So 49% of us are crazy, CT'ers who fear the government?

HEY...don't feed the monkeys...they'll just throw poop at you.

 

Some of these 49% of Americans are former and active US military and US Police Officers. They are the educated and experienced protectors of this country, and they deserve the right to own any kind of weapons they want.

The rest of this 49% are either "followers" of the lies and corporate propaganda said by Fox news and Rush radio.
Or they are insane mass murderer personality types, who like to dream about killing large numbers of people, with the M16's they see in movies.
And the rest of this 49%, are just other "idiot follower" types who just naturally fall in line with the above people.

The largest part of this 49% are followers of Fox news and Rush radio. Fox and Rush are phony news groups funded by large corporations, and they tell their listeners 100's of lies. Scientists call them a "corporate propaganda group."

Why do the "followers" of Fox/Rush want assault rifles? To protect themselves from the tyranny, socialism, and communism of the US democrat party.

Democrats want to raise billionaires tax rates from 17%, to the same 30%+ rate that Americans who make $90,000 a year pay.
Democrats want no deficits or national debt (but republicans want the deficits caused by lowering rich peoples tax rates.)
Democrats want to give health insurance to the 40,000 Americans who die each year from not having insurance.
And democrats want to feed America's hungry children.

Some republicans desire a civil war with assault rifles to stop all the above things from happening.

This 49% no longer cares about regular Americans, or even hungry children. This 49% just wants to make 0% tax rates on dividends, so billionaires have 0% federal tax rates.

How could anyone want to let this 49% of Americans own assault weapons?

 

So, your dream is to turn the whole country in a civil war zone, the likes of Afghanistan, with "patriots" hiding in the hills and forests, and striking terrorist attacks against the rest of the Americans who do not wish to be a ridiculous third world country fighting with hand guns and small military firearms against drones and nuclear warheads?

From where I stand, those "crazy patriots" are the ennemies of the American people!

 

The government took away our R-12. That cost us a fortune. What did we get in return?

The government took away our proven toilets. That saddled us with toilets that require multiple flushes. What did we get in return?

The government took away our incandescent light bulbs. What did we get in return?

The government took away phosphate in detergents. Now we have to manually add TSP or have our clothes and dishes not get cleaned. What did we get in return?


All these one-way transactions. Why on earth should the people trust government on guns?

 

Well 49% of Americans believe they have reason to fear our government.

If you wish to take my comments out of context, in response to the assertion that an armed populace can't stand up to a occupying military force, feel free to out yourself further.

If, we were attacked from a foriegn or domestic enemy, and you sat in your house willingly giving up any remaining freedom, that would make you a coward!

 

Democrats argued over raising taxes 3% on 1% of Americans for the last 4 years, when 90% of Americans agree on closing corporate loopholes, and subsidies.

Democrats take the same campaign donations from Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, BofA, HSBC, ect. that the Republicans do, and they will never allow us to do anything but pay interest on our debt, as long as they are bought and paid for whore's!

Democrats made participation mandatory in a HC system with no price integrity. 40,000$ ER visits means there is no accounting integrity in our HC system. Now lets make it mandatory for everyone to participate, and see if we didn't just create the perfect storm for fraud with zero accounting integrity, and mandatory participation!

Obama is a corporatist!!!!

You want to talk about stupid Americans following the corporate media, take a look in the mirror!!

 

Translation = I reject your reality, and substitute my own!

 

Fair enough, but I do find one problem with the wording of the only question that matters on there to me.

Why was it necessary to frame the question as, "Do you support an assault weapons ban that expires like the one from 1994-2004?"

Why did they have to frame the question like this?

Do the results change if you just ask if you support a complete ban on assault rifles?

 

I would assume so, don't you?

Plus they can't do it forever without changing the law. It has to have an expiration date so your point is a bit mute.

 

That is not the conversation I keep hearing going on.

There is a reason I keep using the phrases act of treason and civil war, as they keep talking of banning assault weapons without a constitutional amendment.

Of course the specific wordage of legislation is always released days before the bill's are passed, so we are kept in the dark until it is too late.

 

Whats your point?

