Quote :

"BLAH BLAH BLAH. We obviously have different values. I change my opinions all the time, but my values rarely change."

yeah, sure, whatever you say. unlike you, i have a child, 18 mos old. it's more work than i ever imagined, and i cant even picture his children's children. in most probability, I'll be dead before they arrive.

so ive got plenty to do to worry about myself, my child, my friends and family and colleages, and the people in my community and my city, and the 50% of fuckwads in this country who still think Bush is doing a good job handling the "war on turrah".

if i can do my job and raise my kid well, then he'll do a good job raising his. and so on. but damn, the graduating class of 2086 is not my concern. my concern is the class of 2026. dont get too far ahead of yourself, the present is fucked up enough for everyone.

so all im saying is that to skip around saying "oh my childrens childrens children!" is at best a simplistic little cliche, or worse a masturbatory bit of lofty ego stroking.

5/17/2006 2:40:56 AM

^I got it the first time.

And we obviously have different values.

I'm not sure how much clearer I can make it.

5/17/2006 2:55:52 AM

values. right. okay.

it's easy to prop up self-righteousness on empty platitudes that don't cost you anything.

5/17/2006 3:10:27 AM

i'm gonna support joe on this one

5/17/2006 10:09:34 AM

has it already been mentioned how misleading the thread title is? hahah "EVERY American"...even the ones who dont have BellSouth or AT&T?

5/17/2006 10:21:28 AM

Quote :

"values. right. okay."

I value the future, and you don't.

Quote :

"it's easy to prop up self-righteousness on empty platitudes that don't cost you anything."

Of course you would say this about something you don't value. Are you getting my point about values yet?

Quote :

"do you know your great-grandmother or great-grandfather? do you think they spend their days worrying about your generation, and how their generation failed you?"

You know what, it's really pathetic that you don't appreciate what the generations before us did to help secure and maintain our basic freedoms. You're a fucking fool if you think none of them considered the future. According to you, our founding fathers were motivated solely by the desire to avoid taxes. According to you, scientists and inventors were motivated solely by the desire to make money off a discovery or an invention. And when certain groups of American Indians were conserving resources, they weren't thinking about the future--that was just out of respect for the Earth, according to you. None of these people ever once considered the future, according to you.

IN FACT, POSTERITY IS A WORD THAT WAS MADE UP BY SELF-RIGHTEOUS, EGO-STROKING MASTURBATORS, RIGHT?

Quote :

"you've got a hard enough job just giving a shit for yourself, right here and now. and sure, think about your children, if you have or are gonna have any."

It's not that hard to give a thought to the future. I'm not suggesting we "skip around saying 'oh my childrens childrens children!'" like you presume me to be doing. But would I object if people removed their heads from their asses for a second? No, I would not object.

[Edited on May 17, 2006 at 11:12 AM. Reason : sss]

5/17/2006 10:52:07 AM

mee-YOW

5/17/2006 5:41:16 PM

this thread's a joke.

5/18/2006 12:01:47 AM

^Dude, just get the fuck out of The Soap Box.

You're embarassing yourself.

And that's coming from me.

5/18/2006 12:06:30 AM

seriously, do some serious research into this article and you'll stop freaking the fuck out.

5/18/2006 12:07:03 AM

^I actually wasn't referring to this thread. I wanted to fight someone, and you refused my bait.

But I will do more research into this, since you seem sincere about it not being a big deal.

[Edited on May 18, 2006 at 12:16 AM. Reason : sss]

5/18/2006 12:16:10 AM

5/19/2006 11:08:10 AM

bridget has had an extra sandy vagina lately

ps, curing polio and raising your kids are two different ballparks

5/19/2006 12:17:12 PM

Quote :

"Greg -- I'm curious as to why you think the 2nd amendment is important to defending our other rights. Maybe this was true many, many years ago, but what do you think you can do with your rifle and/or shotgun? Defend your home against the big bad government? You wouldn't stand a chance against the most technologically advanced military in the world. The 2nd amendment is more important for people who hunt, and people who want to be able to defend themselves versus a criminal in a hostile situation. Not to say the 2nd amendment isn't important and shouldn't be protected, but come on man -- you ain't gonna do shit when it comes to the goverment/military. Can we drop that point? "

what good are the rest of your rights if you can't stop the government from taking them?

the law was written that way because the founding fathers wanted to avoid an overbearing aka tyrannical, government (like the one they had just expelled) and so that the citizens could maintain their rights with force if need be. Personally I feel that the government has long since overstepped their bounds and that the founding fathers would not approve of the use of police and government power that they use today.

