# Guns should be banned!



## CTHorner (Aug 6, 2013)

Our Great Fore Fathers never envisioned the assault rifle when they wrote our Constitution, and Bill of Rights. If we allow these menacing deadly weapons, what will the people want next? Grenades, mortars, cannon, and field artillery?

_Well actually when the Constitution was written the people owned grenades, mortars, cannon, and field artillery._

Um, that may be true but they didn't have psycho's, terrorist, and mass killers running amuck shooting up theaters, schools, and public places.

_Well actually there were countless instances of organized groups doing much worse. Like laying siege to entire towns, and cities. Murdering, raping, pillaging and plundering._

Um, that was before we had a police force to protect us.

_Where were the police force when the instances you described accrued._

Come on! They can't be everywhere all the time!
_
Now you've finally said something that makes sense._

Whatever, all I know is that the President of the United States says guns are bad, and I agree with him. So there!

_You mean the one with twenty four hour around the clock protection by a well trained group of heavily armed men?_

There's no talking to you, is there. Anybody who disagrees with the President when he says that guns are evil and should be banned, must be a, a, a&#8230;&#8230;.

_Let me help you with that, an _*American!*


----------



## GrumpyBiker (Nov 25, 2015)




----------



## bigwheel (Sep 22, 2014)

Guns are for hunting. Get a grip. Crazy Joe Biden said so..so it must be right.


----------



## csi-tech (Apr 13, 2013)

I am sick of the "But you can still hunt" Bullshit. The second amendment contains ZERO AMBIGUITY. "Shall not be infringed" is on it's face not open to interpretation. They also seem to forget that little "It becomes the duty of the People to throw off such Government" part.


----------



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

Remember, it's not about gun control, it's about people control.


----------



## bigwheel (Sep 22, 2014)

Obummer's efforts on gun control are to get people's minds off of muzzie terrorism. It's working well. He aint dumb..he is evil and working his plan.


----------



## GrumpyBiker (Nov 25, 2015)

csi-tech said:


> I am sick of the "But you can still hunt" Bullshit. The second amendment contains ZERO AMBIGUITY. "Shall not be infringed" is on it's face not open to interpretation. They also seem to forget that little "It becomes the duty of the People to throw off such Government" part.


----------



## Quip (Nov 8, 2012)




----------



## Swedishsocialist (Jan 16, 2015)

this thread is kind of an eco-chamber. Like posting a "why you should not eat meat" on a veganforum. 

So just for the fun of it, Ill be in opposition here. 

Guns should only be handle by people that are well educated with them. Way to many gun owners are not responible or smart enough to have guns. So not only should there be background checks, there should be hard tests to stop stupid people from having guns. 

All gunowners that dont hunt should be part of a milita. A person that has guns to defend himself/herself but not the nation in it self should not have guns. This includes they train with the milita at least once a year.


----------



## gambit (Sep 14, 2015)

GrumpyBiker said:


>


you never know Bambi might be packing heat
forgot to add


----------



## Sasquatch (Dec 12, 2014)

Swedishsocialist said:


> this thread is kind of an eco-chamber. Like posting a "why you should not eat meat" on a veganforum.
> 
> So just for the fun of it, Ill be in opposition here.
> 
> ...


I understand you are from Sweden so I'll cut you a little slack.

Our second amendment was written because "We the People" are THE WELL REGULATED MILITIA! The Japanese decided against a land invasion during WWII because, as they said, there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.

Also, the 2A has NOTHING to do with hunting.


----------



## Swedishsocialist (Jan 16, 2015)

Sasquatch said:


> I understand you are from Sweden so I'll cut you a little slack.
> 
> Our second amendment was written because "We the People" are THE WELL REGULATED MILITIA! The Japanese decided against a land invasion during WWII because, as they said, there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.
> 
> Also, the 2A has NOTHING to do with hunting.


"We the People" are you telling me you are socialists? 

and yeah, shure that is the main reason they did not invade, really belivable


----------



## Sasquatch (Dec 12, 2014)

Swedishsocialist said:


> "We the People" are you telling me you are socialists?
> 
> and yeah, shure that is the main reason they did not invade, really belivable


We the people here has a totally different meaning than it does there. Obviously.


----------



## Swedishsocialist (Jan 16, 2015)

Sasquatch said:


> We the people here has a totally different meaning than it does there. Obviously.


yes, for you "we the people" accounts for about 1% of the people, the rest well, they will get rewarded in heaven  Or die like heroes in foreign countries, like the founding fathers wanted, truley heroic


----------



## Sasquatch (Dec 12, 2014)

Swedishsocialist said:


> yes, for you "we the people" accounts for about 1% of the people, the rest well, they will get rewarded in heaven  Or die like heroes in foreign countries, like the founding fathers wanted, truley heroic


Since you seem so proud to be a socialist, how's that "refugee" invasion working out for you?


----------



## Swedishsocialist (Jan 16, 2015)

Sasquatch said:


> Since you seem so proud to be a socialist, how's that "refugee" invasion working out for you?


oh shifting subjects, well, dont blame you, did not go so well for you.

