Tags for this video have been changed from 'gun, rights, assault, rifle, obama, protest' to 'gun, rights, assault, rifle, obama, protest, AR15, legal' - edited by EndAll

what's next - a fucking tank?

attention seeking twat

If I had access to a tank I would drive it to a rally, just to up the absurdity level.

Clearly they all had weapons in case they spotted somebody trying to assassinate the president.

*fear

Adding video to channels (Fear) - requested by NetRunner.

Someone needs to start lighting firecrackers...

>> ^TickTock:
Someone needs to start lighting firecrackers...


I would pay very good money to see that.

Awesome, more people need to do things like this. People are clearly conditioned by movies and the news to an irrational fear of private citizens with firearms, and if people don't exercise their rights in this way, we will lose the second amendment.

The idea that you can make people safer by banning guns is laughable when guns are assembled in rebel camps in the middle of jungles, mountain towns in Pakistan, and sometimes even smuggled into prisons.

Private citizens require firearms to defend themselves from criminals - without them, even a criminal carrying a knife, nonlethal weapon, or using nothing but his body can render someone helpless. This is far more common than deaths from school shootings, psychos who snap, etc. Again, it's the news at work, playing the story that is unusual and making you afraid of something rare.

I solute the protesters that carry firearms to these events - I hope it continues without incident. If so, it'll make the newscasters look retarded for running this series of "OMG ASSAULT RIFLES AT A PRESIDENTIAL PROTESTS! WTFBBQ!". Maybe then some of you video sifters will come around to the idea that the 2nd amendment is one that protects individual rights, just like all the others, and not a bizzaro provision needed, less we force the national guard to arm itself with nerf guns.

Also, for extra lols at you idiots saying this was alarming the secret service/president, here's what the secret service had to play:

"U.S. Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan acknowledged the incidents in New Hampshire and Arizona, but said he was not aware of any other recent events where protesters attended with open weapons. He said there was no indication that anyone had organized the incidents.

Asked whether the individuals carrying weapons jeopardized the safety of the president, Donovan said, 'Of course not.' "

source:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/17/obama.protest.rifle/index.html#cnnSTCText

Dude just added himself to the Watch List.

No, more people do NOT need to do more things like this.

There's a reason that the police force was invented, and contrary to common belief, no, it was not to go around tazing people.

The idea that banning guns to make the country safer is NOT laughable when you have a civil society that enjoys its freedoms and doesn't have guerilla forces as part of a rebellion. The reason those people exist is basically to "Fight the Man" and last time I checked, the U.S.A. doesn't exactly have that problem.

Private citizens require firearms to make sure they can defend themselves against criminals?
Seriously? you don't think people carry guns when they break into peoples houses? That's just naive. If you're that worried that someone's gonna break into your house, sleep next to a bat. If neither side has a gun, it's basically which ever one has the bigger melee weapon wins, and last time I checked, if you're breaking into someones house, you don't take a claymore, They draw a knife, you pick up the bat. Problem solved.

oh, and as for your "Extra lols", Really? Do you think that the secret service doesn't care that there's loaded firearms at a rally for the president? are you THAT naive? your country has a bit of a track record for assassinations and attempted assassinations. If there's ANY person carrying a weapon at a rally, you can bet your ass they're being watched like a hawk.

