The outdated 2nd amendment.
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago
0Any one who wants to live in a gun free zone in America , might move to Chicago, The Mayor , our old Obama friend has created a gun free zone . sadly though the highest gun crime in American cities also resides there , and has only increased since that bright move ! Yeaa .
- PrettyPantherposted 9 years ago0
Ah, here we go with the tough guy talk. Usually comes from not-so-tough guys. My husband once found an intruder in his home. When he figured out the guy was stealing food, he fed him.
I supposed he could have shot him, rather than let him eat. Probably would have gotten away with it, claiming he feared for his life.
I'm sure "tough guys" would say he was stupid. Whatever. I say he is a courageous and good man, the kind we need more of. As I stated earlier, I am not an advocate for gun control. I don't think a complete ban on guns will make us safer, nor do I feel an escalation of gun ownership will make us safer either. No matter what, arms dealers will continue to profit. Some would even make more money with a complete ban, since black market prices would skyrocket.
Are you equating gun control with "complete ban"; if so, think again for it is not. Anytime a jurisdiction tried to go the route of complete ban, or even substantial restriction, the Supreme Court struck it down.
I am aware of the difference. Any way you slice it, it is "control". Government control through fear,legislation, and punitive measures is offensive,oppressive, and doesn't work. The arms dealers as well as the legislators need to be locked up somewhere together, or sent to a faraway place in another part of the galaxy. Some might suggest it would be easier to just shoot them. But I am a man of non-violence. We do not need guns, but we need to be free. I could care less about the second amendment. Those who framed the Constitution advocated theft, and the murder of my people. I propose a new constitutional amendment: Send America Back Home
<"To abolish the right to bear arms is a good way for governments to have more control over citizens. It is also a way for government to gradually work the way up to declaring martial law - and it sure seems like that could possibly happen. Have you read or heard about "Jade Helm"? Look it up.
What happens if martial law is declared? All elections are postponed indefinitely. The Constitution would become suspended and all rights of citizens would be gone. Military would be in control.">
Jade Helm: "The military was laying the groundwork for martial law — if not now, then sometime in the future.The exercise will end quietly Tuesday, however. Carried out in parts of Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana and Florida, it will conclude after two months of operations, said Suzanne Nagl, a spokeswoman for Army Special Operations Command, which oversaw it."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/che … -its-over/
Something to think about, Phyllis Doyle.
Who wouldn't agree?It is scary. Thanks for the link, Kathryn.
No, I don't. To accomplish what you suggest requires a coup, not a gradual creep by the government (by the People, in other words). To have a "gradual creep" the People would have to vote representatives in that support such a creep. I support gun control, but I wouldn't vote for anyone wanting to ban guns either.
But we've been instituting additional gun controls for a long time now. Where would you suggest it end? When the killing stops? As no amount of gun control is going to do that, it would seem that the ultimate goal of gun control advocates has to be complete confiscation (not that that will stop the carnage, either).
Your chances of dying by gunshot in MA, with the toughest gun laws, is an order of magnitude lower than it is in LA where gun laws are almost non-existent --- Why? The same is true for almost combination of tough gun law state vs easy access states --- Why?
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
My Guess is that a lame duck Obama is going to invoke executive action ......only to be later overruled by the Supreme courts . He will cave to weakness and P.C that knows nothing of the truth . or they know and don't care !
This was the best 7 minutes I have listened to on the 2nd Amendment. Bill Whittle speaks before Congress in 2013. He charges Congress of being in violation of their oath's of office for even introducing gun control legislation. ... He is right! We need to do something about violence, murder and insanity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T-F_zfoDqI
I live a rural area where crime is low. Last year a mentally unstable individual visited the area to attend the wedding of a friend's. He was on his way home when he stopped at the country home of an elderly couple. By the time the husband came to see what was going on in the kitchen, his wife was being strangled. He took a baseball bat and hit the attacker, bloodied him pretty good. He was able to get to his wife then, while the attacker escaped in his car. He then drove down the highway and stopped at another home where an elderly woman was fixing breakfast. Thankfully, her son lived at home and came out to see what was going on to find the attacker strangling his mother. He fought with the attacker and was able to get back into his bedroom for a rifle and killed the attacker.
Reports came out that the attacker suffered from PTSD and was on medication, people who knew him said he was doing well...seemed to be fine. People SNAP!Unless an individual, usually of the republican persuasion "Pretends" certain words within the 2cnd Amendment do NOT exist, the passage is EXPLICIT and UNAMBIGUOUS ~
As the amendment clearly articulates, an individual MUST be affiliated with a "Well Regulated Militia" i.e. the "Military" to gain this RIGHT to Bear Arms ~ It is a BAN on ARMS for all other Americans ~
A "Well Regulated Militia" design specifically to PROTECT the Country from another Foreign Invasion, not assembled to run around aimlessly poppin' George Washington in the rear-end with a pea-shooter or cannon because "We the People" woke up this morning in a Serious Little Oppressed MOOD ~Back to pretending that the words "MUST be affiliated with a "Well Regulated Militia" are included are we? It didn't work when you first proposed it, and it still doesn't. Those words simple are not there and pretending they are doesn't, and never will, make it so.
Well, I guess it's nothing new: those of the Democratic persuasion often pretend. That taking guns away will reduce the homicide rate. That unilaterally raising wages won't cause inflation. That unlimited freebies encourages self sufficiency. And so on. The great pretenders, they are.I read the Amendment EXACTLY as written, VERBATIM ~ No Subtractions and or Additions ~ If you do the same wilderness you might FINALLY become enlightened ~
There's a very good reason why our quasi-sober fore-fathers BEGAN the Amendment with the phrase "A WELL REGULATED MILITIA" which translates explicitly to a MILITARY FORCE Designed to Defend the states from another Foreign Invasion ~ This is the "Set-UP" or Pre-Text for what follows ~
According to the Constitution, NO Military Affiliation NO Arms ~Alternative Prime , Bull****, Why do you suppose each and every attempted amendment, aside from executive actions , has been examined , analytically articulated in law language , and DISSMISSED by supreme court action forever ! And the simplicity of those twenty seven words of the second amendment remains .......unchanged !
Unchanged ! ?We Finally Agree on something which is an absolute Miracle ahorseback ~
Your RIGHT to own arms was Granted by the Failed Mis-Interpretation performed by a Supreme Court, however, it's absolutely NOT a Constitutional Right ~Wrong again. Rights are not granted by government. Perhaps a more thorough study of natural rights and Natural Law Theory will help clarify things for you. The right to arm one's self is a natural right and does not require a grant of authority from government. Rights predate, transcend and are independent of government as they flow from nature. I would suggest a careful re-reading of the Declaration of Independence, The Virginia Declaration of Rights and the collected works of John Locke
I would suggest a more open mind and more open books as a remedy for your "malinformed" opinions on the right to keep and bare arms."the right of the people shall not be infringed ".........
How simple.
How misconstrued!YES, in "Republican Pretend Land" there are only 9 words within the Second A ~ In the REAL Tangible World there are many more ~
You've CONVENIENTLY Omitted the other 18 revealing words found within the passage which is quite clear and concise, more specifically "A Well Regulated Militia" ~ Military, National Guard, Law Enforcement etc. ~ NO Affiliation with the Military NO Right to Bear Arms ~
But it's Okay and expected by now, wilderness, Kathryn, and just about every other republican commits the same "Word Removal Violation" to "Pretend" they don't exist ~How ridicules to assume the general population was banned from owning and using firearms. They were hunters.
"Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr shocked the nation. But it was the identity of the man killed, not the fact of the duel itself, that produced such dismay. By 1804, dueling had become an American fixture." Doesn't sound like for militias only here!
The statement was to allow militias in addition to the normal and accepted use of guns.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/02/ … lacks.html
"The KKK began as a gun-control organization. Before the Civil War, blacks were never allowed to own guns. During the Civil War, blacks kept guns for the first time – either they served in the Union army and they were allowed to keep their guns, or they buy guns on the open market where for the first time there’s hundreds of thousands of guns flooding the marketplace after the war ends. So they arm up because they know who they’re dealing with in the South. White racists do things like pass laws to disarm them, but that’s not really going to work. So they form these racist posses all over the South to go out at night in large groups to terrorize blacks and take those guns away. If blacks were disarmed, they couldn’t fight back."
Did you notice the statement that said they were allowed to keep their guns! This was from the U.S. gov. They were not a militia!
If the gov. thought that guns were only for militia use they would have taken them 200 years ago.That is an important part of gun rights history, Doug. I am glad you had the opportunity to mention it.
To allow militias in ADDITION to NORMAL and accepted Use of Guns? What an ASSUMPTION ~ Who's being ridiculous Doug? ~ Care to add any more fictitious "Pretend Land" data to the Constitution to protect a Delusional Right?
You need to read the 2cnd Amendment VERBATIM ~
If "HUNTING", "SPORT" or any other derivative thereof were included as a Constitutional Right it would have been annotated within the passage via the addition of a few syllables, but guess what? It's NOT there ~
Anyone can "PRETEND" the word "Hunting" or any other word is contained within the Amendment but it's NOT ~ Nice try though Doug ~Never said hunting was mentioned. It certainly was common and there was nowhere said you couldn't use a gun to hunt.
How about the other two points I mention? You are a nit picker and wrong.I'm not sure how anyone could ASSUME "Hunting" was common in the 1700's because I don't know a single person who lived during that time period who could verify this as factual ~ I don't think we even have an accurate portrait of good ole' George Washington ~
A far more logical scenario would be that our ancestors were avid fishermen/women considering the vast bodies of water and ease at which a meal could be secured ~ But we don't need to snag our own food anymore right? We have that essential element done for us ~
"there was nowhere said you couldn't use a gun to go hunt" ?? ~ It dosen't say you CAN'T point a pea-shooter at George Washington's rear-end then YANK thy trigger either, but does the exclusion of these words make it LEGAL? Probably not ~
By your logic Doug, if it's not explicitly written in the 2cnd Amendment then it's legal by DEFAULT ~ I'm not so sure about that ---->
Don't have to "ASSUME" anything. There are plenty of facts to support my view. Example: http://www.jaegerkorps.org/NRA/Hunting% … merica.htm
Have you ever seen God? or He doesn't exist either because you haven't seen or known.OH my GOD
~
Perfect, ridiculous nonsense from the NRA ~
I'm pretty good at the English Language and I've read the 2cnd Amendment many a time ~ I don't need some Insane Right Wing Outfit like the NRA to try to tell me how I should interpret the OBVIOUS ~
Doug, you should run for Speaker of the House, Kevin McCarthy almost made it ---->
I lived in North Dakota for over 30 years.
Murders by guns is rare in ND.
People are holding their breath as more and more migrants and refuges are placed there, and up crime rates go...not shootings, yet.Not a good example colorfulone considering MORE Bigfoots than Humans live in North Dakota ~
To reach the nearest home a criminal would need to take 3 airplane rides, 4 buses, a camel, 2 trains, a burro, and 7 mules just to get there ~
I mean look at the place, I'm not sure it's even part of the United States anymore ~You make a good case for limiting the size of our metropolitan areas - say nothing over 100,000 or 150,000 (about the size of ND's two largest cities).
Of course as the Democrats are highly concentrated in populous areas (those with high murder rates), it might hurt the party just a bit. Kick 11 million illegal aliens out (also hurting the Dems) and stop accepting unlimited immigration. Let the population decline naturally, as our (native) peoples tend to have low birthrates.
