The outdated 2nd amendment.

1. 66

   Doug Cutlerposted 8 years ago

   6.  The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB): Is totally unconstitutional.
   The states have said early 1800's that the citizen will have weapons equivalent to what a rouge gov. or other force would use. The M-16  should be allowed in its fully auto mode. 
   Or any other weapon that may be used. AK-47 etc. The 1934 gov. gun laws are also unconstitutional. It is up to the state to determine what is allowed in each state.
   My state has outlawed fully autos and sawed off weapons.
   
   The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 is for known criminals. The gangs and other groups. Go after these!

   replyreport
   1. 86

      My Esotericposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Then why did the Courts uphold it?  Or is your personal opinion supposed to rule or does Scalia, who disagrees with you?

      replyreport
      1. 66

         Doug Cutlerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         Who says the courts are Constitutional? The regime certainly isn't!
         
         I just hope the judges now can hold up till Constitutional types can appoint new ones.
         
         I would bet a lot agree with me. Problem is there are too many sheeple. We may have reached that "give me" tipping point where the lazy and greedy will keep the corruption going for their own greedy selves.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Sgt Prepperposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            Sad to say but modern-thinkers believe our Constitution means whatever the latest Supreme Court says it means.  Our Constitution actually means the original intent of our founders. Keep means own and Bear means carry.  All American citizens can legally own and carry whatever firearms are compatible with those of law enforcement officers and footsoldiers as those are the ones we will be taking our government back from.
            Federal background checks for citizens buying firearms actually violates our Second Amendment.

            replyreport
         2. 86

            My Esotericposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            I can't believe you ask such a question "Who says the courts are Constitutional? "  But I will give you the answer anyway ... the Constitution.
            
            BTW, it is the rich and powerful that are "greedy"; how do you think they got that way, certainly not by hard work for most of them, but manipulating the system.

            replyreport
            1. 88

               wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

               Only the rich and powerful that are greedy?  Not those that demand what they have not earned?
               
               We have differing definitions of that word, I do believe.

               replyreport
2. 80

   Kathryn L Hillposted 8 years ago

   “The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records.They are written, as with a sun beam in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.”
   — Alexander Hamilton, 1775
   http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/file … /M-654.pdf

   replyreport
3. 80

   Kathryn L Hillposted 8 years ago

   Uh hrum ….In Anarchy, rights are guaranteed by WHAT, wB? Please let us in on it as soon as possible!! We need to know!  For the sake of the good name of Anarchy, TELL US!

   replyreport
4. 0

   ahorsebackposted 8 years ago

   Also Peoplepower , answer this , how would America protect itself  in wars TODAY with a flintlock  ?  Your whole premise that its all "outdated" , is quite simply' naïve', whether you personally like that description or not ,    Naïve , IS the entire  definition of this entire thread !    And by the way ;  I believe I 've said it before   , thank you for your service , it has been a pleasure debating this with you , you ARE a worthy , if only  misinformed opponent .

   replyreport
5. 80

   Kathryn L Hillposted 8 years ago

   PS We are supposedly a civilized society and we can't even find a civilized American to vote for to lead us!!
   
     http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls … -3194.html
   
   But I do hope we don't revert back to the days of the Wild West where everybody was shooting each other, like in western movies.
   ~ wouldn't that be horrible?

   replyreport
   1. 70

      wrenchBiscuitposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      
      
      We are already on the same page. That's why I brought you a flower. The Hippies were moving in the right direction during the late sixties; at least the ones who were serious about change. But Kent State put and end to all that on May 4, 1970. That's the day  the music really died.

      replyreport
      1. 80

         Kathryn L Hillposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         This guy looks so familiar …
         
         But nothing like a hippie of the 60's.

         replyreport
6. 0

   ahorsebackposted 8 years ago

   Just how is it that we can except violence  ,  hatred , broken families ,   death and destructive moral behavior in the animal world ?   But not in ours ,   Evolution promises nothing  to us that it doesn't give to the lion , to the grizzly  or the cougar and yet  the utopia that  some humans THINK is achievable  by writing another law or  amendment is about as foolish as is gets .
   
   Try telling a cheetah that it can no longer kill the gazelle , or the hyena's  that they can't   chase down , cripple and devour  a zebra ,  Tell the python   not to swallow whole a  baby deer . There is the element of human behavior as well ,that is always going to  go towards hurting another  , towards violence and self abuse of addictions . What childlike mentality  really believes that one day we can stop all this  violence.
   
   You can ALL accept the animal worlds natural instincts and live with them , but not that basic  human behavior  is unchangeable .   Some people really need to  grow up and accept  some things that will not change ., AND that no amount of written law can instill  decency to all humans..
   

   replyreport
   1. 86

      My Esotericposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      ahorseback asks "Just how is it that we can except violence  ,  hatred , broken families ,   death and destructive moral behavior in the animal world ?   But not in ours , "
      
      First let me correct his supposition.  There is no evidence, except with chimps, that the animal world experiences the emotion of hate, "broken families" in the way we understand it, and moral behavior whether good or bad from the human perspective.  That leaves you with violence and death.
      
      Since I don't know in what context you mean by "death", I will leave that alone other than to note that death is ubiquitous and is excepted as normal in all societies including human.
      
      OK, so what about violence.  Well, again, except for chimps (man's closed evolutionary relative), there is little evidence that the animal world experiences gratuitous violence.  Your picture exhibits normal violence in the animal world, the kind associated with feeding oneself and their offspring.  But, they appear to lack the mental capacity to form the intent to do violence for reasons other than hunger and self-defense.
      
      Now, what are we left with?  One is that chimps and humans are the only species that can form the intent to do purposeless harm to others, whether of their own spices or not.   BTW, in one endeavor, non-survival related hunting, violence is quite acceptable to humans. 
      
      A moral code is also unique to humans (don't know about chimps), so it is only humans that can violate it.  Humans don't accept other humans breaking this arbitrary moral restrictions because it is their own rules being broken; that is not possible in the animal world.
      
      Consequently, save for chimpanzees, your question has no meaning because it addresses something that not only isn't true, it just isn't.

      replyreport
   2. 84

      peoplepower73posted 8 years agoin reply to this

      ahorseback:  If you believe what you said, then why do you bitch and complain about the violence and killings of inner city folks?  It is just part of your reality that no written  laws can instill decency to all humans.  Why not just accept it?  By the way, inner city is just another name that the conservatives use for black folks.
      
      I do believe that greed and corruption are part of human nature and that is why we need laws. Humans left to their own volition can be dangerous.  Remember, man draws maps and borders, not nature.

      replyreport
      1. 66

         Doug Cutlerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         Inner city also means rednecks and if you live in a Muslim city like Dearborn it means them also. Basically: the slums no matter ethnicity.  This is an equal opportunity type endeavor. I am an Irish, Indian and other redneck me self.  There are some good in every area.
         
