Bad Day on Wall Street

[badger6]

And it turned out to be simple minded people scared for nothing since Obama did not address guns in the sightest over four years.

And those simple minded people were right because he confirmed everyone's suspicions in the 2nd debate. So it should be even more of a frenzy this time if he wins.

[Phishfan]

Most of the so called "assault weapons" are nothing more than semi automatic rifles that look like their military counterparts, they are in no way selective fire.

If by no way being selective fire you meanthey don't have the switch you are correct. But they can easily be manipulated to become fully automatic. I am a gun owner and have shot many of these so called assault weapons. I agree the ban is useless (all it banned was the manufacture of new weapons, old ones were still allowed) but I just want to point out your talking points are BS.

[badger6]

If by no way being selective fire you meanthey don't have the switch you are correct. But they can easily be manipulated to become fully automatic. I am a gun owner and have shot many of these so called assault weapons. I agree the ban is useless (all it banned was the manufacture of new weapons, old ones were still allowed) but I just want to point out your talking points are BS.

There are thousands legal items that can be "manipulated" into illegal dangerous ones. You gonna ban them all ? So, you have shot many of the so called semi automatic assault weapons ? Well, I have put a few together. I don't know what you're talking about, but it's "truly" BS. They are not manipulated as easy as you say, the receivers need to be reworked. The parts are very expensive and the part itself needs the required class III permits and stamp taxes to be transferred. Not worth the headache or the hassle.

[Spider-Dan]

None of that is anything but your pure conjecture. I could counter that the founding fathers fully intended for the citizens to have the exact same type of firearms as the government in order to prevent the tyranny of a corrupt government upon its citizens.

Are you saying that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to facilitate armed rebellion against our democratically-elected government?

There is no provision in the Constitution that allows for citizens to legally take up arms against the government.  And the Supreme Court established in Texas vs. White (1869) that secession is illegal.  Furthermore, the Second Amendment mentions nothing about the right of people to overthrow the government by force.

So how can it possibly be that the Second Amendment is intended to facilitate illegal, unconstitutional armed rebellion?  This talking point from the so-called patriots of the right always perplexes me.

Then again, when you have GOP congressional candidates (in the general election!) openly stating that if they don't win at the ballot box, they may have to resort to the bullet box, this gives you an idea of the kind of "democracy" they are in favor of.

[badger6]

Are you saying that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to facilitate armed rebellion against our democratically-elected government?

There is no provision in the Constitution that allows for citizens to legally take up arms against the government.  And the Supreme Court established in Texas vs. White (1869) that secession is illegal.  Furthermore, the Second Amendment mentions nothing about the right of people to overthrow the government by force.

So how can it possibly be that the Second Amendment is intended to facilitate illegal, unconstitutional armed rebellion?  This talking point from the so-called patriots of the right always perplexes me.

I never said the second amendment said that ? I re-framed Sunstrokes imaginary assumptions of what he thought the founding fathers meant. It was my pointless conjecture to counter Sunstrokes pointless conjecture. Neither of which are based in reality.  If he can add assumptions, we all can. Really go back and read and you may get it !!!

However, what happens if civilians are defenseless and their government goes bad ? I never used the words armed rebellion against the government. I said prevent tyranny, not overthrow of a corrupt government. That, in so many words, means "protection from". When talking gun control and history, governments have murdered millions more people than were killed by common criminals. How did this happen ? The governments had the power and the civilians, the victims, were unable to resist. The victims were unarmed, due to gun control. So you see there is a difference between a violent overthrow of a government and protection from the government as a last resort.

So Spiderdan, how would you feel if you lived in one of the many countries in the past that had murdered it's civilian population after banning firearms ?

Then again, when you have GOP congressional candidates (in the general election!) openly stating that if they don't win at the ballot box, they may have to resort to the bullet box, this gives you an idea of the kind of "democracy" they are in favor of.

And when you have blacks using social media to say that they are going to riot if Obama doesn't win, it kind of gives you an idea of the kind of "republic" they are in favor of !!!!

[Spider-Dan]

I never said the second amendment said that ?

Perhaps I have unfairly inferred extra meaning into your post.

Tell me, what precisely are you talking about when you speak of firearm ownership "in order to prevent the tyranny of a corrupt government upon its citizens"?  Please be specific, because that sounds like armed rebellion to me.

When talking gun control and history, governments have murdered millions more people than were killed by common criminals. How did this happen ? The governments had the power and the civilians, the victims, were unable to resist. The victims were unarmed, due to gun control.