Well, it sucks in many ways but things are changing.
It helps that our economy is really strong at them moment, our gov debts has decresed ever year for the last 2 decades, our tradebalance is on a surplus and on and on 

Look, I did not intend to bash the US in any way here, if you read my first comment again you might see that.

I just wanted to be someone that offerd some retorical oppostion, but then you came dragging with the 2a amendment and oh, then I decided to have some more fun


----------



## Sasquatch (Dec 12, 2014)

Swedishsocialist said:


> oh shifting subjects, well, dont blame you, did not go so well for you.
> 
> Well, it sucks in many ways but things are changing.
> It helps that our economy is really strong at them moment, our gov debts has decresed ever year for the last 2 decades, our tradebalance is on a surplus and on and on
> ...


Came dragging with the 2A? This thread is about the 2A.


----------



## CTHorner (Aug 6, 2013)

Swedishsocialist said:


> "We the People" are you telling me you are socialists?
> 
> and yeah, shure that is the main reason they did not invade, really belivable


We The People Means neither Democratic, nor Socialist, or for that matter any form of governance. It actually means the people who have the real power are giving the government some power to govern.

And the Bill of Rights, doesn't give the people the right to do anything like so many believe. It sets limits on what the government can and can't do.

All other power belongs to the people. See the Tenth Amendment.


----------



## Swedishsocialist (Jan 16, 2015)

Sasquatch said:


> Came dragging with the 2A? This thread is about the 2A.


well, it is obvious that it is not about reading others posts before responding to them.


----------



## csi-tech (Apr 13, 2013)

Here is a great argument for the 2nd amendment. This is a normal guy in a normal neighborhood. What happens to him happens all of the time. He was not a gun person but what happened to him changed his mind forever. Give him a few minutes of your time and remember, when seconds count, Police are only minutes away.


----------



## Swedishsocialist (Jan 16, 2015)

CTHorner said:


> We The People Means neither Democratic, nor Socialist, or for that matter any form of governance. It actually means the people who have the real power are giving the government some power to govern.
> 
> And the Bill of Rights, doesn't give the people the right to do anything like so many believe. It sets limits on what the government can and can't do.
> 
> All other power belongs to the people. See the Tenth Amendment.


Almost all nations have their system to safeguard what the state can and can not do, what rights people have and what their responsiblities are. And so on. they main diffrence betwwen us people and .. well the rest of the world as far as I know, is that you really talk a lot about your constitution, and I get the hunch that some of those that claim it is the best really dont know any other nations counterpart.

Here in Sweden we have our "Grundlag" as counterpart, and.. nobody talks about it because it is not so interesting. Diffrent cultures


----------



## Swedishsocialist (Jan 16, 2015)

csi-tech said:


> Here is a great argument for the 2nd amendment. This is a normal guy in a normal neighborhood. What happens to him happens all of the time. He was not a gun person but what happened to him changed his mind forever. Give him a few minutes of your time and remember, when seconds count, Police are only minutes away.


here in sweden the police has so much to do (due to the constant infightings between immigrants and new work with bordercontrols) that they have public stated that people calling 112 (ours 911) should not expect any cop to show up "within reasonble time". They might, but dont expect it.


----------



## CTHorner (Aug 6, 2013)

Swedishsocialist said:


> Almost all nations have their system to safeguard what the state can and can not do, what rights people have and what their responsiblities are. And so on. they main diffrence betwwen us people and .. well the rest of the world as far as I know, is that you really talk a lot about your constitution, and I get the hunch that some of those that claim it is the best really dont know any other nations counterpart.
> 
> Here in Sweden we have our "Grundlag" as counterpart, and.. nobody talks about it because it is not so interesting. Diffrent cultures


I am sure you meant Groundage which is actually a Constitutional Monarchy, not a Constitutional Democratic Republic like the United States.

Nice try.

CT.


----------



## Swedishsocialist (Jan 16, 2015)

CTHorner said:


> I am sure you meant Groundage which is actually a Constitutional Monarchy, not a Constitutional Democratic Republic like the United States.
> 
> Nice try.
> 
> CT.


Not sure at all what you are thinking here. "Grundlag" is a swedish word and is translated to "fondation law" or "ground law"


----------



## CTHorner (Aug 6, 2013)

Swedishsocialist said:


> Not sure at all what you are thinking here. "Grundlag" is a swedish word and is translated to "fondation law" or "ground law"


I translated it as Fundamental Laws, but we will have it your way for now. But if you actually read them you will see they have been a Democratic Monarchy since 1974.


----------



## csi-tech (Apr 13, 2013)

A great deal of our violent crime in America stems from drugs. People will do absolutely anything to get the next fix. If you rip off a user or a dealer murdering you is little more than the cost of doing business. You can walk or drive up on a drug transaction or a violent crime in progress and through no fault of your own just became a witness and a liability.

Years ago a friend and I were trolling around a local lake bass fishing at 2:00am. We saw a truck pull down to the lake about 100 yards from us. A couple stepped out and began a horrible argument. He was shouting threats at the top of his lungs. We turned off our black light and they had no clue we were watching the entire fight. His anger was palpable, I have never been or seen anyone this full of rage. He went back to the truck , folded the seat forward and was pulling something out. I already had the crosshairs centered on his back. Fortunately whatever was there was gone or he thought better of it and they left. You just never know.


