Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Chinaman attacked scores of kids with a knife. Number of dead: ZERO. Of note: The perp was chased off by citizens. Who were armed with BROOMS.

Good point, but was the Chinese guy a *ninja*? I think not. Here in the USA we have a different style of knifing.

Number of dead maybe zero but those kids were severely disfigured, is disfigurement okay with you?

No, but it's way better than dead. You simply cannot kill as many people with a knife as you can with a semi-automatic weapon.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Chinaman attacked scores of kids with a knife. Number of dead: ZERO. Of note: The perp was chased off by citizens. Who were armed with BROOMS.

Good point, but was the Chinese guy a *ninja*? I think not. Here in the USA we have a different style of knifing.

Number of dead maybe zero but those kids were severely disfigured, is disfigurement okay with you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please take a few minutes to watch this report.

http://www.fox19.com/story/20399062/the-very-politically-incorrect-truth-about-the-second-amendment?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=8091875

Banning guns is not the answer. We need to create a different mentality. The framers of the constitution intended for us to be an armed society! Don't believe me? Read a history book.

The framers lived in a world of muskets. Not the type of weapons you now see. You want muskets? I'd probably be ok with that.

So naturally you believe the first amendment only apples to quill pens?

Anonymous wrote:Chinaman attacked scores of kids with a knife. Number of dead: ZERO. Of note: The perp was chased off by citizens. Who were armed with BROOMS.

Good point, but was the Chinese guy a *ninja*? I think not. Here in the USA we have a different style of knifing.

Anonymous wrote:you think i can't kill 3-5 people in a minute with a knife or bat? ok. whatever. enjoy your delusion.

"If a law is passed that I felt was morally wrong, I would practice non-violent civil disobedience while attempting to change the law through legal means. I wouldn't talk, as I hear so many lately, of exercising my "Second Amendment rights" as a measure of protest against the government. "

so you would go to jail as a felon then. share a water fountain with a black. you goto jail. dont punch that black woman in the face, you goto jail as a felon.

Well ok. that is a way, a choice. but whatever happened to the law is the law and the we the people line? why would you disobey a law ? *shurg*

You seem to be willfully missing my point. *shurg*

I would work to CHANGE the law that I disagreed with. I would not use weapons to overthrow the government for making laws I didn't agree with.

I would, personally, obey most every law; however your hypothetical involved me being required to punch people repeatedly in the face. I couldn't obey something like that, even temporarily, so that one I would have to non-violently protest and refuse to obey. If that makes me a "felon" so be it. I WOULD obey a law that said whites and blacks had to sit separately... unless I was Rosa Parks and was protesting in which case I would do so non-violently.

Re: You can kill 5 people in a minute with a knife -- OK OK, I guess you can do it. Sorry, didn't mean to insult your capabilities to murder.

Are you a superhuman knife wielding ninja? I mean, could you keep that up over the course of several minutes??

Wouldn't your arm get tired, though? And what about the other people in the room? While you are killing the first two people, say -- wouldn't they struggle just a bit? And wouldn't the other people in the room be able to, say, bash your head in with the fire extinguisher or chair or something? I know I would try to swing a big somehting at your head while you were on, say, person number 3. I might not be successful, but I bet it would slow you down. What do you think?

Or I suppose you are talking about children -- I bet you *could* kill 5 children in a minute with a knife. *sigh* Good to know.

Anonymous wrote:

Um, no. That's not what it (2A) says at all. It refers to a "well regulated militia", not a bunch of psychos paranoid about some doomsday scenario who likes to act out a John Wayne fantasy.

Quote Of The Day.

Chinaman attacked scores of kids with a knife. Number of dead: ZERO. Of note: The perp was chased off by citizens. Who were armed with BROOMS.

Anonymous wrote:Please take a few minutes to watch this report.

http://www.fox19.com/story/20399062/the-very-politically-incorrect-truth-about-the-second-amendment?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=8091875

Banning guns is not the answer. We need to create a different mentality. The framers of the constitution intended for us to be an armed society! Don't believe me? Read a history book.

The framers lived in a world of muskets. Not the type of weapons you now see. You want muskets? I'd probably be ok with that.

Anonymous wrote:The 2A is not about hunting, lets just look to china to how it takes care of its people, who dont have guns......
Not well. The 2A never mentions 'guns are only for hunting'. If read right, then if the military has it, so should we.

