jump to last post 1-14 of 14 discussions (66 posts)

2nd Amendment of the USA

  1. 0
    jgrimes331posted 7 years ago

    Do you think the founding fathers of America; in consideration to AK-47's, assault weapons and handguns, would have reconsidered there position to NOT include the 2nd Amendment in the American Constitution?  If we are going to have the right to bear arms, shouldn't the "burden" in which that right bears; now be taught to the kids living on the streets, getting into gangs and surviving in our major cities? America has an obligation to teach ALL of the young people, being raised in the gutter or otherwise, the right and wrongs on shooting gun. They need to see corpses and need to here from victims. They need to attend Jails and they all need to know the law in which they are governed by. How many of you (honestly) knew what the 2nd amendment was in the 7th grade???? Well I can tell you this, they don't even teach you about the constitution in Public schools today. And we all worry about prayer, the creation story, and the pledge being allowed and taught... What about teaching the 2nd Amendment?? What about teaching the 1st amendment to American school children? What about bringing Hunter and Safety Courses back in our schools. The 2nd Amendment is a MANDATORY right we Americans have. Okay... why isn't being taught in L.A. or Brooklyn right next to the English class room?neutral

    1. 60
      retief2000posted 12 months ago in reply to this

      I wonder if the Founders were thinking about the internet when writing the First Amendment?

      1. Sgt Prepper profile image60
        Sgt Prepperposted 12 months ago in reply to this

        I know they were thinking about a tyrannical usurper like Obama when they wrote the Second Amendment.

        1. My Esoteric profile image89
          My Esotericposted 12 months ago in reply to this

          In terms of usurping power, Presidents Adams and Jefferson were much worse than PBO.  In fact, so was Jackson, Lincoln, FDR, Reagan, W. Bush, and a host of others.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 12 months ago in reply to this

            Which one of those forgave 10,000,000 criminals and promised them a home in this country regardless of past actions?

            1. My Esoteric profile image89
              My Esotericposted 12 months ago in reply to this

              Reagan and Lincoln.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                Not Lincoln - with a total population of 35 million, can't see 1 out of 3 people getting a pardon.  Doubt that Reagan did, either.

                1. My Esoteric profile image89
                  My Esotericposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                  Your 10 Million is a rhetorical number (since you don't know what it really is) as a stand in for "lot's"; so my statement stands.  I wonder if the 10 M as a percentage of population is higher or lower than the number attributed to Reagan as a percentage of a much smaller population.  As to Lincoln, would that percentage be around 50%, given 1/2 the nation were part of the criminal Confederacy?

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                    Hadn't thought of the confederate army, but guess they were illegal too!

            2. Sgt Prepper profile image60
              Sgt Prepperposted 12 months ago in reply to this

              That POS BHO.

              1. My Esoteric profile image89
                My Esotericposted 12 months ago in reply to this

                Wrong again.  Prove it.

  2. 0
    Leta Sposted 7 years ago

    A complicated issue.  One of interpretation, certainly, but also one where consideration of the obvious changes that have occurred in America since the 2nd Amendment was written should be noted.

    Don't think the Constitution is taught in most high school civics classes, period--almost anywhere, let alone Brooklyn and LA. 

    smile Don't think hunter safety classes would be appropriate in Brooklyn, but maybe in Nebraska, Iowa, or MO--incidentally, that would be my approach to gun control laws as well.

    1. goldentoad profile image61
      goldentoadposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I can vouch for that, the only gun safety we get taught in LA is when you hear guns shots, duck. My jr. high and high school used to get hit by drive by's all the time, fun times.

    2. 0
      jgrimes331posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Okay...  I think Lita you missed my point a little.  Yes, I'll agree that the Constitution is touched on in high school.    I think I made a reference to the 7th grade.  In some states and school districts 7th grade,  is still considered Middle School.  Junior High is other......

      I feel Brooklyn needs it more than Missourians.  Here in MO, you have to take the course I've been led to believe, to get a permit or a hunter's license.  I am speaking on a Federal Level, not individual State level....  Missourians along with many of the other mid-western, rockies, north western and eastern states have parents who are active with their parents.  They are taught the lesson of gun control.  In MO the hunter and safety course, they show destruction and death of humans from gunfire.

