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

@djjd62,

djjd62 wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
They fail to understand that the actual weapon is the HUMAN MIND
David

that can't be true, if it was, the bodies would be stacked up, like so much cord wood

When the human mind resolves to assassinate someone,
regardless of the consequences, then the target is in very grave danger;
that mind is the source of all means of removal since
spears and arrows or stone hammers first were used.

All of the tools are only outward manifestations of that mind.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Dave, the gun is very useful to the mind in carrying out the dirty deed.

2 Replies

@Ceili,

Ceili wrote:

Just curious, do you really think... with all your guns'n'stuff, you could take the American government? Seriously.

The general idea is to fight in the voting booth and in the courts so that we never get to the point of fighting against the government.

For instance, we have so many pro-gun Democrats elected to Congress right now, that when Obama came into office babbling about shredding the Constitution, it was Nancy Pelosi herself who told him to sit down and shut up.

Incidentally, the point of the militia was not so much to fight the government if necessary, but to help ensure that it never became necessary.

The Framers intended that the militia would be the government's main source of armed power in the US. And since the militia was composed of the general populace, it would never enforce tyrannical orders (as they would be enforcing the orders against themselves).

1 Reply

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

You guys on the right, please spare us that sophomoric redneck crapola.

Name calling won't help rescue your losing cause. America's gonna remain free.

0 Replies

@Francis,

Francis wrote:

You sure have the freedom of having a high rate of homicides with guns...

It wouldn't be any better if we changed it to a high rate of homicide with knives.

0 Replies

@djjd62,

djjd62 wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
They fail to understand that the actual weapon is the HUMAN MIND
David

that can't be true, if it was, the bodies would be stacked up, like so much cord wood

No, it's true. The cause of murders is the murderers themselves.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

how tight are you guys wound

do you ever lighten up, even one little bit

0 Replies

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

Dave, the gun is very useful to the mind in carrying out the dirty deed.

Useful, yes. But without the gun the human mind still finds it just as easy.

I suppose the technological jump from atlatl to bow made homicide easier, as an atlatl requires a high degree of skill to use. But ever since that jump, humans who were inclined toward homicide didn't have much difficulty on the technological front.

0 Replies

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

Dave, the gun is very useful to the mind in carrying out the dirty deed.

People did not wait until guns became available
before thay began dirty deeds; if it were not a gun,
it coud have been any of many other things cleverly employed.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

we have so many pro-gun Democrats elected to Congress right now, that when Obama came into office babbling about shredding the Constitution, it was Nancy Pelosi herself who told him to sit down and shut up.

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/18461-pelosi-throws-cold-water-on-weapons-ban

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

oralloy wrote:
we have so many pro-gun Democrats elected to Congress right now,
that when Obama came into office babbling about shredding the Constitution,
it was Nancy Pelosi herself who told him to sit down and shut up.

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/18461-pelosi-throws-cold-water-on-weapons-ban

It remains very painfully clear in the memories of Democrats that,
(as Clinton openly admitted on several different occasions) thay lost BOTH houses of Congress
upon instituting it the first time. This was attributed to irate gun owners like me.

The House had not fallen into Republican hands since Roosevent was President.

David

1 Reply

Obama proposed no shredding of the constitution. Bans on assault weapons are not unconstitutional. Scalia made this clear in Heller, where he said there may be gun control. The problem regarding these guns is that the law must be very specific in identifying the gun, and the characteristics of the gun can be easily changed.

3 Replies

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

Quote:
Obama proposed no shredding of the constitution.
Bans on assault weapons are not unconstitutional.
U take LIBERTIES with what he said.
U take a liberal interpretation of what he said.
This issue was not before the court.

Quote:
Scalia made this clear in Heller, where he said there may be gun control.
U take LIBERTIES with what he said.
U take a liberal interpretation of what he said.
This issue was not before the court.

According to US v. MILLER, a gun must be valuable to a militia to have 2nd Amendment protection.
That is the defining criterion. In MILLER, it had not been established that with a shortened barrel,
it remained of value to a militia.

The 2A does not protect possession of useless junk;
it protects and immunizes civilian possession of WEAPONS
that are "ordinary military equipment" of value to a militia.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

U shud like this one

The federal long-gun registry moved one step closer to being abolished as MPs voted Wednesday in the House of Commons to scrap the controversial program.

With support from 18 Liberals and New Democrats, the private member's bill passed second reading 164-137, and now goes to committee. If passed, Bill C-391 would scrap the decade-old registry and destroy existing data within the system on about seven million shotguns and rifles.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper rises along with Environment Minister Jim Prentice and Defence Minister Peter MacKay to vote in favour of the bill to abolish the long-gun registry in the House of Commons. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)

The legislation was proposed by Manitoba Tory backbencher Candice Hoeppner.

Because the proposed law was introduced as a private member's bill, opposition MPs were permitted to break from party lines and support it.

That secured support from New Democrats and Liberals from northern and rural ridings, where opposition to the gun registry is strongest.

The Conservatives have long opposed the gun registry, brought in by the former Liberal government in response to the killing of 14 women at Montreal's L'École Polytéchnique in 1989.

However, there is also unwavering support for the gun registry from such groups as the Coalition for Gun Control, the Canadian Chiefs of Police and the Canadian Police Association.

Wendy Cukier of the Coalition for Gun Control said firearm deaths such as suicides and murders of women have declined during the time the registry has been in place. The mother of one of the slain Montreal students made a public appeal this week, imploring MPs to preserve the gun registry.