Please explain how you can use firearms in your possession to prevent tyrannical government without raising arms against the government.

Armed insurrection against the United States government is illegal and unconstitutional under any circumstances.  There are 11 states that can speak to this fact with authority.

And when you have blacks using social media to say that they are going to riot if Obama doesn't win, it kind of gives you an idea of the kind of "republic" they are in favor of !!!!

Surely you recognize a difference between random black people on Facebook and an official Republican Party nominee for the United States House of Representatives?

I didn't cite some random wack job on Stormfront; I cited a GOP-nominated candidate for Congress.  Apples to apples, please.

[badger6]

Perhaps I have unfairly inferred extra meaning into your post.

Tell me, what precisely are you talking about when you speak of firearm ownership "in order to prevent the tyranny of a corrupt government upon its citizens"?  Please be specific, because that sounds like armed rebellion to me.
Please explain how you can use firearms in your possession to prevent tyrannical government without raising arms against the government.

Armed insurrection against the United States government is illegal and unconstitutional under any circumstances.  There are 11 states that can speak to this fact with authority.

Protection from the government if specifically and precisely what I am talking about. I think that I clearly addressed that in my last post. Do you need countries, political leaders, dates when guns were banned, number murdered by their government, and other assorted statistics ? Google is your friend 

Surely you recognize a difference between random black people on Facebook and an official Republican Party nominee for the United States House of Representatives?

I didn't cite some random wack job on Stormfront; I cited a GOP-nominated candidate for Congress.  Apples to apples, please.

We have the chance to fight this battle at the ballot box before we have to resort to the bullet box. That's the beauty of our Second Amendment rights ... Our Second Amendment rights were to guard against tyranny.

The difference is that your link only cited one person that said, "bullet box" as a reference as opposed to many colored people actively threatening to riot on several social media outlets if Obama is not re elected . The latter is much more likely to happen than the former.

The fact that she is a politician means nothing in the greater scheme of things. There are several whackjob politicians on both sides that say stupid things...

BTW, you never answered my question:

How would you feel if you lived in one of the many countries in the past that had murdered it's civilian population after banning firearms ?

[Spider-Dan]

Protection from the government if specifically and precisely what I am talking about. I think that I clearly addressed that in my last post.

You claim that people need to own firearms to protect themselves from the government, yet seem to be denying that the only way to enact that claim is to use them to shoot agents of the government.

Why are you so hesitant to own your ideas?  Shooting government officials is exactly what armed rebellion is; no more, no less.

Do you need countries, political leaders, dates when guns were banned, number murdered by their government, and other assorted statistics ?

I'm not much interested in discussion what other countries did and what their system of government was.  I am talking specifically about the United States of America and its Constitution.  Armed rebellion is unconstitutional, and the Second Amendment makes no provision for it (nor does any other part of the Constitution).

Don't like the way the government is acting?  The Constitution has democratic methods for redress of your grievances.  Don't want to follow those methods?  Then you are acting in an unconstitutional manner.  Just own it.

The difference is that your link only cited one person that said, "bullet box" as a reference as opposed to many colored people actively threatening to riot on several social media outlets if Obama is not re elected . The latter is much more likely to happen than the former.

The fact that she is a politician means nothing in the greater scheme of things. There are several whackjob politicians on both sides that say stupid things...

Find me a Democratic nominee for Congress that advocates armed insurrection against the government if the election doesn't go their way (preferably one in the 21st century).  And in case you were thinking of claiming this as an isolated incident, Sharron Angle (2010 GOP nominee for U.S. Senate) was talking about "Second Amendment remedies" to "the Harry Reid problems" 2 years ago.

The fact that you think random internet crazies are equivalent to persons running for Congress is absurd.  If I were to take internet commentary as accurate predictors of future events, reading the comments on a Yahoo article or a Youtube video would surely prove that the apocalypse is upon us.

As for your question: name any country that murdered its civilian population and I will be happy to explain why their problems went far beyond a firearm ban.  Somalia has no regulations on firearms whatsoever... does that mean they are "better" than Canada, who has some of the most strict anti-gun laws in the world?

[badger6]

You claim that people need to own firearms to protect themselves from the government, yet seem to be denying that the only way to enact that claim is to use them to shoot agents of the government.

