Americans should not be allowed to own guns.

[lovejoy]

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects a right to keep and bear arms from infringement by the federal goverment.

It is GOD giving rights from our founding fathers to guard against the tyranny of the corrupted government if and when such corrupted government is self-serving instead of better our people, for our people and by our people.



P.S. Please notice that this has nothing to do with other countries including U.K., and all the British Commonwealth including Australia, India, Canada, and South and Central America and E.U. Each country has their own national policies regarded to guns.


And America's Founding fathers gave the supreme rights to its citizen to keep and bear arms from infringement to guard against the tyranny of the Government.


What if the German Army fought all the way from France and invaded England and now attacked the East Coast in 1942, it is the rights of all American to take up arms against the German in 1942. The Second Amendment will stand for true test when the Russian and the Chinese attack America !

 

[sproing99]

So you're advocating the use of lethal force to hinder court officers in the course of their duties ?

You're fearful of you elected representatives and wish to threaten them at gunpoint ?

Are you absolutely sure you should have a permit

 

[skechers]

Why are Americans so scared that they feel that they need a gun to protect themselves ?

You don't want to admit that bad things do happen from time to time. And that guns can prevent them from happening, often just by being there and a gun. Without ever firing a shot.

It isn't always about being afraid. It's about being prepared. Need some examples? Check this out.


http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcInfoBase.asp?CatID=43



So yeah. Alot of people feel the need to carry guns for protection. These aren't criminals. Often they are heros. Here's another article.

http://www.issues-views.com/index.php/sect/2001/article/2012

I found this one point to be of particular interest.

"People who have been wringing their hands asking, "What can we do to stop shootings at schools?" have apparently not been told that a couple of these shooting were in fact brought to a halt by an armed adult on the scene."



I do not have a gun for personal protection. I own a 22. Rifle and a 12 gauge shotgun, for hunting. I wouldn't be opposed to tougher laws for handguns. But to say such a generalized thing as "americans shouldn't have guns" or "why are americans so afraid that yadda yadda yadda..." That's ignorant, politically correct, media-fed drivvel.

Self-importance combined with a lack of information. :2 cents:

 

[lovejoy]

So you're advocating the use of lethal force to hinder court officers in the course of their duties ?

You're fearful of you elected representatives and wish to threaten them at gunpoint ?

Are you absolutely sure you should have a permit

Please read my lips, the Founding Fathers only allowed its citizens to keep and bear arms against the tyranny of the agents of the Government.

The Court officers are doing their duties but the Members of the Courts in U.K. are wasting millions of gold to self-serving and engage in wanton behaviour.

It is the agents of the Members of the Court of the King that abuse their power and make arrest just for their own pleasure for fun.

The Roman leisurely used slaves to fight to death for their own pleasure !

 

[lovejoy]

So you're advocating the use of lethal force to hinder court officers in the course of their duties ?

You're fearful of you elected representatives and wish to threaten them at gunpoint ?

Are you absolutely sure you should have a permit

It is a small price to pay but my experience is the Agents of the Crown and the Court of the King and Queen will infringe upon your rights if we lost the War of Independence.

The Red Coat will kill most of us and we will speak a funny accent and bow to the Queen !

 

[sproing99]

You don't want to admit that bad things do happen from time to time. And that guns can prevent them from happening, often just by being there and a gun. Without ever firing a shot.

It isn't always about being afraid. It's about being prepared. Need some examples? Check this out.


http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcInfoBase.asp?CatID=43



So yeah. Alot of people feel the need to carry guns for protection. These aren't criminals. Often they are heros. Here's another article.

http://www.issues-views.com/index.php/sect/2001/article/2012

I found this one point to be of particular interest.

"People who have been wringing their hands asking, "What can we do to stop shootings at schools?" have apparently not been told that a couple of these shooting were in fact brought to a halt by an armed adult on the scene."

The plural of anecdote is not data. I'm sure that equal and opposite examples exist in abundance. I do call into question the objectivity of these sources (as should you with any I provide - they would tend to focus on the opposite view). Just because a couple of shootings were allegedly brought to a halt by an armed adult does not allow you to extrapolate this to a general case or to completely ignore all those occasions where the sheer ubiquity of weapons are the cause.

