Defend the 2nd Amendment!

http://www.gunowners.org/

Defend your rights! Sign up for GOA Legislative Alerts and alert yourself to what the politicians want to do to your 2nd Amendment freedoms!

Quite possibly the best organization around for defense of your 2nd Amendment liberties, this site has a listing of your Senators and Congressman dating back to the Clinton Administration, and includes individual votes from every representative on many if not all gun-related votes within this span of time!

Vote out anti-gun incumbents!


Remember, it's a right, not a privilege.

>>79
Wrong, keeping coorporations seperate from the government is better than being ruled by coorporations who pay off the government or being ruled by a political party which also controls the economy.

>>81 Exactly. We might as well leave most of the jurisdiction to the consumers, considering you have shit in your meat and mercury everywhere anyway. If the free economy leads to you being incapable of defending your interests from the corporations, then at least you get what you deserve.

>>80

>>but that isn't possible in a free economy.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA.  And exactly how would a free economy prevent this from happening?

>>new enterprises that are closely linked to their consumer block can't get up to dumb shit, because then there would always be a more honest company for consumers to go to.

That is true.  But that's not what we have in today's economy.  Today we have the megacorporations like Sony, which produces everything from movies to gadgets to phones to video games, and Viacom.  Viacom owns MTV, Nickelodeon, VH1, Spike, Comedy Central, and Paramount pictures.  And GE.  General Electric owns NBC and Universal Studios.  Disney owns Touchstone, Miramax, Pixar, ABC, and ESPN.  Any company you can name is probably owned by a larger company you've never heard of.

(cont. from >>83 because I forgot some things)

These companies are untouchable by the general public, because there is no possible way for a large enough group of consumers to organize enough to make an impact on their profits.  Meanwhile, the megacorporations have enough resources to spend in advertising and lobbying to keep things going their way.

>>84 My issue is; how would a free market change that? I mean, Halliburton and the gang would no longer be able to infest the white house and take tax money (that isn't used on reconstruction, BTW), but how much would change, considering you're not going to see that many Americans suddenly trying to stake a claim or make an enterprise.

how is regulation tantamount to denying a right?

I've already solved this SOCIALSIM IS BET4R THAN CAPITALISM CAUSE IT STOPS PEOPLE POISNNING YOUR HAMBUGRGERS LOLZ issue on that "argument i hear ad naus from liberals" thread 4chan deleted as they are communists.

A totally 100% free economy where no one pays no tax and no one gets arrested for lying and using bad practices is stupid and no capitalists agree with it. They believe the econmomy should be taxed to fund the miulitary to prevent invasion, the police and the courts to preserve justice, just like Adam Smith said.

So we have a free economy that pays tax to preserve justice as much as any socialism would, now liberals like to say RICH PEOPLE GOING TO BRIBE TEH GOVERNMANT AND MAKE THEM TURN A BLIND EYE. Sure, this is possible, but no system of govenremnt can avoid it 100%. It's like asking everyone to never lie cheat or steal and if you think socialism can stop people from ever lying cheating or stealing please say so, so people can see how stupid and naive you are. You need to keep the economy and the government seperate to prevent corruption, not the other way around. Socialism is the equivalent of recruiting gangsters into the police. Capitalism doesn't stop the gangsters bribing the judges, but it's a hell of a lot better than the judge being a gangster himself.

So which system is better for the economy? Well we know that a market economy is more efficient than a communist economy, because people only spend their money in succesful businesses which provides an incentive for businesses to create high quality low cost products and services and to avoid any criticism from the free press and they have to do all this whilst competing with many other businesses trying to do the same thing. No institution is capable of planning such a complex changing economy.

>>87
Ironically, rich corporations have almost total control of goverment in social democracies such as Sweden and Finland. Much worse than in America.

omg, what newbs.

You know why the 2nd amendment exists don't you? in 1776 a gun was a source of food(hunting) and a means of self defence in the abscence of adequate law enforcement, and with a hostile environment(indians, animals, etc etc.) to boot.

If you need to hunt to subsist, go get some fucking food stamps.