         Some animals are very territorial. They piss around marking a boundary. like a map or border. That is their territory! The nose is the indicator.
         
         Greed and corruption is also a leftist trait. Can they be taught or shamed any different??
         Of coarse the present regime doesn't want any changes. If people woke up they would not be the sheeple that follow it. Now would they! Common Core is loosing out because enough people woke up and saw how that is a leftist brainwashing tool. Next is Agenda 21. A good reason for the 2nd to remain.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Sgt Prepperposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            Yuppers and the UN's Project-2030 is Agenda-21 on steroids.

            replyreport
      2. 80

         Kathryn L Hillposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         Will there ever be a time when man has 100% self mastery, has love for fellow man as himself?
         It is not destined. There is another destiny for us.
         
         As far as Guns ...
         Most people are too lazy to own a gun. Only if there is a need or some sort of unusual prompt will people gain interest in these instruments of death. Who wants the death of another on their hands?
         Only the crazy.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            ahorsebackposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            Kathryn , The only gun owners , of the hundreds ,I've known in my sixty two years  are peace loving  hunters and  law abiding sportsman ,    have you TOO fallen into the  pit of "any gun owner is a murderer ?    I hadn't thought so .

            replyreport
            1. 66

               Doug Cutlerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

               The one on this hub has come out and said he has murdered, not with a gun, but some other means. Via speech or aggravation of some sort. He is also one of the most out spoken against guns. He is gleeful when a gun owner hurts or kills himself accidentally.
               
               Is this the type of person an anti-gun person looks up too? Is this behavior acceptable because he hates gun and gun owners?  Stay away from me! I don't want to associate with you no more than the gangs and other evil people.
               
               Gangs are mostly black, live in the inner city.  Blacks are responsible for 53% of gun murders. Facts don't lie!
               
               For Obama and regime to get up and lie about where most gun murders come from is just pure evil! Something is going on here. I am sure they know about those facts. What is their real reason? It has been discussed in earlier posts.

               replyreport
            2. 86

               My Esotericposted 8 years agoin reply to this

               i'm not sure "lazy" and "not owning a gun" fits in the same sentence; other than I wouldn't want a lazy person owning a gun because they may be too lazy to keep it safe.
               
               I don't own a gun because I don't need a gun.  I don't have a need to hunt animals for food, nor do I murder animals for sport and fun.
               
               And ahorseback, the only person I know who wrote, or implied, the words "gun owners are murderers" is you.

               replyreport
               1. 66

                  Doug Cutlerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  Please go back and read Biscuits' posts. All sorts of hateful drivel about gun owners this and that. Also, one of the most racist of all here.

                  replyreport
7. 61

   Sgt Prepperposted 8 years ago

   Whatever happened to the Tenth Amendment?  Anybody?

   replyreport
   1. 66

      Doug Cutlerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      
      
      http://study.com/academy/lesson/the-10t … mples.html
      The 10th Amendment was added on to the Constitution to assure reluctant delegates that the Federal Government would not overstep its boundaries. It specifies the federal system in the United States. Very few federal laws, however, are overturned because of the 10th Amendment.
      The 10 is a reaffirmation of of the separation of powers with a further definition of those powers.

      replyreport
8. 61

   Sgt Prepperposted 8 years ago

   Thanks Doug.  When do you think the Feds started collecting taxes?

   replyreport
   1. 66

      Doug Cutlerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      There has always been a tax on something or other, even before 1776. Income tax is as the following:
      
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_ … ted_States
      The United States imposed income taxes briefly during the Civil War and the 1890s, and on a permanent basis from 1913. There have been no export taxes, taxes on trade between states, or taxes on charities and religious bodies, and no value added tax.

      replyreport
9. 61

   Sgt Prepperposted 8 years ago

   "For those who guide the people are leading them astray; And those who are guided by them are brought to confusion." Isaiah 9:16

   replyreport
10. 0

    ahorsebackposted 8 years ago

    Peoplepower , You should be perfectly ashamed of throwing the race card around at me so easily ! But you should also be ashamed of not knowing more REAL facts about gun  violence too !  But then ou should have also been ashamed of inciting such a false  and perfectly   distorted thread about untruths ,    You've already broken the oath that you took to  protect the constitution of the US. in the military ,
    
    They say that some older  minds regress as they age ,  personally ,   I would be even more worried about the lies though ,  pretty soon  no one around you believes anything you say ,So,    I challenge you to look at inner city crime statistics and make up what's left of the inquiring mind that you still vaguely possess.  The gun crimes and violence numbers are racially divided , but liberal  fairy tails and those who spread them don't allow such honesty in analyzing fact from fairy tale .

    replyreport
    1. 84

       peoplepower73posted 8 years agoin reply to this

       ahorseback:  You are so full of B.S.

       replyreport
       1. 0

          ahorsebackposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          I am so full of bull shit  , but it is you that would trade away our collective liberties for the impractical and immature inclusion in the crowds of P.C., and for what , simple inclusion  ? What , are you lonely or something ?  American  history  indictates that from it's very beginning ,liberty  was the  entire original intent !   That liberty  was completely and has been constantly  guaranteed by  the second  amendment , and those who went before you and I and suffered greatly  , sometimes to the extent of the ultimate sacrifice !   But for you .......that amounts to B.S.
          
          I still say , shame on you .

          replyreport
          1. 86

             My Esotericposted 8 years agoin reply to this

             Liberty is NOT guaranteed by the 2A.  The 2A says specifically that the right of a single thing, to bear arms, is guaranteed .... nothing more.  It does not speak to any other liberty and is not the end-all, be-all of everything sacred in this world.
             
             While you are right, the Constitution, a legal document (including the Preamble), as a whole is what guarantees us limited liberty (and not unlimited liberty).  The Constitution, as outlined in the Preamble, says the purpose of gov't is to "provide for" Justice, Tranquility, general Welfare, and defense.  Each one of those puts a limit on the final purpose "... to secure the Blessings of Liberty."
             
             By their very nature, Justice, Tranquility, general Welfare, and defense implies that a person cannot do whatever they want (liberty) but proscribes to only those activities which "do no harm" (limited liberty).

             replyreport
             1. 0

                ahorsebackposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                I tend to agree  everything BUT the first sentence   , Of course it guarantees liberty , the freedom of all of us  in this turbulent time as well as  all our tomorrows , in America ,  A law abiding  and patriotic gun owner  IS the best defense against any evil intention , crime , invasive war  or illegal and  tyrannical political leadership .
                
                The outdated 2nd amendment ?----  Americans  collectively , say thank you to the past gun owners each and every  memorial day , veterans day , 4th of July celebration !   The only thing outdated is  the unappreciative  attitudes of  leftist  frauds in this forum  including the OP.

                replyreport
                1. 86

                   My Esotericposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                   I am not sure I can agree with your theory that -
                   
                   "A law abiding  and patriotic gun owner  IS the best defense against any evil intention , crime , invasive war  or illegal and  tyrannical political leadership"  followed by
                   
                   ".Americans  collectively , say thank you to the past gun owners each and every  memorial day , veterans day , 4th of July celebration !"
                   