----------



## Swedishsocialist (Jan 16, 2015)

CTHorner said:


> I translated it as Fundamental Laws, but we will have it your way for now. But if you actually read them you will see they have been a Democratic Monarchy since 1974.


read what? and what nation are you talking about? We have been a democratic Monarchy way before 1974.


----------



## Doc Holliday (Dec 22, 2012)

I am so tired of the moron in the WH, will someone put me in cryo-sleep until he is gone! unless Hitlerbeast gets in.. then just wake me when the 2nd civil war starts..


----------



## Swedishsocialist (Jan 16, 2015)

csi-tech said:


> A great deal of our violent crime in America stems from drugs. People will do absolutely anything to get the next fix. If you rip off a user or a dealer murdering you is little more than the cost of doing business. You can walk or drive up on a drug transaction or a violent crime in progress and through no fault of your own just became a witness and a liability.
> 
> Years ago a friend and I were trolling around a local lake bass fishing at 2:00am. We saw a truck pull down to the lake about 100 yards from us. A couple stepped out and began a horrible argument. He was shouting threats at the top of his lungs. We turned off our black light and they had no clue we were watching the entire fight. His anger was palpable, I have never been or seen anyone this full of rage. He went back to the truck , folded the seat forward and was pulling something out. I already had the crosshairs centered on his back. Fortunately whatever was there was gone or he thought better of it and they left. You just never know.


Drugs is a problem everywere, addictions creates problems. Still we dont have that huge of a problem here with drugs. There is a problem yes, but it is not huge. unless you take our coffe, then, oh god, (still an atheist), you have shitten in the blue locker, then we will come for you big time!


----------



## CTHorner (Aug 6, 2013)

Swedishsocialist said:


> read what? and what nation are you talking about? We have been a democratic Monarchy way before 1974.


That's true but in 74 you set it in stone.

You started your argument with Americans make a fuss over our Constitution, and the Sweed's not so much. Now you want me to educate you on your own Constitution.

Forget it, go read it yourself, I did and it made me sick.

CT.


----------



## Swedishsocialist (Jan 16, 2015)

CTHorner said:


> That's true but in 74 you set it in stone.
> 
> You started your argument with Americans make a fuss over our Constitution, and the Sweed's not so much. Now you want me to educate you on your own Constitution.
> 
> ...


Last time it was modified was in 1974 yes, but it existed far longer then that. Dont know how long, and dont really care either. that part of the law is kind of never an issue of any kind here.


----------



## CTHorner (Aug 6, 2013)

Swedishsocialist said:


> Last time it was modified was in 1974 yes, but it existed far longer then that. Dont know how long, and dont really care either. that part of the law is kind of never an issue of any kind here.


Laaa,laaa,laaa,laaa I can't hear you!


----------



## Swedishsocialist (Jan 16, 2015)

CTHorner said:


> Laaa,laaa,laaa,laaa I can't hear you!


That is because Im in Sweden and that Im at the moment silent. Do you often hear people from Sweden for no apperant reason? You should go see a doctor.. oh, I forgot, you live in the US, there is a risk you cant afford a doctor, so then it is kind of a shitty advice.


----------



## CTHorner (Aug 6, 2013)

Swedishsocialist said:


> That is because Im in Sweden and that Im at the moment silent. Do you often hear people from Sweden for no apperant reason? You should go see a doctor.. oh, I forgot, you live in the US, there is a risk you cant afford a doctor, so then it is kind of a shitty advice.


Recent study shows that one in every ten people voluntarily foregoes care even though they need it, according to the regulating authority Socialstyrelsen's.
The main problem is naturally due to the central planning of health care, whether or not it is planned by regional "competing" governments. While access and quality are guaranteed by national law, Swedes usually have to line up for care. As noted above, wait times may be days or weeks for appointments with GPs while several (or many, and increasing) hours for ER care, but the real problem is apparent in specialist care such as surgery where wait times are not uncommonly several months, or even years.

Good luck being seen by one.


----------



## Swedishsocialist (Jan 16, 2015)

CTHorner said:


> Recent study shows that one in every ten people voluntarily foregoes care even though they need it, according to the regulating authority Socialstyrelsen's.
> The main problem is naturally due to the central planning of health care, whether or not it is planned by regional "competing" governments. While access and quality are guaranteed by national law, Swedes usually have to line up for care. As noted above, wait times may be days or weeks for appointments with GPs while several (or many, and increasing) hours for ER care, but the real problem is apparent in specialist care such as surgery where wait times are not uncommonly several months, or even years.
> 
> Good luck being seen by one.


seeing a doctor I can do tomorrow. and the surgery depends on what it is about. serious issues are prioritesd. My mother needed a bypass and had one 3 days after a heartattack (or something, really dont rember, it went fast). If you get diagnosed with cancer, threatment starts the day after and so on. Free of charge that is. And she was over 70 when it happend so she could not afford it on her pension, guess she would have died in the US.

here are some links 

Swedish healthcare: all you need to know - The Local

Here is some comparisons between the us and sweden regarding efficency, and we beat you at everything, for half the price.  (exept for the negatives, like risk of dying befor 60 and obesity, there you are the boss) 

Sweden vs United States Health Stats Compared


----------



## A Watchman (Sep 14, 2015)

Enough?