If you see the right to bear arms as insurance against government oppression because we can stage a civil uprising, having effective weapons, think how ineffective a militia would be against military trained personel/equipment. How many people in our current society are trained with a rifle?  You really think the presence of guns in our homes allows us to put together a militia with any hope against our own military? It worked in the past because the military was little more than men with their rifles in fancy coats. These days a militia would simply be slaughtered. You'd do better to stage a peaceful protest. Leave the guns at home.

Self defence? You mean, if a robber comes into your home? why not sell that gun and get yourself a home security system and some insurance? Give up your vigilante justice for a 5 to 10 minute response time from a police officer? Most robbers DO NOT bring a gun with them due to the huge difference in sentence for armed vs unarmed robbery.

Or are you defending yourself from premeditated murder? Expecting to anger someone enough to make them want to kill you? Why not just stop sleeping with his wife instead?

Or a total madman breaking into your house and threatening your life? come on now, what's the likelihood of that? Way more likely you're gonna forget the safety and your sons gonna blow his leg off.

Guns in family households are more likely to kill family members than they are to kill intruders, but that's beside the point.

The point is that this right to shoot people on your lawn stopped making sense ages ago with the advent of a competent law enforcement system, and the abscence of hostiles in our backyards(no more hostile indians...). Now the presence of fire arms in homes engenders violence rather than protects the inhabitants.

GTFO of the 1800s, newbs. Or do you just think it'd be fun to kill someone, should the 'opportunity' arise?

>>89
Hoplophobic gun grabber propaganda. 2nd amendment had NOTHING to do with hunting. It was solely intended to be safeguard against tyranny and it still works. I'm not really in mood for ranting, but look up gun related topics here and you will see truth.

>>89
There are like 25000000 quotes by figures who fought for independance and the rights of man who oppose gun control. These people were partisans who realised there would have been no chance of them winning if general american public didn't have any guns and saw how desperate tyrants and tyrant-lovers were to disarm the populous.

Perhaps the reason you have ignored this point completely is you are a tyrant lover? Or you're a troll.. Either way I'm right.

>>70

"Can you give me any sane reason to have an assault rifle?  Now, compare that to the danger that an assault rifle presents.  Simply keeping an assault rifle presents a danger to people.  Assault rifles are dangerous, and without a compelling reason for civilians to own them, they should not be allowed to be sold to civillians."

You know, it's really obnoxious to make the argument that an average civilian should do this or do that, live this lifestyle  this way, or that.  Seriously, maybe someone just fucking wants one? Why you ask? Why do people think smoking is cool? Why do people like ice cream? BECAUSE THEY FUCKING DO. 

Just because you can't understand someone elses' liking of something, doesn't mean the reason for them having it isn't there.  Many people can't understand people's interest in things.  My parents can't understand my interest in politics at all, nor can many other people.  Just because YOU don't see a reason, doesn't mean there ISN'T one. 

Just ownership of any gun or useable weapon presents a danger to people.  This is such fucking bullshit.  My ownership of a baseball bat presents a danger to people.  I could smash their head in pretty easilly with it.  We should make laws prohibiting holding baseball bats around people because occasionally, some guy might go nuts and decide to kill someone with it. 

You know what else we should ban? Cars.  Cars cause so many deaths occur every year in car accidents, we should ban them.  We should then ban violence in video games, and anything even remotely unacceptable to anyone, because, remember, the government should be able to tell you how to live your life, what is acceptable, and what isn't, what you should do, and what you shouldn't. 

>>89
You need to see this movie. 

http://www.innocentsbetrayed.com/

>>91
>>90

er. did I ignore that point? you're saying that guns in the hands of the citizens allows them to rise and overthrow their government should it be taken over by a tyrant.

I said that the gulf between a militia and the military is too broad now, compared to when the 2nd amendment was written, for such an uprising to have hope of succeeding unless the military were coming apart at the due to low morale (from subjugating the people etc).

>>94
You also made some stupid comment about guns rights existing in that time solely to provide food or some similar horse shit. 