I haven't claimed anything about anybody shooting anyone. I will say it one more last time. I countered Suntrokes imaginary assumptions of what kind of firearms he thought the founding fathers meant. Does the constitution specify or make any provisions about what kind of arms the citizens of the US have the right to bear ? I don't see you attacking his point of view. He is making unfounded statements about the second amendments and presuming what the founding fathers meant with only speculation. Go argue with him, I have no time for your ignorance and stupidity.

Why are you so hesitant to own your ideas?  Shooting government officials is exactly what armed rebellion is; no more, no less.

What the fuck are you talking about? I am using my own ideas and my own words You on the other hand, are the only one in this thread using the words "shooting government agents" and "armed rebellion" ? Isn't that right ? YOU ARE WRONG AND IT IS SO FUNNY WATCHING YOUR SILLY ASS SQUIRM AND TRY TO TWIST PEOPLES WORDS TO FIT YOUR AGENDAS. YOU ARE PATHETIC KID !!!

I'm not much interested in discussion what other countries did and what their system of government was.  I am talking specifically about the United States of America and its Constitution.  Armed rebellion is unconstitutional, and the Second Amendment makes no provision for it (nor does any other part of the Constitution).

If you are not much interested in discussion.Then go away and talk to yourself.

Don't like the way the government is acting?  The Constitution has democratic methods for redress of your grievances.  Don't want to follow those methods?  Then you are acting in an unconstitutional manner.  Just own it.

And what if a government was to do away with free elections or the democratic process ? What if the constitution was done away with ? No matter how remote it may be, what would you think about armed rebellion in that situation ?

Find me a Democratic nominee for Congress that advocates armed insurrection against the government if the election doesn't go their way (preferably one in the 21st century).  And in case you were thinking of claiming this as an isolated incident, Sharron Angle (2010 GOP nominee for U.S. Senate) was talking about "Second Amendment remedies" to "the Harry Reid problems" 2 years ago.

The fact that you think random internet crazies are equivalent to persons running for Congress is absurd.  If I were to take internet commentary as accurate predictors of future events, reading the comments on a Yahoo article or a Youtube video would surely prove that the apocalypse is upon us.

Were they charged with a crime ? Yes or no is all that is needed !!!

As for your question: name any country that murdered its civilian population and I will be happy to explain why their problems went far beyond a firearm ban.  Somalia has no regulations on firearms whatsoever... does that mean they are "better" than Canada, who has some of the most strict anti-gun laws in the world?

Go give your 2 examples to Germany, the USSR, the People's Republic of China, Ottoman Turkey, Guatemala, Uganda and Cambodia. Extreme acts of genocide and crimes against humanity were perpetrated by governments in these places after restricting firearm ownership. Are you saying that it is 100% impossible for things like that to happen in the US ? What would you propose the civilian citizens do in a circumstance like that ?

[Sunstroke]

Are you saying that it is 100% impossible for things like that to happen in the US ? What would you propose the civilian citizens do in a circumstance like that ?

I'd propose they stop hitting the snooze button, wake up and embrace the real world...

[Spider-Dan]

I haven't claimed anything about anybody shooting anyone.

You say that citizens with firearms "prevents tyranny of government."

What are these citizens doing with their firearms if not using them?  Still waiting for an explanation.

What the fuck are you talking about? I am using my own ideas and my own words You on the other hand, are the only one in this thread using the words "shooting government agents" and "armed rebellion" ?

No, I am translating your dog whistle code words into what they mean.  The only way firearms protect you from the government is if you use them against the government.  If you have another explanation, I'm waiting.

The "protecting against tyranny" argument is the same BS that people like Timothy McVeigh spouted before blowing up federal buildings.  Words have meaning, and you can't pretend that you're a peaceful patriot while you mumble about your guns protecting you from the government.  That's exactly the kind of rhetoric we always hear from the right after they lose an election.

And what if a government was to do away with free elections or the democratic process ? What if the constitution was done away with ? No matter how remote it may be, what would you think about armed rebellion in that situation ?

You realize that the Second Amendment can be repealed in a completely democratic fashion (just like the 18th was), right?

Unlike you, I don't believe in guns as a substitute for the Constitution.  If you think the federal government is acting unconstitutionally, the courts are the constitutional avenue for redress.  If that doesn't work, then you go to the ballot box.  If the government is so thoroughly corrupted (by the thousands upon thousands of officials at local, state, and federal levels) that neither of those things work, then either:

a) the system is so hopelessly broken that shooting individual people won't make a difference (which you would see after the first few cities that our corrupted government nukes into dust)

or

b) you're a sore loser nutjob who can't handle the fact that everyone else disagrees with you

Go give your 2 examples to Germany, the USSR, the People's Republic of China, Ottoman Turkey, Guatemala, Uganda and Cambodia.

