"It's when they try and take our firearms and right to bear arms away is when we should be worried. I doubt that will ever happen without some kind of very large conflict within our own country."

All of our guns won't do us any good if our own government decides to shut off the power and stop the food trucks from running. And, yeah, some people can live off the land, but most of the population lives in urban and suburban areas. It's far more likely that people will turn their guns on each other rather than the government. All the gov't would have to do is wait until the smoke clears, then pick up the guns from the ashes.

You all seem to forget all the citizens who have guns. I'm pretty sure that's a big deterrent for anyone invading. We have the highest gun ownership percentages for our population than any other country. I don't know about you, but I would grab my Shotgun and assault rifles and fight anyone who tried to invade this country in a heartbeat. I would hope that all of you fellow americans would too.

It's when they try and take our firearms and right to bear arms away is when we should be worried. I doubt that will ever happen without some kind of very large conflict within our own country.

@ Nordich Reitler - http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=759b5f2b-920d-4ca5-ad97-b922c60266f1&p=1

Read it and tell me how well the Minute Men are doing.

@ QuantumMushroom - where to begin? Because someone is a liberal it doesn't make them a "socialist" anymore than it makes you a nazi skinhead. Are you a nazi skinhead?

WTF does language have to do with militias? Unless you
racist, that is.

Illegal immigration brought California to the brink of economic collapse? Funny, I thought the entire country was on the brink of economic collapse. I guess it's easy to blame all the illegal spics in Michigan and Ohio for those States' economic troubles.

The "Lawful Right to Bear Arms" - ah yes, the fall back. I have a lawful right to drink my own urine, tattoo images of Napoleon Dynamite all over my body, or eat nothing but grits my entire life. If I did those things, even though legal, wouldn't you think I was a fucken loon? Because you have a right to do something, that doesn't make it any less stoopid.

@ Constitutional Patriot - See previous paragraph.

Also - "Militias comprise Americans of all walks of life, race, religion, creed." Funny thing...I think if you see Christian Americans doing this kind of thing, it's fine. See Muslims Americans doing the same thing, and you would flip out like a bunch of pansy school girls.

Am I wrong?

Am I wrong?

It's never a good idea to do any campaigning (or explaining) in CAMO.

That said, Feinstein is one of the bigger turds in the toilet that is Congress and an enemy of the Constitution she swore to uphold.

That this socialist idiot would be "concerned" about English-speaking American citizens and their lawful right to bear arms but not about open borders and 9 million Spanish-speaking invaders, speaks volumes about the priorities of leftists who have brought California to the brink of economic collapse.

>> ^imstellar28:
^unclejimbo,
It does not mean that in the absence of guns genocide always occurs, but there has never been an instance of genocide where the victims had a means to defend themselves. If you take away the guns, and somewhere down the road something intense happens which causes a philosophical shift, you are ripe for genocide. Just look at WW2, the Japanese were rounded up into internment camps. How many Japanese lives do you think were spared because the US government did not have the physical power to kill them as a result of an armed populace? How about for arabs after 9-11?


Sorry but a minority bearing arms does not protect it from a majority supported tyranny. Iraqi Kurds spring to mind. They were armed and even had a semi-organised guerrilla army but they were obliterated by Hussein’s ruthless deployment of military force including chemical weapons.

I’m just struggling to see the practical application of the right to bear arms. If the secret service come round your house to round you up what are you going to do, shoot them? Once you’ve shot them, more will turn up, then what? Unless you have an awful lot of sympathisers willing to die for you then you’re pretty much screwed. If you have enough people behind you there is no need for guns – rocks and Molotov cocktails (or even just placards) would do just fine.