                   In the main, the first assertion is not really true even taking into account the Revolutionary War.  After it ended, historians concluded that unregulated, untrained citizen soldiers who picked up their arms to fight the British did more harm to the effort than good; Thomas Jefferson came to the same conclusion in his contemporary writings.  Also, it didn't ultimately work where it originated, ancient Athens after they picked a fight with Sparta.
                   
                   As to the second, I know you didn't mean it has an insult, but it is a bit demeaning to those who served in the Armed Forces nevertheless. 
                   - Memorial Day is to honor soldiers who have died serving their country, not law abiding and patriotic gun owners as you state. 
                   - Veterans Day is to celebrate people like me (and maybe you) who served in the Armed Forces and put their lives on the line and not law abiding and patriotic gun owners (many of whom whose main purpose in having guns is to kill intelligent, feeling animals for the fun/sport of it) as you state. 
                   - Independence Day is to celebrate the adoption of the Declaration of Independence; which has nothing to do with law abiding and patriotic gun owners.
                   
                   The 2A is there for one purpose, and one purpose only ... to make sure the federal government cannot confiscate guns en masse thereby allowing to states to maintain regular militias to fight against an actually out-of-control central gov't (and not the sky-is-falling out-of-control gov't the Right insists on being real).  Part and parcel of that particular guaranteed liberty is the right to use those arms for any lawful purpose while not being used in the militia.

                   replyreport
                   1. 66

                      Doug Cutlerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                      Sole purpose? Who here also uses that term to push his highly cherry picked ideology?
                      You are half right! The other half is to protect us from a foreign force. Example: Our troops are spread thin in other countries and the regime invites the U.N. in to take care of a southern boarder problem. Then they turn on the citizens of the U.S. Of course, with the regimes permission! Hitler did this quite effectively! Sent one country to another to do what they would not do to their own country folk.
                      
                      I believe a scenario like this has been thwarted recently, along with some other crap, behind the scenes.

                      replyreport
                      1. 0

                         ahorsebackposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                         I  couldn't have said that better my friend !

                         replyreport
                         1. 66

                            Doug Cutlerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                            Thanks for your compliment!
                            
                            One of my fears has come to pass. Who is the butt head in chief going to appoint to fill in for Antonin Scalia?
                            
                            The left will get their way with the 2nd if the bone heads in the houses just vet anyone Mr O appoints! 

                            replyreport
                   2. 0

                      ahorsebackposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                      Ahha !  And this is where the NRA comes in !    Beginning in it's infancy to train young men and boys in the art of target practice , hence , the first and second world wars where  allies and especially American troops were so far advanced in hitting their targets as to WIN both wars , and why today , does everyone run  screaming , collectively, to America  for its superiorly trained soldiers ? .....Hummm?       because they are the absolutely best trained troops in the entire universe .

                      replyreport
11. 61

    Sgt Prepperposted 8 years ago

    The ship at the bottom of the North Atlantic: Scraping through the layers on that hull will expose the gray paint the Olympic was originally painted before the botch-job repairs and black paint were applied. If you do an image search you might find a pictures taken when the wreck was discovered which clearly show letters on plates riveted over the deeply etched in "OLYMPIC" fell away revealing the letters Y and M on the starboard bow. At least two YouTubes expose this Jesuit-driven fraud. Two books I recommend are "Titanic: The Ship that Did not Sink" and "The Ship that Stood Still" concerning the S.S.Californian and Capt Lord. An old Irish merchant seaman, Patrick "Paddy-the-Pig" Fenton, was found crying in his beer in the 1960s in an Australian pub. He confessed he was the one who riveted the Titanic nameplates onto the Olympic.
    The evil-cabal which is covering this up isn't just The White Star Lines but goes all the way to the Vatican. And hence the Jesuit Priest who was aboard taking pictures until the Ireland stop. The truth will never be revealed in the mainstream media as then people will ask "Well what else are they lying to us about?"
    Consider this too! Before the OKC bombing of the Federal Murrah building militias were becoming quite prevelant and the FBI didn't know how to get them under control. John Doe #2 was an FBI-plant, informant and Provacatuer. Hence the militia-movement got a bad-name and deteriorated in shame. That is why McVeigh had to die. That is why Oswald had to die. I am amazed Snowden is still around somewhere. When the Bundy Ranch fiasco started making the BLM and feds look like the jack-booted thugs they are they had to prompt a racist-sounding remark out of Bundy to stem the resurgence of militias.

    replyreport
    1. 66

       Doug Cutlerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       The OLYMPIC was rammed by a British war ship and damaged beyond repair. Star Lines said it was the Navy's fault but lost the court battle. Both ships where docked side by side and switched places and names. Star lines wanted to collect insurance money and planned to scuttle the now Titanic on the maiden voyage. A freighter was sent out the same time to magically appear as the ship was scuttled. The ice burg happened before the scuttling could occur. This is how I remember the episode. The Brit gov. lied so they didn't have to pay.
       
       Just like the regime today lied about Benghazi and 9-11before. And all the lies concerning gun violence. Nice try Obama! Busted! The regime has far too many of Obama's favorites.

       replyreport
12. 61

    Sgt Prepperposted 8 years ago

    Thank you Doug.  Everything we thought we knew is turning out to be a lie.

    replyreport
13. 58

    Freyja Holtposted 8 years ago

    Well said, sir.

    replyreport
14. 61

    Eleshposted 8 years ago

    Has America ever won any war in any part of the world other than have troops on stand-by for decades in war zone countries.

    replyreport
    1. 66

       Doug Cutlerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       Yes, Both WWI and WWII. The U.S. didn't have a lot of troops in foreign countries at the start of either. Even the Civil War the Union had to recruit and draft heavily. The war zone stuff started after WWII.
       
       What does it have to do with the 2nd amendment?

       replyreport
       1. 88

          wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Civil, revolutionary, Kuwait, Spanish-American.

          replyreport
15. 0

    ahorsebackposted 8 years ago

    Peoplepower,   Here's the thing ,  any infraction against the second amendment is unconstitutional , just as putting duct tape over your mouth  until you are blue in the face ,  and restricting your free speech ! .... I , as a law abiding owner of dozens of guns can confirm to you this ,
    
    One , there will never be an involuntary confiscation  of guns from law abiding citizens without an all out civil war , The right knows that and so does the left .   And I'm not even worried about it .
    
    Two , as long as those like yourself live in  denial of truth , the one truth , the only truth  , that  of true statistical presentation of  exact gun death statistics :   you will never be a part of a solution to gun crimes .
    
    Three , the Glass Stegal act IS unconstitutional !
    
