic weapons because they want a gun ban.

Most of them have been told many times that just because a gun is semi auto,

it is not a machine gun.

 

They don't care- they are fighting a culture war against what they call "the right"...

and they want to win.

 

Like Chris was saying - first, he doesn't want a total gun ban. Then he talks about only the police

having guns.

 

Then he says if Americans do have guns, they should be required to register them, and then all

the gov would have to do, is take away all the guns from the hard core criminals....(who would not register them).

 

We ask - wait.... the only guns the gov knows where they are....are the legal guns.

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. But they don't care. If nothing else, they change the subject til

it comes up again. And they say the same bit again......

 

A lot of libs say "well, we just need a background check for any transaction - especially private transactions.

Ah. So, the gov has to know who gets a gun handed down to them - and laws have been passed and retracted that

make handing down guns illegal...)....it's backdoor everybody has to register.

 

And registration leads to confiscation. You betcha it does.

 

And registration in NY? (I think it was NY) ... they listed the registration of guns PUBLICLY - to harrass, intimidate,

and socially ostracize gun owners.

 

That had nothing to do with crime. Some of those registries? (that included names and addresses...)...were of

police officers. So, registration was just a political weapon to be used against gun owners.

 

Register guns? Next thing ya know - you hc goes sky high unless you get rid of them. And yearly ownership fees and

licenses. and home insurance goes up sky high. Life insurance goes up sky high. And don't bet on being

fired from certain jobs, not hired in gov jobs.... barred from coming to school to see your kids' concerts and plays,

if indeed they let your kids stay in school.

 

It's all part of the culture war. Gun registration just gives them "ammo" to do more "fighting".

[The Cysko Kid]

I've been saying for years, and here at this board too...that if you want the right AND privilege of owning a firearm you should absolutely have to prove baseline competency. And the more powerful the weapon the more competency you should have to prove. You want an assault rifle...prove you can run till your heart feels like it's coming out of your chest than drop and put some fire down range with competency. That's what's expected of you in the military or they don't let you have the weapon. Why do civilians think thy have a right to those weapons so they can sling em over their shoulder and look badass. I would absolutely like to own SAW......but I would agree with having to pass military style qualifications and background checks blah blah blah. And if I failed to show the high end competency to own that weapon? I don't get to own the weapon end of story. You'd hear no bitching out of me.

Yeah a bunch of us already did that, dingleberry. It's called actually serving in the military.

[Clevfan4life]

 

So my Marine friend who was in combat in Viet Nam and for years ran 5 miles a day but can no longer do it because of his age and having health problems would lose his gun rights under Cleve's dictatorship?

 

his previous experience would obviously grandfather him for most firearms. But it is possible he would lose the base competency to properly operate some of the higher powered weaponry...don't you think that's reasonable? If someone starts losing their eyesight for example....really want them walking around concealed?

[Clevfan4life]

Yeah a bunch of us already did that, dingleberry. It's called actually serving in the military.

 

Uh so you would not be part of the demographic i'm referring to right? I have zero opposition to military retaining their firearms, but they still have to show up now and then and prove they still got it. None of this should be "bizarre" rationale for someone who served in the military. You would think those that did would understand these aren't toys. I'm not saying "all" gun enthusiasts in this country think guns are toys...but a lot of them do. You can tell by how they talk about them and by the youtube videos they put up.

[The Cysko Kid]

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except by increasingly ticky tack liberal bullshit culminating in a sixth five year old man reliving hell week for no discernible purpose.

[Legacy Fan]

Let me ask you all a question...

 

Let's consider the context of the constitution and when it was written. When it was written, what type of guns were available... single shot muzzles and pistols? Right? Correct me if I'm wrong because I'm not scholar when it comes to guns.

 

Do you think, that if our founding fathers could see how guns would evolve into the type of weapon they are today, would the 2nd amendment be re-written differently? I tend to think it would.

 

Now, I'm not against gun ownership and responsible gun ownership. However, if the founding fathers knew that guns could turn into fully automatic weapons that could be used to kill dozens of people at a time, I think their intelligence would have chosen to limit the type of gun that the general population could bare? And the constitution allows for these types of changes. I don't think guns should be taken away from the public, but certain guns yes.

 

Does any citizen need a fully automatic weapon machine gun/AR? I don't think so. Can someone own a semi-auto rifle, pistol, I think so, because it's been done so, relatively responsibly over several centuries now. However, we should do what we can, to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and much as we can. Will they still be stolen, absolutely? Will they be used to kill? Unfortunately yes, but typically, not by your law abiding citizen who is looking for something to protect themselves with.

As has been reiterated, the intent of the 2nd amendment was to be able to ensure the protection of the citizenry of the new republic. If that means having rifle barreled Springfields, Henry repeating rifles, colt navy, Eugene Stoner's, & Ronnie fucking Barrett's finest.... Then that's what the intent was. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

[OldBrownsFan]

You can't fault too much someone who is not familiar with guns to be mislead on semi automatics. I have seen those on the left distort the issue many times such as using the term "spraying bullets" in connection with semi automatics which they are obviously trying to confuse the general public about semi automatics and automatic.

 

It is bad enough we have ignorant legislators wanting to take away gun rights who are pretty clueless about guns.

[MLD Woody]

As has been reiterated, the intent of the 2nd amendment was to be able to ensure the protection of the citizenry of the new republic. If that means having rifle barreled Springfields, Henry repeating rifles, colt navy, Eugene Stoner's, & Ronnie fucking Barrett's finest.... Then that's what the intent was. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

What level of weaponry would be required now?

[Legacy Fan]

What level of weaponry would be required now?

For me personally?

