Landmark legal shift opens pandora’s box for diy guns

Nov 2012
5,758
3,491
Kekistan
#11
For the longest time, I believed the Second Amendment followed the First Amendment because the Second insured the First, our Founders' logic.
That is correct in my opinion.

It's truly inapplicable today. Being armed now won't stop the government. If the beast wants to crush you, it will, and you can't do a damned thing about it but fantasize that you can. That fantasy helps with the day-to-day, but it's a fantasy pure and true.
Depends on what is the government you speak of? Are you talking about some county deputies? State Police? The Military? As much as you hate to hear this, the Bundy's just proved that they in fact could. Rather or not you agree with the Bundy's is not relevant as far as the use of firearms is concerned. They did in fact use firearms to stand off, make their case and was then acquitted. I doubt that would have happened had they just showed up holding signs.
So, what is the mad race to arm founded in?
Its founded in the right for the people to defend themselves against tyranny against their person, rather it be a thief, a killer or a tyrannical government. I feel it is as applicable today as ever. Its like anything else, does extreme examples of the pro or anti gun rhetoric go to far? Yes, of course it does. Unfortunately all the media wants is to feed us is extreme examples.
 
Likes: 2 people
Dec 2012
20,168
8,437
California
#12
What makes you think it was common for citizens to manufacture their own firearms "for centuries?" Gunsmiths, like blacksmiths, had skills and tools the average citizen just did not have.
Were they "average citizens"? Did they work for an armory? Or did they make homemade weapons for average citizens?
 
Likes: 1 person
Dec 2014
27,538
15,146
Memphis, Tn.
#13
Were they "average citizens"? Did they work for an armory? Or did they make homemade weapons for average citizens?
Oh, now your just being silly. Gunsmiths were "citizens" and individuals so "individuals" have been making their own firearms for centuries!
"Work for an armory?" Since the definition of armory is a place where firearms are stored or manufactured, then yes, many did.
What kind of nonsense are you trying to sell here?
 
Last edited:
Oct 2010
68,118
27,935
Colorado
#14
actually, throughout the cold war Russia never had a viable plan to invade as there assessment was that the country had so many guns in the hands of civilians that we could never be occupied. I have read that Japan, WW2, stayed away from landing here for the same reason.

Guns in our hands is not our enemies delight.

Also, IMHO, I do not think guns has that much to do with the divide. It's the social issues and racism.

If Obie was not elected or if Obie was white we would not have Trump today.
You completely missed my points, every one of them.

Our enemies would like nothing better than a US civil war
 
Likes: 1 person
Oct 2010
68,118
27,935
Colorado
#15
caconservative said:
No, individuals have been making their own guns for centuries. Second Amendment’s guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms would be meaningless in practice unless the state afforded individuals the ability to exercise that right, which includes making their own guns. The Second Amendment still supports the 1st. Even in an era of heavy gun control making and owning a homemade gun is not against the law. The original argument for the 2nd amendment still rings true.
What makes you think it was common for citizens to manufacture their own firearms "for centuries?" Gunsmiths, like blacksmiths, had skills and tools the average citizen just did not have.
Don't bother Trump supporters with reality, OK? B)
 
Likes: 2 people
Oct 2010
68,118
27,935
Colorado
#16
That is correct in my opinion.

Depends on what is the government you speak of? Are you talking about some county deputies? State Police? The Military? As much as you hate to hear this, the Bundy's just proved that they in fact could. Rather or not you agree with the Bundy's is not relevant as far as the use of firearms is concerned. They did in fact use firearms to stand off, make their case and was then acquitted. I doubt that would have happened had they just showed up holding signs.

Its founded in the right for the people to defend themselves against tyranny against their person, rather it be a thief, a killer or a tyrannical government. I feel it is as applicable today as ever. Its like anything else, does extreme examples of the pro or anti gun rhetoric go to far? Yes, of course it does. Unfortunately all the media wants is to feed us is extreme examples.
If we're talking a government gone rogue, some Bundy clones with "assault rifles" could do just what was done, the government would tell them they had 24 hours to disarm and leave the premises, if they overstayed their time one of these might just show up and then it'd be martyrville and game over for the Bundy clones.



The Bundy's were "successful" because a governmental command decision had been made to get them out of there peacefully, no injuries or deaths. The government wasn't held at bay because they were afraid of the little militia and their assault rifles. Think guy. I'm right about this.

The Second does indeed give citizens a means of self-defense, from criminal and the acts of criminals, but technology has ended the Second as a stop for a truly rogue government. Imo.
 
Last edited:
Likes: 1 person
Dec 2014
27,538
15,146
Memphis, Tn.
#17
If we're talking a government gone rogue, some Bundy clones with "assault rifles" could do just what was done, the government would tell them they had 24 hours to disarm and leave the premises, if they overstayed their time one of these might just show up and then it'd be martyrville and game over for the Bundy clones.



The Bundy's were "successful" because a governmental command decision had been made to get them out of there peacefully, no injuries or deaths. The government wasn't held at bay because they were afraid of the little militia and their assault rifles. Think guy. I'm right about this.

The Second does indeed give citizens a means of self-defense, from criminal and the acts of criminals, but technology has ended the Second as a stop for a truly rogue government. Imo.
Exactly. The Bundy Bunch was allowed to act out their little drama.
Even for "play soldiers" they were grossly incompetent. Did not bring in enough supplies and when they took ONE causality they trampled each other in the rush to abandon their posts or simply surrender.
They were only good at waving their rifles in front of TV cameras and talking shit on Facebook. Total joke as any sort of military force.
 
Likes: 1 person
Oct 2010
68,118
27,935
Colorado
#18
Exactly. The Bundy Bunch was allowed to act out their little drama.
Even for "play soldiers" they were grossly incompetent. Did not bring in enough supplies and when they took ONE causality they trampled each other in the rush to abandon their posts or simply surrender.
They were only good at waving their rifles in front of TV cameras and talking shit on Facebook. Total joke as any sort of military force.
Yup, I've had a few "Patriot" friends over the years. They go to the rifle range, and play around with their guns and laser sights, buy thousands of rounds of ammo and scores of magazines, and now they believe they're combat-ready. :lol:
 
Likes: 1 person
Nov 2017
2,161
994
.
#19
For the longest time, I believed the Second Amendment followed the First Amendment because the Second insured the First, our Founders' logic.

It's truly inapplicable today.
Wrong. It's just as valid and applicable today, just as it was any other day in the past and may always be in the future. A mere change of the calendar doesn't cause it to magically or inexpicably change.

Being armed now won't stop the government.
How do you know this? What if you're wrong?

If the beast wants to crush you, it will, and you can't do a damned thing about it but fantasize that you can.
No, it won't crush you just because it wants to. I wouldn't be surprised if the colonists who defeated the Redcoats were told the same thing.

It will crush us if we allow it to deny us our 2nd Amendment, so what we need to do is not allow it to deny us our 2nd Amendment.

That fantasy helps with the day-to-day, but it's a fantasy pure and true.
Yet another claim. Do you have any substance to back your claim?

So, what is the mad race to arm founded in?
I wouldn't call it mad at all, but it's to preserve and defend liberty.

Life free or die. Give me liberty or give me death.
 
Likes: 1 person
Nov 2017
2,161
994
.
#20
Maybe for you and maybe for a few others, but different people may come up with different reasons. The reality is that any government that tries to deny or prevent society from being armed is either afraid of it or is trying to prepare to oppress it.

people base most decisions on emotion not intelect

this is a prime example
Yes, the gun grabbers base their decisions on emotion, not intellect & they're not learning from history.
 
Likes: 1 person

Similar Discussions