|
|
|
|
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 10/15/2009 10:21:17 PM |
sigh...........there are none so blind as those who refuse to see.................
There is nothing of relevance to see there.
while its proubly pointless.heres a site that shreds the anti gunners claims
http://www.guncite.com/
Maybe, maybe not, but what it doesn't have is evidence of a threat of guns being banned altogether. | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 10/15/2009 10:21:20 PM | The problem with this argument is the government's guns will always be bigger than yours. The bigger the guns you have, the bigger the guns your elected authorities will use to deal with you. The accumulation of weapons just breeds more violence.
Your comparision with cars holds no water, you compare apples with oranges. Cars are a method of transportation, the overwhelming majority of automobile deaths are due to accidents involving their use. They are often used to save lives and make livings. Very rarely are vehicles deliberately driven at people in order to kill them. They are not specifically made to kill people.
There has been much legislation and regulation over here in order to bring the road toll down because even one death is too many. We accept regulation is necessary for the road system to work safely. We also accept driving on the road is a privilege because cars can be dangerous in the wrong hands, which is why licences are restricted.
Okay...wow... I will address this in order.
I have yet to see the average grunt issued weaponry as nice as mine. All my former USMC friends marvel over how much more reliable, accurate, etc. my stuff is. No, it isn't full-auto, but full-auto just looks good on TV. Even the military has gotten away from it except in the form of area/support fire. So it's a wash there. They get stuff made by who-ever uncle sam picks, I get whatever I want and can load whatever I want in it. Advantage:me in that case.
Now on to guns/vehicles. Guns are not made to kill people either. They are made to stop a threat, to put food on the table, and to provide entertainment/sporting-use. There are plenty of accidents with them, just as with cars. There are plenty of homocides with them as well, just as with cars. It is apples to apples. Oh, and I would consider that police, wilderness guides, security detail, are also valid jobs that would not be possible in their current capacity without the possession of a firearm. Firearms save plenty of lives, just as cars do. It's called self-defense. Also, PLENTY of cars are involved in DWI's. A DWI is a crime and is usually pre-meditated, ergo not passable off as involuntary manslaughter. Sorry. Vehicles are intentionally used in reckless ways that often result in death. Plenty MORE deaths than firearms.
There are background checks and legislation that controls who owns firearms as well. There are licenses issued for conceiled carry, and federal forms/checks for FA/Silenced/SBR/SBS's.
So far you have drawn up some VERY strong parallels between cars and firearms and strengthened my case considerably. I would also wager that your problem is one of familiarity. You are familiar with cars, but apparently not firearms, except through proxy. I wonder why all the dozens of weapons I am around don't take on lives of their own and go around slaughtering people? I would wager it is the same reason my car doesn't.
I know you will argue that the military uses firearms, firearms designed to kill people. Okay, valid point, but what about everything else? They train a soldier how to kill with his hands. Are my hands now to be banned? Heck, I have had hand-to-hand training that has proven very effective, should I not be allowed out of shackles?
What you fail to take into account is that a firearm is a tool. A tool is only as good as the intentions of the person using it. All you have told me is that you view your fellow man in a very dim light, and on that point I cannot fully disagree with you, which is one reason that I own a firearm.
All of this talk of banning firearms is pure idiocy. THere are plenty of them on the market. Let me tell ya something. I had a car that required R12 Freon. You know, the stuff the govt. taxed out of existance in the states? Well, my car never wanted for R12 no-matter how often the AC system leaked, I just had to pay a premium for it. There are a LOT! more firearms/ammo out there than there is R12. If someone wants a firearm, they will procure one. Period. Murder/assault are already illegal, so what will you hope to accomplish by making firearms illegal? You hope to disarm honest people who will turn them in, or do you think criminals will suddly have a change of heart when possession of an illegal weapon is threatened to be added to aggravated rape and attempted murder? Please explain your logic. | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 10/15/2009 10:33:49 PM | Well, here's the problem with that line of thinking, apart from this being and international forum. Much of what happens in the US impacts upon the rest of the world, the world-wide economic crisis had it's epicentre at Wall Street, US foreign policy affects all of us, in the Middle East particularly.