>> ^Lowen:
Awesome, more people need to do things like this. People are clearly conditioned by movies and the news to an irrational fear of private citizens with firearms, and if people don't exercise their rights in this way, we will lose the second amendment.
The idea that you can make people safer by banning guns is laughable when guns are assembled in rebel camps in the middle of jungles, mountain towns in Pakistan, and sometimes even smuggled into prisons.
Private citizens require firearms to defend themselves from criminals - without them, even a criminal carrying a knife, nonlethal weapon, or using nothing but his body can render someone helpless. This is far more common than deaths from school shootings, psychos who snap, etc. Again, it's the news at work, playing the story that is unusual and making you afraid of something rare.
I solute the protesters that carry firearms to these events - I hope it continues without incident. If so, it'll make the newscasters look retarded for running this series of "OMG ASSAULT RIFLES AT A PRESIDENTIAL PROTESTS! WTFBBQ!". Maybe then some of you video sifters will come around to the idea that the 2nd amendment is one that protects individual rights, just like all the others, and not a bizzaro provision needed, less we force the national guard to arm itself with nerf guns.
Also, for extra lols at you idiots saying this was alarming the secret service/president, here's what the secret service had to play:
"U.S. Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan acknowledged the incidents in New Hampshire and Arizona, but said he was not aware of any other recent events where protesters attended with open weapons. He said there was no indication that anyone had organized the incidents.
Asked whether the individuals carrying weapons jeopardized the safety of the president, Donovan said, 'Of course not.' "
source:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/17/obama.protest.rifle/ind
ex.html#cnnSTCText

I hear they had guns at the revolution. Some were even armed in the presence of the (what would soon be) president *gasp*. Wake me up when some real news is on, I got some zombie hordes to decimate. You will wish you had guns when the undead try and eat your man flesh. Freedoms don't have to be rational. If I want to have a gun to feel safer even though it most likely doesn't then I should. If I want a gun just because I like the idea of having something powerful, then I should. Hundreds of thousands of guns sit in dust filled attics and closets not harming anyone. And when you say "when you have a civil society that enjoys its freedoms", it is in violation of that essence that you would seek the remove that right. Once again, freedoms don't have to exist in rational form. I like silly fart jokes and some of my friends like dipping french fries in soft serve ice cream (LUNACY I SAY!) But it isn't the freedom that needs rationalization, and thus I think arguing from that perspective is moot. I don't say that to be a dick or contrary, I just think that misses the point. Liberty first, as Ben Franklin would say (that and electricity hurts!).

edit: typo

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I hear they had guns at the revolution. Some were even armed in the presence of the (what would soon be) president gasp . Wake me up when some real news is on, I got some zombie hordes to decimate. You will wish you had guns when the undead try and eat your man flesh. Freedoms don't have to be rational. If I want to have a gun to feel safer even though it most likely doesn't then I should. If I want a gun just because I like the idea of having something powerful, then I should. Hundreds of thousands of guns sit in dust filled attics and closets not harming anyone. And when you say "when you have a civil society that enjoys its freedoms", it is in violation of that essence that you would seek the remove that right. Once again, freedoms don't have to exist in rational form. I like silly fart jokes and some of my friends like dipping french fries in soft serve ice cream (LUNACY I SAY!) But it isn't the freedom that needs renationalisation, and thus I think arguing from that perspective is moot. I don't say that to be a dick or contrary, I just think that misses the point. Liberty first, as Ben Franklin would say (that and electricity hurts!).


/agreed

On a side note BK fries dipped in a Wendy's chocolate frosty are awesome! It's like getting a bite of cone in every serving. :-)

http://www.videosift.com/video/Personal-Video-of-the-Rifleman-at-Presidential-Rally

oh fucking christ.
i give up.

That was awesome. I want an AR15. I didn't even know that was legal in the states. That made my day. I'm moving to Arizona!

Every state should be open carry. And these news shills need to stop making a controversy out of our 2nd Amendment right.

2nd amendment right is foolish.

>> ^gwiz665:
2nd amendment right is foolish.


You must explain.

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^gwiz665:
2nd amendment right is foolish.

You must explain.


I'm with blankfist on this. Besides how else would all the R. Lee Ermey's keep the invading watermelons at bay?

F these people. These people need to be beat.

What purpose does it serve to bring a gun to a town hall meeting? Pure intimidation, that's all. Assholery.

Now if it had been a McCain event all you would have needed was a "Bush = McCain" sign to get thrown out.

>> ^blankfist:
That was awesome. I want an AR15. I didn't even know that was legal in the states. That made my day. I'm moving to Arizona!
Every state should be open carry. And these news shills need to stop making a controversy out of our 2nd Amendment right.


