Quantcast
Obama Admin Caves: ATF Halts Assault on Inalienable Rights

Forums - Politics Discussion - Obama Admin Caves: ATF Halts Assault on Inalienable Rights

Hiku said:
thranx said:
Hiku said:

The 2nd amendment was written in a different time. Things have changed a lot since then. They could not have foreseen how things would look today.
Gun control in the US is a discussion that needs to be ongoing.

The 'human rights' argument sounds pretty inappropriate though.

I don't fear the Army. I do fear the multitude of armed federal agencies. They just keep getting more and more weapons

Not sure I understand what you're saying here. Are you saying you'd like to have a firearm to defend yourself with against some kind of federal agency?

Yes. Much easier to trample on my rights when I have no way to defend my self. But given a chance to defend, forces them to back down. I dont want to shoot them and they dont want to shoot me, but if i have no way to defend myself than they win by default. The Bundy show down is a good example of this. Having a way to defend, and a way to easily get your message acroos, film and internet, is the only deterent to the overreaching federal agencies in the US. Let us also not forget how easily a certain world leader was able to bypass their national army and use what was similar to our federal agencies to take control of a country. It has happened before, and will most likely happen again. As the saying goes if you dont learn from history you are destined to repeat it. Well, I have learned, but unfortunalty not all of my country men have. Hopefully it never comes to that, but with every federal agency I know of not following the law and being used to bash opposing views, or as local thugs for corrupt politions I feel it is a valid fear. So valid our founding fathers not only saw it coming, but warned us about it, and tried their best to set up a constitition that would stop it. But who am I to think this, perhaps its best to put my head in the sand, and just think everything is OK becuase I'm in America and it can't happen hear, right?



Around the Network

Only in the USA would your opinion be considered anything else than freaky... And no, you are not more free because you have a big gun.



thranx said:
Hiku said:
thranx said:

I don't fear the Army. I do fear the multitude of armed federal agencies. They just keep getting more and more weapons

Not sure I understand what you're saying here. Are you saying you'd like to have a firearm to defend yourself with against some kind of federal agency?

Yes. Much easier to trample on my rights when I have no way to defend my self. But given a chance to defend, forces them to back down. I dont want to shoot them and they dont want to shoot me, but if i have no way to defend myself than they win by default. The Bundy show down is a good example of this. Having a way to defend, and a way to easily get your message acroos, film and internet, is the only deterent to the overreaching federal agencies in the US. Let us also not forget how easily a certain world leader was able to bypass their national army and use what was similar to our federal agencies to take control of a country. It has happened before, and will most likely happen again. As the saying goes if you dont learn from history you are destined to repeat it. Well, I have learned, but unfortunalty not all of my country men have. Hopefully it never comes to that, but with every federal agency I know of not following the law and being used to bash opposing views, or as local thugs for corrupt politions I feel it is a valid fear. So valid our founding fathers not only saw it coming, but warned us about it, and tried their best to set up a constitition that would stop it. But who am I to think this, perhaps its best to put my head in the sand, and just think everything is OK becuase I'm in America and it can't happen hear, right?

While I'm aware that some US government agencies do some shady and illegal stuff, that tends to go down behind the scenes. Like the black site torture that was recently reported. Pulling a gun on them openly does not seem like a choice that would lead you anywhere other than in jail or in a coffin. In those situations, you're "supposed to" defend your rights in court (even if it never goes to court). Pulling a gun on them gives them authority to open fire.
And if anyone doubts their validity in shooting you... well you know how all the Ferguson-like cases ended. They even get away with killing unarmed men, on their knees with their hands above their head. No one will bat an eye when they shoot someone who pulled a gun on them.



Hiku said:
thranx said:
Hiku said:
thranx said:
Hiku said:

The 2nd amendment was written in a different time. Things have changed a lot since then. They could not have foreseen how things would look today.
Gun control in the US is a discussion that needs to be ongoing.

The 'human rights' argument sounds pretty inappropriate though.

I don't fear the Army. I do fear the multitude of armed federal agencies. They just keep getting more and more weapons

Not sure I understand what you're saying here. Are you saying you'd like to have a firearm to defend yourself with against some kind of federal agency?

