The Constitution, The Second Amendment and BHO

Replies

• ST

  

  Steve

  Jan 24, 2013

  I'll note that with Hawaii - #49 in gun death rates - gun ownership may be low, but the state has a very strong hunting culture. Certainly on our rural island, gun ownership is common.  In my volunteer work in the courts, I find it's often the case that a person's greatest concern in a Temporary Restraining Order case is that they'll lose their gun permit and won't be able to hunt. The state's low level of gun violence, and relative isolation from the more extreme fear-feeding media, are in a feedback loop withurbangun ownership, which is quite low, and brings down the state's aggregate level of ownership.
  
  

  ReactReply
• SO

  

  Soupie

  Jan 25, 2013

  No Leroy, I'm merely mocking the slurs and names being cast by others on the assumptions made about liberals, progressives, and anyone who does favour gun control.  Read the whole thread.

  ReactReply
• SO

  

  Soupie

  Jan 25, 2013

  I think that you're just upset that your posts keep getting removed.  Perhaps you will learn to adjust them.

  ReactReply
• RE

  

  renebbare

  Jan 26, 2013

  It is truly scary to think that more and bigger guns will make us safer!

  ReactReply
• BN

  

  Bill Nesc

  Jan 26, 2013

  With gun ownership comes gun responsibilty. Too bad the mother of the Sandy Hook shooter didn't take responsibility of her guns. She wasn't all together there either. The apple certainly didn't fall far from the tree in the Sandy Hook shooter case.
  

  ReactReply
• SO

  

  Soupie

  Jan 26, 2013

  The paranoia meter on the far right is off the charts.  As Howard Dean said to a republican on Bill Maher last night, "Sure, about 10 percent of are democrats are extreme nuts, but at least 49% of your republicans are."

  ReactReply
• MA

  

  ManOfWicklow

  Jan 26, 2013

  [img src="http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mekongL36H1rzxfs3o1_500.jpg">

  ReactReply
• DE

  

  DesertRatOriginal Poster

  Jan 26, 2013

  Here's an interesting link[a href="http://www.cheeseslave.com/school-shootings-linked-to-pharmaceutical-drugs/" target=_blank>http://www.cheeseslave.com/school-shootings-linked-to-pharmaceutical-drugs/[/a]
  
  It shows a link between shootings and legal drugs. This is for informational purposes only and you can take this for what it's worth. I am not defending nor condemning its conclusions.

  ReactReply
• SO

  

  Soupie

  Jan 26, 2013

  When the city of Los Angeles had a gun amnesty buy back program, 2 grenade launchers were turned in.  Why does any civilian have a grenade launcher and why is that legal?

  ReactReply
• MA

  

  ManOfWicklow

  Jan 26, 2013

  [quote]"One of the primary causes of the Revolutionary War was England's attempt to disarm the American people."
  An interesting bit of spin there.[/quote]Wrong, it was over taxation.

  ReactReply
• T=

  

  Tom === Thomas S. Tierney

  Jan 26, 2013

  INTOLERABLE ACTS
  
  Boston Port ActAn act to discontinue, in such manner, and for or such time as are therein mentioned, the landing and discharging, lading or shipping, of goods, wares, and merchandise, at the town, and within the harbour, of Boston, in the province of Massachusetts Bay, in North America.
  
  Massachusetts Government ActAn Act for the better regulating the government of the province of the Massachusetts Bay in New England.
  
  Administration of Justice ActAn act for the impartial administration of justice in the case of persons questioned for any acts done by them in the execution of the law, or for the suppression of riots and tumults, in the province of the Massachusetts Bay, in New England.
  
  Quebec ActAn Act for making effectual Provision for the Government of the Province of Quebec in North America.
  

  ReactReply
• SO

  

  Soupie

  Jan 26, 2013

  Nice history lesson.  Now how does that relate to gangs in L.A. having grenade launchers?

  ReactReply
• T=

  

  Tom === Thomas S. Tierney

  Jan 26, 2013

  [quote]Nice history lesson.  Now how does that relate to gangs in L.A. having grenade launchers?[/quote]It doesn't. You were being ignored.
  