Makes a lot more sense than pretending the 2nd amendment no longer exists, or even that it says something it doesn't. With the added benefit that the liberal entitlement programs will die away, too.Actually No ! He sounds like he has a brain !LOL
Actually, it was mostly sarcasm, directed at the continued virulent posts against the Republican party. I make a poor Republican. Of course, I also make a poor Democrat; I feel that both parties should be scrapped in favor of ones that actually care about the country and people.
But even sarcasm usually has a grain of truth; do you disagree that breaking up our metropolitan areas would hurt Democrats? Or that the Hispanic vote is mostly Democrat or that it would be severely compromised if all the illegal aliens were deported?The country won't do anything like that ! Break up a city , No! The metro- area's are mostly liberal my friend . The Hispanic vote not long ago was more conservative I believe , they loved Reagan supposedly, who knows now . Our country is becoming more and more attached to entitlements though right and left . We simply need to outlaw the two party system , well at least the terms Repub and Dem's , the negativity of those two terms is destroying our populace's chances of agreeing on some really important stuff !
Eliminate the labels we'd probably agree on more . You think ?There should be no parties. Just the best person for the job. Didn't someone way back say that when we
start multiple parties that the people would suffer because of these parties?Kind of doubt it. One wants our wallets and the other wants our obeisance to their god. And that isn't going to change with a label.
Why would they favor entitlements? We saw what happened after Hurricane Katrina because of entitlements, they had to declare marital law. First they were anger waiting for the government to do something and when their entitled help didn't come through they were outraged. They didn't know what to do.
Relief organizations that went there to help the people who needed it desperately were caught in the middle of gun fire.
Oh!I'm not talking of emergency funds like Katrina , I'm speaking of entitlements of low interest career education loans , I'm talking about SS. Bennies , disability bennies , welfare stipends , assisted housing , military payrolls subsidies up the ying yang . Stimulus highway welfare programs , on and on ,
Those are the entitlements of Katrina rioters pretty much. Welfare, food stamps, etc. They weren't taught how to survive without the government. The outrage came because of their dependency and being cut off.
Many minorities are very dependent and feel entitled.Nothing new there ! New Orleans is a subsidized city , really always has been . Welfare is quite prevalent in a lot of cities .! America's , minorities , some of them , are very welfare friendly !
So. If the government shuts down and entitlements are cut off, they will riot, loot, and do acts of violence wide spread. Then, there would come marshal law on a national scale.
Would that be when a civil government would rise up?
Correct me if I am wrong. Trying to understand.
You commented, "They weren't taught how to survive without the government."
I used to watch "All In The Family " too, but I never took it seriously.
Instead of getting all my info from men wearing wife beaters and Nascar hats in local taverns, I learned how to read. And what did it say? It said:
"According to the Huffington Post, nationally, most of the people who receive benefits from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) are white. ACCORDING to 2013 data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which administers the program, 40.2 percent of SNAP recipients are white, 25.7 percent are black, 10.3 percent are Hispanic, 2.1 percent are Asian and 1.2 percent are Native American."
You mentioned that minorities feel entitled. According to the numbers,over 40% of white SNAP recipients may also feel entitled. If they are receiving food stamps then it follows that they would be standing in line for other programs. But instead of denigrating poor white people, I have published articles that can help resolve many of the problems we face today. But of course, I am More Human than Human; more Christian than a Christian. I wouldn't expect Archie to understand.Perfect refutation, wrenchBiscuit, facts always trumps hyperbole and prejudice.
Thank you My Esoteric,although I am sure your sentiment will not be shared by many of Archie's fans and followers.
Well, I also dislike both political parties.
I think population density plays a huge role in many of our modern social issues. If you ever read Democracy in America, the author predicted that once America started to lose its sense of township, its sense of local community, then democracy would begin to fade.
Today, there are too many local decision being made by groups of people not connected with the communities they are impacted. We don't have true representatives that care about our local issues. Arbitrary districts and destroyed that. Our governing bodies, even at the town and city level. can't effectively address the problems in our communities.
Through this same system, many of us have surrendered our communal voices to our alienated governments.
I mean, if my state (California) were a country, it would one of the largest and wealthiest in the world. Yet, it's just a state. Our county of San Diego has a population larger than many international territories. Just the city of San Diego has a larger population than the 12 smallest states in our country. Most cities cannot adequately address local issues and adhere to the wishes and needs of its communities.
Would breaking up metro areas hurt democrats? I don't know, I don't care.
As for illegal immigrants. I think people need to realize that we have a long shared history with Mexico. A third of our country was taken from theirs. There is so much cultural, social, and economic crossover. In a way, the two countries have a responsibility toward one another, like neighbors. Maybe more like divorced parents. To just say we should kick out all illegal immigrants is rather reckless. It would also be very difficult. There's almost no evidence their presence is harming our country and there's plenty of ways they're actually helping it.
Progressives live in densely populated areas because we are PROGRESSIVE and are very fond of modernization and conveniences created thereof like indoor plumbing, micro-wave ovens, satellite & cable television, sidewalks, restaurants, easy access to hospitals, doctors etc, telephones and related service, food capture & delivery, timely information, motorized and or electric vehicles vs horse & buggy etc.
P.S. ~ I'd kick 11 Million Regressive Backward Motion Republicans out of my country before 11 Million hard working un-documented immigrants who actually CONTRIBUTE to Society ~ At least the immigrants have EARNED the RIGHT to be here ~
P.S.S. ~ EXPEL ALL Racists from this country and the republican constituency would stand at maybe 5 give or take ~
- Larry Wallposted 9 years ago0
We cannot and should not try to eliminate the basic right to own a gun. However, there is a lot we can do.
The problem is that most regulations have to be written on the state level until a Supreme Court decision is issued that would allow the regulation of guns.
The we could:
--Insist on a three-day waiting period before buying a gun.
--Require that the serial number and the bullet striation be recorded.
--Require all gun owners to take gun safety courses.
--Restrict the right to prevent convicted felons, persons under the age of 16, and the mentally ill from owning guns.
--16 year old youths younger could be allowed to use a family gun for hunting and sports shooting.
--Military type weapons could not be owned by citizens.
--Guns in the home should be kept in a locked place.
--Discharging guns within city limits, unless by a law enforcement official or for self-defense should be prohibited.
--Guns should not be discharged into the air or opened spaces where a person might be injured--know of a case of a person, never identified) shooting a gun into the air for Fourth of July. Bullet fell from sky, hit young person in head and killed him.
There are other things that could be done without infringing upon the legal right of a competent citizen from owning a gun. (We need exceptions for collectors, and others). We do not need to eliminate guns. Hunters play an important roll in thinning out some herds of animals. However, there are things we cannot do. If a person displays a gun, a police officer should have to right to see if it is registered. If it is not, it should be confiscated. We could ban concealed weapons. Futhermore, business could have rules prohibiting guns within the building. Leave them in the car.
There are a lot of steps that can be taken that preserve the basic purpose of Second Amendment, but recognizes the advancement in weapons and the people who use them for less than lawful purposes.Or quite simply , WE could control the criminal .........which we simply , Don't !
Or, quite simply, we could control both ... what is wrong with that?
Also, since we don't control criminals at all, why not save lots of money disbanding all of the police depts, FBI, Secret Service, and the criminal court system. That is the same logic, since gun control can't stop ALL homicides and suicides then we shouldn't even try."what is wrong with that?"
What is wrong is that we already know that beyond a low minimum of control, the rest of it does absolutely nothing. A great expense (in time, money, freedom and rights) for no return. Something we should never pile onto our citizens.
But if you think strong gun controls work, just not 100%, can you show anywhere in the world where it did? And what would you a reasonable return for the price? 50%? 20%? 5%? .0001%? What's reasonable (for YOU to pay, not some stranger)?
Finally, a voice of reason that doesn't pander to the extremist on either side.
On a lighter note: I got a handgun permit recently.
I went to the local Gun Shop to buy a small 9 mm for self protection.
When I went to purchase the gun and ammo, the clerk said, "Strip down, facing me.
I instantly made a mental note to write to the NRA about the gun control wackos running amok, and I did as the clerk instructed.
When the hysterical screams of alarm stopped I was told she was referring to how to place my credit card in the card reader.
I was asked not to shop there in the future.
They should make their instructions clearer for seniors.
'Cause I don't think I look 'that' bad.- Larry Wallposted 9 years ago0
I am not a gun advocate, but the constitution does not limit the reasons why a person may "bear arms" and this is especially true with the Supreme Court ruling years ago that the need for an organized militia, which was voluntary in colonial times, but is now part of the armed forces. The limitations regarding why a person can have a gun have been removed. Thus we need to amend the second amendment, not an easy task, to include some reasonable restrictions. We are not going to ban guns, and we are not going to prevent every senseless accidental or intentional shooting of another human being. Perhaps we can reduce the numbers--it would be a start.
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
Wilderness , There is a war against traditional political management , whatever it includes , smaller gov. , less spending ! What do you think of Marco Rubio ?
I agree, population density is a contributing factor to many of our problems. And of course, the negative effects of high population density are compounded, or mitigated by various factors: age, unemployment rate, geography, etc.. A sense of community is also important. It appears that such a sense is lacking in the metro life.
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
In the city or on the farm our young are getting more and more detached from our culture , our fathers further from traditionally family servitude , our government further and further from its populace , crime , alcohol and drugs becoming widespread , The sweet spot of traditional social behaviors is morphing to a something new and selfishly sub-standard. More of .our population is dependent on some form of government dollars for "income ", "I want someone to take care of me " the new career choice in life .
High population area's eat up more of our resources than not ,all of them , but what to do ?
Not much to do with the second amendment though. Perhaps we should teach the young a profession like the Europeans did. Gunsmithing would be one.
More gun range parks so people have more access. These could be gov. state or city just like other parks.
This would put people to work and teach them about gun use. And would also be recreational.
About entitlements: SS is not something to put in the same category as welfare, snap, etc. It is a slap in the face of those that struggled and that is the only thing they have after all their work. Especially for the self employed who had to pay double. It is an insurance. Like other insurances, it should only be paid out to those who need it and not given to those that have a good source of income. Then more older people would be above the poverty level because there wold be more available per person really needing it.Finally, Progressive Democrats are introducing action items designed to Restrict & Regulate Gun Ownership ~ LONG overdue and hopefully the first step toward Reducing the number of guns and therefore, reducing the number of violent crimes committed ~ The proposed legistlation will inevitably be OBSTRUCTED by a republican congress, however, we need to keep a bright light on this subject until we reach a time when these and many other positive changes can be injected into law and thereafter implemented nationwide ~
A CONSENSUS has formed here and elsewhere regardless
of political persuasion, and that is, we all agree certain individuals should not be permitted to OWN a gun ~ So why not start with the obvious? How about taking the guns away from that idiot who murdered a defenseless lion in the wild? You know, the regal cat with the gigantic COLLAR around his neck ~ Obviously, the moron Dentist who took his life is unfit and mentally diminished ~I believe in the right to bear arms, and protect yourself, but tighter restrictions are clearly needed and also we probably need to make sure that people know how to use the daggone thing when they get it.....
