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.
Forget secession, is there some way we can just kick Kommiefornia out of the US and build a wall (make them pay for it) to keep them from infecting the rest of us.
you would have to do the same with new york as well, they are just as bad.
how do you recommend we get all the guns out of the hands of criminals?
Get out and keep out? Imagine the black market alone on something like this coming through the unsecured borders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arleigh
Utopia does not exist.
Criminals wii choose any means to abuse , be it a gun or hands around your neck or a bomb .
Laws do not make bad people behave .
The only way to retain an equality is for all to have equal access to self defense .
The only law that works is one that is applied the same across the board . no exception for sanity, age, or status.
It is childish to think taking one thing away is going to solve a humanity problem .
BTW, many of the statistics for gun owners is not necessarily accurate , I know several folk that were polled and refused to acknowledge their gun ownership.
I was just talking t a gentleman today that does CCW training and many liberals are acquiring their CCW as well.
More people are seeing the light on gun ownership than the media might think. More than the government will admit.
That was my immediate thought, Utopia. I think a lot of us would love to have the perfect world but, unfortunatley, human nature seems to get in the way of that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamies
Forget secession, is there some way we can just kick Kommiefornia out of the US and build a wall (make them pay for it) to keep them from infecting the rest of us.
I was actually thinking of giving it to Mexico, just annex it on there and *** that wall along the border of CA. I don't think they can pay for their portion though, aren't they constantly in financial turmoil? "You reap what you sow." Makes sense.
Before I give my opinion on gun control and get labeled as a bleeding-heart liberal, let me say that I am a veteran, own a couple of guns and am politically conservatie on most issues. I'm also a registered Independant, and have voted both sides of the ticket in my time.
That said, I for the life of me cannot understand how all these great legal minds--like the Supreme Court--cannot see that the Founding Fathers were clearly speaking about a militia being well-armed in the 2nd Amendment.
I also truly believe that their times were SO different from ours, that if they were alive today and briefed on the gun violence stats in America that they would vote for gun control laws more strict than they thought were appropriate for their time, some 230 years ago.
As far as the poster who brought up Schindler's List, congrats! LOL--you just affirmed a long-held Internet Forum law (I forget it''s name but it's named after the guy who coined it, and it's in Wikipedia) that states it is only a matter of time before Nazi Germany is mentioned in ANY debate on human rights.
I think it is too easy to get a gun in America. And see no reason anybody needs an assault rifle. I am also of the opinion that the NRA has way too much lobbying power.
Very simple, they have no place in society, except in the hands of the military.
Most would be calling me an ultra liberal for my stand on this issue, but I am just the opposite.
I am a conservative republican.
Perhaps we need to understand the word "conservative" as it applies to some, but not all republicans.
Conservative people tend to want to preserve.
To conserve is to preserve something .
As a staunch defender of disarming the public, I am in fact in favor of preserving human life everywhere.
One way to preserve that life is to rid the country of all guns.
Bob.
Sorry Bob, but I must call bull on your claim to be a conservative. I must also call the same on how you define "want to preserve" within the context of this thread. If you were truly conservative, you would want to preserve the original intent of our Founding Fathers and the Constitution. All one needs to do is read the Federalist Papers to glean what those who ratified it meant regarding the 2nd Amendment to know you are on the wrong side of this issue.
While the FF's probably did not envision how life in our Republic would devolve into what it is today, most people owned and responsibility handled firearms back then. The minority inner cites with their gun and knife clubs spilling blood, and the occasional mass shooting are still small percentages of homicides in our country of 320 million+
Take those out, and crime with guns is infinitesimal compared with most other ways people kill themselves and each other.
Yet you'd be willing to ignore the primary reason our 2nd Amendment is enshrined, that being for the average citizen to be able to defend our Constitutional Republic from enemies, both foreign and DOMISTIC!
The emphasis is there because our FF's feared a government run amok could become tyrannical enough to scrap the Constitution, and the unarmed citizenry would be helpless to do anything about it.
As it stands now with a national standing military, the odds would be stacked heavily against the civilian citizens if the members of the armed forces were ever convinced to shirk their oath to protect and defend the Constitution. Truth be told, many in the armed services would disobey orders to use force against most of the populace. They might after years of brainwashing by the liberal media start seeing certain segments of the population as a threat and might be willing to forcibly engage them. But by and large a country with an estimate 300 million guns along with members of the military who wouldn't follow orders would be able to maintain an eventual stalemate to protect our Constitution even if the sitting government attempted to destroy it.