It doesn't matter if the government can come in and kill me if they choose, the fact remains that they can only kill me once, while I on the otherhand could kill quite a few of them before they stopped me.... and what happens if there are say.... 100 people or even thousands... each one of those being able to do the same thing. That becomes a big problem.

How many US soldiers would turn their own weapons upon their own friends and family?

How would they know who their enemy is on the streets of America?

Marshall law? that just means everyone of the street is an arm of the govt and a target

the government would have their hands full if a few thousand people that have arms, decided that their government had done enough and it was time for a change.

I think he makes a good point

Quote :

"Anyways, all of the gun laws, from NFA34 (all you liberal fucks who dont know what that is can google it and read up on it) to GCA68 (again, google and learn) to the bullshit waiting periods, magazine capacity restrictions, paperwork, and registration bullshit (which is merely a prelude to confiscation) are meant to erode our second amendment rights to the point to where they no longer exist. It simply wouldnt work to take all guns away at once. However, if you put a frog in hot water, he'll jump out immediately. If you put him in room-temperature water, and then slowly boil it, he'll happily swim around until dead. Apply that same principal to the usurping of our rights and you'll have something worth thinking long and hard about."

and also... why the fuck can't I own whatever weapon I choose to own, I'm not a felon and I am a responsible gun owner. I've taken more firearms training classes than 80% of the fucking douchebag cops that are allowed to carry auto weapons and tactical firearms, but I'm not allowed to own them because I am not police or military... thats bullshit and as far as I'm concerned it violates rights of people who want to own them. But I guess it isok for some cop in a po-dunk town to wear his fucking BDU gear and carry an M4 while pulling people over for speeding through his shitty little town. The police have become nothing but bullshit, if you want to shoot at people (or intimidate civilians that aren't allowed to have them) with an auto rifle go join the fucking service, but get your power hungry, creating revenue for the local government, high school dropout, pissed off because someone else has a better job than you, punk ass off the street and quit wasting my tax money to power trip because you suck at life

when the shit hits the fan, they govt is gonna have a bad day

I really wish my cop friends would get a new job that won't get them killed for 30k a year

5/21/2006 2:45:51 AM

Quote :

" I've taken more firearms training classes than 80% of the fucking douchebag cops"

yeah, bro! because correspondence classes from the Billy Joe Redneck Fucknob Gun and Knife Show counts just as much as State Highway Patrol run training.

Quote :

"they are allowed to carry auto weapons and tactical firearms, but I'm not allowed to own them because I am not police or military..."

yeah, man, thats so fuckin whack. cause we need more fatassed inbred dirt farmers from east carolina running around with full-auto AK's locked and loaded full metal jacket rounds.

Quote :

"it violates rights of people who want to own [automatic rifles]. But I guess it isok for some cop in a po-dunk town to wear his fucking BDU gear and carry an M4"

fucking faggot-ass cops with their all their gay training and accountability to some stupid chain of command of elected officials.

goddamn faggots is what they are. you tell 'em.





[Edited on May 21, 2006 at 3:04 AM. Reason : ]

5/21/2006 3:01:14 AM

do you know me or where and with whom I received classes and training?

no, then shut the fuck up

but I'll clue you in so you'll be a complete know it all... my instructor for every single class is the armorer and instructor for one of the largest law enforcement agencies in the state and a sworn leo for that agency with 30 years of service (he also happens to be my ex-gf's dad and operates a training facility)

and what does being, fat, or a dirt farmer, or even being from Eastern North Carolina have to do with ones right to own something when you've proven to be an upstanding citizen already? It has nothing to do with protecting anyone you idiot, I feel like if I want to go to a safe place that is private and squeeze off a few hundred rounds be it full auto or semi, I reserve the right to do it.