Saddam Hussain was a product of US foreign policy, as was the Taliban, so we all have a stake in what goes on in the US.
Now here is where I'll debate/argue with you. I will say this only once, "neither you, nor any other citizen from any other country has any godamn say about what goes on in the US". America was the FIRST country in the world founded on liberalism with the agenda of individual freedoms for all. Where people do not have to bow down to their freakin government, where you have the right to say whatever you want about them. No other country in this world can say that. We are also the only country that allows this much personal liberty and the only country that recognizes that their are certain "God given rights", that every human has the right to expect. Those of you who grew up in different countries just don't understand, you've never had it so you don't realize how important it is. The sad part is that there are some Americans who don't understand what they have. They are willing to throw it away for some bullshit spoon fed lie. And before you correct some of the things the US has done in the matter of international affairs, I would suggest you take a good hard long look at your own country's history, see if your country has never "wronged" anyone. If you can do that, then throw the stone, if not, well then piss off.
Now that I got that off my chest, I'll go into it a little more rationally. I do not believe that anybody outside of here (US) has any business in how I live my life. I don't even like people in my own country telling me how to live my life. It is my life and I'll live it they way I want. Take the seat belt laws for example, what business does the Government have telling me I have to wear a seat belt when I drive my car?
Now I understand that folks can go on about infringements of rights in this country, I'll take the gays as an example. Yes, sadly there are some groups of people in the US who are still trying to get the fact that they have a right to live their life the way they choose to be recognized. There are also groups that want to strip us of more rights, special interest groups, radical fringe groups and the government. Here are some
Examples:
1. The Government: Bush did a lot of damage to our freedoms and personal liberties. He does rank up there pretty high on the destruction to our rights (whether you like to hear it or not), now he was not the first, nor the last. He is just high on the list of presidents who raped the US Constitution, like Lincoln, FDR, and W. Wilson. Here are some examples of the government screwing us: Iraq=illegal, unconstitutional and completely unnecessary. PATRIOT ACT=goodbye 4th Amendment, Obama extended this unconstitutional law. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)=serves no purpose, but to spy on US citizens who do not agree with the government...look at their WHOLE list of people to watch, not just the people added since Obama took over. And they are working on the 2nd and the 1st. Bush had a school bus driver fired here in Washington State for flipping him the bird; police and other governmental officials are detaining people with anti-Obama bumper stickers and for making statements against him, and now you can't even fly the American flag in some places because it might offend some bloody immigrant.
2. Radical fringe groups and special interest groups (usually the same most of the time in my opinion): The Brady Campaign wants to strip us of our 2nd Amendment rights. The Gays, ACLU, certain black groups and other so called minorities want you arrested, fined, or fired from work for not agreeing with them, or saying anything about them that is not flattering, while they can say whatever they want about you. The various religious groups out there that are fighting very hardly to oppress the RIGHT of gays to get married and live their life and pursue happiness the way they see fit (it is their god given right, regardless of what it says about them and their chosen lifestyle in the bible). Various other (too numerous to list them all) so called "left wing" groups are trying to get the Government to infringe upon the right of religious folks, they have a right to practice WHATEVER religion they see fit to (This last bit makes me want to hit on the topic of Obama and those who say he is Muslim...so what? This is the US, you know freedom of religion and all that, it doesn't state anywhere in the constitution that the President has to be of a certain religious group).
Ok, I will agree with you that the US has stuck and does stick its nose where it does not belong. I will not apologize for that, even if I do not agree with what the government does. This is unconstitutional and against what the founding fathers' design. From my limited understanding, the US first really started to screw up during WWII, we should have never gone into Europe, Japan attacked us, so that is different, but we were not at war with the Germans. I don't believe our government should have military bases on foreign soil. I believe the best move our country could make in repairing riffs with other nations and their international policies with them is to first withdrawal from that corrupt organization known as the UN and to then get rid of the majority of foreign policies, sanctions and so forth; what business is it of ours if Israel and Iran blows each other to bits and pieces? They are both sovereign nations and should be treated as such. Also, we have our own freakin problems to worry about, let other nations take care of themselves, some have been doing it for hundreds of years before the US was founded. I believe the US military is designed for and should only serve one purpose (so did the founding fathers...the constitution says so) and that is to defend our country (the department the military belongs to is the Dept. of Defense, not offense), our government has no godamn business sending us to die to secure business deals or to enforce bullshit policies in other countries (or political revenge).
