Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-07-2014, 06:28 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles, CA
546 posts, read 814,827 times
Reputation: 449

Advertisements

The antiquated 2nd Amendment needs to be repealed. None other then conservative columnist George Will suggested we repeal the "embarassing" 2nd Amendment way back in 1991.

George Will Second Amendment | How Embarrassing: The Constitution Protects the Guns that Kill - Baltimore Sun

I have not checked recently but I am guessing Will may have changed his mind. I don't know and I don't care.

The 2nd Amendment is a blemish on the U.S. constitution....and our gun culture is an embarassing national shame.

No offense to the honest hunters out there. That can be sensibly regulated. But it is the gun nuts who insist they walk into coffee shops and public places with guns that make me sick. Grown men who still want to play army. I'll leave that to our professional men and women in the U.S. military.

And spare me the paranoid speeches about the tyrannical government that is going to knock down your door with the barrel of a gun pointing at your paranoid mind. The government has stockpiles and stockpiles of nuclear weapons. No amount of private gun ownership could stand up to that. A strong democracy does not or should not need such a foolish notion to thrive.

I know I'll be long dead before this ever has a chance of happening...seems the lunatics have taken over. That is the lunatics at the NRA have their fists up the a&* of our elected leaders in Congress.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-07-2014, 06:52 PM
 
33,387 posts, read 34,683,351 times
Reputation: 20028
this is exactly what the gun grabbers in this country want. they are doing their best to get the people to want to repeal the second amendment, even those that should know better. if you really think this would just mean more so called "sensible" gun laws, you are sadly mistaken. once the second is repealed, you can bet that every gun grabber, and every criminal will be throwing a huge party because they know that it wont be long before all those guns that are legally carried and owned will be outlawed, and that leaves society essentially defenseless.

as for the stock piles of nuclear weapons, you are daft if you think that the government would use them against its own population within its own boundaries.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-07-2014, 06:58 PM
 
7,413 posts, read 6,201,166 times
Reputation: 6660
Sieg Heil!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-07-2014, 07:06 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles
14,361 posts, read 9,748,555 times
Reputation: 6663
Oh yes... let's see

We should repeal the 2nd, and Dems are at this very moment trying to repeal at least portions of the 1st amendment. So basically the OP is saying "we should destroy the constitution!"

Without the 1st and 2nd, the rest is just kindling.

I love how a conservative is right if the view fits your meme. In this case, he is not right, and even less so now.

Why don't you post other Will tidbits like:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/george-wi...of-difference/

Now THAT he is right about.

Last edited by steven_h; 06-07-2014 at 07:17 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-07-2014, 07:25 PM
 
Location: Las Vegas,Nevada
9,282 posts, read 6,718,252 times
Reputation: 1531
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProjectMersh View Post
The antiquated 2nd Amendment needs to be repealed. None other then conservative columnist George Will suggested we repeal the "embarassing" 2nd Amendment way back in 1991.

George Will Second Amendment | How Embarrassing: The Constitution Protects the Guns that Kill - Baltimore Sun

I have not checked recently but I am guessing Will may have changed his mind. I don't know and I don't care.

The 2nd Amendment is a blemish on the U.S. constitution....and our gun culture is an embarassing national shame.

No offense to the honest hunters out there. That can be sensibly regulated. But it is the gun nuts who insist they walk into coffee shops and public places with guns that make me sick. Grown men who still want to play army. I'll leave that to our professional men and women in the U.S. military.

And spare me the paranoid speeches about the tyrannical government that is going to knock down your door with the barrel of a gun pointing at your paranoid mind. The government has stockpiles and stockpiles of nuclear weapons. No amount of private gun ownership could stand up to that. A strong democracy does not or should not need such a foolish notion to thrive.

I know I'll be long dead before this ever has a chance of happening...seems the lunatics have taken over. That is the lunatics at the NRA have their fists up the a&* of our elected leaders in Congress.
Any government that would even entertain the idea of using Nuclear arms against their own people by default has lost any and all moral and legal right to lead.

