jump to last post 1-50 of 60 discussions (379 posts)

Supreme Court Ruling On Gun Rights! Should Americans Be Allowed...

  1. leeberttea profile image59
    leebertteaposted 6 years ago

    ... to carry regardless of state or local laws?

    I think the Supreme Court will rule today that Americans, all Americans have the constitutional right to carry guns and states and cities can not limit that right! This is huge and if the cour rules as I suspect will be an affirmation of liberty as the founders intended! I will almost immediately go out and buy a gun!

    http://forit.org/r/http://image.examine … s-decision

    http://forit.org/r/http://news.yahoo.co … _usa_court

    1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
      Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      It seems to me to be a no-brainer: the US Constitution trumps state and local laws. Heck, it even trumps federal laws.

      Do I think it's a good idea to carry in this day and age? Not so much. I don't carry. The chance the gun could be taken from me and used against innocents (any chance = too much chance, imo) outweighs the benefits I'd get from being armed. At least, it does at the moment. This may change.

      For now, the responsibilities that I would take on when exercising that right are too weighty to make it worthwhile. But I'll defend those who do choose to exercise their right.

    2. TheWicklessCandle profile image61
      TheWicklessCandleposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      It's in the constitution.... duh!

      Wyoming has the lowest crime rate in the nation and the most gun stores per capita.



      I see a direct correlation there.

      1. WizardOfOz profile image61
        WizardOfOzposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        wow.  really?  a direct correlation?

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
          Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Correlations don't prove cause and effect.

      2. Uninvited Writer profile image83
        Uninvited Writerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Canada as a whole has a lower crime rate than the US. We have less gun shops.

        I thought the right to bear arms was only in times of war, but I don't know that much about your constitution.

        1. WizardOfOz profile image61
          WizardOfOzposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          It works for the Swiss but that's a whole different story.  Not sure they have gun shops.

  2. lorlie6 profile image85
    lorlie6posted 6 years ago

    Hey leeberttea, I am a registered gun owner and use it responsibly.  I love target shooting and am anal when it comes to keeping it unloaded when at home and out of the reach of kids.
    But I don't live in a city any longer.  I used to live in South Central LA where my neighbors dodged bullets daily.  Really.  I do believe we have the right to bear arms, however the constitution was written in a different era.

    1. RKHenry profile image79
      RKHenryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      But still..., the law is the law.  This should be an open and shut case.  Americans have the right to bear arms. Period.  It doesn't matter what era we live in now, or what it was like then.  It is part of the constitution, and that is that.  Wouldn't you agree?  I don't own a gun.  I hate guns.  Hate them.  However, the constitution is the governing law-above all other laws.

  3. maruthirp profile image59
    maruthirpposted 6 years ago

    This is definitely a serious issue to think over. If some short tempered people carry guns with them we may have to see gun shots very frequently. It is also the right of one to keep themselves protected from this kind of short tempered people.

    1. Elpaso profile image60
      Elpasoposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The result will be the wild wild west in our cities. There are too many people with too much hate and paranoia. Chigago would become Tombstone, and New York City would become Dodge City.

  4. Ralph Deeds profile image69
    Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago

    What happened to States Rights? Cities and States should be able to pass gun control laws that meet their needs. The Chicago law has been in effect for 19? years. Shootings are becoming so common in our cities that reasonable restrictions, perhaps not absolute bans, should be allowed by the court.

    1. leeberttea profile image59
      leebertteaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      States rights? Suddenly you're concerned with states rights? States apparently don't have any rights the recent health care bill and controversy over the AZ immigration bill highlight this. In any case, when states ratified the constitution they agreed to abide by it's principles, and so can not pass any law that infringes on the people's right to keep and bear arms.

      1. Ivorwen profile image84
        Ivorwenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Good point.  An amended constitution is above fed and state law.

      2. KFlippin profile image58
        KFlippinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Sounds pretty well said to me.

    2. Ivorwen profile image84
      Ivorwenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I'm always confused as to who trumps whom.  I have been told that the local police have the right to tell the FBI to get lost.

      In Wyoming, some want to issue a handgun as part of WY citizenship, partly to trump any federal laws that would hinder gun owners rights, saying t5he state is more powerful than the fed.

      1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
        Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        "In Wyoming, some want to issue a handgun as part of WY citizenship,"
        Really? So, when would a kid born in Wyoming get his first shootin' iron? When he gets his driver's license? Or when he's old enough to drink? smile

        1. Ivorwen profile image84
          Ivorwenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I've wondered about that myself.  I am guessing at age 18, when one becomes a voting citizen.  Maybe 14, when one becomes a paying hunting citizen?  wink

          1. wychic profile image80
            wychicposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Sounds like I need to try harder to stay in the loop of local happenings...I'm also from Wyoming, and have not heard of any such thing smile. That said, I am an average Wyomingite in the respect that I believe government needs to keep their hands off my firearms, of any type...granted, we don't get shot at by strangers here (maybe because people know that there's a high chance someone will shoot back?), firearms are used mostly for hunting and livestock protection, so the overall perception of firearms are likely very different from that held by city-dwelling folk.

            1. Ivorwen profile image84
              Ivorwenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Last I heard on it, part of the reason it is being contemplated, is because WY pays more per capita than any other state, for law enforcement, due to the large land mass with relatively few people. 

              I know our local law enforcement is the first to make sure people know that there we have a Make My Day law and encourage firearms ownership.

      2. Ralph Deeds profile image69
        Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        That may be fine for Wyoming but it doesn't work well in New York, Cleveland, Chicago and Detroit where people are being killed right and left by guns, mostly handguns.

        1. outdoorsguy profile image61
          outdoorsguyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          killed by  illegally aquired handguns. in about 90 percent of cases.

          1. outdoorsguy profile image61
            outdoorsguyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            also note those same cities have some of the toughest gun laws in the nation and yet... it hasnt stopped the crimes.  in point of fact the crime rates have soared with each new Gun law.   things that make you go Hmmmmmmmm

    3. 0
      SirDentposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Cities should be able to pass laws with restrictions as you said. It was done in some towns of the old west though maybe not for protection of citizens as much as protecting crooked sherriffs and marshalls.

      1. Doug Hughes profile image60
        Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Exactly, Sir Dent!  And that's how I'm hearing the interpretation of today's ruling.  A state or community will NOT be able to pass a blanket law to prohibit the ownership of firearms. Restrictions on felons and the insane to buy guns will be upheld. Some states will have concealed carry laws (which I endorse) with the  requirement that to obtain a carry permit, you must show a level of competence. I'm in favor of gun ownership AND firearm education because a 9mm Glock is not a magic wand.  To own one, you should have an idea what it will do, and how it can buy you a long term in jail if misused.

  5. Ohma profile image80
    Ohmaposted 6 years ago

    I can say that after being held at gunpoint on 3 separate occasions in my line of work that the gentlemen holding the guns nether cared or where deterred by any firearm laws.
    The only people that care about the laws are people who are sincerely trying not to violate them. So where does that leave us?

  6. leeberttea profile image59
    leebertteaposted 6 years ago

    Just heard the news, the supreme court struck down the Chicago law 5-4 along political lines! Everyone now has the RIGHT to own and carry!

    I wonder how soon I can buy my gun?

  7. Amanda Severn profile image89
    Amanda Severnposted 6 years ago

    Here in the UK gun ownership is comparatively rare, and not really encouraged. Consequently few criminals are able to obtain guns, and our police officers are not routinely armed - they don't need to be. In rural areas and smaller towns, gun crime is almost non-existent, although the bigger cities do have a good sprinkling of more dangerous criminals.

    I'm very happy to live without firearms, and am very grateful for our strict gun laws.

    1. Sab Oh profile image61
      Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Great. In your smaller towns criminals with guns would pretty much own the place, and your law enforcement officers' lives would be in grave danger for the sake of ideology. Brilliant.

      1. WizardOfOz profile image61
        WizardOfOzposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Are you suggesting that a nation with strict gun controls is less safe than one with virtually free access to firearms for all citizens?

        1. Sab Oh profile image61
          Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Depends on who has the guns, doesn't it? I hate to break it to you, but someone always will.

  8. Kangaroo_Jase profile image80
    Kangaroo_Jaseposted 6 years ago

    I am always curious with constitutional rights, federal, state and local laws. As far as these two stories go though, it seems that it's coming down to a reform of law to highlight that the constitutional right to bear arms, will be viewed as above any and all laws in the US.

    This may or may not in the future, still provide individuals, or corporations entities to challenge individual federal, state and local laws, as seen in an instance if one of these laws differs from the constitution, the constitution is the precedent(in court) authority.

    Now, my curiosity comes as I live in Australia, which in similarity to Canada, we are not a gun bearing nation. We don't have it in the Australian constitution, an amendment for a right to bear arms, as is in the US constitution.

    But I do see this as a huge issue in the US, as it may or may not have a massive influence on how the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution is used in today's world.

  9. lovemychris profile image78
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    Congratulations! You have the right to kill!!
    And what you would be killing is a living breathing human being...

    Yet, aborting a zygote swimming in blood you want to make a crime.


    Think you might be led by ideology, not the Constitution??

    1. leeberttea profile image59
      leebertteaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Hyperbeole! Just plain leftist rhetoric talking points. The constitution gives everyone the right to bear arms. No one has the right to take the life of another.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
        Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        And the courts have supported the right of cities and states to adopt reasonable conditions and rules for the exercise of that right and for the sale of weapons. The right isn't unlimited. Licensing may be required for carrying a handgun. Guns may be prohibited in workplaces, schools, churches, etc. Certain types of weapons may be prohibited entirely.