 

That this debate isn't just about guns, it is about the constitution, and the checks and balances of government being maintained.

 

Our legislative branch has sold their soul to the executive, backed up by the judiciary.

We are close to losing our people power.

 

You know my opinion on this.

We just need gather a few billion dollars amongst ourselves, and then we can go try and buy our politicians back at the auction that occurs everyday in DC.

Or we could force our elected officials through a wave of pressure to make selling influence illegal!

 

The man and gun mean nothing alone but 10M + make the story change a bit.

 

Fear of an overbearing government is not the same as the need to own an assault rifle as a last check upon tyrannical government. I have a healthy skepticism of large and powerful government as well. However, that does not lead to me to think I need an AR15 to defend myself. In other words, you are reading too much into the poll.

 

And you know my position.

We don't need to buy anyone we will simply fund you and let you run. After all, we know you will vote for everything we agree with, why bother paying off politicians when we can run our own.

 

What?

I thought you were kind of a bright guy.

The question is, "Is the fear legitamite?"

If the fear is legitimate, then you god d@mn right I need an assault rifle. As it is necessary to asymmetrical warfare.

I used this poll to show that half this country believes it is a legitimate fear.

I will forever be amazed by people's inability to identify the crux of a problem.

 

The layers of systems that have to be overcome to achieve this are almost overwhelming, but I do agree this should be plan A.

 

Actually, no. The question in the Gallup poll is "Do you think the federal government poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens, or not?" A near majority says yes, the federal government is an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens. That is an objective finding by Gallup. Your question , "Is the fear legitimate?", is merely speculative. The Gallup poll does not seem to brand this feeling of immediate threat as a legitimate fear. That requires much more rigorous statistical analysis to prove such, namely an experiment analyzed via a regression model.

 

You would think so, but then again US soldiers are trained for taking on large groups. 500k soldiers could easily take on 10 million untrained civilians. If you are going to have to form a legitimate militia and train everyone for military action.

 

The way you framed your question is manipulative to begin with because the poll you cited has nothing specifically to do with guns. So it is possible to both agree with your bold text AND also support more gun laws. Simply because someone supports background checks does not automatically mean that they disagree that the government is too large and powerful. Even that is a very broad and general statement. What exactly does "too big" mean?

The 2nd Amendment specifies that the exact reason that people should be able to keep and bear arms is for "A well regulated militia." And that the purpose of the militia is "necessary to the security of a free state." A militia is not a private citizen. It doesn't say that you can use your guns for sport or for fun. It doesn't even say that you can own your own personal gun, it simply says that you may keep them. It doesn't say that you can shoot anyone that you personally have decided is infringing on your freedom. The 2nd amendment is quite specific about its purpose.

So in order to be in line with the 2nd amendment, gun owners should have to join a local militia group, which is also well regulated.

As a citizen, I would feel a lot safer if there existed a well regulated local militia, as opposed to a bunch of unregulated conceal-carry cowboys walking around.

 

Look you have no argument. Look at what is going on in Afghanistan. Now look at the size if the US. This would never happen with an armed population because it would be real suicide for the leadership.

Tactics would work short term in many cases but the strategy would be a logistic impossibility.

Add to that the fact that at least 25% of the military would turn and the fact that there are more former military in the civilian population than there are persons on active and active reserve duty and then what do you get?

Oh and body armor?

Hunting weapons are far superior to an M16!

 

The well regulated part of the militia, is the background checks, and every other part of gun regulation. i have no problem with this.

The idea that I should have to go sign up for a militia to own a gun is absurd! What part of the phrasing in the second amendment determines when the militia needs to form?

What wordage is it that leads you to believe the militia must already exist before conflict arises?


Lastly though, i will give you credit for this. Atleast you admit the intent of the 2nd amendment, which is warfare.

Of course the idea that anyone is going to conduct warfare with shotguns and handguns is absurd, and is a complete violation of the intent of the 2nd amendment!

 

Has this discussion actually gotten to the point of defining what a real assault weapon is?

If not, I assume all of you do know the firearm which killed those kids in Connecticut was not an assault rifle, right?