I do not have a gun for personal protection. I own a 22. Rifle and a 12 gauge shotgun, for hunting. I wouldn't be opposed to tougher laws for handguns. But to say such a generalized thing as "americans shouldn't have guns" or "why are americans so afraid that yadda yadda yadda..." That's ignorant, politically correct, media-fed drivvel.

Self-importance combined with a lack of information. :2 cents:

I'm trying to understand the mindset which says that a person needs a firearm for personal protection. I've never felt sufficiently threatened to feel that I'd need one.

Some people on this board clearly worry about their home and loved ones being violated to the extent that they have thought what to do about it and acquired a weapon in an attempt to prevent it. I'm very interested why people are that worried about it.

Clearly it's not something that bothers you too much, you're in the "I have guns because I like them" and/or the "I have guns to hunt" category. I may not agree with either of those standpoints but at least I can understand them.

What puzzles me is the state of fear in which some people seem to live

 

[marquis2]

The Second Amendment reads ;
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The Militia Act soon followed, written by the same body and passed May 2, 1792, provided for the authority of the President to call out the militias of the several states, "whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe."[1] The law also authorized the President to call the militias into Federal service "whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act"

In other words the Amendment was specifically to support the new government and not to be a way of removing it or opposing it.

 

[lovejoy]

The Second Amendment reads ;
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The Militia Act soon followed, written by the same body and passed May 2, 1792, provided for the authority of the President to call out the militias of the several states, "whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe."[1] The law also authorized the President to call the militias into Federal service "whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act"

In other words the Amendment was specifically to support the new government and not to be a way of removing it or opposing it.

The Founding Fathers also want to keep the government from invasion from the North, from the South and make sure its citizens are ready to protect the new government. !

So why do you think the British Army only stayed in Washington, D.C. just for a night in 1812.

Because they were "afraid" they were afraid of the militia with guns to kill the most powerful Army at that time in 1812 ! :nanner::nanner::nanner:

 

[skechers]

The plural of anecdote is not data. I'm sure that equal and opposite examples exist in abundance. I do call into question the objectivity of these sources (as should you with any I provide - they would tend to focus on the opposite view). Just because a couple of shootings were allegedly brought to a halt by an armed adult does not allow you to extrapolate this to a general case or to completely ignore all those occasions where the sheer ubiquity of weapons are the cause.

My points, in the cases you would possibly highlight, would almost definately be the fact that those weopons weren't owned or purchased legally, weren't liscenced.

And although the information most likely wouldn't be available either way, in the accidental deaths, I could say it was most certainly caused by a lack of respect and understanding for the weapon.

I haven't seen you come with any actual data OR examples yet. So, I can't be sure.

I'm trying to understand the mindset which says that a person needs a firearm for personal protection. I've never felt sufficiently threatened to feel that I'd need one.

Some people on this board clearly worry about their home and loved ones being violated to the extent that they have thought what to do about it and acquired a weapon in an attempt to prevent it. I'm very interested why people are that worried about it.

Clearly it's not something that bothers you too much, you're in the "I have guns because I like them" and/or the "I have guns to hunt" category. I may not agree with either of those standpoints but at least I can understand them.

What puzzles me is the state of fear in which some people seem to live

You keep saying it's fear.... feel threatened... fraidycat... I've never felt that way...

Why does it have to be fear? That's my point. Maybe it adds to the comfort, but that doesn't mean a gun owner would be afraid without his gun. With a gun, he or she might feel more secure.

Okay. So, here's an example. Nothing documented, just pulled right out of thin air: A woman is leaving work late, walking through a dark parking lot to her car. A man in the shadows says "hey baby whats the rush?". The woman quickens her steps. Behind her, she can hear him following. When she gets to her car, she turns around. He's moving toward her with a knife in his hands. He says "don't scream and I won't cut you too bad."

So, right now she looks like a victom. And I'm sure you'll agree, it's never good to be a victom.

Except that's when she pulls a gun from her purse and levels it at her assailants head. Here's the magic. Now she isn't a victim anymore. Most likely, big guys going to run away. She won't fire a shot.

You say fear. I say... in some cases, justified and logical.

 

[marquis2]

The Founding Fathers also want to keep the government from invasion from the North, from the South and make sure its citizens are ready to protect the new government. !

So why do you think the British Army only stayed in Washington, D.C. just for a night in 1812.

Because they were "afraid" they were afraid of the militia with guns to kill the most powerful Army at that time in 1812 ! :nanner::nanner::nanner:

That's what I said. It was nothing to do with protection against a tyrannical American government .