Most states it is legal to own semiautomatic weaponry. A most pistols is semiautomatic, except for wheel guns, and those creepy auto pistols.

In Arizona it is legal to carry a weapon openly, just about any weapon even edged weapons.

BTW why is the sift so slow today?

>> ^kronosposeidon:
What purpose does it serve to bring a gun to a town hall meeting? Pure intimidation, that's all. Assholery.

I brought my gun to your brown-hole meaty... I mean, townhall meeting.

Ya, know, I would be interested if a guy brought a sword. I'm thinking he'd be considered more dangerous and crazy then the gun-toters.

The idea that banning guns to make the country safer is NOT laughable when you have a civil society that enjoys its freedoms and doesn't have guerilla forces as part of a rebellion. The reason those people exist is basically to "Fight the Man" and last time I checked, the U.S.A. doesn't exactly have that problem.

Hi Shepppard! Thanks for completely ignoring the factual basis of my post. Here it is for you AGAIN, stated more simply for you:

1: Firearms have been smuggled into prisons. They can be smuggled into a country. If they are illegal then by definition the only private citizens that can get their hands on them are criminals.

(hurp hurp, it's the old "if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns" bit.)

2: Weapons are assembled in the middle of nowhere (jungle camps, Pakistani villages, etc) and do not require extremely specialized machinery to make. Even if they could not be manufactured openly, and even if they could not be smuggled in, criminals would still have no trouble manufacturing firearms and ammunition. To put a stop to this, you'd have to ban or regulate a lot of tools and materials that have many constructive uses.

This is why it's vital that private citizens retain the right to carry firearms. Because you can't stop them from getting them.

Private citizens require firearms to make sure they can defend themselves against criminals? Seriously? you don't think people carry guns when they break into peoples houses? That's just naive.

Where did you get the idea that most break-ins are committed by people packing heat? I don't doubt it happens that some do have guns, but from all the break-in cases I've heard, the usual burlger/rapist is armed with something that's less obviously a weapon (and not as expensive as a gun), like a heavy pipe, wrench, or a knife.

If you're that worried that someone's gonna break into your house, sleep next to a bat. If neither side has a gun, it's basically which ever one has the bigger melee weapon wins, and last time I checked, if you're breaking into someones house, you don't take a claymore, They draw a knife, you pick up the bat. Problem solved.

Well, I guess we'll all have to yield to your vast experience and/or research in the field of "home defense melee combat".

1: Failing that, saner people will realize that someone breaking into your house is going to have the advantage of surprise and will probably be stronger than you (as an expert in this field I'm surprised you didn't mention strength as a deciding factor in melee combat). Making you SOL.

It's much less of a problem if you have a gun though. You might be terrible at baseball bat fencing after being woken up midway through your sleep cycle and fighting someone on nocturnal sleep cycle, but that is less of an issue with a gun, nor do guns care how strong you are.

2. If he brings friends, then you're almost certainly SOL.

A gun solves the issue of being outnumbered nicely, since fights end sooner it's less likely you'll end up fighting two people at the same instant, and makes you more or less immune to being immobilized by one while the other attacks (because you can kill them before they get that close).

Last but not least this has nothing to do with someone "breaking into our house". The chances of someone being a victim of any kind of robbery are very low, and in any case it's not robbery that's the problem.

This has to do with your personal safety wherever you are. If there was a way to tell a burglar from a rapist or murderer, I'd be all for letting them take whatever they want and letting the police sort things out, or not. Even if I don't get my stuff back, it's not worth killing someone over. Unfortunately, the only way to tell ahead of time is let them rape or murder you.

In addition to all the other terrible flaws with your "baseball bat" idea, it's utterly useless when you're anywhere other than at home or home base. Last I checked, people also get mugged, and you'll get funny looks carrying a baseball bat around, in addition to it being completely ineffective against a decent mugger/rapist/murder/gang, which again will have the advantage of surprise.

Again, this has nothing to do with my personal worries. The chances that any of this happens to anyone are very low, but should it happen you're completely utterly fucked without a gun.