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
One thing we can always count on , the liberal intellectualist agenda will never require , call for , or demonstrate personal accountability in the criminal world , or in the law abiding world either ,You see, It's far easier to rest all of the blame on an inanimate object and call for government intervention . That's the socialist way of alleviating the crime issues , as in this thread , gun control , will solve it all !
No more crime , no more suicide , no more worrying about home defense ...........Right !What have you done to demonstrate personal accountability in the criminal world other than covet your guns? Oh excuse me, your inanimate objects. What have you done to call for government intervention. As a matter of fact what have you done about anything other than bitch and complain about the government and "socialist." I don't see you trying to bring about any change. The status quo is just fine with you and your inanimate objects. You put a round in the chamber, aim, and pull the trigger and schazam, your inanimate objects becomes very animated as it hurls a projectile towards your intended target. So when you go to gun shows, they just sell inanimate objects...right?
Peoplepower , You see there you go , I'm not a criminal because I own and shoot guns , I don't call for government intervention in ANYTHING , because governments doesn't solve anything . and because I obey the government of law , they don't bother me ! Why is it that you cannot separate SOME CRIMES FROM ALL GUNS ? Why is it that you expect a law to change a criminal society or a mentally challenged individual , That my friend is a lazy mans way of addressing a problem . Liberals simply always refuse to demand personal accountability and obligation to law in anything . Your way is to demand the government solve ALL your needs . THEY will not solve anything , WE must solve it .
" I don't call for government intervention in ANYTHING , because governments doesn't solve anything."
"Liberals simply always refuse to demand personal accountability and obligation to law in anything ."
Man, way to start losing credibility.
"Your way is to demand the government solve ALL your needs . THEY will not solve anything , WE must solve it ."
The government is suppose to be a way WE solve things. For the people, by the people. It's suppose to serve us and our needs. That's a big part of having a democracy!gecko, I guess you trust politicians once they get drunk with power. Ha Ha ha!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJqgk2XAg4kI'm sorry, but if someone wants to suggest we would be better off living in anarchy or that we do not need government for anything, they're beyond rationalizing with at that point. Further discourse would be a waste of time.
There will always be people drunk with power. What suggestions do people have to mitigate that problem? What can we do to make government better, lesson the influence of the unempathetic super rich, and increase the influence of the common citizen?
Those are issues worth discussing, solving, and fighting to change.
If people want to ignore that we need society and a government to continue to survive and advance, they are not Americans. They should not pretend they wish to make the world better.
They would be happier finding a deserted island and relocating there.gecko … do you really not get it?
you are arguing for something we already have.
but what comes with what we already have?
Corruption.
Have you read The Federalist Papers?Kathryn, maybe you're not the one who gets it?
Just because corruption cannot be eliminated, does not mean we cannot make progress.
I am not arguing for something we already have, I am arguing to improve it.
Yes, historically, the ruling class tends to become more corrupt, greedy, and self-interested over time. The people who revolt, overthrow, and then take -over eventually repeat the same cycle.
However, in the long run, its been getting better for the general population. We're not serfs. We're not slaves to the land. We abolished slavery. Women, along with minorities, can now vote and have equal legal standing as men. We provide free education for the general public. People are provided with medical care. People live longer lives than in anytime in history. We have access to more information than ever before and can spread our ideas and speech faster and to more people than ever before. That's just some of the progress.
Yes, mixed in with all that are deep rooted problems, discrimination, income inequality, etc etc etc. Some of our advancements are starting to recess. Many of our advancements are causing hug problems we haven't even begun to seriously address yet. But we're still better off than living under monarchy or anarchy. We're still better off than most people 100, 200, 1,000 years ago.
The Central government has gotten too powerful. We lost local control and a sense of community. Technology and population has outpaced our government's ability to adapt. That does not mean we cannot make things better. It could be a slow change from within, it could be a full-blown revolution someday, but you sound as if you believe we've reached the end of the line. Because of our inherent instincts toward greed and control, that our future is predetermined. I argue history shows otherwise. We will not achieve Utopia, we will not wipe-out all the negative aspects of our nature, but we can continue to make things better than they were. We've been doing it up until now.
"In the name of self-government, our budding country fought against long established unlimited power and won. We can never give up.
The people of tomorrow depend on us today."
Exactly! So, let's continue to fight to weed out the established unlimited power of today in hope that tomorrow will be better.uh, I get it just fine.
We may need volunteer militias who know who to use high powered rifles, etc. We may need every able bodied and sane minded citizen to bear arms … who knows in this day and age!
What is your stance on the second amendment. I believe in the right to bear arms.
Just leave it alone!I'm fine with keeping the second amendment
To be honest, as much as I enjoy injecting here and there, firearms are not at the top of my list of serious problems in America.
I mentioned in one of my comments before, I don't think having guns or trying to remove guns will make a huge difference either way. I think there's very flawed reasoning on both sides of this debate, but in the end, it's kind of a non-issue.
Unless America is ready to abolish the 2nd Amendment (which it is definitely not!), it's not really a serious issue. Just another political distraction.Well, right now on talk radio they are talking about how Hitler was able to take control of Germany because after ten years of gun control, the right to bear arms had been eliminated.
That's a moot point. Weaponry has far surpassed anything from the WWII era. Back then, it was still feasible for groups of people to defend themselves against a government that also relied heavily on guns for combat. That's no longer the case today.
Besides, there are so many reasons why Hitler came to power. The deep economic recession. The inability of the ruling elites to want to continue to deal with Germany's social and financial problems, so they found a way to allow the Chancellor to take more responsibility, which Hitler eventually exploited. He was also a charismatic man and made many promises to a suffering populace, some which he delivered on. The reasons go on and on.
Take this another route. Here is a list of modernized countries with some of the strictest gun laws:
Japan - Almost no one owns a gun and almost all guns are illegal.
UK - Only about 6-7 firearms per 100 people. Guns are restricted mostly to rifles, shotguns, and muzzle-loading pistols for legitimate sporting, collecting, or work-related reasons for ownership
Australia - About 15 per 100 owns a gun. Guns are restricted mostly to rifles and shotguns, with handguns allowed for certain professions and target shooters.
Germany - about 30 per 100 owns a gun. Guns are primarily permitted for competitive shooting, hunting, or collecting. There are strict laws on proper encasing and transport of firearms. Carry permits are virtually limited to professions that require them.
Just for comparison, in the United States, there are about 88-89 firearms per 100 people. Our gun laws are way more lax in most states than any of the countries above.
My question is... is there any real fear that present day Japan, Germany, the UK, or Australia will go the way of Nazi Germany in the near future?
I don't think so.
The Hitler argument toward gun restrictions is just a way to sensationalize the issue for gun ownership supporters.You seem to be fighting for gun control
How would you improve the second amendment?
You know most of us hate guns. We realize they are dangerous and we percive ourselves to be civilized beings.
it really comes down to the principle of the matter.
How many people own guns, really?
Probably not the majority. We want the Right more than the actual Device.I'm just adding a counter to the Hitler argument. I do not think Hitler was able to take control of Germany because of gun bans. It could have helped.
The 2nd Amendment is poorly written. If only organized militias should have guns, that should be more explicit. If anyone in the general populace can own a gun, that should be explicit.
Yes, a majority of people do not own guns. The people who do, just own a lot
Yes, I have been suggesting for years that Anarchy is preferable to slavery and government oppression. A majority of people mistakenly believe that Anarchy is synonymous with chaos, but it is a term that simply means "without government". Any definition that you may have found that says otherwise has been influenced by the common vernacular, which has in turn been influenced by tyrants seeking to maintain control by deceiving the public.
You comment" What can we do to make government better, lessen the influence of the unempathetic super rich, and increase the influence of the common citizen?" The answer to your question is to get rid of government; at least at the federal level as we have come to know it. Along with that we must also retire the Federal Reserve. Of course this would currently require a considerable amount of bloodshed if we expect to make a quick transition within the span of a decade or two. But a longer transition of 50 years or more may be relatively painless.
But unless government as we know it is abolished, we will never lessen the influence of the super rich. The government is owned by the super rich, just as in the beginning when the wealthy landowners like Washington seized control from the British,with the blood of the poor European immigrant. It is naive to think that they would ever relinquish control to a writhing sea of peasants who spend their weekends watching football and drinking beer.
Your nationalist pride is touching, but I have never understood the point of pretending to belong to a club that doesn't want your membership, and is never going to let you in. A majority who claim to be Americans are not Americans at all, but only the lower classes that serve them.Anarchy is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
We need the boundaries as they have been established in the Constitution. But it is a very subtle thing… understanding, setting and following boundaries.
Freedom is one side of the coin. Boundaries is the other.
Morals is an another important aspect in a democratic republic of free people.
without them we might as well …I like how you focused on just one aspect of my comment and blew it up into a personal statement for revolution. As you pointed out, Washington was already an elite, as well as many of the Founders, who fought a war so they could control more themselves. I agree with that. Most revolutions are fought at the upper level. One group of elites trying to oust another.
Again, in the process, we can get something better. We can get a system that will do more for the general population. I would say for the most part, our government has done more for people than most governments before it. Not as much as many our European counterparts, or Japan.
"Your nationalist pride is touching, but I have never understood the point of pretending to belong to a club that doesn't want your membership, and is never going to let you in. A majority who claim to be Americans are not Americans at all, but only the lower classes that serve them."
I'm afraid this is just your own projection or a misinterpretation of what I stated.Just to add... no government would be chaos by default. Chaos may not be in the definition, but it's granted. People need to organize themselves for better social harmony and survival. That organization becomes their government.
I must remind that I was specific in stating "Federal Government", or a central government controlled by bankers, and the ruling elite. Of course, there would still be a rule of law,local,and perhaps even state governments. But even in these we would see less totalitarian control, and more freedom. There would actually be less chaos, as there would be one less Imperialist regime trying to rule the world.
Yes , the states must maintain their autonomy. They need to counter the possible tyrannic affect of the power of the central government.
I've really got to move back to Santa Cruz Ca.. You don't need guns when you have the protection of the Redwoods.
Yes, you don't need to point out your contradictory statements. Defending anarchy while then stating you'd only abolish the federal government. I already mentioned in another post that the largest US states are bigger and more economically powerful than most countries. Even states broke off to be their own countries, you'd still see many of the same problems.
Eliminating the Federal government is not going to change focus to local government. State government would just replace many of the roles the Federal government serves.
Not to say that I wouldn't support the idea of California becoming its own country
At every level of government, you have elites controlling the plays.
As for an Imperialist regime trying to rule the world, that might be going too far.
I am starting to think discussing these issues on HubPages is not a good use of time. I'm just bouncing back and forth between irrational xenophobes on one side, and anti-government promoters who appear to lack a nuanced understanding of their own society, our greater social connectivity, and globalization. Sometimes, these two agendas even cross paths.
I'll be bowing out. Enjoy the continued debate!Once again, you have adopted a definition that is false. Thus, you see a contradiction that doesn't exist.
California is fine right where it is ~ Unlike Backward Motion republicans, we Respect, Honor, & Support our Federal, State, and Local Governments and the employees who keep these essential entities operating ~ We understand the FACT that without them we do not EXIST as a country ~
However, I've been a supporter of removing Texas & Alaska from our union ~ 2 Anti-Fed states loaded with representatives who have been salivating to secede from the United States of America for decades ~ It"s time to simply give them what they want ~Let me see! where would I rather live when that happens? Would I rather be in warmer weather or colder weather? It may come down to which has fewer gun laws.
ahorseback: you are all over the place. Again you use the dumb ass conservative logic of if A then you must ban b through z. That is so stupid your argument is getting old. You wrote:
"They very reason for People powers entire thread whether he will admit it or not is for more centralized government intervention in our lives ! Someone's begging "please take care of me " You want more of a socialist style of government , where every ache and pain suffered is remedied by big government ! Why else would Anyone want more laws . So, Here is a list of a few things that make up a million or so federal laws that don't work very well in the attempt to control illegal or criminal acts ."