Can we play hockey or brannboll next?


----------



## CTHorner (Aug 6, 2013)

Swedishsocialist said:


> seeing a doctor I can do tomorrow. and the surgery depends on what it is about. serious issues are prioritesd. My mother needed a bypass and had one 3 days after a heartattack (or something, really dont rember, it went fast). If you get diagnosed with cancer, threatment starts the day after and so on. Free of charge that is. And she was over 70 when it happend so she could not afford it on her pension, guess she would have died in the US.
> 
> here are some links
> 
> ...


If were telling stories, here's one. I stopped on the street when I saw a guy keel over. I took him to the hospital because he was complaining of chest pains. He had no insurance, wasn't on welfare and had no real ID because he was homeless. He was admitted immediately, and two stints were put in his heart.

I had a friend who called me for a ride to the hospital because he had a sharp pain in his side. He had no insurance, and he worked part time as a dish washer. No savings to speak of. They ran some tests and immediately put him in surgery where they removed his gallbladder.

I could go on and on, but what's the use. You have no idea what your talking about.


----------



## Swedishsocialist (Jan 16, 2015)

A Watchman said:


> Enough?
> 
> Can we play hockey or brannboll next?


nah, we just lost in hockey to finland  and its to cold for brännboll.

Finland plays Russia for gold at world junior hockey championship | Toronto Star


----------



## Swedishsocialist (Jan 16, 2015)

CTHorner said:


> If were telling stories, here's one. I stopped on the street when I saw a guy keel over. I took him to the hospital because he was complaining of chest pains. He had no insurance, wasn't on welfare and had no real ID because he was homeless. He was admitted immediately, and two stints were put in his heart.
> 
> I had a friend who called me for a ride to the hospital because he had a sharp pain in his side. He had no insurance, and he worked part time as a dish washer. No savings to speak of. They ran some tests and immediately put him in surgery where they removed his gale bladder.
> 
> I could go on and on, but what's the use. You have no idea what your talking about.


Nope, I dont, you have the best system no matter what, you are NO1 and the best way to stay No1 is to totally ignore how other people solve problems or choose other ways of doing things, that is not for the US, because you are the best! did I get it right this time?


----------



## gambit (Sep 14, 2015)

Doc Holliday said:


> I am so tired of the moron in the WH, will someone put me in cryo-sleep until he is gone! unless Hitlerbeast gets in.. then just wake me when the 2nd civil war starts..


you not going to get out of this that easily you are staying put mister.
but if you get luck to seep threw the bull$hit to come you get to look forward to this which is still be better then being awake with Hillary in office


----------



## UNO (Oct 18, 2014)

csi-tech said:


> Here is a great argument for the 2nd amendment. This is a normal guy in a normal neighborhood. What happens to him happens all of the time. He was not a gun person but what happened to him changed his mind forever. Give him a few minutes of your time and remember, when seconds count, Police are only minutes away.


That was good. Thanks for posting it.


----------



## tango (Apr 12, 2013)

The founding fathers also did not foresee any of the current technology, computers, space travel, i phones, etc.
They based the amendments on the technology of the time.


----------



## CTHorner (Aug 6, 2013)

tango said:


> The founding fathers also did not foresee any of the current technology, computers, space travel, i phones, etc.
> They based the amendments on the technology of the time.


As true as that is, the point is that they knew and supported citizens being armed with the most powerful and deadliest weapons available. For the purposes of self defense, and holding back tyranny. NOT HUNTING!

Just to put a finer point on it, Citizens were encouraged to buy, outfit and operate Battleships, with a contingent of private Marines.


----------



## gambit (Sep 14, 2015)

I already posted it but for some reason unknown I must repost video





this video link has a NO NO word viewer discretion is advised meaning so you are the following categories underage or pregnant heart issues or love of tasty animals easily get offend. DONT WATCH THE VIDEOS!!
edit I goofed the last 2 videos where just post to be links itself I don't know why its not working. but I blame A Watchman slippy and if need be mish


----------



## Doc Holliday (Dec 22, 2012)

tango said:


> The founding fathers also did not foresee any of the current technology, computers, space travel, i phones, etc.
> They based the amendments on the technology of the time.


I love to hear when liberals use that as an argument... They only had muskets when they wrote the 2nd amendment so it should only pertain to muskets...

I tell them that there were no cell phones, internet or TV so they should only be able to exercise their 1st amendment rights in person or quill pen and paper


----------



## Carp614 (Jan 21, 2013)

Sorry folks, I got all serious about it...



Swedishsocialist said:


> Guns should only be handle by people that are well educated with them. Way too many gun owners are not responible or smart enough to have guns. So not only should there be background checks, there should be hard tests to stop stupid people from having guns.
> 
> All gunowners that dont hunt should be part of a milita. A person that has guns to defend himself/herself but not the nation in it self should not have guns. This includes they train with the milita at least once a year.


