targetpuncher

Thank you, kelincp, for the thoughtful and well-reasoned reply. In fact, thank you all, for replying. I'm not sure that the comment about the "ADT commercial" made by other poster was terribly useful (or made much sense, for that matter)... but thank you anyway.
Let's do understand something. In no way did I ever say that I would not "fight to protect the Constitution". I simply wouldn't do it by physical violence.... certainly not by attacking the police, if they arrived at my home for whatever reason. (I doubt that any of us would accomplish much by that, other than being killed or jailed.) There are often better ways to get things done than to simply resort to lashing out - which usually only inflames the emotions of those in opposition - and in many cases, justifies their opposition (especially as regards public perceptions). As to fighting back if attacked or threatened (by an intruder, for instance).... there IS a BIG difference between murder (killing a policeman who came to your home, under orders, for instance).... and self-defense. I have no problem with "self-defense". I simply choose (in this hypothetical scenario) not to "go for the guns" - because that (in the case of the police coming to confiscate them) - would only make matters worse. For those of you who do not agree.... what makes you think that you are qualified to determine when the Constitution is being threatened - and when violence is the answer for this ?
The fact is that many people in this country are disturbed by crime... including gun violence. Many wish to see some solution(s) developed for this. The gun owner/gun user community (of which I am a part) does itself a disservice everytime any of us rant and rave about taking up arms to protect the Constitution.... or responding with violence if laws are passed which we don't like, etc. etc. This stance only provides justification for those who would call ALL of us extremists. The best thing that any of us can do is to present a positive image to the public - including open discussion and compromise where necessary, in order that the issues of gun crime/violence can be addressed...without destruction of all that we hold dear.
As to people like Diane Feinstein.... well, fine. She has a right to her opinion. Just like any politician, though, she is ultimately answerable to those that elected her. As another poster pointed out - those that would ban guns are still in the minority. I don't know about all of you... but I favor a logical, peaceful and fair strategy that would serve the purpose of reducing gun crime, while at the same time - keeping those that would simply ban guns IN THE MINORITY.
Enough said.... Best regards to all.

charlie brown

I would make sure the government couldn't find my guns. I know of some pretty good places to hide stuff around here. Then I would pay the fine and the prison time, because when we loose one constitutional right, it leaves the others open to be lost!

Sure Shot 2009

IF our guns were to be taken from us i dont think it takes a genius to realive the constitution is being threatened.

AND I DONT HAVE TO BE QUALIFIED TO A DAMNED THING TO USE VIOLENCE TO DEFEND MY MY RIGHTS[:@]

targetpuncher

You believe that violence is OK.... in furtherance of your "rights" - even though this issue does not rise to the level of a threat to your life or liberty ? I don't want anyone's gun taken away, either (or anyone's rights destroyed, for that matter).... as long as they are responsible, law-abiding citizens. I am sure that you are as such. The problem is, that, when even responsible people express extreme opinions... (such as your previous statement).... others get the very strong impression that you might be an extremist. Then, they wonder if you would bomb a building, or commit any other violent (terrorist) attack - in furtherance of your views. That "impression", whether true or not, simply fuels the fire.... and gives those who would destroy your rights more
"ammunition" (for want of a better term) to use against ALL of us.
NO ONE has ANY right to use violence against another - if that person is not under direct threat of violence (or actual violent attack) themselves. IF you, sir, believe otherwise, then I regret to say that you ARE an extremist - little better than the very criminals against which you seek to defend yourself. If we all were to adopt this attitude, where would it end ? Would it then become OK to kill anyone, just because they didn't agree with your views ?? Would you really want your children to grow up in such a world ??

Sure Shot 2009

So you are basically saying that anybody that has ever faught for any rights is an impersination of Bin Laden. Maybe you should have told that to the millions we have lost in wars before they joined up so that they wouldnt fight for something worth dieing for....or in your words be like Bin Laden.

After all....those who like their rights enough to die for them are a threat since they are willing to fight for those rights right? and i dont see how bin laden ties into willing to die for your rights. maybe you could explain that to me?

strut

"shall not be infringed" is that pretty hard to understand?

targetpuncher

No, I didn't say that anyone who has ever fought for their rights is "an impersonation of Bin Laden".... or anything of the sort. Did you read the post that I actually wrote ? We are talking about a set of rights which, even if abridged (and I for one hope that they NEVER are) would NOT constitute a threat to your life. Even if the laws were made such that the police could show up at your door to confiscate your guns.... that does not give you the right to use violence.
But, that is NOT even the major point. The most important point is, that, if anyone thinks that it's OK to use violence, let alone kill in furtherance of this issue (when loss of that right does NOT threaten that person's life)... then that person is little better than a criminal (the very act of using violence for such ends is universally considered a criminal act - in any country !) The expression of the attitude that it would be OK to use violence under such circumstances only gives those that would ban guns more "ammo" to use against us all.
Now, which part of this post do you not understand ?

targetpuncher

Your are "strutting" around the point, strut. If you actually READ my post(s)..... I am beginning to doubt that any of you have.... you see that I, in NO WAY, have ANY desire to take away anyone's rights (I HAVE NEVER ADVOCATED ANYTHING LIKE THAT !!) What I have been suggesting is that to use violence in furtherance of, what is essentially a political viewpoint (to defend your right to keep and bear arms).... when you are NOT threatened with violence yourselves.... would make you just as bad as the criminals you seek to defend against. Further, such threats and expressions of extreme emotion only give more cause to those that would take away your rights - because it gives the impression that one IS an extremist, after all.
Is THAT hard for you to understand ??

strut

Compromise, compromise, thats what has got all the gun laws on the books now, we have sat on our butts and let things happen, We as gunowners have compromised enough, we have given in enough, just as soon as we give in on one thing then its another. If you don't think the anti's are out to get ALL guns then you are believing a LIE. That is their whole agenda. IMO no compromise, no new gun laws and do away with about 95% of the ones we have. I don't care what the gun-grabbers and middle of the roaders as you call them think of me or gun-owners in general, they can KMA for all I care. I for one am fed up with their lies and deceit.

strut

This thread is about if and when they come to take your guns, I suppose the BATF, Police, Or Military will not be armed when they do come HUH? I suppose it will be a peace loving bunch and will do no arm to you if you decide to not let them in or turn your guns over peacefully to them.

You are the one "strutting" around the point not me.