I’m highly sceptical of your Japanese American internment example. I know of no show of force by the Japanese Americans who were rounded up, nor of any armed support from white Americans. I was under the impression that the whole episode was possible because of widespread racism against Asian Americans and that gun holders were no more likely to save their lives than they were to take them. Since I very much doubt gun ownership was allowed in the interment camps I fail to see how it protected the inhabitants once they were interred. All the government needed to do was “relocate” them out of sight and they could have “disappeared” plenty of Japanese Americans without anyone finding out for quite some time. That they didn’t was more down to the US government’s (misguided) motives differing from more menacing aims of other regimes of the time.

ps. Sorry for the thread hijack everyone

Well there is a more basic idea than law at stake here as VJ points out. Making just owning a gun a crime is an overly huge power of the government, much akin to prohibition of alcohol. However, I can't say I agree with his anarchism.

I think the main ploy to the ordinary man to give up his second amendment rights to bear arms usually comes with the idea of enhanced safety of all. If people don't have guns, then less violent crime will happen, or at least the violent crime won't be as easy to comment and take to the point of lethality. But this is a slippery slope of logic that I don't see any reasonable ending point to. You can carry that argument in every direction without bounds that aren't completely subjective. For instance, cars make bank robberies much easier to commit. Should the general populous not have access because it would make all of our dollar bills safer?

Gun laws seem very close in relation to drug laws, to make criminals out of people that have committed no other crime than possessing something. That is a moral problem. How is it right for a person to be brought to trial for committing no crime against his fellow man. A man going to jail because of his hypothetical use of a device in a violent manor is unjust and has no logical end.

No one can ignore the horrible atrocities that have happened in the recent upsurge of school shootings. The ease in which massive harm can be committed with automatic weapons is all to apparent. But making guns illegal doesn't solve that problem. In fact, it only gives power to those rouge elements in society that have no respect for the law. I find a similar parallel in the video game industry with all the new copyright protection methods. Hackers easily thwart all the new countermeasures within weeks or less, but the ordinary person has to deal with a whole new level of stress when dealing with the program (program stalls, interference with hardware settings and various others). I am not commenting on the legality of these copyright measures, but how they negatively affect the ordinary person and do nothing to stop the criminal.

It is a fact that in a free society, horrible things will happen. When such a thing happens, it is the immediate instinct to react. And what better way to react than with the false but convincing argument that more government controls will help the situation. You can outlaw criminal behavior as much as you want, but that doesn't eliminate crime. The fact is, the more unnecessary laws you create the more criminals you create, of which most are collateral damage, ordinary persons thrown in jail in the pursuit of unobtainable perfect safety.

In a free society, we have to get used to the fact that instead of a monarch committing atrocities on us, it will be our neighbors. A hard but certain truth when considering any law you would wish to create. In that, you want all the liberties you can get to ensure you freedoms will be preserved.

>> ^WolfDemon:
Shit, I'm totally doing this to my kids when I have some of my own. Granted I still have the right to bear arms.


As though that's something you could ever loose. 🤦

Shit, I'm totally doing this to my kids when I have some of my own. Granted I still have the right to bear arms.

US Constitution:

Right to Freedon of Speech: Everyone defends it
Right to bear arms: Nearly everyone defends it
Seperation of Church and State: Um......

^thats not true jwray, a constitution only needs a single sentence:

"life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"

name a single right that doesn't protect? human rights are really very simple...our constitution already has everything in it that it needs to protect against every form of oppression. all we need to do is enforce it. we don't need to make a single new law, we never did. we could get rid of all 10,000 laws in the US and that single sentence could protect everyone just the same.

murder, theft, vandalism, assault, rape, reckless driving, fraud, slavery child abuse--all of those are a violation of that single sentence.

women's rights, gay marriage, polygamy, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, the right to a fair trail, all of these rights follow from that single sentence.


all we have to do is throw this democracy bullsh*t in the garbage and enforce that single sentence.

Oh, thank you so much Leading Zero, I've been thinking about that "refreshed with blood" quote for WEEKS, but I couldnt remember the phrasing or who said it, so googling was impossible. Its also hard asking people "who said that thing about the thing again?"