        1. leeberttea profile image59
          leebertteaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Sounds like "infringement" to me! What does "reasonable" mean exactly? By whose "reason"? Yours? Obama's? Kagans?

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
            Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            The courts will decide, case by case. I suspect they would not allow small, tactical nuclear weapons and the NRA would probably object on the ground that the Army has 'em so the people should be able to have 'em too. Or at least stingers to shoot down the black helicopters.

  10. lovemychris profile image78
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    Errrr, what is a gun for?

    1. leeberttea profile image59
      leebertteaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Hammering nails to hang pictures while waiting for some criminal to rob you.

  11. Pcunix profile image90
    Pcunixposted 6 years ago

    The ACLU is going to want my membership card back, but I hope they rule that States can't  restrict ownership.

    Without that, we are in danger of losing our liberty.  I feel it is worth the obvious problems that go along  with it.

    Don't panic - I'm still a loony liberal on everything else.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
      Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Would you buy regulating handgun ownership?

  12. ilmdamaily profile image93
    ilmdamailyposted 6 years ago

    Why do Americans need guns?

    You have the most powerful military in the world.

    And one of the largest police forces in the world.

    Millions of trained professionals to keep you safe.

    I can't see how arming the civilian population makes anyone safer.

    There is no situation that a firearm improves. Ever.

    Ever.

    1. leeberttea profile image59
      leebertteaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      It gives citizenss protection from the most powerful military in the world in the event it is asked to supress our freedom.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
        Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        That's a pipe dream. Are you a militiaman?

        1. leeberttea profile image59
          leebertteaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          No, that's the reality of why that was put into the constitution and why the courts have ruled that it applies to all individuals. Only a fool and a traitor would allow the government to disarm us!

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
            Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            As in the great movie "Things Change."

            1. leeberttea profile image59
              leebertteaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Well maybe some day someone will kame the movie "History Repeats Itself".

              We must study history and learn from it if we don't want it to repeat.

    2. Sab Oh profile image61
      Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The fact that certain people can't see the answer to those questions really speaks volumes...

    3. Reality Bytes profile image94
      Reality Bytesposted 6 years ago in reply to this


      If a guy threatens me and my family, threatening to sexually molest my children?  I think I could find many reasons why a firearm in my possession would improve the situation. Every Every time!

      1. ilmdamaily profile image93
        ilmdamailyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        There are people trained specifically to deal with situations like that - and they'll do a much more effective job of protecting you and your children.

        They're called the police.

        1. leeberttea profile image59
          leebertteaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Tell that to the guy in CT whose house was invaded and the perpetrators raped his wife and daughters in front of him before killing them leaving him for dead and setting his house on fire.
          The cops can't protect everyone, all the time.

          1. WizardOfOz profile image61
            WizardOfOzposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            If guns are legal you can protect yourself, OK.  We understand that.  It doesn't make sense in reality, why?

            The guy breaking into your house knows the high chance of you having a gun, right?

            So, being a hardened criminal, what is the logical answer?

            You bring a bigger gun.  Or, you bring a friend, or you bring a friend and you both have bigger guns.

            There will always be someone with a bigger gun.  Guns will not protect you.

            1. leeberttea profile image59
              leebertteaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Here's the flip side to that, when everyone can legally carry, the criminal knows that any house he breaks into could have a gun pointing back at him and all the neighbors as well so maybe he decides that the risk isn't worth it and resorts to internet crime.

              1. WizardOfOz profile image61
                WizardOfOzposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                statistics disagree with you.

                1. WizardOfOz profile image61
                  WizardOfOzposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  reality disagrees with you.

            2. Ralph Deeds profile image69
              Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              And criminals break into houses to get guns to use which can't be traced to them.

              1. WizardOfOz profile image61
                WizardOfOzposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                and that too.

              2. Jerami profile image80
                Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                and locking your doors do not keep criminals out yet we lock them.

          2. ilmdamaily profile image93
            ilmdamailyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            You're right.

            There's only one thing that can eradicate violence.

            And that's more guns. And more violence.

            Kind of like cleaning my house: I can either clean it - boring - or I can just make the parts that are clean as dirty as the parts that are already dirty.

            And then call it clean because no-one can tell the difference anymore.

            Eventually though the filth will build up and kill me and everyone else in my house.

            And i'll be left wondering if maybe the best solution wasn't to just clean my house in the first place.

            1. barranca profile image77
              barrancaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I like this analogy.

        2. Reality Bytes profile image94
          Reality Bytesposted 6 years ago in reply to this



          Yeah and I walk around with a police officer in my back pocket. If the cops are so efficient, why are there still violent crimes.
          The police are too busy responding to domestic disturbances to be available during a random act of violence.  At that point all the police can do is try to find the perpetrators for prosecution.  They would not be able to do anything to protect my family until after the fact.

    4. wychic profile image80
      wychicposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      That's exactly WHY I'm glad I have my guns...there's never any guarantee that the government actually will be working in your best interests. Looking back over history, it's the disarmed populations that were subject to the worst atrocities of tyranny, and we really don't have to look far into the past to find them. How many people here truly, wholeheartedly trust the government?

    5. outdoorsguy profile image61
      outdoorsguyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      why ... lets see. the military isnt allowed by law to patrol the streets and even if they were they cant be every where at once.   

      becuase the military could be used against the populace of a nation.  its not likely in America but it has happened historically and its one of the reason the founding Fathers of the US  put the second amendment in the constitution in the first place. 

      " Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
                       ---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

      becuase the constitution and the supreme court has stated we have a right to defend ourselves.    and the supreme court has ruled that Law enforcement doesnt have the right or the duty to protect individuals only the community at large. 

      "a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..."

      -- Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App.181)


      Becuase most criminals will think twice about attacking an armed individual.

  13. 0
    Will Bensonposted 6 years ago

    Actually, it may be that not much will change in the gun debate. This is from CBS news:

    "Both sides of the gun rights debate are claiming some degree of victory concerning today's 5-4 Supreme Court decision restraining government limits on gun ownership while also allowing for the possibility of some governmental regulation.

    The decision did not explicitly strike down a Chicago law banning handguns, though it did seem to set a course for an eventual overturning of the law. The majority opinion, however, also said the decision that local governments are fully subject to the Second Amendment "limits (but by no means eliminates) their ability to devise solutions to social problems that suit local needs and values." The position echoed a decision two years ago regarding District of Columbia gun laws."

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- … 03544.html

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
      Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      That sounds like it makes sense.

      1. Doug Hughes profile image60
        Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        The decision makes a lot of sense - no one has taken the rights of states or communities to reasonably restrict gun ownership. A blanket ban on handguns has been ruled unreasonable. A few wingnuts think that the decision has reversed every restriction on ownership - but that just shows how cheap drugs erode your cognative abilities.

  14. WizardOfOz profile image61
    WizardOfOzposted 6 years ago

    how about the fact that a US citizen is about 3 times more likely to be raped and almost 6 times more likely to be murdered.

    Hate to break it to you.

  15. WizardOfOz profile image61
    WizardOfOzposted 6 years ago

    rate of intentional homicide per 100,000 (most recent statistics)

    United States   5.4

    United Kingdom  1.49

    On a positive note, intentional homicide is down in the US from 2004 from 6.5

    Good effort guys.

    1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
      Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      U S A! U S A! U S A!

    2. Doug Hughes profile image60
      Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Wiz - You are right except for one thing.  In the UK, the right to own guns has always been more restricted than in the US. So you don't have millions and millions of weapons in circulation. Citizens from the center-left all the way out  to the far right wingtip are opposed to a BAN on gun ownership.  Check how many citizens in Chicago turned in their weapons to become law-abiding.... I don't have the answer but I would venture to bet it was a VERY small  number.

      The ban that works in the UK would make felons of most gun-owners (who won't surrender weapons) and if it did succeeed in disarming law-abiding citizens, it would create for armed gangs an open season against the helpless. Yes, the police would investigate AFTER the fact - small comfort for the dead.

      Your statistics are sobering but It's a leap from that fact to the conclusion that a gun ban would improve the situation here in the US.

    3. Kangaroo_Jase profile image80
      Kangaroo_Jaseposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Wiz, would be interested to see where Australia ranks there, I'm guessing about 0.02.

      1. WizardOfOz profile image61
        WizardOfOzposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Not quite.  Slightly more near 1 per 100k.  I'm Australian.  You might also be interested to know that the recently ejected PM is a member of the Gun Owners Association (whatever its called).

  16. Jerami profile image80
    Jeramiposted 6 years ago

    I'd have to say that the criminals already have guns wethwe it is legal or not.  Everyone has the right to have a weapon in their home. But if everyone had the right to carry?... This would make the work of the police officer even more imposible.

    Police can do their job better if we keep our civil rights to bear arms off the streets of america.  Those who get a permit to carry should pass a syc. and criminal ck.exam first.

    All others should have to go to their trucks to pull a riffle outa their gun rack.

  17. lovemychris profile image78
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    "It gives citizenss protection from the most powerful military in the world in the event it is asked to supress our freedom."

    This is what the Black Panthers were saying! And in their case, it was true!! The gvt WAS harrasing them and they HAD no freedoms. Predjudice was the law of the land.

    So, which side were you on in that issue?
    I'll bet my whole choclate pie that you sided with the gvt to suppress those "dangerous militants"  !!!!!
    Same with the American Indian Movement and their fight with the gvt.
    LEGITIMATE complaints.....how did you stand on that?