I contend that passing a law forbidding private citizens from carrying firearms leads to situations where one person can kill many, with the many helpless. This is unconscionable.

oh, and as for your "Extra lols", Really? Do you think that the secret service doesn't care that there's loaded firearms at a rally for the president?
are you THAT naive? your country has a bit of a track record for assassinations and attempted assassinations. If there's ANY person carrying a weapon at a rally, you can bet your ass they're being watched like a hawk.

Yeah, except if you read the article you'd know the secret service wasn't worried because
A) the rallies took place well away from where the president was and they of course had that area secured (no firearms are allowed in a federal venue). As for our track record for assassinations, I can't recall one that had the assassin carrying openly while loudly demonstrating. Assassins like to keep a low profile, but I guess you wouldn't know that since you majored in "home defense melee combat" and not "underhanded techniques of murder for hire".

"There's a reason that the police force was invented, and contrary to common belief, no, it was not to go around tazing people."

Not relevant, even if true.

The police can't protect you unless they're aware that you're in danger, and they're near enough to help. Those two facts mean there would have be many, many more police to make them an effective means of self defense. As it is, they are not an effective means for the defense of your person.

Fun fact: retired police officers and military love carrying and owning firearms. I wonder why?

Really, your post shows that you're about as in touch with reality as the right wing idiots that watch fox news.

That's right bitches! Right to bear arms!

So what, BFD.

Folks with weapons make me nervous, so here's to living in a country that doesn't have anything similar to your Second Amendment and doesn't create a need to bear arms: Zum Wohl!

its amazing .. have u seen this ever [spam redacted]

As long as the guy is obeying the law there is not a problem. I'm far more frightened by stupid people voting than I am a conservative openly carrying a gun.

>> ^radx:
Folks with weapons make me nervous, so here's to living in a country that doesn't have anything similar to your Second Amendment and doesn't create a need to bear arms: Zum Wohl!


Cause what makes you nervous should restrict us all. You don't create a need to freedom, you only suppress it. What your country lacks is the civil liberties to execute freedom at the cost of peace of mind. There is no logical end to this line of thinking and ends up eroding the base of freedoms.

More to the point, I don't own a firearm myself, but my roomy does. I don't really even think about it because it is so common place. This trepidation you have isn't unjustified, but it erodes with exposure in my experience. I am actually more scared of knifes and spiders than guns. Have you seen bit wounds from a brown recluse, I would take a bullet instead please! (we should make brown recluses illegal, that'll show em!)

Well put, Gee. That really is the core of a lot of arguments between neoliberals & conservatives.

Conservatives understand some basic realities. (1) People sometimes do stupid things. (2) Nothing on Earth can EVER prevent #1. (3) #1 is a very small price to pay in exchange for FREEDOM. Conservatives accept this reality and try to minimize #1 as much as possible through personal accountability, responsibility, industry, and enlightened self-interest.

Neolibs do not accept this. To neolibs, life is about fairness. So when something bad happens, the neolib emotive reaction is that 'we' need to do 'something' to make sure it never happens again. But of course to neolibs, "we" means "you" and "something" means "massive, unaccountable, inefficient, ineffective government boondoggle". In the process they strip away personal and financial freedoms to try and assuage their sense of fairness.

Conservatives don't try to stop "#1". They do their best to make #1 as tiny an issue as possible by thier own personal decisions. Neolibs try to stop #1, and they do it by making it so people can't decide anything at all.

@Lowen: Long comment trying to be funny is long...and really not funny.

So, let me get this straight.. You wake up, you're tired because you're halfway through your sleep cycle, so instead of a melee weapon where you can see what you'll be swinging at, you instead grab a gun? Yeah, have fun shooting a loved one.

It doesn't matter if they bring a friend, the first thing you SHOULD be doing when you hear people in your house is calling the cops (hey look, that statement wasn't actually irrelevant after all!). The only time you should be engaging them anyway is if they come after you.