  ReactReply
• RE

  

  renebbare

  Jan 26, 2013

  [quote][quote]It is truly scary to think that more and bigger guns will make us safer!Not as scary as thinking that taking guns from law abiding citizens will make us safer.[/quote][/quote]
  And therein lies the problem. If you have someone with guns that then fall into the wrong hands? If you take the guns from law abiding citizens there will be no guns for the unlawful ones - but it will take time.
  A gun has only one use - to kill. That is what it was designed for. Certainly not safety.

  ReactReply
• M_

  

  M_JimmieM_M

  Jan 26, 2013

  [quote]With gun ownership comes gun responsibilty. Too bad the mother of the Sandy Hook shooter didn't take responsibility of her guns. She wasn't all together there either. The apple certainly didn't fall far from the tree in the Sandy Hook shooter case.
  [/quote]This is one of the most important facts that is consistently over looked. Where and how did the gun come from? Almost all of them did not belong to the perpetrater (stolen) or were bought illegally, like Black market. All those paper laws will not stop crime, it takes good people stepping up to the plate! The law is not always there when needed.
  The other big factor is these crimes are done in areas designated as gun free. This gives them the best odds of pulling off their agenda.
  Look at Chicago a gun free city and the worst gun crime city to be found.
  

  ReactReply
• BA

  

  babyseal

  Jan 27, 2013

  look at australia, gun control works, peace to all

  ReactReply
• MA

  

  ManOfWicklow

  Jan 27, 2013

  [quote]BTW as I explained Zak is my partner-my name is Sam. [/quote][img src="http://images.cpcache.com/image/33179738.png">

  ReactReply
• SO

  

  Soupie

  Jan 27, 2013

  Liberals sat through 8 years of the greatest dunce president of all time, corporate takeover of the government, useless wars and an economic collapse.  I think you paranoid freaks will survive 8 years of Obama.  Suck it up and get on with it.  And try not to assassinate or shoot at others.

  ReactReply
• FF

  

  FF32404

  Jan 28, 2013

  [quote]My opinion in this matter is not important. What is important is that your elected government under Obama decides what is appropriate in the wake of the Newtown massacre.
  [/quote]
  Sam, actually your opinion is respected and important however it doesn't mean it is correct.   At this point, unless an amendment is offered to nullify the entire Constitution, it is the law of the land as it pertains to the powers of the Federal government, like it or not.  It is very specific AND absolute and each Federally elected official and most law enforcement and military personnel to name a few others take an oath to uphold and defend her!  This makes it very clear that Obama nor any other Federal official does NOT have the authority to decide what is appropriate in the wake of the Newtown massacre!  Many/most state have also incorporated their own specific version of the 2nd Amendment into their State Constitutions as well so it's very clear.  While I respect most people's opinion, my reason for owning guns should be of no concern to anyone else, but we do have proof that the founders found it so important to re-affirm the right that we already possessed that they included it with countless explanations in documents that it was there to protect the citizens from tyranny.  For example one of the best quotes that fully explain my point is by George Washington himself: "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 from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”
  [img][/img]Note that his quote doesn't specify any particular types of arms such as musket but the word sufficient is key!  As time evolved, sufficient would mean that it is adjusted for the time being which in this case would mean that the people, who like it or not, are considered to be the militia and the arms they carry should be sufficient to help secure their freedom from any government which would include foreign or domestic governments!
  
  The State of VT is considering charging non gun owners a fee for not owning firearms because in the event that the citizens are called upon to defend the state, they would be useless. http://www.amendment2.us/vermont-proposal-would-charge-non-gun-owners/  Crazy some say?  well that is opinion too but we have seen way too much of the Obama administration trampling on the Constitution, especially the 10th Amendment and states are getting sick and tired of it.  I know it's hard to believe that in the US it's possible that a government could overstep it's bounds and move towards tyranny but the writing is on the wall and it's obvious that states as well as individual citizens are recognizing it!
  Another quote that I saw last night which is kind of like my fire extinguisher analogy:  "Guns are like parachutes, in the event that you need it, but don't have it, more than likely you won't need it again"
  
  

  ReactReply
• MA

  

  ManOfWicklow

  Jan 28, 2013

  [img src="http://92kucat.com/uploads/allimg/110704/1-110F4093J2.jpg">
  Dogs beware, NIMA's cat is well trained.

