1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Interesting Conversation with an ANTI

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by HKGuns, May 2, 2013.

  1. iiranger

    iiranger Well-Known Member

    #1 & #2

    #2). "1) because driving a car isn't a constitutional right."
    Actually the registration and drivers license are at the root for tax purposes. They want to know who has what and who can operate it so they can tax it.

    My mother told of getting her first drivers license by sending a check for $0.25 to the county clerk and it was in return mail. No test, etc. Yes, "twenty five cents."

    #1). It is an attempt to return to monarchial control the founding fathers sought to pretty much end. Before and in many places today, the friends of the king (or mob boss, remember when Kennedy's body guard got stopped trying to walk onto a plane with a pistol... oh he forgot, had to worry about his boss...) had weapons and about anything else they wanted and if you were not persona grata you had better know how to say "yes boss" and jump or you got kicked and you might get kicked anyway...

    Suggest this genius move to a more civilized land. England (or Canada) or ??? They have "gun control" and very low "gun crime rates." Often the World Almanac has "crime rates" for other cities/countries... Media does not want a fair comparison. (Japan used to have the highest civilized country murder rate...) Enjoy. Happy Trails.
  2. PGT

    PGT Well-Known Member

    info on why you think said person was a lawyer with DHS?
  3. readyeddy

    readyeddy Well-Known Member

    I agree with posts 10 and 11. We need more anti's like her. Honest people that acknowledge that the 2A needs to be repealed if they want to ban guns, which also means that any effort to ban guns is prohibited by the 2A.

    The rest of her message are policy points as they have no current support in law.
  4. TheSaint

    TheSaint Well-Known Member

    From her correspondence:

  5. HKGuns

    HKGuns Well-Known Member

    Great suggestions from nearly everyone. You're right. She's one of those who thinks that because she has a law degree she is smarter and therefore more important than anyone else.

    One of the first things she pointed out was that she was an attorney.

    I hit her hard and fast though when she questioned what laws I thought were sensible. My response was repeal 1934 - 1968 and 1986.
  6. TheSaint

    TheSaint Well-Known Member

    I've known a few good lawyers in my time that do good work on behalf of citizens. That being said, there's a substantial number of them that are as arrogant as all get out, and take every opportunity to inform you of your inferiority as a non-lawyer.
  7. jbrown50

    jbrown50 Well-Known Member

    The anti-gun folks are so focused on achieving their goal of a government controlled utopia that they've totally abandoned any semblance of rational thinking.

    Amending the Constitution to repeal the Second Amendment with subsequent bans and confiscations (even if they could somehow accomplish it without civil war) would open up the flood gates to the largest firearms black market the world has ever seen.

    The results of the 18th Amendment was just a little taste of it.
  8. PGT

    PGT Well-Known Member

    a DHS lawyer?
  9. Nanook

    Nanook Well-Known Member

    I seem to remember from high school that if the Bill of Rights was not added to the Constitution it would not have been ratified.

    I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me it wouldn't be that simple as to just remove the 2nd Amendment.

    I may be off base here, since high school is 40 years in the past.
  10. welshdude

    welshdude Active Member

    Her arguments and pomposity are very similar to the Cruz/Feinstein exchange at a Senate meeting a few months back. He asked her very much the same questions. She got huffy and tried to deride Senator Cruz by avoiding the question. That and referring to him as 'the Junior Senator' several times. She boasted of 30 years in the Senate...I'd say her sell-by date is WAY overdue. Just like the woman in the OP. You can't argue with stupidity and ignorance. One can fix ignorance, though. If they're open to being educated. Problem is most liberals think they already are...:rolleyes:
  11. justice06rr

    justice06rr Well-Known Member

    Wow what a total ignoramus. Most anti's are blind leading the blind. They have no clue and no common sense whatsoever. No use in arguing with them IMO.

    I wonder what that lady would do if her house got broken into and all she has is a bat...
  12. danez71

    danez71 Well-Known Member

    Just a guess on my part... but in my experience, when an anti goes down that road they are saying the our current govt isn't any threat to the population.

    No genocide threat...No religious persecution threat...

    No threat of taking away our rights. Oh.. wait... never mind :uhoh:
  13. herrwalther

    herrwalther Well-Known Member

    It amazes me how some Antis think. How the First Amendment can apply to texts and Facebook but as soon as the Second gets mentioned "Oh the Constitution is out of date." Really? Hypocrisy stinks like a bloated horse in a Texas sun.
  14. mdauben

    mdauben Well-Known Member

    Fixed that for you. ;)
  15. chrisb507

    chrisb507 Well-Known Member

    I don't think most antis simply want to "take our guns" or achieve a government controlled utopia. The just want to "feel" safer.

    I usually defuse these arguments by asking: How would (background checks/"assault weapons" bans/licensing/etc.) ACTUALLY MAKE you safer?
  16. Warners

    Warners Well-Known Member

    Luckily for her, there IS a method to get the 2nd amendment (or any other) repealed. It's quite simple, actually. All you have to do is THIS:

    For an amendment to be proposed or repealed, it requires two/thirds of both federal legislative bodies -- House and Senate -- to vote in the affirmative (two/thirds in the House, two/thirds in the Senate).

    It also requires two/thirds of the state legislatures of the 50 states to vote in the affirmative.

    The move to propose or repeal can begin with the American people, with a majority of the populations in two thirds of the 50 states voting for the amendment or its repeal. However, even if the people do this, the push to propose or repeal still has to garner two/thirds House, two/thirds Senate, and two/thirds of all 50 state legislatures.

    The difficulty required to change this amendment ought to give us pause. For our Founders went out of their way to be sure the rights protected by the Bill of Rights could not be easily stripped of their amendments.

    So have at it, Ms or Mrs Gun-Grabber.....but I'd say you have your work cut out for you. :D

  17. Elm Creek Smith

    Elm Creek Smith Well-Known Member

    I've had anti-rights people sneer that we don't have to worry about the British invading anymore and that we 1) don't have to fight the Indians or 2) hunt to feed our families.

    They get upset and call me a "Fascist" or a "NAZI," neither of which they can define, or a traitor when I point out that the Minutemen and militia at Lexington Green and Concord Bridge were resisting the "duly constituted government" and its "proper governmental authorities." When I point out that the criminal street gangs that prowl our large metropolitan areas and motorcycle gangs are just as dangerous, or even moreso, than the Indians, they scoff that we have the police to protect us. They don't want to hear about Warren vs. The District of Columbia or Castle Rock vs. Gonzales that decided that the police have no duty to protect individuals. Finally, they decry "blood sports" when I explain that hunting is the only viable wildlife management tool available to us unless they want us to reintroduce wolves and grizzly bears all across the United States. They also hate it when I point out that game is naturally organic and free of water/salt solutions, antibiotics, and hormones.

    The anti-rights people are anti-freedom and anti-health.

  18. Bartholomew Roberts

    Bartholomew Roberts Moderator Emeritus

    You have to pass a test and get a license to drive a car on public roads - not to purchase or sell a car or use it on your own property. As Dave Kopel already pointed out, I'd be delighted if guns were regulated as little as cars.

    Which of the remaining Bill of Rights are subject to the 200 year ago test? You only get as much privacy as any home in a 20 family village with multiple families living in one house? Cruel and unusual punishment is interpreted by what people considered "OK" 200 years ago (public flogging, hangings, stocks in the town square?). The First Amendment is limited to only the Gutenberg press?

    Disappointing to see such weak reasoning from a government attorney. For someone who FEELS so strongly she is pushing a social media campaign, she hasn't even spent 10 minutes researching the issue.

Share This Page