I could go on and on about what I see is wrong with the government, but then again I would get way off track of the topic this thread is about.
P.S. One I forgot and think is important, is the "separation of Church and State". I'm not sure when exactly religion got involved in US politics, but the Constitution clearly states it has no business. Now don't confuse the "In God We Trust" part, the founding fathers were religious men. My interpretation of that is that they designed it in such a way that folks have free will to choose their path (even in the Bible God gives humans free will to choose their own path) and that the government will not interfere with you. It was not put in their as a back door for religion to sneak its way into the law making process.
As far as the Taliban and Saddam go, well yes the US can share some of that blame, but Britain deserves the blunt of the blame. They were the first European nation to get involved in the Middle East, after the fall of the Ottoman Empire; the Brits just kind of moseyed on in and started colonizing (these guys love to colonize). Actually, if I am not mistaken are not you from a country that was, or still is, a colony of the Brits? I know our neighbors to the north were (still are, sort of?). We were, until we kicked the bloody pants off of the Brits, with the help of the French after they thought it was safe to enter the conflict. It was about the end of the WWII when the US got really involved in the Middle East (our founding fathers warned us not to get involved with Britain’s foreign policies). Hell, even the Russians got their hands dirty medaling in the Middle East. The French are not to be left out either, it was the French and the Brits who wrote, drew lines and whatever just to plop the Jews onto someone else’s land (Syria’s if my geography and memory is correct). The French and the Brits did this behind closed doors, around the end of WWI, the US was not involved, hell the Jews and the people that land belonged to weren’t even involved.
It’s like I said earlier, if your nation’s hands and history is clean, by all means throw the stone and judge…if not, well then piss off. | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 10/16/2009 12:13:29 AM |
America was the FIRST country in the world founded on liberalism with the agenda of individual freedoms for all. Where people do not have to bow down to their freakin government, where you have the right to say whatever you want about them. No other country in this world can say that.
True, the US has much to be proud of in that respect, but in my country we can, and do, say whatever we want about our leaders, in the press, television and public forums. People would even verbally abuse our former Prime Minister, John Howard whilst he was on his morning exercise. We have pretty close contact with all our politicians over here. The same is true for all of the first-world democracies.
I would suggest you take a good hard long look at your own country's history, see if your country has never "wronged" anyone. If you can do that, then throw the stone, if not, well then piss off.
In this country we constantly examine ourselves, good and bad, our treatment of our indigenous population has been less than stirling to say the least. I'm also happy to be told to 'piss-off' by somebody who is capable of reason, whether I agree with them or not.
Actually, if I am not mistaken are not you from a country that was, or still is, a colony of the Brits?
Former British colony, whilst the Queen is technically our Head of State, we are a sovereign nation and probably will end up a republic in due course, the problem is, nobody can agree upon a model that won't be at risk of corruption. The system we have at the moment is not perfect, but it has very effective checks and balances.
So I thank you for a thoughtful reply, in particular your views on US (and British and French) foreign policy. | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 10/16/2009 2:59:32 AM |
I am forced to conclude that this threat to gun ownership is either very unlikely or doesn't exist at all.
Cite? | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 10/16/2009 3:05:14 AM | I know you will argue that the military uses firearms, firearms designed to kill people.
And don't forget about all of the vehicles that transport the military. Doesn't that make them machines of destruction as well. Anti gunners are in a constant state of denial in refusing to see the comparison between car and guns and their ability to both be lethal in their use by humans. | |
|
| |
| for the gun control people
Posted: 10/16/2009 10:03:24 AM | Cite?...Cite?...Cite?
msquared..here is the thing..People come to this forum for general discussions..
the post their opinions..and yes feelings about subjects..
this site is not..a serous forum..because if you wanted a serous discussion you would go to the NRA web site..and post your question their..
