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.
All of the problems we see today, are entirely related to things that passed when I was a kid in the 90s.
What's odd, the politicians they screech to and email/call, politicians demanding the kids be protected and as safe as they are inside the halls of congress, those congress critters enjoy the protections of...
Armed guards.
Full agreement on the Gun Free Zone. I ran the numbers on school shootings back when Sandy Hook happened.
If you go back 16 years from 1996, when the GFZ fully went into effect (after some rewording to make it seem less unconstitutional than the original) there was an average of 2 school shootings per year. Going forward 16 years from 1996 to 2012, there was an average of 5.29 school shootings per year. Anyone who tries to claim that the Gun Free Zone law works is an idiot.
The reason it doesn't work is very simple: The GFZ is entirely punitive, not preventive. There is nothing in the law that allows for the prevention of someone carrying a firearm onto school property, it merely lays out the punishment for doing so.
has anybody notice that the one killing school kids are the other kids themselves, those that are killing blacks are the other blacks themselves. a common denominator. maybe instead of attacking other people guns that are lock up tight in a safe, why not figure out the human nature of the kids themselves
Remember when anti-gunners ridiculed anyone who said they are coming for your guns? Well, matter of fact they ARE coming for your guns. They just couldn't hold back any more. They finally realized it is not AR-15 that's killing people. A 12 gauge does just fine too. https://www.esquire.com/news-politic...ake-them-away/
"So now I’m angry. Now I’m finished trying to reason with you. So now I, a guy who was ambivalent about guns just a few years ago, want to take your guns away. All of them."
LOL! You're imagining that quoting a few people proves your point? There are also people that want to nuke Iran, or Israel, or Korea our of existence. There are also people who want to abolish private property. There are also people who want to ban air travel because it's bad for the environment. That doesn't mean that there's the remotest chance it will happen.
LOL! You're imagining that quoting a few people proves your point? There are also people that want to nuke Iran, or Israel, or Korea our of existence. There are also people who want to abolish private property. There are also people who want to ban air travel because it's bad for the environment. That doesn't mean that there's the remotest chance it will happen.
You're quoting Sean Hannity in a thread about monitoring social media and extrapolating his belief to all others. How is that different than what you're criticizing here?
So, to be clear, if some nut wants to "take away everyone's guns," that's bad, but the even more dangerous extremists who want "guns for all, no questions asked," are to be seen as heroes? Laughable lunacy.
While I'm certainly not in favor of "no guns," I am very tired of watching the far-right continue to value guns more than lives and pretend that their warped interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is the only correct one.
"but the even more dangerous extremists who want "guns for all, no questions asked,"
Do YOU know ANYBODY like that?
I sure DON'T and have NEVER heard ANYBODY suggest it. Have YOU?
just more, GO TO THE EXTREME when you have nothing of value to say.
"I am very tired of watching the far-right continue to value guns more than lives"
Now THAT is lunacy!
"and pretend that their warped interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is the only correct one"
OK genius, YOU tell US what the 2nd amendment means.
Provide supporting documentation from the Founding Father's who WROTE IT.
This is going to be good. DON'T expect a response with the info I DEMAND.
Last edited by Quick Enough; 05-21-2018 at 05:56 AM..
"but the even more dangerous extremists who want "guns for all, no questions asked,"
OK genius, YOU tell US what the 2nd amendment means.
Provide supporting documentation from the Founding Father's who WROTE IT.
This is going to be good. DON'T expect a response with the info I DEMAND.
Don't hold your breath, waiting for Rambler123 to reply. I'll gladly provide you with that:
The second amendment is clear:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The whole concept of the second amendment was based on war and the weapons of war and to that end, for all Americans to have the right to keep and bear them without infringement by any government body.
The founding fathers didn't state this or that type of arms, because they meant for citizens to have the same ability and firepower as any standing army, in order to protect their new found liberties from tyranny.
It's why they left the amendment open to just arms, with the knowledge that weapons have and would continue to progress and citizens should be able to keep and bear them.
The founding fathers were in fear of exactly what this appeals court has done, find a way to disarm citizens of weapons that can actually protect them from government tyranny.
The Second Amendment was specifically included in the Bill of Rights to prevent the same thing from happening with the new American government they were creating, that the British had tried to do to them, by using their standing army and the weapons available to meet that goal.
Especially since the founder fathers realized that the new American government would have to eventually create a standing army for protection from foreign interests.
Without American citizens having the same or similar firearms as the standing army, and the right to keep and bear them, any fight against tyranny and saving liberty is gone.
Even the founding fathers themselves wrote that this concept was the reason for the second amendment:
Quote:
Samuel Adams: "Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can."
"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..." (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850))
John Adams: "Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense."
Thomas Jefferson: "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms in his own lands." --Thomas Jefferson, in an early draft of the Virginia constitution:
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:45
"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants" (Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939)
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks."
Tench Coxe: "Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people"
Thomas Paine: "The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; the weak would become a prey to the strong."
Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
Richard Henry Lee: "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them."
Patrick Henry: "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined"
"The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun."
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
George Washington: "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence for any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
James Madison: "Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, and enslaved press, and a disarmed populace."
George Mason: "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
Don't hold your breath, waiting for Rambler123 to reply. I'll gladly provide you with that:
The second amendment is clear:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The whole concept of the second amendment was based on war and the weapons of war and to that end, for all Americans to have the right to keep and bear them without infringement by any government body.
The founding fathers didn't state this or that type of arms, because they meant for citizens to have the same ability and firepower as any standing army, in order to protect their new found liberties from tyranny.
It's why they left the amendment open to just arms, with the knowledge that weapons have and would continue to progress and citizens should be able to keep and bear them.
The founding fathers were in fear of exactly what this appeals court has done, find a way to disarm citizens of weapons that can actually protect them from government tyranny.
The Second Amendment was specifically included in the Bill of Rights to prevent the same thing from happening with the new American government they were creating, that the British had tried to do to them, by using their standing army and the weapons available to meet that goal.
Especially since the founder fathers realized that the new American government would have to eventually create a standing army for protection from foreign interests.
Without American citizens having the same or similar firearms as the standing army, and the right to keep and bear them, any fight against tyranny and saving liberty is gone.
Even the founding fathers themselves wrote that this concept was the reason for the second amendment:
Very well said!
The only problem today for many people though is RECOGNIZING when tyranny is present and when it needs to be overthrown. Many people today are guilty of being obedient and subservient to a tyrannical authority and yet some are still calling for MORE laws and regulations, they actually want a MORE intrusive, stronger police state!!!
Ive said this before in other threads, in todays world, REAL patriotism would look more like domestic terrorism on the surface.
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.