    Now you want to say you are being suppressed and need to protect yourself. How so?

  18. dgicre profile image81
    dgicreposted 6 years ago

    I am for responsible gun ownership, and feel that it is an inherent right of our constitution. Like any right when you abuse it, you must pay the price for it, not everyone else associated with that right.

    Todays ruling of the supreme court is sending a direct message to States like California that have restricted the type of firearms law abiding  citizens in their state are legally allowed to own.

  19. lovemychris profile image78
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    Well, I hope they rule next on abortion, cause that's a right that has completely dissapeared from where I live!!!

    Ooops, I forgot...that's a conservative court....my rights just might not mean as much as their religion huh?

    Kill with a gun...go ahead! Just don't abort a zygote.
    Bring an unwanted baby into this world so they can grow up unloved and unwanted, probably abused...you might be creating a new market to sell your guns to! Hey--a win win....for you.

    ps; I wrote a hub on abortion. Surprise surprise, the ads were disabled! 1st amendment not so important as 2nd huh?

    1. Sab Oh profile image61
      Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Guns can be very dangerous so it is important to be careful in their use.

      Abortions invariably kill human beings but some callous, inhumane partisan extremists advocate for their unrestricted use.

      Hmmm...

      1. Doug Hughes profile image60
        Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        No, the life of the mother is seldom in danger with legal abortion. NOT the case with illegal abortion where human life is frequently endangered.

        The vast majority of abortions occur in the first trimester and the fetus is NOT a human being.

        1. habee profile image91
          habeeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Doug, what about later abortions?

          1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
            Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            How the hell did you guys get on abortions?  Did the ruling state that guns can now be used to perform abortions?  I missed that part.

            1. KFlippin profile image58
              KFlippinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Check with Doug.....I recall his comments in regard to abortion really turned the conversation, not that he originated, wouldn't know, too lazy to check back at the moment, but you might. smile

            2. Elpaso profile image60
              Elpasoposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Doug wrote:
              "The vast majority of abortions occur in the first trimester and the fetus is NOT a human being."

              Sorry I got off topic!
              That statement was very disturbing to me. As soon a Human female egg is fertilized by a Human male spermatozoa; a human being begins forming.  That fertilized egg will not become a ritz cracker or a elephant or an apple pie. It is a human being.  I respect a woman's right to choose. I just think it's wrong to disrespect developing human beings by saying they are not human.

        2. KFlippin profile image58
          KFlippinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          So you're okay with those late terms being thrown in the trash, no big deal, gotta keep those rights at the expense of those late terms?  No need to get some specificity into the abortion laws to prevent that?  Uh Huh. A liberal anything goes law, or no law, all righty then.  I just lost a newborn heifer this evening, I would shoot anyone who tried to abort her late term or otherwise.

        3. Sab Oh profile image61
          Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          "the fetus is NOT a human being."

          You HAVE to say that (fully aware it is insupportable) in order to justify support for an inherently immoral act. There might be an easier way to put your mind at ease...

        4. Elpaso profile image60
          Elpasoposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          "The vast majority of abortions occur in the first trimester and the fetus is NOT a human being."

          Is it a Ritz Cracker?

          1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
            Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Yes, it is indeed a ritz cracker.  Good call.

      2. Ron Montgomery profile image60
        Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this



        The same can be said about computer keyboards.  You should use the safety more often.

        1. KFlippin profile image58
          KFlippinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          OOOOOOOOOOOOhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.  That sounds quite ominous.

          1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
            Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Just giving someone the benefit of the doubt.  Some postings seem to be accidental, yet still harmful.

    2. KFlippin profile image58
      KFlippinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      That sounds pretty much to me what happens far too often in this country, mostly because it brings in a bigger check, and for sure babes born into the most trying of circumstances that you so eloquently and succintly describe would most likely one day be part of the 'new market to sell' guns -- as no doubt they are now and have been in the past. I doubt you realize what you've said -- and it is not a 'win win' for you or for those children.

  20. SomewayOuttaHere profile image60
    SomewayOuttaHereposted 6 years ago

    ...well I haven't read all of the posts...I don't mind guns to be used for target practice, hunting etc....but...when I'm in the US and I don't know which states allow or don't allow guns to be carried by people...I am on my best behaviour at all times, because of that..I don't care what you may think of this..but there have been times that I've travelled with someone from the US carrying a weapon and I really don't understand why a gun needs to be toted and visible while we take a nice motorcycle ride on a beautiful day...and then I see the gun...hmmmmm....gonna shoot someone while we are out!  I'm sure I'll get some backlash on my comments but I don't care....I just don't get it and never will.  I'm glad I don't feel I need a gun to protect myself.  A female friend of mine in California has hers for protection. Wow!  I kid around about guns but that is all it is - I'm joking.  I'd never carry one.  So when I'm in the US, I know that not everyone is of sound mind, but they could be carrying a weapon.  Backlash?  here it comes - I'm ready - come and get me!

    1. Elpaso profile image60
      Elpasoposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The real problem here is the people of unsound mind get guns and uniforms, and a free pass from the justice system to murder black men in our cities.

      1. Sab Oh profile image61
        Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        ... roll

        1. KFlippin profile image58
          KFlippinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Yeah, that was pretty wierd.

          1. Elpaso profile image60
            Elpasoposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Do either of you live in a big city? I was responding to a comment. Before making faces at me; scoll up please.

            1. Sab Oh profile image61
              Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              ... roll

          2. Jeff Berndt profile image92
            Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Not weird at all. Though to be fair, the cops don't always shoot the black guy. Sometimes they beat him to death with their flashlights or jam a broomstick up his butt.

            Cops treat black people differently from white people (and not in a good way).

            This is true. You may not like it, but it's true. (I'm seeing a bit of a pattern here...)

            1. leeberttea profile image59
              leebertteaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Uh yeah sure it's true... except the broomstick up the butt that cop was cleared in that case.

            2. Sab Oh profile image61
              Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I'm sure you are not, but you sound like a racist and a criminal. I'm confident that you are capable of greater logic than that displayed in the above post.

              1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
                Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                "you sound like a racist and a criminal."

                Wait, what? I acknowledge that there exists a pattern of law enforcement treating black people more harshly than they treat white people, and that makes me sound like a racist and a criminal?

                I think it makes me sound like someone who's willing to look at reality.

                Cops don't just go around randomly shooting people--only a fool would believe that. But. As a general rule, black people get treated differently by law enforcement than white people do. White people get warnings, black people get the book thrown at them. Not always, but often enough to be a serious problem, and it's not okay.

                It's easier (for us white guys) to pretend this isn't true, but it is. And it's not my fault (or yours) that it's true. But if we insist on pretending that the problem doesn't exist, it will be at least partly our fault that the problem still exists when our kids are grown up.

                1. Sab Oh profile image61
                  Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  And all 'cops' are white guys, right? roll

                  1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
                    Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Not all, but most.

                    And this may surprise you, but back when I was teaching college, several of my black students told me that even black cops give them a harder time than they gave white kids. It sure surprised the heck out of me, I can tell you that.

                2. Uninvited Writer profile image83
                  Uninvited Writerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  It's the new logic, if you point out racism it means you are the racist...

            3. Ralph Deeds profile image69
              Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              True. Rumor has it that the cops in my community have radar that detects skin color. I'm convinced that the level of criminality in the law enforcement community is higher than in the general population.

  21. Joni Douglas profile image84
    Joni Douglasposted 6 years ago

    Gun ownership rights are protected.  Cities can make laws that restrict the usage inside their jurisdiction but they can not ban the ownership of guns. 
    Be aware that criminals want guns banned.  They aren't paying attention to the law anyway and it serves their purpose to have the rest of the population unarmed.
    I am all for gun rights.  And if you own one, you should know how to use it safely.

  22. habee profile image91
    habeeposted 6 years ago

    I have NEVER resorted to name-calling on the forums before, but I have to say that some of you are nuts! Why would anyone want a gun unless it's to kill another human being? Ever heard of hunting? Skeet shooting? Target practice?

    My trusty shotgun saved me and my 3 small children years ago from intruders in the middle of the night in our home. I didn't have to shoot them. When they saw the gun, they left. No one was hurt. Never saw the men again. Happy ending all the way around. I wonder what would have happened if I hadn't had a gun to dissuade them??

    1. KFlippin profile image58
      KFlippinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Very well said, and I hope your children have the same right/ability to protect their own when they come of age.

    2. Mrvoodoo profile image61
      Mrvoodooposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I'm wondering what might have happened to your three small children if they'd been high on crack, had guns of their own, and had felt threatened by you waving a gun at them.

      1. Flightkeeper profile image77
        Flightkeeperposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I'd put my money oh Habee and there would be three dead guys who were high on crack.  If she didn't have the gun it would have been a sadder situation.

        1. Mrvoodoo profile image61
          Mrvoodooposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Well, you certainly paint a far rosier picture than the alternative possibility.

          Televisions, microwaves, money, these things can be replaced.

          1. Flightkeeper profile image77
            Flightkeeperposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            What you think that if Habee didn't have the gun they wouldn't have been attacked by those druggees or you think that they wouldn't have gotten access to the guns? lol lol New York has one of the strictest gun laws and it still doesn't stop criminals.

            1. Mrvoodoo profile image61
              Mrvoodooposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I don't understand what you're asking / telling me.

              ?

