We don't want to take your guns...read H.R. 4269

I was wondering the same thing, but I think the key is that he just wants his guns no matter what.

If he's eating scrambled eggs for breakfast, he wants his guns.

I was wondering the same thing, but I think the key is that he just wants his guns no matter what.

If he's eating scrambled eggs for breakfast, he wants his guns.

Reminded me of this video....

I was wondering the same thing, but I think the key is that he just wants his guns no matter what.

If he's eating scrambled eggs for breakfast, he wants his guns.

You just can't help yourself, can you?
 If he wants to eat his scrambled eggs naked, wrapped in the American flag, surrounded by guns, he can!
It's his right as an American citizen.
Just like it's your right not to.
Guaranteed by our founding fathers.
Paid for with the lives and blood of brave men and women.
 
Alex, you need to just stop.
This is a dead horse.
All you're doing now is trying to piss people off.

Caddy - I think you need to lighten up. That was a joke. Of course he can do whatever he wants.

This is a dead horse.
All you're doing now is trying to piss people off.

Meh....I found his " if universal background checks prevent one incident of nighttime gunfire in oakland then it's a win" comment was pretty funny.

The assumption that the government will always be there and be the same as it is today is invalid.  From war to terror attacks to cataclysmic natural disasters on local, regional, national or global scale, you can't assume that the government will always be there.

However, I'll concede the point for the sake of argument that the US government today could easily and quickly assert its will by force over its armed populace.  It doesn't change anything.

Where does he assume that the government will always be here? I think the context means present time not some distant future.

The assumption is implicit.  The statement is nonsensical if we remove the assumption.

Who says the future is distant?  There could be a power vacuum tomorrow.  If the Cascadia slips, I want my guns.  If there is another carrington event, I want my guns.  If north korea has actually minaturized a nuclear warhead and launches against the US, I want my guns.  If there is a concerted bio/chemical/nuclear terror attack against the US eastern seaboard, I want my guns. Etc.

Can you please explain how guns will help you in any of the events you described?

How is this hard to understand?  If there is a breakdown in society, those who are prepared with food, supplies, and medicine and want to keep them need to protect them.  Firearms are a  part of that equation and they certainly have their place. 

If there is a cascadia quake I expect that northern Humboldt would be effectively cut off for several weeks.  That is plenty of time for social structure to erode. Happens about every 300 years, last one was 316 years ago.

If there is a carrington type event then it might be several years before power is restored and people will be very much on their own for food, water, and every other basic need for a very long time.  It will be catastrophic.  Happens on average every 500 years.  Last one was 155 years ago.

I don't pretend to have an estimate of how people will react to a massive strike on the US.  Social order would break down if we can't feed ourselves. I want to protect my family which is why I'm prepared for such contingency situations.

Or do you really think everyone is going to hold hands and sing kumbaya waiting for the government to send help?

I was wondering the same thing, but I think the key is that he just wants his guns no matter what.

If he's eating scrambled eggs for breakfast, he wants his guns.

Alex, you need to just stop.
This is a dead horse.
All you're doing now is trying to piss people off.

Beauty of the First Amendment, he doesn't have to.

The assumption that the government will always be there and be the same as it is today is invalid.  From war to terror attacks to cataclysmic natural disasters on local, regional, national or global scale, you can't assume that the government will always be there.

However, I'll concede the point for the sake of argument that the US government today could easily and quickly assert its will by force over its armed populace.  It doesn't change anything.

Where does he assume that the government will always be here? I think the context means present time not some distant future.

The assumption is implicit.  The statement is nonsensical if we remove the assumption.

Who says the future is distant?  There could be a power vacuum tomorrow.  If the Cascadia slips, I want my guns.  If there is another carrington event, I want my guns.  If north korea has actually minaturized a nuclear warhead and launches against the US, I want my guns.  If there is a concerted bio/chemical/nuclear terror attack against the US eastern seaboard, I want my guns. Etc.

Can you please explain how guns will help you in any of the events you described?

How is this hard to understand?  If there is a breakdown in society, those who are prepared with food, supplies, and medicine and want to keep them need to protect them.  Firearms are a  part of that equation and they certainly have their place. 

If there is a cascadia quake I expect that northern Humboldt would be effectively cut off for several weeks.  That is plenty of time for social structure to erode. Happens about every 300 years, last one was 316 years ago.

If there is a carrington type event then it might be several years before power is restored and people will be very much on their own for food, water, and every other basic need for a very long time.  It will be catastrophic.  Happens on average every 500 years.  Last one was 155 years ago.

I don't pretend to have an estimate of how people will react to a massive strike on the US.  Social order would break down if we can't feed ourselves. I want to protect my family which is why I'm prepared for such contingency situations.

Or do you really think everyone is going to hold hands and sing kumbaya waiting for the government to send help?