I'll give you a few points here. I have worked with people who could not handle a firearm safely, even with training. Background checks are not so controversial at this stage, even if many of us feel they constitute a potential infringement on our natural rights. And as pertains to militia training, another great idea in my estimation.

I think we part ways at the following point: Your English is quite good, but I am not sure exactly what you mean when you say, "A person that has guns to defend himself/herself but not the nation in it self should not have guns." If you mean what I think you mean, I would refer you to the preamble to the Declaration of Independence paragraph 2, which states in part:

"All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

I would then point out that it is difficult to maintain the unalienable right to Life, if one is, in fact, dead. In point of fact, the other two are difficult to achieve in that state as well. I believe our Declaration outlines the philosophical underpinning for the Second Amendment. That, the unalienable right to Life implies the right to defend life by whatever means necessary for its preservation.

I figure if we are going to discuss the Second Amendment, someone ought to write it down.

"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."

1) Well regulated referred to the importance of ensuring the militia was well disciplined, which, if adhered to, would help address one of your points.

2) During the debates in the Virginia Convention on ratification of the Constitution in 1788, George Mason suggested that the Militia consisted of "the whole people, except a few public officials". I have found no evidence that the signers of the Declaration saw it differently, or even thought the distinction mattered.

3) The security of a free state referred to protection from both external and internal threats to liberty. I think George Washington said it best, "A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined. But they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them. Which would include their own government."

I think the last part about not infringing is self explanatory.


----------



## Farva (Aug 26, 2015)

I have a young child. We were at the doctors for a checkup and she asked if we have guns in the house. I/We (Emphasis on the f***ing WE) said yes. That got another whole slew of questions. She stopped when she saw that I was going to get tight about it. 6 months later, we're back again. We got a paper saying how good the kid is doing that also had some other crap on it. One of them was "You should NEVER have a gun in your home."

My tinfoil ain't that tight, but I am effin sure I made a list or two.

It has always amused me when some dink says "Having a gun in the house make you this many percent more likely to suffer from "Gun Violence".

You really think that Sunshine?

How about....

Having Windex in the house makes you more likely to be poisoned by windex than households that do not have windex.
People who ride in cars are 50 times more likely to be injured or killed in a car than people who do not ride in cars.
Having an Anvil in your garage makes your family 35 time more likely to suffer from a nasty Anvil incident then households that do not contain anvils.
Chewing gum makes you 78 percent more likely to choke on gum than people who do not chew gum.

I could go on, buttttt, heheheheeee, I said butt.


----------



## CTHorner (Aug 6, 2013)

Just to clarify the militia argument, most people don’t know their history. If they did they would know that state governors were appointed by the crown, the very people we were fighting against. So the Constitution is clearly talking about civilian militias.


----------



## Doc Holliday (Dec 22, 2012)

Swedishsocialist said:


> this thread is kind of an eco-chamber. Like posting a "why you should not eat meat" on a veganforum.
> 
> So just for the fun of it, Ill be in opposition here.
> 
> ...


Words should only be uttered by people that are well educated in the proper use of them. Way too many people are not responsible or smart enough to use words to form opinions. So not only should there be background checks, there should be hard tests to stop stupid people from talking.

Any person with an opinion that is not tested and certified to talk should be part of a government program that teaches them that they are stupid and worthless and should never form their own opinion....

:armata_PDT_34:

I use that argument with Liberals as well...

"A well-educated electorate being necessary to the preservation of a free society, the right of the people to read and compose books shall not be infringed."
I show them that quote and ask if it means the people have a right to read and compose books or just the well educated electorate.. I have never heard them say the well educated electorate... So why do they always say that the 2nd amendment is about the militia?


----------



## Doc Holliday (Dec 22, 2012)

I will also chime in about the militia argument..

A well regulated militia, ... notice that there is a comma there. in those times regulated meant in good working order (your firearms)
being necessary to the security of a free state, I think anyone can interpret that!
The right of the people to keep and bear arms, Can we all agree that it says what it means? Keep = own, bear = carry
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!! 

What is so hard to understand? 
If it meant the militia had the right to keep and bear arms it would have said "the right of THE MILITIA to keep and bear arms"


----------



## Farva (Aug 26, 2015)

Doc Holliday said:


> *"A well-educated electorate being necessary to the preservation of a free society, the right of the people to read and compose books shall not be infringed."*


Thank you Doc. I will not forget this.


----------



## CTHorner (Aug 6, 2013)

I just caught myself doing it to.

The second amendment is in the Bill of Rights not in the Constitution.

And what was the purpose of the Bill of Rights?

Madison, wrote the Bill of Rights for individuals, not the government. It establishes individual rights and puts limits on government. The government gets it’s power from the constitution only. The Bill of Rights lets the government know what belongs to the people. And whatever isn’t specifically written in the constitution belongs to the people.


----------



## Doc Holliday (Dec 22, 2012)

Thanks CTHorner for making me remember that the "bill of rights" is for the people and the "constitution" is for the government. Its one thing I had forgotten to use in my arguments with liberals...


