OT: Congressional Action

RGR stock way up today (finally!).

Thank god you let us know your opinion, we wouldn't have been able to figure it out otherwise.

Who is first to what? Disagree?

You can have my gun when you pry it from my stripper's cold dead pussy.

After you cart my bullett ridled body out of my house in a body bag. you can have my guns. That is if you can find them!!!!!

let's stick to discussing T & A.

Why would you want to disarm the law abiding citizens of this country? The people that follow the gun laws are not the people that create the gun violence. When you disarm the law abiding citizens then the criminals take over be it the thugs or the politicians. When your country is being over run the first two things to go are the free flow of information and your ability to effectively defend yourself. Any idiot can see these things happening in this country now. The question is what are we going to do about it?

If the 2nd Amendment is repealed, then what is stopping the same people from repealing the 1st Amendment or the entire Constitution? Wake up from your socialist wet dream, Alutard.

youtube.com

Alucard, you should stick to discussing things about which you know at least a little (SC's) and not even attempt talking about things about which you obviously know nothing. Stick to the "guns" and not the rifles.

Clearly there will always be law breakers. Wherever there is a law, there will always be someone to flout them. Why punish the law-abiding citizens when you are really only going after the bad guys? So, by that same logic we need to repeal homicide laws, tax laws, traffic laws, criminal codes, ethics codes, white collar crimes, incest and sexual assault crimes, and many, many others. After all, it will only be the law-abiding citizens that will follow them.

We don't need more laws, we need to enforce the ones we already have. Blah-blah-blah. The only solution is mandatory carry. all the time. Wait, then the bad guys will just have bigger guns. Damn, I didn't think about that. Okay, everybody should be required to carry two guns at all times. There that ought to do it. Wait, er.

TROLL, beneath you!

Your first paragraph isn't the same logic, it's not even logical. If sexual assault is illegal, most people won't do it though like you said some always will. The people you are trying to stop from using guns by making them illegal were already using them illegally.

The second paragraph is possibly even more ridiculous. You take the wackiest ideas and then use them out of context.

Loony larry is loony but he is right. The laws already on the books are not being enforced properly. That is where the focus should be. I support mandatory carry

2nd amendment rights are central to the preservation of democracy. I know alutard is kind of dumb (okay, really dumb) but how can he fail to grasp even that?

So just so I understand correctly, you think that repealing a law that is meant to protect us from our own government will somehow end gun violence. Law abiding citizens would be left defenseless against criminals who will still have guns since they dont follow laws. Also we would be left defenseless against our own government, which is also troublesome. Thats just silly.

I have the right to shoot

The only way for gun control to work is if you stick the people who wish to use guns for harm in prison, preferably for life. But the people who are most for gun control, for whatever bizarre reason, keep wanting to shorten prison sentences. If you have a repeat criminal, the only way to reach him is to make sentences longer.

I think one other thing that seriously ought to be considered is the repeal of most drug laws. It seems like most crime is a byproduct of the illegal drug business and if you legalize all drugs, my guess is a lot of the crime goes away.

Even as a newbie, I've already picked up on the fact that our assbackwards Dracula is a bit of a fucktard.

And from looking at his incredibly anal profile page, he also gives us star trek fans a bad name. Tsk tsk.

Alucard, you want em? Molon labe.

For those who disagree with the Second Amendment need to stand up and stop trying to go behind everyone's backs, be open about it and try to change it or shut the fuck up. The way you change an Amendment to the US Constitution is 2/3 yes vote of both houses and 2/3 yes vote from ALL the states. The problem the gun control zealots are running into is only a very small part of the population actually want gun control (less than 30% and most of them are government officials) so they are trying to sneak it through the back door saying the Constitution is irrelevant and out dated. The Second Amendment is the only reason the First Amendment is still some what in place. Without the Second Amendment the government would no longer fear the citizens of the US and we would be completely subjugated.

Thinking about it for a bit I think we can guess the reason that alutard is so anti-gun (assuming he isn't just trolling).

Let's suppose the shit really did hit the fan - armed rebellion against an out of control, non-constitution respecting government was necessary, or someone went on a nutso rampage at the hospital where alutard works as a male nurse and he has to defend the place with a gun. Well as much as a hero as alutard wants us to think he is, he would probably not be up to the task in either case. Would probably just wet his pants instead.

So rather than think of himself in such a situation knowing he couldn't live up to the situation he wants to imagine a world where he could never have a gun in the first place and, hence, who never have to be shown to be the extreme pussy that he is.