HaHa the Gov is going to be too busy re-establishing internet connections so people can check their facebook acct.

The assumption that the government will always be there and be the same as it is today is invalid.  From war to terror attacks to cataclysmic natural disasters on local, regional, national or global scale, you can't assume that the government will always be there.

However, I'll concede the point for the sake of argument that the US government today could easily and quickly assert its will by force over its armed populace.  It doesn't change anything.

Where does he assume that the government will always be here? I think the context means present time not some distant future.

The assumption is implicit.  The statement is nonsensical if we remove the assumption.

Who says the future is distant?  There could be a power vacuum tomorrow.  If the Cascadia slips, I want my guns.  If there is another carrington event, I want my guns.  If north korea has actually minaturized a nuclear warhead and launches against the US, I want my guns.  If there is a concerted bio/chemical/nuclear terror attack against the US eastern seaboard, I want my guns. Etc.

Can you please explain how guns will help you in any of the events you described?

How is this hard to understand?  If there is a breakdown in society, those who are prepared with food, supplies, and medicine and want to keep them need to protect them.  Firearms are a  part of that equation and they certainly have their place. 

If there is a cascadia quake I expect that northern Humboldt would be effectively cut off for several weeks.  That is plenty of time for social structure to erode. Happens about every 300 years, last one was 316 years ago.

If there is a carrington type event then it might be several years before power is restored and people will be very much on their own for food, water, and every other basic need for a very long time.  It will be catastrophic.  Happens on average every 500 years.  Last one was 155 years ago.

I don't pretend to have an estimate of how people will react to a massive strike on the US.  Social order would break down if we can't feed ourselves. I want to protect my family which is why I'm prepared for such contingency situations.

Or do you really think everyone is going to hold hands and sing kumbaya waiting for the government to send help?

HaHa the Gov is going to be too busy re-establishing internet connections so people can check their facebook acct.

fuck this gap in the earth, we're running fiber through it

The assumption that the government will always be there and be the same as it is today is invalid.  From war to terror attacks to cataclysmic natural disasters on local, regional, national or global scale, you can't assume that the government will always be there.

However, I'll concede the point for the sake of argument that the US government today could easily and quickly assert its will by force over its armed populace.  It doesn't change anything.

Where does he assume that the government will always be here? I think the context means present time not some distant future.

The assumption is implicit.  The statement is nonsensical if we remove the assumption.

Who says the future is distant?  There could be a power vacuum tomorrow.  If the Cascadia slips, I want my guns.  If there is another carrington event, I want my guns.  If north korea has actually minaturized a nuclear warhead and launches against the US, I want my guns.  If there is a concerted bio/chemical/nuclear terror attack against the US eastern seaboard, I want my guns. Etc.

Can you please explain how guns will help you in any of the events you described?

How is this hard to understand?  If there is a breakdown in society, those who are prepared with food, supplies, and medicine and want to keep them need to protect them.  Firearms are a  part of that equation and they certainly have their place. 

If there is a cascadia quake I expect that northern Humboldt would be effectively cut off for several weeks.  That is plenty of time for social structure to erode. Happens about every 300 years, last one was 316 years ago.

If there is a carrington type event then it might be several years before power is restored and people will be very much on their own for food, water, and every other basic need for a very long time.  It will be catastrophic.  Happens on average every 500 years.  Last one was 155 years ago.

I don't pretend to have an estimate of how people will react to a massive strike on the US.  Social order would break down if we can't feed ourselves. I want to protect my family which is why I'm prepared for such contingency situations.

Or do you really think everyone is going to hold hands and sing kumbaya waiting for the government to send help?

So are you saying you need guns to protect yourself and your family from other armed Americans who may try to harm you or take your property by force when a natural disaster hits and the government is unable to assist you in a timely manner?

I was wondering the same thing, but I think the key is that he just wants his guns no matter what.

If he's eating scrambled eggs for breakfast, he wants his guns.

Alex, you need to just stop.
This is a dead horse.
All you're doing now is trying to piss people off.

Beauty of the First Amendment, he doesn't have to.

It sure is!

The assumption that the government will always be there and be the same as it is today is invalid.  From war to terror attacks to cataclysmic natural disasters on local, regional, national or global scale, you can't assume that the government will always be there.

However, I'll concede the point for the sake of argument that the US government today could easily and quickly assert its will by force over its armed populace.  It doesn't change anything.

Where does he assume that the government will always be here? I think the context means present time not some distant future.

The assumption is implicit.  The statement is nonsensical if we remove the assumption.

Who says the future is distant?  There could be a power vacuum tomorrow.  If the Cascadia slips, I want my guns.  If there is another carrington event, I want my guns.  If north korea has actually minaturized a nuclear warhead and launches against the US, I want my guns.  If there is a concerted bio/chemical/nuclear terror attack against the US eastern seaboard, I want my guns. Etc.

