Gator Country

g8trjax · 01-05-2013, 11:04 AM

No. Governments NEVER become tyrannical.

PIMking · 01-05-2013, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rivergator

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.

If they get rid of the 2nd amendment the first will be soon to follow. With the SPIKE in gun sales this last month the government should realize that it's going thave to kill millions of Americans that are obeying the constitution unlike them.

rivergator · 01-05-2013, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PIMking

If they get rid of the 2nd amendment the first will be soon to follow. With the SPIKE in gun sales this last month the government should realize that it's going thave to kill millions of Americans that are obeying the constitution unlike them.

You guys are good. Getting rid of the second amendment, killing millions. That's good.

PIMking · 01-05-2013, 11:20 AM

I will not give my guns up to a traitor that is trying to steal it from me. I know there will be millions more like me, I also know there will be the sheep that will follow every order just like in Germany in the 30's.....

Cant happen again? it has and will, we are repeating history (no holocaust involved here before you say something) once our rights to protect our self from those who are sworn to protect the constitution our rights to say what we want will be taken away too. Hell if you say anything negative about Obama you're racist now I wonder what it will be like in 4 years.

busigator96 · 01-05-2013, 11:21 AM

The real battle is big versus little. Not governments versus the "free" markets.

PIMking · 01-05-2013, 11:24 AM

The government wants the little guys who pay their salaries to be defenseless so we have to live off their tit for the rest of our lives depending on them

MichiGator2002 · 01-05-2013, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rivergator

You guys are good. Getting rid of the second amendment, killing millions. That's good.

In practical terms, the second amendment is the last guarantor of the others, in anticipation of either the total corruption or total breakdown of the civil institutions otherwise intended to prop them up.

busigator96 · 01-05-2013, 11:29 AM

Are the need for assault rifles in a "free" society the problem or the symptom?

MichaelJoeWilliamson · 01-05-2013, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by busigator96

The real battle is big versus little. Not governments versus the "free" markets.

Government sometimes opposes free markets to have a monopoly of being the only "big."

MichaelJoeWilliamson · 01-05-2013, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rivergator

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

What is an "assault" weapon?

One with a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds? Many, many handguns have that capability.

One that has a pistol grip? By definition all handguns have a pistol grip.

One that is semi-automatic? There are literally tens upon tens of million semi-automatic handguns in circulation today. Hell, I own a .40 Sig Sauer semi-automatic pistol with a clip that holds 12 rounds. Do I have an "assault" weapon?

PIMking · 01-05-2013, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

What is an "assault" weapon?

One with a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds? Many, many handguns have that capability.

One that has a pistol grip? By definition all handguns have a pistol grip.

One that is semi-automatic? There are literally tens upon tens of million semi-automatic handguns in circulation today. Hell, I own a .40 Sig Sauer semi-automatic pistol with a clip that holds 12 rounds. Do I have an "assault" weapon?

Well its not a pistol clip it's a pistol magazine....

ChartsandGrafs · 01-05-2013, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rivergator

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.

If this is so far off the mark and completely unimaginable, as you'd have us believe, why has the U.S. government spent the last 30-40 years laying the legal groundwork to do just this very thing by creating a string of Executive Orders and laws that would not only turn the Executive Branch into a virtual dictatorship capable of bypassing Congress, but also strip the American people of all of their rights and put the country under a martial law police state? These Executive Orders exist. You can look them up. No single one is very alarming all by itself, but combined, and in full effect, they essentially create a Soviet-style dictatorship, and they are worded in such a way that they could be used even in times of peace. In other words, the country doesn't have to be at war with a foreign enemy for these Executive Orders to go into effect.

So, tell us, why should anyone believe the U.S. government is incapable of, or disinterested in, open tyranny? Why should anyone trust that it couldn't and wouldn't happen here, especially when it's happened in dozens of other countries in just the last century alone? You didn't answer my question earlier. What would prevent this from happening, exactly? What makes American politicians somehow different than the politicians of Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, and Communist China?

ChartsandGrafs · 01-05-2013, 02:46 PM

There are essentially three groups of people in society who have guns:

1. Government
2. Criminals
3. Law-abiding citizens

Gun grabbers demand gun control, specifically a ban on the private ownership of "assault" rifles. But if such a ban goes into effect, the only people on this list who will be giving their guns up are the law-abiding citizens. This means that the only people who will have these guns are government and criminals, the two groups responsible for the most killings, crimes, and violence.

The gun grabbers would have us believe that they are doing this to reduce murder, crime, and violence, yet they are taking a position and advocating a policy that would make it so that only people who have guns are the ones responsible for the most murder, crime, and violence.

How does this make any sense?

PIMking · 01-05-2013, 03:22 PM

Government and criminals = oxymoron

ChartsandGrafs · 01-05-2013, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PIMking

Government and criminals = oxymoron

More like, redundant.

gatorpa · 01-05-2013, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

If this is so far off the mark and completely unimaginable, as you'd have us believe, why has the U.S. government spent the last 30-40 years laying the legal groundwork to do just this very thing by creating a string of Executive Orders and laws that would not only turn the Executive Branch into a virtual dictatorship capable of bypassing Congress, but also strip the American people of all of their rights and put the country under a martial law police state? These Executive Orders exist. You can look them up. No single one is very alarming all by itself, but combined, and in full effect, they essentially create a Soviet-style dictatorship, and they are worded in such a way that they could be used even in times of peace. In other words, the country doesn't have to be at war with a foreign enemy for these Executive Orders to go into effect.

So, tell us, why should anyone believe the U.S. government is incapable of, or disinterested in, open tyranny? Why should anyone trust that it couldn't and wouldn't happen here, especially when it's happened in dozens of other countries in just the last century alone? You didn't answer my question earlier. What would prevent this from happening, exactly? What makes American politicians somehow different than the politicians of Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, and Communist China?

I am glad you are back from hiatus....

ChartsandGrafs · 01-05-2013, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gatorpa

I am glad you are back from hiatus....

Thanks, dude, glad to be back.

neisgator · 01-05-2013, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rivergator

You guys are good. Getting rid of the second amendment, killing millions. That's good.

Yeah, it's so crazy..Never happ.....

rivergator · 01-05-2013, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

What is an "assault" weapon?

One with a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds? Many, many handguns have that capability.

One that has a pistol grip? By definition all handguns have a pistol grip.

One that is semi-automatic? There are literally tens upon tens of million semi-automatic handguns in circulation today. Hell, I own a .40 Sig Sauer semi-automatic pistol with a clip that holds 12 rounds. Do I have an "assault" weapon?

I'm sure there's a bunch of definitions. Since we're talking about Feinstein's bill, you could just read it and see how she defines it.

wargunfan · 01-05-2013, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rivergator

I'm sure there's a bunch of definitions. Since we're talking about Feinstein's bill, you could just read it and see how she defines it.

Why yes, this liberal gun grabber is just the person we want to be the arbiter of what is an assault weapon. NOT

I have a definition of an elitist, dunderheaded liberal hypocrite: Diane Feinstein. These are what we need to ban.