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.
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.
You meant 2nd choice didn't you? Right after their first choice, the Gun. Reason for that too.
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.
Well Bob, you can "bare your arms" to your hearts content, hope you don't get sunburned. Other than that, what a foolish thread.
The op is no conservative and the 2nd amendment is quite clear in its wording and original intent if one isn't intellectually lazy. Pretty good troll though.
Not very original. All of the same old worn out propaganda the Gun Grabbers have been using for years. None of them still make any sense at all. No one would change that many Laws get to his point.
I had a much better idea. Make it illegal to incite people against the Constitution. Call it a Terroristic attack on the Countries foundation and send the "Gun Grabbers" to Gitmo for life and a day. , as soon as they start against the Constitution. No trial needed. Would not even need Cops or Army. Let the Citizens themselves take them into custody. Their homes and property would be seized too, and donated to the NRA.
And how do you get a "Militia," Bobby? Do you suppose arming Citizens makes a Militia, like in every other Country in the World?
A Militia is armed Private Citizens, not in regular Military Service, that are available in times of need, to be called to arms, and regulated by the Military Leadership in those times.
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.
The late Pat Paulson once noted " We need guns, for with out guns how could we shoot anybody."
As another justifications for guns "Have you ever tried to kill yourself without a gun, Just imagine trying to beat yourself to death using a stick."
Lastly taking note that in the year 1967 more Americans died in this nation from gun shot wounds than did in Vietnam, Pat who had started a run for President in 1968 on the Smothers Brothers Comedy Show proposed " Drafting all Americans , giving them a gun and shipping them off to Vietnam where they would at least have a fighting chance (a better chance than if they had been left on the streets of America)".
One shouldn't be surprised, Gun violence was scaring this nation's psyche over 50 years ago!
This from one who witnessed on TV the murder of a President, the murder of his brother who was running for that office in 1968 and the murder of one of the Greatest Civil Rights leaders of all time. Not to mention other notable figures too numerous to list here.
Last edited by mwruckman; 10-09-2015 at 09:18 PM..
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.
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.
Does not matter what you think. The Law is quite clear, and so is the Constitution. Doesn't need interpretation by your or any other Gun Grabber, but thanks anyway.
The founding Fathers where fighting for Freedom, and knew full well what they where doing, and there was more than plenty of violence going on at that time, to gain their freedom. Today, it the Pro Gun people, the Majority, who are fighting the same Battle to stay free of those who seek to take away or freedoms and rights. "Gun Grabbers" are what they had in mind when they wanted us to be armed.
If you see no need of owning a semi auto long gun, then don't buy one. What you think anyone needs is important as Crab Grass. No one cares.
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.