And saner people realise that they'll be breaking into the house and getting the jump on you, hmm? So..What the fuck good does it do you then? Neither the bat OR the gun is any use because you're now either dead, or locked in a closet. Oh, and if they continue to search after that's happened, they get to steal your gun. yay.

Strength in combat is usually not a deciding factor, if you're not as strong as some, pick a lighter bat. You don't need to be sleeping beside a 32 oz. home run machine, a 24-26 ounce metal softball bat is less then 2 pounds and longer then a knife.

He brings friends, you're probably SOL in the first place, but seriously.. do you think that no burglars can be stopped without a gun? I'm genuinely curious now, because if the answer is yes, then what do you think they do in..say..Canada?

"a decent mugger/rapist/murder/gang, which again will have the advantage of surprise."

..so, how exactly do you draw and fire a gun if you've been taken by surprise? a "decent" any one of those would have a weapon pointed at you, and have your arms either up, or somewhere away from where a concealed weapon could be. And you call my logic flawed.

"So, let me get this straight.. You wake up, you're tired because you're halfway through your sleep cycle, so instead of a melee weapon where you can see what you'll be swinging at, you instead grab a gun? Yeah, have fun shooting a loved one."

No, you identify the person first in either case. It's easier to shoot someone while tired than it is to get involved in a melee. You're more likely to win in other words. You can id someone within seconds of waking up, but only sleep will give you the alertness needed to fight a brawl.

"It doesn't matter if they bring a friend, the first thing you SHOULD be doing when you hear people in your house is calling the cops (hey look, that statement wasn't actually irrelevant after all!)."

Yes, that is the first thing you do if you aren't armed. If you are armed, you arm yourself, then you call the cops and hide.

The reason it wasn't relevant is because the police will take enough time to arrive that you may very well be dead by the time they get there.

"The only time you should be engaging them anyway is if they come after you."

Yes. And if they come after you, they are most likely to win, provided you don't have a gun. If you do, the odds are about 50/50 or better in your favor.

"And saner people realise that they'll be breaking into the house and getting the jump on you, hmm? So..What the fuck good does it do you then? Neither the bat OR the gun is any use because you're now either dead, or locked in a closet. Oh, and if they continue to search after that's happened, they get to steal your gun. yay."

Except as a matter of fact, break-ins do occur when the owner has a firearm, and when the owner is not expecting it, and even though the break in itself was a surprise, it's almost always the firearm toting homeowner that wins. Your hypothetical scenario logically supports your conclusion, but it is not representative of reality.

"Strength in combat is usually not a deciding factor, if you're not as strong as some, pick a lighter bat. You don't need to be sleeping beside a 32 oz. home run machine, a 24-26 ounce metal softball bat is less then 2 pounds and longer then a knife."

No seriously, how much experience do you have fighting with a baseball bat vs someone with a knife?

I contend that
A) A knife, even a short one is much more dangerous than a baseball bat (getting hit with a bat is painful and can break bones, but being stabbed is much worse).
B) Even a short knife has a longer reach than a baseball bat (because of the thrusting motion with arm vs swing motion).

The above isn't to invite discussion on what people should arm themselves with, it's to demonstrate that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

"He brings friends, you're probably SOL in the first place, but seriously.. "

If he brings friends you can easily bring them down if you're armed with a gun and they aren't, they will be the people who are SOL. If they are armed with guns (which is very rare), then you are much better off armed yourself.

"do you think that no burglars can be stopped without a gun? I'm genuinely curious now, because if the answer is yes, then what do you think they do in..say..Canada?"

I do think burglars can be stopped without a gun. It's just that keeping guns legal helps you a lot more than it helps them. As for Canada, I believe guns are legal there. As for what they do in any given place where it is not legal to own a firearm, for the most part they deal with whatever the perps want to do with them and then file a police report after the fact. Sometimes letting the police deal with it is the correct state of affairs (robbery), and sometimes barring citizens to the means of self defense is a terribly unjust state of affairs (rape, murder).