You will be long dead before it will ever happen, because it will never happen...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-07-2014, 07:28 PM
 
Location: Bel Air, California
23,769 posts, read 28,900,954 times
Reputation: 37326
well, that's that then isn't it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-07-2014, 07:34 PM
 
Location: Las Vegas,Nevada
9,282 posts, read 6,718,252 times
Reputation: 1531
Quote:
Originally Posted by aplcr0331 View Post
THE ANTI GUN MALE - Julia Gorin

LET'S be honest. He's scared of the thing. That's understandable--so am I. But as a girl I have the luxury of being able to admit it. I don't have to masquerade squeamishness as grand principle-in the interest of mankind, no less.

A man does. He has to say things like "One Taniqua Hall is one too many," as a New York radio talk show host did in referring to the 9-year old New York girl who was accidentally shot last year by her 12-year old cousin playing with his uncle's gun. But the truth is he desperately needs Taniqua Hall, just like he needs as many Columbines and Santees as can be mustered, until they spell an end to the Second Amendment. And not for the benefit of the masses, but for the benefit of his self-esteem.

He often accuses men with guns of "compensating for something." The truth is quite the reverse. After all, how is he supposed to feel knowing there are men out there who aren't intimidated by the big bad inanimate villain? How is he to feel in the face of adolescent boys who have used the family gun effectively in defending the family from an armed intruder? So if he can't touch a gun, he doesn't want other men to be able to either. And to achieve his ends, he'll use the only weapon he knows how to manipulate: the law.

Of course, sexual and psychological insecurities don't account for ALL men against guns. Certainly there must be some whose motives are pure, who perhaps do care so much as to tirelessly look for policy solutions to teenage void and aggressiveness, and to parent and teacher negligence. But for a potentially large underlying contributor, psycho-sexual inadequacy has gone unexplored and unacknowledged. It's one thing to not be comfortable with a firearm and therefore opt to not keep or bear one. But it's another to impose the same handicap onto others.

People are suspicious of what they do not know-and not only does this man not know how to use a gun, he doesn't know the men who do, or the number of people who have successfully used one to defend themselves from injury or death. But he is better left in the dark; his life is hard enough knowing there are men out there who don't sit cross-legged. That they're able to handle a firearm instead of being handled by it would be too much to bear.

Such a man is also best kept huddled in urban centers, where he feels safer than he might if thrown out on his own into a rural setting, in an isolated house on a quiet street where he would feel naked and helpless. Lacking the confidence that would permit him to be sequestered in sparseness, and lacking a gun, he finds comfort in the cloister of crowds.

The very ownership of a gun for defense of home and family implies some assertiveness and a certain self-reliance. But if our man kept a gun in the house, and an intruder broke in and started attacking his wife in front of him, he wouldn't be able to later say, "He had a knife--there was nothing I could do!" Passively watching in horror while already trying to make peace with the violent act, scheduling a therapy session and forgiving the perpetrator before the attack is even finished wouldn't be the option it otherwise is.

No. Better to emasculate all men. Because let's face it: He's a lover, not a fighter. And he doesn't want to get shot in case he has an affair with your wife.

Of course, it wouldn't be completely honest not to admit that owning a firearm carries with it some risk to unintended targets. That's the tradeoff with a gun: The right to defend one's life and way of life isn't without peril to oneself. And the last thing this man wants to do is risk his life-if even to save it. For he is guided by a dread fear for his life, and has more confidence in almost anyone else's ability to protect him than his own, preferring to place himself at the mercy of the villain or in the sporadically competent hands of authorities (his line of defense consisting of locks, alarm systems, reasoning with the attacker, calling the police or, should fighting back occur to him, thrashing a heavy vase).

In short, he is a man begging for subjugation. He longs for its promise of equality in helplessness. Because only when that strange, independent alpha breed of male is helpless along with him will he feel adequate. Indeed, his freedom lies in this other man's containment.
Amen!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-07-2014, 07:42 PM
 
33,387 posts, read 34,683,351 times
Reputation: 20028
Quote:
Originally Posted by aplcr0331 View Post
THE ANTI GUN MALE - Julia Gorin

LET'S be honest. He's scared of the thing. That's understandable--so am I. But as a girl I have the luxury of being able to admit it. I don't have to masquerade squeamishness as grand principle-in the interest of mankind, no less.