My problem is not the cop writing tickets, it's the fucking pig that dresses like he is going off to baghdad to fight a war when he is only gonna sit in his car and write tickets.

and if you really think that cops do a shitload of training and shoot thousands of rounds every year because they want to be extremely accurate and safe while doing their job then you are a bigger idiot than I thought.

I'll let you in on another clue aboue LEO's(I've been around them my whole life)... most only shoot enough to qualify every year, and no more. Which is once a year for most states and less than 100 rounds. That scares me more than any joe bob redneck with an AK in his closet that he only takes out to shoot at targets and shit like that.

google up some stats on how often cops actually hit their target when they shoot at a suspect

or read up on former sheriff Hegge from Davidson county and his shootouts with his full auto MP5 that he has gotten into (on more than one occassion) and hasn't yet to this day hit the person he was aiming at any of the times he fired his weapon... but yet I'm not allowed to own a gun that I'd probably never fire at a human target

so give me a good reason why can't I shouldn't own one if I so choose? (your best bet would be to say that the government denies people this right because they don't ever want to be outgunned by their own subjects (civilians), but you probably can't fathom that because you think that politicians are out for our best interests

so yeah basically, fuck off until you know what the fuck you are talking about

reading your post again, I think your problem is that you are another elitist asshole that has a problem with anyone that isn't like yourself... like the dirt farmers and such that you so loathe


[Edited on May 21, 2006 at 3:19 AM. Reason : I don't think I ever called them faggots, but I think you might be a pillow biter]



[Edited on May 21, 2006 at 3:22 AM. Reason : s]

5/21/2006 3:19:08 AM

Quote :

"After 9/11, a Christmas card sent out by the Sheriff featured him in the desert wearing a black jumpsuit, with a bloody sword and the severed head of Osama bin Laden with the title "Happy Ramadan." This incident sparked statewide controversy and an ACLU investigation. Ostensibly to raise money for charity, Hege created a line of merchandise centered on his public persona. Hege merchandise items included posters, die-cast "spider cars," action figures, coffee mugs and barbecue sauce. All revenue from this merchandise and his TV appearances was donated to charity. As years passed, charges of nepotism, financial irregularities, and mismanagement began to surface. On September 15th, 2003, Hege was charged with 15 felonies and suspended from office. The charges were five counts of embezzlement by a public officer, five counts of obtaining property by false pretenses, two counts of obstruction of justice, one count of endeavoring to intercept oral communication, one count of aiding and abetting to endeavor to intercept oral communication and one count of aiding and abetting to obtain property by false pretenses. Despite Hege's "No Deals" slogan, he eventually accepted a plea agreement."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Hege

5/21/2006 3:45:50 AM

Quote :

"your best bet would be to say that the government denies people this right because they don't ever want to be outgunned by their own subjects"

youre a bigger idiot than i thought if you think that (1) the Second Amendment gives you right to own tactical military weapons, and (2) that your owning a cache of automatic rifles is going to somehow give you and your buddies a chance at resisting the US government.

dude, did you ever hear about those fools in Waco, circa 1993?

if youre gonna exercise your Second Amendment rights to own bazookas and RPGs so you can "protect" yourself against the tyranny of a corrupt federalist government, then you better go hit up Boeing, Grumman, etc.. for some good rates on F-14s, FA-18s, some M1 tanks, and maybe a nuclear powered Aircraft Carrier while youre at it.

Jesus christ i swear you people amaze me.

Quote :

"because you think that politicians are out for our best interests "

many are. theoretically they work for "we the people" and would be voted out if they dont. if we would ever turn off American Idol long enough to see what the fuck is going on.

