Posted on 01/16/2013 4:01:29 PM PST by wny
I was discussing the gun control issue of the day with a libhole at the office...she droned on: no needs an "assault weapon for hunting". First she nearly drooled on herself when I asked her to define "assault weapon", especially after I picked up a stapler and said if I hit herewith it, it would be an "assault weapon" I tried to explain to her the 2nd amendment is not about hunting, it's the right of the people to bear arms to protect themselves from government....after some worst case scenarios she says " oh that could never happen here". It already happened here, people we rounded up and sent to concentration (internment) camps right here in the US. No evidence, no probable cause. It was the demholes that did it. Ask some of the Japanese-Americans where grandpa lived in the early 40s.
You might also mention Waco, Ruby Ridge, and the abduction of Elian Gonzalez—Just for starters.
Now why would mere citizens need guns when the government is just here to help?
Yes, and theit it’s amusing in a disgusting sort of way to watch them twist and turn as they try to justify those actions. Somehow, they can never quite understand that the consequence of their very bad ideas places them in exactly the same position of those who ended their days looking at the world through a barbed wire fence.
Them: “Nobody needs thirty bullets to kill a deer.”
Me: “Just three words for you: Michael J. Fox.”
Serious question. What do we do with libholes? I have tried my best to educate them. They just do not get it. I have no idea what to do when CWII happens.
Wait....wut? I don’t think you would need 30 rounds to kill Michael J. Fox. He’s a little guy.
FDR interned more than 100,000 US citizens with no due process simply by issuing two Executive Orders.
You can’t educate them. I have several relatives who are liberal pants pissers and I have tried and tried to persuade them to see things in a different light. It was an exhausting and fruitless endevour. I finally gave up.
Actually, with the way that he shakes these days, it may take a few 30 round mags just to wound him.
Saying gun rights are to protect us from government is to make the same mistake in the other direction as saying their only to protect us from home invaders. Guns are for a panopoly of self-defense scenarios, including but not limited to home invasion, domestic insurrection, foreign invasion, and tyrannical government.
I know what to do then, I'm just unsure what to do until then.
"America is in that awkward stage when its too late to work within the system and too early to shoot the bastards."
“....They just do not get it. I have no idea what to do when CWII happens.”
Certainly you do know what to do, because they don’t get it, and you do.
They don’t get it because like they did to the FBI, and the CIA when they left voids between the two so the two entities could not share information, thus function efficiently. That’s how Libs are. They express themselves in the language of their handicap.
Non libs have an underscore between entities so they can flow smoothly from one function to another unlike the lib with voids between the categories of functions between their ears.
Yes and FDR is BO’s hero.
Barack Obama has killed a 16 year old American citizen with no due process. And there will be no consequences for that or for his next impeachable offense.
It is a bill of RIGHTS not a bill of NEEDS
Apply their same logic to the 1st ammendment
- no one needs to read books or have emails
- no one needs to assemble
- no one needs to go to church
Then start applying some of their “solutions”.
- limit emails to only 10
- background check before anyone can purchase a book or write a letter to the editor or sell their private/owned books
- background checks before people can attend church or attend a protest rally
Still, you wont get them to change their point. But it is fun to see their cognative dissonance
ok...first time i’ve spewed beer on my keyboard for a while!
It seems to me that if private citizens, who are generally untrained in weapons use and probably don’t practice much, don’t need magazines with more than a dozen rounds, then it makes sense that the police, who are trained in the use of weapons and practice regularly, should be equipped with single-shot pistols.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.