As with the Brady bill..there have been various attempts by state and federal lawmakers to abridge the 2ND amendment...
during the confirmation of Sonia Maria Sotomayor she claimed that she was not aware of any land mark rulings on guns..when in fact the D.C. vs Heller
http://www.dcguncase.com/blog/ was just such a landmark case
msquared but you see this is more of an informal digital talk on the street..
most people who come here are not long time blogers..with years of posting on forums.
so if we were to meet on the street..and we had a discussion would you then insist that any comment I make..needs to be supported?..would you tell me to go to the library and bring back books as proof?..
Sen. Lautenberg has introduced S.1317....a bill that would give the Attorney General the discretion to block gun sales to people on terror watch lists. These lists, since 9/11, have ballooned, often including people with no connection to terror. The names of people on the watch list are secret and, in effect, this would invest the Attorney General with extraordinary power to limit gun sales.
Cite?..http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2009/10/assaults-on-second-amendment_02.html | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 10/16/2009 10:28:32 AM | The 2nd Amendment was designed for more than just personal defense, hunting and to "protect our freedoms from our own Government". As I previously stated about the use of the US military and its use or misuse as of late (stretch back more than just the wars Bush got us involved in), it (the military) was not designed, nor intended to be so huge. The size of our current military is a result of getting involved in numerous wars around the world. If we did not conduct, or allow our government to conduct them selves in such a manner, than we would have no need for such a large military. Our military was originally designed in order to defend our country against foreign threats, not to be the huge money (taxes) pit it is today. The 2nd Amendment allowed that to happen (have a smaller military in size), the reason why is that the majority of the US populace is armed. Think about it from a tactical point of view…ok. Try to invade the US mainland now; not so simple. Besides having a military to contend with, you would also have to deal with a heavily armed populace. I could be wrong, but from my understanding the US has more guns than any other country in the world. A large percentage of US citizens are better armed than some of these militaries from other countries, not all of them, but definitely a few. Essentially back when this country was founded American citizens were capable of taking care of them selves, they were their own Department of Homeland Security in a way. Through the years though folks have gotten lazy and or incompetent and want the government to take care of things for them. So, essentially the 2nd Amendment is a form of homeland security.
aSydneyMale:
I will better explain what I meant by getting rid of all federal gun restrictions. The US is comprised of 50 individual Nation States. Each could break away from the US and support itself, some better than others. They each have their own Government and individual State Constitutions. This little bit is for others from the US; how many of you guys and gals even know that your State has its own Constitution, basically its own bill of rights? The big one over in DC ain’t the only one. In Washington State for example (my home), there is an amendment in our State’s Constitution that recognizes an individual’s right to privacy, we are the only State that has that right guaranteed to us by our State’s Constitution. Also, we have one that guarantees the right to gun ownership; it sort of resembles the 2nd Amendment. Back on topic; if the federal government were to drop all of it’s restrictions on guns, it does not mean that the States would drop theirs, they have the right to have some restrictions, but the 2nd Amendment is there to make sure that the State does not take your guns away. So essentially the Feds have no business making gun laws, leave that to the States to decide what laws they want to have. Montana is currently challenging the Feds in this I believe, this is do to the fact that federal laws are getting more strict than that particular State’s laws. So basically if you do not like the gun laws of your particular State, well move to one that has the gun laws you like. By the way, if you look up the crime levels and murder rates in the US, the States that are the most restrictive on gun laws have the highest amount murder and other crime. Those with fewer restrictions have less crime. So advocating the end of the Federal Government messing with our gun rights is more or less telling the Fed to get its nose out of my business, let the State do it its way. Essentially, it is saying that I want smaller government instead of this huge looming Federal one we are getting. | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 10/16/2009 10:48:45 AM |
so if we were to meet on the street..and we had a discussion would you then insist that any comment I make..needs to be supported?..would you tell me to go to the library and bring back books as proof?..
If you were to make a claim such as the one in this thread, then yes, I would want some confirmation before I accepted it as fact. | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 10/16/2009 11:25:56 AM | Well since you seem to be anti gun there would be little use on needing to prove or cite anything for you as it will not change your view. We who are active in the pro gun arena have spoken to on numerous occasions the anti gun people and they will in fact tell you that it is the slow piece by piece tearing down of the 2nd amercement that they want.
