Guns: how much longer will it take ....

@H2O MAN,

H2O MAN wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:

Guns have become the religion of many Americans.

Guns in America have not become a religion and they never will.

Two things are happening in the US right know.

1. The people are becoming increasingly aware that Obama and his administration are not qualified to run the USA.
The people are worried sick about their future in this country.

I think Obama is qualified.

But on the other hand, given all the nonsense the left spewed about Bush supposedly not being qualified, I guess it is fair game for the right to return the favor.

H2O MAN wrote:

2. FACT: The Obama administration is attempting to further restrict private gun ownership in this country.

Obama would like nothing better than to violate our Constitutional gun rights.

However, Congressional Democrats support the Constitution, and will not allow him to do so. (And if they did, the Supreme Court would strike it down.)

1 Reply

@CalamityJane,

CalamityJane wrote:

maporsche wrote:
You mention amending the constitution. What would need to be amended in the constitution except the individual freedom to own firearms. If you think the constitution needs to be amended for gun control measures to be implemented, I don't think it's too much of a leap to think you believe that we need to amend the constitution so that we can start to remove firearms from the citizens of the USA.

You surely aren't suggesting that we need to amend the constitution so that we can mandate trigger locks or keeping firearm unloaded at home? Are you?

Okay let's look at the exact context of the 2nd Amendment:
"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."

My interpretation "right of the people" incorporates the state, the military
and not every individual American. It does nowhere stipulate that every
individual has the right to bear arms. To "bear arms" is a military term,
and as such it was intended for military to keep and bear arms.

If you restrict the right to the militia, you have to have a militia. And in that case, people could just join the militia to get their gun.

And the Ninth Amendment would still protect the right of non-militiamen to carry guns for self-defense.

CalamityJane wrote:

How would I change it? Simply to this: ".....the right to bear arms for lawful purposes only", which interprets to military, police force and individuals who
can prove that they are in need of self protection (such as owners of jewelry stores, etc.). Everyone else is exempt from the right to bear arms.

Since all people have the lawful right to defend themselves, your proposed language would allow anyone to carry guns for self-protection without having to establish some obscure "need" beforehand.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

...Congressional Democrats support the Constitution...

Not all of them support the Constitution and they will support PrezBO's efforts.

Also, we need to raise the standards if O boy is in fact qualified to run the US.

1 Reply

"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 state can have a well regulated militia and the people of the state can keep and bear arms.
The security rights of neither group shall be infringed.

0 Replies

@CalamityJane,

CalamityJane wrote:

gungasnake wrote:
Then if I were ever attacked by a bear and a flock of geese simultaneously, I could defend myself.

Oh please, you would **** in your pants by the mere thought of a bear,
never mind defending yourself.

Why are freedom haters so obnoxious?

If I had to defend myself against a bear, I'd kill the bear.

If it were a brown bear, I might give a thought to pepper spray first before killing it, but in my neighborhood, it'd be a black bear, so.....

0 Replies

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

saab

My understanding (from posts to this thread) is that these pro-gun folk are more concerned about dealing with a possible robber, or intruder , to their home, than forming some sort of "militia" to defend their democratic society.

I'd kind of like to see the government set up a militia. Works pretty well in Switzerland.

I'm not so much concerned with the notion of needing the militia to repel invaders. It'd just be cool to have a machinegun in the house at the government's expense.

0 Replies

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

(You pro-gun guys are certainly big on these hypothetical situations! )

I'd be interested in laws where anyone wishing to own a gun (in the US situation) would be required to apply for & justify ownership. With stringent controls (if gun ownership by any individual was approved by your authorities) on the type & number of guns an individual could legally possess. With strong penalties for anyone breaking the law.
In my own country I would expect the law to be responsible for the safety of citizens. As the situation is now. (Rather than citizens taking the law into their own hands.)

We are a free people here in America. We will never have to provide any justification when we choose to exercise our civil rights.

0 Replies

@H2O MAN,

H2O MAN wrote:

maporsche wrote:
She may be slow, however I suspect that she's trying to find someone who supports 2ndA rights who thinks murder is just peachy.

She's simply, and most disgustingly, being vile and dishonest. I have a hard time imaging someone who can willfully do what she's doing here.

+1
She is simply, and most disgustingly, being vile and dishonest.

I don't think this is the case. I think she has just never been free, so she doesn't really understand what freedom is.

Remember, Americans are the only free people in the world. Non-Americans just don't have our perspective.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
djjd62 wrote:

well to be honest cheney was there, so evil was there, ipso as they sat facto

Cheney is among the very finest and most admirable of Americans.

