We don't need to control guns, we need to control our government.

If I might ask;
What, specifically did our Founders "warn" us about, and what do you think this "kind of government" is?

 

They warned against tyrannical governments.

My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.
- Thomas Jefferson

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
- Thomas Jefferson

Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories.
- Thomas Jefferson

Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others?
- Thomas Jefferson

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
- Thomas Jefferson

To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
- Thomas Jefferson

It's not tyranny we desire; it's a just, limited, federal government.
- Alexander Hamilton


The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.
- James Madison

The people are the only legitimate fountain of power, and it is from them that the constitutional charter, under which the several branches of government hold their power, is derived.
- James Madison

Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth.
- George Washington

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
- George Washington

Fear is the foundation of most governments.
- John Adams

 

If guns kill people; Mine are defective.
- Ted Nugent

 

OK, good, you have answered one half of my question to you, although I hardly see the need to post made-up and false quotes (see the bold quotes in your text). I might have missed others but these particular ones are shown on a pro-gun website to be false (and confirmed elsewhere, but I wanted to take away from you any claim of bias).


You DID fail to address the second half of my question to where I asked you to explain the "kind of government" that you believe we currently have that motivated your post where you said: "Our Founding Fathers warned of us against this kind of government. People need to wake up."

Where's the tyranny?

 

That is an argument some anti-gun liberals have put forward--I know this because I have heard, read and observed that argument.

How else to people get information? Do you lack basic knowledge of how hearing, sight and cognitive function works?

You falsely claimed I was describing a "conspiracy," I correctly pointed out that it was an "argument" that I have heard, read and observed from the anti-gun crowd. That isn't an accusation of you specifically, it isn't even an accusation against "all" liberals.

You write a lot of ignorant things, friend. You aren't my friend, friend. You troll too much.

I can say "someone somewhere has said this," and it's a true statement.

I can say the anti-gun crown believes the 2nd Amendment should be repealed, because some people in the anti-gun crown believe that to be the case. Some people believe stupid things, that's a fact. There is sufficient evidence in anti-gun legislation, the media and social networks:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/feature/2007/04/18/second_amendment

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Repea...e-it-with-reasonable-Gun-Laws/124717887555341

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2706718/posts

You have offered me zero argument.

Troll on.

 

Great post. Our founding fathers would be charter members of the NRA if alive today.

RevA

 

Please iggy the above unedited post and consider (below) as my true blue thoughts.

The false and bogus quotes still reflected the flavor of our founding fathers 'wants' in most cases I would claim. The member could hardly be criticized for using these quotes. The web is a minefield of misinformation and such things. You use information gleaned from left wing hand wringing Brady bunch type sites as well. Do you check every detail? What about those left leaning statistics and studies you so often quote? Have you checked every word and each site to make sure it’s authentic? No you haven’t. You do not have the resources to do so! So you efforts of attempting to discredit someone’s credibility etc. by critiquing his use of online sources reeks of …well of ‘jerkiness‘ and of defeatism. It’s par for course for those of your ilk. Hey speaking of your ilk where is reiver?

Lastly, as always concerning this gun thing; the reason you are angry is that we gun loving patriotic Americans have our guns, everything from machine guns to cannon is because there is not a (*)(*)(*)(*) thing you can do about it eh? Nor do your draconian, tyrannical ideas of gun control go over so well with the Supreme Court judges who have given real Americans confirmations of our values and the RIGHT to keep and bear arms by the recent slam dunk victories over gun hating activists like yourself. Those FACTS alone give me fuzzy good feelings and allow me a very good and sound sleep.

I haven’t read the entire exchange here, but I would guess to answer your straw man*, nit picking question, he meant that meant that the tyranny was potential. (I.e. if guns were banned or over controlled). I would say as evidenced by the unrest all over the world now that the governmental tyranny (and the reaction and slaughter of the mostly unarmed protesters) is as close as CNN on your TV. If you watch that propaganda box. As far as our founding fathers go the word 'tyranny' is rarely mentioned, and I will give a nod to Danct (a thank you) for giving me a reason to check my sources when using the web. I included a link that exposes some of the well meaning but highly inaccurate and sometimes fabricated pro gun quotes, particularly quotes of the founding fathers.

