Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Look "tough guy" with your gun. If you are such a wussy and a coward that you can't leave your house without your gun then just stay the &uck home!
you are sounding like you really believe that the cops have to respond to your 911 call? guess what, they do not even have to pick up the phone to answer your emergency call.
when seconds count, the cops are minutes or even hours away.
You are quoting the federalist papers? I referred to the constitutional convention.
But anyway the federalist papers were explicity opposed to adding the bill of rights to the constitution.
And Federalist Paper No. 29 said the Union has the power, "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS."
Militias are private citizens, who by default are the militia.
Yes and Heller vs. DC was a 2008 supreme court ruling overturning 200 years of legal precedent. As former Chief Justice Warren Burger (a Nixon appointee) said in 1990 the idea that the 2nd Amendment gives an unfettered individual right to gun ownership is, "a fraud on the American public." Justice Scalia is a politician not a judge. He is following the march of the NRA and the rightward drift of the American right since the 1970's. The arguments are flimsy at best.
Yeah the Supreme Court is not infallible, this is the very same court that upheld slavery, forced sterilization, segregation and interment of Americans during World War 2...They have been and are wrong many times..
And the opinions of fools are worth less then nothing.
The Constitution, not the Supreme Court is the final war.
Quote:
This is a bogus argument. Just take Baltimore: it is a city, not an island, near Virginia where getting guns is easy.
Crime/homicides have been falling for 20 years. The Brady Bill was passed in 1993 and that is when our very high homicide rates began to fall. Are you going to give credit there? There are many reasons for the sharp drop in homicides...more guns is definitely not one of them.
No, it is not a bogus argument, Virginia has laws which make self defense very easy for law abiding citizens, and do not restrict the right to keep and bear arms..Yet they have far lower crime rates..
How is that possible?
In the late 1980`s CCW laws were passed and in the 1990s more and more states passed them.
The Brady Bill did nothing to steam violence
I give credit to facts, not ideals and opinions...
Oh no wrong again friend more people carry a concealed firearm have proven to be the best deterrent and defense against criminals..
Sorry, but this is a really DUMB argument. You are comparing a very poor third world country where law and order are extremely weak to the USA? Compared to other industrialized democratic countries the US homicide rate is through the roof.[/quote]
I thought you said less guns and less crime? So you are telling me that criminals do not obey the law?
Also the term "industrialized" or Developed"
THe Crime Prevention Research Center has a much more sophisticated analysis of the “advanced and developed” scam. It’s just another way to cherry pick data to arrive at predetermined conclusions.
I don't assume that. I'm demonstrating how our global society has evolved to a more democratic-styled world. The pen has become mightier. I can see why that news would upset a gunlover.....
No it has not..
Tell that to the people of Laos.
Tell that to the people of China.
Tell that to the people of North Korea.
Tell that to the people of Vietnam.
Tell that to the people of Iran.
Tell that to the people of Syria.
Tell that to the people of Libya.
Tell that to the people of Cuba.
Tell that to the people of Eastern Ukraine.
I mean it, tell them.
Really the pen is mighter?
I have never seen a pen knock a 777 out the air.
I have never seen a Border Patrol Officer use a pen to defense his life.
I have never seen a Marines use pens to defend this nation..
I have never seen a law abiding person defend themselves with a pen...
I hate to break it to you but your opinion and reality are great difference.
Quote:
I don't ignore it. I've posted several time how crime has gone down due to better law enforcement, legislation, and technology.
A people stand up and accepting their responsibility for their personal safety has nothing to do with it?
States defending the right to bear arms outside the home has nothing to do with it?
Quote:
People still murder with murder laws, so don't try and lecture me about understanding criminals.
You seem oblivious to the fact that America has more crime and more guns than our peers.
Oh no I will lecture you, I am not the one wanting people to be disarmed and harmed..
Really?
You are aware that 15 other nations have a higher rate of murder then the United States right?
THe Crime Prevention Research Center has a much more sophisticated analysis of the “advanced and developed” scam. It’s just another way to cherry pick data to arrive at predetermined conclusions.
Let me guess by modern you mean more restrictions..Rights?
Quote:
It's so cute when you gunlovers get all emotional.... Don't worry, I think this country has much bigger issues than a bunch of Gunlovers and Whippersnappers crying over their guns. It's a forum, and I gave my opinion.
No matter what you say though, the 2nd amendment was for defense, not this specific notion of protecting against tyranny. That just makes a good bumper sticker when you throw in some our your out of context founding father quotes.
No, we are not emotional, we are just proactive have for great points built on facts.
Yes it does have bigger issues yet "some people" when to limit the rights of Americans based on opinions and emotions..
No it was for defense against any and all threats that would usurpe the liberty, lives, and property of the people of this nation, both foreign and domestic.
No they are in context you claim they are does not make them so, nor does your disagreement with the means and propose of he 2nd Amendment make them or it invalid.
Yes the notion of the right to bear of arms should be changed from over 200 years ago. No where have I advocated for the outright banning of firearms or the outright dissolution of the 2nd amendment.
Time is never static.
It certainly could. Amendments and laws over time, no? I understand why you want America to have laws stuck in the past when it benefits you.
Never is tyranny or the will and actions of tyrants..
How i s protecting rights and liberties considered "stuck"
You do know that less than 100 years ago the entire civilized world was overrun by tyrannical regimes, not once, but twice.
You also do know, that the only time Europe has had 70 years without tyrants and wars, is when we American taxpayers insured their Security. And we no longer wish or can afford to continue it.
You do also understand that a mere 24-25 years ago, half of Europe overthrew tyrannical regimes, by force, and many by blood-shedding.
You do know that Europe is in a political, demographic, and economic tailspin. You also know that we have our own big centralized Govt that keeps devouring individuals' and states" rights.
You can't be living in today's world, or can't have read less than introduction to History and Political Systems for Dummies.
You seem so uneducated, and ignorant of political systems in Europe. Tell me, why are the executive branches organized in the way that they are organized in Europe?
As I suggested in the very post you quoted, Article V of the U.S. Constitution provides a way for you to "modernize" the 2A. You get right on that. Contact your state and federal representatives, build a movement, and inspire change.
Until then, the "old, outdated version" of the 2A will remain. Why is this fairly juvenile concept so difficult for you guys to grasp? Do you not respect the rules and procedures of law?
LOL, not getting emotional. Why would I? My side is winning this battle where it counts. Just merely stating facts. If you don't like a law, change it. Until then, infringing upon it is a violation of the law.
Pretty obvious that you have an inadequate working knowledge of history pertaining to the 2A. I don't need to say much to prove you wrong. If you only took the time to realize the conditions that led to the drafting of the 2A, you'd know how wrong you were,, except I guess it's better to wallow in willful ignorance than to have to admit you are wrong though, huh? See, the anti-federalists were afraid that the new Federal Gov't would come in with a standing army and disarm the citizen militias in the several states. The founders also had a profound mistrust of any standing army. So, in order to pacify the concerns of the anti-federalists, and to reduce the need for a powerful standing army at the federal level, they enshrined the right of the people to keep and bear arms which enabled the several states to establish militias, in the form of the 2A..... A simple examination of a passage in Federalist 29 clearly demonstrates that I am right, or rather, just how wrong you are....
"""""""""""""""
Federalist 29:
"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped " it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia.
This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.
This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
"""""""""""
BOOOOOM!!!!! Now what?
btw, my services do not come free of charge. Where might I send the bill for the history lesson I just gave you?
Whipper, Please make a course about the 2nd Amendment and sell it via online..You can save alot of young minds for the indoctrination of the left.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
