anti-rampup

[aileron]

Some articles out by the anti's Lets see, theres assault weapons ban. Bashing John Lott, and Oh, the terrorists are coming to a town near you, so we dont need guns. That last one is laughable.

http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/InTheNews.aspx?ID=8700

EDIT: Some might want to write the author about that last article. Preferebly those that dont fall under this definition by the author:


Today, only a handful of citizens outside of neo-nazi and white supremacist goups view gun ownership as a means of keeping the government in check.

Which I think is almost all of us.

Oh and lets not forget this tidbit about that article.

http://www.jpfo.org/alert20070108.htm

EDIT: Some death numbers to counter their thoughts.

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/01/06/keeping-the-numbers-in-perspective-firearm-related-deaths-in-america/

[xenophobe]

http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/InTheNews.aspx?ID=8700


The third article scared me the most.

The framers of the Constitution saw the right to bear and use arms as a check against an unruly government. That state of affairs no longer exists.

This assumption being the worst... At least he acknowledges that the 2nd Amendment was clearly designed as being the ultimate liberty teeth; with the deficit growing as it has, national ethnic unrest the worst it has ever been; one cannot assume "That state of affairs no longer exists" is just as much false today as when they wrote it.

[Californio]

Number 3 is quite interesting. I have always believed that the framers used “Natural Law” and the inalienable rights of all men, endowed by their creator as the basis for the founding documents. European Monarchy had subjugated the population for centuries and the founding Fathers knew any form of government had the propensity to do the same. Don’t the founding documents speak to Natural Rights that all men have by reason of their humanity and granted by no government? Interesting, “Gun ownership does not make sense anymore”, when did sense of government take precedence over Natural Rights of Free Men. I guess to them we are just Wards of the State or the New Age Monarchy that they want to control.

[cseabass]

The framers of the Constitution saw the right to bear and use arms as a check against an unruly government. That state of affairs no longer exists.



my blood pressure just went up reading that one line.... damn that just put a damper on my whole day... i think i need to go shooting to cheer me up.

[chiefcrash]

[in regards to the third article]
"The idea of terrorist cells operating clandestinely in the United States, quietly amassing handguns and assault rifles, and planning suicide shooting rampages in our malls..."

yes, and the answer to this is disarming law-abiding citizens!!! good job!!

"Today, only a handful of citizens outside of neo-nazi and white supremacist goups view gun ownership as a means of keeping the government in check. Even those citizens who continue to maintain such antiquated views must face the reality that the United States’ armed forces are too large and too powerful for the citizenry to make much difference."

hmmm. US military is approximately 2,685,713 according to wikipedia. The US population aged 17-45 that's NOT in the military is something like 106,000,000. I think we stand a chance....

"Quite frankly, the idea of the citizenry rising up against the U.S. government with their handguns and assault rifles, and facing the military with these personal arms is absurd. The Branch Davidian tragedy at Waco, Texas, was one such futile attempt."

Unless my history is rusty, i think the .gov raided the Davidians (who failed in their resistance attempt). A little different from the Davidians marching on washington in a coup attempt...

"It is no longer safe for the public to carry guns. Gun violence is increasingly widespread in the United States"

Yes, the widespread violence is a perfectly logical reason for people NOT to carry weapons...

"According to the DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, in 2002 41 percent of American households owned at least one gun. According to these same statistics, 50 percent of the owners were male, 43 percent were white and 48 percent were Republican. More than 50 percent of the gun owners were college educated and earned more than $50,000 per year. Regrettably, these folks are going to marshal their considerable resources to protect their special interest."

hmm, about half of the people own a gun. Half of them male (the other half female i assume), about half white (the other half minorities), about half republican (the other half mostly democrat i bet). That's SOME "special interest" group...

"So long as guns remain available to the general public, there will always be the threat of terrorists walking into a crowded restaurant, a busy coffee shop or a packed movie theater and opening fire upon unsuspecting civilians."

here, i rephrased it for you: if guns become unavailable to the general public, there will always be the threat of terrorists walking into a crowded restaurant, a busy coffee shop or a packed movie theater and opening fire upon unsuspecting civilians.