That quote is, I believe, a statement made to support the 4th 2nd amendment, the right to bear arms

The more I see about this, the more furious I get.

I Simply cannot believe this man to be SO fucking incompetent, that he would put his presidential race and his party and his philosophy, before not only the US economy, but the GLOBAL economy.

Hes not just risking money, hes risking LIVES.
If the world economy collapses as a result of this shit, millions of people will die.
Industry incapable of producing food, transporting it, and generally sustaining the people around it because they dont even have the funds to operate, creates poverty on a scale not seen anywhere outside of Africa.

Lucky for these guys I'm not in the US atm, I might consider exercising my right to bear arms.

I used to laugh when Jim Cramer had a mind-explosion, Im about to have one myself. This act alone, should dismiss him from ever working as a public servant ever again, because this is not in the publics interest at all.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Like all Big Government liberals, Barry O is against citizens owning firearms.

No he isn't. He's very much like me, a gun totin' liberal. As he said in his DNC speech, we can make sure hunters keep their guns, but inner-city gangsters don't have uzi's. There's a balance there, somewhere, but there's a lot more of us hardcore libs who find the 2nd amendment untouchable. Apparently you haven't listened to his view on this issue.

"Hunting only, eh?" Taking guns from "inner-city gang members". Absolute horseshit. No president can do it, and all the 50,000 gun laws we have now do is tie down the lawful citizen. Obama is lying about his "love" of guns. He was likely as upset as the rest of the left (minus you) about the latest Supreme Court ruling that the 2nd Amendment is indeed, an individual right to bear arms.

Obama believes in an all-powerful centrist government. There's nothing government can't fix, if only they have the money...

No he doesn't. He doesn't believe in a broken and bloated gov't that does nothing for us. He believes in individual responsibilities, as well as gov't help for those who can't help themselves, and for infrastructure etc projects.

Obama wants to add billions of dollars in new and expanded programs to fight "the bloat". Does that make sense? I believe most liberals are sincere, but if you'll notice, the pool of people "who can't help themselves" seems to be expanding every day. Now we're "helping" you quit smoking, and quit eating fatty foods, see? We're your new nanny!

Also, should Obama win, I won't fault only him on government growth, the reality is the scumbag bureaucrats run Washington and they can easily outlast any and all 8-year terms.

He uses accusations of "racism" whenever he loses an argument.

Now that's just 100% bullshit. And when people like Sarah Palin call him "Sambo", to deny there's any racist attacks against him, is ridiculous.

The "sambo" charge was false.

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/obama-supporters-are-behind-palin-sambo.html

My answer to Obama's racist poor-me victim act will occur on election day. If he loses, there will be plenty of recrimination from the drive-by media about what an evil racist country America is, as if that's the only reason he lost. If he wins, they won't shut up about how wonderful it is to have a Black president, blah blah blah.

He uses class warfare.

There IS class warfare in this country. What, are you fucking insane? What do you think just happened this week? The gov't colluded with the greediest fucks on this planet to take our money, trillions of dollars of it, to pay for their mistakes.

I agree, and I agree it was wrong for these pricks to subsidize failure. But that's government for ya. If government were smaller, with limited funds, it couldn't get away with this. But historically the Left has been pushing hardest for more and more Big Government. The beast slipped its leash long ago, I'm afraid. But all these bailout don't come close to the 3 trillion wasted on the "War on Poverty".

Obama is nearly a lifelong member of a "church" that promotes Black Liberation Theology.

I hate all religions. I don't see where his bullshit is any more "neo-marxist" than any other dumbass religious believer.

Fair enough. Either Obama is lying about his faith to upset religion-haters or he sees it as a valuable tool for activism.

But its real mission is to radicalize American youth and use them to bring about "social change" through threats, pressure, tension and confrontation

You are absolutely nuts. Really, way way off the deep-end here, my friend.