----------



## Doc Holliday (Dec 22, 2012)

Noah Webster said in 1787..

"Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the *whole body of the people* are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States."

Whole body of the people = Militia


----------



## jim-henscheli (May 4, 2015)

swede, the sweedish system of socialism is good, as socialism goes, BUT it is crippled, like all socialism, by this; leftist ideology does NOT put a premium on individual liberty, and will therefor, without fail, degenerate into tyrrany. Now, im not advocating hedonism, or anarchy, but we must keep in mind that people all have individual rights, and those induvidual rigjts may allow them to offend us, but we must live together, because theres just the one planet, so laws are needed, and since we dont all agree, than we must have as few laws as possible, and mind our own business.


----------



## Swedishsocialist (Jan 16, 2015)

jim-henscheli said:


> swede, the sweedish system of socialism is good, as socialism goes, BUT it is crippled, like all socialism, by this; leftist ideology does NOT put a premium on individual liberty, and will therefor, without fail, degenerate into tyrrany. Now, im not advocating hedonism, or anarchy, but we must keep in mind that people all have individual rights, and those induvidual rigjts may allow them to offend us, but we must live together, because theres just the one planet, so laws are needed, and since we dont all agree, than we must have as few laws as possible, and mind our own business.


well, from my perspective, your life seems way less free then mine. As far as individual freedom, well, here we go again, we beat you:

*On a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 represents more freedom, the nonweighted average rating for 152 countries in 2012 was 6.96. The level of global freedom stayed about the same compared to 2008, but almost all countries experienced changes in their ratings, with about half of those increasing their ratings and half decreasing.

The top 10 jurisdictions in order were Hong Kong, Switzerland, Finland, Denmark, New Zealand, Canada, Australia, Ireland, the United Kingdom, and Sweden. The United States is ranked in 20th place. Other countries rank as follows: Germany (12), Chile (18), Japan (28), France (33), Singapore (43), South Africa (70), India (75), Brazil (82), Russia (111), China (132), Nigeria (139), Saudi Arabia (141), Venezuela (144), Zimbabwe (149), and Iran (152).*

Human Freedom Index | Cato Institute

Or this link, sweden is 6th in personal freedom index, US 21th

United States ranked 21st worldwide in personal freedom

But you beat us according to economic freedom, here you stand at the 12th most free country, were sweden ranks 23

Country Rankings: World & Global Economy Rankings on Economic Freedom


----------



## Swedishsocialist (Jan 16, 2015)

Swedishsocialist said:


> this thread is kind of an eco-chamber. Like posting a "why you should not eat meat" on a veganforum.
> 
> So just for the fun of it, Ill be in opposition here.
> 
> ...


I might have to clarify something here.... I dont really care to much about your 2nd amendment or what gunrules you have or dont have. I like to know diffrent things but this do not affect me.

My point was that the first post was "preaching to the quire" so I woulnteerd to offer some mental oppositon and just wrote down something that has some reasoning behind it so you had someone to argue against in a way. I do not really in any way shape or form think that your laws & rules are my buisness.

The second amendment do not apply to me and I dont really care to much about it. I my opinion when I presentes argument & reasoning and the respond is "well, the second amendment so screw you" well, thats not really arguing or reasoning. IM not sure if im totally clear here, I need some coffee


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

George Washington, during his inaugural Presidential Address as the first president of the United States, stated this: "_Among the many interesting objects which will engage your attention, that of providing for the common defense will merit particular regard.... To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace... A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies._"
President Washington had successfully completed a campaign against a full military force from England using a force of militiamen from the fields and farms of the new colonies. He knew full well that the people should be allowed all manner of supplies, including firearms, that would render them independent of need from a centralized institution to ensure their safety, and if called on to defend their country, would be well equipped to do so against a military force.
This was intended to mean that the people should be allowed all bearable arms that could withstand a modern military invasion. Folks, this flat out plainly includes fully automatic firearms, and yes, grenades.
Don't wet yourself, Swede.


----------



## Swedishsocialist (Jan 16, 2015)

Kauboy said:


> George Washington, during his inaugural Presidential Address as the first president of the United States, stated this: "_Among the many interesting objects which will engage your attention, that of providing for the common defense will merit particular regard.... To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace... A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies._"
> President Washington had successfully completed a campaign against a full military force from England using a force of militiamen from the fields and farms of the new colonies. He knew full well that the people should be allowed all manner of supplies, including firearms, that would render them independent of need from a centralized institution to ensure their safety, and if called on to defend their country, would be well equipped to do so against a military force.
> This was intended to mean that the people should be allowed all bearable arms that could withstand a modern military invasion. Folks, this flat out plainly includes fully automatic firearms, and yes, grenades.
> Don't wet yourself, Swede.


why should I wet myself.

you are the ones doing the invading nowdays.

and firearms & grenades are no match for a well equiped & trained army.

And people of today are not the same as back then.

Washington was right about the manufactuering of weapons, we do make a lot of weapons here, we even make our own fighterjets (JAS 39 GRIPEN)

But what has this to do with sweden anyway?


----------



## hawgrider (Oct 24, 2014)




----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Swedishsocialist said:


> why should I wet myself.
> 
> you are the ones doing the invading nowdays.
> 
> ...