Quote :

"I think your problem is that you are another elitist asshole that has a problem with anyone that isn't like yourself... like the dirt farmers and such that you so loathe "

I come from a long line of Johnston County dirt farmers. who actually origianally from Eastern NC sometime in the mid 1700s. I know those people out there. and I wouldnt trust them with a box of M-16's or a rocket propelled grenade launcher.

and until you prove your accountability by making yourself liable to an established chain of command controlled directly by elected officials, i don't trust you either.

and though you obviously don't care what i think, you're still constrained to semi-automatic weapons.

enjoy!





[Edited on May 21, 2006 at 4:40 AM. Reason : ]

5/21/2006 4:11:27 AM

but in a sense i do agree with you: the poorly trained deputies of bumfuck county, NC shouldnt be able to run around with automatic weapons either.

the increasing militarization of local law enforcement agencies is a dangerous trend. it should be reserved for SHP and a few select urban and regional special weapons/tactical units.




[Edited on May 21, 2006 at 4:55 AM. Reason : ]

5/21/2006 4:53:42 AM

^^ it has nothing to do with "protecting" myself... if I want to go out to a safe place to shoot an auto rifle I should ahve the right to do it.

like I said before, it doesn't matter that the govt can come kill me with their shit, it's the fact that one person could take out many of their people before they ever brought out the hard core shit

and yeah... why don't you read up on waco and those crazy folks, they didn't own a single illegal weapon but yet the government chose to roast them all instead of arresting the "leader" while he was in town. Our beloved government killed innocent people while exercising their "power".

read the book "Unintended Consequences"

^ and yeah, that shit is scary

5/21/2006 11:58:07 AM

Quote :

"if I want to go out to a safe place to shoot an auto rifle I should ahve the right to do it. "

sure okay. and i want to go out and detonate explosive ordinance. for fun and practice. and maybe kill some deer. its my right under the Second Amendment.

Quote :

"one person could take out many of their people before they ever brought out the hard core shit "

and this is your rationale for why you need automatic weapons? because when teh black helicopters come for you you should at least be able to take out 10 or 20 agents while you get a head start to the mountains???

yeah this is what the framers of the bill of rights envisioned.

Quote :

"why don't you read up on waco and those crazy folks, they didn't own a single illegal weapon but yet the government chose to roast them all instead of arresting the "leader" while he was in town. Our beloved government killed innocent people while exercising their "power"."

I've already "read up on it". I followed the entire event as it occurred.

The Branch Davidians did own illegal weapons. they had a cache of automatic weapons and explosives. there were reports from ex-members that David Koresh and his inner circle were sexually molesting children. whether this was actually true or not, no one could ascertain, because they refused to allow social services investigators inside to see the children. They had pledged to fight any govt. interference to the death. They were highly militarized, and had standing orders in place for every conceivable situation, including the incapaciation of their leadership, up to and including mass suicide.

The end result was terribly tragic, but I'm sorry it's not a govt. plot to kill people. At worst it would be govt. incompetence. I have to agree with the vast majority of legal and tactical studies that concluded you cant reasonably extract 20 adults armed with automatic weapons, explosive and incindiary devices, when they are determined to die before surrender.

5/21/2006 3:32:21 PM

Quote :

"A file detailing aspects of AT&T's alleged participation in the National Security Agency's warrantless domestic wiretap operation is sitting in a San Francisco courthouse. But the public cannot see it because, at AT&T's insistence, it remains under seal in court records. The judge in the case has so far denied requests from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, or EFF, and several news organizations to unseal the documents and make them public. AT&T claims information in the file is proprietary and that it would suffer severe harm if it were released. Based on what we've seen, Wired News disagrees. In addition, we believe the public's right to know the full facts in this case outweighs AT&T's claims to secrecy. As a result, we are publishing the complete text of a set of documents from the EFF's primary witness in the case, former AT&T employee and whistle-blower Mark Klein -- information obtained by investigative reporter Ryan Singel through an anonymous source close to the litigation. The documents, available on Wired News as of Monday, consist of 30 pages, with an affidavit attributed to Klein, eight pages of AT&T documents marked "proprietary," and several pages of news clippings and other public information related to government-surveillance issues."

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70947-0.html?tw=wn_technology_1

GG Wired!