      But......  I still feel education is the key.   And the ONE semester your high school child takes in High School doesn't teach you the ratified Supreme Courts injunctions or nothing.  However, if we would start educating our kids when they start reading and adding 2+2; our society would be smarter and better for it.  Thanks!  This is just my personal opinion however.big_smile

  3. 61
    Rebel Ronposted 7 years ago

    jgrimes - Teaching about gun safety would be a good thing in our schools. Espeacially in Large cities where there is only TV for kids to learn of guns. My Granddaughters (one 7 and one 9) have been taught about weopons here at home. They know all about them, what they can do, and are very good shots themselves. Safety and knowledge should be the issue more that bans. I have to give it to you here. Your idea is very sensible.

    Should the 2nd Amend. be toyed with or reconsidered? NO> Private gun ownership is not just for hunting reasons. It is also a way in which the American Public can help to keep our own government in line. It's just like the cold war. It's a matter of keeping our rights by keeping the government wondering if we will fight for those rights against our own.

    1. Teresa McGurk profile image62
      Teresa McGurkposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I'm not sure I understand how you propose to keep the government "in line" -- by shooting at them?

  4. 61
    Rebel Ronposted 7 years ago

    That is one of the reasons for the 2nd Amend. To be able to fight even our own government if it were to come down to it. Would I fight against other Americans if it meant keeping the rights of myself and my family. You Bet I would. My biggest hope is that it never comes to that.

    1. goldentoad profile image61
      goldentoadposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      please, spare us the drama.

    2. 0
      jgrimes331posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Teresa with all, peaceful respect.  That is why we have the Second Amendment.  Our fore fathers wanted the American populace to have gun ownership.  In case there was a need to rise, to the call of Arms and revolt against the government again.   Had you ever heard of the American Revolution?  Well if you haven't maybe Wikipedia could help you understand the 2nd Amendment better.  I've lost the stomach for it...

      Rebel, I can tell you are a very Patriotic American well informed and well educated on the CONSTITUTION of the United States of America...D    (omg)  My name is Julie Grimes, it is a pleasure to meet you.

      .... I am even more committed in my belief that the Second Amendment needs to be taught in America's Public School system.  And maybe the second Amendment needs to be put into the AAA book "Tour America".  At least people would then be aware as to why we have concealed guns and have the "right to bear arms". roll

  5. calebd profile image61
    calebdposted 7 years ago

    Why not the Fourth, Fifth or the Sixth? Why is it that responsibility and security are seen as fully contingent on the Second amendment? This sort of selective interest in civics is infinitely more detrimental to public discourse if the Constitution is to be held up as the source of national power.

    1. 61
      Rebel Ronposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      The Constitution need to be heavier taught about in our schools period. Not just the 2nd Amend. It's just that this particular thread was on the 2nd. Amend. Would be more than glad to discuse the rest of them. If you feel fit start a hub on them and I'll be right in there with you.

    2. Teresa McGurk profile image62
      Teresa McGurkposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I quite agree, Caleb.  In fact, I'd go so far as to say that legal resident aliens such as myself know a heck of a lot more about the Constitution than most average Americans, since I've been reading it in my studies as I try to decide whether or not to apply for American citizenship.  But this thread is about the 2nd Amendment, which addresses a militia's right to bear arms.  Apparently the people discussing this issue are members of a militia, a para-military organization taking it upon themselves to keep the nefarious government from infringing on our rights.

      1. SweetiePie profile image84
        SweetiePieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Good point Teresa.

      2. 0
        jgrimes331posted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Teresa, I'd like to address this position of your about the "para-military" and all that....

        As for MYSELF, I have taken all the courses for gun safety.  When I was in Junior High it was a STATE of MISSOURI requirement.  Not all states are the same...  Now the state of MISSOURI law is a lot stricter. 