    Four , The greatest Conspiracy  theory  inflicted onto the American public  is the  liberal ideologies of  the nineteen -sixties liberal  Supreme Court justices  decisions to reduce punishing,   prosecution AND incarceration of criminals in America  , WITH the affirmation that incarceration doesn't affect crime rates  .
    
    Five , you obviously know very little about shear pins and the legality of  guns to begin with .

    replyreport
    1. 84

       peoplepower73posted 8 years agoin reply to this

       ahorseback:  You know not of what you speak.  The Glass Stegal Act was enacted  in 1932 and was in place  until 1992 when it was repealed by the Republican Gramm Leach Bliley Act.  So by your reckoning it was illegal for 60 years.  You better stick to worrying about your guns being confiscated.  It's obvious, you know nothing about financial regulations other than what you hear and see from right wing propaganda.
       
       As long as you keep bringing up statistical analysis, innocent school children and others will continue to be murdered by gun toting people.  Talk to the parents of the kids and others that have been killed about your statistics.  It means nothing to them.  You should be ashamed of yourself.  I don't normally say things like that, but you have said it so many times to me, I thought I would try it on you.
       
       As far as reducing crimes, it is the right wing that reduces funding for laws and prosecutions by sequestration of funds to hold the country hostage while they get their way.
       
       I know enough about shear pins and what makes them illegal to implement them.  I know the difference between a real automatic weapon and a semiautomatic weapon and I know how they make a semi-auto fire like an auto.

       replyreport
       1. 88

          wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          "As long as you keep bringing up statistical analysis, innocent school children and others will continue to be murdered by gun toting people.  "
          
          You're right.  And as statistical analysis shows, they will continue to be murdered even if we manage to take the guns away.  So let's take the guns because...because...well, because I don't want a gun and therefore no one else should have one either.

          replyreport
          1. 84

             peoplepower73posted 8 years agoin reply to this

             Wilderness:  Do you want to live in the present or do you want to worry about your guns being taken away in some future date? What are the possibilities of that happening with the 2nd amendment being intact?
             
             Then you come up with this insane logic that if all guns were taken away, statistics shows that people will continue to be murdered by guns.  Oh I get it then we are going to use clubs and knifes and all the other things that you and your people argue about being used as weapons that should be banned as well.
             
             I have guns and I don't worry about them being confiscated.  Most liberals don't because they know it's not going to happen and we don't live in fear of tyranny and conspiracies, or having to fight those who would confiscate our weapons, like ahoirseback does.

             replyreport
             1. 88

                wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                I agree - guns will not be confiscated in my lifetime.  We won't even see an effective program to get those dreaded "assault weapons".
                
                Does that mean we should allow it to go further than it has?  Or that it won't work is only because of strong opposition all along the line?  Of the choices, my opinion resides in the second, and I shall continue to point out the fallacy of thinking that guns are to blame for our high murder rate.  AND that pretending the gun legislation is anything but a sop to those that haven't bothered to educate themselves, instead soaking up emotional arguments that have exactly zero to do with reality.
                
                Just like the derision you exhibit when you pretend that clubs, knifes and all the other things won't be used.  It's nonsense, you know it, and you very much deserve to be called on such silly arguments. 
                
                So the bottom line is that we don't live in fear of tyrannical government taking our guns because we will oppose such action.  And that means fighting those who would absolutely confiscate our weapons.  Again, you will pretend that there aren't people, politically strong people, that would ever do that, but again you know better.  There ARE people who would and work every day to do so.
                
                Don't know your age, but if you want to keep your guns for more than a a few decades, you'll quit supporting useless gun legislation that will have no effect on the killing and begin opposing it instead.  And the same goes for personal freedom; should you wish to keep yours rather than have it constantly eroded "for the good of the people" (meaning because I don't like what you do), you can start with the second amendment and defend it rather than trying to find a way around it's meaning.

                replyreport
                1. 87

                   Jean Bakulaposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                   But then what about all the people who are shot to death with guns on an almost weekly basis in our country? This doesn't happen in other countries. And I don't mean Syria, Libya, and other hot spots of terrorism. Is it a mental health issue? Just crazy people who have access to guns? Do you think if they couldn't get a gun, they would find another way to shoot a classroom of kids or a group of movie goers? Just curious.
                   
                   And I don't want to take the lazy way out, but as soon as we had a black President, people went crazy buying guns, and their fear of having guns confiscated went way up. Why? President Obama is a rational person who puts a lot of thought into everything, and has tried hard not to be "the black President" to the point many people of color are angry at him.
                   
                   I have not studied guns or ever had one, so don't have knowledge of them. I agree that the government is overstepping in the way it knows way too much about our personal lives, I guess we have computers to thank for that. But I never lived in fear that I needed to protect myself with a gun, and don't worry about the military rushing up my street everyday either. I also live in a small, out of the way town with a population that is mostly white, but I choose to stay here because I like nature.

                   replyreport
                   1. 88

                      wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                      You are still trying to confuse yourself by thinking that killers won't kill if they don't have a gun.  Statistics show otherwise; that the death toll has zero to do with the number of guns in the population.  Just as Australia found out: take away the guns and the death toll goes on unchanged; the killers just switch weapons.  Yes, taking guns away will reduce the number of gun deaths, but the dead don't care how they are killed. 
                      
                      So don't be curious as to what happens when guns are taken from a society; educate yourself.  Look for statistics, look for results, look for thoughtful articles on the subject and reject anything that emphasizes that gun deaths will go down.  Those writers have an axe to grind, and confusing the real issue of murder with murder by gun is indicative of that axe.
                      
                      (Did you know that more people are murdered with hands and feet than with those terrible, dreaded "assault weapons"?  Or with the entire class of long guns, for that matter?  Don't want to believe that?  Look for FBI statistics on what murder weapon is most often used.)
                      
                      I might add that Mexico has a major problem with guns being smuggled, illegally, from the US into Mexico.  If guns are outlawed in the US, where do you think those guns are going to end up?  In Mexico or in the US, as they become impossible to buy legally?  Just curious...

                      replyreport
                      1. 87

                         Jean Bakulaposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                         That's what I asked you. If the killing wasn't done with guns, do you think it would be accomplished another way. It probably would, if the person is so intent on killing.
                         
                         Once you try to take away anything from people, immediately they want it more, and will do or go anywhere to get it. Supply/Demand. That's simple enough.

                         replyreport
                         1. 88

                            wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                            You're getting it, except that there is no "probably" involved.  On a statistical (large) basis, they will keep killing, and history and experience shows that to all too true.  It isn't a "probably", it isn't a "maybe", and it isn't a wild theory; it is fact that has been observed over and over.
                            
                            You're also right on possession of guns whether legal or illegal.  We did it in prohibition, we do it with THC and other drugs and we do it with guns even now.  The gangs can't pass the background checks to legally buy a gun but somehow they still get them!
                            
                            So what's the excuse, again, for taking/forbidding guns to citizens?  It isn't to save lives, because experience shows that doesn't work, so what is it?  We keep seeing that it's to prevent "gun homicides" as if the dead will be happier being clubbed rather than shot, but there can't be anyone at all that actually believes that.