              1. Flightkeeper profile image77
                Flightkeeperposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                OK there was a miscommunication.  When you referred to they, I thought you mean the intruders but actually you meant that Habee's kids would be high on crack and had their own guns.  So you want to restrict guns on the likelihood of something like your theoretical situation happening vs Habee's actual situation happening, which is really far more likely? roll

                1. Mrvoodoo profile image61
                  Mrvoodooposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  LOL, ^ that's classic.  Habees's kids were high on crack?

                  I think you had it right the first time.  I just didn't understand what you were asking me.  Probably my fault.

                  Anyways...

          2. outdoorsguy profile image61
            outdoorsguyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            and  just how did your reach the conclusion that the Intruders wouldnt have killed, raped or at the least injured her and her family.    about hafl of all home intrusions have a componenty of violent physcial attacks.     

            would you want to bet  which percentage youll fall under if some one breaks into your home.

            1. Mrvoodoo profile image61
              Mrvoodooposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I suspect that your statement suggesting that 'half' of home intrusions are of a violent nature, above and beyond theft is an extreme exaggeration. 

              But to be honest, Not being an American, I'm not that bothered about any of it, it just sounded a little risky to me.  But I guess that teaching your children that people can come into your house and take what ever they like isn't a great lesson either. 

              If you guys all want to shoot the crap out of each other, go for it.

              1. Flightkeeper profile image77
                Flightkeeperposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Mr. Voodoo, did you really think home intrusions were welcome surprises?  I'm curious, wherever it is you live, is it okay for strangers to barge into your house unannounced?

                1. Mrvoodoo profile image61
                  Mrvoodooposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  No, of course they're not welcome.  But I'm positive that 99% of the time they'd be trying to steal my Playstation, not trying to bum-rape me.

                  And elevating the situation by pointing a gun at them could be risky.

                  But what do I know.

                  1. Flightkeeper profile image77
                    Flightkeeperposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    So in your situation, even if all they wanted to do was take everything valuable in your home, that would be okay with you.  And they know that you're not going to do anything and as soon as you replace those things, they will continue to come to your home and keep taking valuable things.  That would be okay with you as long as no one got hurt?

              2. outdoorsguy profile image61
                outdoorsguyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                no actually its not Mr. V.   in addition to theft it seems most home invaders love to do a few side jobs after they steal your stuff.   LIke beating you or your family senseless.   ocassionally they like to rape, kill, and some odd torture too.    guess they feel once they have you at their mercy why not go for broke.

                so personally I would treat every situation as a Potential for Violence and react accordingly.   if they want to dail 911 for me so I dont have to shoot them all the better.  if they want to run out of my house great.   if they want to play macho  Ill drop em on the floor.

                1. Mrvoodoo profile image61
                  Mrvoodooposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Maybe you guys just have a different class of bad guys out there.  Over here the burglars taking a shit on your floor is about as nasty as things usually get.

                  1. KFlippin profile image58
                    KFlippinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Bull.

      2. KFlippin profile image58
        KFlippinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Well, gee, maybe she would have put a voodoo hex on those goons with a gun that scared the heck out of them and sent them running away, think that would've worked?  Habee would have kept her gun aside until she hexed them with a long litany of voodoo mumbo, if she thought her gun would add to the problems.  Apparently, though, Habee's actions were right on.

        1. Mrvoodoo profile image61
          Mrvoodooposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          ^ I can only assume that you were dropped on your head as a baby.

          And Habbee's actions were right on.  I was merely contemplating what might have happened.

  23. starme77 profile image85
    starme77posted 6 years ago

    Totally Awesome Ruling smile

  24. habee profile image91
    habeeposted 6 years ago

    Blame it on Doug. Or somebody else. I didn't bring up abortion - I was just responding.

    1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
      Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      OK.  It just seems using a gun to perform an abortion is just plain nuts, although if you combine the constitutional arguments presented here it would be perfectly legal.

      Maybe amateurs should defer to the Supreme Court's ability to interpret the Constitution.  I find it hillarious that people who have never practiced law can claim to know with absolute certainty which laws and practices are constitutional and which ones aren't.

      1. TMMason profile image72
        TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        So you find a Right to Abortion, in the right to Privacy? Most Americans I know do not. It is called Judicail Activism... it is a major enemy to the Constitution itself.

        And Chrs... the reason to bring up Abortion is just to babble the femi-nazi agenda, nothing more. it is the lefts' way to obfuscate and drag the conversation into a bash the right and cry about imagined rights rant.

        Versus the real Right to keep and bear arms.

        We have grown used to it.

        1. WizardOfOz profile image61
          WizardOfOzposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          so the major enemy to the constitution is the fact it contradicts itself?

        2. Ron Montgomery profile image60
          Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          What does judicail mean?

          1. Randy Godwin profile image93
            Randy Godwinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I think it's a republican laxative, Ron!

            1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
              Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              To remove shit from the brain?  It ain't workin' for'em.

        3. Jeff Berndt profile image92
          Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Judicial Activism= any court ruling with which you disagree.

  25. lovemychris profile image78
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    It's because you all tout the Constitution when you want YOUR rights upheld.
    But when you disagree, the Constitution can go to hell.

    That is the point and the reason for bringing up abortion.

    I can get a gun where I live, I cannot get an abortion.
    Your rights are more important than mine.


    Oh, and guns DO kill people....just read the paper and you will see. Was it 40 people gunned down in Chicago last week?
    Sweet little kids get killed all the time by being at the wrong place at the right time.

    SPARE ME your Holier than thou care about human life! It's a crock!!!

    1. Ohma profile image80
      Ohmaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Just a quick thought here was it the guns that killed those people or the people holding the guns. Owning a gun does not make you a murdered using the gun to kill someone does.

    2. Sab Oh profile image61
      Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      "I can get a gun where I live, I cannot get an abortion."

      It is very easy to legally get an abortion where you live. It is very difficult to legally get a gun where you live. Don't repeat falsehoods.

    3. Jeff Berndt profile image92
      Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Guns don't kill people, people kill people. But Monkeys do, too (if they've got a gun).
      The gun helps.

      We've got the right to carry them (which I say is a Good Thing), but they sure do make it easier to kill people.

    4. Sab Oh profile image61
      Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      "SPARE ME your Holier than thou care about human life! It's a crock!!!"


      There you have it, the liberal attitude toward the value of human life compared to banal political bias. Concern for human life is just "a crock" to them. What's really important is the politics of personal irresponsibility.

      1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
        Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        No, Sab, she's not saying that concern for human life in general is a crock, she's saying she doesn't believe that you have genuine concern for human life.

        It was not particularly clearly worded, but I'm pretty sure that's what she was going for.

        1. Sab Oh profile image61
          Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Liberals sometimes say what they really think by accident.

      2. Uninvited Writer profile image83
        Uninvited Writerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        This from the person in another thread who basically said people are crap and dogs are better.

        Believing in a woman's choice to do what she wants with her own body in no way means you have no respect for life.

        1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
          Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          It's called situational trolling.

        2. Sab Oh profile image61
          Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          "This from the person in another thread who basically said people are crap and dogs are better."


          In general that's true.

        3. Sab Oh profile image61
          Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          "Believing in a woman's choice to do what she wants with her own body in no way means you have no respect for life."

          Depends on what she wants to do with her body, doesn't it?

  26. lovemychris profile image78
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    If you don't have a gun in the first place, you can't use it to kill. Buying a gun gives you license to kill...you decide whether you use it or not.

    You allow yourselves that license. You want to restrict mine. Simple as that. Both Constitutionally guarenteed rights....one touted as "freedom", the other demonized as "murder".

    Phony Patriotism!!!

    1. leeberttea profile image59
      leebertteaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Owning a gun does not equate to ending a life, or abortion. You say it's your right to end that life, no that's a decision that you might make without asking the one person who matters most what they think, the unborn child.

      Abortion is legal so I don't get your argument, and owning a gun isn't murder. That's just twisted logic.

    2. Sab Oh profile image61
      Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The Constitution specifically guarantees the right to bear arms. It says nothing about abortion. That is a horror that was sadly granted legal protection long, long after.

      1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
        Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        The Constitution via Supreme Court decisions does not support your point of view.

        1. Sab Oh profile image61
          Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Read my post again and pay attention.

          1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
            Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Your posts are rarely worth reading even once...

            1. Sab Oh profile image61
              Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Gosh, that's hilarious  roll

              1. Doug Hughes profile image60
                Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                And true.

      2. Jeff Berndt profile image92
        Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        "The Constitution specifically guarantees the right to bear arms. It says nothing about abortion."

        Amendment IX

        The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

        You may not like it, but there it is.

        1. Sab Oh profile image61
          Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          *sigh*

          IT DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY MENTION ABORTION IN THE CONSTITUTION. IT DOES SPECIFICALLY MENTION THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.

          Do I have to draw a picture?

          1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
            Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            No, but it would help if you read your own posts.  You said the constitution says nothing about abortion.  Jeff accurately pointed out that it does....

            aaaaaaargh!  how the hell did this get back to abortion? mad

            1. Sab Oh profile image61
              Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              roll

              1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
                Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                hmm

          2. Jeff Berndt profile image92
            Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            "IT DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY MENTION ABORTION IN THE CONSTITUTION."

            No need to shout, I heard you the first time. I do not deny that abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution. I simply pointed out that the Constitution doesn't need to mention abortion. The Ninth Amendment makes it quite clear that, even though the Constitution only lists these specific rights [The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights,] , that doesn't mean you don't have all other rights [shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.].

            You should just accept it.