 

Or the average citizen?

[MLD Woody]

For me personally?

 

Or the average citizen?

The average citizen. To defense themselves if our govt went rogue.

[calfoxwc]

Well, IF our gov ever went rogue, most of the military would be on our side.

 

Who knows what "most" is, but it's a majority. You'd pretty much have an

American resistance to tyranny in modern times.

 

There was always some disagreement with cowards, and folks who would not

risk their wealth and good graces with the redcoats... and some who were afraid

it was an impossible task - fight back against the redcoats.

 

The redcoats had cannons and big ships. The patriots didn't have either.

It isn't all about armament. It's about fighting tyranny when a red line is crossed

by the gov, or A gov, that sets the fight in motion.

 

The guns Americans are currently owning legally... would be a major threat

to the well being of invaders/persecutors in a silly scenario where a "president"

would create a national crisis, to announce martial law, and the disbanding of

Congress and the Supreme court.

 

It's called resistance to oppression. Lethal defense with small arms is a small part of it.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistance_during_World_War_II

[Legacy Fan]

The average citizen. To defense themselves if our govt went rogue.

I can guarantee it won't be the military going rogue. I think you'd see a larger scale "Bundy ranch" scenario with black suits vs the people, not green suits. To which, I like our odds.

 

As far as what's available? Texas, Arizona, Montana, Utah have it just about right.

[MLD Woody]

I can guarantee it won't be the military going rogue. I think you'd see a larger scale "Bundy ranch" scenario with black suits vs the people, not green suits. To which, I like our odds.

 

As far as what's available? Texas, Arizona, Montana, Utah have it just about right.

I thought the point of the 2nd was to defend against a tyrannical govt? At least from what I've heard on here

[Westside Steve]

I thought the point of the 2nd was to defend against a tyrannical govt? At least from what I've heard on here

Where did you get the idea that anyone thought that a tyrannical government would be the only possible threat to our democracy?

WSS

[Westside Steve]

That sir, is the point I've been making on this board for years. The intent of that provision was to make sure that the people had weaponry powerful enough to ward off any attempts to take over our new Republic. That may have come from the British, the French, the Indians armed by foreign powers or just about anyone. That means they hoped that Farmer Brown could possibly have a cannon in his barn should it be necessary and muzzleloaders and muskets equal to what the British had. We have of course watered down that amendment and the citizens wouldn't stand a chance against the ordinance used by the powers that be. Good or bad I guess, is the question. Does anyone really believe that we might need to take up arms against any group looking to take over? Or do we want the guy next door to have a stockpile of small nuclear weapons? Changing times.

On the other hand do we really want to be completely disarmed as many would love to see?

 

WSS

[StinkHole]

You getting all this Woody?

You think the IRS is the only govt. bureaucracy with armed agents?

The Food and Drug has them, so does the fucking Dept. of Education...

Department of Agriculture, the Railroad Retirement Board, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Office of Personnel Management, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? All of these have their own SWAT units and are part of a worrying trend towards the militarization of federal agencies

 

All these are government, tyrannical or otherwise duh.

So you and other libtards can put to rest that tired "there were only muskets in those days" song and dance.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/376053/united-states-swat-john-fund

[MLD Woody]

Where did you get the idea that anyone thought that a tyrannical government would be the only possible threat to our democracy?

WSS

I never said only.

 

And I imagine that came from some posters on here that believe our evil, liberal, Obamao govt was trying to destroy America and take the rights of straight, white, Christians.... Or something...

[Westside Steve]

Or something. ..

Anyway I only see Obama as a symptom of societal decay. I don't think there will be any armed conflict anytime soon. If and when there is I'm assuming it will come at a time in which the United States has completely sunk to the bottom. That's when revolution and military coup operations and dictatorships seem to take place. Like Nietzsche says from chaos comes order.

The great Chinese dynasties had been defunct for many many years before Communist China came to be.

 

WSS

[StinkHole]

Or something. ..

Anyway I only see Obama as a symptom of societal decay. I don't think there will be any armed conflict anytime soon. If and when there is I'm assuming it will come at a time in which the United States has completely sunk to the bottom. That's when revolution and military coup operations and dictatorships seem to take place. Like Nietzsche says from chaos comes order.

The great Chinese dynasties had been defunct for many many years before Communist China came to be.

 

WSS

 

That's relative to the proverbial "frog in boiling water" adage. Our Dear Leader Obama, born and raised on socialist ideology, hellbent on "fundamentally transforming America" has turned up the heat more degrees than any DemonRat before him..

We may never see upheaval and rebellion in our lifetimes, but it's heating up thanks to liberalism/progressives..."progressive" like cancer I always say.

 

For you clueless liberals...(redundant I know)

The boiling frog is an anecdote describing a frog slowly being boiled alive. The premise is that if a frog is placed in boiling water, it will jump out, but if it is placed in cold water that is slowly heated, it will not perceive the danger and will be cooked to death. The story is often used as a metaphor for the inability or unwillingness of people to react to threats that occur gradually, such as creeping state surveillance.

[BaconHound]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joE9y9iYgJs

[Legacy Fan]

I never said only.

 

And I imagine that came from some posters on here that believe our evil, liberal, Obamao govt was trying to destroy America and take the rights of straight, white, Christians.... Or something...

All of the "dept of _____" that Stuart mentioned = black suits. Green suits= military proper.

[StinkHole]

 

 

Firearms is now a $43 Billion industry thanks to Obama and democrats hell bent on gun control for no other reason than to follow the socialist blueprint.

 

From $19 Billion to $43 creating 34,000 new jobs since Obama took office....gee, Obama did create new jobs after all.