Well, time will tell if he funds this crap, or gets the chance. I see the way American government-schools have rewritten or eliminated the teaching of history. Nothing surprises me anymore. The Democrats have sold their souls to the kook-left fringe, more so than any religious "control" the right.

Facts and logic are out the window, Obamites are electrified by these vague messages of "hope" and "change" or still part of the "Anybody but Bush" mindset.

Wow, you should try insulting more people's intelligence. Shoving everyone into this "Obamites" category shows just how little grasp you have on this election and these candidates.

It's really a compliment. It takes intelligence to have your imagination captured. I freely admit Barry is an aspiring speaker, and say also, he has not been given a thorough background check nor his lacking credentials serious consideration. It really is a case of rockstar-itis.

Still more sifters are from countries that are already socialist, so there's no conflict of interest there.

I take it you've never been outside the US then. I've traveled 1/2 of my life, lived overseas for years on end, in these "socialist" countries you know nothing about. If you think Europe is what socialism looks like, you need to go back to school.

Well, as the pundits love pointing out, the USA isn't as "sophisticated" as Europe, and the "rest of the world", with all its tinpot dictators and sheiks and corrupt regimes and double-digit unemployment welfare states supposedly despises the USA. The wisest here don't want to be anything like Europeans or anyone else.


And lastly, there are the deluded peaceniks who FEEL that the USA is morally no greater than Red China, and that despots can be 'reasoned with' if only we bring them a bouquet of their favorite flowers.

Wow, that sure is a pretty straw-man you built yourself.

These peaceniks are real enough. They've always been with us and they've always been wrong. Only war stops tyrants.

But tell me, oh wise one. When was the last time you saw one of these evil socialist European nations torture someone? When was the last time a European nation used a pack of lies to sell its citizens an illegal war, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people? When was the last time that Abu-Ghraib happened under France's watch? When was the last time any EU country called the Geneva Conventions "cute"? When was the last time any EU country thought that following international laws, and their own military code of conduct, just didn't count anymore?

There's no point trying to reason with anyone who thinks a war can be "legal" or "illegal". Wars are about survival, nothing else. A saddam-free Iraq increases America's chance for survival. A taliban-free Afghanistan increases America's chance for survival. All the other good or evil to follow is secondary.


Where I differ from others on the matter of war is I believe America is the greatest country on earth, and its only moral force. We have the RIGHT and the duty to do whatever it takes. Without the USA, the world is fucked. Europe withers before the Crescent, China is a communist nightmare, Russia is sliding backwards towards the same, the Middle East is perhaps forever a hellish hail of traded bullets. And whether Ron fucking Paul likes it or not, America has been cast in the role of world's policeman.

Wow. You seem like a very, very scared person.

I am more than worried about electing a President that hates America, who has the defense doctrine of Bill Clinton and the economic knowledge of Jimmy Carter. Should he win, we will weather four years of his ridiculousness while Congress via the people, won't support him.

I can't upvote this video, even if you're wanting to use it as a vehicle for a conversation about Obama and gun rights.

I've publicly professed my ambivalence about gun rights. My view is simple: law abiding citizens should have the right to possess them, but I don't want anyone to be able to get a gun whenever they want, no questions asked.

I've not really looked into Obama's legislative past on gun laws, but he got beaten up by Democrats during the primary for saying he believes that the 2nd amendment confers an individual right to bear arms (before the SCOTUS decision that made that definitively true).

I don't think he'll make banning guns a cornerstone of his administration. Even if he tried, Democrats in the Senate and House wouldn't support him, and I doubt the Republicans would help much, either.

I wonder if that sort of squabbling over the 2nd Amendment's text is fair. Sure it just says you have the right to bear arms, not shoot them. It also says you have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but not private property or privacy, but we can surely grant us all that. Furthermore, is it right to tell a man what to do on his property with his own gun? Why such the hysterics over firing a gun? I just don't personally get where that sort of fear comes from.