Yes. Much easier to trample on my rights when I have no way to defend my self. But given a chance to defend, forces them to back down. I dont want to shoot them and they dont want to shoot me, but if i have no way to defend myself than they win by default. The Bundy show down is a good example of this. Having a way to defend, and a way to easily get your message acroos, film and internet, is the only deterent to the overreaching federal agencies in the US. Let us also not forget how easily a certain world leader was able to bypass their national army and use what was similar to our federal agencies to take control of a country. It has happened before, and will most likely happen again. As the saying goes if you dont learn from history you are destined to repeat it. Well, I have learned, but unfortunalty not all of my country men have. Hopefully it never comes to that, but with every federal agency I know of not following the law and being used to bash opposing views, or as local thugs for corrupt politions I feel it is a valid fear. So valid our founding fathers not only saw it coming, but warned us about it, and tried their best to set up a constitition that would stop it. But who am I to think this, perhaps its best to put my head in the sand, and just think everything is OK becuase I'm in America and it can't happen hear, right?

While I'm aware that some US government agencies do some shady and illegal stuff, that tends to go down behind the scenesd. Like the black site torture that was recently reported. Pulling a gun on them does not seem like a choice that would lead you anywhere other than in jail or in a coffin. In those situations, you're "supposed to" defend your rights in court. Pulling a gun on them is deemed resisting arrest, and can give them authority to open fire.


No they do plenty of home in vasion type entering from the BLM, from the FDA. Not to mention DHS, a fully armed, on us soil army, that does not see its main goal as protection its people, but as protectiong the government. The EPA, etc. Why do they all need to be armed police forces? Why can't they just ask for local assistance from local law enforcement? Because, local law enforcement is more likely to say no, because local law enforcement is closer to the poelp, just like the army is of the people. But these federal agncies are for the government. We are still in the middle of an IRS investigation on how they abused their powers to squash beliefs they did not approve of. So I no longer have a trust of the government, and would most certainly feel safer with a means to defend my self if things keep getting worse.



BraveNewWorld said:

James Madison is turning in his grave. He gave us a mere ten rules to ensure our freedom and they're being systematically altered and stripped!

 

“I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” - President James Madison

The second amendment was written during a time of civil war with the English. It made sense to allow people to wear arms. It however doesn't make sense to allow every nutcase firearms in the 21st century in the US.

Classic example of abusing history to fit your own needs. Well guess what, leave history to those who studied it extensively!



Around the Network
thranx said:
Hiku said:
thranx said:

Yes. Much easier to trample on my rights when I have no way to defend my self. But given a chance to defend, forces them to back down. I dont want to shoot them and they dont want to shoot me, but if i have no way to defend myself than they win by default. The Bundy show down is a good example of this. Having a way to defend, and a way to easily get your message acroos, film and internet, is the only deterent to the overreaching federal agencies in the US. Let us also not forget how easily a certain world leader was able to bypass their national army and use what was similar to our federal agencies to take control of a country. It has happened before, and will most likely happen again. As the saying goes if you dont learn from history you are destined to repeat it. Well, I have learned, but unfortunalty not all of my country men have. Hopefully it never comes to that, but with every federal agency I know of not following the law and being used to bash opposing views, or as local thugs for corrupt politions I feel it is a valid fear. So valid our founding fathers not only saw it coming, but warned us about it, and tried their best to set up a constitition that would stop it. But who am I to think this, perhaps its best to put my head in the sand, and just think everything is OK becuase I'm in America and it can't happen hear, right?

While I'm aware that some US government agencies do some shady and illegal stuff, that tends to go down behind the scenesd. Like the black site torture that was recently reported. Pulling a gun on them does not seem like a choice that would lead you anywhere other than in jail or in a coffin. In those situations, you're "supposed to" defend your rights in court. Pulling a gun on them is deemed resisting arrest, and can give them authority to open fire.