The funny thing is I use to have a copy of the Brady Manifesto that said exactly what I have described above. The had to change their rhetoric to sound more palatable:
Safe gun laws
Common Sense regulations
It all sounds so nice and reasonable, because, "We want to take away your gun rights" tends to make people stand up and take notice of the striping of their fundamental rights.
To me it this simple: When the government takes away slowly but surely over time alll my other rights, I will still have the ability to take them back.
To those of you who would have the argument that the military out guns us, you forget that our oath of service is to the Constitution, not the politicians.
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
This is the Soldiers Oath I voluntarily took back in May of 1986. The day I took this pledge was a defining moment of my life. I still get emotional just reading it. You see, I knew full well (or thought I did) the implications of the Oath and the responsibilities that I was assuming. I was taking my place in that long line of idealistic young men and women, Patriots, who would, if necessary, give their lives in the defense of this great Nation. This was heady stuff, truly an honor that I might be counted worthy to follow in the combat boots of so many great men (and women) who came before me. The original Military Oath was one of the first acts passed by our first Congress, and approved on September 29, 1789 (Sec. 3, Ch. 25, 1st Congress).
The Oath has three parts to it:
1.) I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic
*I will defend the U.S. Constitution against ALL enemies.
2.) that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same
* I pledge my complete loyalty to the U.S. Constitution.
3.) and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
*I will obey the orders of the Commander in Chief, and all Officers superior to me, according to Military law (The U.C.M.J. is subordinate to the Constitution and applies only to members of the Armed Forces). | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 10/16/2009 12:04:10 PM | | Fzrhusker brings a valid point to the table. This is more for the folks who believe that the US military will "turn" on them. Think about it, besides the Oath, every man and woman in the military is either someones father, brother, nephiew, husband, uncle, son, daughter, aunt, mother, niece, grandkid and the list goes on. Do some of you honestly believe that all these folks would turn their guns on their own families? Some may, but I'm sure the majority would not; the US is more intergrated then it was in the time of Lincoln and Davis (the Civil War). | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 10/16/2009 12:53:00 PM |
Well since you seem to be anti gun
I'm not really against guns. I'm against them being in the hands of people who want them for the wrong reasons. Unfortunately, many gun owners fall into this category.
If, for example, you (and I mean a generic you, not necessarily any particular person in this thread) want the gun in case someone breaks into their home, that is the wrong reason. In this situation, many people with a gun will suddenly think they are Harry Callahan or Rambo, and decide to give the criminal what for. What they don't take into account is that if the criminal also has a gun, the criminal is likely better at using it. In this scenario, the things in your house aren't important. Your family and yourself are important, and you should be doing whatever you can to reduce the amount of danger to them. Unfortunately, going out to do battle with the criminals greatly increases that danger.
On another note, based on what I see of people in my job and my daily life, I do not want many of those people having access to a butter knife, let alone a gun. | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 10/16/2009 12:55:17 PM |
Do some of you honestly believe that all these folks would turn their guns on their own families? Some may, but I'm sure the majority would not; the US is more intergrated then it was in the time of Lincoln and Davis (the Civil War).
That, however, is not an argument conducive to needing a gun. If the majority of the people with guns are on your side, then you have no need for one. | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 10/16/2009 4:16:31 PM | Fzrhusker brings a valid point to the table. This is more for the folks who believe that the US military will "turn" on them. Think about it, besides the Oath, every man and woman in the military is either someones father, brother, nephiew, husband, uncle, son, daughter, aunt, mother, niece, grandkid and the list goes on. Do some of you honestly believe that all these folks would turn their guns on their own families?
Law abiding citizens of my state have been disarmed at gun-point by the national guard on their own property while in their own homes. It can happen, and I am sure it will be attempted again.
I'm not really against guns. I'm against them being in the hands of people who want them for the wrong reasons. Unfortunately, many gun owners fall into this category.