                            replyreport
                            1. 84

                               peoplepower73posted 8 years agoin reply to this

                               Widerness and ahorseback;  There is  law and there is morality, and there are statistics. When the 2nd amendment makes it easy for everybody and I mean everybody, including mentally, ill, criminals, and home grown terrorists to obtain mass killing weapons with impunity something is wrong. When someone can commit mass killings of innocent children and teachers, it is morally wrong. When home grown terrorists can commit mass killings at a Christmas party it is morally wrong. 
                               
                               It does not matter about murdered rate statistics to those families who have lost their loved ones. What matters to them is how did I lose my family members so quickly and so efficiently?  Why did my children lose their future in the mindless event?  You may argue that if everybody in those situations would have been armed, they could have prevented that from happening.  But what is not taken into account is the element of surprise in those situations.  There is no forewarning.  I don't care how well the NRA has trained you, the element of surprise provides a great advantage.
                               
                               In San Bernardino, Highly professional, tactically trained SWAT teams took hours to bring down two home grown terrorist.  They had fired 75 rounds into their SUV.  The terrorist had thrown pipe bombs at them that didn't work.  They also tried using them at the Christmas party, but they didn't work. There is the example of using weapons other than guns.  They didn't work.
                               
                               So you can talk about your inner city killings that go on daily and your statistics, but what resonates with the people and rightfully so are mass killings by civilians.  It is morally wrong and if you don't feel anything for those loses and all you can think about is the great improbability of having your guns taken away then I believe you are morally deficient.  Because that is was drives me in this forum, not statistics.
                               
                               Just wait for the next mass killing and I guarantee it will happen and see how this forum lights up. You can continue to think the root cause of this problem is all about liberals and focus your hate towards them , but in the final analysis, mass killings are morally wrong and if you feel nothing for those people, then your are morally wrong as well.  Because it affects my heart and soul every time I think about it.  That is what drives me in this forum.  I accept the 2nd amendment cannot be changed.  You may not believe me and think that I have a hidden agenda to take away your guns, but nothing could be further from the truth.  Please keep your guns, your statistics, and your hate for liberals and I will keep my guns as well.

                               replyreport
                            2. 87

                               Jean Bakulaposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                               I guess for me my reluctance to accept guns is because I never had one. I was never around anyone who had one. I made friends with people who hunted when I began living in the house I'm in now. Some of my neighbors are bow hunters, but have guns and are careful with how they use them. My neighbor, who mostly bow hunts,(but eats the deer meat), says he doesn't think people in general should have guns which can shoot so many rounds quickly.
                               
                               I think that's the sticking point with me. If a person runs into a classroom with a spear, they can't kill too many people so fast, before enough people jump on them and stop them, or a cop who has his/her own gun stops them. I'm not familiar with all the types of guns, but don't think ordinary citizens need ones that shot so many rounds so fast. The killing escalates before people have a chance to think.
                               
                               I don't want to take everyone's guns away. And I know people will always kill. There was once a woman on HP, can't recall her name, and she had to defend herself and 4 kids with her gun when somebody broke into her home. Perhaps if I was in a more rural setting, I would feel safer with a gun, yet can't picture myself using one. Of course, I would have to if I or someone in the house was going to be shot. There are too many people in the bigger cities who get guns illegally, and will get them no matter what the laws are. So I feel generally against guns, but understand how in some cases they can become necessary. It seems that everyone is so polarized on the topic, others too.

                               replyreport
                               1. 88

                                  wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                                  But Jean, your personal desires, fears and needs are irrelevant.  Whether you dislike guns or not doesn't matter.  What matters is what other people want.  What they want, not what you may determine in your mind that they need.
                                  
                                  It's called freedom, and to deny anyone the right to do what they wish needs a very good reason.  A reason, in this case, that just isn't there.  We can make excuses like guns kill faster than spears but the attempt to ridicule is nothing more than that - an attempt to ridicule the truth because we can't make it go away.
                                  
                                  Sure, a gun will kill more people faster (if the shooter is accurate) than a sword, but not nearly as fast as a bomb.  Would you rather the killer choose a car bomb because he can't buy a gun?  Or a tank of deadly Chlorine?  Australia has seen arson rise since taking guns away - would it be preferable to light an apartment complex on fire one night rather than shoot a few people?
                                  
                                  And we can leave the question open, as in "shoot so many rounds quickly".  Meaning that anything we don't like suddenly falls into that category somehow.  Until you're willing to put hard definitions onto what you don't think people should have - what we should ban - it's just another effort to get them all, or so it appears.  Much like the uproar over "assault weapons".  That started out as a military weapon, fully automatic, that was used to assault enemy positions.  It sounds bad, and the anti-gun crowd has used that emotional reaction to somehow morph it into anything painted black and scary looking.  As if that makes the weapon more deadly somehow.  By the new "definition" my grandson's .22 rifle, useful only for target practice or hunting squirrels, is an "assault weapon" that should be banned.

                                  replyreport
                                  1. 66

                                     Doug Cutlerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                                     The alternative is what I posted earlier. Instead of thousands there will be millions dead if we don't stay armed. There are those that use way too much emotion. The facts show huge numbers are killed when there is no way to fend off thugs, gangs and other forces.

                                     replyreport
                                  2. 87

                                     Jean Bakulaposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                                     I still can't get on board with people wanting guns that kill so many people so fast. The government defines what guns are considered assault weapons. If you join the military, you expect that you may be shot to death in protecting our country. If you are going to dinner and a movie, you don't expect to be killed.
                                     
                                     I have no doubt that your grandson shoots safely and has been property taught how to protect himself by you and your family. It's not somebody like him I'm worried about. There are too many killers and crazy people out there. I realize they will get whatever guns they want by whatever means, prohibition was a good example.
                                     
                                     I just can't stand the wasted lives when I see innocent people being shot with assault weapons. And even the police shot that boy who was playing with a toy gun in a park, so it's not easy for everyone to see what gun the person has from a distance. Though I would think police should be getting regular eye exams.
                                     
                                     You make good points, but I just think the NRA has too much power, and think it should be harder for certain people to buy assault weapons. I can see it from your point of view, I just can't agree. Too many children and innocents are killed in this country, and we aren't in a civil war. At least not yet.
                                     
                                     This forum has been interesting, but I'm signing off now. Neither side is going to agree with the other.

                                     replyreport
                                     1. 88

                                        wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                                        I agree.  Neither side is going to change.  Sadly (from my point of view) in a fight of freedom vs fear, fear will always win if it can muster the force to do so.
                                        
                                        You have a good day, Jean.  And think about just what an "assault weapon" is and what makes it so deadly.  And, maybe, that far more people are murdered in this country of massive gun ownership with hands and feet than are killed with "assault guns".