That is not the purpose of my forum. Please stop putting words in my mouth. The purpose of this forum is to state that the 2nd Amendment is out of date and is subject to interpretation. This has been proven over and over again in this forum, by people who don't agree with what it says on both sides of the argument.
You appear to be a paranoid person who has a fear of a central government take over and wants to use his pea shooter to protect himself from the big bad government take over by Obama. I suspect you are on SOCIAL SECURITY and Medicare, please give back all your social security payments and stop using medicare. Please stop using all federal programs that protect your health and well being, that are too numerous to mention in this reply. Oh and please do not drive on any interstate highways.
The difference between you and me is that I'm not paranoid about a big government take over and realize that if there was one that your peashooter is not going to stop the might of the big bad government. I have news for you. Your entire congress has been bought by the NRA. That's why the big bad government cannot get any reasonable gun laws passed. And you sit there and do nothing, but worry about people who are on welfare and criminals that if there were gun control laws would not have access to the guns that they do have. But that would disturb you rights to to protect yourself from those very criminals and Obama's big bad government takeover. You are not only paranoid, but also very selfish.
And I'm sure you've read works by Errico Malatesta, Henry David Thoreau, Emma Goldman etc.. That's why you know so much about it. Right!
No, it is purely from my own vantage point.
According to this video, sockpuppets are being hired to spread propaganda for the Dem's gun control agenda. Event after event, ... more and more gun control propaganda is predicted. So much so that they are going to brainwash people who will be begging for guns to be taken away.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAzGNwIgRQU
Sounds of grim conspiracy theory?
I know that we have our 2nd Amendment rights but what I want to know is the mental state of those that feel that need to have the 'right to carry' in taverns? They say that alcohol and gasoline don't mix, but neither does alcohol and gunpowder.
Is it a macho thing for college students who are barely mature enough to drink and drive be allowed to carry firearms on a campus?
What is this idea that we need to arm teachers as if they could instantly prepare themselves for any eventuality because they are armed?
While we can kill one another with stones and knives, what kills faster and more efficiently than a machine made explicitely for that very purpose, an assault rifle?
If we look at Chicago and compared it with Toronto, a somewhat larger sized city, do we really think that the homicide rates are the same, allowing for guns or not ? The homicide rate for Chicago is 10 times higher than that of Toronto. Why is this? Does the proliferation of firearms in Chicago contribute to this disparate statistic? But the Right says, people kill people, not guns..... But it looks like guns do help with the dismal statistic.
In most of America, the threat to ones life and limb cannot be so great as to justify a Bat Masterson approach to a civil society. A oversized psychiatrist's sofa would be in order for the American mindset and obsession with 'being armed' in all places at all timeshttp://hubpages.com/hub/Gun-Control-and … duce-Crime Data shows Switzerland has the second highest percent of gun ownership. (U.S. has the highest) Yet Switzerland is low on homicides. It is the type of people that makes the difference. Toronto has a different culture than Chicago. Japan is the lowest
rate. Their culture must respect life and individuals a lot more than the U.S.Its interesting you mention Switzerland; their gun control laws would make the Right freak out in horror. See http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/hondswitz.asp
Sir, maybe we need to be looking at what you said in your last sentence, which is quite poignant. Why are we the"wrong" type of people when compared to other developed nations in the world? How can a city so close to the American border and its influences be so different?
Chicago ? You might ask Pres. Obama's opinion of why his home city of Chicago , a city with the highest gun controls in America also has about seventeen hundred shootings last year , perhaps his old side kick Mayor Emanuel , the new mayor can answer that .
Take a gun away from a law abiding society and watch what criminals do . Chicago is the perfect example of that .
Also take a look at why mass shootings are most common in "Gun Free Zones "?How about answering the question that I posed instead of an employment of a diversionary tactic
How about answering just any one of many instead of using the thread as a vehicle to bash Obama and present irrelevant material.
don't worry about it, ahorseback. They will see you are perfectly right.
one of these days.
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
They very reason for People powers entire thread whether he will admit it or not is for more centralized government intervention in our lives ! Someone's begging "please take care of me " You want more of a socialist style of government , where every ache and pain suffered is remedied by big government ! Why else would Anyone want more laws . So, Here is a list of a few things that make up a million or so federal laws that don't work very well in the attempt to control illegal or criminal acts ..
Bet me know how well these are controlled.
Legal and Illicit drugs and trafficking
corporate monopolizing
food production
alcohol sales to minors
Wall Street
The Airwaves
Sex trafficking
Child porn
Immigration
Jaywalking
Airline traffic
Shipping
The weather
Natural disasters
International and national waters
Commercial fishing
Cattle growers
Corn production
Milk prices
inflation
Are you starting to understand my point ? THEY can't help YOU control much of anything. - ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
Worry not though - pseudo socialist's , President Obama to the rescue .He will calm your increasingly frazzled nervous spells , My prediction , executive action number eight thousand fifty six or something like that ; he will ban "assault weapons " .
Better hide the following items :
guns
Baseball bats
Brooms
Firecrackers
Gasoline cans
Riding lawn mower
Push lawn mower
Walking sticks
Pit bulls
Snow plows
Snow shovels
Pipe wrenches, - near here last year a mentally challenged man attacked the plumber in his mother's cellar while he repaired the furnace , turning the plumber into a vegetable for life. Pipe wrenches kill people !
Don't forget butter knives.Oh, the arguments on this thread are so intelligent, thoughtful, rational, and nuanced that I cannot keep up.
I think I'll go rest my bran now.
Pretty Panther ,Want to hear intelligent ,thoughtful , rational , Liberals and I used the term loosely because I think their having a major identity crisis here , who want more government in our lives ARE pushing further and further the envelope of civil unrest , whether intentionally or not , demanding more and more centralized government involvement in our lives IS bordering on inadvertently starting a civil war in America .
How is that for insightful . It doesn't take much to imagine the first signs of unrest spilling away from rhetoric these days . and becoming something worse . I understand one thing about America that liberals tend to NOT see . Tradition patriotism is a very important cycle here in America . And this isn't a threat , not a promise , not even something for sure , but perhaps just a prediction . Traditionalist Americans are feeling very pushed around lately. This whole ,even if very anarchy like , liberal new world order way of being , thinking and communicating , is not something that's going to be pushed through our system without major repercussions . What do you think of that , seriously that is? I know , You may have to go back to your liberal play book to answer , so take your time .You gotta be a cool guy living where I don't expect conservative rightwingers to be comfortable.
What are you saying here?
What is traditional patriotism?
Who are 'traditional Americans'? White, southern, male, old? I am not particularely interested in appeasing this constiuency while turning the country upside down.
You can't turn back the clock without breaking it....
I started this forum with the hopes of getting people to see that the 2nd amendment is a poorly written Right that is subject to interpretation. However, what I didn't realize is that gun ownership should not be a right but a privilege, the same as it is in the U.K.
The irony is they were one of countries that in medieval times developed their rights to protect themselves from monarchs rule. And we used their rights as a template for our rights. However, during modern times, they have the common sense to realize that gun ownership is not a right, but a privilege.
You will find that the key to their law, is that it is not only administered at the federal government level but by trained law enforcement at the local level. They issue gun ownership certificates to not only gun buyers, but gun sellers as well. Here is the summary. At the end of the summary, I have included the link to the actual Guide on Firearms Licensing Laws.
1.1. What is meant by the term ‘firearm’?
‘Firearm’ means a lethal barrelled weapon of any description from which any shot, bullet or other
missile can be discharged.
See Chapter 2 for further details.
1.2. What are the basic principles of firearms law in the UK?
UK firearms policy is based on the fact that firearms are dangerous weapons and the State has
a duty to protect the public from their misuse. Gun ownership is a privilege, not a right. Firearms
control in the UK is among the toughest in the world, and as a result firearms offences continue to
make up a small proportion (less than 0.2%) of recorded crime [ONS 2012/13].
1.3. What kind of firearm may be licensed?
Some firearms, shotguns and rifles may be licensed and are held on a firearm or shotgun
certificate. Low powered air weapons are not licensed in England and Wales unless they are of a
type declared specially dangerous by the Firearms (Dangerous Air Weapons) Rules 1969 but there
are restrictions on their sale. An air weapon is “specially dangerous” if it is capable of discharging
a missile with kinetic energy in excess, in the case of an air pistol, of 6 foot lbs or, in the case of
other air weapons,12 foot lbs.
See Chapters 10, 12 and 17, (chapters on clubs, prohibited persons and dealers) for further details.
1.4. Can anyone apply for a firearm certificate?
Permission to possess or to purchase or acquire a firearm will be granted to an individual who is
assessed by the licensing authority, the police, as not posing a threat to public safety and having
good reason to own the firearm. Organisations such as target shooting clubs, museums and
firearms dealers must also apply for licences if they wish to possess or use firearms. Persons
who are sentenced to a term of imprisonment of three years or more cannot possess a firearm or
ammunition (including antique firearms) at any time.
See Chapters 10, 12 and 17 (chapters on clubs, prohibited persons and dealers) for further details.
1.5. Who authorises firearm and shotgun certificates?
The police are the licensing authority for firearm and shotgun certificates as well as for firearms
dealers. The authority rests with local police forces rather than a central licensing authority
because of the local information that police will use to inform their judgement. Prohibited weapons
such as handguns are authorised by the Home Office on behalf of the Secretary of State.
See Chapter 10 for further details.
Chapter 1: An overview – frequently
asked questions about firearms licensing
6 Guide on Firearms Licensing Law
1.6. How do the police decide if a person is fit to own a firearm?
To decide whether a person is fit to own a firearm, the licensing authority will conduct a number
of checks which will usually include interviews, visits to the person’s property, criminal records
checks and references from friends. In addition, the applicant’s GP may be contacted.
See Chapter 10 for further details.
1.7. What is a good reason to own a firearm?
Applicants should be able to demonstrate to the licensing authority that they require their firearm
on a regular, legitimate basis for work, sport or leisure (including collections or research). Chief
Officers are able to exercise discretion over what constitutes a good reason, judging each case on
its own merits.
See Chapter 13 for further details.
1.8. What does a firearm certificate cost?
From 6 April 2015, the fees for the different types of firearms certificates will be as outlined below.
Generally, certificates for firearms and shotguns are valid for five years. Those for registered
firearms dealers are valid for three years.
Activity Total
Fee (£)
Grant of Firearm Certificate 88
Grant of a Shotgun Certificate 79.50
Renewal of Firearm Certificate 62
Renewal of a Shotgun Certificate 49
Registered Firearms Dealers - Grant or Renewal 200
Replacement of lost or stolen Firearm or Shotgun
Certificate 4
Coterminous grant or renewal 90 / 65
Visitor permit (individual / group) 20 / 100
Registered Firearms Dealer Grant for Game Fair etc. 13
Variation (not like for like) 20
1.9. How are firearms stored?
The conditions of a firearm or shotgun certificate stipulate that guns must be stored securely so
as to prevent access by an unlicensed person. The manner in which they are stored depends on
the individual property and circumstance
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s … aw_v13.pdfits a small little country. Have you ever seen it on a globe?
