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.
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.
I believe they are nothing but killing machines.
There are many ways to eradicate a human life besides guns, but guns seem to be the predominant weapon of choice, so they must be dealt with first.
As a conservative, I see a problem with society, and it's use of deadly gunfire, and my gut feeling is to lash out at the source.
Look at the problem for what it is, and find the best solution to fix it.
With a tough issue like gun control, one can't please everyone.
Some will have to sacrifice long held beliefs, for the good of all.
As a conservative, do I think the 2nd amendment should be preserved ?
To answer that, it would take the best scholars in the world to interpret just what the founding fathers meant in their ambiguous wording of the amendment.
As it is written, I would re-write it to reflect the world we live in today.
'A well regulated militia, the people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed."
It is as if two different subjects were being discussed at the same time, and both made it into the second amendment, even tho they are completely unrelated, unless of course they looked on a militia as being ordinary citizens who voluntarily took up arms in the time of war.
I feel this is the thinking behind the 2nd amendment.
Taking it at that value, the amendment would only allow for citizens to bare arms in time of war, and that right will not be infringed.
I would preserve that meaning of the amendment, and not let it be clouded by the unfounded desire of the public at large to be armed and protected under the amendment.
As a conservative, I feel it necessary to preserve the rule of law written into the constitution, but only if those laws are clear, and unabated, which obviously the 2ndamendment is not.
Bob.
what to get rid of the firearms in the USA? fine, disarm all cops, military, criminals and the feds 1st. then and only then can you ask for the law abiding citizens to give their up.\
you might say you are conservative, but you are a california conservative, when means you are way left of Wyoming democrats.
Once again, you are confusing just who the "people " mentioned in the2nd actually are.
No where does it state John q. Public, but rather, the "Militia" is being addressed.
The people who formed, and will form in the future, a militia, are the ones mentioned, and protected by the 2nd amendment.
You obviously need to read that amendment until you get it's true meaning.
You, and all the others are just looking for a way to vilify your need o have a gun.
Bob.
again your show your own ignorance. did you even bother to read the link i posted? probably not, you probably didnt even bother to read what i quoted from that link. the intent of the founders when they used the phrase, "the people", they in fact meant the individual citizen, and this has been ruled by the scotus to be a fact. sorry but you are completely wrong on that. if they had intended the term "the people" to mean the militia, then they would have said "the militia". even in the preamble to the constitution it starts off with WE THE PEOPLE, in big bold letters not we the militia. try reading what the founders actually intended, not what you think in your warped little mind think they intended.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CALGUY
Obviously you have never witnessed a well trained Shepherd in combative mode.
I doubt there is one person in the entire world that would confront a trained Shepherd.
Bob.
yes i have, and any dog can be defeated, even without a gun. a bowie knife or a K-bar would do quite nicely as well thank you. dogs do not rationalize, they do not think, they react, and they follow their instincts and training. once you understand that, you can defeat any dog, including a pittbull.
You are absolutely wrong.
No black market in guns would spring up, because the penalty from being caught with a gun would be 10 years, or life in prison with out parole.
There goes the incentive for a black market.
Don't kid yourself there is no such thing as "never".
Many are already giving this amendment a lot of consideration.
Bob.
No, incorrect. If there is a demand for something someone will fill that demand. For example certain drugs are illegal, and carry long prison sentences if one is caught with them, or large quantities of them. Even with the threat of a long sentence in prison the illegal drug market is thriving.
You are absolutely wrong.
No black market in guns would spring up, because the penalty from being caught with a gun would be 10 years, or life in prison with out parole.
There goes the incentive for a black market.
Don't kid yourself there is no such thing as "never".
Many are already giving this amendment a lot of consideration.
Bob.
The penalty for being caught with large quantities of alcohol during prohibition was up to ten years. Worked really well then, huh? What kind of stuff are you smoking in Cali?
You are absolutely wrong.
No black market in guns would spring up, because the penalty from being caught with a gun would be 10 years, or life in prison with out parole.
There goes the incentive for a black market.
Don't kid yourself there is no such thing as "never".
Many are already giving this amendment a lot of consideration.
Bob.
yeah right, no black market at all has ever happened for anything illegal right now. such as pot, meth and any other drug that is illegal.
Originally Posted by CALGUY You are absolutely wrong.
No black market in guns would spring up, because the penalty from being caught with a gun would be 10 years, or life in prison with out parole.
There goes the incentive for a black market.
Don't kid yourself there is no such thing as "never".
Many are already giving this amendment a lot of consideration.
Bob.
right because no one ever does anything against the law do they? i mean during prohibition there was not bootlegging, and apparently there are no murders in this country because that is against the law, and no bank robberies, because that too is against the law. wow i guess there is no crime in america because most acts are against the law, so perhaps you are right no one needs a gun in america because no one is killing anyone.
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.
Hardly anyone can get an assault rifle. Being a vet you should have been taught the difference between an assault rifle and a semi-auto modern hunting rifle.
Perhaps you didn't read my post.
I said nothing about walking one's dog in a park.
I stated if one were afraid of an intruder into one's house, they should get a German Shepherd(not a Doberman pincher) to ward off an intruder.
Trust me, a Shepherd instinctively senses danger, and reacts in an extremely combative position, especially to intrusion.
Any one would be a fool to try and go up against a Shepherd.
Why do you think they are the number one choice of police departments through out the country?
There is a reason for that.
Bob.
Most people live in apartments that don't allow dogs.
Hardly anyone can get an assault rifle. Being a vet you should have been taught the difference between an assault rifle and a semi-auto modern hunting rifle.
I don't think that Velocity boy has ever been in the military. The terms gun and rifle (weapon) are not interchangeable. A "gun" has a completely different meaning in the military.
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.