>>70
"Elect Libertarians and get cancer because there aren't any standards as to what companies can do with their product and lie to the consumer about."

As opposed to Socialism, or a mixed-economy, in which the corporations will just bribe out the governing body and politicians whenever it serves their interest to turn a blind eye?

Face it, in a mixed economy, or any kind of bullshit socialism you democrats advocate, whenever it suits the corporations interest to bribe out the government or the FDA (food and drug administration) to change a ruling on some sketchy or uncertain product, you'll be getting cancer in the end anyway. 

The big difference, is when the FDA gives a ruling on some product, people TRUST the FDA to make a valid and noteworthy ruling.  So if the corporations bribe the FDA to say something to the government-trusting populace, well.. that's worse than just laissez-faire in which it would be a direct deal between the consumer and the corporation, with no sketchy under-the-table dealings going on. 

>>94
Tell that to Russians they REALLY(not won battles, but politically lost Vietnam style) lost in Afganistan and Chechens are still strong. We are having quite problem with rebels in Iraq too. Besides in case of revolution you need to take account several things. Due to chaos(hell, most of goverment maybe dead) military can't be deployed effectively and you're deploying them against their OWN people. There is high change that military will split into different factions on situation like that.  

>>97
And not only that, your own people, in your own country.  The average citizen knows his hometown better than some military conscript to just got sent there to put down some rebellion. 

"I said that the gulf between a militia and the military is too broad now, compared to when the 2nd amendment was written, for such an uprising to have hope of succeeding unless the military were coming apart at the due to low morale (from subjugating the people etc)."

Your argument is like an aborted fetus, all chopped up into little pink pieces. You're completely souless. What you are basically saying is that guns should be prohibited (even pending tyranny) because we would 'probably, most likely' fail in defending ourselves from, say, a genocide that makes WACO look like "an unfortunate series of events".

That's fucking stupid. There are some of us who would fight and die for our freedom from tyranny regardless. Don't damn everyone else because you're a cowardly piece of shit.

>>99
*claps* Hats off to you sir. 

Rather die fighting for freedom, than die oppressed. 

>>96

So what the fuck do you propose?  "We're all just fucked, so let's kill ourselves now?"  If corporations bribe the government under a mixed economy, STOP THE CORRUPTION, not throw up your hands and cry "Mixed economy doesn't work!"

>>85

That was exactly my point; a free market wouldn't change it and would probably make it worse.  Maybe we're confused and arguing the same point.

Me being 21 years old, I actually believe I will live to see the day that the U.S. government is overthrown by the good people. I really do.

>>101
Oh! I see now... that's a great solution.  Go tell the FDA to reverse their rulings on god knows how many things the corporations of the world have influenced their decision on.  Then it will all be better.

>>101
 The FDA gives off an illusory shroud of legitimacy to the stupid public (who also funds it through their taxes) and then is essentially controlled like a puppet by god knows how many companies. 

The 'pro-market' alternative is not as you say "we're all just fucked, so let's kill ourselves now". 

You really don't understand jack shit about the market if you think that coca-cola wouldn't get hurt for selling toxic drinks or something to people were it not for the FDA

Companies in a free market try to make their names synonymous with quality, purity, and value.  This, along with an educated army of consumers is what I propose as the solution. 

>>103
You can do it, you collect evidence and take it to a police station and press charges. If someone is stealing billiosn of $s or putting toxic chemicals into food you can charge them with corruption or conspiracy to murder.

>>104

Let's say the USA becomes a much less regulated free market, and let's say that Coca-Cola, oh, puts cocaine back into their drink.  (The original formula contained cocaine, if you don't know.)  For a while, people just won't realize it, and due to addiction, Coca-Cola sales go up.  Then, people start to realize there is something addicitve in Coca-Cola, but the general public calls it a conspiracy theory.  Coke sales continue to go up.  Independent labs do tests and find cocaine in the drink.  Coca-Cola uses its money and power to create a massive media campaign lampooning the testers as conspiracy theorists.  A huge wave of advertising is launched.  Coca-Cola uses its money to assassinate the characters of the people in the lab and finance their own studies which show no cocaine in the drink.