            Or you can yell at me some more if it makes you feel better. I have thick skin.

            1. Sab Oh profile image61
              Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              "I do not deny that abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution. "


              Glad we finally cleared that up.

              1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
                Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Good. 'Cos the Constitution doesn't need to mention a right for us to have the right. It specifically says so:

                Amendment IX
                The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

                You clearly don't like that we have that right, but we have it.

                1. Sab Oh profile image61
                  Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Do you obtain some benefit from repeating something that is not in dispute over and over again? If you had bothered to read my first post in this line carefully you might have saved yourself a lot of effort.

                  1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
                    Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    No, I don't, but you seem to think that rights not enumerated in the Constitution are somehow lesser rights than those that are.

                    Do you think that? If not, then there's no dispute; we agree.
                    If so, then there is a dispute, and you're wrong. smile

  27. Pamela99 profile image86
    Pamela99posted 6 years ago

    The second amendment of the Constitution gives us the right to bear arms.  The Constitution is not a living document to be changed at the whim of every judge who has a personal opinion.  The law is to be upheld.  It is up to you to learn proper care and use of your gun, the laws of your state and most importantly to make sure it is not loaded and accessible to children.

    The problem is crooks get guns no matter whether it is lawful or not. I grew up around having a gun in the house and was taught from an early age the rules to follow as a child and to respect the fact that guns can kill if someone pulls the trigger.

    1. lxxy profile image59
      lxxyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      RAMEN, sista!

      I think this is a great day for law. Taking away defence mechanisms only leads to bigger bullies in crime, law, and government.

    2. habee profile image91
      habeeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      You go, girl!

      My dad was a gun dealer, collector, and hunter, so we had guns around all the time. Like you, I was taught from an early age to respect firearms. My brother and I NEVER played with guns! We knew better!

  28. outdoorsguy profile image61
    outdoorsguyposted 6 years ago

    Personally I Dont care if some people dislike firearms. your opinions means zero against the constitution and my right to defend myself. those who dislike them are perfectly with in their rights to become victims and to be subjugated by  a Tyranical government.

    The Supreme court also needs to remember they do not make law nor interperet law. their one and only function is to uphold the constitution by judging whether a law is constitutional.

    as far as laws... Laws are the best tools of Tyranny around. laws are passed by those in power.with out regard to the Populace. laws can come and go. the constitution how ever Defines the limits of the Government and the inalienable rights of the people.  The constitution is supposed to be the peoples trump card against Oppressive government, runaway legislation and powergrabs.

  29. lovemychris profile image78
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    "is very easy to legally get an abortion where you live. It is very difficult to legally get a gun where you live. Don't repeat falsehoods."

    WRONG!
    The ONE clinic that provided abortion here was run out of town by the scary protestors...people were afraid they would be shot for working at an abortion clinic, so it is now gone. I would have to drive at least 100 miles to find one, if even there.

    There is a gun shop 30 miles from here. I can obtain a license with no problemo...my daughter went to a shooting range with her friends family and was doing target practice!!!

    Abortion was ruled a right of my privacy as guarenteed in the Constitution.
    YOU want to force me to have a baby by order of the state!!!

    You are NOT for freedom OR the Constitution...only when it suits you.

    Phony Patriot!

    1. Doug Hughes profile image60
      Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      "The ONE clinic that provided abortion here was run out of town by the scary protestors...people were afraid they would be shot for working at an abortion clinic, so it is now gone."

      Sounds like you are describing domestic terrorism.

    2. Sab Oh profile image61
      Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      There are clinics in Falmouth and Hyannis, and any major hospital near you can provide services or put you in touch with a doctor who will.

      Don't repeat falsehoods.

      In Massachusetts all new firearm license applicants must complete a certified firearms safety course or Basic Hunter Education Course which cost $100.00

  30. lovemychris profile image78
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    "The constitution is supposed to be the peoples trump card against Oppressive government, runaway legislation and powergrabs."

    And people who want to force their views upon me!

    From a blogger on my local blog:

    "Justice Alito's plurality opinion upholds our 2nd Amendment rights against unreasonable state regulation via incorporation through the 14th Amendment under the principle of substnative due process -exactly as Justice Blackmun in Roe v. Wade upheld a woman's right to abortion under 4th Amendment privacy principles."

    1. outdoorsguy profile image61
      outdoorsguyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      and yet you miss the whole point behind the constitution.   People cant force their views on views on others if it violates the constitution.  and people are the ones that have set back and let the Politico slime balls and the wienies on the supreme court violate their constitutional mandates  and limitations of power.

      The supreme court was never intended to be a political tool that a president uses to stack a court to get his or his parties views pushed on the rest of the nation.    yet that part of the seperation of powers mandated by the constitution has been ignored for years. 

      as far as you quote... its yet more legalese that really means very little in plain english its the typical court and lawyers say alot with out saying a word. 

      reality is and plain english... Regardless of personal, local or state opinions on fire arms the Constitution, supported by the documents of the founding fathers  states that Owning a fire arm and self defense are Constitutional and shall not be infringed.   

      thats what they say but add in legalese to allow them to skate around the issue and obfuscate it in a courtroom.

      as far as abortion it has nothing to do with gun control, further more regardless of my opinon of abortion it is a personal and religious Issue and therefore is not up to any one group, person or religion to set a standard, law or restriction for the rest of the populace.

      how ever your more than welcome to ostrecize some one in your personal life and voice your disagreement with the whole thing.   social pressure is what used to be used.   of course it only works when the majority of people agree with your point of view.

      unless of course you want to start a constitutional convetion to change the constitution.   Passing laws will not alter the constituttion and will only  continue the battle thru the years.   a majority voting to change the constitution  will end it one way or the other and thats what the framers of  the constitution intended for such serious and divisive  issues.

  31. lovemychris profile image78
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    "SPARE ME your Holier than thou care about human life! It's a crock!!!"


    Do you really have a hard time with this?

    You think you really care about life because you don't think I have the right to have an abortion.
    Yet, you think it's perfectly fine to own a gun,one of the purposes of which is to kill people.

    ERGO, your concern for human life is a crock.
    You are only concerned about throwing your religious views on me, and making me live by them.

    For, if you really cared about life, you would be against any kind of death.
    And you support war and the death penalty.

    1. Sab Oh profile image61
      Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      "You think you really care about life because you don't think I have the right to have an abortion."

      Another one with reading comprehension issues...

      I said at the outset that the horror of abortion is currently legally protected. And yes, I do think I really care about life because I don't approve of the callous taking of the most vulnerable human life as a means of birth control or a convenient escape from responsibility.

      "you think it's perfectly fine to own a gun"

      As I noted, the Constitution specifically guarantees the right to bear arms. And of course one of the purposes of bearing arms is to protect the innocent.

      "You are only concerned about throwing your religious views on me"

      Who said anything about religion?

  32. Sab Oh profile image61
    Sab Ohposted 6 years ago

    "For, if you really cared about life, you would be against any kind of death."

    That makes no sense.

  33. lovemychris profile image78
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    I'm not trolling...I am sick of this psuedo caring for the Constitution.

    I don't own a gun, never will. So I don't. I also don't go around making everybody else do the same.

    The anti-choice people, however, will herald their rights all over the place, while doing everything in their power to prevent me from having mine.

    You don't like abortion, don't have one. But you have terrorized away the Constitutional rights for many women--such as any women who live around here... while maintaining your right to own a deadly weapon.

    Either the Constitution applies to all, or it applies to none.

    You want a gun, I want an abortion....both are protected by the Constitution, of which you claim to love.

    So, I can get a gun, but not an abortion...so how is that living by the Constitution? It's not!

    And yes, Doug, it is domestic terrorism...been going on here unchecked for decades. Doctors targeted, their families targeted...Cher made a documentary about it...very powerful.

    "There are clinics in Falmouth and Hyannis, and any major hospital near you can provide services or put you in touch with a doctor who will."

    WRONG! That clinic in Hyannis was closed down, due to Victory Chapel, IMO. And the one on Falmouth, I don't know,..but a woman wrote an article stating that abortion was no longer available on the Cape. I believe her.

    "In Massachusetts all new firearm license applicants must complete a certified firearms safety course or Basic Hunter Education Course which cost $100.00"

    Like I said, easy as pie!

    1. Sab Oh profile image61
      Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      "You don't like abortion, don't have one."

      That makes no sense. By that thinking we would have no laws against other kinds of murder either. "You don't like murder, don't murder anyone"? Makes no sense.

      "So, I can get a gun, but not an abortion..."

      Who said you can't? Abortion is currently legal.

      "Doctors targeted, their families targeted..."

      The people doing that should be arrested and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

      "WRONG! That clinic in Hyannis was closed down"

      There is a clinic in Hyannis, and the one in Falmouth, and many in and around Boston, and one can receive those 'services' at hospitals around the Cape. Don't be misleading.

      1. lovemychris profile image78
        lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        "Hyannis Family Planning is referring women to Four Women Inc., in Attleboro, Planned Parenthood in Boston and Women's Health Services in Brookline, among other places, said Jenny Lusk Yablick Sheehan, director of reproductive health services for Health Care of Southeastern Massachusetts, the family planning agency's parent company.

        Her agency provides "full options" counseling, including parenting resources as well as adoption and abortion referrals. It does not perform abortions.

        Turner worries that women who have made the painful decision to have an abortion now face the barriers of time and travel off Cape. The local hospitals do not perform abortions, she said. "All options that have to do with human services and medical services that are necessary for women but somewhat controversial have always been difficult to access," Turner said."