  ReactReply
• FF

  

  FF32404

  Jan 28, 2013

  [quote]"Sam, actually your opinion is respected and important however it doesn't mean it is correct."
  
  
  Thanks but I don't post my opinion to be correct. It is just my opinion.
  
  
  "At this point, unless an amendment is offered to nullify the entire Constitution, it is the law of the land as it pertains to the powers of the Federal government, like it or not.  It is very specific AND absolute and each Federally elected official and most law enforcement and military personnel to name a few others take an oath to uphold and defend her!"
  
  
  In what way will introducing new legislation and tightening up gun control nullify the entire Constitution?  All that has happened is that Obama has called for a ban on military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines, as well as wider background checks on gun buyers.
  
  
  "While I respect most people's opinion, my reason for owning guns should be of no concern to anyone else, but we do have proof that the founders found it so important to re-affirm the right that we already possessed that they included it with countless explanations in documents that it was there to protect the citizens from tyranny.  For example one of the best quotes that fully explain my point is by George Washington himself: "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 from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
  
  
  Would a ban on military - style assault weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines as well as wider background checks prevent you from owning guns? It seems to me it would only prevent you from owning military-style assault weapons. As you say your country's founders thought that the colonists should "be armed and disciplined with sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them" This made complete sense in a time when the colonies had no armies of their own and reprisals from the British were expected. The US now has an army to defend itself from foreign interference and a legislative process to defend it from internal interference. So do the general public need to be armed with military grade weaponry? They may be armed but are they all disciplined? The US of today is not the US of the founding fathers.
  
  
  "Another quote that I saw last night which is kind of like my fire extinguisher analogy:  "Guns are like parachutes, in the event that you need it, but don't have it, more than likely you won't need it again""
  
  So you might need a gun, but do you need a military-style assault weapon? [/quote]Sam, first, when someone presents an opinion, they have a right to express it but they are assuming it is correct, I'm merely stating that in this case it's wrong.
  You keep mentioning "Military Style Assault Weapons" or "Military Grade Weaponry" can you please explain to me what the definition of that is and how they operate the same or different from actual Military Assault Weapons?
  Also, at the time of the Revolutionary War, the colonies were not fighting an outside regime, they were fighting their own government who had become tyrannical!  Do you have proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that our current government, Regardless of who is the commander in chief is, is totally incapable of becoming tyrannical who could use the standing military against it's people?  IF so, I'd like to see it because I've never seen a government of any sort be lacking of that capacity!  The lust for power is always something that be a concern of the governed which was why our founders put the 2nd amendment into the Constitution.
  BTW, there was a standing colonial army in the revolutionary war which the militia fought side by side with just so you know!
  

  ReactReply
• SO

  

  Soupie

  Jan 28, 2013

  It's difficult to kill 20/30/40 people in several seconds with your car.  Rarely happens.  But an assault weapon with an extended magazine is a very effective way to kill many people in a brief period of time.

  ReactReply
• FF

  

  FF32404

  Jan 28, 2013

  [quote]"Lets talk about the Military-styled assault weapon, and compare it, tongue in cheek, to a car, rather, different cars. "
  
  Well why not do that, Nima has done the same thing a zillion times already so why not join in.
  
  As Soupie has already replied cars are designed for transportation, whereas guns are designed as weapons.
  
  A car can be used as a weapon and can kill, but its primary role is still for transportation. Now what are the other uses of a gun?
  
  A person can take a gun into a school in his pocket and use it to kill children. Cars don't work very well as concealed weapons.
  