        I PERSONALLY,  hate guns!!!  I hate them.  I hate them. I hate them...
        But my personal feelings about guns: should NEVER, ever, ever...   keep other Americans citizens from owning them.  In the state of Missouri, the avg. household has 2 or more guns located in there homes per cap.  I don't;  but when you break the numbers down it works out that way.  In the state of Missouri, you can carry a concealed weapon.  Now on my block, we are the ONLY household who doesn't have at least 2 shot guns and 3 pistols (hand guns) per house.  Are my neighbors in the military?  NO!  They are doctors, lawyers, and College Curators, Pharmacists and Dentists...  Are they part of some "Para-Military" group, NO!  The are everyday avg. Americans. 

        The 2nd Amendment is not for the Militia only....   The 2nd Amendment addresses every AMERICAN. smile

  6. LibertyUnchained profile image60
    LibertyUnchainedposted 7 years ago

    Oddly enough when I went through the government controlled school system almost nothing was said about the constitutions.

    Even more oddly, when it is taught in schools today the bill of rights is often referred to as outdated, backwards, etc.

    Personally, I think the public schools are the primary mechanism used to keep us ignorant of what is going on around us by draining our zest for life via constant mundane busywork for twelve years. Smart, energetic children in => Trained workforce zombies out.

    Fortunately for me, my father has a better than average comprehension of freedom and I grew up in a house full of guns.

    If we must have government run schools, then we should definitely force them to teach our children what their rights are, especially what their right to be armed really means. Of course, good luck getting an overreaching government to tell children that the primary purpose of the 2nd amendment is to keep those calling themselves the government wondering if it would be wise to try and declare us all slaves on the plantation. Somehow, I think that is something that must be taught at home.

    1. calebd profile image61
      calebdposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I don't know where you went to school but the bill of rights is certainly not taught as outdated or backwards or any of that. Yes, there are major flaws with public education (same as private education..both their goals are to churn out products that meet university minimum standards, nothing more, it seems) but they certainly aren't because OMG THEY DON'T HARP ON ABOUT THE 2ND AMENDMENT. I'm certainly all for civic education and having kids be aware of the constitution though I can't for the life of me figure out why people can go on about protecting the second and at the same time downplay the importance of the 4th,5th,8th and 18th amendments. I'd also expect the educators to impress upon the kids the importance of all these other neglected amendments. I have no interest in taking guns away from people, though I'm slightly iffy about assault weapons.

      Critical thinking skill are the most important thing schools neglect to teach. There's various reasons why that is so. Universities aren't doing a much better job either. As for your ridiculous claim that schools are sitting on truckloads of money, that's simply not true, and Burien's taxation is oppression screed doesn't prove otherwise.

      I grew up around guns too. They had little to no effect on my understanding of freedom. I've got nothing against folk that want to keep their guns. Those two things cannot be correlated.

      1. LibertyUnchained profile image60
        LibertyUnchainedposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Being as this topic is about the second amendment, I did not mention the others. Certainly they should all be taught. And by taught, I mean that they should be explained inside the framework of history and the ideas of the time...not just recited quickly before carrying on. The only people I have problems with owning guns are those claiming to be public servants...primarily because history shows time and again that a disarmed populace is mincemeat.


        I agree on the critical thinking bit. The schools aren't designed to impart that. In fact, quite the opposite is true. If you think too much you ask questions...and a questioning worker drone is not a good worker drone.

        However, all governmental entities are sitting on tons of what we call money. Easily provable for anyone that cares to look into CAFRs. The money sits on the back side as stocks and bonds while all we see is budgets which show taxes in and expenses.


        The correlation to weapons and freedom is this: Those calling themselves the government tend to be less oppressive when they think that those they govern have a good possibility of resisting. Before any government has slaughtered groups of those they governed, they have typically disarmed them. That is a simple fact of history.

        While certainly not necessary to understand freedom, tyranny grows by leaps and bounds when there is little fear of resistance.

        And as a side note, I cringe when I hear that the constitution gives us our rights. Anyone that believes a piece of paper gives them rights is not thinking clearly. Rights are something we have as people. Anything "given" by another can be taken away...and is not a right. The bill of rights was simply a restatement of some of the rights that we, as people, already have...put into writing with the idea that doing so would be at least a partial check on government gone rogue.