                                        report
                                        1. 87

                                           Jean Bakulaposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                                           Take care Wilderness. I will continue to ponder. Benjamin Franklin said, "Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one." The Founding Fathers were a brilliant group of people.

                                           report
                                           1. 88

                                              wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                                              Good quote.  That's what it's all about, for me - I don't even own a gun any more.

                                              report
                                           2. 0

                                              ahorsebackposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                                              Jean , That was the most intelligent thing said in this entire thread ! +++++

                                              report
                                              1. 87

                                                 Jean Bakulaposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                                                 Thanks, but I can't take credit for it, it was Benjamin Franklin. The Founding Fathers were pretty smart.

                                                 report
                                        2. 70

                                           wrenchBiscuitposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                                           The next time someone goes on a killing rampage and kills 20 elementary school children with "hands and feet", please let me know. To date, I haven't heard of such a mass killing, but according to you it happens all the time. And of course, you are the same guy who also claimed the AK-47 was never designed for military use.
                                           
                                           Before joining Hubpages, even though I had been around the world and had sex with at least 3 women and one extraterrestrial, I had never before witnessed such bizarre commentary.

                                           report
                                           1. 66

                                              Doug Cutlerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                                              You, however, are one that gets off on a gun owner killing or hurting themselves cleaning their gun! And you have admitted to causing the deaths of those that don't agree with you.
                                              
                                              You are one of the last ones that should say anything about right and wrong. Evil is what evil say and does.

                                              report
                                              1. 70

                                                 wrenchBiscuitposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                                                 Doug, You are not only creating a grand fiction, but you are giving me far too much credit. I challenge you to show where I have made such outrageous, and fantastic claims, otherwise I suggest you point your slander in another, less hazardous direction. It is no wonder that you have such blind faith in the unholy cabal many of you so solemnly refer to as "The Founding Fathers".
                                                 
                                                 Whatever they may have found or founded, I am certain that they found a hole in the ground and a first class coach to hell. The fact that you believe in such fairy tales explains why you would also believe that through sheer will alone, I could manifest a force that could identify and seek out individuals through cyberspace and then inflict unspeakable misery upon them; causing them to grow old and suffer from edema, cancerous tumors, impotence,  arteriosclerosis, dementia, senility, paralyzing stroke, and a host of maladies that only God could have prepared and delivered in good measure to such an arrogant breed. Perhaps you believe that I am the author of fate; the one who can set a man's foot upon the path that leads to the bone crushing agony of a 3 car pile up on the New York Thruway in the dead of winter; the architect who fashioned the untimely demise of the adulterer who returned from the bathroom with a bullet hole in his head: a justice delivered by an angry husband who just happened to return home early from the Shriners Convention.
                                                 
                                                 But I possess no such powers. Although I am superior to the lovers of guns and materialism, I am still only a man. As such, I will simply sit here on the beach, fix another Margarita, write another song, and listen to America as she lay slowly dying, and gasping for air.

                                                 report
                                                 1. 66

                                                    Doug Cutlerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                                                    Here it is! Both posts of yours on page 181.
                                                    
                                                    1. "How heartwarming, and how pathetic. Even from a survivalist standpoint, teaching achild how to garden; how to forage for wild plants and roots, is more practical than shooting game. Especially today when wild game is scarce in many areas. But the average gun lover is a Neanderthal, a throwback to a distant age. It is not a matter of survival for the gun lover, but a matter of blood lust. They simply enjoy killing for the sake of killing; so much so that they even call killing a "sport". I am quite pleased when I hear of these throwbacks accidentally shooting themselves, or being killed by the animals they are hunting."
                                                    
                                                    2. "You should know by now that I am immune to your insults. You will notice that I refrain from such childish commentary. Many of my subordinates have attempted to demean my character with strawmen and vitriol. Some of them have actually had heart attacks and died within the last several months, which I find quite remarkable."
                                                    
                                                    Remember writing these? I take the second as you having something to do with these deaths. Maybe you agitated them up close and personal??
                                                    
                                                    Fact is the evil pleasure you admit from both of these instances. I hope to never came in contact with evil such as you. Slander you say! Hazardous direction you say! The above paragraphs are your words. I made nothing up!

                                                    report
                                                    1. 70

                                                       wrenchBiscuitposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                                                       
                                                       
                                                       I am happy that you took the time to retrieve my comments from the archive. However, I am sure that you will be quite disappointed with my response. I am also pleased that you numbered each response, as I have a fondness for order. And so I will respond in the sequence that you have presented:
                                                       
                                                       1. The Hubpages commnunity is not unlike the community that we find in the outer world of brick and mortar. There are many who spend a great amount of time creating an illusion of who they are and how they feel. They are very big on social etiquette and political correctness. It also turns out that most of these people are usually hippocrites. They publicy say and do what they believe will garner them the most favor from their peers and associates. Not being immune to the human condition, although I do not always succeed, I try very hard to keep myself above such nonsense. Now, to directly address your feeble attempt to portray me as cold-blooded and heartless:
                                                       
                                                       I do not support state sponsored murder, a practice that many refer to as capital punishment. It follows that neither do I support the killing of another human being for any reason, nor the killing of animals simply for "sport". When it comes to killing there is no slippery slope in my world, because even when I step on an ant, or a cockroach these days, I feel guilt and remorse, as I have become more human than human. Having clarified my position on killing, let it also be understood that I have no sympathy for those who suffer as a result of their evil deeds.
                                                       
                                                       As an example, not long ago a famous elephant hunter was killed by a bull elephant in Africa. I was happy to hear the news. This man was a cold-blooded killer. This man was a gun for hire, and he made large green for many years. I have no idea how many elephants this man and his wealthy capitalist clients helped to needlessly slaughter, but I am sure the number was most likely in the hundreds. In my book, that makes this man a mass murderer. So I am not troubled at all that the bull elephant delivered this evil man his just reward. I feel the same way about anyone who treats hunting as a "sport". But whether I am happy, or whether I am sad, the end result remains the same: During the commission of an act of evil, a man was killed; a man is dead.
                                                       
                                                       My harsh criticism will not keep him in the grave, nor will any kind words bring him back to life. But my perspective is a life saving perspective. My  lack of sympathy demonstrates the greatest love of all. Behold, in spite of the ridicule and scorn I must endure, I stand as a witness to the world.  Today through my commentary here, I may be responsible for the saving of hundreds, perhaps thousands of lives!
                                                       
                                                       Today I am telling the world in no uncertain terms: "You do not have to die this way before your time! Why? Because it is not necessary that you hunt and kill for sport. There are many, more positive ways for you to spend your free time. And I guarantee, and I promise, that if you do not hunt for sport, you will never have a hunting accident. You will never be killed, or paralyzed by your own weapon, or the weapon your friend was holding, nor the one carried by a stranger who was also hunting in the woods that day. You will stay safe and alive, and your family will not be left to grieve over your pitiful remains. And so, Doug Cutler, if my attempt to save thousands of human, and animal lives, is a cold and heartless act,if this is an "evil pleasure" as you suggest,  then let it be so!
                                                       