If, for example, you (and I mean a generic you, not necessarily any particular person in this thread) want the gun in case someone breaks into their home, that is the wrong reason. In this situation, many people with a gun will suddenly think they are Harry Callahan or Rambo, and decide to give the criminal what for. What they don't take into account is that if the criminal also has a gun, the criminal is likely better at using it. In this scenario, the things in your house aren't important. Your family and yourself are important, and you should be doing whatever you can to reduce the amount of danger to them. Unfortunately, going out to do battle with the criminals greatly increases that danger.
On another note, based on what I see of people in my job and my daily life, I do not want many of those people having access to a butter knife, let alone a gun.
This is rediculous. You are saying that owning a weapon will turn a family man into some kind of Rambo killing machine. Basically, you are saying that one should not own a hammer for the use of hammering nails because if you have a hammer, you might smash your thumb. Yeah, you just might, but without a hammer, you sure as hell won't be building any cabinets. Same as with a car. With a car, you could kill/be killed, yeah? Well without one you are disadvantaged greatly in many areas. With a firearm, you also have the potential to do/recieve harm, but without one, you are powerless to stop harm from being done to you.
One word for you: Responsibility. You learn a lot about that when you get your driver's license/first dog/whatever. It should carry over.
As to the people you know who you would not trust with a butter-knife, well they have access to a 3500# missile known as a vehicle. That would worry me a lot more.
I really think you are fishing for a reason where there is not one. | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 10/16/2009 4:23:40 PM | during the confirmation of Sonia Maria Sotomayor she claimed that she was not aware of any land mark rulings on guns..when in fact the D.C. vs Heller
http://www.dcguncase.com/blog/ was just such a landmark case
FYI, She was correct. Heller is not a 'landmark' case because it ONLY applies to the District of Columbia; since D.C. is not a state that ruling does not apply to any other state.
Now, there is a case coming up this term before the USSC that deals with the 2nd Amendment and I believe it is out of Illinois. That will be the case to watch because whatever the USSC rules in that case will apply to all the states and then you'll have your "landmark" 2nd Amendent case. | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 10/16/2009 5:51:00 PM |
I'm not really against guns. I'm against them being in the hands of people who want them for the wrong reasons. Unfortunately, many gun owners fall into this category.
If, for example, you (and I mean a generic you, not necessarily any particular person in this thread) want the gun in case someone breaks into their home, that is the wrong reason. In this situation, many people with a gun will suddenly think they are Harry Callahan or Rambo, and decide to give the criminal what for. What they don't take into account is that if the criminal also has a gun, the criminal is likely better at using it. In this scenario, the things in your house aren't important. Your family and yourself are important, and you should be doing whatever you can to reduce the amount of danger to them. Unfortunately, going out to do battle with the criminals greatly increases that danger.
So you'd prefer to let the criminal come in, might as well open the door so that you don't have the hassel or expense of replacing the broken door frame, and taking what he wants? After he's done robbing you blind, he then starting eyeballing your wife and daughter. Are you going to hand him some rubbers so you don't risk them getting pregnant or catching an STD? OR are you going to fight back? Now if you chose to fight back and the criminal is armed, would it be smarted to be armed as well, or try to fight ball with whatever is close at hand? Protecting yourself and your loved ones is the a good reason to own a firearm. Their level of danger doesnt go up at all in a home invasion because you're aremed. And for the record, most criminals are lousy shots. You'll probably want a cite for that too. For that, I can offer my first hand observations, as well as direct you to numberous news stories where the hit ratio is horrible. There was one recently with 20rds fired and no one was hit. | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 10/16/2009 5:53:53 PM | \\America was the FIRST country in the world founded on liberalism with the agenda of individual freedoms for all. \\
Is that right...
Care to ask the American Indian Nations or American Africans about founding freedoms for all... 
America was founded by wealthy Europeans and Companies that could afford the investment to exploit the new world...
The American revolution was about money and a bunch of people that thought they could do better by cutting the tax man out of the loop...
Keep believing the bullshit spoon fed lie that it was all about freedom... That was the morsel thrown to the masses by the wealthy ruling elite to get their buy in...