The cops don't even carry guns.
Maybe that would be a good start here in US.
ha ha ha ha !!!
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
1968 , Ten days before Bobby Kennedy was shot in the head and killed , he gave a speech in trying to confirm the idea that Guns should be KEPT out of the hands of the insane and the criminal .
That was how many years ago ?
And YOU , the American public have failed to require that Law and the justice system have done that !
Your political leaders have failed to insure THAT too! Shame on somebody !
Stop blaming the gun! You are right that we need to find ways to make sure it is harder for the criminal and the insane to have guns, but at the same time, does the police force need to have more weapons than some country's military and such high tech ones...We live in a very militaristic society and that is part of the problem as well...
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
Perhaps in the U.S. We could save the trouble of writing more and more useless law into effect that attempt to legislate inanimate objects , by universalizing common sense in legislating and ACTUALLY controlling dangerous people and minds instead . Of course that Would actually require that we utilize certain pre-existing law ! Like , once again , criminal control , or perhaps mental health control .
Of course that would mean saving a lot more money and eliminating two or more issues of contention at once . We wouldn't have to worry about those using gun's in crimes , lower crime rates all around AND less ,mental health crisis'. But then - no,......... that would make too much sense And we all know that liberals are common sense deprivedahorseback: You are a broken record and your needle is stuck. I bet you don't even have a cell phone. If you do it is not a smart phone. Why am I saying this? It's because you fit the mold of a dyed in the wool conservative that hates change and technology. You may even be a member of the Tea Potty, that wants his country back, but doesn't want his medicare taken away. You also equate the necessary need for a central government with socialism and communism. That's another marker.
Did you even read the U.K. laws on gun ownership that I posted?Sure did , and you know what , post all the English crime and gun stats you want , there is no comparison between America and England in real #'s , And peoplepower , your sense of liberal venom spewing is growing boring . Wanna' try real reasoning and problem solving for awhile ? I kind of enjoy the anger though . It always brings out the real socialist agenda . You actually can't help displaying the anger against common sense ,can you .
I have learned one thing for sure , you are liberally influenced and DO want the second amendment Eliminated ,........contrary to earlier postings , I 'm also learning that which I never would have believed years ago when I actually followed similar beliefs : the longer supposed ,liberal intellectuals are around , the less they actually learn about reason and common sense , its simply a one way street for them . And that one way -goes ALL the way . For the life of me , I don't understand why you guys can't just say - eliminate the second , wouldn't it really feel better !
Many are offended because I am usually right , and they cannot defeat my arguments. My subordinates can only use denial, outright lies and distortions, or a pathetic strawman to defend themselves from a superior intellect. But I will now share my secret with the world. My secret weapon is the truth. Once we discover the truth it is difficult to lose any argument.
The numbers show us that there are more people incarcerated in the United States than any other industrialized nation. Your suggestion of controlling dangerous people has been in effect for quite some time. The facts tell us that the current prison for profit system is not only controlling violent offenders, but also a disproportionate amount of non-violent offenders as well. It has already been proven through the current system that the problem with guns in this country cannot be solved with punitive measures. Our biggest problem is simply the fact that there are ignorant people running the country, and even more ignorant people following them down the Yellow Brick Road. Ignorance is all about equal opportunity, and so there is an abundance of ignorant conservatives, as well as liberals in this country.
Read this and weep, and then bow down to the truth!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/postever … ing-about/So , now gun owners are ignorant , great . Whatever . Now , the problem with Over-incarceration in the US; is truly the amount of meaningless and ineffective trials , plead down to absolutely no punishment for real crime ,and that's including gun crime . By the time a trial gets to court about most violent and even violent gun crimes ;it is plea bargained down to virtual whitewash , usually not even mentioned is the use of a gun , so yea . Answer , let the pot heads , the minor crime perpetrators out and refill the jails with the most violent of incurable perpetrators .
Stop allowing YOUR liberal judges , defense attorneys and moron prosecutors off the hook . Boom ......, cured ! Fix the system you HAVE and then whine about something else .So the point of your article is that there big bucks in incarcerating many people into the prisons and that money is funneled to politicians. And your point is that there are so many people in prison and that we still can't control criminals? I fail to clearly see your point.
As far as lobby groups go I can say the same thing about the NRA. They have one of the biggest lobbyist groups in D.C. They have bought congress on both sides of the aisle. That's why nothing gets done as far as gun ownership laws are concerned. They make big bucks from the gun manufactures and funnel that to congress for their campaigns.
The point is very clear. The numbers show that the U.S. has more people in prison than any other industrialized nation. If the punitive measures already in place were effective in reducing violent crime to an acceptable level, we would not be having this discussion. It doesn't get any clearer.The solution cannot be found in the Second Amendment, or through stricter gun control measures. The solution lies in the cleansing of a corrupt system, from the top to the bottom. Just as in the Civil War, such a drastic change in the status quo may not be possible without a generous amount of bloodshed. What we see happening today, from both sides of the fence, is like someone attempting to cure a cancer with radiation and chemotherapy, instead of attacking the root of the problem, and focusing on preventative measures. My position may not seem clear because you may not be accustomed to hearing the truth.
peoplepower 73, at some point you yourself will wish you had your peashooter or your walking stick!
you yourself will certainly wish you had them. You will think back on the wisdom of ahorseback.
Yes you will. You will see. …- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
ANTI_ gun people would probably get further reasoning out the real problems in our society if they stopped resorting to reducing traditionally conservative arguments down to "them there rednecks with guns " . That's gonna' be hard for some though right ?
You might actually even stop comparing England to America - two far , far different societies , actually assuming one country and it's crime stats and resolutions is the same as the other is ludicrous . A fifth grader knows that . - ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
I can't wait until all of the pretend socialists in America , like in all countries , just finally admits defeat ..........and moves on .
I am not making a comparison of the U.K. with the U.S. I'm suggesting that this is a good policy and procedure. As far as the U.K. goes, here is the reason they have these laws now.
The subject of ownership of firearms is a sensitive issue. Across Great
Britain there are just over 170,000 firearms licences and around 620,000
shotgun licences on issue. The vast majority of these licence holders will
quite legitimately and responsibly use their firearms for work and leisure
pursuits. It is only in an extremely small minority of cases that legally held firearms are misused.
However the results can be devastating both for the immediate families and communities around.
I believe that the ownership of any firearm is a privilege and not a right, and that public safety
must be paramount.
Within Great Britain, we have one of the most robust firearms licensing systems in the world
with specially trained officers assessing the suitability of potential firearm and shotgun certificate
holders on a case-by-case basis. I appreciate that the law which governs firearms licensing can
be complex with 34 separate pieces of legislation governing firearms control. That is why we have
produced this guide. It replaces the ‘Firearms Law: Guidance to the Police‘ published in 2002.
Since then, there have been a number of significant events. Not only new legislation, for example
the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 and the Firearms Acts (Amendment) Regulations 2010,
but also in policing with the advent of Police and Crime Commissioners. The tragic shootings in
Cumbria in 2010 and Durham in 2012 led us to take a closer look at whether there is anything
more we could do to prevent such events in the future. These incidents focused attention on the
importance of having an excellent firearms licensing process.
Here is Cumbria shooting: The Cumbria shootings was a killing spree that occurred on 2 June 2010 when a lone gunman, Derrick Bird, killed 12 people and injured 11 others before killing himself in Cumbria, England. Along with the 1987 Hungerford massacre, the 1989 Monkseaton shootings, and the 1996 Dunblane school massacre, it is one of the worst criminal acts involving firearms in British history.
Here is the Durham shooting; http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-16385417
Unlike you I'm going to do something about this. I'm contacting my congressman and submitting this idea. It probably won't get off the ground, because of the NRA buy off of congress, but I will try anyway. i'm not going to just bitch and whine about conservatives the way you do about liberals. I'm going to do something about this.good intentions often pave the way to … luckily they will ignore you, peoplepowerless 73.
Believe it or not, liberals are just as passionate about their beliefs as you are, and thus about as likely to "admit defeat and move on" as you are. Sorry.
Liberals are very idealistic. Conservatives are not. They are wise.
So tell me Kathryn, what is so wise about conservatives? They got us into two wars, created the financial meltdown, shutdown the government several times, costing us billion of dollars. The only thing they are good at is stopping Obama from doing his job and that is not wise.
Well , That's just fine but when you come to the debate , bring along reason , fact , workable suggestions , and resolutions to a huge and complicated debate . Allowing for the vast majority of law abiding gun owners , like a 99.999 percent - to NOT lose liberties as suggested in almost ALL dialog contributions from an unknowing majority of those against the 2nd, amendment.
Welcome to the debate.
I'm contacting my congressmen to stop abortion.
There is a lot of death going on there too.
Luckily, for the birth control challenged, they will ignore me too.
Ah, life in America, land of the free.Don't fret Kathryn, now that the republican led Benghazi Committee SHAM is about to be dissolved after being EXPOSED by a nitwit named McCarthy, CONservatives are now initiating a Planned Parenthood WITCH HUNT which will cost us TAX Payers another fortune ~
Backward Conservative Republicans have already ALIENATED Women, Hispanics, African Americans, Asians, Gays, Veterans, Senior Citizens, Students etc ~ Not many demographics left to Offend I would think ~
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
It's not hard to stop someone from doing something that doesn't want to, to begin with !
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824
"To disarm the people...[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788
"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country 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."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833
"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789
"[i]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
- Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789Thanks for making my point. All of those quotes were in the 1700's when there was still a real threat for tyranny. Today, it is just a propaganda piece broadcasts by the right wing and the NRA. to get people to buy more guns. I'll say it one more time. If this government wanted to turn against its people, you wouldn't stand a chance against the might of the military. What do you envision the government troops are going to go house to house and you will shoot them with your AR15, or a revolution against your own government?
Still you fail to see through the path of your own words , "If this government wanted to turn against it's people ........You wouldn't have a chance ." ! Ridiculous ! Let me point out how the civil war started and this was something I've researched upon ............ Even the standing armed forces of America at the time DIVIDED . Beginning at West Point even , Let me say this , In a nation divided even its government , it's armies , its peoples , it's minorities , it's youth ...........Will divide .
As to your last question , Yes ! IF-, big word IF, if a revolution , or even a beginning civil disobedience were to begin . I mean , don't YOU actually believe that the military would divide its obedience ,it's loyalties and it's mission too ?
If not , then you sir are not envisioning a clear picture .You sir are paranoid and not dealing in reality. You are stuck in the past. In the civil war. They did not have the weapons systems that our military posses today. If they wanted to, they could take you out in less time than you could blink your eyes.
At the time of the civil war, the country was divided. It was not the United States of America. It was divided because the south needed slaves to pick their crops for the newly invented cotton gin while the north was becoming industrialized. Therefore the country split with two armed services, each armed with essentially the same firepower. After the civil war, it became the United States of America, one nation undivided with liberty and justice for all.
But you see civil disobedience as the cause for our military dividing and then attacking its own people. And then you would take up arms against the bad guys. Is that right?
Do you see the south rising again to try to kick the ass of the north? I know that Texas wants to succeed from the nation. Just think how that would go as far as airspace and travel. We would have to get a permit to enter the foreign country of Texas.
