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.
Following the PROPER procedure as laid out in the Constitution... which is NOT being done now, or in the past. changing an amendment is NOT just a matter of passing a law or even getting a simple majority of the people to back such a change. Maybe you should actually read the Constitution.
Both Presidents Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan were shot at and Reagan was wounded. If Lynette Fromme, Sarah Jane Moore or John Hinckley had been a better shot or had a better gun both Gerald Ford and Ronald reagan might have many schools, major airports, their likenesses on US currency and nice memorials in Arlington National Cemetary. Prehaps Jerry Ford and Ronald Regan have a personal understanding that the unchecked profussion of firearms in the hands of crazy people might be a threat to the life, liberty and happiness of all Americans. Afterall a gun shot wound can make for a very bad day and the consequences can last a lifetime if you are lucky.
Then get the crazies the help they need, not strip rights away from innocent law-abiding citizens. It has been shown and proven over and over, more laws do NOT mean a thing to the crazies, the only ones affected by them are the ones who don't cause the problems in the first place. If strict gun control worked and more laws were the answer, then Chicago would be the safest city in the US... yeah that is working out real well for them isn't it. The criminals don't give a rats ass, the law abiding citizens though are sitting ducks for those who don't care how many laws there are, or how many they are breaking. More laws just make it so those who would do bad, don't face any real opposition to their whims.
Just a few exerpts from the link that debunks the twisted inerpretation of The 2nd Amendment by the radical right...
Quote:
You see the Second Amendment was not originally viewed as some “libertarian” right to kill representatives of the elected government – as some on the Right now fantasize – but rather the collective right of each state to maintain its own militia drawing from white male citizens who were expected to show up with their own guns. The Constitution also gave the President the power to federalize the state militias for the purpose of defending the Republic.
The Second Amendment should be understood, too, in the context of the follow-on Militia Acts enacted by the Second Congress. They mandated that white military-aged men obtain muskets and other military supplies for service in state militias. President George Washington then took command of several state militias to put down the Whiskey Rebellion in western Pennsylvania.
So, contrary to the Tea Party’s desired “history,” the initial use of the Second Amendment and the Militia Acts was to crush an anti-tax revolt in rural Pennsylvania. A similar uprising in western Massachusetts – the Shays Rebellion – was also fresh in the minds of Washington and other Framers, since it was one reason they went to Philadelphia in 1787 to throw out the ineffective Articles of Confederation and start over with a new Constitution.
But the Framers clearly did not embrace the modern “libertarian” notion that disgruntled Americans should have personal arsenals so they can shoot police, soldiers or other government representatives. In fact, the Framers had a word for such activity. They called it “treason,” which was the charge brought against some leaders of the Whiskey Rebellion who were sentenced to hang (although Washington used his pardoning power to stop the executions).
If you’re not sure that the Framers really did disdain insurrection against the new Republic, you can look it up in the Constitution. Treason is defined as “levying war against” the United States as well as giving “Aid and Comfort” to the enemy (Article III, Section 3). Article IV, Section 4 further committed the federal government to protect each state from not only invasion but “domestic Violence.” There’s also language about insuring “domestic Tranquility.”
Hmmm....I think some things are getting lost in translation. While there are certain groups and individuals, who do advocate governmental change, by force of arms, the rank and file shooting community does not. Much has been made of the intent of the framers.
One consistent argument, from firearms rights opponents, is that the framer could not have envisioned the changes in firearms technology, that we have today. Therefore, semi auto versions of our current service rifle, should not be in civilian hands. The framers would not have wanted such rifles to be in militia hands.
Then there is this notion, that American gun owners want to start shooting cops and soldiers out of hand. Meh. Whatever. But, moving along, in the context of framer forsight, another thing that, by the logic we are using here, that the framers did not envision, is the Republic turning on the people. A coup, if you will. Personally, I don't feel these men were shortsighted, at all. But I digress. When most of the armed with community thinks about the need to take up arms, against the government, this would be in response to treason BY the government. A dictator, seizing control and using the armed corces, police, etc to impose his will. Nullifying the Constitution, and turning the US into a dictatorship.