A man does. He has to say things like "One Taniqua Hall is one too many," as a New York radio talk show host did in referring to the 9-year old New York girl who was accidentally shot last year by her 12-year old cousin playing with his uncle's gun. But the truth is he desperately needs Taniqua Hall, just like he needs as many Columbines and Santees as can be mustered, until they spell an end to the Second Amendment. And not for the benefit of the masses, but for the benefit of his self-esteem.

He often accuses men with guns of "compensating for something." The truth is quite the reverse. After all, how is he supposed to feel knowing there are men out there who aren't intimidated by the big bad inanimate villain? How is he to feel in the face of adolescent boys who have used the family gun effectively in defending the family from an armed intruder? So if he can't touch a gun, he doesn't want other men to be able to either. And to achieve his ends, he'll use the only weapon he knows how to manipulate: the law.

Of course, sexual and psychological insecurities don't account for ALL men against guns. Certainly there must be some whose motives are pure, who perhaps do care so much as to tirelessly look for policy solutions to teenage void and aggressiveness, and to parent and teacher negligence. But for a potentially large underlying contributor, psycho-sexual inadequacy has gone unexplored and unacknowledged. It's one thing to not be comfortable with a firearm and therefore opt to not keep or bear one. But it's another to impose the same handicap onto others.

People are suspicious of what they do not know-and not only does this man not know how to use a gun, he doesn't know the men who do, or the number of people who have successfully used one to defend themselves from injury or death. But he is better left in the dark; his life is hard enough knowing there are men out there who don't sit cross-legged. That they're able to handle a firearm instead of being handled by it would be too much to bear.

Such a man is also best kept huddled in urban centers, where he feels safer than he might if thrown out on his own into a rural setting, in an isolated house on a quiet street where he would feel naked and helpless. Lacking the confidence that would permit him to be sequestered in sparseness, and lacking a gun, he finds comfort in the cloister of crowds.

The very ownership of a gun for defense of home and family implies some assertiveness and a certain self-reliance. But if our man kept a gun in the house, and an intruder broke in and started attacking his wife in front of him, he wouldn't be able to later say, "He had a knife--there was nothing I could do!" Passively watching in horror while already trying to make peace with the violent act, scheduling a therapy session and forgiving the perpetrator before the attack is even finished wouldn't be the option it otherwise is.

No. Better to emasculate all men. Because let's face it: He's a lover, not a fighter. And he doesn't want to get shot in case he has an affair with your wife.

Of course, it wouldn't be completely honest not to admit that owning a firearm carries with it some risk to unintended targets. That's the tradeoff with a gun: The right to defend one's life and way of life isn't without peril to oneself. And the last thing this man wants to do is risk his life-if even to save it. For he is guided by a dread fear for his life, and has more confidence in almost anyone else's ability to protect him than his own, preferring to place himself at the mercy of the villain or in the sporadically competent hands of authorities (his line of defense consisting of locks, alarm systems, reasoning with the attacker, calling the police or, should fighting back occur to him, thrashing a heavy vase).

In short, he is a man begging for subjugation. He longs for its promise of equality in helplessness. Because only when that strange, independent alpha breed of male is helpless along with him will he feel adequate. Indeed, his freedom lies in this other man's containment.
BRAVO!!! well said my friend, very well said.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-07-2014, 07:42 PM
 
Location: Chesterfield,Virginia
4,919 posts, read 4,817,827 times
Reputation: 2659
These idiots who want to take away the guns never think beyond the myna bird talking points.

(I actually give them too much credit by saying that they 'think')

Repeal the second and they, along with all other law abiding citizens are nothing more than prey for the criminal predator!

Quote:
I like your stuff .. I want it and since I don't obey the law, I have a gun and I'll use it!
The old saying holds true today more than ever: When Guns Are Outlawed, Only The Outlaws Will Have Guns!

Idiots .. Everyone of them!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-07-2014, 07:43 PM
 
33,387 posts, read 34,683,351 times
Reputation: 20028
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrClose View Post
Repeal the second and they, along with all other law abiding citizens are nothing more than prey for the criminal predator!
including the government ones.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top