 

[Facetious]

It's always those elitist left wing political figures and their voluntary socialist welfare dwelling constituency that want to swipe the free working man's rights
away.

"social justice" they're calling it.

Stalin, had he been alive today, would have done no different.

 

[feller469]

I guess if we are going to stereotype every viewpoint, leftwingers want to kill unborns, right wingers want to kill the born. The gun lobbies will ensure that Americans always have guns and as long as there are people who want stuff that isn't theirs or want stuff without worrying about the means of getting it, guns will be used to intimidate, injure and kill. The prevalence of guns is disturbing, but, Heaven forbid, the gun industry not try to make money and stop production. Everyone points the finger at a part of the problem, but since the problem is a societal one it will take everyone to find a solution.

I don't see that happening...ever. So this thread will go on and on and on and on.

 

[lovejoy]

That's what I said. It was nothing to do with protection against a tyrannical American government .

You are so wrong !

Back in the 1776, tens of thousands of Loyalists went up north to Nova Scotia and up until few years ago, the Loyalists can still vote in Nova Scotia 200 years later. That's why the Crown and the Members of the Court and so-called Loyalists wanted to invade the New England and finally succeeded to burn down the White House but managed to stay just overnight because the Militia with guns will kill the Red Coat.

And the Loyalists wanted the old glory back and take back THE AMERICA, THE BEAUTIFUL !

 

[mrtrebus]

Sounds pretty cliche but...Guns dont kill people, people kill people.

You start taking away our guns, whats next? Our Cars? Afterall those kill people to! (lets not blame it on the people driving them)

Er no, because the sole purpose of a car is not to injure/kill someone/thing. That is a gun's raison d'etre.

 

[tittenman]

You are so wrong !

Back in the 1776, tens of thousands of Loyalists went up north to Nova Scotia and up until few years ago, the Loyalists can still vote in Nova Scotia 200 years later. That's why the Crown and the Members of the Court and so-called Loyalists wanted to invade the New England and finally succeeded to burn down the White House but managed to stay just overnight because the Militia with guns will kill the Red Coat.

And the Loyalists wanted the old glory back and take back THE AMERICA, THE BEAUTIFUL !

And which state in America do you hail from my friend? And please stop talking in that huge size 5 font at us we can equally get the point or not as may be in a smaller font size!

 

[BlueBalls]

You are so wrong !

Back in the 1776, tens of thousands of Loyalists went up north to Nova Scotia and up until few years ago, the Loyalists can still vote in Nova Scotia.

And the Loyalists want the old glory back and take back THE AMERICAN, THE BEAUTIFUL !

Why do you feel the need to do that?

As apposed to this:

You are so wrong !

Back in the 1776, tens of thousands of Loyalists went up north to Nova Scotia and up until few years ago, the Loyalists can still vote in Nova Scotia.

And the Loyalists want the old glory back and take back THE AMERICAN, THE BEAUTIFUL !

You see, this way we still get your point.

It's just not as annoying this way and it takes nothing away from your post.

 

[lovejoy]

That's what I said. It was nothing to do with protection against a tyrannical American government .

Without the different states Militia in the North, the Union Army may not have win the Civil War against the tyrannical Southern Rebel and their Government.

It has everything to do with protection against a tyrannical Southern Government in 1862.

 

[mrtrebus]

Without the different states Militia in the North, the Union Army may not have win the Civil War against the tyrannical Southern Rebel and their Government.

It has everything to do with protection against a tyrannical Southern Government in 1862.

not so loud sir!

 

[marquis2]

Without the different states Militia in the North, the Union Army may not have win the Civil War against the tyrannical Southern Rebel and their Government.

It has everything to do with protection against a tyrannical Southern Government in 1862.

except that the southern rebels were armed too.When everybody is armed the advantage disappears.

 

[skechers]

Er no, because the sole purpose of a car is not to injure/kill someone/thing. That is a gun's raison d'etre.

A gun is certainly a weapon first and foremost. But a responsible gun owner is not walking around hoping against hope for a reason to use it.

I believe the basis of the topic creator was this: People kill people with guns. It should be: bad people or uneducated people kill people with guns.

Someone else on this thread said something along these lines. Only the fool believes that a criminal, who will disregard other laws will not still obtain and use guns should they become outlawed.

Now they gots the guns. And we gots alot of nothin, daddy.