No they do plenty of home in vasion type entering from the BLM, from the FDA. Not to mention DHS, a fully armed, on us soil army, that does not see its main goal as protection its people, but as protectiong the government. The EPA, etc. Why do they all need to be armed police forces? Why can't they just ask for local assistance from local law enforcement? Because, local law enforcement is more likely to say no, because local law enforcement is closer to the poelp, just like the army is of the people. But these federal agncies are for the government. We are still in the middle of an IRS investigation on how they abused their powers to squash beliefs they did not approve of. So I no longer have a trust of the government, and would most certainly feel safer with a means to defend my self if things keep getting worse.

When I said behind the scenes, I meant outside of the public eye. Witnesses with cameras. Home invasion falls under that category. If you pull a gun on them to not let them in, they're not just going to leave you be. They'll get in by force.
And if anyone doubts their validity in shooting you... well you know how all the Ferguson-like cases ended. They even get away with killing unarmed men, on their knees with their hands above their head. No one will bat an eye when they shoot someone who pulled a gun on them.
I'm not so sure local law enforcement is much better after all the reports of unarmed people they've killed, on top of that CIA like black site in Chicago, which was run by police officers. http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/24/chicago-police-detain-americans-black-site?CMP=share_btn_tw



Whooo, go Texas!



Watch me stream games and hunt trophies on my Twitch channel!

Check out my Twitch Channel!:

www.twitch.tv/AzurenGames

o_O.Q said:
starcraft said:

I see what you're saying, and agree with you entirely. Hand guns and drink driving should be banned as soon as possible.

well don't forget we should ban knives before hand guns since they kill more people

so start with that 

no one shall be allowed to chop their vegetables!


In Norway you're allowed to carry knives in public. How's that for a start?



thranx said:
Hiku said:

While I'm aware that some US government agencies do some shady and illegal stuff, that tends to go down behind the scenesd. Like the black site torture that was recently reported. Pulling a gun on them does not seem like a choice that would lead you anywhere other than in jail or in a coffin. In those situations, you're "supposed to" defend your rights in court. Pulling a gun on them is deemed resisting arrest, and can give them authority to open fire.


No they do plenty of home in vasion type entering from the BLM, from the FDA. Not to mention DHS, a fully armed, on us soil army, that does not see its main goal as protection its people, but as protectiong the government. The EPA, etc. Why do they all need to be armed police forces? Why can't they just ask for local assistance from local law enforcement? Because, local law enforcement is more likely to say no, because local law enforcement is closer to the poelp, just like the army is of the people. But these federal agncies are for the government. We are still in the middle of an IRS investigation on how they abused their powers to squash beliefs they did not approve of. So I no longer have a trust of the government, and would most certainly feel safer with a means to defend my self if things keep getting worse.

Local law enforcement is hardly "local." Just ask the people of Ferguson.

I'd trust an EPA agent long before i trusted a local cop (and i'm white, so less reason to fear arbitrary violence from the police).



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Mr Khan said:
thranx said:
Hiku said:
 

While I'm aware that some US government agencies do some shady and illegal stuff, that tends to go down behind the scenesd. Like the black site torture that was recently reported. Pulling a gun on them does not seem like a choice that would lead you anywhere other than in jail or in a coffin. In those situations, you're "supposed to" defend your rights in court. Pulling a gun on them is deemed resisting arrest, and can give them authority to open fire.


No they do plenty of home in vasion type entering from the BLM, from the FDA. Not to mention DHS, a fully armed, on us soil army, that does not see its main goal as protection its people, but as protectiong the government. The EPA, etc. Why do they all need to be armed police forces? Why can't they just ask for local assistance from local law enforcement? Because, local law enforcement is more likely to say no, because local law enforcement is closer to the poelp, just like the army is of the people. But these federal agncies are for the government. We are still in the middle of an IRS investigation on how they abused their powers to squash beliefs they did not approve of. So I no longer have a trust of the government, and would most certainly feel safer with a means to defend my self if things keep getting worse.

Local law enforcement is hardly "local." Just ask the people of Ferguson.

I'd trust an EPA agent long before i trusted a local cop (and i'm white, so less reason to fear arbitrary violence from the police).

So were in a agreement. We cant trust the government and should have a means to defend ourselvs. I'm glad we can agree on something :)