A question for the Left/liberals on government and gun control...

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by rivergator

Let me guess: Liberals are bad because they Feinstein and don't like LaPierre. So if you like LaPierre and don't like Feinstein .....?

By the way,I do have to say the stupidity (or, perhaps, simply ignorance) of the "Feinstein won't give up her gun ..." is far too indicative of the right on this board.

I'm curious, if the government is allowed to control the guns of the citizens, who will be able or left to control the guns of government? There's an entire history, both ancient and contemporary, of governments becoming tyrannical over time and oppressing the people, if not outright killing them in mass quantities. There's absolutely nothing to prevent the same thing from happening in America, and there have been plenty of indications in the last hundred years that our government is more than capable of rising to the level of tyranny.

So why would you want to give the government, especially one as corrupt and dripping with a lust for war as our own, control over the people's ability to defend themselves from a potentially tyrannical government? Can you answer that without stomping your feet and declaring everything that you don't like "stupid"?

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

I'm curious, if the government is allowed to control the guns of the citizens, who will be able or left to control the guns of government? There's an entire history, both ancient and contemporary, of governments becoming tyrannical over time and oppressing the people, if not outright killing them in mass quantities. There's absolutely nothing to prevent the same thing from happening in America, and there have been plenty of indications in the last hundred years that our government is more than capable of rising to the level of tyranny.

So why would you want to give the government, especially one as corrupt and dripping with a lust for war as our own, control over the people's ability to defend themselves from a potentially tyrannical government? Can you answer that without stomping your feet and declaring everything that you don't like "stupid"?

You really figure that if the full US govt and military decides that it wants to be a tyranny and has no problem killing US citizens (a scenario that I personally reject) that your guns will stand up to mortars, grenade launchers, fighter jets, bombers, missiles or whatever else the evil govt wants to throw at its citizens?
and I know that's probably an ignorant list, I don't know military arms. But if fighting the govt is your goal, you're going to have to arm yourself a whole lot more than you're probably armed now.

But back to the Feinstein question: What weapon is she trying to take from you that she refuses to give up herself? That was the claim that you apparently agreed with.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by rivergator

You really figure that if the full US govt and military decides that it wants to be a tyranny and has no problem killing US citizens (a scenario that I personally reject) that your guns will stand up to mortars, grenade launchers, fighter jets, bombers, missiles or whatever else the evil govt wants to throw at its citizens?

I'm not sure why you would reject such a scenario. Again, numerous governments throughout history have resorted to the oppression and liquidation of their civilian populations. Do you honestly believe there's something in the American character or some special trait in the whorish, lying politicians who pretend to serve us that would prevent that from happening here? You mean the same government that kidnapped and imprisoned over 100,000 American citizens in concentration camps during WW2? You mean the same government that spent decades performing countless medical, chemical, and biological tests on its citizens and soldiers without fully informing them? You mean the same government that lies its way into wars and sends thousands of young boys to die in the pursuit of killing brown people in some godforsaken desert 10,000 miles away? LOL, come on, get real.

But, just to answer your question, yes, millions of people taking up arms and fighting an asymmetrical war/rebellion poses an enormous problem for any organized military power, even one as advanced as our own. Just look at America's experience in Afghanistan and Vietnam or Germany's experience with Soviet partisans following Barbarossa for all the examples you need. It's not simply a matter of lowly "assault" rifle versus Apache helicopter, it's a matter of protecting vulnerable supply lines, having to constantly fight unpredictable rearguard battles, low troop morale, desertion, the perpetual threat of infiltration, and fighting an enemy that's everywhere all the time.

The Second Amendment isn't some magical cure-all to the problem of government tyranny, but it poses one hell of a considerable check against it.

and I know that's probably an ignorant list, I don't know military arms. But if fighting the govt is your goal, you're going to have to arm yourself a whole lot more than you're probably armed now.

I disagree, but this government preponderance in hardware and military might isn't a proper justification for allowing a potentially tyrannical government to control the guns of its citizens.

But back to the Feinstein question: What weapon is she trying to take from you that she refuses to give up herself? That was the claim that you apparently agreed with.

Well, she thinks the government should have unfettered access to "assault" rifles (personal defense weapons) that the people shouldn't have, like many politicians do. They want indirect access to such weaponry, through the policies they make, but they don't want the people to have equal access.

Can you explain why anyone shouldn't just laugh and thumb their nose at her?

[neisgator]

Originally Posted by rivergator

Completely BS post. I don't see many liberals calling for the Second Amendment to be dismantled.

Speaking of BS...

What? Because no one says the words, that means that isn't their goal? Please.

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by neisgator

Speaking of BS...

What? Because no one says the words, that means that isn't their goal? Please.

And that's why it's was a bogus question to begin with.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by rivergator

Feinstein has an assault rifle?

In a sense. She hires people that own them, for the purposes of protection.

(all this is contingent on waat YOU call an "assault" rifle.)

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

In a sense. She hires people that own them, for the purposes of protection.

(all this is contingent on waat YOU call an "assault" rifle.)

I guess in that sense, she hires people who have anti-aircraft and nukes, too.

[wargunfan]

Originally Posted by rivergator

Let me guess: Liberals are bad because they Feinstein and don't like LaPierre. So if you like LaPierre and don't like Feinstein .....?

By the way,I do have to say the stupidity (or, perhaps, simply ignorance) of the "Feinstein won't give up her gun ..." is far too indicative of the right on this board.

