The goal isn't to take away all guns.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2011
The goal isn't to take away all guns.
123
Mon, 01-07-2013 - 11:48am

Despite the scare tactics so typical of the right - see health care - there is no desire to take away all guns amongst most on the left. That is how the right wants to define the debate, as all or nothing. It knows it wins in that case.

All we want is common sense, but listen to, see the howls and declarations of 'you won't take away my gun!'

Which position is actually rational and reasoned?

Pages

Avatar for xxxs
Community Leader
Registered: 01-25-2010
Mon, 03-11-2013 - 1:39pm

I agree the average Americanhas been let down by the elected officials.  our government is at the beck and call of the billionaires.  One thing they fear is an armed electorate.  What the end game is for them:  oligarchy!

chaika

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Sat, 03-09-2013 - 8:58pm

One of the reason the 2nd amendment is under fire is the H Clinton wants to have the US under the thumb of the UN.

It's not just Hitlary, it seems that Obama, as well as many of the Democratic elite wish for the same thing.

  Today is is more subtle.  We don't have a warrior class to impose on the common citizen but a moneyed elite.

Yes, the moneyed elite do try to oppress their views on to the "common citizen"...but sadly, so does the left through their manipulation of the political class and the uninformed masses.

Avatar for xxxs
Community Leader
Registered: 01-25-2010
Fri, 03-01-2013 - 12:57am

  One of the reason the 2nd amendment is under fire is the H Clinton wants to have the US under the thumb of the UN.

 

 "it is becoming a new feudal age.  Many moderates and liberals see the danger.

Are you referring to the elites oppressing the common folk?  I agree...but it seems that has always been the case."

  Today is is more subtle.  We don't have a warrior class to impose on the common citizen but a moneyed elite.

 

dragowoman

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Wed, 02-27-2013 - 9:03pm

It is not liberal vs conservative.

I tend to disagree.  While there are some liberals who support the Second Amendment, from what I've seen, the VAST majority of liberals want it severely restricted or overturned entirely.

It is those who can afford bodyguards with auto weapons  verses to common people.

If you've read some of the nonsensical arguments from folks here, you can see the divide isn't among the wealthy and the common people.  The haters seem to have some irrational fear of guns that can't be penetrated with reasoned arguments and facts.  The elites do, however, enjoy a perculiar kind of hypocrisy.  They want to disarm you, but they travel with multiple armed guards.  It would be especially amusing if the restrictions they're trying to put on the "little people" also limited the type of gun and number of bullets their own bodyguards could carry.

it is becoming a new feudal age.  Many moderates and liberals see the danger.

Are you referring to the elites oppressing the common folk?  I agree...but it seems that has always been the case.

There is another player.  The UN.  Yes the UN is trying to become a world government.  Their goal is no guns in the hands of ordinary people.  The terrorists love this because they people that they mutilate and kill have only the (usually) corrupt "police" and "national military".  Mercenaries are the real force but the African nations hate them as they win over the people and drive the terrorists out.   Making the government look weak.

I think the UN is corrupt and should be dissolved entirely, but that's probably wishful thinking.  Unfortunately, when liberals acquire power in this country, it empowers the UN and other corrupt regimes to push their anti-American agenda...to Democrat applause.

Avatar for xxxs
Community Leader
Registered: 01-25-2010
Tue, 02-26-2013 - 1:05pm

  It is not liberal vs conservative.  It is those who can afford bodyguards with auto weapons  verses to common people.  it is becoming a new feudal age.  Many moderates and liberals see the danger.  There is another player.  The UN.  Yes the UN is trying to become a world government.  Their goal is no guns in the hands of ordinary people.  The terrorists love this because they people that they mutilate and kill have only the (usually) corrupt "police" and "national military".  Mercenaries are the real force but the African nations hate them as they win over the people and drive the terrorists out.   Making the government look weak. 

   Clinton favors the UN but the 2nd amendment is in the way.  The NDAA side stepped the first amendment. 

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/01/18/why-the-ndaa-is-unconstitutional/

dragowoman

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Tue, 02-26-2013 - 2:55am

It was reported in the news today that the average number of rounds the police fire to bring down an assailant is FIVE SHOTS.  You do the math...if liberals get their way, they're condemning people defending themselves from assault to death.  Do they care?  No...until it happens to them...then the hypocrisy flies...suddenly what they decree YOU don't need, they decide THEY need, whether it's a high-capacity magazine, or an SUV or AlGore's private jet and HUGE mansion.

Avatar for xxxs
Community Leader
Registered: 01-25-2010
Mon, 02-25-2013 - 1:13am

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/sanantonio.asp

Interesting no?

dragowoman

Avatar for xxxs
Community Leader
Registered: 01-25-2010
Mon, 02-25-2013 - 1:12am

  Ok I'll answer that.   I do wish this would tell to whom I am responding!  Your question about hunting has to do with the state laws on hunting.  For hunting there are limits to the number of cartridges so we do not drive the game extinct.    Many of the very old rifles held quite a few heavy bullets.  The passenger pigeon for instance or the buffalo nearly was.  Michigan for example limits 6 shots for hunting deer.

    But 30 rounds is perfect for home/land defense and varmints.   Criminals can count.  professional criminals are not stupid.  That is why one chooses different weapons for different environments.   More bullets means a better chance of survival.  Why 30 rounds?  That is the world wide standard load out.   And they are needed.  

      Now if your experience is movies and TV then it is not representative of real life.    A full auto has 4 sec of firing time on full auto.  So if your concern is:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/sanantonio.asp

dragowoman

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Sun, 02-24-2013 - 5:23pm

Sadly, facts and reasoned arguments don't make a dent with the haters.  Their twisted ideology simply comes down to "I don't like it...so you shouldn't have it."  Guns are just the latest in their litany, whether it's SUVs or light bulbs or coal and oil powered anything...the list just goes on and on.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2006
Sun, 02-24-2013 - 9:11am
Get back to me when hunters advocate for rifles to have 30 round capacity.

Pages