What is it that you are afraid of, liberals are going to attack conservatives? To answer your question. I don't believe there are any tyranny threats today. Please explain the tyranny threats today.
The black and white world you have envisioned may exist during happy hour at the local tavern, but otherwise what you are suggesting is pure fantasy. It has been over 150 years since the Civil War. Considering major technological advances, and a significantly higher standard of living, it may as well have been 1000 years ago.
The American people are in many ways the same as their Civil War predecessors, but are also very different. The selfishness and apathy of the average American has been evident since 1492. This matter is not open for debate since the historical record is indisputable. Things happen: atrocities are committed and injustices occur because a majority either participate, or look the other way. In either case, the motivation is always selfishness and greed.
In the last 150 years we can clearly see that there has been no social, or moral evolution in the opposite direction. The American people, just as a majority of people throughout the world, have become even more addicted to materialism and the pursuit of selfish desires. It is foolish to think that the citizens of the United States would ever stand against a government and a system that is providing them with the decadent lifestyle they have come to know and love.
Evidence of this can be seen in how the "good cops" often look the other way when the "bad cops" are murdering, raping, and extorting money from citizens. This can also be seen in how the American people accepted the Patriot Act just as easily as they accepted the Seat Belt Law. Even today, many cannot see the slippery slope that connects the two. Members of the military today would never jeopardize their future, their retirement, or their children's college education by defying the U.S. government. In other words, the U.S. government has nothing to fear from a herd of sheep that have been enslaved by their own avarice, and their lust for comfort and convenience. 150 years later it is a much different world. Those men and women that have inspired your optimistic vision of the future no longer exist.Wrenchbiscuit brings up a interesting point..How many have gone into wars over the last century or so, knowing that they were against the principal of what they were fighting for, but did it not out of some concern for the government or agreement with the government policies, but because of the paycheck and security that they were getting......
Yes bluesradio, it is very true. I joined the Navy toward the end of the Vietnam War. I did not join out of patriotism, nor did any sailor I ever befriended or became acquainted with. I believe this to be true because during six years of military service, save for special ceremonies, I can't recall one conversation with an officer, or enlisted man that led me to believe their military ambitions had anything to do with patriotism, or anything bigger than themselves.
The war was coming to an end, and many of us who enlisted at that time were in need of a job, and training that we could not afford otherwise. We were herded in that direction by the economic realities of the system, and of course, our own selfish pursuits. Many of us were only 17 years old, and knew nothing about the machine that we were helping to maintain and perpetuate. Everyday at sea we went to the fantail of the ship and threw garbage and refuse into a beautiful blue ocean. In the wake of the ship, as far as the eye could see, was a seemingly endless trail of black plastic trash bags floating in the water. No one ever protested, not even a whimper. We followed our orders, collected our money, and polluted the ocean. And this continues even today, with every naval vessel in the fleet: 365 days a year.I grew up in a rural town called Warrenton, NC and I know that it is still suffering economically like it was in the late 70's when I grew up there, and quite a few folks are going into the military as a way to escape that life or to travel the world and to get an education and not because they believe in the ideals of what they are practicing....
In 1931, Weimar authorities discovered plans for a Nazi takeover in which Jews would be denied food and persons refusing to surrender their guns within 24 hours would be executed. They were written by Werner Best, a future Gestapo official. In reaction to such threats, the government authorized the registration of all firearms and the confiscation thereof, if required for “public safety.” The interior minister warned that the records must not fall into the hands of any extremist group. In 1933, the ultimate extremist group, led by Adolf Hitler, seized power and used the records to identify, disarm, and attack political opponents and Jews. Constitutional rights were suspended, and mass searches for and seizures of guns and dissident publications ensued. Police revoked gun licenses of Social Democrats and others who were not “politically reliable.” During the five years of repression that followed, society was “cleansed” by the National Socialist regime. Undesirables were placed in camps where labor made them “free,” and normal rights of citizenship were taken from Jews. The Gestapo banned independent gun clubs and arrested their leaders. Gestapo counsel Werner Best issued a directive to the police forbidding issuance of firearm permits to Jews. In 1938, Hitler signed a new Gun Control Act. Now that many “enemies of the state” had been removed from society, some restrictions could be slightly liberalized, especially for Nazi Party members. But Jews were prohibited from working in the firearms industry, and .22 caliber hollow-point ammunition was banned. The time had come to launch a decisive blow to the Jewish community, to render it defenseless so that its “ill-gotten” property could be redistributed as an entitlement to the German “Volk.” The German Jews were ordered to surrender all their weapons, and the police had the records on all who had registered them. Even those who gave up their weapons voluntarily were turned over to the Gestapo. This took place in the weeks before what became known as the Night of the Broken Glass, or Kristallnacht, occurred in November 1938. That the Jews were disarmed before it, minimizing any risk of resistance, is the strongest evidence that the pogrom was planned in advance. An incident was needed to justify unleashing the attack. That incident would be the shooting of a German diplomat in Paris by a teenage Polish Jew. Hitler directed propaganda minister Josef Goebbels to orchestrate the Night of the Broken Glass. This massive operation, allegedly conducted as a search for weapons, entailed the ransacking of homes and businesses, and the arson of synagogues. SS chief Heinrich Himmler decreed that 20 years be served in a concentration camp by any Jew possessing a firearm. Rusty revolvers and bayonets from the Great War were confiscated from Jewish veterans who had served with distinction. Twenty thousand Jewish men were thrown into concentration camps, and had to pay ransoms to get released. The U.S. media covered the above events. And when France fell to Nazi invasion in 1940, the New York Times reported that the French were deprived of rights such as free speech and firearm possession just as the Germans had been. Frenchmen who failed to surrender their firearms within 24 hours were subject to the death penalty. No wonder that in 1941, just days before the Pearl Harbor attack, Congress reaffirmed Second Amendment rights and prohibited gun registration. In 1968, bills to register guns were debated, with opponents recalling the Nazi experience and supporters denying that the Nazis ever used registration records to confiscate guns. The bills were defeated, as every such proposal has been ever since, including recent “universal background check” bills.
It never ceases to amaze me that people can look at the history of the world and dismiss a past tragedy, failure, horror simply because it happened in the past. That past was someone's present and the prior horror show was in their past.
"What's past is prologue."
It is the arrogance of the uninformed contemporary that the present is perfect and nothing like a tyrannical government can happen here. Foolishness.It's seems you are rather late. A tyrannical government seized control from the former tyrannical government in 1913 with the signing of the Federal Reserve Act. I guess you didn't hear the fat lady.
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
This about say's it all as to just what the meaning and intentions of the second amendment writers were THEN thinking ! And NOW protecting . Any argument against it is simply a vote FOR the tyrannical powers of todays new world order . I will vote anytime for the purity of traditional thought reasoning and brilliance of our first leaders !
Nice addition to the final argument Jimdynamite ,! From another perspective, Malcolm X and American Indians on the right to bear arms as well....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cz3isgUZe5Y
http://www.powwows.com/2011/07/21/ameri … amendment/This article from New York Times also puts things in a interesting light as well...
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/26/opini … .html?_r=0- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
Interesting post . As to positive reinforcement of constitutional rights , Today's that is , race or ethnicity of minorities has noting to do with the "right to keep and bear arms " , Malcolm X , was a great leader in the empowering of the movements AWAY from systematic racism , however to inject race into the second amendment argument today can have only one purpose .
That is to show the hypocrisy of limiting ANY constitutional rights AT ALL , for ANY reason , to ANY one person , except for criminal or psychological reasons !The point I was bringing up was actually was that the Right To Bear Arms has come up within the movement of Black Lives Matter, and other recent conversations, as many in these movements feel the need to bear arms and that they have the constitutional right to bear such arms......And it also has been in topics of Civil Rights since the Frederick Douglas Days and the Days of the Wilmington riots...and though, I have family in law enforcement, I do question the need for our police force to be overly militaristic.........
That's an excellent point. From a black persons viewpoint, there is a real threat of law enforcement acting as tyranny against them. Just look at Ferguson where they rolled in the militarized weapons and law enforcement acted as if they were in a combat zone. Does the black person have the right to bear arms against what they perceive as tyranny?
The word perception is the key to the whole tyranny scenario. When does a threat become perceived as tyranny? The white gun people don't need to define it, because they are constantly protecting themselves from the imagined eventuality of tyranny. Thank you for your post. This adds a whole new perspective to the right to bear arms.
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
And , "these were written in the 1700's"........You really don't think for a minute that the same meaning , belief and following of the same principles of those words written then apply to the tyranny threats of today ? Wow , you are not only disillusioned , but you are idealistically challenged .
Actually, some of the meanings can be put in today's context, and some not.......It's like putting biblical references into modern day debates....some of what was written about, we can only guess what would have been the reaction to some of the things that have happened in the 21st century..........
I also still believe that within every evil person there is a good person. Isn't that weird?
We are all never going to agree on this. I grew up in a world where people had guns in their homes, guns in their vehicles, carried guns on themselves and we didn't have the problems we do now. There was crime, but not like it is now. As the world has become more evil -- yes evil -- more is happening. And it's not just petty crime; it's terrible, horrendous acts against people. It's here in the good ol USA and all over the world. Family against family and stranger against stranger. It's a heart problem - not a gun problem. Politics won't fix this problem.
Historically,the majority has never felt guilty about enjoying any commodity,regardless of human suffering. I am sure that many Union soldiers who were killing Confederates never stopped to think that the North , by buying cotton and other slave commodities, helped to perpetuate the institution of slavery.. You should stop eating chocolate too.
As long as I drive my bug, I will buy chocolate … no matter what the MCSs say ...
Guns should be banned to general citizens entirely. The only people who should be allowed to legally posses a firearm are law enforcement officers & active military members. Hunting should only be allowed in designated areas with guns that must be rented AND returned after any session & staff should immediately report any un-returned weaponry or suspicious people/activity.
At the very least, shotguns & fully/semi-automatic weapons should be banned. We can't do much about immigrants or smugglers, but if we decrease the amount of firearms existing inside the U.S. then we can help eliminate mass shootings or at least reduce the death toll. The ease of attaining a gun in the U.S. is ridiculously high. Many people can simply go into a parent's closet and soon be in possession of a firearm (w/ ammunition in some cases).
The argument against banning knives or rocks is futile. The point here isn't to eliminate violence entirely, because violent people will find ways to be violent regardless of legislation. The goal is to reduce the damage done when such events do occur. If you look at the history of school or community shootings, then you'll see that the death toll could have been much lower had the perpetrator(s) NOT been in possession of a firearm. There's no way that as many people (or any people at all) would have died or been injured if the weapon of choice had been a knife or blunt object.We also need to ban abortion vacuums. There is too much traffic of souls going to and from heaven.
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or serious. But, in any case I do agree that that is another problem. Not allowing somebody the right to life is seriously messed up when they don't even have a choice in the matter.
But again, to any of the sarcastic gun-enthusiasts out there.. the only goal here is to make schools & communities safer and lessen the homicide/suicide rates. Even if we keep knives, boulders and all the other "dangerous" objects that are supposedly just as "lethal in the same scope as firearms" then we can enjoy greater chances of survival when the violent people do enter schools.we already have a perfectly fine moral boundary: Thou shalt not kill. Not to mention treating others as you would like to be treated. We should not even need to be discussing this stupid topic. But we seem to need the right to bear arms. Arms are arms are arms.
