For you to insinuate our fine service men and women would take up arms against their fellow countrymen to slaughter them for having weapons allowed by the second amendment is not only quite a bit more insulting, but a complete asinine statement based on absolutely no facts. Soldiers are trained to act, and to obey orders, not so much to have individual emotions or individual ethical interpretations about their missions. Sure, some may not feel that it is a 'just cause', but, of course, it will be presented in a way that the 'enemy' is still the enemy, be it here, Vietnam, Iraq, Afganistan, or anywhere. An 'enemy' is an 'enemy', and soldiers for the most part, do not have the right to pick or choose a 'good' enemy from a 'bad' enemy. If the enemy is a private gun owner, he (or she) is the enemy, and if the soldier is trained to follow commands to neutralize the enemy, he will. I simply stated, as I will again since you obviously misunderstood, is that in a numbers game, the gun owner wins. Period. You really think that our soldiers would drop bombs or turn fighter planes loose on civilians because they have a pistol? You really think that the pilots would say..." Uhhhh, yes sir. I will kill all those folks.."? (See above aka 'soldier vs. enemy'.)Or will it be a door-to-door kinda thing? To quote your 1776 reference, most people wouldn't have taken a bet for the American Colonists against the better armed, better trained, and massively overpowered Hessian and English army, huh?Good point! But, that conflict was still a much more 'equal' playing field, with the majority of the forces on both sides being footsoldiers,,, no air, armour, etc,...You can try to get the military vets and active duty guys riled up at me if you want, but everyone on this board knows me better than that. Just ask Sgt. Stever. I guess the fact that the Gun Store that I just opened offers a DEEP discount to all LEO's as well as current and retired military is just a coverup for my military hatred... Didn't say you hated the military, just reverberated you statement about 'siding with the citizens' instead of the military as you preferred the 2 to 1 odds the citizens had,,, Kinda makes the Military look pretty weak, don't you think? 2 enemies per 1 soldier is far better odds than a lot of our servicemen have encountered,,, a 'light day', if you would,,,And I think you just might be the one to have a little "offense" taken on your post calling us that believe in gun ownership "Bubba" and that us "anti-gun control enthusists" have a 4th grade education..."Bubba" was part of the year 2000 scare as well. He massed a stockpile of guns and ammo at home 'cuz the world was gonna end on 1/1/2000'. Like he was gonna fight off 'what ever it was' that was gonna 'git him',,,Bubba still lives on today, stockpiling stuff for 'whatever is gonna git him',,,Bubba isn't very bright, as he evidently doesn't realize that whatever it is that's 'gonna git him' will roll over him like a Mack truck, and keep on rollin',,, Sure, a few may escape to the hills, but the Modern 'Bubba' will never, no matter what, dominate. Exist? Possibly a few,,, Dominate? Never. I graduated 7th grade, dammit. Pops bought me a surface to air missile as a graduation present..12th here, with the other 36 of my classmates,,, Cool on the missle! Best I could get was a .22!
"Does this legislation flat our DENY you ANY rights? If you feel it does, be specific, and list what RIGHT it is that you reference. You're not losing your guns, or your right to keep and bear arms, so what 'amendment or law' would be violated by the passing of this legislation,,, The is no law for 'Freedom", so you'll have to be a bit more specific,,,It doesn't, yet this is the very argument, (or 'fear') that folks have about it or any kind of gun control."Are you saying that we should accept this proposal which serves no purpose, other than ingratiating Obama to some other nations, because it does not specifically violate a right? Are you saying that we must trust a bunch of lying, self-serving politicians because their useless proposal does not specifically violate any rights? Are you saying that we should disregard common sense because a bunch of lying, self-serving politicians, who are serving their party rather than their constituents or their nation, have proposed a useless piece of legislation which will facilitate their STATED INTENTION of denying Americans their rights, but it doesn't specifically violate a right as proposed? Please tell me you are not that naive.Aside from the fact that the proposition will accomplish absolutely no good at all, and that it would be a great first step in the Dems' STATED INTENTION to strip Americans of their Second Amendment rights, consider what this would cost. Of course, Obama could just print up some more money to cover it, but why on earth would anybody but a left wingnut brainwashed moron see any merit at all in this idiotic proposition? You still haven't shown us any benefit from this.
First of all, the entire "firearms trafficking to Mexico" farce is a joke. It is also someone else's problem, not mine and not yours. We already have laws in place to combat firearms trafficking, and firearms use, and firearms ownership, and every other facet of firearms existence. Apparently you're buying into the administration's lies here; think about the problem. The cartels have vast sums of money at their disposal; they can procure virtually any firearms they want from numerous global markets. The firearms illegally purchased and trafficked to Mexico from the US are a small drop in the bucket when compared to the whole picture. Additionally, firearms available from US dealers are not the automatic weapons and destructive devices that the cartels prefer. And if we could dry up that relatively miniscule flow, it could be easily replaced from other sources. The Mexicans are unable to dry up the contraband smuggled into the US from their country. It would be just as IMPOSSIBLE to dry up the smuggling in the opposite direction. So once again, the left wingnut politicians are promising something that they know is impossible to achieve to justify their proposal.If it's 'not our problem', are you speaking on a 'Houston' level?, a 'Texan' level? an 'American' level? Here's a link quoting CNN as a source that says 90% of the cartels weapons are from the US. Far from a 'small drop in the bucket' you speak of. Do you have any info showing otherwise?otherwise? http://mexicoinstitute.wordpress.com/2009/07/01/atf-ice-join-forces-to-stop-border-gun-traffic/