Conservatives argue the registry has been a billion-dollar boondoggle, although a 2006 study by the auditor general found eliminating the long-gun portion of the registry would only save taxpayers about $3 million a year.

In an annual report from Canada's Firearms Commissioner prepared by the RCMP, police said they used the registry more than 2.5 million times in 2007.

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2009/11/04/gun-registry-vote004.html

1 Reply

Tho last nite I was pleased (elated) over the successes of pro-freedom candidates,
mostly qua freedom of armed self defense, I was saddened by the loss of
the Conservative Party candidate in the race for the US House of Representatives in NY-23.

(I was the very first volunteer worker for the new Conservative Party in 1961, rebelling
against the Republican liberalism of Rockefeller & Javits.)

I had been hoping that pro-gun freedom Conservative Hoffman woud defeat Democrat Bill Owens,
but I now find out that the winning Owens also had an "A" rating from the NRA! HOORAY!

David

0 Replies

@Intrepid,

Intrepid wrote:

U shud like this one

The federal long-gun registry moved one step closer to being abolished as MPs voted Wednesday in the House of Commons to scrap the controversial program.

With support from 18 Liberals and New Democrats, the private member's bill passed second reading 164-137, and now goes to committee. If passed, Bill C-391 would scrap the decade-old registry and destroy existing data within the system on about seven million shotguns and rifles.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper rises along with Environment Minister Jim Prentice and Defence Minister Peter MacKay to vote in favour of the bill to abolish the long-gun registry in the House of Commons. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)

The legislation was proposed by Manitoba Tory backbencher Candice Hoeppner.

Because the proposed law was introduced as a private member's bill, opposition MPs were permitted to break from party lines and support it.

That secured support from New Democrats and Liberals from northern and rural ridings, where opposition to the gun registry is strongest.

The Conservatives have long opposed the gun registry, brought in by the former Liberal government in response to the killing of 14 women at Montreal's L'École Polytéchnique in 1989.

However, there is also unwavering support for the gun registry from such groups as the Coalition for Gun Control, the Canadian Chiefs of Police and the Canadian Police Association.

Wendy Cukier of the Coalition for Gun Control said firearm deaths such as suicides and murders of women have declined during the time the registry has been in place. The mother of one of the slain Montreal students made a public appeal this week, imploring MPs to preserve the gun registry.

Conservatives argue the registry has been a billion-dollar boondoggle, although a 2006 study by the auditor general found eliminating the long-gun portion of the registry would only save taxpayers about $3 million a year.

In an annual report from Canada's Firearms Commissioner prepared by the RCMP, police said they used the registry more than 2.5 million times in 2007.

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2009/11/04/gun-registry-vote004.html

CONGRATULATIONS TO CANADIANS!

That was an expensive fiasco.

David

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

oralloy wrote:
oralloy wrote:
we have so many pro-gun Democrats elected to Congress right now, that when Obama came into office babbling about shredding the Constitution, it was Nancy Pelosi herself who told him to sit down and shut up.

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/18461-pelosi-throws-cold-water-on-weapons-ban

It remains very painfully clear in the memories of Democrats that, (as Clinton openly admitted on several different occasions) thay lost BOTH houses of Congress upon instituting it the first time. This was attributed to irate gun owners like me.

The House had not fallen into Republican hands since Roosevent was President.

David

Whatever her motive though, she stood up to Obama and protected our Constitution. She deserves credit for that.

0 Replies

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

Obama proposed no shredding of the constitution.

Yes he did.

Advocate wrote:

Bans on assault weapons are not unconstitutional.

Yes they are.

Advocate wrote:

Scalia made this clear in Heller, where he said there may be gun control.

Nope. Scalia made it quite clear that things like assault weapons bans are entirely unconstitutional.

Advocate wrote:

The problem regarding these guns is that the law must be very specific in identifying the gun, and the characteristics of the gun can be easily changed.

There is no problem regarding these guns.

0 Replies

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

Obama proposed no shredding of the constitution. Bans on assault weapons are not unconstitutional. Scalia made this clear in Heller, where he said there may be gun control. The problem regarding these guns is that the law must be very specific in identifying the gun, and the characteristics of the gun can be easily changed.

In HELLER, the USSC cited:

"United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit
the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather
limits the type of weapon to which the right applies
to those used by the militia,
i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes." [emphasis added by David]
Therefore, M-16s, Thompson Submachineguns, B.A.R.s, and MP5s have the immunity
afforded by the Second Amendment, according to US v. MILLER, as explained by the USSC in HELLER.

The USSC went on to say:
"It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful
in military service"M-16 rifles and the like"may be banned,
then the Second Amendment right is completely detached
from the prefatory clause. But as we have said,
the conception of the militia at the time of the Second
Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens
capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of
lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty.
It may well be true today that a militia, to be as
effective as militias in the 18th century, would require
sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large.[all emphasis joyfully added by David]

David

0 Replies

11 dead, 31 injured before the trained gun carrying army and police, military officers were able to kill the assailant in Fort Hood, Texas.
Very, very sad.
Could somebody tell me how come he wasn't killed sooner? With all that training and all those guns on an army base, people still couldn't react fast enough. Another gun nut, a psychiatrist no less, wasn't locked up before hand and had several US issued weapons.
Makes you wonder who a body can trust...

2 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know