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndbog.html

* Your question of where is the tyranny was straw man because you already knew the answer, and you were baiting the member hence a straw man. Deceitful eh? Additionally you could have included the accurate quote of Washington etc instead of hiding in wait like the creaky straw man on the wizard of OZ. Ha ha? Eh? Still I will think of you when I slip my Smith and Wesson 642 in my pocket and the .45 custom in its shoulder holster before I go empty my cash boxes on the vending route I own at 2am. If you had your way I would have a stick and a rock…maybe. Again yes I sleep well knowing that for now our Supreme Court is on the side of the real Americans. Good nite Danct.

Budda budda (tink tink tink ***thats the sound that brass makes hitting the floor) Byeeee!

Rev.A

 

Interesting, if not disingenuous manner of debating, friend. For some odd reason, you seem to feel a need to cut and distort my argument. Why is this?

You purposefully cut out the part of my post where I said: "Once again, this is disingenuous because that particular stance prior to Heller was universal and NOT unique to Liberals.
You have once again conveniently avoided this reality."
In other words, you're dishonestly arguing about something that I didn't argue. Pity.

My, but you are resorting to low-brow deceptions. I didn't say that you are "describing a "conspiracy"", even if you claim this one hundred more times it still won't be any truer.

So, a small handful of people have said something, so you feel compelled to label them as "liberals" and "anti-gun crown" (whatever that is) while throwing them all in together? Really? So by YOUR logic, a small handful of right wing conservatives would like to "send all the blacks back to Africa", therefor conservatives are racists. Is THAT how it works?


Once again, Remember that we are talking about "Lib-Dems" who YOU claim are "People [who] have suggested we dismantle the 2nd Amendment". I think that it's high time you end this charade and admit that you are attempting to paint a significant amount of Americans as wanting something that they do not want. Namely to "dismantle the 2nd Amendment", as you have said here. There is a name for this and it's called a straw man. OK?

 

Argument by gibberish? Apparently, you seem to believe that by throwing everything but the kitchen sink at this, that somehow something will stick. I don't subscribe to that, personally.

If you look again at my post you'll see that I thanked the other member for answering one half of my post and merely pointed out the bogus quotes for clarity as I'm sure that the other member would not want to be associated with such tripe.

On the other hand, if you have proof that I used a false quote or a false source, then get busy and show it now. Anything less is simply a baseless and juvenile accusation.

"guess" Is certainly the operative word here. Perhaps we should let the other member answer this one as you seem to have gone off the deep end with wild assumptions and mindless accusations.

 

Danct, if you don't see the soft tyranny (as it has been put) then you're just ignorant or supportive of it. Either way you cut it, you're against what the Constitution guarantees and okay with furthering our road to oppression.

 

Nope. Demagoguery won't help you here, friend. It really was a simple question I asked you and it really shouldn't have required much effort for you to answer.

You had made a statement that: "Our Founding Fathers warned of us against this kind of government. People need to wake up." I asked you to elaborate and you replied with half an answer and some made-up quotes while never actually defining (and still haven't) the tyranny that you referenced in that statement. Have you fully thought this through?

 

>>>EXCERPT>>>

<<<EXCERPT<<<<

I stand by my words. You know who you are ha ha! I will apologize under protest (of my alter ego) that I should not of been so hard on you, using insulting words. I am attempting to refrain from such behavior due to my religion. Anyway, to get back on track, anti-gun types (those that propose severe gun control measures) such as yourself will not be happy until the only people that can own firearms are cops and criminals. That is the problem I have with you. If I am off base or all wrong please correct me. I would rather be wrong about you and eat crow than for you to fit that description! Personally, I would rather have the option of providing my own self defense via firearms, be it a shortened shotgun or a .45 semi auto. Sometimes the Cops get to the 911 caller to find a corpse, and I do not want to be a corpse rendered such by the hands of a gun wielding punk criminal. I would much rather turn the gun wielding punk criminal into a stiff, or at least hold him at gunpoint until the cops (finally) arrive.