Now it's personal. Email from my 24 year old son who lives in Boston, received 4/10/13.

at about 7:45 this morning on the way back from the roxbury ymca after my morning workout, three bullets rang out from an apartment across the street from where i was walking. two hit the window of the car next to me, and one rickashayed off a tree in front of me.

i am fine. unscathed. but of course, a little shaken up. at the sound of the bullets i hit the ground and ducked behind a trash can. i counted to 100 after the shooting stopped and then ran three blocks home. i heard police cars arriving in the distance as i was running.

now.....back to work.

RG

I can picture the ops country. Millions of people with illegal guns. Only the law abiding people are defenseless.

I thought Obama and Pelosi already shredded the constitution. Confiscating everyone's guns is probably just a technical detail as far as they are concerned. I think they got surprised at the level of resistance that the peasants are putting up not realizing we must now pay homage to a king and queen. We can't be true slaves and have our land, property, and retirement savings confiscated until they disarm us first unless they want a big fight. However I think they are working on a work around plan to confiscate our life savings by thinking about restricting the money to US bonds. That way we lose control and won't have any money for guns and bullets. I'm going to be ready to march if they try to confiscate my life savings. I guess that might not be needed if they simply spend so much, our money becomes worthless. Most seem willing to let that happen.

Thirtyeight states (3/5) have to vote to ratify a proposed amendment. That means only 13 no's are needed to defeat it. Everyone knows that the deep south would be 10 no votes as will MT, WY, ID, ND, and SD. I'm more worried that some idiot POTUS figures out how to circumvent the law making process.

Never been into guns, and never owned one until last month I bought an AK-47 at WalMart. My neighbor is taking me to a skeet shooting club he belongs to this weekend so I can practice shooting at clay pigeons. Then he's going to take me pheasant hunting in May.

He said if I'd buy a real good pistol, we could go to the big city and do some drive-by shooting at vacant houses in the poor part of town. That sounds like what guns SHOULD be used for.

Lol hunting pheasants with an ak-47

As much as I disagree with Alucards stance on guns, I think it's more likely that he feels the way he does bc he sees the effects of gunshot wounds as an ER nurse in Detroit.

Admittedly I do not know for sure since I've never asked or heard him explain. Hell, there's an idea, why don't we ask him to give us a rationale for why he believes what e believes?

Just look where RGR stock is now compared to then. Sure did lots good and expected to going forward, huh?

Food for thought-When The shit really hits the fan, how are all of the out of shape, gun-totin', muthafuckas gonna fare? I live not too far from Camp Pendelton and now real Marines. These dudes run, everyday! I ain't against my rebel brothers but have any of y'all done your research?

Not all of us are out of shape. Nor are we unfamiliar with tactical methods or survival skills (aka, no TV dinner to nuke!) Americans fighting Americans has always been messy - history shows the civil war when both sides had generals from West Point and both sides were on "home turf!"

Add to that, not all Marines will attack their own kind - especially when the gang members in their own ranks start acting up. It's gonna be a messy messy war if it ever gets to that point.

Logic question for those who want to restrict gun ownership rights:

Assuming the desired result is improved public and personal safety...

Why would a person who is willing to violate the laws against assault and murder be UNwilling to violate any laws against gun ownership/possession/use?

It would seem the only way to achieve the desired result of a world without gun violence would be to un-invent the gun. But that cannot happen.

@TiredTraveler, your details about amending the Constitution are not accurate in some cases, and incomplete in others.

@jabthehut: Its three quarters, not three fifths, of the States.

Logic question for how... Why have ANY laws at all? After all, criminals are going to ignore them. Coo-el! I've solved all of America's...nay, the world's...problems. ANARCHY RULZ!!! WHEEEE!!!

Seriously dude, I don't support radical gun restrictions but your logic is not exactly Vulcan in nature. Were you high when you wrote that?

Thanks for your reply, zipman68.

How to understand the need for some laws, but not all laws? How to explain the principles of limited government to one who might see any curtailment of government authority as "anarchy?" Difficult challenge you've posed.

I suggest the necessary and just laws are those that protect personal security and property rights. So laws against assault and murder are just and to be enforced by a government without any fear of trampling liberty; however, laws against gun ownership would not protect personal security nor property rights (opposite on both, in fact).

The reason for my "logic question" was not to suggest anarchy, of course. The reason was to illustrate that all the gun restrictions the government might impose would never have the effect of preventing gun violence. Laws against murder, enforced with severe penalty, do have some such effect, though obviously limited.