        1. calebd profile image61
          calebdposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          The reason I bring the others up is because unlike the second which has the gun lobby to assign it outsize importance, the others may be trampled seemingly at will (See: torture). I'd love for all kids to be taught the basic ideals America was founded on but we do them a disservice if we elevate one over the others. Personally, I have a lot of respect for the Constitution. Like you said, and the Enlightenment implies, the Bill of rights are based off of natural law. I'd argue the point about the disarmed populace being mincemeat simply because a fully armed populace is equally dangerous in my view. I'm referring in this case specifically to initiatives to allow concealed carry in schools, colleges and places of worship, where there ought to be reasonable expectation of safety.


          It's a relic of an earlier time more than it is a conspiracy to keep people stupid in my view. Unfortunately, its been internalized too much by people in power. I could go for days on this topic but I won't.




          Except weapons aren't tantamount to resistance by default. They may be, but don't have to be. They may devolve into private militias, for instance. I'd agree to a limited extent on that aspect of history but must note that the groups of people that were slaughtered were typically already marginalized economically/politically and weapons would not necessarily have changed that. In the modern day and age, I'm not convinced weaponry is the most ideal form of resistance except perhaps as a symbol. Important perhaps but not the most important thing.

          1. LibertyUnchained profile image60
            LibertyUnchainedposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            You will get no disagreement on the trampling of our rights from me.

            I do believe that an armed society is a polite society, so long as members of the society comprehend why it is not only morally wrong to coerce and harm others but why doing such is advocating having the same done to themselves. If we will not stand up for others, we cannot complain when others do not stand up for us.

            I do not equate safety to lack of weaponry and while I am not a big proponent of concealed carry, I am one of open carry...which has somehow become treated as concealed carry.

            Of course, being one who advocates the rights of all, I believe that individual sub-societies and organizations have the perfect right to allow or disallow weaponry on their property as they see fit.

            I may have the right to carry weapons of my choice, but I have no right to bring them onto your property without your consent.

            I'd call it some of each, but yeah, any such discussion would be best served in a separate topic and would be quite long.


            I far prefer non-violent resistance where possible. Ghandi and others have shown that it can indeed work as the majority of people want to think of themselves as good...and it is hard for them to maintain an illusion of goodness if they are constantly beating completely passive, unresisting people.

            Ideally, I believe we would stop fighting amongst ourselves based upon false divisions such as skin color, creed, etc. and become organized. The problem being, of course, that we are a long ways from that...and powerful segments of our society seem to prefer our division.

            I definitely agree on the symbolism, whether seen or heard. The sound of a pump action shotgun in the dark will generally lead would be home invaders to exit post haste...no violence required.

    2. 0
      Larry Wallposted 15 months ago in reply to this

      The Second Amendment states,
      "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 militia use to be volunteers. Weapons consisted of muskets and flintlocks. The Supreme Court rule that the provision dealing with the militia was no longer needed.

      Thus the people have the right to keep and bear arms.

      There is no explicit right to shoot the arms that people bear, however, the assumption is that bear means the right to shoot.

      The overall amendment deals with defense and ownership.

      The Founding Fathers did not envision automatic weapons, grenade launchers and other arms.
      Limitations are needed. The phrase shall not be infringed cam be viewed as mandatory, but that is not always accurate.

      Thus we have a law that many hold almost sacred. It can be changed without infringing the right to bear arms, but the law does not say all arms so the door is opened to limiting the number of arms. If you assume that to bear arms allows the guns to be fired, then mandatory training would not be out of the question. Finally, the states are not prohibited from enacting laws requiring the recording of all serial numbers on all guns and compiling that information in a database  that could also include a picture of the markings of a fired bullet. Thus death from guns could be checked. The manufacturers of guns could provide this data. It would be possible in the case of a shooting injury or death to trace the ballistic information to the gun manufacturer and determine the serial number and accordingly to follow how the gun was  sold, destroyed or disppeared. Make sure all that want to own a gun take a safety test. Do not allow civilians to carry guns in churches, schools or other public places, unless a special license is obtained, and I think we will have met reasonable regulations regarding the second amendment.