Oh just some pro gun FYI;

Crime DECLINED after Virginia allowed guns in bars: "Virginia&#8217;s bars and restaurants did not turn into shooting galleries as some had feared during the first year of a new state law that allows patrons with permits to carry concealed guns into alcohol-serving businesses. The number of major crimes involving firearms at bars and restaurants statewide declined 5.2 percent from July 1, 2010, to June 30, 2011, compared with the fiscal year before the law went into effect, according to crime data compiled by Virginia State Police. And overall, the crimes that occurred during the law&#8217;s first year were relatively minor, and few of the incidents appeared to involve gun owners with concealed-carry permits, the analysis found."

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/08/15/crime-rate-drops-in-va-bars-and-restaurants/

RevA

 

I agree fully! First let me say that by debating with first Reiver than MDF (Mega Death Fan where are you?) then Danct, I feel he really does believe the word salad and fabricated statistics his left wing handlers/controllers feed him. He also feels I would wager, that socially we would be much better off with less guns and far more control than we currently have. At heart he is a good, probably pacifist fellow that has lost touch with the real world which is in many cases both beautiful and home invasion ugly! We pro gun anti gun control types are in touch with the real world and are too aware of the responsibility that we have to protect our family. Not only that we also know that the constitution guarantees our RIGHT to keep and bear firearms of every kind for whatever use (except criminal of course) we wish to employ them in!

So that said Danct is not only out of touch with the real world he and his anti gun friends becoming relics by embracing the values you point out, he also ignores that the recent gun friendly (exceedingly) court decisions further distance him and his pro draconian gun control types from the social norm here in the USA. Perhaps if he lived in the UK his sentiments would be better received. Maybe Mr. Danct should consider moving?

RevA

 

I'm a big boy, and I can take the insults. Those don't bother me, really, but I DO take umbrage to the false accusations. That's what YOU did previously and which you also failed to address in your post above.

See, this is exactly what I am talking about. Once again, you have made false accusations with NO knowledge as to the accuracy of them.

There is no slippery slope, Rev. Give it a rest.

This does not really surprise me.
I would expect to see little change in the fatalities due the fact that I would expect little change in the carrying habits of the people in question. Regardless of the law. Secondly, the 5.2% drop is within the margin of error for seasonal blips in statistics.

 

Danct I am saying I am sorry for slinging mud, even if I am not the first to sling it. You are the mildest of offenders so I have thought about what I have said in the past and am not proud of it. I am really going to attempt to remove the harsh words from my verbal table and hope that my attempts at kindness can begin to repair some damage done primarily by my crude style when addressing your comments etc. I try to defend those that I feel are being taken advantage of, additionally, I take things personally that are in reality general statements. God has kind of freaking brow beat me into saying all this, which he should. God bless you or just bless you and yours, hopefully we can have better, mutually respectful discussions* here on out.

*(on my end which is the only one I can control).

RevA

 

Well, right now I have very little access to internet and the amount of bandwidth I have right now is a trickle. It'll be a few weeks until I can engage into your denial.

 

Thank you for your frank and conciliatory message. I'm sure we can all improve our interactions.

 

Isn't that putting the cart before the horse? You made a statement that implied of an existing tyranny here in this country. Certainly you must have had SOME sort of examples in mind, no? Otherwise your statement becomes an empty bluster.

 

Danct in the light our efforts to remove barriers to communication etc, can you state what your ideal idea of gun control, or gun laws would be. A general statement will be ok. For example would you simply close what some say is the loopholes at gun shows which have very lax requirements to purchase firearms of all kinds, and say tighten up all the states up to the more stringent CA firearm laws and ordnances. Or would you support a system similar to the UK, especially England where handguns are almost non existent and all military style firearms are banned. I believe shotguns may be legal but I am fairly iggy of our UK brothers plight. You or I could start a new thread if necessary (maybe if we begin discussing the issues you may raise).