/rant

[rohanreed]

"So long as guns remain available to the general public, there will always be the threat of terrorists walking into a crowded restaurant, a busy coffee shop or a packed movie theater and opening fire upon unsuspecting civilians."

here, i rephrased it for you: if guns become unavailable to the general public, there will always be the threat of terrorists walking into a crowded restaurant, a busy coffee shop or a packed movie theater and opening fire upon unsuspecting civilians.


heh, I had a slightly different rephrase in mind...

There will always be the threat of terrorists walking into a crowded restaurant, a busy coffee shop or a packed movie theater and opening fire upon unsuspecting civilians.

[ARRRR-15]

Today, only a handful of citizens outside of neo-nazi and white supremacist goups view gun ownership as a means of keeping the government in check. Even those citizens who continue to maintain such antiquated views must face the reality that the United States’ armed forces are too large and too powerful for the citizenry to make much difference. Quite frankly, the idea of the citizenry rising up against the U.S. government with their handguns and assault rifles, and facing the military with these personal arms is absurd.

This here from article 3.


This is a prime example that we as citizens need better updated firearms to compete with the government.

If there ever was a full scale revolution, how many of our service men would refuse to fight? Quite a bit I would think.

[fairfaxjim]

From article 3:
"In the Fight Against Terrorism, Some Rights Must Be Repealed"
"The Second Amendment is not worth such risks."
Junaid Afeef
ISPU Research Associate
From the link shown below by the same author"
"In responding to the cartoon controversy many Muslims in the West, and particularly in the United States, seem to have forgotten that our community is suffering an ongoing curtailment of our First Amendment rights. Too many people in the post-9/11 world are ready to abdicate these and other fundamental rights in the hopes of greater physical security. "
Junaid Afeef
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/186/story_18648_1.html
I guess this guy figures the Bill of Rights can be shopped for whatever right suits thie Muslim cause.


"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Benjamin Franklin

Maybe a little more reading from those who gave us these rights, and a little less pontificating about them by these mutts would be in order.

[Blackwater OPS]

That guy is an idiot, I'm not even going to address his BS because it appears he put less intellegent thought into it than I did when making my decision on what to eat for lunch today.

[Aluisious]

[in regards to the third article]

"According to the DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, in 2002 41 percent of American households owned at least one gun. According to these same statistics, 50 percent of the owners were male, 43 percent were white and 48 percent were Republican. More than 50 percent of the gun owners were college educated and earned more than $50,000 per year. Regrettably, these folks are going to marshal their considerable resources to protect their special interest."
Ahahahaha...:D

That's the most moronic abuse of statistics I've seen in a while.

Reminds me of the "shocking discovery" of a Minister of Education in Britain that "fully half of our children are testing below average."

****ing idiots...

[chiefcrash]

This is a prime example that we as citizens need better updated firearms to compete with the government.

If there ever was a full scale revolution, how many of our service men would refuse to fight? Quite a bit I would think.

yep, quite a lot of service men would disobey orders if a president tried to pull a "Chancelor Palpatine"...

soldiers are sword to defend and uphold the CONSTITUTION, and they are not permitted to follow UNLAWFUL orders...

[AYEAREFIFTEEN]

"Quite frankly, the idea of the citizenry rising up against the U.S. government with their handguns and assault rifles, and facing the military with these personal arms is absurd. The Branch Davidian tragedy at Waco, Texas, was one such futile attempt."

Unless my history is rusty, i think the .gov raided the Davidians (who failed in their resistance attempt). A little different from the Davidians marching on washington in a coup attempt...


IIRC, I believe the gov got their asses handed to them the first time around. It took a tank full of tear gas and the fact that the Davidians didn't shoot back to "win" the second time around.

OMG! There's people inside that building exercising their constitutional rights. We better get them out of there.

[kap]

EDIT, I see this was already pointed out in another thread.

[M. Sage]

my blood pressure just went up reading that one line.... damn that just put a damper on my whole day... i think i need to go shooting to cheer me up.

Frightening!

*Goes and hugs a gun.*

[jumbopanda]

That guy is an idiot, I'm not even going to address his BS because it appears he put less intellegent thought into it than I did when making my decision on what to eat for lunch today.

+1. Reading that crap only causes increases in blood pressure.

[pnkssbtz]

Lets See,

50% of 48% of 43% of 50% of 41% = 2.1156%

So he is saying that 2.1156 of the general population has the ability has the ability to sway and control the legislation?