Skip to content

Colion Noir - our 2nd Amendment protects our 1st

Political Discussion
27 6 644
  • If Obama issued an exective order to collect all firearms, or if Congress passed such and order would you follow it?

    Would you passively resist?

    Would you actively resist?

    Or would you be a good rule follower and submit?

  • Given we are on the internet, I would follow and submit. 😉

  • eh...actively make sure they'd never find them, til the courts kick their ass, or, failing that,

    the civil war is won.

    hey, learned how to make my own bows and arrows, got "New Pioneer" magazine,

    got cattails out in the wetlands, got smokeless oil lamps, plenty of reading to do,

    Got woods for hunting and firewood, woodburning fireplace, got well water, giant garden,

    though I need a solar battery outfit to run the fireplace insert fan....

    got private ponds to fish in....... 150 lbs of heirloom field corn seed

    need some chickens for the meat and eggs, though.... and bees for free organic

    raw honey....

    Some krav maga classes would be good.... big, serious trouble may be a-comin...

    nah. Of course we'd submit and hail el stupido obamao, turn em for an obamao receipt

    of promise to return em if we join obamaocare and pay our tithe to his Muslim religion.....

    What Logic said.....

  • molon-labe.jpg
  • It would take an airstrike. Nobody's getting within 800m of me

    I mean umm id hand them over.

  • Sure. We'd just say "Thank you, Obamao, for not listing us

    on the "no head" list...

    and turn em in.

    "LONG LIVE THE FINK KING !" (in our WH)

  • 56281.jpg

  • molon_labe_bumper_sticker-reebcc24b97054

  • molon-labe-pledge-hdr.jpg

  • MolonLabeAndXerxes2.jpg

  • So the 2nd link is just an article about the 1st link? Ok.

    I don't agree with the idea that giving everyone guns will make everyone safer. Just like we can't expect criminals to follow laws, we can't expect every gun owner to be 100% responsible. I think the idea he portrays, that we are all in danger from terrorists and need guns for safety, is alarmist. The incident he was describing is terrible. Yes, maybe someone nearby with a gun could have helped. Maybe he misses and gets himself killed as well. Maybe multiple people rush in to be heroes and chaos ensues. Either way, one data point of speculation doesn't prove much.

    That being said, I'm not trying to take your guns. Calm down.

    Oh, and if the govt really did break in to a crazy, dictator run, military state... a bunch of dudes in their houses with some rifles aren't going to stop an army. You'd just be a minor annoyance. This isn't the 18th century. A "militia" is no where near equal in strength to our military.

    oh, and I agree with Heck

  • So the 2nd link is just an article about the 1st link? Ok.

    I don't agree with the idea that giving everyone guns will make everyone safer. Just like we can't expect criminals to follow laws, we can't expect every gun owner to be 100% responsible. I think the idea he portrays, that we are all in danger from terrorists and need guns for safety, is alarmist. The incident he was describing is terrible. Yes, maybe someone nearby with a gun could have helped. Maybe he misses and gets himself killed as well. Maybe multiple people rush in to be heroes and chaos ensues. Either way, one data point of speculation doesn't prove much.

    That being said, I'm not trying to take your guns. Calm down.

    Oh, and if the govt really did break in to a crazy, dictator run, military state... a bunch of dudes in their houses with some rifles aren't going to stop an army. You'd just be a minor annoyance. This isn't the 18th century. A "militia" is no where near equal in strength to our military.

    oh, and I agree with Heck

    @mld-woody said:

    Oh, and if the govt really did break in to a crazy, dictator run, military state... a bunch of dudes in their houses with some rifles aren't going to stop an army. You'd just be a minor annoyance. This isn't the 18th century. A "militia" is no where near equal in strength to our military.

    Take a moment to read about Vietnam, the current Afghan/Iraq war, and finally the American Revolution. I'll let you see if you can find anything in common.
  • Yeah some basic reading about guerilla resistance will probably enlighten you, Woody.

    In nearly all awful circumstances, I would rather someone be armed to respond. Yes, fuckery may occur where the person goofs up. However, you know 100% that the people shooting back have only bad intentions. Having at least some percentage of chance for survival is better than none.

  • @mld-woody said:

    Oh, and if the govt really did break in to a crazy, dictator run, military state... a bunch of dudes in their houses with some rifles aren't going to stop an army. You'd just be a minor annoyance. This isn't the 18th century. A "militia" is no where near equal in strength to our military.

    Take a moment to read about Vietnam, the current Afghan/Iraq war, and finally the American Revolution. I'll let you see if you can find anything in common.

    @legacy-fan said:

    Take a moment to read about Vietnam, the current Afghan/Iraq war, and finally the American Revolution. I'll let you see if you can find anything in common.

    The Revolution? How is the technology then anywhere similar to now? Civilian militias could be armed almost equal to the national army. Do you have a tank or fighter jet at your house now?

  • Yeah some basic reading about guerilla resistance will probably enlighten you, Woody.

    In nearly all awful circumstances, I would rather someone be armed to respond. Yes, fuckery may occur where the person goofs up. However, you know 100% that the people shooting back have only bad intentions. Having at least some percentage of chance for survival is better than none.

    @logicisforsquares said:

    Yeah some basic reading about guerilla resistance will probably enlighten you, Woody.

    In nearly all awful circumstances, I would rather someone be armed to respond. Yes, fuckery may occur where the person goofs up. However, you know 100% that the people shooting back have only bad intentions. Having at least some percentage of chance for survival is better than none.

    In the incident described in this thread, yes, if someone in the crowd had a gun, the victim's chance at survival would increase. My concern is that, overall, these isolated incidents don't outweigh the people who are injured or killed by these guns. Within that incident as well, others in the crowd may have a lowered chance of survival if a handful were given guns

  • Here we go again.

    It's okay for people to be killed by cars and knives.

    but by golly, "killed by guns is not acceptable".

    You don't declare war on millions and millions of people who own cars, knives and guns

    just because some stupidass from michigan accidently kills someone with it.

  • Can we please not go down the "let's ban cars and knives too!" road for the millionth time? There are some compelling arguments made by the pro gun side, but this isn't one of them. It's idiotic and by no means a 1 to 1 comparison. Cars and knives have purposes other than killing/injuring. Guns do not. That is their purpose, as a weapon.

  • @legacy-fan said:

    Take a moment to read about Vietnam, the current Afghan/Iraq war, and finally the American Revolution. I'll let you see if you can find anything in common.

    The Revolution? How is the technology then anywhere similar to now? Civilian militias could be armed almost equal to the national army. Do you have a tank or fighter jet at your house now?

    @mld-woody said:

    The Revolution? How is the technology then anywhere similar to now? Civilian militias could be armed almost equal to the national army. Do you have a tank or fighter jet at your house now?

    The.

    Current.

    Fuck.

    Afghan.

    War.

    Read about guerrilla warfare. Please. (This is the 3rd time someone has suggested it)

  • YOU used the Revolutionary War as an example. If you didn't want me to point out how bad of an example it was, you shouldn't have used it as an example...