In a free market, what is to stop this from happening?

>>106
Some guy tells truth on interbutt and then everyone knows it.

>>106
The effectiveness of the police. Also admit that if the people putting narcotics in drinks also have control over the police it is much more difficult to reveal the truth than in a free market with a seperate and diverse police force.

>>108 Just because a police force is free (which it wouldn't be in an ideal objectivist/libertarian society - it would still be organized by the state) doesn't mean that money can't get to people.
The thing is; if a slow change of government and society would occur, then perhaps the cultural situation in America would change and people would be raised to take responsibility for the only method of control they have - consumption. If that doesn't happen then anything can.
You think Nike and the gang are going to go 1984 by infiltrating the police force and staging a coup? No, America has slowly crept towards a fascist state the previous century thanks to efforts by the right and the left. And the boiled frogs didn't complain much. Slow, incremental changes towards utter control - that wouldn't be an impossibility even in a free market, would it?

>>109 & 106
Also, in a libertarian society, narcotics would be legal anyway.

>>110
But lying about what you put in drinks wouldn't as it would be an abuse of justice and thus liberty and libertarians like liberty.

>>109
There will always be elements of tyranny in society relative to how vigilant and intelligent the people in it are. If 50% of the US were all vicious nazis then no democratic system in existnece would stop the US from turning into a vicious nazi tyranny. This is what the constitution is for, everyone must be a pro-constitution fanatic, pro-free speech, pro-democracy. No political group with realistic ambition in their right mind touches the constitution because no one would support them. For instance if someone says "oh white people should only get 1/3 of a vote because of their racism and oppression" even black people who lost a relative to a hate crime or whatever will not support whoever said that.

>>111
The FDA does a hell of a lot more than make sure that companies don't lie. 

And, hell, I wouldn't be surprised if the companies DO lie right now on many things, and get away with it because they can just pay off the FDA and have them put their stamp of approval on the product anyway. 

I think the FDA is just misleading.  It's probly horribly corrupt, spends tax money, and in the end, doesn't deliver any benefit at all, since the companies can just bribe it out and abuse it and the consumers in the end anyways. 

Thus, the solution I propose, is doing away with it, and just letting consumers keep themselves informed on what they are buying. 

Again, keep in mind, part of free markets is integrity, and any business that wants to last a while and maintain any level of public trust will keep this in mind. 

You should read an essay Alan Greenspan wrote called "the Assault on Integrity" or something.  It is pretty decent, and debunks the whole "if the fda didn't exist, businesses would poison our food and we'd all die lol!" kindof attitude. 

>>112
So what happens when 1000s of kids are born deformed? How do we get assholes into prison?

>>113
If the company didn't lie then it's their own damn fault buying such food. If the company lied then they can sue the company.

>>114 Will consumer vigilance be sufficient? Coke, McD, BK, Nike, the western world wolfs it down without pause, it has become second nature. The FDA is a parenthesis in comparison to the power of ignorance and numbed senses. Erin Brokovich was an exception that confirmed the status quo.

>>114
Don't  make me lose faith in the free market. I'm going to ask you again.

So what happens when 1000s of kids are born deformed? How do we get assholes into prison?

>>32
How do conservatives weaken the 1st?  They believe that the seperation clause should be balanced with the free-exercise clause?

>>117

No, they use the free excersize clause to beat the separation clause into submission.  That way they can put Gawd and Jeezus back in the government.

>>118 So true. All people who revert to the meta-physical dimension as a factor in an actual debate about the actual world should have their genitals cheese-grated, their fingertips flayed and then thrown in a pool of vinegar. Get back to RL you blessed little microbes

>>115
It's not a question of whether or not it's 'sufficient.'  You are speaking thinking that your lifestyle is right and their McD's lifestyle is wrong.  I'm not taking sides on whose lifestyle is better, but to say that your lifestyle is right, and that your lifestyle should be legislated on everyone else is really no different than someone of the religious right dictating that what they have faith is true be legislated upon everyone else, whether they support it or not.