RevA

 

Personally I see little tyranny here in the USa especially by policy, ha ha! However there may be some examples of it, maybe in the deep south or on buck mountain TN just a few miles up the road. That reminds me when I was pulled over by a picture perfect fat redneck cop as a 16 year old kid in my hot rod mustang (a yellow 390 GT fastback with aftermarket Isky cam hooker headers and two holly 4bbls) for "driving 120 mph in a 25 mph zone" Yes he exaggerated and I told him so, I said “baby she is geared for 125 mph in fourth gear wide open, I didn’t get outta third and I was going 95 mph tops!” then rolled my eyes and said “pigs“ too loud …that resulted in him pulling me out of my car, slapping me behind the head and telling me that I was lucky he had a by the book partner with him, because he usually took punks like me behind the outhouse for a beating. So that is micro local tyranny eh ?

However, as I said I believe the member that is now running scared it seems that he meant guns may help deter potential tyranny even though that is not what he said.

RevA

 

Your question reminds me of that Doonsbury cartoon where Duke shoots first and then asks questions later. The result was that he shot his nephew as I recall. My point being that you did not hesitate to brand me as your worst fear in another human being, all with zero proof, only now stopping to ask yourself what exactly my views actually are. Don't you think that perhaps you could have asked me this question at the start?

My views are very much in line with the majority of Americans, both non-gun owners AND gun owners alike. Refer here.

 

I'm sure that he appreciates your help, but what you describe is NOT tyranny, as he was talking about government. The definition of governmental tyranny is: "A government in which a single ruler is vested with absolute power".

 

Doon or Sunday paper cartoons in general do not interest me, well I like the strip called ‘off the mark’ however I don’t have time for the printed word in most cases. Yes, I would do that I suppose, in a fire fight. Its all about timing and perspective Danct.

Not really. I considered your ideas a threat to my way of life, and the proof was in your comments to other members and myself. It’s not too difficult to profile you Danct.

I think I did several times, or I asked Reiver and MDF who were so close you could have thrown in your two cents. Additionally, for some background information to show why I was hostile to you I offer this; When you and I began 'talking' I was in a heated and nasty mud slinging argument with, I think it was Reiver and or MDF. You began taking snipes and supporting their comments so I considered you as an anti gunner (I am fairly sure you don‘t) , anti southerner anti freedom (as I define freedom) etc. What was there to ask? So as per above I am fairly sure I did ask MDF and Reiver many many oh so many times to briefly and PRECISELY define his ideas of gun control. I am not sure if I asked you, but you could have easily offered up your paradigm.

The only thing I am doing as Nu Rev is toning down the aggression and giving you the respect all men deserve. That said, I remain convinced that Gun control is an outdated concept and should be removed from our lexicon, even our conscious! Ha ha. Sadly we need more weapons in this age of an increasing flag ration of rebellion fire storming around the world from Libya to all parts west etc. Firearms are like Gold, one can never have too much.

You commented about majority rule…er views, and it seemed just a bit out of place! Was the comment inserted for effect? Do you feel the majority should rule? That is not the American way, nor is it a good idea in general, I am sure you know why. Anyway thanks so much for your civil reply and I look forward to getting to know the 'real' you.

RevA

 

The state trooper was the government in carter county ha ha, he was the single ruler and he as vested with absolute power~ besides it was a tongue in cheek comment, didn't you see where I agreed with you about governmental tyranny? Our constitution prevents or at least makes such things difficult. The possibility of such actions are a very weak among hundreds of other reasons we own and love firearms! Even though its not probable it's possible that government (any) might attempt draconian suppression of its people if situations demand/require such actions. Personally I would rather be well armed if the government decided to try such nonsense! I might go down but at least I would have my say in the matter. Unarmed citizens more than likely would not have that protection.

RevA