5/22/2006 9:40:32 AM

like i said

i'm more upset at the companies than nsa over this shit

and ^ shit like that is a major reason

5/22/2006 10:20:28 AM

Quote :

" and would be voted out if they dont."

more like

"and would be voted out if they didn't live in safe districts where they will never get less than 60% of the vote"

seriously, whats the count up to - 390 members?

5/22/2006 10:23:09 AM

Quote :

"i'm more upset at the companies than nsa over this shit"

So true. If they are willing to give up the privacy and security of their customers, then their owners and boards also deserve no privacy or security. Perhaps some intrepid reporters can give us some embarassing tidbits of the CEO's personal lives that they wouldn't want in the public domain.

5/22/2006 11:06:39 AM

Quote :

""and would be voted out if they didn't live in safe districts where they will never get less than 60% of the vote""

in soviet russia, congressmen choose you.







[Edited on May 23, 2006 at 1:00 AM. Reason : insert tangential remark on redistricting]

5/23/2006 12:57:52 AM

don't worry about your phone calls, guys - they're monitoring the whole intarweb

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70944-0.html

In 2003 AT&T built "secret rooms" hidden deep in the bowels of its central offices in various cities, housing computer gear for a government spy operation which taps into the company's popular WorldNet service and the entire internet. These installations enable the government to look at every individual message on the internet and analyze exactly what people are doing. Documents showing the hardwire installation in San Francisco suggest that there are similar locations being installed in numerous other cities.

The physical arrangement, the timing of its construction, the government-imposed secrecy surrounding it and other factors all strongly suggest that its origins are rooted in the Defense Department's Total Information Awareness (TIA) program which brought forth vigorous protests from defenders of constitutionally protected civil liberties last year:

"As the director of the effort, Vice Adm. John M. Poindexter, has described the system in Pentagon documents and in speeches, it will provide intelligence analysts and law enforcement officials with instant access to information from internet mail and calling records to credit card and banking transactions and travel documents, without a search warrant." The New York Times, 9 November 2002

5/23/2006 1:12:34 PM

Quote :

"what good are the rest of your rights if you can't stop the government from taking them?"

You're better off using that gun to shoot yourself if they come to get you.

News flash: a runaway government like this can take any right from you they wish. Owning advanced weaponry isn't going to stop a damn thing from happening -- refer to Waco if you really think you have a fighting chance to fight off the government.

5/23/2006 2:09:10 PM

at&t is fucking you over, all so they can get gov't approval to fuck you over at a higher rate with less work

5/23/2006 2:25:23 PM

dammit how'd that happen

[Edited on May 23, 2006 at 2:25 PM. Reason : `]

5/23/2006 2:25:49 PM

mike, you don't get the point

what good have they done killing one guy when he kills 3 or 4 dozen government agents before they were able to stop it?

say there are 100 people with that same mindset, or 1000, or even 5000

the politicians keep fucking with people and strongarming them and eventually they are going to have enough

I found out all I needed to know about certain types of law enforcement and the judicial system when I was ticketed for having an "illegal weapon on game lands" when the map clearly showed that I was legal and every lawyer in the county told me I was right and the feds were wrong.

Now I've wasted time and money trying to clear my name and the same goes for 2 more of my friends when we had done absolutely nothing wrong and it really pisses me off.

it's crazy... but there are people out there who will die before they let the government take what they have worked to get

5/23/2006 7:28:08 PM

Quote :

" what good have they done killing one guy when he kills 3 or 4 dozen government agents before they were able to stop it? the politicians keep fucking with people and strongarming them and eventually they are going to have enough "

Long Live Timothy McVeigh!

5/23/2006 7:50:10 PM

nah not really

killing innocent people is pretty shitty

5/23/2006 8:02:18 PM

Quote :

"mike, you don't get the point what good have they done killing one guy when he kills 3 or 4 dozen government agents before they were able to stop it?"

No, I get the point.

The point is, if they come to get you, you ain't doin' shit. You aren't taking 3 or 4 dozen agents with you. You'd be lucky to get one or two.