                                                       2. The second point you are trying to make reveals a problem that many commentators here on Hubpages seem to have. That problem is "Reading Comprehension". In order to communicate efficiently and "correctly" with another individual, we must not only accept the same definitions of words and phrases, but we must also understand the context, and have at least some familiarity with the individual we are communicating with. Since the bulk of my commentary on this thread and others you have participated in is against gun violence, and violence in general, it is clear that you have purposely ignored my fundamental position on violence. Obviously, your purpose was to create a fiction that you could then use as a means to denigrate and slander Ronnie wrenchBiscuit.
                                                       
                                                       Hear Ye! Hear Ye!
                                                       I have no control over how you, nor anyone else interprets, mis-interprets, or "reads between the lines". Based on your mis-interpretation of my commentary here, I suggest you refrain from trying to decode the commentary of others and simply deal with language in a more literal sense. There are many great works of literature that can help you to understand words and phrases. I recommend Steinbecks "Of Mice and Men" would be a good place to start.

                                                       report
                                           2. 88

                                              wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                                              " but according to you it happens all the time."
                                              
                                              I trust you can and will copy/paste from my post to prove that?
                                              
                                              "And of course, you are the same guy who also claimed the AK-47 was never designed for military use. "
                                              
                                              And it wasn't.  The civilian version was NOT designed for the military and has never been used by one.  Or will you now show an army that uses the civvie AK-47, non-automatic, as normal weaponry for their soldiers?

                                              report
          2. 0

             ahorsebackposted 8 years agoin reply to this

             That's it right there ,wilderness ",........If I don't want a gun , its okay to take the liberties away from "them gun owners  "! .......   How shallow the liberal-socialist left of the  American public truly is . I find myself  almost wishing for the coming  ideological revolution in America . It is the voices like Peoplepower's that all but disappear in times of such  revolutions as they often create and the loudest voices in the world are  uninformed  liberals .
             
             Real fact -
             - almost all  gun crimes are committed with handguns .
             - most crime itself becomes so diluted  with pleas by defense attorneys as to render laws themselves  completely useless. Want to stop  gun crime , STOP THAT ! That's the fault of liberal supreme courts of the sixties.
             -Yes , inner city gangs commit most gun crime
             - When President Obamas  guards give up there assault weapons , I will Too !

             replyreport
16. 0

    ahorsebackposted 8 years ago

    
    
    There is a complete idiocy in the rhetoric about gun control that makes  absolutely no sense whatsoever .    So here's a list of things to BAN rather than a gun that  absolutely WILL make a difference.
    
    -Liberal Activist  Judges
    -Criminals
    -Gangs
    -Plea bargains
    -Early release
    -Publicly Paid Defense attorneys
    -Illegal immigration
    -Gun Free Zones
    -Any more NEW LAWS
    
    One day utopian dream liberals will awaken in America and face REAL truths .
    
    No........I think not !
    
    
    -

    replyreport
    1. 70

       wrenchBiscuitposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       It is the mindset of Neanderthals that keeps the killing alive. None of the items on your list can be protected with a gun. It is the false belief that violence can be tamed, diminished, or eradicated with violence that perpetuates violence. To suggest that we can put out a fire with gasoline is ludicrous.
       
       You cannot even protect yourself with a gun! Do you actually think that fate will give you fair warning so that you have time to arm yourself and react during a crisis? The fact that soldiers who have been trained to fight continue to be  killed by the tens of thousands clearly indicates that a gun offers little protection when someone is determined to kill you.

       replyreport
       1. 66

          Doug Cutlerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          I, and most other people would rather take that chance that having a gun does prevent deaths by not allowing thugs just to walk in and do their thang. This includes: individuals, gangs. govs, dictators and those that use other means of murder. Like you do.
          
          I know better than to use gasoline to but out a fire! You???
          
          If you can remember that the biggest mass murders were against peoples that had no weapons or the weapons were taken away. Hitler. Moe, Stalin, Turkey/Muslim massacre of the Armenians, African groups etc.

          replyreport
17. 0

    ahorsebackposted 8 years ago

    
    
    Just what is an "Assault Weapon" ?   Lesson One .
    
    I believe that anti gun people especially but perhaps lots of uninformed people need a few weapons informational posts so here's one .     The Ruger * , LC9s semi automatic pocket or concealed carry  handgun ,  I believe it holds seven  shots of  .9mm caliber " rounds" or bullets  .  Its design is for  close range personal protection , to be either carried or stored for home defense . Not a very a effective handgun  for accuracy  but  simply one of many available  for protection .  Not what anyone would call an Assault Weapon , right ?
    
    Wrong ,......  Okay , lets say  you have this gun  for whatever reason , either protection or sport target shooting ,  NOW , take this weapon  and purchase  say,  ten - seven shot magazines ,   Now , you have a small concealable , effective at close range  , powerful ,  handgun with  seventy rounds of ammo able to fire all of which just as fast as you can change magazines  ,  Anyone with any practice and dexterity at all can change a magazine in mere seconds !
    
    Now can you see just why , when  people say "All Assault Weapons Should Be Banned "  , There is so much controversy ?
    
    Any ,  perhaps WHY   those of us law abiding gun owners get nervous  when  uninformed people start hyperventilating and chanting  uninformed  opinions ?

    replyreport
    1. 84

       peoplepower73posted 8 years agoin reply to this

       ahorseback:  It does not matter what you think or I think is an assault weapon.  It is what the law states and defines as assault weapons.  You and I both know there was a federal law written for a ban on assault weapons back in 1994.  It defined what assault weapons were.  The NRA, through its lobby groups influenced congress to put a sunset clause in it that it would expire in 10 years.  This is the only way it passed congress. 
       
       After it expired in 2004,  the NRA and states including you and all the other people that argue about what an assault weapon is, muddy the waters of the definition.  The federal government had its definition, but thanks to the 2nd amendment and states rights, each state can have its own laws about gun jurisdiction.  Who wins, state or federal?  That's why there are so many variations of the open carry law, and many other gun laws.
       
       This is how I had it explained to me: 
       
       It's the "go ask your mother" law. Regress back into your childhood and think of your father as the state law and your mother as the federal law. You want to go to a party and stay out a little later past your curfew. Your father (state) says yes but your mother (federal) says no. Who ultimately has the final say?
       
       "Go ask your mother."
       
       So you can breath into a bag and stop hyperventilating over trying to define an assault weapon with all of its variations.  It's like porn, it's hard to define, but you know it when you see it and when it is in use.

       replyreport
       1. 88

          wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          "but you know it when you see it and when it is in use."
          
