Linberta Tactical 12 Ga Semi Auto - $399 at Buds Gun Shop
Constitution says I don’t need a reason to own a gun.
The real question is why we keep reelecting stupid corrupt people to Congress. We don’t ‘need’ folks like that who insist on lighting the fuse.
I would dare to say that when the community militias get started across America in due time many will say the heck with the NFA ruling. Suppressors and full auto will be available well a trained and well armed militia.
Does anyone remember the Korean Grocer on the Roof being filmed from above via TV Helicopter laying down a wall of supressive fire and protecting his Store with what I believe was an AR-15?
I didn't forget it, can we find the video, that is the million dollar question...
All of the top leaders and politicians along with the super wealthy Hollywood types have the best security and will maintain that top security no matter what they may face. They talk very tough, don’t they... and seem to not care about we, the people being able to protect ourselves from a tyrant or a foreign entity to a national disaster. Just be in a natural disaster for a few weeks with no power, no road way clearance, no food or no water and part of your house is missing. You try to keep warm and if any trouble starts you need a way to protect your family from an intruder man/or beast. Gun rights is not about hunting. If a person wants a gun, they have a right for protection just as if they decide not to own one. It’s that simple. This is nothing but an agenda by the media and the far leftists.
It’s not the ‘Bill of Needs’.
And to anyone who knows a nickel's worth of history, the above is not the normal state throughout all of history. Mankind's history is pretty much, if you ignore the technological progress of the last 200 years, a history of cruelty, butchery and subjugation, without end, performed by men in power against the powerless. The greatest proponents of fascism in our day, the Democrat Party, will end up being those men in power if we give up our guns. That is their end game, and has been - power without restraint.
If we give up our guns, we're taking a turn back toward man's traditional history, and away from peace and prosperity.
Answer to Statists who ask why I need high-cap mags, “In order to take out the team you send to take my rifle, and still have enough to come and get YOU.”
There is no lack of historical examples of what statists do to an unarmed opposition. And there is absolutely no reason to believe that American statists are any different in their intent or desires than other statists before them. After all, they are they ones that reject American exceptionalism, aren't they?
What? You thought all those Fast and Furious guns went to Mexico? Some never made it, some have come back.
Nogales, AZ (NOT Nogales, Sonora)
Then there’s the mother of twins, who was hunted down in her own home, and was forced to empty her .38 revolver into the perp, before he walked out of the house and drove off.
What if there’d been more than one assailant?
She was out of ammo!
What prevents the US Military from being used against its people?
Was Waco justice? Is that the kind of “government” you want, 100% of the time?
The US Constitution is a statement in mastery of the understanding of checks-and-balances, of balancing competing powers to prevent tyranny.
The 2nd Amendment is loaded with meaning. We could live with security in a benevolent police-state, but the Founders knew there would be nothing to guarentee that benevolence.
Someone says, “You’re paranoid!” Say, “Hang signs in your neighborhood saying ‘Gun Free Neighborhood’. See what happens.”
The people without guns are dependent on the 2nd Amendment, too. Defence against tyranny is for all the marbles.
Since 1963, American citizens have woken up each morning and check the news daily to find out if their government had declared them CRIMINALS in their own homes because they exercise a right that they have had since the first pilgrims came here.
Citizens need effective weapons for the same reasons the nation needs nuclear weapons: The simple act of owning them prevents most of the agressive things that could happen if they didn’t own them.
Obama’s good friend Bill Ayers advocated the extermination of 25 million Americans because they couldn't be reeducated.
There's 25 million reasons to have an assault weapon, and that's just a start.
In addition, no citizen should submit to registration of arms they currently own. Being forced to be on such a list is no different an infringement of one's constitutional rights than would be a requirement to register with the government because you belonged to a particular religion.
The gun grabbers are at their peak of self-righteous, using armor piercing juvenile mockery against their statistics armed gun owner fellow Dems.
But...my favorite hypothetical question thread was...
Wouldn't banning smoking save more lives than banning guns?
Even though more people die every year from 2nd hand smoke (49,000) than die from all gun deaths including suicide. And 400,000 die from direct smoking. Only 30,000 die from guns and most of those are from killing themselves which is basically what smokers do.
Only 11,500 murders by guns a year but 49,000 people dead from second hand smoke. 49,000 innocent people killed by smoking each year.
Wouldn't we be better focusing on banning smoking than guns? So ban smoking first and then lets work on guns.
Here's what I find so intriguing about reading their comments.
The most obvious is their unwillingness to acknowledge the very unique status gun ownership has protected by the Constitution.
But the really uncomfortable part of the question has to do with a huge hypocritical Dem stance between smoking and guns.
If Dems are really interested in saving lives...ban smoking. But they can't because of the tax revenue. The truth is, Dems need more smokers. They are comfortable with the level of smoking deaths as long as there is substantial tax revenue from it.
Getting kids hooked on smoking creates another lifelong host for the government tax parasite.
But most of the Dems want to compare cars and guns, and which has a greater "need" in society, rather than questioning the wisdom of "Gun-Free Zones", and funding health care with tobacco tax revenue...need more smokers...and now they want to tax bullets...
(PS - I have no idea of the validity of the stats provided, and no one seemed to question them on the thread. For me...they weren't the point.)
I have this car that goes 130MPH. It is so cool!
However, it is illegal to go 130 MPH. But I can do it if I need to...
Are you following this?
That is basically the same argument....
No one needs a car that goes that fast-"You should have that car taken away from you, or only drive it on a track where you can be monitored and licensed and make sure you don't hurt anyone"....
But I LIKE my car that goes really fast, and there are no laws against owning one-yet.
"Yes but you don't really NEED it to get from point A to point B"..
"Why do YOU care what I like or don't like?? I LIKE my darn fast car... you shouldn't be able to tell ME what to drive....."
And so on and so on.....
Good analogy, yes??