The fact remains that the government can take away your rights whenever it feels like, and you're powerless to stop it. Owning a gun isn't going to increase your chances, and if you're willing to die in a blaze of glory that results in absolutely nothing other than your burial, then you're dead-set on being counterproductive.

I support gun rights. I support your support of gun rights too, but please stop using this bullshit argument. There are plenty of valid reasons to protect gun rights without fabricating this militia fantasy. It doesn't do anything for your argument, it makes you look fucking crazy.

5/24/2006 1:59:02 PM

the sad thing is everyone thinks this is new.... been going on for a long time. i have family in the NSA and he finds the fact that it comes out now during bush's term a little telling of the media

5/24/2006 5:52:05 PM

are you suggesting this has been going on since before 9/11?

or are you suggesting the media should have waited until february 09 to report on this?

5/24/2006 5:55:24 PM

Quote :

"the sad thing is everyone thinks this is new.... been going on for a long time. "

everyone involved admits that this is new, and was ordered to occur by GWB. the defense is that what Bush has done is legal and necessary

Quote :

"i have family in the NSA and he finds the fact that it comes out now during bush's term a little telling of the media"

nigga please.

dont be such a tool.

5/24/2006 11:22:52 PM

Quote :

"The fact remains that the government can take away your rights whenever it feels like, and you're powerless to stop it. Owning a gun isn't going to increase your chances, and if you're willing to die in a blaze of glory that results in absolutely nothing other than your burial, then you're dead-set on being counterproductive"

thats the problem with america today

and the politicians know it

just lay down and roll over while they start keep taking rights away one by one

[Edited on May 25, 2006 at 3:06 PM. Reason : s]

5/25/2006 3:06:02 PM

I'm not laying down and rolling over anymore than you are -- the best shot people have in this country is voting, or by waging a large-scale terrorist operation against the government. Which are you doing?

The fact that you own a gun changes nothing, and it doesn't make you magically more defiant than I am. If the government comes to your house to take your gun away, it'll change nothing. Either you'll hand your gun over or you'll die, probably without taking a single casualty with you.

Owning your gun doesn't change a damn thing. What are you going to do? March on Washington and occupy Congress? Just shoot cops whenever they come to your house to arrest you? What exactly do you plan on doing with that gun that'll prevent the government from taking your rights away? You just refer to some vague concept of protecting your rights. Psst... your rights are being stolen in Washington, and there isn't anything your rifle/shotgun/flamethrower can do about it.

[Edited on May 25, 2006 at 3:47 PM. Reason : .]

5/25/2006 3:46:42 PM

john kerry proably owns more gun than you btw

5/25/2006 3:53:00 PM

^^ I vote every election

and do you really think that I would give up peacefully, something that I legally purchased and paid for?

and you're crazy if you think that I couldn't stop or hold off a small group of people trying to force their way into my house

oh well... they killed me, but not before I notify people of what they are trying to do and tellmy side of the story

I'm not considering anything like that... but I wouldn't be past defending myself or my home if need be

and it is not just guns, it's rights in general... americans just lay down and let the government run them over when their rights are involved

you're also crazy if you don't think owning a gun makes you less a much harder to control subject than an unarmed citizen

like I said... it's defending my front door from the people that politicians and lawyers send out to prevent me from owning something that I have the right to own

I was already illegally ticketed for possessing a firearm where I could legally possess one

did you not see the news articles and videos from parts (neighborhoods that weren't destroyed) of new orleans after the hurricane where law enforcement came into peoples homes and forced them to leave their residences at gunpoint while disarming them and loading up their stuff in trucks?

^ he may own more because he is rich, but I doubt his gun library has more pieces than mine

he may just have nicer stuff

[Edited on May 25, 2006 at 4:09 PM. Reason : yall have your opinions I have mine... oh well]

5/25/2006 4:07:34 PM

Quote :

"did you not see the news articles and videos from parts (neighborhoods that weren't destroyed) of new orleans after the hurricane where law enforcement came into peoples homes and forced them to leave their residences at gunpoint while disarming them and loading up their stuff in trucks? "

NO was an extreme situation, and those police officers were obviously violating the law. Even so, you would get yourself killed over defending your property? I'm not saying I'd roll over and hand over all of my stuff, but if it was me versus a few armed men, I wouldn't risk my LIFE for my STUFF. What good is STUFF when you're dead? What good are you to your loved ones when you're dead? What good are you when you die and are discarded and forgotten by the public? Your death would mean NOTHING.