If the terrorists have high powered technology, we need it too. If the Russians have the latest bad A shooting devices we need them too.
JUST IN CASE!While I disagree with banning weapons, that simply is not in the American DNA, I also disagree that relying on a "moral boundary" is just as futile. It is an unfortunate fact that a huge number of religious, spiritual, and non-religious people do not abide by such a moral compass 100% of the time.
And yes I agree that a lot of the mass shootings are caused by the person, and not the tool used to accomplish that person's goal. But, it's not realistic to address the problem within that person, because many mentally-ill or angry people pass through the cracks & never receive treatment or therapy. Even if they do, they will eventually be over the age of 18 and thus possess the freedom of choice. If they choose to want to kill people at a school, then they will do it. If we limit their means of carrying-out this "choice" then at least we can narrow the window of carnage.
excuse me, but I really think messing with the minds of children when they are young by giving them Ritilin and Adderall is very dangerous. It is better to work with whatever condition they have in a natural way.
Evolution never needed drugs in the past.
Yet here we are changing the course of evolution in this way. Then we wonder why thye loose their SANITY!
Sane people would never kill individuals or groups of people.
Well, thats what I think.
No proof.
I never mentioned anything about Ritalin or Adderall or any medication for that matter. I only stated "treatment" which could involve behavioral, dietary or lifestyle changes.
as I said there is no proof.
but the latest mass killings were inspired by drug use. Namely pharmaceuticals. Do we ever hear the truth? do we ? well do we???
The case in Oregon involved the use of lithium by the shooter..
We should not even need to be discussing this stupid topic. But we seem to need the right to bear arms. Arms are arms are arms.
If the terrorists have high powered technology, we need it too. If the Russians have the latest bad A shooting devices we need them too.
JUST IN CASE!
a well trained militia of civilian volunteers.
responsible people who are trained to use the weapons of choice depending on what will be appropriate based on the situation
which could be anything!!!!So if there was an epidemic of nuclear bombings (assuming it was legal for citizens to possess them) on or near schools or colleges, would we simply sit back and say, "Oh well. Duh, it's the person's fault, not dah bomb!" Derp.
That's very interesting, concerning the lithium. I am also taking that med.
I find it very interesting that all of these people who have a fear of tyranny. Are also the same ones who believe in the constitution as the law of the land. However, they don't realize that it is that same constitution that protects them from the imaged tyranny that they fear. Our system of government is a Republic ruled by a democratic form of government. The republic part means that we cannot be ruled by a monarchy or a dictator. The Democracy part allows the majority to rule by representation of the people. We have a congress right now that can't even get out of its own way. Where are these boogey men going to come from?
I would like to know how this imagined tyranny is supposed to take place with our form of government? Do you fear that we will be taken over by a dictator? It isn't going to happen. Those of you who compare this country to NAZI Germany, must realize that Hitler was a dictator. Do you see a dictator in this country now or in the future? Again our form of government won't allow it.
Ahorseback said that are military could split into good guys and bad guys. How does the military get divided? Let's see good guys get so many fighter planes, missiles, and aircraft carriers and bad guys get the remainder. Will it be a revolution? How do you revolt against the military might of this country?
I am at a loss to understand how this tyranny is supposed to manifest itself and how you can protect yourself from it by the 2nd amendment and the right to bear arms. Yes, history has shown that it was necessary to bear arms in the past, but welcome to the 21st century. I'm more afraid that this country being taken over by the super rich than any form of tyranny. They do it with money, not guns and you won't even know it. Because you are too busy arming yourself for the imagined threat of tyranny. You can thank the NRA for that. They are one of the super rich.The founders weren't mistaken to provide that citizens be armed in case of tyranny as they knew from history that tyranny, despite the best efforts of those who desire to remain free (in our case via a constitution w/elected government) could still arise, particularly during difficult times.
Ahorseback did suggest that our military could be divided between the good guys and the bad guys - could happen, though the likelihood of even the "bad guys" using jet bombers and tactical nukes on their fellow Americans is almost nil. Welcome, peoplepower, to the 21st century and the rise of mercenaries such as those from the former Blackwater. These kinds CAN indeed be paid to do the work that most military wouldn't do. Where would a dictator arise that might authorize the use of such force? Again, when times are bad (such as in Nazi Germany) there are many who are gullible enough to grant unwarranted power to a politician so he/she can straighten things out, not knowing that they're headed straight into hell. How many Germans understood exactly what Hitler was about until he had a stranglehold on the country? And guns had already been confiscated.....
The belief that somehow America is different from other countries is, to a great extent, fallacious. We're different in that we have a constitution which has mostly stood over these 230 years, but has suffered a gradual erosion - and don't ask me to explain that erosion; if you can't see it, I'm fine with that. Point being that with a compromised constitution, politicians beholden to the wealthy (as you point out) and a large number of people that now desire economic stability above all things, all it will take for a tyrannic government to arise is serious trouble. And those Americans who desire to keep their country will have a shot, literally, at fending off that tyranny.LOL ~ Tyranny?? Seriously?? ~ If this is a Constitutional RIGHT then where is EVERYBODY?? ~ Mike HuckleberryBee a few weeks ago declared we are in a STATE of TYRANNY because our EVIL Federal Government is Compelling a Country Clerk to Comply with a Supreme Court Order ~
So where's Mike and Whatser Names Attorneys?? Shouldn't they be Arming UP, forming a Militia, and Poppin' some people in the rears??
Two reasons why they are NOT, the first is Cowardice and the second is they realize "A Well Regulated Militia" is RESERVED for OUR Military & Law Enforcement ONLY, the Second Amendment is a BAN on Arms for everyone else ~When the gun people want to justify their fear of tyranny, they play the "what if game." They can't give you any specifics about a threat, they just say that what if it happens. They say there is always the possibility that our government will turn on us. They say its happened in the past and in other countries, therefore, what if it happens here? They compare our country to other countries that were run by dictators and say it could happen to us, because we are evolving to that point. But they never give any evidence of it.
They have lost faith in the constitution and our form of government, except for the 2nd amendment. But they don't tell you why they have lost faith in the constitution. Is it really the constitution or the people in office that they fear? I think it's the people in office, namely Obama, but they can't say that. So they carry their guns. Every time there is a mass shooting, gun sales go through the roof.
To me, they are using negative assertions instead of positive assertions. What if it doesn't happen? When one says what if, it is a form of worry that causes you to lose control of the situation. What if takes it out of your control and puts it in the hands of fate. Now you need guns to protect yourself because you don't what is going to happen and when.
The chances from my viewpoint are pretty damn good that it is isn't going to happen, not with our form of government, not now or not in the near future. I have faith in the constitution and our form of government. If being armed makes you sleep better at night, then more power to you. But in the mean time, there needs to be gun control laws, so that it is not so easy for everybody to have access to guns.They and their guns have to be certified just like cars and driver's licenses with all that information going into databases. I'm not saying collect all the guns and remove them from everybody.
I'm saying we need better record keeping and accountability. The 2nd amendment just says everybody can bear arms whether you are a good guy or bad guy and for those who fear tyranny, it says to protect them from infringement by a central government. We need laws and policies and procedures. The 2nd amendment doesn't provide any of that. Therefore, it is out of date and from another era. I rest my case...maybe not so much, it depends on what kind of replies i get from this.
LOL ~ So Kathryn, when and where do you anticipate this Fictitious "PRETEND" conflict will occur?? ~
And NO, you're Wrong again ~ "A Well Regulated Militia" refers to the military, not a bunch of DRUNK, Untrained, iIlliterate Hillbillies runnin' around town in a suppressed mood ~
Sorry, but our forefathers NEVER gave "We the intoxicated People" the right to go shoot George Washington directly in the rectum whenever they felt like it ~It's absurd to blame medically regulated substances for mass-shootings. If anything, they've PREVENTED me from harming myself or others. And with alcohol & drugs, I think it would actually give the public a higher chance of survival if a shooter was under the influence and unable to be calculated & precise.
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
You guys have totally lost my meaning in the historical division of a country in a civil war How do you suppose that Americans started dividing against Americans , brother against brother , soldier against soldier , HOW do you suppose in reality that the first shots were fired ?
1860 America , a civil war begins , how do you suppose a nation became almost equally divided ?
And from there suppose two armies almost instantly arrange themselves against each other ? Because in idealisms they were ALREADY divided , much like right now . The might of the then USA military itself was dividing as well !
It took me a lot of reading history to imagine really , just how it could instantly begin into a civil war !
Because of ideals , loyalties to heritage , to tradition , to one another . The classes of West Point were even divided ! So to call my idea of a civil war ridiculous ; Yea , I'm sure they thought that then Too !
America is working on a divisiveness once again too ! Don't say it cant happen , because it already has once .Ahorseback- I didn't mean to imply that such a thing couldn't happen; rather I was responding, in part to peoplepower's comments regards the use of aircraft carriers by the military. I agree with your assertion that the US is already splittng into 2 armed camps. I believe also that one of those camps could well be aligned with a tyrannical government.
Exactly !,Sorry , There are many naïve enough to think America is indivisible , Many ,many also believe, although I do not quite , that tyranny is already afloat . It's very close though and all too many are not prepared or wide awake enough to deal with the probabilities or the possibilities !
Ahorseback, Hxprof, and SirDent:
Can you guys give me examples of how tyranny is already afloat and how the U.S. is already splitting into two armed camps? Please enlighten me. I would like to be educated on how tyranny is eminent in this country and be as specific as possible. I want names, places, and specific examples. Thank you.Good question, I would like to know too. Although two camps, one armed, the other not so much have been around since what Adams vs Jefferson and Hamilton vs Madison? I wonder how many people know how close America came to a civil war between 1796 and 1800 over whether we ought to be friends with Britain (the Federalists) or France, the anti-Federalists cum the Democratic-Republican Parry.
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
Apparently , you people don't feel over taxed , over regulated by law , you don't feel you have a congress and senate doing absolutely nothing and getting away with it , you don't feel that your "rich are getting richer ......poorer thing ", You don't feel like your children have less and less chance for advancements . That the person you voted for in the whitehouse is powerless for that "Change thingy ! Strange.
No, I don't feel overtaxed, in fact people in my income bracket should be taxed more even though I won't like it. I feel that is the price to pay for having a society and government that made sure all the ingredients were there for me to succeed as well as I have; ingredients like a an uncluttered communications network, an infrastructure (although tax cuts put that in great jeopardy; education; and because I am white from a middle class background, a good one; a transportation network that makes my livelihood possible; laws protecting private property; free entry into opportunities to make even more money which people who make less than me don't have; and the list goes on and on.
I don't feel overregulated by law; in fact I feel under regulated where it counts the most, such as a stable financial industry; protecting the land, sea, and air from corporations who don't and haven't and won't give a damn about what they destroy to make their owners rich; stopping major industries from becoming monopolies or oligopolies which give you overpricing and bad service; and the list goes on.
Now I do feel we have a Congress that can't get anything done because one side has decided the Constitution is wrong and the founders didn't mean for legislators to compromise.