It has nothing to do with Sweden. This topic had nothing to do with Sweden. You made it about Sweden, as you always do.
My comment to you was a request for you not to freak out at the notion of American citizens with automatic weapons and hand grenades.
You twisted it into something else.

Firearms and grenades in the hands of "all able bodied men", as Washington would have understood the militia to be, would be a formidable force against any military.

I'll assume you don't pick up on the subtleties of the English language because it is not your first language. (please, take that excuse, all others would put you in a very bad light)
For that, you're forgiven. For your constant chest beating, you're just "special"...


----------



## Swedishsocialist (Jan 16, 2015)

Kauboy said:


> It has nothing to do with Sweden. This topic had nothing to do with Sweden. You made it about Sweden, as you always do.
> My comment to you was a request for you not to freak out at the notion of American citizens with automatic weapons and hand grenades.
> You twisted it into something else.
> 
> ...


I do compare things with how it works here, not always but when I see fit. Many times it is as a response to some posters US-cheastbeating. Like in this thread, someone attacted sweden/our system and was wrong. Or gave a non-sequiter response "but we have 2a amendment so screw you" I gave some info about actual facts. Is that wrong? Is that cheastbeating? Depends on the facts, but do you suggest I wihthold facts that makes US looks bad? You cant really mean that.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Swedishsocialist said:


> I do compare things with how it works here, not always but when I see fit. Many times it is as a response to some posters US-cheastbeating. Like in this thread, someone attacted sweden/our system and was wrong. Or gave a non-sequiter response "but we have 2a amendment so screw you" I gave some info about actual facts. Is that wrong? Is that cheastbeating? Depends on the facts, but do you suggest I wihthold facts that makes US looks bad? You cant really mean that.


I suggest you stay on topic. That's all.
If you wish to start yet another thread about country superiority, feel free. Just don't derail another's thread about a completely different topic.

I may have missed the posts you're referring to when you claimed that someone attacked Sweden, or proclaimed "screw you".
If you could point them out, I'll offer a response that they stay on topic as well. Thanks!


----------



## Robb_b (Aug 3, 2015)

Swedishsocialist said:


> "We the People" are you telling me you are socialists?
> 
> and yeah, shure that is the main reason they did not invade, really belivable


 We are the people of this country. We lead independent lives in this country free to achieve as little or as much as we want. The constitution was written to guarantee that we could live free, but it was also an agreement that we would work together to become stronger and protect one another. People have attempted through the years to change it for their on will. If you take the constitution as a literal document then no one has any say over someone's life unless you break the laws we have agreed upon. That's the spirit of We the people.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jun 25, 2014)

CTHorner said:


> Our Great Fore Fathers never envisioned the assault rifle when they wrote our Constitution, and Bill of Rights. If we allow these menacing deadly weapons, what will the people want next? Grenades, mortars, cannon, and field artillery?
> 
> _Well actually when the Constitution was written the people owned grenades, mortars, cannon, and field artillery._
> 
> ...


Actually, in many cases of lynchings in the South, the Sheriff or local law enforcement was present and accounted for. Sometimes entire towns would turn out to see some guy get lynched (for offenses as trivial as arguing with a white man.) In a few documented cases, the lynchings got so popular that vendors would show up, and people from nearby towns would attend the event (literally the County Fair would spring up for the event.) Billie Holiday summarized it best in her song "Strange Fruit."


----------



## Carp614 (Jan 21, 2013)

Look I have to say the Swede has a point. Yes, America was originally designed to be free and the framers wanted citizens to be able to maintain there own freedom.

But I would argue that we have failed in that effort. Through combination of inattention and outright usurpation, we Americans have allowed our government to become tyrannical and we are doing exactly nothing about it. The voices of opposition to the current government are fringe, isolated, and few. 

I'll give you a small scale example. When I bought my house in the burbs I didn't really care about the covenants I signed...that I had to sign in order to buy a house in my neighborhood. All I cared about was getting a nice house in a decent neighborhood where my kids would have someone to play with. But let me tell you what I agreed to:

1) I can only grow one type of grass in my yard.
2) If I want to put up a structure in my backyard, I have to get approval in advance from the Architectural Review Committee
3) I am not allowed to park on the street in front of my house. 
4) If I want to cut a tree down, or plant a new tree, I am supposed to submit a request for approval before I do it. 
5) If I want to put up a basketball hoop, I have to get approval, and I cannot mount one on the structure of my home or put one in the ground. It has to be moveable.
6) If I want to paint my house, I have to get both of my adjacent neighbors to sign off on the color, unless I paint it the exact same color it is today. 

I could go on, but i'll get to the point. Without even thinking about it, I gave someone/something else sovereignty over the land that I own...my own land. If I break any of these rules I get a letter, and I could be fined. There is no mechanism for disputing the fine. If I refuse to pay it, they put a lien on my home and when I sell it, they get the money. 