I agree, that overt rebellion, just shooting at cops, Federal agents, what have you, without the aforementioned factor,or something similar, in play, would be treason. We are all on the same team till somebody makes a situation that changes the rules. Most militia minded people, out here, think about PRESERVATION of the republic, the Constitution, and the rights and freedom those imply. Not the rebellious destruction of these things. Hell, I am not denying that there are demented groups out there that do want to overthrow the existing government. Cretins that hang out in remote compounds, goose stepping to German marching music and tossing Nazi salutes. Violent, militant, eco wackos, that want us back in the stone age. Anarchists, that see themselves as warlords under a feudal system. Takes all kinds, they say.
However, it can be counted on, that folks like me, and there are a LOT of us, will hold arms AGAINST these types. We will defend our communities, our homes, our families, and our Nation. So, bring it on. Regardless of what enemy must be taken down.
I can see, fighting side by side, with cops and soldiers, to defend our communities from groups that would do harm. That includes government coup. I find the likelyhood of having to fight wacko neo nazi types, more plausible.
We The People, who are armed, out here, don't see, every single other citizen, or vroups of, with a guns, as being our friends.
Then get the crazies the help they need, not strip rights away from innocent law-abiding citizens. It has been shown and proven over and over, more laws do NOT mean a thing to the crazies, the only ones affected by them are the ones who don't cause the problems in the first place. If strict gun control worked and more laws were the answer, then Chicago would be the safest city in the US... yeah that is working out real well for them isn't it. The criminals don't give a rats ass, the law abiding citizens though are sitting ducks for those who don't care how many laws there are, or how many they are breaking. More laws just make it so those who would do bad, don't face any real opposition to their whims.
Chicago gun laws mean nothing when a denizen of Chicago can hop into his car and make a quick drive up I94 to Wisconsin or I80 or the Pulaski Skyway and be in Indiana where there are no serious gun laws. Illinois doesn't have check points or customs at the state line to deter one from sneaking all the guns you can stuff into a car or truck so Chicago gun laws don't mean all that much. The same is true for any city on the East Coast or even California. As for getting the crazies the help that they need are you one of these Americans who wants to require that every one who might be crazy get a manditory mental health examination and if found mentally abnormal be taken out of circulation or forced to undergo treatment. Would a mental health registry be any more a threat to freedom or privacy than a gun registry? Should doctories be forced to report mental abnormality under the pain of legal penalty? Oh I get it. You are one of these right wing boobs who screem bloody murder if someone forces you to think about the other guy but if the other guy is someoine you think unworthy them that poor guy can be socked with the brutal hand of a vengeful right wing America!
My guess is that Reagan would be a conservative Democrat now.
my guess is JFK would be considered a radial mailitarist now with his view on defeat of socialism and communsim. he even scares mnay conseravtive having heard his recording.Reagan was a politcian in the meanig of the work. he knew that it was a mtter of compormising to get as much as you could done. Clinton was the same and mnay forget his having compormise with Gingrich to get a deal on budget. The difference of course was difference i what they want to get in the compromise between Reagan and Clinton. Remmber it was Clinton who sad that i a center right country you cannot governas from the left which i think Obama is learning. Politics is the art of compromise. The consent of the governed is always important which is why Bush's medicare prescrptio drug is accepted while Obams ACA isn't;thre was no compromise for opositon to support.
What do I think of ANY President who pushes gun control. They should be tried and found guilty of treason, then hung. I don't give a rats ass if they are Republican or Democrat; whoever would promote gun control is directly against the 2nd Amendment and against the Constitution.
Times have changed since 1791 don't you think. The guns they had in those days were pea shooters compared to what we have now. We need regulations that reflect our society today and there is nothing wrong with that.
Times have changed since 1791 don't you think. The guns they had in those days were pea shooters compared to what we have now. We need regulations that reflect our society today and there is nothing wrong with that.
I'll tell you what natalie.... I will go back to using a musket if you will go back to shouting off your front porch to communicate...
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.