          Really?  A kids .22 is known to be an "assault weapon" by looking at it?  You need to read some of the definitions used in some states: they are ridiculous in the extreme and very obviously being used as nothing more than a scare tactic to limit general use guns.

          replyreport
18. 0

    ahorsebackposted 8 years ago

    Doug ,  Wrenchbisket is right ,  "You give me too much credit........... "  ,That's the  most accurate line he's ever written here ,     Pie in the sky  utopian-ist's  are forever  unclear about anything dealing with truth  , reality or solution . Their  entire premise is simply a delusional dream world based on  happy- happy story -book outcomes of real  life experiences .   We  have determined that most of these liberal's  places in life and in forums is simply to entertain , to  cry out for attention . Much like the present presidential elections .  While real and even social , cultural , and even revolutionary  issues face Americans , the left lives in a  fantasy world .
    
    If this ultra- leftist populace ever faced the truth of our problems and  realities in  America to actually solve them , they would cringe in the face of basic understandings!  Just as they do with even minor  issues.  As in world hunger , "............Give a man a fish you feed him once ,but teach him how to fish and he eats forever  ......."   
    
    While you or I would use the gun to feed ourselves and others even  in a post- revolutionary reality , the leftist would  confiscate it from you or I , pawn it  ,then  buy a happy-burger for themselves !
    ..

    replyreport
    1. 84

       peoplepower73posted 8 years agoin reply to this

       ahorseback:  Excuse me, what delusional world are you living in?  Have you even compared a republican debate to a democratic debate?  The republicans are like naughty, loud mouth, bombastic school children without any regard for whom they insult or the facts.  On the other hand the democratic debate is about civil respect and decorum.
       
       You make accusations that are nothing more than your opinion.  The bottom line is you are paranoid about having the left confiscate your guns. I have told you this many times, as long as the 2nd amendment stands, no one can confiscate your guns. And if you think the 2nd amendment can be changed, you are delusional.  It would have to be put forth to congress and they are not going to approve it. not now our even in the future, because they have been bought out by very powerful right wing lobbyist including the NRA. Now who is living in reality?  Who is living in your paranoid world of liberal takeovers? 
       
       It's interesting that justice Scalia called himself an "originalist" when interpreting the constitution.  That means putting himself in the place of the framers. If that were the case, bearing arms would be muzzle loading flint lock muskets, not the modern weapons of today, including airplanes, tanks, missiles, drones, and all the military weaponry all branches of the service can bring forth, if needed.
       
       Let me guess you are a supporter of Donald Trump.  This is what you wrote that I can apply to the right wing and especially Donald Trump:
       
       "We  have determined that most of these liberal's  places in life and in forums is simply to entertain , to  cry out for attention . Much like the present presidential elections .  While real and even social , cultural , and even revolutionary  issues face Americans , the left lives in a  fantasy world ."
       
       It sounds like the right wing to me.  You are always in attack mode and never want to see the other side of the equation and I can rightly say, you are paranoid about gun confiscation. I on the other hand have accepted the reality that the 2nd amendment is not going to be changed and therefore, your guns are not going to be confiscated.  I have also accepted the fact that state's rights can usurp federal rights.  You tell me who is living in a fantasy world?

       replyreport
       1. 88

          wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          "And if you think the 2nd amendment can be changed, you are delusional."
          
          Of course - our constitution is written in stone, never to be changed.  I might remind you of 1920, when the 18th amendment was ratified, taking away all alcohol because some people didn't like the idea of drinking.  And then of 1933, when the 20th amendment was ratified, giving it back to the people. 
          
          "If that were the case, bearing arms would be muzzle loading flint lock muskets, not the modern weapons of today, including airplanes, tanks, missiles, drones, and all the military weaponry all branches of the service can bring forth, if needed."
          
          Or an "originalist" might conclude that the most modern weapons available is what was referred to, just as it was back when the amendment was added.  Just a matter of what spin is desired, isn't it?  (Along with perhaps an assumption that the people then were too stupid to understand that improvements would be made.)

          replyreport
          1. 58

             Alternative Primeposted 8 years agoin reply to this

             The 2cnd Amendment is a "LIVING Document" to be Changed, Modified, Up-Dated, Augmented, Revised, Omitted etc as we Progress and as TIMES & Circumstances Change ~
             
             If anyone HONESTLY thinks our "Frolicking FOUNDERS" intended for their Gin Soaked WORDS to remain Un-Tampered with into eternity, I believe "Denial" of Reality might be the Proper Verbiage ~
             
             P.S. ~ The 2cnd A is a "Constitutional BAN" on ARMs unless you are in the Military or a "Well Regulated Militia" ~

             replyreport
             1. 66

                Doug Cutlerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                If your "P.S." was anywhere close to being true? - Why did the gov. never go and take our weapons? Why did the fed let the states come up with their own gun laws. And why would the army give out free bullets to train passengers to kill some of the buffalo herds? And even loan them rifles to use?
                
                Mostly! Why isn't the f#@ Obama regime taking our weapons? You haven't a leg to stand on!
                 

                replyreport
                1. 88

                   wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                   No, it obviously isn't true.  Just another gun hater, fearing anything they don't love, and play free with reality.

                   replyreport
       2. 0

          ahorsebackposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          PeoplePower /, Please see your O.P   ., .........and tell me exactly why you NOW say the second cannot be changed .    Either way continue the leftist rants .......They are entertaining after all !  ........Mean time , I'm cleaning my muzzle loaders today in preparation for the first shot of the  new revolution .  Got to take back America from you leftist  socialist tyranists !

          replyreport
19. 61

    pumpkincat210posted 8 years ago

    A person that wants to kill or injure other humans or animals will find a way even without guns.  Sometimes these horrific events ate not committed by someone that was previosly diagnosed with a mental illness.  Many mentally ill would not consider harming another. Many responsibly own guns with no problems. There are deeper social issues at play here and perhaps even something more nefarious.  We have to figure out what is causing these people to resort to murder, while preserving the 2nd and 9th amendments.

    replyreport
    1. 58

       Alternative Primeposted 8 years agoin reply to this

       Hi pumpkincat210 ~ Considering the FACT that "Mental illness" will always exist in society and there will always be Disturbed Iindividuals that wish to use a GUN to commit Violent Acts and or even "Mass Shootings",  Wouldn't you like to make the Availability and or ACCESS to GUNz for those individuals a little MORE difficult by REDUCING the number of GUNz in circulation?

       replyreport
       1. 88

          wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Not particularly as history and experience shows it doesn't do any good.  They may prefer that terrible GUN, but will use something else if the GUN isn't available.  Now, you can pretend that isn't true (by ignoring history in favor of made up "facts" and "funny math"), and you can say it a thousand times, but it is still there, giving the lie to saving lives by taking GUNS.

          replyreport
          1. 0

             ahorsebackposted 8 years agoin reply to this

             I am never surprised that the extreme left ignores history , fact and reason .  Look where that has gotten them so far !  America right now is the perfect example of the delusional left.  For instance in their elections - If you don't like the outcome - create a electoral college that actually  changes the numbers .  Look at their super delegates !

             replyreport