    2. KFlippin profile image58
      KFlippinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      You know, I agree completely that a woman has a choice, a right, to do as she pleases with 'her own body'.  But, as long as late term abortion is allowed by idiots who have second and third thoughts, for no medical reason, or maybe don't even know they are pregnant until that stage, something has got to change. 

      It is murder, as it is premeditated ending of life.  Period.  I'd rather see no abortions, that is not, and never in history has been, something that will end, and yes, it is much preferable that it be done by a medical professional.  But, our new medical care allows absolute murder.  Put a gun to your belly at 5 months and pull the trigger, same difference.  Read up on the stages of the development of the human baby, and lots of other animal babies at comparable stages for that matter!  smile It's "easy as pie" . . . to read and comprehend.

  34. readytoescape profile image60
    readytoescapeposted 6 years ago

    The comparison of the right to bear arms equated with the “right to choose” is of a ridiculous nature. The right to bear arms is intended to provide each citizen the option of protection via personally owned weapons to protect the life, property and/or liberty of one’s self and/or that of others and in no way allows, concedes, sanctions or endorses the taking of life through this right.

    The Rowe vs. Wade decision, no matter what your religious beliefs or the limits to your definition of life is, the “Right to Choose” is still, and always the destruction of life every time.

    LIFE: the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.

    Whether that life be believed to be sentient or not, is not of issue. At a biological level whether zygote or embryo or cellular the “choice” is always and only the destruction of that life.

    I care not about the latter issue and hold no issue with a woman’s right to choose, but making the assumption that bearing arms is a license to the automatic and sanctioned taking of life is as stated above, absurd.

    1. Ohma profile image80
      Ohmaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Well said!

    2. lovemychris profile image78
      lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Who said automatic? It's giving you the choice whether or not to pull the trigger.
      If you do, and someon dies, you have taken a life! SIMPLE!!

      But you want your choice...you just want to end mine!

  35. barranca profile image77
    barrancaposted 6 years ago

    Handguns were designed with one purpose in mind: to kill people.  Anything made with the sole intent of killing people is evil.  Ergo: Handguns are evil.  The likeliest outcome of owning a handgun is it sitting in a drawer.  When it comes out, the next likeliest outcome is killing someone, usually a loved one.  I would prefer a world without handguns to a world with handguns.

    1. lovemychris profile image78
      lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Me TOO!

    2. leeberttea profile image59
      leebertteaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Hammers were designed with the sole purpose of driving nails, yet they make pretty good murder weapons too. Regardless of the intention of the design, how something is used determines it purpose and intent is something that only living beings can possess not inanimate objects.

      1. barranca profile image77
        barrancaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        That is a philosophical mistake.  People have a peculiar ability to embody their intentions in objects.  The neat "only living things can have intent" is simply wrong....it doesn't take evil seriously enough.  Object can have evil qualities.  Put a gun along side a hammer and ask yourself if you truly believe they have no qualitative difference.....that is both are merely tools?

    3. Jeff Berndt profile image92
      Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      What? I don't own a handgun, but I've shot many of them, and not once did I end up killing anyone, and neither has anybody I've ever shot with.

      Also, the stat you're referring to, about usually killing a loved one? The actual data is a check on whether the murderer and the victim knew each other beforehand, not how they knew each other. We don't know from those data how many of the killers killed a 'loved one,' or a business associate, or a fellow criminal (my money is on a majority of 'fellow criminal').

      Did you take statistics? 'Cos if you did, your prof was rubbish. smile

    4. outdoorsguy profile image61
      outdoorsguyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      yes banning handguns really stops people from killing people..   

      after that what... ban hard bound books, rolling pins, knives,  sharp pointy sticks..

      I know we can make murder illegal along with Theft and rape..   oh ... never mind  its been tried. 

      england ban on handguns... cab drive went on a rampage and killed 25 people in two villages with..... ( no not a herring)    a Hand gun..  that ban really stopped him in his tracks. 

      Its surpreme idiocy to think that banning something stops it.  I will defend myself, my family, my property and those who need it regardless of what you, the law or the Supreme court decides.  Becuase I have the responsibilty to defend my self and those who cant. 
      becuase if I dont I betray the Moral values and Ideals I espouse.

      Ill be just as low as those scum who watch a women get raped and do nothing.  or watch a child get snatched and do and say nothing till its over with.   

      oh and Love my  ... I dont mind taking a life.   Child molesters, rapists and murders dont deserve my pity and wont get it either if I see them committing the crime.  Women beaters and child abusers are only slightly above those.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
        Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        The fire arm death rate is 30 times higher here than in the UK and more than double Canada where guns are regulated sensibly.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co … death_rate

        1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
          Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          "Canada where guns are regulated sensibly."
          lol

          I haven't time to fully describe them just now, but the rules for getting your handgun repaired by a gunsmith in Canada are worthy of Monty Python.

          (I know this from talking to Canadian friends, not from firsthand experience. Any folks from Canada want to chime in before I get around to telling the story?)

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
            Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Rules for getting a handgun repaired aren't a burden unless you own a handgun! And if you do how many times in your lifetime do you need to have your handgun repaired? Not a major inconvenience it seems to me. I own a shotgun and a .22 rifle neither of which has ever been in the repair shop. (I admit they are rarely used these days, but they once were used a lot.)

            1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
              Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              "Rules for getting a handgun repaired aren't a burden unless you own a handgun! " This is true, no question. However, I don't think that's really the point.

              The following are the byzantine Canadian handgun rules as explained to me by a fellow reenactor a couple years ago. Any shooter from Canada will be able to fill in the blanks and correct my mistakes.

              So, to even own a handgun at all, you must be a member of a shooting club. Of course you need to have a permit for the handgun and the gun itself must be registered (two separate documents).

              You may not carry your handgun anywhere outside of a locked case, and you must not carry ammunition in the case, even if the ammunition is not loaded in the handgun. You need a separate case.

              When going to the range to shoot, you may not make any stops on the way if you have your cased handgun with you. Not for gas, not for a bite to eat, not nothing. Same for on the way home.

              If your handgun should malfunction or break while you're at the range (as my brother-in-law's handgun did while we were at the range one day, so it does occasionally happen), you need to call up the government to let them know that you're going to take your handgun to a gunsmith for repair.

              The gov't worker will ask you the address where you are and the address of your gunsmith. He will note these down, and give you a permission-to-have-your-gun-worked-on number, and tell you how much time you have to get from where you are to the gunsmith. If you take too long, that's a crime. Of course, no stops of any kind are allowed on the way to the gunsmith.

              If you're over time, even if you just got stuck in traffic, the gunsmith is not allowed to work on your gun. If he does, that's a crime. When you get there, assuming you're not late, the gunsmith will call the government, let them know that you've arrived, and make sure it's okay to work on your gun.

              When the gunsmith is finished, he'll call you up to come get your gun. When you get there, you need to call the gov't again, and get permission to take your own gun home. As before, you'll get a number, and a time limit. You need to check in with the gov't again when you get home. If you get stuck in traffic, or stop at a Tim Horton's drive-thru, you're a criminal.

              Doesn't seem very "sensible" to me.

              1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
                Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Well, it seems to be working for the Canadians.

                1. WizardOfOz profile image61
                  WizardOfOzposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Short but sweet. My mind is in hysterics it is actually too funny to express otherwise.

                2. Jeff Berndt profile image92
                  Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Hey, Canada's awesome. I just think their handgun rules are a bit nuts.

  36. lovemychris profile image78
    lovemychrisposted 6 years ago

    Same goes for a woman's body.
    How it is used is up to her!!!

    Or let's make a law forcing men to have vasectomies. That will end abortion pronto.

    1. leeberttea profile image59
      leebertteaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      You can use your body any way you want, it's how you want to use the body of an unborn child that shouldn't be up to you.

      1. Uninvited Writer profile image83
        Uninvited Writerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I keep asking and no one replies, how do you force a woman who does not want a child to carry it until it is born?

        1. WizardOfOz profile image61
          WizardOfOzposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          You can't.  If a woman wishes to abort a pregnancy she can.  It really isn't that difficult.

    2. Sab Oh profile image61
      Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      That makes no sense

      1. Uninvited Writer profile image83
        Uninvited Writerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        It does actually smile

        1. Sab Oh profile image61
          Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          No, it really doesn't.

          1. Jeff Berndt profile image92
            Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Does, too!

            Does not!

            lol

            1. Sab Oh profile image61
              Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              It really is that silly a notion

  37. WizardOfOz profile image61
    WizardOfOzposted 6 years ago

    Just been catching up on this thread after a couple of days.  Seems the only good argument from the pro gun side is the fact that gun ownership is already so prolific.  For every 100 people there are 90 guns!  By that token it does seem fair enough to protect your right to ownership.  However, owning a gun for protection requires a criminal element to be a worthy cause.  Guns are legal but there are still such harsh laws on possession of drugs.  Why not legalize drugs and put and end to drug related crime?

    1. lovemychris profile image78
      lovemychrisposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      YES!!!


      Originally published Sunday, December 4, 2005 at 12:00 AM
      Guest columnist
      Legalize drugs — all of them
      By Norm Stamper
      Special to the Los Angeles Times

      "LEAP - Law Enforcement Against Prohibition - Cops Say Legalize Drugs
      Jun 29, 2010 "

      Plus, it's a RACIST system!
      80% of people indicted for drug crimes are black, yet they are only 13% of the problem! Know who does 72% of drug crimes?  Yep, white people!