Um, no. That's not what it says at all. It refers to a "well regulated militia", not a bunch of psychos paranoid about some doomsday scenario who likes to act out a John Wayne fantasy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And if the judicial branch gets packed with activist judges who strip away our rights? And if the ACLU gets rendered ineffective, or branded a "terrorist organization" by our overzealous and growing DHS?

Overzealous and growing DHS? Do you have any idea what the head of the NRA just proposed?

The crazies in this country have gotten so dangerous and gotten their hands on so many weapons, he thinks that in order to protect our children from random acts of gun violence, we need to post armed security guards in front of EVERY. SINGLE. SCHOOL. in the US.

Does that sound like a job for Department of Homeland Security, or what??

Not only that -- he didn't propose, but should have --- recognize that these random and totally unpreventable mass shooter events do not just happen at schools. They happen at churches, malls, movie theaters and fast food restaurants, for starters. And colleges of course. So there are a LOT more places that need armed security guards.

Can you say "Police State"? This will be the GOVERNMENT police guarding everything, everywhere.

Arm the playgrounds! Arm the soccer fields! We won't be safe until we look like Mogadishu.

you think i can't kill 3-5 people in a minute with a knife or bat? ok. whatever. enjoy your delusion.

"If a law is passed that I felt was morally wrong, I would practice non-violent civil disobedience while attempting to change the law through legal means. I wouldn't talk, as I hear so many lately, of exercising my "Second Amendment rights" as a measure of protest against the government. "

so you would go to jail as a felon then. share a water fountain with a black. you goto jail. dont punch that black woman in the face, you goto jail as a felon.

Well ok. that is a way, a choice. but whatever happened to the law is the law and the we the people line? why would you disobey a law ? *shurg*

Anonymous wrote:

No you can't kill 5 people in a minute with a knife or a bat. Please.

On second thought, I mean, it *might* be possible, I suppose. If they all held still for you or lined up or something.

Anonymous wrote:And if the judicial branch gets packed with activist judges who strip away our rights? And if the ACLU gets rendered ineffective, or branded a "terrorist organization" by our overzealous and growing DHS?

Overzealous and growing DHS? Do you have any idea what the head of the NRA just proposed?

The crazies in this country have gotten so dangerous and gotten their hands on so many weapons, he thinks that in order to protect our children from random acts of gun violence, we need to post armed security guards in front of EVERY. SINGLE. SCHOOL. in the US.

Does that sound like a job for Department of Homeland Security, or what??

Not only that -- he didn't propose, but should have --- recognize that these random and totally unpreventable mass shooter events do not just happen at schools. They happen at churches, malls, movie theaters and fast food restaurants, for starters. And colleges of course. So there are a LOT more places that need armed security guards.

Can you say "Police State"? This will be the GOVERNMENT police guarding everything, everywhere.

Anonymous wrote:


I do find it an odd criteria. As i can kill 3-5 people in a minute with a knife. A Bat, A Car, a swimming pool. A golf club, my fists etc etc the list is endless.

No you can't kill 5 people in a minute with a knife or a bat. Please.

And all those things have a purpose. Yes, people can be killed by a car, but the car gets us from point A to B. You know that too.

as fo the i expect people to obey the law. would you obey a law, duly passed in a democratic process that required you to punch a black woman in the face each hour? or how about i make it easier. would you obey a law that required a black person to sit in the back of a bus or require then to drink out of a black only water fountain ?

law is the law right? those laws were passed where the majority of "we the people" elected people to make laws outlawing the sharing of water fountains with the darkies. All A-OK, Right ?

If a law is passed that I felt was morally wrong, I would practice non-violent civil disobedience while attempting to change the law through legal means. I wouldn't talk, as I hear so many lately, of exercising my "Second Amendment rights" as a measure of protest against the government.

Honestly -- it sounds like people are saying they need their arsenal of weapons to overthrow the government. To fight our police? Our US soldiers? I am honestly baffled as to what else people mean.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please take a few minutes to watch this report.

http://www.fox19.com/story/20399062/the-very-politically-incorrect-truth-about-the-second-amendment?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=8091875

Banning guns is not the answer. We need to create a different mentality. The framers of the constitution intended for us to be an armed society! Don't believe me? Read a history book.

The framers intended us to have slavery, too. Well, they were wrong and we changed it.

Actually, No.They were divided on the slavery issue. You see that in the "3/5's compromise" the "slave states" were afraid they wouldn't be represented enough against the "non slave states". We did change it, but it took a civil war with huge causalities. I don't think you will find so many volunteers to fight to tear up the Constitution.