President Obama Isn’t Taking People’s Guns—But Maybe He Should (D-luisinal)

thedailybeast.com ^ | 1/7/2015 | Barrett Holmes Pitner

[rktman]

Numerous Americans care more about their individual freedoms than our collective freedoms, and they are unable to see how these individualistic desires undermine the essential fabric of a democracy.......

As President Obama forges a lone path toward gun regulation, we must wonder how we as a society have arrived to a point where "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" has morphed into allowing individual citizens to possess firearms for their individual protection with little to no concern about the security of a free state.

[rktman]

I know, dailybeast. But, I guess to this assclown it's all about the 'collective'. "...morphed into"..... Screw individuals rights. WHAT! Unfortunately, there are plenty of UPOS/SPOS/LPOS/IPOS that think exactly like this. Uh, hey asshat. It's a representative republic.

[Telepathic Intruder]

“Collective freedom”. That’s clearly code for the illusion of security.

[ctdonath2]

“Numerous Americans care more about their individual freedoms than our collective freedoms”

You don’t have collective freedom without individual freedom.

[Crazieman]

We can happily live with these people as one united nation.

Yup. No civil war at all.

[rktman]

For some, there is no hope. What a maroon huh? Gotta love public edumacation.

[facedown]

Straight fascist ideology.

[Roman_War_Criminal]

My only question to the confiscation problem is this:

Will so called “Protectors and Servers” be more concerned about their paychecks or the lives and welfare of those they intend to infringe on?

[ctdonath2]

Same author probably adheres to the SJW mantra of “nobody is free until we are all free” (usually overlooking their own demands for infringing on freedoms).

[Uversabound]

What are these libs on drugs? ITs a Republic buddy not a democracy.

These people dont know where they are.

Really Collective? Oh this shXX has got to stop!

[Buckeye McFrog]

Will so called "Protectors and Servers" be more concerned about their paychecks or the lives and welfare of those they intend to infringe on?

Are you kidding? Have you seen their retirement package?

[TTFlyer]

Barrett Holmes Pitner? Really?

[Big Red Badger]

RESIST WE MUCH!

[rktman]

I know, right. I could hardly cut and paste it through my tears of laughter.

[BenLurkin]

There are no “collective freedoms”.

It is oxymoronic on its face as the very face

[Roman_War_Criminal]

I know it was a stupid question....

[MileHi]

WHAT
A
MORON

[Army Air Corps]

What next, “Common Sense Speech Control” because people say things that hurt someone’s “feels”? Oh, wait, many budding young statists on college campuses think that is a spiffy idea.

[Billthedrill]

Numerous Americans care more about their individual freedoms than our collective freedoms...

There is no such thing as a "collective freedom". The author has made this phrase up, and why is fairly obvious:

Gun owners should want to regulate and reduce their gun usage for the greater good...

The author is a socialist. And as he admits, only the threat of retaliatory violence is holding him back:

I would argue that he should [confiscate guns], except that using force to attempt to disarm people of their firearms might inevitably lead to more violence and bloodshed.

"Might" and "inevitably" do not belong together in this sentence, and "might" is the one that should be dropped. But this much is true: he'd happily roll over us if we didn't fight back.

[Blue Jays]

The pleasant and decent days of Officer Friendly are long, long, long past.
We now see a new generation of shaved-head, steroid-popping, and bloused-boot thugs in blue.
One can hear the excuses already: "I was only following orders!"

[Ouderkirk]

I know, Hussein knows, we all know, that outlawing guns means disarming whites.