      Continuation of slavery. Free labor for the system. Lots of money for the system. Sadistic bent of the system.

      Don't belive me....believe the cops who are in the thick of it!!!

      1. WizardOfOz profile image61
        WizardOfOzposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I work for a state department.  I understand full well.  I work in cooperation with police and have also seen the issue from the other side.  The race issues in Australia are different.  Here, the indigenous people are dramatically overrepresented in the prison system.  In my studies, some years ago now, we looked at the statistics.  Not only are the indigenous overrepresented but a most prisoners are not only there for drug related crimes, they also suffer serious long term mental health issues.  Recently, there has been some shift in policy making where people in the prison system are given a chance and the support to deal with addiction and mental illness issues and crime rates have dropped.  What I find hard to believe is that some people can not understand the relationship between poverty/drug addiction/mental illness/crime and the economic situation at large.  Based on these new policies new research has been conducted and would you believe it, the everyman actually benefits on the bottom line.

        "An ...evaluation of the Court Integrated Services Program (CISP) found its participants reoffended less and saved the justice system nearly $5 million in avoided costs since it began two years ago."

        Health Department Of Victoria

  38. TMMason profile image72
    TMMasonposted 6 years ago

    "You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands."

    The, "Right To Bear Arms", is enshrined within the Constitution of the United States Of America for one reason above all else.

    To defend yourself from an over-bearing and tyranical Government.

    The Government which seeks to strip me of my Right to bear arms and defend myself against them and all other enemies, is the government which is overbearing and tyranical.

    Simple as that.

    1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
      Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Wow!

      That was really, really....

      You haven't graced us with your presence in awhile.  Did you get a job or something?

      1. TMMason profile image72
        TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I've been busy speakin the truth to power. lol

      2. TMMason profile image72
        TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Work?... a Job?... We're all Socailists now. You can pay for me to live... all of you.

      3. 0
        Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Oh Ron, you libs are just lost when the good conservative voices are silent, aren't you?

    2. barranca profile image77
      barrancaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      It is not "enshrined" it is written.  Laws change as can constitutions.  I don't worship words.  Words are simply meanings that work for a time and a place while times and places change.

  39. WizardOfOz profile image61
    WizardOfOzposted 6 years ago

    And isn't the right to cultivate hemp also in the Constitution?

    1. Sab Oh profile image61
      Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      No.

      1. WizardOfOz profile image61
        WizardOfOzposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I was waiting for that smile  Obviously, you are right.

  40. WizardOfOz profile image61
    WizardOfOzposted 6 years ago

    The crackers might have ran.  If they ran, they would have ran fast.

    1. Sab Oh profile image61
      Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      ???

  41. WizardOfOz profile image61
    WizardOfOzposted 6 years ago

    Is this new law about owning and keeping weapons in a home or carrying weapons wherever and whenever?

    Just a thought and I checked back to the OP, it says carry.

    Has this discussion gone off point?  This is slightly abstract for me, I don't have to worry about a tanked economy and gun toting drug addicts and no welfare system.  I live in Australia.  Anyway, I can actually see the point in owning a gun and keeping it at home.  I think its unfortunate but the situation is that the US is full of guns.  IMO the root of the problem is written in your law (a terrible law if you ask me but..)  carrying a weapon down to the supermarket?

    1. TMMason profile image72
      TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Do you think crime only happens at your house? Or that your right to defend your life and the life of others is nullified because your out on the town, or walking the block?

      No... crime is all around you. And the criminals think twice about it when they have no idea who is carrying.

      And again, the main reason for the right to keep and bear arms is to protect yourself from an over-bearing and tyranical Govt.

      1. WizardOfOz profile image61
        WizardOfOzposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Like I said, I do not live in America.  There is not 'crime all around me.' 

        Thanks for your perspective.  I guess there are mixed opinions.  I do understand your point of view.  No way in this life or the next will I ever visit the United States.  By the sound of it, the place is hell on Earth.

        1. Sab Oh profile image61
          Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          http://www.nraila.org/issues/factsheets … ;issue=015


          Btw, you are very much welcome to never visit the United States as you have so declared your intention. I hope you are a person of your word.

          1. WizardOfOz profile image61
            WizardOfOzposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Sabbo, I might change my mind.  I might buy some cheap property after the next crash, take up a new career as a slum lord.

            1. WizardOfOz profile image61
              WizardOfOzposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              BTW, I checked out the link.  Very nice.  I don't have the time right now to go qualifying statistics but I have no doubt the NRA has at least one educated person who can stack the figures.  I am off to work in a minute.

              Good day all.

      2. Uninvited Writer profile image83
        Uninvited Writerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Crime is decreasing though:

        "Preliminary figures indicate that, as a whole, law enforcement agencies throughout the Nation reported a decrease of 5.5 percent in the number of violent crimes brought to their attention for 2009 when compared with figures reported for 2008. The violent crime category includes murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. The number of property crimes in the United States in 2009 decreased 4.9 percent when compared with data from 2008. Property crimes include burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft. Arson is also a property crime, but data for arson are not included in property crime totals. Figures for 2009 indicate that arson decreased 10.4 percent when compared to 2008 figures."

        http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/prelimsem2009/index.html

    2. Jeff Berndt profile image92
      Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      You can get robbed (or oppressed by the King of England) on your way to the supermarket just as much as in the privacy of your home, Wiz.

      The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is the citizens' check on government power. It's designed to make the government think twice before trying to take away our other rights. In this day an age, there's no way an armed group of ordinary citizens would be anything more than an inconvenience to the US Army (most American civilians are in wretched physical condition and have no freaking idea how to fight a modern battle). But would the Army march against its fellow citizens*? And what would happen after the battle ended? 'Cos more people have guns than just the ones who got killed that one time...


      *Well, maybe it would if it were an armed group of gay activists....

      1. WizardOfOz profile image61
        WizardOfOzposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        It took some effort but I did move past 'take away our ... rights.'  Sorry, if I appear sarcastic, it is not my intention.  Why the above quotation stands out is by the fact the US is simply not righteous.  The citizens (as you clearly state [wretched physical condition]) have had those 'other rights' stripped.  By a different sort of weapon, more sophisticated and covert, by tyrannical policy, by intellectual posturing and drama, by setting citizen against citizen, the government has taken its seat, a very nice seat, too (probably much nicer than the King [Queen]).  I would think the basic rights must include shelter, food, clean water, for a first world country, education and health care.  America is truly in its time.

        1. TMMason profile image72
          TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Don't confuse Socail Welfare for Rights.

          To many today already do.

          1. WizardOfOz profile image61
            WizardOfOzposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            It must be so natural for you Mason, to draw everything on either side of the line.

            1. TMMason profile image72
              TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              No... actually it isn't.

              There are alot of shades of gray to sort through.

              It takes real work and dedication to intergrity.

              But someone has to do it.

              1. WizardOfOz profile image61
                WizardOfOzposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Someone?  Have you met this person?

                1. TMMason profile image72
                  TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes I have... he is my profile pic.

                  I did not say I am against some socail welfare programs to help those in need.... but that does not make that help needed, a right.

                  1. WizardOfOz profile image61
                    WizardOfOzposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Sure.  However, if you can't get enough food or you can't put a roof over your head and you deal with that long enough, you can go get a gun and take what you need and what you want.  You might be about politics Mason, I am just calling it like I see it.

  42. 0
    Brenda Durhamposted 6 years ago

    American citizens should have every right to defend their lives, their well-being, and their property against criminals.
    These days, the criminals have more rights than the average citizen, and that just isn't right.
    I'm all for the right to carry guns, even in public, as long as the carrier has a valid permit. 
    Maybe this new law will help us protect ourselves against illegal entry by both criminal citizens and criminal illegals.

    1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
      Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      You left out homosexuals.

      1. WizardOfOz profile image61
        WizardOfOzposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Illegal entry by homosexuals.  Gold.

        1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
          Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Illegal or merely uninvited?

          1. Uninvited Writer profile image83
            Uninvited Writerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I resemble that remark.

            1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
              Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              If you sneak accross the border you could be both.

          2. WizardOfOz profile image61
            WizardOfOzposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Invited but illegal?

            ah ha!

      2. TMMason profile image72
        TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        lol hahaha.......

        It's always humor with you guys... lollllllllll

        Yes... I will shoot the Homo-Nazis when they come a goose stepping toward my lil son with a perverted smile on thier faces licking thier lips in anticipatory glee.

        Any other questions.

        And to the above... both. Don't come in my house period if your not asked. I live in Fl. we have the "Stand your ground" Law, and the "King of the Castle" Law.

        It is a great place to be armed.

      3. Flightkeeper profile image77
        Flightkeeperposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Brenda, you really shouldn't leave out the violent gays, that is so homophobic!

        lol lol

  43. WizardOfOz profile image61
    WizardOfOzposted 6 years ago

    I have a tomahawk.  It settles the neighbors.  I pulled it out once and now they stay away.

    I live in a particularly bad area for this city and still, I live without fear.  Great place to live.

    You know, one day I knocked on the neighbor's door.  I would have been a kid, ten maybe.  Happened a lot, really.  Kicked the ball across the fence.  We can do that round here, knock on the neighbors door.  Heck, if I was at some other kids house, I could even knock on his neighbors door!

    1. TMMason profile image72
      TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      There is a difference between knocking on your nieghbor's door... and knocking in your nieghbor's door.