\\The sad part is that there are some Americans who don't understand\\
Couldn't agree more  | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 10/16/2009 7:05:09 PM | | Ya because England never colonized anyplace or killed millions under the Monarchy????? | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 10/16/2009 9:25:44 PM | The theory of everything:
Well...never mind I can sense ahead of time that it would be fruitless, you sound a lot like the guy who has only contributed "cite" to this thread over and over.
I will correct you on one thing; there is no such thing as "American Africans". YOu even screwed up you precious politically correct title...pointless. | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 10/16/2009 9:32:57 PM | You all are doing exactly what the govt. wants us to do, fight amongst ourselves, instead of uniting against their oppression! Why don't we join together???
We are dangerously close to living in a police state now!!!
WAKE UP A$$HOLES!! | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 10/16/2009 9:45:46 PM | | This country will end the same way every other country similar to it did. The people will empower the government because they are "unable" to take care of themselves and want someone to do it for them. The government will abuse that power. We will slowly sink into economic ruin due to this, and the rest will follow as predicted. Erosion is the way of all good things, sadly I feel that prepairing for it rather than trying to prevent it is energy better spent. We can prolong, but not prevent. | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 10/16/2009 9:47:28 PM | I'm going to add my 2 cents into the gun debate thing. In Seattle, the outgoing mayor, Nickels, has decided that he will ignore Washington State constitution and outlaw guns in parks, craft(hobby centers) and other public areas. So now there will be lawsuits because what he has chosen to do is unconstitutional but yet he is leaving office so it doesn't matter.
I'm pro gun, pro common sense and people kill people, not guns, like so many other posters have written. If a criminal wants to bring a gun to Seattle Center or any of the myriad of city/county parks, do you think he/she is going to remember the "no guns allowed law" and think, "uh, Mayor Nickels had the city employees put up this sign in Georgetown Park that says No Guns Allowed, I better leave my gun in my Caprice and perhaps shoot at Timmy Two Fingers while he is waiting for the light to turn green at Seneca and 6th". | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 10/16/2009 10:31:58 PM |
I'm going to add my 2 cents into the gun debate thing. In Seattle, the outgoing mayor, Nickels, has decided that he will ignore Washington State constitution and outlaw guns in parks, craft(hobby centers) and other public areas. So now there will be lawsuits because what he has chosen to do is unconstitutional but yet he is leaving office so it doesn't matter.
I'm pro gun, pro common sense and people kill people, not guns, like so many other posters have written. If a criminal wants to bring a gun to Seattle Center or any of the myriad of city/county parks, do you think he/she is going to remember the "no guns allowed law" and think, "uh, Mayor Nickels had the city employees put up this sign in Georgetown Park that says No Guns Allowed, I better leave my gun in my Caprice and perhaps shoot at Timmy Two Fingers while he is waiting for the light to turn green at Seneca and 6th".
Hell, we hear about Nickels even up here in Arlington. You are talking about the same Mayor who wanted to get rid of all the dumpsters in Seattle because "dumpsters cuase crime" or something like that. How did that ever work out? | |
|
| for the gun control people
Posted: 10/17/2009 7:30:58 AM |
FYI, She was correct. Heller is not a 'landmark' case because it ONLY applies to the District of Columbia; since D.C. is not a state that ruling does not apply to any other state.
Now, there is a case coming up this term before the USSC that deals with the 2nd Amendment and I believe it is out of Illinois. That will be the case to watch because whatever the USSC rules in that case will apply to all the states and then you'll have your "landmark" 2nd Amendment case.
Although..the Anti Gun lobby will continue to say..Heller Vs D.C. is not a land mark case..when ever a case involving home defence and a gun..you can bet that decision will be brought up..especially if the boundaries of the States laws are fuzzy..as far as what constitutes the right to self defence in ones home...
also..Sotomayor..was asked if she thought (do you think you have a right to protect yourself in your own home) she dodged the question.
My question is...what do you think?..you are at home..minding your own business
and your home is broken into by armed assailants..do you have the right..to retrieve your firearm and defend your family,home and yourself.. | |
|
|
| Page 11 of 15
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 |
|
Home
login 