"a decent mugger/rapist/murder/gang, which again will have the advantage of surprise."
..so, how exactly do you draw and fire a gun if you've been taken by surprise? a "decent" any one of those would have a weapon pointed at you, and have your arms either up, or somewhere away from where a concealed weapon could be. And you call my logic flawed.

Your logic is perfect. If it were true that muggings worked like that, then a concealed weapon would do you no good.

Your facts however, are wrong.

Like your previous example, you constructed a hypothetical scenario, then force it to work out like you want it to, rather than looking at what actually happens in reality.

This is the typical (real) case: someone carrying a (concealed) firearm is mugged or otherwise held up while doing something else (so as a matter of course, they were taken by surprise). The usual result of this scenario is the perpetrator running away, rarely being shot, rarer still winning a confrontation. On the other hand, if you are not armed and the perpetrator wants more than your money, then all you can do is file a police report afterward, assuming he has no interest in killing you.

P.S. My last post wasn't meant to be laughed at. Neither is this one.

I would have LOVED to see someone show up with a gun at a Bush/McCain rally. Shit wouldn't fly.

Alright, this is my last post here, because I don't really want to spend another ten minutes arguing hypothetical situations with you. Neither of us is wrong, and neither of is are changing our minds about the issue.

I never said guns are illegal in Canada, but only roughly 26% own guns. When push comes to shove, America still has more gun related deaths then Canada. It could be due to the fact that 71% of Canadian gun owners only have rifles for hunting, and only 12% have handguns, mind you.

Now, try this out. Go to bed, set your alarm for 3 hours, and then wake up. If there's someone at the end of a dark hallway, odds are your vision is going to be blurred and you won't be able to make out any features other then potentially hair length.

As for a thrust having better range then a bat? Bullshit. If you've taken a stance, if they lunge at you, and you swing, I personally have about 5-6 feet worth of extension with a bat, and if you make contact with the center of mass, not only will you knock them if nothing else OVER, but you'll potentially crack a rib or break an arm. A 10 year old little league player can swing a 20 oz bat 60 mph., Strength is NOT an issue.

Also, I'd like to point out that baseball bats don't always need to be swung two handed. If you're able to weild it one handed, you've got an even GREATER reach then any knife, and can move just as easily, historically, clubs are better weapons.

In the show "Deadliest Warrior"
Every time there was a knife vs other weapon, The other weapon won all but once. And that's because the spetsnaz ballistic knife can shoot. The "Club" weapons however, almost always beat whatever it was up against.

This is the typical (real) case: someone carrying a (concealed) firearm is mugged or otherwise held up while doing something else (so as a matter of course, they were taken by surprise). The usual result of this scenario is the perpetrator running away, rarely being shot, rarer still winning a confrontation. On the other hand, if you are not armed and the perpetrator wants more than your money, then all you can do is file a police report afterward, assuming he has no interest in killing you.

I don't get it..this is your defence? my situation of "If they get the jump on you, a concealed weapon does you no good" is wrong, so..you post a situation of the perpetrator getting the jump on you, and the concealed weapon doing you no good, as they get your money and run away, rarely being shot. Perhaps you stated that wrong.

I'd also like to add, that unless you've been hardcore trained to be able to find, draw, and shoot your weapon in a situation like that, you've got one HELL of a chance of fumbling around, and not even shooting it

Uh - gun deaths in the US just MIGHT have a little bit more to do with the fact that - you know - the population of the US is like almost 10 times that of Canada... Responsible gun owners go to training classes, and spend hours practicing with their weapons so as to train their muscles to react properly and to hone thier judgement. They memorize the commandments of gun ownership (never point at what you're not wanting to shoot... Never put finger on trigger until ready to fire... yadda yadda). It's the irresponsible ones you have to watch out for - and it's just a sad reality that you can't tell who is and isn't a responsible gun owner until they actually OWN one. The only solution is the wholesale banning of ALL weapons that could potentially injure people, or just trusting in the general goodness of people. By and large, the latter holds true in the United States.

God gonnagetdownvotedforthis bless this state...if it wasn't for the heat, I'd stay here forever.