      See... fairly simple.

      lol I love the way you guys twist and sqirm to try to make this a militant killers grabbin up guns to commit mass murder issue. lol

      Gee I wonder how many Jews would have survived NAZI germany, (leftys), if they had had the right to keep and bear arms. 

      See... that is an example of when the right to bear arms would have served the purpose it was intended for.

      1. WizardOfOz profile image61
        WizardOfOzposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I am not one of those guys.  Honestly, your culture is truly fascinating to me.  I don't ever want to be IN America but it does amuse me and fascinate me.  I was actually planning a trip for 'one day' but really, mathematically, i.e. returning alive... doesn't seem worth the odds.

  44. TMMason profile image72
    TMMasonposted 6 years ago

    WOZ... "There are 350 million of you, right?  As if there is one rule of pride?  One America to the power of *?

    C'mon... there must be more than a few who flash a gun just for amuseme"

    Yes some do... mostly gang-banging punks who are not licensed to carry to begin with.

    And if you are licensed to carry and flash your gun around... then you will be in jail and have no license no more.

    That is the law. Thus the term... "concealed carry".

    And I think your vacation would be more than safe.

  45. TMMason profile image72
    TMMasonposted 6 years ago

    Is it just that you people think a Govt. is above slaughtering it's populace?

    Europe's history proves it is all too possible.

    1. Uninvited Writer profile image83
      Uninvited Writerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, if all the Jewish people had been armed the Holocaust wouldn't have happened roll

      1. TMMason profile image72
        TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Are you agreeing with me UW?...  really... IDK?... sad

        1. Uninvited Writer profile image83
          Uninvited Writerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          You actually believe that?

          1. TMMason profile image72
            TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            That being armed may have saved the lives of millions of Jews, Gays, Christians, Gypsies, etc, from Hitler's ovens.

            Yes, I do.

            That you agree with me... no I don't.

            That is why I asked straight out, UW.

            No shame in my game.

            I think it... I say, I believe it, I argue it.

            Simple and truthful.

            1. Uninvited Writer profile image83
              Uninvited Writerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Yup, I can just picture Anne Frank taking on a bunch of Nazi soldiers because she had a gun.

              1. TMMason profile image72
                TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                See... that is what I call... (I will be nice today)... playing a game to divert from the matter at hand.

                Were there no Jewish men or women that could have fought against the NAZI's? Just lil Anne frank... that is the logic of a lefty.

                1. Uninvited Writer profile image83
                  Uninvited Writerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  People did, most were killed.

                  1. TMMason profile image72
                    TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Some did... most did not.

                    Most never balked till the oven door was open and the heat was blasting in thier faces.

                    Too many died without the means or the opurtunitty to fight back. And we know what the means are.

  46. WizardOfOz profile image61
    WizardOfOzposted 6 years ago

    "A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members."

    Ghandi.

  47. WizardOfOz profile image61
    WizardOfOzposted 6 years ago

    'A society will be judged by how it treats its weakest members.'

    Truman.

  48. TMMason profile image72
    TMMasonposted 6 years ago

    "Socail Welfare, Rights... two different things." TMMason.

    Helping the poor and needy is an individual choice as to whether they want to help, or not. Not the perview of the Govt to take from me to give to another.

    1. WizardOfOz profile image61
      WizardOfOzposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      You are wrong.  Your government takes your taxes and then does what it feels.  For example, pay poor people.  Suck to be you, huh?

      1. Sab Oh profile image61
        Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        You misunderstand the US.

  49. TMMason profile image72
    TMMasonposted 6 years ago

    You can think "Socail policy", is a, "Right" all you want.

    They are not, it doesn't matter what you believe.

    Welfare could be ceased tomorrow if the law was repealed. Because it is not a right, it is a privilage.

    Thats is all there is to it.

    1. WizardOfOz profile image61
      WizardOfOzposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I am not sure if it is your memory or your eyes but I do not think social policy is a right.  I am really not sure how you came to that conclusion.  All the same to me.  The fact remains that social policy/welfare, any policy for that matter that requires government spending, requires your spending, whether or not you like it, whether or not it fits your ideals.  Too bad.

      1. TMMason profile image72
        TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        WOZ you said... "I would think the basic rights must include shelter, food, clean water, for a first world country, education and health care."

        That is Socail Welfare Policy... not "Rights".

        Just going on what you said... so please keep track of your own spouts of spittle so i won't have to keep catching you up.

        And too bad if you don't like it. 

        Give all the Rights you want away in Aussie land... here in America we know the difference between (Socailism), "Socail Welfare policies", and Rights.

        At least some of us still recognize that difference... and we will be back to the right track soon. Repealing obama-Care and all his Socailistic policies.

        1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
          Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this



          Just uh cuz we cain't spellz it doen meen we doen no nuttin.

        2. WizardOfOz profile image61
          WizardOfOzposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Again, you are wrong.  Still, you misinterpret.  You make inference through your clouded ideals.  What my thoughts might be has no bearing on social policy.

          It is my belief that to speak of morals, that is, to speak of rights, this is a moral issue.  I am no socialist.

          If you are still working on the definition of rights from your constitution, great.  That is no concern of mine.  I am sure we already covered this; if you enjoy bearing arms and supporting the denial of support for your poor and weak society, fine.  If those ideals work for you, great.

          We are clearly using different terms here.  To further explain myself, assuming the fair chance that you will still not comprehend; I can not give away rights.  What you are talking about is the distribution of funds.  The government collects its funds from, in part, your taxes.  What the government decides to do with that money has diddly squat to do with you.  Likewise, in Australia, I don't write the bills that distribute taxes.  Too bad for you and too bad for me.

          So far as knowing the difference between Socialism and Rights and Socialism and Social Welfare policies, well, that is a doozy, Mason.

          Socialism is not equivalent to Social Welfare and for the umpteenth time, I never drew any correlation between either socialism or welfare to rights.

          We clear now?

          Socialism is not welfare.

          Welfare is not socialism.

          Welfare is not a right.

          Government funds are in part your taxes.

          If welfare is distributed,

          in part, your earnings are paying the poor to eat. 

          If you don't like feeding the poor, too bad, go polish your gun (after all, it is your right).

          1. KFlippin profile image58
            KFlippinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            How ridiculous is your interpretation of socialisim. In this country, this 'non-socialistic' country of old, we have for many many years helped to feed the hungry with our tax dollars, the problem is we now are expected to do more for the poor than we can do for our own families.  Lots of time spent on a post that falls flat.

            1. WizardOfOz profile image61
              WizardOfOzposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Fell on dead ears.  I never attempted to explain socialism.

              1. WizardOfOz profile image61
                WizardOfOzposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Furthermore, if you don't like the government, do something about it.  If you don't do something about it, well too bad.

              2. TMMason profile image72
                TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                No you attempt to change, to re-define your Socailist ideals, into a moral definition of rights... wow. What-ever.

                That is an old trick of left they have used here in the USA repeatedly... and we are not falling for it anymore. You cannot redefine all things to fit your arguement.

                You are talking Socail policy... not rights. Too bad.

                1. WizardOfOz profile image61
                  WizardOfOzposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  OK, I'll pretend for a minute that I am a socialist.  What then is the alternative?  What is the one word to describe your ideals?

          2. Sab Oh profile image61
            Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            "What the government decides to do with that money has diddly squat to do with you."

            That is of course not true.

            1. WizardOfOz profile image61
              WizardOfOzposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I am still not convinced on this.  Once you pay your taxes, the government does as it pleases, correct?  I am open to the fact I might sometimes be wrong.  Please explain.

              1. Sab Oh profile image61
                Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Are you under the impression that "the government" is the name of a giant evil robot that has enslaved the people?

                1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
                  Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  If so, the good folks at FoxNews would like to offer you a talk show.

                2. WizardOfOz profile image61
                  WizardOfOzposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  No not really.  I do like the imagery.

                  Seriously though, politicians lie all the time.  Ours do, I know that.  You can vote them in but they are going to tax you and they hardly do what you ask.

      2. KFlippin profile image58
        KFlippinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Really?  I suppose that means that my vote and voice counts for naught?  I think 'naught'.

  50. TMMason profile image72
    TMMasonposted 6 years ago

    I just think it is great that all you guys can do is whine about my spelling of Socailism, or would you prefer, "Socialism"... no I like Socailism... so... huh...lollllll too funny.

    Good thing I am not intelligent enough to do it on purpose just to watch you all correct me over and over.

    1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
      Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Yeah...That must be it lol

    2. KFlippin profile image58
      KFlippinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Do ya meen socalledism?     smile

    3. WizardOfOz profile image61
      WizardOfOzposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      "Good thing I'm not intelligent enough..." Mason.

      1. TMMason profile image72
        TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Yes... personal attacks will prove your an intellect to be feared.

        I am shaking now...

        1. WizardOfOz profile image61
          WizardOfOzposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          No personal attacks.  It was a quote.

          1. TMMason profile image72
            TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Wow.. you got it bad.

            You're so jealous of America it oozes from every word you spout. I thought the other foriegners were fanatics over America, but you...

            You are obsessed with our country.

            Relax... we may let you visit sometime.

            1. 60
              Bearded Ladyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              This foreigner used to be fanatic over America,
              The Key words here are used to be.
              And no I will not explain.

              1. Sab Oh profile image61
                Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Then why bring it up?

                1. 60
                  Bearded Ladyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  It does not need an explanation.
                  On the other hand I have nothing against America.

                  1. Sab Oh profile image61
                    Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Why wouldn't it need an explanation?

 
working