  
  [/quote]
  
  I've tried to explain things with as much commons sense as I could, however people are still not getting it so here it goes again:
  The United States is a Constitutional Republic NOT a Democracy!  The Left throws the Democracy term around almost as much as "Assault Weapons" but neither term is accurate to describe what the left claims to be describing!  There is a very clear difference between a republic and a democracy, but it's probably as simple as not acknowledging it just because the term republic is the first part of the word republican!  Too bad, that's what it is!
  The term "Assault Weapon" to describe the firearms that you are referring is in fact a term that was created by the left wing anti gun politicians and media to demonize the inanimate object that has been labeled!  You are defining it based on false information and not listening to the people that know how these firearms operate.  Many of you have no clue what the difference is between a .223 round and .30-06 round and what types of firearms they come from yet you and your cohorts want to dictate to everyone else what we should own based on the acts of a few sick demented criminals.  None of these laws being proposed would have had, nor ever will have any effect on these types of crimes yet the ones that will be punished is everyone else who never intend on doing anything criminal with them!
  The purpose of firearms are not to kill people, they are to protect life and property and they must do a hell of a job otherwise our military, police and millions of law abiding citizens in hundreds of countries would not choose to use them for this purpose!  A very large majority of defensive uses of firearms happen without a shot being fired at all!  This adds to their worth in defending ones self!  Cars have a purpose of transportation yes, but they can be used to assault people!  IF someone abuses the use of them or uses them in a criminal manner, say to drive into a crowd of people, is that car an assault weapon or is it still just transporting the driver from point A to Point B via a crowd of people?
  One more point, other than mental illness, (they might be crazy but not stupid) the other main common denominator of a large majority of mass shootings are "Gun Free Zones"  There were 9 theaters in the Greater Denver area but the shooter in Aurora chose the one with a gun Free Zones!  Schools are no different!  Before anyone mentions it, the armed guard at Columbine was not in the school when the shooters entered.  Getting rid of Gun Free zones are not only the proper thing to do Constitutionally, but it is an automatic deterrent because the shooter will never know who is armed to protect themselves or not, ever!  If you don't agree, I challenge every one of you who don't agree to post a sign outside your home and on your vehicles that say:  "This is a Proud Gun Free Home" (or vehicle) IF you are correct, you've got nothing to worry about right?
  I guess I'm probably wasting my time typing this out, because I don't expect you sam, or anyone else who disagrees with me to see the logic in it!

  ReactReply
• FF

  

  FF32404

  Jan 28, 2013

  [quote]"In discussions about gun laws and gun politics in the United States, an assault weapon is most commonly defined as a semi-automatic firearm possessing certain features similar to those of military firearms. Semi-automatic firearms fire one bullet (round) each time the trigger is pulled; the spent cartridge case is ejected and another cartridge is loaded into the chamber, without the manual operation of a bolt handle, a lever, or a sliding handgrip."
  [/quote]You are proving my point!  This is the problem with the internet.  The left can make up a term to describe something and Wikipedia makes it the official definition!  You needed to scroll down a little further and see this excerpt:"The term "assault weapon" is sometimesconflatedwith the term "assault rifle". An assault rifle is a military rifle capable ofselective fire. This may includefully automaticfire, where multiple rounds are fired continuously when the trigger is pulled and held, and/or burst fire, where a burst of several rounds are fired when the trigger is pulled once.[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon#cite_note-10][10][/url] In the United States, fully automatic firearms are heavily restricted and regulated by federal laws such as theNational Firearms Actof 1934 and theFirearm Owners Protection Actof 1986, as well as state and local laws."  The left changed it to "Weapon" because they didn't want to limit their firearm agenda to just rifles when the time comes!
  This is a classic case of a well known leftist trick that was perfected by Bill Clinton: "If you tell the same lie enough times it becomes the truth"
  Yep and after all the debate, see what the DHS has to say about these firearms: " The United States Department of Homeland Security has stated a rifle chambered in 5.56 NATO (compatible with .223) with a magazine capacity of 30 rounds is “suitable for personal defense use in close quarters…”
  
  

  ReactReply