Oh, and for those excited to move to AZ for the guns, it doesn't stop with assault rifles...there's an indoor gun range in Scottsdale, AZ where you can rent (and keep on location, obviously) any number of FULLY automatic weapons (thompsons, AK-47, MP5, M16s...and big guns, like an M249 SAW). http://www.scottsdalegunclub.com/mga/index.php

And if you're particularly wealthy, and don't mind being put on a short list and pay a $200 license fee...you can OWN fully automatic weapons. I say wealthy because they tend to start at like $5k.

I would imagine if you made cars illegal, car related deaths would go down. That isn't the point though. You would be punishing people that haven't done something on the off chance that they might. It is even worse than the whole pre-crime stuff of Minority Report, it is punishing people of no crime. Might it be more safe to ban weapons completely, perhaps, but at a great cost of liberty... and like someone (O wait me!) mentioned before, there is no logical ending point to keeping you safe. Like the great movie, "Thank You for Smoking", jested at; should we outlaw New England Cheddar because of people dying from high cholesterol? While this seems ridiculous, it isn't a stretch of the imagination, and moreover, there is no logical distinction between the two. What you have is a system that is made up of preventative safety measures based on arbitrary personal values, a realm that both Ben Francklin and Plato/Socrates warned against. The tyranny of the majority masked in the public good (in this case, safety). The battle cry of the "majority good" flies in face of the ideas the social contract and civil liberties (classical liberalism).

To rephrase what someone said before, there is no perfect system. Horrible things are going to happen. The real question is in what manor will this happen. Will we be free to make our own mistakes and suffer the consequences of poor judgment and/or bad luck. Or will we subject ourselves to tyrannical (in the sense of a moral majority overruling a minority, even if that minority is 48% of people) safety control ebbing away at our every freedom. More over, things could (as they did in Greece) switch from legal and noble to illegal and punishable by death very swiftly. This was in the ancient world, just imagine what shifts in life could be made via modern communications?!

I do truly fear centralized power of any kind; be it government or commercial. My fears are realized all to often in the long history of the human race. Domination and might makes right all to often are the prevailing models of society, I see moving away from the social contract and to a system of moral governance as a return to what is basically a theocracy of dogooders trying to get their moral agendas on top of the "new laws here" list.

Well said. Amen.

I don't get it..this is your defence? my situation of "If they get the jump on you, a concealed weapon does you no good" is wrong, so..you post a situation of the perpetrator getting the jump on you, and the concealed weapon doing you no good, as they get your money and run away, rarely being shot. Perhaps you stated that wrong.

Well, because you aren't posting here anymore, I'd just like to point out for other people that when I said "ran away", I meant WITHOUT your money, or anything else. As in, the gun scared them off. It's not a hypothetical situation, it's what usually happens when they learn you're carrying a gun, no quick draw required.

Lisa: Dad! The Second Amendment is just a remnant from revolutionary days. It has no meaning today!

Homer: You couldn't be more wrong, Lisa. If I didn't have this gun, the King of England could just walk in here any time he wants, and start shoving you around. Do you want that? Huh? Do you?

>> ^TheFreak:
If I had access to a tank I would drive it to a rally, just to up the absurdity level.


http://www.driveatank.com/

And the conversation at around 5:30 was just dumb. The reason no one carried to a Bush rally is because no one feared they would lose their right to do so under his administration.

>> ^ronin165:
Oh, and for those excited to move to AZ for the guns, it doesn't stop with assault rifles...there's an indoor gun range in Scottsdale, AZ where you can rent (and keep on location, obviously) any number of FULLY automatic weapons (thompsons, AK-47, MP5, M16s...and big guns, like an M249 SAW). http://www.scottsdalegunclub.com/mga/index.php
And if you're particularly wealthy, and don't mind being put on a short list and pay a $200 license fee...you can OWN fully automatic weapons. I say wealthy because they tend to start at like $5k.


HAHA! It's so cute that you called a measly M249 SAW a big gun!