      1. ahorseback profile image50
        ahorsebackposted 14 months ago in reply to this

        The  illusion  of  fact and purpose in this  entire thread  is all about  the lack of understanding from the original post  from anti-gun people  ,right to this one .   Control your  crime  world , eliminate crime .  Instead you think another law on the books of thousands more will work .   The definition   of insanity  comes to mind  when I read posts like this one .


        Ten thousand laws + one more ?   Right , that's gonna' stop gun crimes !

        1. Sgt Prepper profile image60
          Sgt Prepperposted 14 months ago in reply to this

          The Second Amendment recognition of our God-given right to "Keep & Bear"(own and CARRY) was made to protect us from our own government should it ever be controlled by a foreign-born usurper attempting to become dictator of the whole New World Order.  The main reason I own a gun is to protect my right to own it.  I hate Big Brother Obama.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 14 months ago in reply to this

            If a god gave that right then it is up to the god to enforce it.  So far it's doing a pretty poor job as the far left keeps taking more and more of that right away from us.

        2. 0
          Larry Wallposted 14 months ago in reply to this

          The second amendment is not a "god-given right." given right." It was a political decision to draft the Bill of rights. My suggestions were aimed (no pun intended)  to provide a level of safety that we do not have now. Several yeas ago in my city on the Fourth of July, a man shot his pistol into the air. The bullet fell several hundred feet away, hitting a 12-year-old child, who was once a student of my wife. The bullet hit the child and instantly killed him. The shooter was never caught. A few years later at another Fourth of July presentation, one person died and another paralyzed by people celebrating the holiday by firing guns into the air. I never said I opposed the second amendment or sought its repeal. I just want a few safeguards. I will probably never get them, at least not in my lifetime. Virtually all the amendments that make up the bill of rights have been altered or had companioned legislation enacted for clarity. For some reason, the second amendment appears to be perfect in the view of many. I think, and this is my opinion to which I am entitled. It is far from perfect.

          By the way, God did not write the Second Amendment. He did write that phrase about "thy shall not kill."

          1. Sgt Prepper profile image60
            Sgt Prepperposted 14 months ago in reply to this

            Thou shalt not commit MURDER is the accurate translation.  Abortion is the taking of innocent human-life for selfish reasons no matter how you slice it.  Life, Liberty & the pursuit of happiness are all God-given.  No government, not even your precious UN, can change natural-law.  Natural means without question, obvious and GOD-GIVEN.  That is why a natural-born citizen is one whose citizenship is without question.  Sorry Cruz, Santorum, McCain, Jindahl, Rubio and born-a Brit Bathhouse Barry.  Kenyan-born, gay, commie, Indonesian, son-of-a-porn-star, less than half-black, Moslem Obama is The Antichrist and Pope Francis is his False Prophet. 
            Get saved and get ready for The Rapture and tribulation!

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 14 months ago in reply to this

              Do you EVER present anything but personal opinion - anything at all based on factual data?

              Abortion kills no one as a fetus is not a human life.  Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness are guaranteed by the constitution, not some make believe god that does nothing to enforce it.  Natural has nothing to do with questioning it; it means without interference from man and has nothing to do with your pretend god.  And finally, the constitution defines what a citizen is (including a person born on American soil), again with nothing to do with your god.

              Try again and try to get something right this time.

  7. goldentoad profile image61
    goldentoadposted 7 years ago

    maybe we should get more schools and teachers before we worry about bill of rights and guns. But if everyone wants to put the carts in front of the horse, I guess its all working out, so why bother.

  8. LibertyUnchained profile image60
    LibertyUnchainedposted 7 years ago

    Personally, I am fairly positive that more schools and more teachers in the current scheme of things is a very bad thing.

    Of course, if we can get control of our schools back or start our own schools then more schools and teachers would likely be a good thing.

    Most schools are rich beyond belief due to stock holdings via their corporate charters. If you do not believe it, do some serious research into Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFRs).