However without an armed citizenry, you can be assured the other parts of the Constitution would not be worth the paper it was written on, because only a well armed citizenry can protect it.
Before I give my opinion on gun control and get labeled as a bleeding-heart liberal, let me say that I am a veteran, own a couple of guns and am politically conservatie on most issues. I'm also a registered Independant, and have voted both sides of the ticket in my time.
That said, I for the life of me cannot understand how all these great legal minds--like the Supreme Court--cannot see that the Founding Fathers were clearly speaking about a militia being well-armed in the 2nd Amendment.
I also truly believe that their times were SO different from ours, that if they were alive today and briefed on the gun violence stats in America that they would vote for gun control laws more strict than they thought were appropriate for their time, some 230 years ago.
As far as the poster who brought up Schindler's List, congrats! LOL--you just affirmed a long-held Internet Forum law (I forget it''s name but it's named after the guy who coined it, and it's in Wikipedia) that states it is only a matter of time before Nazi Germany is mentioned in ANY debate on human rights.
I think it is too easy to get a gun in America. And see no reason anybody needs an assault rifle. I am also of the opinion that the NRA has way too much lobbying power.
once again i will post this to show that you are wrong;
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
Interesting responses, and I would expect no less from those who feel the 2nd amendment is under fire.
I believe only one or two, besides myself really understand what is in the 2nd amendment.
Most have turned it far from it's real meaning, to encompass the entire population of the country, when in fact, it is written to protect a militia, made up of citizens, not the general public.
Why else, if this were not the intention, are the words "a well regulated MILITIA" even in the amendment?
The FF wanted to insure all citizens who would be part of a militia, would not have their right to own a gun, infringed upon.
The second amendment has absolutely nothing to do with arming the entire populace, but only those who were willing to join a militia.
When "people" are mentioned in the 2nd, it refers to the "people" who make up a militia.
Where did any of you ever get the idea "people" meant the entire population of the country ?
None of us were around at the time the amendment was written, so many have their own interpretation as to what is meant by the wording in the amendment.
I have stated what I believe the amendment focused on, and others have their own idea.
The courts have said what they believe the original intent was, but the wording in the amendment speaks for itself.
If the FF had left out the words " a well regulated militia", it could have well meant the entire population was the focus, but they didn't omit those words.
They were in fact addressing the militia, and that they(the people who make up a militia) would be protected under the 2nd amendment.
Interesting responses, and I would expect no less from those who feel the 2nd amendment is under fire.
I believe only one or two, besides myself really understand what is in the 2nd amendment.
When you are the one or two people who "really" understand
something, perhaps it is you and your friend who are wrong.
I think society is looking at the wrong instrument of death. Since 1968 somewhere around 400,000 Americans have lost their lives due to civil violence. That's more people killed than in all the wars the US has fought. The real problem is society.
Interesting responses, and I would expect no less from those who feel the 2nd amendment is under fire.
I believe only one or two, besides myself really understand what is in the 2nd amendment.
Most have turned it far from it's real meaning, to encompass the entire population of the country, when in fact, it is written to protect a militia, made up of citizens, not the general public.
Why else, if this were not the intention, are the words "a well regulated MILITIA" even in the amendment?
The FF wanted to insure all citizens who would be part of a militia, would not have their right to own a gun, infringed upon.
The second amendment has absolutely nothing to do with arming the entire populace, but only those who were willing to join a militia.
When "people" are mentioned in the 2nd, it refers to the "people" who make up a militia.
Where did any of you ever get the idea "people" meant the entire population of the country ?
None of us were around at the time the amendment was written, so many have their own interpretation as to what is meant by the wording in the amendment.
I have stated what I believe the amendment focused on, and others have their own idea.
The courts have said what they believe the original intent was, but the wording in the amendment speaks for itself.
If the FF had left out the words " a well regulated militia", it could have well meant the entire population was the focus, but they didn't omit those words.
They were in fact addressing the militia, and that they(the people who make up a militia) would be protected under the 2nd amendment.
Bob.
there again you are WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!!!! please read this and understand it before you try to tell us what kind of "expert" you are on the second amendment;
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected.
Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
once oyu understand what is written here, you will understand what the founders intended when they wrote the second amendment. remember that we had just finished war of independence just eleven years earlier and the founders did NOT want a populace of subjects, but rather citizens. they did NOT want the government to have oversight of the people when it came to firearms.
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.