No, I feel that if things like closed primaries and gerrymandering can be abolished then the political system will return to some version of normalcy and business can then get on with what they are good at - growing the economy (and better tax laws can make sure the increased wealth is spread to those who make it happen rather than JUST those who manage hogging it all ... because they can due to lack of appropriate regulations and tax structure; you know, like it was back in the good ol' 60s) I do know my grandkids do have a better chance at advancement ... because I am white and well off.ahorseback: I don't feel over taxed. I don't feel over regulated. I do believe we are under regulated when it comes to financial markets. The financial meltdown was caused because the Glass Stegal Act was removed That act prohibited commercial banks and investment companies from co-mingling their assets.
The congress doing nothing is a result of the republican congress trying to stop Obama's every move. He has succeeded despite their efforts. I feel the rich are getting richer. That's in part because of cheap Chinese labor and greed from the CEOs as far as paying their employees a decent wage.
Children have the same opportunity for advancement that they always have had. It's the technology that is changing and they have to be educated to those changes. As I said before, Obama has been successful despite McConnel and Bohener's effort to make him a one term president.
I think you are suffering from right wing propaganda. I agree with everything My Esoteric said. I couldn't have said it better. Everything that you have stated does lead to tyranny, but it does wreak of Right Wing propaganda and fear mongering.
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
And you Do feel that the political entities listen to your every voting wish. , You feel that your children and grandchildren have absolutely great chances in a continued , educational ,economic prosperity ,and growth possibilities . You feel okay that the military draft is a thing of the past , there will be no more wars over something so meaningless as oil that your son might get caught up in ! You feel patriotic - You do feel your love for god and country couldn't be stronger .
Yea , no tyranny here .Or near here .I feel the political entities would listen more if they had a greater chance of getting voted out of office by going to California-type primaries and banning gerrymandering.
I already commented on kids.
I do think the draft should come back for military service or public service.
My love of country could not be stronger given I have devoted 30 years of my adult life in service to it (and then built a million dollar business after I retired.)Well, how do you feel about the second amendment ?
For it. along with Scalia's comments on the right to regulate guns.
ahorseback: I feel the 2nd amendment is outdated. It was for another time. It allows good people and bad people the same rights and access to weapons for whatever their reasons are for possessing those weapons.
I believe there needs to be policies and procedures in place that certify not only guns, but the buyers and sellers of the guns. It would be much like having your car registered into a database and you would be licensed to own guns similar to a driver's license.
Every time there was a change in status, it would have to be entered into the database. If you were in violation, you would be fined accordingly. Also, you would have to pass a mental health check that would have to be certified by a doctor. This would help screen the mentally ill from owning weapons.
I don't propose collecting everybody's guns and destroying them. But you see the 2nd amendment can't provide that kind of accountability. All it says is everybody has the right to bear arms in case of a central government infringement. It is not even clear as to what a well regulated militia is. People are focused on the tyranny aspect of it. But that's not what the problem is today. It is accountability.
If the only tool in a tool box is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. That's what the 2nd amendment is. It'a a hammer and every problem looks like tyranny.The Second Amendment is not outdated, and never will be outdated.
President Abraham Lincoln himself said "America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. "
This question was asked to President Gerald Ford along with his response.
Twice you have been the intended victim of would-be assassins using handguns, yet you remain a steadfast opponent of substantive handgun control. Why?
President FORD: The record of gun control, whether it's in one city or another or in some States does not show that the registration of a gun, handgun, or the registration of the gun owner has in any way whatsoever decreased the crime rate or the use of that gun in the committing of a crime. The record just doesn't prove that such legislation or action by a local city council is effective. What we have to do--and this is the crux of the matter--is to make it very difficult for a person who uses a gun in the commission of a crime to stay out of jail. I don't believe in the registration of handguns or the registration of the handgun owner. That has not proven to be effective. And, therefore, the better way is to go after the criminal, the individual who commits a crime in the possession of a gun and uses that gun for a part of his criminal activity.Its interesting that liberals want gun owners to pre qualify mental competence , legal good standing , what else financial stability , maybe no kids in the house or pets ? Is this All before one can purchase ?
Kind of like saying you're guilty , now prove yourself innocent isn't it ?
The legal system is already "ahead " of criminals aren't they ?, Isn't Obama-care up to date on comprehensive mental health already ? So much for hope and change .
So Just How is it that you're willing to throw MY civil and constitutional rights out of the window ? Or is this all -----Only for gun owners and the second amendment ?
I think I see to faces in liberal interpretation of the constitution !Nope it's only for gun owners and the 2nd amendment. There you go again. If you have to be tested for mental competence, then b, c, d, e...and z. That's conservative logic 101. How are you going to know who in the populace is mentally competent and who is mentally ill, if you don't test everybody who wants gun ownership? Do you have a plan?
"So much for hope and change,"... It's very clear, you hate Obama and that is what all this tyranny bull shi*t is about. If some white guy was in office, all of this would go away, wouldn't it?
Tyranny is an interesting word. It has a lot of power. It strike fear into people and fear is great propaganda motivator. Tyranny, you don't know when it could happen, so you better arm yourselves, in case it does. In the mean time, the 2nd amendment allows everybody to arm themselves including criminals and the mentally ill. You say they need laws, but you are the first one to say there are too many laws and regulations, so now you have to arm yourself to protect yourself from the very thing that needs laws and regulations.
Glen Beck, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin all spout tyranny as long as a democrat is in office. This all started when Obama took office. Mark Levin even wrote a book called "Tyranny and Liberty, a Conservative Manifesto".
Glen Beck constantly compared our country to NAZI Germany, and Sean Hannity constantly talks about the biggest transfer of wealth the world has ever seen. The only problem is, he is right. The wealth is being transferred straight to the top, to people like him and Rush Limbaugh. I feel sorry for you because you have been brainwashed by the right wing propaganda machine to vote for republicans who won't even support you. All they want is your vote. They could care less about you. They just want to get into office, so they can keep the money flowing to the top, while the NRA backs all of those people.
ahorseback:
Our congress today is bought off by big moneyed interest and lobbyists, including the NRA. They do not act on behalf of the people on the street. These big moneyed interests fund congressmen's campaigns. One half of congress is always campaigning to be re-elected. That system is broken, but it is no cause for tyranny.
Every year when it is time for this country to raise it's debt limit to pay its last years bills, the republican congress holds the country hostage by threatening to shut down the government, so they can get some bill passed. That's not a cause for tyranny. It's just spoiled ass adults acting like children trying to get their way.
The republican mantra is that our national debt is so high that our children will not be able to do anything in their future. I've got news for you, this country is a debtor nation and always has been. There is a difference between the national debt and the deficit. When new president comes into office, they inherit the national debt of the previous president, whether they are republican or democrat. The deficit is what we put on a credit card from year to year and have to pay at the end of the year. This is still no cause for tyranny.
Yes the opportunities in this country are still the greatest in the free world. You can thank Bush and company for removing the draft. In this way, they could recruit members of the armed services that could be professional and career minded. I don't see that as a cause for tyranny. There will be wars over oil, until it is all gone. My son is a commercial cargo pilot and has flown to Afghanistan many times. I feel very patriotic and I feel my love for my god and country couldn't be stronger.
Again, you have been a victim of right wing propaganda and fear mongering that makes you think that everything that you see and hear about our government and its people is a cause for tyranny. And you think the country is going down the tubes. You probably think that Obama is weak because he doesn't bring troops into Iraq and Syria. It's just the opposite, he is smart. He realizes it's a three way civil war between the Sunni, Shia, and the Kurds and there is no reason for us to be involved in that war. He does not want to commit our blood and treasure to something where they can fight their own war. Again, no cause for tyranny.
- ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
I just saw a bumper sticker recently ,
"We've Got to Make Guns Illegal ,
that's Worked so Well with Drugs "..........
.Oh come on now , that's something worth thinking about ! - ahorsebackposted 9 years ago0
Well, you've caught me off guard in this thread , there aren't many who love their country the way it is in these treads lately ! Good for you .
- Larry Wallposted 9 years ago0
The Supreme Court set aside the militia phrase years ago. The constitution guarantees the right of the people to own and use guns. This is where you get into the strict interpretation of the constitution vs. the liberal interpretation. Therefore, it would appear proper regulation controlling the sale of guns would be in order such as not selling to a person with a criminal record, not selling at tent shows, requiring that serial numbers and point of sale be recorded, etc.
Also, I think there is enough room in the right to bear arms to set some limits on the type of gun--the constitution is silent on the type of guns people can own so reasonable regulations that would allow people to own guns for self defense, target practice and hunting should be attainable without really infringing on anyone by refusing civilian ownership of an AK47 or other advance weapons. The two camps could reach an agreement if they were willing to engage in the old art of compromise, which got misplaced somewhere along the way.As a gun owner and user , I have seen only a few things that bother me as to free use ,
1-within state sales to private buyer doesn't have to be registered through dealer although many will.
2-. I see no use for high capacity mags , except target military types. **
3- Parents or anyone can and will buy for convicted felons in ghost ownership.
4- IF , and I repeat IF , there are any gun show loopholes I have never seen them , should be stopped
5- There is a loophole for occasional pawn shop sales who do not regularly sell guns .
6.A special FBI or ATF for full automatic gun ownership, licensing for some .
Cpacity limitations will not affect someone from duct taping two ten round mags.for convenience in use.
But then as to the tyranny question , I don't like police wearing black mask's in arrests , who the hell do they think they are other than peace officer ,public servants . Masks are for terrorists and secret police .The art of compromise became lost when the tea bag element of the Republican party decided they're willing to sink America's ship so as to drown America's captain, President Barack Obama.
Related Discussions
- 51
Who needs guns? The world is full of mentally ill people, what is going on?
by Tara Carbery 12 years ago
Who needs guns? The world is full of mentally ill people, what is going on?This tragedy wouldn't have happened if people weren't allowed guns. Why the hell do people need gun's anyway?
- 29
Gun Violence in America Year, to Date, as of April 22, 2023
by Mike Russo 2 years ago
I watched Fareed Zakaria's show yesterday and saw these shocking statistics that I thought were worthy of sharing.According to the Gun Violence Archive (The link to the site is at the end of this post)19,942 Americans have died in gun-related incidents this year.541 Children and Teenagers (0-17)...
- 35
What are your thoughts on gun control?
by Josh Ratzburg 9 years ago
What are your thoughts on gun control?With the recent mass shooting in Oregon, it makes me think that there needs to be better gun control laws. "But criminals are still going to break laws and get guns, so you're really just controlling law-abiding citizens" ... maybe, but how many of...
- 26
How Do We Solve These Mass Killings??
by Allen Donald 7 years ago
We've had three mass killings (that we've heard about) in the last month. Here they are:1. Las Vegas - Oct. 1 - a man using various guns kills 58 people and injures another 546.2. New York - Oct. 31 - a man uses a truck and kills 8 people and injures 11 others.3. Sutherland Springs, Texas - Nov. 5...
- 264
Evidence of Satan
by Claire Evans 11 years ago
I went to a cat lover's site on Facebook page. Somebody posted a picture of a man holding up the head of a decapitated cat. Can someone explain why somebody would do something like this? Is it necessary for the evolutionary process? Was evolution responsible for that? If you...
- 57
Do you believe modifying the Second Amendment is going to prevent mass acts of v
by flacoinohio 12 years ago
Do you believe modifying the Second Amendment is going to prevent mass acts of violence?This questions is for all of those situational or sunny day anti-gun advocates. Pro-gun advocates spend a lot of time and effort, not mention millions of dollars protecting the Second Amendment. If...