    They only show us the budget which amounts to monies taken in via taxes minus expenses. On the back side they often have millions of dollars invested in the stock markets due to overpayment of previous taxes which they decided to stash away rather than roll forwards or return to the overtaxed taxpayer.

    This stuff is easily verified, one just has to look.

    1. goldentoad profile image61
      goldentoadposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      sorry, I'm a dummy from a public education. I didn't know the schools and teachers were so rich.

      1. Sgt Prepper profile image60
        Sgt Prepperposted 14 months ago in reply to this

        Even if they're not rich they sure are expensive.  Most public schoolteachers are overpaid liberal brainwashers.  Thank God "Keep & Bear" means own and CARRY for such a time as this with militant gays, violent Moslems & a Kenyan-born usurper in our White House.  Jesus said in Luke 11:21 "When a strongman well-armed keeps his palace his goods are in peace." But when jackbooted BATF-thugs bust his door down at 4am they will overpower that man and take away whatever arms he has.
        Allah = Satan, Obama = Antichrist & Pope Francis = False Prophet
        Get ready!

    2. Teresa McGurk profile image62
      Teresa McGurkposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      you are so seriously mistaken that I am really quite mystified about your comments - - which schools are these?  where?

      1. kerryg profile image90
        kerrygposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I am just as confused. My college had an endowment of well over $1 billion dollars (closer to 2, I believe) at one point thanks to stocks managed by Buffett and Rosenfield, but it was a private school, not state.

        Most of the public elementary and high school teachers I know are forced to pay for books and supplies out of their own pockets as often as not, because the schools are struggling so badly financially.

        And I don't know anyone except George W. Bush and his neocon friends who have ever tried to claim the Bill of Rights is "outdated."

        1. Teresa McGurk profile image62
          Teresa McGurkposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Yep -- and federal funding has been cut so much for the state university I taught at that the school doesn't even bother figuring federal funding into the budget anymore, it's such a pitiful amount.

          1. goldentoad profile image61
            goldentoadposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            I'm trying so hard to resist sad

    3. 0
      jgrimes331posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Me too!  That is why I would like to address the NRA.  I've been waiting for someone to bring up the teacher angle.

      The NRA has failed miserably at being an Association.  They have spent hundreds of millions of dollars in the past 20 yrs on lobbyists.  When they could've been spending that money on education.:mad

  9. LibertyUnchained profile image60
    LibertyUnchainedposted 7 years ago

    The schools here all over the several states of the united states.

    Of course, most teachers and people below the political rank of district superintendent have no idea concerning these things.

    See http://cafrman.com/ and http://cafr1.com/ and pay attention to what is being stated.

    Then go out and get yourself a copy of one of the CAFRs from your local school district corporation, if they will give you one. If they will not, look up the laws concerning public information acts for your state and use them to force the district to give you a copy.

    This is something that the media never talks about except by mistake...and when it does it stops speaking about it almost immediately, much like how they suddenly completely forgot about the judge who was driving drunk and did a hit and run then refused to be jailed because her duties were far too important for such things.

    Anywise, enough rambling from me. I can only point the way, I certainly cannot force anyone to believe the truth.

  10. LibertyUnchained profile image60
    LibertyUnchainedposted 7 years ago

    I hear you, but from what I have been able to dig up the problem is that the schools, cities, counties, states, and other governmental seeming units do not want to admit that they have been literally hiding huge sums of tax money from people for decades.

    All of our governmental units are corporations these days. All of them keep two sets of books. The one meant for the general public, called "The Budget" which only denotes monies coming in and monies going out and a second, called "The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report" which also denotes vast amounts of money tied up in stock holdings.

    I have no doubt that most school teachers have no ideas about these things as they are rarely, if ever, mentioned other than in passing.

    As for the federal grants and whatnot, I want to kick them completely out of the schools. They have no business deciding from on high what our children will learn. Especially considering how bought and paid for they are by big corporations. If we want real schools that actually teach something worth knowing ( besides how to be a good corporate drone ) then we need local control. And there will be no local control until we cut the ties to the federal purse...which can only be done once those at the state and county level start actually protecting people from the feds.