Look, I am a dyed in the wool, hardcore Libertarian. And I signed up for this without a second thought. That is what Americans all over are doing everyday. I ask you, is this what Liberty is really supposed to look like? is this BULL #%&@ what the founders intended? Certainly not. But we blindly acquiesce for the sake of stupid ideas like social standing and keeping up with the Joneses. It is apathy, selfishness, greed, and ignorance creating an impulse to go after "the American Dream" without ever considering the possibility that all of these trappings and responsibilities do little more than make us slaves to our employers and to our government. 

And when we wake up to this, most Americans simply shrug their shoulders and do nothing, readily accepting that they are trapped, or worse, never realize at all that there is a trap to begin with. 

I am hoping to change it. If I can, I will find a way out of the trap. I'm getting rid of this boat anchor of a house, buying land that I truly own and walking away from this garbage. It will take years to do it, but I will have real Liberty one day, God willing. I still believe it is possible in this country.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Carp614 said:


> Look I have to say the Swede has a point. Yes, America was originally designed to be free and the framers wanted citizens to be able to maintain there own freedom.
> 
> But I would argue that we have failed in that effort. Through combination of inattention and outright usurpation, we Americans have allowed our government to become tyrannical and we are doing exactly nothing about it. The voices of opposition to the current government are fringe, isolated, and few.
> 
> ...


HOAs are rooted in communistic ideals.
I'll never be a member... EVER.


----------



## hawgrider (Oct 24, 2014)

Carp614 said:


> Look I have to say the Swede has a point. Yes, America was originally designed to be free and the framers wanted citizens to be able to maintain there own freedom.
> 
> But I would argue that we have failed in that effort. Through combination of inattention and outright usurpation, we Americans have allowed our government to become tyrannical and we are doing exactly nothing about it. The voices of opposition to the current government are fringe, isolated, and few.
> 
> ...


Shame on you for buying that house in that neighborhood.
Once bitten twice shy.


----------



## Will2 (Mar 20, 2013)

CTHorner said:


> Our Great Fore Fathers never envisioned the assault rifle when they wrote our Constitution, and Bill of Rights. If we allow these menacing deadly weapons, what will the people want next? Grenades, mortars, cannon, and field artillery?
> 
> _Well actually when the Constitution was written the people owned grenades, mortars, cannon, and field artillery._
> 
> ...


the problem with your argument is as follows. Police do not act as my private body gaurd. I can't carry a police officer in a holster should an emergency arise where my life is threatened. If I need to wait an hour for a police officer to arrive when there is a violent threat to me, I will already be dead. Grow a brain.

Not sure if this is an intentional straw man post or a bonifide true retard. But have you ever thought maybe some violence is Random and not everyone lives within 30 minutes of a police station, nor has instant access to call them due to there being no phone reception. Not only this but there are also animal threats. Police are not always available to protect people this is why it makes far more sense to not centralize the use of self defence. Self defence should be everyone right, not just a political appointed person who is paid by a corporation to exercise force when they themselves are not endangered.

Police can't be trusted with protecting people, they are a response force, not bodyguards.

Bear in mind, I am in country where use of fire arms for self defence is a last resort not a first. However the argument is very simple.

government doesn't want angry or unstable people to be able to kill them or others.

people who want guns for self defence have a legitimate reasons for owning guns.

as long as people continue to use guns for lawful purposes they should be able to.

banning all guns just isn't gonna happen. it isn't fair to hunters, and it is you trying to make a world based upon what you like rathter than what other people like. that isn't moral or ethical.


----------



## Deebo (Oct 27, 2012)

Good answer Will2


----------



## Deebo (Oct 27, 2012)

But I think the post was tongue in cheek.


----------



## Carp614 (Jan 21, 2013)

Kauboy said:


> HOAs are rooted in communistic ideals.
> I'll never be a member... EVER.


What can I say. I was asleep. Not any more...


----------



## CTHorner (Aug 6, 2013)

The post was satire, properly posted in "General talk category for off topic conversations".

CT Horner, Fiction Writer.


----------



## Sasquatch (Dec 12, 2014)

Swedishsocialist said:


> I might have to clarify something here.... I dont really care to much about your 2nd amendment or what gunrules you have or dont have. I like to know diffrent things but this do not affect me.
> 
> My point was that the first post was "preaching to the quire" so I woulnteerd to offer some mental oppositon and just wrote down something that has some reasoning behind it so you had someone to argue against in a way. I do not really in any way shape or form think that your laws & rules are my buisness.
> 
> The second amendment do not apply to me and I dont really care to much about it. I my opinion when I presentes argument & reasoning and the respond is "well, the second amendment so screw you" well, thats not really arguing or reasoning. IM not sure if im totally clear here, I need some coffee


The Second Amendment IS an argument and counter point to what you've been saying. If you don't understand that then you do not truly know the second amendment (stated by you yourself) and have no business in this thread (unless here to learn something).

Oh, and screw you!

Okay, I'm just kidding about that. But not the first part.


----------



## jim-henscheli (May 4, 2015)

swede, my point was that, the US SYSTEM is superior, NOT the execution. our system is far better on paper, washington just sucks. also, to be fair, comparing sweeden and the US is like comparing shaq to lord farquad....not the same size. that changes things.


----------



## keith9365 (Apr 23, 2014)




----------