River, why don't you go beyond your usual one or two sentences and explain to us why it is ok for Diane Feinstein to carry a concealed weapon of her choice and at the same time propose laws which will limit citizens ability to defend themselves with the weapon of their choice? Isn't that rank hypocrisy? And please, if you will, limit the discussion to semiautomatic weapons.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by rivergator

I guess in that sense, she hires people who have anti-aircraft and nukes, too.

????

Not even close. I was, of course, referring to a person hiring a security firm for protection.

[wargunfan]

Originally Posted by rivergator

You really figure that if the full US govt and military decides that it wants to be a tyranny and has no problem killing US citizens (a scenario that I personally reject) that your guns will stand up to mortars, grenade launchers, fighter jets, bombers, missiles or whatever else the evil govt wants to throw at its citizens?
and I know that's probably an ignorant list, I don't know military arms. But if fighting the govt is your goal, you're going to have to arm yourself a whole lot more than you're probably armed now.

But back to the Feinstein question: What weapon is she trying to take from you that she refuses to give up herself? That was the claim that you apparently agreed with.

Does the level of weaponry possessed by the government negate a citizens right to oppose and resist a tyrannical regime? We are talking about a principle of self defense not the relative fire power of the parties. Powerful governments have been overcome by lesser armed resistance throughout history. The Syrian resistance is throwing off a brutal dictator with much inferior arms even as we speak. It is entirely legitimate to resist the limiting of the means of resistance to tyranny by the government. The banning of military style rifles is a giant step down a slippery slope.

[g8trjax]

At this point in America, gun control would have to be nothing short of confiscation. Banning this or that weapon is ridiculous and a total waste of the government's time.

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

????

Not even close. I was, of course, referring to a person hiring a security firm for protection.

sorry, thought you were making reference to her being a senator, like C&G did.

[Lawdog88]

Originally Posted by wargunfan

River, why don't you go beyond your usual one or two sentences and explain to us why it is ok for Diane Feinstein to carry a concealed weapon of her choice and at the same time propose laws which will limit citizens ability to defend themselves with the weapon of their choice? Isn't that rank hypocrisy? And please, if you will, limit the discussion to semiautomatic weapons.

And moreover, she wants folks to have to register - and locate for the government's files - the firearms folks lawfully possess . . . for later.

[wargunfan]

Originally Posted by Lawdog88

And moreover, she wants folks to have to register - and locate for the government's files - the firearms folks lawfully possess . . . for later.

This is what I was referring to when I commented that Feinstein's proposed law would drive millions of law abiding Americans into criminality. These are the people who will never register their lawful weapons or tell the government where they are. Millions of weapons will be hidden or buried and a new category of criminals will have been created by a ridiculous and useless law. This must not be allowed to happen.

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by wargunfan

River, why don't you go beyond your usual one or two sentences and explain to us why it is ok for Diane Feinstein to carry a concealed weapon of her choice and at the same time propose laws which will limit citizens ability to defend themselves with the weapon of their choice? Isn't that rank hypocrisy? And please, if you will, limit the discussion to semiautomatic weapons.

No, it's not hypocrisy. She thinks handguns are OK, but assault weapons are not. Simple as that.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by rivergator

No, it's not hypocrisy. She thinks handguns are OK, but assault weapons are not. Simple as that.

Naturally. She realizes, just as all government officials do, that the American people, using only handguns, would be completely incapable of defending themselves and of preventing a tyrannical government crackdown on the rights and freedoms of the people. With military-grade "assault" rifles, though, it's a completely different story. Millions of those in the hands of the American people represents a formidable hurdle, and that can't be allowed to stand.

If she perceived that blocks of aged, cheddar cheese represented some kind of challenge against the authority of her governmental powers, she'd call them "assault cheeses" and want them outlawed.

[PIMking]

just bought another rifle, happens to be a 5.56 bolt action that takes AR mags, but I guess using anything higher than 10 round mags wouldn't be needed so say the anti gun people. But taking a mag of 20 rounds instead of carrying a few on me would be nice but that makes the gun super dangerous to the public

[108]

if you can prove the link between common sense gun control and big monied interests, you may have a point

but it's the opposite..the big money is flowing the other way

[PIMking]

My major issue is that gun control laws dont work now, the gun buy backs aren't getting the stolen guns and illegal guns off the street rather the legal citizens are turning theirs in.

Hell Illinois is passing a ban on mags and semi auto guns, they already have laws where you cant carry a weapon anyways so why add more redundant laws on top of that? more laws aren't the answer, we know that these people that did the mass shootings had mental issues, it needs to start with the proper mental evaluations and helping them first

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

Naturally. She realizes, just as all government officials do, that the American people, using only handguns, would be completely incapable of defending themselves and of preventing a tyrannical government crackdown on the rights and freedoms of the people. With military-grade "assault" rifles, though, it's a completely different story. Millions of those in the hands of the American people represents a formidable hurdle, and that can't be allowed to stand.

If she perceived that blocks of aged, cheddar cheese represented some kind of challenge against the authority of her governmental powers, she'd call them "assault cheeses" and want them outlawed.

Yes, Dianne Feinstein and all government officials are setting it up so that the government can begin its tyrannical crackdown on every one of our rights and freedoms. And they plan to kill anyone who resists.
You figured it out.