Quote :

"like I said... it's defending my front door from the people that politicians and lawyers send out to prevent me from owning something that I have the right to own"

Like who? Armed officers? Anybody who would force their way into your house would be armed.

Quote :

"you're also crazy if you don't think owning a gun makes you less a much harder to control subject than an unarmed citizen"

Of course it does, but in a situation where my defeat is 100% eminent, I'm not going to provoke the higher power to violent action that will likely result in my death. Call me a pussy if you want, I'll be a breathing pussy, and a pussy who's much more likely to make an actual difference through actual means. Dead men don't vote except in Chicago, and certainly not on your side of the isle.

Quote :

"and you're crazy if you think that I couldn't stop or hold off a small group of people trying to force their way into my house"

Not a SWAT team. Your ass would be toast.

My point is, a gun is great for defending yourself in a situation where it'll make a difference -- ie potentially preserving your life or the lives of those around you against unlawful activity. This is why arms should, in fact, be legal. But defending your home against the government? It's ludicrous. If the government wanted to kill you, there's not a damn thing you could do about it. They'd case your house and bust in while you're taking a shit.

[Edited on May 25, 2006 at 4:16 PM. Reason : .]

5/25/2006 4:15:38 PM

and citizens are perfectly content with the fact that they are allowed to do just that?

5/25/2006 4:30:11 PM

http://www.gunowners.org/abcnews.mpg


mms://a568.v129484.c12948.g.vm.akamaistream.net/7/568/12948/v0001/vod.ibsys.com/2005/0908/4946889.300k.wmv

[Edited on May 25, 2006 at 4:37 PM. Reason : ds]

5/25/2006 4:36:42 PM

Quote :

"what exactly do you plan on doing with that gun that'll prevent the government from taking your rights away?"

the most important thing in mcdangers post

[Edited on May 25, 2006 at 4:39 PM. Reason : .]

Quote :

"Dead men don't vote except in Chicago"

niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiice

[Edited on May 25, 2006 at 4:42 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on May 25, 2006 at 4:42 PM. Reason : .]

5/25/2006 4:38:59 PM

oh word

[Edited on May 25, 2006 at 4:49 PM. Reason : `]

5/25/2006 4:42:55 PM

it's funny how some of you people who get so upset about peoples rights being taken away don't really give a fuck about other rights that americans are given

but apparently because I am willing to defend my rights by force if need be, makes me a lunatic, then I'll be that...

but being a pushover is not how this country came about

why don't yall read up on some events that have happened where the government overstepped their bounds because of firearms...

then they just killed everyone and printed one side of the story, or paid hush money in hopes that what they did would not come out

[Edited on May 25, 2006 at 4:44 PM. Reason : j]

5/25/2006 4:44:03 PM

I meant that 2 ways... sorry

yes, he could own more because he has the funds to acquire them

but part of me doubts that he has more, he may just have nice stuff (high end shotguns and such)

5/25/2006 4:45:09 PM

Greg, I'm not arguing against gun rights. I support the right to bear arms.

I do, however, disagree with the bullshit argument that we need guns in order to protect our rights versus the government. Let me paint an analogy for you...

The technological difference between you and the government is staggering. This didn't always used to be the case. Back in the 1700s, pretty much anybody could own the same technology governments owned. Wasn't a big deal, most HUNTERS had comparable technology.

Nowadays, owning a gun versus the government would be like owning a small knife in the 1700s. It'd be like a colonist screaming that the right to own knives is crucial to defending oneself against the oppression of the British.

5/25/2006 4:52:48 PM

well... you're partially correct


but back in the first 1/3 of the 1900's is when the government decided to pass laws to prevent anyone from having weapons that they have

it has less to do with money and more to do with legislation

5/25/2006 4:59:56 PM