Politicians/Media Refuse "proudly Gun Free" Sign

I understand the whole idea of having the means to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government but I think at this point the idea of the people being able to revolt and overturn the president in their army is pretty comical.

And really, at this point, I don't think the US would ever be ruled by a tyrant. There is more money in being a democracy.

Dude, really, knock off this *** you always pull with some cryptic response and then acting like you are all high and mighty and refuse to explain yourself and instead be a condescending ***.

this is why no one *** likes you.

I don't find it so comical.

and tyranny is certainly possible even in our structure, if it's allowed to become it, tyranny exists on many levels.

Have you ever taken into consideration that I am a condescending *** and that I don't care if you like me or not?

It still really isn't hard to comprehend, and I don't have the patience.

It's not cryptic at all either.

With the kind of firepower the US army has, im pretty sure they people would lose pretty quickly.

Again, there is more money in being a democracy.

Ok, cool, so you are going to make a vague statement, not explain your self and that somehow makes you smarter than I?

We aren't a democracy, never have been.

Your concept of "the government" and "the people" is rather naive at best.

It's not vague, think a little bit.

Hey guys, I want guns to defend my self against people trying to steal from me but I think its 100% ok to steal from other people!

Well I can see this is going to go no where since you don't want to bother explaining yourself.

Good talking to you as always. You fail to explain yourself, yet im the moron, lol.

I don't think it's OK to steal from people, I don't know where you got that idea from.

I don't really want guns to defend myself from "people" trying to steal from me, however I support others' rights to do so.

I want to own guns because I want to own guns, as it is my right to do so.

It was self explanatory, so if that's what you want to call yourself it would probably be accurate.

Ok, im a moron. So could you explain what you mean then such im to stupid to figure it out.

Well, its because your definition of stealing is not the same as others.

/sigh, I'm being too nice today.

the term "the government" can range from the federal level, to the state level to the local level, some people even consider the local sheriff/deputy as "the law" (they aren't but that's arbitrary) at some levels, if not all at certain points, they are or would be indeed afraid of some armed civilians (legal or not) otherwise you wouldn't see swat teams and the like, or people in riot gear to break up a bunch of drunk college students, it's relative. You instantly took "the government" as the federal government, when it really exists on multiple levels. Now if you're saying the feds don't have something to worry about when it comes to armed citizens, you have somewhat of a point, however, personally I think this is a great injustice, as even the federal government should fear the people revolting when they push too far. (to be honest, fascism will always fail, as they always push too far, and will have resistance fighters etc).

now the term "the people" can also range to different groups: could mean an individual citizen (which would have little-no chance against even 1 LeO, much less a department). To groups of people starting an uprising, to full scale civil war. Even our military is run by people, and I'd guarantee you that a lot of them would side with the people over the government if it came down to it.

Personally I hope it wouldn't come to such a thing, ever again. However I know a lot of people that wish for it.

Not quite, but I see why you consider that.

Stealing requires something to be removed.

You realize you are arguing with a child, right ? Trust me, it will go no where.

It's also your right to travel, We established that in another thread. Therefore if a city or state establish gun bans/regulations. Simply move out.

I'm really sick and tired of all these pro-gun people wanting to extinguish gun regulations all together on states/cities who ACTUALLY want regulation.

It is a federal right to own guns. Federal law > state law> city law.

You don't need a license to travel, sorry. Didn't establish ***.

I'm really sick and tired of people trying to restrict/remove other people's rights.

It's a federal right to travel should i bring up the thread references again too? I did establish it was a federally protected right you didn't agree with it- big differences

Why must cities who don't want guns like SF who are examples of gun efficacy change their laws, when both their government and residentswant it.

Yeah, I do understand that.

Also

steal (stl)
v. stole (stl), sto·len (stln), steal·ing, steals
v.tr.
1. To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
2. To present or use (someone else's words or ideas) as one's own.
3. To get or take secretly or artfully: steal a look at a diary; steal the puck from an opponent.

stealing isn't something physical, its taking something without permission or right.

no it isn't a federal right to drive...

1. I laugh at your assertion of "efficiency" 2. because our republic was formed to protect people's rights against the will of the majority.

Want is not of concern here.

Sure does a good job at that.

to steal is to deprive somebody else of their property, I'm not going to sit here and argue definitions with you.

I said travel not drive. Privileges and Immunities Clause of the constitution protects the right to travel.

San Francisco is pretty efficient in gun control. The city governemnt wants the regulation and so do the people. So whats the problem here...

Also a republic does the exact opposite of protecting people's rights against the will of the majority.

takes too long in a lot of cases, but eventually, so far it happens. I'd like it to happen a lot sooner myself, in a lot of cases.

Yes, it happens when protecting those rights becomes the will of the majority.

You were inferring the right to drive, don't be facetious.

I wouldn't say that.


No... that's the point of a republic, to protect the rights of the minority.

flaw in the system, unfortunately. Something society needs to work on, but we're too busy arguing about other people trying to remove rights.