Can you please explain how guns will help you in any of the events you described?

How is this hard to understand?  If there is a breakdown in society, those who are prepared with food, supplies, and medicine and want to keep them need to protect them.  Firearms are a  part of that equation and they certainly have their place. 

If there is a cascadia quake I expect that northern Humboldt would be effectively cut off for several weeks.  That is plenty of time for social structure to erode. Happens about every 300 years, last one was 316 years ago.

If there is a carrington type event then it might be several years before power is restored and people will be very much on their own for food, water, and every other basic need for a very long time.  It will be catastrophic.  Happens on average every 500 years.  Last one was 155 years ago.

I don't pretend to have an estimate of how people will react to a massive strike on the US.  Social order would break down if we can't feed ourselves. I want to protect my family which is why I'm prepared for such contingency situations.

Or do you really think everyone is going to hold hands and sing kumbaya waiting for the government to send help?

So are you saying you need guns to protect yourself and your family from other armed Americans who may try to harm you or take your property by force when a natural disaster hits and the government is unable to assist you in a timely manner?

They may or may not be armed, but yes.  That is one of the reasons that I want my guns.

This is a dead horse.
All you're doing now is trying to piss people off.

Meh....I found his " if universal background checks prevent one incident of nighttime gunfire in oakland then it's a win" comment was pretty funny.

Glad you enjoyed it.

The assumption that the government will always be there and be the same as it is today is invalid.  From war to terror attacks to cataclysmic natural disasters on local, regional, national or global scale, you can't assume that the government will always be there.

However, I'll concede the point for the sake of argument that the US government today could easily and quickly assert its will by force over its armed populace.  It doesn't change anything.

Where does he assume that the government will always be here? I think the context means present time not some distant future.

The assumption is implicit.  The statement is nonsensical if we remove the assumption.

Who says the future is distant?  There could be a power vacuum tomorrow.  If the Cascadia slips, I want my guns.  If there is another carrington event, I want my guns.  If north korea has actually minaturized a nuclear warhead and launches against the US, I want my guns.  If there is a concerted bio/chemical/nuclear terror attack against the US eastern seaboard, I want my guns. Etc.

Can you please explain how guns will help you in any of the events you described?

How is this hard to understand?  If there is a breakdown in society, those who are prepared with food, supplies, and medicine and want to keep them need to protect them.  Firearms are a  part of that equation and they certainly have their place. 

If there is a cascadia quake I expect that northern Humboldt would be effectively cut off for several weeks.  That is plenty of time for social structure to erode. Happens about every 300 years, last one was 316 years ago.

If there is a carrington type event then it might be several years before power is restored and people will be very much on their own for food, water, and every other basic need for a very long time.  It will be catastrophic.  Happens on average every 500 years.  Last one was 155 years ago.

I don't pretend to have an estimate of how people will react to a massive strike on the US.  Social order would break down if we can't feed ourselves. I want to protect my family which is why I'm prepared for such contingency situations.

Or do you really think everyone is going to hold hands and sing kumbaya waiting for the government to send help?

So are you saying you need guns to protect yourself and your family from other armed Americans who may try to harm you or take your property by force when a natural disaster hits and the government is unable to assist you in a timely manner?

They may or may not be armed, but yes.  That is one of the reasons that I want my guns.

Using someone elses gun is like rental bowling shoes ... eeewww 

Can you please explain how guns will help you in any of the events you described?

How is this hard to understand?  If there is a breakdown in society, those who are prepared with food, supplies, and medicine and want to keep them need to protect them.  Firearms are a  part of that equation and they certainly have their place. 

If there is a cascadia quake I expect that northern Humboldt would be effectively cut off for several weeks.  That is plenty of time for social structure to erode. Happens about every 300 years, last one was 316 years ago.

If there is a carrington type event then it might be several years before power is restored and people will be very much on their own for food, water, and every other basic need for a very long time.  It will be catastrophic.  Happens on average every 500 years.  Last one was 155 years ago.

I don't pretend to have an estimate of how people will react to a massive strike on the US.  Social order would break down if we can't feed ourselves. I want to protect my family which is why I'm prepared for such contingency situations.

Or do you really think everyone is going to hold hands and sing kumbaya waiting for the government to send help?

So are you saying you need guns to protect yourself and your family from other armed Americans who may try to harm you or take your property by force when a natural disaster hits and the government is unable to assist you in a timely manner?

They may or may not be armed, but yes.  That is one of the reasons that I want my guns.

You seem to have a very pessimistic view of your fellow Americans. With your logic, once you run out of resources, you would act in a similar manner and use your guns to take other unarmed citizen's properties and impose your will upon them?