David

Guffaw! 'tis all I can say to that. Seriously. You are off your rocker if you think this is true.

Cycloptichorn

I like Cheney. He's a good man.

0 Replies

Rights without responsibilities only promotes lawlessness .

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

H2O MAN wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
gungasnake wrote:
I'll say it again, part of the 2'nd amendment is about food in bad economic times (like we're about to see with Bork Oinkbama in charge...) Six months from now the idea of having a deer and two Canada geese to eat (that three-barreled Krieghoff gun) could easily sound pretty good even to liberals.

I don't disagree with this one bit, and that's the primary reason I
support the ownership of long rifles and shotguns by all Americans.

Cycloptichorn

Very interesting... why do you omit hand guns?

For the most part, they are coward's weapons, used to ambush from a position of stealth.

Balderdash. If any gun fit that description, it would be a hunting rifle.

The point of handguns is being able to carry them when it is inconvenient to carry a larger weapon.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

They are not for civil defense or hunting, which I consider to be the primary purpose of owning weapons.

Hunting handguns are indeed for hunting.

And you missed one of the main reasons for gun ownership: self defense. Handguns are ideal for that purpose, as they are more convenient to carry everywhere.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Handguns are difficult to aim... I don't see a lot of purpose in them, personally.

The purposes are hunting, self-defense, and target shooting.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Rights without responsibilities only promotes lawlessness .

I challenge u on that, farmer;
e.g.: I have a right to vote in school board elections.
I have no responsibility to vote in school board elections.
I have never voted in a school board election.

I challenge u to indicate any law that was violated
as a result of my failure to vote in a school board election.

or:

I had a right to visit California last week.
I had no responsibility to visit California last week.
I did not visit California last week.
I challenge u to indicate any law that was violated
as a result of my failure to visit California last week.

I coud offer 1,000,000s of other examples
(but it woud take too long).

David

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

H2O MAN wrote:
maporsche wrote:
She may be slow, however I suspect that she's trying to find someone who supports 2ndA rights who thinks murder is just peachy.

She's simply, and most disgustingly, being vile and dishonest. I have a hard time imaging someone who can willfully do what she's doing here.

+1
She is simply, and most disgustingly, being vile and dishonest.

I don't think this is the case. I think she has just never been free, so she doesn't really understand what freedom is.

Remember, Americans are the only free people in the world. Non-Americans just don't have our perspective.

Then, can't we just take Princess Pelosi to some other country and set her free?

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

I challenge u to indicate any law that was violated
as a result of my failure to vote in a school board election.

I have neither the time nor the interest to analyze your civic shortcomings. But if you recall E burkes reflection that the advance of evil results when good men do nothing. If you wish to stand off and not be part of any solution because you only wish to harbour your rights and fail in your responsibilities, please dont expect me to ever come to your aid when you are overwhelmed.

2 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
Hmm I would assume that anyone is a SS uniform would be fair game.

Anyone with an SS uniform would have been armed.

Since we all know that armed persons are less likely to be attacked and killed, wouldn't that mean it was LESS likely to shoot SS?

Or are you guys now arguing that it is EASIER to shoot armed victims?

Resisting Nazis with arms is worthwhile even if it is ultimately futile.

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_takesome.JPG

(I love that website! Very Happy

)

2 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

If you wish to stand off and not be part of any solution because you only wish to harbour your rights and
fail in your responsibilities, please dont expect me to ever come to your aid when you are overwhelmed.

Rights and responsibilities go hand-in-hand and it is the legally armed
American citizen that will come to your aid when you are overwhelmed.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

(I love that website! )

When they come for your guns... be polite and give them your bullets first.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

(I love that website! )

http://www.a-human-right.com/evolve2_s.jpg

-----------------------------------------

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_feminist.jpg

-----------------------------------------

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_4children.jpg

-----------------------------------------

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_racist.jpg

-----------------------------------------

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_agreement.jpg

-----------------------------------------

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_decision.jpg

-----------------------------------------

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_taliban.jpg

-----------------------------------------

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_beready.jpg

0 Replies

@H2O MAN,

Quote:

Rights and responsibilities go hand-in-hand and it is the legally armed
American citizen that will come to your aid when you are overwhelmed.

Obviously you and David see this through different glasses

0 Replies

@saab,

saab wrote:

May I give you a straight A in ignorance.
Western Europe has lived in peace and under no dictatorship since WWII ended with strict laws against guns owned by just any gun loving person.

Why do you always accompany your falsehoods with false allegations of ignorance?

0 Replies

Guns: how much longer will it take ....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know