NRA ad: Defend Freedom, Defeat Obama!
tags:
Stumble ThisA government that doesn't trust the people (with firearms) does not deserve the people's trust.
X Greetings! You are not currently logged in, but please don't let that stop you from voting up any videos you like. :)
|
| |||||||||||||||
nra,ad,antigun,obama,taxocrats,2nd amendment,election,2008 NRA ad: Defend Freedom, Defeat Obama!
Comments  who voted for this video quantumushroom
- siftbot
x10 - therealblankman
who has this post bookmarked Constitutional_Patriot
NRA Ad: Defend Freedom, Defeat Obama! Related Videos
| Watch this Video NextFriends O' the Sift Top New Videos by Vote  Subscribe Top 15 Sifters of All Time Top 15 Sifters of the Past Week 9. lore_weaver
(213 votes) 14. Nonbrainwashed
(178 votes) Newest Appreciated Comments         | ||||||||||||||
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgPR9I4KMNI
Seriously. I'm asking. Which is worse?
Anyone have the 2nd Amend rant from Boston Legal? it was pretty good.
Is this the one?
Congressman Raymond Jacobs: May I ask, Denny, how do you feel about gun control?
Denny: For Communists.
Congressman Jacobs: What about banning assault weapons in the private sector?
Denny: As soon as you say it's OK to ban assault weapons, my friend, even in the private sector, you make it easier to take guns away from hunting, then personal protection. Soon the military and the police are without firearms.
Oh yeah, what this guy said:
|| || ||
|| || ||
\/ \/ \/
http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBHkMADXnOw
*sighs* but I sure do feel I'm missing out on some great freedom!
I'm a gun owner and a gun user, but let's stop this shit about assault rifles being a constitutional right.
They're no more a right than bazookas or hand grenades.
I'm not big on guns personally, but the right to keep and bear arms is clearly to enable the populous to overthrow the government by force. We do have a constitutional right to bazookas and hand grenades, it's just not very popular/politic to say so.
http://www.gunlawnews.org/Senators/Barack-Obama.html
However each bill is a story in it self. The cop killing bullet! Thanks god no criminals were trained on how to double tap, and finish with the head shot. </sarcasm>
He supported the ban in DC, and in Chicago.
I don't even want to talk about the laws that they broke in Katrina, let alone the constitution and the national guard in that church. In the event of a Disasters expect your rights to be taken away, even over your life.
I do not agree with the NRA, and I am not a hunter.
I would not like to be a law enforcement officer and have to be forced to take some ones 2nd amendment away from them, because I would expect them to shoot me.
>> ^rougy: They're no more a right than bazookas or hand grenades.
I'm not big on guns personally, but the right to keep and bear arms is clearly to enable the populous to overthrow the government by force. We do have a constitutional right to bazookas and hand grenades, it's just not very popular/politic to say so.
I'm sorry, but that's just not realistic.
You pull out your bazooka, they bring out their tanks and helicopters.
You toss your hand grenade, and they'll drop their bunker buster.
It's nothing short of romaniticism to think that we can overthrow our government by those means.
Which is worse: 1) making an attempt to legislate a ban/tax on firearms of these kinds which puts it up to be legitimately 'shot down' (hehe) or 2) proclaiming yourself pro-NRA and having your police force take citizens' guns away anyway...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgPR9I4KMNI
Seriously. I'm asking. Which is worse?
Well, the NRA actually took that to court and got all the firearms returned. They're also currently fighting in DC over making sure the government follows through after the ban was overturned. So, in the end, the NRA still prevailed.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081008/ap_on_re_us/katrina_confiscated_guns
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27087738/
Thanks to our WWII+ technology it's much cheaper to exterminate people then to govern them. While this does creates a situation the framers did not have to consider, it raises the question of whether the right to bare arms is still relevant if it does not constitute a check on government violence.
Guerrilla warfare is still absurdly effective, all our fancy tech still doesn't change the fact that well placed bullets kill people. I think you underestimate the toll that a dedicated revolutionary force can take on any government, especially in a civil war where "collateral damage" has high political cost for the government. The government can't really throw bunker busters into downtown Manhattan if they expect society to keep functioning.