    I put the links up in my last post. Look them over for yourself, grab a copy of the CAFRs for your local school district, city, fire district, etc., and then look them over carefully. The sad part is that so few know what is being done and those who do are too often called crazy as most cannot believe that other people would fleece them that badly.

  11. goldentoad profile image61
    goldentoadposted 7 years ago

    So all the unions are being fooled? That's amazing research, you should sell that secret to them, you can get rich yourself.

    1. LibertyUnchained profile image60
      LibertyUnchainedposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Nah, the info is all out there in plain sight for those that are willing to look.

      The problem of course, is that people are too lazy to bother and would rather just complain and continue to raise taxes.

      The problem with doing so is that as the volume of non-goverment workers continues to shrink, so does the tax base.

      Here is a question...if the feds can create billions to bail out the banks, why exactly can they not do the same to pay for schools?

      1. goldentoad profile image61
        goldentoadposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I don't know, I'm bored with this forum, maybe someone else will answer. I feel like I'm in the twilight zone here.

        1. 0
          jgrimes331posted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Goldentoad, I am a 'right to work' individual.  I don't agree with Union practices.  They have lost their principle.  I am not as well versed in the matter of Unions either.  When the subject line turned this direction, I pretty much didn't have a comment to make for myself.  Unions are a sticky matter; that you are either for or you're against.
           
          It's funny you mentioned the Twilight Zone.  I loved that show....

          I'd be greatly interested in sharing more ideas on the Constitution, the Amendments and the Second Amendment.  I am rather ignorant on all the different types of Unions, their names, rules, dues and etc.  I am very well informed about the Teamsters Union- seeing how my life use to be in construction.  On that matter, I'd rather keep my opinion of them to myself.smile

          Sorry you're bored...  Wanna talk about the weather?smile  I'll do my best to keep you entertained. lol

  12. Direxmd profile image90
    Direxmdposted 7 years ago

    I'm sure the founders of the United States would had not had seen the type of weapon as relevant, besides indiscriminate devices such as:  nuclear, biological, chemical, laser and probably land mine weaponry.  The idea behind the 2nd amendment was to give the people a means to overthrow their own government if it became too power and/or if the government was above the constitution.

    Obviously the 2nd amendment is far more complex and has infinitely more variables and debatable points, but I do think it was left to translate for a reason.

    1. goldentoad profile image61
      goldentoadposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Watch out kid, there's people with guns in this forum.

      1. Direxmd profile image90
        Direxmdposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        yeah but I have an envelope full of stuff, and I hope it gives you gas

        1. goldentoad profile image61
          goldentoadposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          the gas is from the antioxidants not being accepted by my body

  13. Direxmd profile image90
    Direxmdposted 7 years ago

    then maybe you should train your body by eating outrageous amounts of blueberries first

    1. goldentoad profile image61
      goldentoadposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      there's no hope for me, save yourself, I'm a lost cause.

      1. Direxmd profile image90
        Direxmdposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I wonder what the hell you actually look like

        1. goldentoad profile image61
          goldentoadposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Like a wild animal.

          1. Direxmd profile image90
            Direxmdposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            who are you?

            1. goldentoad profile image61
              goldentoadposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              I'm Batman.

              This is what I look like- but don't read the hub.
              http://hubpages.com/hub/I-got-fans-I-got-no-fans--pt-2

              1. Direxmd profile image90
                Direxmdposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                i like your shirt, it smells nice

                1. goldentoad profile image61
                  goldentoadposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  alot of antioxidants in jalapenos

                  1. Direxmd profile image90
                    Direxmdposted 7 years ago in reply to this
  14. ahorseback profile image50
    ahorsebackposted 12 months ago

    Leftist anti- constitutionalist's constantly stream a non-sense drivel -  all but hysterically implying that there are  no gun laws  ALREADY ON THE BOOKS .      So I ask , what about those laws that  aren't working now ?   

    What's wrong with the existing picture of law ,of restrictions , of background checks and of  prosecution  , ? 

    And what's going to change  by adding more laws to a system that doesn't work now ?

    Isn't that [ adding more laws ] insanity by definition ?

 
working