Is it seriously your position that the only problem with Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union that they didn't allow their citizens to have guns?

Do you really think people who can barely afford to eat are going to mount a serious resistance to government military if only they are allowed to buy a handgun?

[badger6]

You say that citizens with firearms "prevents tyranny of government."

What are these citizens doing with their firearms if not using them?  Still waiting for an explanation.
No, I am translating your dog whistle code words into what they mean.  The only way firearms protect you from the government is if you use them against the government.  If you have another explanation, I'm waiting.

What the fuck does the following exchange between me and sunstroke say ?

I can only believe that if our founding fathers had been able to look past their flintlock muskets and bowie knives to see some of the crazy weapons that future generations would create in an effort to kill more people with greater efficiency, they may have expanded that section a wee bit.

None of that is anything but your pure conjecture. I could counter that the founding fathers fully intended for the citizens to have the exact same type of firearms as the government in order to prevent the tyranny of a corrupt government upon its citizens.

^^^If you can't take the above exchange in context, then you are not a very bright individual. Conjecture vs conjecture, hmmmm, so fucking hard to figure out. Now answer my question. Does the constitution say anything about what kind of arms that the people have the right to bear ?

The "protecting against tyranny" argument is the same BS that people like Timothy McVeigh spouted before blowing up federal buildings.  Words have meaning, and you can't pretend that you're a peaceful patriot while you mumble about your guns protecting you from the government.  That's exactly the kind of rhetoric we always hear from the right after they lose an election.

An armed civilian population protects against "tyranny or government" because it acts as a deterrent. In the unlikely event, do you honestly think that the government would try anything that remotely resembled what has happened in other countries, with an armed population of the US with as big as it is ? There are many examples, conflicts in Vietnam, Bosnia, and Chechnya offer proof that armed citizens can restrain, deter, or repel a modern army. I don't have any numbers but I would venture to say that the citizens of the US are one one of the best armed civilian populations in the world.

You realize that the Second Amendment can be repealed in a completely democratic fashion (just like the 18th was), right?

Good luck with that one chief, ha ha.

Unlike you, I don't believe in guns as a substitute for the Constitution.  If you think the federal government is acting unconstitutionally, the courts are the constitutional avenue for redress.  If that doesn't work, then you go to the ballot box.  If the government is so thoroughly corrupted (by the thousands upon thousands of officials at local, state, and federal levels) that neither of those things work, then either:

a) the system is so hopelessly broken that shooting individual people won't make a difference (which you would see after the first few cities that our corrupted government nukes into dust)

or

b) you're a sore loser nutjob who can't handle the fact that everyone else disagrees with you

Is that your opinion ? Everyone that supports the 2nd amendment is a nutjob and that everyone else disagrees with them ?

Is it seriously your position that the only problem with Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union that they didn't allow their citizens to have guns?

Do you really think people who can barely afford to eat are going to mount a serious resistance to government military if only they are allowed to buy a handgun?

You seem to be putting words in peoples mouths again. This has nothing to do with the problems of the said countries. It has everything to do with deterring the governments of those countries from killing millions of innocent citizens. The reason those governments were able to get away with killing so many innocent people is because the mass of the population had no way to fight back or protect themselves in those worst case scenarios. If those citizens were armed the governments would have thought hard about doing the things they did and the civilians would have had a fighting chance.

[Fins4ever]

Yet ANOTHER horrible day on Wall Street. Just sayin!

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2012/10/23/earning-worries-trigger-steep-selloff/?test=latestnews

[badger6]

Yet ANOTHER horrible day on Wall Street. Just sayin!

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2012/10/23/earning-worries-trigger-steep-selloff/?test=latestnews

What you think the market is gonna do the day after the election if Obama is re elected ?

[Spider-Dan]

badger6, rather than continue to talk in circles about exactly how you expect citizens to protect themselves from tyranny, I'll just say this:

Armed insurrection against the federal government is illegal and unconstitutional under ANY circumstances.  If, as you propose, the government has become so corrupted that the safeguards built into the Constitution no longer work, then the Constitution has completely failed and you should have no problem taking unconstitutional actions to replace it by force.

Just like the South tried to.